Hello and welcome to Allianz Group's first quarter 2022 results conference call. The conference call is scheduled to last 60 minutes, and it will be held in English only. As usual, our CFO, Giulio Terzariol, will then guide you through the quarterly results and answer your questions. I hereby hand over to Giulio, please.
Hi, good morning to everybody, and I'm pleased to briefly present the results for the first quarter 2022, and then I'm going to take your questions as usual. If we move now to page three, overall the underlying performance of the group in the first quarter was very solid. You can see that revenue grew by almost 4%, and what is especially positive is the development in Property- Casualty, with an internal growth of 6.6%, and we see also good momentum in the revenue in the Asset Management segment. The operating profit is slightly below the level of last year, but this is clearly driven by the amount of natural catastrophe that we had in Property- Casualty. This is indeed the highest amount of natural catastrophe in the first quarter over a decade, and we didn't check the numbers before, so I think it's even more than over a decade.
And despite this development, our profit in property-casualty is not very far from the outlook of EUR 6 billion divided by 4. On the life side, we see very stable results, and considering the volatility of the market, I think that's a very good sign of the resilience of our in-force book. And then when you look at the new business margin value in new business, this is definitely going in the right direction, confirming the progress that we have been doing over the last years on this dimension. And then finally, in Asset Management, very good development of the operating profit with a double-digit growth. When you look at the inflows, yes, they are negative, but I would say under this environment we are speaking of very low amounts considering the size of the business.
Also, I like to point out that especially the AGI, the flows have been positive again despite the volatility of the capital market. So overall, I would say very strong results in our Asset Management segment. All this combined brings to an operating profit of EUR 3.2 billion, which is a very good level. And then when you look at the net income, clearly here you see the impact of the charges because of the Structured Alpha provision. The impact is after tax about EUR 1.6 billion. So if you adjust the net income for that impact, we are back to a net income of EUR 2.2 billion, which is definitely in line with the expectation. And we should always consider that there was not an easy quarter given the volatility of the equity market. So again, the adjusted net income of 2.2 is a sign of the resilience of our business.
Now going into the solvency picture, page five, you can see that our solvency ratio decreased by 10 percentage points. Here we need to keep in mind that if you adjust the basis of 209 for the buyback, the starting point was 206, and then we have about 4-5 percentage points of impact because of the Structured Alpha situation. So in reality, the starting points adjusted for these two effects is 202. So overall, we lost 3 percentage points of solvency ratio during the quarter. And the reason for it, page seven, is basically the market conditions overall have been adverse. Yes, we had an increase in interest rates that was positive, but then on the other side, we had a higher level of interest rate volatility that's a negative. We had also equity market going down.
We had some increase in inflation and also a downgrade in Turkey, and also the impairment in Russia. They also took a little bit of a hit on the solvency ratio. So the market development overall has been bringing down the solvency ratio by after tax about a couple of percentage points. Overall, we are basically closing at a level of, let's say, 200% of solvency ratio, which is a very robust level. So from this point of view, we feel we are well positioned also to sustain volatility that we might see in the next quarter because we know that the capital markets are kind of volatile as we speak. Now coming to the segments, starting as always from the Property-Casualty segment, as I was saying before, the growth rate has been definitely positive with an internal growth of 6.6%.
As you see, basically a lot of our entities are posting good growth rates. There are a few exceptions, as always. The exceptions are generally driven by areas or companies where we are doing some strong cleaning in MidCorp. As you know, this is part of our strategy to get to a different level of profitability. One exception there is AGCS where you see a negative growth rate of 1.3%. This is coming actually from the fronting business, which is in reality a business where there is no real impact on the net premium basis. So if you adjust for that, the growth rate in AGCS has been basically double-digit or high single digit. So that's the right way to look at the growth rate of AGCS.
