Good day, and welcome to the ASR Nederland i nvestor call, full year results 2020. This call is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Michel Hülters. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, operator. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for switching to this channel. Welcome to the ASR conference call on our full year 2020 results. On the call with me today are Jos Baeten, CEO, and Annemiek van Melick, our CFO. As is customary, Jos will kick off with some of the highlights of our financial results, and discuss some of the business performance as we've seen. Annemiek will delve into the development of our capital and solvency position after that, then we'll open up for Q&A. We've got scheduled till 12:00 P.M. sharp, and I think it will leave us ample time for Q&A. As usual, do please have a look at the disclaimer that we have at the back of the presentation for any forward-looking statements. Having said that, Jos, the floor is yours. Thank you, Michel. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for switching to the ASR call after having already a busy morning with one of our most beloved competitors in the Netherlands. Hopefully in the future we can prevent you from having two presentations on one day on Dutch insurance companies. I hope all of you are still doing well in these challenging COVID-19 times. Before we get into the numbers, let me just start by saying that I'm really proud of the way our company and our employees have continued serving our clients in this extraordinary year. The outbreak of COVID-19 and the measures taken to combat this pandemic continue to disrupt our personal lives, the business communities, and our society as a whole. While our first and foremost concern is the health of our employees and customers, we of course also care for the wellbeing more generally as well, including job security and economic uncertainties for our customers who are entrepreneurs and business owners. We generally hope that we can leave this crisis behind us soon. At ASR, we've been able to keep up morale of our employees at a high level throughout the year. Customer satisfaction went up, and we have maintained strong commercial momentum in our business, as demonstrated by the growth of our business and our financial performance. As we reported, the overall impact of COVID-19 was benign thanks to the mix of our business in non-life and life that effectively neutralized this impact in 2020. We believe ASR has shown resilience against challenging and uncertain economic backgrounds, and has again delivered against ambitious targets. Without further ado, let's turn to the financial highlights, and those are on slide two. I presume you all have seen the press release, which we issued this morning, so I will highlight only the most important developments. As this dashboard shows, our performance in 2020 has been really strong. The 3.2 increase in the operating result to EUR 885 million is driven by higher results in all our segments and includes, as I just mentioned, the impact of COVID-19 being a negative of EUR 1 million. Operating return of 15.3% is well above our target between 12% and 14%. Our Solvency II ratio, based on the standard formula, is up by five percentage points to a solid 199. This increase includes 12% from organic capital creation, which at EUR 500 million landed by coincidence exactly on the medium-term targets. Solid contribution from the business, higher excess returns, and a higher net release of capital compensated the higher UFR drag due to lower interest rates. The Combined Ratio amounted to 93.6, ahead of our target of 94%-96%. This includes a positive effect of 0.6 percentage points out of COVID-19. Our efficiency ratios improved in all business segments despite an increase of EUR 45 million in operating expenses, which was mainly driven by acquisitions, holding costs, and growth of our fee-based business. Based on the strong performance and in line with our existing policy, we propose a dividend of EUR 2 and EUR 0.04 per share. This is an increase of 7% compared to last year. Today, we also announced a share buyback of EUR 75 million, which is supported by our strong solvency and OCC. In sum, we have shown a solid result over 2020. Let's turn to the next slide number three. Our strategy will continue to focus on sustainable long-term value creation for all involved in ASR. We take our role as a sustainable company in society seriously, and we are happy to see that international investors aim more and more on sustainability. Our ongoing focus on customer service has led to an increase in the Net Promoter Score from 44 to 49. Already well above the medium-term target of 44. One of the drivers behind the increase was the more personal contact with customers during the COVID-19 outbreak, when everybody was working from home. Our CO2 footprint has now been measured for 93% of our whole investment portfolio. With over EUR 1.7 billion, our impact investments have already met the target for 2019-2021. Due to the lockdown restrictions and social distancing rules, our employees have not been able to do any of the activities we typically do for society. To protect the health of our employees and the people involved in these projects, we had to cancel or scale down these activities. In some cases, we have been able to convert the activities into an e-version, and as soon as social distancing measures are relieved, we of course will scale up these activities again. ESG is more and more an integral part of our product development. For example, the sustainability repair and replacements in insurances, mortgages for sustainable home improvements, but also in pension DC with our specific ESG funds. Lastly, I'm very proud of the recognition we receive on our sustainability. In 2020, ASR has been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. We see this as a recognition of our successful strategy on which we will continue to build going further. Let's continue with some insight on the COVID-19 impact on our business. And that's on slide four. In dealing with this crisis, we continue to offer suitable solutions for customers who have been impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. After an initial rise in customer requests for deferrals on premium payments, mortgage payments, or rents, we have experienced a decrease in these requests in the second half of the year. Also, rent arrears in our real estate portfolio have reverted to more normal levels. The number of requests have been very manageable. For instance, as per today, we have approximately 60 P&C customers with premium arrangement, 400 in the disability area, and roughly 45 corona-related mortgage arrangements. All in all, very manageable. We continue to use a weekly mood monitor to track employee morale. This remained at a very high level. We are focusing on the sense of connection and inclusion of our employees, particularly now we are all working from home. Our approach since 2012 to build one culture based on time and place-independent working proved to be a strong foundation for managing the current crisis. Financially, the negative impact of EUR 1 million on our operating results consists of a +EUR 21 million in non-life and a positive effect of EUR 4 million in health. Higher claims in disability and strengthening the reserves were more than offset by lower claims in P&C. More on this when we get to the non-life slide. In our life business, the impact was EUR 22 million negative from lower dividend and rental income, mainly in the first half of 2020. Finally, our IFRS net result is lower, primarily due to the impact from financial markets and goodwill impairments. Also in 2019, we reported a purchase gain from Loyalis, which of course wasn't there anymore in 2020. Now let's move on to the next slide and talk a bit about how we did in progressing in executing our strategy. I would like to talk about some business developments here. First of all, the last year introduced Vitality program is continuously growing with currently over 50,000 K active participants and 10,000 employees at this moment. This is helpful in improving our customer relevance and loyalty. Also, we have brought the reintegration activities of Keerpunt to ASR, of which we already owned 