*Imagine if disaster hits your country & power supply is cut & If you do not have cash in hand & rely totally on electronic payment,then you are finished*
*Interesting viewpoint Worth pondering over!*
*"The cashless society is difficult to face during war & disaster!"*
*Japan's strong earthquake in Hokkaido triggered a large-scale power outage & Sapporo City instantly became the dark capital.*
*During this period,1.95 million residents flocked to supermarkets & convenience stores to buy life supplies.*
*However, some of the victims who usually only use mobile phones have lost their ability to pay & can't buy what they need.*
*On September 6th, an anonymous discussion on the anonymous forum of the Japan Forum showed an article about crazy electronic payment.*
*"In Sapporo those who only use electronic payment are finished!" The article said:*
*I usually use Apple Pay (Pingguo pay) & go out without a wallet & very little cash.*
*In the early hours of the morning, after the strong earthquake, Sapporo suffered a large power outage.*
He checked the refrigerator in his home & found that only milk & mayonnaise remained.
He rushed to the supermarket to buy living materials.
When he arrived at the supermarket, he found that he had no cash at all.
He took the iPhone with only 62% of the battery & looked at the Apple Pay screen on his mobile phone.
He felt uneasy!
*When the queue came around, the clerk told him that he could not use electronic paying.*
*He can't use it anywhere else.*
*At seven o'clock that night, he sat alone at home, hungry.*
*Since cash cannot be taken as the power has not yet recovered, there is a feeling that everything is finished.*
*In February of this year, the Swedish Central Bank Governor Stefan Ingves warned.*
*He said that the cashless society is unrestrained in the face of war or natural disasters & the huge social & financial system will collapse in an instant.*
*“Payment function” is one of the four functions that money needs to have.*
*Cashless payment is just a supplement to the “payment function” because it can not be replaced by specific basic conditions (electricity, network, base station, etc.)*
*Sapporo is still fortunate.The earthquake gave everyone a lesson & they can correctly understand cash payments & cashless payments.*
*If a large-scale war breaks out & there is a long-term disconnection or power outage, the encounter will be even more serious.*
*Imagine if disaster hits your country & power supply is cut & If We do not have cash in hand & rely totally on electronic payment, then we are finished
ANNOUNCEMENT - AL FATIHAH ALLAHYARHAM DR WILLIAM J LEININGER @ SDR. YUSOF BIN ABDULLAH
Poland & Czech Republic Insurance Market
Poland
According to EMIS, the Polish insurance market is the largest insurance market in Central and Eastern Europe, but it is less developed than larger European markets. Insurance density and penetration rate (2.2%) is well below the European average in all insurance segments, especially life and health. For comparison, market penetration in Denmark, which ranks first in Europe, is 10.9%.
The gross written premium of the Poland general insurance market was PLN50.8 billion ($11.4 billion) in 2022, out of which Poland life insurance market accounted for PLN21.5 billion ($4.8 billion). In 2023, the Poland life and non-life insurance market has generated a revenue of $18.71 billion and is expected to achieve a CAGR of 4% for the forecast period of 2024-2029.
The Insurance market in Poland consists of both life and non-life insurance segments. Life insurance protects against events such as death or disability, while non-life insurance covers risks like motor accidents, property damage, and liability. Motor insurance has the highest market share, in the Polish general insurance market, followed by property insurance.
The market is well regulated, with developed regulatory practices and supervision processes. As a member of the EU, Poland adopted the risk-adjusted Solvency II framework, which further improved the sophistication of insurers’ enterprise risk management and strengthened regulatory oversight.
In 2022, 53 insurance companies were authorized to conduct insurance business in Poland, and all of them conducted operations. Twenty-four companies were active in life insurance domain. The remaining thirty-four enterprises, including one reinsurance company, providedpersonal and non-life insurance sevices.
There are no restrictions to foreign ownership in the insurance sector in Poland, thus the Polish insurance market includes both domestic and international insurance providers. The share of foreign capital was 60.4% in 2022. The competition is intense, with the market share of the top five companies reaching above 70 %. International insurance brokerage and distribution is entering the Polish non-life insurance market mostly through strategic acquisitions of local companies.
At present, there are no Asian insurance providers operating in Poland.
