Earnings Call: Q3 2019

Nov 6, 2019

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this conference call on Sampo's Third Quarter 2019 Results. I'm Jarmo Salonen, Head of Investor Relations at Sampo. And with me at this call, I have Kari Staryk, our Group CEO and President, Torbjorn Magnusson, who will be Group President and CEO starting 1st January next year Knutane Hallsacker, Group CFO and Morten Thorsford, CEO for IFB and C. We'll have the same procedures as always. But before handing over to Kari, I'll just remind you that you can follow this transmission on sampler.com/results, and a recorded version will also be available later on at that same address. With these words, I'll hand over to Kari. Thank you, Jarmo. Welcome to the conference call on my behalf as well. As you are all well aware of, I'm stepping down as Group CEO by the end of the year. Therefore, I'm going to hand over to Torbjorn for the comments on our Q3 results in a moment. Before that, I want to comment shortly on our new guidance on the dividend. We have, for many years, been committed to a yearly increase of our dividend. Also in our Q2 conference call, I was firmly behind continuing that good tradition. If necessary, even bridging it if our group internal dividends didn't sum up to an adequate amount. However, two things have changed since our August call, the main thing being, of course, Nordea's new a payout ratio of 60% to 70%, significant write offs and new group targets. The second thing was ECB's communication in early September. Rates will stay lower for longer. My view on interest rates bottoming out was wrong. It became obvious that to continue to propose an increasing dividend for Sampo or bridging an annually increasing dividend was not in the best interest to our shareholders. It is also worth remembering the dividend of €0.56 already distributed as Nordea shares, and this in itself reducing the number of shares on which our internal Nordea dividends is based. Thus, a new guidance for the Sampo dividend was needed. It is the duty of the management to react swiftly to news of this magnitude. Our dividend guidance for next spring still maintains our status as a dividend stock with a dividend yield of roughly 6%. This is my main comment on the dividend. And now I hand over to Torbjorn on the Q3 results. Thank you, Kari. This has been a somewhat unusual quarter for Sampo. We have both had some significant onetime events, both in Oduja and in Sampo as well as very strong developments in our insurance operations. Let me first comment on the more exceptional actions and events. As we have planned and communicated, we have this quarter distributed 55,000,000 Nordea shares to our shareholders as a dividend. And as a consequence, our ownership in the bank came down to just below 20%. The aim of this was to terminate the regulation of Sampo as a financial conglomerate since the capital commitment we had to make for Nordea was about to come as economical as it was illogical. After the approval by the Finnish regulator in October, Sampo is now an insurance group also for regulatory purposes with a strong solvency ratio. The process was well executed and with an outcome that aligns the regulation of Sampo with how I strategically view the group. We have been waiting for Nordea to present their updated business plan and new financial targets. Now the rapid appointment of a new CEO made it possible to do things in the right order and get him involved at an early stage. And if you allow me to talk as Nordea's Chairman for a moment, I was pleased with the presentation Nordea made 2 weeks ago, and it was a result of a significant amount of work done by the Board of Nordea, the new CEO and his management team all together. Nordea's business plan is about better execution, better customer experiences, enhanced operational efficiency and, as a result, better shareholder value creation. It's a credible and realistic plan with the right actions and targets that produce uncertainty for Sampo and for other shareholders for the coming period. We have recently communicated, Katie, how we see next year's dividend for Sampo and that the Board will review the dividend policy over the months to come. Kari already covered the background to this. The dividend has been and will always be important for Sampo and for our owners. Obviously, our dividend needs to be based on the earnings in the businesses that we own and the dividends that these businesses upstream to Sampo Plc. This is nothing new. With the change in dividend policy in Nordea, expectations of a dividend from Sampo of between €2.1 €2.3 per share next year is a straightforward communication, which aligns profit expectations and dividends. I see our communication from the 24th October as a prudent one, but with the best interests of our shareholders in mind with respect to long term value creation, which has always included securing a strong balance sheet for this group. This has also been a quarter with business as usual for Sampo. So as usual, we have today released a great set of results for our insurance businesses. The combined ratios of the P and C insurance operations that we own are excellent. And as you have seen, the operating environment for Nordic P and C is still very