Good day, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Coface presentation, IFRS 17 Pro Forma conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone. You will hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one and one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your speaker today, Phalla Gervais. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, everybody on the call. I think today we're gonna present you or provide you with an overview of our pro forma IFRS 17 full year 22 results. As you know, I will go through this in this pack. Before we start, I think we just want to highlight a couple of things. The first one is of course, as we know, IFRS 17 went live on the 1st of January 2023. Which means that, you know, the next time we talk will be the Q1 23 results will be presented under this new accounting standard. The numbers that are presented today are the so-called pro forma, which is the full year 2022 results, with a retroactive application of this new standard. I hope that will provide you with some useful reference for your modeling. That's probably one of the purpose of the call. We have already presented I think at the year-end results in February, the first time application, which is the opening balance sheet under IFRS 17 as of 1st of January 2022. Note, please note that this has been reviewed by our external auditors now with no changes. No change. The pro forma data that we will go through today, which is some quarterly numbers and more importantly, the full year 2022 PNL, as well as the closing balance sheet as of 31st of December 2022, under IFRS 17 are, as we speak, under review by our external auditors. Want to highlight as well the fact that we have moved since the 1st of January 2023 from IAS 39 to IFRS 9, which is related to the investment portfolio accounting classification. However, under IFRS 9 doesn't require us to have a pro forma per se on the previous year, and Coface has chosen not to do so. What you see during this presentation is, I think, couple of comments that will be developed during the course of today's presentation, is that 2022 pro forma numbers needs to be analyzed in conjunction with the first time application. 2022 obviously was a transition year, and during this transition year you will have some short-term differences from one norm to another one. You will see that the profit recognition pace is deferred from IFRS 4 and IFRS 17. However, given the short-term nature of our business in the midterm, of course shareholders equity, earnings and cash being cash converge between these two norms. More importantly, Coface will continue under IFRS 17 to report and to rely on the same KPI, but with very limited definition changes that we'll go through. If we move to the next page, which is page five. I think this page has been already presented in February, but it's good, probably good also to be reminded. Our strategy remains unchanged and completely unimpacted, not impacted by IFRS 17 implementation. What was our state of mind when we did this implementation? In terms of principle, remind you that the short-term nature of our business allows us to apply a simplified approach, which is a premium allocation approach. We have no contractual service margin, no CSM. This is the principle. We have ensured or tried to ensure the same KPI, the continuity of KPIs in terms of premium, combined ratio, return on average tangible equity. We're not adding any new KPIs, and we're not replacing any of the existing ones. We stayed very coherent in terms of reserving principle. You will see that later on. First time application, of course, 1st January 2022 has been presented. Last but not least, we have leveraged our existing Solvency II processes, which means that the best estimate that we are coming up with under IFRS 17 is exactly the one that we're using for our Solvency II calculation. What comes out of this implementation first is that the reserving philosophy remains broadly unchanged. You will see that we, you know, where we talk to you about the level of reserve on the new vintage, you know, the opening year and of course, the prior year development, positive or negative, same philosophy. The strategy of Coface is unchanged. The Build to Lead assumptions and the target through the cycle remain unchanged. With a combined ratio below 80%, return on average tangible equity above 9.5, and payout ratio above 80%. Cash being cash flow over the lifetime of the policy are unchanged. However, what we will see is that the new rules tends to accelerate the profit recognition, and there will be some volatility, especially from one quarter to another one. Financial leverage unchanged. What we already see in terms of first-time application as of 1st of January 2022, shareholders' equity has slightly increased compared to IFRS 4, increased by EUR 91 million, net of tax, net of reinsurance, which represents EUR 0.60 per share. Let's go to probably the heart of the presentation. What you will see going forward with all the pages where there is an impact related to IFRS 17, and I move to page seven, which is the turnover. If you