Welcome to IAG's AASB 17 presentation. Thank you to those of you joining us here in the Sydney office. It's lovely to see you. We're also recording the audio of this session, which will be available on our website after the session. I'll start by acknowledging that this presentation is being held on the traditional lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. IAG acknowledges traditional owners of country throughout Australia and recognizes the continuing connection to lands, waters, and community. I'm joined today by members of the IAG finance team, who I'm very proud of, who will be running through the details of our approach to AASB 17 The purpose of this session is to demonstrate that the new accounting standard, despite the fundamental adjustments to our statutory reporting, will not materially impact our financial disclosures. To assist in explaining the technical details, I'll shortly be handing to Alana Bailey, who is our CFO Group Finance, who joined IAG in February this year, and has over 20 years' experience in the financial services sector in senior finance roles. You'll also be hearing from our Chief Actuary, Brett Ward, who is familiar to many of you, who has been with IAG for over 16 years, and the last nine years as our Chief Actuary. Finally, Mark Ley, our EGM Investor Relations, will summarize what you can expect from our reporting going forward. We are keen to ensure this presentation remains interactive, given it's quite a small group that we're here today, and we're happy to take questions along the way if there's something on a particular slide that you'd like to dig into straight away, and we'll obviously have Q&A at the end of the session. So during this presentation, we will cover our approach to the key AASB 17 concepts and the impact on our statutory and management reporting. AASB 17 will apply to our half year results for 31 December 2023, which we will be reporting on the 16th February 2024. Today, we are showing the new format P&L for management reporting purposes, incorporating AASB 17 adjustments for FY 2023. That is the comparatives. We will not be discussing the expected AASB 17 impacts on our first half 2024 results, nor will I be providing a financial update on our results. I'm sure that's not a surprise to all of you, but it's important that we just clarify that up front. The key messages today are consistent with our previous comments on AASB 17, which we outlined most recently to you in our Investor Day in June and at our full-year results in August. As we've developed our approach to AASB 17, we continue to believe that the new insurance accounting will not have any impact on IAG's underlying economics, cash flows, capital, dividend policy or strategic direction. The impact on the transitional balance sheet is relatively minor and slightly less than we expected back in August. Similarly, any impact on future profitability is also expected to be relatively minor. In terms of our external reporting, based upon feedback from you, our analyst investor community, to support the transition to AASB 17, on an interim basis, we will continue to provide the existing metrics of GWP, NEP, and insurance profit. We acknowledge that these concepts are all very well understood and will continue to form the basis of our FY 2024 guidance. On that note, I'll hand over to Alana. Thank you, Michelle, and welcome to our briefing today. Before we go into further detail, it's worth taking a step back to reiterate the key objectives underpinning the introduction of IFRS 17 globally. The aim of IFRS 17 is to standardize insurance accounting globally and to improve comparability and increase transparency. Additionally, the standard aims to reflect the cost of insurance services and is based on the concept that profit is only recognized when the associated insurance service is provided, rather than when premiums are received. While there are differences between AASB 17 and AASB 1023, the two standards are sufficiently similar to not result in significant impacts in Australia on transition to AASB 17 relative to other countries. Today, Brett and I will take you through the key areas of judgment that are applied in relation to AASB 17. I'll talk through the measurement models, which applies to the contracts we have on foot, and to the level of aggregation, which is used in our testing for onerous contracts. Brett will then talk through the risk adjustment and discount rate components. But first, to the measurement models. As previously mentioned, AASB 17 requires a company to recognize profits as it delivers insurance services, rather than when it receives premiums, and to provide information about the profits arising from insurance contracts the company expects to recognize in the future. To this end, there are different ways to measure insurance contracts under AASB 17, with the two applicable to general insurance noted on this slide. The General Measurement Model, or GMM, is the default model under the standard, and the Premium Allocation Approach, or PAA, is a simplified approach to the General Measurement Model and similar to reporting under AASB 1023. Both models consist of a liability for remaining coverage and a liability for incurred claims. The liability for remaining coverage