If you are studying IFRS 17, sooner or later you hit the same question: if a group of insurance contracts qualifies for the premium allocation approach, does measuring it under the PAA actually give a different answer from the general measurement model?
Why the comparison matters
Eligibility for the PAA is a permission, not an instruction. An insurer with an eligible group may simplify with the PAA or keep the GMM, and IFRS 17 treats both as legitimate choices. Neither is the default. That means two insurers writing near-identical business can present their results through different machinery, and anyone reading the financial statements, sitting an exam or preparing a year-end file needs to know where that machinery shows up and where it does not.
What the lesson works through
- The eligibility test for the premium allocation approach, applied to stated scenario facts rather than a product label
- Why being eligible and applying the PAA are separate steps
- How the GMM builds the liability for remaining coverage from fulfilment cash flows and a contractual service margin
- How the PAA builds the same liability from a very different starting point
- Where insurance revenue and insurance service expenses come from under each model
- What each election does to the reconciliations in the notes, including the liability for incurred claims
- Which simplifying facts in the scenario drive the outcome, and why you should not carry the result into other cases
The worked example
The lesson follows a single group of private motor policies written by Amatle General Insurance Ltd, worked in Rand. The same group is measured once under each model, then the two are laid side by side line by line. The comparison asks a pointed question: on these facts, how far apart do the revenue, the service result and the closing liability really sit, and what explains the gap or the lack of one? The answer, and why it depends on this scenario’s assumptions, is in the lesson.
Take the lesson
Work through the full lesson in the Amatle Institute IFRS 17 course and follow both options through to the numbers.
Questions about this topic
Is the PAA mandatory for a group that is eligible for it?
No. Eligibility permits the premium allocation approach but does not require it. An entity with an eligible group may apply the PAA or keep the general measurement model, and neither option is the default. The lesson follows the same group through both options.
Do the PAA and the GMM give the same insurance revenue?
That depends on the facts of the group being measured. The lesson measures one group under each model, compares revenue, the service result and the liability line by line, and then looks at which scenario facts drive the comparison and which facts would change it.
Free · one email a week
IFRS and SAM, one requirement at a time
Each week you get the Institute's new articles: one requirement of IFRS 17, IFRS 9, IFRS 15, IFRS 18 or SAM, worked on a South African case. You start with the free IFRS 18 readiness checklist, ten areas to work through before IFRS 18 takes effect, each with its paragraph reference.