Welcome to the presentation of Protector's full year '25 results. We will focus on the full year.

A quarter is volatile, we say that all the time. Focus on the full year result, that is more interesting and says more about the underlying realities of the business.

Before I go into the results, I always spend a little bit of time on who we are. What we did this morning was to continue on looking at what the challenger should be in the future.

One thing that we care about is that we, even when we are 700 people, even when we grow in number of countries, that we still act as one team, which is a bit contradictory to a performance culture where we compete against each other, and also that we want local decisions, and also that we want each individual in the company to make decisions because they are where it happens, and they should know what decisions to make. That's what the challenger is.

It is about making everything we do focused and simplistic, but when it comes to culture, we need to complicate it in order to spend time and really understand so that we're on the same platform and the same grounds for the future, because I think that's extremely important in order to stay who we are, the challenger. Then to the highlights.

Other than that 84.7% combined ratio and a 14% growth with an investment return of 1.5 billion Norwegian kroner, leading to 31.7 kroner per share in earnings, we have had some other activities in the quarter, one being the placement of a Tier 1 bond where the market was good, with good terms on that. Maybe the biggest, other than the growth for 1st of January, which I'll come back to, news is that we have now been relieved of the maybe biggest mistake that we've made in Protector, workers' compensation in Denmark, where we took on board a portfolio knowing that we didn't have the exact data we needed to underwrite it, but we underestimated the downside of that portfolio.

We have now sold that, the agreement with DARAG is completed. We can now focus on the lines of business and the business that we know how to do in Denmark.

That's very good. I'll get back to the reinsurance side and the growth later on.

Speaking about the growth, I think that it is important, in particular following a 1st of January with high growth, it's important to remember how the portfolio is put together. What we see here is a development.

The development is driven by disciplined underwriting. We underwrite in all these segments.

Remember that the commercial segments, if you look at the segment distribution on the left of the cake diagrams here, commercial sector in all countries is bigger than the public and housing sectors. We have grown more in the public sector.

That is due to mostly so it's been more rational pricing in the public and housing sectors than what it has been in the commercial sector. That's why public sector and housing has grown a lot also in the past 5-year period.

Property and motor by far are biggest products, short-tail products. UK is now close to half the business, or it says 42% of the business.

It's also important to remember that the 1st of January growth is related to the Scandinavian markets, or the Nordic markets, and France, not UK. The market conditions are different in those two geographies.

It's been easier to grow in the Nordics and France than what it has been in the UK the past year. It's just a support so that you see what the inception structure in our portfolio was in the years from '21 to '25.

Obviously, we don't know exactly how that will look in '26, but at least you then see that distribution. When it comes to '25, what you have seen throughout the year is that from the UK, we've had a good 1st of April in public sector and housing, but I've also said, and we've also experienced, that the market has been softening.

Rates have been going down, especially on the property product in commercial sector. It is slightly harder to achieve price increases.

It's slightly harder to renew clients, and also to get new sales. The churn in UK during 2025 has been good, we've managed to keep the churn at a good level, around slightly above 10%, and been disciplined in the new sales side.

Then we've had strong growth in the other territories, or in Scandinavia. That is supported by good renewals, renewal rate of 95% in total for the company.

It's basically the same in the Nordics. We've also had some new sales.

It's good on the Norwegian business, which has the highest growth out of the Scandinavian countries on 1st of January '26. A similar situation to what you see here.

Denmark is number two 1st of January '26, but Sweden has a lower growth in '26. Sweden is the market where there is still more competition and more competition that we view as irrational.

Then you have the French business, of course, where not a lot happens in quarter four, most of it is old news of the start there. However, 1st of January is an interesting date because we communicated an estimated number of what we thought we would quote for 1st of January following quarter three.

That number was roughly right. What we have seen in the market for 1st of Jan in France is that we have won approximately 10% of what we have quoted in the commercial sector space, motor.

That's a lower figure than what we are used to in Scandinavia. It's more in line with what we are used to on the motor side in the UK.

Then on the housing sector, where most of the property volume from '25 comes from, we have basically won nothing 1st of January '26. One of the big competitors, AXA, has come in and lowered prices a lot compared to what they did in '25.

It's not a hat trick in France. We have not won volume in all the segments we're in, but we've got some traction on the municipality side, the public sector side, where the market situation is very different from the housing sector.