is the obligation that an entity has relating to future services, which represents the unearned profit margin of the contract, not unlike the unearned premium reserve under AASB 1023. The liability for incurred claims is the obligation that the entity has relating to past services, that is in relation to the settlement of incurred claims. The key difference between the two models is the liability for remaining coverage, whereby the general measurement model recognizes a contractual service margin, reflecting future profits that are released into earnings over the duration of the contract. Whilst the general measurement model is the default model under the standard, contracts are automatically eligible to apply the premium allocation approach if the coverage period of each contract in that group is one year or less. Contracts greater than 12 months can also become eligible if the measurement of liability for remaining coverage would not differ materially between the two models. So walking through how that applies to IAG. For IAG, the majority of our contracts are automatically eligible for the premium allocation approach as coverage period is 12 months or less. For the remaining contracts where the coverage period exceeds 12 months, we have performed testing and determined that the outcomes for the liability for remaining coverage are not materially different between the two models, and therefore eligible to apply the premium allocation approach. This is the case in all circumstances, except for adverse development cover contracts, where there is no fixed recognition patterns and thus considerable variability in the predicted cash flows. What this means is that the valuation of the vast majority of our contracts is similar to that under AASB 1023. In relation to adverse development covers, the main impact of ADC has been caught under the general measurement model will be in the presentation and nature of disclosures required. The next area of judgment is in relation to the level of aggregation required on initial recognition for all contracts. This decision is significant as it determines the way in which the insurance contracts issued will be aggregated on the balance sheet of the relevant entity and ultimately decides the level at which onerous contracts are recognized. AASB 17 requires an entity to identify portfolios of insurance contracts subject to similar risks and managed together, and then divide these portfolios into groups based on profitability. This level of aggregation is estimated on initial recognition and cannot be subsequently reassessed. Within IAG, we manage our business through three operating divisions: Direct Insurance Australia, Intermediated Insurance Australia and New Zealand. This was the level under which the Liability Adequacy Test was previously assessed under AASB 1023. AASB 17 requires this to be further disaggregated, which we have done based on geography, product, and/or brand as appropriate. It is at this level that we conduct the onerous contracts testing. While over the lifetime of a contract, the profit or loss of the group of contracts remains the same, AASB 17 will result in the earlier recognition of losses where a group of insurance contracts is estimated to be onerous. The upfront loss recognition will be partially offset by a loss recovery component for any reinsurance treaties in place. On transition to AASB 17 at 1 st July 2022, we recognized a net liability for onerous contracts of approximately AUD 60 million. I've run through quite a bit there, and I'm going to hand it over to Brett, but welcome any questions if you have any. Okay. Good morning, everybody. So I'm just going to take you through a couple of items. I think as you're aware, one of the more significant changes in concept between AASB 1023 and 17 does relate to the transition from risk margin to risk adjustment. So I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll go through a little bit of a sort of a canned description, if you like, of the difference between risk margin and risk adjustment, but then let's have a little bit of a open session, open discussion. If you've got any particular questions about risk adjustment, I'm sure you're getting your minds around it associated with some of our other organizations through the Australian industry. So let's go back to the risk margin concept under 1023. So you might recall a lot of that sort of came out of a bit of a, you know, legacy interpretation of what a risk margin ought to do, and it was more a statement of sufficiency. And as you're well aware, a level of sufficiency of about 90% was fairly common amongst Australian insurers. Now, I note for regulatory purposes, that risk margin is essentially through excess tech is unwound back to the 75th percentile under the APRA calculations. So it had no impact on your capital position, and that remains the case even after the transition to risk adjustment. This has no impact on our capital position. Turning now to the risk adjustment, that is about, according to the standard, more of a compensation for risk rather than a risk measure itself that the risk margin was. We need to change our minds to think that the risk adjustment is indeed just that. It's a compensation for risk. Again, like quite a