Hi, everyone. I hope you're well, and thank you for joining us on Jyske Bank's Q3 2023 post-results conference call. This is Simon Hagbart from IR speaking, and with me, I have our CFO, Birger Krøgh Nielsen. If you have trouble hearing us during this call, please feel free to reach out to us after the call, and we'll get back to you. Please make sure that your devices are muted as Birger Krøgh Nielsen will walk you through our prepared remarks. Afterwards, we'll open up for Q&A.
Thank you very much, Simon, and welcome everyone to this conference call post Q3. If I look at the scenario we are facing, volumes are in a more stable environment now than and developing now than we've seen for the quarters in 2022. The demand is simply lower, especially on the corporate side, and the impact from high interest rate will gradually influence our business, going into 2024. But so far, we have seen a very resilient performance among our customers in general. Looking at the slide and the six points we want to highlight from the start here, the first one is an upgrade on the outlook for 2023. Now, we estimate earnings per share in the upper half of DKK 70-DKK 80 for 2023.
As you can see, up to 44% higher than the all-time high level in 2022. If I take the very long picture from the year 2000, we have a 10% book value per share creation on average. Then the second point to mention here is that we want to resume capital distribution. The board has endeavored to distribute capital here in the second half of this year, and we have found it suitable to propose a dividend to an extraordinary general meeting here on the first of December of DKK 500 million. And going forward, we expect to do a mix of dividends and buybacks. Thirdly, Anders Dam retires, actually, as of today, after 26 years as CEO in Jyske Bank, and the new CEO is already appointed.
It will be Lars Stensgaard Mørch, who will take office on the first of November. Fourthly, in Q3 of 2023, we have actually doubled our income compared to Q3 of 2022, heavily impacted, of course, by the higher NII, by the acquisition of Handelsbanken as well. Fifthly, our cost inflation is manageable. We have seen also in Q3, a 3% underlying cost inflation, and our cost income ratio is now well below 50% at 43%, down from 55%, a year ago. The credit quality is still very solid, as I started mentioning. Cost of risk, 0 basis points here in Q3. Cost model adjustments, very solid and almost unchanged from Q2 as well.
If I look at the Stage one exposures, their share has risen over the last year, and the Stage three exposures share has fallen over the last year. So moving on from that, I want just to give you a status on the two acquisitions of PFA Bank first, and then secondly, Handelsbanken. We acquired PFA Bank here on the first of October this year. As you may well know, it's a no lending bank. We took over 10,000 clients, 40 FTEs, and the big chunk of business is asset under management, DKK 16.1 billion, split in two pieces, DKK 13.5 billion through PFA Bank, and a very small portion from third parties, and the rest, DKK 2.6 billion from Doi, the Doi platform owned by PFA. Looking at the...
Well, the strategic rationale is straightforward. We want to support our wealth management strategy and grow our business with private banking customers. The financials, the total consideration here is DKK 247 million. The capital consumption is very low due to no loans and advances, naturally, and the consideration of DKK 247 million is split between the net assets and then a goodwill of around DKK 120 million. We closed the deal by the first of October, and we expect to migrate IT in the first half of next year. And the return, still, we expect to pay around DKK 50 million in integration cost next year, and the full financial impact will be seen from 2025 onwards. Moving to Handelsbanken.
We are in the final process of preparing for IT migration on the eleventh of November this year, which will finalize the full integration of Handelsbanken, both customers, employees and IT setup. Looking at financials, we have lifted our normalized pre-tax profit from 2025 onwards from DKK 1 billion formerly to now DKK 1.3 billion, primarily due to the higher margin on our deposit base also, of course, related to Handelsbanken's customers. Looking at the integration cost and cost synergies, we still expect to reach around DKK 300 million of integration cost this year. We have reached DKK 156 million so far in the first three quarters. It is still a back-end loaded integration cost simply because of the activity that we are facing here in the fourth quarter.
