Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Swiss Life presentation on the Q1 Results 2021 conference call and live webcast. I am Sandra, the Chorus Call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be in listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star and one on your telephone. Webcast viewers may submit their questions in writing via the relevant field. Kindly note that webcast questions will be answered after the call. For operator assistance, please press star and zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to Mr. Matthias Aellig, Group CFO of Swiss Life. Please go ahead, sir. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for dialing in and for your interest in Swiss Life. Today, we are reporting on selected top-line figures for the first quarter of 2021. Please note that all figures quoted are in Swiss francs and are unaudited. All growth rates mentioned are in local currency. Let me start with today's key messages. Afterwards, I will provide more details on our segments. Fee and commission income was up 14% to CHF 527 million. All segments contributed positively. Asset Managers grew by 7%, owned IFAs by 23%, and own and third-party products and services by 13%. Gross written premiums, fees and deposits received decreased by 14% to CHF 6.8 billion, mainly due to Switzerland. Insurance reserves, excluding policyholder participation liabilities, grew by 1% to CHF 175 billion. Swiss Life Asset Managers recorded net new assets of CHF 2.9 billion in the third-party asset management business, TPAM. Total assets under management in our TPAM business increased to CHF 96.7 billion. Direct investment income totaled CHF 0.95 billion. The non-annualized direct yield was 0.6%, essentially in line with the prior year period. The non-annualized net investment yield stood at 0.7%, compared to 0.4% in Q1 2020. Our SST ratio on the 1st of January 2021, as published and filed with FINMA, was 197%. Today, the SST ratio is at around 200% and thus also slightly above our ambition range. We are well on track with our Swiss Life 2021 program, and I can confirm all the Swiss Life 2021 financial targets. I will now move on to our segment reporting, starting with Switzerland. Premiums decreased by 24% to CHF 4.3 billion due to the Group Life business. The overall market was down by 14%. Premiums in Individual Life were up by 2%, while the market increased by 3%. Periodic premiums grew by 3%, while single premiums were down by 1%. Premiums in Group Life declined by 25% to CHF 4 billion, while the market decreased by 17%. Periodic premiums were down by 6%, while single premiums decreased by 45%. About 80% of this decline in single Group Life premiums can be attributed to new accounts, while the remaining 20% relates to lower entries of employees in existing schemes. We continue to focus on disciplined underwriting to protect and improve the quality of our full insurance book. Overall, our full insurance technical reserves have grown by around 1% since year-end 2020, based on the mentioned premium development. On the other hand, assets under management in our semi-autonomous business, the foundations increased to CHF 5.2 billion, compared to CHF 4.8 billion at year-end 2020 or CHF 4.2 billion at the end of Q1 2020. Growth in semi-autonomous solutions results in lower reported premiums. Only risk and cost premiums are recorded, while the savings components are reported off-balance as asset inflows in the respective foundations. This development is in line with our full-range provider strategy and our established focus on quality before growth. Fee and commission income increased by 12% to CHF 82 million due to a high contribution from Swiss Life Select and our businesses with unit-linked solutions and real estate brokerage, as well as with investment solutions for private clients. Turning to France. Premiums increased by 17% to CHF 1.8 billion. The market grew by 10%. In our Life business, premiums increased by 22%, following strong growth in the prior year and continued demand for our new pension products. The market was up by 18%, which compares to a heavily depressed first quarter in 2020. The unit-linked share in our life premiums was 57%. This is at the full-year 2020 level and substantially above the market average of 36%. Life net inflows were CHF 0.5 billion versus overall market net inflows of CHF 4.4 billion. Premiums in health and protection grew by 5% while the market was up by 4%. P&C premiums grew by 13%, driven by motor products based on new partnerships. Market growth was 3%. Fee and commission income rose by 17% to CHF 93 million. Unit-linked fees increased based on higher unit-linked reserves, primarily due to net inflows and a more favorable financial market environment. We also generated higher revenues from structured products. I will continue with Germany. Premiums increased by 5% to CHF 390 million due to higher premiums with modern, traditional, and disability products. The market decreased by 6%, driven by single premiums. Fee and commission income rose by 27% to CHF 164 million due to strong contribution from our own IFAs, based on an increased number of financial advisors and productivity gains. This top-line development also includes an