Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed investors and analysts, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to join today's earnings conference call for MS&AD Insurance Group Holdings, Inc. My name is Hayashi from the IR department, and I will be moderating today's session.

Also participating are Mr. Nakayama, General Manager of the Accounting Department, together with colleagues from both the IR and Accounting Departments.

The presentation materials are available on our company's website under the Investor section, specifically in the IR Events area, listed alongside the earnings release and other related disclosures for the fiscal 2026 first quarter results. Please have these materials ready as we proceed.

As with our previous conference calls, we have included a summary of today's presentation in the materials. Therefore, at the outset, I will focus only on the key points, and we will dedicate most of the session to the Q&A.

We aim to conclude the entire meeting in approximately 45 minutes, and we appreciate your understanding. Furthermore, please be aware that today's presentation may include forward-looking statements based on our current forecasts.

Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from these projections. We kindly ask for your understanding in this regard.

Now let me briefly outline the key points of our financial results. The key highlights for today's are shown on page 4 of the presentation materials.

First, adjusted profit for the first quarter of fiscal 2026, excluding gains from the sales of strategic equity holdings, was 251 billion yen, an increase of 64.7 billion yen year on year. This represents solid progress at 47.2% of our full-year forecast.

In addition, group adjusted profit, which serves as the basis for shareholder returns, increased by 71.1 billion yen year on year to 310.6 billion yen. This also represents very strong progress at 38.8% of our full-year forecast.

Breaking down adjusted profit by business segment, the domestic non-life insurance business recorded 126— the domestic non-life insurance business recorded 124 billion yen, an increase of 4.2 billion yen year on year. This was mainly due to improved loss ratios in automobile insurance, reflecting the positive impact of rate revisions.

In the international business, adjusted profit increased by 52.9 billion yen year on year to 108.8 billion yen. This strong growth was driven by continued low loss levels, higher revenues across all regions, particularly in Europe, and the inclusion of equity earnings from WR Berkley Corporation, which began this quarter.

In the domestic life insurance business, insurance service profit improved to 16.5 billion yen, an increase of 4.4 billion yen year on year. This was mainly due to a reduction in losses on annuities contracts, following a review of key assumptions such as mortality rates.

Next, I will explain insurance revenue in each business segment. Please turn to page 8 of the presentation materials.

Insurance revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2026 was 1 trillion 615.8 billion yen, an increase of 208.8 billion yen year on year. Breaking this down, insurance revenue from the domestic non-life insurance business increased by 31.4 billion yen year on year to 819.3 billion yen.

This growth was mainly driven by higher automobile insurance revenues, reflecting the positive impact of rate revisions. In the international business, insurance revenue increased by 169.7 billion yen year on year to 707.7 billion yen, driven by growth across all regions, particularly in Europe, as well as the positive impact of foreign exchange rates.

Next, I'll provide an update on natural catastrophe losses. Please turn to page 9 of the presentation materials.

In Japan, although natural catastrophe losses for the two domestic companies increased by 5.8 billion yen year on year, mainly because there were no major events in the same period of the previous year, the figure remains within our full-year forecast range. Overseas, natural catastrophe losses decreased by 1.3 billion yen year on year, as there were no significant events in the first quarter.

This is also within the range of our full-year forecast. With regard to natural catastrophies that have occurred since July, including the Kumamoto earthquake, detailed information is not yet available at this time.

However, we currently expect these losses to remain within our full-year forecast. Next, I'll explain the status of our sales of strategic equity holdings.

Please turn to page 13 of the presentation materials. Gains on the sale of strategic equity holdings in the first quarter increased by 6.4 billion yen year on year to 59.6 billion yen, showing steady progress toward our full-year target of 268 billion yen.

Finally, I will provide an update on our ESR. Please refer to page 11 of the presentation materials.

ESR rose by 1 point from the end of March to 215%, reflecting the accumulation of retained earnings, including those earmarked for shareholder returns. We continue to maintain a sound financial position.

As for the denominator, integrated risk volume, while we continue to sell strategic equity holdings, it increased due to factors such as our business investment in Barings, which was closed in May, and rising domestic stock prices. As for the numerator, net assets at market value, as mentioned earlier, these have increased due to the accumulation of retained earnings.

As a result, the numerator remains roughly unchanged from the end of March. That concludes my remarks.

We will now begin the Q&A session.

