Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the SCOR P&C January 2024 renewals conference call. Today's call is being recorded. There will be an opportunity to ask questions after the presentation. In order to give all participants a chance to ask questions, we kindly ask you to limit the number of your questions to two. At this time, I would now like to hand the call over to Mr. Thomas Fossard. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the SCOR P&C January 2024 Renewals. My name is Thomas Fossard, Head of Investor Relations, and I'm joined on the call today by Jean-Paul Conoscente, CEO of SCOR P&C, and Romain Launay, Deputy CEO of SCOR P&C. Before we start, I would like to remind you that SCOR full year 2023 results will be released on the 6th of March, and the conference call will take place at 2:00 P.M. CET. You will shortly receive an invite. So when it comes to the Q&A session, we'll only be able to refer to the renewals information that is provided in the press release and in the slides. On slide two, can I please ask you to consider the disclaimer related to the presentation, and now I would like to hand over to Jean-Paul. Thank you, Thomas, and good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to share with you the outcome of the SCOR January 1, 2024 renewals. As a reminder, these represent a little more than 60% of our reinsurance portfolio and over 40% of our total annual P&C expected gross premium income for 2024. You'll find more information in the slides and the press release distributed earlier today. The January 2024 renewals took place in an attractive underwriting environment, leading us to grow the portfolio at adequate rates while improving the balance and the quality of the portfolio. After a very hard market in 2023, we see increased capacity deployment from traditional reinsurance players at 1/1 2024, as well as continued increased demand from insurers. These renewals were marked by what can be called a cliff effect, reflecting the reinsurance market discipline. At the right terms and conditions, structure and price, programs were often placed or over placed. At aggressive terms, low attachment points or inadequate pricing, programs were not fully placed. In this favorable environment for reinsurers, we achieved the key objectives laid out in our strategic plan Forward 2026. First, we increased our allocated capital into attractive diversifying lines, namely marine, engineering, IDI, and International Casualty. Second, we accelerated the development of Alternative Solutions to address a client's growing demand for customized reinsurance solutions. Third, and last, we maintain a prudent approach to climate-exposed business and to US Casualty through disciplined underwriting. These three objectives translated into a premium growth of 13.6% and to an improved expected net underwriting ratio by 1.5 points, excluding alternative solutions. Before providing you more details on the renewals, there are two things I'd like to stress regarding the premium growth I just shared. This growth is a result of SCOR seizing opportunities in an attractive market environment. It is therefore higher than what we anticipate throughout the rest of our Forward 2026 plan. The 13.6% EGPI growth is not to be translated one-for-one into insurance revenue. Under IFRS 17, insurance revenue is on an earned basis and hence reflect the dynamics of the business renewed in the past 24 months. I will now go into the details on how we executed these actions in line with our Forward 2026 ambitions. Starting with preferred lines, our ambition was to grow, attract, to develop an attractive treaty lines to diversify our portfolio and improve our return on capital. We delivered on this ambition at the January renewals, growing our EGPI by 13.3% year-on-year across marine, engineering, IDI, and international casualty. We significantly grew our marine portfolio as market conditions remain attractive. Growth was driven by new business, meeting our expected profitability targets, including a few large opportunities. We leveraged our global client approach and underwriting presence in key markets to capitalize on these new opportunities. In engineering, organic growth was fueled by the considerable flow of new investments in many markets, continued rate improvements, and new business. In IDI, we also benefited from strong organic growth on our existing portfolio, driven by France, U.K., and China, paired with an improvement in expected profitability in a number of key EMEA markets. In International Casualty, we faced a decrease in reinsurance demand in the U.K. and Europe as primary insurers raised their retentions because of the increased cost of reinsurance. This effect outpaced new business written in those territories and hence contained our overall growth while improving our expected profitability. Moving to Alternative Solutions, our growth was robust and supported by market demand. This offering is very valued by SCOR clients and allows us to secure broader diversification. Market dynamics led us to double the EGPI of Alternative Solutions renewed at 101, driven by new business from most markets globally. New solvency relief transactions, particularly, quota shares, were the primary growth drivers... We expect a continuation of strong activity during the year with an already existing strong pipeline with submissions. It is worth noting that the customized nature of these deals means that there is no seasonality for submissions, and we expect to see further opportunities to emerge throughout the rest of the year. Moving to Property Cat, another key ambition of Forward 2026 is our prudent approach to climate-exposed business and to US Casualty business. Starting with the net cat book, SCOR showed disciplined underwriting while remaining a major capacity provider to the market. Our growth was mainly driven by price changes in the US and Europe. In Europe, cat events such as