How proposed valuation and capital changes could reshape insurers’ priorities—and what lessons from Korea and Japan need to be tested locally.
🇹🇼 繁體中文 摘要
馬來西亞資本監管改革：在規則定案前，先做好資產負債準備
馬來西亞資本監管改革的核心問題，是哪些既有保險負債的資本負擔可能改變，以及保險公司應如何提前準備。距離實施仍有時間，並不代表既有負債的風險會自行減少。
此次改革並非首次引入保險負債現值評估。現行制度已對特定壽險負債採用無風險利率折現，並評估利率變動對資產及保證負債的影響。改革建議的重要變化，在於長期折現曲線及退保風險的衡量方式。
建議中的長期折現曲線，將由現行十五年期之後採用相同收益率的方式，改為逐步收斂至長期遠期利率。但這不意味所有保險公司的負債都會增加。實際影響取決於評估時點的利率曲線，以及各保單組合的現金流量分布。正常退保與大量退保的影響也須逐一衡量：退保可能減少未來利潤，也可能終止不利的給付義務。
資本管理措施應對應壓力來源。合格資本不足，可評估增資與保留盈餘；資產負債不匹配，可檢視資產配置、存續期間配對及避險。調整商品設計與銷售組合有助於改善新業務，卻不能消除既有負債。再保險的效果則取決於實際移轉的風險：死亡或疾病風險的移轉，不一定涵蓋保證給付所涉及的投資風險。
馬來西亞的另一項重要特點，是傳統保險與伊斯蘭保險（takaful）並存。對 takaful 而言，必須區分參與者基金與股東基金。基金之間的 qard 資金支持，不應被視為整體業務新增了資本；伊斯蘭再保險（retakaful）也須確認移轉的風險、受益的基金，以及交易對手與合約的監管認可。
韓國與日本的經驗可提供資本管理工具的參考，但其效果必須依馬來西亞的負債結構、折現曲線及基金安排重新評估。規則定案前，先準備資料並測試方案；待最終要求、成本與風險明確後，再決定如何執行。
每週透過電子郵件掌握亞洲保險與再保險市場動態。
🇯🇵 日本語 要約
マレーシアの資本規制改革：ルール確定前に進める資産・負債管理の準備
マレーシアの資本規制改革で保険会社がまず確認すべきなのは、どの既存保険負債の資本負担が変わり、その原因に対して何を準備すべきかという点です。実施まで時間があること自体は、既存負債のリスクを軽減しません。
今回の改革は、保険負債の現在価値評価を初めて導入するものではありません。現行制度でも、特定の生命保険負債に無リスク金利を用い、金利変動が資産と保証付き負債に与える影響を評価しています。提案されている主な変更は、長期の割引曲線と解約リスクの測定方法です。
長期の割引曲線については、15年超の期間に同じ利回りを適用する現行方式から、長期フォワード金利へ徐々に収束する方式への変更が提案されています。ただし、すべての保険会社で負債が増加するとは限りません。影響は評価時点の金利曲線と、各契約群のキャッシュフローによって異なります。通常解約と大量解約も、将来利益を失わせる場合と、不利な給付義務を消滅させる場合があり、契約群ごとの評価が必要です。
対応策は資本負担の原因に合わせる必要があります。適格資本の不足には増資や利益留保、資産・負債の不一致にはALMやヘッジを検討します。商品設計や販売構成の見直しは新契約の改善につながりますが、既存負債を解消するものではありません。再保険も、死亡・疾病リスクを移転するのか、保証に伴う投資リスクまで移転するのかによって効果が変わります。
マレーシアでは、通常の保険とタカフルが併存する点も重要です。タカフルでは参加者基金と株主基金を区別し、資金支援である qard の効果を各基金と事業全体で確認する必要があります。基金間の資金移動を、事業全体の新たな資本創出と捉えることはできません。リタカフルについても、移転するリスク、効果が生じる基金、取引相手と契約の規制上の認定を確認する必要があります。
韓国と日本の経験は対応策を検討する参考になりますが、マレーシアの負債構成、割引曲線、基金構造に即した再評価が欠かせません。ルール確定前にはデータを整備して選択肢を検証し、最終要件・費用・リスクが明らかになった段階で実行を判断する。 これが実務的な準備の方向です。
最新の保険・再保険情報を毎週お届けします。
🇰🇷 한국어 요약
말레이시아 자본규제 개편: 규정 확정 전에 준비해야 할 대차대조표
말레이시아의 자본규제 개편에서 보험사가 먼저 살펴야 할 것은 어떤 기존 보험부채의 자본부담이 달라지며, 그 원인에 맞춰 무엇을 준비해야 하는가입니다. 시행일까지 시간이 남아 있다는 사실만으로 기존 부채의 위험이 줄어들지는 않습니다.