I am Takemura from Morgan Stanley as New Securities. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

I have two questions. My first question is slide number 7.

I'd like you to give us more detailed explanation on year-on-year basis, profit is increasing, and especially international business, it seems that the profit growth was big. Could you please give us more color?

Last year, 20.7 plus, that was coming from W.R. Berkley.

The remaining portion, Europe, I think is coming from lower loss ratio and Asia, evaluation-related profit. That's my understanding.

Is my understanding correct? That's my first question.

Thank you.

Takemura-san, thank you. Slide number 7, adjusted profit breakdown, especially the international business, the explanation on the numbers, I think is your question.

I am Nakayama from the Accounting Division. Thank you very much for your participation.

Talking about the international business adjusted profit, please refer to page 21. There is a waterfall chart, and if you jump to page 21, you will find regional breakdown.

There's a chart below, and as your understanding, basically your understanding is correct. 20.7 billion increase in U.S.

is the biggest contribution, but Berkley accounting for more than 50%. On the other hand, transfers in U.S.

business itself, profits were growing. All in all, we've been able to grow by 20.7 billion yen.

It does not mean that the majority of 20.7 is coming from Berkley. It's about half, a little bit more than 10 billion.

That was about the Americas. Moving on to Europe, increased by 18.6 billion yen, and MS Re was making the biggest contribution, 9 billion, Amlin, JPY 5 billion, GU 5 billion for the breakdown.

The underwriting, not only the underwriting profit but also management investment management is doing well, profits were increasing. Lastly, Asia, 14.9 billion yen increase year on year, close to 10 billion is coming from MSIG Mingtai, Taiwanese subsidiary, and following the Taiwanese share price increase, the valuation loss we were being able to recognize.

That was a major contributing factor. First capital, Securities, we've been able to increase the profit by 2 billion yen.

These two businesses were contributing mostly. Thank you.

My second question, slide number 16, expense ratio. If you look at the expense ratio, decreased by 0.3 percentage points year on year, and based on that, following the domestic subsidiaries consolidation, how you've been able to make improvement in your expense ratio, or expenses, is my first question, and can we expect the decrease in expense ratio is going to be continuing even in the future with the same speed?

Thank you. Thank you.

The second question is domestic non-life insurance expense. Nakayama,

I am Nakayama. I will answer to your question.

We have agency and new policies expense. You will find the breakdown below.

Expense, basically following the recent inflation situation, both personal cost and other costs rising, but as you see, top line is growing, the ratio, expense ratio, has been improving. The new policy, the following the rate provision, commission has been improving.

That should be one of the major reasons. That's it.

Thank you.

That means, to achieve the 150 billion yen annual target, you are making good progress as of Q1, and you are being able to enjoy positive effect. Am I correct?

Well, 150 billion, that target is by 2030. So 150 billion will be reduced by 2030.

If we are already achieving certain results after the consolidation, we are going to assume money, we should not expect that immediate impact is taking place. Approaching 2030 in a gradual manner, we believe that the visible impact should— well, positive impact should become more visible.

Totally understood. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Sakamaki-san.

This is Sakamaki from Mizuho. I would also like to ask two questions.

First, regarding natural catastrophes domestically, compared to your peers, it seems that the claims that have been incurred are relatively low. How far have you reflected typhoon impact?

Regarding gross occurrences, gross claims, as well as the recovery through reinsurance, can you also sort that out for us? Thank you.

Sakamaki-san, thank you very much. First is about natural catastrophies domestically.

This is Nakayama speaking. I'm on page 9, where there is a page on natural catastrophies.

As you can see here, main ones would be typhoon number 6, which we have accounted for by 6 billion, comparing ourselves against two peers, saying that we are relatively low or high. With regards to how much we account for for nat cat, as you can see under the star, this is on an internal basis, and that's how we have derived these numbers.

For other companies, they may account for smaller claims as well. This is not an apple-to-apple comparison.

That's all from me.

How about typhoon numbers 7 and 8? You haven't really accounted for them?

No, we have not included 7 or 8.

I see. My second question is about MS Re.

I am on page 24, regarding it seems that this counting has been impactful. Your performance and loss ratios haven't really gone up for MS Re.

Are there any portfolio changes, or excluding discounts impact? Can you give us some flavor on what has happened?

Thank you very much, Sakamaki-san. For MS Re loss ratios, that was your question?

