Welcome to the Topdanmark interim financial report for Q1 2023. For the first part of this call, all participants are in a listen- only mode. Afterwards, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question, please press five star on your telephone keypad. I'll now hand you over to the speakers. Please begin. Thank you, Operator. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for joining us this conference call. My name is Peter Hermann. I'm the Group CEO of Topdanmark, and with me is our Group CFO, Lars Kufall Beck, and Head of Investor Relations, Robin Løfgren. We are hosting this conference call because earlier today we published our interim report for the first quarter of 2023. I would like to start with a few opening remarks before handing over to Lars for comments on the results in more detail. Could we see slide two, please? Let me first briefly comment on the significant piece of news from last month. We have entered into an agreement to acquire Oona Health, including the subsidiary Dansk Sundhedssikring, which is a market-leading specialized Danish health insurer. After the sale of our life insurance operation last year, Topdanmark is now a fully focused non-life insurer, and health solutions are core products of the non-life insurance market. Therefore, I'm pleased that we, with this acquisition, will secure a strong position in this fast-growing market with high customer loyalty. In other words, there's no doubt about the excellent strategic fit of this transaction. It's not just the strategic fit that is quite strong, so are both the current financial situation and the outlook for the business. Oona Health currently exhibits very strong financial operating performance, which is acquisitive to Topdanmark's current performance and targets. Oona has historically demonstrated double-digit premium growth with a compound annual growth of 24% per year in the last three years. On our numbers, we forecast more than 10% operating earnings per share acquisitions for Topdanmark in 2024, and even adjusting for the purchase price, we see 1%-2% operating EPS, earnings per share acquisition. It is rather unique that this acquisition of a clear growth pace creates shareholder value already in year one. In addition to this, we see a strong top-line synergy potential exploring cross and upselling between our portfolios. We expect the closing of this transaction in the second half of 2023, and we are very much looking forward to welcoming more than 200 new colleagues to Topdanmark. That was just the first thing. Let me go to slide three, please? Now turning to the financial performance in Q1, we delivered a good set of results. Net profits amounted to DKK 373 million, with an insurance service result of DKK 426 million and a combined ratio of 83.6%. Once again, we see clear evidence of the robustness of our business model and the solid effects of our ongoing efficiency and pricing initiatives. Despite some turmoil in the banking sector during March, financial market performance was good, and we posted a net investment result of DKK 106 million in the quarter. Insurance revenue grew by 2.5% this quarter, and we are seeing continuous growth across all business areas, partly driven by our pricing initiatives, but also by up and cross-selling to new and existing customers. However, our continued work with pricing initiatives has also caused a higher churn rate as expected, especially in the private segment. An important topic over the recent quarters has been the very high inflation. We're pleased to see further evidence that inflation has peaked in Q4 as the Danish Consumer Price Index continued to drop to now 6.7% in March. You know, the Consumer Price Index is not a good proxy for inflation in an insurance company, as we buy significantly different goods than those included in the index. On those goods, we also see signs of falling inflation, as notably timber prices are decreasing. In the short term, we are in a good position to handle inflation through procurement and underwriting, and we currently see somewhat lower claims inflation than the market inflation, as also underpinned by our combined ratio numbers. We have already imposed inflation-based price increase across a number of products, and we remain committed to our target of maintaining profitability by pricing at least in line with inflation over time. Lars, will you take us through the Q1 results in more detail, please? Of course I will, and thank you, Peter. If we take a closer look at our Q1 results, the profit after tax amounted to DKK 373 million, as Peter mentioned. The result is affected by three items that I would like to address. First, a sound development in our technical results. Secondly, a strong investment return. Finally, a somewhat higher effective tax rate due to certain tech-technicalities that I will talk you through. In terms of the technical results, we delivered a combined ratio of 83.6 or 85.9 excluding runoff and a growth of 2.5% for the quarter. The quarter was affected by many weather-related events, including the wettest January on record in Denmark. Weather-related claims were almost in line with the forecast. In addition, we saw a significant positive impact stemming from the rising interest rates when comparing to this time last year. At face value, the underlying claims ratio rose by 1.5 percentage points in the quarter. It's important to note that Q1 2022 was positively impacted by low frequency in general across product lines, while frequency specifically within motor was higher in Q1 2023, as the northernmost parts of Denmark experienced high snow depths during March. Please note that we do not include such claims in our weather-related claims definition. Furthermore, please note that the products affected by a frequency normalization after COVID, such as travel, personal accident, and also motor, all shows good profitability. On the positive side, our efforts to become more efficient continue to deliver strong results. Now turning to the investment result. Investment return was DKK 106 million in Q1 impacted by favorable