What I would like to share with you today is to give some comment on where are we. You have obviously seen the figures, and they are pretty poor. I will make a few comments on why. Why do we continue to deliver poor technical results? I will share with you some information about what kind of actions have been taken already, and what kind of actions will be taken going forward. As always, I'm open for questions through the presentation, and obviously also after the presentation. I could start to apologize for poor results. We are not delivering profitable growth at the moment. The question you have is whether we will be back on track when it comes to the profitability kind of development, and how fast is it realistic to think that we can manage to get back on track.
First, just a short update on the arbitration with Munich Re. As you have seen from our message to the market, we lost the arbitration and have booked in this quarter a NOK 75 million loss. We are surprised. We didn't expect that result. We did also have in our corner one of the biggest reinsurer brokers in the world, which have designed and implemented our contracts with Munich Re. I think it's fair to say that on our side, we are surprised, but we can't do anything about it. You can't appeal it. Decision is taken. We were not awarded the necessity to pay the legal cost for the other party. Obviously, then the panel must have considered the case to have two sides, and it was reasonable to bring it into court or to arbitration.
Now it's history, and we will spend resources on other issues. Obviously, there is a commercial dialogue going on with our reinsurance broker on the after play relative to it. No other risks in our books today attach to a similar reinsurance agreement or reinsurance wording. We shouldn't worry about new potential claims coming in future because these kind of contracts do not exist. When the problem was brought into daylight, we bought additional reinsurance in order to cover for potential losses according to Munich Re's view on that. We haven't had these kind of risks during the last 18 months, and we will certainly not have it going forward. That's the arbitration. We expect the dialogue with our broker to take some time. That is hard to predict and obviously the communication have started already.
Another element to cover before we go into the hard figures is that within the area where we are exiting, the Change of Ownership area, the Supreme Court denied the Grey Silverfish case to be brought in front of them, which means that appeal court decision, which is in our favor, is standing as the important decision when it comes to Grey Silverfish. This means that Grey Silverfish is history. Also seen from a profitable type of point of view. The quarterly result in that area is good. We have also signed a reinsurance contract with an international player where 50% of the reserves, the book of business we have in our reserves is placed with that external company, which means that a NOK 500 million reserve is transferred to that kind of company.
We keep the money in our own management. However, they carry half of the future risk related to the reserves we have here. What we think is that it's a good sign that an international player who do these kind of things only have signed a contract. What you sometimes will see when such a deal is launched is that it comes with a price which is necessary to book. It does not at that time. It means that this player have basically the same view on the reserves as we do have in that area. Reduced risks, and a second view on the reserves in an area where you earlier have seen reserve losses.
We don't think it will be more to come. If it will be reserve losses in future, half of them will be covered by this agreement there. Okay, then to the hard facts. The combined ratio we have, which is the very weak point in the presentation today, is around 100, exclusive of the Grenfell Tower. Or 107 when we include the Grenfell Tower arbitration losses. These figures, they are, as you know, exclusive of Change of O wnership. On the following page, you will see an updated figure, which is the bottom line for Protector. This is going forward business. That's the reason why we start here, even if the picture on the next page is somewhat better then. At the same time, where we have a poor technical result, whether you would point at 99.8 or 107.2, we have a poor investment result.
I will come back and comment on that. As you have seen this morning, we have increased the combined ratio guiding. That is weakened with 4 percentage points. That figure, 100, do include the Grenfell Tower arbitration, so the NOK 75 million loss, which we have booked now in quarter two. The volume guiding is up to 18 from previously communicated 14 then. On the next page, you see the same figures inclusive of Change of Ownership, the run-off business we have here. You will see a combined ratio sized 97 exclusive of Grenfell Tower or 104 inclusive all, which means that this segment is delivering some profitability in quarter two. If you have a look at the growth level, you see a very significant growth, which is size 32. The question you may ask is that whether this is good or bad.
