Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Hannover Re Conference call on Annual Results 2024. I'm Sergeant, the call's 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 question-and-answer session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star and then one on your telephone. 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 Karl Steinle. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our earnings call on our financial results for the full year 2024. Today's speakers will be our CEO, Jean-Jacques Henchoz, and Clemens Jungsthöfel, our CFO. For the Q&A, we will be joined by Claude Chèvre and Sven Althoff. With that, and for the last time as CEO at Hannover Re, I hand over to you, Jean-Jacques, to summarize the business development of another successful year of our company. Thank you very much, Karl, and good afternoon on my side. I'm very satisfied with Hannover Re's performance in the 2024 financial year. With the group net income slightly above EUR 2.3 billion, we have delivered on the increased target of around EUR 2.3 billion compared to the initial target of around EUR 2.1 billion. The outperformance is driven by favorable investment income as well as a higher-than-expected reinsurance service result in both business groups. In other words, the operating performance was strong across all areas. Based on this positive development and the very healthy capitalization, we will propose an increase in the ordinary dividend to EUR 7 per share, complemented by a special dividend of EUR 2. This brings the total dividend to EUR 9, an increase of 25% compared to the previous year. In P&C, we have successfully expanded our portfolio in an attractive market environment, resulting in a currency-adjusted growth rate in reinsurance revenue of 11%. The combined ratio of 86.6% sits very well within our target range below 89%, reflecting the very good underlying profitability of our P&C portfolio. Furthermore, the impact of large losses was about EUR 200 million below budget, providing us with an opportunity to take a more cautious view on specific claims from older underwriting years, including the Russia-Ukraine loss complex, and also to grow our resiliency in reserving, at least in line with the overall growth of our book of business. In life and health, reinsurance revenue was rather stable year-on-year. Increasing volumes in morbidity and longevity were mainly offset by an accelerated run-off of our U.S. mortality business following the last recaptures connected to our in-force management actions in 2018. Looking at the new business generation of EUR 624 million, we have been successful in seizing attractive business opportunities, and the reduction compared to the previous year was mainly attributable to the extension of an individual large treaty in the prior year, but also reflects our selective underwriting approach in longevity and the impact of regulatory changes on the financial solutions business in China. The profitability of our life and health business is very satisfactory. Experience variance was overall positive within all reporting categories and mitigated the reserve strengthening for pockets of our morbidity book of business, mainly in China. With the reinsurance service result of EUR 883 million, we have exceeded our target of more than EUR 850 million for the business. The return on investments of 3.2% was also very satisfying. Strong ordinary income is mainly driven by a combination of higher interest rates and a strong operating cash flow of EUR 5.7 billion. Additionally, the moderate impact of impairments on real estate of EUR 37 million compared favorably with our expectations, change in ECL, as well as the change in fair value recorded in the P&L, had a minor impact on the result. Cost efficiency, as you know, is another very important metric for Hannover Re. With a group cost ratio of 3.2%, we can confirm our continued success in maintaining our competitive edge in this respect. Altogether, the return on equity of 21.2% highlights the company's very strong earnings power, and the solvency ratio of about 261% reflects our company's very healthy capitalization. Our strong capitalization is also the starting point for our dividend proposal for the 2024 financial year. It gives us the necessary flexibility to act on future growth opportunities in an attractive market environment while at the same time paying a growing dividend to shareholders. The increased ordinary dividend of EUR 7 per share reflects the favorable business development in 2024 and our strong confidence in future earnings growth, as the EUR 7 figure will be the new baseline for our targeted progressive growth in ordinary dividends. In combination with the proposed EUR 2 special dividend, the total dividend of EUR 9 results in a payout ratio of 47%, which is broadly in line with historical levels. The proportion of retained earnings expresses our confidence in growing our book of business profitably at double-digit return on equity also going forward. Shareholders' equity is up by 16.5%. The increase is driven primarily by the group net income for the period, although the overall impact from interest rates and currency movements was also quite positive. The CSM increased by about 6%, mainly reflecting the new business value generated by both business groups. We're very pleased with this development as it clearly exceeds our strategic growth target of more than 2% for the CSM. The risk adjustment increased by 7.4%, mostly due to new business in P&C and assumption changes in life and health. Altogether, the growth in shareholders' equity, CSM, and risk adjustment highlights an attractive value creation in 2024 and gives us a strong foundation for our earnings outlook. Our long-term ROE performance highlights the fact that we're continuously providing our shareholders with attractive double-digit returns above the cost of capital, no matter whether we look at the 5, 10, or 15-year average. Our ROE performance also screens favorably compared to peers. As you know, we aspire to achieve not only a high ROE, but also a less volatile ROE. As you can see in the chart on the right-hand side of the slide, comparing the 10-year ROE performance with the market, we continue to deliver on this ambition. In the top left quadrant, Hannover Re is well placed with clearly above-average ROE and below-average volatility. On that note, I'll give the floor to Clemens for some more details on the financials. Thank you, Jean-Jacques, and good afternoon, everyone. Starting with the development in P&C reinsurance, we have successfully expanded our portfolio, resulting in an increase in reinsurance revenue of 11%, adjusted for currency effects. The increase in net revenue was even slightly more pronounced as our ILS business came in very strong, and the volume of our retrocession program has been reduced. As the reinsurance market environment continues to be favorable in most regions and lines of business, the growth has been well diversified. In APAC, the favorable underlying growth was mitigated by our portfolio pruning in 2023. The impact of large losses was EUR 1.63 billion for the full year. The largest event in 2024 and in the fourth quarter was Hurricane Milton, with a net impact of EUR 230 million for Hannover Re. Apart from this, the large loss experienced in Q4 was benign. Altogether, net large losses were around EUR 200 million below our full-year budget, providing us with the opportunity, as Jean-Jacques said, to take a more cautious view on specific claims from older underwriting years, including the Russia-Ukraine loss complex. Furthermore, the strong underlying profitability provided the flexibility to grow our resiliency level. In relation to the total reserves, which have grown in 2024, of course, we expect the resiliency to be at least stable. The analysis of Willis Towers Watson is not fully concluded yet, but is expected to confirm our internal view. The actual outcome of the third-party assessment will be disclosed, as usual, in May. Overall, our reserve resiliency, and I want to stress this, should be measured, including the risk adjustment. The risk adjustment has increased now by another EUR 143 million to around EUR 1 billion at year-end 2024. Last but not least, the combined ratio includes a discount