一文穿透寿险管理实质：资产负债管理应遵循系统论观念，“久期缺口”无法替代“资债匹配”

Core Viewpoint - Strengthening asset-liability matching management has become a consensus in the industry, with many life insurance companies adjusting their development concepts on both the liability and asset sides to achieve this goal [1][2]. Group 1: Asset-Liability Management Challenges - The complexity of life insurance business necessitates a sophisticated understanding of asset-liability management, which poses new challenges for corporate management and organizational structure [1][2]. - There is a prevalent misunderstanding of "asset-liability matching management," with some substituting "duration gap" for "asset-liability matching," leading to significant deviations from the core principles of asset-liability management [1][2][8]. Group 2: Independent Account Management - Asset-liability management should focus on each independent account within life insurance companies rather than the overall company, as these accounts have distinct asset ownership, liability responsibilities, and risk allocations [3][4]. - The establishment of independent accounts is a significant operational decision that requires clear management logic and a rigorous decision-making process [5]. Group 3: Core Concepts of Asset-Liability Management - The core demands of asset-liability management include matching, interaction, and dynamic management, which should not be rigidly interpreted as an absolute equality between assets and liabilities [6][7]. - The management of asset-liability interactions remains disconnected, despite some recognition of the need for two-way interaction management [6][8]. Group 4: Data System Improvement - The complexity of life insurance business leads to a diverse array of economic principles and management perspectives, necessitating an improvement in the data system for asset-liability management [8][9]. - The concept of "duration gap" is often misused as a substitute for "asset-liability matching," which can lead to secondary risks if treated as a static management goal [8][10]. Group 5: Duration Calculation Issues - The current calculation of liability duration is relatively straightforward, while the calculation of asset duration is overly rigid and disconnected from reality [10][11]. - The existing rules for calculating asset duration primarily focus on fixed-income assets, neglecting the impact of equity and other asset classes, which can distort the overall asset-liability management [10][12]. Group 6: Recommendations for Improvement - It is recommended to realistically assess the extendability of historical data in the current liability cash flow model and incorporate future economic changes into the evaluation of life insurance contract liabilities [13][14]. - A comprehensive asset duration calculation model that aligns with investment management practices should be developed to reflect the unique long-cycle nature of life insurance [14].