Good morning and a warm welcome to the Alm. Brand Interim Report for the full year 2022. My name is Candice, and I will be the operator for today's call. All lines have been placed on mute during the presentation portion of the call with an opportunity for question and answer at the end. If you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to our host, Rasmus Werner Nielsen. The floor is yours. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to all of you on this Alm. Brand Group result call for the fourth quarter of 2022. As usual, I have with me today our CFO, Andreas, and our IR team with Mads and Michael. Let us start on slide two with the highlights. 2022 has been a very busy year for Alm. Brand Group, a year characterized by restructuring, integration, and swift execution to create a strong foundation. We have successfully achieved what we have planned for, and we have a clear road ahead for the next steps that we will take. It is equally important that we, throughout the year, have been able to further add to the positive momentum in our business.
Growth has picked up to a satisfactory level of more than 5%, while we have worked hard on delivering on the Codan integration and the real-realization of the synergies. Our agenda has been a mix of customer-facing activities and making sure that the operational setup of Brand and Codan will be successfully integrated. I think we have made good progress on all parts of the agenda. The results that we present today is a satisfactory result on a technical result, but also a result marked by the negative development on the financial markets. Bottom line is that we get to a result that enables us to pay out a nominal dividend at par with last year. Thus, the board will propose DKK 0.3 per share to be paid out after the AGM in April. Now I turn to slide three with our financial highlights.
Gross premiums totaled DKK 2.9 billion in the quarter and DKK 9.6 billion for the full year. Organic growth has been very satisfactory throughout the year. Thus, Alm. Brand added 5.5% in premiums to a total of DKK 5.7 billion. On top of this, Codan contributed with DKK 3.9 billion for the eight months starting on the 1st of May. The technical result in Q4 was DKK 411 million. Thus, full year technical result totaled DKK 1.16 billion, i.e. topping up our guidance three months ago. Investment income in Q4 was a loss of DKK 21 million, stemming from the interest hedging of our technical provisions. This means that the full year investment result was a loss of DKK 411 million.
This is of course not satisfactory, but as mentioned also in the previous quarters, the main driver for this is the exceptional interest rate increase in 2022. On an overall level, we will benefit from higher interest rates in our insurance business. Again, in this quarter, we have made progress on the integration of Codan and realization of synergies. Thus, we have spent DKK 90 million on this. Finally, in line with the previous quarters, we have amortized customer relationships and brand amount related to Codan with DKK 89 million. This is of course a non-cash item, please remember that this has no effect on our dividend capacity going forward. Now let's continue on slide five. The group made a technical result of DKK 411 million in the fourth quarter.
The result from Brand was DKK 298 million against DKK 207 million last year, thus showing a positive development as underlying business develops fine, with claims benefiting from tailwind due to higher interest rates, which compensates for claims inflation. Again this quarter, both large claims and weather-related claims are lower compared to last year, which of course also adds to the profit. Lastly, Brand was able to reduce the expense ratio following both synergy gains and other cost initiatives. Codan's technical result amounted to DKK 113 million. Overall, this is a satisfactory number for the quarter, but it should be noted that large claims with commercial lines are too high. Although we understand that the Codan business comes with more volatility compared to what we have in Brand.
We have already introduced some specific actions to curb this exposure and to improve profitability, and we are confident that this will have the effect that we want. Please turn to slide six. Premium income grew organically in Brand by 6.2% in the quarter, i.e. accelerating from the high pace from the previous quarters in the year. Again, we see a positive contribution for both personal and commercial lines. I'm very pleased with the development throughout the year, and I believe that we have been able to strike a good balance between growing our business and safeguarding profitability. Looking into the new year, we'll be looking at a higher indexation of premiums for most products, except for workers' compensation. Overall, we are confident that ex-indexation and individual premium increases will fully compensate for the claims inflation in 2023.
Now please turn to slide seven. It's been a quarter with good weather, thus there's only been a very few weather-related claims across the group, totaling a modest 0.6 percentage point. Large claims in Codan were too many, and although this is to some extent reflects the more volatile nature of the acquired corporate business, then this development is not sustainable. In addition to further premium increases in the first half of 2023, we plan to execute on several initiatives to improve profitability, including a reduction of offshore consortium to 20% of the total premium income within the industry, against around 30% in 2022. We will also improve control and management of assembly and set up risks and reduce exposure to the U.S. to lower our exposure to natural disasters. Now I turn to slide eight.