50%. This expands our expertise in the field of reintegration and sustainable employability and strengthens our connection with customer. Most importantly, it helps us to manage and control claims. In the life department, we delivered on creating synergies by reducing the number of applications and converting the systems to a Software-as-a-Service platform, including the VvAA and Loyalis portfolios. This, ladies and gentlemen, completes the migration of all of our own books and all of the acquired books onto ASR's new platform on time and on budget. Our cost efficiency is illustrated in the life operating expenses, which decreased from 62 basis points in 2016 to 45 basis points in 2020. Our fee-based business are doing very well. Third-party assets under management have increased by EUR 3.4 billion to EUR 25.4 billion and was mainly driven by growth in our mortgage funds and DC funds. Our mortgage origination was up 40% and amounted almost EUR 5 billion in 2020. Lastly, we have transferred the remaining accounts in the divestment of ASR Bank to Van Lanschot Kempen and have withdrawn our banking license in December 2020. Let's move to slide six and elaborate a little bit on our non-life results. A solid performance in non-life with operating results increasing to EUR 241 million. In 2020, COVID-19 had a positive impact on non-life of EUR 21 million. This includes headwinds of roughly EUR 71 million in our disability business and tailwinds of roughly EUR 88 million in our P&C business. In disability, we have seen a clear improvement in individual disability in the second half, where we have been able to pick up the reintegration processes and successfully managing the backlogs from the first half of the year. In sickness leave, we have seen some COVID-19 related deterioration in the portfolio, particularly as we experienced an increase in claims from customers due to mental and psychological issues. Moreover, these claims also tend to have a longer duration. This is something we are closely monitoring, of course, and we have strengthened our reserves for this development in H2. P&C mostly benefited from favorable claims experience. In the second half of the year, this trend has reverted as well as traffic was significantly higher compared to H1. Reserves have been strengthened within P&C, primarily related to bodily injury, partially driven by a court verdict earlier in 2020. You know ASR, we tend to take a somewhat conservative approach in these matters. With respect to storms, although 2020 was a relatively calm year, we did record a EUR 9 million hit from Ciara. This leads to a combined ratio of 93.6% for both P&C and disability together, beating the target of 94%-96%. Adjusting for COVID-19 effects, the combined ratio would go up with 0.6% to 94.2%, still at the lower end of the target range. The cost ratio decreased from 8.4%-8.1%, which is driven by a higher gross written premium whilst realizing cost synergy from the Generali Nederland IT migration. All in all, we became even more efficient despite we had to work from home. The organic growth in the gross written premium of disability and P&C amounted 4.6% at the higher end of our range of 3%-5% per annum. This is hard work, ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistakes on this. For 2021, this is the real challenge, given the economic uncertainties in which we operate. Finally, the increase in health gross written premium reflects the strong increase in the new benefit in-kind insurance product, which we launched at the end of 2019. Far, we have seen this increase to be continued at the start of the health season in this year. Let's move to slide seven, where I will talk a little bit about the life segment. Some highlights to mention in our life segments. Operating results of life segment increased by EUR 34 million to EUR 730 million, despite the EUR 22 million negative impact from COVID-19. This impact relates really to the first half as it is mostly reflected in lower dividends. If you relate this to the total operating results for life, we believe the COVID-19 impact is benign. The increase in operating result is driven by higher investment margin. This is mostly due to a positive effect from our swaption portfolio of EUR 42 million due to the amortized realized gains. Also, we have been optimizing the illiquidity premium and credit risk premium in our portfolio. For example, we have expanded our mortgage portfolio further in 2020, which represents in the meantime 19% of the total investment for own accounts. The decrease in required interest is mostly due to maturing individual life book and the average guarantee declining. I would like to refer to appendix R and S as well, where we have displayed our stable investment margin over time. The decrease in technical result was mostly the result of favorable result on mortality in 2019. There was only a limited positive impact from COVID-19 on the mortality result given the diversification between our product lines. We have seen a positive impact in pension DB, partially offset by a negative in pension DC, and these pertain to premium paying customers and also having a surviving pension cover. Impact on individual life was slightly positive, offset by negative impact on funeral. Our cost efficiency improved to 45 basis points, a share of the basic nominal provision, which is equal to the lower end of our target for 2021. Let's now turn to other segments which performed quite well. Those are on slide eight. The operating result for the two fee-generating segments, asset management and distribution and services combined amounts to EUR 57 million, up from EUR 48 in 2019. This confirms that we are running ahead of the medium-term target. Asset management showed the stronger growth, EUR 7 million, mainly due strong inflows in mortgage funds and DC funds. Operating result of the distribution and services segments increased to EUR 25 million, mainly due to small acquisitions and organic growth. Operating results for the holding amounted to a minus of EUR 143 million. The decrease is mainly driven by higher net service cost for our pension plan due to lower interest rates, which amounted to EUR 20 million, and the increase in interest expenses of EUR 6 million from the EUR 500 million Tier two subordinated liability placed in April 2019. Please note that as of January 21, our pension plan for employees moved to a DC product. This means that going forward, the expense related to the employee pension plan will decrease and become less dependent from interest rates and hence more stability for going forward. Before I hand over to Annemiek for the highlights on solvency and capital generation, I believe we have built a very strong, solid track record of financial performance and disciplined and rational allocation of capital. The results published today support our ongoing story of attractive capital return. Since the IPO in 2016, we have been committed to offering shareholders attractive returns in dividends, driven by higher operating results and supported by a robust balance sheet, and supplemented by share buybacks. During this period, ASR has returned EUR 1 billion of capital to shareholders via dividends and share buybacks, including the one we announced today. This roughly equals 36% of our market cap. This year, we propose a total dividend per share of EUR 2.04, a 7% increase, while remaining at the lower end of our payout ratio of 45%. On top of that, we announced another share buyback of EUR 75 million. We will continue to allocate our capital rationally. If sufficient capital remains from the targeted OCC of EUR 500 million in 2021, after investing in organic growth, inorganic growth, and market risk, and as long as we are above the well-known thresholds, we will decide on capital returns to shareholders. This way, we can grow our business profitably and meanwhile offer an attractive capital return to our shareholders. I will hand over to Annemiek for solvency and capital. Thanks, Jos. Let's go to slide 11. Despite all the uncertainty in 2020, Solvency II remained very robust, and we ended the year at 199% on a standard model, or 208% if you were to exclude the full-year dividend and the buyback that we executed in 2020. The share buyback we announced today is not yet