If you have a technical result on the negative side and are growing very quickly, does it make sense? In my opinion, the answer is obviously yes. It is a fact that the margin requirement and the margin of safety we have now, where we are in unprofitable territories, these kind of margins are higher than normally. We are slightly more careful than earlier to take new risks on board. Why do we grow then at this rate? First, the quarter is not very big. It's not small either. This is not quarter one where the renewal portfolio is very big. A high percentage in a medium-sized quarter is obviously easier to see than in a very big quarter here. It's a fact that in U.K., quarter two is normally the quarter, because public sector renewal is very much related to quarter two.
It's April the 1st. In Scandinavia, it's January the 1st. In U.K., it's April the 1st. Normally, you will see a lot of growth coming out from U.K. in quarter two. By accident, we have had some big wins in Sweden, one of the biggest wins in history, and a couple of medium-sized, large wins. Not very large, but large wins in order as well. Sometimes you win them, sometimes you lose them, and they are taken on board to somewhat better margins than normally. Normally, we would underwrite risks to a combined ratio around 92, and the anticipated margins of that kind of new business is better than that figure. You also have a situation now where price increases are growing every quarter.
Price increases, quarter two, they are higher than quarter one in percentage of renewed portfolio, and that support the growth rate as well with around NOK 45 million in this quarter. My message to the market is that even if I do understand that you might worry about that growth level, you should see it as a positive sign that we, one, still continue to take business on board. Secondly, that we have a slightly higher margin requirement and a requirement on margin of safety there. What you can see here is that the year-to-date growth relative to the 2018 book of business is 14.7 percentage points, and we are guiding on 18 for the full year, which means that the expected growth for the second half year is around 3.3. This is an expected development.
We will not have quarter two U.K. size coming up in quarter three and four. We do expect to lose more clients when new price increases are kicking in, which are higher than price increases in quarter one and quarter two in that area. The exit ratio for certain type of clients will go up. New sales is not at all expected to be on the kind of quarter two level. We do see a modest volume development in the second half year. However, we think that that kind of situation will change around second half year of 2020. I also think that growth level January 1st, 2020 might be in the lower end because more price increases will kick in. However, price increases do support growth, it's a bit early to say when it comes to next year.
You might see a slowdown in the growth rate going forward the next two to four quarters, the competitive position of Protector, cost and quality leader in the world, remains the same. We have a good position to see continued growth in future. Okay, in the near future, a modest ambition on the growth level. If you see on the claims development, there are a couple of issues here where you could have a look. There are run-off losses around NOK 100 million relative to quarter two, and some of them are related to big property claims in Sweden. To be Protector, it's pretty unusual to see run-off losses in the property side because normally we have run-off gains on the property side.
That is a fact that was kind of presented to you investors in the last C apital Market Day in November last year, here. There are some smaller other elements around workmen's comp, and you have obviously Grenfell. The combination of the run-off losses, they are slightly different whether they are gross or net. Net is arbitration. Gross is property Sweden. This is net. But gross property Sweden is higher. However, they are linked to previous reinsurance contracts. These are claims from 2017 and 2019, and they are linked to our surplus contract with Munich Re in that area. There are run-off losses. Some of them are kind of minor volatility, which you should expect in any quarter. However, the arbitration kind of losses and the property run-off losses in Sweden on gross level, they are not likely to happen again. At least not arbitration in that area.
You could take a somewhat more positive look on our claims ratio and combined ratio if you are looking into the reserve changes in quarter one versus quarter two in that area. It's pretty easy to do that judgments. We are on the upside when it comes to large claims in quarter two. That is linked to property Sweden, the run-off losses. If you increase a certain claim from SEK 20 million- SEK 45 million, there are normally good reasons why. That will be, one, a run-off loss, and two, it's about the large claims threshold, and it kicks in as a reported large claim in the future then. We are somewhat higher here.
Remember, this is gross, so it doesn't mean that the underlying reality is 5 percentage points better than what you see because the net large loss ratio is a lot lower since these Swedish property claims are linked to a certain reinsurance contract in that area. Okay, slightly on the higher side when it comes to large claims in quarter two. We do see on the claims inflation side that we have been too late and done too little on motor profitability, and we are kind of giving the same message to the market like Tryg and Ansydia and other players who are out there observing the same thing, that on average in the Nordic market, the motor claims inflation is pretty high and much higher than you intuitively would think.
