Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Analysis Conference Call and Live Webcast. I am Sandra, the call's call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be listen only mode and the conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star and 1 on your telephone. For operator assistance, please press star and zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to Mrs. Annelis Lüscher-Hämmerli, Group CFO. Please go ahead, madam.
Thank you, Sandra. Welcome to our conference call of 2022 in review and IFRS 17 and 9 information. I will recapitulate the trends and developments we have seen in 2022. This part of the presentation is structured in a very similar way as in previous years. IFRS 17 and 9 are introduced this year, we have added an information section on the implementation of the new accounting rules at Helvetia. For that topic, I have also with me here in the room Beat Müller, our Group Chief Actuarial Officer, and Marc Brachat, who is Head of Group Accounting, Controlling and Transformation, and co-leads our IFRS 17 and 9 project to join me for the Q&A session. Let's first start with a review of the past year. I'm now on slide four, financial targets 2025.
In 2022, we continue to work towards our strategic priorities and ambitions, and we have set ourselves for the period up to 2025. As a reminder, you can see our financial targets on the left side of this slide. At the half year of 2022, we have been very well on track, as you can see on the right. Generally, the overall market conditions have not changed dramatically over the second half of the year. On the next slide, we will go through the broad trends and developments that are relevant for the full year. Please note, this slide shows communicated targets for the strategy period and the status at the half year are not a guidance for the full year 2022. Let's start with the business volume trends on slide five.
From a volume perspective, the trend seen in the first half year will also be relevant for the full year. Generally, the development of the exchange rates, in particular the euro to Swiss franc, will again influence the translation of revenues outside Switzerland into CHF. Meaning that the growth rate in CHF will differ from the ones in local currency. In non-life, we continue to see growth trends at constant FX rates as it already was the case in the first half year of 2022. Very important, growth is broad-based across all segments. In the life business, we expect mixed developments. In individual lives, the shift to investment-linked product is continuing. As in the first half year, the volume is influenced by the non-recurrence of large single premiums in the prior year and ongoing cautious underwriting of traditional business.
In Swiss group life, the continued market-wide shift from full insurance to semi-autonomous solutions lead to an expected decrease of premium volumes. This is because the savings part of the business is borne by third parties in the semi-autonomous business. On the next slide, we see technical developments in non-life. 2022 has seen an increase in inflation rates in many countries. Helvetia has started to adjust prices very early and continues to do so. Therefore, we were able to cushion the impact of inflation on claims development. You probably remember that prior year had been impacted by an exceptional number of large storms and floods, in particular in Switzerland. In 2022, we have experienced a normalized level of nat cat claims in Switzerland.
On a global level, there have been a number of natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Ian or the floods in South Africa in April. Some of these events will have an impact on our specialty market segment. With regards to the cost ratio, we see the trend of the first half continuing. We have continued to implement efficiency measures over the course of the past year, which are benefiting the cost ratio. Let's move to investment trends on slide seven. As you are aware, the past year has seen a significant increase of interest rates. This is benefiting the return we can earn on our investments. We have already seen at the half year that reinvestment yields have slightly risen.
The impact on the overall current income will be limited and slow as our portfolio is matched to our long-term liabilities and therefore only a part of the portfolio renews on a yearly basis. As shown in the chart on the left, equity markets have developed weakly in 2022. Markets have been impacted by the macroeconomic environment and consequences of the war in Ukraine. As a significant part of our equity portfolios classified at fair value through profit and loss under IFRS, the development of equity markets is reflected in our income statement. Please remember that the prior year has seen a very positive development of equity markets. Let's turn to the earnings trends. As already seen in the results for the first half, net income in 2022 will mainly be characterized by technical developments in our core insurance business and the performance of capital markets.
Additionally, a one-off gain resulting from the sale of the Spanish life company, Sa Nostra Vida, in November will take effect. In non-life, we are continuously mitigating the impact of inflation on the technical development by adjusting premiums. As always, the investment result of the business area will be influenced by the performance of capital markets. In life, as already communicated before, we will book a positive one-off gain in a CHF high double-digit million amount relating to the sale of Sa Nostra Vida. Similar to the first half, a number of developments will positively influence the so-called other activities business area in the full year. Liquidation of an own investment fund led to the realization of currency losses in the prior year. This effect will not recur. One-time proceeds from the capital increase in our real estate fund will also happen.
