Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Sampo Group First Quarter 2022 Conference Call. My name is Sami Taipalus, and I am head of investor relations at Sampo Group. I'm joined on the call today by Group CEO and President Torbjörn Magnusson, Group CFO Knut Arne Alsaker, and CEO of If Morten Thorsrud. The call will feature a short presentation from Torbjörn, followed by Q&A. A recording of the call will later be available on sampo.com/results. With that, I hand over to you, Torbjörn. Please go ahead. Thank you, Sami, and welcome everyone. Our first quarter performance proved resilient to the geopolitical and economic uncertainty, and we had very strong development broadly in the group. We report excellent insurance underwriting results, and our balance sheet remained solid at the end of March, allowing the launch of a new EUR 250 million buyback program. After a complete Nordea exit last week, the balance sheet obviously contains surplus capital, so management will propose a new and larger program to the board, given that we get AGM approval for more buybacks. Taking a closer look at P&C insurance, premium growth stood at 7% year-on-year, despite a big decline in new car sales in the Nordics and the fact that car dealers and the car manufacturers are such important partners to us. Underlying margins were by and large robust, with a strong 83.5% group combined ratio without any noticeable COVID effects this year. The margins have continued to improve gradually in the Nordics, and there are no significant segments where we have an issue with increasing rates to match claims inflation. About two-thirds of our growth in the Nordics stem from rate increases, which is still slightly above the observed and expected claims inflation. Adjusting for volatile items like large claims, all If's business areas, private, commercial, industrial, and Baltikum delivered excellent results. There are a few technical items to those results, including the effect of rising discounting rates and new finished mortality tables, but taking all these into account shows another period of improving underwriting margins. We consequently lower our full year guidance for If P&C's combined ratio to 82%/84% down from 85%. As already mentioned, momentum is excellent, retention rates high and increasing, and much of this is on the back of leading web service offering. Turning to Hastings, I think it's fair to say that the U.K. market and ourselves has been surprised by a very rapid increase in claims inflation. The market had a number of things to take into account around year-end, in addition to the normal claim severity and frequency development, and did not price for the present level of claims. Motor repair shop prices, for instance, have developed quite differently from the Nordics. We have remained positive to Hastings' trading behaviour in these markets, where we have remained conservative on pricing with the information at hand, and where the company has developed more capabilities, for instance, in pricing, in synergies with If P&C, in claims handling, and not least in home insurance. We are still able to grow home insurance quite rapidly and get appropriate rates, and we obviously prioritize results over volumes in the motor portfolio pricing for our annual target, as always in Sampo. The capital markets were, of course, volatile in the first quarter. Higher interest rates have a positive effect on our business through higher reinvestment rates and also lower liability values. The discount rate punishment we have suffered in the past decade now goes in the opposite direction. Due to the short duration of our fixed income portfolio, we are relatively well-positioned to rotate into higher yielding instruments. On the downside, wider credit spreads and a decline in the equity markets had a negative impact on our first quarter returns. Turning to a more recent development. Last week, we were able to complete our Nordea exit, continuing the good pace of strategic development and simplification. We had 200 million shares left to sell after selling 46 million shares in the open market earlier this year. There was strong demand in an ABB on Thursday night, and we were thus able to sell all the remaining shares. Our group is now a pure play insurance company, our core skill, and the present momentum in all parts of the group is very good, giving me a lot of optimism for the coming period. With that, back to you, Sammy. Thank you, Torbjörn. Operator, we're now ready for the Q&A. Operator, we're now ready to take the questions. If you want to ask a question, please press zero and one on your telephone keypad. The first question we've received is from Blair Stewart, Bank of America. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. I've got two questions. Firstly, I wonder if you could talk about leverage. I think you said in the past that all the proceeds from the Nordea disposal would be available to be returned to shareholders. If we're talking round terms, about EUR 2 billion, what impact would that EUR 2 billion have on your leverage? I mean, it doesn't take much calculation to suggest it would push it above 30%. I wonder, could you just remind us what debt reduction plans you have in place? Just basically how should we think about leverage as and when you return the Nordea proceeds one way or another? My second question, very simple, is what would the growth, the top line growth have been had you not have had that 20% or so drag or 20% or so weakening in new car sales in the period? Thank you very much. Knut. Thank you. Good afternoon, Blair. It's Knut Arne Alsaker here. On the leverage, it's absolutely