RMI435: FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS FOR INSURANCE

COMPANIES ASSIGNMENT.

Tapiwa Mbava R2210604W

Lester Musuka R229850C
Everjoy Mutinhidzo R229931R
Nhete Melositasi R226496R
Kurima Tapiwa R223993F
Anold Zhou R226536R
Praise Sithole R2214568N
Maturure Nicolette R1917791T
Joram Tapfuma R229970T
Introduction

Fitch Ratings is one of the three major global credit rating agencies, alongside Standard and
Poor's (S&P) and Moody's. Within the insurance industry, Fitch plays a critical role by
providing independent assessments of an insurer's financial health. These assessments help
policyholders, investors, regulators, and reinsurers make informed decisions about the
financial reliability of an insurance company.

For insurance companies specifically, the most important rating Fitch issues is the Insurer
Financial Strength (IFS) Rating. This rating answers one key question: Can this insurance
company pay its claims to policyholders when they fall due? It is not an investment
recommendation it is a measure of financial security.

To arrive at this rating, Fitch conducts a thorough evaluation using two broad categories of
factors: quantitative factors (based on financial numbers and data) and qualitative factors
(based on judgement, strategy, and non-financial aspects of the business). This assignment
explains each of these categories in detail, drawing on examples from Zimbabwe's insurance
industry to illustrate the concepts.

The fitch rating scale

Before exploring how Fitch evaluates insurers, it is useful to understand what the final ratings
mean. Fitch uses a letter-based scale ranging from 'AAA' (the highest) to 'D' (default).
Ratings from 'BBB-' and above are considered investment grade, meaning the insurer is
generally financially safe. Ratings below 'BBB-' are non-investment grade, also called
speculative or 'junk' status.

Rating
Category What It Means for the Insurer
Level

Investment Grade AAA Exceptional: Strong capacity to pay claims.

AA Very Strong: High quality, with a very low default risk.

 Rating
Category What It Means for the Insurer
Level

Strong: Low default risk, but somewhat more susceptible

A
economic changes.

Good: Low expectation of default, but adverse business

BBB
conditions could negatively impact the company.

Non-Investment Grade BB Speculative: Elevated vulnerability to default risk.

B Highly Speculative: A deteriorating financial situation.

CCC Substantial Credit Risk: A real possibility of default.

CC Very High Levels of Credit Risk: Default is a strong pro

Exceptionally High Levels of Credit Risk: Default or de

C
like process has begun.

Restricted Default: Issuer has defaulted on a payment, bu

RD
not entered bankruptcy.

D Default: The insurer has failed to meet its obligations.

Source: Adapted from Fitch

Ratings definitions.

 Nuances in Ratings: For ratings from 'AA' to 'CCC', Fitch uses a + or - sign to show
relative differences within the category. For example, an 'AA+' rating is just one step
below the highest 'AAA' rating.

HOW FITCH EVALUATES INSURERS

QUNTITATIVE FACTORS
Quantitative factors refer to the numerical and financial information that Fitch analyses when
evaluating an insurance company. These are measurable figures found in financial
statements, actuarial reports, and capital models. Fitch places significant weight on these
factors because they provide objective evidence of financial strength or weakness.

Capital Adequacy

Capital adequacy refers to the number of financial reserves an insurance company holds to
absorb unexpected losses. Think of it as a financial safety cushion. If an insurer faces a
sudden surge in claims — for example, after a major flood or a currency collapse — it needs
sufficient capital to pay all claims without becoming insolvent.

Fitch uses its own internal tool called the Prism Factor-Based Model (Prism FBM) to
measure capital adequacy. This model calculates how much capital a company needs relative
to its risks, including underwriting risk (paying large claims), investment risk (losing money
on investments), and operational risk (internal failures). The Prism FBM scoring categories
are: Extremely Strong, Very Strong, Strong, Adequate, and Weak.