Czech Republic
The gross written premium of the Czech Republic general insurance market was CZK145.8 billion ($6.2 billion) in 2022. According to the CAP (Czech Insurance Association) quarterly figures, at the end of September 2023 the aggregate GWP (gross written premium) reported by member companies totaled CZK 127 billion (EUR 5.2 billion) up by 6.5% y-o-y. Life insurance accounted for 30% of GWP portfolio (CZK 38.2 billion, up by 2.3% y-o-y), the remaining 70% (or CZK 88.8 billion, up by 8.5% y-o-y) being accounted by non-life portfolio, the largest shares being accounted by Motor TPL (18.37% of total GWP), MoD (18.35%), industry and business (16%) and retail property & liability insurance (10.4%). Life and non-life insurance market in the Czech Republic is estimated to grow at a CAGR of approximately 5% during the forecast period of 2024-29.
The Czech Republic's insurance sector is well developed, with the non-life sector accounting for approximately three-quarters of the overall market. Within this, the largest lines are motor and property insurance. The life insurance market is highly concentrated. Based on gross written premium, the top five companies control 64.9% of the market. The rest of the market is controlled by 18 other insurance companies. The non-life market is also highly concentrated, with the five largest firms accounting for 73.5% of the total gross written premium. Insurance penetration is declining, and it turns out to be an opportunity for companies to expand their business. There are plenty of relatively small insurers in both segments, which means there is still room for consolidation.
The total number of Insurance Companies in Czech Republic is 2,727. Prague is the largest province with a 20% market share (559 insurance companies). Second is Brno with 317 insurance companies (12%). Ostrava also has a large number of insurance companies: 282. These three provinces combined have a 42% market share in the total Czech insurance industry.
Czech Republic's insurance industry is facing stiff competition as the insurance companies not only compete with each other, but also compete with the risk retention groups, government, and self-insurance. The companies generally compete mainly based on two factors including the quality of the services and price that they provide. Many large organizations self-insure for most of their employee benefits like health coverage that lowers market scope for insurance companies.
At present, there are no Asian insurance providers operating in the Czech Republic.
Source : MATRADE
ANNOUNCEMENT - AL FATIHAH ALLAHYARHAM DATO' YUSLI MOHAMMED YUSOFF
SC: Shareholders must insist on meaningful disclosures
Oct 22, 20 • The Edge Markets
IF shareholders want to know how the salaries of directors and key executives are linked to the company’s performance, they “should demand that this information be forthcoming”, officials at the Securities Commission of Malaysia (SC) said at a technical briefing marking the release of its second annual Corporate Governance Monitor 2020 (CG Monitor 2020) last week.
As it is, companies are required to disclose only pay in bands of RM50,000 but not on a named basis — meaning it is not compulsory for companies to disclose who exactly is being paid what amount. The need to make guesstimates from aggregates naturally impedes other stakeholders’ ability to independently evaluate whether a pay package is commensurate with the individual’s performance in the light of how the company is doing.
Of the 937 public-listed companies in Malaysia, only 13%, or 122, disclosed remuneration of the top five senior management in bands of RM50,000 on a named basis in 2019 — 10 more than the year before.
“However, a number of companies which made such disclosures in 2018 opted not to do so in 2019. This is largely because the remuneration disclosures in 2017 were of the company’s executive directors. Under the Listing Requirements, detailed disclosure of directors’ remuneration is mandatory. In 2019, these companies continued to disclose the senior management remuneration in bands, however, not on a named basis,” the CG Monitor 2020 read, without naming the drop-outs.
Only 37, or 3.9%, public-listed companies adopted the enhanced or “step-up” practice of disclosing the detailed remuneration of each member of senior management on a named basis — marginally above the 32, or 3.4%, in 2018. Of the 37, eight were large companies, two were mid-cap companies and 27 were small-cap companies, according to data in the CG Monitor 2020.
SC reckons that the increase “may have been driven by the report on CEO pay in CG Monitor 2019 and ensuing media coverage” that subsequently saw a number of CEOs taking pay cuts in 2019. “There was also keen focus on pay and performance by some shareholders at annual general meetings (AGMs),” it added.
A total of 121 companies are considered large cap (FBM100 members and those with a market cap of more than RM2 billion at the start of the companies’ financial year), 51 mid cap (RM1 billion to RM2 billion market cap) and 765 small cap in 2020 compared with 106 (large cap), 54 (mid cap) and 770 (small cap) in 2018.
It is no surprise that Practice 7.2 in the 2017 Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance (MCCG) — the board discloses on a named basis the top five senior management’s remuneration component including salary, bonus, benefits-in-kind and other emoluments in bands of RM50,000 — is the best practice with the lowest level of adoption, by far, in 2018 as well as 2019.
