Good morning and welcome, everyone, here in Sydney and overseas around the world on the line. Let me begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which we meet, and pay our respects to elders past and present.

Today, I'm joined by our CFO, Jeremy Robson, to present the financial results for FY26. We'll run through the presentation and other members of our leadership team will then join us for the Q&A session that follows.

Let me start with some of the highlights of the result. FY26 highlighted the strong underlying trajectory of the Suncorp business.

We grew underlying earnings, we maintained margins at the top end of our target range, we improved our expense ratio, and we grew in almost all of our core portfolios. The strength of the business is also reflected in the balance sheet.

Today we've announced a fully franked special dividend of 10 cents per share and a further buyback of up to $250 million. This brings to over $4.8 billion of total capital that we've returned to shareholders over the past three years.

Now, there are now 238 million fewer shares on issue today than there were six years ago. All along, that improves the EPS and delivers for shareholders.

We've also continued to invest for the future. Across our technology platforms, our data systems, and our AI capabilities, we are building a simpler, more productive, and more scalable organization.

I'll come back to that later in the presentation. In April this year, we announced the placement of an aggregate reinsurance protection, which will significantly reduce earnings volatility and strengthen the resilience of our business.

Now, that cover was the last that was on our to-do list post the sale of the bank and the building of the pure-play insurer. That cover came into effect on 1 July and will also improve capital efficiency and underpins today's capital return.

Finally, this result demonstrates that it's possible to deliver for both shareholders and customers, with more than $10 billion, a record, paid out in claims, $2 billion of which were natural hazard-related. That's 120,000 individual natural hazard claims where we have supported our customers in getting back into their homes and back on the road.

Turning now to the headline result. The business delivered cash earnings of $1.04 billion and NPAT of $1.03 billion.

Now, this is a good outcome in a year where natural hazard costs exceeded our allowance by around $250 million. Now, as I mentioned at the outset, given weather, asset sales, and mark-to-market noise, the best means of understanding the year-on-year performance of a general insurance business is through the underlying earnings.

This metric increased by 4.5%, with our underlying insurance trading ratio ending the year at 11.8%. This is now the fifth consecutive period where the margin has been above 11%, which is a significant achievement in its own right, but that level of return now comes with increased resilience in the allowance, less reliance on reserve releases, and a transformative investment in the business.

Investment yields remain strong, increasing to approximately 5% through the year and slightly higher at an exit point. Turning briefly to the balance sheet, and the board has determined a final ordinary dividend of 52 cents per share, which is fully franked, bringing the full year ordinary dividend to 69 cents per share.

During the year, we also successfully completed our $400 million previously announced on-market buyback, and that resulted in the cancellation of 23 million shares. We've long maintained a disciplined approach to capital management.

We didn't raise capital through COVID, and we've been progressively paying back to shareholders the proceeds of the simplification of this business, and we've been guided by the principle that capital in excess of the needs of the business should be returned to shareholders in the most efficient manner possible, including the repatriation of franking credits. That's why today we've announced our intention for a further $356 million of excess capital through the 10 cents per share fully franked special and the on-market buyback of up to $250 million through the course of FY27.

This capital has been released through the placement of the aggregate reinsurance protection and the receipt of the deferred New Zealand life proceeds. Now, importantly, these returns have been delivered while maintaining a strong capital position and while we continue to invest in the future of the business.

To the next slide, and here we focus on growth across the business. At an aggregate level, gross written premium increased by 2.7%.

However, when you adjust for the foreign exchange impact from the weaker New Zealand economy and the weaker New Zealand dollar, growth was 3.6%. In Consumer, mid-single-digit growth was supported by both pricing and organic unit growth, reflecting the strength of our brands and the value that customers place on our products.

Importantly, we've continued to leverage our pricing and risk selection capabilities to improve the portfolio quality, growing in lower-risk segments. Commercial & Personal Injury also delivered growth across all portfolios.

In CTP, portfolio growth was driven by the pricing increases that were implemented across key schemes, but particularly in Queensland, where we've been talking for many, many periods about the need for reform in that Queensland CTP scheme, and that has come through, and the advocacy position that we've held for many periods is now being played through in the margin. In New Zealand, our direct AA business continues to grow in both units and AWP across the home and motor portfolios.

The intermediated business performance reflects the softer commercial market conditions, the exit of a brokered book of business, and a weaker economic backdrop. Now, Jeremy will run through the GWP outcomes in significantly more detail in just a moment.

Finally, this slide provides a summary of the support that we provided to our customers over a very active year for natural hazards. While these events impact our financial results, they represent something much more significant for the customers and the communities that have been affected.

Across Australia and New Zealand, we responded to 18 declared natural hazard events, which generated more than $2 billion in net natural hazard claims costs, but required a significant mobilization of our people and our response capabilities. I've had the opportunity, as have all the members of the leadership team had the opportunity, to visit a number of these communities over the course of the year.

Every time, we're reminded of the critical role our people play in helping customers recover and to rebuild. Now, what always stands out to us isn't just the scale of the event, but the commitment that our teams make on the ground to support customers at what is often the most difficult time in their lives.

Our ability to respond effectively is a result of years of investment in disaster management capability, in technology, in claims operations, and in community engagement. With that, let me hand over to Jeremy, and I'll come back after that.

All right. Thanks very much, Steve, and good morning, everyone.

I'd like to start by reinforcing a few of the key FY26 financial highlights for you. As Steve said, the results reflect a strong underlying performance.

Underlying earnings were up 4.5%, with underlying ITR of 11.8% at the top end of our range. We delivered mid-single-digit or stronger growth across most portfolios.

That's Home & Motor, Fleet, Workers' Comp, CTP, and then AA in New Zealand, albeit acknowledging it was partially offset by the weaker commercial cycle and the weaker New Zealand dollar. Our expense ratio reduced 50 basis points, reflecting our ongoing control of costs at the same time as investing in the business.

Then we delivered strong prior-year reserve releases of nearly $160 million. We've continued, as Steve said, to demonstrate disciplined capital management.

We announced today the fully franked special dividend of 10 cents per share and an FY27 buyback of up to $250 million. That, of course, is on top of the $400 million already completed in FY26.

Pro forma for these items, we still retain $162 million of CET1 above the midpoint of our range. Then finally, we've further enhanced our earnings resilience with the purchase of aggregate reinsurance cover for the next five years, as well as implementing some investment hedges.

These add to the existing resilience features, including the buffer in our natural hazard allowance, further protecting against downside risk while delivering a significant upside opportunity in favorable weather periods. Then we continue to expect to deliver margins in the top half of our range.

Let's get into the results in more detail and start with underlying margin. The underlying ITR, as I said, was 11.8%, remaining at the top end of the 10% to 12% range.

On a portfolio basis, Consumer delivered an underlying ITR of 9.9%, modestly up from FY25 as our pricing continues to reflect inflation. Commercial & Personal Injury margin increased to 11%, supported by pricing improvements in CTP and Workers' Comp, offset by some pressure in Property, as well as the impact of ongoing remediation and elevated fire claims in Platforms.

New Zealand margins contracted, taking into account internal reinsurance, but still remained strong despite moderating towards target levels in the second half as the softer pricing earned through. Now, looking ahead to FY27, as I said, we expect to continue to deliver an underlying margin in the top half of our range.

Pricing will continue to reflect claims inflation in Home & Motor, albeit margin is expected to moderate within guardrails. Then the benefit of ongoing remediation in Platforms and pricing in CTP is expected to be partially offset by New Zealand moderating to target levels, as I said.