extraordinary benefit of around CHF 50 million from a successful campaign based on the discontinued solidarity surcharge. The number of financial advisors increased by 13% year-on-year to 4,846. Moving on to our international unit. Premiums decreased by 6% to CHF 278 million. The business with private clients in Asia increased despite ongoing lockdown measures, thanks to the domestic Singapore business and the successfully launched digital document exchange for some of the business abroad. Premiums with private clients in Europe decreased year-on-year as the prior year period was less affected by lockdowns. Corporate clients show a positive development. Fee and commission income was up by 5% to CHF 79 million, largely driven by high contribution from our own IFAs, particularly in the U.K. and in CEE. Assets under control for private clients, one driver of fee income, increased by 1% to CHF 20.9 billion compared to year-end 2020, mainly as a result of positive financial market movements. Let's continue with asset managers. Asset managers' commission income rose by 7% to CHF 205 million. The increase is fully driven by higher recurring commission income. As usual, the update on asset managers in Q1 and Q3 focuses on commission income and does not include other net income from real estate project developments. In our PAM business, commission income increased by 3% to CHF 90 million. This was due to higher recurring management fees on a growing average asset base. In our TPAM business, commission income grew by 10% to CHF 115 million. Recurring fees were up by 14%, based on higher average assets under management. Non-recurring commission income, such as transaction and performance fees, decreased slightly by CHF 3 million year-over-year. The share of total non-recurring income for TPAM, meaning commission income as well as other net income, such as from project development, was 14% of total TPAM income, compared to 12% in the prior year period. Net new assets in our TPAM business amounted to CHF 2.9 billion, compared to CHF 13 million in the first quarter of 2020. We achieved strong inflows in real assets of CHF 1.1 billion, including CHF 1 billion from real estate and CHF 0.1 billion from infrastructure. This is above the 2020 level, when we achieved inflows in real assets of CHF 0.8 billion. Inflows in other asset classes amounted to CHF 0.9 billion in money market funds, CHF 0.7 billion in bonds and balanced mandates, and CHF 0.2 billion in equities. Excluding money market funds, net new assets amounted to CHF 2.0 billion, compared to CHF 1.1 billion in the prior year period. Overall, assets under management in our TPAM business were up to CHF 96.7 billion, compared to CHF 91.6 billion at year-end 2020. Drivers were strong net new assets supported by market performance and favorable FX effects. Turning to our investment result. Our direct investment income decreased by around CHF 60 million to CHF 0.95 billion. Income on equities was lower due to reduced exposure and due to lower dividend payments in the COVID-19 environment. Income on bonds was also down due to past bond realizations and lower reinvestment yields. This was partly offset by higher rental income compared to the prior year period. The non-annualized direct yield was at 0.6%. Our non-annualized net investment yield was 0.7%, compared to 0.4% in the prior year period. The increase is due to higher net capital gains in bonds, loans, and alternative investments, as well as substantially improved FX hedging effects, including a decrease in hedging costs. Those positive effects were partly offset by negative P&L contributions of the hedged equity portfolio, including losses on equity hedging derivatives in the context of a positive market environment. Unrealized gains within the equity portfolio are recognized as other comprehensive income. At the end of March 2021, unrealized net gains on equities amounted to CHF 2.4 billion, compared to CHF 1.6 billion at year-end 2020. Unrealized net gains on bonds amounted to CHF 13.3 billion, compared to CHF 18.2 billion at year-end 2020. The asset mix remained in line with year-end 2020. Our net equity exposure amounted to 4.4%, and the real estate exposure amounted to 22.2%. Let me give some additional color on the real estate portfolio. We had non-annualized real estate revaluation gains of 0.5%, in line with the prior year period. Our vacancy rate increased to 4.7%, compared to 3.9% at year-end 2020. About two-thirds of this increase relates to Switzerland, primarily due to recent real estate acquisitions with planned reletting towards the end of the year. The remainder pertains to France and Germany. As already mentioned in our full-year 2020 speech, we expect slightly higher vacancy rates for the year-end 2021 compared to the level of 3.9% in Q4 2020. Rent collections amounted to around 96% of rental income due. The majority is due to rent deferrals as rent losses amounted to less than CHF 10 million. Moving to solvency, cash, and payout. Our SST ratio was 197% on the 1st of January 2021. As of today, the SST ratio is at around 200%, and therefore slightly above our ambition range of 140%-190%. Cash at holding amounts to somewhat below CHF 1 billion today, compared to a figure of slightly more than CHF 1 billion at year-end. Both our solvency and cash position remain strong. Our CHF 400 million share buyback, which was resumed on the 4th of January 2021, is on track and will be completed by the end of May the latest. Let me sum up. I'm very pleased with the strong performance of Swiss Life in 2020 so far, especially with the development of the fee business. We have thus further improved the quality of our earnings and demonstrated the resilience and strength of our business model in an environment that remains challenging. We are very well on track with our Swiss Life 2021 program, and I can therefore confirm all the Swiss Life 2021 financial targets. Thank you for listening. I am now ready to take your questions. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on the touchtone telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered the queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use only handsets when asking a question and eventually turn off the volume of the webcast. Webcast viewers may submit their questions in writing via the relative feed. Anyone with a question may press star and one at this time. The first question comes from Peter Eliot from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, and congratulations on the great results as always. I have three questions, please. First one on the fee income result. I know you don't disclose the fee results for Q1, but I was just wondering if you could give us any pointers on whether we should expect this to move in line with the strong fee income you've disclosed or whether any of it is lower margin. I guess in particular, you've previously said that recent asset management inflows have been at higher margin, and I'm just wondering if that's still the case in Q1. Second question would be on cash. Quite positively surprised, actually, at the cash holding just below CHF 1 billion, because given that you've, I think, just about finished, if you haven't already finished the share buyback. Yeah, it's higher than I would expected. I'm just wondering if there's any sort of thing in particular that you're able to comment on there in terms of the drivers. The third question is on the Swiss premiums. Just wondering if you can help us on how you see the outlook for that business. The trends that we saw in Q1, are they something that you expect to continue? Might we see a partial recovery in full insurance solutions in future quarters? Any insight you could give there would be very helpful. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks, Peter, for the question. Let me start with the first one on the fee income. By and large, clearly we see this going through into the fee results as well. There is certainly some differentiation to be made across, let's say, the various businesses. Germany, we had an exceptionally strong Q1 for the reasons mentioned, but there we clearly expect to see some operational leverage. In asset managers, if we look at the total asset composition, we have seen a good share of, let's say, real assets in the inflows. If we look at the overall book, we have around 40%, 42% real estate in the assets under management in TPAM, which is essentially at a prior year level. It is also important to see that we have had substantial stronger growth in TPAM compared to the PAM business. In the PAM business, the cost-income ratio is clearly below or is better than the one in TPAM. That's a couple of things to keep in mind when thinking about the fee development. Let me also here confirm, obviously, the targets for the fee result for 2021. On the level of the cash, yes, the share buyback is ongoing. We have not fully completed it. We are maybe at CHF 375 million as of today. What is important to keep in mind in terms of the cash level at holding is that we have paid out the dividends to the shareholder, but we have paid it out net of the withholding tax of around CHF 230 million. This withholding tax will be paid from the holding in May versus the end of May. This is an outflow that is not yet reflected in the numbers mentioned. In terms of the Group Life business, there are a couple of things. First of all, to keep in mind for the year 2021, there is a strong seasonality. In the Group Life business, we have typically most of the signal premiums coming in at the beginning of the year. If we look now at the premium development within the year, we expect this decline of -24% on a relative basis to become smaller. Overall, also for the full-year, we expect a premium reduction in the Swiss Group Life business. A bit more longer term, what can we say there? We have this full-range provider strategy, and this is nothing new. We have mentioned, for example, throughout the investor day that we strive for a good mix between full insurance and semi-autonomous solutions. Clearly, there is now compared, for example, to the year 2019, when we had a high share of full insurance in the new business now a focus more on the semi-autonomous business. Interest rates have come down substantially, and therefore we have an actual, let's say, preference in this very low rate environment for the semi-autonomous solutions. As rates move up, this can also lead to some obvious mixes between full insurance and