Good afternoon, everybody, and good morning to the USA. Thank you for joining us at this conference call. My name is Peter Hermann, and I'm the Group CEO of Topdanmark. With me is our Group CFO, Lars Kufall Beck, and Head of Investor Relations, Robin Løfgren. We're hosting this conference call because earlier today we published our interim report for the first quarter of 2022. I would like to start with a few opening remarks before handing over to Lars for comments on the results in more detail. In terms of the first quarter of 2022, there's no doubt that our financial result is affected by the two large storms hitting Denmark in late January and early February. One of them being the worst storm to hit Denmark in six years, actually. In addition, volatile financial markets following the war in Ukraine has affected our investment results. If we try to look through this volatility, our underlying performance in Q1 has actually been quite strong, with an underlying combined ratio of 81%, and I'm pleased to see continued strong results of our ongoing efficiency and pricing initiatives. Before Lars takes over, that'll take us through the results in more detail, first, let me comment on a significant piece of news we released last month. Slide two, please. We have agreed with Nordea that they will acquire our life insurance operations pending relevant regulatory approvals. This is a milestone in Topdanmark's history as we now part ways with a business unit that we established 50 years ago. I truly believe that our life division has found a very good owner to help the division develop in the future. Let me stress that this is in no way changes the strategic agenda at ours, as we will continue our efforts to realize the full potential of One Topdanmark while distributing life and pension products now through a distribution agreement with Nordea. This will be further strengthened and deepen the existing partnership between us to the benefit of our customers. With the analysis of the transaction, we also disclosed a range of financial information. The main conclusion is that nothing has changed in this respect since the announcement. The sales price corresponds to a goodwill payment of DKK 1.5 billion, but the divestment also entails around DKK 0.3 billion of extraordinary expenses related to a transaction, unwinding, and restructuring. The net gain is DKK 1.2 billion after tax and will be booked upon closing. Although the unwinding costs will be booked on ongoing basis towards closing, while part of the restructuring costs will be booked under other items in the non-life. All else equal, the transaction will lift the solvency cover by 150 basis points, reflecting a solvency requirement decreasing to around DKK 2 billion. Thus, the transaction will free up around DKK 3 billion of capital, which is a clear extraordinary dividend potential. Further, we will revert at a later stage with our reflections on what level of solvency cover will be prudent for a pure non-life insurance company. The transaction is conditional on relevant regulatory approvals and is expected to close in the second half of 2022. Lars, will you take us through the Q1 results in more detail, please? Thank you, Peter. Yes, I will. Turn to slide three, please. Looking at our financial results for Q1, our profit after tax amounted to DKK 115 million. The result is affected by three items that I would like to address. High weather-related claims due to storms, negative investment return following market volatility, and a one-off adjustment of pension yield tax in the illness and accident business within life. In terms of the technical results, we delivered a combined ratio of 86.9% and a growth in non-life of 4.1% in the quarter. Profitability was affected by DKK 163 million of weather-related claims, stemming largely from the two storms we saw in Q1. In addition, the claim frequency in travel insurance normalized quicker than we had anticipated and is now back at pre-COVID levels. However, as Peter mentioned, underlying combined ratio shows a completely different picture, which I will comment on in a minute. In terms of premiums, we are seeing continued good growth rates in general, partly driven by our pricing initiatives, but also by up- and cross-selling to new and existing customers. Our partnership with Nordea continues to deliver strong results with a referral rate twice the size of the old Danske Bank agreement. In Q1 alone, the Nordea agreement has led to more than 18,000 referrals and has thus more than compensated for the outflow from the old Danske Bank agreement in terms of premiums. We do expect this trend to continue throughout 2022. The investment return was negative by DKK 142 million in Q1, clearly impacted from volatility stemming from the war in Ukraine and rising inflation. Stock markets have underperformed substantially in the quarter, and interest rates have risen sharply. However, our performance is on par with index for most asset classes, and we have not rebalanced our portfolio during Q1. The profit on discontinued business amounts to DKK 10 million after tax. The life insurance result was largely in line with expectation, whereas the result of illness and accident was - DKK 48 million, and that was affected by the rising long-term inflation expectations and a one-off adjustment of liable pension yield tax for 2021. Lastly, our solvency cover increased to 221% from the 204% in Q4, and this was mainly due to a decrease in Solvency Capital Requirement caused by lower stress on equity exposures and the rising interest rates. Now, looking further at the combined ratio, please turn to slide four. As promised, let me try to outline a little bit on the dynamics here. First, what we have done is to adjust the reported combined ratio for weather related claims, large scale claims, runoff, changes in risk margin and discounting, as well as the COVID tailwind that we experienced in Q1 2021. Doing so, we are able to see the underlying movements in our profitability and our combined ratio, and the result speaks for itself. Underlying combined ratio for Q1 2022 was 81%, a full 4.5 percentage points lower than in the same period last year. Among other things, reflecting the strong improvement in underlying claims trends, for instance, within house insurance, where the claims trend is down by 17 percentage points quarter-on-quarter. This is very encouraging and a testament to the fact that our significant efforts within the efficiency program brings tangible profitability enhancements to our portfolio. Please note, however, when looking at this and looking at this throughout the year 2022, the illustrated figures continue to include the synergies between non-life and life of around DKK 80 million-DKK 100 million per year