The FY27 margin outlook includes the additional premium for aggregate cover. Now, importantly, this will be broadly offset by a combination of expected profit commissions, reinsurance savings on the main cat program, loss ratio initiatives, and some pricing response in select portfolios.

These dynamics are expected to result in a slight skew of the margin towards the second half. Moving then to the divisional results, and we'll start with Consumer.

Motor GWP increased 5.8%, reflecting input cost inflation. GWP growth was similar in both halves, albeit with a slightly different unit AWP mix mostly in the fourth quarter, reflecting market conditions.

Notably, we continued to see strong growth in our Bingle brand, with 13% GWP growth in FY26. In Home, GWP grew by 5.9%, reflecting pricing for claims inflation.

We continue to see the benefits of our improved risk selection and pricing capabilities, with a continued shift towards lower-risk properties. Mid-single-digit claims inflation in Home was driven by the higher natural hazard allowance and higher claims for water damage and landlord covers, but offset by tight management of the claims repair chain.

Similar levels of claims inflation in Motor reflected increased credit hire, windscreen, and towing costs. Importantly, parts, paint, and labor inflation and total loss costs all moderated in the second half.

Next, then, to Commercial & Personal Injury. GWP increased 4.5% for the full year and 6.5% in the second half, demonstrating the strong momentum in that business.

It also shows the benefit of portfolio diversification, with resilient overall performance notwithstanding the challenging market conditions. In Tailored Lines, Fleet grew 15% and NTI grew by 6%.

We also saw continued momentum from the successful launch of the new Vero specialty line products. CTP benefited from pricing increases in both New South Wales and Queensland, with total GWP growth of around 6%.

These increases are still earning through, and we continue to engage with the Queensland government on the need for sustainable scheme pricing. Workers' grew 4%, reflecting the combination of strong renewals, new business, and pricing.

The impact of prior-period premium adjustments in the first half was mostly reversed, as we expected. Growth in Platforms was impacted by ongoing remediation actions aimed at restoring profitability to target levels through improved pricing initiatives.

Now, the softer market cycle did impact growth in both ProFin and Property. I note that both portfolios continue to deliver strong underlying margins as we position these portfolios carefully through the market cycle.

I also note that Commercial & Personal Injury recognized $177 million of prior-year reserve releases, reflecting better claims development across pretty much the entire portfolio. Turning then to New Zealand.

Now, notwithstanding the challenging market and economic conditions in New Zealand, the business continues to deliver very attractive returns. GWP was down 2.7% in New Zealand dollars, and that's adjusting for the transition of the brokered book of consumer business that we flagged in the first half, but also noting a modest improvement in the GWP position in the second half.

In AA Insurance, that's our direct consumer portfolio in New Zealand, GWP was up 3.2%, reflecting the strength of the brand, with good unit growth across both Home and Motor. Growth was a little stronger in the second half, reflecting modest single-digit motor claims inflation.

The intermediated consumer portfolio was impacted by the brokered book exit, as I spoke about, and adjusting for this, growth was a small contraction, reflecting the competitive environment. The commercial portfolio in New Zealand contracted almost 10%, reflecting the softening pricing cycle as well as the weaker New Zealand economy.

Again, similar to Australia, we've also maintained strong underwriting discipline in the New Zealand portfolio, with margins remaining in the target range. Then, also similar to Australia, we saw significant prior-year reserve releases, with AUD $50 million of releases.

Now, before we leave the divisional results, I'll just make a few comments on our growth outlook. We expect to deliver GWP growth of between 3% and 5% for FY27.

Consumer remains supported by pricing for input cost inflation across both Home and Motor. Commercial is well-positioned to benefit from the price earning through the Personal Injury business, as well as Vero Specialty Lines growth.

The ongoing remediation and pricing work in the Platform business is also expected to contribute to growth. Now, while the operating environment remains challenging in New Zealand, we continue to expect growth in the direct consumer AA business, and the impact of the brokered book of business that we flagged in the first half is broadly removed.

We do, however, continue to expect a softer commercial market cycle and economy in New Zealand, particularly in the first half. Next then to reinsurance.

We manage our reinsurance program, as through the lens of long-term shareholder value creation with a focus on fundamental economics. Our FY27 main cat program is broadly consistent with the prior year.

Reinsurance markets were favorable for our renewal, and Suncorp continues to present an attractive scale market for reinsurers, and this has been reflected in the pricing achieved on the renewal. As already announced, our program is now supported by a five-year aggregate cover providing up to $800 million a year of protection.

This cover materially limits natural hazard risk, capping downside at $50 million to the natural hazard allowance for FY27 in approximately 90% of scenarios. The aggregate cover, as we've said before, is expected to be broadly neutral in terms of its fundamental economic cost.

Now, the new aggregate structure adds to our existing multi-year buydown arrangement on the main cat, and both of these programs include profit share arrangements offering material upside to reported margins where we see benign weather experience. Overall, the FY27 program supports a more resilient earnings profile, with upside opportunity without compromising long-term shareholder value creation or fundamental economics.

Now then to investment performance. The interest rate environment continues to support attractive returns, with underlying yield on insurance funds in the Australian business increasing to 5.1%, and I note the exit yield at 30 June was 5.3%.

Now, as you'd know, the rising yields result in mark-to-market losses in both insurance funds and shareholders' funds, and that drive net investment income for the year. We continue to adjust our investment portfolio in line with our strategic asset allocation.

In insurance funds, inflation-linked bonds were reallocated to structured credit, and there's still a small rebalancing of the ILB portfolio required, which is going to be implemented in the context of our outlook for inflation. Then in shareholders' funds, we've rebalanced cash into infrastructure and property, with a final small rebalancing into infrastructure currently underway.

We've continued to enhance the resilience of the investment portfolio with the implementation of a hedge strategy, which effectively partially reduces tail risk in equities with no material earnings drag expected. Turning then to expenses.

We continue to deliver strong cost discipline while maintaining investment in our strategic growth initiatives. The expense ratio reduced 50 basis points year-on-year.

Underlying inflation across wages and technology costs have been offset by productivity benefits and continued management focus on efficiency. Importantly, we've been able to improve our expense ratio whilst also investing in the modernization of the business, and that includes the digital insurer program, data and AI capabilities, as well as technology platform upgrades.

These investments are expected to further improve customer outcomes, simplify our business, and support sustainable growth over time. We expect the total expense ratio to be broadly flat in FY27, noting that this excludes restructuring costs, and restructuring costs in FY27 are expected to be broadly in line with what we've incurred in recent years.

Then finally, on the results, to capital. Our capital position remains very strong, and we've retained our disciplined approach to capital management, as Steve said.

In FY26, we successfully bought back $400 million of shares, reducing the share count by 23 million. Today, we're announcing a return of a further $356 million of capital to shareholders, with a fully franked special dividend of 10 cents per share and an on-market buyback for FY27 of up to $250 million.

Now, this is in addition to a fully franked final dividend of 52 cents per share at a 70% payout. Now, after taking into account the special dividend and buyback, pro forma excess CET1 remains $162 million above the midpoint of our target range.

Now, from the chart there, you can see that we did experience some net usage of organic capital in the second half, and there are a couple of key items that contributed to this. The first was the impact of the foreign currency translation reserve from the weaker New Zealand dollar.

Then the second was some additional prudent level of risk margin put aside for the current geopolitical uncertainty. Beyond these, other key dynamics on capital during the half were the aggregate cover providing a one-off targets benefit of $107 million, as well as providing confidence to reduce the level of excess CET1 we hold above the midpoint.