Up until now, two-thirds of the integration costs are related to the IT migration, and one-eighth is around or related to branch mergers, and the rest are related to employees, retention costs, et cetera. Moving on to the synergies, we still expect to deliver around DKK 0.2 billion this year. We are at DKK 144 million so far after Q3, and it's also a back-end loaded story. After the IT migration in November, we can reap further synergies. Two-thirds of the synergies reaped so far are related to employees, and the last third part is group administrative costs. The branch network is merged to the extent we have announced formally, so around one-fourth of all the branches that we wanted to close and merge have taken place by end Q3.
Moving on and looking into the results for this quarter, it is by far the strongest quarter in the history of Jyske Bank when it comes to underlying business. Only surpassed by second quarter of 2014, where we booked an income from bad will related to the acquisition of BRFkredit at that point in time. If you look at the upper half, upper left, sorry, upper right, with the volume numbers and graphs, you can see that it's a very flattish story. Also, here in Q3, there is a slight reduction in bank loans related partly to the postponement of tax and VAT payments, but also, as I said in the introduction, to lower corporate demand.
If I look at the mortgage loans, you see a nominal flat development as well there. And the CRE market, which has been up for debate in the press recently, is a subdued market with low demand at present. In the left corner at the bottom, you can see the swing from Q3 last year to this year. And obviously, of course, net interest income and also value adjustment are the main triggers. We have seen a strong income from value adjustment in the third quarter, especially due to the performance of option-adjusted spreads for callable bonds. You can see a slight decrease in the return on operational lease.
It is actually the income that is dropping a bit from an exceptionally high level on operational leases and driven by the very high prices for secondhand cars. The core expenses are, of course, on the rise due to the inclusion of Handelsbanken. Loan loss is still a slight reversal this quarter, but a much higher reversal in the third quarter of last year. And then we have had a strong performance in the investment portfolio this quarter, related also to the performance of callable bonds. Yes. Next one, we are aiming for the upper end, as I said here, of the target range in record-setting 2023.
As you can see in the graph here, the first three quarters surpassed the whole of 2022, which was a record year, and now we aim for the upper half of DKK 70-DKK 80 in total for 2023. We have been able to rebuild capital at a rather quick pace since we merged with Handelsbanken in Q4 of last year, where we stood at 15.2% on the CET1 ratio. Still in the target range of 15%-17%, but in the low end, naturally, after the inclusion of Handelsbanken. Then we have rebuilt it now by 1.5 percentage points to 16.7, and that is inclusive of the proposed DKK 500 million of dividends. The higher capital is also...
We need to see it. Please go back, Simon. The higher capital, we also need to see in relation to higher capital requirements. We have seen a proposal from the Systemic Risk Council of a new capital buffer, which will take place expectedly from the first of July next year. The inclusion of that capital buffer, of course, puts further pressure on the capital requirements in Jyske Bank. If I look at the CRE portfolio in Jyske Bank, we have a split of, in total, a bit more than DKK 100 billion between private rental properties, office and retail properties, and mortgage-like bank lending, all consuming around between 20% and 25% of our total lending.
Those more than DKK 100 billion has a relatively low risk weight, which we can't release, but nevertheless, it has a significant impact, of course, on our capital requirements. And that we need to take into consideration moving forward. We have a clear expectation that this capital buffer is of a temporary nature because it needs to be seen in relationship to the new Basel IV requirements from January 1, 2025, where some of the input floor elements actually target the same as this CRE buffer requires .
Yes, let's move on . Sorry, there was a question. Maybe we should take that now. Is that preferable? Then let's do that. Yep, the first question in line comes from Sofie Peterzens from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Yeah, hi. No, we can ask the questions afterwards. So maybe it's better that you go through the presentation.
Okay.
Sorry, I was just-
That's fine. That's fine, Sofie. We can just run through the last couple of slides, and then we can pick up with the questions afterwards. Is that okay?
Great.
Yep.
Then let's just look into the capital distribution. As we talked about the dividend proposal of DKK 500 million, and we are resuming the capital distribution now after we finalized the last buyback program in May of last year, and then we announced the acquisition of Handelsbanken and spent time rebuilding capital, as I just said. And it's been the board's aim to endeavor to distribute capital here in the second half of 2023, and that's the reason why they have found it appropriate now to announce this dividend that can be executed within the year. And it's also clear that the board has made a decision to combine both dividends as well as buybacks going forward. The reason being twofold.
