Ping An is the world’s strongest and most valuable insurance brand, with its brand value up 93% to US$50.5 billion, according to the latest report by Brand Finance, the world’s leading independent brand valuation consultancy. The brand is seeing its investment in technology now beginning to pay off and reap benefits. To attract China’s more than 500 million internet users, 1% of the insurance group’s annual revenue has been spent on Research & Development. Business is being won by improving understanding of consumers based on data collection through online services. Last year, it is said, 36% of 40million new insurance customers came to the company that way. InsurTech and FinTech solutions remain an integral part of Ping An’s ongoing strategy. Ping An is also the fourth most valuable brand in China.
David Haigh, CEO of Brand Finance, commented:
“Ping An, China Life, and other Chinese insurance brands are once again benefiting from the growth of the middle-class consumer and their own ability to tap into the power of technology to sharpen their business. Whilst cybersecurity incidents and business interruptions dominate risk landscapes for companies of all sizes in the global market, innovative products, new health insurance products and good use of technology have made this a positive year for many insurance brands.”
Global success for China
The total brand value for all insurance brands in China, according to this year’s Brand Finance Insurance 100 report, is US$98.2 billion. This earns it pole position in the global insurance market. The US drops to second place with a brand value of US$78.1 billion.
Brand value for China Life is up from US$14.4 billion to US$21.8 billion, and more growth is likely for it, PICC and CPIC. In Asia-Pacific (APAC) growth continues across life, health, property and casualty (P&C) insurance. The strongest growth is seen in health insurance. While India is increasing its health insurance penetration on its rural population, China is focusing health insurance and long-term care insurance on its aging population. By 2050 39% of the Chinese people will be over 65.
The benefit of blockchain
AIA, with a brand value up 51% from US$10.3billion to US$15.5 billion, retains its title as Hong Kong’s premier brand. The brand is flexing its technological muscles, having recently launched a blockchain-enabled bank assurance platform, allowing it and its bank distributers to share policy data and digital documents in real time. The platform also reconciles commissions automatically through smart contracts.
Similarly, European giant AXA is offering flight-delay insurance over a blockchain platform with parametric triggers and smart contracts. Restructuring at AXA seeks to strengthen its health, property and damages insurance businesses and reduce its dependence on life insurance. The brand’s acquisition of Bermuda based XL Group for US$15.4 billion and PICC Groups IPO–the first insurance brand to list on China’s mainland in seven years – indicates a real sense of confidence and growth ambition.
While Chinese insurance brands Ping An, China Life, and AIA, hold the top 3 positions in the Life Insurance sector’s top ten, Munich-headquartered Allianz is snapping at their heels in 4th position and Prudential (UK) in 9th place reports strong performance from its Asian business activities.
Ping An, also tops the table in the P&C Insurance sector, but this time Allianz is in second place with a brand value of US$11.9 billion. 3rd, 4th and 5th places are held by US companies GEICO, Allstate and Progressive. GEICO’s brand value has risen 34% to US$8.8 billion, leaping four places to join this year’s top ten for the first time. The brand’s competitive offering for auto insurance has helped it stay ahead of its competitors.
Only one Chinese brand, China Re, features in the Reinsurance sector top ten, sitting in 6th place with brand value of US$1.1 billion. The brand’s success can be attributed to its acquisition of London’s Chaucer, in a move to expand towards a more global position. The top three places in this year’s Brand Finance Insurance 100 are filled by Swiss Re, (brand value US$4.2 billion); Hannover Re (US$2.7 billion) and Munich Re at US$2.4 billion. Munich Re has aired its concerns around global warming for significant losses in the Californian wildfires and warns that subsequent premium rises could become a critical social issue. Average annual wildfire losses trailed well below US$5.0 billion, until 2017 and 2018, when they rose to more than US$20.0 billion.
Notable new entrant
Discovery is a new entrant to this year’s Brand Finance Insurance 100 2019, scoring an impressive brand strength index (BSI) score of 85.97 out of 100, making it the world’s second strongest insurance brand. Discovery is South Africa's largest health-insurance administrator and has seen major success through its Vitality rewards scheme which awards points for completing various online health assessments and routine medical checks. The brand is also launching a bank later this year.
Note to Editors
Every year, leading valuation and strategy consultancy Brand Finance values the world’s biggest brands. The 100 most valuable insurance brands in the world are included in the Brand Finance Insurance 100 2019 report.
Brand value is understood as the net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market. Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors.
Additional insights, more information about the methodology, as well as definitions of key terms are available in the Brand Finance Insurance 100 2019 report.
Brand Finance helped craft the internationally recognized standard on Brand Valuation – ISO 10668, and the recently approved standard on Brand Evaluation – ISO 20671.
Data compiled for the Brand Finance league tables and reports are provided for the benefit of the media and are not to be used for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.
Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organisations of all kinds make strategic decisions.
Headquartered in London, Brand Finance has offices in over 20 countries, offering services on all continents. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 5,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes nearly 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.
Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm, leading the standardisation of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671, and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.
Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.
Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Brand Finance evaluates brand strength in a process compliant with ISO 20671, looking at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance. The data used is derived from Brand Finance’s proprietary market research programme and from publicly available sources.
Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.
Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.
The steps in this process are as follows:
1 Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.
2 Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, while in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditised, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.
3 Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.
4 Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.
5 Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.
6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.
7 Discount post-tax brand revenues to a net present value which equals the brand value.
Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.
The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance's proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.