Here we have illustrated the bridge for combined ratio for Alm. Brand for Q4 2021 to Q4 in 2022. The high interest rates are estimated to have provided a tailwind of 2.6 percentage points, and the net effect of lower claims, expenses for large claims and weather-related claims, lower risk margin and lower run-off totals 2.2 percentage points, leaving us with 90 basis points improvement before getting to a combined ratio of 79.4. This improvement is made up by a reduction in the expense ratio of 180 basis points, which is partly offset by especially the claims inflation. Codan made a combined ratio of 92.2 in the quarter based on a very satisfactory low 80s in the private lines and around 98 in the commercial lines.
This leaves the group at 85.8% in Q4 and a satisfactory 87.9% for the full year. I think that this is a fine number given that we still have a journey in front of us to fully integrate the two companies and realize the synergies. Now please turn to slide nine For the personal lines, claims ratio for Alm. Brand was 62.8% against 60.5% same quarter last year, primarily reflecting that average claims costs have increased due to inflation in especially materials and energy. Expense ratio improved to 17.4%, i.e. down 270 basis points relative to last year, included in this is of course the effect of synergy initiatives implemented throughout the year.
The Codan business achieved a satisfactory combined ratio of 82.8%, reflecting a very low level of claims in the quarter. On the other hand, a somewhat high expense ratio, although this is moving in the right direction. The group combined ratio total 81.4%. There's still a lot of things we can do to improve this, but the starting point is very good. Turn to slide 10 for the commercial lines. The combined ratio in Alm. Brand was down, 78.6%, i.e. down significantly relative to last year and trending down also relative to the very good second and third quarter we had in 2022.
Although we continue to see claims inflation also within commercial lines, it should be noted that most of our benefit from high interest rates derive from the long tail provisions that we do for claims in commercial included herein, for example, workers' compensation. The combined ratio in Codan was 98.5%, and as mentioned before, this is affected by a high amount of large claims. With the initiative already implemented, including the ongoing pruning of the business, plus the additional actions already mentioned, I'm sure that we will obtain an attractive combined ratio also in commercial lines in Codan. Combined ratio for the group was 89.2%, and we expect to reduce both the claims ratio and the expense ratio in the time to come. The latter with synergies as well as continued focus on cost in general.
Please turn to slide 12 for an update on the synergies. We have highlighted that an important part of our investment case is delivery of synergies. We had an initial ambition to extract synergies of EUR 90 million this year. We upped this a bit during second half of the year. We achieved a EUR 111 million P&L effect in 2022, of which EUR 57 million is included in Q4 numbers. Our approach is to be very detailed and well documented, thus we will be able to push forward according to plans. This provide us with a strong starting point for the EUR 240 million in synergies that we want to achieve in 2023. Now please turn to slide 13.
After adding Codan investment portfolio, our total portfolio more than doubled back in May. The total investment portfolio now amounts to DKK 22 billion split between a hedge portfolio of around DKK 50 million and free portfolio of around DKK 7 billion. In Q4, the financial markets have generally been slightly positive. We made profit on the free portfolio. However, interest hedging of the technical provision has been somewhat challenging as rapid interest rate movements in December has caused deviations between the portfolio and the mortgage credit component in the discounting. Over time, this should be leveled out. In Q4, it produced a loss on investment of DKK 21 million. Still, we consider our investment strategy quite conservative. It includes investment limits carefully designed to curb the impact of the investment result relative to the result of the group.
Again. Although this means that the full year investment result is a loss of DKK 411 million, bear in mind that over time, our business will gain from higher interest rate level in general. Now finally, please turn to slide 15 for the outlook of 2023. Our guidance includes a technical result, excluding run-offs of DKK 1.2 billion-DKK 1.4 billion, including expected synergy gains of a total of DKK 240 million. The guidance also reflects expected lower claims for both weather-related and large claims compared to 2022, as well as the full year effect of other implemented savings, in turn, also higher costs for the group's reinsurance program. The expectation is based on continued growth in the group's cross premium income across the various customer segments, supported by the annualization of premium level and individual premium adjustments.