good. Competition from recent entrants without competitive advantages has faded and if P and C had growth for the 1st 9 months of 5%. This is very much due to market leading web offering and a successful transition into an omnichannel distribution world. In Mandatum, further, the result this year is very good due to high investment returns. The transformation of the company's balance sheet is continuing with growth in unit linked reserves and continued reduction of holds with profit reserves. We have taken various initiatives during the Q3 to strengthen the company's balance sheet given, of course, the impact from the low interest rate environment. Then for Topdanmark, I think the only thing to say is that we have become so used to the company performance that a non Life combined ratio of just above 80% for the year so far and continued double digit percent growth in Unit Linked Life Business almost passes without anybody noticing. However, with the investment in IT that the company is making, combined with the exceptionally strong underwriting culture, we see possibilities for further continuous improvements. For Nordea, Q3 results, the Q3 result was obviously affected by a number of one offs, which we are already well aware of. But looking at the underlying business, I think it was a decent quarter where we saw some small positive effects from increased business volumes and activities on both net interest and net commission income and the market shares for the mortgage businesses is back roughly at the back book levels in all countries. Then lastly, one thing is undoubtedly special with the quarter we're already well into, not only for Sampo, but for me personally and for Kari. This is Kari's last few weeks as CEO of Sampo Group. I want to thank Kari for the enormous support that you have given me during the last 18 years and for the belief that you have shown that creating shareholder value can be done owning insurance businesses. This was certainly not a commonly held view 18 years ago. We have worked together for an exceptionally long time, So the CEO transition here is a very continuous one. And I obviously share many of your core values, Gary, including a focus on people and equally on accessing maximum information in the markets and the importance of a strong balance sheet, but equally on not hoarding capital unnecessarily. So thank you, Thierry, and I'm certain many of you others on this call wish you all the best for your retirement. Thank you, Julian. And thank you, colleagues. And operator, we are now ready for the questions, please. Thank you. Our first question comes from the line of Jakob Plank from Nordea. Please go ahead. Thank you. I have a few detailed questions. I hope that's okay. But on Page 24 in the slide package, maybe, could you just highlight or give us a bit more details on how the equity or the sensitivity to equity prices, hence also I guess Nubia is actually working? How much of this is Nubia? And maybe just a bit more detail on that would be helpful. Okay. I can start here. Jacob, What we show on Page 24 is our equity exposure, including ODEA, but it's also including the symmetric adjustment under Solvency II, which gives us a buffer for a reduction in the first 20% drop in share prices, which obviously is reflected here on this page since we're showing minus 10% and minus 20%, which gives a fairly limited sensitivity. And this is assuming that our equity portfolio, including Nordea, moves in line with the global indices, which is the symmetric adjustment is based on. That's what we show on this particular page. So what if Nordea would move differently than the World Index? If Nordea specifically would go down, obviously, that reduction in market value would impact own funds. And roughly 40% of that reduction would reduce the SCR, assuming that Nordea was the only stock that went down and global markets otherwise remained unchanged. Okay. And thank you for that. And then on the it looks like the reduction in with profit guarantees and reserves year to date or year on year is somewhat larger than what it has been in recent quarters. And remember, I think at the Analyst Day in August, there was a presentation talking about you would try to speed up that reduction. Is that what we are seeing the results of now? And should it continue, I. E, the higher pace? Yes. That's what you see the result of now. The reduction that we have year to date is the highest reductions we've had in any of the years where this has been in runoff and roughly SEK 200 million of that reduction is related to the 3.5% 4.5% guarantee. And I would expect that to remain and probably end up in the year somewhere €250,000,000 to €300,000,000 in total, where the majority of that will be the high guarantee product. 