Axis Max Life Insurance plans to list its stock directly
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Mumbai: Axis Max Life Insurance plans to list its stock directly as soon as federal lawmakers pass the relevant amendment bill, managing director Prashant Tripathy said, as doing so would simplify the ownership structure and boost transparency. "We are very optimistic," Tripathy said in an interview. "All stakeholders, regulators, shareholders, promoters and management are aligned. Once the bill is cleared, hopefully in the monsoon session, we will act immediately."Axis Max Life, currently owned jointly by Axis Bank and Max Financial Services , operates under a quasi-listed structure, where the parent companies are publicly traded but the insurance business is not directly listed. Tripathy said the structure is "suboptimal" and that collapsing it into a single listed entity would create better visibility and investor confidence.The move comes amid a regulatory push to bring more insurers to the public markets to improve governance and deepen investor participation. The Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, once approved, is expected to ease listing norms for companies like Axis Max Life.While preparing for its public debut, Axis Max Life is focusing on growth well above the industry average. For FY25, the company reported a 20% increase in total new business, compared with 15% for the private life insurance sector.The insurer has delivered 18% compound annual growth over the past two years, double the industry average, Tripathy said."We aim to grow 300 to 400 basis points ahead of the private sector this year as well," he added. In April, the insurer posted a 24% rise in new business, compared to 2% for the rest of the private industry.One basis point is a hundredth of a percentage point.The company's proprietary distribution channels grew 30% in the last fiscal year, while bank-led channels expanded 13%. Axis Max Life's market share in the private life space now stands at 9.8%, up 37 basis points. Axis Bank entities, which own close to 19.99% in the insurance company, have seen contribution to the business income fall to 10-11%. Tripathy said, the insurer is expecting it to pick up to 14-15%.Axis Max Life is targeting value of new business (VNB) margins in the range of 24-25%, balancing profitability with growth. "Our stated position has always been to work with target margins and then drive growth. We're not trying to be a 27-28% margin company. Our margin corridor is between 24-25%, and then we focus on growth. We landed at 24%. Hopefully, if we do better margins, our VNB growth will be more than the sales growth. About 24-25% is the corridor," Tripathy said.The insurer has implemented deferred commission structures to increase persistence following regulatory changes around agent incentives, avoiding clawbacks.The approach, Tripathy said, has been tailored by agent performance and is consistent across individual and corporate agencies.The non-PAR segment, which slowed down last year, is expected to pick up. "My expectation is that non-PAR will also be start to grow, especially from our side. We sold more ULIPs last year, and of the total mix of about 46% were ULIPs. This year, non-par should increase by 3-4% and par should increase," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
ICICI Bank posts lowest attrition rate among major pvt lenders in 3 years
ICICI Bank has reported the lowest employee attrition rate among large private sector lenders in the last three financial years, reflecting higher stickiness due to competitive remuneration and a better working environment. During the last three financial years, the industry has also witnessed a sustained decline on a year-on-year basis. The employee attrition rate at the country's second-largest private sector bank declined to 18 per cent in FY25 from 24.5 per cent in FY24, according to the bank's latest Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) report. During 2022-23, the bank reported an attrition rate of 30.9 per cent, lower than its competitors. Its larger peer, HDFC Bank, has recorded an employee attrition rate of 22.6 per cent in FY25, compared to 26.9 per cent in FY24. The attrition was 34.2 per cent during 2022-23. Similarly, the attrition was 25.5 per cent for Axis Bank, down from 28.8 per cent in FY24, and Kotak Mahindra Bank's manpower exit rate fell to 33.3 per cent from 39.6 per cent in the previous year, according to their annual and BRSR reports. For IndusInd Bank, the attrition rate was 29 per cent in FY25, lower than 37 per cent witnessed during 2023-24 and 51 per cent in FY23. Over the past three years, from FY23 to FY25, private sector banks have seen a southward movement in their employee attrition rates. The slowing attrition rate can be attributed to a combination of factors like a subdued entry-level job market in the BFSI and fintech industries and the growth of digital services, said a senior HR executive of a bank, requesting anonymity. Most private sector banks went on a recruitment frenzy post-pandemic, which led to a high attrition rate subsequently. "Now, the market appears to be stabilised, meaning banks are not heavily recruiting and the entry-level employees are not leaving banks to join fintech companies," said a senior HR executive of a private sector bank.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
ICICI Bank reports lowest attrition rate among private peers in last 3 fiscal years
ICICI Bank has reported the lowest employee attrition rate among large private sector lenders in the last three financial years, reflecting higher stickiness due to competitive remuneration and a better working environment. During the last three financial years, the industry has also witnessed a sustained decline on a year-on-year basis. The employee attrition rate at the country's second-largest private sector bank declined to 18% in FY25 from 24.5% in FY24, according to the bank's latest Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) report. During 2022-23, the bank reported an attrition rate of 30.9%, lower than its competitors. Its larger peer, HDFC Bank, has recorded an employee attrition rate of 22.6% in FY25, compared to 26.9% in FY24. The attrition was 34.2% during 2022-23. Similarly, the attrition was 25.5% for Axis Bank, down from 28.8% in FY24, and Kotak Mahindra Bank's manpower exit rate fell to 33.3% from 39.6% in the previous year, according to their annual and BRSR reports. For IndusInd Bank, the attrition rate was 29% in FY25, lower than 37% witnessed during 2023-24 and 51% in FY23. Over the past three years, from FY23 to FY25, private sector banks have seen a southward movement in their employee attrition rates. The slowing attrition rate can be attributed to a combination of factors like a subdued entry-level job market in the BFSI and fintech industries and the growth of digital services, said a senior HR executive of a bank, requesting anonymity. Most private sector banks went on a recruitment frenzy post-pandemic, which led to a high attrition rate subsequently. "Now, the market appears to be stabilised, meaning banks are not heavily recruiting and the entry-level employees are not leaving banks to join fintech companies," said a senior HR executive of a private sector bank.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
How BCCI has continued to resist attempts to bring it under RTI scanner
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025. According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government. Over the years, the world's richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law. The new law & an exception for BCCI The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices. This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law. At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions. The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a 'recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.' This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny. In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation 'receiving grants or any other financial assistance' from the government shall be considered a public authority only 'with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance'. This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny. The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a 'public authority'. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government. This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act — it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government's regulatory framework for public bodies. This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board's claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered. It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding. The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates — such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month. Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs 'public functions' that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the 'tacit concurrence' of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015. Previous recommendations not implemented A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body's functioning as a 'closed door and back-room affair.' It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny. The committee recommended that the 'legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,' stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency. The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a 'public authority' and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries. However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation — leaving the matter in a legal limbo. Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations. The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members. The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI's affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