correct that all the proceeds we now generated from exiting Nordea would be available for return to shareholders. Correctly, as you say, if we do so, the leverage will go above 30%, to the tune of 32%/33%. We plan to deal with that by working on our senior debt. We have set aside liquidity for doing so from earlier sell downs in Nordea. That was the sort of EUR 750/800 million that we need basically to reduce the senior debt to drop below 30%, and it's not taken out of the proceeds we generated last week. Morten. Yeah. Blair, Morten here. Thank you. I can comment on your growth question. We are reporting 6.9% growth, and the headwind that we get from a low new car sales is in particular impacting us in Sweden due to the special car damage warranty system that you have there. If we would adjust for that and having new sales figures similar to last year, we would have had about 7.5% growth on If in total. It would push business area private up a little bit above 5% and similarly also push growth in Sweden up a little bit above 5%. That's the impact of that. Great. Thanks very much, guys. Very clear. The next question comes from Jimmy Fan, UBS. The line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my questions. I have three, please. My first question on capital, I mean, the solvency is obviously at a very strong level and also thinking about the rate move in April and the 30 percentage points that's realized from the full sell down from there. Perhaps, we are looking at the surplus level of EUR 3 billion. You mentioned about this next buyback. Will that consume the full surplus capital you have or you're considering other use of this capital? My second question is coming back to that EPS growth topic. The growth in industrial was very strong at 1Q. Could you give like a split between policyholder growth and pricing there? And also, in the private side, like the, you know, despite the decline in new car sales, the growth was also quite healthy. Could you give some color in terms of the pricing increase you have there versus claims inflation? My third question is about Hastings. It seems like you have also achieved quite good level of growth in motor. Could you give a bit of color in terms of the growth split by new business and renewal that achieved in motor insurance in 1Q? Do you believe the markets, especially the new business markets through PCW is sufficiently pricing the claims inflation at the moment? Thank you. Would you mind repeating your first question or a short version of it? Because we had difficulty hearing here. The first question is about the surplus capital you have, and maybe that's a range close to or maybe it's a level close to EUR 3 billion. You mentioned about the next share buyback program. I just wonder if that will consume the full surplus capital you have or are you considering maybe other use of your surplus capital? Yeah. Thank you for repeating. It's Knut Arne here. You're right by saying that the surplus capital level is around EUR 3 billion or EUR 6 per share. That's a fair assessment. You're also right, of course, that further interest rate increases would have a positive impact on our capital position and solvency ratio in line with the sensitivities that we provide. In terms of deploying that surplus capital, we said when we exited Nordea on Friday that we as a management team would go to the board and propose a buyback. As Torbjörn just said, it would be reasonable to assume that that would be a larger buyback than what we currently have proposed to the board. Let's return to the size of that buyback after the AGM and also given of course that the AGM gave the board authorization to buy back shares. In the proposal to the AGM, there's ample room to do buybacks. So that's not a constraint given the numbers I was just referring to. Of course, after the AGM, management will do exactly as we said on Friday. Good. I'll try to answer your questions on growth and pricing, trying to combine those two. I think in general, about two-thirds of the growth that we report is price driven, and about one-third is more growth in number of customers and objects. That's on a sort of high total If level. Price increases, again, on the total If level, are in the range 4%-5% typically. In some segments, clearly above that, and that's in particular in commercial and the large corporate segment. In the large corporate segment, you have two effects that play in. One is the rate increases, so what you would look upon as being the real price increases that are, of course, substantial in industrial. Then on top of that, you have increases in insurance values. The estimate of the property values, the estimate of the business interruption values for the customers that we insure, and that's also driving growth. I think that's comments on the rate increases part b ut again, on the total If level, two-thirds about driven by price increases, one-third of the growth driven by more underlying growth in objects b ut that we are of course able to price fully for the inflation that we expect going forward. Finally on Hastings. Hastings had growth in motor in the first quarter from rate increases, but the number of customers was roughly flat. Maybe if you look at some other companies, that looks quite favorable in comparison. Some other numbers are good for the development of the company. Retention is up. Switching in general in the U.K. market is a little bit down, but that's no big surprise as prices came up with the GIPP reform. Switching is a little bit less attractive. A flat number of customers for motor and an increase in home, of course. Thank you. Just a quick follow-up on the