One is that the earnings capacity of the group has grown significantly over the last quarters, and secondly, that the liquidity in the Jyske Bank stock is, or share, is not that high, that it may be able to consume all the needed distribution of capital going forward. That's the reason why we want to make a combination of those two. Still a decision made by the board on a quarterly basis, and they, from quarter to quarter, will find the appropriate way of managing buybacks versus dividends. It's obvious that our buyback policy, as you have seen in the latter last year, from 2018 to 2021, is still a very valid and preferable way to proceed, but we need to take into consideration the liquidity in the Jyske Bank share. Yes, moving on then.
If we look at our liabilities and look at the, especially the deposit rates over the last few years, you can see that the period with negative interest rates, we had also negative deposit margins in our book, with a significant negative margin, actually, in the years of negative interest rates. Then from 2022 onwards, we started rebuilding this margin, and now we have a margin which is reestablished at a decent level. You can also see that Jyske Bank's average deposit rate is slightly higher than banks in general, which is more or less or primarily related to our, our large portfolio of corporate deposits, we have more tighter spreads. Looking at the right-hand side, you can see that from the 27th of November this year, we will lift both lending and deposit rates by 25-50 basis points.
From that point onward, we will pay 0.25% on transaction accounts, and private individuals can set up savings accounts and saving deposits accounts, gaining 1.5-2 percentage points. For corporates with term deposits from 6-15 months, they can gain between 2.5%-3% on a yearly basis. If I just... Maybe I should also comment on the composition of those private and corporate deposits. If we take the private book, we still see some movements towards these savings accounts, and a little bit more than one-third of our private deposits are positioned within savings accounts by Q3.
When it comes to corporates, they made a very quick movement toward term deposits, and now we see a more stable development there, and a little bit less than one-third of that book is actually within time deposits. If we then look at the asset side, our bond portfolio, we have gradually lifted the hedge of the interest rate risk in the banking book with a higher interest rate in general in the market. So partly, we have offset some of the negative interest rate risk in the banking book, while taking on board positive interest rate risk in the bond portfolio.
And as you can see, in a time of negative interest rates, we had a return on the bond portfolio, which was significantly higher than the certificates of deposit rate with the central bank. And as you can see, as of now, this only is lifted, does not lifted so yet. So we expect to see a further improvement in the bond portfolio performance over the coming quarters. And then it's, of course, fair to say that when interest rates starts to dip again, we will gain some return from the bond portfolio, but gradually, we will bring the return back to a level where we are maybe close to the present level.
But in the interim period, over the coming one to three years, we don't know, there could be, and there will be a better performance in the bond portfolio relative to the risk-free rate at the central bank... Finally, my comments on the outlook. If I focus on what we have changed this quarter versus formerly, there are two things to mention. One is that our loan impairment charges will still be an expense, but a minor one. As you can see, we only book DKK 96 million in Q1 to Q3, whereas last year at the same point in time, we had actually reversed DKK 447 million.
And secondly, we have lifted our expectation for the earnings per share to the upper half of DKK 70-DKK 80 , similar to an estimate of now the upper half of DKK 4.7 billion-DKK 5.3 billion net profit. I think that concludes my introduction, and please, ask questions.
Thank you, Birger. The first question in line is Sofie Peterzens from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi, this is Sofie from J.P. Morgan. Thanks a lot for taking my question. So, I would have three questions. So the first question would just be on kind of dividends paying now instead of share buybacks. I recognize the liquidity element, but is there any other considerations that it takes longer to kind of get the share buyback approval or anything else? So if you could just also remind us of the share buyback approval in Denmark and what negotiations you have had or discussions you have had with the Danish FSA. And then my second question would be on the proposed CRE buffer requirement for Jyske. Back of the envelope, the impact seems quite high, but maybe if you could just talk about the impact that you potentially expect from this.