I'm on page 24, and as I rightly said, regarding the discounting and natural catastrophe impact, when you add it back, it's 83% for fiscal 26 and 79.2% for fiscal 25. It has went up by 3.8%.

The loss ratios were too good last fiscal year. That's the trend we saw.

You may remember, but Baltimore, a bridge in the U.S. collapsed, and that was a large loss on a market-wide basis that boosted losses, and that has been accounted for by MS Re too.

Compared to last year, it looks like it has been going up. We are still in the first quarter.

We will continue to monitor the trends against our full-year plan. Thank you.

I see.

I think this is associated with MS Amlin as well. Were there any impacts from the Middle Eastern circumstances regarding Amlin or MS Re?

For this quarter, no. For MS Re, no.

For MS Amlin, there were some loss notices that have come in, and we have been accumulating reserve in accordance. For Amlin, there has been some reserve impact in light of the Middle Eastern conflict.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Sakamaki-san.

I am Muraki from SMBC Nikko. Europe and U.S., I have questions.

First is about Europe. Amlin.

The Middle East situation has been happening, but still loss ratio much lower than your plan, I believe. What is the reason, and what about the sustainability?

That's my first question.

Thank you. That was about Amlin loss ratio after incorporating Middle Eastern impact.

I am Nakayama. Page 23, please.

As you mentioned right now, yes, loss ratio has been trending well on year-on-year basis. You will find how we've been able to make improvement, and there's no special reason why the situation, number is improving, but we are still only at the end of Q1.

At this moment, yes, the progress is good. That's what we're incorporating, but we'd like to pay close attention to the situation.

That's it. Thank you.

My second question is on page 21, the Americas, and I think domestic non-life, I think is included in the others, but in the United States, the liability loss we were recognizing as our company was incorporating, but how are you viewing the situation is my question. Other than WR Berkley U.S.

business softening situation, how are you being impacted or not is my second question.

The second question is about the Americas, mostly liability insurance loss, especially for Japanese companies, the recent trend and excluding WR Berkley softening situation in the U.S. What's your better part of your question?

Thank you.

Nakayama speaking. Japanese companies liability insurance for their overseas businesses, that's not included in the others out of the international business, but because they are Japanese companies, our accounting, we are incorporating in our domestic insurance business.

Answering to your question, yes, we are underwriting liability insurance from these Japanese customers, but the overseas businesses related underwriting, we are not recognizing large-size loss. That's our current understanding.

That's the current status. Other than WR Berkley softening situation in the United States, talking about MSI, U.S., relatively immune to softening because we're focusing on specialty, and MS Transverse, fronting, is the main business, front line, is the main business.

At this moment not affected by the softening situation.

Talking about Japanese companies, I heard that you are recognizing as non-life in domestic, but I think that the other business lines loss ratio is deteriorating. Is this domestic domestic liability or domestic overseas?

Nakayama speaking. This is kind of complicated, but as long as the underwriting is taking place in Japan, regardless of whether where the accident is taking place, the loss is going to be recorded here in Japan.

It's going to be impacting the domestic loss ratio. I see.

Thank you, Muraki-san.

This is Watanabe from Daiwa. I have two questions.

First is about strategic equities and the reduction compared to 476.3 billion, which is your full-year plan. How much progress have you made?

You talked about the overhangs in Q4. Has this already been resolved with regards to your cross-shareholdings?

Thank you for the two questions. First is the progress rate about our strategic equity holdings.

That's our first question.

This is Nakayama speaking. Please refer to page 6 in the presentation, at the top, in the box.

It says 102.5 billion yen in the box. It's a little bit over 20% when you compare it against our full-year plan of 476.3 billion.

It's about one-fifth on a mark-to-market basis. Regarding the overhang concern about the sales of our shares, corporates that own large portions of our stocks, the overhang issue has pretty much been resolved already.

You can look at it that way.

My second question is about auto insurance and the average payout size as well as claims frequency. Has it exceeded your full-year expectations or your company expectations?

Claims frequency as well as average payout as well as progress was the gist of your question. This is Nakayama.

It's on page 17 in the presentation, as we always do. Regarding frequency as well as average payout, we are expecting accidents to go down by approximately 1% in our assumptions.

However, result-wise, it didn't go down that far. On the other hand, for average payout, we were assuming that it was going to go up by 7 to 8%, but actually it went below our expectations as a result.

That's all from me.

How about claims frequency? Has it been going up or down?

