Why insurance investment offices leak returns, why governance creates drag, and why structure matters more than asset mix
Across the Asia–Pacific, many insurance investment offices still operate like cost centres.
Compliance-led. Siloed. Execution-constrained.
That mindset is expensive.
Outdated mandates, fragmented governance, and rigid execution policies quietly drain performance, inflate capital requirements, and suppress balance-sheet flexibility. The losses compound year after year, largely unnoticed.
Underperformance is rarely about asset selection. It is structural. Mechanistic FX hedging. Passive duration extension. Poor collateral management. Rigid “best execution” rules. Risk reporting that measures exposure but never drives action.
These practices create persistent performance drag – often 100 to 400 basis points per year – while leaving insurers paradoxically overcapitalised and still lagging peers.
The solution is not more risk. It is a reframing of the investment office as a capital catalyst: integrating ALM, treasury, risk, and execution; treating derivatives as balance-sheet tools rather than compliance artefacts; and aligning investment decisions with solvency, liquidity, and long-term value creation.
This is about governance, accountability, and execution discipline – and why insurers that modernise these foundations consistently outperform those that don’t.
Read the practitioner paper
Reframing the Insurance Investment Office – How Asia-Pacific Insurers Lose Up to 400bps and How to Win It Back