Then, my final question would be on rate sensitivity. One of your Danish peers last week guided that in year three, there is actually quite a lot of NII tailwinds from higher interest rates and higher than kind of initially guided for. Do you have something similar that the recent rate hikes that we have had for the past 18 months also will boost your NII in, in kind of 2025? So maybe-
Mm.
If you could give some comments around this. Thank you.
Yes, thank you very much, Sofie. Point number one, dividend versus share buyback. The process time for doing share buybacks is, is, is much longer than doing a dividend, and the board has focused on delivering a distribution of capital to the market this year, and that's the reason why we proposed this dividend. That's point number one, but it's also, as I alluded to, the start of a combination of dividend and buybacks going forward, simply because of the liquidity in the Jyske Bank share. Secondly, the CRE buffer, as I said, yes, we have a CRE portfolio of more than DKK 100 billion assets. It's a low-risk portfolio, but yes, there is a significant impact on the capital requirement. There's been some calculations in the market, and I think they are not far off.
We can't specifically comment on the level here. Regarding rate sensitivity, we have formally said, and we still state, that there is a DKK 500 million sensitivity to a 100 basis points parallel shift. The bond portfolio, as I alluded to, will in the interim period until rates well find a new level of long-term sustainable level, will in the interim period, of course, gain further returns. That's what I showed with the graph. But that is of a temporary nature, actually, because interest rates will eventually dip again.
That being said, we have raised our hedge against the negative interest rate in the banking book over the last month and quarters, and of course, that mirrors and narrows the negative sensitivity when interest rates starts to dip again.
Thank you. That's very clear.
Thank you, Sofie. Next question in line come from Martin Birk from SEB. Please go ahead.
Thank you so much. Perhaps, continuing on NII, Danish postponement of VAT and corporate taxes, what kind of impact do you see on your lending and deposits in the quarter?
Yeah, we can't comment specifically because it's difficult to estimate the actual impact in an all else equal scenario, but it's fair to say that it has had an impact. You can also see that in some sector statistics. I think the overall postponement was estimated at DKK 57 billion or something like that. Our market share is very roughly 10%. If we had 10% of that, that would be DKK 5.7 billion. I'm not sure that's quite what we've seen in impact, but it is probably a large portion of the development we saw in bank loans in the quarter.
Okay, and given also the comments that you just mentioned on NII, what would be sort of a fair outlook for NII next year?
Yeah, that's a good question. So overall, I think in terms of our balance sheet, most items have adjusted pretty quickly to the higher level of interest rates. But on the other side and the liability side, those two parts that you alluded to, i.e., bonds, asset side, and deposits on the liability side, that should, yeah, they still have some adjustment to realize, I think. But those are opposites, so I'm not sure we'll, I can't comment sort of a specific level, but in general, I think consensus is for a flattish to maybe slightly up or slightly down, depending on who, what estimates you're looking at.
But we have some positive tailwinds, and I also think we have some negatives. But in terms of the negatives, I think we are relatively well-positioned, given our relatively large share of corporate deposits, which have, in general, migrated quicker to higher-yielding deposits. And also have a higher share of the deposits with the reference rates. So that's also why you see the quite high pass-through from our side in terms of deposit rates. So I think we've taken a bit of the beating already, but there's still more to come, especially given the changes that's coming out in Q4.
Okay. All right. If we then jump to capital distributions, I mean, the quarterly run rate is a CET1 generation of north of 50 basis points. You choose to pay out 23 basis points this quarter. I'm a bit puzzled to see the number coming out this low. I understand that you want to be in the 16-17 percentage points, given the commercial real estate buffer, but still, any color on why this is only DKK 500 million? And also, along those lines, I guess we should expect something more at Q4. Could you please guide us on those expectations, please?
Yes, you're quite right. The 500 is maybe subnormal levels, where we usually bought back 1 billion, approximately. So you're quite right, but I... That was what the board found as suitable here in the third quarter. And they found fully responsible financially also. It also due to the fact that the CRE buffer has been proposed, and as I said, we need to take that into consideration. Going into... And sorry, also, the 16-17 interval, well, we stayed 15-17, but it's clear that the CRE introduction has may lead us to be a little bit more cautious on the development of the CET1 ratio in the coming few quarters. Going into Q4, well, it much depends upon the ability to retain earnings naturally.