In Zimbabwe, capital adequacy is also governed by the Insurance and Pensions Commission
(IPEC), which sets minimum capital requirements for all registered insurers. Under IPEC
regulations, non-life insurers are required to maintain minimum capital thresholds that are
regularly reviewed to account for inflation and the dollarization environment. Fitch would
assess whether a Zimbabwean insurer holds capital well above these minimum thresholds as
a sign of resilience. During Zimbabwe's hyperinflation period of 2007 to 2008, the real value
of many insurers' capital bases was wiped out almost overnight as the Zimbabwe dollar
became worthless. Companies that had not indexed their capital to foreign currency found
themselves technically insolvent, with nominal capital that could not cover even basic
administrative costs. This is a dramatic illustration of why capital adequacy must be assessed
in real terms, not just nominal ones (Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, 2009). Financial
Performance and Profitability

Fitch carefully examines an insurer's ability to generate consistent profits over time. A
profitable insurer is better positioned to build capital reserves, pay claims, and withstand
difficult economic periods. Key profitability metrics that Fitch analyses are shown in the
table below.

Metric Description Zimbabwean Insurance Example

Combined Ratio Total claims + expenses Fidelity Life Assurance of Zimbabwe

divided by earned reported improved combined ratios
premiums. A ratio below following the 2009 dollarization, as
100% means the insurer is premium income stabilized in US
making an underwriting dollars and claims became more
profit. predictable (Fidelity Life, 2015).

Loss Ratio The percentage of premium Motor vehicle insurers in Zimbabwe

income used to pay claims. faced rising loss ratios between 2018
and 2020 as fuel shortages led to more
accidents and increased claims
frequency (IPEC, 2020).

Return on Equity Net profit divided by First Mutual Holdings reported

(ROE) shareholder equity; shows positive ROE figures in its 2022
how efficiently capital is annual report, driven by improved
generating returns. underwriting performance across its
life and short-term insurance
subsidiaries (First Mutual Holdings,
2022).

Operating Ratio Combines the loss ratio and Zimbabwean insurers with high
expense ratio to show operating ratios in 2019 were heavily
 overall underwriting reliant on investment income —
performance before particularly from Treasury Bills — to
investment income. remain profitable, masking weak
underwriting performance (IPEC,
2019).

A consistent track record of profitability improves an insurer's Fitch rating because it signals
the business can sustain itself and grow capital without constantly relying on new fundraising
or government support.

Reserve Adequacy

Insurance reserves are funds that an insurer sets aside today to pay claims that have already
been reported but not yet settled, or claims that have occurred but not yet been reported
(known as IBNR reserves Incurred but Not Reported). If these reserves are too low, the
insurer will face a shortfall when claims actually need to be paid.

Fitch analyses reserve adequacy by looking at actuarial reports, historical claims development
patterns, and whether prior year reserves have proved sufficient or insufficient over time.
Reserve deficiencies are a major warning sign. For long-tail lines of business such as liability
insurance and workers' compensation reserve adequacy is especially important because
claims can take many years to fully develop and be settled. The workers' compensation
insurance scheme managed by the National Social Security Authority (NSSA) in Zimbabwe
has historically faced reserve adequacy challenges. Occupational injury and disease claims —
particularly in the mining sector, which is prone to silicosis and other long-term occupational
illnesses — can take many years to fully emerge. Inadequate reserving for these long-tail
liabilities has been identified in IPEC supervisory reviews as a systemic risk for Zimbabwean
insurers underwriting workers' compensation products (IPEC, 2021).

During the hyperinflation era (2007–2008), Zimbabwean insurers who had reserved for
claims in Zimbabwe dollar terms found those reserves worthless by the time claims were
paid. The transition to multi-currency operations in 2009 left many companies with reserve
deficiencies that took years to rebuild, highlighting the critical importance of reserve
adequacy in a volatile economic environment (Insurance Council of Zimbabwe, 2010).

Financial Leverage and Debt

Financial leverage refers to how much debt an insurance company has taken on relative to its
equity. High levels of debt are dangerous for an insurer because interest payments reduce
profitability and debt must be repaid regardless of how claims are performing. Fitch looks at
two key leverage ratios:

• Financial Leverage Ratio (FLR): Total debt divided by total capital. Fitch typically
becomes concerned when this exceeds 35% for most insurers.

• Fixed Charge Coverage: How many times the insurer's earnings cover its interest
payments. Higher coverage means the company is less likely to default on its debt.

In the Zimbabwean context, financial leverage is complicated by the prevalence of Zimbabwe

Gold (ZiG) denominated liabilities alongside US dollar assets. A mismatch between the
currency of debt and the currency of income can amplify leverage risk significantly, which
Fitch would treat as an additional negative qualitative and quantitative factor.

