Thank you. Good morning, everyone.

I welcome all our shareholders and our key stakeholders to our operating update for quarter one of financial year 2026. I'm joined on this call, with me in the room, by our Group Finance Director, Risto Ketola, as well as Rowan Burger and Abdul George from the Investor Relations team.

To kick off, this quarter, we entered the second year of our three-year Impact strategy after we ended the first year on a very high note. We managed to continue the positive earnings trajectory into the first quarter of F2026, and our strong operational performance resulted in normalized headline earnings of R1,756 million.

Positive market variances contributed R201 million to our earnings versus R570 million in the previous comparable period, which highlights the strong underlying operational performance. I'm very happy with our sales, which improved by 8% to R22.4 billion.

There's also a pleasing improvement across the segments, but like peers, we have seen a fall in the profitable life annuity product line as a result of a reduction in long-term interest rates. To put that into perspective, we've seen a 28% year-on-year drop in life annuity sales, but only an 8% drop on the previous quarter.

This was a key driver in the disappointing VNB decline from R197 million to R146 million. Despite the overall reduction, we've seen an improvement in VNB in all our other businesses.

As a consequence of the decrease in VNB, our new business margin reduced from 1.0% to 0.7%. This remains a key area of focus as we strive to achieve our Impact ambitions.

We are encouraged by the excellent earnings performance we achieved over the past quarter, but we will maintain our enhanced focus on driving sales volumes, managing our expenses, and improving the VNB margin in the near term for each business unit. The outlook for South Africa indicates modest growth due to improved energy availability and transport logistics, easing interest rates and inflation, and the successful exit from the Financial Action Task Force grey list and ratings upgrade.

A reduction in the inflation target is a welcome relief for our investment clients, but it does mean in the short term we expect lower economic growth. Risto will explain the broader impact on our various business lines.

While the green shoots of a recovery are encouraging, our operating environment remains challenged by an increasingly competitive landscape, with subdued economic growth and the elevated cost of living affecting new business growth and margins. Despite this, we believe that the F2027 Impact targets we had set for ourselves remain achievable, namely normalized headline earnings of R7 billion, ROE of 20%, and a VNB margin of between 1% to 2%.

I will now hand over to Risto, who, as has a knack for not only explaining the complex results simply, but also to tease out some further points of interest. Thank you.

Thanks, Jeanette. I must say that just for context, last year, we had earnings of R6.3 billion.

At the time, we said that that was probably about R1 billion above normalized earnings, sort of half explained by markets being so strong and half explained by underwriting being so strong last year. We said that we think R6 billion is a good number for 2026, so that's R1.5 billion a quarter.

We did 1,750 roughly for this quarter, knock off 200 million for investment variances, and you can sort of see that we are online with what we thought was maybe not a crazy ambitious target, but a meaningful target of R1.5 billion a quarter. A very good quarter adjusting for one-offs.

Now, we did not disclose last year's first-quarter number in the trading update because we didn't do a full consolidation. However, back-of-a-matchbox calculation basically gives earnings of about, let's say, R1.8 to R1.9 billion for the first quarter.

We're down a little bit on 1Q last year, but as Jeanette said, investment variances are maybe R300 million lower. Again, sort of operationally, you could see that there's quite good progress being made in the business.

No matter how you slice and dice it, there's more positives than negatives in this number. You might wonder why investment variances are so much lower than last year.

Bond markets rallied in both periods, but last year, they were still transitioning onto the IFRS 17 balance sheet, the hedging wasn't as fully in place as now. You could say that we're now in an end-state hedging in terms of the hedge effectiveness.

We're a little bit less geared towards yields than we were, still a positive gearing, though. The bond market rally since September probably added another 200, the second quarter also looks quite good so far.

Let's see how that develops. Beyond the investment items, mortality was good across the group.

Every business area had good mortality. Disability was a bit more mixed, a little bit weaker on retail than in corporate.

Persistency is also good across the group, which was quite pleasing, and then expenses are in line with budget. Talking of expenses, the optimization project, we added about R100 million more of annualized savings through that.

A lot of that came from various business unit level and technology initiatives. I need to sort of put a bit more impetus on to the procurement and duplication work streams, but we're still making good headway.