included in this full-year 2020 Solvency figure. Within the 199%, we absorbed a further UFR decline of 4%. In total, we added EUR 425 million of unrestricted Tier one and if you would exclude the EUR 357 million capital return and EUR 121 million UFR reduction, we would have added around EUR 900 million of own funds, demonstrating our ability to generate capital throughout uncertain times. Our total SCR increased by EUR 124 million, as an increase in insurance risk and market risk was partially mitigated by increased diversification benefits and an increased LAC DT due to the reversal of the lowering of the corporate tax rate. Our LAC DT factors remain unchanged at 75% for life and 90% for non-life. The increase in insurance risk reflects an allocation of capital to growth, both inorganically with the closure of the VvAA and the Veherex acquisitions coming in, as well as organically, predominantly in disability and health. It also obviously includes the impact of lower interest rates. Within market risk, we mainly saw an increase in interest rate risk due to lower rates and equity risk due to increased valuations, as well as the impact of some re-risking, which we mitigated by decreasing currency risk and market concentration risk. Despite these developments, market risk as a percentage of required capital remained at 44%, which is actually well below our internal limit of 50%. Now, all in all, strong solvency level at 199% at a standard model with ample headroom available within the Solvency II framework, EUR 1 billion restricted Tier one and over EUR 500 million Tier two, Tier three headroom, as you can see. If we move to slide 12, we can see the development flow throughout the year. Strong organic capital generation of EUR 500 million or over 12 percentage points in solvency, as well as a positive contribution of 3 percentage points from market and operational developments more than compensated the 1 percentage point related to the closing of acquisitions and the increased capital distribution of EUR 357 million versus last year's EUR 267 million, which actually took out 9 percentage points. If you look at the market and operational development buckets, within that 3% that you see over there, we've included a decrease in the UFR with a negative impact of 4 percentage points. It also includes a - 7 percentage points, reflecting both negative market developments as well as re-risking. They were all more than offset by updated noneconomic assumptions, 8 percentage points, and the reversal of the tax rate lowering impacting the LAC DT, which is + 5 percentage points. The noneconomic assumption update mainly included updated mortality assumptions, largely driven by the Dutch Actuarial Association, which came out with new industry-wide tables. If we turn to our organic capital creation on slide 13, you can see the EUR 500, which we're actually pretty happy with. As I said, a little over 12 percentage points of our solvency, roughly the same as last year when it came in at 501, while we actually had to absorb close to EUR 80 million of increased UFR drag. Now we did manage to absorb the additional UFR drag by both increased business capital generation and an increase in that capital release. Business capital generation came in EUR 42 million higher, mainly due to an increase in excess returns, driven by both re-risking within credits and mortgages, as well as some spread increase and an increased contribution of our fee business, which is an important part of our strategy to actually grow that business. The increase in capital release was mainly driven by increased SCR release due to lower interest rates and the full year impact of Loyalis on the SCR release. Good to mention there that the group disability business tends to have a high SCR in Q4, which then releases throughout the year. Last year we missed 4 months of that release because the first 4 months of the year, Loyalis wasn't part of us yet. For 2021, we still have an OCC target out there of EUR 500 million, which actually may sound like a piece of cake given that we reported EUR 500 million today, but it doesn't feel like that. It's actually a pretty challenging target. We'll have to absorb an echo UoR drag of around EUR 37 million. The impact of temporary spread widening in 2020, let's say around EUR 10 million, and the impact of the tax reversal on the OCC, through LAC DT and also direct taxes, which obviously would knock out another around EUR 15 million. That would actually lower it down to around EUR 440 million. There are always positives, and if we look at the interest rates today, the sting of the UFR would already be reduced by half, let's say EUR 70 million. We will not have the adjustment in our employee pension contract flowing through the OCC, which is currently around EUR 7 million. That leaves around EUR 460 as a starting point for 2021. We do still see scope for OCC accretion from re-risking, and we will continue the path that we've set in this year, let's say around EUR 15 million or so, and the remainder is a challenge we really have to live up with through our business by organic growth, cost efficiency, and just good underwriting. If we then turn to slide 14, have a quick look at the solvency sensitivities. They haven't really changed that much towards 2019. We still see limited impact of both parallel and non-parallel interest rate shocks. Sensitivity towards 50 basis points parallel decline is limited to minus 3% points in solvency and 10 basis points steepening limited to - 3% point solvency as well. In terms of managing the interest rate sensitivities, we have a limit of 15% of regulatory Solvency II ratio on 100 basis points parallel shocks. We're actually very much within our limits at this point in time. We believe that for ASR, the optimal strategy for managing interest rate risk is a combination of both cash flow hedging and duration hedging. We apply cash flow matching for the first 12 years, and then for the longer maturities, we apply duration hedging, whereby we hedge the interest rate sensitivity of liabilities, including risk margin. For us, it provides a better interest rate hedge than cash flow hedging for those 10 years, as it also takes the optionality and convexity into account. Optionality in assets, think about mortgages, prepayments, et cetera. Optionality in derivatives, e.g. swaptions and liabilities, think about profit sharing. All of that optionality is fully incorporated in duration hedging. On top it also covers the risk of long tail cash flows from example, our funeral business. As you can see in the cash flow chart, we're relatively cash flow matched at the left part, let's say up to 30 years. In terms of spread sensitivity, it's good to know that sensitivities we show on the top-hand chart, for instance, the 75 basis points corporate credit spread sensitivities, are excluding the expected mitigating impact from the VA. You can see that in a separate chart. The corporate spread sensitivity does include the impact of spread widening on our IAS 19 pension provisioning. That's all I would say for sensitivities, and we can turn to slide 15, to give a quick overview of our investment portfolio. A few words on the gradual shift to higher yielding assets within that, as well as the resilience of our portfolio. In 2020, we lowered our exposure to sovereigns by around EUR 500 million, and we increased our exposure to retail mortgages by EUR 1.2 billion. We've also increased our credit exposure by EUR 200 million, and even more importantly, within our credit portfolio, we seek to optimize return on SCR by focusing a bit more on illiquided credits, either government guaranteed, some private loans, and structured fixed income. In total, we added around EUR 600 million to corporate financials there and around EUR 120 million to private structured loans. We actually decreased our covered bond position by around EUR 500 million. We're happy with the resilience of our portfolio. Out of the EUR 53 billion, around 67% is fixed income, contains EUR 14 billion of sovereigns and EUR 13 billion of corporates and financials. The average rating is A+, and of the corporate and financials book, over 97% is actually investment grade. We have limited to none exposure in the oil and gas and leisure sector, and in