the Italian flood and Turkey earthquake have notably led to market corrections. While globally maintaining our position and shares on Cat XL treaties, we resisted attempts by brokers and clients to take shares on the working layers of the cat treaties, hereby limiting our exposure to the most climate-sensitive part of the programs. We were also able to obtain additional limitations on SRCC coverage in a number of markets following the heightened political risk environment. This was a topic we highlighted before in the renewals. Our discipline, combined with our clients' reunderwriting efforts on the primary side, makes us very comfortable with our current cat portfolio. We are confident that our renewed book should be more profitable and less volatile than in the past, and we will continue to see growth if market conditions remain favorable, while remaining underweight. Moving to US Casualty, one point of attention at this round of renewals was the US Casualty line of business. While we noted significant improvements in the primary underwriting of many of our clients and some improvements on reinsurance terms, we viewed these improvements as insufficient to offset the loss cost inflation, which we see running above 10% per year for most casualty segments. As a result, we expect profitability to continue to deteriorate and maintain a prudent approach with regards to US Casualty. But our renewed EGPI was slightly down, focusing our capacity to our core existing clients. As announced in the strategic plan, we plan to keep a flat capital allocation to US Casualty, and you should therefore expect a continued reduction of the relative weight of US Casualty in our overall portfolio. Moving to profitability, the underwriting discipline I just mentioned was not only applied on cat and US. Casualty, but on all segments. We capitalized on last year's improvements, stood firm in terms and conditions, and pushed for further improvements when deemed necessary. We're pleased to have achieved a 3.1 price increase on our renewed book, but with 6.6 on non-proportional treaties. As a reminder, our portfolio premium is two-thirds proportional, one-third non-proportional, relatively stable compared to last year. We achieved growth in our non-proportional book on traditional treaty business, but this was counterbalanced by the growth of Solvency Relief quota shares in Alternative Solutions, leading to a stable proportional and non-proportional profile. Confluence of disciplined underwriting, price change, and enhanced retrocession protections enabled us to further improve the quality of our portfolio, resulting in a 1.5-point decrease of the net expected underwriting ratio, meaning a 1.5-point improvement in expected margin, excluding alternative solutions. Let's move now to the outlook for 2024. In a very uncertain world and with still a high risk aversion, we expect to see continued discipline in the market for the upcoming renewals. In spite of a more balanced, balance between supply and demand at the start of the year compared to 2023, we expect sustained favorable reinsurance conditions for the rest of 2024. We believe that demand for reinsurance coverage will remain strong, not only for our traditional treaty business, but also for our alternative solution business. On the retro side, we managed to increase our relationship with existing risk partners. We have also successfully raised additional third-party capital with new risk partners and plan to continue our expansion in this space throughout the year. As a reminder, we aim to double our fee income generation from risk partnerships over the duration of the Forward 2026 plan. In conclusion, I see the January 1st renewals as a successful execution of a Forward 2026 plan ambitions. First, we successfully allocated more capital in our preferred line and improved the diversification of our portfolio. Secondly, we accelerated the development of alternative solutions. Third, we maintained a strong underwriting discipline on climate-exposed business. Fourth, we maintained a prudent appetite with regards to US Casualty. Fifth and last, we drove significant improvement in composition, quality, and expected profitability, profitability of the portfolio, leveraging our strong client relationships. The January renewals enhanced the quality of our portfolio, putting us in a strong position from which to manage the rest of the year renewals. I will now take your questions. Thank you very much, Jean-Paul. With that, we can start the Q&A. Can I remind you to please limit yourselves to two questions each? Thank you, sir. If you'd like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you are in a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to avoid interference to our equipment. Again, press star one to ask a question. We'll pause for just a moment to allow everyone an opportunity to signal for questions. We do have our first question from Will Hardcastle with UBS. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Afternoon, everyone. Thanks for taking the questions. Just firstly, some number clarifications. Is it possible you can quantify the alternative solutions growth impact on that combined ratio? Essentially wondering what the 1.5 points that you give us is inclusive of alternative solutions. And then just also that any detail on that structured transaction that's not included in the EGPI print would be helpful. And secondly, I know this isn't a solvency call as such, but I guess the minimum I'd hope for maybe today is just get an understanding of how the renewal compared with the plans that you'd assumed at the nine-month solvency Q2 reporting date. So any implication to that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Will. On your first question, so with regards to alternative solutions, as mentioned both at the IR day and briefly in the speech before, the type of transactions we're focusing on are structured quota shares for