effect of around 7.5%. This is still higher than the interest increase in the reinsurance finance result, but our prudent initial reserving should offset, as in previous years, that difference. The increase in the discount effect in the fourth quarter can be explained by the increase in reserve resiliency at year-end, which largely happened in long tail lines, and by some true-up effects in the year-end calculations versus prior quarters. Altogether, the combined ratio of 86.6% is slightly better than our target and reflects the very healthy underlying profitability and our continued prudent reserving approach for both new business and older underwriting years. The strong investment result in P&C primarily stems from the improved ordinary income. The increase is mainly driven by higher interest rates supported by higher volumes from a strong operating cash flow. The amortization of our inflation-linked bonds added EUR 149 million. Impairments on real estate spoke about this in Q3. They are at EUR 37 million now, so moderate, also compared to our initially planned number for the year. The currency result, as part of the other result, was mainly impacted by the strengthening of the U.S. dollar in the fourth quarter and amounted to EUR 143 million. This is really a swing by almost EUR 250 million compared to the previous year. Altogether, the EBIT more than doubled to EUR 2.4 billion. On the next slide, the main contributor to the P&C service result has created a CSM release reflecting the 2023 and 2024 renewals in a very attractive market environment. The rather high release in the second half of the CSM includes some catch-up effects due to a more prudent release in previous quarters. Importantly, we really want to note this does not have any impact on the overall level of profits because the higher CSM release is offset by a quite conservative reserving approach for the current year, hence a negative experience variance, as you can see here. Apart from this, the negative experience variance also includes the offset of the tailwind from higher discounting versus EFI. As mentioned earlier, our P&C run-off result reflects a positive development in most lines of business, but also some individual negative developments, including large losses like the Italy hail events from 2023 and also provisions for the Russia-Ukraine loss complex. Furthermore, the increase in resiliency is having an impact on the run-off result, particularly in the fourth quarter, which would be higher without this balance sheet strengthening. The loss component from new business, as you can see, is quite low, confirming the attractive rate environment in P&C reinsurance. The moderate decrease in the CSM in 2024 is connected to the previously mentioned catch-up effect. On a normalized basis, the CSM would have increased in 2024. Let's move on to life and health. Reinsurance revenue remained rather stable, as expected. Underlying growth in morbidity and longevity has largely been offset by the run-off of our U.S. mortality book, which accelerated following the recaptures connected to our enforced management actions in 2018. The reinsurance service result is fully in line with our expectation, with favorable contributions from mortality, longevity, and financial solutions. In morbidity, the result has mainly been impacted by further strengthening of the reserves for critical illness business in China. Furthermore, a client insolvency in the third quarter resulted in a negative run-off impact of EUR 37 million connected to a financing treaty with this client. The investment result mainly reflects the good ordinary income. As mentioned earlier, the change in fair value of financial instruments had a positive impact of EUR 57 million, partly offset by a -EUR 36 million impact from the valuation of a net equity participation. Both effects should be seen as non-recurring. Altogether, our life and health business group reported EBIT of EUR 934 million, an increase of 7%. Looking at the drivers for the reinsurance service result, both the CSM release and the risk adjustment release are within the expected range. The experience variances of EUR 204 million is driven by favorable claims experience across different lines of business and also by enforced management actions for our critical illness business in China. This partly mitigates the negative impact from the loss component of EUR 439 million. The new business loss component was a minor EUR 6 million. The main driver for the change in loss component was the reserve strengthening in morbidity and the aforementioned client insolvency affecting a financing treaty. Altogether, the reinsurance service result, as Jean-Jacques mentioned, sits comfortably within the target range above EUR 850 million. The new business CSM and extensions on existing contracts together amounted to EUR 624 million based on diversified contributions from financial solutions, mortality, and morbidity. Changes in estimates had a positive impact of EUR 415 million. The main driver here for the positive change in estimations was our U.K. longevity business and, to a smaller extent, recaptures in U.S. mortality. Adding positive currency effects and the interest accretion, the total CSM increased by almost 10% after recognizing the regular CSM release. Altogether, I would like to point out that from an economic perspective, assumption changes were rather neutral for Hannover Re. This is because changes in estimates within the CSM offset changes in estimates resulting in a loss component affecting the P&L in life and health for the current period. You know this, so it's the imparity principle embedded in the standard here. This highlights the benefit of having a diversified portfolio in life and health. On the next slide, the development of our investments. I think it's fair to say it was again very satisfactory. The ordinary investment income is strong. Several factors played a role here. The asset volume increased based on a strong operating cash flow. In addition, the reinvestment yields are still nicely above our average portfolio yield, with a continued positive impact on our returns from fixed income securities. The contribution from inflation-linked bonds was at EUR 149 million. Finally, the contribution for alternative investments, so our real estate, private equity, infrastructure investments, increased as well. The impact from ECL and the overall valuation at fair value through P&L had only a minor impact. For our real estate investments, we recorded moderate impairments of EUR 37 million driven by decreasing valuations for some objects. You may remember that we had taken a precautionary view, as mentioned earlier already, in the third quarter. Based on the year-end information, the actual impairments were actually slightly lower and overall lower than expected in our guidance. All in all, the return on investment of 3.2% is well above our 2.8% target. To conclude my remarks, the result for the financial year 2024 reflects a very healthy underlying profitability. 2024 also marks the first year of our current strategy cycle, and all targets, according to our strategic financial ambition, have been met. Top and bottom line are growing nicely, providing a strong basis for the coming years. On that note, I'll hand back to you, Jean-Jacques, for the comments on the outlook. Thank you very much, Clemens. I can be relatively brief on the outlook because I already commented on it about a month ago when Sven and I were presenting the successful outcome of our January renewals. The positive development fully supports our planning for 2025 financial year, hence I can confirm our guidance again today without any changes. For the group net income, we aim to deliver around EUR 2.4 billion. We have already provided our initial view on the LA wildfires last time, and they are not triggering any review of our targets for the full year, so I can also confirm this today. Hannover Re is well positioned for 2025 and beyond. 