When you look at the change on renewals, you can see there is an overall dynamic which is going up compared to what we observed last year. This is also clearly needed because we need to keep in mind that inflation is going to pick up. What is important, we have been able to increase rates, and on the same time, volume is also going up. So at this point in time, we see that rate increases not necessarily have a negative impact on the growth. So we are still capable to have volume growth despite the rate increases that we are trying to put into the system. When we move now to the development of the operating profit, overall the operating profit at page 11 reduced by about EUR 140 million. This is clearly driven by the development of the loss ratio.
Here we had a significant impact coming from natural catastrophe of 5%. Usually, we would expect to have something like 2% plus, so clearly that's been a major driver for the development of the loss ratio. On the other side, partially compensated that development is the runoff of 4%. Here we need to keep in mind that half of this runoff in reality is coming from releases associated to prudence that we had for the COVID situation. So from that point of view, that's important also to know this is related to prudence that we had for COVID. Now we see that we can release some of this prudence, and there is still some room to go, but clearly we're going to watch how the situation will develop over the next 12-18 months.
With that, moving to the operating profit by line of business by a company at page 13. Overall, I would say good results in Allianz Germany. Also considering for the impact of the natural catastrophe, I would say the results of Allianz Germany are very good. Also France is in line with our expectation, good result considering that Nat Cat has been a little bit more elevated. Switzerland, Eastern Europe, Italy, all with good results. In the U.K. and in Australia, we see definitely the impact of the Nat Cats, which was particularly pronounced in the case of Australia. We're clearly expecting to see better performance as the Nat Cat load in this quarter, the next quarter is going to normalize to the level that we usually see. Then I would say definitely an area where we need to put some work is in Brazil, in Latin America.
Here we observe a lot of frequency and severity increase. This is not an idiosyncratic situation, that's a market situation, but right now clearly we are facing difficult conditions in Latin America, specifically in Brazil. What is definitely good is the development at AGCS with a 95% combined ratio, and I can also tell you the quality of the combined ratio is good, so from that point of view, there is really nice progress, and as I was saying before, you need to consider that the adjusted growth for AGCS, adjusted for fronting, is 10%. So I would say a good settled number for AGCS, and then Allianz Trade, you can see now the new name for Euler Hermes, also having very strong performance, and this despite booking a considerable IBNR for potential claims coming from the Russia situation.
So from that point of view, also good quality of that number where we had the possibility also to book some IBNR for potential losses coming from Russia. So overall, a good set of results. And now coming to the last slide for the segment, what we see now is a little bit of a different story compared to what we had in the last years. We see that the investment result is going up. And if you look at the so-called economic reinvestment yield, you can see how this is one percentage point higher compared to last year. So overall, we are coming at the end of the narrative that we had of decreased investment income. Now we're going to see that we are definitely at an inf point, and even we're going to see increased investment income moving forward.
Just to give you an idea, compared to the outlook that we put of EUR 6 billion and the assumption that we had behind investment income for that EUR 6 billion, we expect to be above EUR 400 million better by year-end, so that's definitely something which is going to be a positive for our results in the course of 2022, so overall, I would say a good set of results for the P&C segment, and despite significant Nat Cat, basically our operating profit for the quarter was not much away from the outlook divided by four. Now coming to the Life/He alth business, I would say again a successful quarter where you can see that the mix is definitely at the level that we like to see, and then also when you look at the new business margin trajectory, it's on the way up.
And with the market condition that we see right now, we are going to clearly continue to see very strong new business margin. And when you look also at the margin by segment, you can see that basically there was an improvement almost across the board. So I would say a strong picture regarding new business margin. And when we go now to page 19, on the operating profit stable at the prior year level, the EUR 1.2 billion reflects also the outlook divided by 4. And if you think that the market condition in Q1 had been definitely very challenging from a geopolitical point of view and also from a capital market point of view, I think this is a very good performance proving once again the good work that we have been doing over the last years on the in-force.