until closing of the divestments. That tailwind we still have and continue to have in our numbers throughout 2022. Sir, slide five, please. Also touching upon the topic of inflation. Clearly, Q1 has brought even more attention to that topic that we have already been discussing for some time now. As a result of the war in Ukraine, inflation has continued to surge, as specifically energy has seen significant price increases. This also puts pressure on certain product lines, such as energy consuming building materials. Due to the rising inflation, we are seeing early signs of decreasing demand from new construction in Denmark and also from private consumption. So far, the current levels of inflation are manageable for us, not least due to the procurement contracts with fixed positions we've made. But naturally, we continue to monitor and follow up the market development very, very closely, and we remain ready to act if necessary to protect our profitability. Please note that building materials is only part of our restoration cost as labor cost makes up around 85% of the total cost. Even though we are seeing higher inflation at the moment, let me also reiterate that we over time still and continue to expect to see between 2%-4% inflation in claims expenses varying between business lines. Also over time, we aim to defend our profitability by pricing at least in line with inflation. Peter, will you comment on the updated profit forecast for the year, please? Yes. Thank you, Lars. Maybe if you want to go to slide six, please. Turning to the profit forecast model for 2022, we have lowered the assumed combined ratio for 2022 from between 85.5% and 88% to now between 83% and 86%, excluding potential runoff in Q2 to Q4. This is mainly due to the reclassification of illness and accident to discontinued operations. Underlying improvement trends within house insurance, as Lars mentioned, and higher discounting offset the headwinds from the high weather related claims in Q1 and also faster than anticipated normalization of claims frequency in travel insurance. The assumed premium growth for 2022 is lowered to from before 4%- 5.5% to now 3%- 4.5%. That is solely due to the reclassification of illness and accident to the discontinued operations line. The underlying business momentum remains solid. The assumed profit after tax from discontinued operations amounts to DKK 1.3 billion-DKK 1.35 billion, including the expected net gain of DKK 1.2 billion from the divestment of life. Note again, as Lars mentioned, the synergies between non-life and life of around DKK 80 million-DKK 100 million per year, they are still included in the forecast until closing, and that is assumed to be at the 31st of December 2022 in our numbers. In conclusion, the post-tax profit forecast model for 2022 is increased to DKK 2.25 billion-DKK 2.5 billion excluding the runoffs in Q2 to Q4. That was the last slide. Maybe slide seven, please. That actually concludes our opening remarks. We are now ready for your questions. Please keep your questions to one or two at a time. If you have more questions, of course, feel free to enter the queue again for a second round. Operator, may we have the first question, please? Thank you. Just a reminder, if you have a question, please dial zero one on your telephone keypads now to enter the queue. If you'd like to withdraw your question, you can do so by dialing zero two. As mentioned, please limit yourself to one or two questions per turn. Our first question comes from the line of Jakob Brink at Nordea. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you very much. First question on the guidance upgrade on technical profit. The midpoint of your guidance upgrade is around DKK 125 million compared to the one you gave at the end of last year. Just trying to do the math here and based on your wordings, it seems like a pretty big chunk must be coming or positive must be coming from the household risk. Basically, illness and accident discontinuation is DKK 100 million. Runoff was roughly DKK 50 million. Weather and travel is around DKK 80 million each. Interest rates, I see you have lowered your sensitivity due to the discontinuation of illness and accident. Basically, it seems like DKK 100 million positive must be coming from house insurance. Does that sound right? Why such a big number? I would say that, until you said the last thing, Jakob, thank you for the question then. I agree with you. I think actually that is approximately in the numbers we also see in the forecast. It's not only house that is improving, you can say. We have also seen, you can say, improvements also in agriculture and the SME business that we're seeing actually. It's not only house, but of course, house is also a big part of the forecast, you can say, and the bettering here. It's also other lines that actually improved quite well. Actually also has also been quite good. We see some the underlying effects that is actually stemming from our efficiency program. It's actually across the board here. House is a big chunk of it, but also in some of the other lines. Just to understand. The travel, I understand from talking to you previously that the deterioration of 80 basis points related to travel is not only related to Q1 but also for the rest of the year. Regarding house, SME, and agriculture, as you mentioned, is that only a Q1 thing, or did you also include some expectations of improvement for the rest of 2022? I think if I may answer that, Jakob, I think if you look at the forecast and how it's structured up, what we're implicitly saying here is that the headwind we've had in Q1, we are actually offsetting that throughout the remainder of the year. I think you can look at it that way. In there is of course an underlying expectation of also improvements for the remaining three quarters of the year. Regarding travel. Yeah, sorry. When we started travel this year, we thought that there will still be some COVID-19 effects. That was, you can say, in our forecast, we put that in, you can say, at least for the first two and then normalizing during the second half of the year. What we've seen in Q1 is that we are back to totally normal. We have the same frequencies and so on as we've experienced. That means that is, of course, both a hit in Q1, but it's also a hit for the remainder of the year. Regarding the positive DKK 100 million delta to get to your guidance upgrade, is that something you have just seen in Q1, or is it also because something you had seen in Q1, you expect that to continue positively throughout the year? Yeah. It's the latter. It's the latter. Okay. It's the latter. It's the latter. Because we see that some of the strong development we've seen in the efficiency program, we can see that we also expect those to come