250 to 350,000,000, okay. 350,000,000 to 300,000,000. Euros 300,000,000, okay. Thank you. And then on the as far as I can calculate, the goodwill amortization on Nordea is relatively large here in Q3. I don't know if that's anything to do with the sell down of shares or is that a new level? No. There's no special in the goodwill amortization in Q3. The our goodwill related to Nordea doesn't change. Obviously, we have a lower stock on Nordea shares. So of course, that is reducing our holding And book value of Nordea, the 55,000,000 Nordea shares is proportion reducing the book total nominal book value on Nordea since it's not no longer on our balance sheet. There's other special things going on in terms of our goodwill and intangibles related to Nordea. Great. And then just finally on Non Life. So the very strong Swedish combined rates are now for 3 quarters in a row or even better than it used to be for 3 quarters. Is I think you said last quarter that, that was due to relatively high runoff gains on motor at TPL. Is that same is still the same going on? Yes, we have Costa Martin here. That's correct. It's still very much reserve releases from Multi GPL affecting that in Sweden. Okay. Thank you very much for the answers. And the next question comes from the line of Matti Ahokar from Descom. Please go ahead. Yes, good afternoon. Two questions on the Non Life business as well. Firstly, a topic you've talked about quite frequently is the impact of lower interest rates. But then when you look at the running yield of IF in particular, it has actually been extremely stable. I was wondering, could you shed us some light on what's behind it? Is this purely technical? Or does it reflect kind of different investment mix to, for example, Norway, where rates are higher? And how do you see this going forward? The other question is regarding also Sweden and the nonlife business. The profitability has been very strong, but has also the premium growth. So I was wondering, Maarten, if you could talk a bit and elaborate on the kind of dynamics on the market? How come premiums are growing so much as they are? Thank you. So I'll start with the running yield question, Matthew. The maturity profile of our fixed income book lately have been fairly stable, meaning that we haven't had a lot of fixed income maturities over the last couple of quarters and will not have in Q4 either. So that has helped to keep up the running yield in IF and also in Mandatum actually. Obviously, with the interest rate environment we have, the reinvestment yield is lower. And on many the reinvestments that we do, obviously, the yield is more sort of between 0.5 percentage points, slightly higher if we take a bit of our credit risk, but it's lower than the running yield. But again, that has been kept up and will probably be kept up for a couple of more quarters due to maturity profile of the fixed income portfolio. But it will still come down in 2020, if rates stay at current levels? Definitely, it still come down in 2020. Then to your question, Matti, on Sweden and growth. We report 4.3% growth for the Swedish business year to date and 7% in the 3rd quarter stand alone. We do see quite a good growth in net number of customers in Sweden, in particular, in the business area private. On top of that, in Q3, we also see increased car sales. And if you recall, we had a special situation last year where a lot of the car sales took place in the first half of the year due to tax changes. So now we're kind of comparing toward the quarter Q3 last year, that was a bit weaker as a result of that. But still, we do see good growth in number of customers, again, in particular in the private segment in Sweden. So this is not a reflection of significant price adjustments. It's more a question of volume? No. It's more a question of volume. Price increases are more natural, I would say, more normal in Sweden, a bit higher in commercial than in private, but nothing kind of special. And the next question comes from the line of Perk van der from FCB. Two questions from my side. First of all, Industrial, you're growing 14% year over year. You put some light on what you're seeing out on the market place? We know that a number of other Nordic competitors are leaving this market. But what are you seeing going forward from here? Yes. We do see good profitability in our industrial business, and we've been doing things so far for many, many years. So the industrial business is a key part of our business, a natural part of our business. We do experience quite strong growth this year. It's driven by several factors, one being increased turnover with a number of our clients, another one being price increases in the portfolio as such. And then we also have some one off effects with some larger projects, construction projects that typically inflates the GBP figure and typically is earned more over time. And then we see high retention rate, a very high retention rate in the Large Corporate segment, which I guess is reflecting a little bit that some other players have a bit more negative view on this segment. But again, we see good underlying profitability in these segments and are happy about the growth that we see. Okay. My second question relates to Mandatum. You show in the report that you have provided 227 for low rates. Take into account that, that's approximately 1% of your sorry, take into account the size of your book and where interest rates are currently, it doesn't look like you have provided a lot take into account that, yes, this is not very, very long tail business, but it's still businesses you will have on your book for, I guess, on average, 6 to 8 years still to come. If I got your question right, this EUR 227,000,000, if I should describe what it includes, then it's including