This brings me to the last slide of the first part of today's presentation, a reminder of our dividend policy on slide nine. 2022 has demonstrated that Helvetia's capital position remains very strong. This has been underscored by the confirmation of our S&P financial strength rating of A+ in July. Our capitalization, measured by the Swiss Solvency Test, has benefited from the increase of interest rates in the past year. We estimated our asset ratio to be above 280% at the end of June. The strong capital position supports our financial target of distributing more than CHF 1.5 billion of dividends to our shareholders over the strategy period from 2021-2025. In order to reach this target, we aim for a sustainable increase of the dividends per share year-on-year.
With a strong capitalization and solid dividend capacity, Helvetia is well-positioned to deliver on this ambition. That was the first part of our analyst call, the information regarding 2022. Now let's turn to IFRS 17 and 9, starting on slide 10. Please also take note of our last half-year report, where we have already disclosed some information on the topics we will discuss today on IFRS 17 and 9. Let's start with slide 11. Very importantly, I want to stress that IFRS 17 and 9 is an accounting regime change. It does not change the underlying business fundamentals, cash flows or earnings power. As you can see here, we expect our financial strength not to be impacted and to remain strong. As such, we do not expect our asset ratio to change due to this new accounting regime.
With IFRS 17 and 9, the new accounting regime will move closer to the regulatory solvency framework, SST. This is good and simplifies financial steering. Equally, our dividend policy will remain unchanged. We stick to our target to distribute more than CHF 1.5 billion in dividends over the strategy period between 2021 and 2025. On page 12, let me give you an overview of the new accounting regime. Our balance sheet basically consists of assets on the left side and liabilities and equities on the right side of the balance sheet. Most of our assets are investments. The new rules of IFRS 9 for financial instruments apply. IFRS 9 gives principles for asset classification which drive, among others, how changes in investment values affect the P&L. I will highlight the most important implications later. Most of our liabilities relate to insurance.
Here, the new rules of IFRS 17 for insurance contracts apply. IFRS 17 introduces for the first time a common set of valuation principles for insurance contracts. As the valuation of insurance liabilities changes, this has impact on our equity. In addition, IFRS 17 changes the timing of how we recognize profits in the P&L. On the following slides, I will walk you through the four main topics that you see here on the right of the slide. The general workings, how we apply IFRS 17 at Helvetia, what the impact on the balance sheet are, and what the impact on the P&L are. Please note that there are many changes. We have to focus here on the most important ones. Let's turn to slide 13. Before I start to explain the building blocks, I want to emphasize the following.
I need to emphasize that IFRS 17 introduces for the first time a common set of valuation principles or measurement approaches for insurance contracts. Before, IFRS 4 has defined what an insurance contract is. IFRS 4 has been silent on its measurement. Instead, IFRS has allowed recourse to other accounting frameworks such as US GAAP and local GAAP to value insurance contracts. This has led to many differences and inconsistencies across the insurance industry. Let's start with the general workings of IFRS 17. These valuation principles are reflected in the default building block approach called PBA to measure insurance liabilities. This PBA approach entails four elements. First, best estimate cash flows are determined by discounting future cash flows. Future cash flows as the first building block are projected over the entire contract period and are probability weighted. Such projections are done among others by setting assumptions.
For example, mortality assumptions for lifetime contracts. Second block or second element, discounting. These future cash flows are then discounted, resulting in present value of best estimate cash flows. Currently, for example, non-life loss reserves are generally not discounted. Third, the risk adjustment. This is a new element of IFRS 17 to explicitly take non-financial risks into account. The risk adjustment is added to best estimate cash flows. Fourth and last, the contractual service margin, the CSM, as it is often referred to in short. This represents expected future profits over the entire contract period. These are deferred and shown in liabilities. The CSM is especially important in life business due to its contract period spanning up to decades. This is also a completely new concept under IFRS 17.
Generally speaking, the changes when moving from IFRS 4 to IFRS 17 are noticeable and incremental in non-life and fundamental in life. We need to take a deeper look at these valuation principles or measurement approaches as they are called. There is not only one approach, the default building block a-approach that I have just presented. There are also two further variations which are derived from this PBA approach. One is more suitable for the life business with policyholder participation and the other is more tailored to non-life. Let's look at this on the next slide. Here you see the three measurement approaches of IFRS 17 on the left, and on the right, how we plan to apply them across our businesses. We have already disclosed information on this in our half year 2022 report.