When you look at the operating profit by the subsegment in the life business, you can see that basically all contributed to growth or at least stable with the exception of the Guaranteed Savings & Annuity. But this is where we have the variable annuity business in the U.S. And as we know, that business can be subject to volatility. So a good set of results for our in-force with an operating profit of EUR 1.2 billion. And when we move to page 21 and we look at the composition by company, you can see overall strength across the board. I mentioned USA, clearly down compared to last year. Last year was also elevated because the volatility last year was very low. This year is the opposite. So we are kind of used to that kind of volatility for Allianz Life.
Otherwise, the other point is you can see the increase in the operating profit of P&C. This is coming from the consolidation of Aviva Poland, which is delivering according to our expectations. We are now fully consolidating this company. Overall, I would say good set of results across the board. Now we come to the last slide for the life segment, which is our investment margin. Overall, you can see a little bit of a drop in the investment margin from 21 basis points to 19 basis points. In reality, if you adjust the numbers for the transaction that we did in the United States last year, the investment margin will be stable. So from that point of view, we see stability. I'd like to point out also to the development of the minimum guarantee, which is continuously going down.
If you combine this with the fact that moving forward, we're going to have less pressure clearly on the current yield, I would say that all these arguments about the pressure that we might see on investment margin should not be a major concern. Besides the volatility that we can have clearly on an accounting basis on a quarterly view, overall, I would say the direction of travel is pretty clear. The guarantees are going down and the current yield is going to stabilize and eventually even potentially will start to go up. So overall, strong resilience, I would say really at a good level for the life business. And now we come to Asset Management at page 25. Clearly, you see a decrease of the assets under management by 5%. This is mostly driven by the market environment.
A positive note here is when you look at the different strategy, you can see sure multi-assets, equity, and fixed income are down, but alternative, which is an area of focus also for us, is up, so from that point of view, you can see anyway that's the area where we also put in some focus, which can be sometimes less exposed to the short-term volatility, was recording anyway an increase overall in volume. Now if we go to page 27, on the development of the third-party assets under management, as you see, we had in total negative flows of EUR 9 billion. When you put this in relation to the asset size, I would say it's moderate, and we need also to consider the development of the interest rates. Clearly, in this kind of situation, it is expected that we're going to see some outflows.
We also believe these outflows are going to be the inflows in the future. And fundamentally, higher rates are definitely a positive for a fixed income management shop. So when we talk to our PIMCO colleagues, they are definitely not complaining about rates going up, even if this can cause clearly some moderate pain in the short term. Then the rest, you can see clearly the market has taken a toll on the assets under management. On the other side, we are benefiting from a stronger U.S. dollar. So in total, this brings our assets under management down. But what is also important is sometimes to look at the composition of the outflows. And you can see we have more outflows in the institutional business compared to the mutual fund business. And the fee level is different.
Indeed, also if we go to the next page, you can see how the fee margin, when you look at this across PIMCO with the AGI, went up in the first quarter of 2022 compared to what we had, for example, a year ago. So that's also important to note that overall the mix is positive. And this is clearly helping the figures that we are showing in the sense. Also, you can see a nice growth rate in revenue compared to what we had a year before. So all in all, when you put this together, you get to an increase in operating profit, which is double digit. And you can see a nice increase at PIMCO and also the AGI with a 200 million plus operating profit. I would say we had another strong quarter.
Keep in mind that just 24 months ago, this company had for the year about EUR 500 million operating profit. And now we are speaking of EUR 200 million in a quarter. So the company has moved to a completely different level of performance. Operating profit for the corporate segment is in line with the expectation, is worse compared to what we had last year. But we should keep in mind last year was particularly low in the first quarter. There is always some volatility on a quarterly basis. So the operating profit that we see right now is in line with our expectation. And that has also been impacted by more than EUR 10 million of donation for Ukraine. And now we come to the net income view. Overall, you can see that when you look at the realized gains and impairment, we have a positive balance.