the discounting all the 4.5% guaranteed liabilities that we have down to 3.5%. And in addition to that, it includes discounting all liabilities down to 0.25% for this year, next year and 2021 and all liabilities down to 2.5% discount rate in 2022. After that, there's no discount rate reserve. And the average guarantee on Mandatum's and Mandatum's liability is slightly above 3%. I think in the light of you also stating that your reinvestment yield is now down to the level of between 0.5%. There seems to be a potential significant need for putting reserves aside for these guarantees if we don't see a sharp rise in interest rates within a couple of years? Sure. After 2022, the guaranteed rate is just above 3%. That can be met in different ways, obviously, with an investment return, with the portfolio Mandatum doesn't have. But you're right, some of that will need to be meet the guarantees. Or alternatively, Mandatum is making roughly a 30% risk result and 30% sorry, EUR 30,000,000 risk result and EUR 30,000,000 expense result per year roughly today. And in 2022, 1 year cost of Mandatum's guarantee with the runoff profile it now will have will be EUR 60,000,000. So in 2022, with 0% in this investment return and the current risk and expense results, Mandatum's profit will be 0. But the risk and expense result in 2022 will still be enough in itself to meet 1 year's guarantee. Okay. Thank you. My apology. I should say 2023. In 2023, we actually need a little bit less than EUR 60,000,000. We need EUR 45,000,000. Yes, of course. Got the point. Thank you. All right. And the next question comes from the line of Jonny Urwin from UBS. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. Just one focus area really around the attritional loss ratio, mainly the expectations going forward. So I think you guys are making the point again today that pricing is, on average, in line with claims inflation and in some markets ahead, mainly Norway. So I mean, all else being equal, should we expect that attritional loss ratio to improve from here? And then I was also just hoping for you to make a comment around retentions. The growth is pretty good at the moment. You're getting rate as well. So what's happening to retentions? Is there anything you're doing there to perhaps lift retentions even higher? And anything you'd like to showcase? No. Of course, as you know, we prefer to look at the total combined, and we report a total combined of 84.3, percent, which, of course, is a highly attractive combined ratio as such. When we look at the current year result, it's, of course, somewhat higher as this is partially supported by run off gains and to a magnitude that is somewhat higher than what we've seen earlier. We do see a certain underlying improvement if you look at the 1st 9 months since we are having in part of the business price increases that are somewhat above what is expected inflation, and that continues into Q4 as well. So on a current year basis, we do expect to see some improvement going forward. When it comes to growth and retention, a larger part of the growth that we see comes from improved retention, particularly in the private segment, but we do see retention rates increasing in all markets and being actually at record high levels now. So that trend kind of continues. The next question comes from the line of Kevin Ryan from Bloomberg Intelligence. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. I just wanted to try and understand a little better the dividend guidance going forward. And around that, I wonder if you could tell us what level of earnings distribution for the dividend you're happy with? And also how that ties in with the solvency level you're happy with? Thank you. The guidance, if you read it carefully, it's actually only for next spring. And then we have said in the announcement that we will come back to that early next year on a proper dividend policy. Okay. Thanks. It's always the ratios that we would be happy with. And the next question comes from the line of Sami Tedlis from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Yes, hi. Good afternoon, everyone. My first question is strategic. I mean, Torbjorn, you talked about sort of a will to return more towards an insurance focus in the past, and you mentioned in your speech about more of an insurance focus as well. And you've announced the appointment of Mr. Gwen Eklint as Chief Strategy Officer today, who's also comes from a very insurance focused background. So I'm just wondering whether what we should read into this regarding Santo's strategy going forward and potential implications for the states in Nordea and maybe also the investment portfolio held at holding company level. It'd be great to hear any thoughts on that to start off with, please. I don't think it's any dramatic sign to be read into it. 3 quarters or so of Sampo is now insurance operations. It's by and large, thus an insurance dominated operation, and we have an unusual amount of knowledge about insurance business. We need to keep it that way and continue to develop that business. And any further thoughts on the future, of course, I will return to next year. Okay. Great. Then just moving on to solvency ratio. If I just try to strip out the Morbere stake out of the group solvency