look at the chart on the left-hand side, you have IFRS 4, on the right-hand side, you have IFRS 17, and of course, we are only looking at the full year 2022. Turnover will change slightly, and the difference is less than 1%. This, of course, impact only the earned premium, which is the insurance business, where while fees and other revenue stay unchanged. Gross Earned Premium moving from EUR 1,527 - EUR 1,560 million. Key variances here, you know, we're talking about, you know, something which is close to EUR 11 million, which is nothing. However, you have two components. The first one is a reclassification and a reclassification from the OpEx line, and this is related to the inward commissions. Inward commission being the commission that we are paying on our fronting reinsurance business. Under IFRS 17, this will come as a deduction of our Gross Earned Premiums. It's just a reclass from OpEx to premium. Because the duration of our policy is like, in terms of premium, approximate 17 months, which is of course, obviously, longer than 12 months. Under IFRS 17, we have to recognize a coverage period extension, which is a timing difference, and we have introduced this mechanism in our premium recognition. This goes on top of the Gross Earned Premiums as of full year 2022. Bottom line of this is that the Gross Earned Premiums has slightly decreased compared to IFRS 4, less than 1%. I think we can move to the next page. Next page, you will see the same changes in terms of turnover across the region. You can see that the only region where you have this impact or more significantly compared to the other ones are Asia Pacific. Given the nature of our business in APR in Asia, this is where we have the most fronting business, reinsurance fronting business. And of course, we're moving from EUR 151 - EUR 131 million, as we have taken into deduction the inward commissions of this fronting business. Just showing you from a geographic standpoint of view, where the inward commissions is impacting. Now, let's move to page nine. I think probably the most interesting page for us in terms of changes. I will start with the chart on the top left-hand side. You will have the gross loss ratio before reinsurance and after claims handling costs by quarter and for the full year. On the right-hand side, you have the same gross loss ratio under IFRS 17 pro forma. I will comment first the full year. On a full year basis, under IFRS 4, the gross loss ratio last year was at 31.2, while it would have been at 35.5 under IFRS 17. What drives these differences? I would point you to the chart on the bottom right-hand side. Again, you have the two views, IFRS 4 and IFRS 17. Of course, here we're looking at the 12 months 2022 only. You're already familiar with this chart, you know, which is the opening year and the prior year development. I will start with the opening year, the dark blue bar. Under IFRS 4, you can see that at the end of last year, we have opened the new vintage at 80.2. Under IFRS 17, we would have opened a new vintage actually at 80.5. What makes the difference between 80.5 with the 77.3 is based on the fact that under IFRS 17, we have to discount the reserving methodology. To compare apples to apples, you can see that the new vintage will be very similar in terms of reserving philosophy, with opening new vintage around 80%. What happened on the other side, which is the prior year development, you can see that the prior year developments, which are the boni that we have recognized in 2022 under IFRS 4, represent EUR 51.6 with the reserve release, while under IFRS 17 it was at EUR 44.2. When we said that we have a different pace in terms of profit recognition, this is what you see here. Under IFRS 17, what the prior year developments are recognized faster than under IFRS 4. The way that we have recognized it faster was through the first time application, which is an opening balance sheet. I think that you may recall that we have a first time application impact of EUR 91 million net of tax, net of reinsurance. We go back to the chart above where you can see clearly the work. IFRS 4, full year 2022 loss ratio was at 31.2%. If we add the first time application, which is the faster recognition of the prior year developments under IFRS 17, you are adding up 5.5. You have -1.9. This is mainly the discounting effect under IFRS 17, the methodology differences and timing. Of course you have the impact of the inward commissions, as it's a ratio, and we have a lower Gross Earned Premiums under IFRS 17. This is why I think when, you know, the highlights that we put, you really need to look at this transition year, which is a PNL, but also in conjunction with what we did at the first time application in the opening balance sheet. This gives you the full view of the transition in 2022 between the two norms. I will circle back actually to the first draft, where you can see the difference between the quarters, and more specifically, it tells you that under IFRS 4, the reserve release related to the prior years mainly happen, a big chunk happens in Q3 2022, while of course this has been recognized under