Investment and Asset Quality

Insurance companies collect premiums long before paying claims, so they invest this
money to earn returns. However, if those investments perform poorly or become
worthless, the insurer may lack funds needed to pay claims. Fitch evaluates the
quality, diversification, and liquidity of an insurer's investment portfolio. Key
considerations include:
• Asset-Liability Matching (ALM): Whether the duration and cash flows of investments
align with when claims are expected to be paid.

• Credit Quality of Bonds: Fitch checks whether the bonds held are themselves
investment grade.

• Concentration Risk: Whether the insurer has too much exposure to one sector, asset
type, or issuer.

• Equity and Alternative Investment Exposure: Too much exposure to volatile assets
like shares or real estate increases risk.

Between 2016 and 2019, many Zimbabwean insurance companies heavily invested in
Zimbabwe government Treasury Bills (TBs) as a supposedly safe asset. However,
when the government introduced the RTGS dollar and later the Zimbabwe dollar in
2019, TB holders suffered significant real value losses as the local currency
depreciated sharply against the US dollar. Insurers with high TB concentration found
their investment portfolios severely impaired, reducing their ability to pay US dollar-
denominated claims. This is a classic example of concentration risk and poor asset-
liability matching (IPEC, 2019; Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, 2019).

Liquidity

Liquidity refers to an insurer's ability to quickly convert assets into cash to pay
claims, especially in a crisis. Even a financially strong insurer can face insolvency if it
cannot raise cash fast enough when many claims arrive simultaneously for example,
after a major weather event or an economic shock.

Fitch assesses liquidity by looking at the proportion of highly liquid assets (such as
cash and government bonds) in the insurer's portfolio, as well as its access to credit
 facilities and reinsurance recoveries. A company that holds most of its assets in
illiquid form such as property or unlisted equity faces greater liquidity risk.

Cyclone Idai struck Zimbabwe's Eastern Highlands in March 2019, causing

catastrophic flooding in Chimanimani and Chipinge districts. The storm resulted in
significant property damage and loss of life. For Zimbabwean property and casualty
insurers, this event tested liquidity directly those that held claims reserves in liquid
US dollar bank accounts were able to pay claims promptly, while insurers whose
assets were tied up in illiquid local currency instruments struggled to convert funds in
time to meet claim obligations (IPEC, 2019; Zimre Holdings, 2019).

Reinsurance and Risk Transfer

Reinsurance is an arrangement where an insurance company transfers part of its risk

to another insurer (the reinsurer) in exchange for a share of the premium. It is
essentially 'insurance for insurance companies'. Fitch evaluates both how much risk
has been transferred to reinsurers and the credit quality of those reinsurers.

• Net vs. Gross Exposure: Fitch compares claims before and after reinsurance
recoveries to understand the insurer's real net risk.

• Reinsurer Quality: If the reinsurer itself has a low credit rating, the primary insurer
may not receive reinsurance payments when needed.

• Cession Rates: Very high cession rates can indicate weak capital — the insurer needs
to give away most of it’s premium to manage risk it cannot afford to retain.

After Cyclone Idai in 2019, Zimbabwean insurers that had adequate reinsurance
arrangements in place were able to recover significant portions of their large property claims
from international reinsurers. Those without robust reinsurance cover faced large net losses
that eroded their capital bases, demonstrating the critical role of reinsurance in a small,
developing insurance market like Zimbabwe's (Insurance Council of Zimbabwe, 2019).

QUALITATIVE FACTORS

Qualitative factors are non-numerical aspects of an insurance company that Fitch's

analysts assess through interviews with management, review of strategic documents,
and observation of the insurer's market behavior. These factors are harder to measure
but equally important. A company can have strong financials yet still face a
downgrade if its management is poor, its governance is weak, or its market position is
declining.

Business Profile and Market Position

Fitch analyses the overall profile of the insurance company's business what it does,
who it serves, and how strong its position is in the market. A well-established insurer
with a broad customer base and strong brand tends to generate more stable revenues
than a small, niche insurer with limited market reach.

Key sub-factors assessed include:

• Market Share: What percentage of the total insurance market does the insurer control?