The interesting thing is that the housing sector is quite similar to what we know in the UK, where there is low deductibles, lots of escape of water claims, and calculating the price is not very difficult. When we may make a mistake and the competitors that price lower than us, they may know something we don't, absolutely.

We're new in France. At the same time, it's difficult to see that it's very sustainable, those levels that we see in the housing sector now.

At some point, we believe that we can have success there as well. Maybe not in the same way as '23 in the UK, but at least it's not on the public sector side, which is more about large loss and risk selection.

Henrik?

Sorry, I forgot to say that. Please ask questions during the presentation.

If you could go back to France. After Q3, you said that at that time you had been seeing around €300 million in potential volume, and that your expected quotation rate would be around 70% to 75%, but you also said it's still early.

Approximately where did you end when it comes down to figures in France January 1st?

It continued to grow, not a lot from that, but the quotation rate went slightly down, both because of capacity, our own capacity. We prepared as well as we could, but we didn't have enough manpower to do that with quality.

The actual number is very similar to what you could derive out of the 300 and 70% to 75%. Yeah.

In quotes. In quotes.

Any more questions on volume side? Please ask questions in writing as well.

Okay. Again, when we look at the full year, we also bring out the the the longer picture here, and and there is volatility in not only the run-off and the large losses, but but also on the the loss ratio below those large losses and without the the run-off.

The large loss situation in in 2025 is lower than what we have said is normalized. The comment on the top here, going from 7% to 8%, I'll get back to when I speak about the reinsurance, but that goes for '26, not not for '25.

For '25, it's still a normalized level at 7% approximately. We're slightly lower than the normalized level in in '25.

We've had some run-off gains, even though it's best estimate. I've also said previously that following a period with uncertain inflation, you should expect that we that there is a bit more uncertainty, and then and then there could be some run-off gains from that situation if we have been on the on the conservative side.

Then and then when it comes to claims, I think the the important message here is is to say that if we compare full year '25 to full year '24, and you normalize for run-off and large losses, all countries are slightly better on the loss ratio side. It's an improvement coming from the price increases, where we have unprofitable products or clients.

That's the simple way of seeing it. The only country that is slightly up, but but very much the same is is Sweden.

Then there are some technicalities, one of which is is on the or related to the the transfer of the Danish workers' comp portfolio. The risk margin is is reduced.

It's a it's a one-off of approximately 80 million for the quarter and the year due to lower risk in the remaining portfolio. We've changed that model.

Then there is a a small between the countries. It has nothing to or no consequence on the total loss ratio, but between the countries, there is a we've changed the this from a standard, very old model of of calculating the future claims handling costs, and that changes the distribution with slightly lower cost, which is claims handling cost is on a loss ratio, for UK.

UK is slightly higher, and then Norway and Sweden have had a bit more of that cost. That's a one-off again, they're slightly lower.

With that information, it's the conclusion is that all countries compared to '24 are slightly better normalized for all of that. Any questions on on the loss development side?

You have all the figures on on large loss and in order to normalize on on all these levels, I won't go through each of them, but but that's the the total picture. We have cost and quality leadership leading to profitable growth as our our targets.

The cost side is very flat. There is no, or very limited, efficiency improvements in in what you see here.

There there are some effects that make this look '25 look higher than than '24, but if you correct for the fact that the share price has increased, we've talked about that before, more than what it did in '24, and that is connected to an incentive-based share program for some employees, and France, then you'll get slightly lower than than what we had in '24 on the cost side. There is no, or very limited, efficiency improvement.

We we do that consciously, but of course we we do want to see the effects of that investment we we make. I think it's more likely that we see that effect in new opportunities for growth that we spend it on developing the company in on the growth side to to grow, than that we cut and slim down departments very quickly in order to to get the low cost.

That takes some time, as you understand. I think there there's no nothing very special to to comment on here, other than those comments I've already had, unless you have any questions on specific countries or the totality on cost.

Then continue to the quality leadership. Last time we brought this up, we had the UK survey with the brokers, where we got very strong feedback.

We've also had the Scandinavian, or the Nordic, surveys out and had very strong feedback. It's especially good to see that we are increasing the distance to our competitors in all the Scandinavian countries.

We are also winning more prizes, external prizes, from the brokers, the largest broker in Scandinavia, we are number one in in Sweden and in in Norway. We've also won other external surveys that support our own survey.

At the same time, and as always, the most important thing about this survey is to understand that feedback, use it as a basis to discuss with the brokers, who are our best and only friends, how we can improve, what we should prioritize to improve in the future. This is good news.