The cost ratio is expected to be in the range of 18-18.5%, and the combined ratio, excluding run-off result, is expected to be 88-90%. We guide for an investment result of around DKK 250 million based on the current estimation, horizon returns for the free portfolio and the zero result from the hedge portfolio. For other activities, we guide a deficit of around DKK 7 million-DKK 5 million. Consequently, the group profit, excluding special cost, is expected to be almost DKK 1.4 billion-DKK 1.6 billion before tax. In addition, we guide for special cost in the range of DKK 300 million-DKK 350 million for integration of Codan and realization of synergies. Lastly, depreciations on intangible assets is expected to affect the income statement by approximately DKK 360 million.
With this, I conclude my presentation. I hand over the word to our moderator. Thank you.
Thank you. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If for any reason you would like to withdraw your question, please press star followed by two. As a reminder, if you are using a speakerphone, please remember to pick up your handset before asking your question. Our first question comes from the line of Jakob Brink of Nordea. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Thanks a lot, good morning. I have a few questions. I'll do them one at a time. On reinsurance, in your Capital Markets Update, you mentioned that you wanted to also increase the reinsurance coverage. You write in the report this morning that reinsurance has become more expensive, and that's baked into the guidance. Could you just give us an overview of what changes of retention or retained risk have you been able to do here on the 1st of January? What changes in general also to your property and catastrophe programs, please?
Yes, thank you, Jakob. Lars here. Let me shed some light on that. reinsurance markets have been extraordinarily hard this year, and the renewal has been at in historical terms, extraordinarily difficult for us, as I think for some of our peers also. As we've mentioned also in the guidance, we do have some headwind from higher prices in general on reinsurance. Even though we actually, we saw some synergies from putting the program together, the net result is still a drag and a headwind for next year.
Some of the options we were looking into and considering earlier on for actually reducing the risk, we simply weren't able to put through in this market. There wasn't capacity to truly reduce in a general sense the risk we have as a group. I would, however, say we still have a very strong and solid reinsurance program with solid protection across both catastrophe and property risk. We also have succeeded in getting an aggregate for the group. There are positives, but in a general sense, we didn't obtain the improvements that we were hoping for in terms of reducing risk.
What does that mean in terms of your, again, going back to the Capital Markets Update. You wanted to push through price increases in the segment, and you wanted to reduce exposure, like Rasmus said in his initial remarks, and then you wanted to increase reinsurance. I guess the fact that you didn't come through with these lower retention levels, does that make you then change some of the other things or maybe take even lower risk or raise prices even more or?
Well, just a quick comment. I wouldn't say we were exploring the opportunity to de-risk by a reinsurance, but it was never a prerequisite for our plans that we did so. The price increases that we've seen will be a drag for 2023. I think, to be honest, we won't be able to get fully there this year. That's also why we have that in our guidance. We're expecting, in a general sense, to push that to the customers because this is a general market thing. It means that the price of doing insurance has just gone up, and we need to push that onto our customers.
That's the plan for the years to come.
Just one last question on that topic. In the Capital Markets Update, I think you talked about fairly significant price increase needs. Since then we have had this reinsurance issue where prices have gone up. I guess that means even larger price increases are needed. Do you feel that that is still possible?
Yes. We definitely feel that is possible. A quick comment around the renewals we've had. I would say we have in a general sense been able to push through large price increases where we felt they were needed, being especially in our corporates and in our industrial segment, we've seen double-digit price increases. In general, we've seen very low in a general sense, at least low, what's say, yeah, we have high retention still. Most of our customers actually renew. The customers that do not renew are in a general sense the ones we don't want to renew.
We see, we still feel we have quite hard market, especially in the segments where most of the price increases are needed.
Okay. Thank you.
I think it's worth mentioning also, I mean, the reinsurance part, it's very much about bringing down volatility. I mean, you don't normally get a profitability advantage by doing reinsurance.
Uh-huh.
That was a part of the toolbox we mentioned where we could dampen volatility. That has been kind of challenged a bit.
Yeah. No, I, I get that. It's just still seeing 36% large claims ratio in Codan Commercial than, you know, in the quarter. Okay. Yeah. On premium growth guidance, you don't have one this year as far as I can tell, but if I try to calculate backwards from your, the midpoint of your technical profit guidance and the midpoint of your combined ratio, target range, I get to DKK 11.8 billion premiums, which is a growth of 3.5% versus pro forma 2022. I don't think that sounds like a lot when you're pushing through, what did you say? Double digit price increases with high retention and significant price increases in private above inflation.
I guess you still have an ambition to sort of relaunch the Privatsikring or at least keep growth high there and together with Sydbank as well. Why only 3.5% growth?