I think our ability to invest as much as we have on technology and modernization, yet keeping costs at inflation or below in aggregate, it would not have been possible without these ongoing savings everywhere else. I think the project is still very successful and enables us to spend money where we need to without having an undue negative impact on group earnings.

A couple of things that might not be so obvious. Our SCR ratio is down quite a bit in the quarter to 1.76.

Our target for the solvency coverage ratio is 1.6 to 2. We've gone from the top end of the range to the middle of the range.

To put that in the context, during the quarter, we paid out quite big dividends to the group to both fund the external dividend and the buyback, the outflows exceeded earnings for the quarter. That's a bit of a timing thing.

Also, the yield curves coming down as much as they did had a negative impact on the SCR because, obviously, risks are measured on a PV basis. Also, if you look at the very detailed things, you might know that we need to use a prescribed yield curve to do the regulatory reporting, and the prescribed yield curve actually has a very low long tail compared to what we think the market yield curve is, it was sort of compounded there.

Then lastly, the regulatory calculation changes the stress test on equities depending on how high the markets are, and because of the market running, we're now pretty much at the maximum stress test, which is about 50%. We're effectively stress testing for a 50% shock in equities, whereas maybe in more normal market conditions, we'll be more in the low 40s in terms of the stress test.

I wouldn't read too much into the decline in the SCR ratio. There's a bit of technical factors there.

VNB, Jeanette has already said quite a bit. I would add that annuity sales were down by about a third, and the value of new business from annuities were down by about 50%.

The reduction in annuity sales explains the pressure on our VNB, and we made reasonable gains in all other areas. I did see in some of the analyst reports there was a question on India in one of the reports.

Earnings went backwards on IFRS 17. They improved on the India GAAP, but went backwards on IFRS 17.

Last year's first-quarter number included a recovery in the lost component. Basically, the onerous in-force contracts were remeasured to be less onerous, there was a bit of a one-off gain in those numbers.

Then secondly, in this current period, there's been quite a bit of reinsurance commission income, and under the India GAAP, you recognize it upfront, whereas under IFRS 17, you spread it over time. That explains the timing difference between IFRS 17 and India GAAP.

Maybe the most importantly for this audience is the India team is still very confident that they will have a profit on the India GAAP this year, and that the profit should be sufficient to have a profit under IFRS 17. When I look at the numbers, operating metrics a bit more myself, volume growth is very good, expense management very good, claims ratio is the wild card still.

I think, in my view, the only item that could really push the breakeven on IFRS 17 further is if the claims ratio gets worse from here. Then lastly, Jeanette mentioned that at business unit level, the variances were a little bit different.

To try to summarize it, in Metropolitan, Corporate, and Investments, investment variances were positive because of bonds running, and corporate and credit results being very good. In Momentum Retail, we actually had a small negative variance during the quarter, and that relates to the fact that we have a lot of cash flows in Mom Retail that are beyond the yield curve.

In other words, there's non-hedgeable cash flows beyond 25, 30 years, and the PV of those cash flows increased more than the value of the hedging portfolio. A small negative variance in Mom Retail, and quite nice positive variances everywhere else.

I think I'll leave it at that, and be more than happy to take questions.

Hi, Jeanette and Risto. Thanks, and team, thanks very much for the call and well done on some comprehensive disclosure.

It's refreshing to see an insurer that's prepared to give us full detail at quarterly dates. Four questions, if I can.

Firstly, on your back-to-back product in Mom Investments, you talk about lower onerous losses, significantly lower onerous losses, but then there's also lower VNB as well. I'm just trying to square that.

Is that a significant reprice there, or what's driving that? The second one, just technically, the PVNBP multiples that are implied by your volumes don't seem to have changed at all, despite the fact that yields have come down.

Is that just purely a mix issue that's maybe changed year on year? Then your CSM releases are sort of quite seasonal.

Half twos quite a lot bigger, typically, than half one. Your CSM commentary seems to suggest it's growing in the quarter.

Does that mean that you think it can continue to grow year on year for the full year if new business, etc., stays where it is? In other words, at this run rate, will you still be able to show a growing CSM in your view?