If part. I mean, the growth in industrial was very strong. Was that driven by any particular lines of business? If it's driven by any particular lines of business, was that the question? Industrial. Yeah. It's driven by price increases across the board, but of course mainly within property. That is the larger part of the industrial business. That's in particular where we see sort of price increases and also increased values in the insurance sums. Yep. Very clear. Thank you. The next question comes from Jakob Brink, Nordea. The line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. My first question is about the discounting. As you mentioned, Torbjörn, for the first time in quite a while, it's relatively positive, especially in Finland. If I read your statement correctly, then half of the prior year gains of around 8% comes from discounting. I was just wondering, are you able to break up the discounting impact in the amount coming from reserves strengthening in Finland? What part is the running impact of a higher discounting rate, which will also impact in the quarters to come? Yes. Jakob, Morten here. I'll comment on this. The run-off gain that we have this quarter is coming from two things. First is change in mortality assumptions in Finland. That's not linked to discounting, but rather that there's a new industry-wide estimate on impaired life effects from when you are in a car accident or have a Workers' Comp Claim. The models have been adjusted for that, and then we have a run-off gain. That's roughly half of the run-off gain that we're reporting in the first quarter. A very significant impact for If in total, and all of that again in Finland. The discounting effect and the gain that we have on that is actually from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, but predominantly from Sweden. That's simply due to the increase in the interest rate levels. The approach in Finland is a little bit different. We use a fixed rate in Finland. That's the market practice, and that has been kept unchanged. It's typically something while Sweden, Denmark, and Norway is following a market-based interest rate curve. Again, the Finnish discounting is set at a fixed rate that we typically change if needed once per year, not sort of per quarter at least. So that's more a potential that is there if interest rates continue to rise and continue to be at this level. That's kept unchanged at 1.75%. No positive effect yet from that in Finland. At 0.75. 0.75, yeah. Yeah. Just to be sure then on the part which is related to discounting mainly in Sweden, how much of that is a reserve impact, i.e. that you're adjusting the reserve like a one-off due to the higher rates? How much it is actually something that we should also model going forward, that this is also new claims will benefit from the higher rate. Is that roughly one-to-one, i.e. 1% on rates gives you 1% lower combined ratio in Sweden or what is the relation? No, this is all effects on reserves. The impact on sort of current year claims of course is very marginal. This is all basically on the reserves. Okay. Thank you. Then my second question regarding the running yield on the fixed income portfolio in If. Obviously as you mentioned, a fairly short duration, but also fairly short maturity of around two years. Is it fair to assume or is there anything I'm missing that, let's say, rates have gone up 1%, then over the next two point, is it three years, we should see the whole running yield growing from 1.6% - 2.6%? Let's see sort of exactly what happens over the next two years. You're absolutely right. I mean, the reinvestment yield that we now have is more 2.5% than the running yield. That's basically what we currently can invest at. It's also true that in particularly in If, which you were referring to about half of the book is floaters. We also enjoy a bit of pickup from that side of the fixed income portfolio. Just to add to this. If someone has question on that, I mean, to what we're doing when reinvesting, investing at these rates now, it's also to take a bit longer duration, more up to five years than what you were referring to as our current average duration. You could see us continue and to do that also going forward as the rate market looks right now. We're doing that in gradual steps and not big changes on a daily basis. The direction of travel that you're pointing at, Jakob, is correct. Just to be clear on the. Is it? Just to be clear on the duration, since you mentioned If, the duration in If is actually one point one years, so very short. Yeah. Just to be certain also on the on the roll-up to the higher running yield, is that front-loaded, I guess, since it's, what did you say, Knut? It's 50% floaters? It's in If. It's 50%, around 50% floaters, yes. We should get a lot of the rate. If rates stay where they are, we should get that impact relatively soon. Yeah. That would be. Okay. That would be a correct assumption. Okay. Thank you. My third question, just coming back to the question previously on buybacks. I think, Knut, you said that what you had said is that buybacks, the new buybacks should be higher than the current one. Just to make sure, which one are you referring to, the EUR 250 or the EUR 750 or the combined EUR 1 billion? It was EUR 250 when I said it in the presentation. I know. It's. Okay. I mean, let's come back to the size when we have given the board a proposal. Of course, the excess capital is clearly higher than both EUR 250 and EUR 750. Given the volume, the average daily trading volume that we have, it would be possible to also do buybacks over a 12-month period, which clearly is higher than the EUR 750. Mm. To