This despite some impairment on Russia. They have been compensated also by gains on some of our Allianz X investments. So overall, below the line, our position coming from investment has been actually relatively stable. And then here clearly you see the pre-tax charge of EUR 1.9 billion for the Structured Alpha situation. This said, despite this charge, income before tax is over EUR 1 billion. So that's, I think, a proof of the strength of Allianz Group that in a quarter where we have EUR 1.9 billion of one-off charge, we can still book net income and profit before tax of over EUR 1 billion. Now I come to the last slide. So overall, yes, clearly we had to digest the Structured Alpha issue. But when you look at the underlying performance, which is what eventually counts, strong operating profit in an environment which is definitely not been easy.
We have a robust solvency ratio, and also we are proceeding clearly with a buyback. We already have executed half of the buyback, and we are going to complete the rest of the buyback in the next month, so overall, good results for the group, and as always, I'd like to thank our employees for their great contribution to these results. And with that, I would take your questions.
Thank you, Giulio. We are now opening the Q&A call. Before we do that, let me remind you, if you dialed in with web audio call and you would like to ask a question, please press talk request. If you're dialed in via phone, please press star five to reserve your place. To mute or unmute your mic, please press star six, so our first question comes from Tom Simms from Reuters. The line should be open.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
That's great. Thank you. So, question on Structured Alpha. So, even after yesterday's communication, it seems there is still some lingering concern among investors that more hits from Structured Alpha may come. So, my question is, how confident are you that the EUR 5.6 billion is really it? And then a second question related to what extent does Allianz now believe that the Structured Alpha issue was basically created by fund managers gone rogue? Or to what extent was there maybe an additional weak oversight?
So again, so we cannot speak too much about Structured Alpha as of now. So, when the resolution is going to be out, then we can clearly speak about all the details.
What I can tell you with respect to the EUR 1.6 billion, this is a fair estimate of the financial exposure in relation to compensation payment to the investors and also for payments under any resolution regulatory proceeding. Now we need to wait for the final resolution and what implication that might have on Allianz Global Investors. But definitely the EUR 1.6 billion charge is taken care of for the litigation expenses or the settlement for the investors and also for payments related to the governmental proceeding. For the rest, you need to just wait. Then we will be able to clearly talk about all implications and also to give you all information you want to have in order to understand what led to the Structured Alpha situation. Clearly, we have also our opinion that you are going to be able to make your independent assessment.
Okay, thank you. Welcome.
Thank you, Tom. Our next question comes from Michael Fleming from Börsen-Zeitung. And the line should be open now, Michael.
Yeah, good morning, Michael Fleming, Börsen-Zeitung. Ich habe zwei Fragen zu Russland und Allianz Direct. What is the probability that you will close your business in Russia completely? And could you explain what is meant by recycling of negative OCI reserves? And the second one to Allianz Direct. Allianz Direct is shrinking in Q1 6%. The combined ratio is above 100%. Are you satisfied with this? Thank you.
Yeah, so thank you for your questions. So starting from Russia, okay, for the time being, we have stopped the new business. Regarding the likelihood that we are going to exit Russia, I would say that's, let's say, very high. Let's put it this way. So we are going to see, but we need to go through the process.
But I would define the likelihood as very high. Let's put it this way. It's not on the priority list of our capital deployment at this time. In this sense, yeah. What do you think, when will it happen in this Q, in Q2 or Q3 or Q4? Difficult for me to give you a timeline. We will see. But yeah, on the OCI, that's basically the following. When you have a participation consolidating entity, if you want, in a foreign currency, you need always to translate the numbers into euro. And the translation of these numbers into euro for the component, which is net asset value, goes straight into the balance sheet. It doesn't flow through the P&L. So there is basically the depreciation that the local currency had over the last 10, 20 years has been reflected partially in the P&L for the profit component.
But for the net asset value component, this is reflecting the balance sheet. If you dispose of an entity, then you need to take this depreciation of the currency, which has been parked into the balance sheet, need to basically book it into the P&L. So from a point of view, in the net asset value or also in solvency II, all these things have already been reflected. But from an accounting point of view, at the moment of disposal of the consolidation, you need to basically do a sort of Umbuchung from net asset value into P&L. So there is no impact on solvency. There is no impact on cash. It's an accounting item that has to be reclassified from balance sheet to P&L. So that's on, so it's a very technical thing. And this is basically the whole history of our participation in Russia is basically reflected there.