Inflation rates in Nordic, they are on the very lower side, too, give or take, depending on what kind of country you are talking about, while claims inflation in motor driven, as you know, by technical improvements, et cetera, in the car portfolios, they are on a much high level. Prices must go up, we are saying that very explicitly to the market here. The cost ratio development is good. The cost of railway continues to go down. We go down from a very strong position to an even better position. Here you can see a small presentation of the combined ratio development. What you can see exclusive of Grenfell within the kind of business which is going forward, quarter one with some run-off gains is around 106%. Quarter two with some run-off losses is 99.8%.
Our expectation is that quarter three and quarter four will be better, and it must be if we are able to reach the guiding on a combined ratio size 100. Obviously, our expectation is that when we are starting quarter one 2020, then 12 months of price hikes will kick in. Profitability, everything else equal, will improve a lot. However, new price increases, which we decide today will not have full effect from quarter one next year. A very good proportion of the total price increase penetration will take place from quarter one next year. A question you have is kind of, yes, you say you are too late on the new price increases. You have done too little. The question is why? Why is it? Why didn't you see? Why didn't you act before? I'm not trying to do too many excuses.
We were too late. We did too little. However, we have obviously spent a lot of resources on the Grenfell Tower claim situation, on the arbitration with Munich Re, on the grey silverfish crisis, and obviously with setting up U.K. The only element out of these four which was planned was the U.K. setup, while the other were more grey silverfish and act of God in that area. Some of us have been forced into a corner where we have spent a huge amount of resources in order to focus on these very important situations. I think we have lost something on the profitability side because some of us who have been working a lot on these things might have seen and acted somewhat earlier when it comes to at least some initiatives. We would have had profitability, which hadn't been good enough anyway.
I think that at least it's a positive situation now, where we have a very good capacity to continue to develop U.K. We don't spend resources on grey silverfish or arbitration, or we also spend pretty limited resources on the Grenfell Tower claim as such. We have recruited new people in the U.K. who are capable of handling the remaining part of the Grenfell Tower claims on the liabilities side and on the recovery side. What you see here is then a quarter one, quarter two development where Norway is improving with 10 percentage points. Sweden is stable and pretty poor. That's the negative surprise of today is on the Swedish figures here. The team we have in Sweden have demonstrated the capability to earn money before. In my opinion, it's the same people.
They are taking all necessary action in order to get on track, that will happen from quarter one 2020. Denmark, no big issues. I could say that a couple of countries have had some good luck, a couple of other countries some bad luck, but I'm not really worried about the Denmark figures here. Finland is obviously too high. It's a small country. Do I think we will have a combined ratio development below 100 next year? My answer is yes. Will it be a lot lower? No, it won't. I think that that pretty small country in Protector will come back with what you could call at least acceptable figure in the near future. In the long run, we have to work more on it. While U.K. in this quarter is developing very well. Norway, improving. U.K., good. Sweden on the weak side.
Denmark, I'm not worried. Finland, a small country, volatility must be expected. Yes, there is a property claim. Yes, it's big. Yes, without it, the figure would have been a lot better in that area. As you know, price increases, they take time in insurance industry, but we haven't really started today. I will shortly then give you an update on actions that we have taken so far, and then give a guiding on what we will do going forward. What you can see is that the first half year price increases pretty precisely is presented on this slide, varying between 7% in Sweden and Finland, up to 10%, 11% in Norway, and 14% in Denmark.
If you are looking forward, if you do look forward, my comment is that it will go higher in Norway, a lot higher in Sweden, lower in Denmark, a lot higher in Finland, and U.K. is not really on this agenda. My visibility here is pretty good, I will say, because July the 1st renewal is history. August the 1st renewal is history. Most of September the 1st renewal is history today, because information has been sent out to market. We can't know for sure whether clients do accept or not, but we have a kind of acceptable methodology in order to predict price improvements going forward. It's not like you can't see September. Yes, we can. Absolutely all renewals related to September is sent out to market already. It's done. It's history. The only thing we're waiting for is the market acceptance.