few players in the market, we have adopted a cost of capital approach to determining our risk adjustment. What that means is we allocate capital, as you would expect, to every one of our portfolios through the organization, and we apply our cost of capital to that capital to end up with a risk adjustment. That is our risk adjustment. It provides a return of the cost of capital on the assigned capital of each portfolio as that portfolio proceeds and runs off and sort of pays all out all of its claims. Now, the risk adjustment associated with our active, what we call active dynamic ongoing portfolios, equates to about a 75th percentile probability of sufficiency. Now, that's just an outworking of the, the calculation. Every organization will be different. Ours happens to be quite close to the, the 75th percentile, and that sort of has a lot of actuarial sort of calculations behind it, and that's where I've, I've landed. There's just a little more to the story in terms of our run-off portfolios, whereby we have a somewhat higher risk adjustment than our actively underwritten portfolios. We still adopt a cost of capital approach, but we've taken a less diversified approach or consideration for the capital assigned to those run-off portfolios, and this, therefore, when you multiply it by the cost of capital, lifts the risk adjustment to be quite, quite high, as befits the run-off of those, portfolios. It's pretty similar to the sort of cost of capital you might expect, for example, if you're selling the run-off portfolio into the secondary market, the reinsurance market, as an example. What this means is that if you consider that our total risk adjustment and the probability of sufficiency associated with it, at this point in time, I've estimated that as 84%, because of that higher risk adjustment associated with our run-off portfolios to add to the 75th percentile of our dynamic portfolios. So just before opening up, so overall, though, I mean, the risk adjustment does lead to more accurate profit reporting and removes a couple of issues that the risk margin, that very high and solid risk margin used to bring to our accounts, such as things like risk margin strain, which is not a feature, when you're utilizing, particularly a cost of capital, risk adjustment. So I really am going to pause there and invite some sort of questions and any sort of, you know, aspects of the, the concept of risk adjustment and what it means for, for IAG's accounts. None yet? Okay. Also, so I'll just move on to the, the discounting. There's a very subtle change to the discount rates. So whereas previously under AASB 1023 and also under APRA, and APRA retained this approach, an appropriate discount rate for our liabilities is the Commonwealth Government Yield Curve as a proxy for a matched risk-free portfolio of assets that backs the other liabilities. Now, AASB 17 requires you to just extend that a little bit and consider the liquidity associated with our cash flows. And we've done a sort of quite detailed analysis and thinking around what is the associated illiquidity of a general insurance contract. And there's a range of numbers. You've seen a range of, I think an uplift, if you like, to the other discount rate across the other market. We have allowed for 25 basis points, a very modest allowance for illiquidity, and we recognize that our liabilities have quite a high degree of liquidity associated with them. So we certainly haven't went towards the upper end of a range, compared to if your liabilities were sort of highly illiquid, as might exist in the life insurance industry for example. So we've assessed that as 25 basis points. If you add 25 basis points to our discount rate, you reduce our net central estimate by about AUD 20 million, and you'll see that revealed in the transition to AASB 17. So is there any questions at this point before I hand back to Alana? Risk-free rates above or out- Yep. Is there any intention that 25 basis points therefore. Oh, sorry. Sorry, is there any intention that, that 25 basis point is going to move period to period, or you think you've landed there, and that should be it for? It's possible. Look, it is possible. In coming up with the 25 basis points, we have used very long-term data to attempt to understand the, what we feel is the illiquidity. And as you know, you've got to unpick it from credit risk and other aspects, other financial risks that are included in interest rates, to come up with the 25 basis points. However, it is designed to be as stable as we can make it into the long term, so I'm not expecting major changes. We will review it every six months, though, so you can have the confidence it is reviewed from time to time. Not expecting major changes, though. Hi, Brett. Kieran Chidgey, Jarden. Yeah. Hi, Kieran. That was one of my questions. The other one was just on your previous slide- Yeah on the risk adjustment, specifically though, around the BI provision. Does this change alter the AUD 400 million total provision you had for BI at thirtieth of June? Magically, it does not. But, but in all seriousness, as you know, BI is a very difficult estimation or exercise in estimation at this particular point. I have deliberately made the choice to set the risk adjustment to be exactly the