Then, of course, the New Zealand life sale deferred proceeds of $160 million were received on the 31st of July, making these funds available for return to shareholders. Now, before turning back to Steve, I'd like to finish by highlighting our enhanced earnings resilience profile.

We introduced the new aggregate reinsurance cover in FY27, which limits downside to natural hazard risk for the next five years. We have a robust natural hazard allowance, which includes a specific resiliency buffer.

By way of example, and you can see on the chart there the top left box, average natural hazard experience would have been between $125 million and $200 million better than the allowance over that 15-year period. That's with the current allowance, the current reinsurance program, inflation-adjusted, and as I say, average.

We've traditionally maintained a conservative investment approach, enhanced by further diversification into structured credit, property, and infrastructure, and the implementation of the equity tail risk hedge strategy. Then we continue to place low reliance on prior reserve releases, notwithstanding the material releases experienced in FY27.

Now, these actions have provided significantly more resilience to our underlying earnings, and all the while maintaining margins in the top half of the range. Importantly, there's also now a meaningful upside opportunity to reported earnings, as you can see from the slide on the right-hand side, including the profit commissions from our two structured reinsurance arrangements.

This clearly represents a fundamentally improved risk-return profile for Suncorp's business. With that, I'll now hand you back to Steve.

Thanks, Jeremy. Before I move to strategy and outlook, I just wanted to again remind you of how we believe long-term value is created at Suncorp.

Our purpose, delivered through our people in support of our customers and the communities that they live in, when done well, will always deliver superior returns to shareholders. Now, this slide is also familiar to you, and it captures our plan on a page.

Our five portfolios reflect the breadth of our trans-Tasman business, and we'll provide significantly more detail on their individual portfolio priorities at our Investor Day in October. Underpinning those priorities are the strategic imperatives that support our business and our strategy.

These are focused on transforming how we work through technology, through modern platforms, AI, and a culture that's centered on delivering simple, personalized customer experiences. Now, this next slide, I think, captures in a fairly simple way the methodical evolution of Suncorp since 2019.

The first phase of our strategy was simplification. From the outset, we as a team formed the view that the best way to create long-term value was to focus our organization on the areas where we could build genuine competitive advantage.

That led us through a multi-year program of portfolio simplification, which included, of course, the sale of Life, Wealth, SMART, and of course, Suncorp Bank. With the completion of the New Zealand life transaction in 2025, that simplification chapter largely came to an end.

What emerged was a significantly simpler business. Now, the second phase of the strategy was about investing in what we call the pure-play insurer, or Project Sunshine, as we called it internally.

Alongside the simplification program, we invested heavily in the foundations of the insurance business. We began implementing a new policy administration system, we modernized our claims capabilities, we've invested new telephony platforms, and we've built out our data capabilities.

We've, of course, also started the journey with AI. Finally, we also strengthened the resilience of the business, as Jeremy pointed out, through the enhancements to our reinsurance program.

Now, this brings us to the third phase, which is where we are today. We are now entering a period where the focus shifts from building those capabilities to leveraging them to deliver better outcomes for our customers.

This is fundamentally important, because insurance is changing. Customers increasingly expect products and services that reflect their individual circumstances.

If a customer invests in making their home more resilient, in improving the maintenance of that home or reducing risk, they will increasingly expect that will be recognized in the price they pay for their insurance. The same is true for motor and commercial, as it's been in commercial for many, many years.

To deliver that future, insurers need modern infrastructure, modern policy administration systems, strong data capabilities, and to utilize AI, decision-making, and AI-enabled distribution systems. That's fundamentally why we've made the investments that we've made.

The future is ultimately about reshaping how insurance products are manufactured and distributed. We see opportunities for highly personalized customer experiences and AI-orchestrated customer journeys.

Now, the structural changes we've announced today will ensure we are able to leverage our new platforms and those AI capabilities to maximum effect. A new function that will be led by Bridget will bring together our customer, brand, and digital distribution teams, and it will ensure we realize the opportunity that AI provides for faster and more efficient distribution of insurance products through our suite of multi-leading brand strategy.

Lisa and Michael, in their new roles, will be responsible for product and claims across Consumer and Commercial, leveraging our digital insurance investments to deliver personalized products and market-leading claims experiences. Michelle Bain, who'd be familiar to many in the room, will step into Bridget's role as the CRO.

Now, I'm more confident than ever that we're on the right path. We've simplified the business, invested in the core insurance franchise, strengthened our resilience, and now we're entering a phase where we can leverage all of that to create value for both customers and for shareholders.

That will be the defining opportunity for Suncorp over the next few years. Before we go to the outlook, I just want to spend a brief moment on the topic of AI and how we're thinking about the opportunity.

We'll have a lot more to say about this at our Investor Day in October. We've spoken about it previously, and it's an area where the pace of change continues to be significant.

On the left-hand side of the slide, I've highlighted again our foundational capabilities, which ensure we are well-placed to leverage AI and to improve the operational efficiency of our business. As I just touched on, we have invested heavily in the foundations.

We've built the core technology, established the strong strategic partnerships—we're not going to do this all on our own—and we've embedded governance and safety frameworks. Importantly, we've invested in building AI capability right across the organization, right through to the individual team member level.

We're at a point where we're scaling and accelerating these capabilities across the business and increasingly embedding AI across our claims and customer service processes. Now, we've got a few examples of where AI has been deployed at scale on the right-hand side of the page, which to date has been mainly in productivity-focused use cases.

Finally, before Q&A, to the outlook. As Jeremy said, GWP growth is expected to be between 3% and 5%.

The underlying ITR expected to be in the top half of the 10% to 12% range. Total operating expense ratio expected to be broadly in line with FY26.

We'll continue to maintain our disciplined approach to the balance sheet, again targeting a payout ratio around the midpoint of the 60% to 80% range of cash earnings. Finally, as we've covered off a couple of times, we'll be commencing that buyback with a target of up to $250 million over the course of FY27.

At that point, let's go to your questions. Want to start, Andrei?

Good morning. Andrei Sackmann here from Royal Bank of Canada.

Can I ask my first question around pricing and volume trends in the personal book? Just reflecting back on what happened in the first half in unit growth, it seems that Home and Motor, and Motor in particular, were flat in the second half.

Pricing, I appreciate, was actually pretty robust, but units really slowed in the second half. How are you thinking about pricing, maybe marketing strategy going forward?

Because Youi, Outwrite have been very aggressive with marketing, some of the other competitors. How are you thinking about pricing, marketing, and other initiatives going forward?

I might just quickly start off, and then Jeremy can go through the detail. Look, I think the first point to make is that there continues to be elevated levels of inflation across the insurance value chain, and I'd make the point again, as we've made many times, that the insurance inflation is different to CPI, and it's running at a different clip.

In our estimation of insurance inflation is around 6% or maybe slightly higher relative to CPI, just above 3%. Now, that's got to be the first fundamental priority as we look at pricing the business.

I think what that does sometimes is create a disparity between the pricing that we see and the rest of the market. You will see that unit count move around a little bit over the period of time.

The other point I'd make about the multi-brand strategy, which, again, I believe to be a very effective part of our arsenal, and I know there's been questions about brands in an AI world, but we're seeing this multi-brand strategy play out very effectively for us through this period of time. The two pillars of our multi-brand strategy, in Australia, AAMI, and in New Zealand, AA Insurance.

If you recall back five or six years ago, AAMI was struggling. It's now performing incredibly well in our brand portfolio, as is AA Insurance in New Zealand.