On Allianz Direct, yes. Also in the first quarter, we saw a reduction of our volume. The combined ratio, as you said, is about 100%. What we see there is performance is actually strong in the Netherlands, where the combined ratio is at a very healthy level. Where we are struggling to a certain degree is Germany. That's also an area where we have decided not to be in the aggregator. And this has clearly some impact on our growth. And also clearly, we are working on getting to the scale that we need. So from that point of view, as you know, that's definitely an area where we need to make progress. And then Italy. I will say, in Italy, I can tell you results, the combined ratio is also about the 100% level. But that's not specific to Allianz Direct Italy.
That's a little bit of a market development. And we see that also other traditional direct players in Italy are kind of suffering from a growth point of view and also from a performance point of view because the market in Italy is very soft. And there are some new entrants which are very competitive. So bottom line is in Holland, we are doing very fine. In Italy, the market is challenging, but our company is performing according to the market in Italy and in Germany. Yes, that's definitely an area where we need to put some real focus in order to get to a better performance. And have you an idea what you are changing in Germany in the next year? In Germany, we also changed the management team.
It's not that we were unhappy with the management team before because I think the management team before did also the job to create the platform. But clearly, when you have a new CEO, you bring a different time or different type of view or skill sets. And we think that we have been very focused on building the platform and the operational setup. We might have lost a little bit of focus on the markets, which is also understandable. And now we think that we want to put back focus on the customer side, the market side. And that might be the recipe for seeing better numbers as we move forward.
Herzlichen Dank, Herr Terzariol, Herr Klotz. Yeah, thank you.
Thank you. The next question comes from David Walker, Insurance Insider. Your line is open. Can you hear me? Yes.
Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you, Julio. Just three questions, please.
First question, in Q1, was the life and health operations self-sustaining on a capital basis? Oliver Bäte said this was his hope, his expectation at full year results. My second question is about Australia. Every insurer, every reinsurer seems to have had awful losses in Q1 and each year for the past few years. Giulio, in five or 10 years' time, do you see Allianz still covering property heavily in Australia? Or does climate change really change the mathematics of being a property insurer in Australia with climate change? And my third question is about coal and fossil fuels. Anita Muhammad has said that the coal customers, the old energy customers, were very profitable for AGCS. I think Russian energy customers had 10% or less loss ratios. What are you seeing in renewables customers? Are they as profitable?
What can you do to make that sector more profitable as it grows?
Okay, so thank you for your question. Starting from the life business and whether the life business is sustainable. I can give you a hint. If you look at page seven of the presentation, you're going to see that the operating profit generation coming from the life business was EUR 1.6 billion. That's a pretty tough number. Somehow you can tax effect by about 25%. That's the operating profit generation. When you look at the business evolution, there was basically zero business evolution coming from the life business. Indeed, it was even slightly negative, but let's call it zero.
From that point of view, on the organic side, you can basically say the EUR 1.6 billion after tax has been contributing one to one to income without any increase in ACR because of the business development. Now, in the specific quarter, you can see there is a market impact there. And the market impact is definitely being driven also from the life business on the specific quarter you need to consider for that. But as you know, market can go up and down. On the organic side, definitely there is a positive contribution. Also, we did an analysis. We always do an analysis about the intensity of the new business. And last year, the ratio of capital intensity to present value of new business premium was about 1.6. And for this year, under the new market condition, we are speaking 1.2.
We also see how, and also because of the product changes, how the capital intensity of new business is getting lower. The answer to your question is definitely we see this kind of development. On the losses in Australia, you raise a very good question. You are right. In Australia, if you don't have floods, you have hail. If you don't have hail, you have wildfire. That's definitely an area where over the last three, four years, there was always some reason for higher Nat Cat. The answer to your question is, I don't know, but it might be. I ask myself the same question. I tell you there might be areas because it's not that it's going to be widespread for the entire continent. But I can see there are areas where insurability would be a problem.