general, credit migration risk continues to be very limited in terms of Solvency II impact. We have a real estate book of EUR 4.5 billion, which constitutes 8% of our investment portfolio. It's good to note that of that EUR 4.5 billion, around EUR 1.7 billion is actually related to our rural portfolio, which is a very resilient portfolio. That also gives us a competitive edge in finding attractive investment opportunities to contribute towards the energy transition, such as solar and windmill parks, as land continues to be very scarce in the Netherlands. Our retail real estate exposure is around EUR 800 million, of which EUR 650 million is via the ASR Dutch Prime Retail Fund. Of that Fund, around two-thirds is actually high street retail, based on very strict investment criteria, and one-third is related to supermarket district shopping centers who are actually doing quite well in COVID times. Retail vacancies remain low, with 3.7% versus 3.5% last year. In total, our real estate portfolio saw a modest decrease in direct income and still yielded around EUR 86 million of indirect investment income, as positive revaluations in our rural book, residential book, and offices more than compensated for the negative revaluation that we've seen in retail real estate. Dutch mortgage market continues to be very resilient. There continues to be a shortage in housing, and house prices actually increased by 11% in 2020. Most forecasts show, although on a more limited nature, still an increase in house prices for the next two years. 33% of our book is covered by NHG, and the average LTV is 73%. Arrears over 90 days continues to be very low at four basis points, and credit losses remain very low as well. All in all, we remain very comfortable with our investment portfolio, and we do still see further room to increase investment into mortgages. We also see further room to further optimize our credit book, with some more liquid credits, government guarantees, some private loans, and structured fixed income. If we would then turn to slide 16, a couple of last words on the balance sheet. It remains strong. We still have ample flexibility within there. Financial leverage decreased to 28.3% on an IFRS basis due to an increase in equity. Debt remained unchanged. Double leverage showed a slight increase to 103.7% due to several acquisitions in the distribution and services segment. Interest coverage ratio, which is based on our IFRS net result, dropped but is still well within the target range. I guess you've all seen the S&P rating. A last word on cash position on slide 17 before I hand over to Jos again. Holding cash ended at EUR 502 million, which is in line with last year, and it's really aligned with our policy to put cash at work at the opcos and only upstream cash to the holding to cover holding expenses, coupons, and dividends. We also have an unused revolving credit facility of EUR 350 million. Liquidity roughly equal compared to last year. We've upstreamed cash mainly from Life and a bit from other entities. There was no need to upstream more, but there's also no impediments to do so if we would have wanted to. Our debt maturity profile, as you can see, is robust. Next maturity date is in 2024. We still have ample flexibility and room to add leverage if we would like to. Solvency for the group is strong, as mentioned earlier. You can also see the ratios for Non-Life and Life, which at 163% and 195% are well above our targets. With that, I'd like to hand it back to Jos for a final wrap-up. Thank you, Annemiek. To conclude our presentation, you can imagine we're proud on the results we've presented today. We delivered again a very solid performance in a very challenging environment, and I'm proud of our employees who have been working hard to achieve these results. We showed solid progress in executing our strategy and demonstrating financial discipline. We continue to build on our track record of rational allocation of capital and attractive shareholder returns. We're very pleased to propose the dividend, as mentioned, of EUR 2.04. On top of that, we propose another share buyback of EUR 75 million. Supported by a robust solvency of 199 on the Standard Formula, I believe ASR is in a strong position to continue its pursuit of profitable growth. Looking ahead, the direct effects of COVID-19 have so far been limited. Let's be clear, we're not out of the woods yet. We're still facing the challenges from COVID-19, and we remain cautious for the effects in the longer term. The effect of the virus and the restricting measures that are being taken to control the virus is noticeable in our businesses and those of our customers. This may well impact us going forward. We believe we are strongly positioned and maintain the medium-term targets for 2021. However, given the economic uncertainties, achieving an organic growth of 3%-5% for Disability and P&C may end up being the most challenging one of all of our targets. Having said this, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our presentation, and I hand over to the operator to take any questions you might have. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Again, press star one. To ask a question. We'll now take our first question from Cor Kluis. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Good morning. Cor Kluis, ABN AMRO. Otto. I have a couple of questions. First of all, on disability insurance. It's good to see that the reintegration process has picked up and improved in the second half of the year. Could you give somewhat feeling on premium increases that you have been doing in the beginning of this year, especially in the sickness leave area, and then also the reintegration, how is that progressing as stockholders are being vaccinated? That might also help somewhat in that process. Second question is on P&C. Year to date, we've seen a lot in the Netherlands. We've seen some snow, we've seen some riots, no firework, lockdown continuing. It's difficult to estimate. Can you give some feeling on your P&C experience on Combined Ratio there? Maybe on disability in that respect. My last question is about M&A. Last year, ASR didn't do any material acquisitions. Every year, you have around EUR 150 million in the budget for acquisitions, so that budget is even a little bit larger at this moment. Could you give a little bit of feeling on the progress that you see at this moment in a COVID-19 environment? Can you do acquisitions or is it still difficult to do that in such an environment? Those were my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Cor. Let me start with the question on disability and premium increases. Over the last year, in October, we have increased premiums for individual disability. That was not due to COVID, but due to the lower interest rates. We have increased premiums over there since the 1st of October. In sickness leave, we increased last year on the 1st of January 2020, the premiums already, and we've done the same in 2021 due to the developments we've seen there. In the Netherlands in general over the last couple of years, sickness leave went up with 4% per annum. Last year, we've seen in the whole society in the Netherlands, sickness leave is going up with close to 7%. Therefore, we again increase premiums in the sickness leave business aiming at a positive contribution at the end of this year, which we will hopefully are able to deliver. In P&C, to your question, yes, we have seen some claims coming in on the weather-related issues last week. We had happily some snow in the Netherlands. We've seen a competitor mentioning a large number of claims. We, however, up until now, have seen not more than 200, I believe 204 is the exact number of new claims related to that. All very small. I believe the largest one we had due to the weather was EUR 15,000, which is perfectly manageable. The riots we had in the beginning of the lockdown during the evenings, we had some incoming claims. Total of that number was seven. All very limited. We're, of course, helping customers there, but also very manageable. All in all, those two situations will not significantly impact the Combined Ratio. Up until now, we haven't had any severe winter storms where we had last year, Ciara, with an impact of EUR 9 million. On the acquisition side, last year, we of course did one acquisition, Brand New Day, and there we actually spent the OCC that we had in mind. It's however difficult to do any predictions on what might happen this year. COVID is not helpful for that, especially given the lockdowns, et cetera. To develop relationships, to have the right conversations, it's not helpful. However, we remain active in that area and keep on looking from a more financial perspective to potential life books that can be integrated on our very efficient own life platform. Our preference is to do acquisitions in disability, in non-life, and also in distribution. Where it will happen this year is to be seen. I'm born in December, and most people born in December tend to be positive about the future, so I remain positive. Okay, very good. I was born in November. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will now move to our next question from Farooq Hanif. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi, everybody. Good morning. Just my first question on going back to the Combined Ratio. You gave the positive impact of frequency benefits from COVID. I'm guessing that that didn't include the disability reserving. I was wondering if you could just quantify that. We can get a real kind of underlying picture of where you are. Also in health, I noticed your strong performance. I'm guessing that's because people aren't using all the services that they could be using during lockdown. Just wondered if you'd comment on that. Secondly, on investment margin. You talk about stability, actually as a percentage, investment margin continues to expand. I'm kind of wondering whether you can give more guidance on kind of where you are in your re-risking journey, and whether we should really sort of factor that in going forward as a continuing trend. Yeah, that's it really. Thank you very much. Thank you, Farooq. You want to start on the investment margin, and then on the commercial update? First two questions first. Okay. Farooq, on your assumption that the reserve strengthening is not yet included in the Combined Ratio. It is included in the Combined Ratio. We already did that in 2020. Hopefully that answers your question. On your second question, our view on the relation between the strong performance due to a lower use of services. I think in the non-life area, in P&C, you're right. We've seen a lower number of claims, et cetera, which impacted ASR positive. That was, by the way, mostly in the first half of 2020. In the second half, we've seen that returning to more normal levels. I think we already talked about disability. We've seen that customers used our services, to call it services, more in last year. Going forward, up until now, we don't see a really new trend compared to the last half of 2020. We continue to see actually the same trend in the first month of 2021. Some tailwind in P&C, and a lower headwind in disability compared to the first half of last year. Just to come back. All right. I realize that you've included the reserving. I was just wondering what the amount was. You gave a 0.6 percentage point improvement in Combined Ratio from COVID. Presumably, there was also a negative from the reserving. I just wonder if you could quantify that. We haven't disclosed that specific number on the reserving due to COVID. The total negative impact due to COVID in disability was EUR 71 million. EUR 51 of that was already there in the first half. In the second half, we actually show an additional negative impact from COVID of EUR 20 million. That included the additional reserving. Okay. The additional reserving is included in the EUR 20 million. Yeah, for investment. Your question on investment margin, Farooq, obviously we've seen it increase last year. Three main reasons for that. We had a positive impact on our swaptions. Basically, positive result that we made on swaptions in the past, which actually are now falling through via amortized realized gains. That's a benefit that we'll continue to have. We also saw an increase by part of a bit of a de-risking that we did, and specifically optimization within the credit risk portfolio. The latter we will continue. Obviously there was a required interest decrease due to the maturing individual life book. Now, if you look at the investment margin, if you would do it over the basic nominal life provision, we have a slide on that in the appendix, it's actually slide 40. You see that it has been relatively stable over the last three years, 2.3%, 2.3%, 2.5%. I think we're comfortable with that level going forward as well. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll now move to our next question from David Barma. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes, good morning. First of all, just to come back on OCC. Thank you very much for giving us a sort of bridge from the end of the year. Can we just zoom in again on sort of levers you see to get to your target beyond the sort of what we've seen already this year, the own pension switch to DC, the interest rate pickup and all of that. How should we see the room you have for the rest of the uplift, especially considering the trends and the normalization you're talking about in P&C and then disability, which may take a bit longer? Just to follow up on that, on disability, can you quantify the contribution in the OCC in the second half? Lastly, just to follow up on the explanation on the investment margin. In the past, you gave an amount for the contribution of the realized gain reserve and the amortization of that, how much should we expect for the coming years? I think the previous guidance was until this year. Thank you very much. All right. Let's start off with the OCC. I think you meant with your first question, how we look at 2021 from an OCC perspective. If we start off with the UFR drag, we always take the average UFR drag, i.e., the average drag that belongs to first of January versus end of year, and then we take the average of that. That would mean that if interest rates would not have moved where they were at the end of December, we would have an echo UFR drag of -EUR 37 million. We've also seen spread widening in 2020, really related to COVID, has come back again. If you would think that temporary spread widening was really temporary, you would have to knock out another EUR 10 million. We've seen a positive impact on stock of the lowering of taxes via Legacy T. Obviously, that will have a negative impact by the reversal of the lowering of taxes, and that will have a negative impact on flow of around EUR 15 million. If you would deduct the UFR drag, if you would deduct potentially the temporariness of spread widening we saw in 2020, and if you would deduct the fact that there is a negative impact on flow from the reversal of the lowering of the tax rate, then you would get to around EUR 440 million as a starting point. If you would look at interest rates, where they are today, they've actually come up a bit since the end of last year, and that would reduce the UFR echo by around EUR 15 million-EUR 20 million. We had net current service costs due to a change in our pension scheme of around EUR 20 million in the operating result in this year, and that in OCC terms equated to around EUR 7 million, because you don't have everything flowing through OCC from that. We won't have that EUR 7 million again next year. That's a positive. You would end up at roughly EUR 460 as a starting point for 2021. Last year, we did some de-risking, as I said. De-risking we did last year was around 3 percentage points in solvency stock, and it added around EUR 15 million in OCC. I would expect us, from an OCC perspective, to be able to realize something similar this year. We're definitely looking to add another EUR 15 million or so by de-risking. Leaves us at EUR 475, meaning that another EUR 25 or so we would have to compensate by increased business capital generation. As Jos just alluded to, we've done some price increases, so hopefully we'll see that coming through our insurance results. We continue to look very hard on cost efficiency, and we also continue to strive for organic growth, both in the non-life business but also in the fee business. It's really our challenge and also our goal to compensate that by further increase of business capital generation. That's why we would consider the EUR 500 million as doable but challenging. Then you also had a question on what the disability impact is on the OCC. We don't disclose that figure. I think it's fair to say that the life contribution to OCC is relatively stable. It would be around EUR 450 million. If you would look at the total non-life contribution in the OCC, it would be at around EUR 100 million. Then obviously you would have to add the fee business, and you would have to subtract the holding, and then you would get to the EUR 500 million again. Then you had a last question on the investment margin and the capital release, the amortization of realized gains that we see in there, and we expect that to be fairly stable going forward. Sorry, fairly stable, that's the same EUR 300 million level that you've given before? Well, I can't give the exact disclosed figure. Okay, yeah. for this year, but by and large, we expect it to be stable. Okay. Thank you very much. We will now move to our next question from Steven Haywood. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you very much. On your real estate portfolio, and in particular, the whole Dutch property market, how do you see the mark-to-market impacts coming through in the near term? Do you see any negative drivers for resilience in the property market here? When do you do the big sort of revaluations within your portfolio here? Secondly, on the court case, what was the actual ruling related to on the bodily injury court case, and is this an expected impact for the whole of the industry to take that additional reserving? Thank you. Let me start with your question on real estate, and I guess you refer to retail real estate there, if I understood it correctly. We do see some impact of COVID there, but as I said, around two-third of the exposure we have via the Dutch Prime Retail Fund is actually high street retail business, and one-third is related to supermarket district shopping centers. The latter part hasn't really seen any negative revaluations. It actually went up a bit in the COVID times. High street retail, there we did see some negative revaluations. Our retail real estate had a negative revaluation of around 10%. In our total real estate book, that actually was more than compensated by the revaluation of the rural position, which is far greater than the retail real estate position, and also the positive revaluation of the residential position that we have. Sorry, can I just follow up on that in terms of the commercial side of things as well, and the offices potentially. Do you expect to see any change in their valuations in the future if there's going to be more working from home going on? Yeah. We only have a very small position in offices, and we actually there have seen a positive revaluation on the offices space also because we realized some new office buildings, that project was still ongoing last year. Within our, we call it the Dutch Mobility Office Fund, they are all prime locations adjacent to the larger cities' railway stations. They tend to be all multi-tenant, and we do see that there is still quite some appetite for those locations. I think in the office side, if you would move more to the peripheral, the rural areas outside of the big cities being Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, then it's getting more difficult for those offices, but we don't have those in our portfolio. We're really focused on big cities next to the largest, most important railway stations, multi-tenant buildings. To the extent that there is working from home, we tend to see companies shifting from large owned buildings more towards renting smaller space in these multi-tenant buildings, which have good public transport opportunities in the vicinity. On your second question, Steven, the court case I mentioned was the same one that was already mentioned in the first half, where the Dutch court decided on the interest rates you should take into account for future claims which had to be lowered due to the lower interest in the Netherlands. In the first half, we already took EUR 8 million for that. That was based on how we looked at it after a half year. In the second half, we reviewed our whole portfolio, and we looked into all the ongoing cases, and we decided, and I already mentioned that we tend to be conservative on those decisions. We took another EUR 17 million, so the total additional reserving in non-life was EUR 25 million. Whether the whole industry will do the same, that's up to the industry, but we tend to be very conservative on that. It was a good year to be conservative there. Thanks for the reminder. What was the actual change in interest rates? Well, in the past, the industry calculated with future interest rates up to 3%, and in the court case, it was decided that it's better to calculate with an interest rate of zero given what customers can make on their saving accounts. Yeah. That's brilliant. Thank you very much for your help. We will now move to our next question from Fulin Liang. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Just a couple of questions. First of all, thank you very much for run through the guidance of the OCC. I've just reckoned there are a few vulnerability within the whole kind of system, and just for example, you already taken some of the interest rate rise year-to-date so far into your OCC, and just wondering, are you doing anything else to protect your kind of volatility to interest rate? What if the interest rate goes down from here? Also, I know that you're kind of hoping that the further cost saving will help on the remaining 25 gaps in OCC. I just wonder if the whole kind of back to normal realized from May, June, will actually some of your cost saving reverse? What you've seen in 2020, will that reverse? That's one question, how you protect your OCC. Secondly, it's just again, I think it's probably a bit detail. In your UFR drag in 2020, we've seen similar amounts in first half versus the second half. If you look at the interest rate movements, the second half is much larger than the first half in terms of the interest rate movement. How did you manage it to just managed to get the same UFR drag for very different interest rate movements? Thank you. To start off with the last question, Fulin, we average it out. We take the UFR drag, and we calculate the UFR drag for a full year based on the 1st of January 2020. We calculate for the full year based on the 31st, and then we average that. That's the full year UFR drag, and that's also the reason why if interest rates would not change, we would have the echo of another EUR 37 million within this year. That methodology hopefully explains your last question. In terms of, yes, the UFR drag remains sensitive towards interest rate changes. You're right. If interest rates would not go up, we would not have a reduction of that UFR echo drag. Obviously, it's being dented a little bit by the capital release. If interest rates would go down further, we would also have a positive impact on the capital release. To give you some feeling around sensitivities here, if interest rates would see 50 bips decrease, for instance, that would probably, from where they were at the 31st of December last year, that would roughly equate to around EUR 80 million reduction in OCC, which is basically EUR 100 million UFR unwind, but it's also EUR 20 million of increased capital release. Yes, we do remain sensitive towards that. Covering up EUR 80 million of OCC on top of a UFR drag that's there, that's going to be challenging from a business perspective. If interest rates remain where they are, then we would have to compensate around EUR 25 million from a business perspective. Indeed, there are some levers that we can still pull in terms of cost development. I think we may actually also receive a little bit of help by the continued lockdown that we're experiencing in the Netherlands. From a P&C perspective, the month January is not exactly unfavorable. There are some items that could still help our business capital generation there. As said, we will continue to look at the re-risking part, specifically within credits, and hope to add at least another EUR 15 million there in terms of OCC contribution. Thank you. That's very helpful to run through. Thank you. We will now take our next question from Michael Huttner. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you very much. I had a question on slide 40, please. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about the basic life provision, which is actually growing. It's not falling. You can see on the side, if you do nothing, it would fall by 2.7% a year. Here I have three questions. The first one, how does this chart compare with your expectation, which I think I published in 2018, that the book would reduce by 50% or so over a period of years? The second is, within that EUR 25 or EUR 24.9 billion figure, how much is the individual life? You mentioned that your preferred M&A is more in non-life and services. Does this mean that you'd be quite happy, you have no objection to this life, this provision figure actually declining going forward? Shall I start, Jos, with the question on slide 40? If we look at the best estimate liability, we said that we see a CAGR of -2.7 for the upcoming 10 years, meaning that in around 10 years, we would have seen a reduction. We expect to see a reduction there of around 25%, which basically mainly comes through the individual life book, which we would expect from a BEL perspective to around half within that period. We do expect pensions and funeral to be relatively stable in there. The numbers may have changed versus 2018, given the fact that we've also added quite some acquisitions since then. I don't have the exact line-by-line comparison on what the acquisitions will have done, but those will have obviously changed those numbers. Thanks. The chart that you see on the left-hand side is the basic normal life provisions. That's not the best estimate liabilities. To your second question, Michael, when we made a statement on M&A, we were not trying to say that we wouldn't like any life M&A anymore, but life M&A will be more seen as a financial transaction, and we will more decide on whether it adds value to the book and less from a more strategic point of view. From a strategic point of view for the longer term, we would prefer to do more non-life, more disability, and more distribution. If and when we do see any opportunity to add life reserves to the life book to protect the enforced cost going down for the future, then we definitely will do. We will judge those transactions more from a financial point of view and less from a strategic point of view. On that point, may I just ask a follow-up? You have a big competitor who says they look at their life book on a financial basis, and you're using the same language, but talking of acquisitions. When do you think you could meet? Well as you can imagine, those kinds of questions are difficult to answer. Our view in the past has been, and continues to be going forward, that we have a slight preference for smaller and medium-sized transactions because we were able to integrate them in a very swift way. How market developments and coalitions will evolve in the future, that is in the future, I think. Brilliant. Thank you very much, and thank you for putting that slide up. We will now move to our next question from Colm Kelly. Yeah. Thank you for taking my questions. First one is just on the illiquid asset strategy. Obviously, you've mentioned you're moving more into illiquid credits, so just private placements and structured loans. The asset allocation, obviously, the risk profile is gradually changing. To what extent has that been discussed with the DNB? Is the DNB overall comfortable with the direction of travel with respect to the illiquid asset portfolio and the type of assets that are increasingly being put into that? That's the first question. Second question is on the economic view of solvency and EV, which is obviously key to your capital return strategy. The long-term returns previously had been assumed to be 2.4% on the investment portfolio. Has there been any change to those long-term return assumptions post-COVID-19? Just lastly, on non-life solvency. The non-life business hasn't remitted much this year. As you can see, the solvency was flat year-over-year. There were pluses and minuses in the underlying results. What I'm trying to get a sense of is what is the actual operating capital creation in the non-life business to fund remittances going forward, or should we expect the remittances will almost all be driven by the life business over the next couple of years? Thank you. All right. Let's start off with your first question on re-risking. We're not exactly hugely expanding the total credit portfolio. We're really looking towards optimizing a little bit within that portfolio in a Solvency II optimal way, so to speak. Part of the illiquids that we're moving into is really government guaranteed. Think about EIB or other type structures like that. In total, for instance, our market risk hasn't changed, and we don't really expect that to change. I think it's relatively an optimal way of looking at it. As I said, it was around 3% point, slightly over EUR 70 million of SCR that we added due to the re-risking that we did last year, and for something similar this year to do. In terms of moving a little bit more into the illiquid part, given that we have liabilities also on the funeral business that tend to have a very long duration that actually matches pretty well with the slightly more liquid credit as well. In terms of the remittance. For quite some years, we didn't actually remit that much or nothing at all out of the non-life business. Last year, we did do remit a bit out of non-life, but it was only EUR 18 million. Even last year, we actually upstreamed most of it from the life business. Given that that's also running off, so it seems a natural place to do the remittances from. We don't rule out to remit from the non-life business this year or next year. It's comfortably above the threshold that we see. There are no impediments to remit out of it, but it's also an area where we do want to continue to have some organic growth. If you combine the organic growth targets, plus if you think about the remittance this year in a COVID time where on the life side, it was pretty clear early on that there wouldn't be so much impact specifically this year of COVID. On the non-life side, we obviously have quite some moving parts with P&C doing very positively, disability taking a hit in H1. We really wanted to get a bit more feeling about the uncertainty there, leave the cash in for any organic growth and support there. We just didn't take it out. Well, we could have taken it out. There is no underlying change in our strategy there. In terms of economic view, I believe, I'm just checking which slide it is, but we do continue to give the sensitivity. It's slide 29. There you can see what the sensitivity would be if it would be around 2.5%, if it would be 2%, and you would obviously see the corresponding positive impact on the OCC flow. That's just a pretty mathematical calculation. We still feel very comfortable with both the rates on a UFR basis, but also if we look at lower rates, which the sensitivity slide shows on slide 29, we're very comfortable. Yeah. No, the slide 29 is very useful. I suppose is the base case economical UFR still 2.4%? Because I think that's the bit that's missing from the slide. Yeah, I think we've taken a different approach there now because we used to just use the 2.4 but then look at it from an economic framework and not make any changes to all the other parameters that you would also have to look at if you truly look at it from an economic framework. If we would look at it now, I guess we would lower the 2.4 to a lower level, but actually also make some other changes because if you look at it economically, there are also other elements that you would have to take on board. If we would look at the new economic framework case, which we're currently developing, which would contain a slightly lower interest rate, looking at that new economic framework, we would actually end up higher than the 2.5% that is, for instance, on this slide in the old economic framework. Okay. I suppose to the extent that that 2.4 represented your long-term view on the returns on the investment portfolio, has there been any change in terms of your view on the long-term return assumption on that investment portfolio? Just to have the question clear, Colm, is that on the assumptions that we have on returns on the various asset categories, or could you? No. Yeah, because you disclose each year the economical UFR of 2.4%, and as an implied long-term assumed return on the investment portfolio or something close to that. I just want to get a sense if there's been any change, either in the economical UFR or your long-term assumed return on your investment portfolio. No, we don't have any changes there on the scenarios that we run. Okay, perfect. Thanks a million. We will now move to our next question from Robin van den Broek. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Good morning/afternoon, everybody. Thank you for taking my questions. First of all, I think the bridge that you've given on OCC is very clear. Thank you for that. I was just wondering, when you say adjusted for current rates, is that rates for today, or is that rates of 10 days ago? It feels to me that 30 basis points, and maybe some headwinds from the average VA in 2021 versus 2020, only reducing EUR 15 million-EUR 20 million seems a little bit on the low side. I'm just wondering, is that conservatism or is there maybe a rate curve behind that of a few days ago not reflecting the full 30 basis points plus move we've seen? Yeah. Secondly, when I think about residual COVID impact, for banks it's very clear that there could be defaults in the SME space, and maybe consumer finance, what have you. For you, that balance sheet risk, of course, is very limited. I guess there could be implications from defaults for your gross written premiums, and as a result of that, your results could still be impacted. I was wondering if you have done any assessments around that, and how big those impacts could be. Lastly, I think your capital promise has been very clear that you basically stick to EUR 75 million as long as you're above, was it EUR 180 billion? You're well ahead of that. I was just wondering if there's anything that could happen that would make you add to that EUR 75 million buyback, or you're just going to ride this plan out on that basis. Thank you. Shall I start with your first question on the lesser UFR drag, et cetera, in terms of OCC, those were actually based on beginning of last week rates. There is probably a rate difference, if you would refer to as of today's rate. If you look at your question related to the EUR 75 million buyback and us being well above the 180%, given all the uncertainty around in markets, we would stick to the EUR 75 million for now and the capital return policy that we've actually communicated last. Robin, sorry. No. Sorry, just one follow-up on the UFR bit. Is it fair to assume that one basis point is EUR 1 million, roughly, for OCC? If you would have a 50 basis points interest rate impact, you would have around EUR 80 million in OCC impact. Okay. It's a combination. Okay It's a combination of points and the capital release. You have to take both two elements into account. To your second questions, whether we run scenarios going forward. We have run some scenarios based on the assumptions of Statistics Netherlands. Taking that kind of scenarios to the top line is very difficult. Up until now, we have based our view going forward on the subset of our portfolio. We're not that large in the areas that are hit mostly currently. The statement we've made on the top line going forward is more based on, it is difficult to predict how the economy as a whole will be hit by the moment that the Dutch government decides to stop financial support. If I look into the arrears in all kind of areas, it's very low. If that is a basic signal going forward, then one might be positive. If there are a number of type of business that end up being bankrupt going forward, then it might be more difficult to meet that target. It's hard to predict, but based on the scenarios from Statistics Netherlands, it's all looking quite good. You know, as Robin, we in general tend to be a bit more careful on those kind of statements. We might be too conservative, and let's hope for that. To your second question, whether if the solvency remains at the level where it is today whether we would consider to give more capital back to investors. In general, ASR tries to stick to a plan, and if we promise something to the market, we tend to deliver on that. For the time being, it is the 3 x EUR 75 million, and how that will develop going forward is going to depend on how we judge further target setting for the year after 2021. We've always been clear, if and when we are not able to use the capital in a positive way to grow the company or to re-risk our investments, we're not capital hoarders, and then we will look at the most efficient way to return it to shareholders. For the time being, it's our aim to deliver on the promise made last year to do at least 3x EUR 75 million, and this is the second year where we deliver on that target. That's very clear. Thank you very much. Okay, thanks. We only have room for one final analyst to ask questions. We'll come back to any analysts that have questions for a later moment. Operator, can we have the final analyst for questions, please? Certainly. We'll now take our final question from Andrew Baker. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions, and I'm now feeling the pressure of being the last, so I'll try and make it quick. The first is just on the EIOPA 2020 review. Appreciate you've previously given an update on the expected impact on the stock of capital. Can you give us a sense of the impact you're expecting on the ongoing capital generation once it's implemented? Secondly, I know many of your peers have undertaken longevity reinsurance transactions. Is this something that you guys are still exploring? Thank you. Well, thanks, Andrew, for your question. I was already thinking, why does no one ask a question on the EIOPA review? Yeah, we did publish the results actually on stock, which basically is, if it would be implemented in 2024, and it would be implemented without the phasing in, we would have a -10 percentage point solvency impact. Actually, with the phasing in, that is probably a +1 at that point in time. If you do that -10% impact on stock, that would correspond with roughly EUR 25 million of OCC in 2024. That's without phasing in impact on it. Your last question was related to Can you repeat the last one again? Oh, sorry. Just if you're still exploring. Oh, the longevity. Yeah. Yeah. the longevity reinsurance. Yeah. We do continue to look at it, obviously in terms of any capital transactions, we kind of look at both the necessity and whether it makes economical sense. If we would look at a longevity swap, it would indeed be kind of mid-single digit release of capital that would flow through. Having said that's based on the old mortality tables. We really wanted to wait until the new mortality tables came in. They clearly came a little bit our way, as you can see, in terms of stock. Given the fact that we have a funeral business, positive benefit of a longevity swap will also diversify away a bit. That's why for us, it would be kind of mid-single digit to execute such a trade, and it will obviously have a negative impact on capital generation on flow going forward. If we really need the capital or if the economics of it would improve, we will definitely look into it, but we're not in a hurry to do such a transaction. Great. Thank you very much. Great. Jos, would you wrap it up? Well, thanks everybody for joining us. Hopefully the answers given to all of your questions were helpful. If and when there remain any questions, please find one of the colleagues of IR. As we already said in the introduction, we're quite proud on the delivery of our results. We remain working hard to keep on delivering on our promises. As said, the challenge to do so remains also very big, mainly due to circumstances we can't influence that much. Having said that, thanks for joining, and let's hope that we can meet you in person, at least when we present the half year numbers, and that we can have our regular dinner to discuss in depth on the numbers of ASR. Stay healthy, and enjoy the rest of the day in writing all those reports on those two nice Dutch insurance companies. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.