Good morning, and thank you very much for attending this conference. Before opening the floor to the question, as usual, let me make some remarks on the first half numbers that you saw this morning.

They were numbers that confirms the strength, resilience, and consistency of our business model. We were able to deliver excellent results across all key metrics, with the net profit reaching more than 900 million, up almost 50% year-on-year.

More importantly, results reflect not only a very strong earnings growth, but also a significant improvement in the quality of our earnings. Our performance is based and supported by all the core drivers of value creation: technical profitability in non-life, profitable growth in life, and resilient recurring investment income and strong capital generation.

What I would particularly like to emphasize in our ability to combine business growth and improving profitability in non-life, premium increased by almost 4%, while the combined ratio improved to less than 92%, allowing us to reach ahead of schedule the target originally envisaged for the end of the strategic plan. This is particularly important achievement because it demonstrates that growth has not come at the expense of underwriting discipline.

On the contrary, the quality of our portfolio continues to improve. The result is even more remarkable considering the operating environment.

Compared to the first half of this year, we had a larger impact coming from nat cat that were offset by lower impact coming from large losses. Overall, the combined effect of the two is pretty in line with the numbers of 2025 and is way in line with the expectation and the assumption of our budget and industrial plan.

Life business is also performing very well. We delivered strong premium growth, positive net inflows at almost 800 million, and a significant improvement in profitability.

This recovery in earnings is being driven both by the technical component of the business and the investment income, while improving portfolio economics continue to support future profitability. Finally, investment performance was very strong independently on the effect of the SpaceX IPO that is a non-recurring component of the investment income, but even not considering the impact of SpaceX, the investment yield of the portfolio is close to 6% that is very robust, significant, and persistent in terms of contribution coming from dividend and coupon.

Finally, capital position remain a key competitive advantage for us. We closed the first half with a Solvency II ratio of 259% that is the official number, but as usual, I underline and remark the importance of the 290% that is the solvency position of the insurance group that is a very strong number and paved the way to be very consistent with our metrics and target in dividend distribution policy that, as I said last time that we met, is based on the 930 million for the dividend expectation for 2026 and paved the way to the dividend capability for the rest of the industrial plan and in general for the next future.

Having said that, I am here as usual with Enrico San Pietro to answer to your question. Thank you very much.

Hello, and thank you a lot for taking my questions. The first one would be on net financial results, the underlying yield, especially I'm not talking about the SpaceX MTM.

In the underlying yield, both in life and non-life, the return has been incredibly strong. Just want to understand what's the kind of run rate we should expect in H2.

The second question is on the health business. Clearly there the profitability remains outstanding, but it seems to be that growth has been decelerating through the first two quarters compared with last year.

Should we expect a reacceleration in the next quarters, or please if you can provide any color on why that shouldn't be the case? Thank you.

Concerning the first question, without considering SpaceX mark to market, that as I said before is an exceptional component, very volatile, and it comes from an investment that we did in the past that was very worth to do considering the evolution in terms of mark to market evaluation of SpaceX stock. It is not a strategic stake, and we will see the opportunity to divest the investment as soon as there will be the market condition to do it.

Without considering SpaceX, as I said before, overall the investment yield of P&C and life not related to the segregated portfolio, gestioni separate, is 6%. The running rate, that is the component related to coupon and dividend, is 5% because 1% is the component related to mark to market evaluation of asset that are marked to market through P&L.

If you want to consider and to extrapolate the investment income for the second half, if you want to be prudent, you should consider only the 5% that I said before. Consider that to this 5% there is important contribution coming from the equity investment.

Dividend are allocated in the first half of the year, and so you can't expect a replication of the dividend stream coming in the second half of the year. If you skip the dividend component from the run rate, you should arrive to a number close to 4% if you want to have an idea of the contribution coming from the investment to the second half of the year.

Of course, you have also the mark to market of the asset that are booked to P&L that will give a contribution depending on the performance of financial market in the second half of the year. The second question regards the health business.