• Product Diversification: Does the insurer offer a mix of products (e.g., life, health,
property), reducing dependence on any single line of business?

• Geographic Diversification: Is the insurer present in multiple regions or countries?

• Brand and Reputation: Does the company have a strong, trusted brand that helps it
retain customers?

A small, single-product funeral assurance company operating only in Harare would

score poorly on business profile, even if its current financials appear acceptable.
 Funeral assurers in Zimbabwe, while numerous, are often undiversified, heavily
concentrated in urban areas, and vulnerable to economic shocks that affect premium
affordability among low-income customers (IPEC, 2022).

Management Quality and Corporate Strategy

The quality of an insurer's management team directly affects its long-term financial
health. Fitch meets with senior executives and assesses whether management has a
clear, credible, and sustainable strategy. Poor management decisions — such as
underpricing policies to win market share, or investing in volatile assets without
proper risk assessment — can quickly erode a strong financial position.

Fitch evaluates:

• Track Record: Has management consistently delivered on its financial targets over
multiple years?

• Strategic Clarity: Is the business strategy clear, realistic, and consistent over time?

• Risk Appetite: Does management take on risks that are appropriate for the insurer's
capital position?

• Management Depth and Stability: Is there a capable leadership team, or does the
company depend too heavily on one or two individuals?

During Zimbabwe's economic instability of 2018 to 2020, some insurance company

boards made aggressive decisions to hold large proportions of their investment portfolios
in local currency assets, assuming the government would maintain the 1:1 RTGS-to-USD
parity. When this parity was abandoned, companies suffered massive investment losses.
Fitch would assess these decisions as evidence of poor risk management judgement and
would likely view the management quality of such companies negatively
 Corporate Governance

Corporate governance refers to the system of rules, practices, and processes by which
an insurance company is directed and controlled. Strong governance ensures that the
insurer acts in the interests of all stakeholders’ policyholders, shareholders, and
employees rather than for the benefit of a small group of executives or connected
parties.

Fitch assesses governance quality through:

• Board Independence: Is the Board of Directors independent from management and

from controlling shareholders?

• Risk Management Framework: Does the company have a robust Enterprise Risk
Management (ERM) system?

• Transparency and Disclosure: Does the insurer publish clear, complete, and timely
financial reports?

• Internal Controls and Audit: Are there strong internal audit and compliance functions
in place?

In Zimbabwe, the Insurance and Pensions Commission (IPEC) has progressively

strengthened its corporate governance requirements for registered insurers. The IPEC
Corporate Governance Guidelines require insurance companies to have a majority of
independent non-executive directors on their boards, separate the roles of Board
Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, and establish Board-level risk and audit
committees. Compliance with these requirements is a baseline governance expectation
that Fitch would verify (IPEC, 2020).

The collapse of several small Zimbabwean insurance companies in the early 2000s
and again during the hyperinflation period was partly attributed to weak corporate
 governance including related-party transactions that diverted policyholder premiums
to connected parties, insufficient board oversight of investment decisions, and a
failure to maintain actuarial valuations. These failures resulted in policyholders losing
their life savings and death benefits, which remains a significant reputational scar on
Zimbabwe's insurance sector (Insurance Council of Zimbabwe, 2010).

Regulatory Environment and Compliance

The regulatory framework within which an insurer operates is a critical qualitative

factor. Insurers operating in strong regulatory environments are generally viewed
more favorably by Fitch because strong regulators reduce the risk of insolvency and
protect policyholders.

Fitch considers:

• Regulatory Strength: How rigorous and well-enforced are the regulations in the
insurer's home country?

• Compliance History: Has the insurer had any regulatory sanctions, fines, or
compliance breaches?

• Solvency Reporting Standards: Does the insurer report under internationally

recognized accounting standards?

• Political and Sovereign Risk: In markets with political instability, regulatory

frameworks may be weaker or inconsistently applied.

IPEC has significantly strengthened its supervisory approach in recent years, moving
towards risk-based supervision and introducing more robust capital adequacy
requirements. The Insurance Act [Chapter 24:07] governs the sector and provides
IPEC with powers to place struggling insurers under curatorship. However, Fitch
would note that Zimbabwe's regulatory environment still faces challenges in terms of
 enforcement capacity, data quality, and the impact of sovereign risk (currency
instability and government policy uncertainty) on the overall operating environment
for insurers (IPEC, 2023).