And in that case, I think the needs of also some sort of state scheme is going to be important. So that's a little bit my view that are areas where I believe providing insurance is going to be extremely challenging for the private business. And then you had a question about coal and the profitability. I would say that at the end of the day, ESG considerations are prevailing regarding what the profitability could be. We are taking actions and for the time being also considering the overall strength of the numbers that we see for AGCS. We are not concerned about a loss in profitability because of the decision that we are taking on the ESG side. But at the end of the day, ESG considerations are prevailing compared to what the profitability of a customer could be.
Thank you. That's really helpful. Thanks very much.
Welcome.
Thank you, Giulio. Thank you, David. Our next question comes from Herbert Fromme from Süddeutsche Zeitung Versicherungsmonitor. Your line is open.
Thank you very much. Two questions. One is $5.7 billion lost over a scandal in the US. Last year, Jackie Hunt, the board member in charge of AGI, left, but it was pointed out in numerous releases that there were no, she wasn't held responsible, etc. So I take it that Allianz can lose more than $5 billion without anyone on the management board level taking responsibility. No one is at fault if I see that from your statements. Point two, we have an inflation rate running in Germany more than 7%, more than 8% in the US. Will you adjust your loss reserves and by what percentage do you expect them? Are you over-reserved right now?
And how will this affect your 2022 results in property casualty or maybe in other lines?
Yeah. So the first question, I would say that to a certain degree, we always take institutional responsibility. And also the bonus of the management team has been affected by the fact that the net income was low. And there was also a haircut done to the factors in general. But also from that point of view, there have been consequences. And then clearly, as a management team, we always take institutional responsibility. But personal responsibility is something different. On your topic about inflation, yeah, there is clearly inflation coming. For the time being, we need also to differentiate between what is consumer price inflation, what we might see in our severity. The two things clearly over time, there will be some sort of convergence or some sort of impact.
As we look at Q1, overall, it's clearly a picture which is very different country by country. If you ask me specifically in Germany, we see some increase in inflation, but this increase in inflation was not running at the 7%-8% level, was below that level for severity of the claims. And that was also within the assumption that we have made as we went into 2020 to the assumption regarding inflation price increases that we want to put through. One thing to note is we have been talking here in Allianz Group and monitoring the inflation development starting basically the summer last year. So it's not something that the headlines are coming now, but somehow already starting the summer last year, we put inflation and management of inflation on top of our agenda.
Clearly, also from that point of view, there was preparation both in terms of what we can do on the rate increases, also what we can do on the claim steering. And I don't know if you remember the call that we had at the end of the year, we also put some extra reserve for inflation in the course of 2021. I can tell you that we put also some extra reserve for a potential increase in inflation in the first quarter of 2022. So there are a lot of things that we are doing in order to be prepared for, we think we're going to see.
So for the time being, we didn't see much in our numbers, but we expect that clearly as we go into the second part of the year and also as we enter 2023, we expect that we are going to see more inflation in our claims. And we are doing clearly all we can to be prepared on the rate increases, on the steering, and also clearly creating buffer from a reserve point of view. One final item that should not be forgotten, as inflation goes up, you see rates are going up too. So we're going to get also some offsets coming from investment income. So we are basically prepared, and then let's see how much inflation we're going to get in the next months.
Thank you. On the first answer, does the Allianz Management Board recognize that it has an oversight problem?
And what measures did it take to counter this problem? So okay, overall, with respect to the control environment of Allianz Group, I strongly believe we have a good, strong control environment. Regarding the specific issue, once we will be able to speak about the topic, then you're going to have all information, and you're going to be able to make your assessment about the entire story.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Thank you, Giulio. Thank you, Herbert. The next question comes from Sam Casey from Insurance Insider. Sam, the line should be open.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Hi, Giulio. I was wondering, could you talk about the situation in Ukraine and whether there's any possibility of loss exposure within AGCS to things like political violence, marine energy around there, and whether you foresee the situation having any wider impacts on the specialty insurance and reinsurance market?
