Good morning, everybody. My name is Gianandrea Roberti. I am Head of Investor Relations at Tryg. We published our Q3 results this morning, and I have here with me Morten Hübbe, Group CEO, Barbara Plucnar Jensen, Group CFO, and Johan Kirstein Brammer, Group CCO. With these words, over to you, Morten. Thank you, Gianandrea, and good morning to all of you. We start on slide three, where we show a Q3, which is strong insurance quarter with a lot of operational improvement. We report a technical result of DKK 1.8 billion. I like that number. It's up 85% versus reported DKK 988 million in the same quarter last year. An unusual increase and clearly reflecting the fact that the RSA acquisition has increased our size, and where we have a completely different scale in the new enlarged group. If we look at the pro forma numbers, the DKK 1.8 billion technical is up roughly 21% to the pro forma DKK 1.5 billion in the same period last year. The main drivers of improvement is of course the higher interest rates, which you may recall improves our discounting. More importantly, 0.8% improved underlying claims, including synergies, but also the positive technical result from the positive top-line growth. Combined ratio for the quarter is 81.1% against 82.9% last year. If you look at the geographical split, it's worth noticing that Sweden as a country delivers a combined ratio of 76%, of course, to a large extent a driver of the new Trygg-Hansa book, but of course combined with our old Moderna book in Sweden. Bear in mind that the Swedish technical result, which was DKK 61 million in Q3 last year, is actually DKK 784 million in Q3 this year. A major step up in the enlarged group. As I mentioned, the group underlying claims improve 80 basis points. The improvement comes from commercial and corporate where we want to see the improvement. It's very positive, and it is offset by a small deterioration in the private lines. Expense ratio is roughly flat at 14.1%. Clearly, Q3 saw challenging and volatile capital markets. Interest rates move up, war, inflation, uncertainty hit nearly all asset classes that were down, and our total investment return for the quarter is -DKK 348 million. We will pay a dividend of 1.58 DKK per share, which we're very pleased is an increase of 48% compared to Q3 last year, starting the dividend growth journey that we're expecting following the large acquisition, and of course, driven by higher insurance earnings, the DKK 1.8 billion, but also the operational improvements and the RSA synergies. Just to remind you, we're currently buying back DKK 5 billion of Tryg shares. We've bought back DKK 2 billion of the five so far, and we expect the program to run until the summer of 2023. Solvency ratio at 198%, quite robust in a period of turbulence, as we're seeing now. On slide four, we show the customer highlights. Generally, customer sat stayed very high at 85%, in Q3. That is a strong result in a turbulent period. As you know, our ambition is to reach 88%, by 2024 at the end of the strategy period. For this quarter, specifically, we're seeing an increase in customer satisfaction. We see that particularly the digital customer experience has been improved, and in particular, our visual way of showing the customer how can they easily follow a claim once they have reported it. Also in commercial Norway, we've seen increase in customer sat. We have improved response time, which is often characterized as the number one most important by customers. In particular, we have improved response time in the sales processes, improving customer sat in commercial Norway. On slide five, a little bit of a new layout on this, technical, split of technical development. As I mentioned, the group technical result for the quarter was DKK 1.8 billion. On the left-hand side, you see the business area journey from the DKK 988 million that we reported in Q1, in Q3 last year to the DKK 1.8 billion in Q3 this year. As you see on the left-hand side, the vast majority of the more structural increase in size in our new group comes in the private and commercial segments. Actually, if you look at the technical result in private and commercial put together, it increases year on year by 93%, actually an increase by DKK 819 million. Of course, bear in mind that private and commercial are always and historically the strongest segments with the strongest stability. The strongest profitability and the strongest return to shareholders. To have the majority of our uplift in those segment is very satisfying. Also, if you look at geography, we lift Sweden from delivering around 6% of the group technical result to now delivering 43% of the group technical result. Denmark at 34%, Norway at 23%, improving significantly our earnings diversification across the countries. Then on the right-hand side, we show the drivers of the improved technical result. Clearly discounting in this quarter is the largest driver. The second largest driver is the 0.8% improved underlying claims for the group. Also we see as number three, the technical result driven by the strong top line growth. Barbara will get back to the cost development, but fair to say that RSA historically did not report a first quarter and a third quarter. There's a little bit of fluctuation in the quarters from costs, but roughly flat. Over to you on synergies, Johan. Thank you, Morten, and I'm turning to page six. The RSA acquisition has produced synergies of DKK 97 million in Q3, bringing the total for the year to 239 for 2022, and DKK 302 million accumulated, including also the DKK 63 million realized in 2021. Half of the synergies in Q3 were cost synergies. The remaining half was almost evenly split between claim synergies with 2/3 and commercial synergies with 1/3. The cost synergies came primarily by reduced marketing spend, lower RSA group charges, and FTE reductions, primarily from natural attrition. Procurement synergies came from the utilization of the lowest price contracts, mainly within property and auto. The commercial synergies were driven by pricing initiatives in Norway and Sweden, as well as cross-selling of pet insurance to Trygg- Hansa customers. Moving to page seven on shareholders remuneration. Tryg is paying a Q3 dividend per share of DKK 1.58, slightly higher than Q2, primarily driven by lower share count following the buyback progress. The DPS is 48% higher versus the same period in 2021, supporting our journey towards a doubling of the dividend towards 2024. As Morten mentioned previously, we are currently in the market with our DKK 5 billion buyback program, and we have bought back just more than DKK 2 billion so far, with the program expected to last until the summer of 2023. We report a healthy solvency ratio of 198, a good level at the start of our new journey, a level that can protect us well from the uncertain macroeconomic times and can ensure our dividend delivery. With that, I'll turn to the next chapter on premiums and portfolio on page nine. The group premium growth was 6.4% in Q3, once again, primarily driven by the private and commercial segments. In this slide, you can see that corporate is reporting growth of 5.8%. However, please note that the number is slightly inflated due to a resegmentation of the Codan Norway book that initially was allocated to commercial and subsequently moved to corporate. Adjusting for this resegmentation, the top line development would have been negative by -1% for the corporate segment. Since profitability remains key in our corporate business, this development is in line with our expectations and our strategy. The private segment continues to report a healthy growth of 7.3%, driven both by organic growth and price adjustments to offset the inflation levels. The commercial segment reported a growth of 4.6%, also helped by good organic growth and price adjustments. Again, adjusting for the resegmentation mentioned before, the growth would have been around 7% for the commercial segment. In general, it is important to highlight that Scandinavian economies remain relatively healthy, and we see no change in consumer patterns towards insurance. This is not in any way to deny that we live indeed in challenging times, and we as a company try to remain even closer to our customers and best advise them on their insurance needs going through these times. Turning to page 10, we're taking a deep dive into the rebalancing of the corporate portfolio. At the Capital Markets Day in November 2021, we announced a rebalancing of our corporate portfolio with an ambition to reduce the property exposure outside the Nordics by 50% and exposure to U.S. liability by 70%, bearing in mind that the exposure to U.S. liability came from a very low starting