I'd like to welcome our next guest to the stage, Mr. Éric Jobin, Chief Financial Officer of iA Financial. I just learned that Thunderstruck would have been good entrance music. I can buy into that. Seriously, I'd like to start with high-level questions. You had your Investor Day recently, very informative and higher ROE targets. That was great. The thing that really caught my—well, one of the things that really caught my attention is one of your objectives is to reduce earnings volatility at iA and improve earnings predictability, which I've covered this industry for a number of years, and I'm like, that sounds amazing. How do you achieve that? Yes, thanks. I guess the question, you know, we tackled what we did at the Investor event with respect to the IFRS 17 implementation coming. We did a lot pre-implementation in terms of upgrading our ALM process with respect to interest rate sensitivity. When we went into real time with IFRS 17, we realized that on some of the aspects, even though with all that previous work that anticipated most of the impact, we could still improve a few things. We have improved in the first year of implementation our sensitivity to interest rate of core earnings. We decreased it really by about 60%, about 2/3 65%. That was quite important to us. We were not happy with that result walking in IFRS 17. That is one example of what we do in terms of sensitivity of earnings. When we think about looking forward in terms of predictability, you know that we've implemented operational efficiency at iA a couple of years ago. Just after major investment in technology required, we felt that we needed to get ahead of those investments in terms of increase in expense. We have implemented what we call the operational leverage. It helps us manage the expense growth to be reasonable compared to revenue growth. Got it. Instead of getting bouncing expenses, we're getting more in control. I would say maybe a last item in terms of predictability. On the U.S. side, with respect to the U.S. Warranty Business, we've been working really hard recently to improve the situation. Again, we're not happy with where we are. Sean's team is working really hard with a new leader, and we're doing the right things to realign this and get it where we want it to be. I do want to follow up on that U.S. comment. That's my next question, actually. Before we do that, you talked about the reduction to interest rate sensitivity as an example of how you're addressing volatility. Is that primarily hedging or? It's mostly related with managing the—I'll get technical for a second. Sure. It's managing the dollar duration and sensitivity of asset to be quite in line with the dollar duration of the liabilities. We managed it within a very narrow range, a narrow range. We do this at the company level. When I say that we improved the methodology, we used to do that approach before IFRS 17 at the portfolio level or at the line of business level. When we walked in IFRS 17, we saw an opportunity to increase and improve the ALM process. We've basically aggregated all the line of business together, and we're doing that ALM work globally instead of individually. That's why right now we're not allocating; we don't show investment expense by line of business because it will be an estimate at this point. Right, right, right. Because we're doing this and we're getting the best return possible, the lower volatility potential on our financial result by doing this at the iA level. Okay. You did mention the U.S. business, and that was part of the predictability discussion. What did you mean by that? You were not happy with the performance. What did you identify as an issue, and what did you do? It was also part of your Investor Day presentation and how that is one of the drivers of ROE expansion, the U.S., a disproportionate one, actually. It is a smaller part of the business, but a pretty hefty part of the ROE trajectory. Yeah, there's a combination of things that needs to happen there. I would say managing expenses and being efficient is one item out there. There needed to be some improvement, but those improvements needed to happen after we have properly integrated the company, the system. Sean is working hard on reducing the number of technology that we're using. Now is a good time to be more stringent on expense management and make sure that we improve this. Apart from that, increasing prices, aligning prices with emerging inflation and on the car prices and things like that. Those are all the actions that are taking place south of the border and a bit of reorganization also from our new leader. Those are all the actions that make us very confident into moving to the next level that we described at the Investor event in terms of profitability and efficiency. I mean, I noted that there has been, at least for one or two quarters now, there's been a bit of a delinking of the sales versus industry auto sales, whereas we've seen some sales growth despite auto sales not being back to 2021 levels or whatever. The story behind that is more products, more distribution partners? It's a combination of good service, having all the products, having we want to be a one-stop shop so that we have everything available for the dealers. It is a combination of all of that that makes the difference at the end. Okay. Sticking to the U.S., but switching to the life insurance, the individual business. American Amicable, the final benefits expense business, that's been in the mix for over a decade now. You acquired Vericity a year and a half ago, something like that. Then a little portfolio acquisition not too long ago. How does that all fit together? What's the game plan, I guess? The way I look at it is you have this distribution platform in Vericity. Another component, of course, but does that help the American Amicable business sell more product, or how does it work? Yeah, I'll start with maybe the Prosperity acquisition because that's the easiest part. That was a pure synergy acquisition. It's exactly the same market as American Amicable. Okay. Okay? That was a synergy play. At the same time, it eliminated the competitor from the landscape. That was the reason. Now, Vericity is different. The play here was that Vericity is not just a life insurance company. There is a distribution