What we have seen the last couple of quarters is that market acceptance is pretty high. Obviously, we lose clients, that's okay. We will try to fight to hold them in the company if terms and conditions are good enough. Market acceptance is pretty good, because all competitors basically is also driving prices upwards when we speak. What I would like to share with you is our follow-up model. How do we follow- up? How can I trust what you say? What you do? First, we have to take a decision. Price increase is up. We have to implement September renewal policies, and terms and conditions is sent out. It's kind of tick, it's done. We have to measure, we have to learn, and we have to loop in that area. Step one is volume. Quarter one, April, May, June.
Quarter two, year to date. Then, what will happen in September and August and July? I know pretty much about what will happen in quarter three. I have more limited information about quarter four, but I have some, and we have already start to send out some kind of renewal information to January 1st renewal 2020. Some big contracts in Denmark and in Sweden, they are already out there in the market. What kind of volume do we have to renewal? How many clients which has been profitable in future do we lose? How many clients that have been unprofitable do we lose? The balance between the two is very important. When I say to you, "I'm losing 12 percentage points of my clients," then you say, "Okay, 12, is it high or low?" It's medium. Do I expect higher than 12 now? Yes, I do.
The question is, what type of clients it is. Is it the right ones or the wrong ones? Do you get positive selection or do you get anti-selection out of the situation? That's the first thing. That leads to volume to renewal, exclusive of lost clients. You go to, what about profitability? First, we add on a profitability neutral index. In Norway, when it comes to employee benefit products, group life, et cetera, it's called G. It's decided by government, and it is expected claims inflation on a life in Norway. If you die before G is increasing, you get 100. If you die the day after, this is pretty brutal, you multiply with G, which is, I'm not quite sure, 3 percentage points or something like that. 3.2 or Ditlev, do you know that? It's around three.
Yeah.
In that area. We always add on profitable neutral indexes on top of last year's prices. We could decide to do a general price increase on top of that, and we do in Norway. We have clients where we are losing a lot of money, and it could be obviously very significant price increases. We see a large number of clients now, where it is a necessity to do individual price increases between 20% and probably 60% or 80% or 100% in certain situations, in that area. You add on potential individual increases. On the motor side, but also on other products like liability and property, you may increase deductible. What you pay yourself if you have a claim. You crash the car, is your deductible NOK 10,000? NOK 50,000? NOK 100,000? We are talking about companies now, not talking about consumers.
That obviously influences on the claims cost at a later stage. You have other profitability improvements, which is loss prevention, risk management initiatives, reduced terms and conditions, other wording in a policy document. This is what we do. What we do follow- up as a part of our follow-up model is to follow- up on all these kind of different type of profitability improvements. You will have, you send it out to the market, you meet some resistance from the broker. There could be a deviation from what you send out. I say 12. The client says, "No, no." I walk back and I say, "Okay, 10 is okay." We measure the difference. It's not shown on the picture, it's there in that area. If you send out 12, we will normally not get 12.
We might get 10 or 10.5 or 11 or something like that, but the penetration is pretty high. If you are not getting anything, we walk away. We say, "Okay. Find yourself another insurance company." We are coming to realized price increases. You have claims inflation, and then you take A minus B equal to rate improvement, and then you measure towards the target, and then you see what kind of volume do you have. This is the methodology we are using in order to follow- up, and I think it's pretty precise. The good thing is that the model can look into future. However, if you are too late to increase prices, it takes time. September is gone.
If I say something today, at earliest, that will influence on October, it will only gradually influence because we earn premium per month after that. It takes one and a half year in order to get through with price increases or potentially two years to get full benefit from a price decision taken, in any insurance company in that area. We started last year with price increases. They do happen today. However, if you are late and we are late, you are lagging behind, and you will suffer before you are back in black. We have obviously guided on being back in black in quarter three and quarter four. Implication of the guiding is that we do earn money in quarter three and quarter four. What we say is that what we'll do will improve profitability entering 2020.
These kind of figures for future will obviously not be shared by the market. That's for internal use. What we will do is to continue to give you an update on a country-by-country level, on how development it is. That is historical figures. In the next coming quarter, you will see the quarter three and quarter four price increase development versus expected claims inflation. Expected claims inflation today in the Nordic market, all products, is around 4%. In motor, it's more like 7%-8%. Motor is only a very big product in Sweden. It's not in Denmark, not at all in Finland and Norway. There are some sizable clients on the motor side. In Norway, we have workmen's comp, group life, disability, et cetera. That is 60% of the business. These are products that basically do not exist in Sweden.