Yeah, I think that's a fair question, Jakob. The price increases I'm talking about are in a general sense related to a very low proportion of our overall premiums. That would be within our corporate and industrial segment. Those are not the price increases we're seeing in general, that's just the one comment.
I mean, I think another headwind, so to say, we have in terms of top line next year is that as we've talked about before, especially the energy part of the business does have some volatility coming from the fact that the premiums we are going to earn the next year are actually determined by the premiums which were written 1.5, two years ago. We will expect from that segment simply because we are not because we are writing necessarily lower in the general sense, but because we have that earn patterns, we'll see a negative effect from that segment next year. On top of that, we've also seen some single large industrials go.
It's been in types of business that we didn't want to continue, and it's because the profitability wasn't where it needed to be, and that's also in the commercial part of the business. Those are some of the things that are in top line, growth, yeah, bringing that a bit down next year.
Okay. Makes sense. A last question please from my side. On the guidance for technical profit, if I take again the pro forma 2022, so Codan plus Brand for 12 months, it was DKK 1.17 billion according to the Excel file you put up. Taking again the midpoint of the 2023 guidance, you're basically guiding for a DKK 130 million increase year-on-year, which is in line with the step up in synergies, year-on-year. Basically zero from underlying or, other underlying. To watch your guidance in 2025, you need around DKK 450 million from other underlying. Why wouldn't we see any of that other underlying improvement in 2023?
I think your math is more or less right, Jakob. We do have as a, as one factor we talked into, we do have reinsurance as a headwind. To put it in combined terms, we are looking at something like 1% increase. That is definitely one thing we do see against us. In a general sense, we also have an underlying also cost inflation in general, which we're getting a lot of that from the premium increases that also puts a somewhat drag on it. I think so.
I think what we're seeing is actually quite in line with what we expect given the overall synergy improvements we were aiming for for next year compared to this year. What we are putting in here is a belief that we'll be able to maintain what we feel is a strong and satisfactory, underlying, what do you call it, underlying claims ratio. Not improving it further. We're aiming to maintain that given the inflation we're seeing. We expect a somewhat lower, but not a lot lower, but somewhat lower, contribution from weather and large claims, next year compared to this year.
Okay. Thanks a lot.
Hi, Mads. I hear. I mean, a bit on your question here. I mean, you are talking about DKK 130 million here, and that sounds like you are comparing a technical result, including one-off gains, with a guidance excluding one-off gains. Is that correct?
I guess that is actually correct. Yes. Sorry.
You're missing the delta from the one-offs in that comparison.
Yeah, you're right. Sorry.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Asbjørn Mørk from Danske Bank. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Yes. Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe to start with some of your comments on very benign trends when it comes to small claims, especially in total, but I guess you're saying more or less the same for the non-brand business. Could you just quantify that by any means? What are we looking into as an underlying extraordinary tailwind in Q4 please?
Yeah. Well, we have had a very strong, just in a general sense, especially in terms of frequency, we've seen across both personal lines and also the, let's say, the smaller and medium-sized commercial, we've seen very sound low, lower than average, frequencies.
Maybe we can add that was some of the parts we were a little bit worrying about in Q2 and Q3, and now we see this development in Q4. I would say already now in general, things are picking up a little bit again. It's been a one quarter event until now.
Okay. It's just maybe if you can quantify the impact, because basically the reason I'm asking is if I look at the underlying development in Q4 and the technical profits and actually try to compare your guidance ex runoff with the sort of delivery in Q4 ex runoff, so we don't make the same error as we did in the previous question. If I do that, I get to something like DKK 370 as a normalized technical profit for Q4, and I annualize that, I get to DKK 1.5 billion almost. Just wondering how much was sort of an extraordinary tailwind in Q4 that I should not extrapolate because it looks a bit like your guidance is a little bit on the conservative side, I don't have the missing puzzle here.
It'd be nice to get some sort of quantified impact there.
Well, to put it roughly, I would say something in combined terms of maybe around 1%-2%, I would say tailwind in this quarter, from the effects, as we said. Remember also next year we have reinsurance coming in as a headwind.
Sure. That was actually my next question, because you look at the headwinds from the reinsurance part and the incremental synergies, that should more or less offset each other, right?
By incremental synergies, you mean the extra DKK 130 or so for next year compared to this year?
Yes.
Those two factors are more or less the same, yes.