solvency relief, capital relief for our clients. So these transactions tend to be low margin business with a margin capital reinsurers and significant premium volumes. So the net combined ratio for those transactions tend to be, say, higher than the rest of the business. However, when you look at this on an economic basis, the amount of capital required to support those transactions is very small because of the low volatility. So in an economic environment framework like IFRS 17, this type of business is accretive to the overall business. So that's why we're trying to grow that segment. When you take into account the net combined ratio from the Alternative Solutions with the rest of the business, the net premium income that we project is less than 1 point, which we view as higher than the, let's say, the change of economic environment that we're anticipating. So we still see the, you know, the margin improvement overall, including alternative solution. On your second question regarding the growth and the solvency question, we'll provide you more detail on the solvency with the Q4 results. I can say that the growth we've had at the 1/1 was very much in line with expectations. Thank you, Will. Next question, please. Our next question comes from Kamran Hossain with JP Morgan. Hi. Two questions, just sticking on the alternative solution side. The first one is, what SCOR's pitch relative to peers on this? I know a lot of your peers, and maybe one of the peers that your CEO came from, you know, has been pretty big in structural alternative solutions. So what SCOR's pitch on this relative to peers? The second question is that I think you alluded to kind of further growth within this area within 2024. We see a strong pipeline. This comes at a lower margin, but probably higher kind of return on capital, return on equity. Should we expect that to be a kind of drag on the combined ratio through the year if you grow, but you know, probably a positive benefit to like ROE or return on capital? Thank you. Thank you. So with regards to your first question, I think, you know, we've been active in this space for a number of years. The type of transactions we were focusing on previously were different, were more cat exposed types of transactions. What we want to do now is really look for low volatility type of transactions. So, you know, we're very clear with clients and brokers that, you know, retention protection programs, for example, where we saw a lot of opportunities at 1/1, were really not in our appetite, because we didn't want to write on a structured basis, the types of risks that were, you know, declining on a traditional basis. So as we, you know, communicate our appetite around solvency, then it's really a question of the relationship we have with clients and brokers, and here we leverage the network that we have. You know, compared to our peers, I'd say our network is, you know, as strong as our peers from that perspective and probably as diversified. So then it's just a matter of making sure we have a seat at the table. And you know, many of these transactions are not placed with only one reinsurer, but placed with several. On your second question, regarding the potential pressure on the net combined ratio. Again, you know, we don't believe this is going to have a significant effect. We remain very confident in our target of 87 below, and we believe this business overall will be accretive... Okay, thanks. Thank you, Kamran. Next question, please. Our next question comes from Freya Kong of Bank of America. Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Just a follow-up on the alternative solution. You said there was not much seasonality in the deals, but as a proportion of your renewal portfolio at 1/1, it went from 5%- 13%. Is there any lumpiness in this, or is this a fair view of how you see it as a, an overall view of your portfolio? And then secondly, just on US Casualty, your claims inflation assumption is over 10% in the years to come. Is this something that your current reserving for historic years already assumes and allows for? So, regarding your first question, again, there is no seasonality, so there could be lumpiness. I think, you know, there was a fair amount of relief that was sought at one-one. I think a number of clients as well waited for the outcome of the one-one renewal to decide whether they would pursue other opportunities in the alternative solution space. So I think the, you know, the growth of this will be lumpy, won't necessarily be at April first, June or July first, but I think it will happen throughout the year. So there could be some lumpiness into that, but we'll probably give you some outlook at the investor day towards the end of the year to have to give you the overall picture throughout the year. And on your second question regarding the US Casualty, so our pricing assumptions and our reserving assumptions are very aligned. You know, we'll provide more information on our overall reserve review for the year 2023 at the Q4 call, but all I can say is you know, the pricing and the reserving assumptions are very aligned. Thank you. Thank you, Freya. Next question, please. Our next question comes from Tryfon Spyrou of Berenberg. Oh, hi there. Good afternoon. Maybe a question on your PMLs and your exposures. I think last year you gave us an update, but it looks like you don't have this in the slide this year. Maybe can you comment as to how have this evolved relative to last year? I appreciate you said net cat appetite was kept relatively flat and sort of underweight, and you signal for more enhanced retro protection, but can you maybe give us more color on the dynamics here and the shape of the book versus last year? The second one is on the appetite for deploying capital into April at mid-year renewals. How much appetite and how much flexibility do you have for growing volume ahead of rate? And should we expect a similar dynamic as we saw on January