摘要

周期性因素凌驾于行业基本面；较之银行，险商不太适合作为核心持股2007 年以来中国保险公司股价大幅震荡，反映了在内含价值/盈利中计入的高额投资盯市收益/亏损。我们认为中国保险股：(1) 均为贝塔值较高的周期性股票，尽管长期增长前景良好；而且 (2) 较之银行，可能不太适合作为核心持股，因为其账面价值及盈利的稳定性/可预见性较低（除非大量不良贷款出现）。
中国保险股具有顺周期性的特征；资本市场的表现是关键我们认为，资本市场的表现仍然是投资中国保险股时必须考虑的关键因素，原因在于保险公司具有顺周期性的特征：
1. 寿险公司的产品以“利差产品”为主导（约占保费的70%），投资利差是利润的主要推动力。
2. 财险的承保利润微薄，而且产品多为非分红型。
3. 由于投资渠道有限，投资收益仍然依赖于大幅波动的A 股市场。
4. 递延收益和递延承保费用摊销均在一定程度上取决于投资收益，因而进一步提高盈利的波动性。
5. 由于资产按市值计算而负债却以成本列示，因此保险公司的账面价值和内含价值往往大幅波动。
中国人寿相对更具防御性，而人保财险的周期性特征则最强中国人寿。由于投资策略较为保守（交易资产较少，固定收益投资的回报率上升），因此内含价值和利润对于资本市场表现的敏感度较低，防御性较其他险商为高。虽然其低利润率的银保业务比重较大，可能会导致保费收入的较大波动，但我们认为其利润率存在上升空间而且从投资管制放开中受益更大。
平安。尽管收入来源多元化而且拥有交叉销售潜力，但其较进取的投资资产结构（权益类投资和交易资产较多）及其证券和财险业务却使其顺周期性的特征比中国人寿更明显。
人保财险。对A 股市场的敏感度最高，因为财险产品主要为非分红型。同时，承保压力导致其基本面依然面临挑战。
看好长期增长前景，但尚不是贝塔投资的良机；较为看好中国人寿我们对寿险公司的长期基本面维持积极看法。但鉴于宏观前景尚不明朗，我们认为目前还不是“投资高贝塔值股票、预期市场反弹“的适当时机。我们需要看到通胀趋缓和经济软着陆的明确信号，和/或中国调控政策的放松（这均为A股市场持久复苏的关键），才会转为明确的积极看法。我们较为看好中国人寿(2628.HK, 中性)，因其新业务价值增长良好而且相对具有防御性特征；但仍对人保财险2328.HK,卖出)持谨慎看法。

Beta dominating alpha; less suitable core holding than banks
With the boom-bust in share prices since 2007, reflecting sharp investment
MTM gains/losses through EV/earnings, we believe China insurers are:
(1) high-beta cyclical stocks despite secular growth prospects, and
(2) probably a less appropriate core holding than banks due to lower
stability/visibility of book value/earnings (unless massive NPLs emerge).
China insurers are pro-cyclical in nature; capital markets do matter
In our view, capital market performance remains a key factor to consider
when investing in China insurers, which are inherently pro-cyclical:
1. Dominance of “spread products” (c.70% of premiums) among life
insurers, with investment spreads being a key profit driver.
2. Non-participating P&C products coupled with thin underwriting margins.
3. Reliance on volatile A-share income due to limited investment channels.
4. Further earnings volatility from deferred income and DAC amortization,
both of which are partly dependent on investment income.
5. Large BV/EV swings, as assets are marked to market but liabilities are not.
China Life relatively more defensive, PICC most cyclically geared
China Life. More defensive than peers with lower EV/profit sensitivity to
capital markets, given more conservative investment strategies (less
trading asset, rising fixed income yields). While its larger exposure to lowmargin
bancassurance could lead to more volatile premiums, we see room
for margin pickup and stronger gearing to investment liberalization.
Ping An. More pro-cyclical than China Life despite diversified revenue and
cross-selling potential, as a result of more aggressive investment mix
(more equities and trading assets) and securities/P&C exposure.
PICC. Most geared to A-share market as P&C products are mostly nonparticipating,
but fundamentally challenged due to underwriting pressure.
Fundamentally positive, but not time for beta yet; prefer China Life
We stay fundamentally positive on the secular prospects for life insurers,
but are not yet prepared for the “time for beta and market rebound” call,
given a still murky macro picture. To make an outright positive call, we
need to see clear signs of moderating inflation and a soft landing, and/or
policy easing in China (which are key to a sustainable A-share recovery).
We prefer China Life (2628.HK, Neutral) for its good NBV growth and
relative defensiveness, but stay cautious on PICC (2328.HK, Sell).

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-7 11:54:08编辑过]