Our assumption was that it was going to go down, and result-wise the number of accidents has went down as well, but it hasn't went down as much as we have initially planned.

If you net the both out, were you performing in line with your expectations?

Yes, we were broadly in line. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Watanabe-san.

First is domestic loss ratio. Also, according to slide number 17, it seems that the loss ratio has been improving, and I think the reversal of losses related to owners contracts causing positive impact here.

Am I correct? If yes, what is the size of the impact?

If we exclude this factor, what could be the actual magnitude of improvement? That's my first question.

Another question is about fire insurance. Serious losses, large-scale losses this year.

What has been the situation compared to last year? That's it.

Thank you. Your first question is the loss ratio.

Voluntary auto loss ratio is improving. If we exclude the contribution coming from reversal of losses related to onerous contracts, what could be the situation?

Also, you're also interested in fire.

Nakayama speaking, if you could please take a look at slide number 60, you will find domestic voluntary auto, and within the bracket, excluding net cap. 2026, the ratio was 69.4%, improved by 1.5%.

Yes, reversal of the onerous contract losses included here. If we exclude this factor, actually the ratio increased slightly on a year-on-year basis.

The reason is because, first of all, the average repair cost rising, and because of this reason mostly, the ratio has been deteriorating. Your other question is fire, large-scale losses.

That's because fire loss ratio also improving.

I am interested in to know the situation of the large-scale losses. By the way, onerous contracts, you also have with fire insurance, right?

What is the impact here?

Fire insurance, first of all large-scale losses, combining MS and AD on a total basis, almost flatish year-on-year. If we exclude onerous contract impact, excluding fee factor, 2.7% improvement.

If we exclude this factor, the improvement could be 4%. I think that fire insurance, because we've been able to revise the rate and also taking the development into consideration, we've been able to make improvement.

I see. That means even as of today, you still have additional onerous contracts.

Am I correct?

No, no, no, no. Because onerous contract reversal, if you exclude improvement, could be 4% or more.

Right. Onerous contract is causing negative impact on a year-on-year basis, right?

Because onerous contract, you still have additional new onerous contracts. Otherwise, excluding onerous contract, the situation could not be risked.

Fire insurance reversal of onerous contract, continuously happening. The reversal, by the way, total basis, not only five-year total basis, reversal has been increasing.

Understand. If we only look at five-year, loss ratio improved by 2.7%, but if there was no onerous contract impact, the improvement could be 4%.

That's what you are saying.

Right.

Reversal of the onerous contract losses, if that was causing positive impact.

Now the reversal amount has been less this year compared to last year.

I got it, yes. Meaning the positive impact coming from onerous contract has been smaller this year compared to last year.

Last year the reversal amount was much more. That's why.

Yes. By the way, fire insurance, the reversal of losses of onerous contract is going to be smaller year after year.

The positive impact may become smaller, but still, because the contract period is long for fire insurance, the positive impact is going to continue approaching 2030.

Understood. My second question is, if I look at your balance sheet, there's 324.9 billion yen non-current intangible assets.

I think the number was like 500 billion at the end of the last fiscal year, and it decreased by Q1. The number did not increase, although there should be Barings impact.

Were there any factors also incorporated here?

Intangible asset? Yes.

The balance is now 324.9 billion yen. The biggest intangible assets should be software, amortization, or M&A-related intangible assets included, thinking about goodwill, approximately 40 billion yen.

Other intangible assets we have, like 70 billion yen, which are incorporated within this number. Berkley or Barings, they are not our subsidiary.

They are just equity method-ated. They are not included here.

They are not part of our intangible assets. Their contribution is coming under the profit or loss coming from our equity method-ated.

Of course, investment in Berkley and Barings we are making, but that has nothing to do with our intangible assets. I see.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Fujino-san.

This is Mashima. I might be going into detail about page 29, where you talk about MSP Life and the CMF balance.

Because you were talking about the CMF balance increasing mainly due to CNSM variable products as a result of rising stock prices, but how are we supposed to look at it? What is the logic behind this?

We're on page 29, which was a question on CMF balance.

This is Nakayama speaking. We are on page 29.

The third comment that we have. The balance increased by 10.6 billion yen for this bullet point regarding assumption change.

For variable products, because of IFRS 17, there are three ways of measuring it, and there is this variable commission approach. That's the way we do the calculations for variable products.

It is a customer account. As a company, we receive fees.