forward in the rest of the quarters this year. Okay. Thank you. Then second one, a bit related, but on the DKK 80 million-100 million synergies still expected. Just could you maybe elaborate on where are those DKK 80 million-100 million exactly included in your guidance? Is it only in the expense ratio or some of it in life? Yeah. It's pure non-life, actually. Pure expense ratio. Pure expense ratio. Basically, whenever you sell it, we should expect a sort of a full year cost level to jump up around DKK 80 million-DKK 100 million in non-life. Is this not how I should read it? Yeah, that is the base case. Yes. However, as we also said when we announced that Nordea would buy the life company, we did also announce that, of course, we would not be sitting on our hands, but we would be looking to reduce as much as possible of this effect. However, it will not happen on day one after closing. It will, of course, take some time to achieve our new, you could say, sustainable cost level. Doesn't that sound? Last year, you made a DKK 240 million loss in illness and accident. Now you've apparently only assumed a DKK 100 million loss this year, and at the same time you expect synergies of hundreds. Basically, selling a really loss-making business gives you zero profit boost. That's basically what you're saying then. What we are saying is that from day one, the synergies will disappear, but we will, of course, be looking at defending our profitability to the best possible way. What we're saying is that we believe it will be tough to achieve the full or defend it in full, and it will also not happen on day one. Okay. Regarding, you said something about the illness and accident, Jakob. When we entered this year, we also knew that the FSA had published this new rules about that we work on getting the combined ratio down to a combined ratio of 100% at least. You can say that we also mentioned for you earlier that we have unexpired risk on this product line. You can say the development over the coming years, not saying how many, down to a 100% combined ratio will release some of the losses we're already taking, you can say, on our books. That is included, you can say. That's the reason why we also said that yes, we have not thought it that illness and accident would be, get more than 100 negative this year. That's also combining with the unexpired risk. I'm just still thinking it's not a lot to get on profit out of it. DKK 100 million is the gain, and then you lose DKK 100 million from synergies. Basically, it's a zero-sum game. Oh, you're talking about what you see, but you can say that, yeah, if we get rid of some, you can say negative on the combined ratio, and you can say avoid the volatility there. That's one thing, of course. Then we have, as you said, that has, you can say previously, that has been a higher number, right? Because we have seen higher, the deficits on illness and accidents than the 100% going towards. We said that we would actually expect over time to get to 100% on the combined ratio. When you do that, it doesn't mean that then you will earn the same in the life company, because we would probably be, you can say, according to competition, forced to make some discounts or rebates on other parts of, you can say, while we are in the money today, investments or cost or something. It's true that if you just take DKK 100 million and DKK 100 million, then it comes to zero, but you can say that we also have to receive the goodwill, as you remember. We also, you can say, now after the closing have a company working with much less capital, which also will have, you can say, a running gain in terms of that we don't need so much capital to run the business. All in all, I still think that the deal is okay, also seem from our part. Okay. I'll jump back in the queue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Tryfonas Spyrou of Berenberg. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Oh, hi. Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. In terms of the potential DKK 3 billion dividend to be paid as part of the sale of the business, given it's such a large amount and the potential impact that it could have on the share, have you considered doing share consolidation scheme in terms of returning the capital? Appreciate that it might be too early to comment, but I thought I'd try my luck. The second question is on, again, on the life business. I sort of modeled the leverage to increase just about 30% in 2023 after you pay out the dividend, assuming unchanged debt levels. Are you comfortable with this amount of leverage, or should we expect some management actions to be taken on debt side following the sale? Thank you. I think to answer the first question first about the dividend and whether we were considering doing something on the stock split instead or negative stock split. We are looking into all options. However, it's not something that has matured yet. We are still awaiting, of course, the closure of the deal, which is conditional upon the proper regulatory approvals. I think in terms of the leverage that you alluded to in forecasting, yes, the numbers look like they do. I think like last year, the sale of Life is putting us in a new position. The same task we had in the latter part of 2021 about looking at an optimal and efficient capital structure for the company, the same task and exercise we will be going through throughout the second half of 2022, with the expected closure of the deal. As you can also see, as we have alluded to, post-sale of life, we will actually be having excess Tier 2 capital compared to what we actually can use. We will be looking at our balance sheet and our capital structure in total and doing pretty much a similar exercise to what we did it in 2021 in terms of ending the year at a solid and efficient structure. Thank you. From the board, perhaps you can say today we can actually only use the tool of dividend. We also need to address this and discuss this with the board if we should do other things too regarding share price buyback, splitting, and so on. Okay. Just on the leverage. Would it be fair to say that even you can have a more stable business going forward, you'd be willing to run it with a bit more leverage, or would that be not able to say at the moment? Thank you. I think that's hard to say at the moment whether we'll be running at more or less leverage. I think what we will be looking into, I believe also in parallel, is probably more towards at which comfortable or at which level of solvency ratio are we comfortable at running the business. I think that's probably from a numbers perspective even more importantly. These things go together, and as I said, we will be looking at this as a whole throughout the second half of 2022. Okay. Regarding