same as the risk margin through the run-off of this portfolio, and the considerations and the way that I get there remains the same. So it's a very special case, I think it's fair to say, Kieran. All right. It hasn't changed. Thanks. questions? Okay, I've got plenty of time for more later on, so I'll sit up. Sorry. So if you do release the risk margin on the BI provision, so Yep. The percentage margin will fall? Yes, it will. It will. Okay. We have excluded the... In the calculation of the 75% and the 84%, that excludes the BI calculation. Oh, it does. It does, yes. Just clarify this one. So- So Nigel, can you move the slide back one, please? Go back to that previous slide. That would be helpful. Thanks. Yeah, so you've got the 9/10, which is 18%. So that's including the BI? It does include the BI, correct. On the right, you've said the risk adjustment would be 14%. Fourteen percent. So if I- Excluding BI ... just take out the BI risk margin- Yeah ... I'd be at 14%? It is, yes. That would be an applied 75th. No, that's actually 84. That's 84. The 14% is 84%. It includes the run-off portfolios and all of the active portfolios. Okay, cool. So where are we at the moment? So the nine to 10. Is that - I thought that was the 84%. What was the So the 9/10 risk- Yes, it is. adjustment we've got at 1st July, is that 84%? No, the 9/10 includes everything. Yeah, what's that%? Yeah. I haven't got that sort of figure, but it's, it's approaching 90. Yeah. Stripping out the BI takes us down to 84. Yeah. And that'll be at 14%. And is there any kind of numbers you kind of mentioned on the, on the run-off is quite onerous? Is there any kind of numbers, say, is that, is that run-off at, at 84%, so those run-off portfolios, is there any- They, they are high. They are high. On their own, they're probably closer to 90%, if not in excess of 90% on their own. And you're quite right, over the next few years, that's going to run off. So the 84% is going to- That's going to tail down. Slide. It's going to tail towards 75. That's correct. Okay, cool. And that- Barring any new additional legacy or issues. Yeah, we won't have any of them, will we? No, we haven't. All right, so that risk adjustment, 14%- Yes ... excluding BI, is also going to be elevated because of that run-off, so that should- Correct ... tail down. So should we think about that, I guess, as, I guess, as in a forecasting that... I know you haven't given a time series there, and you're not going to give us a time series, but, you know, that- It will go down. That's right, so- That risk adjustment is going to tail down. That's, that's correct. So look, it's fair to say that, as I said, you, you can see our sort of 75th percentile figures within our APRA returns, and so we're- Yeah ... we're a bit below 10% is the margin on the dynamic portfolios. Yeah, okay. Yeah. It's pretty close to what's in the APRA returns. Perfect. Thanks. Thank you. Brett, just a follow-up question. Just on these numbers, are all quoted June 2022. Yeah. Why, why is it the case? Is it look different at June 2023 around the percentages? Look, it's. I mean, this is for the transition, so this is to start off at the, the transition and the basis, et cetera, is that's the first port of call is 30 June 2022, and then it proceeds from there. No, this, the same basis has been used, particularly for the dynamic portfolios in terms of the, the risk adjustment. As you're aware, there's been movements in the, business interruption, in particular, over the course of that, that financial year, and also a little bit in the run-off portfolios as well. So we're talking the Silicosis and molestation and, those sorts of run-off, reserves have experienced a bit of a change, but the underlying portfolios, dynamic portfolios, have more or less exactly the same percentage risk adjustment, the same principles and theory, et cetera, has been applied. Okay. And with sort of the BI release that came through in 2023- Yeah. How, how would that change the 14% relative to the 18%? Does it get even more- Oh, well, the 18 would have been- The 18 remaining. The eighteen would have been lower. I do, I've got those figures. Not in my head, but we have went through them. So, so Brett, let's just be clear, Kieran. Yeah. The 14 excludes the BI. BI. What Brett's saying is, but the 14 does include the other run-off portfolios, like silicosis, molestation, those sorts of things. Wouldn't expect a significant change from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, but the overall margin with BI will have come down because of the AUD 560 million release from BI- Yep. ... across the year. Thanks. Sorry, Siddharth Krishnan from JP Morgan. Just a question just on the quota shares. Just, do they have any impact? I know there was some profit commissions that were supposed to be there, on some of them, on a multi-year basis. I was just wondering, whether that influences, your choice of the premium allocation approach. So no, no, it doesn't. It doesn't. And I, I think that's another example of the, the, sort of, material differences between seventeen and ten twenty-three, of course, is the gross basis. So our, our primary sort of, analysis is done gross of quota share. Well, it's done gross of everything, let alone quota share. That there