Then the last question is just to expense savings, and maybe just try and unpack what does that mean for VNB margins, all else being equal. If you achieve your cost-saving targets, do you see a material uplift in VNB margins as a result?

Thank you.

I'll answer those while Jeanette can think about adding on to it, maybe. You're right.

We have repackaged the back-to-back product in Investments. Now, remember what this product is.

It is annuity where you get a monthly income, but if you die, you get a lump sum to pay back your original annuity amount. Now, historically, we had a whole life component that was loss-making and a very profitable VNB component.

Now, because of this cross-subsidy, which was by design at the time, it led to onerous amount on the whole life component. Now, we have repriced the two components in such a way that the whole life is more break-even, but then obviously the annuity margin comes down to keep the cost similar to the end consumer.

Now, the reason why the VNB is down, now first of all, those volumes are down as well, there's a bit of operational gearing. Secondly, net-net, the VNB we given up on the annuity is a little bit higher than the VNB we gained on the life component.

We have removed the onerous component. It will probably have a small impact on VNB long-term because of the new split between the two components, but the decline is mainly because the volumes are down literally 40%, I'm looking at it here.

The present value of new business multiples, maybe I should start updating my own models because this hasn't come up in internal discussions, but remember, we do use opening assumptions, but the opening assumptions should be lower as well year on year. At the same time, we did become more prudent on some of the persistency assumptions in Myriad for sure, and one or two other products.

I wonder if somewhat coincidentally, some of the persistency strengthening has offset the risk discount rate. I'm pretty sure that Rowan can get the actuaries to give you a lot more detailed answer.

CSM releases, we have said for quite a while that our CSM underlying growth rate is probably sort of mid-to-low single digits at the current level of new business. I do think at the current level of VNB, we will still eke out positive CSM growth for the year.

You're touching on our biggest conversation point in the group is we need VNB to really probably double from this level for us to have what we will consider acceptable earnings growth of 8% to 10% on our core life business. It should be positive for the year, but not good enough for the year at this current level of VNB.

We did have positive assumption and experience variances again. It should suggest that your actuarial basis still is, call it, at least conservative, we're not seeing any strain from the other components of CSM growth, so that's great.

Expense savings, I think I covered this sometime last year with you, in that if we get a billion rand of savings, let's call it 700 million after tax, 400 million will probably relate to the life business, maybe 350 life business, and of that, maybe 100 million will relate directly to new business. The rest will be your renewal expenses.

It will definitely help, and we need to deliver on it. Probably the third of the missing VNB can be achieved by just delivering on this project.

We do need to get either volumes up versus remaining expenses. We have launched some products recently quite successfully.

Got good market feedback on the new estate provider benefit. It will help, but it won't answer the full gap.

Effectively, I think I spoke to you last year, VNB is 500 million, it needs to be a billion. A third of that gap will probably be covered by this expense project.

The other two-thirds, we need product-level and distribution improvement.

Michael, I'll only add maybe one thought to VNB, and that's actually Metropolitan. The largest portion of this is actually Metropolitan need to recover in terms of VNB.

I think there, very specifically, and we are deeply focusing on that right now, is actually the savings product. Because actually, there's nothing wrong with the market on the funeral cover side.

It's actually the savings product. We need to make some proper decisions about that.

Either increase pricing, but whatever we need to do in order to fill that gap. I'm worried about just relying on a product mix and keep on saying we need to sell more of the one and less of the other.

Maybe we actually need to be a little bit more drastic than that. That's literally on our discussion point for group Exco a week from now, to actually look at that in depth and see what we need to do.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning. Can you hear me clearly?

Cool. Good morning.

I have three questions. The first question, you've partly answered this, just on the seasonality of headline earnings.

You've achieved 1,759 million, obviously, for the first quarter. If I just simplistically just multiply that by 4, you get to 7 billion, right?

I appreciate that businesses like short-term insurance that are at the top of the cycle, but how should we think about seasonality, I guess? Is the first quarter a lot more profitable than the other quarters normally?

Just a little bit of color on the seasonality of normalized headline earnings would be appreciated. Question two is on the short-term insurance business.