2024 was another successful year for the company, and our balance sheet strength has further improved from an already high level. The market environment remains supportive, and our earnings continue to grow. Against this backdrop, I feel very comfortable handing over to Clemens in April, and I have no doubt that he, together with the executive board, will lead the company to further success and sustainable value creation for our shareholders. This concludes my remarks, and we would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question-and-answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and then one on the touch-tone 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 then two. Participants are requested to use only handsets while asking a question. Anyone who has a question may press star and then one at this time. We have the first question coming from the line of Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Another good afternoon. Thank you so much for another such amazing result. I only had two questions. One is kind of nosy, and the other one is I do not quite understand. The nosy one is you are one of the few reinsurers which actually participate directly, I think, on a quota share basis in German motors. I just wondered if you can provide the latest in terms of pricing and outlook there. Particularly, I think you're the main reinsurer, the market leader. The second is on pricing from memory, and my memory always serves me, so apologies if I get it wrong. Renewal pricing was down 2.7%. The wildfires, give or take, I mean, if they're in the middle of a target range, around a third of your fully abuted, and you're still guiding to profits being up. I know there's a lot of conservatism built in in the 2024 result, so if you strip that out, of course, you would have some buffers. Maybe you can explain why you remain so confident despite these two negatives. Thank you. Michael, could you repeat the first question? Because we did not, just audible was bad. Oh, I see. It's me. Sorry, sorry. I was muttering. Really simply, German motors, you're the one reinsurer who underwrites German motors. I just wondered if you can provide an update and how much uplift you will get and how much the rate rises were and how much uplift this means for you. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Yes, thank you. On the German motor side, both insurers but also reinsurers for the actual loss business have further increased the rates coming from 2024. You know that the performance of the business had challenges with the levels of inflation that we could observe in the market, particularly on the physical damage side of things. With the additional rate increases that could now be achieved during the 2025 renewals, we fully expect that the business is back into profitable territory and meeting our hurdle rates for this line of business. When it comes to the question on guidance, I mean, it's early in the year. We have clearly exceeded the budget for the first quarter of 2025, which is EUR 435 million. On the other hand, the range we gave on the California wildfires and the range is still valid. I mean, there's still also a long way to go to utilize our full year budget, which is EUR 2.1 billion. From that point of view, we just feel it's too early in the year to make a full review of our assumptions if there's still quite a bit of budget ahead. As we explained also in the past, we, of course, are also looking at this from a balance sheet strength point of view that, if required, we would try to get to the guided four numbers, if that makes sense at the time, also drawing, for example, from risk adjustment or with the incident. Brilliant. Thank you. We have the next question coming from the line of Kamran Hossain from JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon. Two from me. I guess before I ask them, Jean-Jacques, I know we kind of mentioned a while ago, we're just wishing you all the best in the next chapter from everyone at JP. We've really enjoyed our interactions with you, kind of going back to when you kind of took over back in 2019. So thanks so much. Based on what we can see, you're definitely leaving the business in good health and excellent hands. Thank you. Yeah, looking forward to the next chapter for both you and for Hannover Re. The first question that I have is just on the reserve resilience. Just really interested in kind of where you see the resilience overall, thinking about including the risk adjustment relative to historical levels and how you expect it to develop from this point forward. Just thinking this through in my head, there should be some growth every year. You're booking the current year really prudently, just looking at your comments on the experience variance in P&C. Kind of how do you expect that to develop from this point forward, and should that grow from here on? At any point, if I look back over history, 2015, 2016, you kind of pointed to a topping out on reserves and probably had to show a bit more of the profits. Interested in kind of where you think that's going. The second question is just around there's been a bit of press discussion about Viridium. I'm sure you don't want to comment on it specifically, but if there was a theoretical exit of something that you owned, what do you think you'd do with proceeds? To return or reinvest? Or how would you think about that? Thank you. Clemens, I start with the reserve question, and it's perfectly right. I think in contrast to the previous accounting regime, we now have on top of it risk adjustment. Clearly, not only we, but also most of the rating agencies, and I can confirm that for some of them, is that they see the risk adjustment really as the future profits, so as part of the hard capital, which I think is a proof point for the robustness of the risk adjustment on top of what we've in the LIC. If we just look at 2023 numbers, just as a reminder for the benefit of everyone, we were at the resiliency level with a Klaus Watson of roughly EUR 2.1 billion. If you add the risk adjustment at year-end 2023 to it, that would bring you to an absolute level of around EUR 3 billion. That compares to a nominal reserve level end of 2023, roughly EUR 42 billion, I would guess. That would bring you to a number slightly above 7% of relative reserve resiliency level. If you compare it to the resiliency that we have carried, clearly with a smaller book years ago where we probably were at a peak level of 8%, this is, on the one hand, a very strong, really strong resiliency level in our reserves, that's for sure. At the same time, we still believe that there is still room for growth, for growing that both nominally but also in relative terms. We do feel comfortable, very comfortable with the actual reserve level. Again, the risk adjustment has now increased to EUR 1 billion. You would expect a nominal level of our resiliency as per with Willis Towers Watson, again, disclosed in May, also in absolute terms, of course, to have increased at least in line with our book. As you have seen and also heard from my comments, we do believe that we have also clearly prudency in the most current underwriting years that have not found their way into our resiliency, both our internal estimates as well as per with a Klaus Watson. We do believe that those numbers will materialize over time. As always, Cameron, we will always have a look at year-end at this. Again, the relative level should at least be stable. As Sven mentioned, if there is a given year, as we have also shown in the past, we are willing but also able to utilize some of that reserve resiliency to meet our long-term targets. I do not think the bar. On Viridium, yes. There is no doubt about it. There is a sales process going on. The sales process is led by the major shareholder. Clearly, I can't comment on this, what we are going to do about our share. I do want to clarify, though, Cameron, that in any case, for our IFRS Group financial statements, we have taken from a valuation standpoint, they have values through a wide OCI approach for this stake in Viridium. In any case, this will not have any impact on our P&L, so on our IFRS Group earnings. This is just for clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of James Shuck from Citi. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jean-Jacques, same from me. Best of luck for the future. You still feel like the new CEO from my perspective. I don't know where the time's gone by so quickly, but thank you for your help. I had three questions, please. The first one, just looking at the increase in FCR from P&C underwriting risk, that was up EUR 0.8 billion year-on-year. That's quite a large increase. I presume part of that is because you've taken on lower retro than in the past. I'm kind of getting mixed signals from other parts of the business. The structured premium in 2024 was up 58%, and it's a big number. The PMLs are up significantly too. I just look at, for example, the U.S. windstorm. I think the PML is up 30% year-on-year. I'm just kind of keen to understand what drove that increase in FCR, where it's coming from. Really to try and, if you're able to provide any indication of the kind of expected profit from allocating that increase in FCR, that would be very helpful. I don't know whether you want to express that in relation to the new business CSM for 2025 outlook or some other metric, but any insight there would be helpful. Secondly, on the discrete Q4 combined ratio and P&C re, 82.5, just struggling to understand this a little bit because you mentioned that there's kind of negative runoff result in Q4. We can see that through the experience variance. It looks like kind of over EUR 200 million or so in Q4 discrete. You've added a little bit to the buffer, perhaps. Where's that? I don't know. I mean, one quarter is obviously volatile, but if I start kind of making adjustments to that 82.5, I start to get a very low number indeed. What's wrong with doing that sort of calculation? Where do you kind of view the normalized level of combined ratio in Q4, please? Finally, just on the nominal, sorry, the nominal runoff, reserve runoff before risk adjustments. I'm looking at the claims triangles on a net basis. It's unusual, but there's EUR 95 million adverse development across all years. You may have alluded to this in some of your opening comments, and obviously, it's not a big number in the context of EUR 14 billion of reserves. You are seeing adverse development in 2018 and 2023. I presume that's connected to Russia and Italian hail. If you could just clarify what's happening there, please. Thank you very much. James, good afternoon. Clemens, starting with the FCR, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but really just top of my head. The increase in overall FCR in 2024 of roughly EUR 1 billion stems in equal parts from an increase in P&C underwriting risk, as you mentioned, but also there is a strong increase. I just want to mention it also on the market risk side, the increase in P&C underwriting risk. Just looking sort of at the technical numbers, and then I will give some background, and Sven can also step in. The increase in P&C underwriting risk is driven clearly by an increase in NATCAT capacity related also to our overall business growth and by an increase in reserve risk. The latter will be driven by both business growth and loss development, of course. Just for the sake of completeness, the increase in market risk is driven by higher volumes in real estate, private equity, and also fixed income. The stronger U.S. dollar will also have contributed to the increase in these numbers and also in the P&C underwriting risk. As the dominant risk categories, P&C and market growth, further in comparison to life and health, I think the diversification benefit is slightly reduced compared to year-end 2023. That is really just from a technical sort of number-driven standpoint. I think the message here is clearly the underlying business growth on the property care side has been strong. Where this is both top line, so gross, as well as on the retro side, we had already decreased our session rate in the year 2024. Also, the substantial decrease on the renewal of 1/1/2025 will have had an impact here in the FCR because that is the plan. What we have baked into the plan also goes into the FCR calculation here. I do not know if you want to add anything probably on the growth on property care side on this. Not too much. I mean, I think you covered that well. We have used the hard market, the rating environment that was available since underwriting year 2023 to grow the incoming cash portfolio quicker than the general portfolio, which was also growing. As you said, Clemens, in combination with us adjusting our retro buying for the 1/1/2025 renewal, which was baked into the planning for the FCR, is the main driver here. Okay. Perfect. On the combined ratio, just a couple of general comments. Clearly, this is always at year-end. We overall look, of course, at the reserve position. As mentioned earlier, we came in with a large loss budget, around EUR 200 million below the budget. This really, James, provided us with the opportunity to take a more cautious view on specific claims from older underwriting years, including Russia-Ukraine. Some of that happened, that reserve strengthening on Russia-Ukraine. It happened over the course of the year, yes, but also we took a bit more prudent view also in Q4. Again, the growth in the resiliency level, clearly some of that has taken place in Q4. Considering all this, clearly, the underlying combined ratio should not be too far from the published number for the whole year. Maybe a bit better, clearly, for Q4. Again, given all these impacts, etc., that leads to the number. We should not forget that when we look at the overall combined ratio for the year that we've disclosed, we have continued to manage the tailwind from interest rate. This delta between discounting and EFI adds another 1.5-ish percentage points on the combined ratio. A general statement, it's that we see historically that we have not changed our combined ratio targets as dynamically, probably as others, over the course of the reinsurance cycle. This continues to be our approach going forward. That being said, I do feel very comfortable with our lower than 80/80% combined ratio target, not only for 2025, but really also for the medium term. Also in scenarios, as mentioned earlier, with decreasing interest rates and a lower discount effect. On the claims triangles, again, on the runoff result, the P&C runoff results, again, as mentioned earlier, they do reflect a positive development in most lines of business. We have, in some individual cases, had negative developments. You mentioned it, James. Italy hail is one driver. Russia-Ukraine is a large driver. Then, as always, we will have done some reserve strengthening here, and they are also in some long-tail lines and casualty lines, etc. Happy to share any further details, really, when we look at the reserve study in May. It's a bit too early, really, to look at certain lines of business, but we will disclose this then in May when we release the full study. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. The next question comes from the line of Shanti Kang from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. You highlighted additional reserve prudence across 2024, and your reinsurance service result was still a pretty solid beat. I'm just trying to understand the sentiment behind that, if the reserve actions reflect a shift in your risk perception or if they're more about proactive strengthening going into 2025. Then perhaps a follow-on from that is just how should we think about prior year development across 2025 and beyond, given the reserve additions made today? Could we assume that there'll be better PYD as a result? The last question is just on your affirmed net income guidance. What do you think are the biggest execution risks that could shift that either higher or lower as the year continues? Thank you. Shanti, I'll start probably with the runoff result. As mentioned earlier, it's driven by a couple of factors. Clearly, the runoff result usually is a positive, I would say, a mid-triple-digit positive number that we would expect. I would say the movements here are really attributable to a couple of larger losses that we've seen. We mentioned Italy as one example. There are a few other examples where we have done some reserve strengthening. The biggest movement clearly here is the Ukraine-Russia loss complex, where we have added substantial reserves in 2024. That has found its way here into the runoff result. Clearly, we do expect, again, normally a mid-triple-digit normalized runoff result also as we go into 2025, of course, subject to any further movement. Anything else is really about reserve strengthening, which we will then fully disclose in also going