discuss exact numbers, let's do that as soon as we have had that deliberation, the board has had that deliberation. Okay. Very clear. Thanks a lot. The next question comes from Ashik Musaddi, Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you and good afternoon. Just a couple of questions I have. First of all, I mean, clearly the combined ratio. Sorry, I joined the call a bit later on, so in case I missed it, the combined ratio in If came in at surprisingly very, very strong at 80.8%, which is way better than your guidance of 82%-84%. Now, would you say that as the year progresses, we go back to 82%-84% just because there was some positive run of gains in first quarter? W ould you say that, I mean, there are still momentum such as, say, people are driving less because of, say, higher fuel costs or any other reasons, why you think that combined ratio can still stick around at around 81%? That would be very helpful to know. That's number one. Second thing is I completely get it that you cannot give clarity on the size of the capital return through the buyback, but is it fair to say that you would try to achieve the 170%-190% solvency ratio by the end of the year, or would you say that it could spill into 2023 as well? That's the second question. And third question is, I mean, clearly the growth is still very strong at around, say, 7% in terms of top line. Part of that is coming from price, part of that is volume. Looks like price will continue just because inflation is high. Would you say that this 6%, 5%, 7% top line growth is sustainable, at least in the near future? Thank you. Morten, do you wanna start with both the first and the third question? Yeah, I can do that. Yes, absolutely, the combined ratio of 80.8%, of course, is extremely strong, best ever first quarter combined ratio. We do have a very good underlying profitability in all business areas, all segments. I think it's a very strong starting point for us. We have clearly more than normal run-off gain in the first quarter. Of course, one need to bear that in mind. Again, when you put all of these together, sort of we are very comfortable with the very strong outlook of the 82%-84%. Again, first quarter has been supported a bit extra by strong run-off gains. COVID effects, there are really no material COVID effects, anymore. I think we are now more and more seeing what is the new normal level. Driving is more or less returning to pre-COVID level in all of the Nordic and Baltic countries. There are no COVID effects really to report in the first quarter. To your question about growth, I said initially that about two-thirds of the growth that we report is price driven, and that we have on a sort of high level total, If level, somewhere around 4%-5% growth increases. This comes on top of very strong retention and also growth in number of customers. I think, of course, with those price increases, it's fair to expect that of course will have a positive impact on growth in the full year as well. Not wanting to point at a specific figure, but again, of course, it's fair to believe that strong growth continues throughout the year. The one thing, Morten, to balance this a little bit with is that we've had exceptional. We've had very high growth in industrial at the beginning of the year and more than 40% of the industrial book is renewed in the first quarter 11. That is a bit. If you adjust for that in terms of proportions for the full year, that balances the high number a little bit. That's correct. It's the premiums are a bit front loaded in industrial sort of in the year. They have more of the first renewals than what you would find in other business areas. In private it would be much more even renewal pattern. Of course, when you see as high growth as 70% in industrial, that is driving up the figures a little bit in the first quarter, but still. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Just capital return? On the capital, we are absolutely committed to our capital management framework of the 170%-190% range. That has not changed to the conservative side. Obviously, that's not a target which necessarily have to be fulfilled on New Year's Eve, in this very special situation where the excess capital is significant. We have proposed to do a buyback, and obviously would also be happy to do a buyback which continued into next year. Technically, of course, what we have done, and this is more technical than maybe what you're asking for, but what we have done both for the EUR 750 and EUR 250 buyback is to deduct the full buyback from our solvency ratio when that buyback is initiated. If we initiated the buyback that took longer, you could discuss whether or not that would need to be fully deducted from the solvency at day one, but of course it doesn't really change anything since an announcement of a buyback would make a clear intention from the company side as well. I'll put it like that. I mean, is it fair to say that you may choose the route to do the special dividend again to give the remaining capital? What we said on Friday was that we would go to the board and propose a buyback. That's what we will do. Yeah. I think just to have a slightly broader answer linking it to our capital management framework again, which is not only a comment related to the current situation, but we of course have the insurance dividend, which we are committed to. If we have excess capital going forward, also after the specific Nordea proceeds to do buyback or pay extra dividend would be a part of that capital management framework. What we know we'll talk to the board about is the buyback. Okay. Thanks, Knut. That was very helpful. Thank you. The next question is from Jennifer Sparrow from Berenberg. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Oh, hi, good afternoon, and congratulations on the strong set of results. I have three questions. Hopefully, they'll be brief. The first one is the impact on solvency from selling Nordea. Based on my rough estimates, around EUR 2.1 billion market value and around 14.4% equity charge, assuming everything else being equal, I get to a solvency ratio of about 243%, which implies around 39% uplift. I was wondering the 9% difference is purely due to the loss of diversification. And obviously on this topic, does the EUR 4 billion market risk guidance post the Nordea exit and equity stakes still stand? My first question. The second question is, when do you plan on applying for a partial internal model for the group? Has this become more of a priority now that Nordea has been fully sold? Just lastly, on Hastings, could you perhaps give us a bit more color on the price increases you've achieved in motor, just to help us get a feel of what to what extent these offset claims inflation in the U.K.? Thank you. I can do the Hastings first quite rapidly, because I don't think that it is clear that the market increase in prices has not been sufficient. I think that's very clear to most of the market by now. I also think that the claims inflation has changed very rapidly in the U.K. Let's not give exact numbers because things are likely to be a bit volatile over a period in the U.K. On the solvency impact, I didn't get all the numbers. I know that the 30% we have calculated, that's correct. I couldn't relate that to all your numbers that you had. Obviously, a ratio is sort of, the end result of the ratio is of course depending on where you start from on the SCR as well. Maybe the difference there could be related to that b ut it's 30% positive impact on the solvency. In terms of PIM, I still don't have a timetable for you. It's of course a natural point in time to intensify a bit of that preparatory dialogue now when we have reduced the market risk significantly by exiting Nordea. We will return to you in terms of an indication of a timetable as soon as that is something that we have. The reason I'm saying that is, as I also alluded to before, such a timetable is a product which is ours and also based on dialogues with regulators and EIOPA. Okay. That's very clear. Just coming back to the solvency. Is the EUR 4 billion figure for market risk a good approximation for going forward after you sold Nordea and assuming you've exited equity stakes as well? Is that number we should be looking at on a medium-term view, I guess? EUR 4.4 billion for market risk sounded high. Is the- So- Was it market risk you said? Sorry, Jennifer. Are you talking about the EUR 4 billion figure that we mentioned at the CMD for the SCR excluding Nordea and the PE stakes? That's the one you were referring to? Yeah, that's the one. That's the total SCR. It's not only market risk. We're not there yet, by the way, because we still have the PE portfolio. That might be one of the differences in your initial numbers, which I didn't catch. The EUR 4 billion SCR was the total SCR stack, not only market risk. Okay. That's very clear. That remains unchanged? Yeah. I mean, there's always smaller changes, but that's still roughly a reasonable level. Again, we're not there yet, because that was an indication also in terms of the sort of EUR 1 billion or so exposure we have in the so-called private equity portfolio, including the Nordax, which we call a subsidiary, an associated company, my apologies, currently. That's also a part of that market risk consideration. We're somewhat higher, everything else equals still, but it's still a valid number after selling those assets. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you very much. Mind you, my apologies, that was also a number without a partial internal model. Okay. Thank you. The next question is from Faizan Lakhani, HSBC. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. The first is on the solvency ratio. There's a 13-point improvement from market effect. You point out six points is from interest rates. Could you help me understand what the other piece is? Just more broader based, with the market effects, do you see that as a true increase in your solvency buffer, or are you remaining cautious on what that means as the market movements evolve? The second question is on net financial leverage. It's clear that you have enough liquidity on the balance sheet to do your debt actions. In the short term, with a buyback, are you happy going above the 30% financial leverage level, on an adjusted basis? My third question is just coming quickly back to Hastings. You know, commentators like Direct Line and Admiral are suggesting pricing on an aggregate basis is relatively flat in the U.K., but you've seen 10% improvement there without losing market share. I just want to understand how you're able to do that. Thank you. Okay. Hastings first again. I don't think pricing 11 in the U.K. was flat. I don't think that Admiral or the others have said that. Certainly we have been able to increase prices. Okay. If I understood your question correctly, if we do define the symmetric adjustment movement as excess capital, we have the capital management framework where we have the 170%-190% range. That is sort of including everything. In a real stress scenario, which is what we're modelling when setting that range, it's pretty clear what the symmetric adjustment would be, because the equity markets have dropped significantly. On leverage, yes, we would be happy to have a reported leverage