point. Our ambition is overall to have a corporate business that is somewhat smaller but more profitable and less volatile. As you can see from the charts here, both the change in portfolio mix and the reductions of risk exposures are moving us in this direction. You can see on the right-hand side that we have been reducing some 27% on our exposure to property outside the Nordics and reduced 49% on our U.S. liabilities. As a reminder, we have a combined ratio target of 90% for the corporate business in 2024, with a much lower run-off contribution compared to the previous periods. Turning to page 11 on average price movements, we continue to monitor inflation developments very closely and work a lot with procurement to mitigate this development and increase the prices to protect our book of business. The macroeconomic situation remains very volatile, and therefore, this has been an area of heightened focus for Tryg for some time. Price increases in Denmark and Norway in private and commercial for the main products are anywhere between 3%-8%. For Sweden, price increases are somewhat lower, reflecting a generally lower inflation level up until now. On page 12, we are showing customer retention, which is generally improving. Retention rates are improving slightly looking at recent developments, and overall retention levels remain around 90% for the private and commercial segment. This is very important for us and a key feature of our markets despite these challenging times. With that, I'll hand it over to you, Barbara. Thank you very much, Johan. Now please turn to slide 14 for details on our claims ratio development. The group's underlying claims ratio is improving by 80 basis points Q-on-Q, driven by the commercial and the corporate segment. The private underlying claims ratio is deteriorating by 40 basis points, primarily driven by a spike in travel insurance claims over the summer and a continued good growth in the business, which ordinarily slightly hampers profitability in the first period. Inflation continues to accelerate, and we continue to work diligently to try and mitigate inflation via our strong procurement agreements, as well as adjusting price and monitor the situation carefully. It is important to understand that currently we experience very volatile times with challenging macroeconomic backdrop, and due to this and the phasing impact of the various moving parts may result in an underlying claims ratio pattern which subsequently may display a slightly more volatile pattern on a quarterly basis than usual. Long term, we have no doubt that our work with procurement and the price adjustments will match claims inflation. Please turn to slide 15. During Q3, we have seen a high level of large claims, actually almost double the normal quarterly expectations for the new group, which we expect to be at around DKK 200 million. At the same time, weather claims in Q3 were lower than the guidance for this quarter, despite a high number of smaller cloudbursts in August in Denmark in particular. However, we do not assess this to be a changed pattern going forward, but categorize the quarter as statistical randomness. The discount rate has moved higher in the quarter, and it is now 2.2% compared to 0.8% in Q3 2021. The overall runoff result is 3.9% in the quarter, which is right in the middle of our guidance for runoffs between 3%-5% in 2024. On slide 16, you can see that the expense ratio was 14.1% in the quarter, a stable level which is in line with our guidance of approximately 14% in 2024. In Q3 2021, the level was unusually low, but as Morten mentioned previously, this was due to a lack of periodization between quarters at Trygg-Hansa. In general, please do remember that cost synergies will partly be financing investments in business development and in digitalization. Now please turn to slide 18, where we will provide more details on our investments. At the end of Q3, Tryg had total invested assets of DKK 67 billion, which are split between a matched portfolio of DKK 49 billion, matching the insurance liabilities, and a free portfolio of DKK 18 billion. Having finished the conversion of the portfolio from RSA in Q2, the asset allocation is broadly unchanged. On slide 19, you can see more details on the overall investment return. The total investment return was DKK -348 following a quarter where capital markets have been very volatile given the macroeconomic environment and heavy inflationary pressures. Except for property, virtually all asset classes in the free portfolio reported negative results, and as an example, Tryg's equity portfolio was down 3%. This quarter, the matched portfolio reported a positive result as the yield spread between Danish kroner and euro narrowed slightly, offsetting widening covered bond spreads. Other financial income and expenses included a negative value adjustment of DKK 119 million on a Trygg-Hansa inflation swap, an instrument which we use to protect the long-tailed reserves against inflation movements. Interestingly, long-term inflation expectations in September have fallen in Sweden, which has caused the negative value adjustment. Normalized expectations for this line remains unchanged at around DKK 70 million per quarter, or a negative DKK 70 million per quarter, as we have previously disclosed. On slide 20, you can see that Tryg reports a solvency ratio of 198 at the end of Q3, compared to 195 at the end of the last quarter. Own funds were almost flat in the quarter, helped somewhat by favorable currency movements, which have offset the negative difference between profits and dividends. The SCR fell primarily driven by lower market risk and reflecting a lower capital charge for equities as well as lower spread risk in the market model. On slide 21, you can see that the debt capacity is basically unchanged compared to previous quarters. Tryg had a Q3 capacity of approximately DKK 1 billion for Tier 1 funds and approximately DKK 600 million Tier 2 funds, but we have no current plans to issue additional debt. You should remember that the capacity is capped by some specific thresholds, and hence we want to avoid having debt, which in the end does not qualify for solvency purposes. On slide 22, we're showing the building blocks of our solvency capital requirements, and the SCR stands just above DKK 8 billion at the end of the quarter. The building blocks are shown previously, and as expected, the non-life model and market model are the ones that tie up more capital. Looking at the market risk, the two main drivers are the spread risk, which again should not be a surprise considering our large covered bond holding, as well as currency risk. On slide 23, you can see that the solvency ratio, as mentioned, was 198% at the end of Q3, slightly higher than in the last quarter. In a historical perspective, this is a robust level for Tryg, but it's important to note that we are at the start of a new journey and in the middle of unprecedented capital markets and macroeconomic turbulence with the highest geopolitical tensions in a long time. We are increasing the dividend by 48% in Q3, continue to progress on our DKK 5 billion buyback and are pleased to have a solvency ratio that can protect us well at times of turbulence together with a business that continues to produce stable results. On slide 24, you can see the solvency ratio sensitivities. There are no particular changes to the solvency ratio sensitivities, and as usual, the main one is to its spread risk and primarily to its covered bonds, which is in particular Nordic covered bonds. No changes compared to previous quarters. 2022 is a year of transition, and if you turn to slide 25, we have listed a few of the most important things to remember here. In the second box, you can see that the RSA intangibles amortization of approximately DKK 900 million per annum should be added to the Alka intangibles amortization of DKK 120 million per annum. These are non-cash items that do not impact our dividend capacity, and we started the amortization at the end of Q2 by the full consolidation of the business in Tryg's numbers. The third box highlights that a smaller proportion of the restructuring costs will end up in 2023. However, we will have to come back with a precise number at the time of publication of the annual report. With this, I will hand over to Morten to finalize our presentation of today. Thank you, Barbara. Turning to slide 26, we reiterate our 2024 targets from the Capital Markets Day with no changes whatsoever, which leads us to our finish on slide 27, and we finish, as always, with our favorite quote from John D. Rockefeller. With that, we are ready to take your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your operator. To ask a question, please press five star on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press five star again. We will have a brief pause while the questions are being registered. The first question is from the line of Youdish from Autonomous Research. Your line will now be unmuted. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions. The first one is really on pricing. I mean, there seems to be an improvement in the third quarter. I was wondering how the price increases of 3%-8% you talked about compares to claims inflation. Secondly, on the rebalance of your corporate portfolio, I mean, you seem to have made very good progress in cutting exposure in just one year. I mean, could you tell us what's the likely capital benefit when the mix manages to shift the way you want by 2024, please? For those questions, maybe I'll start with the first one around the 3%-8% that we're highlighting in the slides. I think the question is how does this actually mitigate the inflation we're seeing right now? I think it's important when we are answering this question that we remember the fact that the chart is looking backwards, but when we are repricing at the moment, we are looking forward. The pricing we are rolling through in our different books in the different markets right now are based on our expectations on inflations going forward. I think what you're seeing here in the chart is the historical year-on-year movements on price. What we are doing with the business today is actually trying to determine what we believe inflation will be in the next six, 12, 18 months. Through that, we are determining the price increases. We're not doing that sort of across the board. We are being very specific, going through each country, through each customer segment, through each product category, because it does vary quite a lot. Even though energy inflation is going through pretty much all claims cost at the moment, it differs quite a lot. We'll see within property, there are certain elements where, you know, installing a new roof for a house has gone up with 10%. Swapping a new windshield for a car has gone up 6%, but there are other categories where we, through our procurement agreements, are actually able to mitigate the inflation seeping through into our book. I mean, the 3%-8% are historical numbers. Going forward, you will see new numbers. I think one thing to highlight is also when you're looking at the chart in the deck here, the Swedish numbers has not moved a lot. We haven't seen a lot of inflation in the market or in the Swedish book of our book in Trygg-Hansa. I expect that to change going forward, and we are preparing for that also to readjust our pricing also in the Swedish market. I guess it's fair to say. All right. Thank you. I think it's fair to say, Youdish, that all of our business segments in all countries in the recent months have moved from fairly high price increases planned to higher price increases planned. So all business segments, as you say, Johan, with a lot of variation by line of business and by country, but homogeneously across the board, the price increases planned have been moved up further from a high level in the recent months to make sure that we capture the inflation, not only through the procurement agreements, but also through being conservative in our assumptions on inflation going forward. All right. Thank you. For your latter question around the rebalancing of the corporate portfolio and how that actually feeds through to release of capital. You are of course right that over time, if we reduce the volatility on our corporate book, we will inherently also be able to release capital. This doesn't happen overnight, and it'll happen gradually over the next five-seven years as we go through the motions of changing the mix and reducing the volatility on the corporate book. We will get back to that as it comes through the numbers, but you cannot see it from day to day. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Maybe, Johan, we should deliver a bit more data on that going forward, because on one hand you have the premium capital requirement which falls away almost immediately. That's the smallest capital requirement. Then of course, as you say, Johan, the capital requirement which is the largest, is the one related to the claims reserve, which actually only falls away with the duration of the business in terms of claims. But maybe we should give you a little bit of data on that. I think this quarter's the first time we show you how exposure is reducing. I think we will follow further down that path of showing both exposure reductions but also capital consequences. Let us get back with more detail on that, Youdish. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next question is from the line of Asbjørn Mørk from Danske Bank. Asbjørn, your line will now be unmuted. Yes. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I have three questions, one relating to the private business and the 40 basis point deterioration in the underlying claims ratio. I guess we're talking something like DKK 25 million ish of claims, all things equal. Could you just try to split up how much of that is actually travel claims inflation during Q3, and how much would be sort of underlying, so to speak? I mean, if I look at your travel insurance development, I can see that the combined ratio has gone from around 100% in 2019 to 56%. Obviously, there's been a significant improvement. Is it fair to assume that that is basically the vast majority of the deterioration, or is there also true underlying? I would say, thank you for the question, Asbjørn. I would say when it comes to the underlying development, you can say that as we have a growth which is for the private segment above 7% in the quarter, you will see an impact on the underlying as we know that new business is typically used a little bit more when it comes to the claims than existing business. On the travel, it's actually quite interesting because now that we're at the end of Q3, we're all focusing on recession, inflation, war in Ukraine, energy, et cetera, et cetera. If we go back, when the quarter started, we were in the middle of the summer holidays, where everyone was eager to travel and travel long haul or at more expensive holidays after two years of COVID lockdown. Basically what we have experienced is that the level of travel claims has been 25% up compared to 2019, which is the first time since COVID broke out that we actually see an increase. Just to put it into perspective, the number of calls and claims that we received was at 42,000, where ordinarily you would see, you can say significantly lower levels. I guess also I should say, Barbara, we can see that it feels like people have been saving up money and energy for the long and expensive journeys. Mm-hmm. Not only are we up 25% in travel claims compared to pre-COVID, as you said, Barbara, but also we're seeing it is significantly more expensive claims from significantly more expensive travels. Yeah. It is a changed pattern. Yeah. Then we also saw a number of the airlines being on strike, which also meant that a number of people that had planned to fly on their holidays had to change plans and go in their cars. What we have seen a pickup on is also having to help people with getting home from travels because their cars were not ready or in a good quality to travel far has also had an impact. There is a number of different items that actually add up to the impact on travel in this quarter. I guess my question is more that when I look at the tourist assistant insurance, basically you made DKK 365 million of technical profits here last year. In 2019 that was a little bit of a loss-making, so there's been a big swing factor. Considering the 40 basis points, which is around DKK 25 million, it just to me sounds like travel insurance could be more than the 40 basis points, but it doesn't seem like it's the case. No, I think it's fair to say that travel is the single largest negative driver in private lines in the 40 basis points. I think it's also fair to say that if you look at it more broadly, you know, we've had a couple of months where car repair inflation has been a little bit higher than planned. We've also seen again that house inflation is a little bit higher. Not big numbers, as you say, Asbjørn, it's fairly small numbers really. We're trying to control underlying with a very accurate methodology. There we see that travel is the biggest driver, but also that motor and property is a little bit worse than anticipated. Also one of the reasons why we're saying we're bumping up further the price increases we're carrying out to make 100% certain that