GMM or PAA — how do I decide for a mixed portfolio?
+
Decision is per group of insurance contracts, not per legal entity or line of business. The default measurement basis is GMM; PAA is available as a simplification only if contracts are 12 months or shorter, or the entity can demonstrate that PAA would not produce a materially different result than GMM. In practice, most non-life motor and property books qualify; multi-year treaty reinsurance and long-tail liability classes usually do not. Document the eligibility test, keep the supporting evidence, and re-run it when portfolio composition shifts.
What is the typical timeline from scoping to AFS-ready?
+
For a single-entity non-life insurer adopting PAA with an existing accounting engine, 6–9 months is realistic. For a multi-line life-and-non-life group with GMM + PAA + VFA across multiple country entities, 18–30 months is typical, with parallel run in the final 6–9 months. The critical path is almost always data — policy, claims, and cash-flow feeds from source systems — not the accounting-engine configuration itself.
Which accounting engines have you delivered on?
+
Direct implementation experience on Aptitude, Tagetik (CCH Tagetik IFRS 17), RiskIntegrity IFRS 17, and the EY IFRS 17 Accelerator (which I owned at EY through 2020–2021). Vendor-selection support across a wider set including Moody's RiskIntegrity, SAS IFRS 17, Aptitude, Tagetik, and in-house builds. The right engine depends on data-volume, existing finance-system integration, and whether GMM, PAA, or VFA dominates the portfolio — there is no universal answer.
Can IFRS 17 run inside Autory?
+
Yes — Autory is a production-grade business-modelling platform that handles the end-to-end chain from policy and claims data, through cash-flow projection and measurement, to disclosure outputs. For clients where the fit is right, running IFRS 17 inside Autory avoids a separate accounting-engine licence and gives a single platform for valuation, capital, and reporting. Autory is one of several options we deliver on; the recommendation depends on the client's existing stack and scale.
How do you handle transition — full retrospective, modified retrospective, or fair-value?
+
The election is per group of contracts and must be applied consistently within the group. Full retrospective is the IFRS 17 default and is strongly preferred by auditors where historical data supports it. Modified retrospective allows specified practical simplifications when full retrospective is impracticable. Fair-value approach is the last resort — it removes the CSM link to historical experience. In practice, the transition is where the most audit scrutiny lands; we build the transition working papers and simplification memo up front rather than at Year 2.
What post-implementation support do you provide?
+
Ongoing valuation retainers covering quarterly and annual roll-forwards, sensitivities, systematic allocation ratios, adjusting journal entries and non-distributable items. Auditor walkthroughs, response-to-query memos, and methodology-document maintenance for significant portfolio or assumption changes. Regulator correspondence where the reporting framework intersects with local solvency or tax regimes. Most engagements transition from implementation into a multi-year BAU contract.
Do you work internationally or only South Africa?
+
International. Delivery across 15 jurisdictions including South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Eswatini, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jamaica, and the Netherlands. IFRS 17 is the same standard globally, but effective dates, local modifications, and auditor expectations vary — see the interactive adoption map for the current position by jurisdiction.