Jeremy went through some of the niche brands which are growing, and I'd make the point about Bingle, which is growing at around 13%. Now, that's the brand we put up against some of the price challenges, and it picks up that opportunity for us on the way through.

The multi-brand strategy continues to be one of the most effective parts of our arsenal in this environment. Pricing to inflation is also a key part of the story, and making sure that we've got the discipline around that so that we're always going to be ahead of inflation, not behind it, which is a big differential.

To some extent, that may see unit count move around a little bit. You saw that between the first half and the second half.

The only other comment before I hand to Jeremy with a bit of a top-up is it's very hard to get a sense of what the market's doing. Yes, while our unit count in an absolute sense might have come down, we also see new car sales and various other elements of system growth, both for Home and Motor, falling away a little bit in the second half as well, which will put our unit count number in more perspective relative to our competitors.

I'd just add, Steve, that you're right, Andrei, it's more Motor than Home. Home was, give or take, flattish on both halves on unit growth numbers.

We were obviously flat in Motor in the second half. Most of that was in Q4, Q1 was actually okay.

Most of it was Q4. As Steve said, we think system came off a little bit in that quarter, maybe connected to the Middle East conflict.

We certainly saw competitors increase some of their activity around new business discounts, increased marketing, etc. Maybe that's a lead-in to a 30 June type dynamic.

Then for us, we kept price on in the Motor portfolio, because we are constantly tweaking the portfolios across Home and Motor in terms of a growth margin outcome. We manage those portfolios around those two factors.

In an outlook sense, the price we're putting through Motor today, the renewal prices increased in the second half in Motor. Those prices that we're currently putting through should see us get to our outlook for FY27, the current AWP that we're seeing, with a little bit of an improvement in retention ratios into FY27 through some of what Steve spoke around that brand portfolio.

For my second question, can I just ask around kind of balance sheet management and the new multi-year aggregate reinsurance cover? Given you highlighted you are protected on the downside, with upside optionality on earnings, does that mean investors should think that you may be in a position continue to deliver special dividends if you do have good years going forward?

Look, a couple of comments and again then JR can top up. I think we've always had a disciplined approach to it.

We've been managing the mechanisms through which we get capital back to shareholders in what we believe to be a very efficient way. We recognize the franking credit balance is of limited value to us as an organization, but of great value to our shareholders.

The mix of capital return, we favor on-market buybacks for the reasons that are very clear around EPS performance, return on capital, all the various metrics that sit in the business, and will create that long-term, sustainable shareholder value. We do recognize that from time to time there'll be an opportunity for us to repatriate some capital utilizing a special dividend, and then releasing the franking credits to our shareholders.

The form of capital, I think might change substantially over time. Buybacks will remain our preferred course.

Conservative management of the balance sheet, I think, has served us well, and will continue to serve us well. We'll continue to take a reasonably prudent approach to that at the moment.

So I'd just say that I think we've said this before, that with a 70% dividend payout ratio, we sort of ordinarily expect something like 10% organic generation out of that, 20% to fund the growth in the business, depending on where growth is at, but something around that sort of level. If we do have more profit through those profit margins or improved natural hazard experience relative to our expected, then that should generate obviously more capital, which should actually improve that ratio in the years where we get that and lead to more opportunity for capital management in those years.

Yeah.

If I can ask a third and final question from me, just can you remind us of your initiatives in terms of helping customers and communities deal with climate impact? Are you offering incentives to help fund the transition or the risk management?

Lisa, would you like to come up and talk about some of the initiatives? Obviously, we've invested heavily in our disaster management capabilities, and what that allows us to do from a customer perspective is very much get on the front foot.

We've got meteorological capability now embedded in the organization, both short, medium, and long-term. Typically we will see good line of sight from our meteorologists around what's going to be happening in terms of the weather.

Then we can deploy that disaster management capability through our management center out into the field in terms of making sure that we've got our resources appropriately set.

Yeah. From a consumer perspective, prevention's been a core part of our strategy.

As Steve touched on, a lot of work in terms of disaster management, proactive alerts to customers, and then responding. Equally, we launched Haven probably about 18 months ago, and anyone across the country can type in their address and really understand the types of risks that they might be subject to and, importantly, actions that they can take to make their homes more resilient.

At the same time, for Suncorp, we've got the My Home offering as well that actually gives rebates on some everyday items if you take some of those actions. Customer feedback of those using Haven and My Home has been really positive, and we'll continue to look to scale that.

Then, I know many people know I talk about this often, but in the motor space, we do a lot around prevention, AAMI's Safe Driver tells you in terms of every drive, how you're driving, how to be a better driver, stop the speeding, stop your braking. Again, there's pretty significant cash rebates on Ampol, Myer, etc.

Really pleased with the prevention work, and it is making a difference. Over time, we'll look to continue to scale that.

Okay. Oh, I gave you three questions there, Andrei, because you were good enough to come into the office.

Tommo?

Thanks. Mark Tomlins, Craigs Investment Partners.

With your new aggregate policy for five years, how should we be thinking about your intergroup reinsurance, and how that impacts it?

That shouldn't have any particular impact on the intergroup reinsurance. We did reduce the level of intergroup between Australia and New Zealand last year, but that's remained consistent for this year, and that's what we'd expect going forwards.

Yeah.

Thanks. You reduced your exposure to insurance-linked bonds during the half, and then we had sort of an increase in inflation expectations and rise in interest rates.

Do you sort of regret doing it when you did? Or you've sort of mentioned that you're planning on further reducing your insurance-linked bond exposure.

Let me just have a start at the question, because I was involved in buying those things back in 2013. I's always said that the minute you go to sell them, inflation will kick up.

That's

obviously the law of the jungle. But

Yeah. Look, we've done a lot of work on inflation-linked bonds, and that position to reduce exposure to them has been there for probably two years now on the strategic asset allocation basis.

We don't need as many as we used to have to manage the inflation in the claims portfolio. Anything above that is really it's a unnecessary bet from our perspective on inflation.

We try to pick the right time to do it, but sometimes it's hard to do that. As I say, we've got a small residual rebalancing to do, and we'll try and pick the right time from an inflationary perspective to do that rebalancing.

You mentioned that you've exited a broker portfolio in New Zealand and it's meant to have broadly removed impacts for FY27, but how much should we expect the impact to be in first half '27?

Is there any It's small. It's one month.

There's

one month left, yeah. Okay.

Then

ASIC was out yesterday talking about motor insurance premium renewals and the poor job that was done in explaining the increases. You do a great job for us here in explaining what's going on.

Is it just a case of poor communication?

Obviously we'd like to communicate better. We'd like customers to understand in more granular detail the components of a premium.

It's not an easy thing. A lot in insurance is very difficult to understand, particularly on the reinsurance side, and getting customers to understand the impact on their premium of things like reinsurance adjustments.

We have been obviously engaged with ASIC, and I've certainly had many discussions with the minister, Mulino. Premium transparency is one of his top rating issues.

Sit around the ICA table. The industry is aware of the challenge that the minister has put to the industry around improving transparency, and I think that's going to be an inevitable improvement that we'll see.

It's just not easy to do, but it will need to get better. In terms of our strategy at Suncorp, we are, with the new policy administration designing pathways that will allow customers to have more understanding of the inputs into an insurance premium, but critically for them, what they can do to reduce the risk and bring the premium down.

Finally, just on the management shake-up, is the new divisional heads got any plans for each of those divisions?