solvency level, we also addressed in our, you can say, start, but that we will come back with that. You can say that there are things pointing in each direction because you can say when you don't have a life company which is more volatile in terms of investment results and so on, interest level, then you could maybe argue that we need a lower level of solvency to cover the pure non-life. Then you could maybe say on the other hand, when you are so-called smaller business, only having one item, meaning non-life, instead of having also life, that could, you say, okay, because we are a little less, the size is a little less than we were before, that could maybe point a little upwards. We return with that. At the moment it's pretty sure that we are well capitalized. Of course. Very clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jan Erik Gjerland of ABG Sundal Collier. Jan is on a very bad line. I'll just try unmuting you once more, Jan, but we may need to switch to someone else. One second. Hello? Okay. Take the next one. I'll call in, like, once again. Okay. We'll move to the next question. That's the line of Martin Gregers Birk of Carnegie. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you so much. First of all, you know, maybe a follow-up on your thoughts on solvency, Peter. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that the 170%-190% should be lower number once you are a pure non-life company? It could be, but I think that, again, of course, this is also a discussion with the board. As I said, some things will make it. You can say we don't need as much solvency capital as we do now, due to the fact that the life is more volatile. On the other hand, you can say we are then a little smaller than we were before that having in the non-life. I will say that there is return with that. We haven't said exactly where it is. Just to let you know, we already think now at the moment that we are well over-capitalized, and then we'll get even more capital after the sale, and that will actually, you can say, get some possibilities of additional, of course, dividend or other ways to pay it out. Then we have to address what kind of level should we be afterwards. Yeah, it doesn't have to be as high as we set before, probably. We're not getting closer yet. Hope that's okay. Continuing along the lines, I see this quarter your SCR ticks down by some DKK 200 million. What's the reason for that? If I can continue, even deducting the DKK 3 billion, it still looks like there's room for payout ratio quite nicely above 100% for a number of years to come. Do you think that anyone would raise eyebrows if you actually or if you set the sails for +100% payout ratios for, well, let's say, over the next few years or so? I think that's a very good question. I will allude to Peter's answer as well. We believe that we are probably very conservatively capitalized at this point in time. After the sale or the closure, it would be even more so. Naturally, as we have also said before, we are here to serve our shareholders and all our shareholders. As we cannot currently at least use share buybacks or anything else to return excess capital to the market, it will be through the way of dividends. I think that is as close as we can come. There's only one rule is that it should be above 70% of a year's, you can say, profit. Meaning that it can be over 100%, yes. Turning to the SCR question, yes, you're right, our SCR has come down by DKK 200 million. It's caused by two things. One, the stress to equity has actually gone down in the quarter. The regulation or the rules for how to stress equities has gone down in the quarter. Then increasing interest rates has also helped us on the solvency part. You're right, we have seen a positive development of DKK 200 million. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Asbjørn Mørk of Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. One basically relating to the slide you had on repricing and inflation. Just trying to really understand your thoughts here. When you say you wanna reprice to adjust for inflation, is that basically in nominal terms you wanna defend your nominal income? Or do you want to basically retain your combined ratio, hence, I guess, growing your nominal income in the current environment? What's sort of the ambition from your side here? The way we stated it, and I agree that the semantics is a little bit different this time, but nothing has changed in substance here. What we are saying is that we will not allow inflation over time to dilute our combined ratio. Okay. That was very clear. On the discounting, if I may, the 50 basis points in this quarter, but just trying to look at your bridge in the bigger presentation, how much does the discounting make up of the other, and discounting in your guidance? Wouldn't we expect some sort of tailwinds from discounting also for the next couple of quarters given the rate developments? Yes, you would expect a tailwind from that over the next quarters as well. However, on the flip side of that is of course also that you would not expect a full year impact. Remember that the illustration we have in the slide deck is a full year impact of rate changes. First of all, they have only changed gradually over Q1. Secondly, of course, then also implicitly there would only be three quarters of impact in the year. You are right, you should expect. It's still I mean, it still also remains to be seen at what level interest rates will stabilize before I think drawing any, at least medium term conclusions on this. We have built a little. Excuse me. to the forecast. Sorry? You can say we have built in some positive tailwinds from, you can say, the higher interest rate level that we see now for the rest of the three quarters we are going into. That's part of, we can say, the forecast when we look at both combined and then also the technical result. Very neatly, you haven't added a number to the slide 13, at least in the bigger presentation. Is it's 50 basis points? Could you just give me a little bit of an indication how much of that is discounting? Let me say it is around the DKK 50 million, you can say, so to speak, or you can say on a yearly basis. That's DKK 50 million. I would say it's an okay proxy for as seen in the forecast for the year. Other is basically zero in your bridge? Oh, I can't remember whether there's some risk margin or in the other. Some other, you can say, changes to some of the other business lines. Okay. Basically. I just wanted to make sure that we are looking at the same ratio. Which ratio are you referring to? The one on slide four in our presentation? I'm looking at slide 13 in your extended presentation, assumed combined ratio for 2022. Fine. Yeah. Yeah. Remember also let's say, like, I