Okay, perfect. Maybe a question on the synergies actually, because you look at the run rate for Q3 and Q4 now, Q4 DKK 57 million. You're saying that the annualized effect is DKK 202 million. Why is it that the annualized effect is not basically annualized to the DKK 57? What is it that is not going to give you a synergy for 2023? Why only DKK 240 in synergies for 2023?
We did, we did have, I mean, we are close to the DKK 200 mark, as you say, as we also were previously. We had some front loading of single effects in the total of DKK 110 we're making this year. Most of the, I mean, say you're right to assume that the effects we see in Q4, we are expecting to see next year also. I'd say we are comfortable in and in line with our overall target, which we remains unchanged for now, but we are comfortable and in good traction.
It's just if I look at the slide, basically you say that it's only DKK 202 million that is sort of an annualized effect from what you have done so far. At least if I read the slide correctly. Just wondering if I take DKK 57 and annualize that it gets to quite a lot above DKK 202 million. Are there any things that should not impact in 2023, sorry, versus 2022?
I don't think I have a specific answer for that. Let's get back to you on that, Asbjørn.
I think, Asbjørn, there may be some prioritization and stuff like that is filtering in a bit to our expectations here.
Okay. Okay. Fair enough. We can take that bilaterally. The final question from my side would be on the large losses now, obviously quite high again in Q4, discussing reinsurance and discussing some of the previous questions as well. I was just wondering whether you still think that 9% is sort of the go to number normalized for large losses looking ahead.
To put it shortly, that is still what we expect, something in the vicinity of nine, maybe a bit above nine. That is still what we're expecting. We've gone through obviously also the recent claims experience. We don't see anything structural as yet, so we're not worried in the general sense that the things we've put into play aren't the right things, and we'll get to the right place in time. It is something that we are monitoring closely.
All right. Thanks a lot.
Thank you. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, it is star followed by 1 on your telephone keypad. Our next question comes from the line of Martin Birk of SEB. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Thank you so much. Just coming back to the large claims that we see in particularly the large claims in Codan. I guess Codan Commercial is previously a technical result of DKK 4 million in 2022. Given that you haven't been able to reduce as much as your risk as you want through these new reinsurance programs, what other tools do you have in your toolbox to mitigate such a scenario in the current year?
I think, in a general sense, we need to keep what we're doing in terms of being very selective in the risks we write and the risks we renew, and also being willing to exit unprofitable subsegments. There are certain segments we've had a view on, also within the energy segment. We've already talked around limiting offshore construction, On top of that, given what we saw in Q4, we are now also aiming to further reduce the exposures towards the U.S. specifically, because we've seen an elevated and unexpected also higher claims experience there. We feel that that's not, in a general sense, the right place to focus our risk appetite at this point in time.
Other than that, we just need to be willing to walk away from business and be willing to put through the price to also. The price increases, which will in time, or not necessarily reduce large losses, but will further improve the underlying, which we also need to do.
When will we start to see these initiatives coming through your P&L?
We should expect in a general sense that we would see continuous improvements, but it is hard to, also given the volatility here, it's hard to predict exactly what we'll see. We are expecting it to come through in the, let's say, in the quarters to come on average, we should see a better claims experience than we have.
Okay. you see, basically you see well, there is no risk of you guys producing a DKK 4 million technical results for 2023 that would be significantly higher.
It's very hard to say that there's no risks in this business, but I mean, that is certainly not what we're expecting.
Okay. Maybe perhaps just coming back to the reinsurance topic, because I guess Jakob, he also asked a couple of interesting questions around reinsurance that you did not answer, especially on net retention levels. How have they where are they now? Where are they coming from? There was the, of course, Alm. Brand, the classic business, but then there's also a significantly higher, what was, I assume, a significantly higher net retention level for Codan Forsikring.
Well, as I said, in general, we have been able to maintain what was a strong reinsurance program, which did mitigate also if we have severe events. We are not in any way at risk with the capital we have in this business. We weren't able to reduce the own risk for the group as such, but and the programs are different now than they were because they are all the places we were able to do so, we put them together as group programs. Those group programs more or less add up to the same risk as we had given the Codan program and Alm. Brand program separately in this last year.
We weren't able to get through the extra improvement so to say, simply because there was no capacity for any activity in that, in that sense, given the market situation this time.
Okay. sort of in DKK, how does the net retention level, how does that change?