At the top, you see the PBA, the default model. I've just walked you through the four building blocks here. While we plan to apply PBA to some limited portfolios in life, we don't plan to apply PBA widely. Instead, we plan to apply mostly the variable fee approach in life. Let me walk you through the main characteristics of this VFA approach. VFA is mandatory for contracts with direct participation features. Most of our life book has such direct participation features. Therefore, we plan to apply VFA to around 90% of our life business. The most important difference of the VFA approach versus the default PBA approach is that fluctuations in the market values of investments are buffered in the CSM.
It is important to stress that this CSM buffering in the VFA approach reduces the volatility in the P&L as financial market fluctuations are generally buffered in the CSM. Moving on to non-life. In non-life, we plan to apply the simplified Premium Allocation Approach or PAA in short. The PAA is designed for short-duration contracts. In non-life, loss reserves are currently calculated as best estimates. This does not change materially. What changes under IFRS 17 is that the loss reserves are discounted and the new risk adjustment is added on top. It is important to note that there is no CSM under the PAA approach. In summary, in non-life under PAA, the changes of IFRS 17 are noticeable and incremental, but overall, the approach is similar to the current approach. Let's move on to further important choices we have taken when implementing IFRS 17 on the next slide.
We made these key choices to reflect best the economics of our business and to optimize earnings stability. Let's go through these key choices. First, on the top left, assumptions in general. In general, assumptions are set closely to SST and Solvency II. This ensures a higher level of consistency and makes IFRS more comparable to these regulatory solvency frameworks. Such assumptions relate to economic and non-economic best estimate assumptions like, for example, for mortality or lapse rates. For discount curves under SST, which are particularly relevant for the Swiss life business, Helvetia follows the regulatory stipulations. These differ from discount curves used under IFRS 17. Certain framework differences remain as well. For example, with regards to contract boundaries. Transitioning from IFRS 4 to IFRS 17 makes IFRS more comparable to these regulatory solvency frameworks. Second, just below, our reserving approach.
In non-life, our approach, how we set nominal reserves remains unchanged. We continue to follow a best estimate approach in reserving. In the life business, the approach to reserving is changing to a market-consistent valuation in line with the VFA and PBA approaches. Third key choice, risk adjustment. We plan to apply a quantile approach, as you have heard from some peers as well, to account for non-financial risks. In life, we will also take into account the cost of capital. Moving on to the fourth key choice, discount rates to account for financial risks. Here we apply a bottom-up approach to calculate risk-free interest rates. For our VFA portfolios, we add illiquidity premiums, which are calculated top-down. Let's continue with changes in the discount rates. We plan to apply the so-called OCI option to insurance liabilities, as many of our peers do as well.
As I explained before, insurance liabilities are discounted under IFRS 17. IFRS 17 stipulates that discount rates need to be updated with current market rates at each subsequent closing. By applying the OCI option, the effect of subsequent market changes of the discount rates on liabilities is booked in the OCI component in equity and not in the P&L. This avoids undue P&L volatility. Let's move to the last point on this slide, transition approach. IFRS 17 needs to be applied retrospectively as if these new rules had been applied since the start of every insurance contract. This is pretty difficult to put into practice as often not all necessary data is available. As permitted by IFRS 17 in such cases, we plan to apply mostly the modified retrospective approach, which allows some simplifications.
We also plan to use the fair value approach for smaller parts of our life portfolio. Under the fair value approach, the valuation is done at the time of transition. To sum up, these are the key choices we make. Peers may take the same, similar or different choices. Result, comparability with peers depends highly on these key choices made. Let's move to page 16 to the effect the transition to IFRS 17 and 9 has on our balance sheet. The transition from IFRS 4 and IAS 39 to IFRS 17 and 9 primarily impacts the measurement of insurance liabilities. In this chart, items of the current IFRS balance sheet that are mostly impacted by the transition are highlighted in dark green. These are mostly insurance liabilities in the life business, which are mostly measured under variable fee approach under IFRS 17.
Insurance liabilities for non-life are impacted to a lesser extent, as I have explained before. Let me walk you through the technical details of insurance liabilities under IFRS 17 on the next slide. On slide 17, you see a comparison of the balance sheet under current IFRS and under the new IFRS 17 on the right side. Under IFRS 17, the life business under VFA and PBA is treated differently than the non-life business under PAA. In a very simplified chart on the right. For life, insurance liabilities consist of the building blocks I have explained at the beginning. The CSM, contractual service margin, at the top represents estimated future profits, which are released through the P&L over the lifetime of the insurance contracts. The risk adjustment accounts for non-financial risk. The discounted best estimate cash flows, which represent the expected obligations to our customers.