mean, if you ask to do back of the envelope here, DKK 50 million, but then three-quarters of that as well. Sure. Basically Only three-quarters of that. Yeah. Basically what you're saying is you want to retain the combined ratio assumptions or ambitions, in spite of inflation, and you have 50 basis points-ish in your guidance so far for the discounting there. Okay. That was the- There's a little risk margin in the other as well. As you can see in Q1, we saw, you can say, headwinds from risk margin. You can say that's built into this item as well, the other. Okay, fair enough. If I may, just one final question on the synergies on Life, the DKK 80 million-DKK 100 million, one of the previous questions. What exactly is it you can mitigate going forward that you wouldn't be able to mitigate if you hadn't sold the business? You can say some of the synergies we have, of course, is that when you have more people, for example, on licenses and so on, you can say that you get some rebates in license for IT operations. We have joint IT systems. What about the rent for our property here in Ballerup? You can say there's a lot of things you can say that we cannot get out of, you can say, before we turn over the keys from the Life company to Nordea. Of course, we will start to work if we can, you can say, reduce this number, the DKK 80 million-DKK 100 million. I think it would be strange if we, after 50 years of chasing synergies, we just remove DKK 80 million-DKK 100 million in synergies. Because of course, we're always working to optimize it. Of course, there will be some additional cost that we have to cover ourselves when the Life is not part of, you know, doing it. Of course, we can also do some restructuring to make that number less. That's also part, you can say, why we have estimated both transaction unwinding and you can say restructuring costs to the level of DKK 300 million. No, but I fully understand the synergies and why they're not gonna be unwound from day one. It was more that let's say you can lower the lost synergies by half, so it's gonna be DKK 40 million-DKK 50 million going forward. The DKK 40 million-DKK 50 million that you are able to lower the lost synergies with, what kind of measures do you need to do? What does that include, and why wouldn't you be able to take that kind of efficiency gain if you still had Life in your book? Yeah, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're pointing at. You're gonna lose some synergies when you sell Life. I think that's quite obvious for a lot of us why you have scale, and you're gonna lose some of that scale. You say you can mitigate some of that lost synergies going forward, in the next couple of years. Why haven't we done that before? Yeah, exactly. What is it, and why haven't you done it before? Yeah. We'll take one example. For instance, one example that Peter alluded to about the licenses, for instance. Today we have a price per headcount for a given license. Tomorrow that price per headcount would all else be equal. That would go up because we have fewer headcounts. We can go out, renegotiate, probably maybe even you could say pay a penalty to get an early exit from an existing contract and then get a new price that is somewhere in between what we are paying today and all else being equal, the new price would have been with less headcount, for instance. I think that is an example of something that we would probably not be able to improve further the price we have today if we were the same headcount tomorrow. In this situation, we can actually do spend something to get a reduced negative impact on the synergies going forward. I understand the question now, Jakob. Sorry, Asbjørn. Sorry for not understanding in the beginning. I think and also that if you look at it going forward, you can say we will be a pure non-life player. Meaning that in the restructuring, we have some ideas how can we maybe build our organization in another way that actually can take away some of the millions we're talking about here that we cannot do today. Today we have a strategy actually working towards having both life and non-life and actually achieving synergies to having non-life and life. You can say there's also something about our organizational structure, the way we build up our business modeling and so on. We couldn't chase those synergies when we had Life, but if we don't have Life, we can do things differently. That at least we have some ideas how to do that. We haven't said exactly how much we could reduce, but I would be disappointed if we still are keeping the DKK 80 million-DKK 100 million in three years' time or two to three years' time or something. We'll start doing that already now, but of course it will happen after we have sold Life because we also have a lot of work to do separating Life. It's not that easy to do at the moment actually. I think that in the new structure being only non-Life, there's some things we will do differently. All right. That's very helpful. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jakob Brink of Nordea. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you. Yeah, I just have a follow-up, please, on inflation. So for the past many years, the salary inflation index in Denmark, which you and your competitors use for indexing private lines premiums, has grown more than the consumer price index. Hence, I guess you could argue that the automatic indexation of premiums has been above the claims inflation automatically, even without doing anything. Now for the first time in at least eight years, it turned negative in Q4, and especially on construction or housing related costs. It was extremely negative and also I understand on the wider consumer price index. I realize you have certain procurement contracts in place and then so forth. I'm just wondering. It seems like the salary inflation or the automatic indexation is no longer enough to cope with inflation. Looking at your price movements, it looks like you haven't really changed prices since January last year. When do you need to increase again in order not to get behind the curve? I would say that if you look at slide eight, Jakob, then it shows that a lot of the inflation we're seeing is within the property and the building insurance area. We have, as you know, also actually introduced price increases there, also due to our problems with house. As I also said at that stage, it's not only price saving this, it's also all the other measures we're doing. When we can see that we are still improving on house, we are pretty much in control, both with the things we've done on price and the procurement and our processes on the house. If you look at car, for example, you could maybe also some analysis about you can say that the claim replacement could