But apart from that, yes, we want to be responsible for what we are stating now, that the combination of buybacks and dividends will be the way forward. I can't specifically state any numbers for Q4, but it's clear that we have ambitions to deliver on 2024, on the back of a very strong 2023, and also expectedly, a very decent 2024 development.
So Bir, if you were in my seat, what would you pencil in? Would you pencil in a 100% payout ratio for the years to come?
Well, I can't, I can't guide you that specifically, but, but if, if you go back and look at the charts we showed, I showed, that we have seen in the years where we did both buybacks and, and dividends, we were in around 70%. And then we had some years where the COVID influenced us, but we've also delivered, I believe, decent payout ratios. So our ambition is certainly to deliver a very decent payout ratio. But as I said, there is the inclusion of the CRE buffer needs to be assessed in relation with what's happening on the Basel side from the first of January 2025. I also believe that the authorities need to take that into consideration, when they, when they make their next move on, on this, on this buffer.
But I guess my point is, when I left your Copenhagen Roadshow at Q2, it sounded like a share buyback and a share buyback of a significant magnitude was just around the corner.
Then we waited, and now, all of a sudden, you come out with a DKK 500 million dividend.
Mm-hmm.
In my numbers, there's nothing that hinders you from paying out, from coming out with a 100% payout ratio from next year and onwards. Is there something that I'm missing, or something that you are not telling us here?
Well, we have not put out any specific payout ratio. We have said that the board will look at this on a quarterly basis, and of course, if there is ample capital, we will pay it out, preferably via by buybacks and also via dividends due to the liquidity in the share. I think it's difficult for me to get much closer to an answer to that question.
Okay. All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Martin. Next, next question in line comes from Asbjørn Mørk, from Danske Bank. Please go ahead.
Yes, thanks for taking my questions. If I may just start where Martin left. So basically on the fact that you switched to a dividend, and looking at sort of your maximum buyback capacity in terms of liquidity in your stock, I guess we're talking something like DKK 2.5 billion. So should we expect, going forward, DKK 2.5 billion of buybacks, and then dividend is sort of the difference between whatever that number is in payout, and then a long-term target on 80%-90% or whatever? Or how do you see the mix between dividends and buybacks going forward?
... Mm-hmm. Well, we expect to deliver at the outset a yearly dividend, and then, of course, top up with the preferable buybacks, as I said. And if during the course of the year, liquidity narrows to an extent not being sufficient for us, we can of course propose interim dividends. But our preferred solution is to do a yearly dividend, then top it up with buybacks, to the extent possible.
Okay, fair enough. If I may, then on capital gains and the OAS spread benefit that you have this quarter, but maybe more looking ahead, I guess you took quite a lot of losses last year on your low-yielding portfolio. So what kind of pull-to-par effects do you see coming through in your book, both Q4 but also in next couple of years? What would be sort of your natural tailwind on the capital gains line if rates stay unchanged?
That's a very good question. I think it's difficult for us to sort of pinpoint the exact tailwind. But it is fair to say that given that our bond portfolio is yielding in terms of net interest income below what rates are currently at, we should see a tailwind. I mean, over the last year, we've had value adjustments to the tune of DKK 1.4 billion. That's close to, not all, but close to, three times our normal year. So, it could be substantial, but, yeah, value adjustments is very dependent on the development in financial markets. So I'll leave it at, usually, we point to the historical average of DKK 0.5 billion. Since then, we have grown in size.
We've acquired Handelsbanken in Denmark, and, and we have probably also some pull-to-par tailwinds. So I would expect that above normal, i.e., above DKK 0.5 billion, per annum. Can't be any more specific, sorry.
Okay, fair enough. Then, if I may on your leasing portfolio, leasing income, it comes down a bit here in Q3. Second-hand car prices have come down quite a lot as well. What kind of inventory price level do you have versus the current market on the leasing cars?
