23 Jan DallBogg Shows Record Capital Adequacy of 188.54% for 2025

DallBogg Shows Record Capital Adequacy of 188.54% for 2025
The insurer is solid and stable. The regulator is biased—if not worse.
Jan 23, 2026 | 17:03
The company’s operations are fully lawful and carried out under regulatory supervision.
No issues with the regulator are “escalating,” as claimed by a manipulative media outlet. There are also no illegal transactions between related parties. The law does not prohibit such transactions; on the contrary, they are expressly permitted and lawful when conducted within regulatory limits, in compliance with the principles of transparency and the prudent investor (pursuant to the Insurance Code, Art. 124), and in accordance with the company’s investment policy approved by the regulator itself (the FSC).
|
Investments |
31.12.2025 |
|||
| Amount in BGN | Share | Limit | ||
| Real estates |
161 634 867,30 |
29,7% | 35,0% | |
| Corporate Infrastructure bonds |
39 949 353,41 |
7,4% | 20,0% | |
| Shares and equity interests in subsidiaries (DallBogg Pensions) | 31 500 000,00 | 5,8% | 15,0% | |
| Shares and equity interests in subsidiaries (Pinching Rays) | 34 500 000,00 | 6,3% | 15,0% | |
| Corporate bonds AISV (Secora) | 117 101 255,10 | 21,5% | 25,0% | |
| Corporate bonds QIA (Hospital) | 24 440 051,68 | 4,5% | 25,0% | |
| Government bonds (FR, ES) | 2 912 985,10 | 0,5% | 85,0% | |
| Currency hedge (EUR/USD) | 4 413 240,04 | 0,8% | 15,0% | |
| Shares (BG) | 15 734 024,00 | 2,9% | 25,0% | |
| Shares (U.S./EU) | 12 563 795,02 | 2,3% | 55,0% | |
| Cash and cash equivalents | 98 684 496,21 | 18,2% | 45,0% | |
| Total investments | 543 434 067,86 | 100,0% | 100,0% | |
| Investment share in related entities | 126 096 617,45 | 23,20% | 25,00% | |
| Corporate bonds share within investments | 141 541 306,78 | 26,05% | 40,00% | |
| Investment share in a single property | 81 000 000,00 | 14,91% | 25,00% | |
The solvency capital requirement (SCR) for 2025 of the largest and bestcapitalized Bulgarian insurer, DallBogg, is expected to reach a record 188.54%, against a minimum threshold of 100%. There are no violations. There are no illegal transactions. Any characterizations of “sham,” “prohibited,” or “illegal” operations are insinuations devoid of legal and factual basis, aimed solely at undermining the company’s reputation and instilling uncertainty in the public. How can notarized transactions be “sham” when real properties and funds transferred through the banking system are fully executed in accordance with the rules and the law, with the achieved objective of strengthening the insurer and improving service to insured persons and policy beneficiaries? All instructions and measures of the regulator have been strictly complied with.
The European authority EIOPA is fully informed about the results of the restructuring and the exemplary market conduct across all European markets, in accordance with the nine strict criteria set by EIOPA. EIOPA is also aware of the fulfillment of the capital adequacy criteria and is now thoroughly informed about the artificial obstacles that the FSC is creating for the insurer to register its increased capital—not “invented” capital, but fully and actually paid-in capital, exactly as required by law and by the FSC.
In fact, the real problem lies not in the company’s operations, but in the actions of the Financial Supervision Commission. Through court proceedings initiated without legal interest and without legal grounds, as established by a ruling of the Sofia City Court, the FSC has effectively blocked the registration of the insurer’s capital increase in the amount of BGN 80 million. This proceeding — figuratively referred to as a “SLAPP case”—has been used as a formal pretext for subsequent administrative orders, equally unlawful, by the investment supervision authority. The mere filing of the claim was used as grounds for a coercive measure against the Central Depository to halt the issuance of shares to the new investor and to block the registration of the record capital increase, the amount of which had itself been instructed by the regulator.
Despite this series of formally fabricated, but substantively unfounded and unlawful actions, the company’s operations are fully lawful and conducted under regulatory supervision.
Today, the company holds both assets and cash—what better basis is there for the proper fulfillment of the regulator’s obligations and for the protection of insured persons and insurance beneficiaries?