IFRS 17, mainly in the FTA, in the first time application and the opening balance sheet. Move to the next page 10. You can see these variances full year 2022 by geography. I think if you look at the geography, there's some slight differences from one geography to another, but it also gives you an idea of in which geography the first time application. The prior year developments recognition under IFRS 17 in the opening balance sheet has been recognized. Same story. If we move to the next page, which is only IFRS 17 per quarter. What we want to highlight here is the fact that, you know, between the two norms, the reserving philosophy was exactly or principle was the same. You do recognize that in Q4 2022 in Latin America, under IFRS 4 or under IFRS 17, we have booked up these very large claims in Brazil, more specifically. Same story in Central Europe, where in Q1 with the Ukrainian War, we have booked up reserve. Same story under IFRS 4 and 17. In Q2, we have reallocated this reserve IBNR in the region where the risk has been underwritten. Q3, we booked up reserve with the, when Russia announces the mobilization. Q4, same story, has been reallocated to the region where the risk has been underwritten. Bottom line of this is that between the two norm, the messaging in terms of reserving principle and philosophy remains exactly the same. If we move to the cost page, external and internal, we're moving from EUR 851- EUR 819 million. Internal cost has stay unchanged. Of course, you can see this reclass related to the inward commissions of EUR 31 million from OpEx to Gross Earned Premiums that has been netted off these inward commissions. Mechanically, the gross cost ratio decreased between the two norm. If we move to the reinsurance page, again, pretty much the same story, of course, on the reinsurance side. Premium cession rates remain almost the same, and this is just the adjustment on the Gross Earned Premiums. Claims cession rate is higher under IFRS 17. This is due to the fact that we have released reserves. More reserve under IFRS 4 during the full year 2022 PNL, and of course, this benefit the reinsurers as well. Net combined ratio at 67.6%. You know, the same story that, you know, we. Same explanation we provide you with on the, in terms of gross loss ratio applies to the net combined ratio. Under IFRS 4, in full year 2022, the net combined ratio was 64.9. We have this first time application, which is the faster recognition of the prior year development, positive development in IFRS 17 opening balance sheet. This time it's of course net of reinsurance, so 3.8. We have the impact of the inward commissions, not only on the loss ratio but also on the cost ratio. This leads us to the next page 15, with a net income of EUR 240.4 million. Knowing that in the first time application, the net equity has been increased by EUR 91 million net of tax, net of reinsurance. If we move to the next page, provides you the equity work, but this is under IFRS 17, which is EUR 2 billion 229 million. This is the opening balance sheet with a EUR 91 million higher than IFRS 4. Cash, being cash, I think the EUR 224 dividends is the one that has been approved. We are adding up, of course, the pro forma net income full year 2022. Minus EUR 264.9, this is the mark-to-market, so the unrealized loss related to the interest rate increase, mainly on our investment portfolio. This number is exactly the same that we have recognized under IFRS 4. You have others. Again, part of that is exactly the same numbers that we have recognized under IFRS 4. Lead us to ending equity of EUR 2.08 billion. If you look at the work between the two norms on the return on average tangible equity, 15.6% under IFRS 4 at year-end 2022. We have the equity impact as the equity under IFRS 17 is higher than under IFRS 4, and we have the net income impact. This leads us to return on average tangible equity, pro forma 17, IFRS 17, of 12.7%. What will the balance sheet? Moving now to page 18. The balance sheet variances between the two accounting standards at year-end 2022. Here we're talking about 31st of December. Couple of things here, and we have already presented that in the opening balance sheet. The principle is the same. Total asset, total liabilities under IFRS 4 was at EUR 8.451 billion, moved down to EUR 7.596 billion under IFRS 17. You might recollect that under IFRS 17, there is a lot of netting impact between reserves, other assets and other liabilities. Of course, goodwill, insurance investments, factoring assets, factoring liabilities and hybrid debt don't change, not impacted by IFRS 17 changes, I will put it this way. I think what needs to be noticed is, of course, the net shareholder equity differences, which is now t he difference between EUR 1.9960 -EUR 2.1959 million, compared to EUR 91 million in the opening balance sheet. What would it look like if we have to have a thing build to the target through the cycle with another 17 lens pro forma for sure? Well, with what we said, the combined ratio at 67.6% or still below the build to lead target of 80%. A payout ratio, cash being cash, would have been at 