I'm not sure if you've done this exercise, Risto. If we had a normal weather cycle, what kind of normalized headline earnings would you have achieved from the 157 million you've achieved right now?

Just a bit of color on that would be appreciated as well. Then the last question, on the health membership growth, you've achieved 6% for the quarter, which is on the higher side if you look at what you've achieved in recent history, and I believe a lot of this has to do with the Woolies business you got in collaboration with the corporate segment of your business.

How should we think about that pipeline in terms of potential further opportunities down the line that you can get similar to Woolies?

Yeah. I'll go, and Jeanette can again, she gets the benefit of getting a minute to think.

Headline earnings shouldn't be that seasonal. Now, there are some businesses where there is natural seasonality.

For example, in Health, majority of our schemes have a fee increase on 1 Jan. In Health, for example, second half tends to be stronger than first half.

Across the group, the seasonality should be quite limited. In South Africa, you still get a little bit lower death claims in winter, maybe 1Q will normally have a bit less death claims than other quarters.

Also, it is a winter month, there's lack of rain. At the margin, maybe 1Q, which really reflects most of the winter, could be a little bit better on average.

In my own view, the last few years, it's just been a little bit coincidental that investment markets and bond yields have come down a lot during that quarter. Like I say, we don't have full consolidation for last year, but I'm looking at my own notes here.

We did about, let's say, just under 1.8 in the first quarter last year, then, let's call it just under 1.6 in the second quarter, and then just under 1.5 in the following two quarters. Last year, we were closer to the 1.5 million a quarter, except first quarter was a bit better.

Maybe expect 1Q to be a bit better period of the winter, and the other three quarters should then be a bit more similar. Our salary increases take place in October.

Maybe there's also a bit of a factor that salaries are a little bit lower in 1Q. Then what can hurt you towards end of the year is when you're doing as well as we are, we had to increase our bonus provisions in the last quarter the last few years.

That's a bit of a internal, joking, yeah, but obviously, your bonus provisions will fluctuate during the year as well. I think it's a good question.

Seasonality should be modest. Short-term insurance, the claims ratio was I think what, 44-something for the period.

It was very low. The premiums for the period would have been what, 800 million about?

Knock off 10% of the claims ratio, knock off tax, maybe the earnings would have been closer to 100 million if we normalized for claims. The funny thing is, obviously, the longer we stay at these really low claims ratios, the greater the debate becomes what is a normalized claims ratio.

I'm sort of adding back 10% a bit willy-nilly here. I do know that Guardrisk—and Jeanette going to do the board meeting just now—I know Guardrisk do have comprehensive attribution back of what they think to be modest weather claims.

From the numbers I've seen, I think they agree that the underlying earnings is close to 100 versus the 150 we've seen now. Then Health, the last point on Health, it's a good note.

We are very happy with the growth in Health, and some of the growth does relate to Woolies and the Health4Me product, and there's a few other clients there as well who came on board. Health4Me is good growth, but we've also seen growth in our open scheme, which I think is very pleasing.

I don't see the open medical scheme market has been a growth market for most players, and we've seen some good market share gains there. Obviously, the growth rate is still modest, but if you're growing in that market, you're definitely winning market share.

Then GEMS, our government scheme, continues to grow at a steady clip, which helps. We're very happy with the Health business.

Jeanette, anything to add?

No, I think you've covered it well.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah.

Yes, sorry. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Thanks very much for the detailed updates.

I think my questions have partly been answered, but I'd like to get a sense of if there was any impact from or material impact from positive mortality experience on the earnings outcome in Q1. Then I guess, could you possibly provide a bit more color on the improvements in Momentum Retail's VNB margin?

Is that something we can extrapolate going forward? Thanks.

Okay. I don't know if you want to answer the VNB in Mom Retail, Rowan or somebody, while I look for the mortality splits.

I think on Mom Retail, as a result of the restructuring on distribution, I think we've seen the significant benefits in the acquisition costs. We're also starting to sort of see the digitization efforts coming through quite strongly.

I think the biggest change within Mom Retail is actually a focus on our Investo product, so that's the upfront commission-based investment platform, largely that's sort of moving to sort of slightly positive VNBs. I think that the efforts from the team are there.