이번 개편은 미래 보험부채의 현재가치 평가를 처음 도입하는 변화가 아닙니다. 기존 제도에서도 특정 생명보험부채에 무위험 할인율을 적용하고, 자산과 보증부채의 금리충격을 평가해 왔습니다. 제안된 개편의 주요 변화는 장기 할인곡선과 해지위험 측정 방식에 있습니다.
장기 할인곡선은 기존의 15년 이후 동일 수익률 적용 방식에서, 장기 선도금리로 수렴하는 방식으로 바뀌도록 제안되었습니다. 그러나 이것만으로 모든 보험사의 부채가 증가한다고 볼 수는 없습니다. 영향은 평가 시점의 금리곡선과 각 계약군의 현금흐름에 따라 달라집니다. 정상해지와 대량해지 역시 계약군에 따라 미래 이익을 줄이거나 불리한 의무를 소멸시킬 수 있어, 순자산에 미치는 영향을 따로 계산해야 합니다.
보험사의 대응은 자본부담의 원인을 따라야 합니다. 적격자본이 부족하면 자본 확충과 이익 유보를, 자산·부채의 불일치가 크면 ALM과 헤지를 검토해야 합니다. 상품 설계와 판매 구성의 조정은 미래 계약에 도움이 되지만, 이미 쌓인 부채에는 별도의 대응이 필요합니다. 재보험도 사망·질병위험을 이전하는지, 보증과 투자 관련 위험까지 이전하는지에 따라 효과가 달라집니다.
말레이시아에서는 타카풀의 기금 구조도 중요합니다. 참가자 기금과 주주 기금 사이의 자금 지원인 qard는 사업 전체에 새로운 자본을 만들어 주는 것으로 보아서는 안 됩니다. 리타카풀 역시 어느 위험을 이전하고 어느 기금에서 효과가 발생하는지, 거래상대방과 계약이 규제상 인정되는지를 확인해야 합니다.
한국과 일본의 경험은 대응 수단을 검토하는 참고자료가 될 수 있습니다. 다만 말레이시아의 할인곡선, 보험부채 구성과 타카풀 구조에 맞춰 효과를 다시 계산해야 합니다. 규정 확정 전에는 데이터와 대안을 준비하고, 실행은 최종 요건·비용·위험이 확인된 뒤 판단하는 것이 이번 개편을 준비하는 실질적인 접근입니다.
아시아 보험·재보험 시장의 주요 소식을 매주 이메일로 받아보세요.
Executive Summary
Malaysia’s proposed capital reform raises a practical question for insurers: which existing liabilities could consume more—or less—capital under the revised framework, and what should management prepare before the final requirements are confirmed?
The starting point is not a first introduction of present-value measurement. Malaysia’s existing framework already uses risk-free discounting for specified life insurance liabilities and assesses interest-rate shocks on assets and guaranteed liabilities. The proposal changes important elements of that framework, including the long-term discount curve and the measurement of lapse risk.
Experience in Korea and Japan provides useful comparisons for capital raising, asset-liability management and reinsurance. Their relevance to Malaysia depends on the underlying insurance portfolios and local recognition rules. For takaful operators, the allocation of risks and capital between funds adds another consideration. Preparation should begin with identifying exposures and testing responses, while final execution depends on confirmed requirements and transaction economics.
