一間壽險公司的內含價值, 其實就係間壽險公司現有業務的價值, 但呢個係要建基於你對管理層的信任, 因為內含價值的計算並非完全科學, 也有藝術的成份, 內含價值的計算並非完全客觀, 也有主觀的成份. 內含價值的計算涉及一些假設性的因素, 包括以下幾種:
1.風險貼現率, 例如2628中國人壽07年採用的風險貼現率為11.5%
2. 投資回報率
3. 費用率
4. 死亡率
5. 退保率
6. 發病率
7. 賠付率
8. 有效稅率
如果壽險公司的股價高過內含價值, 高出的部分(溢價) 其實係買緊壽險公司未來新業務的有效價值, 所以對壽險公司的估值, 我好重視一年新業務價值以及一年新業務價值的增長率. 一般來講, 一間壽險公司值幾多倍一年新業務價值, 同佢一年新業務價值的增長率有直接和密切的關係, 同高盈利增長率的公司值高d市盈率, 或者高ROE的銀行值高d P/B 道理一樣.
另外, 想講壽險公司有些特點. 例如, 賣出保單的頭一年, 越賣得多保單, 保險公司虧損越多, 造成一個奇怪的現象, 新業務增長越多越快, 虧損反而越嚴重. 原因係賣出保單第一年的費用通常超過保費收入. 因為保單一賣出, 開支馬上要付出: 例如佣金支出, 手續費支出, 行政費等等, 通常第一年佣金支出佔保費收入好大比例, 其他費用包括驗身費, 核查新客戶資料, 拿健康報告和分析等等需要成本支出. 但第2年, 同樣收咁多保費, 好多支出已經可以免除或者減少. 另一方面, 保單帶給壽險公司的利潤需要好多年甚至幾十年才能完全實現. 換句話說, 壽險係一種長期能夠帶來豐厚利潤, 而相對來講, 初期支出多, 收益少, 後期支出少, 收益多的業務.
台灣yahoo: http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-market/
新浪Sina: http://graham_choi2003.mysinablog.com/
香港yahoo: http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-market/
下一站，牛津
2 年前
多謝先生講解，現在明白多了。
回覆刪除"初期支出多, 收益少, 後期支出少, 收益多的業務" 哈, 從沒認真思考過, 一言驚醒夢中人, 原來如此. Thanks.
回覆刪除K66
totally true. The profit stream fr. life ins co. is only squeezed out slowly in future, so as time goes by, the profit rolling out will be huge. But the more they write on the first year, the more they lose becos of the acquisition costs, so they usually have a "DAC" charges in B/S. But if you analyse a company, it's better if you can also analyse its DAC......
回覆刪除True. life co.'s profit stream will only appear/ squeezed out in future. THe more stable the biz, the greater the profit stream in future. But the initial years will have bigger losses. But nowadays, they usually capitalize the expenses into DAC, so it's better to understand and analyst the "DAC" charge as well......
回覆刪除Mr. Market,
回覆刪除Could you explain what is "風險貼現率"? If it's a discount rate that determines the present value of future obligation, this number seems high (although I know Ping An uses the same value)...
Thanks,
呢個即頭係economic of scale, 經濟越好,人工升就會加保(好少會減),加保通常都會用番而家個間保險公司.
回覆刪除人工減個growth 少了最多係agent 無飯開,保險公司無問題.
而家大陸股市搵唔到食,保險公司個d Annuity,傳統保單應該多番人買.呢d東東真係肥仔都不得了....
保險公司是一個穩健的行業.如保險全部PK 的時候我估金錢對人類都已經無意思了.
Mr. Market,
回覆刪除I want to buy 3968, and I saw the post about 野村估計合理價值為38.84港元.
Any post and comment after 2007 finanical report of 3968. How much about its EV, thanks.
theoretically, RDR should be determined by different product lines (fine-tuned/ underlying breakdown). But for the whole portfolio basis, there are two methods.....one is "market consistent", 人係乜我係乜, usually for new startup. For unstable biz performance, a higher margin should be set. The other one is the risk free + the suitable risk margin (that incls. the cost of capital of the company itself) to achieve the final risk discount rate. RDR could be adjusted from time to time to reflect the change of assumption incl the investment conditions. But it shouldn't be changed too freq, cos it may then reflected changes not simply due to market condition, but the wrong underwriting assumptions (e.g. wrong pricing, accepted too much substandard risk/ risk adversed biz) or management problem like the lapse ratio (poor mgt on agency force) etc....Then one must be aware if either company doesn't disclose EV, or with too freq changes of assumptions like RDR.
回覆刪除Is DAC the deferred commission charge? If all cost are amortized then there's limited "loss" in the initial years.
回覆刪除RC
Yes, it's the "deferred acquisition cost", you can't amortized all cost...no way, as everyone knows it....there is always conditions in accounting per IFRS or IAS or whatever to provide guidance to the DAC charges, but of cos, there is always "rooms" for company. DAC charge is also another way to guage a company's result indirectly apart from EV. usually new company are granted with some allowance on DAC charge to smooth out the earnings in early years, cos, if not, the figures doesn't make sense at all becos the book may show big loss while actually the company is very successful and huge profits is coming out in the 5th or 8th year. Understand the DAC charges would help in knowing if the company is in good shape as well, but usually there is not enuf info. on DAC, even for EV, there "was" limited info as well.
回覆刪除