arm that comes with it with predictive modeling and so on. You know that iA DNA is very strong on distribution. When we see such opportunities, it is very appealing to us. For American Amicable, the distribution is done through independent marketing organizations, IMOs. On the Vericity side, it is through generating leads. There is a digital platform out there with predictive models. The different distribution that can be complementary in the end and support each other, we could eventually materialize synergies through those different distribution models. When I refer to synergies, I will say first, our first priority with respect to synergies with Vericity is to successfully integrate the company within our iA model. That's the first priority: maximize the synergies that we expected in the acquisition model from a financial standpoint, and then move on with synergies with American Amicable as well. When that acquisition was announced, I mean, the superficial reaction we'll call it was, oh, it doesn't make any money. The other way to look at it is the reason it wasn't making money was because of a lot of the investments and building out the business and the technology. You kind of bought something plug and play. Is that maybe a better way of looking at it? Yeah. There's a few things at play when you think about it. It was a small company. Public. So fixed cost of being public when you're small are quite important. That was one item that was clear. Part of being part of a company that is already public is making it more efficient. The other thing as well that was quite important for us when we made the acquisition is that that company was highly capital constrained. They did not have access to capital like we do. We say all the time that we have plenty of capital available for deployment. There was a similarity between Vericity and American Amicable on that front because they were kind of curbed by capital requirements. They needed to do some fancy, costly reinsurance agreement to get to sell their volume. Even they were restrained in terms of growth and got into expensive reinsurance. We could get rid of all of this. As long as we're comfortable with the profitability, go on and provide the capital to support their current growth and even more. Are those reinsurance contracts still in force, or are you planning obviously on? Yeah, some as it was highly strategic in the acquisition. Some we already took action to close, some of those reinsurance agreements that were costly. Okay, great. Now, as the U.S., because the ROE contribution, as I mentioned earlier, from the U.S. is a big part of the overall expansion. Underneath that, you've got a growing U.S. business. What can you tell me about the is there any hedging strategy for currency risk, or is that something I shouldn't even be concerned about? Yeah, no. At the moment, we are not hedging the net income. The simple reason is that we're in a growth mode with our U.S. subsidiaries. We need to invest in organic capital. We use the net income to grow the company. There's no need there. That's really the reason why right now we may requestion in the future. At the same time, it's a fine balance when you think about that hedging of managing solvency ratio volatility and ROE stability. If you have net income in U.S. dollars over investment in U.S. dollars, it produces a more stable ROE than if you're hedged. That's the combination. We're not at the stage yet. Right now, we need that net income to invest and grow our businesses. We don't have to worry about that at this point. Okay. Bringing into the Canadian business, one of the highlights, I guess, is the SEG Fund operation. Sales have been very strong for a while now. It seems to me like that can continue. You got a period of elevated market volatility. I think that stimulates demand for products like SEG Fund that offer guarantees. Is that still a good momentum business right now? Yeah, absolutely. We had a remarkable year in 2024 in terms of growth. We've published the result recently, and that trend is continuing. Distribution is key in that market, digital capabilities, service to clients. When you're successful with doing those items, it remains a very strong business. I think the manufacturing of the funds, they're sort of on the same platform. By that, I mean you either have a mutual fund or a SEG Fund. Depending on what somebody wants to buy, that'll make a difference. Yeah, it's not an exact match, but there are some funds that are available for SEG Fund as well. It's not exactly the same fund platform, but there are some overlaps to create synergies. Yeah, yeah. How are you thinking about competition now? Because I know one big competitor who's, I do not know how aggressive they've been in the past few years, but it sounds like—that's my word, not yours—it sounds like they're getting fired up about growing in SEG Funds again. I mean, that could be a threat. Yeah, no. We've not seen any meaningful impact yet on this. What I would say is that basically, when you think about a SEG Fund, there's an insurance product behind the fund. It's not like a mutual fund that is more a takeaway game. SEG Funds, you know the client is buying a protection. It's not easy to move money around. The client wants to maintain that and keep that guarantee. Also, as I mentioned, the key is distribution relationship. We have a very strong distribution relationship, very strong digital capabilities, excellent client service level. We don't feel any worry about that. Okay. The P&C business had a good 2024 overall, but a particularly strong Q4. Weather conditions were beneficial. Q1 of this year, though, at least in Toronto, people were reminded that snow is still a factor in our lives. Is it the opposite story this quarter? Yeah, so far, you know the weather in the province of Quebec, you know that [Roi-Manitou] is only in the province of Quebec. We are not exposed to Canadian-wide experience. In the province of Quebec, the weather conditions was, I would say, mild. We had a couple of snowstorms like every winter. Nothing exceptional. Nothing exceptional. You're right that 2024 was an exceptional year in terms of weather conditions for [Roi-Manitou], with the exception maybe of one day. As far as the, I guess, the distribution of that