1. What Changes—and What Already Exists
Malaysia’s proposed capital reform builds on an existing risk-based framework. For specified life insurance liabilities, the current rules already require risk-free discounting. They also measure interest-rate risk by revaluing assets and guaranteed liabilities under rising and falling rates. The reform should therefore be assessed through the differences between the existing rules and the proposal, rather than described as a first move to present-value measurement. [1]
One important difference concerns long-dated cash flows. Under the existing rules, the discount curve for relevant ringgit-denominated life liabilities uses matching Malaysian Government Securities spot yields below 15 years and the 15-year yield for longer maturities. The June 2024 exposure draft proposes a curve that extrapolates beyond a 15-year last liquid point towards a long-term forward rate of 5%, with convergence at 60 years. [1][2]
That change does not establish a uniform increase in liabilities. For unchanged cash flows, a higher discount rate reduces present value and a lower rate increases it. The outcome depends on the curves at the valuation date and the timing of each portfolio’s cash flows. For participating business, projected discretionary benefits also need to be assessed consistently with the proposed valuation basis.
Lapse-risk measurement is another important change. The existing framework includes a surrender-value capital charge based on the excess of aggregate surrender values over aggregate policy reserves. The proposal instead specifies normal-lapse and mass-lapse stresses measured through reductions in net asset value. This brings the effect of changing policyholder behaviour on future cash flows more explicitly into the capital calculation. [1][2]
The exposure draft proposed implementation for reporting periods beginning on 1 January 2027, with possible earlier parallel reporting subject to the quantitative impact study. These remain proposed arrangements in the documents reviewed for this article; a final framework and confirmed implementation timetable have not been verified. [2]
2. Start with the Liability, Not the Product Label
The implications of reform depend on the obligations already on an insurer’s balance sheet. The practical distinction is between financial promises—such as guaranteed benefits—and protection risks arising from mortality, morbidity or medical claims. A single product may contain both.
For savings and guaranteed-benefit business, the starting point is the timing and certainty of payments relative to the assets backing them. Great Eastern Life Assurance (Malaysia)’s 2025 financial statements illustrate the existing challenge: long-duration liabilities and uncertain cash flows prevent a perfect match of asset and liability durations or reference interest rates. The company identifies the resulting interest-rate, mismatch and basis risks, and describes the use of investment policies, hedging and alternative risk-transfer strategies in managing market risk. [3]
This is evidence of an existing exposure, not a calculation of the proposed reform’s incremental capital effect. A revised discount curve could change both the base valuation and the measured response to interest-rate shocks. Insurers therefore need to examine the net effect on available and required capital, rather than infer it from a change in liability value alone.
For protection business, the question is how future premiums, claims and expenses respond to adverse experience—and how much flexibility the insurer has to adjust terms or pricing. Investment-linked classification does not, by itself, establish who bears every risk. Investment performance may be borne by policyholders while insurance benefits and servicing obligations remain with the insurer.
Lapse behaviour cuts across both categories. Higher lapses may remove expected future earnings; lower lapses may keep unfavourable obligations in force for longer. The relevant exposure depends on the economics of the particular block.
The useful unit of analysis is consequently the liability block: its guarantees, protection benefits, cash-flow duration, policyholder options and existing reinsurance. Those characteristics determine which capital-management response deserves consideration.
3. What Should Insurers Prepare Now?
An uncertain implementation date does not prevent insurers from assessing their exposures. It does, however, require a distinction between preparing options and committing to transactions whose value depends on the final rules.
The first task is to compare the existing framework with the proposal at liability-block level. Management needs to identify whether a change arises from available capital, required capital or both—and which assumptions drive the result. Testing different discount curves, lapse behaviour and management actions can help distinguish persistent exposures from effects that depend heavily on the proposed calibration.
The response should follow the source of the burden.
| Source of pressure | Response to assess |
|---|---|
| Insufficient eligible capital | Capital raising, earnings retention and eligible capital instruments |
| Asset-liability mismatch | Asset allocation, duration matching and hedging |
| Guarantees or product features that consume capital | New-business pricing, product design and sales mix |
| Retained insurance or financial risks | Reinsurance structures that transfer the relevant exposure |
These measures can complement one another. Additional capital strengthens the resources supporting retained risks; ALM and risk transfer can change the risks those resources must support. Adjusting new business may improve the future portfolio, but it does not remove obligations already accumulated.
For reinsurance, the question is which exposure the contract transfers. Protection reinsurance may address mortality or morbidity without transferring the investment risk of guaranteed benefits. Coinsurance or other structures may transfer a broader set of exposures, depending on their terms. Any expected capital benefit must be assessed alongside counterparty risk, collateral, termination and recapture provisions under the applicable framework.