In 2021, IPEC issued public notices sanctioning several insurance companies and
insurance agents for non-compliance with premium collection and remittance
regulations — a persistent problem in Zimbabwe where some agents collected
premiums from clients but failed to pass them on to the insurer, leaving policyholders
uninsured without their knowledge. An insurer with a history of such distribution
compliance failures would receive a negative qualitative assessment from Fitch
(IPEC, 2021).

2.5 Competitive Position and Pricing Power

An insurer's ability to set profitable premium rates its pricing power is a key
qualitative factor. An insurer that is constantly forced to reduce prices to retain
customers is likely to suffer deteriorating profitability over time. Fitch evaluates
competitive position by looking at:

 Market Concentration: Is the insurance market competitive or dominated by a few

large players?

• Distribution Strengths: Does the insurer have strong distribution channels (e.g.,
brokers, bancassurance, direct sales)?

• Customer Retention (Persistency): For life insurers, high policy lapse rates indicate
weak customer loyalty.

• Innovation: Is the insurer investing in new products, technology, and distribution to

stay competitive?
The Zimbabwean short-term insurance market is highly competitive, with over 20
registered non-life insurers competing for a relatively small pool of insurable risks.
This intense competition has historically resulted in premium rate cutting particularly
in the motor insurance segment which drives combined ratios above 100% and makes
underwriting profitability difficult. Fitch would view persistent underpricing in a
market as a negative indicator of competitive discipline and pricing power for insurers
operating in that environment (IPEC, 2022).

Industry and Sector Outlook

Fitch assigns an 'outlook' to entire insurance sectors not just individual companies
based on expected trends in claims, pricing, regulation, and the broader economy.
This sector-level qualitative assessment then feeds into individual company ratings.
Common sector outlooks issued by Fitch include Positive (conditions improving),
Stable/Neutral (conditions manageable), and Deteriorating (conditions worsening).

Zimbabwe's insurance sector outlook as assessed by regional analysts and IPEC itself
has generally been characterised as challenging but gradually improving. The sector
suffered severe structural damage during the hyperinflation era (2007–2008), and the
subsequent dollarisation created a period of rebuilding. However, persistent economic
instability including currency volatility, high inflation, low per capita income, and low
insurance penetration (estimated at below 3% of GDP compared to the African
average of around 3–4%) means the overall sector environment remains difficult
(IPEC, 2023; African Development Bank, 2022).

The reintroduction of a local currency (initially RTGS dollars, then Zimbabwe

dollars, and subsequently ZiG) created significant sector-wide stress between 2019
and 2023, as insurers struggled to price policies appropriately in an inflationary
environment while policyholders demanded US dollar indemnification. This sector-
wide pricing and currency mismatch risk is exactly the type of outlook factor that
would depress Fitch's assessment of individual Zimbabwean insurers, even those with
individually strong financials.
 Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) refers to the overall framework an insurer uses
to identify, measure, monitor, and manage all the risks it faces not just insurance risks,
but also investment risk, operational risk, and reputational risk. Fitch considers ERM
quality as a qualitative factor because a strong ERM framework reduces the likelihood
of surprises that could threaten the insurer's financial position.

Fitch assesses ERM by looking at:

• Risk Identification: Does management have a comprehensive view of all risks the
company faces?

• Risk Appetite Framework: Has the Board set clear limits on how much risk the
company should take?

• Stress Testing: Does the insurer regularly test how it would perform under extreme
scenarios?

• Risk Culture: Is risk management embedded in the company's day-to-day decision

making?

Zimre Holdings Limited Zimbabwe’s only specialist reinsurer and one of the larger
listed insurance groups has developed an ERM framework that specifically accounts
for Zimbabwe-specific risks including sovereign risk, currency mismatch risk, and
catastrophe risk from climate-related events such as cyclones and droughts. Zimre's
ERM documentation, which is disclosed in its annual reports, reflects a relatively
sophisticated approach to risk management for a frontier market insurer (Zimre
Holdings, 2022).