This is in contrast to non-life under PAA. Here, loss reserves for past claims are calculated using best estimate cash flows. The approach is similar to today. IFRS 17 introduces discounting and the risk adjustment to account for non-financial risks. In contrast to life, please note that there is no CSM here. This is a very simplified view. We have simplified this in order not to confuse you and to keep you focused on the big picture. We have added the technical details, the technical terms, and the new abbreviations in the appendix. As a reminder, with IFRS 17, we are changing the valuation of insurance liabilities. As we are changing the measurement of liabilities, also, of course, our group equity is impacted. Let me walk you through the details of this on the next slide. The impacts to group equity differ between non-life and life.
Let's start with non-life, where we expect only a limited overall impact on equity at transition. Here, the introduction of discounting to insurance liabilities reduces liabilities, which has a positive impact on equity. Lower liabilities result in higher equity. In contrast, the new risk adjustment is added to liabilities, and this reduces equity. In sum, we expect the effect on equity in non-life to be limited. Let's move now to life. As I explained before, in life, future profits are deferred in the CSM. This increases liabilities. In addition, the new risk adjustment further increases liabilities. Currently, under IFRS 4, the part of policyholder participation is shown in equity. This item is called valuation reserve for contracts with discretionary participation features. You can see it highlighted in the dotted area in the chart.
As already disclosed in the half year 2022 report, under IFRS 17, Helvetia will consider all of these policyholder benefits in the measurement of liabilities. This reduces equity. As a result, overall, we expect a reduction of IFRS equity in life at transition. Moving on to the asset side of the balance sheet and to IFRS 9 on slide 19. Transitioning to IFRS 9 will change the classification of a portion of group investments. The classification mainly affects equities and loans and mortgages. At transition to IFRS 9, equities will be classified as fair value through profit and loss. More than half of the equity portfolio has already been classified through P&L under IAS 39. Having said that, the new standard gives the choice to designate equities at fair value through OCI at initial recognition. We will therefore assess this option for new investments going forward.
Loans and mortgages will mostly change from amortized cost to fair value. Loans will mostly be classified at fair value through OCI and mortgages at fair value through P&L. Bonds as well as alternative investments and investment funds are only affected to a small extent. For bonds, the largest part of unrealized gains and losses will continue to be recorded through OCI. Alternative investments and investment funds will be classified at fair value through P&L, as most of these assets have already been classified null. We expect the implication of these classification changes for our financial statements to be limited, taking mitigation actions into account. As I explained before, our life business, which makes up the largest share of investments, will mostly use the VFA approach. For VFA business, financial market volatility is buffered in the CSM and not directly impacting the P&L.
Let's have a look at some main features of IFRS 17 that impact the P&L on the next slide. This slide summarizes the most important changes to the P&L from introducing IFRS 17 on the liability side. First, here on the left, IFRS 17 changes the timing of earnings recognition, particularly in life. Here, profits are deferred in the CSM and earned over the coverage period in line with insurance cover and services provided. Assumptions changes for future services are not recognized in the P&L immediately. Such assumption changes are buffered in the CSM. As a reminder, for VFA business, which represents most of our life book, financial market volatilities are also buffered in the CSM. This is a core change that IFRS 17 introduces. Moving to the top line, or as it is now called, insurance revenue, as shown here in the middle.
Insurance revenue is recognized consistently in line with insurance cover provided in the reporting period. In contrast to IFRS 4, savings components are excluded from insurance revenue. You can expect insurance revenue to be lower than premiums and deposits under IFRS 4, particularly in life. Moving to the right to the onerous contracts. Onerous contracts are contracts which are expected to be loss-making at inception. Such losses from onerous contracts are recognized in the P&L immediately and disclosed separately. To be clear, we don't expect onerous contracts at transition to be material for Helvetia. As you can see, the introduction of IFRS 17 will have an impact on the presentation of our financial statements and our KPIs. On slide 21, you find a summary of which financial targets we will recalibrate following the introduction of IFRS 17 and 9 and the ones which are not changing.