II ratio, It looks like insurance only solvency ratio would be quite low actually. Is that something that you would see in your own calculations? And then second, how optimized is the group solvency ratio? If I remember correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't it includes IFS and Copdanmark and Nandatamet Standard Models. Is that right? And are there some other potential actions you could take there to optimize the ratio further? The answer to your first question in terms of the insurance business stand alone, the way I view the group now, it is an insurance group with a large holding in Nordea, which adds, from a Solvency perspective, market risk to our Solvency calculation. It's an integrated part of the solvency to group SCR and owned funds. So there's nothing really to strip out. If I took the extreme case that Nordea should go bankrupt and the value of Nordea should be 0, we would have a solvency II ratio for Q3 of slightly above 120%. So we would still be okay even in such an extreme scenario, which means that we are very comfortable with the solvency position and the capital position that we have today. And we have a little bit more capital than we actually need from a regulatory purposes. And clearly, without Nordea going bankrupt, we have a very comfortable strong capital buffer. In terms of optimizing, there's no activity going on with the strong capital buffer we have to try to further optimize it right now. We have a possibility to issue some more hybrid capital, which we have talked about before we most likely will do in the years to come, particularly out of this has room for a little bit more hybrid. Mandatum is pretty much fully optimized. On a group basis, we could, over time, consider to apply also for a group internal model. That wouldn't significantly, on a group basis, change the solvency ratio from today's level, but it would make it a little bit higher with the assumptions we currently have in our own consideration around the internal motor. But with the solvency ratio, 178%, that's not an active ongoing call check for the time being. Okay. Great. Then just finally finishing off on IF and I guess the growth there. IF the profitability and the returns are quite considerably above the your sort of market cost of capital. You've already accelerated the growth a little bit, but at the same time, I get the sense that you've made quite a lot of progress on the IT side and particularly on the digital distribution. Is there room there to accelerate the growth further from the current level? Or are you sort of pretty much hitting up against what you can do or what you're comfortable on doing? Well, let's see what the future brings. Of course, 5% growth year to date and 6.9% in Q3 is a very high growth rate in P and C. So I think just being at that level should be highly satisfactory. The next question comes from the line of Leroy Stewart from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I've got 2 questions. Firstly, just on dividends expected from subsidiaries. Are we done for this year? Or should we expect a late dividend cash dividend coming in from Mandatum? And on that point, just a second part to that question, you mentioned about potentially raising hybrids at the P and C level. Why would you do that? Would that allow you to perhaps free up some equity within that business in the form of higher dividends back to group? That's the first question. Secondly, just on the dividend or the dividend statement that you have made for 2019, I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm assuming that, that would be a level which would be consistent with your new dividend policy and you wouldn't be making further changes from here. So in other words, is the dividend of 2.1 to 2.3, I'm assuming that that's going to fit within your new dividend strategy. Should I start with the first two? You should not expect us to take off any extra dividend from Randatten. Randatten solvency ratio today is good and solid. I expect there everything else equal. Let's see where the year ends up. There'll be room for an ordinary dividend, but not for an extraordinary dividend. So let's say that we're done for this year. I think you Clear. Thank you. Yes. Hybrid, we're not talking big amounts from IF. We have this capitalization strategy to have the balance sheets of our subsidiaries to be capitalized on their own merit. So we utilized now in Q3 the possibility to raise some hybrids in Mandate, which improved their solvency. And we have done and plan to continue to do small amounts also in IFRS. Obviously, that will, with the total solvency strength over time, contribute to IF continuing to pay a very good dividend for to Sample Plc, but mainly because of the profit generation that is having. That's where the dividend over time will come from. But I think you have commented that this is overcapitalized. So just wondering why you would add more capital. We don't need more capital any from that perspective. So it is to make the balance sheet of if more efficient. I haven't changed my view on the strong capital position, IF. And then on the dividend going forward, you now have a clear guidance for this year. And I said the profit expectation and the dividend now go hand in hand. Let's