as well. Our whole account quota shares are treated as PAA, so there's almost no difference in the way in which we treat our quota shares under, seventeen compared to, up to ten twenty-three. Right, we do have the NDIC issue, the non-distinct investment component issue that Alana raised. But I don't think we've got to yet. Oh, are we? Next slide. That's a good segue to- I'm too over practiced. So we're, we're gonna be talking about the NDIC component in a moment, Siddharth. So not everyone might know what NDIC is, so maybe if we've got any other questions... Well, we can do more questions on risk margin... Mm. and risk, to risk adjustment and on the discount rate at the end. Maybe if Alana goes to the next slide, because that will start going to some of these questions about why quota shares PAA, but the ADC is GMM as well. Yeah. Thanks, Brett. Thank you, Brett. As noted earlier, the introduction of AASB 17 seeks to standardize insurance services and within that insurance revenue to represent insurance service rather than cash flows. Because of this, if there are cash flows that take place, regardless of whether an insured event occurs, that amount cannot be recognized as insurance revenue, as the cash flow is not subject to any insurance risk and no insurance service has been provided. As part of IAG's 32.5% whole-of-account quota share reinsurance arrangement, there is a significant amount that IAG will always receive, either in the form of claims or other contractual payment, such as profit commission. Whilst under AASB 1023, the full amount of premium ceded to reinsurers was presented as reinsurance expense and any associated recoveries of claims or commissions as reinsurance revenue, under AASB 17, any reinsurance cash flows received in all circumstances are to be stripped out of the presentation of these two line items. Given the scale and nature of the arrangements for IAG, this netting off results in approximately AUD 3.5 billion reduction in both reinsurance expense and reinsurance recoveries, but importantly, has no P&L impact. For the purposes of management reporting, we will be excluding these, which is shown on this slide, and I have another slide later on which we can walk through as well. So what this is actually saying, if you actually looked at the AASB statutory view, which is on the left side, that will have been st, The AUD 3.5 billion in total will have been stripped out of that, which will be shown on the statutory accounts. But when we actually talk a management view, we will be reversing that. The technical term is NDIC or notional NDIC, which I have elected not to use, but it's the non-distinct investment component of an insurance contract. Happy to pause there for questions on that one. If I- Or we can keep going, and then I'll... We can come back. Yes. So on the next slide, on transition to AASB 17, at 1st July 2022, a transitional adjustment has been recognized in retained earnings. At 30 June 2023, we disclosed a transitional range of +AUD 20 million to +AUD 110 million, representing the estimated increase to retained earnings for this transitional adjustment. As you will note on this slide, in finalizing the underlying accounting policy positions and assumptions, the final transitional adjustment has been calculated at +AUD 14 million, which is marginally outside the previous disclosed range, driven by the finalization of our risk adjustment framework. The quantum of this remeasurement is influenced by the key areas of judgment that we've previously outlined. For the 12 months to 30 June 2023, the AASB profit after tax was AUD 7 million less than that recognized under AASB 1023, primarily driven by an improvement in onerous contracts, offset by the difference in the movement between risk adjustment and risk margin. This is then noted on the next slide, where we've presented the restated statutory profit and loss and balance sheet for 30 June 2023. The after-tax movement of AUD 7 million from the previous slide can be seen in the bottom left table, with the before tax amount of AUD 9 million, resulting in an underwriting profit of AUD 523 million for 30 June 2023 under AASB 17. The AUD 523 million also reconciles to the table above, representing the insurance operating profit under AASB 17, where we have adjusted for the BI provision release of AUD 560 million. I'll hand it over to Mark now. Thank you. Thanks, thanks, Alana, and thanks, everyone, for coming along and joining us. We wanted to obviously run through the impact of AASB 17 on our external reporting. Firstly, sort of as Michelle indicated earlier, based on all the feedback we had from the analyst and investment community, we intend for the interim period to continue to use our existing reporting metrics for the purposes of our external reporting. Alana's run through there is some complexity in some of the AASB 17 adjustments, particularly that one around reinsurance cash flows. So what we're proposing to do is continue with our current approach to how we currently calculate our key metrics. And also, given the relatively minor AASB 17 P&L adjustments, we're not proposing to adjust FY 2023 numbers for comparative purposes when we do FY 2024 reporting. So we're really trying to make sure we keep this adjustment, these