developments across multiple asset classes, including strong equity markets, higher running yield on short-term liquidity, and a net gain from hedging the solvency true curve. O n the negative side, we performed a value adjustment on our domicile property in the quarter. We continue to reduce our CLO exposure during the quarter, but due to market conditions specifically in March, we do retain some exposure to CLOs for the quarter end. Please note that we have already further reduced our CLO exposure since end of March, and we aim to reduce it further over the coming quarters. Furthermore, during the quarter in February, we have assessed the relative valuation between equities and fixed income, and we have first reduced our equity exposure and increased our fixed income exposure accordingly in the month of February. Tax for the quarter amounted to DKK 138 million, corresponding to an effective tax rate of 27.1%. This does appear somewhat high and is affected by the value adjustment on our domicile property that I mentioned before. The value adjustment or impairment was non-tax deductible as the book value is below building cost. We do continue to assume an effective tax rate of 25.2% in the coming quarters in line with the statutory tax rate in Denmark. Finally, a comment on our solvency cover, which increased to 351% in Q1, of course, mainly due to the lower proposed dividend following the announced intended acquisition of Oona Health. Underlying the negative impact on own funds from removal of the volatility adjustment to the interest rate curve was more than offset by higher profit margin. The solvency capital requirement increased marginally in Q1, and as we still retain some exposure to CLOs, our continued efforts to reduce this will likely further decrease the solvency requirement in the coming quarters, all else being equal. Could we turn to slide three, please, looking at the profit forecast model. Turning to the... Sorry, next slide. Not slide three, next slide, sorry. Turning to the profit forecast model for 2023, we have improved the assumed combined ratio from between 83 and 86 to now between 82.5 and 85.5, excluding runoff in Q2 through Q4. On the positive side, we did see a runoff profit of DKK 60 million in Q1, while on the negative side we expect slightly higher cost in the rest of the year as we see a higher impact of the new collective salary agreement that was adopted and will become effective here in April than what we had foreseen. Underlying profitability remains very stable, and we thus continue to find the forecasted level for combined ratio very strong given the prevailing macroeconomic uncertainty. The assumed premium growth for 2023 is unchanged at 2%-3.5% based on the development in our portfolio. Hence, in conclusion, the post-tax profit forecast model for 2023 is lifted by DKK 100 million to the range of DKK 1 to DKK 1.5 to DKK 141 billion excluding runoff in Q2 through Q4. Slide four, please, over to you, Peter, for concluding remarks. Yes. Thank you, Lars. This concludes our opening remarks, so we are now ready to answer your questions. Please keep your questions to one at a time, one or two at a time. If you have more questions, feel free to enter the queue again for a second round. Operator, may we have the first question? Yes. If you do wish to ask a question to the speakers, please press five star on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press five star again. We have a brief pause while questions are being registered. The first question is from the line of Youdish Chicooree from Autonomous Research. Please go ahead. Your line will now be unmuted. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. I have two questions please, both of them on the underlying claims ratio. In the quarter it was, it was up by roughly 1.5 percentage points. I was wondering if you could tell us, you know, how much of the deterioration is down to more normal frequency and how much is down to, you know, just, heavy snow in parts of Denmark? That's the first question. Secondly, just trying to think on the trajectory going forward. I believe, I think, at some point last year you were already saying frequency had normalized. I would have thought like the year-on-year comparisons should, you know, become easier. Clearly there seems to be still like an impact from higher frequency. If you could just talk about, you know, how you expect this to develop over the coming quarters, that'd be very helpful. Thank you. Thank you for your questions. In terms of the underlying claims ratio, as you say, yes, deterioration by 1.6%. The vast majority of that is coming from the travel and personal accident part and not from the weather-related claims on motor that we saw. You're absolutely right that last year, we did say in particular in the second half of the year, we did notice that the frequencies had started to or had normalized and were coming to a normalized level. That does not, however, count for Q1 2022. In Denmark, actually the country was closed down. We were actually in lockdown up until February 2022. Clearly frequencies for Q1 last year was impacted by COVID. You're absolutely right for Q3 and Q4, yes, we did see 2022 as a normalized level. For Q1 there is clearly still a frequency impact from COVID in last year's numbers. I suppose there will be some impact in Q2 as well, right? Yeah. they're but smaller than in Q1. Okay. All right. Got it. Got it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Youdish. The next question will be from the line of Asbjørn Mørk from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Your line will now be unmuted. Yes. Hi, good morning. A couple of questions from my side. If I may start on your growth in the private segment, the 0.6%. I fully acknowledge that the IFRS 17 impact from the lack of discounting effects here, but still 0.6% is it does look rather low. Could you sort of split that up, that box up a bit and say what are sort of the gross trends here in terms of repricing versus net outflow of customers? I guess you are repricing something like 4% or 5%, and