product outside of Canada, because you've got a distribution platform, what's there to update on that strategy? Yeah, we're still pursuing our plan with that. We're just a distributor. And so we're just basically continuing the good work that we started a couple of years back. I guess the P&C business itself, there was a problem a couple of years ago, not just for your company, but others, the auto theft. I mean, it's not gone, of course, but it's pretty much gone. It improved. It was a contributor for the improved performance last year at [Roi-Manitou], for sure. What they did in Montreal to fix by getting the police more involved at the Montreal port and everything, it did help reduce the auto theft, I would say, in a meaningful way. Yeah. Makes me wonder why it wasn't addressed earlier. Anyway, the capital story, internal capital generation, we're always monitoring every quarter and how you're tracking towards that goal. Can you give us a sense of what variables are most influential in whether you're on track or not with that target? Yes. Right now, we're still, you know, we have not published the first quarter results. We are really confident in the target we gave to the market about generating $650 million plus in 2025. The most important variable with capital, organic capital generation, the best source of capital is profit. Right. We need to get to our profit targets. I would say that's the most important variable. Then comes in other things that may affect with the economic and political environment right now. Market turbulence could impact it. That's one item. The other one may be related. Our investment people are constantly optimizing our investment portfolio. That may play a little bit as well in there. Nothing to worry at this point with respect to that. On the later, when I spoke about the macroeconomic impact, the sensitivities that we have to market, stock market, and everything is public. If markets are holding. You mentioned your investment people there. I think there was another layer to the capital story here. Last quarter, $300 million of capital was invested in risk management initiatives. I mean, it's hard to discuss that at length on an earnings call, but maybe what did you invest in, I guess? Yeah, there were a couple of items. First, that $300 million, you're right, there was some risk management, but for about 2/3 of that $300. Okay. The other third was related to change of assumptions. Okay. For the 2/3 on risk management, half of it had to do with our investment people deploying capital and investment closer to our target portfolio with respect to NFI. More investment toward NFIs will come along with additional return. Core net investment results should improve in the mid to long term with respect to that. Less volatility, I guess, too, or if you're matching a bit more? Yeah, maybe not less volatility, but at least improved returns. Okay. That's one item. Second item is risk management from the interest rate risk that we talked earlier. When I spoke about our target to manage the sensitivity of assets and liabilities, there's some leeway. It's not a precise target. There's some room. When investment people rebalance our portfolios, it may result in small variances with respect to that. We expect this to be neutral over the mid to long term. Last quarter, it was costly. It may come back in the next quarter. This item is more a question of volatility that is a result of our investment strategies. You mentioned the assumption changed, the $100 million or so of that $300. Because a couple of things. I guess in general, experience gains and losses have not been as noticeable for iA. It's calmed down, which is good. Also, IFRS 17 has changed the game. We don't expect big reserve adjustments every year because it either goes through earnings or through CSM, depending on the situation. Is there any emerging risks, I guess, at the moment that you're keeping an eye on? No, not at all. In fact, what happened, you know when you rebalance, very often I refer to the reserve as an F1 engine. I like to use that analogy. We have engineers that work around the F1 engine every year to fine-tune and improve the performance. When we did that this year, the overall profit impact was about neutral for the company. When you do those refinements on the engine, it moves money around a bit in terms of timing. It may result in change of timing of cash flows. That is what happened in part in that amount in Q4 because the investment people are doing all their work before the change of assumption. There will be some rebalancing that will happen in the near future to recapture some of this. That was one item. Okay, great. We've got a minute and a half left. That should allow for enough time to talk about M&A. I mean, iA has been an acquisitive company over the years. Balance sheet's in great shape. You're talking about M&A as a priority maybe this year and next. How should investors think about M&A in terms of what you're looking at? Is it a warranty business by default? Also, your ROE target, are you committed to sticking to that and M&A will not interfere with that trajectory? Because sometimes in acquisition, you've got to issue equity, whatever, and it takes a while for it to become profitable or at least meet your hurdles. Yeah. In fact, when we look at this globally, capital deployment, acquisition is one part, and CIB is the other part. We need those two together. We are confident that when we mix them, we'll get over our target. That's one item. We are very disciplined at meeting those targets. We are committed to the market to deliver that. We'll stick with that. As with where we're looking at actively or not, we're interested in any business that we're in right now. The reality, when you go to opportunities, is that in Canada, it's more limited. Consolidation took place a long time ago. In the U.S., there are more opportunities because of the fragmented marketplace on both businesses. Warranty is one side. Life is the other side. Both businesses are still fragmented and lots of room to go with acquisition. That's why there's a kind of tendency to look more at this just because of the opportunity available. Okay, great. That's a wrap. Thanks for joining us today. I hope you have a great day overall. Thank you, Gabriel.