I think what we might do, Tommo, with due regard, is give them a bit of time to get their feet under the desk, and we'll come back to that in Investor Day with a portfolio rundown. I'd make the point, when we did the last organizational redesign, I compressed the number of direct reports from eight to seven, which is probably lower than most other ASX 100 companies, so that give a bit of flexibility.

I think that this is very much aligned to the strategy, very much aligned to leveraging the value that we see post the investments that we've made. The important thing is all the executives that are in the team are very familiar to the new portfolios as they were to the old.

Particularly, Michael's been the CFO for Consumer Insurance, he's run claims, he's run most of the parts of the engine there of Consumer, and Lisa similarly has run most of the parts of the Commercial business. I think the breadth and the strength and the quality of the team will mean that the transition will be reasonably seamless.

Bridget's got some great ideas and opportunities to drive that brand portfolio forward and use AI in distribution as an adjunct to our demonstrable digital transactional distribution capabilities. I gave you four questions, so.

Anything else in the room? Might go to the phone?

Good morning, guys. Thanks so much for taking our questions.

Just a first one on the 80 basis points of profit commissions that you're saying is upside to your underlying margin. That implies about close to $500 to $600 million kind of over the five-year period of the contract.

Just want to understand, one, how is that calculated? Is it on the best estimate basis?

Is there any level of conservatism? Also the formula, kind of what are you accounting for that in that number?

We'll email the spreadsheet to you, Julian, if that's makes it easy.

Good try on the formula, Julian, but look, obviously the profit commission arrangements themselves are commercially sensitive, we won't be talking about those. The way that upside is presented on the chart is it's an annual number, obviously.

The way we've done it is we include in the underlying ITR calculation the expected profit commission. On expected basis, there's a certain level of profit commission that we would expect to get.

With both of those arrangements, in terms of the main cat one and the aggregate one, there is opportunity to earn well above the expected profit commissions, and it's that number then that appears into that 80 basis points. The calculations are simply, what is the maximum amount of profit commission that we're able to achieve on both of those programs less what we have included in the underlying ITR.

Is it fair to say that it's broadly equally split between the aggregate and the structured solution?

No, the upside is heavily skewed towards the aggregate cover. Because the way we've done the structured main cat one is reflected on the FY26 experience.

Obviously we had the giant hail in FY26 that did attach to that part of the program, which then impacts on the profit commissions there. We've reflected that into it, whereas the new aggregate one is a maiden program that doesn't have any losses attached to it to date.

Okay. No, that's clear.

Then just a second question. There's a fair bit of discussion on unit trends over the second half '26, which is a bit weak.

A lot of the discussion as well now is about upside to margins well above that sort of 10% to 12% threshold. I want to understand here, the pricing versus volume dynamic or the margin versus volume dynamic is more skewed in terms of margins.

Just want to understand, what does this mean for pricing going forward? Is there a greater focus on volumes from here?

No. I think, I went through them in the earlier question.

Inflation is the biggest driver of our pricing position, and you've got to recognize that many in the industry will have different means of predicting what inflation might look like prospectively. Of course, in insurance, if you get behind, it takes a long time to catch up.

We'd like to be there or thereabouts, or slightly ahead in terms of our assessment of inflation, not only the underlying CPI, but insurance inflation, and particularly as it flows through the supply chain. I expect that will remain elevated over the medium term.

Some of the scarcity and pinch points that we're seeing in terms of housing, trade availability, I think it's going to continue to play out into elevated levels of inflation. What that means is that if you've got a more precise predictive capability, as we believe we have, then we may get ahead of volume trends or slightly below volume trends.

That's the general approach to pricing, and it will see some variability in claims. I'd make the point that we've delivered at least five periods above 11%, and most recently towards the top end of that range.

We do have to fund the aggregate cover now, and we're committing to continue to have those margins at the top end of the range with an aggregate cover, with a cyclone reinsurance pool. The risk, sort of profile of this business has changed materially, and we're continuing to maintain that discipline around top end of the range in terms of margin with appropriate growth.

Why do we believe we can do that? Because we see continued opportunity.

We see continued opportunity around loss ratios. If you look at our loss ratio versus some of our competitors is slightly elevated.

Now, there's some good reasons for that, that are portfolio-related, geography-related, customer-related, but we believe we can bridge that gap. We still believe there's opportunity in the expense space, using AI as a productivity tool, our workforce is significantly more productive than it's been, and we'll continue to go that way.

Opportunity, I think, to keep that margin towards the top end of the range, but don't forget, we are funding an aggregate cover, and we've got a premium to pay there. There are some offsets, but we still have to pay that cover.

Okay. Got it.

Then just to round out the last part of that answer, you're not really guiding to any expense ratio benefits from here on in into FY27. Just want to understand why.

All the productivity efficiency benefits with AI, I guess isn't there more of an opportunity that could come through? Or is it more of an out-year conversation?

Look, I think that's a fair question, Julian. We have guided to a broadly flat operating expense ratio for FY27.

The drivers around it are we're still expecting to have some inflation in the cost base, wages, technology costs. Technology costs run at a fair clip.

We're still investing in the business, we still expect to be investing through '27 as well. The profile of the productivity operational efficiency benefits from some of these programs takes just a little bit of time to get up and spinning in terms of full run-rate benefit.

Those dynamics together, we are expecting to see operational efficiency and improvements in FY27, but we're also expecting to see some underlying inflation and continued investment in the business which keeps it flat for '27. To Steve's point, there is a longer-term opportunity here for us on that expense ratio without doubt.

Got it. This is a last question for me, just on reserving in the Consumer business.

Just want to understand any differences in inflation that you're calling out versus system, given the reserving trends just for Consumer Home and Motor. Is that going to necessitate more of a pricing response or not really?

Just want to understand how you're kind of interplaying that into pricing. Thanks.

Yeah. Look, on reserving, prior-year reserve releases, we had some strengthening particularly in Motor, a little bit in Home.

That was all in the first half. We went through that at the first-half results.

It was around some of the timing around total loss and third-party claims way back in July. That's not really a feature in the results beyond that.

In terms of working claims inflation, I said in the presentation that working claims inflation in Motor and Home is around the mid-single-digit mark, which we have no reason to think is different to the rest of industry. That's driven by, in Home, some escape of liquids, water damage, landlord covers, as we've seen rent coverage increase and some liability claims increase.

Then in Motor, it's largely been, with some moderation in the parts and paint and labor, and total loss for that matter, it's largely been in the windscreen and towage. Some of that in response to the Middle East fuel crisis.

We don't have any reason to believe that those would be significantly different to industry, except to say that when we look at our claims performance relative to industry, there's some stats you can look at there that we tend to run slightly better than the rest of industry.

Julian, just finally on that point, one of the initiatives in the business is what we call Home Repair. It's our proprietary Home Repair business doing claims-related activity.

We've taken some steps recently, given what we see in terms of the outlook for claims inflation and supply chain challenges. We own that business, and we've extended both its geographical footprint, it's now covering the whole of Australia, and the sort of eligibility of claims that it will address.

We now have it doing escape-of-liquids-type claims very successfully. This is going to be a very big part of our toolkit for this claims environment going forward, give us more secure access to trades.

We're working constructively with it alongside the rest of the panel, but it's going to be a very important initiative for us and doing very well over the last 12 months. Okay.

Let's go to the next question.

Good morning, everybody. Just a couple of questions, if I can.

Firstly, just on inflation versus what we're seeing in terms of GWP growth. Steve, you made some comments that you saw underlying inflation at around 6%.

I think you gave a little bit of detail around Motor and Home being around 5%, I think. I think that's how I'm interpreting your numbers.

GWP growth ex the currency moves was 3.7% in FY26, and was consistent first half and second half. Just want to understand, your guidance is also seems to be sub-inflation going forward on GWP growth.

I just want to make sure there's some consistency between your comments that you're basically pricing for inflation and just what we're guiding to on GWP growth. Maybe if you could break down where there might be inconsistencies in the numbers that I've just highlighted.

Yeah. Sid, I think one of the points is that the whole market has a different predictive capability around inflation.

Again, to the point of our pricing discipline, it is to get ahead of inflation as best we can and be prospective around our pricing as best we can. That will obviously have two components.

One will be if we're pricing to a higher level of inflation, will lift the AWP, but it may have some short-term detrimental impact on units if the rest of the market doesn't have that same predictive capability. So

Look, it's a very broad spectrum of inflation. You've got to break it down.

Inflation in Home and Motor has been around the mid-single digits, probably around that 5%, maybe pushing into 6%, 5%. Our AWP in Home has been ahead of that over the course of the year.

In Motor, it was a little bit behind that, but we do that over the course of the year to manage the portfolio. Over the course of the two halves, that's reversed a little bit.

There is dynamism in the way that inflation, pricing works across the portfolio. We're quite confident that, as we sit here today, we're covering inflation in both Home and Motor, particularly on working claims.

The bigger challenge in Home is the aggregate cover, of course, because most of that goes into the Home portfolio, and we're seeking to, with the other initiatives I spoke about, get that price through. We will see Home and Motor moderate in terms of underlying ITR back into the guardrails.

We're confident we're pricing for underlying working claims inflation in Home and Motor today in terms of the AWP that we're seeing going through relative to that inflation. Then the concept of inflation in some of the other portfolios around Commercial and Workers' Comp and the like is a little different because it tends to be more around large loss dynamics.

Again, we're quite comfortable that we're pricing for inflation in those, and we can see margin expansion coming through in CTP as we earn more premium through, and that's to get those products back to a guardrail target underlying ITRs. We can see expansion coming through in packages, platforms as we remediate that business.

Then New Zealand, commercial is similar dynamics to Australia. Then the other thing we've seen in New Zealand is, in Motor, motor claims costs and frequency really fell away last year, and they've come back a little bit in a modest way in the second half of '26.

You can particularly see that in AA in New Zealand, where we expect to continue to get growth in AWP in New Zealand, albeit probably with a little bit more AWP over unit growth. We had 3% odd unit growth in AA Motor over FY26.

Anything more, Sid?

Okay. I do.

Just one question around just the increase in margins in Commercial. I think you had underlying ITR of 12.6% in the second half, up from 9.2% in the first half.

I thought there may be some pressure there, just given some of the comments that we hear in the market around what's happening with commercial pricing in aggregate. I think you flag in your commentary, I think rates were flat in your largest segment within Commercial.

I know that there were increases in some of the personal injury classes. Maybe if you could just comment on either margins by portfolio versus your targets or where was the improvement coming through?

Should we not be concerned around some of the softness in the market for the outlook?

Sid, again, you got to break Commercial & Personal Injury down, because it's quite a broad church of portfolios. We saw the margin expansion in both halves coming through CTP and Workers' Comp off the back of the pricing changes that we've been putting through those portfolios.

We've put significant price through both Queensland and New South Wales, and to some extent some rate in Workers' Comp in WA. That's what drove most of the margin increase in Commercial.

We've seen across Property, for example, which is a relatively small part of the overall Commercial & Personal Injury portfolio, but we have seen rate reduction there. We've seen rates down into the double digits, maybe 10%, but the market's probably down closer to 20%, we've done better than the market.

We've seen rates down in ProFin, but again, we're a lot tighter than the rest of market. Fleet has been a little bit of change half-on-half, but the key driver to the growth in margins in Commercial has been the personal injury, and we would still expect that to continue into FY27, as I said.

Some of that rate still needs to earn through those portfolios. We still expect to see ongoing pressure in Commercial into FY27.

We expect to see a little bit of margin expansion in Platforms in FY27 as we remediate that business. They're probably the key drivers.

Okay. Just one final quick question.

Just competition. Just you did flag increasing competition in the second half in personal lines.

I think you were singling out Motor. Just is it broad-based?

Is it the challenger brands, in inverted commas? Maybe if you could just provide some color.

You've just got to watch the TV. The marketing from some of the competitors has lifted materially through the last 12 months.

I mentioned the brand portfolio, which we believe is in fantastic shape, the growth that we've seen in Bingle, the strength of AAMI and Shannon's, our two key brands there. It's clear that some of the premium brands, Suncorp and GIO, have been doing it a bit tougher in this environment, which is what you would expect.

We continue to look at opportunities there for us. The competitive environment

Yeah. Look, I think Steve summarized it well.

I'm sure any of us watching sport or on the TV would see it is competitive. It is broad-based, whether it's challengers or some of the more established brands in that market.

Obviously, we've started to see the dynamics with some of the motoring clubs start to change. To Steve's point, we feel really well-positioned for the competitive environment.

We have a strong multi-brand portfolios. Each brand is very specific to customer segments, we can meet customers where they want to be met, which is something that is unique to Suncorp, and you see in terms of some of the performance of those brands over the last year and years.

Equally, in terms of we've got great capabilities around pricing, underwriting, and claims management. Claims management, I'll touch on in terms of we've got great scale, and many will remember when we spoke about the half for the Consumer result, obviously natural hazards played a bit of a role there.

We go back to November last year, we've probably close to 15,000 or 20,000 claims, and we were able to use our scale, our expertise of our people, to assess 500 cars each and every day through our mass assessments. That's something that matters for consumer insurance, to be great at claims and something we're putting some big investments through.

Whilst it is a very competitive environment, and you'll see strong margins in the Consumer portfolio, feels that we're very well-positioned to compete in this environment.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Sid.

Morning, guys. A couple of questions.

I'd like to start by going back to some of the discussion around volume trends in Home and Motor. Just to be clear, maybe on two things.

Steve, you very clear that you're pricing prospectively for a view on inflation. You don't want to get behind there, which fully appreciate.

What I'm keen to understand, alongside that, is just the impost of the aggregate cover. In your view, does that require you to price above system at the moment, particularly in Home?

Is that sort of having an impact, in your view, on the volumes you've achieved through second half?

Look, I think the aggregate cover does come at a cost. There's a premium attached to it.

The components of how we seek to offset that, by and large, and this is a broader assessment of it, are through benefits that we've got through the reinsurance placement on the cat program, which, against any measure, was a very good outcome for us in terms of the savings there relative to the PCP. Then the second part of that is the opportunity we believe that exists on loss ratio.

I think you, Kieren, you'd be understanding very much where our loss ratio sits relative to some of our competitors. Some of that structural, some of it we believe we can get at through a program of work which we're doing.

Then there's the expense program that we have in, which is AI, CCT, which is claims and customer transformation, and other expense initiatives that we believe will go there. There will be some pricing.

There's no doubt there will be some pricing initiatives that we'll put through. They sort of come in that order: the benefits on the cat that we've got through the renewal, the loss ratio work that we're focused on, expense, continued expense management, and then some pricing initiatives in both Home and Motor.

The profit commission as well that we expect to get through. Steve, the point I'd make on reinsurance is what we are not saying is that the reinsurance delta relative to last year will help fund that aggregate cover.

What we're saying is it's the delta between what we achieved and what we understand the rest of the market achieved. We would understand right online for 1 July renewals to be down somewhere 13%, 15% in the market.