“The adoption of this practice remains a challenge, and SC would like to emphasise that the disclosure of board and senior management remuneration is important to facilitate stakeholders in understanding how those tasked with leadership and management of the company is being compensated, whether the current incentives structures are commensurate with company and individual performance, aligned with the long-term strategies of the company and promote responsible business conduct by the board and members of senior management … The required information on remuneration must be forthcoming to enable stakeholders, particularly shareholders, to have an informed view on pay and performance, and alignment with long-term strategies of the company,” SC said in the report, without elaborating whether it will take measures to significantly raise adoption.
With the Covid-19 pandemic affecting the financial position of many companies, SC expects “to see a re-evaluation of the remuneration policies and packages”, noting that, in the US, at least 634 companies listed on the Russell 3000 “have made pay adjustments for the board and senior management, largely as they can no longer afford to maintain the pre-pandemic remuneration packages”.
According to the CG Monitor 2020, five of the top 10 highest paid boards in 2018 recorded a decline in total board remuneration in 2019, the largest being 23%. The five that recorded a decline year-on-year were Genting Bhd, Genting Malaysia Bhd, YTL Corp Bhd, Public Bank Bhd and VS Industry Bhd. Despite the decline, Genting Bhd still has the highest total board remuneration at RM172.24 million, followed by Genting Malaysia (RM77.8 million), YTL Corp (RM76.09.8 million), IHH Healthcare (RM63.03 million), Public Bank (RM62.5 million) and AirAsia Group (RM60.5 million).
Directors’ independence
Minority shareholders can also better protect their interest by paying more attention to the appointment of independent directors, insisting on and participating in the two-tier voting process recommended since 2019 for independent directors with tenures over 12 years.
“On average, the total votes cast for the two-tier resolutions accounted for only 53% of total shareholdings of listed companies. This indicates that on average, only half of shareholders exercised their votes to decide on the retention of long-serving independent directors… The participation of non-large shareholders in Tier 2 was also low. On average, only 40% of non-large shareholders cast their votes,” the SC said, noting that some minority shareholders may have thought their small shareholding would not affect the outcome.
“While the percentage of individual shareholdings may be relatively small, non-large shareholders should be mindful that collectively, they could account for more than 50% of total shareholdings. Thus, their votes can affect the outcome of the resolution… As shareholders are aware, the board plays a critical role in ensuring the long-term success of a company. Thus, shareholders should carefully review and exercise their rights to decide on board appointments as the directors who they appoint to the board will have an impact on the long-term success of the company,” the SC said.
As a gauge of the significance of these resolutions, institutional investors such as the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) and Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP) have set a policy to abstain from voting on the reappointment of independent directors with tenure between nine and 12 years. Both EPF and KWAP will vote against the reappointment of an independent director with tenure of more than 12 years on the same board. According to the SC, there are 498 independent directors who have served at least 13 years — 416 or 83.5% of whom have sat on the same board for between 13 and 20 years and another 77 or 15.5% for between 21 and 30 years. Three have served between 31 and 40 years and two have served more than 40 years, the CG Monitor 2020 said, without naming them or the companies.
In 2019, 181 public-listed companies adopted this voluntary “two-tier voting” process for the first time, up from 164 in 2018, and 98% or 263 of the 284 resolutions tabled in 2019 were passed. There were no dissenting votes for 206 of the resolutions from the minority (Tier 2) shareholders.
Companies that used the two-tier voting process and saw over 90% approvals by shareholders to reappoint directors with tenures of over 25 years were Advanced Packaging Technology Bhd, Central Industrial Corp Bhd, FACB Industries Inc Bhd, GUH Holdings Bhd, Jasa Kita Bhd, KKB Engineering Bhd, Kumpulan Jetson Bhd, Master-Pack Group Bhd, Mintye Bhd, Spritzer Bhd and Yee Lee Corp Bhd, the SC said.
Only five tier-two resolutions, tabled by three listed companies, were defeated in 2019, SC said, noting that three of the directors were subsequently redesignated as non-independent directors and two others resigned.
“As highlighted in the MCCG, stakeholders are increasingly concerned about the potential negative impact that long tenure may have on a director’s independence. Familiarity brought about by long tenure may erode the objectivity of the directors and board. Owing to long or close relationship with board and management, an independent director may be too sympathetic to management’s interests or too accepting of their work. Independent directors may also become “dependent” directors, owing to, among others, prolonged insular recruitment processes, attractive remuneration packages and material benefits … It is also a matter of board refreshment. As a company and its strategy changes, there must be a mechanism to bring in fresh perspectives to the board, and provide the opportunity to improve diversity on the board,” SC said, urging minority shareholders to exercise their rights.
“While the annual shareholders’ approval and two-tier voting process is not mandatory, shareholders should demand that companies adopt this practice, as it strengthens the review and reappointment process for long-serving independent directors.”