There is a point considering the trend of premium that were in a sort of sense subdued in the first half of the year because the performance of bancassurance and agent was very strong, but in terms of contribution to total premium, these two component are still not the majority of the premium of the company. The most important component is the corporate, the big contract that we have with big institution that in the first half of the year grew a mid-single digit.

We expect an acceleration in the second half of the year as a consequence of the possible acquisition of new contract. In terms of profitability, the profitability was very strong, and we expect to maintain this trend also over the span of the industrial plan, that means the second half of 2026 and 2027.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me.

Sorry, I just switched off my ventilator. Congratulations on fantastic results.

I had two questions and they come a little bit from listening to your competitor a little bit earlier. The one is on nat cats.

Can you talk about what you're seeing in July, maybe? The second is on the underlying trends in non-life and the balance between inflation, if there is any, and pricing and what you intend to do in pricing going forward?

Thank you.

Hi, Michael. I'm Enrico.

The first question is about the nat cat events. As you have seen, in the first half, the overall amount of nat cat losses was not concerning, around 150 million.

Then in July, as it happened to Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland between 15 and 20 July, there were several convective storms. In our estimation, this could have an impact that is, of course, quite significant, but still not concerning compared to what we put in our budget, in our plan.

In the plan, the overall amount that we are expecting for nat cat events both on motor other damages and property is around €550 million, and we think that we are on track to stay in this amount or lower. The second question is about the underwriting underlying trends in non-life generally.

Of course, when it comes to motor third-party liability, the price momentum is going down on the market, and this is something that is true also for us. The price increase is lower than the previous year, in the region of 2%.

As you have seen in the first half, the motor combined ratio is slightly worsened, but the motor third-party liability is exactly the same level of combined ratio, and the worsening is related to nat cat events on motor other damages. This is for the motor business.

Non-motor has become quite profitable for the market. This means, of course, the price momentum is changing, and in some cases, for instance in general third-party liability, the whole market is decreasing the amount of premium written.

That is, of course, due to the fact that after years in which general third-party liability was quite a problematic line of business, nowadays has become really profitable, and so the market has become softer, the prices are decreasing, and of course also the overall amount of premium written. This is true also for us.

As you can see, our business line that was not increasing is general third-party liability.

Very clear. Thank you.

Yes, good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. I have three.

The first one is on the agreement with Intesa Sanpaolo for the acquisition of the Banca Monte dei Paschi carve-out, because I was wondering if you could help us to understand how fixed the agreement with Intesa is at this stage. If Intesa were to revise the terms of its offer on Monte dei Paschi, should we assume that the terms of the agreement between Intesa and Unipol on Monte Paschi carve-out are fully locked, or could there be any risk on changes in price, perimeter, or other condition that could be less favorable for Unipol?

The second one is on the dividend policy, because I was wondering if you could give us a bit more color on dividend policy after the very strong capital generation you delivered in the first half. You already generated 300 million of excess capital in this first half, on top of the half billion in full year '25.

Given the approval of capital increase and the consequent higher number of shares, should we think that your ambition is to manage a stable or growing DPS year after year, including '26 on '25 and '27 on '26, and this also even before the first of synergies from BPER-Monte dei Paschi combination start to be visible? The third and last one is on corporate structure, because I was wondering if you could give us a qualitative sense on how you think about the medium-long term corporate structure, because in theory, once BPER and Monte Paschi carve-out are combined, a bank-led holding inversion could be a way to improve capital efficiency.

In that case, obviously, considering the current shareholder situation, this let's say action could be diluting for current main shareholders of Unipol, also making the financial conglomerate exposed to takeover risk. Do you think that the more realistic path is first to increase progressively the stake in the combined bank over several years before any structure change could be considered?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you to you. The first question regards the agreement with Intesa Sanpaolo that we disclosed when we did the conference call in the early of June.