We did a fair bit better than that. It's that delta that we would consider to deploy to cover the aggregate premium, because that's the bit where we're better than the market.

Okay. Sort of when we look forward into the GWP commentary for '27, within Consumer, what are the expectations from a volume or unit perspective?

Yeah. In that GWP growth outlook of 3% to 5%, for Home, we'd assume units are reasonably consistent with where they've been for the last few halves, which is flattish, which we would sort of expect is not too different from system.

We don't think system growth in Home has been much different to that, and we don't expect it to be much different to that. In Motor, we'd expect to get a little bit of improvement on our retention rates through some of the brand work that Lisa spoke about, that will improve the unit growth relative to the second half.

We probably expect to see unit growth similar to FY26 in FY27. Then, as I said, one of the main components of GWP growth, is the AWP, and that's pretty consistent in Motor with where we're pricing today.

Kieren, like everything in insurance, is a sub-story sitting behind the first tier of the story. While we talk about reasonably flat unit count in Home over the past two or three years, the composition of the Home portfolio has changed materially: low-, medium-, high-risk underwriting.

We have fundamentally changed the composition of that with a bias more to low- and medium-risk underwriting. In that context, a flat unit count is fine.

We've grown in lower- and medium-risk areas.

All right. Thanks.

Second question, just on your slide 19, I'm quite interested in just the reinsurance profit commission element. You talked there, Jeremy, you said there's an expected sort of contribution now sitting in that underlying margin, but the 80 basis points is a maximum above that that you could earn.

The back-testing you've shown on slide 19 is obviously more around the cat budget. What would the reinsurance profit commission upside look like historically sort of overlaid on that 10- and 15-year period?

We don't have that to hand, Kieren, but the the way that that is the that is the maximum. For example, for the aggregate cover, it assumes that it assumes that we don't, the maximum profit commission assumes that we don't call on the aggregate cover during during a year.

You can see from the chart those years where we have and haven't, effectively where we have and haven't called on the aggregate cover, so that'll give you a bit of a sense around the, the variability in in that over a period of time. Then the the main cat, sub-layer one, the 150 above 350, we don't give the details on that, but that's a it's a relatively smaller part of that upside profit commission in the outlook, because we've limited it because of the experience in FY26.

The actual the actual upside in that program is significantly more than what we've got on that that slide, but we've limited it here because we did have the the burn in FY26.

Cats are 50 mil above budget, you still earn the maximum on the agg?

If the cats in line with or below that 50 million of above the allowance, then we would earn the profit commission. Yeah.

At what point does it go to zero? Can you give us an indication?

At what point does the profit commission go to zero?

Yeah. No,

I probably can't, actually, Kieren, because that's the commercially sensitive number in there. Yeah.

Right. Your approach, Jeremy, to booking this, it's a five-year contract.

Your peers suggested they've been conservative early on, just given sort of the multi-year nature. How's Suncorp likely to approach this?

I think similarly, but just acknowledging that this is going to be subject to the vagaries of IFRS 17 and this GMM valuation model, which has complexity attached to it. I expect that over the course of the five years, there'll be some variability around the way it's recognized in the actual P&L, but obviously, come the end of the five years, it'll be what it'll be.

Just acknowledging there is some complexity in the way the accounting treatment around this works, and yet we will try to be, as we are with most things, on the side of prudence.

Okay. Just a quick third and final question.

The reserve releases very good this period, plus looks like your normalized assumptions ticked up a little bit for the year ahead. I'm just wondering if you've changed views on inflation sort of.

What is driving that higher outlook?

Yeah. No, the fundamental inflation assumptions, superimposed inflation assumptions remain unchanged in the latest valuations.

The thing we have done is added on just that prudent level of risk margin on the valuations just to give some nod to the current geopolitical uncertainty. That impacts on claims, risk margin on claims, which is in the P&L, but then also impacts on risk margin on premium liabilities, which is in the capital as well.

All right. I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, guys. Just like to delve a little bit more about the sort of the pricing in and your ability to keep pricing above what you described as elevated inflation.

Do you have any concerns about your ability to stay ahead of that? It's interesting when you're sort of talking about Home system growth, you're sort of saying that's subdued, and you're sort of describing some of that to the Middle East conflict.

Is one of the reasons why Home system growth is subdued is because affordability concerns are very real, and therefore, that presents some risk to your ability to be able to price above these elevated inflation levels moving forward?

Nigel. We're not disavowing the concept of affordability.

Insurance premiums have now become a very material or a material part of a household budget, we we are very conscious of that. You can to some extent see that playing out through our multi-brand portfolio.

AAMI doing very strongly, Bingle doing very strongly, Shannons doing very strongly, a bit of pressure on GIO and Suncorp, given they are the premium at the premium end of of the of the equation. In terms of our ability to do it, it is a fundamental principle that we have that you need to price to inflation.

Again, we believe we've got good prospective capability around that. We should have a scale benefit given the scale we've got in our business, both in terms of underwriting and in claims, to do better than the market.

It's a principle that we we adhere to. It will see unit count volume count move around a little bit half-on-half, period-to-period.

We think through the longer term, if we deploy our scale effectively, if we focus on loss ratios, if we drive our expense base appropriately, and continue to use that scale across the business, things like Home Repair, we will be able to cover inflation, and we will be able to grow units not substantially ahead of market, but with market and slightly ahead.

The only thing I'd add on Home in particular is some of that cost of living pressure is there's obviously an AWP, our ability to price component to it, but the other one is the customer's ability to manage their own profile, and we have certainly seen with our AWP growth the impact of change in mix. We've seen customers are taking modestly more and higher excesses in both Home and Motor.

We've seen the mix impact for us of the skew towards lower-risk properties. Obviously, a lower-risk property has a lower average written premium.

We've seen some of the mix impact in our portfolio around in Home the strata share, rest of the portfolio. Strata share's got a lower average premium.

That mix impact is also evident in particularly more so Home than Motor, but a little bit in Motor. We've allowed for those dynamics in our growth outlook.

Okay. Thank you for that.

Then sort of maybe just also sort of re-circling on one of the other questions on the expense ratio guidance, but also with the particular to AI, obviously all the investment you've made in AI looks impressive. It looks as though you've got a lot going.

In terms of sort of hard-nosed shareholder/financial outcomes, how should we actually think about what AI might do for the business moving forward? Is it even right to focus on cost reduction?

Should we be looking more at revenue enhancement? How should we be thinking about this through a sort of hard financial lens?

I'll just get Adam up very quickly to give a quick summary.

Thanks. Thanks for the question.

I think not surprising to me that the whole market is shifting its focus from not just what you're doing, but what value you're realizing from it. I think your overall thesis is absolutely right, that this is much broader than just purely an efficiency and a productivity play.

I think there's revenue, growth, fraud, claims cost, expense-related opportunities. I think it covers the broad church.

As Steve covered in the slide earlier, you need the strong foundations to be able to exploit that at scale. That's about the technology foundations.

That's about the people and workforce capabilities. It's about the risk and safety.

It's around the governance. It's the partnerships that you have.

The area where we see AI delivering the most impact across all of those drivers is where we're not just deploying things on a point basis and kind of quite discrete use cases, which is I think where many companies, including us, have been over the last few years, but when you're looking to completely reimagine end-to-end processes. We've picked customer service, claims, and the end-to-end technology delivery lifecycle as kind of the three areas where we're looking for much more transformative impact that picks up on all of those levers.

I think it would be fair to say we and every company is pretty early days, but we have had some marked early deployments in that more transformative opportunity in the last few months. We've deployed a new agentic voice capability that allows a customer to, when they call in through the voice channel, have an agent that provides them with assistance prior to lodging a claim.