It's very much going to be a volume story going forward, but it's one of those areas that continues to get a lot of focus.

I think what I will add is that Investo, our long-term savings product in Retail, has always been a source of negative VNB for us, and they've done a lot to offer digital servicing and reduce costs, and that's permanent savings. Now, at least, when we do good sales, which actually the sales numbers were great, especially from our own agency force in Retail business, it actually is a positive contributor to VNB and not negative as it has been.

It just shows that by focusing on the profitability in the product and not just relying on a sales mix, we're in good territory there. Now it's a matter of volumes, as Rowan has said.

Yeah. I'm just looking here.

Momentum Retail, which is where Myriad sits, mortality profits were about 50 million higher than last year. Good affluent market mortality there.

Metropolitan was about 10 million better, positive in both years. Funeral mortality still slightly above expectations.

Corporate is interesting because the experience variance item has declined, but that's because we changed the assumption for medium-term margins on corporate risk, but the absolute mortality result was still very strong. Maybe a summary would be that affluent retail better, funeral similar, corporate similar.

I also picked up an interesting one that on annuities, our mortality profits were a little bit lower, which might look like longevity losses, but I think it relates to the fact that we're not doing proof of life checks as often with Home Affairs as we used to, as we're waiting for the 10 rand story to get sorted out. Jeanette's making a note here.

We need to sort that out at some stage as well. Then in Africa, I'm looking here, Namibia very similar mortality as last year, Botswana similar to last year, and then only one left is Lesotho here.

Lesotho mortality was better by about 10 million. That gives you quite a detailed breakdown, but overall, mortality continues to contribute very well to earnings.

Right. Thank you.

Good morning, guys. I hope you can hear me.

Just one quick question. Yep.

I'm not sure if it's been indirectly answered in Harry's question, but can you provide a bit of color on what happened to risk volumes within Momentum Retail? That's all.

You are breaking up. Can you maybe try repeat it?

Can you hear me now?

Much better.

Sorry about that. I've got one quick question.

Not sure if it's been indirectly answered in Harry's question, but can you provide a bit of color as to what happened to risk product volumes within Momentum Retail?

Yeah. I think the volumes were marginally down for the year on year.

You're talking about retail risk products, hey?

Yes, that's correct.

Yeah. The total total volumes in Retail were up 11, and I think risk volumes were marginally down, which means your RAs and singles would have been up sort of mid-teens.

We have launched the Estate Provider Benefit recently, but it's too early. That will that will start coming through in the second and third quarter numbers.

I did see an analyst comment this morning suggesting that our third quarter—sorry, our first quarter sales volumes might suggest we lost market share during the quarter. We haven't received that input from our own team.

Again, I I didn't get the gist of your question, but but I I can confirm that Myriad volumes are down maybe 2% for the, quarter year on year,

yes. Thank you.

Good morning. I've got to echo what Michael said, some really excellent disclosure.

Very impressed with that. I have a few questions and I'm going to split them in parts, if that's all right.

Let's start with two underwriting margin questions. The first one is, can you speak to the underwriting margin of Guardrisk, and to what extent that benefited from good weather claims experience?

Number two, can you tell me what the Indian loss ratio was, and whether that was elevated during the quarter, and how that compares to your long-term targets? Yeah.

Okay. Marius, I can tell you that the Guardrisk underwriting profit was up quite a bit quarter-on-quarter, which means that I'm looking at the number here, the underwriting margin is comfortably in the double digits.

Now, motor was good, so that might relate to your comment about good underwriting conditions. Corporate and commercial property were good, they benefited from the same thing.

Also, gap cover did a bit better. Gap cover has been under pressure after you had sort of delayed claims through COVID, but gap cover did better.

The only area where I think things went a bit backwards was guarantees. There might have been some construction guarantees called upon here.

The underwriting margin is up year on year. That's for sure.

I think

the benefit was more than just weather, because it's kind of across the products, which is great.

Yeah. For sure.

There's also buckets here, Marius, we're sharing with the cells, that's up quite a bit year on year, but I don't have the see-through into exactly what type of cells those are in front of me. I can basically say commercial property, corporate property, motor, gap cover, all good.