The portfolio composition and the claims inflation per country and per product is very different. Which leads to that we obviously also follow- up on the exact same price increase developments per product, per country. We will also follow- up on other elements like segments, broker houses, or people. This follow-up model will tell Protector who, on an individual basis, are capable of getting acceptance from the market on his or hers price increases. We can take it down to an individual level, see if the key account manager in Sweden, Denmark, or Norway do have a high success rate or not when it comes to price increases. If someone do not have, we have either to educate or to do something else, change of role, leave the company, because obviously, we need people who can deliver in real life.
The follow-up methodology is on volume, on different profitability, implementing actions. It's versus claims inflation and target. It's per product, per segment, per broker house, et cetera. I would say that the follow-up model that has been developed gradually during the last two, three quarters, to be more precise than earlier, is pretty accurate. It is very limited of garbage in and garbage out at the moment in that kind of follow-up model. Here are some example of other profitability. I won't go through the list, but this is what insurance companies is doing. If you ask yourself, what do you mean about other profitability improvements? Here is the list. It varies between different clients, different product areas, and different countries what we are doing. This is what we as an insurance company is doing. Have we been good enough in it?
No. Where have we not been good enough? At least in Norway, to a certain extent in Finland. Better in Denmark the last couple of years. We have to look through and see whether we have the right competencies on board in order to do the necessary other profitability improvements in a close relationship with our broker and with our clients then. Okay. The last but not least is only to deliver it to the market. People must, through a structured way, deliver to the market. These kind of people here is not really indicating clients, it's brokers who is getting our message and will turn around towards their clients and say, "Hey, here is some kind of initiatives," which are either reasonable or not, and that will be sent out to the market again then.
To visualize how we do implement these kind of activities, these people, through these processes to that market, learn and loop. That's what we do. Okay. Any questions so far? Profitability issues? Everything is clear? You trust me? Nodding. You are an employee in Protector. That doesn't really help. You are not. That helped. Thanks a lot. Okay, what about U.K.? London office is open. We have eight people or something like that working every day out from London now. The first couple of clients have arrived. Stuart Winter, the new Country Manager U.K., is on board and is traveling to and from Manchester and London and out to the market. The background from JLT/Marsh. We are moving and getting people on board. This is 100 people capacity is not linked to London. You should read it like this then.
We are not opening up a London office with room for 100 people. That's Manchester. There will be 10, 15 more claims handling people coming into Manchester during the next six months, to serve the kind of clients we have at the moment. My comment is that I think we are on track in U.K. The board had a board meeting in Manchester a few weeks ago. It was very useful to have the board meeting all the employees and listen to the story and also putting energy into the local organization we have in U.K. On track. What you saw is that we have what you could call an acceptable growth rate in quarter two in U.K. and a healthy combined ratio. Remember, volatility must be expected. This was slightly better than expected, at this early stage.
There will be other quarters which are on the other side here. U.K. growing on track. However, we are still on a low level when it comes to hit ratio. The hit ratio in public sector quarter two is around 11 to 12 percentage points, which means that some competitors, like the two market leaders, they are a lot more aggressive than us on price, which indicates that we have the necessary discipline in order not to price too low in order to enter the market too quickly. We have lower hit ratios in U.K. in public sector than what we historically have seen when we entered public sector in Norway, in Sweden and in Denmark. Which is okay. We have a lot of time. We are not in a hurry. 11, 12 as a hit ratio in public sector, that is fine.
No very significant clients in quarter two in U.K. We had a very big one in quarter one. None very sizable clients in quarter two. That will vary through the quarters then. Housing sector is not that big. The competitive situation is more limited. A part of that business is taking over another company's position. It's a combination of what you could call a renewal type of situation and a very competitive normal quotation process. This figure is not expected to continue 38 on that level. That will be lower in 2020. While in public sector, you should expect that hit ratio to gradually pick up during the next two, three years. That's my expectation. When it comes to commercial sector, it has no meaning to talk about hit ratios at the moment because we qualify out a lot of what is put on the desk.