semi-autonomous business. That's great. Thank you very much. Could I just follow up very quickly on the last point? I was trying to look through the seasonality a little bit. I was thinking more about longer term. What you're commenting on towards the end there. I guess, when we come to do our forecast for Q1 2022, for example, if the environment is the same as today in terms of interest rate level, et cetera, should we be using the Q1 2021 as a baseline starting point? Do you think it was still lower than one might use for a base? Don't know if that's a bit clearer. Yes. If you look back into the past, we have seen different levels, let's say, of production of premium in the first half of the year. Certainly, the Q1 2021 is probably at the lower end. That said, there are various things that enter the picture. There are lag effects from prior year periods. We have tariffs that we establish new. It takes a while before this is seen in the premium. I wouldn't, let's say, put now too much emphasis on this Q1 result because we also have seen, as I've mentioned, seen substantially lower amounts of new entries into existing schemes. This may or may not have to be seen in the context of the COVID-19 environment with less people and changing jobs. I think the Q1 has been a very particular Q1, and I think we now have to see how this develops further. That's great. Thanks very much, Matthias. Thank you. The next question comes from Andrew Sinclair from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Mr. Sinclair, your line is open. You may proceed with your question. We will take the next question. It comes from Colm Kelly from UBS. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks very much. Question on the fee income. Obviously, strong growth coming via the advisor, the IFA channel. You talked a little bit around that being driven by some advisor growth, but also productivity increases. Can you just put some numbers around both of those drivers so we can get more clarity on exactly what is driving that 23% year-on-year growth? Related to that, is there anything you would comment for this first quarter that is exceptional within any of those numbers? Lastly, just in terms of residual COVID impacts, you mentioned it in your last answer to an extent, but to what extent do you feel COVID has maybe in the first quarter held back any of these growth numbers that you have delivered? Particularly when we look at international or some of the non-domestic business, to what extent is that still being impacted by COVID-19? If you're able to put either a qualitative or quantitative answer to that, please. Thank you. Thank you. Let me start first with the question on advisors and the productivity gains. Let me focus here on Germany, where we had this 27% growth in fee income, even though also in other areas, let's say in U.K. and CEE, we have seen a good development of the numbers. In Germany, we have seen year-on-year an increase of 13% in terms of advisor numbers, and maybe 5% since the end of 2020. On the other hand, we have reported for Germany this 27% growth in fee income. As mentioned, there was a particular benefit in it. The German government has abolished this tax surcharge, the solidarity tax surcharge for many people which are typically in our client segments. This has generated additional opportunities for our financial advisors, and we have said this is maybe around CHF 15 million. If you strip that top line, this particular top-line effect out of this German growth, you end up with a, let's say, adjusted growth number, which is slightly above the 13% in terms of advisors. There is a productivity gain of maybe 3-4 percentage points that we have observed in Q1 2021. How will this move forward? We reported about the fact that in the lockdown situations, our advice and their clients relied more on virtual communication, and therefore we have seen clearly that there is some productivity gain by advisors traveling less around. We hope that at least some of those productivity gains can be continued into the future, even if the lockdown situation eases in Germany. That's to give some flavor, let's say, on the advisor business in Germany. In terms of how the COVID-19 situation has influenced the growth numbers, you mentioned international. Clearly, the situation in Asia is still for the Singapore carrier that there is clearly a lockdown in place and restricts medical underwriting. There are, as mentioned, some ways in terms of electronic document exchange, clearly there, these measures are in place. In the European business of international. On the private wealth business, we clearly see restrictions that have held back the premium numbers. Also in the area of asset managers, the lockdown situation leads to a situation where we have less client activity, less marketing, less fairs, which continue to be an important, let's say, channel to acquire new clients. As a result, there was clearly a focus in all the businesses on existing client relationships. Okay, thanks very much. The next question comes from Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please go ahead, sir. Good morning. Thank you very much. Thanks for these lovely results. I just wondered whether you can explain the solidarity