In its bill on the green industry, the government wants to establish at least a management controlled by default in the contracts of life insurance. The goal: “Increase the share of financing directed towards SMEs/ETIs and towards unlisted assets in French life insurance, while respecting their investor profile”like what is done in retirement savings plans (PER).
To hope to convince savers, it is still necessary that the results are at the rendezvous. However, the performance of these management methods is difficult to convince.
In 2022, the financial markets experienced a rare and unfavorable combination: the simultaneous declines in stocks and bonds. In this environment, managers under mandate (those in charge of managed management) have hardly succeeded in protecting the savings of their subscribers. Worse, the most cautious profiles lost almost as much as the most dynamic.
Although the sector is very opaque on these results, a few digital players provide their performance. Thus, at Boursorama Banque, the management led by Edmond de Rothschild AM generated a performance ranging from –11.49% for the defensive profile, the most cautious, to –21.34% for the offensive profile.
Another example at the fintech Yomoni, where nine risk profiles are offered (profile 1, 100% in funds in euros, is no longer accessible). Profile 2 lost 4.4% – preserved by its 70% of funds in euros –, while profiles 6 to 10 fell by around 18%. At broker Altaprofits, the mandate led by Lazard Frères Gestion lost between 5.72% (for profile 1, the more cautious) and 11.27% (for profile 10, the riskiest). At Macif, the prudent mandate shows – 6.28% and the dynamic mandate (both managed by Ofi Invest AM), – 19.38%, etc.
Tricky comparisons and statistics
Fortunately, the beginning of the year is more buoyant, allowing managers to get healthy. For example, at Yomoni, the riskiest profile gained 9.5% over the first five months of the year.
Life insurance being a long-term envelope, performance must be studied over the long term, remind the professionals. Easier said than done ! Lack of transparency of players, different levels of risk from one player to another, regular changes in management make comparisons and statistics tricky.
The specialized site Good Value for Money has embarked on this exercise over the period 2017-2021, on the basis of five levels of risk ranging from cautious to audacious. According to this player, prudent management generated an annualized performance of 2.01% over this period, balanced management 4.29% and bold management, the riskiest, up to 7.42%.
You have 15.28% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.