It's a fee-type business. When stock prices appreciate, for the special accounts or the customer account increases against the AUM, the fees will be incurred.

Future cash flow inflow will increase, and that is why future profit or CSM, the balance increases. That's the logic.

It's a little technical, but that's the logic under which this has been increasing. Thank you very much.

I see.

My other question is also a technical question as well, apologies. For other non-life insurance companies, for Q1 seasonal factors associated with IFRS, there were some peers that have been commenting on that.

I think it's your first IFRS results announcement. Have you been impacted by IFRS factors in Q1?

That was a question on seasonality impacts from IFRS. That was the second question.

This is Nakayama speaking. Regarding the premium distribution approach, when you distribute the premiums, as a rule, you are able to account for seasonality, but in the case of our group, when we implemented IFRS and did the analysis, we have deemed that there is no seasonality.

Therefore, in accordance with that period, it will pass. The earned premiums will be incurred basically in accordance with that period of time.

Depending on the company, sometimes they do have seasonal differences because of certain parts of the year where there are more natural capacities, but in the case of our company, we do not account for that seasonality. Thank you.

I see. Thank you, Nakayama-san.

I am Sasaki from Nomura Securities. Thank you for the opportunity.

I have two questions. If I look at slide number 16, combined ratio, and if I look at Tanshin, there's a detailed material attached, and if I look at number 11, the combined ratio there, the number is different.

Is it because the definition of combined ratios are different?

Thank you, Sasaki-san. The combined ratio, the number we have on this presentation material and the number we have on Tanshin are different.

That's what you're saying.

Nakayama speaking. Yes, as you're understanding, the definition or the scope of the combined ratios are different.

The presentation material, if you look at slide number 3, you will find how we are disclosing. If you look at, as we are categorizing into three categories: domestic non-life and international and domestic life insurance, and we have business domains, as you see in our material.

This is not about the entire company. We have three business domains, and based on the domains we are calculating.

Financial accounting, we have numbers for MSI. It's on a company A basis, not on a domain basis.

That's why depending on financial accounting and managerial accounting, the numbers are being different.

If that's the case, on your slide, you say combined ratio for the domestic non-life. I think that means you are not including international.

This international portion, where can I find the number?

Part of the international. The number is not big, but if you look at page 21, we have Thai in Asia.

That's part of Asia on slide number 21. Generally speaking, subsidiaries' numbers are big.

I see. My second question is the progress to achieve your full-year guidance.

From now on, NATCAT impact likely to be bigger. That's why you are currently maintaining your forecast, but I think your progress ratio is performing well, and compared to your annual expectations, how should we see?

Because especially over international, the profit growth was big in Q1, and could we believe that Q2 onwards this growth momentums are going to be maintained? If possible, strategic equity holding, no change plan, no change are you expecting?

This is my third question.

The progress to achieve our full-year guidance, and related to the question strategic equity unwinding was the latter half of your question.

Nakayama speaking. As you're understanding, as we are showing on slide number 10, the progress ratio, yes, we are being able to make a risk progress since of Q1.

Even compared to our internal Q1 expectation, we've been able to outperform. Especially international, the progress ratio has been higher, for sure.

International, the market, for example share prices are trending well. That is one of the reasons for the outperformers.

Q2 onwards, we need to continuously pay close attention, and expense ratio as well. It's just as end of Q1, we should not be able to tell whether we can maintain the same momentum.

On as-needed basis, we may want to revisit the numbers, but maybe not. Unwinding the strategic shareholding, at the beginning of the fiscal year, well, at this moment we are saying that we do not have a plan to revisit our annual guidance.

Market momentum has been better than expected, and it is likely that unwinding your cross-shareholding is going to be accelerating. Are you just keeping financial guidance, or is there any reason why you still do not revise your guidance?

As of now, we do not think we are currently in a situation to revisit the target. We will continuously consider whether we can further accelerate or not.

As of now we do not think we need to revisit the annual target. Understood.

Perfect. Thank you.

This is Sato from J.P. Morgan, thank you for taking my question.

You were saying international was stronger than your company plan earlier, but how about your domestic business? It's your first quarterly results announcement after the implementation of IFRS.

For natural catastrophies, your budget is quite big. I would like to hear about what your view was on the progress you've been making during Q1.

Sato-san, thank you very much for your question. First is about the domestic business and our comparison against our plan as well as the progress made.

