Old Mutual South Africa Limited and BoE Life Assurance Company Limited (84/LM/Dec02) [2003] ZACT 6 (4 February 2003)

55 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition — Merger approval — Old Mutual South Africa Limited and BoE Life Assurance Company Limited — The Competition Tribunal approved the merger between Old Mutual South Africa Limited and BoE Life Assurance Company Limited, determining that the transaction constituted an internal restructuring with no significant competitive change. The merger was assessed in the context of both general and credit life assurance markets, revealing minimal market share accretion and no substantial lessening of competition. Public interest concerns were deemed negligible, leading to unconditional approval of the merger.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL 
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
     Case No: 84/LM/Nov02
In the large merger between: 
Old Mutual South Africa Limited
and
BoE Life Assurance Company Limited
Reasons for Decision
________________________________________________________________
APPROVAL
On   19   December   2002   the   Competition   Tribunal   issued   a   Merger   Clearance  
Certificate approving the merger between Old Mutual South Africa Limited and  
BoE Life Assurance Company Limited   in terms of section 16(2)(a). The reasons  
for the approval of the merger appear below.
The Parties
1. The   acquiring  
firm   is   Old   Mutual   South   Africa   Limited   (“OMSA”),   the  
holding   company   for   all   Old   Mutual   Plc’s   South   African  
operations, excluding asset management. 1 It is controlled by  
Old   Mutual   Plc.     Its   subsidiaries   include   Old   Mutual   Life  
Assurance   Company   (South   Africa)   Limited   (“OMLACSA”)  
and   a   18%   shareholding   in   Nedcor   Limited   (“Nedcor”)   as  
well as an indirect shareholding of 33% via OMLACSA.
2. The   target   firm   is   BoE   Life   Assurance   Company   Limited   (“BoEL”).   It   is  
controlled by BoE and ultimately controlled by Nedcor.
1  According to the parties, OM’s shareholding structure comprises principally historically disadvantaged  
persons in pursuance of SA Mutual Life Assurance Society’s demutualisation in 1999.

The Merger Transaction
3. The transaction comprises a restructuring of the Nedcor group pursuant to  
its acquisition of BoE. This will be achieved through the formation of a joint  
venture   vehicle   in   the   credit   protection   assurance   business,   initially   to  
operate   as   “BoE   Life” 2.   Nedcor   will   focus   and   channel   all   credit   life  
activities within the Nedcor group to this joint venture. OMSA is acquiring  
2  This is defined in the MOU as any life risk product which is ceded to or owned by the debt originator as  
security against the client’s debt and which is not distributed through financial planners and does not  
require financial advice.
OLD MUTUAL PLC
100%
OMSA
18%100%
OMLACSA NEDCOR33%
100%
BoE
100%
BoE LIFE ASSURANCE

a 50% interest in BoEL. Nedcor will retain the other 50% in the company.  
Accordingly,   post­merger   Nedcor   and   OMSA   will   jointly   control   BoEL,  
although Nedcor will retain operational control of BOEL
 
Rationale for the Transaction 
4. There is a duplication of capability as far as life assurance is concerned,  
pursuant to Nedcor’s acquisition of BoE. This is a restructuring, occurring  
within the same group of companies, since Old Mutual ultimately controls  
Nedcor. Effectively, Nedcor is selling 50% of its stake in a subsidiary to  
another division within the Old Mutual group,   obviously because of the  
synergy   in   their   operations.   BoE   life   is   reverting   to   focus   on   its   core  
competency, credit life assurance. BoE will therefore discontinue its non­
credit life (general life assurance) products and focus on selling credit life  
products to customers of Nedcor and its subsidiaries.
The Relevant Market
5. Both   BoEL   and   OMLACSA   are   registered   long­term   insurers.   Both  
companies   provide   life   assurance   in   one   form   or   another.   There   is   a  
general market for life assurance. It is possible to also consider that credit  
life assurance is a separate relevant market from the rest of general life  
assurance. We do not need to decide which is correct but we will for this  
reason  examine  the  effect   of  this  merger  firstly  on the  assumption  that  
there is a relevant market for general life assurance, and then a separate  
relevant market for credit life assurance.
 General Life Assurance
Within this market, the Commission could further segment this market into  
individual   and   group   life   assurance,   although   the   segmentation   has   no  
significant   result.   The   Commission   limited   its   analysis   to   individual   life  
assurance products, since, it maintains, OMLASA’s participation in group  
life assurance is extremely limited.  The combined market share in respect