renewals? Thank you. So on your first question, the PMLs we achieved at 1-1 are very much in line with the PMLs of last year. So I'd say overall, we're relatively flat in terms of cat exposure. On your second question on the outlook for April, you know, as you know, April is a market dominated by Japan plus a few other markets. The market, you know, there's been very low loss activity in Japan in 2023, so I think there'll be probably, you know, pressure on pricing that we expect on it for cat programs. We're still expecting a similar, you know, positive price movement at this renewal. I think in terms of growth, you know, we're looking to grow the portfolio if the terms and conditions are adequate. So I'd say, you know, I'm not sure it's going to be exactly of the same order, but, you know, we would expect our portfolio to continue to grow at the April renewal. Can I maybe come back to the first one? If you can maybe share any, any color on your retro purchase. You, you mentioned you know, enhanced protection on your slides. Have you done anything differently? Has anything changed compared to last year? Have you got more, more protection? So we found that the retro market this year to be more accommodating than last year. Overall, there was more capacity supply. I think as well, the retrocessionaires were more accommodating with regards to attachment points and more accommodating in terms of the perils that were covered. Like, you know, last year, it was really difficult to get cover outside of peak peril, and this year it was a little bit easier. So we were able to lower our attachment points on a non-proportional program. We're able to grow the proportional cession that we do. Aggregate remains very difficult to secure. So overall, we bought slightly more capacity overall at roughly a constant budget. That's great. Thank you. Thank you, Tryfon. Next question, please. Our next question comes from Andrew Ritchie of Autonomous. Oh, hi there. I wonder, so I think I ask this every year, but could you just remind me what you mean when you talk about a price change for proportional business? I think that is just reflecting any change in ceded. I don't know if it's got any look through to what's happening, the underlying rate adequacy, if you like, of the underlying primary business. But maybe if you could comment on both. Because I would have thought some of the underlying pricing was up quite a lot and some proportional business, especially things like motor. The only other question I had is, it looks like there was some—you talked in your opening comments about some increase in demand from cedents. I'm just curious to what your outlook there is, 'cause is there a sense that, because prices have sort of stabilized, is there evidence that cedents are sort of coming back to the market to buy really what they want to buy? Whereas in the last 12 months, they've kind of not really been buying exactly what they wanted because they've been balking at the degree of rate change. So just curious on your outlook for specifically demand over the rest of the year. Yeah, thank you, Andrew. So on price for proportional, what we call price change is really the recorded primary rate change. So it doesn't include commission. This is just price. The impact of commissions and other effects is really translated into the indication we give on the net technical ratio or the margin. To your second question on the increase in demand, we definitely see exactly what you're describing, where clients were typically holding back in 2023, buying the capacity they were looking for. And we see, you know, a lot of clients throughout, you know, all markets buying more capacity than last year, given, you know, the, I'd say, the better visibility on the pricing environment. So we see demand in the single digits, you know, in most major markets. Can I just ask back, back on the proportional? Would you not have expected proportional pricing at the underlying level to have gone off a bit more than that? I'm just thinking of the mix of your proportional book. You know, it's a factor of the various lines of business. And here what we do is we analyze the primary rates we receive from our clients. And so it's almost, you know, there's not a lot of extrapolation that goes into that. It's more an analysis of what they've achieved in 2023, and based on that, how credible we believe their 2024 projections are. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Next question, please. Our next question comes from Vinit Malhotra with Mediobanca. Yes, good afternoon, João. Thank you. I hope you can hear me clearly. So my two questions, one is just on the preferred lines. You know, you mentioned marine engineering, and this is not new information, but also between IR day and now, we've had some focus on man-made activity. And I'm just curious that when you're growing in these kind of lines, probably also accompanying that is some increase in risk of man-made. And I'm just curious if you could share any thoughts on when you were growing these books, how are you managing that? And should we expect an improvement in the man-made trend? And that's what we hope, but I just wanted to hear your thoughts. Second question is just on the alternative solutions. Again, apologies. I understand the dynamics of the core being higher than the rest of the business, but when we, when we see the kind of net underwriting ratio, it seems to be that Alternative Solutions is, say, 1, 1.5, maybe 2 points, even a bit of a drag on the overall. So in other words, Alternative Solutions is worse than the Alternative Solutions of last year. Is that the way to interpret that? Or how should we really look at that profitability in Alternative Solutions versus last year's, or versus the book you were writing before? That's my 2 questions. Thank you. Okay. On the first one, so this expansion of the preferred lines is at constant PMLs across those lines of business on