you are stating that Nordea is having better traction than the last customers with Danske. What is it really that continues to have a negative impact here? Is it IT issues or have you repriced too heavily as you I think you were also alluding to at some point in 2022 that you might have. A little bit of comment on that and maybe also how that impacts your cost ratio in private going forward now with the union agreement since you're not growing the premium side. Thanks. It's true that if you look at it, you can say the intake is not that high and will probably be high actually next year maybe due to the inflation index. The intake is not that high in private. That's one thing. As you know that we have done repricing, and that has also meant higher churn. You can say that is actually the main message is that we did repricing, we have seen churn, as you know that we're not doing this premium discounting or the interest rates on the premium shape anymore. That gives, as you say, a pretty low growth within the private, but it's actually not. It's actually more or less in line with what we have seen in the previous quarters actually. You can say sales is picking up and it's true that going forward we also see higher costs as at least higher than foreseen this year due to this collective agreement, salary agreement. The cost ratio is expense ratio will go a little up also in private. That's using the main part is actually the synergies from the life which we have already had stated. You can say, yes, there's nothing more to that, actually what we have already said, seen the last quarters. We can say the positive thing is that sales are at least picking up and churn is at least starting to you can say flatten out. I guess since your peers are also repricing, I guess the net outflow should sort of come down to a more normalized level. Wouldn't that be sort of as expected at some point? Doesn't really seem to be happening in Q1. No. Depending on you could say competitors, how they are moving in the market and the prices they do. As you have seen the last, well several quarters you can say we have seen also better combined ratios in Topdanmark than at least compared with peers. That you can say some of the effect is also that we have seen higher churn. Depending a little on the movement by competitors, yeah, then maybe as I was saying the sales are picking up, maybe that will give you can say better growth percentage going forward in private as well. All right. Fair enough. Second question from my side would be on the investment mix changes. You're saying that you reassessed the relative valuation between equities and fixed income. Could you just elaborate a bit on what is it exactly? What is the rationale? What kind of returns are you seeing from the different asset classes? Would it be fair, I mean it looks like you sold down something like DKK 0.5 billion, DKK 0.6 billion of equities. Would that be something like 39% lower SCR? Will that come back to shareholders or what is sort of the rationale here? I believe the DKK 0.6 billion is a little bit on the high side in terms of what we do, but it was fairly simple when we looked at this in February. The conclusion on our side was clearly that in particular U.S. equities seems like they were trading at a high price. Whereas, if you could put that back into certain fixed income, including certain high yields, we could get a very decent return on those asset classes instead. Of course, if you make larger changes, that does impact the solvency requirement as well. It's already included in the calculations. Right now, we do not foresee a scenario where we will be exiting equities completely. On the other hand, we are pleased with the position we have now. But and the comment I believe was, we made or we have made. Is also a follow-up from last quarter where we were challenged a little bit about whether equities were the right thing to do right now. This is just to make you all aware that we are actually, deliberately, making conscious decisions on this and not just sticking to what we had. As long as the low positioning getting out of that actually gave, you can say, a beneficial on the solvency, on the solvency. When you say that equities were expensive, was that basically saying that you do not think that the absolute returns on equities will be positive, or is it relative to the solvency requirement that comes with investing in equities versus covered bonds? What is it more a return on own funds calculation or an absolute return calculation? A relative return game, of course. Versus own funds? Yes. Okay. We were... I mean, if you go into to sort of medium term duration, flexes in Denmark, you can earn quite a decent result without any capital requirement, whereas U.S. equity is different, and you also have FX positions, et cetera, et cetera. It's clearly a relative game we're talking about here, not absolute. All right. That's very helpful. I'll go back into the queue. Thank you, Asbjørn. The next question will be from the line of Faisal Lakhani from HSBC. Please go ahead. Your line now will be unmuted. Thank you very much. My first question is on the Oona Health transaction. I want to understand how the intangibles are amortized over time. Does this implicitly provide a tailwind for the solvency going forward? Just to understand that would be helpful. The second is on the profit margin improvement on the solvency. What was the driver behind that? My final question is on the average premium on slide six. It appears that you were ahead of pricing, and speed of increases have started to tail off in back end of last year, but it seemed to have accelerated in Q1. I'm just trying to understand that you're already operating a very strong combined ratio. You seem pricing ahead of the market. Why the speed up in terms of, you know, putting rate through? Thank you. Thanks, Faisal. Thank you for your questions. In terms of the intangibles, and the depreciation or amortization of that, we have not made any decisions yet. I mean, we will only be finalizing or doing the purchase price allocation