We'll extend that towards the back end of this year to do a full first notice of loss. Then in home claims, we've just launched a end-to-end capability that, once the claim's been lodged, a series of agents working with humans and more traditional deterministic outcomes to do a whole range of things to assess the loss causes, the coverage, whether customer needs a make-safe or temporary accommodation, and a lot of the assessment-related activity to then provide the claims manager with a kind of integrated view of what to do next.

That's where we see you start to drive the more significant opportunity. As I think Steve and Jeremy covered, that's a bit longer-dated and where we believe we've got the foundations, but early in terms of the deployment of that at scale.

As we've alluded to, certainly look forward to share a bit more color on that in the October Investor Day.

Thanks, Nigel.

Okay. Just one final one, if I can.

Just to be more in the weeds, but just there's a mismatch loss of about 45 mil, which is a bit higher than it's been for a while. Anything particular going on there?

Is it just sort of BAU stuff, or what sort of drove that?

No. It is in the weeds a bit, Nigel, but it depends on what you put into mismatch.

There's that illiquidity premium differential, there's the earnings on the premium liabilities. I don't know where those are going in your maths.

In underlying mismatch terms, we actually had a small gain for the year. Maybe we can take it offline and dig into what the difference, but in underlying mismatch terms, we try to limit that mismatch as absolutely much as possible.

This year we had a small gain.

Underlying mismatch.

Underlying mismatch.

Let's go to the next.

Okay. All right.

Okay. Yeah.

You pick it up this afternoon, Nigel?

Yeah.

Yeah. No probs.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi, team. Thanks for taking my questions.

Welcome back, Steve. I hope you're feeling better.

Just two questions on the capital side, please. Just in terms of your capital usage, just how are you and the board thinking about buybacks compared to the repurchase of debt with where the stock is currently trading?

Thanks.

Yeah. Look, our debt's obviously a lower cost of capital than equity, and so we just optimize that relative to the APRA standards and then the diversification benefit we can get across New Zealand.

The amount of debt we hold is optimized relative to those conditions, and so we don't trade off the two per se, we just make sure that we've got that debt level optimized.

Yep. Then maybe we'll go into this in more detail at the Investor Day in a couple of months, but just interested in your investment in the core technology stack and how should we be thinking about CapEx in FY27?

Thanks.

We talked probably a bit more about AI than we did about our platform modernization agenda, AI being an operational transformation initiative. We have a series of activities that have started with data, went through pricing, are now in policy administration.

That program remains on track as we have previously talked to the market about, and we'll continue to update that through the course of the Investor Day and beyond. Then the O&T piece with a predominance of AI, we'll talk to as well in terms of capitalization.

Steve, I'd just say that we don't see any change in the run-rate relative to what we've got in '26, and so that change in capital impact from capitalization and amortization we'd expect to be reasonably consistent into FY27 and allowed for in that sort of 20% for organic usage that I referred to.

Great. That's it from me.

Thank you.

Michelle, quick question in the room.

Hi. Michelle Leong from Australian Ethical.

I just wanted to know why did you do better than the market on your reinsurance pricing? What was it that the reinsurers saw in Suncorp's business, or why?

Yeah. Look, I think the difference we can deploy is the scale.

We're a very attractive opportunity for our reinsurance partners. That's worth something in the market.

I can't talk to how people do their relative negotiations, but we got a good outcome. We had challenged and pushed our main reinsurance partners to help us out with the aggregate cover, which didn't happen in the end.

I think with all that supply-demand and shifts around the program, we managed to deploy a little bit more competitiveness on the main cat part of it.

That's relative to smaller players, not necessarily to your largest competitor.

They don't have so much of that 1 July renewal. Certainly would be relative to those others who did renew in that 1 July.

Yeah.

Okay. I'm not sure if you really disclose this, apologies if I've missed it with your skew to lower-risk properties, could you show maybe an annual average loss per policy improvement over time or something where we can see evidence of that improvement in the lower-risk properties?

Yeah. We could certainly take that on notice to see if that's something we'd disclose, but just to put some dimensionalization around it, three, four years ago, we would have had 12-odd percent of our homes in what we call high-risk, and now it's closer to 7% or 8%.

It's a slow-moving shift, you're probably not going to see that much of an impact year-on-year, but over a five-year period it becomes more noticeable.

Thank you. Last question on the phones.

Hi, thanks for taking our questions. Can I just drill into slide 18 and the capital walk?

Would you be able to split out a bit more detail in that net organic capital generation in the second half? Because you printed profits of 760 less dividends 180, which still gets us to 580, but then net organic capital generation was minus 57.

I know you called out the FX reserve from movement and charge for geopolitical risk, but could you split these out for us?

The profit number, you've got that, and the dividend you've got that. In terms of the net organic usage that we had in the second half is largely out of those two items I spoke about, which is the risk margin, which you'll probably work out somewhere deep in the accounts when you get to it, is around $60 million for capital, it's around $40 million in the P&L.

Then the FCTR impact, which again you'll get to in the accounts when you get to them, so that's not private, was about $50 million of impact. Those two combined is what the organic unusual usage of capital was.

The delta then is just deployed into usual growth in the business, growth in premium liabilities, some of that CapEx that I spoke about, but just the usual ongoing demand of capital for growing the business.

Great. Going forward, would we expect capital generation to track earnings more closely, or would you expect to continue to deploy this?

No. Ordinarily, I'd say through a cycle, but ordinarily, we'd expect for the year for us to generate about 10% of profit in terms of net organic capital generation.

Of the profit, 70% goes to the dividend, 20% goes to growth in the business, and 10% goes to that organic net usage. That's what we would expect over a cycle.

We've seen that in the last few years, would expect to see that in the forward look. In FY26, we didn't see that, and so that's why I say it's not a guaranteed dynamic each and every year.

There is variability to it, and the variability particularly we saw in FY26 was that prudence around the risk margin that we probably wouldn't ordinarily do in the absence of some of that geopolitical event. The significant decline in the New Zealand dollar, we wouldn't ordinarily expect to see those sort of moves.

Then in FY26, in the first part of the year, we also had that giant hail event, which gave rise to a much larger increase in the premium liabilities and a demand on capital on the outstanding claims from that event. There are a couple of unusual things in FY26 that we wouldn't necessarily expect to happen over a cycle.

You can see it's all manageable within the construct of the 70% payout ratio. If it was 60% payout ratio, it'd be sorry, 80%, it'd be a bit harder to manage.

That's the prudence and that's the conservative position that we've got. As I say, if these unusual circumstances weren't to evolve, then we have got that excess accretion from the payout into the capital balance that we can use for capital management through the course of a cycle.

Steve, I'd just add that we'll see whether the geopolitical events get to, etc., but at least two of those things should reverse. We would expect the New Zealand dollar to improve back to where the long-run averages.

As we pay out that giant hail event, the outstanding claims liabilities come down, and the capital on those comes down too. A lot of this stuff is timing, but it can impact in a particular period.

Just confirming nothing more on the phones, nothing more in the room. Thank you very much for your time.

We remain very confident in the outlook for the business that's reflected in our outlook statement. We look forward to talking more about the initiatives that we've got in place around platform modernization, operational transformation, AI, the multi-brand strategy, and by the time we get to the Investor Day, any of the answers that we don't know, the new executives will know in precise detail.

It'll be good opportunity to catch up with each of them in terms of their new portfolios. Thank you and look forward to catching up next couple of weeks.

Thank you.