IFS vs. Other Fitch Ratings

When looking at an insurance group, it's common to see different Fitch ratings for the same
company. It's important to understand the difference:

 Insurer Financial Strength (IFS) Rating: This applies to the insurance operating
company (the entity that writes policies) and measures its ability to pay claims. This
is the primary rating for policyholders.
 Issuer Default Rating (IDR): This applies to a holding company (the parent
corporation) and measures its ability to pay its own debts, like corporate bonds. It
does not reflect the insurance subsidiary's ability to pay claims.
 Debt Rating: These ratings are for specific financial instruments, such as bonds or
hybrid securities issued by the insurer or its parent. Their rating can be "notched" up
or down from the IFS rating based on the security's specific risks and the laws
protecting policyholders.

How to Use Fitch Ratings as a Policyholder

When choosing an insurance company, Fitch's IFS rating is a powerful tool for your due
diligence.

 Aim for Investment Grade: As a general rule, it is prudent to only consider insurers
rated 'BBB-' or higher. This indicates a strong ability to meet financial commitments.
 Prefer Higher Ratings for Peace of Mind: For long-term commitments like life
insurance or annuities, you may want to prioritize companies rated 'A' or better, as
they are considered to have a low default risk and greater resilience to economic
shocks.

5. Real-World Application of Fitch's Analysis

Fitch's ratings and outlooks are used by the industry to gauge market conditions. For instance,
in 2026, Fitch maintained a "deteriorating" outlook for global reinsurers. This was due to
factors like record-high capital supply from traditional and alternative sources (e.g.,
catastrophe bonds) which shifted pricing power toward buyers, leading to softer pricing and
expectations of slightly lower profitability. Conversely, for the broader APAC insurance
region, Fitch had a "neutral" outlook in 2026, citing robust performance and strong solvency
buffers in most markets
Advantages of Fitch Ratings

1. Industry-Specific Rigor (Insurance Focus)

Unlike some agencies that use a largely corporate finance lens, Fitch has deep, specialized
criteria for insurers. They evaluate "Reserve Adequacy" (the risk that prior claims are under-
estimated) and "Asset Risk" (the quality of bonds backing policies) with great detail. This
makes their rating more predictive of an insurer's ability to survive a catastrophe than a
generic corporate rating.

2. Transparency and Forward-Looking Analysis

Fitch is generally considered more transparent than Moody's or S&P regarding the
quantitative models used. They publish detailed "Criteria Reports" explaining exactly how
they weigh capital vs. profitability. Additionally, Fitch uses Rating Outlooks (Positive,
Stable, Negative) and Credit Watch lists to signal future changes early, giving insurers time
to adjust their strategy before a downgrade hits.

3. Better Distinction at the High End

For large, global insurers (e.g., Munich Re, Berkshire Hathaway), Fitch’s scale distinguishes
well between 'AA-' and 'AA+'. This matters because commercial buyers (large corporations
buying liability insurance) often mandate a minimum rating of 'A-' or higher. Fitch’s nuanced
plus/minus system provides a competitive advantage to truly superior insurers.

4. Global Comparability
Fitch uses the same rating scale globally. An 'A' insurer in Japan is rated against the same
standards as an 'A' insurer in Germany. This allows global reinsurance brokers to compare
carriers across different regulatory environments easily.

Disadvantages of Fitch Ratings

1. Market Share & "Mind Share" Deficit

Fitch is the smallest of the "Big Three" (behind S&P and Moody's) and arguably the second
tier behind A.M. Best specifically for insurance. A.M. Best has been rating insurers
exclusively for over 100 years and is the "gold standard" in the US insurance market.
Consequently, some policyholders and state regulators may instinctively trust an A.M. Best
rating over a Fitch rating, even if Fitch's methodology is superior.
2. Lagging Indicators
Like all rating agencies, Fitch is criticized for being reactive rather than proactive. Ratings
often change after a crisis has already impacted the insurer's stock price. For example,
downgrades usually occur after capital has already been depleted, not before. For
policyholders, this means a Fitch rating might look healthy on Monday even if the insurer is
collapsing on Friday.

3. The "Issuer-Pays" Conflict of Interest

Fitch is paid by the insurance company to rate it. This creates an inherent conflict of interest:
the agency may hesitate to downgrade a major client aggressively because the insurer might
take its business to S&P or A.M. Best. While Fitch has regulatory safeguards (e.g., separating
sales from analysts), the bias toward "rating inflation" remains a theoretical disadvantage.