also be around 5%-6% or whatever. If you look at what we've done on also here, motor, you can see that we've also worked with price. Actually, this shows 6% change in the average premium here. So we are working with prices. We have actually this is not only last year, this is ongoing, because you can see they're actually still moving upwards. If you look at the average premiums both on motor content and house. That is not only for coverages, that's also of course the price on the product. That isn't the reason why they're growing, because this is showing the sort of earned premiums. Basically you did the list price change last year, and then it just takes 18 months before it hits your P&L. Isn't that why it looks like it's actually increasing still, but actually was made by increases you did more than a year ago or? Some of it is of course that you have to roll it out through. You can say but it's not that we have done a mass change of price that is the same for all customers. We're doing this and you can say on a customer level based on their expected risk. We can say we're chasing this as we go. You can say when we say average, it seems like everyone has got 9%, for example. That is not true. That is, that's a huge span on this. The same goes for some of the other lines. Yes, some of it has been introduced formally, but we have also done changes also actually during the year and last year, and I was still doing. This is happening, you can say on a running way. Okay, good to hear. Just a small one then. On the investment portfolio, I see your property exposure has been reduced DKK 400 million. Is that due to illness and accident or what is that about? No, I think if you look back over the last years and look at the balance sheet of the non-life business, we have simplified the balance sheet, and we have also focused in terms of exposure, and actually moved out of property in general. The change you see from year-end is a result of a divestment of one half of a project in Ørestad that was a co-ownership between life and non-life. That has now been sold to life or rather to life customers in Q1. That means the property exposure left in non-life is now purely the domiciled properties here in Ballerup and in Viby. From that point of view, a simplified and cleaner balance sheet in the non-life business. We're also going to go towards the sale of life. We of course look into our investment strategy all in all, because today as being, you can say the owner of both non-life and life, we have the, you can say also the advantage to have a, you can say, higher asset under management level, meaning that you can maybe also have more different as you know, you can say items or activities or list on your, on your balance sheet. We will of course look into that going after the sale of life. We'll look into investment strategy saying which kind of assets do we want more or less of. Okay. Just on all these changes, so on the investment split, and also we talked a few times previously in this call about your new level of solvency. When do you envisage that all those new plans will be rolled out? Is that sort of a December 2022 thing, announced with the annual report, or do you think it could come sooner? I think actually that we have a board seminar actually in, I think it's in October, and I can't remember whether it's before or after the Q3, but I think that it's actually scheduled for discussion on the board seminar there. It will be in the end of the year. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Phil Ross at Mediobanca. Please go ahead, your line is open. Hello, good afternoon. Firstly, on the run off, there are some negatives on liability and then third party and comprehensive. I think you had issues in the past with liability reserving, and that was more to do with operational delays or claims filed. I just want to query what was happening in those two areas, please. Second question, a quick one on automation, slide 21. Q1 is at sort of slightly lower level than 2021 was. Just wondering if that's a seasonal Q1 impact or whether you think that maybe automation in 2021 was a little bit artificially higher due to some COVID impact. Thanks. I actually would say that historically, we're actually seeing some positive runoff from most liability that has actually been driven some of the runoff gains we've seen in a lot of years. We also seen that you can say that the risk premium on most liability is flattening out, being more equal. You would say this is a quarter, and so you can say but that's, yeah, I don't know if that makes sense. Actually, we have been looking closely into these numbers because as you rightfully point out, it's different from what we've seen in the past. Sorry. When we look at this, we believe that it's a question of how the winter days or the winter that we saw, the weather that we saw throughout the latter part of or very last part of 2021, how that impacts the reporting pattern. So, it's not from our point of view, this is not a run rate issue. It's timing and the timing in particular in terms of things from practice over the last days of last year versus the weather that we saw. Regarding the second question you asked about, wasn't it the share in online's claim supporting and also the automation level? Was that this question, right? Yes, that's right. Yeah. You can say it's sometimes we also get one of the things is, for example, a bug in one of our processes actually lowering the automation, the share of the automated decision in also, for example. Meaning that, okay, then you have a little lower level going through. That has been fixed, of course. Then it's also a question of how your claims is the mix of claims coming in. Actually we've also seen, as we have also stated that, more claims on health and anxiety, depression, stress and so on, and these kind of claims is normally not something that is done online. We're actually building solutions for that and also working quite well. We've seen more of these claims that is normally by a human being. Some of these things can actually change the picture in a quarter. We're still aiming for, you can say, both increasing the share of online claims and also you can say getting the automated part up. I would say that also we actually have some new ambitions saying that over time, we'll actually look towards getting 80% of our claims actually automated and decided within 20 seconds. This is not something I promise you will happen next year. We're still aiming to actually increase the level both of online claims and also the automation of decision by use of machine learning and so on. That's still a pure [P&C]. No changes to the plan or strategy, but more, you can say some fluctuations due to the mix of claims. Yep. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Faizan Lakhani of HSBC. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Afternoon. I have three questions. The first is on the solvency benefit from the change in interest rates. You seem to be quite skeptical in terms of what the stable rates of interest rates are. Can we assume, say that the benefit you've seen in this quarter from interest rate sensitivity is more of a not quite a real improvement in solvency ratio from your perspective and the way you think about excess capital? The second question is on the walk on the expense ratio for the next few years. Given the sort of moving parts with the synergies, with the efficiency program you're working on, what's the sort of walk for the expense ratio for the next few years? The final question is coming back to the asset mix change. Does that lower your investment return once you sort of sit down and decide what the new asset will look like? Thank you. Sorry. In terms of solvency benefit from the increased interest rates, I mean, yes, our current balance and our current solvency capital takes its outset in what we know right now. Hence, if interest rates does not continue to be at this point, then the solvency will be impacted. That actually goes whether or not the interest rates will go up or down. I think that's the easy way. It's quite mechanically the way it works in our Solvency Capital Requirement. Especially within the life business actually that the interest rates actually affects the solvency position, because we have these loss-absorbing capacity, which is the collective bonus and so on, and individual bonus potential, and that will move up and down with the level of interest. Just to sort of try and understand, if interest rates stay where they are at the full year, would you see that as excess capital or would that still be too early to treat that as a stable rate of interest rate? Right now, to be honest, we don't have an opinion on that. I think there are so many moving parts here. I think in that relation, the potential DKK 3 billion excess capital as a result of the sale, I think it is more significant than the potential impact from interest rates level. I think that's the best answer we can give you at this point in time. Mm-hmm. Thank you. There was the expense ratio going forward. Mm-hmm. Of course, as I already mentioned, the synergies from the life of course will have an effect and a negative effect at least from the beginning on the expense ratio. On the other hand, as you're mentioning, we also have, you can say, the efficiency program, working with this, some of those effects will also go into the claims ratio because a lot of them is actually doing or handling the claims costs. Some of them are also addressing the expense ratio, but exactly how that will develop. Actually, previously, we also said that we also saw the expense ratio going, not being higher, but actually going down over time, also due to the efficiency program. Now we'll have a jump, you can say, due to this Life. From there on, we still expect that it should move downwards. We don't have, you can say, a fixed level for it because actually we don't focus only on just getting the expense ratio down. We could do that in multiple ways, but we are, you can say, addressing the combined ratio as the overall, you can say, target we want to get lower over time. I hope that at least gives some, yeah, some thoughts about how we look at this situation. I'm just trying to understand it with the, not just efficiency program, but the investments you're doing as well, depreciation, all those aspects. I mean, should we expect sort of a reduction year- on- year, or will there be a hump as depreciation builds up and investment costs build up? It's true that the depreciation will also affect, and that's the reason why we're saying at the moment, whenever we stand still for a year, actually we've been quite okay because we are doing depreciations, and we are investing, as you know, more than we have ever done before. So that's the reason why I'm saying we're not that keen on just getting the expense ratio down and down and down, because we also need still to invest in the future. So at least if we can invest in right ways, so we get the combined ratio better, then that's our aim. But, yeah, we don't have, you can say, a prognosis for the expense ratio to give you at this stage. But it will be affected by depreciation, the Life, but also the efficiency program. We hope to keep it at least stable and hopefully seeing it trend downwards over time. That's the intention and the plan. I think in terms of the asset mix and implications of that, I think it's also a question of disregarding the sale of Life or not. Looking at the equity exposure that we have in the non-Life business. We are now, and it seems like we are moving further into a different territory than we've seen in many years. Namely, that now money has a price. Money comes with a price. Naturally, that should lead any responsible leadership management to actually review the asset mix and the investment strategy that we have. I would not sit here and say that it will have returns either go up or down. I would rather say that as any responsible management, we are reviewing the investment policy and the investment strategy. That is just the need to do so is just further accelerated by the sale of Life. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have one further question in the queue. It's a retry of Jan Erik Gjerland of ABG. Please go ahead. You're online, sir. Thank you. Hope you can hear me now. Coming back to Jakob's questions about the premium growth and the earned premium you show on page eight. How well are you on your written premium inflation growth, so to speak, versus the current inflation as you show the earned premiums here? How certain can we be that you are on the top of the current inflation pace, so to speak, when it comes to pricing aligned with inflation curve at the moment? I think to turn it, as we've also said many times, Jan, first of all, thank you for the question. There's more to inflation, and there are more handles than just premiums. What we have done, as Peter has said, is that we have raised prices already over the last 12 months. Continue to look at it. This is not a one-off effect. We continue to, on an ongoing basis, of course, review our pricing and our tariffs and have also come out with a new car tariff here earlier this year. The key to also helping us in terms of fighting inflation is, of course, our procurement part, where we have earlier on given some quite good examples, I think, or tangible examples in terms of restoration business and or damage control, how that impacts us. All we can say is that right now, with