surcharge a little bit more. It sounds intriguing. I suppose with the message to clients, what you're no longer paying in tax, you pay it in insurance. Just wanted to understand what it is. On the Group Life premiums, you gave a very full answer. I suppose what I'm wondering is, why now? Maybe I was a little bit asleep. It seems quite a big change. It seems, I know, in line with your strategy. In the past, there's always been growth in this area, adjusting for the actual effect. Now it seems to be almost as if you've slammed on the brakes. I just wondered what is the reason now. You mentioned tariffs. I just wondered if it's linked to the decision that you announced earlier this year that the pensions you pay, I think they were below the regulatory minimum. I couldn't quite understand. My third question is on the real estate, whether you can give us a little bit of comfort that the rise in vacancy rate that you have signaled before, is entering too early. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Michael. On the solidarity tax, let me give some background on that. The German government has introduced that in 1999 or something like that to finance the integration of the former DDR, the Democratic Republic of Germany, in the context of the reunification. This was a surcharge of, at the end, 5.5% on the tax. This has been in place for essentially now 30 years. Effective 2021, a large part of the population gets rid of this surcharge in their tax bill. Maybe up to a taxable income of EUR 60,000, they will be relieved from paying this tax. Meaning they have more disposable income at hand, and this was taken up or recognized by our financial advisory business as an opportunity, and they started to advise their clients to invest that additional taxable or that additional disposable income into their old-age pension. This was clearly seen last year as an opportunity. Last year, people have had time to think about that. Because this tax relief enters into force this year, we have now seen these contracts start, and we now have also recognized this benefit, this additional income in the fee income this year. That's a bit of the background to that solidarity surcharge tax. The business is now written. If you wish, this is a kind of a one-off that we have seen as an additional top line. In terms of the Group Life business. I'm not sure whether I have understood all the questions, but let me go back a bit. As you said, in 2019, we have written a substantial block of business as a competitor pulled out. This money came in at the beginning of 2019. We have increased back then both the single premiums and also the periodic premiums. We have had this now really on the books. We invested that money at the beginning of 2019 when interest rates were substantially higher than they are today. As also mentioned, we have this full-range strategy, which is a mixture of full insurance business and semi-autonomous business. We now have focused in the past year, and that's the business that now has entered in Q1 on the balance sheet, more on the semi-autonomous business. Rates have come down substantially and we put clearly profitability before growth. That's the reason why we have maintained and even also tightened our underwriting in the full insurance space, because at the end of the day, we want to protect the quality of the full insurance back book. What also happens is we move into the semi-autonomous space. We just have, due to the accounting, a lower recognition of premium. What does it mean? We record only the cost and risk premium in our P&L. All the savings component, be it the regular savings contribution, semi-autonomous business or the initial payment when somebody ends semi-autonomous business, is not recorded in the premium, but that flows directly into this semi-autonomous foundation without being recorded as premium. There we have, as mentioned, grown the AUMs to now CHF 5.2 billion, comparing to CHF 4.2 billion one year ago. That's a bit on the Group Life premium dynamics. On the vacancy rate, we have had recent acquisitions, which we have acquired at some vacancies clearly, and that was essentially the driver for this uptick from the 3.9% at year-end 2020 to the 4.7% that we now report for Q1. The reletting activities are underway and also based on that, we can confirm what we already stated at the full-year disclosure call that for the end of 2021, we see vacancy rates slightly above the 2020 level. That's really helpful. One very quick follow-up on the solidarity surcharge. CHF 15 million extra in Q1, will there be similar amounts in the next few quarters or is it all done now? No, that's now all done. These contracts now have entered into force. We have received from our product partners the commissions, if you wish. This is to that end, an extraordinary item that we have recorded. There is something else in Germany that you may have heard of. The finance ministry in Germany plans to reduce the maximum technical interest rate for life insurance products from currently 0.9% to 0.25%, starting in 2022. Experience has shown, and it has been the last time in 2017 that such a reduction has taken place, but also prior years, before such a lowering of the rates, typically people buy life insurance at the somewhat higher technical rates, and this typically also leads to a pickup of financial advisory activity in such a year. We see this come for 2021 as, let's say, a market-wide effect. Brilliant. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Liang Fulin from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you. I have three questions, please. The first one is, as you just mentioned that in Germany, apparently the increase in fee income is mainly driven by the higher number of the advisors. Is that actually because or partially benefiting from the fact that the more people are looking for jobs during COVID-19, with the economy actually recovers, you have potentially going to lose people to the other industries? Or is it because you have a school or something which is just pumping out the qualified advisors quicker than before? That's the first one. Secondly is a very quick one. I just want to make sure that the cash number, slightly below CHF 1 billion, if I remember correctly, you used to the remittance from your subsidiaries usually happens actually later in the year. This number has not included the cash you are going to receive from your subsidiaries, right? My last question is also very quick one. Just want to confirm the solidarity surcharge point. You just said that it sounds like to me, you mean that's one-off effect in first quarter? Is that right? Because if I understand correctly, the disposable income of those low-income populations will increase actually, bring forward as well. Why do you think it's just one-off impact to Q1 results? Thank you. Let me start with the first question. Conceptually, you are right. The main driver of the growth of fee income is the growth of the number of advisors. About the 13% we have mentioned, there is a bit of additional productivity gains. The fact that in the lockdown situation, people see the job of financial advice as an opportunity to personally grow, to have something to do may have supported the growth, especially in one of the channels we have in the banks brand. One of our key attraction points to financial advisors is our platform in Germany, which offers them a very efficient way that makes them successful in advising people, in meeting people, and also in making money for themselves. This platform and, let's say, the features of it, the way we manage the advisory force is really an attraction point, which is here to stay and irrespective of, let's say, this COVID-19 situation. In terms of the cash number, the main remittance from Swiss Life AG has been included in the numbers, in the cash numbers reported. As said, there is this outflow of the withholding tax on the dividend of around CHF 230 million that will take place. On the other hand, we will have some remittances from small units to come in during the second quarter, and we'll report for the half-year numbers. The status then. On the solidarity surcharge. Indeed, this surcharge has been abolished, effective now for the future. As a result, our clients have to pay lower amounts of taxes, and they will have, in the future, a higher income. This higher income, for example, is now invested into a periodic premium contract. They have essentially committed, if you wish, all their increase in the future disposable income into a contract, and this contract has now been essentially advanced to them, and this is commission for us up front. This commission has now come in in the first quarter of 2021, as we have done quite some of the advisory in 2020. Contracts have now started in the beginning of 2021. Okay. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Ashik Musaddi from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you, good morning. I just have a couple of questions. Most of the questions have already been answered. First of all, if I look at your third-party asset management move in terms of total assets, around CHF 2.9 billion is because of net inflows and around CHF 3 billion-CHF 3.5 billion is because of mark-to-market. Can you just give us some clarity on what this mark-to-market is? Interest rates have gone up, you should have a bit negative mark-to-market on the bond side, how you are doing on the real estate side. Any additional clarity on this would be very helpful. Secondly, if I look at the fee revenue growth, it was 8%, whereas if I look at the total AUM growth in third party, it's been roughly, say, 20% over the past one year versus fee income growth of only 8%. Now, I remember in your opening remarks, you mentioned that it's because of the mix of PAM and TPAM, and it's because of commission income, which is not recurring in nature. Can you just give additional thoughts on that? How do you think about the growth in third-party AUM versus the growth in fee revenue at the group level-- Sorry, in the asset management business? Thank you. Let me start with the NNA figures of 2.9 and the additional contribution of FX movements and the performance. We report our figures in CHF, whereas quite a substantial part of TPAM assets are denominated in EUR. As a result of that, we have had an FX translation effect of around CHF 1.3 billion, which have to be added to the 2.9 net new assets. We have had a performance of CHF 0.9 billion. This