forward when we look at our reserve study. These are really the ingredients when we look at the runoff result and the resiliency level. On the net income question, I'm not sure if I've really fully understood or fully caught the question. Would you mind just reminding us of the second question? Yeah. I was just thinking. I know you guys guided to that, for example, on the basis that large losses would be within your budget. I'm just curious to know what the execution risks are to that net income guidance, either being higher or lower across the year. Yeah. I mean, as Sven said, still the expectation is all our guidance is always under the subject of that we don't have any material deviations from the budget. We have clearly increased this large loss budget to now EUR 2.1 billion. That reflects both our growth on the gross and net side. This is a net large loss budget. There is clearly, as also Sven mentioned, which always comes into the equation, our balance sheet strength, as mentioned earlier. We are always willing and able to utilize some of the reserves. At this time, therefore, Jean-Jacques clearly stated it. There's no reason for us at this time of the year to think about our guidance at all. We are fully committed and think we'll be able to meet all our targets. That's great. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Vinit Malhotra from Mediobanca. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Jean-Jacques and Clemens. Again, my wishes, Jean-Jacques. I still remember when you joined, we discussed reserves. I think we should maybe start with that question again from my side. The first question is just again, just the, and maybe more for Clemens, maybe the reserve resiliency. The 7%, which is reserves plus RA, so resiliency plus RA divided by reserves, that number, is it likely that it can go up? What do other stakeholders think about this? I'm thinking of auditors or other taxmen, other people, other stakeholders in this. Because it's obviously just again, a little bit more that when you say you added to Ukraine, is it because you thought something about aviation or anything, or is it just the opportunistic, "Let's add because we had low large losses"? Just a little more would help us understand your rationale. Second thing is just I noticed the real estate write-down was much lower than you feared. Again, back to the topic of how are you looking at the private market world? Are there still some concerns about write-downs, or do you think the situation is getting better on that front? Thank you. Yes, Vinit, on the resiliency level in general, I'll let Sven probably add to the specific Ukraine and Russia, particularly also on aviation, to comment on that, what was our thinking around those strengthenings. To be clear, that complex has not been part of the resiliency in the past and is also not part of our resiliency. We are talking about mainly IBNR here when it comes to Ukraine-Russia. On the resiliency level, I just wanted to—that is why I always stress this—that we see the resiliency of the P&C really as a conjunction of the Willis Towers Watson report, which technically is referring to our reserving compared to a view of Willis Towers Watson on our mainly liability for incurred claims, so for the LIC part. I always stress that we should also take the risk adjustment into the equation, which is more, I would say, a technical calculated number and very much reflects our business growth. That is now a billion on the risk adjustment. We started with the Willis Towers Watson report last year, EUR 2.1 billion, and that number will go up based on the initial discussions that we had with Willis Towers Watson. If we think along the lines of, let's say, we end at the range of 7%-7.5% of relative resiliency level, I think there's still room to grow that number in a given year, but we are not planning any extraordinary impacts here. I'd say that is a resiliency level where we feel absolutely comfortable with in relative terms. Again, if there is, in a given year, the earnings provide for that, we would still be willing and able to increase that number even further. Again, on that level, we feel comfortable. On Russia-Ukraine, Sven, you might want to add, just give a bit more color on the overall thinking of our reserve strengthening over the course of the year as well as here. Yeah, happy to do that. I mean, the situation is largely unchanged. When we look at this complex, we have the aviation and the non-aviation part. All the lines of business on the non-aviation side are behaving according to our original expectations. We are certainly well within our original reserves when it comes to that side. On the aviation side, we still have the situation that we can only work on a loss scenario-based assumption because we do not really have anything from our ceding companies on that side. On the other hand, we could see in the trade press and, of course, also talking to our clients and checking where they are, that there was activity over the last couple of months when it came to commercial solutions between insurance companies and leasing companies. In that situation, and given that we had underutilized our loss budget for the year, we decided to increase the level of prudency in our scenario-based work we are doing on this claim. It's not driven by paid claims. It's not driven by reserves received through seeding accounts. I mean, all of this is still well within our original reserve position from three years ago. Given that we sense that there is more going on on the settlement side, we wanted to be in a position to be as prepared as possible to not have an impact on our 2025 earnings. Vinit, you see this is more a prudent approach at year-end to address this specific loss complex. Overall, you mentioned how other stakeholders view our resiliency level. I think this is a volatile business that we've just seen in the first quarter as we're seeing now. We always argue we are still—this is best estimate. We are just consistently at an upper range of possible best estimate, which suits our business model, particularly our Hannover Re model, how we look at the combined ratio over the cycle, as mentioned earlier, very much. On real estate or generally on our alternative investments, yes, I think we both 2023 and 2024, we had anticipated more volatility of our investment results due to the fact that particularly these funds, so real estate and private equities that are embedded in funds, are valued through the P&L. We did expect fair values coming down. That has not really happened on the private equity side. In those instances where it has, it has been mostly compensated by stronger returns. The overall impact was clearly a reduced income, but not to the extent we had expected. The same is true for the real estate side. We would have expected a higher number. Having said this, on the direct real estate portfolio, we had EUR 37 million of write-downs, as mentioned earlier. On the indirect side, it is probably another EUR 35 million. We landed at EUR 70 million-ish, but we would have actually expected more. We have a cautious view when it comes to new investments. I would not—we have always been prudent when we clearly look at our investment income for the next year, but I would consider our guidance to be realistic. There is some room, but rather realistic. Overall, I think it's a robust guidance for 2024, also for our investment income. As for looking at this market, we do not plan to reduce our exposure, both in private equity and real estate. On the contrary, we selectively, on the direct real estate side, look at opportunities here and there. On private equity, you should really expect a steady growth of our private equity exposure with our assets. Okay. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Will Hardcastle from UBS. Please go ahead. Thank you. Just to echo everyone else's comments, thanks, Jean-Jacques. You will very much be missed here. The first one is, I am sure investors are pleased to see the 25% year-on-year uplift in dividend distribution. I guess, can you just give a bit more cover on how you determined that level? Maybe I'm being greedy here, but I might suggest that a less than 50% payout ratio is lagging some other larger European reinsurers. You've got a really confident outlook. You've got a high stock of solvency. I guess, what would make you consider raising that distribution payout further in the future? The second one, it's just linking to the reserve resilience. You linked it there with the liability reserve growth. I think there's been times where you've tried to get us to look away from that in the past and think about it in absolute terms. I guess, why are we now coming back to thinking about it as a percentage of liability reserves? You mentioned there about 8% in the past. Am I right in thinking that's probably going back to about 2018? I think before that, it was higher than that. Should we think that that 8% sort of level is the upper end? Thank you. I'll take up the dividend question, particularly because I've been tweaking arms with Clemens over the past few months. In short, there's an element of judgment, of course, particularly on the earnings outlook, on the growth opportunities. That's the starting point for us. There, we were of the view that we have a favorable outlook, particularly in P&C. Even though there is a little bit more rivalry among the main incumbents, we still see some good pockets of growth, very well priced. This is really the starting point for the discussion. We wanted to give a hike on the overall dividend to send a signal of confidence. We were around the 45%-48% range. We ended up with 47% payout, which we believe is a good indicator. It's very much aligned with the past. The rest is really getting to round numbers, I suppose. I think it reflects the fact that we want to show that growing trajectory. As long as we feel there are attractive, well-priced opportunities for growth, we'll take that option first. Yes, Will, to complete that, probably that arm twisting was for a reason, I can tell you, because as Jean-Jacques mentioned, we've spent a lot of time, a lot of time with the clients and brokers over the last couple of years as part of our transition. Jean-Jacques and myself, we saw a lot of clients across the globe and brokers. We've received consistently the message that there are plenty of opportunities for us to grow the business further. In all seriousness, I think the capital is well placed to support that growth and really continue that path of producing double-digit ROEs and return it by that way to our shareholders. That is very much the philosophy. That is really the reason why we have not changed the payout ratio going forward. On the resiliency level, I try to recall sort of the comments in the context of our absolute reserve numbers. I think, particularly in the year sort of 2019, 2020, 2021, etc., I mean, we have grown our business quite substantially. When you look at the reserves, of course, they were driven by that growth of our underlying business, but also with a couple of large losses when I look at the COVID claims in 2020, etc., on the P&C side. That has probably inflated the reserve level on a nominal basis a bit stronger than the resiliency embedded in that reserves would find their way into the Willis Towers Watson study. Because that's only happening with a time lag of, let's say, two to three years, probably. The underwriting years, the most recent underwriting years, haven't even found their way into the reserve study. I would take the comments to be cautious on comparing the nominal resiliency levels with the nominal reserve levels in that context. I think, as we've probably a bit more normalized view now, I think the peak we probably had, when I recall it correctly, around 2015, I'd say, where we were around 8%, which, again, was on a completely different book. It was 8.5%. So on a completely different book. Clearly, when we are approaching 7.5%, we will see what the outcome of the study is. Again, it's not a fully academic exercise, but this is clearly a level where we feel very confident. That's great. Thank you for that. Just to confirm, I always thought it was just the most recent underwriting year that sort of didn't filter into that resilience number. Sounds like it's two or three. Is that right? Yeah. It's probably—I don't know the exact number, but it's not only one underwriting year. It's actually more than that. In long-tail lines, we would actually wait probably even two, probably in some instances, actually three underwriting years to really put this up as a resiliency. We wanted really those trying to stabilize and to have a firm view on the ULR. That's great. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Chris Hartwell from Autonomous. Please go ahead. Good morning. Sorry. Good Good afternoon, in fact. It's been a long morning. Just wanted to, to some extent, come back to Will's question on the payout ratio on the dividend. I mean, I get that you want to sort of redeploy that and some of the other comments that you made. How do I square that with the growth outlook that you have? I mean, 7% wouldn't absorb a huge amount of additional capital for your sort of top-line growth targets. Just trying to sort of, again, square the payout ratio with the growth ambition. Secondly, also, over the last couple of years, the CSM growth has been pretty rapid, surprisingly rapid, yet you still go ahead to, I believe, 2%. I'm trying—if you can help me understand why the forward CSM growth is that low versus what we've seen before, what are you expecting or what are you not expecting to recur? Thank you. Yeah. Chris, I'll start with the payout ratio. Really, I think when we think about growth or investing some of those retained earnings, we think about P&C, of course. We really want to have room for maneuver and take any advantage of market opportunities, as Sven said, still in an attractive market environment. We also think about life and health. There is plenty of growth opportunities in life and health in the pipeline. Clearly, that's another element. Also, I mean, we've positioned our investment portfolio a bit more on the prudent side to really position ourselves for any market volatility. There might be opportunities, actually, to, let's say, to invest some of that, I call it dry powder, in the credit space or even in listed equity, more on an opportunistic basis. Really to support the growth in our assets under management. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we've seen another year of very, very strong operating cash flow, and that will be invested. It's really just to give us room for maneuver. Also on the hybrid side, there's an opportunity not to replace the hybrid that is due at mid-year. This is really part of the equation. We will revisit that position at year-end 2025, of course. On the CSM growth, yes. Chris, I'd say the CSM growth that we put out as a strategic target. We said, well, the at least 2% per year over the strategic cycle. That was our strategic ambition that we put out. It is really just a message. I mean, you see that clearly our business on the P&C side is growing, but that overall CSM growth is very much fueled also by life and health. It is clearly a commitment that over the strategic cycle, we want to grow our life and health business going forward. That is a way of—because as we always said, the revenue under IFRS 17 is a very useful KPI for capturing the growth in P&C, but still not for life and health. This is particularly true, I believe, for our portfolio, where we have a very pronounced financial solutions business, where mainly the margin is only captured in the revenue. Another good indicator for the growth of our business. That was the rationale behind it when we put out the 2%. I think when we look at both the new business CSM over the most recent years, which has been very healthy, that business is, as we all know, very transactional. I think the huge contributor to the CSM growth that we've seen over the recent period is that when we do assumption updates, we had rather seen that our reserving has been more on the prudent side in life and health, which we would have expected. Overall, we see more positive assumption updates that are fueling the CSM than vice versa, which is, I think, a good message in terms of how we view our assumptions. I would say both on the CSM for new business, which is transactional, can be lumpy, as well as the CSM that stems from assumption updates, I wouldn't expect that in any given year. We have seen very