exercise, as and when the transaction closes. If you look at teams like whatever is allocated to customer contracts and brand is amortized over a 10-year period, and I think that seems like to be the best practice in the market. Of course, if we do not do something like that, then that would be an outlier, let me put it like that. In terms of whether it gives us tailwind on solvency, going forward, it will not. I mean, if you take our current solvency ratio, and you take out the money that we have to use to pay for Oona Health, you would basically bring that down to a normalized level, and then you would have a buildup of both intangibles and also certain tangible assets of course, on the balance sheet. No, over time, we do not expect this to give us any solvency tailwind because we're using free funds or own funds to pay to pay for the acquisition. Sorry. Second question? Just follow up on that. Your shareholder equity doesn't change, I guess, with this transaction. Because there's a lot of goodwill, surely that builds a lot of intangibles. Based on how you sort of calculate your, as your own funds, you know, if you, I don't know, can't really think of it's like DKK 2 billion goodwill potentially. That's sort of DKK 200 million a year that sort of rolls off effectively. I don't quite follow why that wouldn't... No, no. -be a problem to you in time. No, no, because it's not all of the intangibles that you amortize. Goodwill you do not amortize. It's only the part related to the brand and the and the customers. Okay. Thank you. Yes, potentially there will be some, but I said this is a lot if and buts and whens. I would propose to wait until we have the final purchase price allocation, and then we can also help you model the impact going forward. In terms of the profit margin, well, it's basically all input parameters, including lapse ratios, et cetera, et cetera, that have been reassessed. There's not one silver bullet here that has changed it. It's a revaluation of the model and all of the input parameters. Looking at the average premium, it's true that it's picking up a little here in Q1, but that's actually what we already told you that would happen because we have already worked for a long time with actually getting the right price and also being a little ahead of inflation. As we said, we still saw, you can say, inflation going up maybe in a less manner now because we're still in a high range. That was the reason why we said we would introduce, you can say, inflation-based price increases. That is what you can see also, you can say, increasing the average premiums in Q1. I would say that we are, you can maybe call it more, we are pricing in line with inflation at the moment. That's the reason. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Faisal. The next question will be from the line of Jakob Brink from Nordea. Please go ahead. Your line will now be unmuted. Thank you, and good morning. Just maybe starting on Oona, please. Looking at Oona's annual report from last year, there was just some pretty big movements also in their guidance for this year from the reported profit last year. It seems to be coming from some other costs and also very high premium growth. I think I know why, but it would be good if you could maybe put a bit more details on that, including if I look at Dansk Sundhedssikring's annual report, it looks like they have DKK 30 million, DKK 40 million higher net profit for 2023 guidance. I guess that's related to the loss in Sweden. Any words on the Swedish business or basically that difference, please? And then just back to Asbjørn's questions in the beginning around growth in the private segment and also your inflation levels here. I guess it didn't give us before the actual gross numbers, but if you have 2%-4% inflation, looking at your graphs there, it looks like you have maybe 5% premium growth and you're only growing 0.6. Would it be fair to say then that you're losing maybe 4% of the volumes? Or is there some kind of price sort of lags that are maybe disturbing that estimation? Thank you. Thank you, Jakob, for your questions. I think regarding Oona Health and the questions related to that. I just want to reiterate what we said earlier on. One, of course, we've done our due diligence and have our case on the numbers. Until closing occurs, in terms of finances for Oona, including guidance for 2023, we have to refer you to their reports and don't have any further comments on it. Could you maybe just help us understand still what's the difference then between Oona group and Dansk Sundhedssikring of that DKK 30 million, DKK 40 million? I guess also is Topdanmark going to have a Swedish operation? It's true that you can say that, looking from an Oona perspective, yes. That, of course, you can say at least one of the differences. Maybe we said it the last time as well, I can remember. Just to say that, in the press release we said that we of course are taking over, hopefully, a business consisting of a mainly Danish operation and then also a smaller Swedish one. We will of course when the acquisition will be approved, then we will look into that together with the board saying, do we think we will continue that or do we think we should not continue that? We cannot answer the question at the moment other than saying that Topdanmark is a Danish business and we have also bought it mainly due to the Danish operations, and we will consider the Swedish operation going forward. The guidance you made or the EPS accretion you mentioned in the press release, was that based on Oona or Dansk Sundhedssikring? That was based on Oona. Okay. Okay. The premium growth, I don't know if you can get any closer to that, please? I think just a technicality, Jakob, maybe then Peter wants to allude further. Just a technicality. You should be careful about making, of course, direct comparisons of growth in the quarter and what happens in the portfolio. This is of course a portfolio which was for the vast majority with annual policies and hence a negative portfolio outflow in Q2 2022 will impact your nominal growth in Q1 2023. You