see what the board makes of that when they look at the policy early next year. Okay. All right, fine. I'd be disappointed if there was a second downward revision to dividend, but I'll leave that for later. But maybe just finish it up a word on Kari. Kari, all the best and I've always enjoyed our encounters. You've got great sense of humor even if that doesn't always come out on these calls. You're a very entertaining guy. So all the best to you as Al Torbjorn. You served a very long apprenticeship, and I wish you every success. Thank you. And likewise, Blair, you are a very entertaining guy as well. So let's both keep it up. And the next question comes from the line of Johan Strom from Carnegie. Please go ahead. Thank you. Apologies, but I'd like to come back to the hybrid capital questions. And so my question is on the holding company's senior bond portfolio, where you have around €300,000,000 of maturities, I think, in May next year. And it's maybe a little bit early to comment, but wouldn't it make sense to refinance some of these maturities with cheap hybrid capital map? I think you said it yourself. It's a little bit early to comment. We have that date to look at, and we'll make our plans and see how the market looks when we're approaching that date. So I don't have any plans to outline on that point now. Okay. Thank you, Knutta. And then a quick one to Mohsen on IF. Another quarter with good run off gains. Just wanted to double check if there are any trends or other dynamics that suggest that near term runoff gains should go down from the current levels? Well, we typically don't want to speculate about sort of future run off gains. I mean, it's still something we assess from a quarter to quarter. And so far, the trend that we've seen on reduced bodily injuries in motor TPL in Sweden has continued. But of course, there's no guarantee that this will continue in the future. So try to avoid to speculate on that. And the next question comes from the line of Jan Gerlant from ABG. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. It's Jan Gerlant from ABG. I just want to check your strategy here going forward. Is this when you're now being an insurance group, would you like to start to consolidate more into the insurance industry in the Nordics? And maybe moving to Sweden, Denmark or Norway with potentially unit linked products rather than this old guarantees. So how should you look at your insurance interest going forward if you think about your already consolidated nonlife insurance side? Well, I think it's reasonable that I get to answer questions about the strategy of the group next year rather than this year. But on life insurance, between synergies between even Nordic countries are non existent. So that's not a brilliant starting point. Okay. And you must always read into Todor's answers the fact that Nordea already is a big life insurer in the Nordics. Okay. That's a good feeling. Secondly, on the Mandatum side, if you see that you have a guaranteed interest rate from the back book there around 3% by 'twenty 3. Should we expect no dividends going forward if we would look for a sort of a zero rate interest rate we have today? And then that we will cover your guarantee by the admin result and risk result as such. Is that a fair comment? No, that's not what I meant. It wasn't an area where investment an result, a positive investment result over time in Mandatum like we've done for many years. And the expense and our members outcome on top of that. So in our thinking around Mandatum, it is not a 0 dividend. I would more call it in line with what you have seen of ordinary dividends recently, which last year was EUR 150,000,000. And obviously, 2023, it is a little bit away in time. Mandatum's unit linked book is growing gradually, not big step, but gradually good. Premium income in this quarter and this year has been good. And that should everything else equal over time also increase the expense result element in this profit mix I was relating to. So it was absolutely no link to having an expected dividend from under of 0 for the years to come. How is the takeout of the balance sheet? As you said, it's going faster. So how helpful will that be? Is that the 12% to 13% or is it a separate issue? It's quite helpful because with the run rate we've had in recent years, in addition to the profit, which we have been talking about a couple of times on the call, we free up capital. So there will be a freed up capital requirement when this book is running down and around EUR 250,000,000 or lower with profit. Reserves release is around EUR 50,000,000 of capital with very little additional capital requirements from new unit linked business basically known. So that will help in maintaining a good dividend when the investments that are on the with profit book is being reduced. Perfect. Just finally on the If side then, you have a very strong cost ratio this time around. Is it seasonally stronger because of the summer quietness? Or is it driven higher by the premiums in this quarter? As I said, it was extremely short and high. Yes. I wouldn't read too much into sort of quarterly changes. The cost ratio year to date is 21.5%, down from 21.6%. So there could be sort of some variation sort of on when different costs are