As I said in the beginning, IFRS 17 and 9 does not change the underlying fundamentals, cash flows, or earnings power of our business. Our targets on financial strength and dividend distribution are not affected. IFRS 17 changes the valuation of insurance liabilities. This means that our financial targets specifically relating to the insurance business, namely the combined ratio and new business margin, will need to be recalibrated. Fee business, in contrast, is not affected by IFRS 17. As I said before, the P&L and equity will also see changes from the change in the accounting standard. We will also recalibrate our return on equity target. Let me recap on the key points of the introduction of IFRS 17 and 9 on the next slide. Helvetia is well on the way with the introduction of the new improved financial reporting. IFRS 17 and 9 is an accounting regime change.
It does not change the underlying business fundamentals, cash flows, or earnings power. As a result, we will not change our business strategy or our dividend policy, and our financial strength is not affected. IFRS 17 introduces three measurement approaches for insurance contracts. Helvetia will apply the simplified premium allocation approach in non-life, and in life, the variable fee approach for around 90% of the business. Key choices influence, among others, the presentation of financial statements and the timing of earnings recognition. We made these key choices to reflect best the economics of our business and to optimize earnings stability. As a further result, the new accounting regime under IFRS 17 and 9 is more aligned with the regulatory solvency frameworks, SST and Solvency II. IFRS 17 changes the financial statements and their presentation. Most importantly, a contractual service margin is introduced to reflect future profits as part of liabilities.
This will have an effect on our equity at transition. Furthermore, the timing of earnings recognition changes so that profits are recognized in line with insurance cover provided. This mostly impacts the life business. Helvetia is well on track to deliver the improved financial reporting under IFRS 17 and 9. We continue to work busily on the project. On the last slide, let me walk you through our timeline. IFRS 17 and 9 has become effective on January 1st, 2023. With today's event, we have disclosed first qualitative information. We will report our annual results for 2022 on the March 6th. This will still be under IFRS 4. In early summer, we plan to provide you with quantitative information such as impact on the opening balance sheet, restated comparatives for 2022, and updated KPIs under IFRS 17.
Our half year 2023 results that will be published in September will be the first reporting under IFRS 17 and 9. At that point, we also plan to update you on our financial targets as recalibrated to IFRS 17 where necessary. Thank you very much for your attention. We are happy to take your questions now.
We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on the touch-tone telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered a queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. In the interest of time, please limit yourself to two questions only. You may re-enter the queue for any follow-up questions. Anyone with a question may press star and one at this time. The first question comes from Anne-Chantal Risold from Octavian. Please go ahead.
Yes, hello. Hi, Annelis and everyone. I have a question. You mentioned several time change in the timing of earning recognition when we move to IFRS 17. For the life business, do you expect a faster or slower profit recognition with the new accounting rules?
Thank you, Anne-Chantal, for your question. It's probably difficult to have a very general answer to this. As you maybe know, we used local GAAP rules until now to record earnings in life business, and this will now be much more harmonized over the whole group. For details and examples of certain of our country markets, I will happily give the question to Beat, our Group Actuary.
I think, how Annelis said it. It's difficult to say. It depends on the market, but surely we had not, now under IFRS 4 contracts where we had a lot of profit in the first years and no profit in the third years. Like, there had been in some companies in the UK where you had the whole embedded value in the first year. Therefore, I think by us, we have not a lot of change that the profit recognition will be faster or slower.
Thanks. We'll see as we have the first years developing. Thanks a lot.
The next question comes from Johnny Fan from UBS. Please go ahead.
Hi, thank you for taking my questions. I have two, please. First one, recently we heard about very positive pricing trends on the reinsurance markets. Could you give us some color in terms of the growth you are planning for the active reinsurance going forwards? Also, what kind of trend you are expecting to see for combined ratio development in specialty markets overall? Secondly, I mean, given SST ratios potentially still at a very high level at the year-end, could you remind us the priorities now for you in terms of utilizing your surplus capital?
Thanks, Johnny, for your question. The first question was on pricing trends in active reinsurance. The second question was difficult to understand. It was about utilization of excess capital. Is that correct?
Yes, that's right.
Here at this time of the year, of course, you know that we give no guidance for full year. Regarding the half year, you have the full numbers available. Of course, we profit in our active reinsurance segment from the higher pricing or the harder market. On the other side, let's say we are on both sides in the reinsurance market, not in the same countries or areas, but of course we also have to buy a cover for ourselves on our group reinsurance side, which gets a bit more expensive. On the other side, we profit in the active reinsurance area. Regarding the excess cash, it's the same as we have discussed it half a year ago.