The agreement, of course, remain the same. As we said before, we have a cap in the acquisition of the carve-out that is 3.5 billion.

Once reached this cap, we are protected by the cap, and so any decision that Intesa Sanpaolo will take in the offer will follow what is contained in the agreement. That means that we will pay half of the multiple that Intesa Sanpaolo will pay for Monte dei Paschi capped at 3.5 billion.

This is the point. Concerning the dividend policy, we have a new floor at 930 million, that was the 800 million that we disclosed before considering the capital increase that we think to be able to execute within the end of the year, and this will be the floor for the future.

Having said that, we also gave some numbers of the net profit that we could do once we will become hopefully a conglomerate taking the control of Monte dei Paschi and BPER and put together, having the control of BPER, with a total profitability close to 2 billion. You can do your math in order to understand which could be the possible dividend policy that we could implement in the future, assuming that 930 million is the floor.

Concerning the third question, as you correctly said, our ambition within the next future is to execute the transaction that we disclosed in the early of June, that means to create a big financial conglomerate that will have an insurance leg and a banking leg of the same contribution in terms of profitability. Our ambition is to have a stake more than 30% in the new financial entity, and then depending on our capability in terms of capital generation, we look forward over time to increase the stake if we will have the capital to do it.

Consequently, any possibility of reverse merger is not on the table today, because as you correctly said, it would change quite radically the structure of the shareholding of the company, and it is a decision of the shareholders of the company, and it is the shareholder meeting that has to take this kind of decision. It is completely premature to think about this possibility.

Very clear. Thank you.

good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions.

The first one is related to what you have already stated in the previous answers. As a part that you are willing progressively to increase the stake in BPER, also potentially from the kind of close to 30% at which you will end up following the transaction if successful.

In particular, we know that you have derivative position, in particular you have entered into a 4.9% derivatives on BPER capital at the beginning of June. If you can provide us some update on your expected capital impact if you were to convert these derivatives right now, the impact on solvency if you have any indication on that?

The second question is on excess cash. We have seen that you are ahead of the plan and the €1 billion target by 2027 is more than visible.

You have indicated in the plan that this would be used for growth or to be returned to shareholders. Just wondering if the approach to use this excess cash has in some way changed with the potential transaction in place regarding Unipol, BPER, and Monte dei Paschi?

The last one is that if you can provide us the most recent mark to market regarding the value of the SpaceX stake. If we were today relative to what has been an indication at the 30th of June, what have been the value, the impact on financials?

Thank you.

Thank you to you, Andrea. The position in BPER today is physically we own a little bit less than 20% of stake, and on top of that we have 10% of of of derivatives.

The 20% physical stake is as these two component have completely different impact on the capital, in the sense that today we consolidate at equity BPER having 20% physical stake on on the shares. On the opposite, the 10% investment that we have in derivative are considered as an equity investment in terms of contribution to capital.

Of course, if you convert the five the 4.9% from derivative to physical, the impact would be quite important. As you as because we say this several times, we don't have the reverse Danish compromise and for for for this reason and this is a completely unfair position for us compared to what is the treatment for the for banks having having a a stake of of of insurance, having 5% of stake in physical stake in in the bank is a very is very hard and it means almost 30 points of impact in terms of capital position.

You can understand that for us capital is very important because this capital is put at work at a very high profitability, but it is a lot of money compared to what you would invest if you were a bank investing in an insurance in an insurance company. Considering the excess capital that you mentioned, yes, we are on track to overdeliver the target of the industrial plan, but we have already an idea to put at work this capital, that is with the acquisition of the carve-out of of Monte dei Paschi, of course with the 2.5 billion of capital increase that we hopefully will execute within the end of of of the year.

We need this organic capital that we create in order to be able and to be in the position to have a very solid capital position to finance the the the transaction. Finally, SpaceX today, at at 30th of June it was 200 million of unrealized gain.