a net basis. So we're not expanding the amount of I'd say maximum expected loss for those lines of business. We're just growing the diversification of it across the different markets. So I don't think, you know, it will lead to an increase of the man-made activity, man-made loss activity. I think actually since it's calculated as a ratio of the overall premium income, I think that, you know, as a percentage should over time be decreasing. On your second question, again, the alternative solution business that we write are not volatility covers. They're really capital relief transactions. So the volatility involved is very low, and therefore, the margin, you know, is very attractive, in terms of, return on capital. As I mentioned, we don't think this is going to lead to a deterioration of the net combined ratio, and we believe this is going to be actually an improvement of, you know, of the overall return on capital, or ROE that we will be able to generate. Okay. Okay, thank you very much. ... Thank you, Vinit. Next question, please. Our next question comes from Derald Goh with RBC. Hi, afternoon, everyone. Two questions, please. The first one, I'm just trying to understand the difference between the nominal price change that you have and the impact on the underwriting ratio. Because if I look at what you reported last January, you had nominal rates of +9 and a margin benefit of +2.5-3 points, so you look at a 6-point delta, whereas this year it's 3% nominal and 1.5-point delta. So why is that delta so much smaller this year? Because it sounds like risk mix hasn't really changed, and I'm not sure what's driving that. Maybe you could clarify that, please. Thanks. And the second one, it's on specialty insurance. I know it's not the focus of today, but if you'd give a quick word on what you're seeing in terms of the market? Thanks. Sure. So let me try to explain on your first question. So the 3% price change, you know, has a mathematical impact of 2.3 improvement on an underwriting ratio of, say, 80%. The scope on which the price change is calculated is smaller than the renewed business, because canceled business and new business are excluded. And the calculation of the price change does not account for change in portfolio mix, does not account for commission change, and does not account for change in SCOR's view of risk. So this is why when, you know, we give you both indicators, both the price change that we calculate in our portfolio, as well as the impact, you know, expected impact on the overall underwriting ratio and margin. So hopefully that provides you, you know, a better understanding of how this is done. Why is it different this year compared to last year? You know, I think the view of risk last year was dramatically changed. This year, you know, we have some of that taken into account, but also, we also wrote a lot of new business, January first, whereas last year we didn't have that much new business. On your second question on specialty insurance, maybe I can pass over to Romain. Yeah. Thank you, Jean-Paul. On specialty insurance, I don't know if you recall the bubble chart that I showed at the IR Day. So actually, what we're seeing is that, it's a very fragmented landscape in terms of, rate movements, where each line of business is driven by its own, characteristics. So if you take, for instance, space, there has been a lot of, claims in 2023, so rate increases, that are, in the high double-digit zone. Terrorism and political violence, too, is a line that is, seeing very, very steep rate increases. Property, is seeing, strong rates. Construction, too. And then you have a number of lines of business that are more in, soft mode. So that would be cyber, that would be D&O and professional indemnity. And even if you take property, for instance, the dynamics are very different depending on the region. So in the United States, rates continue to increase at a marked speed. Whereas in Europe and in APAC, we see property rates plateau actually. Thanks, both. Thank you, Derald. Can we move to the next question, please? Our next question comes from James Shuck of Citi. Hi, good afternoon. I just wanted to delve into the capital allocated this year, year on year. Obviously, the solvency projection you gave allowed for a big increase in that required capital. I heard what you said earlier on about it's in line with expectations, but it doesn't seem to me as if you've actually allocated any more capital in this renewal period. The P&C lines are flat, global lines are up, but that's diversified. Alternative Solutions doesn't have much capital requirements based on what you were saying, and you've also bought more retro cover. So just any comment around the increase in capital allocation year on year, and then where that growth is essentially coming from, that you alluded to back at nine months. The second question, I may be completely wrong on this, but I've got some notes telling me that your price changes, so it's 3.1% you showed overall, but that's net of CPI inflation, and therefore a nominal price change is actually a bigger one. But judging by your answers, that's not correct. But if you just clarify that for me, that'd be helpful. Thank you. James, on your first question, I will suggest to defer it to the results publication on the sixth of March. Jean-Paul, if you want to answer the second question? Yeah. The second question was regarding the price, the price, change calculation. So it's inclusive of, of inflation on the exposures, but not, not inclusive of inflation on the losses. So again, this is, this is why we provide you the, the price... And the price calculation we, we do this year is comparable to the one of last year.... This is why we provide you the two indications, the, the price change as well as the impact on net underwriting ratio, which includes everything. Yeah. So the 3.1% is a nominal- Yep. price change, right? Before any allowance for inflation. Correct. Correct. Okay, I