somewhat above 30% if we did liability management exercise, for example, after we had initiated a buyback, as long as we, of course, have liquidity to do what we say, to deal with the debt, and we do. That is liquidity that we already have on our balance sheet, which makes our flexibility to work on our senior debt fully up to us. Of course, subject to market conditions to find a good time to do that with reasonable economic impact. Okay, fantastic. Thank you very much. There are no further questions at this time. I hand back to you, speakers. We just received another question. It is from Jan Erik Gjerland, ABG. The line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking my question at last. Just to continue on the buybacks. Did I hear you correctly that if you were not finished with our buybacks for the next AGM, i.e., 2023, you would consider them a special dividend to get the excess capital out at the time? Do you think you will continue with another buybacks to sort of execute the final Nordea sale? Yeah. I didn't. Just to clarify. Thank you. No, I didn't say the first. Let's come back to the size of the buyback, and that would also be a clear indication for how long that would take, given of average trading volume, roughly. Let's see what the share price is in a year. Yeah. Of course, in terms of returning excess capital, if we are in such position, also going forward, after deploying the proceeds from Friday, to return excess capital both as buybacks or special dividends going forward is of course a part of our capital management framework. It was not a specific comment to May of next year, if you understand what I mean, Jan Erik. Okay. Thank you. On Hastings, is your operating ratio guidance of below 88% still stand? And how much of your price increases will have to come through for this year to make that happen, starting at 92.5% over the first quarter? Did you increase prices fast last year so that you still have a catch-up on the pricing side, to get the improvement in the operating ratio o r how should you read the 88% level for 2022? A bit like I described and some other companies has also described, we were cautious at the end of the last year, and then increased prices for the GI pricing practices reform on 11, but then we were caught as the rest of the market, it seems, by higher claims inflation than that. We're pricing, we're certainly pricing now to reach our targets. Yes, and that's the background to it. Okay. The current pricing will then take another year to receive, so to speak. We will see gradual improvement during the year and then maybe more even speed into 2023, if I read you correctly, Torbjörn? Provided claims inflation behaves. Of course. That's for sure. Finally. You said that on commercial industrial have the most price increases. The disposable income for both corporate as well as households are, of course, diminishing with the energy prices and food prices, et cetera, and even mortgages. How certain should we be that the volume is keeping up as today with the price increases? Because people may not afford to pay the full price you're asking them to pay, and by that they may lower their volume by you. Is that a risk we should think about because of the disposable income pressure we have from all parts in the Nordics these days? No, I think, yeah, Eric, we typically haven't seen this in the earlier periods, so I would not expect any material effect from such change in behaviour. I think, insurance is one of the last things that households cut down on. I don't think you'll see any material effect from that, at least. Okay. Thank you for your answers. I remind you that if you want to ask a question, you will have to press zero and one on your telephone keypad. The next question is from Philip Ross, Mediobanca. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Oh, hi there. Good afternoon. At the CMD, you talked about managing non-P&C operations for value. I guess the PE portfolio that you mentioned, it's difficult to set a time for the any sales there. How should we think about Mandatum in that context, now that Nordea is gone, and especially when we've seen interest in Nordic markets for life and savings companies more recently? We are not interested to grow Mandatum as a unit-linked operation outside of the Finnish market. We are, though, very pleased with Mandatum, and it helps. It has a good fit with the rest of the group, but it helps support us with internal dividends. Good company, good performance, good development, but managed for value. Cool. Thank you. We now have a follow-up question from Ashik Musaddi, Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry. Just one quick question. I mean, given that you have already done a reasonable amount of capital return, EUR 1 billion buyback and a special dividend at full year, and you are looking to get authorization for another buyback. Is it fair to say that you're not keen on buying full Topdanmark at the moment because you'll be using most of your proceeds to do capital return? How should we read into that? Yeah. Thank you. With or without buybacks, special dividends, whatever, I don't see an opportunity to buy the rest of Topdanmark at these prices. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you. It's the price which is the main factor at the moment? We've got the money. Well, exactly. I mean, you got the money, but clearly you're not doing it, so it comes down to the price. Okay. That's clear. Thank you. There are no further questions. I now hand back to you. Thank you, operator, and thank you everyone for your attention today, and we look forward to seeing you all on the road soon.