Guarantees, not so good for the period. Then India, the loss ratio was in the high 70s.

I'm just going to get it to you now. The claims ratio was 79% for the quarter, up from 73% last year same time.

I did mention on my call that that's the one factor that's not running as well as expected. I'd rather talk to you about expense ratio that went from 40 to 32 with the volumes.

Marius, that gives you some idea. The loss ratio needs to come down to sort of low-to-mid 70s for us to make our break-even for the year.

Okay. My next question relates to Investments, and there are two questions here.

One is quite positive and the other one is somewhat negative. The first question is, traditionally, your platform profits are paper-thin.

It looks like you are starting to produce platform profits. Is that correct?

Is that margin starting to be delivered?

Risto

is just paging to make sure we don't tell you a lie, but my sense is that the answer's yes.

There's a technicality to it. Marius, you're right.

We made about a, I think, a 50 million profit on the platform for the quarter. It does include, how would I put this nicely, a one-off adjustment for a technology project in our favor.

I don't think I can say much more than that. It's profitable even without that, but the margins are quite thin.

This quarter just benefited from a, let's call it a fee reversal in our favor. Is that good enough for you, Marius?

Yeah. We should look for higher margins from that business in the next number of years.

My second question is why is your asset management lagging so much? Why are you not increasing own-solution assets?

I don't know where you got that from, because I

think the

integration is improving. The

AUM was 7% up, and AUA was 21%—20% up, so that's where I got it from.

Okay. Okay.

You're just saying that the under admin is growing faster than under management?

Yeah. Under management is growing slower than markets.

We

offboarded quite a big corporate client,

and

there's been some rebalancing in the life portfolios away from our own solutions that has also had an impact. A bit of an own goal, I think.

Okay. You probably heard that.

I don't know if yeah, own goal is a strong word, but I do know that we have also moved a bit more assets, for example, when we grow in the guaranteed index product, for example, the money moves from asset management to PSM, which is the life company manager. Because some of the metrics we follow, like the percentage of assets managed on our own solutions by our distribution channels, those have actually also in improving trend.

The AUM decline might have been a function of, like Jeanette said, one or two large corporate clients exiting. I think we also had a UK client who pulled money.

Then, Marius, we also have had a couple of large institutional platform wins, which are obviously big on assets, very low on margin, which contributed to that. I think our key imperative is really the curate business, which is still really in its infancy, as all on the call are aware.

Most institutional investors and IFAs are looking for a three-year track record. Our anticipation of that vertical integration will really kick through for that business in a couple of years' time.

The focus at the moment remains very much on asset gathering and making sure we get our ducks in a row to affect that vertical integration as the opportunities exist.

Okay. Then finally, can you give us a sense of the covered versus non-covered earnings split change for the Investments business quarter on or year on year?

I got it in front of me here. Covered's actually marginally down for the year.

Then, obviously, asset management is then up quite a bit. As to why is covered down, we've got investment variances are significantly lower.

The annuity book did well. There was a positive investment variance of 50 million, but last year was substantially higher.

That's actually very good news. Thank you very much.

Mhm.

Hi, Jeanette. Hi, Risto.

Thanks a lot for the great disclosure as well. Just one on Momentum Insure.

You flagged in the update that new business is tracking below expectations. How's unit count progressing there, and yeah, how confident are you that you can get those new business levels up to where you'd like to see them?

Look, just because I got some details on this from the board pack last night, I think what is very encouraging for me is that we've actually increased volumes in both Consult by Momentum, which, as is our own independent advisor network, which is actually a channel where we've been completely punching below our weight, which actually says that the changes we've made is starting to come through. We've also seen positive growth in the IFA market.

The problem we have is actually in our own BDC channel. The channel that came across as part of the Forbes acquisition, there's still some kind of internal work that we're doing on fixing that channel.

Actually, that's the one that is hurting us most because, actually, it is still by far the largest percentage of our sales come from that channel. We've got new management in, a new person managing that channel, and of course, we're focusing on kind of cleaning it up a little bit.

That has definitely hurt us. I think the positive is that in the IFA market, which we know is almost far more competitive and demanding, we've actually seen some positive growth.

