Initially, the primary task for Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance was to shed its historical burdens by proactively abandoning high-risk, low-price business and optimizing its underwriting risk system.

It was not until 2024 that the company reached an operational turning point, achieving its first profit. In 2025, profits quadrupled again, gradually freeing the company from its earlier operational constraints and demonstrating the recovery momentum following its transformation. However, as performance improves, multiple hidden risks are simultaneously surfacing.

According to the latest quarterly report, the operational status of Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance presents a stark duality.

On the positive side, the company has shown strong risk resilience. As of the end of the first quarter, the company's insurance business revenue reached 27.81 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 7.12%, maintaining a steady growth trajectory.

A key breakthrough is that the company's combined ratio has fallen to 99.81%, remaining below this threshold after achieving its first full-year underwriting profit in 2025. This success is attributed to proactive business structure adjustments. In the first quarter, non-auto insurance accounted for 40.5%, while auto insurance saw reduced claim frequency and payout ratios due to refined pricing.

Simultaneously, the company's profitability has significantly improved. Quarterly net profit reached 79.1571 million yuan, with an impressive annualized return. The return on equity (ROE) stood at 2.58%, indicating robust self-sustaining capability. Regarding capital and liquidity foundations, although the solvency adequacy ratio slightly decreased from 217.04% to 199.77%, it remains well above the regulatory red lines of 100% and 50%, indicating sufficient safety margins.

All liquidity risk regulatory indicators meet requirements. Under the baseline scenario, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR1) was 158.25%, with a cumulative net cash inflow of 88 million yuan for the year, sufficient to meet the company's short-term payment needs.

However, the underlying risks cannot be ignored. By the end of the first quarter, the company was involved in three major lawsuits, one of which resulted in an actual loss of 11.274 million yuan due to a "construction contract dispute."

Furthermore, the company faces three pending major lawsuits: the Suzhou case involves 50.1084 million yuan, the Tianjin case 46.3835 million yuan, and the Ningbo case 40.6674 million yuan. The causes include disputes over insurer subrogation rights and compensation for losses due to property preservation, with a total risk exposure of approximately 137 million yuan.

The company has admitted it "cannot estimate the loss amount." Therefore, these three cases combined could potentially consume nearly two quarters of net profit, constituting a significant contingent liability.

Capital-related issues are also expanding. The core solvency adequacy ratio in the first quarter decreased by approximately 17 percentage points. The minimum capital requirement increased by 131 million yuan, but actual capital only increased by 27 million yuan, indicating that the growth rate of risk exposure far outpaces capital accumulation.

Specifically, the minimum capital for credit risk increased by 48 million yuan quarter-on-quarter, showing that as investment asset scale grows, asset quality and counterparty risks are accumulating rapidly.

Moreover, the concentration of significant related-party transactions is relatively high. In the first quarter, Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance added two significant related-party transactions totaling 3 billion yuan. One involved a 1.5 billion yuan capital increase from the group, and the other was a 1.5 billion yuan agreement deposit with China Minsheng Bank.

However, the capital increase has not been fully reflected in the actual capital on the financial statements, meaning the 1.5 billion yuan increase might still be in progress and not yet completed. Meanwhile, the 1.5 billion yuan agreement deposit is already locked with China Minsheng Bank.

Although the procedures are legal, the funds have formed a closed loop within the group company, necessitating vigilance against potential issues like tunneling of assets and liquidity mismatches.

Frequent compliance penalties are the most直观 risk signal for Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance at the beginning of 2026.

Data shows that by the end of the first quarter, Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance had accumulated 10 regulatory penalty notices, with total fines amounting to 890,000 yuan. This includes 745,000 yuan in fines against the institution and 145,000 yuan against individuals, all involving penalties for central sub-branches, marketing service departments, and their personnel.

For example, on February 5th, a branch under the Jilin subsidiary was penalized again by regulators. The Yanbian Central Sub-branch was fined 340,000 yuan for falsifying publicity expenses and indirect claim settlement costs, leading to inaccurate financial data. Responsible person Ma Tengfei received a warning and a fine of 60,000 yuan.

On March 17th, the Binzhou Marketing Service Department of the Xianyang Central Sub-branch was fined 175,000 yuan for the persistent violation of inaccurate financial data. Responsible person Yang Jianping received a warning and a fine of 20,000 yuan.

Reviewing the reasons for penalties, they mainly involve fabricating expenses to extract funds and discrepancies between accounting document records and actual transactions. The high frequency of penalties exposes deeper issues within the company: weak compliance awareness at grassroots institutions, internal control mechanisms being mere formalities, and inadequate control throughout the business process.

Simultaneously, the trust crisis among consumers remains unresolved. On the Black Cat Complaints platform, there are as many as 137 complaints using "Dajia Insurance" as a keyword, with claim denials and诱导消费 being frequent complaints.

One complaint from January 18th is particularly representative. The complainant stated that in an accident on November 7, 2024, in Dongguan, Guangdong, the other party's vehicle had a Sichuan A license plate. The complainant was not at fault, while the other party bore full responsibility. After the accident, Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance directed them to choose a合作 repair shop for vehicle repairs.

The complainant reported that after repairs at the合作 shop, the vehicle developed numerous issues. Not only was the repair quality problematic, but the repairs also caused a significant drop in the vehicle's market value. Originally in good condition, the post-repair二手估值 directly decreased by an amount equivalent to the residual value for 1,000 kilometers.

What caused greater dissatisfaction was that, despite the complainant not being at fault for the accident, Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance still refused to compensate for the vehicle depreciation loss, citing it was "not within the insurance coverage." On that day, the platform显示, "The complained merchant was not matched. We will find the merchant for you as soon as possible and urge them to handle the complaint." As of the time of writing, the complaint status仍显示 as "Merchant to be assigned."

In summary, while Dajia Property & Casualty Insurance has achieved "survival" and is moving towards "improvement," its profit foundation is not yet solid. Compliance and risk control remain短板 constraining its high-quality development.