I mean, I don't think it's the right time to go through every single line we have, but we are more or less the same retention levels if you look at our catastrophe program, but now it's a group program, not two single programs. We are also with our property per risk, we still feel that we have, we were hoping maybe to bring down the Codan exposures, but that has not been possible. We still feel that they are, I mean manageable and as they also were the same as this year.
As a positive, we have been able to obtain some extra protection for the group with the aggregate we only had on the Alm. Brand side historically. If you add the things up, we are more or less in the same place as we were.
I guess maybe we can continue to discuss this tomorrow, but perhaps just a final one on the insurance, your energy business. I guess if I remember correctly back from your Capital Markets Day, a vital part of the 84% consistent combined ratio was more reinsurance. How does these reinsurance prices change that 84% assumption?
Yeah, Martin, that was not a vital part of, as I also mentioned earlier on this call, we never had a prerequisite for our plans to do extra reinsurance, not in the energy business as such either. The energy business is unchanged in terms of retention levels and overall coverages compared to this year. As I mentioned a couple of times already, we weren't able to do anything extra. We're in the same place, but it was never a prerequisite for us to do that, to obtain the targets we put forward.
Okay. Okay. Just on, well, sort of staying with the 2025 targets and looking at your expense ratio, a tad higher than expected, how does that boil down to the, well, at or below 16% that you guys are targeting in 2025?
I think we, as I'm sure you're all aware, we did have a, if you look at the pro forma full year combined expense ratio, we had something like 21 and a half% for the group, I think it's 21.6%. We're bringing that down now to the 18%-18 and a half%. Given what we have communicated and the extra synergies you would expect coming next year, I think, and adding a little bit on top of that from what we also did in the autumn. What we reduced some positions, but also keep in mind we had a hiring freeze. Some of that is already in the numbers for this year.
If you add that up, I think, that sums nicely to the improvement we should expect. We are as such on track, towards, achieving 16% in 2025.
Okay. then maybe just.
Martin, if I could elaborate just a bit. I mean, on going down from 19.6% pro forma in 2022 on the cost, looking a bit at the moving parts, it's very clear that we will have, I mean, synergies that could be on the cost component around DKK 80 million, but we would like to see inflation to counter that. That won't get that much nominal effect. We have some other initiatives that will help us. When we are moving down to 18%-18.5%, we are actually putting a bit of pressure on ourselves to do more than just harvesting the synergies.
I think we are actually moving the needle with our plans for 2023.
Okay. Just a final clarification on your parent company costs guiding those up to negative DKK 75 million annually. What's the driver behind this change?
Yeah, I can answer that. It's Rasmus. We added up a bit. We are one more in executive management now. That is basically the easy explanation on that. On the other hand, there are many components in this result as well. There's a little bit of income from our incasso business and all that. It's a mix of many things, also rent, and so forth. That is at least the most obvious explanation.
Okay. If I just may, just one final question. Sorry about that. We hear other companies talking about, well, we see one of your peers walking away from using VA. What are your thoughts on this?
I think this is definitely something that we are considering in a general sense. It's no secret that the protection you would want to have from obtaining VA in 2022 was not there. It actually added volatility to our match portfolio. That is fair, and I think that's something we're looking into. If you look at this year, actually, we had the VA come down in general sense full year, while actually credit spreads were a bit up. The VA dynamics weren't working in a predictable way.
And that has something to do with the very fast and also quite extreme in a historical context, rate hikes, especially also on Danish mortgage bonds and the dynamics around those in VA component. But I would say though that we also should look at this in a bit longer perspective than only 2022. Our match portfolio is, if you look on a 5-year basis, is still positive even with the losses we had this year. I think we haven't determined anything, but obviously we are looking into that going forward because 2022 was not a good year for the VA match concept.
If you just remotely think about walking away from it, isn't right now the perfect timing to abandon it?
Yeah, you could argue that it would be. It's easy when the VA is low, and it is quite low, at this point in time. We've noticed that, but again, I think we should be a bit mindful of not, yeah. You need to look at this in a longer run perspective than just what we've seen, in 2022.
As if I understand correctly, this is not a decision that you guys are willing to make over the next one to two quarters?
I didn't say that necessarily. We're looking into it, but we have as of yet not made a decision on that.
Okay. Very cool. Thanks.
Thank you. As there are no additional questions waiting at this time, I will hand the call back over to our management team for closing remarks.
Yeah. Thank you for listening in. Have a good day.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Have a great day ahead. You may now disconnect your line.