we more than handle that. While at the same time realizing that when it is so volatile, there will be slightly more bumps from quarter to quarter, but with small numbers. Then longer term, we have zero doubt that we're mitigating at least the inflation. Okay, fair enough. On large claims, so you have DKK 392 million here in Q3. You had almost DKK 300 million in Q2. It seems like the trend at the moment at least is quite well above the DKK 800 million full year guidance range, but it seems like you don't think that is about to change or there's any structural changes. So maybe a comment on that and also on the large claim or the very high level of large claims in the corporate business in Q3. If you could just enlighten us on where they were placed geographically, that would be nice? Yeah, I think that's a very relevant question because I think everyone is trying to watch, is there a certain pattern in the claims that we experience. I must just say that is not the case. We see that it is claims in all of our markets. There's no specific trend, so to speak. You're right, we are above guidance. We've seen a Q2 and a Q3 which is somewhat higher than the DKK 200 million we guided. We don't see that as you can say a long-term trend, but it's just you can say a matter of coincidence between geographies and the matter of claims that have been raised. Actually, when we do, we always do the quarterly reporting, of course, on large claims, Asbjørn Mørk, and then we every month calculate what we call the baseline risk ratio. Where's the underlying risk moving? When we look at the underlying risk movement on large claims, it is not moving up. If anything, it is actually moving down because of the exposure changes we're doing. Longer term for steering, the actual trend in the baseline risk ratio for large claims is more important, and that is, if anything, moving down. Okay, fair enough. Final question from my side on the rising rates and the impact on your combined ratio, claims ratio, and linking that to the inflation hedge in Tryg that you have lost money on in Q3. How does that actually work, this inflation hedge? I guess the 100 basis point improvement to the claims ratio that you have guided for 100 basis point parallel shifts to the rising rates. I guess is an all else equal effect. I guess there could be an inflationary rise that could offset that partially. How would that work with the inflation hedge? Would that sort of hedge and do you have similar hedges in the rest of your book? I guess my question is the net impact from a 100 basis point parallel shift, is that also 100 basis points, in the current inflationary environment? Yeah. I think that was a lot of questions in one, but I think I'll try and untangle them, Asbjørn Mørk, because they are super relevant. If you start by the inflation hedge, this is, of course, related to the long-tailed motor and PA business that we have in Sweden. Bear in mind, it's not current inflation that is impacting the value of the inflation swap, it is the expectations to the long term, in this case, 10-year Swedish inflation. Right now, obviously, we are in a scenario where we see that current inflation is trending up, upwards. Given the outlook, which points to it's more a recession and a slowdown of the macroeconomic environment, the expectation is that longer term, inflationary pressures will go down. That is why you see the impact on the particular swap. When you look at the Danish business, we also have something similar related to our workers' comp. But bear in mind that there we have paired historically the accounting on the claims reserves as well as the inflation swap. There it will be more or less neutralized. looking at the Swedish business, we have the two separate, as will be the standard in the new IFRS 17 accounting, so that's why you will see the impact in the investment result as you see here. I guess if you look at it longer term, I think that was also your question, Asbjørn. When we make the logic of how 100 basis points on interest rates impacts our total business, that is the short-term run rate impact. There we don't try to make assumptions on what is expectation for 10- or 15-year inflation, which impacts the swap. Because I think, you know, your guess is as good as ours on what does 10- to 15-year inflation look like. We don't move, we don't take that into account for the simple illustration of what is a short-term 100 basis points delta on the interest rate, how does that impact our business? Just to clarify that. Just coming back to your comment about all other things being equal, that is exactly the simple methodology that we use because it's a parallel shift of interest rates in all countries at the same time. Therefore, even if you see, you can say different development across the curve, it won't be reflected. See it as a simple rule of thumb in terms of having a steer of the impact. Bear in mind that it's a combination also on what happens on the insurance business as well as on our investment results. All right. Thanks a lot. Those were my three questions. Thanks. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Jakob Brink from Nordea. Your line is now unmuted. Thank you. Barbara, just coming back to actually what you just answered to Asbjørn's question. I'm not 100% sure I understood the difference between how you do this for Denmark and how you're now doing it for Sweden. Did you say that the positive impact from the inflation hedge had hit the combined ratio previously, but from next year it will be unwound and basically booked in investment income, just like in Sweden? Was that how to understand it? What lines have you been hedging in Denmark and Norway? Yes. Thank you, Jakob. Obviously a very relevant point, and I think one that we will be discussing somewhat also when we go to the new accounting standard in 2023. I think if you look at the way that it has been handled so far, you have the net result impacting, you can say the insurance results in the Danish business. In Sweden, they have been because they also reported as part of a UK group, they have had a slightly different approach where they have had the two lines, so the claims reserving and the inflation swap on two separate lines. That is the world that we are looking into after IFRS 17. We have decided not to move, you can say, to our ordinary accounting for two, three quarters this year in order to move it back again in 2023. That's why I said as I did that the Swedish, you can say impact has been slightly different than what we have seen in the Danish accounting for the workers' compensation inflation swap that we have in place. From next year, the economic reality of the hedge will be unchanged. Mm. Reporting-wise, the positive and negative leg will be split. Mm. I guess from a reporting point of view, that that's a little bit less optimal, I guess. That's a new accounting rule. The economic reality will be unchanged. Mm. Exactly to your point, Morten, so I guess that's a bit unfortunate of course that in a high inflation environment that you'll be facing more inflation on the combined ratio but can't offset it in the combined ratio. Is there any way you can mitigate this by sort of, I don't know, smoothing it? I guess if you're removing a support, is it only going forward or is there also the balance sheet impact, so you'll be removing a support to the combined ratio that will fall away and hence lift the whole level? How does it work? I think you can say obviously, the two line items will be more visible, so to speak, than they have been in the past because they have netted out, you can say, for a large proportion. Overall, you can say in our net results, there you should see that there will be a good link between, but as you point out, there will be a volatility in the two other lines to a larger degree than what we have seen in the past. I think what we should do, Jakob, is mainly we should give you more transparency on each of the two legs, positive and negative, so that it doesn't disturb your interpretation of the result. Secondly, we do know that the net impact should get as close to zero as possible, and it is just mainly that is now split over two different lines. I think, I don't think we should adjust methodology. I think having net close to zero in most periods is what hedging is for. I think we should adjust the reporting and the transparency in order for you to always see each of the two legs, positive and negative, with clear visibility. Mm. To keep on going on this one, but the way I understand is that the workers' compensation inflation is lagging, I think two years compared to the current one. Mm-hmm. You have obviously seen while the swap, the inflation swap is mark to market, so there you have been earning money recently while you haven't really felt the pain or the inflation picking up yet. Now you have to remove it. Are you then gonna remove the buffer that has been built up as well, or are you allowed to keep that within the technical result? I would say we haven't sort of built a buffer on the balance sheet as such. What you will have seen is the impact on the P&L, you can say on the quarterly results. I think as Morten said, let's give some more clarity on this. I think we already have a newsletter on the implication of IFRS 17, but having a bigger proportion of our business being long-tailed, obviously this is something that we will be talking a lot more about, also in the future. I guess overall, if you look at workers' comp, it's quite clear that inflation swap is of course one thing. Being conservative and prudent on reserving is another thing, and being conservative and prudent on pricing is yet the third component. I think it's fair to say that we're working with all three parameters to make sure that the long-tailed lines in all three countries are as stable as possible. I think generally we are well equipped to manage that stability. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. My second question is also regarding inflation. In the report you write a number of places that given inflation is now picking up in the recent three months, there could be more volatility in the underlying combined ratio short term. I don't think you had that quote last quarter, so what has changed? Is it just that you're actually seeing something or is it more sort of precautionary measure? I think, Jakob, on that point, none of us have been expecting an acceleration of the inflation levels to the degree that we have seen now for a number of quarters. I think as Morten was alluding to before, and Johan as well, when we price, we are looking forward in terms of what do we expect on inflation looking ahead. Must simply say that what we have experienced in the last couple of quarters have been more than you have seen in four decades, basically. Yes, we do increase prices. We do have very strong procurement agreements that take, you can say, a large proportion of the pressures in our results. Given the development, we're just flagging that it may be that quarter to quarter you will not see, you can say the flat or positive development that you have been seeing before, but over time, obviously that link will strongly be there. I think to your question, Jakob, is it things we have seen or is it things we're expecting to see? I guess if you look at personal lines, we have seen a bit more inflation in motor claims. We have repairs. We have seen a bit more inflation in house repairs. Honestly, not big numbers, but we have seen a bit in those two areas. When you then look through the front window and we know that we need to try to price right for the next 12-24 months, trying to predict for how long does an energy crisis continue, how much will be the impact of that energy crisis to salary increases, how and which areas will the repair costs continue to increase? We're basically just saying that space is more volatile than before and harder to predict than before. What we try to do is to say we push harder on the procurement programs, we increase prices even more than we thought we were going to do. At the same time, we make sure that we are not surprised if we have one or two quarters where underlying is a bit more bumpy. Honestly, I think 40 basis points negative for private is a bit, and we're very pleased that the group then improves through corporate and commercial. The whole group actually improves 0.8 basis points. I think actually we are in a quite fortunate situation compared to most other companies. We just like to be able to control it with very, very precise and diligent steering. I guess we're just saying that the current volatility, both what we have seen and what we could fear to see from the surrounding world, is a bit more volatile than we like and makes the precision of the steering short term a bit weaker. Longer term, we have zero doubt that we will more than mitigate that. Okay. Fair enough. My last question, just a small one. In the investment slide, or sorry, the SCR walk slide, you mentioned, and Barbara, you mentioned it as well, lower spread risk. What does that exactly mean? I think it was a narrowing of the spread between Danish kroner and euro that we have seen in current quarter. That's what we are referring to. because you write lower spread risk and then DKK SCR, but so it's all related to FX. Is that? Um. I was just trying to estimate it going forward, and I thought most spreads had widened quite a lot this quarter. Yeah, I have to come back on that one. I'm not really sure where you're pointing to it, Jakob. Leave that with me, and I'll come back to you later today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jakob. The next question is from the line of Tryfonas Spyrou from Berenberg. Your line will now be unmuted. Oh, hi. Good morning, everybody. I just had a question on the underlying. Also, you mentioned that the full impact of price increases will likely take 12 to sort of 18 months to fully run through. I was just wondering how we should think about the dynamics of the underlying group loss ratio going forward, obviously given the majority of the improvement now coming from corporate, private is lagging behind. Can we potentially see some acceleration in managed inflation in line with your expectations? And overall, related to that, I was wondering how we should start thinking about the overall improvement, again, when thinking about the synergies that will be coming through from RSA, we appreciate this will be quite substantial next year. Maybe help us unpack how to think about the dynamics going forward next year. Thank you. Let me start, and then you can add on the synergies, Johan. I think it's fair to say that we're very fortunate in the sense that we started price increases early, earlier than most peers. I think we've done procurement better than most peers, and now we're increasing prices even further. Then, of course, we have the synergies that will give us tailwinds on the underlying development as well as the improvement measures we've been taking on corporate and commercial lines. I think when we look at the underlying improvement of 80 basis points in this quarter, that is a level we expect to continue, and we're pleased to see that commercial and corporate pulls most of that weight. Think longer term, we'll start to see private contributing again. The synergies will, of course, as they grow stronger and larger, give us more tailwind into that number. Perhaps a comment on the synergies, Johan. Yeah, just to comment on that, you're mentioning the fact that the synergies will sort of become meaningful and sizable in the next few years, which I absolutely agree with you on. Especially procurement synergies and claims synergies will help support the underlying claims ratio development. That's if you add that up, that's more than a third of the total synergy target of DKK 900 million. That will absolutely help to support the improvement of underlying going forward. This particular quarter, it's not a sizable part of the synergies, but going forward it will grow, and we will also report that ongoingly as to where it flows. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you so much. The next question is from the line of Jimmy Shan from UBS. The line will now be unmuted. Hi, thank you for taking my questions. I have three, please. First is a follow-up on the large claims topic. I mean, the commercial and corporate have seen quite high level large losses. I just want to understand what are the key drivers for it. Is it because of inflation that has inflated some loss above your large loss threshold? You also mentioned that you expected large loss actually is going to go down in the future, probably just because of bad luck. Yeah. I think it's important to say that when we have the large losses and how or where they happen is not something that we can put into a model. You can call it bad luck or a coincidence of timing. Yes, stochastic timing. It is simply you can say a number of events happening in our different geographies at the same time. I wouldn't read more into it than it is you can say a quarter where we have a higher than normal amount of large claims. Of course, you know, large claims will always be a stochastic question, and that is the case for this quarter as well. But I think structurally, we have a lot of influence on the likelihood of large claims. Of course, when we're systematically pushing up the size of our retail business, private and commercial, which will at the end of the strategy period get close to 90% of our total book, where historically it was more like three-quarters of the total book. Of course, we have 90% of our total book in a non-large claim exposed area, apart from of course, the higher end of commercial. When at the same time, as Johan showed, we're reducing the most volatile elements like international property and international liability and systematically pulling down the exposure, then we are systematically pulling down the likelihood of large claims going forward. That is, I think, the longer term message when it comes to large claims. You can never take away the stochastics of whatever happens to a single quarter in large claims. We can systematically reduce likelihood, which we are doing. Mm. Thank you. Another follow-up on inflation swap topic. Could you give a bit of color on the size of the reserves that these inflation swaps are related to? Perhaps you could also give a bit of color on the impact on the ICR from taking on these inflation swaps? Yeah. I think I can push to the fact that the inflation swap we have in place is related to our claims reserves on the PA and the motor business in the Swedish business. I won't sort of give another percentage or a number in terms of the size of the inflation swap as such. When it comes to the capital impact on the inflation swaps in place, those have already been factored in, you can say, both in Tryg Classic when it comes to the inflation swaps that we have related to the workers' comps that we mentioned, as well as the impact of the new inflation swap that follows with the Trygg-Hansa business. I guess it's fair to say sort of structurally that given how much retail business we have, the vast majority of our retail business has duration of less than one year. The longer tail lines where we do use the inflation swaps are of course the longer tail lines like workers' compensation in Denmark and Norway, and like PA, but also MTPL on motor in Sweden. Of course, a very large proportion of our total reserves sits in those categories because those are the longer duration lines by definition. I guess you can see the size of those lines in our annual report if you look at the line of business split. I guess it is fair to say, like, because of these inflation swaps, that your solvency ratio is not that sensitive to changes in long-term inflation assumptions on your reserves. If what you're asking is there a positive SFCR impact from the fact that we have less net exposure to long-term inflation, then the answer is yes. Because we've had the swaps in place for quite a while, that positive impact has already been factored in, as you said, Barbara. Yeah. Thank you. My last question is around the solvency ratio. I think if you are not paying a special dividend next year, and the solvency ratio is very likely to shoot above 200% over the course of next year, I just wonder at what stage will you give yourself a solvency ratio target? I think internally we do have, you can say, a number of things that we are weighing out towards each other. We're looking at how is the business performing? How do we invest in the business? As Morten was saying, how do we actually take out volatility and thereby release capital in certain parts of our business? That is a journey that doesn't happen overnight. All these factors we tie in when we steer towards what we believe is the right level of solvency for us. I think it's fair to say that 2022 is a year of transition. You see a year where we have only three quarters of consolidated results. In the first quarter, we had equity accounting for the new business. We have now got the full results, but we also have integration and restructuring costs that impact us to a large degree this year, et cetera, et cetera. Therefore, 2022 is a year I would probably call a little bit odd or particular compared to usual. Looking at 2023, we should have a year which is far more back to normal, where you don't have these large items of one-year impact. Therefore, you can say, I would be looking at our ordinary dividend policy and how we envisage to distribute dividends to our shareholders, as we have been doing in the past as well. I guess it's fair to say you shouldn't expect us to give a solvency target, because we don't want to work with a solvency target. What you can say is that being at 198 now is clearly very positive and a lot higher than what we were, for instance, after the Alka acquisition. That is very comfortable. Getting to above 200 would be very comfortable, as well. Of course, that gives us new optionality when it comes to our payout, which is of course very positive. If we gave you a solvency ratio target, then all of a sudden we made solvency priority our number one. For us, having high payouts, high dividends, and generally high distributions for our shareholders is a much bigger priority number one than having a specific solvency ratio target. You won't get that, not next year either. We are at a high and very positive position, and I think that is a great starting point. That's very helpful. Thank you very much. As a reminder, please press five star on your telephone keypad to ask a question. To withdraw your question again, please press five star again. The next question is from the line of Gustav Hoej from Carnegie. Your line is now unmuted. Thank you. I actually only have one short question left, which we have been discussing quite a bit already. In terms of the price increases due to inflation that you have already put in place, I'm just wondering how has the customer acceptance been for these price increases so far? Has everyone just said, "All right, I'll pay a higher premium," or have you seen some pushback, and how do you expect this going forward as well? I think that's a very valid point, especially at times like this where we are pushing through quite significant price increases to cater for inflation. I think the best way to gauge this is actually looking at the retention rates or the renewal rates of our customer bases. If you look at the retention rates also in this presentation, you're seeing that the renewal rates are actually very stable, even increasing in certain parts of our business, hovering for private and commercial around the 90% mark, where they've been for quite a while. I think it's fair to say that the customers are accepting the price increases. I think it's right now on the headlines of all newspapers and all TV shows you open up. All customers understand the necessity of going through price increases. I guess it gives us some indication that this is not just a Tryg thing, it's also a market thing. For now, we are quite comfortable that customers are accepting the price increases as they are flowing through. I guess it's also fair to say, Gustav, if you look at other geographies than Scandinavia, there is historical empirical data to suggest that in periods of financial turbulence or crisis, some people start to dump some of their insurances and insure themselves less. We see in Scandinavia a strong tendency that both people understand the price increases, as you say, Johan, but also that they keep the insurances that they have. Actually, if you look at just the most recent quarter, you know, actually our top line growth ought to have declined because there's so fewer new cars to insure. Actually, our ability has been to further increase the number of products per customer in the recent quarter. People actually insure more things now than a quarter ago, despite the financial pressure they're getting from higher energy prices, uncertainty, et cetera. Price increases are being accepted, retention is high, and actually the number of product per customers is increasing despite more financial pressure in the families out there. Thank you. That's very clear. I don't have anything else to say. Thank you, Gustav. The next question is from the line of Jan Erik from ABG. Your line is now unmuted. Hello. Jan Erik, hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Good to hear you. Yes, thank you. I have two quick questions. The first one is, regarding your targets. You repeated your 2024 targets of 82, below 82% or equal to 82% combined ratio. Is that something you have to change when IFRS 17 is coming up, as you discussed with Asbjørn Mørk and Jakob questions regarding the combined ratio volatility as well as how the financial income impact will change this? Or was the interest rate so low when you did this, so the 82, the technical reserve is actually where you would think it should also be in 2024? That's my first question? Okay. Hi, Jan Erik. I think