I will say that at least possibly 70%-80% of any quotation we are looking at is thrown. We are not bidding, and then we start to work on the rest. To qualify clients in for further work is important when you enter a new market, and that qualification process means that very many opportunities are thrown away. We won't go for it. Then to talk about hit ratio will be a pretty artificial type of figure. I would say that some of the U.K. market is hardening at the moment, which means that prices is going up, and some companies are withdrawing from the market. Tokio Marine is an example of a company who are leaving, for their own reasons, the market.
What's happening now in the kind of market segments where we do approach in U.K. is that you will see more opportunities going forward. We have seen a lot, and it will be even more in the near future. A bit like in Scandinavia, where price is going up, that's what we call a hardening market. While on the other side, if price is going down, everybody is keen for volume, it's a soft market. It's a hardening market in the U.K., which is to our benefit. Investment performance is poor. What we have shown you here is that we have a equity portfolio which is very different from the different indexes you can find in the Scandinavian market or the Nordic market. The deviation we have around 10 percentage points weaker than a reasonable index is obviously high and very poor.
However, you should expect some kind of volatility. These are the 13 biggest deviations from the index since we insourced then the investment department in quarter four 2014. You can see some green, which is then we do better than market, and a very red one in this quarter. My message to the market is that volatility should still be expected. Intrinsic value evaluations do show that figures, there are two companies downgraded in quarter two upgraded in quarter two. Expected return on investment is a lot higher today compared with 12-15 months ago, in that area. Information we are happy to share with you when we meet in Capital Market Day situations. The bond portfolio is still conservative. We continue to take money off the table.
Based on a linear rating methodology, we go from A+ to AA- with a more conservative portfolio than in previous quarter. That's the bond side. Here you see the results. As normally, I've been talking to the important figures. These are for including Change of Ownership, where they are then somewhat better than for the commercial sector. Solvency capital ratio, based on the standard formula, is 164, which is higher than Tryg. I got a question this morning, are you worried about the solvency capital ratio? No. Why would I? Tryg do have, as you know, a partial internal model. They are in the kind of landscape we are. If you have a look at them based on the standard formula, they will be a lot lower. Our solidity is unquestionable and very strong.
We have also one, guidance on better profitability going forward, but also reduced volume development then. When I got the question, it's through the webcast. I've already responded to it, because we had three or four questions before I started out. You shouldn't really pay too much attention on the solvency capital situation in Protector. The share lists and the summary and Q&A. Where are we? We are in a situation where we are fast-growing but unprofitable on the technical side. Second quarter is improving relative to quarter one. We do expect quarter three and quarter four to be better. Why do we expect quarter three and quarter four to be better? One, normal seasonality, quarter three is better. Two, price increases already implemented three, six months ago do kick in. Three, change from a surplus contract to a different type of property reinsurance structure.
Excess of loss contracts means a transition year where you lose a combined ratio technically through that year. That's another question through the webcast. How much do we lose relative to previous years? Around 2 percentage points. Everything else equal, we would have been 2 percentage points better this year, if we had had the same structure like 2018, or 2017, or 2016. That is history when we enter 2020, and it's gradually developing to be history through the year. Seasonality is better, price increases do kick in, property surplus to excess of loss is the third element kicking in, and decisions have been taken in order to increase prices more. That will take time, but will gradually kick in slightly in quarter four above today's situation, but a lot more in January the 1st, the very big renewal date.
I think it's fair to say that the atmosphere in Protector today is that we hate these kind of results. We don't like them. They are poor, and we have done our mistakes ourselves. However, our cost and quality position is either unchanged or even improved. The story continues. We haven't left the ambitions then. Whether you trust the story or not, I do understand that we have to show through figures that we are capable of coming back into good territories with a combination of profitability and growth. Growth then on a lower level. I think, Anders, I answered a couple of questions now, so you have either questions from you people or through the webcast.
Yeah. Peter asked question, how does Protector's future profitability look, and when will Protector reach its long-term objective for combined ratio?