We have normally had a very conservative attitude towards our value assessment of leased cars. We see the market is in a different position now, where some of the competitors actually are more aggressive in their pricing. We find that untimely and not correct at present, so we have been had a cautious and very conservative attitude. And that's also the reason why you have seen these significant income levels over the last several quarters, because we've been positively surprised by the actual pricing in the market. What we have seen in the latter quarters, and especially also here in Q3, is not a normalized level, but at a significantly lower level than what we have seen formerly. And we expect over the coming few quarters to bring these values down to normalized levels.
And that will entail, of course, a significant drop in returns in our book, because we've had an extraordinary high return. But that being said, when I do a long-term comparison, on the return on selling, selling, second-hand cars, leased cars, we still have a decent profit of a significant double-digit DKK millions on a yearly basis, and that we expect to come into place here by 2024 onwards.
Okay, final question from my side on your guidance for this year. Considering that you made DKK 4.1 billion year to date, why keep the lower end of the range? And maybe you could help me a bit on the Q4, because if I do look at the NII trajectory, if I look at your fee income benefiting from the acquisition, I take a normalized trading and include one-off cost or integration cost in Q4, and you're guiding for an expense on the loan loss provision line, but a lower expense. Then I get to something that at least is a bit higher than your range.
So maybe you can help me, what is it you're seeing for Q4 that would be so bad that you're not giving us a guidance upgrade?
Well, I think as of now, we are comfortable with setting the upper limit at 80 DKK or DKK 5.3 billion net profit. The uncertainty in the market is higher now than what we have seen formerly. We don't expect to see impairments significantly up, but we might expect to see a low turnover, low activity in Q4, which could hit some of the lines, of course, in our business. We also already see it now in the mortgage loan applications and bank application fees that are significantly lower than they were a year ago. And if that trend continues into Q4, of course, there will be some underlying business that we will not be able to obtain in the fourth quarter.
Going into 2024, uncertainty is also there. As I said, the impact from high interest rate will gradually hit both private individuals as well as corporate during the course of 2024. But that being said, we are still not worried about the quality because it's a very decent book we have, and very strong book we have. It's been very resilient over the last several quarters, and we expect that to continue. But the uncertainty is greater, and the turnover and the demand in the market is expectedly lower in the quarter that we are facing now.
... All right. Thanks a lot. Very helpful. Thanks.
Thank you, Asbjørn. Next question in line comes from Jakob Brink from Nordea. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Going back to the capital question. So you have a 15%-17% CET1 target. The minimum requirement, as far as I can calculate here in Q2 for CET1 is 12.8, so roughly 2-4 percentage points above the minimum. Now, if the minimum goes up, let's say, 1% due to the systemic risk buffer, you have only 2% left to the midpoint. Is that enough, or how do you see this?
When we look at the level of requirements, yes, they are lifted by the CRE proposal, or expectedly. When we do the stress test, and that's what is the trigger point, looking at our capital, the ample capital and the capital to distribute. The stress test effects will be varying, given what requirements the FSA puts up and how the performance has been. And, I think it's clear to everyone that there's been some discussions with the SIFI banks in Denmark about the level of NII income over the last quarters and what they accept as a long-term stress level.
That could put pressure, of course, on the capital buffer long term, and that's what actually is the important point when facing this. That being said, we are very reassured about the level we have, Q3. We have done the stress test properly, and we can demonstrate a very solid capital base. And looking into a Q4 and 2024, where we still will build up retained earnings to a significant degree, we are very reassured about the capital level and also the ability to pay out a very decent proportion of our retained earnings.
Okay. So just so I understand, basically you're saying that the 1% higher requirement will be offset by lower stress scenario, or is it fair to assume that you will have to aim maybe for the higher end of your range or maybe even above?
Well, I think 15%-17% is the fair interval now. The CRE proposal leaves us probably not closer to 15%, but closer to 16%, going forward, and that's an important point to mention. When we do the stress, the requirement will be deferred because the countercyclical buffer will be taken off, but the CRE proposed buffer will stay intact in a stress scenario. So there are moving parts when we do the stress, and as I said, we also vary in severity due to what the FSA puts up as requirement in a stress scenario. So there are lots of moving parts here.
