With the release of second-quarter solvency reports, insurers' first-half investment performance results have been unveiled. According to statistics, 144 insurers (property and casualty insurers plus life insurers) have disclosed their financial investment yields and comprehensive investment yields for the first half of 2026. The average financial investment yield stood at 1.70%, while the average comprehensive investment yield reached 2.01%. On a comparable basis, both investment yield indicators declined year-on-year.

Experts say the overall decline in the insurance industry's investment yields during the first half was mainly driven by falling fixed-income asset returns, equity market volatility, and the concentrated maturity of alternative assets. As of press time, 80 property and casualty insurers and 64 life insurers have disclosed their first-half investment yields. Among the 80 P&C insurers, the average financial investment yield was 1.42%, with a median of 1.32%. Guangdong Energy Property Insurance Co., Ltd. posted the highest financial investment yield at 5.75%, while Huanong Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. recorded the lowest at -1.24%. The average comprehensive investment yield for these 80 P&C insurers was 1.72%, with a median of 1.50%. Huanong Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. achieved the highest comprehensive investment yield at 7.88%, while Xin'an Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd. posted the lowest at -1.38%.

Among the 64 life insurers, the average financial investment yield was 2.06%, with a median of 1.96%. Guofu Life Insurance Co., Ltd. reported the highest financial investment yield at 4.66%, while Hai Bao Life Insurance Co., Ltd. had the lowest at -0.35%. The average comprehensive investment yield for the 64 life insurers was 2.36%, with a median of 2.54%. AIA Life Insurance Co., Ltd. led with a comprehensive investment yield of 8.31%, while Xiaokang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. recorded the lowest at -5.24%.

Since Beijing BNP Paribas Tianxing Property Insurance Co., Ltd. is a newly established insurer without comparable data, excluding this company, the average financial investment yield of 143 insurers fell 0.23 percentage points year-on-year, while the average comprehensive investment yield dropped 0.27 percentage points. From a year-on-year trend perspective, among 79 P&C insurers with comparable data, 35 saw their financial investment yields rise, and 40 saw their comprehensive investment yields increase. Among the 64 life insurers, 34 reported higher financial investment yields, and 36 posted increased comprehensive investment yields. The fact that most insurers saw year-on-year gains while averages declined is mainly due to wide yield dispersion, with five insurers reporting negative financial investment yields and ten posting negative comprehensive investment yields, whereas all insurers achieved positive returns last year.

Xu Yuchen, a founding member of the China Association of Actuaries, said there are three main reasons for the overall decline and notable divergence in insurers' investment yields in the first half. First, fixed-income market yields have been on a downward trajectory. Domestic bond market yields have entered a downward channel this year, and since insurers allocate most of their funds to fixed-income assets, they have been significantly impacted. Second, equity market volatility. The stock market showed pronounced structural characteristics in the first half, with market hotspots concentrated in technology stocks. Insurers positioned in these sectors gained considerable returns, but those that failed to deploy in time or took opposite positions faced substantial drawdowns. Meanwhile, high-dividend stocks favored by insurers generally underperformed in the first half, failing to provide sufficient return support, leading to yield divergence. Third, high-yield existing alternative assets are reaching maturity in a concentrated manner. Insurers previously allocated substantial amounts to alternative assets, which typically feature defined terms (mostly 5-year and 10-year maturities) and relatively high returns. This batch of high-yield assets is now entering a concentrated maturity phase, further increasing investment pressure on insurers.

Amid investment yield pressure and intensifying industry divergence, regulators have also been working at the institutional level to promote more robust asset-liability management systems. Recently, the National Financial Regulatory Administration issued the "Measures for Asset-Liability Management of Insurance Companies," imposing further requirements on asset-liability allocation in the insurance industry. Xu Yuchen said the Measures explicitly elevate asset-liability matching management responsibilities to the board level, promoting coordinated decision-making across product, actuarial, investment, and risk control functions. The Measures also emphasize matching in terms of duration, yield, and liquidity. Overall, leading insurance institutions benefit from stronger solvency adequacy ratios and capital flexibility, giving them relatively greater allocation flexibility, while smaller insurers will lean more toward fixed-income assets in their allocations.

Looking ahead, regarding how insurers can further improve and stabilize their investment yields, Long Ge, deputy director of the Innovation and Risk Management Research Center at the University of International Business and Economics, said insurers need to strengthen "asset-liability linkage," reducing liability costs at the source and avoiding blind investment in risky assets to cover high costs. Strategically, he recommends a "barbell" allocation approach: one end focusing on high-dividend yield assets for stable returns, and the other end targeting new economy tracks for upside potential. Additionally, insurers should actively use derivatives and treasury bond futures to hedge interest rate risks, uncovering excess returns through refined management in a low-interest-rate environment.