Yeah, so on the Ukraine situation, I would say the exposure of AGCS is very limited. There are usually exclusions for wars or political violence, but there are some clearly exceptional endorsements. I can tell you that so far we didn't see any meaningful claim, but we are in a single-digit number. We have an IBNR in Q1 of about EUR 20 million for potential claims we might see from the situation in Ukraine. So fundamentally, we don't expect to see anything major. So we might have some larger losses, but we don't have a widespread exposure because most policies have war exclusion. There are just a few policies where political violence is covered. So no major issue. There is already an IBNR in the case we're going to see something coming our way.
With respect to the overall markets, I would say since, look, we don't see much exposure at our level, it's a little bit difficult for me to tell you what could be out there impacting potentially the reinsurance market. I understand that one item is the issue with the leasing aircraft. And I understand that we are not affected by that. And we understand that's clearly a situation where it's very complicated to get to the bottom of it. But I believe that could be an area that could create clearly some dynamic in the primary market, in the reinsurance market. Otherwise, short of that, I don't have the feeling that other things might create too much disruption. But again, since we are not really affected, I don't have too much information to add on that topic.
Okay, thank you.
Welcome.
Thank you, Giulio. Thank you, Sam.
The next question comes from Ian Smith from Financial Times. Your line is open.
Hi there. Just, well, actually two follow-ups to what others have asked. So firstly, on Russia, if you end up kind of selling those operations, could that number that you've given for the P&L impact be lower? And will it be a one-off, or will there be any kind of future P&L impacts in future years from that? And then secondly, I just want to ask the same question. So it's the EUR 100 million for trade credit. You just said EUR 20 million IBNR elsewhere. What's the overall IBNR that you've taken in this quarter relating to Russia, Ukraine? And what portion do you think that will be of what might come in? Is that going to be kind of the majority of what you think you hit your take from this crisis?
Yeah, so on the Russian thing, that's what can move the number up and down is in the case of a disposal, potentially the price you get for the disposal. Or also the number can go up and down based on the currency development. So there are the two things that can basically move the number. But I would say with the range we gave you, we should be within this range, or at least we shouldn't be significantly outside the range in one way or the other. Once that's done, once there is a disposal or a close of a business, then there are no other consequences moving forward. So there will be then a final booking without any further ramification. On the question about the IBNR, in total, I would say we have about 100 million of IBNR for the Russian situation.
We think that's a solid IBNR. From that point of view, that might be even on the prudent side. Clearly we are going to look. That's something that we believe it's a good number and a solid number at this point in time. Don't you have just EUR 100 million for trade credit? No, it's EUR 75 million. Yeah, it's EUR 75 million on credits. Then we have basically EUR 20 million for AGCS. We might have a little bit more for credit in Allianz Trade. Basically, looking at AGCS and Euler Hermes, we are basically at EUR 100 million. Right, right. I mean, some others have chosen to be more proactive, even though there aren't many claims coming in. You being more cautious than some of your peers in terms of trying to predict? No, we think our number, it's based also on the exposure they have.
So when we look at our exposure in AGCS, as I was saying before, we don't have much of a war exposure. And also when we look at Euler Hermes, considering the exposure that we have at the moment, considering also the claims activity, you need to think that in credits, there is a point where you are bringing down the exposure. You are basically getting the receivable paid. The exposure can be limited very quickly. So from that point of view, other companies might have a different kind of risk profile. We feel good with the reserving that we have set aside.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Thank you, Giulio. Thank you, Ian. The next question comes from Christian Schnell from Handelsblatt. Christian, your line is open.
Hello, good morning to everybody. I have two questions. The first one is going to Australia again.