performance clearly has various contributions, as you say. Rates were having a negative impact. On the other hand, we have had some spread tightening, which helped on the corporate bond mandates. We have had substantial appreciation of the equities. We have also seen appreciation of the real estate, which by the way, in the TPAM assets account for 40% of the total assets under management. On the balance sheet, we have 20% of real estate, and in the TPAM, it's about 40%, and there the continued appreciation has helped. Net with different contributions, also in terms of signs, we have had CHF 0.9 billion of performance. In terms of the AUM asset managers fee income, I think it's important to keep in mind that the fee income does not fully develop in line with assets under management. Why is that? We have clearly some contributions which are non-recurring in nature. This is essentially the real estate project development. Those are transaction fees. Those are sometimes performance fees. These are fees for refurbishing real estate and the like. We have also some fees, for example, in facility management, in the property management that relate to the management of the tenant relationships. There is quite a substantial part of the fee income which is not developing in line with AUMs that they'll assess other components. In terms, and we give you the order of magnitude, we have had in Q1 non-recurring components of the total income, meaning fee and other net income of 14% compared to 12% at the prior year Q1. For a full-year, if you take the last full-year, 2020, we have been at 27% because within the year, this non-recurring income is back- endmloaded. That's a bit about the fee dynamics and asset management. Thank you. Thanks a lot. That is very clear. The next question comes from Farooq Hanif from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Hi, everybody. Thanks so much. Just going back to solvency test under 200%. Given what you said about FX and given equity market, I'm just a little surprised it's not a little bit higher. I'm kind of wondering, you're giving a very approximate number, or is there a big negative that I'm not taking into account in that statement? Secondly, going back to Group Life. You've had a very strong increase, it seems, in semi-autonomous AUM. Going forward, are we going to see the potential for that AUM? I guess what I'm really trying to find out, what is the net inflow or the inflow that's going into that business, and do you expect that to grow? Then aside to that, when you talk about tariffs and wanting to get adequate compensation for writing the traditional full Group Life, what metrics are we using? Is it return on allocated for solvency capital? Is it margin? Can you give us a little bit more of an idea about what the hurdle rate is? Thank you. Thanks. Coming first to the SST. When you do the math with the sensitivities we provide, you may end up with a somewhat high number. Rates have improved, corporate spreads have improved, and equity markets have improved, and real estate markets have improved. This, roughly speaking, has contributed maybe each one and a half, two percentage points to SST. What may be a bit a surprise is the interest rate movement. There, you have to acknowledge that on the US dollar rate increase, we have no corresponding liabilities against that, and that's the reason why rate increase in the US dollar has a negative impact on the SST. However, we have had the benefit of that in 2020, as a positive contribution to SST, and now it has reversed, and this may be the reason that if you do just the back of the envelope calculations in 2021, that the increase may be a bit lower than what you had expected. There's nothing particular to now to cut it short other than the increase in the US dollar rates. In terms of the Group Life business, the semi-autonomous business, we have clearly the ambition to grow that business. As said, we have had the CHF 1 billion since Q1 2020. For us this is something we want to follow, that business. This is an attractive offer for clients. For some clients, that's really a good thing. At the other hand, we also clearly maintain the full insurance business. There we, as said, look in terms of the underwriting on the typical things like average age, how much extra mandatory business we have in the contract and the like, and how it compares to the average book that we have. Those are more the operational considerations we follow. In terms of evaluation of the strategy, how do we think about finding the balance between full insurance and the semi-autonomous business? How do we see that? We have disclosed that in [audio distortion] 2018, where we have evaluated various strategies, and there we have come to the conclusion that a mixture of both full insurance and semi-autonomous is most attractive. There we look at stuff like incremental net profit, how much value of new business we generate, and also what is the capital efficiency in terms of do we meet the capital efficiency criteria we have developed. Okay, thanks. It sounds like it's very bespoke on a case-by-case basis, but I can follow up later. Thank you very much. Mm-hmm. You're welcome. The next question comes from Thomas Fossard from HSBC. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, everyone. Two questions. The first one would be related to the Swiss market. Actually, there has been a lot of swing in terms of businesses in Q1. Any indication you may share with us regarding the evolution of your new business margins? Just for us to better understand what was driven by, I would say, more cautious assumption in terms of margin and how you're shifting and moving your business around margin. That would be very helpful. The second question will be relating to the Department of Justice. Any update on the issue and any comment you would like to make at this stage regarding the CHF 70 million charges you've taken at the full-year? Thank you. Okay. I'll start with the second question. On the DOJ, there's nothing new to report on that since the full-year release. In terms of the margin development, how we think about that, we have seen in the last year, in 2020, a clear increase of new business margin in Switzerland from 1.6%-2.5%. As mentioned, this has to be seen in the context of a lower share of full insurance business that we have written in 2020. We also have had, in 2020, an improvement of the business mix, not only within the Group Life business, but also within the Individual Life business with an increased share of capitalized products. With that, we could also more offset the negative interest rate developments we have had during the full-year 2020. That gives a bit of a flavor of what the dynamics were. All in all, we can say the full insurance business has a lower than average margin, even though, as we also continue to say, it meets the hurdle rate of 1.0%, but it has below average margin, and that's what we could already observe in 2020. Any indication of good trends in Q1 compared to last year? Well, we disclosed the value of new business, the margin update at the half year. There's no update at Q1. If you look a bit back, you note that we still have some interest rate sensitivity. Particularly for the Swiss business, there may be a positive contribution. At the end of the day, what matters is the rate level at the half year when we disclose the numbers, and I think it's too early to speculate what the rates will be at half year. Thank you. The last question for today's call comes from Peter Eliot from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Thanks very much for allowing me a follow-up. Sorry to come back on the Group Life, but I'm just thinking, one thing that might really help us sort of understand the dynamics is, I don't know if you're able to give us a hint on the business that went into semi-autonomous, if that had instead gone into full insurance solutions, are you able to sort of give us an indication of what the premium uplift might have been? Maybe just so that we can sort of fully understand the quantum of that effect. If I could just add one more. Solvency level, I think I, or maybe somebody else asked this at the full-year, but obviously, you're above the top of your target range at the moment. Are you able to sort of give us any thoughts on what that means for you at the moment? How you think about that? Maybe pushing my luck, but any comments you'd give would be very helpful. Thank you. Maybe starting with the second question first. Yes, we have a situation, not for the first time, that we slide above the Ambition Range. I think what it means, we have talked about that on all the calls. We have discussed about the criteria that we consider. I think there's nothing more to add to that than what we said on the previous calls. In terms of the question about the semi-autonomous and what might have been, I think that is kind of speculation because it needs to fit, first of all, the client situation. This is not that we can say, "Well, go there or here." It needs to fit the client situation. We cannot say that otherwise they might have gone somewhere else, those are clients that come in. What is maybe to be said as a rule of thumb is that when new clients enter a scheme, be it full insurance or semi-autonomous, they bring in their pot of money they have accumulated in the old scheme at another insurance company or in another place, and they deposit that. In the full insurance, this is a single premium, and in the semi-autonomous space, it is kind of a deposit into the AUM. These AUM, as mentioned, have increased by around CHF 4 billion since year-end 2020. That's probably the best I can say. Clearly, these numbers also include other effects, but that's probably something that we can say. Other than that, also in the semi-autonomous space, what is key to remember is that all the recurring payments, savings components, they do not show off in the P&L as a premium. They directly go into the foundation without touching our P&L. No, that's great. Thank you very much. I was aware I was probably pushing my luck anyway, but thank you. Sir, so far there are no more questions from the phone. Thank you for your interest in Swiss Life and for your questions. I wish you a nice day. Stay safe and healthy. Goodbye. Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now over. Thank you for choosing Chorus Call, and thank you for participating in the conference. You may now disconnect your lines. Goodbye