life assurance is extremely limited.  The combined market share in respect  
of general life assurance is 27.5%. 3   The pre­merger HHI is 1901.50, with  
a post­merger HHI of 1928.50, therefore the change in concentration is a  
mere   27.   The   combined   market   share   in   respect   of   individual   life  
assurance is apparently approximately 29.6%.
 
 Credit Life Assurance
This is a subset of the total life assurance market. It refers to the provision  
3  According to the latest Annual Financial Statements of the relevant companies.

of   life   assurance   by   banks   or   other   finance   providers   to   customers.  
Specific amounts are insured for a specific term. There are six types of  
credit   life   assurance   products,   including,   but   not   limited   to   mortgage  
protection,   personal   and   retail   loans   and   installment   sale   and   lease  
finance. Though they are sold to cover different categories of loans, not all  
these   loans,   however,   have   credit   life   policies   attached.   Credit   life  
assurance   is   designed   to   ensure   the   credit   grantor   against   various  
contingencies,   i.e.   life   (death)   cover,   disability   cover   and   critical   illness  
cover. The combined market share in respect of credit life assurance is  
approximately 6.7%   (BoE Life only adding 0.7%). The parties state that  
the bigger competitors in this sector are ABSA Life and Charter Life, with  
Hollard   Insurance   Company   Limited,   Regent   Life   Assurance   Company  
Limited   and   Pinnafrica   Life   Limited   following.   The   parties   estimated  
BoEL’s ranking somewhere around sixth position. Precise market share  
information was apparently unavailable on account of same either being  
not separately disclosed or subject to confidentiality.
Geographic market
6. The market is national since both firms provide these products across the  
country.
Impact on competition
7. Post   this   transaction,   BoEL   will   focus   on   credit   life   products   and  
OMLACSA on general life assurance products. The main object of the JV  
will   be   to   sell   credit   protection   assurance   products   to   customers   and  
clients of Nedcor and its subsidiaries. 
8. However, there is provision in the MOU that “the JV will require consent by  
the Board of Directors to sell  credit protection products to parties other  
than customers and clients of Nedcor and its subsidiaries.”  The Tribunal  
was concerned that this could raise the possibility of foreclosure of other

was concerned that this could raise the possibility of foreclosure of other  
firms   competing   in   credit   and   general   life   from   the   Nedcor   client   base.  
However there is a panel of insurers in respect of all categories of credit  
life   assurance   comprising   competing   firms   such   as   Hollard   Insurance  
Company   Limited,   Regent   Life   Assurance   Company   Limited   and  
Pinnafrica   Life   Limited.   Furthermore   section   44   of   the   Long   Term  
Insurance   Act   mandates   freedom   of   choice   of   a   particular   insurer.  
Therefore, Nedcor customers will have a choice to buy life assurance from  
any provider other than BoE.

Public Interest
9. The number of  likely retrenchments as  a result of the merger are  
estimated   at   25   employees   and   these   are   limited   to   skilled   and   semi­
skilled employees.
 
Conclusion
This is an internal restructuring and there is no significant competitive change  
from the status quo. In any event, there is a very insignificant accretion of market  
share in each case.   We conclude that the merger will not lead to a substantial  
lessening of competition.    There are no public interest concerns which would alter  
this conclusion for the reasons stated above. The merger is therefore approved  
unconditionally. 
_____________ 4 February 2003
N. Manoim    Date
Concurring: D.Lewis, M. Holden
For the merging parties:   Edward Nathan Friedland Attorneys 
For the Commission:  K. Ramathula, N. Barnabas, Competition  
Commission