booked. So I wouldn't read too much into the 0.3 reduction that you have in the Q3 stand alone. More than 9 months is more in line with expectations. Okay. Then finally on the price increases. You said that Norway was maybe running a little bit higher than claims at the moment. What should be our expectations there into Q4 and maybe also next year? Is this also something you see continuing at this hard pace? Well, let's see. It's as we have commented earlier, there are quite some differences between business segments where we do see higher price increases on commercial than in other business areas. Then of course, we monitor claims inflation on a daily basis. We do see a little pickup in claims inflation, probably driven a bit by weak currencies in Sweden and Norway. So that's something we look out for. But it's kind of marginal sort of development. In Finland, you have sort of turned around a little on the book, but it's still sort of flat if you look year on year, sort of increasing on the gross written premium a little bit. Is that the gross premium written you should look into when you look at the future growth there? Do you see that it's actually coming off on speed? We report 1.4% growth year to date in Finland and 3.9% in Q3 isolated. And then you should be reminded that in the Q1, we had quite a big development in Finland due to the fact that we lost a bit of workers' comp business. So yes, so that's kind of Yes. I was just looking at the earned versus the other one, but as I see, your written business is SEK 3.9 as I say. In Fannie and Denmark, just to touch base. You have a sort of on the earned side, a blip in the curve last quarter. Was this anything particular that you lost something? And you're back on track again now. Is that the sort of things you could expect going forward? Or is the commercial versus private in Denmark? I think what you see now should represent sort of a fair picture of where we perform year to date. Then we have a couple of agreements that are booked early in the year that could adjust GDP a little bit sort of more in 1 quarter than another. But we report 4.5% in Q3 and 4.4% percent year to date. So that's kind of a representation of the growth in Denmark. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you a lot for your time, Kari, and good luck for your pensioner career. And hope you can see each other on the And the next question comes from the line of John Brennan from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Brilliant. Thank you for taking my question. Can you, you said that Nordea going bankrupt would have left your solvency II ratio slightly above 120% at 3Q. Presumably, this is the same level as if you paid out all remaining Nordea shares to Sampo shareholders. Would you be comfortable with your solvency ratio going down to this level? And if not, can you rule out an exit from Nordea in this fashion were you too late to choose to exit? Thank you. And in terms of just relating to your question on the solvency and then the future, we'll see what we do with Nordea. SEK 122,000,000 would be below what I would feel comfortable with. And to speculate and dividending out Nordea shares for I haven't checked the Nordea share price right now, but EUR 5,200,000,000, EUR 5,300,000,000 obviously, is not in line with the dividend communication we just recently made. So to steer the group to a solvency level of SEK 120,000,000 is not what we're planning to do. We have a follow-up question from the line of Simon Petros from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi. Sorry to drag out the call. Just a quick follow-up. On Mondarten Life coming back to Mondarten Life, you seem to have done quite a lot of work on improving the solvency in that business, I guess, to a level where you're comfortably above target levels also on the basis without transitionals, including the debt issuance you did in the quarter. Does it make sense to still keep such a large duration gap in that business? Because you're obviously potentially, you would have done all this work, but you're still sitting on the possibility of undoing that through movements in interest rates, I guess, particularly given that this duration gap doesn't generate spread that you need to pay the dividend. So it would be great to just have a comment on that. Thank you. I think sort of trading with the back view mirror, it would probably, in the past, have been good to have a slightly different duration gap. And we have the duration gap we have now. We manage with that duration gap now. We are happy with the equity exposure that we have in the Mondalto now. So we have taken some action on the asset side, but that hasn't been the main driver for the fix in the MonDatum solvency. We've been able to increase the solvency ratio on MonDatum with other measures in Q3. Then let's see in the future what kind of asset mix Mandatum will have going forward also as the wheat profit book is, of course, becoming smaller. Okay. Okay. Great. And then because I forgot to say it earlier, obviously, also all the best of luck to carry in its retirement. Thank you very much. As there are no further questions, I'll hand it back to the speakers. Thank you, operator. And thank you all for your attention. Have a very nice evening.