We use excess cash mainly for organic growth and inorganic growth and of course also for an attractive dividend policy. Our dividend policy is very sustainable and is also unchanged and will stay unchanged. Meaning that we try to steadily increase the dividend in absolute terms and only in exceptionally bad years to at least keep the dividend stable. We have done that for more than 20 years or even longer. We tend to continue like that.
Thanks. Just a very quick follow-up. I guess for your non-life business, if I look at the opportunities, you have, is that fair to say, perhaps the active reinsurance segments now appears to be the most attractive for growth? Or if there's any better opportunities elsewhere?
Well, let's say it like this. Of course, it's very attractive to grow at the moment in active reinsurance or also in the area of specialty markets in terms of volume. Still, it's also very attractive for us to grow, let's say, in retail Switzerland. There, you know, it's harder to grow more than peers, or steadily grow more than peers or at high rates. We have a lot of attractive markets where we grow and Our focus is on profitability and therefore, yeah, like, automatically we grow in the attractive areas.
That's very helpful. Thank you.
The next question comes from Peter Eliot from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead.
Thank you very much. Maybe one on 2022 and one on IFRS 17, please. I guess on the year-end review, the other segment is always the one that's sort of most difficult for us to forecast and most volatile. I guess if I look at last year where it was sort of over CHF 117 million of losses, and at the half year we were looking at a run rate of sort of CHF 25 million to CHF 30 million of losses. I guess you're saying that, you know, last year there was some negative one-offs, this year there were some positive one-offs, but it's a bit difficult just to get a feel for the size, the quantum. I mean, should we think about H2 being a sort of similar environment to H1?
I just wondering if you can give us any more help in sort of where we sit in the range? One thing there in particular, I guess tying into the second part of the presentation, I'm wondering how much the sort of ongoing cost of IFRS 17 will impact that segment, you know, both now and going forward? The question on IFRS 17 specifically, I was very interested by your comment that it sounds like you might review the way equities are accounted. You were talking about fair value through profit and loss for your existing investments that but the future investments might go through OCI. I'm just wondering what would cause you to change that?
Why you would, you know, want to do the accounting differently? Thank you very much.
Let me start with the last question first. Yeah, the equity classification. Under IAS 39, so the current classification, you as an insurance company or as a company under IFRS, you have different options on how to classify your equities, as you have also different options on how you classify your bonds, for example. These options are available at every time when you buy an instrument. This is very important to note. You do not have to decide, then it's forever like that. There is another example is real estate, for example. When we have adopted IFRS for real estate, we had to decide if the profit and loss on real estate evaluation gains go through P&L or not, and that could not have been changed.
That was the rule for all new buildings bought and sold. This is not the case for bonds, this is not the case for equities already now. With every transaction, every purchase, you can decide based on certain criteria which, yes, which classification applies. Very important to note. We, of course, we want to have the full freedom of decision to decide with every transaction, do we classify it OCI or do we classify it fair value P&L? That's all. Just to make that clear, because I'm not sure if it's, it's very known in the, in the analysts community. Now going backward. The ongoing cost of IFRS 17 of course the project costs some money in 2022. That's clear.
It was at, or it was and it is running at full speed. It will be, the cost will go down in 2023 and, for sure in 2024. Currently, one of the main tasks of the project is to transfer the project into the line organization. That means that the cost of the line organization will then be borne by all the countries in the normal, transfer pricing. It will be, of course, the cost load will be much smaller than in the past years because the teams do not have to do both works anymore, so they don't have to do IFRS 4 and IFRS 17, but only IFRS 17 from summer onwards.
To your first question, the other segment, yes, it is very difficult to judge what are the movements there because there are a lot of different aspects going in there. Group reinsurance is in there. Currency translation effects are in there. As we have pointed out also, funds transactions are in there. These have not happened, for example, to that extent in 2022. Otherwise, at the moment, we can give you more details on March sixth when we show you the full year results.
Okay. Thank you very much.
The next question comes from Simon Lue-Fong from Vontobel. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon. Simon from Vontobel. Two questions, unsurprisingly, on IFRS 17. The first question is: what do you get out of the new accounting that you didn't know before as a management team? What's the new data point that you're kind of excited about to get now? Is there anything? The second question is, if you could help us, how should we value an insurance company in the future? Because some of the parts I don't think works anymore. Do you expect a focus on net profit and with that P/E ratios? What's your sense how this will develop over the next, I guess, two years or so? Thank you.