should be careful about making just one-to-one assumptions or relationships between actual growth and portfolio growth. I don't know, Peter, if you have any further comments on the private part. No, I would say that it's true as you're saying, Jakob. We have done, you can say, these inflation-based price increases. We have also a little smaller indexation. All- in- all, it's true that the growth is not high in the private segment. You can say the main reason is that we have seen more churn on this portfolio. You can say yes, we have, as I said earlier on, we have also priced in front of inflation that actually have improved the combined ratio but also meant a higher churn. Now, I would say that we are more or less, I would say more in line with inflation at the moment we're pricing. Going forward, yeah, let's see how competitors will like as well. Well, as I said before, we're seeing sales at least picking up and churn flattening out a little more. That's it could be that the, you can say the growth will actually improve going forward. Maybe just a follow-up. What kind of customers are leaving? Is it one product customers like we saw in Tryg, or is it sort of more broad- based and maybe also who's taking the market share? There's not one competitor here. You can say that we're also seeing one product customers leaving us. I must admit we have also seen, you can say, customers with more products leaving us. Of course, we're still doing this on a risk-based view on this. Of course, we're trying to see if we can stick to the best customers. It's only but a fact. We have also seen good customers leaving us due to the competition position situation in Denmark. It's not one competitor here. We have seen some competitors being quite aggressive in some parts. Sometimes, if you get one product, maybe you can get the whole of the customer. So, it's not a simple view. We are trying to do what we can. We're actually quite good at, getting rid of, protecting our customers, actually defending them and, getting them back. That's also part of actually why the churn is lowering at the moment. Okay. Very clear. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Jakob. The next question will be from the line of Jan Erik Gjerland from ABG. Please go ahead. Your line will be unmuted. Thank you. Jan Erik Gjerland from ABG here. Just a couple of questions as well. Just back on the inflation and the growth here. Is it so that you are testing your sort of your customer churn on your profitability, et cetera, not to lose too profitable customers? How do you really go ahead when you're looking at your increase of premiums? Is this flat through all, or is it so that the best customer get lower? How do you treat them differently, so to speak? How has this workers' compensation indexation, which I think was low in this quarter, hit your sort of the SMEs because that is growing very fast. Where are you repricing very fast on the SME side versus the private side? I think I'll start with that. Thank you. We definitely do it on a, you can say, on a customer level. Of course, you can say inflation hits, you can say all around. When we do price increases, we of course look to the, you can say the expected risk, meaning that you will not increase good customers as much as less good customers. It's not just a 1% for all. When we do say that we maybe said that we will price, +2, three, whatever percentage is, then it's an average. That could be +10, 11 for some and 0 for others, or actually decreasing prices. We're trying to do it risk-based and of course, to keep as much of the good customers as well. That's one thing. The other thing is workers' compensation. Yes. The index was more than 10%, 13, actually 14% last year. Actually, the two last years. This year it's 2.5%. We have actually seen some churn here. In terms of also because interest rates are also has taken up, meaning that you can say the expected risk on workers' compensation has actually gone down. That has improved the result as well. Also, that some competitors also lower the prices. We're also looking into this. We are also looking into how to protect the portfolio but also making sure that we still have a profitability here. This is, as you know, always a game between having keeping your profitability and growing. At the moment, yes, we have seen a lower growth going forward. But I think actually we have an okay growth at the moment, looking in terms of what is happening in the market inflation wise and so on in terms of our pricing efforts. We're still happy to protect the profitability going forward. That also goes within Workers' compensation. Okay, perfect. Just on the risk margin in the claim's levels, where it improved by 50 basis points, it seems between the Q1 last year and this quarter. Is it the same issues like in the solvency risk margins, thinking when it comes to the improvement, what's behind the improvements? If you could shed some light to that. Yes. There's also some, certain technicalities in relation to the first-time adoption of the IFRS 17 impact that is in that category, Jan Erik. Okay. Is this a level going forward or is it just a one-time happening, how to say? Jan Erik, there's also an element of the fact that our solvency is simply lower. You know, you're comparing to a Q1 where we included Life in there as well. Our solvency requirement, sorry, is low enough. That will also help us going forward. Yeah. It's depending on- Thank you. The solvency mainly. Okay, perfect. Thanks a lot. I'll go back to the queue. Thank you, Jan. The next question will be from the line of Martin Gregers Birk from SEB. Please go ahead. Your line now will be unmuted. Thank you so much. Just coming back to premiums. I guess 2.5% is a pretty good starting point to reach your premium guidance for the full year. I did have the impression that your premium growth guidance was going to be fairly back-ended loaded. How do you see sort of the premium pattern over the coming quarters from here? That would be my first question. The second question is back to Danske's signaling and the stickiness of those premiums, given it's a fairly broker business. Any questions on that? Sorry, any comments on that? I think that, if we start by the premiums, you're absolutely right. 