if we start backwards, looking at the interest rate movement since we launched the Capital Markets Day, it's obvious that they have moved a bit. Where they will be in 2024 is a good question. I think what we focus on is that we have set out a target for our insurance business to deliver a technical result between DKK 7 billion-DKK 7.4 billion. We don't know basically what will happen with discounting and so forth in the meantime. You should not, because of the current movements in interest rate, expect us to go out and change anything to our guidance on the technical result at this point in time. When it comes to the implementation of IFRS 17, I would guide you to look at the newsletter we have already posted earlier in the year regarding how our results will be impacted. For now, we are not changing any of our targets. We of course need to revisit that, but my expectation is not that we will have any meaningful changes in the short term. Let's leave that for 2023, where we will be actually using the new accounting standard. The volatility in the combined ratio will not increase, or will it increase as you pointed to? Not as a starting point. Okay. When it comes to the inflation in Sweden, which you mentioned was picking up for now, but you sort of haven't seen it in, maybe in the pricing so far, how much are you pushing the Swedish pricing up versus the expected inflation? I think first of all, the reason why we haven't had the need to do significant price increase in Sweden has been because Sweden has somewhat its own inflation run towards Denmark and Norway. We haven't seen the inflation in the market the same way we have. Going forward, we will adjust our prices accordingly, but there's not one fixed number for price increases in Sweden going forward. It varies quite a lot from product category to product category, and we are seeing quite a big variance also between the private segment and the commercial segment. It'll be ranging anywhere between zero and 10% depending on the product categories we are going through. Coming back to, I think, Morten and Barbara's points earlier around the predictability of inflation going forward, we need to be careful making sure we are actually proactive and taking enough pricing to cater for future inflation. We will go through significant price increases in the Swedish market, but there's not one specific number, to be honest. I wish it was that easy. I guess, Jan Erik, when looking at the baseline risk ratios for Trygg-Hansa in Sweden it's quite clear that they are moving in the right direction, both for commercial lines and for private lines, so that for a while price increases have been slightly higher than inflation, and then now we think that inflation will pick up also in Sweden. We're at a good spot where we are today in Sweden, but we want to make sure that the price increases we do now are high enough to keep us in a good spot. I think there's no reason to think that the Swedish market will be an island away from the rest of Europe when it comes to inflation. It just seems that inflation hits the Swedish market, later than what we've seen in Denmark and Norway, and we're making sure that we're prepared for that with the price increases we're carrying out. Great. Can I just have one more question? That is the property return. You have sort of a bigger book than the other peers in the Nordics when it comes to property. How has the valuation been on that book this quarter and what do you think going forward, given the change in interest rates and change in valuation for property, especially in Sweden? You probably don't have that much in Sweden, but what do you have in Denmark and what has been experienced so far? Yeah. I think, if you look at the exposure that we're having, it is diversified both when it comes to a geographic point of view, but also when it comes to the underlying properties. Bear in mind also that we invest into you can say certain indices or you can say funds in global property markets. For instance, in the U.S., you would also see that the properties that we have invested in have a clear inflation link, so you will have an adjustment in terms of the value on that following the inflation that you experience in the economy. I would actually say if you look at the Q2 presentation, we try to give you a little bit more details in terms of what are the characteristics of our property book in the investments exactly to provide you with further knowledge of what it is we have on our books. Perfect. You will not do any changes, and give a decent return every quarter on that book? I think we have been quite happy with the returns of the property part in our portfolio year to date. If you look at this quarter as an example, we had a positive yield of around 3.3% on our property, whereas all other assets were down in the markets that we have experienced. I think we like to have a diversified asset allocation on our free portfolio, and having properties as part of these assets is something that we actually see as being quite positive. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Vinit Malhotra. Please state your name and company before asking your question. Your line will now be unmuted. Yes, thank you. Good morning. This is Vinit from Mediobanca. Great to be back on the call again. Very, very quick one. Two quick ones, please. One is the, just looking at slide five again, Morten, and I'm just curious that the word underlying obviously is including the synergy from RSA, which probably is the bulk of that. How do you think about the underlying excluding the synergy? Because obviously there's a business which is running anyway, and that needs to improve as well. Just curious to hear your thoughts if you think of that metric, maybe more or less important. Second question is on the bonus, which is now 8% as per slide four and was 5% last year. Is this becoming more. I mean, I can see why it's increased because you're a larger group, but also is that now bit more awareness that is helping the retention, helping this fight against inflation? Just any comments would be helpful. Thank you. Mm-hmm. I think if I start with the bonus question, I think this is a bonus which is returned from our majority shareholder. They have been paying the bonus to the customers of Tryg since 2016. It has been around the level of 8%, but last year it was slightly smaller, down to 5%, given they obviously also supported the rights issue that we did to finance the acquisition of RSA. It has nothing to do. The level is not set with a link back to how large the group is, but it is something where they look at their value creation in terms of dividends they receive for us, from us, funds they pay out in charitable activities across the Danish society and so forth. Obviously, it is important that that it is being paid to our customers and it does actually help the retention, as you also point out. Not linked to the size of the group, it's linked to the activities of the foundation themselves. As said, historically, it's been around the 8% like this year. I guess we can argue that. It's very positive to have the bonus in a period like this, with the RSA acquisition and the dividend trajectory to roughly double our dividends. The Tryg Foundation will have an even bigger bonus paying ability than before, which is really positive. It's really positive, as you say, Barbara, we're back to the 8%. Of course, with a period of having to adjust prices and a period of turbulence, those will be very supportive to retention, and it will be very supportive to the reaction on price increases, which we're also seeing in the numbers. I think that overall that is a very positive contribution to our ability to have a strong performance through this rather turbulent period. If we go to your initial question around how the synergies are actually impacting and affecting our underlying, I think it's fair to say that for the quarter we have DKK 97 million worth of synergies. If you break it up, around half of that goes into the cost levels and DKK 18 and DKK 13 million come from procurement claims. They are essentially the numbers that will support our underlying claims ratio development. It's less than a third of the total synergies for this particular quarter. Going forward, you're right, we will all of us expect to see a more meaningful contribution from the synergies into the underlying claims ratio. Yes, I was more curious that shouldn't you be looking at underlying excluding any synergies because the business, you know, exists anyway. I'm just curious whether you ever look at that number excluding, but otherwise it would be more flattish, right? I mean, interest rates removed, synergies removed. There's not much left then. I think if you do the math, Vinit, for this quarter, it wouldn't be flat if you took out the claims synergies. I think if you take the numbers that Johan just pointed to and the 80 basis points, it would clearly not be flat if you isolate it for synergies. Of course, that topic becomes even more important as we move into 2023 and 2024. I think we'll make sure that we give a perspective on the synergies relative to underlying and the synergies relative to the cost development as well. Bear in mind that we've also said that if you look at the acquired business, particularly in Sweden, it has a combined ratio of 76%, before synergies. Actually we're seeing that historically the growth in Sweden in Trygg-Hansa has been lower than we would like. At a combined ratio in this quarter of 76% in Sweden, it makes sense to invest in product innovation, in distribution, in branding, in cross-selling, in some cases also in some of the digital experiences. Because with that, we can improve growth further at a very attractive combined ratio, which will create a lot of value for our shareholders. Which does mean that some of the synergies we will actually reinvest in creating a bigger version of Trygg-Hansa in Sweden. We should just make sure when we communicate underlying and synergies and the investments in creating growth in Sweden, that we talk about all three and don't make the world too simple. Let's make sure for 2023 and 2024 we give you transparency or more insight into some of those three categories at the same time. Let's make sure when we look at the numbers for this quarter, that if you take out the synergies that comes from procurement and claims and isolate them out of the 0.8, the remaining part of underlying is not flat. You can do the math on that. Sure. Thanks very much. As a reminder, please press five star on your telephone keypad if you have any questions. Else, the last question is from Faizan Lakhani from HSBC. Your line will now be unmuted. Hi there. This is Faizan Lakhani from HSBC. Most of my questions will just follow up to what you've already discussed. It feels like you're fairly negative on the impact of external inflation on your business. I know you mentioned that post quarter there may be some volatility underlying development, but my basic understanding is if your underlying misses in one quarter to correct for that, it would take four quarters to correct for that, given the fact if you write this now, it would take 12 months for it to earn through, or have I got that wrong? My second question is on the Swedish price increases of 1.5%. I understand inflation is fairly benign there, but I would have assumed that your underlying inflation assumption in household Sweden would be sort of 3%-5%, and that's where the level of price increases would have been anyway. The fact that it's well below, is that due to competitive pressures or risk mix? What's driving that? The third one is on the inflation swap. I appreciate you've answered this already, but going forward under IFRS 17, would it be the case that if your long-term inflation assumptions change based on your inflation swap, would you see greater volatility on your underwriting results? Would you have to potentially do reserve strengthening even though economically you shouldn't make any difference? Thank you. Let me start with your first question. I think your view on timing is roughly right. You may argue that if we decide to make a price change today, it takes 12 months for all customers to have a renewal date and get that higher price offered. Then it takes another 12 months to earn the full accounting impact of that. From birth to grave, that's 24 months. Then, of course, you start to earn the impact from month 12 and onwards. That is roughly the timing if you get things completely wrong. I think the likelihood that we get inflation completely wrong is very close to 0%. We do this very diligently. We do it in great detail in each country, in each product category. We now even have inflation committees in each country digging into this at greater detail than ever before. If you look at the broader picture, there's zero doubt that we will get that right. If we have doubts, then we do bigger price increases than we think is necessary, because we don't want to be behind the curve. We're also saying is that within quarters, you know, all of a sudden there's one or two months where inflation in motor for a particular repair makes a jump. That is just the smaller volatility that could hit the finer detail of the underlying for a specific quarter. Even having seen that in Q3, the group underlying still improved 0.8. We will continue to improve the underlying. We are making sure that the inflation is more than matched with pricing to be on the cautious side. We're just saying that volatility quarter by quarter is a bit higher than usual. That's the only thing you should read into that message and nothing else. Okay, thank you. As for your second point around Sweden, I think you're referring to the 1.5% price increase year-on-year in Swedish household. You're right, historically, up until now, Sweden has had its own run in terms of inflation, compared to Denmark and Norway. That being said, you're also absolutely right that when we look ahead, we are seeing more inflation seeping into the book of Sweden, and we will expect higher price increases going forward also in household in Sweden. We do expect that. Rest assured that we will cater for the inflation that is also picking up in Sweden. I guess in between the graph and what you're saying, Johan, is also the price increases we've already carried out but haven't earned yet. They're not in the graph yet. They're clearly higher than what you see in the graph. Okay. It goes to your last question on the inflation swap and whether the fact that we will be moving to IFRS 17 will require a different reserving approach. The answer to that is no. We're doing our capital reserving looking at, you can say the characteristics of our lines of business and claims patterns and so forth. It will not have an impact that we change our accounting in order to drive that through the year through the reserving. I guess my question on the last one is more the fact that if the inflation swap, you know, improves or so, would you see a counter impact on the combined ratio where you have to maybe release lower reserve releases, assuming, let's say, if you had 100 basis point movement in long-term claim inflation in Sweden, for example? I think looking ahead, obviously when it comes to the new accounting standard, then you won't see the benefit of the inflation swap stand alone in the combined. You'd see the impact on the reserve releases then. The asset. The reserve releases will not be impacted by how the valuation of the inflation swap as such is. There's a mismatch in the way you think about the movement in inflation on the swap versus your own sort of analysis. Is that correct? No. I think if you refer to the way that we look at our reserving, in general, taking into the models and looking at the claims patterns, there obviously the assumptions will be the same. It's not that you will go in and directly look at what is the impact on the swap and tie that to whether you will release more reserves or less. I think those are to be seen standalone. Obviously, the movement in inflation and the assumptions that go into the modeling of the claims reserving will be aligned with what the market shows. The one-off claims will be decided on whether the reserving of each claim has been slightly higher than needed, which it usually or almost always is in the longer tail lines. If there are changes to the more fundamental assumptions, then you make a one-off adjustment to reserves, catering for that macro change assumption. Either it's helped by the swap or it's not helped by the swap. That has always been the case on workers' compensation and PA and longer MTPL in Sweden. That's why we keep bigger buffer or security measures on the reserving side for those lines to be able to absorb those adjustments when needed. That has been the case for many years, and that's why we choose to be more cautious on the reserving on those lines to be able to capture such bigger adjustments. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. As there are no more questions at this moment, I will hand it back to the speakers for any closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for all your very good question. Investor relations is obviously around today, in the next few days if you have any follow-up, and then we're also having different roadshows. Thanks a lot, and we'll speak to you soon.