4. Less Granular for Mutual Insurers

Fitch’s models heavily weight market share and stock price volatility (for publicly traded
insurers). Many large insurers are mutual companies (owned by policyholders, not
shareholders, e.g., State Farm, Liberty Mutual). Fitch’s methodology sometimes
underweights the stability of mutual ownership and overweight financial metrics that Favor
stock-owned companies.

5. Complexity for Consumers

For an individual buying car or home insurance, a Fitch rating is nearly useless. The
difference between 'A' and 'BBB' is lost on most consumers, who rely on price or brand
recognition. Furthermore, Fitch does not rate every small or regional insurer. If a local mutual
company isn't rated by Fitch, the consumer gets no information, whereas A.M. Best rates
thousands of smaller insurers.

Conclusion

Fitch Ratings provides a comprehensive evaluation of insurance companies through a

combination of quantitative and qualitative factors. The quantitative factors including capital
adequacy, profitability, reserve adequacy, financial leverage, asset quality, liquidity, and
reinsurance provide objective, data-driven evidence of financial strength. The qualitative

factors including business profile, management quality, corporate governance, regulatory

environment, competitive position, sector outlook, and enterprise risk management provide
the broader context needed to understand whether a company's financial strength is
sustainable.

In the Zimbabwean context, these factors take on particular importance given the country's
history of economic volatility, currency instability, and a regulatory environment that is still
maturing. Zimbabwean insurance companies such as Old Mutual Zimbabwe, First Mutual
Holdings, Zimre Holdings, and Fidelity Life face a unique set of quantitative and qualitative
challenges that would significantly influence any Fitch assessment. Understanding how these
factors apply in a developing market context is essential for insurance students and
practitioners who will work in environments where standard assumptions about economic
stability cannot always be taken for granted.

REFERENCE
African Development Bank (2022) African Economic Outlook 2022: Zimbabwe Country
Profile. Abidjan: African Development Bank Group.

Econet Wireless Zimbabwe (2022) Annual Report 2021/2022. Harare: Econet Wireless
Zimbabwe Limited.

Fidelity Life (2015) Annual Report 2014. Harare: Fidelity Life Assurance of Zimbabwe
Limited.

First Mutual Holdings (2022) Annual Report 2021. Harare: First Mutual Holdings Limited.
Available at: [Link] (Accessed: 10 April 2025).

Fitch Ratings (2024) Insurance Rating Criteria. New York: Fitch Ratings. Available at:
[Link] (Accessed: 10 April 2025).

Insurance Council of Zimbabwe (2010) The State of Zimbabwe's Insurance Sector Post-
Dollarisation. Harare: Insurance Council of Zimbabwe.

Insurance Council of Zimbabwe (2019) Industry Response to Cyclone Idai: Interim Report.
Harare: Insurance Council of Zimbabwe.

IPEC (2019) Insurance and Pensions Commission Annual Report 2018. Harare: Insurance
and Pensions Commission.

IPEC (2020) Insurance and Pensions Commission Annual Report 2019. Harare: Insurance
and Pensions Commission.

IPEC (2021) IPEC Regulatory Bulletin: Compliance and Enforcement Actions, Quarter 3,
2021. Harare: Insurance and Pensions Commission.

IPEC (2022) Insurance and Pensions Commission Annual Report 2021. Harare: Insurance
and Pensions Commission. Available at: [Link] (Accessed: 12 April 2025).

IPEC (2023) Insurance and Pensions Commission Annual Report 2022. Harare: Insurance
and Pensions Commission.

Old Mutual Zimbabwe (2022) Annual Report 2021. Harare: Old Mutual Zimbabwe Limited.
Available at: [Link] (Accessed: 12 April 2025).
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (2009) Monetary Policy Statement: January 2009. Harare:
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.

Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (2019) Monetary Policy Statement: February 2019. Harare:
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.

ZB Financial Holdings (2022) Annual Report 2021. Harare: ZB Financial Holdings Limited.

Zimre Holdings (2019) Interim Results for the Six Months Ended 30 June 2019. Harare:
Zimre Holdings Limited.

Zimre Holdings (2022) Annual Report 2021. Harare: Zimre Holdings Limited. Available at:
[Link] (Accessed: 14 April 2025).