2.5% is a good starting point for the year. However, there is of course an idea behind us keeping the guidance fixed between 2%-3.5%. That is because we are looking into a high macroeconomic uncertainty. We are looking into as we have over the last years, a highly competitive environment in Denmark. Then we are also in particular on the workers' comp side, as Peter alluded to, we are seeing competitors being more aggressive there. On these workers' comp business, we do have a high average premium per policy. So, movement in the market will potentially impact our growth looking forward or going forward. Hence, we stick to the 2-3.5. Yes, we've had a good start, but that has not led us to become more optimistic for the year. Maybe just your questions to Oona, Martin. Yes, actually a bigger chunk of the business within that channel segment is actually also coming from the broker channel. If you look at the churn and the retention levels actually over time in that portfolio, it has been quite impressive that it hasn't been that suddenly it's broker business. It's been broker business actually for a long time. The churn or retention, same view, but it's actually pretty good. They have this pretty sticky business also within the broker business here. Just a question out of curiosity. If you manage to make one of these owner clients a full Topdanmark client, and all of a sudden that the health insurance element in it that would be sold to someone else, will Codan Care or for example, would they be able to target sort of the rest of the P&C insurance that that particular customer may have? You can say all- in- all you can say it's always this: we're also trying to do upselling and cross-selling if we are able to do it. I think you should always consider you can say the channel or the, you can say the value of the lead. For example, when we have leads working for example, from Nordea, then it is a customer actually looking into their private economic situation where insurance is a part of it. That's one kind of lead. You can say another lead could of course be a customer who has a, you could say health insurance, but of course you could also talk the, with the person about the other insurances as well, but it's a different lead. It is true that if you have some, for example, some of the customers within Oona is actually administration field. They actually- they don't own the customer, you can say, but they do administration in terms of claims handling and so on. That will not be, you can say, where you have a consent from the customer to actually contact them. It will depend on the different customers in Oona whether you can say it's a good lead or not. I think actually what is, what should be easy is that, for example, all of Topdanmark customers not having, you can say, health insurance into the private division, for example, there you can say of course they, you can contact them with the Oona's product, but there will probably also be some benefits of actually seeing that some of the Oona customers that could get some Topdanmark insurances. It's not all customers within their customer portfolio that will be easy, so to speak, or just to go through, because we have to. There's also broker business on them could maybe be protected otherwise from other places and so on. We have to look into that. We have of course built into our economic, financial view on it, also some upselling across portfolios here. Okay. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Martin. The next question will be from the line of Tryfonas Spyrou from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Your line will now be unmuted. Hi. I have two questions, please. The first one is on Oona Health. I was wondering if you can share some more details on how you expect to generate revenue synergies and how much have you factored in your numbers. Appreciate that there'll be no integration with Oona, and they will operate as a standalone company within its own brand and so forth. Maybe you could share some thoughts on the expected relationship and how the ownership look like going forward. The second one is on expense ratio. You mentioned it's expected to be a little bit higher here. Can you maybe help us understand what you mean by a little? Is it more like 20 basis or would be closer to 17% or even above? Any color there will be appreciated. Thank you. We don't have, you can say, we don't have numbers for you can say, for the longer run on the acquisition of Oona Health. We want to be certain that we do the deal, and then we'll incorporate, you can say, our expectations of that business together with Topdanmark going forward when we reach that milestone. It's, but based on the scenario, we are looking more into a top-line synergy case than a cost-optimizing synergy case. That's the fact that we want to keep it as a separate company and also work with their brand as well, as we just mentioned. They have, you can say, a good starting point because they are number one, you can say, in terms of market share within the health insurance business. We don't want to stall that, but we want to make sure that we can use potential upselling going across the different portfolios here. We don't have numbers for you to say that it's this and how much and how much. The only thing we can say is that as we way forward, that we've been looking into, you can say, a 10% higher operating earnings per share going forward, just in looking forward next year. You can say 1%-2% looking at up also taking care of the purchase price. That's the numbers we will give you at the moment. Expense ratio? In terms of expense ratio, yes, you're right. We are guiding that it will be a little bit higher. We're not giving any specific interval or guidance on it. Clearly, when we say a little, we measure it in basis points and not percentage points. Your assumptions doesn't seem like it's completely off compared to our internal