I'll know more after this now because I know that Brand and the team is actually doing a proper presentation on this to the whole board, because it's been a concern of the board. I'll then know a little bit more, but I think those for me are the green shoots that I'm positive about.

Don't know, Risto, whether you want to add something.

The policy count ended the quarter at 133,000, started the quarter at 136,000. We lost about 3,000 policies during the quarter.

The gross written premiums are basically flat quarter on quarter.

Yeah.

It's

certainly below our own targets for Insure. I think internally, that's what we measure the guys against.

It's not really just the year-on-year number. We have ambitious targets for them in terms of gross written premium and new business, and they are short of those own targets at the moment.

They're very focused on fixing that.

Awesome. Thanks for that, guys.

Morning, everyone. Just checking you can hear me?

Perfect. Thank you.

Two questions from my side. Can you just give some detail on the loss in the shareholder segment?

I see you have given kind of commentary on some of the areas, but if you can just give us a sense of where the kind of respective split of that 74 million loss came from, how much kind of is VC write-downs, how much is the other factors. Then my second question is just on the share buybacks.

Risto, in your comments, you kind of described the decrease in SCR driven by the dividend and the buybacks. Is it fair to assume the bulk of the buybacks were completed in this quarter given how much that ratio has decreased, or is there still quite a bit to go there?

Remember, the ratio we give you is for Momentum Metropolitan Life, which is the main life company. We pay the dividend to Momentum Group, where me and Jeanette work.

We're busy with the buyback, but the dividend flowed out of the life company into group. You can think of it as the cash has already been sort of put aside for the buyback, but the buyback itself is nowhere near complete.

Slowly but surely, things come together. In terms of the loss on shareholder funds, I'm looking here.

We had a 35 million rand loss on the venture capital fund, and we had central expenses of about 50 million, and then we had a small positive investment return on the remainder of the portfolio. There was also some property costs here, 49 million negative.

To answer your actual question, VC funds, -35, central costs of -50, and then property costs offset the interest income on the cash portfolio for the period. Then

some of those central costs, Jared, were as a result of the share hedge, the share share price reduced over the quarter, which contributed to that number.

Perfect. That's very helpful.

Then maybe if I can slip in one more. Just the commentary kind of guides that we'll see some of the benefit of the cost-savings program in the latter part of 2026.

Is that just the timing of the way we actually see it translate into earnings? Just want to get clarity on how we see that flow through to earnings.

I think that comment might relate to the fact that we had 100 million, which is quite a big quarter, in terms of cost savings in this quarter, and a lot of that is technology-related. It might be 25 million a quarter, but maybe you saw 5 million in the current quarter, and you're going to now see the full amount going later on.

Also, there's one or two big projects that are nearing completion, such as the duplication project in one of the areas. You'll see a bigger impact.

What I would say that VNB, the question earlier by somebody, was it Michael or somebody, obviously, that will only come into play once we make an assumption change at year-end in the next year's VNB number. It is actually one of the reasons why Jeanette keeps slave-driving me on the project is that we need to get as much savings this year as possible as a opening assumption to next year's VNB.

We need to try to get as much of the expense savings in this year as possible.

Perfect. Thanks very much, guys, and well done on another good quarter.

Then

just quickly to Michael's question to Risto around the PVNBP multiple, we do use opening yield curves, as Risto explained. The June '24 curves and the June '25 curves weren't significantly different, and a large part of that multiple really comes off the single premiums.

Obviously, the yield curve doesn't sort of change there, the big volumes that come through in Investments and come through in Corporate sort of do affect that number. Michael, we'll unpack it by business unit for you.

Thanks, everyone. I don't have any massive closing remarks, except to say thank you.

This was a great call. I think the one thing that is clear is the more we disclose, the more interactive the call is, and so on.

We quite enjoyed it. Thanks for the compliments on that.

We will keep it up. I think it is important to us to always disclose as much as we can.

Now that we kind of well into the IFRS rhythm, I think you can bargain on it that this will continue the way in which we do the disclosure. Thank you.

I think we got some great questions and great interaction, and we really enjoyed it. If you have further questions, please feel free to email Rowan and Abdul, and we'll do our best to get back to you on that.

Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's event. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines.