Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this conference call on Sampo Group's Q1 2021 results. This is Jarmo Salonen, Head of Investor Relations. With me here in Helsinki, I have our Group CEO, Torbjörn Magnusson. In Stockholm, we have Group CFO, Knut Arne Alsaker, and Chief of Strategy, Ricard Wennerklint, and in Oslo, Morten Thorsrud. We'll start as always with Torbjörn's presentation, after which we will take your questions. Please let me remind you that a recorded version of this call will be later available at the same address, sampo.com/results. That, I think, is all from me. I'll hand over to Torbjörn. Torbjörn, please. Thank you, Jarmo. Good afternoon, everyone. I have a very satisfactory set of figures to present today. Even more so considering that they, to a large degree, arise from sustainable business strengths and from rational markets. Our Q1 profits before taxes are up to EUR 632 million. The comparison period is, of course, one where the stock markets were in a completely different place than today. Nevertheless, both the EUR 0.82 per share reported earnings and the EUR 1.39 mark to market earnings this year are amongst the highest in Sampo's history. It is especially pleasing to be able to report consistent progress in all our operations. The core of our results is, of course, the P&C underwriting result, which even when excluding the COVID-19 effects, clearly meets our growth targets. Similarly, the combined ratio for If P&C is well below our ceiling of 85%, with a higher COVID-19 effect than last year, on the other hand, also with a higher negative winter effect. Next. Spending a little bit more time on If P&C, the strategic progress follows our plans and results this quarter are excellent. We continue to be able to increase rates selectively where needed, which is mainly for the corporate segments. Markets are rational, we have not seen any new entrants for some time after the failure of the group of mainly Norwegian ones a few years ago. We estimate the positive effect of the pandemic to be roughly three percentage points on the combined ratio, the mainly Norwegian winter this time to make up two percentage points in the opposite direction compared to last year. Large claims were close to normal. On the next page here, we have a simple waterfall chart showing the main differences compared to last year. From the bars on the right-hand side, you can also deduce the obvious, that the remaining needs for rate increases are more pronounced for corporate lines and more for Norway than the other countries. Maybe the main conclusion, though, is that we see rational markets receiving these rate changes, and of course, that having a large book in Norway, relatively speaking at the moment, helps growth numbers. The next slide is an attempt to follow the effects of the pandemic on motor insurance in the Nordic countries with our mix of geographies. This is no exact science, but we are trying to be transparent about the types of facts we are using for our estimates. In our outlook for If P&C for the rest of the year, we are assuming that the pandemic effects on the motor frequencies will fade during the Q2, and that the second half of the year will be back to normal. As you can see from this page, we still have healthy growth from our operations in Sweden and Norway, and this is all the more satisfactory as it arises to a large degree from our digital channels. Also, the general digital interaction with our customers is increasing, and roughly a quarter of all private lines policies are now sold online, making this one of our biggest channels, together with the call centers and the car industry collaborations. If P&C writes a fifth of its business in Finland, where GDP and growth has been very low for a few years, only partly due to COVID-19 then, rates increases also have been very low, and more of the insurances are renewed one-one than the other countries. We continue to see healthy growth in Scandinavia then, especially in the digital channels, as I mentioned. Another way to look at the same thing, possibly, is customer satisfaction and retention. On the left-hand side, this graph, customer satisfaction shows that thus has even been increasing during the pandemic. On the right-hand side, the less emotional retention numbers have been stable at a very high level. To our new friends at Hastings. Since we mainly write motor insurance there, the COVID effect is substantial, but even adjusting for that, we are handsomely meeting our targets for the operating ratio. Live customer policies are stable. The market is quite competitive now. We're growing in home insurance, and we have rapid progress in the strategic work, both internally in Hastings as well as the synergy work within our group. The synergies in claims management, in digital pricing, and in fraud prevention or work are higher than we expected when we started this process. Finally, both the underwriting profits and investment returns have translated into a very strong solvency position, and our leverage also meets our target of being below 30%. As you are all aware, the board is proposing a EUR 1.70 dividend to the AGM in two weeks' time. To make sure that we don't overstate our numbers, we have accrued a quarter of that in the solvency calculation on the left-hand side here, also for next year. All in all, a quarter that contains very few technical market or strategic surprises and shows a lot of strength for the future. With that, I pause and open up for questions. Jarmo. Thank you, Torbjörn. Operator, we are now ready for the questions, please. Thank you. If you do wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. If you do wish to withdraw your question, you can do so by pressing zero two on your telephone keypad. Our first question comes from line of Jakob Brink from Nordea. Please go ahead, your line is open. Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. The first question, Torbjörn, I know you said, and I agree that it's not an exact science with the COVID impacts, so I fully acknowledge that. Still, looking at Denmark, it was 1.4 percentage points in the quarter, TRIC 1.3, and Cedig is 1.9, with Sweden only 0.5. I see your calculations, but of course, if the other ones are right, then of course you are understating the underlying profitability of IF this time. Could you see anywhere where maybe you could be more cautious or where you might have been adding too much to the COVID impact this quarter? The non-humble answer would be no, of course. This is not an exact science. There are differences between the companies. We write quite a lot of motor business, not least in Sweden, where the effects have been quite pronounced. Proportion of business in different countries is one thing that will differ. This is certainly a very honest attempt from us to show the correct number as far as it's possible. Fair enough. Yeah. On a different question on the discounting and impact of discounting, I see that the impact of higher rates in Sweden was SEK 170 million in the quarter. You had a 26 basis points change. Basically, looking at your historical impact of rate changes, it seems to be somewhat larger typically, than it has been this time. Is there any reason for that, or is it just a different sensitivity than it used to be? Knut, do you have an answer to that? Yes. Good afternoon, Jakob. There's no changes in our modeling in Sweden. One of the reasons why these sensitivities vary a bit now when rates tick upwards is that the nominal rate for the discounting has been floored at zero, while the inflation, of course, have been adjusted to inflation environment at any time. The nominal rates are a bit floored at zero. You get some asymmetry in the discounting when rates now tick up from the very low level where parts of the curve has been below zero, if you look at the actual market rates. Okay. No, that probably explains it. Thank you. My last part of the question is actually a few questions in one, about Hastings. For the first time now, give us a quarter number. The EUR 108 million net earned premiums seems a bit low compared to the full-year premiums of last year of Hastings. Could you maybe give us some more detail? Is Q1 always lower than the rest of the year, or is this the new run rate? Secondly, other revenues seems to be quite high compared to the sort of old level of other revenues in Hastings. Is that also the new level? Finally, I was listening to the Direct Line call earlier today, and they were talking about market average price reductions of around eight percent on motor. Has there been the decline for Hastings in Q1, please? Knut, the first two, I think we should see as technical questions probably, and then let me just comment that the Direct Line eight percent is probably more than we've seen from a number of other insurers in the U.K. If I understood you correctly, Jakob, but whether or not the split between underwriting and retailing income this quarter was a new normal level, was that your question? I'm basically just trying for my modeling to understand what is the run rate of premiums and other revenues in Hastings. As I said, I think the premium income in the Q1 was somewhat lower than I had expected, looking at full year numbers of Hastings historically. Yeah. The other revenues were somewhat higher than I would have expected given the history. Have you moved some income from one line to the other, or is this the new run rate levels? Yeah. No, that particular split is not accounting technicalities. Obviously, with your reference to the Direct Line call, GWP as such for motor insurance in the U.K. has probably been lower this quarter than in a normal quarter. That's one explanation. Hastings is, of course, doing smart decisions to optimize and maximize profitability on a customer basis, whether or not that income on individual customers is coming from underwriting technical income derived by premiums or from retail income is not the first port of call. It's the totality that matters. That's also why we have, for Hastings, a combined operating ratio target, which includes both those type of revenue streams, both from the insurance company and from the retail division. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Blair Stewart from Bank of America. Please go ahead, the line is open. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I've got a couple of questions. I wonder, Knut Arne Alsaker, whether you might be able to give us an update on the impact on capital requirements as you exit the non-insurance businesses. I think at the Capital Markets Day, you said that EUR 5.7 billion of capital requirements went down to four. Things have moved along. I know the capital requirements overall have gone up with markets. Maybe an update on that calculation would be very helpful. Similarly, going back to the now famous slide 35 of the Capital Markets Day where you talked about the EUR 5 - EUR 6 per share of excess capital. Again, I wonder, given the various movements, particularly in the market value of Nordea, whether you could provide an update to that number. That would be great. Finally, just on the Hastings question, I suspect you may not have the answer to this, or may not be willing to give the answer to this, but I just wonder what was the impact on the premium figure year-over-year? What was the year-over-year movement in premiums? Are you able to quantify the impact of COVID rather than just significant? I guess the question there to the latter part is how far away from your targets operating ratio are you in underlying terms, good or bad? Thank you. Let's see. If I start with the first two, I guess, Torbjörn, and see who takes the last. On the capital requirement, Blair, it's roughly the same number given that what we talked about, what was a pro forma situation where we have reduced the market risk from Nordea and the PE portfolio, and basically are left with our insurance operations and capital requirements for our insurance business has not significantly changed. There's also always, of course, a little bit of volatility on a quarterly basis. With a nice round number of EUR 4 billion, I would still call that EUR 4 billion. Obviously, what has changed and will change and could go up and down is excess capital in a situation where we monetize own funds from Nordea in one shape or form. When the market value of those assets are going up, that monetization will also lead to approximately a similar increase in the excess capital. We're still left with the same capital requirement, meaning again, that when looking at the indication of how much capital do we need to retain for use of solvency purposes, we gave a range of 40%-50%. That range still holds, but it's more closer to 40 than 50 now compared to the end of 2020. Great. I think just looking at Nordea, that EUR 5 - EUR 6 per share has gone up by around two or a bit more than two. That would be an approximate correct number, yes. Maybe to just reason a bit around Hastings. Adjusting for COVID-19, I said in my introduction that they are well below their operating combined ratio target of 88. The number of policies is roughly constant, slightly up. Rates are down this quarter and the end of last quarter in the U.K. market. There are now mixed signals in the U.K. market about where rates are going for the rest of the year, when we all expect the corona effects to fade. That's probably as good as guidance that I can give you for where Hastings is going at this point in time. No, that's excellent. Thanks very much, Torbjörn. Just while I've got you, and to save me coming back, I wonder if I may ask you a question with your Nordea hat on. Come September, when the dividend ban is expected to be lifted, is it your expectation that that would also allow companies to start to reduce excess capital through additional capital returns over and above dividends? Is that a fair assumption? Nordea has stated publicly, which is, of course, the only thing that I can say here, that they intend to apply to use buybacks, but there are no indications from the ECB that I am aware of on this, nor is there any application yet from Nordea. Okay. Super. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of John Zainos from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead, your line is open. Good afternoon. Thanks very much for taking my questions. Firstly, I think the Nordea lockup ends at the end of this week. Are there any reasons why you wouldn't look to do another block shortly after? Maybe more broadly, how do you think about the scope to outperform the 18-month time horizon you set out at the CMD, given the current market conditions? Secondly, you spoke a bit about the increase in excess capital as a result of your Nordea stake going up in value. Should we expect all of that to be returned to shareholders, or would you expect to do more on reducing leverage or the M&A front? Just finally, you've had a bit more of an appetite for industrial business than peers for a couple of years now. I think you previously mentioned substantial rate increases in industrial at Jan 1. The premium growth was pretty low in 1Q. I was just wondering what was driving that and what the outlook is for the business. Thank you. I think I'll start with the one that I can answer, and that's the appetite for industrial business. First of all, remember that even though the Nordic market for industrial business is nothing like the U.K. or the U.S. market, industrial business for us is companies with more than 500 employees, which is really SMEs in U.K. terminology. We are a much bigger player in that market than Tryg or other, indeed, the mutuals. Our appetite hasn't increased, but the rates have, and that's very helpful of course. We have been able to increase rates along the lines that we needed to and wanted. At the beginning of last year, we wrote a number of policies on project insurance where the gross written premium, as we publish, is a multi-year premium. From an earned perspective, the growth last year was slightly overstated and this year understated, because in the gross written premium, we don't get any premiums from those project insurances from last year. That's that. When it comes to exactly what and when is going to happen with our Nordea stake, of course our board, and this is the only answer I can give you, our board will constantly evaluate the opportunities that we have to realize the strategy statement that we made in February to materially reduce the holding within 18 months. You also asked what are we going to use the proceeds for. In theory, we could use them for dividends or giving back money to shareholders. We could use them for bolt-on acquisitions, as we have limited ourselves to, or to reduce debt or any combination of those. That will, of course, also be a part of the board's deliberations. That is as much as I can say. I think, Knut, do you wish to add anything to that? No, that was a good summary, Torbjörn. The only thing I would add is, of course, we are still sticking to our balance sheet targets, which we gave at the CMD as well, to have solvency range between 170% and 190% and a leverage below 30%. Great. Thanks very much both. Thank you. Our next question come from line of Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please go ahead, your line is open. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I had lots of questions. Apologies, I should say, they're too light, let's just say. You mentioned quite proudly the 61% customer satisfaction. I just wondered, how does this compare to when Allianz says we've got 75% NPS? It feels like you measure it on a different basis, but I'm not quite sure, so I'm just asking whether your figure is better in quality than what your peers use. On the Mandatum, this reorganization, it feels like Mandatum is more of a mini holding company now, which is a holding company. It feels like you're almost ready to sell it in the same way that there have been stories in the market, and I think Topdanmark has confirmed that they'd be open for offers or some kind of stuff for their life business. Is that part of your thinking? On the combined ratio, you improve the target range, which is fabulous. It feels like, unlike my expectations last year when I thought the discipline would change, the discipline is as wonderful as ever. This 82%-84% target range, would it be okay to think, well, this is something you could sustain over many years, not just this year? Three very little questions on Hastings. One is the 75%. Do you have a comparative for Q1 last year? It's just a question. I think there's an incentive payment which puzzled me of either EUR 18 million or EUR 19 million, and I just wondered, what is this for? You've just bought Hastings, what is the incentive for? The final question, and you'll probably say I can't answer that. If there is a cash return, is there preferencing among your shareholders for how it is done, whether it is cash or a special dividend or buyback? Sorry for these many questions. Thank you. Customer satisfaction is certainly not standardized between companies, so it is difficult to compare, but the time series within each company is important. Morten, you probably have more to say on this. Yeah, no, that's correct, Torbjörn. This is actually why we have been a bit reluctant to start publishing these type of numbers. There's been clearly an interest in this. Customer satisfaction, you cannot compare it between companies. There are large variations on how you do this, what questions you ask, what type of scale you use. This is a net promoter score. It also depends on what you actually classify as promoters and detractors, depends on whether you do it on per transaction or relationship. It depends on whether you do it on claims or touch points. There is a myriad of different ways of doing this. I think the only thing that makes sense is to look at the development of each and every company. I think what we've seen within If is a very good development now over quite a period, where we see that customers become more satisfied throughout all touch points. Perhaps I can also comment on the combined ratio. The 82%-84% is the current outlook for this year. You asked, is this sustainable? Well, our long-term target is to be below 85% for our three-year target. Of course, that is the level below 85% where we expect to be. Thank you, Morten. Mandatum, maybe just to say that it's a company that performs really well. A little bit to my surprise, even in these pandemic times, the sales have been good. The unit-linked and wealth management business is increasing the assets under management. Investment returns have been excellent. Solvency margin is high, and this company will support dividend ability going forward. If I haven't been positive enough on Mandatum, I promise to change. If I may, and you might say this is out of place, but you have an excellent opportunity to be even more positive by using that famous sailor who went around the world. Anyway, doesn't matter. Take that as an input. Then the Hastings questions, I didn't actually catch all of them. No, we haven't got a Q1 number for 75%. We've got a lot of new other things in the report this time. We haven't produced that. Of course, the other companies in the U.K. only produce trading updates in Q1. What was the other question? There's an incentive payment. I can't remember where it was cited. It's either EUR 18 million or EUR 19 million, and I was surprised because you've just bought it. I couldn't understand how management could have so quickly delivered and be paid so quickly. Can we try to take this offline when. Sure neither of us here can see what you're referring to. We'll try to find it and come back to you. Yeah, no worries. The cash return? There's no simple answer to, well, yes, everyone wants a cash return, or yes, everyone wants buybacks or anything else like that. Okay. Yes. Thank you. There is a EUR 19 million remuneration in the Q1, but that is not Hastings only. That's the group. A large part of it is from Hastings. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Well, then I don't need any more than that. That's really clear. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from line of Per Grönborg from SEB. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Thank you. Two questions from my side. First, which turn to the commercial line where clearly your growth is more muted this year than it was last year. What have you done in the renewal on pricing, and what sort of retention are you seeing? In this context, talking to a player like Zurich, you have the perception that, yes, they're hiking prices a lot, but the outflow of clients are also visible. Are there new players coming in taking these clients, or how do you see the trends in the commercial market, or in the industrial market, sorry? That's an easy one, so Morten, you can have it. Well, the commercial lines, we do see quite large price increases in certain part of that segment, in Norway in particular in commercial lines, and basically throughout the board on the large corporates, what we call then industrial. Retention is fairly stable. The explanation by the somewhat low growth on commercial stems from the development in Finland in particular. Workers' comp market there is actually shrinking a bit due to low employment in Finland as a result of the pandemic. All of that business is basically renewed first of first. Since we report on gross written premium, you get all of that effect then on the Q1 result for Finland, and affecting commercial in particular. That's the main explanation for the 0.6% growth on commercial. This points to also what was addressed earlier about single project contracts with multi-year premiums from last year. This indicates that earned premiums should actually continue to grow reasonably okay this year in this segment. Is that a fair assumption? Yes. We are one of the few that report on gross written premium. Most other players report on some form of gross premium earned. Of course, the good thing with gross written premium is that you get a bit more fresh figures, so to speak, but you also get a bit more volatility in the top line then. Yes, project insurance, for instance, would of course be earned over a number of years. You will have more stability on the earned figures, for sure. Going back to my initial statements on growth, Per, I'm pleased with the progress that we have, and there are some technical things that make the Q1 number look a bit more subdued than it really is. We have good growth in Scandinavia, we have good growth in the right channels, and that's the main conclusion here. Okay. Perfect. My second question, when I look at your mark-to-market bond returns, in a world where most bond funds have yielded negative returns in Q1, you seem to have been able to generate quite solid positive returns. Of course, you have been good, but can you add some more color to it? Do you want to try, Knut? No. Maybe we have been good, Per. We're trying our best. Of course, in an environment where interest rates tick up a bit, of course, it's beneficial for us, at least compared to some others, I'm not sure who you compare us to have shorter duration. We have a possibility to reinvest at a slightly higher running yield, and obviously on a mark-to-market basis, get less negative impact from the higher rates. Let's see how that develops, and those possibilities to reinvest at higher rates continue going forward. That might be one of the differences compared to others with somewhat longer duration in their bond portfolio. The impact you address from discounting rate on slide 104, is that any way influencing your investment income, or where does that pop up in your P&L? Slide 104. I got all the way to the back of the slide deck. Yeah. My apologies. I just had to see what you referred to. That would be a part of prior year gains and losses in the claims ratio. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question come from line of Steven Haywood from HSBC. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Just looking at your, for If P&C, the underlying claims ratio, I think if you look at slide six, you can work out that potentially the underlying claims ratio is about one percentage point better than last year. Could you tell us if this is maybe due to a considerable amount of luck, or is it due to risk selection, or is the one percentage point underlying improvement even higher than the Q1 2020? This is on a normalized basis, excluding all the additional impacts of COVID-19 and weather, large losses, et cetera. The simple answer is some small rate increases on average, but one percent is a small number in non-life insurance. Morten, do you want to give some more color? No, I think that's correct. First of all, you know that we don't really like the term of underlying set of improvement. There's so many effects going in all directions. If you do the simple calculations, yes, that would be roughly right, that we do see an improvement. It's mainly, of course, pricing slightly above inflation in certain segments. Of course, risk selection always being important. Again, these things are more important and relevant to look at over long term. Not always that meaningful to calculate the underlying improvement quarter by quarter, but we definitely see strong development in our portfolio and good profitability in all parts of our book of business. Morten, maybe to add one piece of information voluntarily, there's no major segment where we see difficulties in increasing prices in parallel with inflation or in excess of claims inflation at the moment, is there? We are satisfied with the underlying profitability that we have in all business areas, all geographies. There are only smaller adjustments here and there. Quite a good situation. Okay. Thank you very much. That was very helpful. If you're not liking the underlying claims ratio, then you may not like my next couple of questions, because you're obviously now disclosing your large claims above expectations. Can you tell me what your yearly expectation of large claims is? Can you give me a nominal amount or even a percentage of the combined ratio? Maybe the same for the weather claims. Can you give your estimated normalized expectations in a nominal amount again? We could, but it wouldn't be helpful because we change it as the portfolio changes and the exposure changes. We would have to update that all the time, and you wouldn't be able to use it. Okay. No, I appreciate that. Just a final question from me on the solvency. You've provided 189% Solvency II ratio, but you also provided one that is accruing the dividend at 186%, and I think that is probably the more appropriate ratio to use. Can you just clarify what level you're accruing the dividend at? Is it 70% payout ratio? In that number, there's a small asterisk and it says, I think EUR 170 is used also for this year, just to pick a number so that you know that we're doing what we're doing. There's no indication that the dividend will be EUR 170. That's the number that has been used in that particular graph. It's a quarter of last year's dividend. Perfect. Thank you very much. Really helpful. Thank you. Our next question come from line of Jan Erik Gjerland from ABG. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Good afternoon. It's Jan Erik from ABG here. Just a couple of questions as well. Since you can't talk too much about your Nordea position, could you just remind us about your tax situation below and above the 10% threshold, which you talked about at the Capital Markets Day. Has there been any changes to that, or how should we look at from that when you're thinking about taking your position down? Knut. Yeah. Good afternoon, Jan Erik. No, there's no changes compared to what we have described before. Just to remind what that is, it's treated as a so-called fixed asset as long as we are above 10% holding, and we've owned it for as long as we have, meaning that any sales gains or losses will be tax exempt, and also dividends from Nordea is tax exempt, and consolidated profit, we consolidate on a net basis, so that's also not a part of our tax line in the P&L. If we go below 10%, there will be a similar treatment for 12 months, meaning that if we have any shareholding after 12 months of dropping below 10, then that will be subject to tax, both in terms of realized gains and any direct investment income, meaning dividend received. Perfect. That's very clear. Secondly, Morten, could you just elaborate a little bit on this premium growth potential above inflation? Is it so that you try to price above inflation to improve your book, or is it so that you are happy with your current pricing and just try to price according to inflation currently? Yeah. What we do is that we always look forward, and try to estimate how we look upon the future claims development, severity, inflation, and so forth, and price then according to what we need in order to reach our financial targets. If the risk doesn't change, and you don't need to improve the combined ratio, you would price basically according to expected inflation development. You might have certain books of business where you need to do slightly more than that. Currently, as I said, I think we have a good underlying profitability in all of our business areas and all of the different countries. Broadly speaking, there is not many areas where we need to price for more than inflation. The exception to this has been, and still partially continue to be, commercial lines and industrial lines, in particular in Norway. Again, we price according to expected future risk development, including inflation compared to our financial targets. Yeah, no, that's clear. If you then have a competitive price, you can actually add business as your competitors are still pricing above inflation in some areas. I'm not sure if I got your question there really, Jan Erik, but of course, it's- Can you gain business now as you are happy with your profitability, as you say, and do not need to improve your combined ratio so much anymore? You can then gain market share or gain business, even though that is not on your agenda. Is it easier to gain business these days because your peers or competitors are pricing still above the expected claims inflation level? Well, it all depends on what the peers are actually doing. Always, we always see a situation where we gain market shares in certain segments, certain products, certain geographies, and then we might lose market shares in other segments, very much because of this dynamic. Hard to predict what's going to happen in terms of development. Of course, that is essentially one of the elements that will drive market share development. That's an internal game, and it also has to do with how strong your distribution capacities are in the areas where your pricing is correct or competitive, of course. Okay. Just two technical questions at the end there. Your funding cost was EUR 26 million, and you say it's 1.6% or 1.7%, but I couldn't get that back to my EUR 16 million, EUR 17 million. Just what's the difference between the EUR 26 reported and the EUR 16 million, EUR 17 million expectations, so to speak? Knut? Was it for me? I didn't really hear what you were referring to, Jan Erik. I thought you said claims handling costs. Such a difficult question, Knut. It had to be for you. Its funding cost in the quarter on the holding company was EUR 26 million, it says in the report. It also says it was some 1.6% or 1.7% actual cost. Just couldn't square the equation between those 16%, 17% as I was recovering to, and the 26% you reported. The 1.7% that's right. That's the average funding cost for the holding company with the debt that the holding company has. That gives, on a annual basis, roughly a cost of just about 70 million or euros, let's say EUR 70 million on an annual basis. Divide that by four, you have the quarterly number. Then there are some derivatives positions, not as much as we had before, but some derivatives position that makes the financial result in the holding company a little bit higher and a little bit lower from time to time, depending on interest rate and by developments compared to that nominal cost of your If you like, of 1.7% average, which I referred to. Okay. Yeah, perfect. That's really helping us a lot. Thank you. Just finally, just a wish. Thank you so much for your improved disclosure on If. We think that's great. We hope you can do some similar on Hastings, because those numbers we cannot still not square around as much as we can to get better estimates going forward. That will be highly appreciated. That's all from my side. Thank you. Thanks, Jan Erik. Thank you. If you do wish to ask a question, please press zero one now. Our next question is the follow-up question from Blair Stewart from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you. Knut Arne, it's one for you. You commented earlier that you were sticking to your balance sheet targets. I just wanted to check a clarification on the 170-190 solvency ratio target. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think you said that you will review that as and when you have sold your non-insurance holdings. Is that correct? If so, what would you be looking at in terms of peer group targets, for example, that might be more appropriate for a business that is significantly less risky than it is today? Thank you. Thanks, Blair. We're certainly sticking to 170 and 190 because we set that target in February. We have currently more or less the same balance sheet, it makes sense to stick to it. It also makes sense to review it when we have materially less market risk. In terms of the peer group, I wouldn't say that the peer group is the first port of call. What we will base our evaluation is then is our risk appetite, what we would like to have in terms of comfort level within that target range. Of course, what I referred to earlier, that if we have materially less market risk on our balance sheet compared to today where we think 170 and 190 is appropriate, it would naturally be so that that target range would be somewhat lower. Not materially lower, but somewhat lower. How that compares to certain other companies who might have a little bit different balance sheet or a little bit different view of the world, it would be less important. Yeah. It makes perfect sense. I think every 10-point reduction would be about EUR 400 million impact, wouldn't it? Based on what you said earlier. Yeah, no, I stick to my EUR 4 billion there, Blair. that's- Yep That's easy math. I'll go away and do the math on 10% of EUR 4 billion. Thank you. Thank you. We have a follow-up question from Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please go ahead, your line is open. Thank you very much. On the If dividend, last year, EUR 600 million, I think the year before was slightly more. Can you say what's given the very strong If results we could expect this year? You mentioned inflation. I just wondered if you could say a word about this. It seems it's a topic in the U.S. I know it's very far away, maybe that. On Norway Industrial Risk, I'm actually quite surprised because I thought the rates really jumped hugely last year, I'm surprised it's still an issue. Is Norway a very risky country? Do they have different standards or something? Morten, if you start with it. If I start with Oh, sorry. Okay. Go ahead. If I start with the dividend, Michael, you shouldn't expect anything of the If dividend, really. That's mine. You should expect that the insurance dividend of Sampo is progressive going forward with the starting point of EUR 1.60 per share, which originates back to all our insurance businesses, both the non-life businesses and the life business that we have. How we fund that with cash flows from various balance sheet, that will be our job to do. Very clear. Morten on inflation. Yeah Norwegian Industrial. Yeah. In terms of inflation, I was a bit unclear what your question was, Michael, but inflation in the Nordics, typically up towards two percent up towards three percent. The inflation that is relevant for us is quite different than the consumer price type of index. This is more than inflation in spare parts, labor work sort of related to body shop work at the car industry and so forth. It's been two towards three percent, lately more towards the three percent. The question about repricing in Norway, I think what happened was that we saw in the total Norwegian market quite a bit of claims development, yeah, two, three years back in time, on the commercial segment in particular. The whole Norwegian industry has been pricing for that then over a couple of years. Lately, more last two years, we've seen also a trend in industrial, which is actually more of a global trend, where you see rates for large corporate going up, in particularly in property more across the board. That would be relevant for all of our industrial business, not only in Norway. I don't think there is something special about the Norwegian risk landscape, no. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up question from Jakob Wenng from Nordea. Please go ahead, your line is open. Thank you. Just a follow-up here. You've previously mentioned that Sampo is not interested in life insurance outside Finland. Does that include that you're not interested in Topdanmark having a life company? That was my first question. On one other sort of more structural thing, Nordax and NOFI, there was an increased bid yesterday. I know, as far as I understand, you're not going to inject more money into this, but could you maybe give us a bit more detail? Since, of course, it's maybe a bit contradictory to what you said at the CMD about exiting the PE stakes. Lastly, sorry, Knut-Arne, I don't think I've ever heard about that 12 months rule and tax. Could you just repeat so I'm sure I understand? First of all, life insurance in Topdanmark, they have a wonderful and very efficient and successful life insurance company, which is well integrated with non-life, which is run from the same building with the people in the same place and distribution overlaps, and it's all unit-linked. It's doing well. We wouldn't expand. The question has been would we expand life business? Would we try to integrate life business between the Nordic countries? The answer to that is still no. We don't see any synergies at all between life insurance business in different Nordic countries. Nordax, we're not running that, as we've said many times. It is not a contradiction. We don't intend to expand that group of investments. The third question was? It was the tax treatment of Nordea. You just mentioned something with 12 months. I'm not sure I understood that part. Well, if we drop below 10% shareholding in Nordea, that would go for other companies as well if we own more than 10% for a longer period of time. You have a period of 12 months before, let's call it for simplified purposes, normal taxation of that asset related to capital gains treatment and income treatment comes into force, to put it very plainly. Meaning that if we sit on Nordea shares for more than 12 months after we have dropped below 10%, in a hypothetical situation, any capital gains we would make after that period would be subject to capital gains tax in Finland, and also revenue dividend from Nordea would be subject to tax. Okay. Fair enough. I understand now. Thanks a lot. Thank you. We have a last question from Jon Denham from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead, your line is open. Thanks very much. Just on top, obviously the solvency increased substantially at Q1. Whilst not cash, how should we think about the board's desire to return top solvency to a more normal level via dividends? I'm just thinking from the Sampo side, do you want or do you need the extra cash from the business? Just coming back to Knut's point on the progressive insurance dividend, would it trigger an unwanted step up in Sampo's progressive insurance dividend, or would you seek to hold money back at Mandatum or If, for example? Thanks. Knut, it is your money. Even though you're not on the board, do you wish to. Well, I first and foremost wish for any company that we have an interest in to run a prudent balance sheet. I'm sure the board of Topdanmark will consider that and the profitability that Topdanmark will generate during this year when they set and propose a dividend to the AGM next year. Obviously, to make changes in solvency calculations, I don't expect that to have been done just because of Sampo's insurance dividend. That probably wasn't thought about at all. It's not because of that, just to be very clear. Our insurance dividend is of course linked to the profitability of our insurance operation. How we handle cash management and cash flows within the group, that's a part of our day job. You should first and foremost concentrate on the earnings that our insurance operation generate when thinking progression in the insurance dividend from here. Of course, it's progressive, so we need to have a reasonable view on what is a normal profit for the year and what will be a normal profit for next year when setting that insurance dividend. It's not primarily driven to individual cash flows. We have sufficient cash flow potentials to fix in the Group. It's the earnings that, of course, we need to concentrate on. Fantastic. Thanks, Knut. Thank you. We have one more follow-up question from Jan Erik Gjerland from ABG. Please go ahead, your line is open. Yeah, just one follow-up on your Nordea stake. Is it so that you are allowed to participate in a direct buyback if that should occur either by the board of Nordea? Is that something you would consider to do if that should be an opportunity, either as a sole buyback to you or in a sort of a complete buyback program? We don't know that yet. We have heard from Nordea in the market that they seem to think that that would be technically possible, but we've had no contact with them. We have not discussed this. As I said, as far as I'm aware, Nordea has not applied for any buyback scheme with the ECB. Perfect. Thank you. That was all from me, sir. Thank you. Thank you. We have no more questions from the line. I will hand it back to our speakers for closing comments. Thank you. Thank you all for your attention, and have a great evening.