94%, which is above the 80% target. Return on average tangible equity at 12.7% above the 9.5% target. Solvency ratio, there's no reason why it has changed. As I said, we are leveraging the same best estimate under IFRS 17 than for my 2022 c alculation. Key takeaways of this overview. Our Coface strategy remains not unaffected by IFRS 17. You can see that the reserving philosophy remain broadly unchanged. We have an almost identical opening year if we disregard the discount effect for the new vintage. The Build to Lead assumptions and through-the-cycle targets remain valid. More importantly, I think we have just a faster prior year developmental condition under IFRS 17 than under IFRS 4. Knowing that our business cycle is at two years, I think cash being cash in two years time, the two norms converge. Coface will continue to report and rely on the same KPIs with very limited changes. You can see that on the Gross Earned Premiums. I hope that you have seen that the pro forma PNL 2022 needs to be analyzed in conjunction with the first time application. This just illustrates, you know, the faster recognition of the prior development under IFRS 17. We have started to converge, you know, during 2022, and more importantly, I think the Build to Lead through the cycle objectives remain completely valid under IFRS 17. With this, I think we can open up for questions. Operator. Thank you. As a reminder to ask a question, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one and one again. We will take our first question. The question comes from the line of Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi there. Thank you. Thank you so much. It's really clear. Really, and you're the first of my company to report, I'm really delighted with this. Also you've provided the Excel spreadsheet. It's just amazing. I have two questions. The first one, EUR 91 million is the net of tax, net reinsurance impact on the opening balance sheet. I think EUR 59 million, a portion has already been used. I don't know how much exactly, but a portion, and there's still a portion left, I'm just wondering when will that portion affect earnings? Is it all in 2023? Really my question is does it mean that consensus should come down and by how much? I think it's EUR 32 million or something. The second question is really simple. Is there any change in the asset allocation? I noticed you said the unrealized gains impact on the balance sheet is the same, I think under IFRS 9, there are some changes in profit recognition for assets. I just wondered whether that would affect your philosophy. That's it. Thank you. Yeah. On the first question, indeed, we have started to converge in year 2022, as you've seen. Of course, you know what has been taken will not be taken again. It really depends on the development. We still have policies that are under development. This will be taken into account in 2023, I believe, for the vintage related to 2021 and 2022. Still to see. It really depends on how our claims are developing. On the second one, which is related to IFRS 9. A couple of things, you're totally right to highlight this, and we have presented it in February. As I said, we have no pro forma related to IFRS 9 in 2022. However, Norm, if you go back to the full year 2022 presentation, we have shown that first we have, w e know that IFRS 9 will lead to some volatility in PNL. This is a matter of fact that we have already reduced our equity, for instance, at the end of last year, you know, equity represent 3%, and this will go until the June. This will go into equity, in terms of mark-to-market. What remains, I would say volatile in our PNL would be investment funds in real estate. We have approximately 7% only, of the, t hat might drive some volatility in our PNL, and this is the real estate funds. We know that real estate funds needs to be looked at a midterm or long-term view. This might create some volatility in our PNL. In 2023. This is why you don't see it, in any balance sheet, because at the end of 2022, we are still applying IAS 39. Does it make sense? Yes. How much would it be? What do you mean how much would it be? You mean the. The difference between IAS 39 and IFRS 9. Well, we haven't calculated the PNL impact. You know, it's only. It's a balance sheet view. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will take our next question. The next question comes from the line of Benoit Valleaux from ODDO BHF. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes, good evening. Thank you for this presentation. One question on my side regarding your reserving policy. I understand that the lower level of reserve releases in 2022 was mostly related to the first time application. I just wonder if, going forward, do you believe that you will still be able to, I would say, manage or smooth a little bit the volatility of earnings? When I look at slide 18 on your balance sheet, do you have in your EUR 1.433 million amount of reserves? I mean, do you still have some, I would say, buffer versus best estimate, just to understand, I mean, or should I read the gap between what you had in the previous accounting norms and what you have under IFRS 17, you are reducing by your amount of reserve by roughly EUR 600 million, something like this. just understand if you have still some buffer within that or not. related to this, maybe you mentioned that, obviously the course isn't changed, but, could it lead you maybe to change a little bit your reinsurance program going forward or not? Thank you. I would say. Okay. In terms of if you look at, you know, the difference between the two norms, you're right. Under IFRS 17, we are now calculating our reserve based on best estimate and risk adjustment. Okay? Yeah. What does it mean? The total amount that you're seeing is totaling the two items or the two components. Does it answer your question? Yep. This is the 1.4. Basically, in the 1.4, you have more than this. You have reserve, we have premium reserve, and of course you have claims reserve. It's a little bit misleading. The claims reserve is made of best estimate and risk adjustments. You do not disclose the amount of risk adjustments? Well, it will be disclosed of course, as we, you know, when we will go with the Q1 presentation. What we can tell you is the percentile that we have retained for which has risk adjustments is above 85%. Okay. Thank you. We will take our. I go back to your second question related to the reinsurance. I would say so far there's no reason why we're changing any structure on our reinsurance. The reserving policy, you can say that, I mean, you still believe that you'll be able to build some buffer when needed, and maybe release some reserves also as you made in the past? You know that the reserve release will be again, you know, come back to my gardener's question, related to the development that we see over the course of the quarters. I think what we should probably look at is, you know, This is why I have highlighted the level of the new vintage opening reserve. Under seventeen and under four, we can see that for full year 2022 it is pretty similar. In 2023 onwards, of course, we will see the development of this vintage. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will take our next question. Your next question comes from the line of Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please ask your question. Thank you. Thanks for the second opportunity. I have two extra questions. The profit is lower in 2022, and I guess also in 2023, because only part of the EUR 91 million difference has been kind of opening adjustments has been booked or not booked or whatever. And of course, the payout ratios, as you said, is in 2022, would have been under the new accounting, 94% rather than the 80% minimum target that you have. My question is, should I also cut my dividend given that My understanding of your payout policy is that you, because of the strong growth and inflation and all these other factors, you need to keep a little bit more of earnings back. If earnings are lower, and I apply 80%, then my dividend would be lower. That's my first question. The second one is, You said that the volatility would be higher. I just wondered if you could explain that a little bit. Many of your peers have said the same, but I don't understand why. Thank you. A couple of things in terms of 2020 - 2023 dividends, I think, you know, we stick to our target, which is 80% payout. This is what we have promised to the market. You know that it really depends. It's not only the earnings per se, we also have the solvency ratio. You can see our solvency pretty high, and it also needs to be looked at through this lens when we are paying our, or we're coming up with a proposal of dividends. Okay. If we look at the volatility, of course the volatility is really coming from the fact that we have now to discount our reserve. You know, discounting reserve, you're using a yield curve which is completely independent to your business. This will drive volatility from one quarter to another. Can you explain that in as much detail as you can? I'm not, This is really a mystery to me, because I've seen so many presentations now, They, on this topic, they're all different. My understanding is that you have two mechanisms. The first is you discount the back book reserves, so what I call back books your opening balance sheet. Mm-hmm. The second is, of course, you discount the new reserves, the 80% or whatever. Yeah. As I understand from what you said is if the interest rate changes, the discounting of the new reserve changes. Mm-hmm. If interest rates go up, so it's no longer 77, it might be 76 or 75, whatever. Mm-hmm. What happens to the original discounting that you did, in the opening balance sheet, you know, with the original interest rate? Do you have to remeasure that? Where does that difference go? Yeah. In, of course, the, it goes. You have to remeasure it as well as, you know, you have to add mark-to-market, I would put it this way, the old vintage as well. Where does that difference on the mark-to-market difference go? Does it go to OCI or does it go to? Yeah. Part of that will go to OCI. That you're totally right. Okay? Part of that will go to PNL. If the PNL side, of course, will drive some volatility. How do I know how much goes to PNL and how much to OCI? You will see that in Q1. This will be disclosed in our full PNL. Of course, you will have a line which is IFIE, which is interest, component, discounting of component. It's not in the last line. It would be, as you might know, in the financial income line. It's not even booked at the same level. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. That's, that helps. Thank you. Thank you. We will take our next question. The question comes from the line of Thomas Fossard from HSBC. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thomas Fossard, your line is open. Please ask your question. Oh, sorry. Yes. Good evening, everyone. Couple of questions my side. The first one would be on the quarterly, on the quarterly results. Apart from volatility, would you highlight any seasonality impact due to, I don't know, the way you are renewing your book, which is very much geared towards the first quarter of the year? Does that create any seasonality in terms of quarterly numbers when you think about, you know, the modeling? I don't know. That would be the first question. The second question would be related to your mark-to-market of the real estate firms through the PNL. You've got approximately EUR 200 million of exposure to real estate. If I were to actually, real estate firms went down by roughly 20%-25% in the past six months. Should I take EUR 40 million of the expected results for 2023, or, I mean? I hope not. I hope not. I think I will answer on this one because we have. If you look at the. We have a pretty, I would say, good portfolio in terms of real estate fund, which is, you know, when we look at real estate investments, we look at which sector it is, which geography. We are mainly investors in prime real estate. If I'm looking at, for example, listed real estate firms, or if I'm looking at REITs, for example, which are. Mm-hmm. They're all significantly down. I mean, basically, yes, I understand there is a significant discount to their NAV, but, I mean, you know, if you're invested in listed firms which are heavily down, if this is the case, why should it not be reflected into negative mark-to-market adjustments in your PNL account? It will, but, of course, the mark-to-market will be in my PNL account. This will, you know, this will be recognized going forward. Again, I think that we have a good quality in terms of investment, so. Okay. Okay. Okay. On the seasonality tag, you choose the way you're renewing your book, skewed toward the start of the year? I think it's a little bit too early to say, but in terms of seasonality, I would say that. It's almost always the case today on the IFRS 9, so not sure why it would change much on the IFRS 17. Okay. Mm. Okay. on the quarterly figures you reported on slide nine under IFRS 17, y ou're indicating that, actually some of the volatility was due to the first time application. Yeah. Would that mean that actually you're expecting a lower, I mean, stripping out the first time application, which will not be, you know, a recurring effect into 2023 and 2024? Would that imply that actually the volatility would be lower than the one you're showing on a quarterly basis for 2022? I would put it the other way around. I think going forward in 2023, our reserving will of course reflect the level of claims that we're seeing in our wheel portfolio. The volatility will come probably to the fact that, you know, this interest rate discount effect will slightly change from one quarter to another. The underlying business per se and the claims per se, you know, will really be reflected. If you look at this page nine, you can see that in Q3 this is where we have booked up the reserve on Russia. This is the peak that we see. Same in Q4, the book up reserve on the Latin America large claim. Okay. What I think really tells you this is that in Q3 under IFRS 4, the reserve release, which is. Yeah. 10 point, has happened there. If you have two movements, the book up is the same both sides. Under IFRS 4 you have the reserve release related to prior years that have been probably taken more in Q3 than in the other quarters. That's all it says. In terms of volatility, there's no, I would say, particular reason that it's changing between the two standups. Okay. Still on a quarterly basis, the incurred claims in the quarter does matter. Mm. A bit more the IFRS 17 basically, the timing of it when you incur the claims. Yeah. Right. Okay. Last question for me, Phalla, is, you know, in your preliminary comments, you're indicating that, and that's on slide four, that actually, under IFRS 17, there is a faster profit recognition. Well, exactly. Does that mean that everything being equals, your 2023 and 2024 numbers will be higher than the one we were expecting on the IFRS 4 if there is faster recognition of the, of the profit? I mean, if the margins recognition is more front loaded under IFRS 17 than under IFRS 4, that should imply that actually our numbers should go up. Well, I cannot tell you what will happen in 2023 because it all depends on how the developments on the prior years will go. What we can say is that yes, there will be a faster recognitions of prior years developments, boni or not boni, actually, positive or negative on the IFRS 17. If, you know, in 2023 we are already entering into 17 world, it would be very difficult for me to say what we'll do in 2023 under IFRS 4. It doesn't exist anymore. From what we've seen in this presentation, and this is why we have this first time application, is that for the prior year development pattern under IFRS 17, we would have recognized the reserve release earlier than in IFRS 4. Exactly. Exactly. Your comment that actually this is a faster recognition of the profit. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We will take our next question. You have a follow-up question from the line of Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you so much. This is my last. I'm sorry to hog the, t he you very kindly talked about the impact on the geographical loss ratio slide 10 and slide 11. I'm afraid I got confused, and I just wondered if just on one of them, maybe either Central Europe which seems to vary a bit, you can explain a little bit more what happened, you know, quarter- by- quarter. That would be really, really helpful. I think you mentioned it with Russia and reserve releases, but I'm, I've got a bit confused. Okay. And then- Yeah. Yes, that was my question. Okay. Let's go to, I think the Russia cases was in, I think, page, on page 11. I just want to here to illustrate the fact that we have exactly the same pattern in terms of reserving between IFRS 17 and IFRS 4, where, you know, on IFRS 4 we had exactly the same story on Central Europe. In Q1, we have booked up reserves when the war happened, and you can see that we have booked up those reserve as well, under IFRS 17. We have released reserve in Q2 related to Russia and reallocated back to the region where the risk has been underwritten, which is I think in Q2 was much more on Northern Europe, for instance, or maybe, Mediterranean Africa. In Q3, I think on 29 of September, you might have recalled that Russia has announced the partial mobilization, at that time, we have booked up again under IFRS 4. You can see the same trend under IFRS 17, some reserve in Central Europe. In Q4, we had time to reallocate it back to the region where the risk has been underwritten. On just this page, it's just illustrating that we have the philosophy is the same. The, the way that we are reserving in the region is the same way under the two. Yeah? The reinsurers on the IFRS 4 got EUR 146 million, and the IFRS 17 they get EUR 138 million. Yeah. Is that real money? Do they get less under IFRS 17? No. I think again, this is just re-illustrating the fact that under IFRS 4, as we're releasing more reserves, of course, mechanically it benefits to the reinsurers. That's all. If you look at page, and this is where I would put you on the page 14, on the net combined ratio. Again, the same way we have taken to the FTA impact, the net of reinsurance size. What they don't get through the PNL, they get it through the opening balance sheet. Sorry. I understand. Okay. It's just an allocation between the periods. Okay. Sorry. Thank you so much. Thank you. No problem. Thank you. We will take our next question. You have a follow-up question from the line of Benoit Valleaux from ODDO BHF. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Good evening. My last question, this on my side. Just a confirmation, please. In the past, you had a kind of seasonality effect regarding revenue and result coming from business services. Is this still the case under IFRS 17 or could there be some, I don't know, change in seasonality effect? Thank you. On services? Yeah, on service businesses. Yeah. Well, yeah. You know fees, you got usually your amount of fees in Q1, Q2, I mean, at the beginning of the year and therefore lower contribution in the next quarters. Well, I think it's not on the business information business is not at all impacted by IFRS 17. Is that your question? This is why I was a little bit surprised by your question. IFRS 17 is. No, no. Anything in terms of recoveries, I mean, all these kind of businesses when you got fees. I imagine in the past you were explained that you guys have a kind of positive or seasonality positive effect at the beginning of the year. Just wondering if it is the case on the IFRS 17 or not? You mean the insurance fees or the non-insurance fees? Insurance fee. Yeah, I mean, as I mentioned, recoveries for example, all these kind of things. I think in terms of fees, revenue recognition is not impacted by IFRS 17. I think the underlying business is not either impacted. I'm sorry, I missed your question again. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. There seems to be no further questions. I would like to hand back to Phalla Gervais for closing remarks. If we don't have further questions, I will thank you for attending this call. I hope that's clear, and it will help you in your modeling processes. Thank you all. Have a nice evening, and talk to you soon in three weeks time. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.