adjustments as simple as possible. We've also released today on our website some Excel spreadsheets, which will give you all of our FY 2023 financial information, along with those half year and full-year AASB adjustment tables that we've been outlining, which will give you all of the details that you're looking for. And also, we'll continue to provide those Excel spreadsheets going forward, again, to sort of assist you with your, with your modeling. Finally, IAG has been reviewing the content of its external disclosures and the number of reports that we have. We have been aiming to simplify reporting, remove duplication, and the quantum of reports. And so as part of that process, we won't be producing the investor report going forward. Instead, we're sort of intending to make sure that all available information is contained within the IFR, the strategy, and the risk sections of our financial statements. We'll obviously be giving you those Excel spreadsheets, and we're making sure that all of that information is available across our three divisions: DIA, IAA, and New Zealand. We know that our disclosures are well regarded, so we want to make sure that through that process, all information we currently available is still there, it, the content's available, it's transparent, and it's easy for you to find. That sort of brings us to the end of what we're aiming to run through as part of AASB 17, but we've got plenty of time now for questions. We have run through a fair bit of detail. There's a few things that probably took a bit of time to absorb, so really keen to take your questions. We'll start with Dougal. You picked me? I'm sure you Kieran. The duel, the duel of the microphones. You're more- Just, on onerous contracts, Michelle. So we've got the... Well, I'm not sure if it's the balance, but the AUD 60 million, sort of a June 2022 and a delta of AUD 15 million, which looks like a reduction in 2023. So are we sitting somewhere in that AUD 45 million-AUD 50 million range at the thirtieth of June? And can you talk us through what, what's falling into that currently? Yeah. I'm encouraging the team to answer the questions, Kieran. So, Brett, do you want to take that one? I think that's right. Now, we have a number of portfolios. And I think, as you're aware, during the year, there's been significant price remediation, particularly in those portfolios that were considered onerous at the commencement of the year, and that has sort of like driven now sort of our future projections of the earning of those portfolios, and the overall amount has reduced. Brett, I think you can mention a couple of portfolios that it relates to. So, have you got the- Yeah. Got the list? CGU commercial property, and IMA, Vic Motor. Yeah. Large is have Roland. Roland's got a bit in it. Yeah. Sorry. Roland, there's a little bit. It's quite small in terms of the scale of that, but they are roughly what's in 30th June 2023. But this is one of the things that I've talked to you about previously with the AASB 17 disclosures. Onerous contracts are a good way for you to gauge whether things like the pricing that we're putting through is correcting the poor-performing portfolios. As the team said, there's about 50 groups that we test at that level from the slide that is on here. Nigel, well done. And you know, so that will actually give you a really good guide going forward. So it's probably one of the more helpful disclosures for AASB 17. All right. Thanks. And just a second question on the disclosures. So the AUD 560 million, I think on Mark's slide 16, is the BI change last year. So going forward, I think your last result, you said BI changes would be above the line, no longer in the net corporate expense line, but this looks to be the old sort of methodology. So, what you Talk through what you're intending on doing. Yeah. So, so again, you'll be able to see both, and you will be able to... It would have come through as a prior period release, is, is what we were talking about, as opposed to in net corporate expenses, was what we said we wouldn't do, but you'll still be able to see it highlighted as, as we move through. All right. Thank you. Sorry, this is a dumb funding question, not an analyst question, but on your risk adjustments, you took a different methodology for business interruption, given it's lumpy or unusual, not your dynamic words, the portfolio. Just to be clear, on Greensill, the company line has been no net exposure, but that doesn't preclude the fact that you've got provisions. Are they also, again, to my simple brain, dealt with like business interruption, or are they dealt with like in the, in the normal run-of-the-mill business? So Greensill itself does not have any risk adjustment associated with it, in the calculation. It is net zero. It is extremely complicated, you know, matter, so it is not treated the same as insurance liabilities as the rest of our liability for incurred claims. So it, it will receive completely separate treatment and separate disclosure, over, over time. So can I, if, Just to add a little bit around, a question that Siddharth raised, earlier. Sorry, Brett, just before you move off BCC- Yeah. I think the key point to think about is because there's 100% recovery offsetting the liability, that's why