guess I have to wait till March then. Thank you. Thank you, James. Can we move to the next question? Sorry. Our next question comes from Faizan Lakhani with HSBC. Hi there. My first question is on your unchanged combined ratio guidance of below 87%. Your underwriting margin improved 1.5 points this year. If I look back at last year's 2.5-3 points as well, which is just a blended calendar year improvement of about 2 points. And that would get me to sort of, you know, sub 85. Now, obviously, they're moving parts in the other way, so alternative solutions and discount. If you could just help sort of bridge why you haven't changed the combined ratio guidance and how I should be thinking about that. Second one, just coming back to James' question on, on nominal versus the nominal rate that you talked, 3.1%. My understanding was that you've got some inflation assumptions in there. If you could just maybe help understand what your assumptions are, ex-U.S. casualty, and how that's changed since the last year? Thank you. On your first question, so the guidance we're providing of a net combined ratio below 87 includes the growth on alternative solutions that we discussed, that was achieved at January first, and the growth that we expect for the rest of the year, as well as the buffers that François spoke about during the last quarter calls. So when we provide this guidance, it includes all the different actions on the, you know, the underwriting, as well as the buffers we're including in our balance sheet, as well as the business mix that we're projecting. On your second question... Sorry, go ahead. Just to clarify that, though, but you are building buffers in H2 anyway, and still getting below 87%, so that's not really a step change over the year, if I'm correct in thinking about it that way. You know, as I said, we're not changing our guidance. The margin improvement that we achieve on a price basis at the renewals will take time to earn through the Mm-hmm. The balance sheet. And so, you know, every quarter, we'll provide more detail as to how that's developing. Okay, thank you. On your second question, you know, in the price change we have the inflation on exposure is included in the price change. As I said, the expected claims inflation or, you know, view of risk, if it changes, is not included. To help you translate this price change into margin improvement is where we provide the net combined ratio expected improvement. Okay, sorry, just to clarify, has anything meaningful changed over the past year in terms of your assumption on risk relative to last year? No. No, it hasn't. And for inflation, you know, the assumptions we have for inflation have been adjusted given the economic environment, but remain again, the inflation we're looking at is loss inflation, not necessarily economic inflation. So it remains, you know, at a high level. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next question, please. Another reminder to ask a question on today's call, that is star one on your telephone keypad. Our next question comes from Tryfon Spyrou with Berenberg. Oh, hi. Sorry, it's just a follow-up, excuse me, on alternative solutions. Clearly, you've achieved really strong growth. I think you almost exceeded your 2026 assumption of doubling the growth there. I guess, is it this is more of a front loading or how much more can you grow, given that at some point, obviously, it becomes too big of part of your book that obviously that do the combined ratio more? So I just want to understand whether this is ceiling to how much you can grow this line and what's your appetite, how big can it become as part of overall P&C book? Thank you. So, you know, I think the growth we achieved at January was, I'd say, very much in line with our planned projections. As I mentioned, you know, this type of growth is very lumpy, so I would expect, you know, the growth was a bit, I'd say, expected to be stronger at the beginning of the year than throughout the rest of the year. So I could say that the growth for the rest of the renewals, you know, will probably be what we're planning is something of the similar volume in terms of percentage of the overall renewal. I think it's really going to be dependent on how successful we are in transforming the opportunities. So it's a bit difficult to provide you clear guidance because there is no set renewals that we, that we can point to. It's really going through transaction by transaction, and that really depends on how big the demand from clients is. Is that in terms of the limit? Sorry. Sorry. No, I was just going to say that I think we can provide you a better view of what was achieved in 2023 by the Investor Day, and at the different renewal dates. But, you know, there could be transactions that happen in between renewal dates. In terms of the overall, how much it can become as overall part of the portfolio, is that limited to percent of total premiums, how much it could grow to, in term- As I said, just to give you some indication, I don't want to be pinned to any number, but to give you an indication, the growth we achieved at this January was more or less in line with the plan that we had. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Tryfon. Next question, please. At this time, we do not have any more questions. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's question and answer session. At this time, I'd like to hand the call back to our speakers for any additional or closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much for attending this conference call. The Investor Relations team remains available to pick up any questions you may have, so please do not hesitate to give us a call. As a reminder, SCOR will hold its full year 2023 results presentation on sixth of March at 2 P.M. CT. And with this, we wish you all a good afternoon. Thank you. This does conclude today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.