You had this transaction with Westpac last year. What is the influence now from the Westpac portfolio to this damage in Nat Cat to Allianz? And the other question goes to Turkey. I've seen you change your accounting system to a hyperinflation accounting system, but that's going to an impact of 100 million EUR in Q2 2022. Why you changed this now? Turkey has a long history in inflation. What's the reason of this?
Yeah, maybe starting from the hyperinflation is basically this is coming from a methodology that is used. And when over the course of a few years, the cumulative inflation is exceeding 100%, this goes into a hyperinflation account. It's not even a choice. That is an individual choice. Everybody should go into hyperinflation accounting for Turkey.
Usually, all the companies are going to come out with guidance, and they're going to say, "Okay, now this economy is a hyperinflationary economy. You need to apply this kind of accounting." So it shouldn't be something specific to Allianz. There should be something that you're going to see across all industries, not just in the insurance industry. So it's basically based on this kind of methodology. There are other indicators. When these indicators are triggered, a country is defined as a hyperinflationary economy, and then basically everybody should apply this set of standards. It's important to repeat. This is a pure accounting impact. Doesn't have an impact in reality on the solvency position. Doesn't have an impact on the dividend that we are effectively going to get from the company. So it's an accounting topic. But that's on Turkey.
On your question about Westpac, we are not necessarily isolating now the results of Westpac compared to the rest of the company, but clearly, if you look at the results of Australia, you can assume that the combined ratio of Westpac, which is definitely as a property book, that has contributed to the quarterly results of Australia, so from that point of view, clearly in first quarter, the combined ratio of Westpac was definitely exceeding the 100%. I would say that considering the business profile of Westpac, which is more property, the contribution to the combined ratio of Australia of over 100% was even overproportional coming from Westpac, but that's part of natural catastrophe. On the other side, you can consider that right now, rate changes in property in Australia are close to 20%.
So from that point of view, as you know, once there is a natural catastrophe, yes, there is an impact. But clearly, there is also later a reaction and adjustment of pricing. So what is important is whether we're going to get the math right over time. And then we go back also to the question that was asked before, to what extent eventually in some areas it's going to be challenging to provide property insurance, and we need to have other solutions. But it's more about the math over time as opposed to the volatility you might have in a quarter. And most likely in Q2, in the absence of natural catastrophe, you're going to see, considering the rates increase, you're going to see very good results at Westpac.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Thank you, Giulio. Thank you, Christian, for your question.
The next question comes from Stefan Kahl from Bloomberg. Stefan, your line is open now.
Yes, good morning to everyone. I have one follow-up question to the very first question in the call. Giulio, you reiterated that we have to wait to find out about any potential consequences for AGI beyond monetary fines. There was a similar line in the statement yesterday. I'm just wondering what those potential other consequences could be. Could you comment on that, please?
I think you need to wait really for the resolution. Once this resolution is going to be out, we can speak about the topic. And I can tell you, we are working very—we are aiming to seek a resolution as soon as possible. So that's what I can tell you at this point in time.
All right. Thank you.
Welcome.
The last question comes from Jean-Philippe Lacour from the French press agency.
He sent it by email because he had some technical problems. I will read the question. In February, you said that the EUR 3.7 billion provision for Structured Alpha was covering the majority of your exposure. Now you added another 50% of that broadly. Did you underestimate the Structured Alpha matter?
No, what we said in February was that this was the provision for what we were expecting the litigation to be. We were expecting other impacts also coming from the payments for governmental proceedings. So we were always clear that we were still expecting other impacts coming. And we were also clear that we couldn't estimate at the point in time the impact. And then clearly, in these months, we've been working together with the authority to come to a better understanding of the situation.
Now we are in the situation where we can put a number around the payments for the investment, also payments under any circumstances for the governmental proceeding. So no, there was not a misestimate. We have always been upfront that there was something coming, but we couldn't estimate the amount at that time.
Thank you, Giulio. There are no other questions for the time being. Last chance to forward a question. No. Then we conclude today's conference call. Thank you very much from my side.
And thank you also from my side. And I wish you a good rest of the day.