modeling. Okay. That's very helpful. Thanks. Thank you, Tryfonas. The next question will be from the line of Vinit Malhotra from Mediobanca. Please go ahead. Your line will be unmuted. Yes, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. I have two questions. One is on slide 12, please, where you say inflation has peaked. I'm just trying to understand. do you have a differentiated view versus your peers? Because I've heard some of your peers are still trying to be ahead of inflation, where you're saying you're at par with inflation on pricing. Could that be an opportunity to reduce the customer churn if you see that? Any comments on that, please. Second question is on just the claims trend and weather. Slide 28 is my reference point here. It doesn't look like travel, for example, is much higher than pre-COVID to be slightly higher. Would you say that there is something different about your portfolio on travel compared to peers? The same question on your portfolio versus peers on weather, where we actually didn't hear much of a weather commentary from Tryg last week. I'm just curious on your positioning versus peers on weather and travel. Thank you. Inflation. It's true that we're saying that it has peaked. That just means that the increases are a little lower than they were before. We're just saying that if you look at the competitive situation, we have already done quite a lot of price increases. I mean, that's the reason why we've had so we think good, combined ratios also compared with peers over the last year or so. Of course, it's a balance between keeping up prices and also keeping a competitive level. That's the reason why we as we've shown that the average price premium is still going up because we are doing the price increases. We have to consider also the competitive situation. That's the reason why we're saying that we continue more in line with inflation at the moment, where I would say that we have been in front before. In terms of travel, just to say that I think it's important for you to know that if you look at frequencies, then we can see, yes, frequencies is picking up due to the fact that there's normalized people traveling more. On the other hand, remember that we lost the Mastercard agreement with Sydbank, which was, you can say, also got a lot of customers with a travel insurance. They are out of the books, meaning that you can say in terms of frequencies, number of claims, that of course will go down when we don't have that anymore. You can say it is going up in terms of the normalization. People are traveling more. Underlying we can see more claims if it was on one-to-one. The problem is that now when you look at the numbers, it is without the MasterCard agreement. That means that we see fewer actually travel claims. Weather, the reason why we're mentioning in the weather is that we see differently on weather. I think that because when we look into weather, we take all the claims that is connected with weather, storm and rain and so on. For example, if you have a car that will do a single accident due to heavy snowfall, that will for us be a motor claim and not a weather claim. I think the reason why we are mentioning weather like this in the report is to say that remember when we take out weather to come to the underlying then it's rain and storms and so on. It's not, for example, snow on the personal accident and motors that people do claims due to the fact that it's been snowing or it's icy or something, then it'll be either personal claim or motor claim and not a weather claim. Just know that other competitors are looking at this a little differently when they do this. What they take out of the gross claims to come to the underlying. Sure. Okay. Thank you, Vinit. The next question will be a follow-up from the line of Asbjørn Mørk from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Your line now be unmuted. Yes. Hi. A couple of follow-up questions, if I may. First, on the underlying claims ratio, the undiscounted 150 basis point deterioration year-over-year. If you look at sort of the Q4 trends, it was 290 and in Q3 it was 420 in deterioration. Admittedly not on IFRS 17, but still, looking at the improvement trends, and the sort of the mentioning you do on the mode trends. Still, I was just wondering, is it fair to assume Q2 underlying undiscounted will be sort of flattish year-over-year? Is that a reasonable assumption? We don't guide on that, Asbjørn. What I do want to acknowledge is, as you say, that there is actually been an improving trend over the last quarters. We do not guide on the underlying claim trends. Okay. Fair enough. Second question, going back to Oona. I know that what you said about the brokerage portfolio and sort of the loyalty of the customer base. Just wondering if there's any sort of white label solution products from other insurance companies that could be at risk here. Have you seen any sort of negative synergies from you being the owner of Oona versus sort of the competitive situation? Also looking at the, at the insurance reserves in Oona. I don't know how much clarity you can give, but just the claims provisioning, which actually led down a little bit in 22 despite of the high growth. I guess there could be some discounting effect here, but maybe just a little bit of comment on how much you've been into the provisioning side of Oona before you did the acquisition. Of course, we've been doing our due diligence, very thoroughly, on the Oona case. I think if you look at customer vulnerability, we have not pinpointed like these five customers we believe there is a risk that we lose. In our case. We have, of course, built in from a prudency point of view, of course, built in a certain initial term, that you would be expecting when it comes to an acquisition like this. In terms of the claims provision, it is driven by two things. It's of course, to the largest extent driven by the increasing interest rates that we have seen. It is also because there has been an underlying improvement if you look at the numbers. There has been an underlying improvement in the claim's ratio for Oona Health. That of course helps the provision at year. All right. That was very clear. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Asbjørn. As a reminder, please press five star on your telephone keypad to ask a question. Our next question will be a follow-up from the line of Jan Erik Gjerland from ABG. Please go ahead. Your line now will be unmuted. Thank you very much for taking this follow-up. Just on the cost side, would any of the cost increases be because you have to sort of sell more to existing clients? Is that some part of the equation or is it just purely that you have lost out of the life synergies? No, there are no specific impacts from cross and upsells. It's the life synergies, a few, one-offs in the quarter. As we said, looking ahead, the new labor union agreement in Denmark is becoming a little bit more expensive than what we had included in our forecast. On the other hand, we made good progress with our efficiency program, so that offsets part of the headwinds that we are getting. At an aggregate, that's why we are guiding a little higher expense ratio for the year, compared to our initial guidance. I can't remember if it was Jakob or Asbjørn who talked about the competition. Who are you losing to? Are you losing to the large ones or are you losing to the smaller mutuals at all? How should we read the competition picture in Denmark at the moment? Both private and SMEs. From our side, there are no changes to if you look at the private side, no changes to what we've seen over the last years. There's not one specific competitor who is taking up or sweeping up the whole market. In terms of the SME portfolio, we are as you can also see in our numbers, we're still growing and it's a focus area from our side, as you know, and hence we are happy to see the results. We believe that that demonstrates the good and strong value proposition product offering and service that we deliver to our customers. You can say that one thing that I could do is affecting at the moment, you can say the commercial side at least on the short industrial side is also you can say the toughening reinsurance market. That will make it at least more difficult, you can say, if you don't have the right reinsurance program or you can say the challenges cover that risk. There could be some changes in the competitive situation for if you're a smaller player not being able to, you can say, to have the so much risk on your own path. That we can see we're in a good position to grab that with the reinsurance program we have and also our strong, you can say, capital position. That's also why we are seeing that we get some growth also in that area going forward here. On private, as Lars is saying, it is, you can say the same as we've said. There's competition out there and the inflation and interest rates and so on have given, you can say more competition actually lately in the last year than we have seen maybe previously, but no changes. Whatever. Just a follow-up then. Is it also that you've seen any changes in the volume behavior because of affordability? Last year we didn't see anything of that, but maybe the interest rates are starting to show more tougher signs now, with the energy prices and interest rates moving upwards. Is there any signs of that in your portfolio at all or are you seeing that people actually are doing the same, or are they taking off the plate for the cars, or the number two cars to make the insurance costs lower? We haven't seen that many movements in that part. You can say what we can see, for example, looking at the federal protection insurance we have, we can see that, yes, we have seen a little more people using that, meaning they've lost their jobs. There are so many insurances that you need to have, so to speak, in the by law. We haven't seen a big, you can say, decrease in the want for insurances. If you look at the commercial side, yes. Have we seen more bankruptcies there? No, not much actually. At the moment it's quite stable. The Danish society has been quite good also with these times. Of course, going into recession of course that, it could look different. We're not seeing a picture that people are starting to not take out insurances. On the other hand, you can say people are starting to travel more. Maybe that we see, you can say they take out more insurances there. Okay. just two technical questions. The one is from Oona Health. Are you going to have that as a separate business unit or it's going to be integrated in the private unless or the SMEs? or will you have it as a one liner? We have not decided on that yet, Jan Erik, but we will of course in due course come with the conclusion and also pro forma numbers. Finally on page 22 in your report, you have this elimination, quote of DKK 4 million on the cost claims and DKK 11 million on operating cost, that is taken out of the sort of the, or added to the insurance service result, but taken out of the combined ratio. How should we treat those going forward? Is this totally technical or should we treat that being roughly zero over time? It's a, it's really only really too technical. It has actually always been like that. It's just not been visible in the sense that we had a life. Now the, you would say the operating entity in non-life and group is the same, and yeah, because we don't have the life company any longer. It's purely technical that it's being eliminated. Whenever we do our profit forecast model and also our actual combined development, it's based on a like for like scenario. You're right that in the quarter. The elimination was above DKK 10 billion. That's a little bit high. On average over the last years, what we've seen is on annualized basis, it's below DKK 30 million. Okay. Perfect. Thanks a lot for your time. Thank you, Jan. As there are no further questions, I'll hand it back to the speakers for any closing remarks. Okay. Thank you for taking the time to attend our conference. As you know, you're always welcome to reach out to Robin if you have any further questions. We wish you all a pleasant the rest of the day. Bye.