The point being that, as I started saying, that our CET1 level is very well and very strong at present, but the development of the CET1 level in the coming quarters will not be dramatically down, but maybe more stable than what we expected pre the announcement of the CRE buffer.
Okay, fair enough. Continuing back to the question that was raised previously on the mix between buybacks and dividends. You had DKK 17 billion, roughly, turnover in your shares the last year on average, or given daily average volumes. So I think DKK 2.5 billion was mentioned as a potential buyback, which would be around 15%. Is that how you're looking at it, or could you even go a bit higher?
When we do these, we have, we have an arm's length principle in, in buybacks, and so we, we find a third party that wants-- that can manage and execute this program for us. And they have some, targets where they find themselves reassured about, the quality of the buyback and also the profitability of the buyback. And of course, the ultimate limit is 25%, but most third parties actually propose a significant lower level, and that's what we have seen. If you go back in history and look at what we have, how we have performed with the buybacks, that we are talking, well, sub 15, 10%-15%, probably also periods with only 10% of the average daily turnover.
Okay. But that would be then only, let's say, DKK 1.72 billion, so it would be a rather significant annual dividend you would have to propose.
As I said, there were periods where we were down to the 10%, but it's manageable up to 15%. Sure is.
Okay. Fair enough.
Yeah, and, and maybe just one quick comment, Jacob. Birger alluded to the fact that, it's, it's likely that you will see more than one dividend per year, i.e., not, not one, large annual dividend, as the board will continue to assess the potential for capital distribution on a quarterly basis.
Okay. Fair enough. And then just last thing on capital, but in order to utilize the full liquidity in the Jyske share, I guess you have to start basically on first of January. So, how are you? Should we expect you to basically announce the buyback late December, or how would that work?
... we can't comment on the specifics with the internal dialogues with the FSA, so we can't put anything forward there at present.
Okay. Okay, and then moving on to costs, could you just help me understand exactly now with the PFA? I guess it will be a relatively small cost next year, but still something. The Handelsbanken and the integration costs, so disregarding the integration cost of this year, but just the underlying cost and synergies, how would you think about the cost bridge going into next year?
Yeah. So, I'll try to go through the sort of the moving parts, and I hope you will stay with me. But basically, for 2024, we should see a lower level of integrating cost overall. We have guided for DKK 0.3 billion this year and DKK 0.1 billion next year in terms of integration costs related to Handelsbanken Denmark, and then of course, we have the DKK 50 million related to the acquisition of PFA Bank. However, we could see a lower level in 2023 of integrating costs, as some of the one-off could be postponed to 2024, thereby reducing the tailwind from integrating costs to maybe in the region of DKK 0.1 billion. But there is some tailwind in terms of integration costs on a year-over-year basis.
Another tailwind would be synergies, which should increase based on our guidance by DKK 0.2 billion year-over-year. The negative part being that we see the full year impact from PFA Bank, of course, 40 employees and other costs related to PFA Bank. That should also be a headwind, sort of, partly reducing the impact from synergies. So on a net basis, we could be looking at a tailwind of DKK 0.2 billion or so, which should then combat part of the high inflation that we are seeing organically, given salary inflation of 4.5%. So that's sort of the moving parts.
I think, summing that up, consensus seems to be for a stable-ish cost base. And I think looking at the integration cost, synergies, PFA Bank, and ordinary inflation, that's probably not way off.
Okay, and that-
To say, Simon, that we have a clear ambition to bring down the cost base. These synergies that we have reaped so far and will reap from Handelsbanken after the merger, IT merger, and the synergies from the PFA Bank will be reaped during the course of 2024. So yes, we see a clear expectation that we will be able to bring down the cost base, but as Simon alluded to, there are several moving parts and the one-off, of course, is a tricky one because they could timely split between several years.
