Fitch Ratings has affirmed
The Outlooks are Stable.
The ratings reflect the insurer’s weak company profile and relatively high investment risks, which are partially offset by adequate capital position and profitable, albeit volatile, financial performance.
Key Rating Drivers
‘Less Favourable’ Business Profile: Fitch’s assessement of Centras’s company profile is driven by less favourable competitive positioning and business risk profile and moderate diversification. Centras’s competitive positioning was broadly stable in 8M22 with a market share of 2.2%. On a gross basis, the company recorded modest revenue growth of 3%, with motor damage contributing the most.
Insurance Portfolio Acquisition Broadly Neutral: In
Exposed to Equity Instruments: Fitch views Centras’s investment risk is high due to historically prominent exposure to equity instruments in its investment portfolio. The share of equity holdings, recognised as available-for-sale (AFS) securities, increased to 82% of shareholders’ funds at end-2021 from 48% at end-2020. Due to weak capital market performance, the company reported significant revaluation losses of
Adequate Capital Position: Centras’s capital position, as measured by Fitch’s Prism Factor-Based Model (FBM), was ‘Adequate’ at end-2021, in line with 2020. The target capital remained high due to elevated asset risks stemming from significant equity exposure. From a regulatory capital perspective, the insurer’s regulatory solvency margin dropped to 104% at end-4M22 from 253% at end-2021, mainly driven by lower equity market values. At end-9M22 it was restored to a more comfortable level of 120%.
We expect Centras’s Prism FBM post-acquisition capital position to weaken due to a rise in target capital relative to available capital, which remains broadly unchanged. We expect the insurer’s regulatory solvency margin to remain broadly stable and above the minimum required level.
Bottom Line Volatility Driven by Realised Gains/Losses: Centras’s profitability is volatile. The insurer reported a net profit of
We expect the integration process related to the acquired portfolio of
Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive rating action/upgrade:
Positive developments from the successful integration of
Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative rating action/downgrade:
Substantial capital depletion, for example, as evidenced by a breach of prudential capital metrics.
Best/Worst Case Rating Scenario
International scale credit ratings of Financial Institutions and Covered Bond issuers have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive direction) of three notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction) of four notches over three years. The complete span of best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges from ‘
REFERENCES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY MATERIAL SOURCE CITED AS KEY DRIVER OF RATING
The principal sources of information used in the analysis are described in the Applicable Criteria.
Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of ‘3’. This means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. For more information on Fitch’s ESG Relevance Scores, visit www.fitchratings.com/esg