Simon, I have to ask you here, back, why do you think some of the parts will not work anymore?
If I, if I take P&C, this is under PAA, so this doesn't change much. Some companies, the reinsurers, take everything under the general model. Maybe it's not fair to compare you with a 100% reinsurer, but they have a different model, and they have a CSM for the group. The diversified players like you, in the non-life area, have no CSM. That puts you at a disadvantage because of accounting. I don't think that that should be the way one looks at that, if I'm not completely wrong here.
Let's go to your first question. What do we get out of IFRS 17? I will start, and then I will pass on to Marc with the project lead, who has to motivate everyone in the project every day with positive news, of course. What do we get out? First, I think it was a good exercise in cleaning up legacy. What do I mean by that? Is that we had to look at almost every contract and see how do we have to show that under IFRS 17 and 9. It was a bit also indirectly a cleanup exercise.
Mm-hmm.
I think in life, personally, I think it's an advantage that there is not so much P&L volatility anymore. How do I mean that? Sort of life should be under IFRS 17 a bit more economic in that sense. Less volatility and maybe less temptations for companies to look on short-term profitability and rather focus on long-term profitability. For your work, for the analyst work, I think it will be very difficult to really compare companies.
Mm. I agree.
I'm afraid there I do not see a lot of positive points.
Mm.
Maybe, Mark, you can prove me wrong.
What we get out of IFRS 17 and 9 is that we get out a lot of figures, but now in a really structured way. We have invested a lot in new IT systems to structure the data, to calculate it in the right way. This we can use for the operative business steering.
Which means we have more information, we have detailed information. If we compare this and combine this with all our already existing information on our customers, we get better business steering. In addition, we have also an economic view on the data.
Mm-hmm.
That is, in a nutshell, the main advantages.
Mm-hmm.
Yes. Your second point, how can IFRS 17 help or not help in valuing an insurance company? As you said, there are challenges in doing that. I personally think there will be, at least in the first years, more focus on solvency numbers and more focus on cash generation.
Oh.
These are the two things that are somehow comparable still.
Yes. Yeah.
Maybe, Beat, you can add.
Yes. I think everything depends on the underlying business. Underlying business by a big reinsurer and a small retail like Helvetia with a little bit specialty markets and active insurance is not the same.
Yeah.
This is not the same, in your valuation or whatever under IFRS 4, and will also need to not be the same under IFRS 17. Therefore, also, maybe for other underlying business, it's better to use an VFA approach, and for our retail business, it's better to use a PAA approach.
Yes. I agree with you. It will probably be a year of transition and then trial and error and trying to figure out what works best.
As a reminder, if you wish to register for a question, please press star followed by one. The next question comes from Thomas Bateman from Berenberg. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. A few on IFRS 17, if I may. Could you give us a little bit more color? I'm hoping if you can put some numbers around potentially to what percentile have you calibrated the risk adjustment to? Also, what roughly do you think the fall in equity is going to be? Finally, I think you talked about your life reserving changing to a market consistent embedded value methodology. Could you just remind us again what was driving that change from your current methodology? Thank you.
Thanks, Tom, for your questions. As at this point in time, we will not neither give any quantitative information, neither ranges nor any specific number. You will get more, yes, more quantitative insights on our IFRS 17 application in the first half-year of 2023. Regarding the change in reserving, I would like to give the question to Beat regarding your question on loss reserving and what is changing towards market-consistent valuation.
How we have seen on the slides, in non-life, there is not a big change. We have yet a best estimate approach. Surely in life it completely change because under IFRS 4, we are based on the local valuation of the liabilities. Under IFRS 17, it's a market-consistent valuation of the liabilities, which is much, much closer to SST than the liabilities we have now in our IFRS 4 accounts.
Understood. Thank you. I appreciate it'll be a bit later for you to give us more details, but the more details you can give us, the better. I think it's an issue for the whole sector, that it will be very difficult to model this company until as late as, you know, or if it's as late as August this year. I don't know, any templates or any other details you can give us to help calibrate our own forecast would be really helpful. That's just a note. Thanks very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Ms. Annelis Lüscher-Hämmerli for any closing remarks. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Thanks, everybody, for your participation and all the questions. We look forward to tackle this challenge of understanding IFRS 17 together with us in the next months. Thanks a lot. Have a nice evening. Bye.
Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now over. Thank you for choosing Chorus Call, and thank you for participating in the conference. You may now disconnect the lines. Goodbye.