What about future profitability? When will we reach long-term target, which is around 94? What I say today, and what you have seen in the presentation, is that with present price increases and a guiding on increased prices minus claims inflation, you can see a significant combined ratio development gradually arriving through quarter three and four, and then even more in next year. My feedback is that my expectation at the moment is that we will deliver according to long-term targets in 2020. It's not a formal guiding. We have to wait for that when we are closer to 2020, or normally we do that early in 2020, in that area. My expectation today is based on the story I've seen is 2020.
Thank you. Another question. If you look at your insurance portfolio in general, the quality has deteriorated since late 2017 or the beginning of 2018. What happened in regards to the claims picture relative to competitors and the underwriting discipline?
It's a question about underwriting discipline. It's about the portfolio quality internally in Protector. I think that the answer varies between the different countries. What we have seen in Norway is that the combined ratio poor development is driven by two elements. One, rates going up, which has been communicated to you for four, five years in a row at least. That leads to reduced profitability, not surprise. At the same time, we have had a too high level of clients where we haven't had the necessary discipline, or competence, or structure in order to avoid some clients which should not have been there. They are more precisely, they are there with wrong terms and conditions. What we do in Norway today is basically to re-underwrite every client, and go through in depth every client.
I have been into 100 to 150 renewal situations the last six weeks in order to get in touch and get closer to the real quality of the portfolio. There are issues in that portfolio. It is gradually being cleaned up. Of a portfolio in Norway, we look better through the quarters. In Denmark, that kind of activity has been done already, so that was finished a year ago. In Sweden, you have a more limited number of these kind of situations. In Finland, it's a bit early to say in that area. It's a relevant question. It's not very easy to answer very precisely on it. I also do expect that the kind of portfolio we have today is of acceptable quality. We must turn it into a good quality. Next question.
Yeah. A question from Daniel. He has never really understood why we exclude broker commission in your cost ratio. Isn't broker commission negotiable, and doesn't the number make peers with more in-house sales look relatively worse compared to you that use more brokers?
It's about broker commission. Broker commission are not legal in Norway and Denmark, so they do not exist. We don't pay. Client pay. In U.K. and Sweden, it's on the contrary, especially in the U.K. Broker commission is a market de facto standard in Sweden and U.K., especially in U.K. You either pay it or you not. You do not negotiate these kind of commissions. They are agreed between the client and the broker. They are kind of not an issue when it comes to competition, because they are neutral seen from a competitive point of view. In public sector, commission in U.K. is around 3 percentage points, while in commercial sector it could be six to eight, 10, or in certain situation, up to 20 or 30 in that area. It varies a lot. It's not a big issue.
As long as we communicate figures with and without commission, you can compare with other ones. You have to be careful about comparing, because you can't compare a company with a strong weight on volume in U.K. and Sweden, with a company with a strong weight in Norway and Denmark. Gjensidige. Norway, Denmark, no commission. Protector, Sweden, U.K., and Norway, a lot of commission. That's not apple to apples. You have to have a deeper look into it to understand it. More questions?
Yeah. Last one. What has been the effect of the Change of Ownership reinsurance deal on your SCR?
Three percentage points. The CFO, he gave me three fingers. It's good it was three fingers then, Ditlev. I knew the answer. We love that. We support them. I had a look at you anyway then. The solvency capital improvement relative to that agreement is a small 3 percentage points. Not at all a lot. NOK 500 million in reserves. You might have thought that the solvency relief had been bigger, but it's minor. It's not the reason why we do it. We haven't paid the price. There are no price booked in the P&L at the moment relative to the deal. It's not a capital issue. It is a quality assurance from a third party on a reserve signed, not in blood, but in hard money, with a professional player also in the market. It creates some kind of reduced risk situation.
It's a second opinion for you. The insecurity about that kind of reserves should basically be taken away from your shoulders at least then, and from mine in that area. Daniel, thanks a lot for that kind of question. Is it any more questions? Have a great summer then. Beautiful weekend and a great summer for you as you start. I start now. It's to the fjord, do some swimming and cycling and training and exercising in order to be fit for the renewal season in quarter three and quarter four. Have a nice day.