Mm-hmm. Okay, last question from my side. On migration of of the deposits to savings accounts, it seems like there's been very little, as I think you also said, Simon, due to your corporate exposure on deposits, DKK 1 billion or so in Q3 versus DKK 10 billion H1. Is that sort of what we should expect, basically, that the transition have happened in Jyske Bank already?
Well, yeah, in terms of the corporate exposure, I think for some quarters by now, at least the last couple of quarters, we have seen a very stable trend. So they reacted very swiftly, and yeah, we saw large short-term impact in terms of the corporate deposits. And then what's left, I think we'll still see some migration on the corporate side, although it will be very slow, I think, what's left there, and minor. So the, I think the majority of the impact will be from the continued moderate pace of private clients migrating to savings accounts. That seems pretty stable from what we've seen in recent quarters, and I think that's likely to continue for some time.
Mm-hmm.
But as I said, as I said, our market share in that segment is relatively small compared to our normal market share. So we should, we should have seen sort of the majority of the impact in terms of the deposit rates that we should be passing on to clients.
Okay. That's clear. Thanks a lot.
Thank you, Jacob, and I think, Asbjørn has a follow-up question from Danske Bank. Please go ahead.
Yes, thanks. Two brief questions. One, sorry, go back to the buyback versus dividend discussion, but just to avoid having estimates all over the place, could you just maybe be a little bit more specific on... Because it seems like the dividend is sort of the primary capital distribution going forward, and buyback is gonna be the flexible part. Is that correctly understood, and we should expect sort of a growing nominal dividend, but maybe paid over a couple of interim dividends? So, just a little bit more clarity would be very helpful. Thanks.
Yeah. We haven't put out any specific percentages of retained earnings or income, but it's clear, as I said before, that we want to pay a yearly dividend, and we want to use our the flexibility on top of that in the market to buy back shares, to the extent that it's possible. There are some limitations we talked about, and if those limitations are too harsh to us, we need to then look at an interim dividend as well. Hopefully, we can manage smoothly because we, given the situation in the market, we still find the preferable solution to buy back shares.
... Okay, and then, final question from my side on the, on the risk buffer, on commercial real estate. So, basically it ties up, let's call it DKK 2 billion-ish of equity, all else equal.
And then, for Asbjørn-
Can you hear me now?
Yeah, we can hear now.
Okay.
Thanks.
Okay. I don't know. Sorry, I dropped out. I don't know how much you got of the question, but basically the point is that let's say it could cost you DKK 2 billion of equity and quite a lot more in MREL capital , and given the cost of equity and cost of capital, I guess we're looking into something like 40-50 basis points of margin expansion in this book. Is that what we should expect going forward, that this cost will be passed on to the book, to the lending book? Or how do you see this?
It depends on the market conditions, point number one. Point number two, it's temporary buffer, so we need to be careful with long-term relationships with our clients. So it's on a case-by-case basis that we decide whether this is suitable to pass on to clients, and some we will pass on to, and some we won't. So there is certainly a flexibility when it comes to the advisors' management of this buffer. But please be aware, and I believe that it goes with others you have spoken to, that this temporary capital buffer overlaps the Basel IV implementation by the 1st of January 2025. So I think the authorities need to look into this in order to clarify it to the banks and in general in public.
All right. Thanks a lot.
Thank you, Asbjørn. Are there any further... Yeah, I think Jacob Brink.
Yeah, sorry, just one detailed one, but just help me. In Q4, we talked about the Q4 numbers just before, but on fees, has anything changed with regards to securities trading and asset management fees in Q4, due to your acquisition of Handelsbanken? Should we still expect a rather significant level in Q4, or has something changed to the seasonality here?
No, I think it would be fair to assume that we have sort of the same seasonality with a quite strong Q4 in terms of securities trading and safe custody. And on top of that, of course, you should add some effect from PFA Bank acquisition.
Okay, that's clear. Thank you.
Thank you, Jacob.
Are there any further questions? Seems as if that's not the case. Thank you for participating in today's conference call. A recording will be made available on our IR website in the coming days, and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions. We appreciate your interest in Jyske Bank and wish you a nice day. Thank you. You may now disconnect.