Today it is almost half of that, but it it change on a daily basis. It is a very volatile a very volatile investment, and as I said, for us is not strategic and depending on market condition, we don't think to to to take this investment for a very long time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. It was just one question.

You mentioned in your remarks that the life profit growth, which was fabulous, came both from investment margin and the technical side. I just wondered if you could explain a little bit more on the technical side what this means and what it could also mean going forward?

Thank you.

Yes, Michael, was both of that. If you go to the presentation, you can see that we worked very hard in order to improve the yield of the segregated portfolios by increasing them quite consistently from 3.35% to 3.43% gross.

Of this number, we rebated to the policyholder 2.35%, that is a net yield that is very competitive with what you can get from the treasury market or other alternative investment, and we keep for us 1.08% by increasing by 2 basis point the technical profitability of the investment products. On top of that, we increased the profitability also in other kind of product categories, like for instance term premium, that was very important.

On top of that, also the investment income gave a quite significant contribution to the total profitability. All the driver of the business line of life gave a very positive contribution to the profitability on life, and this is the reason why the number were very very strong in the first half.

Brilliant. Thank you.

Yes, hello everyone, and then thank you for taking my questions. The first one is just a follow-up on this last question about life.

Considering all what you have said, should we expect life to incorporate it better run rate going forward? Because if we look at the CSM release, we are at approximately €140 to €150 million every six months.

On top of that, we have the financial income and it seems that the running yield is going quite well. Then the second question is on the trend on your solvency ratio of the insurance perimeter, which was very high, 290%, and an increase of 11 percentage point compared to the end of '25, but a decline, if I remember well, of 5 percentage point compared to March.

I don't know if you can elaborate a bit on the moving parts in this second quarter. Thank you very much.

Thank you to you, Elena. Concerning life insurance, the answer is you can consider recurring the component related to the operating profitability improvement, of course not for the contribution coming from investment income that was positively affected by very strong performance of financial market in the first half of the year, in particular in the second quarter of the year.

On the other side, the improvement that we had in the technical profitability in the investment product and in the term premium product could be considered as recurring. In terms of solvency, at the moment I can't explain the involution that you mentioned of the insurance group from the 30th of March to the 30th of June, but I expect this to be related to the increase of the investments that we did in BPER over time, but then with Alberto Zoia we will go in deep more in the number and I will revert to you.

The improvement generally of the solvency ratio is due to the capital generation contribution coming from the usual business, of course, on one hand. We had also in the second quarter of the year the approval of a component of the partial internal model that concerning the nat cat exposure that gave a positive contribution of 4 percentage points.

Then we deducted the expected dividend that we will pay for the 2026, and we deducted also the investment that we did in BPER after the execution of the merger with Banca Popolare di Sondrio in order to come back to less than 20%, that is the number at which we are authorized to be.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm sorry to keep you on the phone.

I was discussing with an investor the difference between you, your market leader in Italy, incredibly focused, that some of your peers are more diversified. The only difference I could think of was because you probably have to pay more for reinsurance or you have less diversified in a way.

I just wondered if you can give us a feel for it's now a benefit, reinsurance costs are coming down. Are we seeing this in our numbers or should we start seeing it next year?

Hi. Michael, the overall issue about the cost of reinsurance is not only about geographical diversification of your exposure, but it's about, of course, the quality of your portfolio, the quality of information you provide, and of course your underwriting strategy that allow reinsurance to offer better prices.

Reinsurance market is soft, has become to reduce prices already in the last renewals in 2025 year-end, and the market sentiment is about further decrease in the reinsurance cost, of course, unless some events that can change this kind of momentum. Far, I think that this is quite probably happening, and I think that you can also see in our reinsurance result something that is improving compared to the previous year because, of course, we were able to reduce prices and at the same time also to strengthen the level of our cover.

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for attending this conference. Have a good vacation for who of you will go on holiday, and we will meet again in November for the September results.

Thank you very much.