there's not a risk adjustment associated with that. So we have a provision that's there that doesn't include a risk adjustment. We also have a reinsurance recoverable associated with that, and that's the net nil position that we've talked about on a number of occasions. Yeah. That's- And the additional complications of whether the losses are actually claimed under the contract or not, as well. Very, very complicated matter. The risk adjustment is unlike the risk margin, so the risk margin under 1023 was only a net concept. It was calculated in the context of- ... your net central estimate, net of all reinsurances. That's not the case with the Risk Adjustment. So essentially, you know, I'm gonna use the word gross, but I shouldn't. It's just our underwritten contracts that forms part of your Liability for Incurred Claims. That includes your Risk Adjustment. And your reinsurance recoveries now also has an additional, but opposite, obviously, Risk Adjustment associated with it in what's now termed the Asset for Incurred Claims. So, when I'm quoting Probability of Sufficiency and those sorts of things, we do net off those risk adjustments, but just be aware that the risk adjustments appear in both the Liability for Incurred Claims and the reinsurance recoveries. Andre? Andrei Stadnik from Morgan Stanley. Can I ask my first question around the, just, just the different moving parts under AASB 17? So it looks like onerous contracts, you know, potentially will move around more frequently than they did previously. Are there other... are there any other items that might actually, you know, move around less or help you smooth out some of that earnings noise? Look, I'll answer from the perspective of, I fully expect that the risk adjustment will be a little more stable. The bulk of the reason for that is it's a smaller percentage, so it doesn't exacerbate sort of like prior period movements up or down as much as the risk margin actually did. And the fundamentals of the calculation being cost of capital might be a little more stable than those sort of principles and all of the portfolio volatilities, et cetera, that drove the risk margin under 1023. The insurance services result also uses theoretical investment income as well. So it differs from 1023, where credit risk forms part of the investment income on technical provisions. That's no longer the case. So you just get theoretical matched investment income coming through the insurance services result, so that can be expected to be more stable, as well. Thank you. My second question kind of related to that. So, at the AGM, I think a couple of months ago, you said that in this current 2024 period, there could be some adjustments on motor reserving. But I presume that was under the old standard thinking? Some of the new standard thinking, you know, does that change, or what was... were your comments kind of already made on, you know, thinking under the, a, you know, AASB 17 risks? Okay. So no, as we said at the outset, the underlying economics remain the same. So those issues and, you know, we've had some deterioration within the other motor vehicle portfolio associated with the reserves held at 30 June. We expect to talk about that in due course. That would occur under 1023 or 17. That is just a fundamental of the business and the estimation, you know, at the best estimate, central estimate level. So, Andre, one of the ways to think about it is what we've disclosed previously in the management view, in the investor report, prior period strengthening or releases is the central estimate movement. Within the underlying result has been the movement in risk margin linked to that. Going forward, the movement in the risk adjustment will be in the underlying, but you'll still see that central estimate movement. Yeah. The comments at the AGM indicated the deterioration we'd had in prior period perils in terms of particularly the Hunter Hail event. And we'd put a number of AUD 47 million post Quota Share on that. And we indicated there was some movement, but we didn't quantify on the motor vehicle portfolio deterioration that Brett's just referenced. Thank you. Any final questions? If not, look, thank you, all. I don't know if Michelle's got any final words, but obviously, Nigel and I will be around for the following weeks as this absorbs. We have got all the Excel spreadsheets with all the detail on our website, which you can run through, and this is the approach, you know, we're intending to take through the half year reporting cycle. Yeah, I think what we would say is we welcome any questions as you have the chance to absorb this. The key reason for doing the presentation today was to allow you all to wrap your heads around what it meant for our financials and, and not have to try and figure it out in February when you see the reporting on this basis for the first time. So if there is anything that you think about, we're all around for the next few weeks, and happy to take any questions on that. And, I'm going to stand up. And for me, just a huge thank you. This is my last official investor briefing or presentation. William will be here next Monday, and so you'll get to hear from him in February. But just really appreciate your interest and you taking the time today. Thank you.