what we're looking into, that gives us, I would say, further comfort or further momentum in that what we have been doing in the procurement space is definitely on an ongoing basis continuingly to help and further build our defenses against inflation. You can say the earned premium is, of course, the indexation, the price increases, up-selling and more cross-selling and so on, new customers and so on. As you can also see on the private, the 2.7%, that's also affected by some churn, because when we do price increases, sometimes we also and we do actually doing quite a lot of product modifications, changes due to our travel going to a new system and getting even better, you can say systems and products for our customers. That is also giving some churn. When you look at the premium growth, that is a result of a lot of things, including also new and, you can say, customers leaving us. You cannot just only compare the premium, the earned premium to inflation. Then you have to look at the bottom line, our P&L, combined ratio. We still think if you look at the, you can say the underlying development in the combined ratio, just looking aside that we had a lot of weather-related claims and so on, then actually we still think we are on the right path and actually enhancing the business as we go now. That's my next question, is the underlying improvement. As I see, you said around tariffs is one point part of it, but how much is frequency, do you think, versus the number of accidents, both for housing, SMEs, and on the private side when it comes to the underlying improvements? As I said, COVID is behind us, but there is probably something in into the numbers. Is it just is it very good frequency at the moment? We see that at least in the end of the year. If you look at the frequencies, I would say that of course, what you compare with, you can say, because if I compare with 2020, then everyone would say that there's a lot more claims now. 'Cause we had, you could say, tailwinds from COVID-19 in the beginning of 2021. But and 2020 was also affected. If we had to go back to 2019, I know that's a long time ago, then you could say the first quarter of 2021, we had 6% more claims than we had in the first quarter of 2019. If we also take into consideration all the weather-related claims, then actually we had 18% more claims in the first quarter than we had in the first quarter of 2019. You can say, if I look compared with 2021, then the same figures would be almost 16% more claims in the first quarter of 2022 compared to 2021. With weather, then it's actually almost 30% more claims this quarter than we had in the first quarter of 2021. Looking at all the numbers, it's not that frequency has got down. Actually, just if you look at theft, we are seeing 50% more theft claims in this quarter than we have actually seen last in 2021. It's not frequencies driving the underlying improvements. They're actually our way to risk select and also, avoid the average claims explodes and also pricing and so on. On the disposable income for a household in Denmark, they are probably also seeing inflation everywhere. So when you're putting prices up, as you said, you see some churn. How much would you say that the negotiation on the tariff side, meaning that they take down their number of kilometers in the car or take down their coverage on the house or just take partial whole insurance rather than full whole insurance as a consequence of you improving your book versus they paying less to you as a consequence of the price increases you have sort of seen over the last year? We haven't seen that effect until now, I would say. I think actually it's a good question because going forward with the inflation on all other, you can say, things in the society and gas and fuel and electricity and so on, then of course you could maybe see a changed behavioral pattern in our customers. Would they actually insure less or would they actually insure more? Because what we saw under the COVID-19, you could argue that, okay, now some people also lost their job and so on, they would insure less. Actually, we saw some, you could say, some growth actually, if for example, within the personal injury and health insurance product and so on. It's a good question. I don't know what will happen in terms of behavioral patterns, but I think some will actually insure more. Actually, we saw actually that Deloitte made some analysis actually showing that has actually to look at the smaller corporation in Denmark, actually, more of them said they would buy more insurance actually in these turbulent times than they would otherwise do. Let's see what happens. At the moment, we haven't seen that has affected, you can say, behavioral pattern and the risk we hold onto now. Thank you. Thank you. We have one further question in the queue. That's on the line of Tryfonas Spyrou of Berenberg. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi. Sorry, just one more question, on the topic, following from the topic of theft. You mentioned increased theft, I guess more broadly in case we do have a recession and people's disposable income drops quite more. Historically, what has been the pattern in terms of fraud in Denmark? Do you expect to see a pickup in fraud, both in terms of private lines and commercial lines as people sort of don't have cash, so they try to claim on insurance? Yeah. Sorry to say that, if you look at historical years, then we have seen probably a higher level of fraud actually when there has been troubled times. I think that actually it's difficult to compare to the situation now, because in recent years, us and actually also a lot of our competitors, we have done way more, you can say, initiatives to actually avoid fraud. You can say the good customers do not have to pay for that. We have a lot of new measures and tools and focus on this. Yes, historically, we have seen that the fraud level has gone a little up in troubled times. It's not much, and that's not something that you could see maybe on the combined ratio. We expect still to actually see, actually detect little more fraud than we have seen historically. Actually that's also picking up, and that's also part of the improvement. It's not the biggest part, but it's still a value that actually we avoid these kind of claims. Let's see how the macroeconomic conditions will be. We are ready for the test. That's very clear. Thank you. Thank you. As there are no further questions in the queue, I'll hand back to our speakers for the closing comments. Yes. Thank you all for the good questions and for taking the time to attend our conference. As you know, you're always welcome to reach out to Robin, and if you have any further questions. We wish you all a pleasant rest of the day. Thank you, everyone.