全球範圍內頻頻收購 安邦保險的"巴菲特模式"

A previously obscure Chinese insurance company, whose global shopping spree has raised eyebrows in the investment world, is pursuing a Warren Buffett-like strategy in which investment returns drive growth and insurance plays only a minor role.

中國一家以往鮮爲人知、但近期因爲在全球頻頻收購而引起投資界矚目的保險公司，正奉行一項類似於沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)的戰略，即藉助投資回報推動增長，讓保險業務扮演次要角色。

This month alone, Beijing-based Anbang Insurance Group announced the purchase of Manhattan’s Waldorf Astoria hotel for $1.95bn, and bought Fidea, a Belgian insurer, for an undisclosed price. And South Korean media have reported that Anbang is considering acquiring a controlling stake in state-run Woori Bank.

僅這個月，總部位於北京的安邦保險集團(Anbang Insurance Group)就宣佈以19.5億美元收購曼哈頓的華爾道夫酒店(Waldorf Astoria hotel)，還以金額未公開的價格收購了比利時保險公司Fidea。而韓國媒體報道稱，安邦正考慮收購該國國營的友利銀行(Woori Bank)的控股股份。

Such ambitious investment may seem strange for a company that ranks eighth among Chinese life assurers with only a 3.6 per cent market share, far below leaders China Life and Ping An, which control 25 and 14 per cent respectively.

對於一家在本土壽險市場位居第八的公司而言，這種雄心勃勃的投資可能看起來很怪。安邦在中國壽險市場所佔份額只有3.6%，遠低於市場領先者中國人壽(China Life)的25%和中國平安(Ping An)的14%。

Yet a look at Anbang’s business model suggests the company is like a private equity fund with a side business in insurance. Rather than profiting from the excess of premiums over claims, analysts say Anbang aims to generate earnings through investment returns.

然而，仔細觀察安邦的業務模式似乎能得出這樣的印象：該公司就像是一隻私人股本基金，以保險爲副業。分析師們表示，安邦的目標是通過投資回報實現盈利，而不是尋求獲利於保費超過賠付的部分。

Chinese entrepreneurs have expressed admiration for the “Warren Buffett model” in which insurance premiums provide cheap funding for far-flung equity investments.

中國一些企業家表示欽佩“沃倫•巴菲特模式”，即利用保費帶來的現金流，爲涉足多個行業的股權投資提供廉價資金。

Guo Guangchang, the Fosun founder, has frequently cited Mr Buffett when outlining his intentions to transform the industrial conglomerate into a strategic investment group.

復星集團(Fosun)創始人郭廣昌在談到他有意將旗下的工業集團打造爲一家戰略投資集團時，曾多次提到巴菲特。

In China, however, using insurance as a platform for unrelated investments is riskier because the core insurance business is less profitable than in the west.

但在中國，以保險爲平臺進行不相關的投資帶有較高風險，因爲核心的保險業務不像西方那樣利潤豐厚。

About 70 per cent of “life assurance” products in China are in fact more akin to certificates of deposit. The customer pays a premium only once, and the insurer guarantees the return of principal plus interest after five to 15 years.

中國大約70%的“人壽保險”產品其實更加類似於存單。客戶僅支付一次保費，而保險公司保證5至15年後連本帶利的回報。

Insurers earn razor-thin margins on such products, which are mainly sold through banks.

這些主要通過銀行銷售的產品爲保險公司帶來微薄的利潤率。

Protection-type products, which pay out only in the event of an accident, illness or untimely death, deliver higher margins because the insurer does not pay out on every policy, but these make up only a small fraction of China’s overall insurance market.

保障型產品（僅在發生事故、疾病或過早死亡的情況下給付）提供較高的利潤率，因爲保險公司無需對每份保單作出給付，但此類業務在中國整體保險市場僅佔一小部分。

Privately held Anbang collected Rmb33bn ($5.4bn) in life assurance premiums in the first eight months of 2014 versus only Rmb3.4bn in property and casualty fees, government data show.

政府數據顯示，私有的安邦在2014年頭八個月獲得330億元人民幣（合54億美元）壽險保費，以及區區34億元人民幣財產及意外險保費。

Its profitability has been further compromised by its rapid growth strategy. Premiums have grown from Rmb1bn in 2005 to Rmb36bn so far this year.

進一步損害盈利能力的是該公司的快速發展戰略。保費收入已從2005年的10億元人民幣一路增至今年迄今的360億元人民幣。

“I can’t see how they’re making a profit, with all the reserves they have to put away and all the acquisition costs. I would be stunned [if they were],” says Sam Radwan, co-founder of Enhance, a management consultancy.

“考慮到所有他們必須提取的準備金，還有所有這些收購成本，我看不出他們是如何盈利的。（如果他們盈利）我會很驚訝，”管理諮詢公司Enhance聯合創始人薩姆•拉德萬(Sam Radwan)表示。

Premiums at Anbang’s life unit amounted to only 8 per cent of assets by the end of 2013, compared with 16 per cent at China Life. That suggests the group is using equity capital, rather than premiums, to finance purchases.

2013年底，保費在安邦壽險部門的總資產中僅佔8%，而中國人壽的這個佔比達到16%。這似乎表明，該集團正利用股權資本（而不是保費）爲收購提供資金。

China Life and Ping An have both ventured into foreign real estate. But their core businesses are more diverse and profitable than Anbang, so investment returns are icing on the insurance cake.

中國人壽和中國平安兩家均已涉足海外房地產。但他們的核心業務比安邦更加多樣化和利潤豐厚，讓投資回報爲保險業務這塊蛋糕錦上添花。

In other respects Anbang seems well suited to the Buffett model given the ability of Wu Xiaohui , its founder and chairman, to raise funds from China’s elite state-owned companies.

在其他方面，安邦似乎很適合巴菲特模式，因爲其創始人和董事長吳小暉有本事從中國的精英國企籌集資金。

Anbang raised its registered capital to Rmb30bn in April this year, up from Rmb12bn in 2011 and more than the Rmb28bn in registered capital at China Life.

安邦在今年4月將註冊資本增至300億元人民幣（2011年爲120億元人民幣），超過中國人壽280億元人民幣的註冊資本。

Anbang could not be reached for comment.

記者聯繫不上安邦集團請其置評。

If it succeeds in emulating Mr Buffett, the danger is Anbang ends up resigning itself to unprofitability in its core business and basing its strategy solely on high-risk investments.

如果它在模仿巴菲特方面取得成功，危險在於安邦接受核心業務難以盈利，轉而在戰略上單純依賴高風險的投資。

“If you’re playing the asset game and pushing your yield, you can get yourself into a lot of trouble,” says Mr Radwan.

“如果你要玩資產遊戲，推高你的收益率，你可能讓自己陷入很多麻煩，”拉德萬表示。