Insurers can prepare data, model alternatives and explore market capacity before the rules are final. Binding commitments require a firmer assessment of regulatory recognition, cost and operational feasibility. More preparation time is useful only if it produces a clearer choice of actions.
4. Takaful Changes Where the Capital Effect Falls
Malaysia’s conventional insurance and takaful businesses should be assessed separately when considering capital-management responses. For takaful, the relationship between participants’ funds and the operator’s shareholders’ fund adds a question: where does a shortfall arise, and which resources can support it?
The proposed framework makes this distinction tangible through its treatment of qard. It lists qard received by takaful funds as Tier 2 capital, while qard provided to those funds is a capital deduction item. An internal funding arrangement should therefore not be mistaken for the creation of new capital across the business. Its effect must be traced through the relevant funds and the entity-level calculation. [2]
Risk transfer requires the same discipline. A retakaful arrangement must be assessed for the exposure transferred, the recoveries recognised and the fund in which the resulting benefit arises. The proposal also specifies capital deductions for recoveries from counterparties outside the licensed and qualifying categories, after allowing for relevant deposits held. Counterparty eligibility is consequently part of the assessment, alongside the contractual scope of protection. [2]
A structure familiar from conventional insurance should not be assumed to produce an equivalent result in takaful. Its compatibility with the operating model, applicable Shariah requirements and supervisory treatment needs to be established.
The practical objective remains the same: strengthen the resources supporting obligations or reduce the risks consuming those resources. Takaful changes how that objective must be implemented and where its effects must be measured.
5. Use Regional Experience to Test the Response
Korea and Japan provide useful reference points for examining capital management under revised solvency frameworks. The comparison should begin with the exposure being managed: long-term guarantees, asset-liability mismatch or retained protection risks. Similar regulatory objectives do not establish identical capital outcomes.
For Malaysia, two distinctions deserve particular attention. First, the proposed long-term discount curve must be compared with Malaysia’s existing valuation basis. An outcome observed in another market cannot establish whether a Malaysian liability block will increase or decrease in value. Second, takaful’s fund structure requires capital support and risk-transfer benefits to be traced through the relevant funds.
Regional experience can help insurers identify options to investigate—capital strengthening, ALM changes, product adjustments and reinsurance. It cannot substitute for local calculations or confirmation that a proposed structure receives the intended recognition.
The preparation process should answer three questions: which liability blocks drive the change, which actions address those exposures, and which decisions depend on rules that remain unsettled? This gives management a basis for acting as requirements become clearer.
Malaysia’s reform should ultimately be judged by how it changes decisions about risk and capital. A longer preparation period may provide flexibility, but its value lies in the work completed during that period: understanding the liabilities, testing the alternatives and establishing which responses can endure beyond implementation.
✈️ Co-Pilot’s Dispatch
A later deadline gives the calendar more room. The balance sheet still needs a plan.
🛫 Captain’s Salute
Follow the liability, identify the capital pressure, and test the response locally. Malaysia’s next framework calls for preparation grounded in the risks insurers actually retain.
Technical Note: This article compares BNM’s December 2018 Risk-Based Capital Framework for Insurers with its June 2024 exposure draft for insurers and takaful operators. Proposed requirements and dates are identified as such; a final replacement framework and confirmed implementation timetable had not been verified in the public materials reviewed as of 6 October 2026. The existing-rule comparison concerns conventional insurers; it is not a complete comparison with the existing takaful capital framework.
Great Eastern Life Assurance (Malaysia)’s 2025 financial statements illustrate existing exposures, not the incremental capital impact of the proposal. Accounting disclosures should not be equated with regulatory capital calculations. Discussion of management responses represents GRL’s analysis; no particular reinsurance or retakaful structure is assumed to receive capital recognition.
Sources
- Bank Negara Malaysia — Risk-Based Capital Framework for Insurers (2018)Bank Negara
- Malaysia — Exposure Draft: RBC Framework for Insurers and Takaful Operators (June 2024)
- Great Eastern Life Assurance (Malaysia) — Financial Statements 2025
Additional references — Korea & Japan
- RGA–Tongyang Life — Coinsurance transaction (July 2024)
- Athene–FWD Japan — Block reinsurance transaction (November 2023)
GRL-020