strong development in 2023. In 2024, we've been a bit more cautious on a given financial year guidance for 2025. That is why we put out a bit more cautious guidance for 2025. We will see how it goes, again, particularly after a very strong CSM development in 2024. I hope that answers the question, Chris. The next question comes from the line of Henry Heathfield from Morningstar. Please go ahead. Good morning. Good afternoon, all. Sorry. Thank you for taking my questions. I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the top-line growth in property and casualty within the Americas and the EMEA region, what in particular was driving that. In the life and health, could you just kind of remind me or confirm whether the U.S. mortality portfolio that's been in runoff, is that now finished? That's sort of closed. Perhaps talk a little bit about whether there was any experience variance within the U.S. mortality business in life and health. Thank you. Just starting with the top-line growth on P&C, I mean, in 2024, we certainly still saw prices increase, underlying volumes, i.e., the business with our ceding companies also increased because we were at the tail end of the inflationary environment. Underlying portfolios were increasing from some insurers' point of view. Plus, ceding companies also decided, both in the Americas and in EMEA, to ask for more limits on their reinsurance structure. That was certainly still a feature in 2024. Those were the main drivers for the EMEA and Americas. If you look at the 11% for the entire business group, of course, we should not forget the particularly strong growth we had in our structured and ILS unit, where particularly on the structured side, we have seen strong demand, not only for the traditional surface relief kind of quota share structures, but also more excess of loss demand for spring-rated business or multi-year, multi-class business dealing with the traditional increased retention levels. That was part of the growth story. On the ILS side, we had a very successful year in our catastrophe bond activities when it comes to transformation and the like. Those are the main ingredients of growth in our 2024 year. Yeah. Many thanks for your question on life and health. Very happy that I got the question on life and health. With U.S. mortality, I can confirm that the issues that we had in the past are resolved. You were mentioning also the experience variances. You see in our presentation that we had positive experience variances this year of 204. They are mainly coming from all the lines of business, including, by the way, U.S. mortality. We see experience variances, but positive experience variances on that side. Great. Thank you very much. We have a follow-up question coming from the line of Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please go ahead. I'm very lucky. One is indeed a follow-up on the life. If I look at your guidance 875 and I take the 889 figure and I add the 37 kind of insolvency number, which presumably is not repeated, I get already to—this is just 2024—to well above the 875. I just wondered if you can give us a little bit more on how you—I know the question's been asked in terms of CSM, but maybe you can ask it in terms of this number as well. The other question is also on growth, on P&C growth of 7%. The 7% feels low given the way you're commenting about how you want to keep powder dry and stuff. Can you talk a little bit about how much you would expect from the renewals still to come up relative to the 7.2% I think you had in January? Thank you. Okay. Maybe your first question on the guidance of our reinsurance services, if I got it right, it was the RSR, right? Your question was where it comes from compared to the reinsurance result of right now, correct? Yes. Yeah. One thing that you need to see is that we cannot—we cannot plan. We don't plan for positive experience variances. The experience variances that we're showing here in our plan are maybe zero. If you take them out, then you end up with a lower figure automatically. That's the reason why you cannot expect positive experience variances and then hence a much more positive reinsurance services done from one year to the next. Okay. I I was going to say, but Johanna Verrier, in a way, I think you dream—you live positive experience variances. That's why I'm—it's almost like the answer you've given me would be—I would understand if it came from a weaker, maybe French competitor. From you, it's almost like you're speaking from a different company. That's why. Anyway, I take the comment. We are not the Germans, as you know. It's in our blood. Yeah. Maybe let me have another go then, please, if I may. On U.S. mortality, what are you seeing at the moment? Have we bottomed? Because I see the change in estimates is longevity in your CSM. That's the opposite for mortality. That feels like mortality is still getting worse, but I don't know. Is there a change in the U.S. of people starting to live longer again? The change in estimates that you're seeing on the mortality and longevity side was something that we communicated on the U.K. In the U.K., we have seen a change on the mortality—let's say it's mortality improvements. We have less strong mortality improvements in the U.K. than what we thought, which led then to positive assumption changes on the longevity business in the U.K. and obviously to negative assumption changes on the mortality business in the U.K. We do not see anything similar right now in the U.S. Excellent. Thank you. On the revenue guidance for P&C, I mean, the year has started well. I mean, as we reported for the general renewals, which is 60% of our traditional treaty business, we managed to grow by 7.6%. We also had a good 1-1 for the structured activities, which is not part of the temporary reporting we are doing. I mean, let's wait and see, it is early in the year. Let's particularly wait for what the April renewals bring. As we sit here today, I would say that the likelihood of us achieving the 7% has certainly increased after the general renewal. Let's revisit that once we have a few more renewal dates behind us. There could potentially be a chance of going over and above the 7% for a year. Brilliant. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Roland Pfänder from Oddo BHF. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. First of all, Jean-Jacques, all the best for your future, and thanks for the good discussions through the last few years. Much appreciated. Now coming to the questions on life and health, please. You were quite positive for the growth outlook of the segment. Looking at 2024, new business was down by around 15%. You also mentioned there are some problems, regulatory problems for financial solutions in China. Maybe you could comment how this is going on. Also, longevity business might be quite competitive out there. So where is your positive stance on future growth coming? Maybe that would be my question. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. Maybe just pick on these figures on the new business CSM figures. I mean, as Clemens, by the way, said already, our business is very transactional. One or two more deals change this new business CSM dramatically. That is something that you need to see. Whether we do a deal in December or January is going to change these figures completely because we're looking into one year after the other. Very transactional, a lot of changes there. I would not intricately too much into the absolute figure that we have there. Still, if you take the new business and the renew business and the additional and the prolongations that we have been doing, we're still at a very healthy EUR 600 + million, which is positive. You were mentioning the China FS situation. You're right. There is a regulatory change in China, something that we know for a few months now, which means for us finally that we need to change our financial solutions that we're providing our clients with. While previously we have been providing solutions which were increasing the available capital for our clients, we now need to provide solutions which decrease the required capital for our clients. This is a totally different cup of tea. We're working on this. That is why our view on the absolute amount of profits that we can generate out of the financial solutions side in China are, let's say, more conservative at this stage. We are working on a solution there. Last but not least, you were mentioning the longevity situation. One thing which led, by the way, to a little bit less CSM new business this year was the lack of a big, big longevity transaction, typically in the U.K. This is due, as you said, to the competition that we are seeing. We feel that the margins that we were able to do with some of these large transactions were just not reaching the hurdle rate for us. We decided not to write them rather than to write them. That is also one of the reasons that we have. On the longevity side, I think we are getting back. But also there, and that's maybe also the answer to the previous question, we're pretty, let's say, prudent in terms of how much new business we're going to be able to write out of these lines of business. Okay. Thank you. As a reminder, if you wish to register for a question, please press star and the one on your telephone. The next question comes from the line of Ivan Bokhmat from Barclays. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for so one question from me would be quite general. I mean, we're observing some fairly tectonic shifts, I think, in the European competitiveness, in the fiscal rules in Germany. So I'm just wondering if you could get your general thoughts and what underwriting opportunities that investment supercycle may present for you, or maybe what changes to the investment portfolio you would anticipate in that respect. Second question, a lot less general. In your guidance for 2025 for investment results, do you anticipate some specific impairments on real assets? Thank you. I mean, I start probably with the last one on alternative assets or real estate private equity. I'd say overall, we have been realistic in our assumptions. Again, we've created a bit more prudency in 2023 and 2024. I wouldn't say that that is the case for 2025. No specific impairments or write-downs or dramatic fair value changes in our real asset portfolio in 2025. Maybe generally, Jean-Jacques speaking, I'm not sure you were referring only to the investment side or the underwriting side on the general shift. As a general response, I would say on both sides, we're quite agile. If we see opportunities, we go for it. That's the specificity of the reinsurance business model, to be really able to track changes, shifting trends, and then capture these opportunities. That's what we're going to do. I think in spite of the different views on climate change at the current stage in the international political arena, I still believe that the energy transition is going to take place. That's a good example where we can capture opportunities both in terms of investment contribution, but also in terms of underwriting development. Again, that agility to react to trends is really a key success factor. Subject to terms, of course, we'll capture these opportunities. Does this answer your question, Ivan? It was a very general question, so I suppose I'll work at better formulating it next time. No problem. Clemens, look forward to it. I mean, just on the investments, I don't expect any dramatic change in our investment strategy. As Jean-Jacques said, I think we have flexibility in the investment portfolio to take advantage of any opportunities, react to any changes in, let's say, how we view credits or govies or whatever. Again, there's a lot of flexibility. Clearly, our investment philosophy, you know this, is no bets on interest rates, no bets on currency. This is all going to happen in the context of asset liability management. Thank you very much both. There are no more questions at this time. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Jean-Jacques Henchoz for any closing remarks. Oh, wait. The last minute registration for Vinit Malhotra. I'm sorry. For Vinit Malhotra, please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry to jump in. I just thought that there's more time. Just one thing. Two things there, please. One is, Clemens, I mean, knowing you for the last few years as well, is it a fair assumption that the agenda would remain one of continuity, or do you plan to review more and then maybe come to the market with some more plans later in the year in October, November with the new leadership from your side? That is a very quick looking for a quick comment there. Next is just in the past, I have asked this a few times, and it is entirely my fault to not pick it up yet. When the US dollar strengthens, why does Hannover Re have a negative effect? If you do not mind, just if it seems possible to explain that. Thank you. Just on the latter to get this sort of probably we've seen, and I've alluded to it, with the strengthening of the U.S. dollar, we've seen P&L impacts on the P&C side. That swing was quite dramatic year-on-year. It was probably a low triple-digit number for a given financial year. I would see this again as we are very strong on currency matching. We do this on an economic basis. We really try to do ALM and currency matching based on our Solvency II numbers. One of the impacts that you then see in the accounting is that you still have an accounting mismatch. That is still true in a discounting regime under IFRS 17 because there are still assets that are treated as monetary. These are mainly fixed income, but there are also many assets that are treated as non-monetary items, and they are not revalued through the P&L. That is very much true for our private equity, for our real estate portfolio, etc., where any changes in currency are not coming through the P&L. That is why you have an imbalance, which makes it a bit difficult. I should say this with my CFO glasses to steer the results, of course, but it provides a bit of volatility as you have seen in our 2024 numbers. It is really not something that we see as an economic currency change. On the strategy, look, I have got to talk about looking at Jean-Jacques right now. I mean, we have been working for five years now, Jean-Jacques and myself, with this executive board team. We are just behind one year of our strategy, which we've all worked on together, which we've developed together. We are all very happy with the strategy. We're happy with the targets that we achieved in this financial year. For us as an executive team and for me personally, clearly, I'm very grateful for the trust, but I clearly see this as a privilege personally, but it's clearly a mandate to continue on this trajectory of our performance on the ROE. This is all about being absolutely stringent on executing our strategy and continuing the path that we've done in the past. Do not expect any revolution. A bit of acceleration here and there, clearly, as we are faced with market challenges, but that's really just the somewhat different Hannover Re way. It's clearly something that is top of mind. Okay. Thank you. There are no more questions at this time. Now I would like to turn the conference back over to Jean-Jacques Henchoz for any closing remarks. Thank you very much once again for covering the ground very well. Thank you also for the kind words. It has been a big journey and part of the real pleasure I have had over the years with the dialogue with all of you. Your challenging questions, but it has helped us to validate our thinking, and it has been really our acid test and something very, very useful to our thinking, to our strategy. I leave Hannover Re with an excellent feeling. Again, satisfactory results in 2024, increasing resilience. There is a fortress balance sheet here to create optionality to capture growth opportunities, but also to make sure that we can deliver on targets. I almost speak like a shareholder as we go, but I'm very confident personally about the outlook in my current role, but also for the future. The team has a good blend of fresh perspective, but also strong DNA in this somewhat different philosophy, which we are going to nurture in the future. All the best. Thank you very much for all your support and for the dialogue. I wish all the best to the team as well. I'll be an active listener going forward for the next meetings. Thank you, Jean-Jacques. I will take you up on the long-term shareholder view. Let's see. With that, we close the call. Thank you, everyone.