This is Nakayama speaking. Natural catastrophies, well, it's actually better than plan.

For natural catastrophies, it was less than expected. For other parts, like investments, when you look at investment management, we have been able to exceed plan, at least so far.

We are seeing things steadily progress. That's all from me.

Thank you.

Second question is about the impact from softening of the market. You were talking about Americas earlier, but center around Amlin.

What about the European business? In the material regarding the impact from softening, you spoke about it somewhat, and I think you accounted for it in your plan as well.

Compared to your assumptions, how do you view the current trends?

Sato-san, thank you for your second question. Second question is about the softening of the market cycle, especially in Europe.

First, regarding Amlin, as of soon, center around property, we have been seeing the market softening. We have accounted for this in our plan, broadly speaking, but for some energy lines of business, we have been seeing a decline in revenue.

That's where we are right now. For the softening of property, in order to secure profitability, we have been able to secure profitability from a technical standpoint.

At this point in time, we have no major concerns. However, regarding future softening impacts, we would like to consider various countermeasures when it comes to underwriting.

For me, for property, we do recognize that softening is happening, but in our portfolio, the nat cat risk is limited in its impact. Therefore, once again, we would like to ensure that we do underwriting that is being mindful of profitability.

If that's the case, the total impact. Apart from that, compared to our plan, I guess Amlin and the energy line of business is deteriorating.

It's very specific, I guess.

Even for energy, the impact has not exceeded our plan substantially when it comes to negative impact. I would say, broadly speaking, things are progressing in line with our assumptions.

Thank you, I see. Thank you, Sato-san.

I am Niwa. I have two questions related to natural catastrophe.

The first question is page 10, including nat cat. You've been able to make good progress in unwinding your equity shareholding, but next year onward, can we expect that the momentum is going to continue?

How should I understand the number being big?

Thank you, Niwa-san. Progress ratio, we should understand was the first part of your question.

Nakayama speaking. It's difficult to evaluate because this is our first year adopting IFRS, and given within our expectation, we were not expecting the number to be that high.

Underwriting, because of the less number of disasters and also share prices have been trending low. Dividend as well, we've been able to receive more than expected.

We should not say this should be considered as the normal situation. We will keep observing the situation, and we will figure out which level we should consider as the norm.

Again, we should not consider this Q1 result is going to be the standard or average for the coming Q1s in the future.

Another relevant question is possibly the group total exposure natural catastrophe-related risk, are you taking so much, or are you being very conservative? Is there any color you can share with us?

Natural catastrophe fund. Yes, we have 150 billion yen equivalent in Japan, and modeling we are taking into consideration.

We are calculating appropriately. We do not think we are being too conservative.

We believe that we are judging appropriately.

Thank you. The next question is about Kumamoto earthquake.

Any comment you can make related to the expected impact?

Thank you. Kumamoto earthquake, potential impact on our earnings.

Nakayama speaking. The earthquake in Kumamoto, the loss situation, we have not been able to have full visibility at this moment.

Of course OEMs, automobile OEMs, or shopping malls, semiconductor-related companies are operating in the region. Certain loss should be expected, but at this moment it is difficult to discuss the specific numbers.

On the other hand, talking about the earthquake, we are arranging for reinsurance, and as you have pointed out, we do have 150 billion yen equivalent fund focusing on natural catastrophe. We believe that all in all, the situation should be controllable within our control.

Thank you.

Compared to 10 years ago, because Kyushu economy has been developing, and you are underlining, the situation may be different now compared to 10 years ago. Any color if you compare the recent Kumamoto earthquake impact versus the earthquake happened 10 years ago.

I could not fully listen to your question, but you are asking to compare the current exposure in Kumamoto compared to 10 years ago? Was that your question?

Yes. If there is any color you can share with us.

As of now, there are not enough information or data to compare the current situation versus 10 years ago, because first of all the place where the earthquake happened, not exactly the same compared to 10 years ago. Even if the exposure may be the same, actually it's not going to be the same, but even if we assume it's going to be the same, the size of impact should be different.

It should be difficult to make specific comment at this moment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Niwa.

As we are approaching the end of our allotted time, we will now conclude the Q&A session. If there are any questions we were unable to address today, please feel free to contact our Investor Relations Department.

We will be happy to respond to your inquiries individually. This concludes today's conference call.

We kindly ask for your continued understanding and support for the business activities of our group. Thank you very much for joining our earnings conference call today.