Seventy comparable companies collectively generated insurance business revenue of 3,184.02 billion yuan, up 2.38% year on year. Five insurers 鈥?Hetai Life, Guobao Life, Haibao Life, Aixin Life and Ruitai Life 鈥?turned losses into profits over the same period.
As of Nov 2, 2026, 72 life insurance companies had disclosed their solvency reports for the third quarter of 2026. Core operating metrics including insurance business revenue, net profit, investment yield, total assets, net assets, channel composition, premium structure and solvency adequacy ratios have been compiled and summarized for readers to review at a glance. This article focuses on data organization, with detailed comparisons to follow in later reports.
The 70 comparable companies together achieved insurance business revenue of 3,184.02 billion yuan, up 2.38% year on year. While the industry total continues to grow, the pace has slowed to a relatively low level. Forty companies posted year-on-year growth in insurance business revenue while 30 saw declines, with the number of gainers and losers roughly balanced and no widespread growth across the industry. Two specialized pension insurers, China Life Pension and People's Pension, do not apply to this metric.
The 72 companies reported combined net profit of 294.377 billion yuan, down 36.33% year on year, a stark contrast to the modest 2.38% growth in insurance business revenue. Profits are highly concentrated at the top: China Life with 88.729 billion yuan and Ping An Life with 57.601 billion yuan together accounted for 49.71% of industry net profit, while the top five by net profit made up 74.09%. The profit decline mainly reflects the investment side, as the average investment yield of the 72 comparable companies fell 1.34 percentage points year on year, with investment returns booked into current-period profit shrinking amid equity market volatility.
Tail-end companies remained in the red. In the first three quarters, 60 companies were profitable and 12 recorded losses, a narrower loss ratio than the 14 loss-making firms a year earlier. Only 33 of the 72 companies posted year-on-year growth in net profit. Five companies 鈥?Hetai Life, Guobao Life, Haibao Life, Aixin Life and Ruitai Life 鈥?swung to profit from a year-earlier loss, while three 鈥?Xingfu Life, Xiaokang Life and Huagui Life 鈥?swung to a loss from a year-earlier profit.
On efficiency metrics, 62 companies that disclosed new business value reported a combined 129.186 billion yuan, and 63 companies had an average new business margin of 8.73%. These two indicators measure the value content of new policy business, and disclosure willingness varies widely across companies. China Life and others did not disclose new business value in their solvency reports, so the aggregate mainly covers institutions that voluntarily disclosed, meaning the industry total would be lower than the actual figure.
On quality metrics, the average 13-month persistency ratio of 63 companies was 94.34%, indicating overall stability in the renewal of existing policies. Pacific Health Insurance was the lowest at 81%, while Sanxia Life was the highest at 100%. The average comprehensive surrender rate of 65 companies was 1.33%, with notable differences across companies. CITIC Prudential Life was the highest at 4.88%, while National Pension Insurance was only 0.14%.
The 68 companies reported total written premiums of 2.74 trillion yuan. In terms of regular premium and renewal structure, the combined first-year regular premium written by 66 companies was 461.967 billion yuan, accounting for 16.84% of written premiums for companies under the same scope. Of that, first-year regular premiums from new policies with terms of 10 years or more totaled 86.385 billion yuan, representing 18.70% of first-year regular premiums from new policies. Renewal written premiums of the 68 companies totaled 1.77 trillion yuan, accounting for 64.50% of written premiums, with renewal premiums making up nearly two-thirds of the total.
Individual and bancassurance channels remain the two main distribution channels for life insurance premiums. Individual channel written premiums across 58 companies totaled 1,292.614 billion yuan, accounting for 48.19% of the companies that disclosed both written premiums and individual channel data. Bancassurance across 60 companies totaled 1,068.325 billion yuan, or 39.74% on a comparable basis. Group insurance across 60 companies totaled 107.091 billion yuan, or 3.98%; internet channels across 57 companies totaled 40.668 billion yuan, or 1.54%; and other channels disclosed by 58 companies totaled 167.832 billion yuan. Brokerage agency and telemarketing channels were disclosed by only Lian Life, both with zero amounts, making aggregation not applicable.
Sixty-three companies disclosed their number of individual marketing agents at period-end, of which five reported zero and 58 had actual teams, totaling about 2.1072 million people. The workforce is highly concentrated at the top: China Life with 664,900, Ping An Life with 324,400, Taikang Life with 238,300, Taiping Life with 191,600, CPIC Life with 180,000 and New China Life with 126,900. The six together totaled about 1.7261 million, or 81.91% of the disclosed total. The average premium per policy in the individual marketing channel across 52 companies was 23,100 yuan, and the average premium per agent was 79,071.32 yuan, both on a cumulative basis for the first three quarters. The average agent attrition rate across 57 companies was 25.87%, indicating that pressure from workforce turnover remains significant.
On investment returns, the average investment yield of the 72 comparable companies was 2.38%, down 1.34 percentage points year on year, while the average comprehensive investment yield was 3.35%, up 0.39 percentage points year on year. The two indicators moved in opposite directions due to differences in scope: investment yield corresponds to investment returns booked into current-period profit, while comprehensive investment yield also includes unrealized gains and losses recorded in other comprehensive income. In the first three quarters, book gains on equity assets repaired the comprehensive investment yield, but investment income flowing into the income statement continued to contract, directly explaining the sharp year-on-year contraction in total industry profit.
The 72 companies reported total assets of 31.6 trillion yuan, up 7.71% from the end of 2025, and total net assets of 2.27 trillion yuan, up 10.63% from the end of 2025. Net asset growth outpaced total asset growth by 2.92 percentage points, driven partly by retained earnings and corroborated by an increase in unrealized gains under other comprehensive income. The average return on equity across 71 companies was 7.94%, and the average return on assets across 72 companies was 0.37%, both on a cumulative basis for the first three quarters. With total net profit falling by more than 30% year on year, the level of capital returns has shifted downward, and the fact that only 33 companies posted year-on-year growth in net profit also shows that better profitability is not a widespread industry phenomenon.
The average core solvency adequacy ratio of the 72 companies was 213.91%, and the average comprehensive solvency adequacy ratio was 263.28%, with industry averages significantly above the regulatory floors of 50% for core and 100% for comprehensive. Overall industry capital buffers are ample, but some risk institutions remain near the floors. Founder Life's core and comprehensive solvency adequacy ratios were 33.64% and 61.26%, respectively, and Changsheng Life's were 46.40% and 53.90%, with both companies falling below regulatory requirements on both metrics. Seventy-one companies disclosed their latest comprehensive risk ratings: 27 were Class A, including 8 AAA, 10 AA and 9 A; 42 were Class B, including 12 BBB, 23 BB and 7 B; and one each were Class C and Class D. The Class D company was Changsheng Life, which failed to meet both solvency metrics. Compared with the previous period, 7 companies were upgraded and 6 were downgraded, with the rest unchanged. AIA Life was upgraded from AA to AAA.
Comments