It doesn't automatically mean that we will get more business from the brokers, but it but it means that we can we're in a position to require more from our best and only friends. I think that's the important part, that the long-term the the long-term gain from this is that we can require better data, more data.

We can require that they invest together with us in competing against against the direct channels, and that we can do those larger projects because we, you say that we are the best partner for you. That's a good thing, but it doesn't mean that we win more clients tomorrow.

Yeah. There is basically nothing I haven't touched upon here, since we've talked about the cost previously as well.

I'll move forward to the investment side. When you see this, it's per 31st of December and does not then include the reduction from the transfer of the workers' comp agreement, which is for '26, and it does not include the new growth, of course.

That's a a change. The results on investment side are are strong in absolute terms and and relative, especially on the on the equity side, but also on the bond side in a very strong market.

The yield is down due to the reference rates, if you compare it to to last year. Other than that, on the bond side, it's it's very similar portfolio.

We steer interest rate towards our liabilities, and we have a slightly shorter duration in our reserves, so that's down. Then you see the comment at the end that we have the the assets under management are reduced by the transaction amounts of the reserves that we had on the Danish workers' comp portfolio, approximately 1 billion Norwegian kroner.

On the equity side, I think it's it's right to say that it's a both absolute and relatively strong result. There is some changes in in the portfolio.

You've seen that see that the discount to intrinsic value has reduced significantly from from last year. Some of it is obviously that we've had had gain that we have, share prices have gone up, but there are also some companies or some sectors that have performed worse than what we have expected.

There's been some changes in in the intrinsic value. We open as a value with so and and this year it has been some disappointments on certain segments and companies and some changes in in that portfolio.

Even though it's the same number of holdings, there have been some changes in in the portfolio during 2025, and you'll see that in the annual report, what we had at year-end '25. Any questions to investment side?

Can I have a microphone?

You managed to earn an annual rate of return on investments of 14% over the last 10 years, which is on the last slide. How did you do that, and are you going to keep on doing it, or is it going to be another number in the next 10 years?

As Dag Marius is here and he's in charge of that, but I can answer that question in at least a simple way. That is that we believe in what we're doing, and we will continue believing in doing that.

Investment is core business for Protector, as insurance is. We will continue to step by step have improvements in our processes.

What the future will give, that's very difficult to say. Our ambition is to beat the market over time, and we think that those processes are set to do so.

Unless Dag Marius has anything to add? No.

On the income statement here, we have a couple of comments, and I've touched upon one of them before, the change in risk adjustments. It's an IFRS element, it's on top of the best estimate reserves.

There is a risk adjustment in IFRS. When a long-tailed reserve portfolio is out of our portfolio, then the risk in total for the rest of the portfolio is lower.

That's why we've made that change. It's a one-off and it should be a stable number or fairly stable number in the future, depending on where the growth comes from.

Then it's the larger change that we've made on reinsurance. It's a bit complicated just because there are no figures that will exactly clarify what has happened on the reinsurance side in the accounts.

To make it simple, we see it from two sides. I said that we increase the normalized large loss rate by 1 percentage point from 7% to approximately 8%.

We're taking a bit more risk ourselves, buying less reinsurance on certain programs. I'll get back to that.

Then on the other side, we pay less for that reinsurance. We wouldn't have done that if we didn't think it was a good idea.

We've done that on the areas where we have a lot of data. Where we think that we're actually able to predict what those large losses will be over time.

One angle is that we have increased risk, and that will mean that it's the very large losses. As you've seen the last 5 years, our large loss rate is lower than 7%, and so these are the very large losses, it's not something that will happen every year.

This is a volatile element. It's a volatile part.

It's far out on the tail, that 1 percentage point that we're speaking about. Then the reduction in cost is then higher than what that increase is.

On the capital development side, on the own funds, we have the Tier 1 that we issued, and then as we're growing, we utilize more of the Tier 2 capital that we have issued previously. Then that's basically the same amount as the dividends that will be paid, so that's stable.

Then on the requirement side, it's on the insurance side that there is a change, and it's related to reinsurance. That's the other angle to that reinsurance exercise, it's increased approximately 300 million Norwegian kroner on the requirement side.

When we do that, and we have a target or requirement of 20% return on that capital we need to hold for 300 million insurance risk, which is higher than 300, of course, then our view has to be that it's much higher or higher than 20% return on that equity, and our estimations is that it is much higher than that. If not, we wouldn't have done it.

What we have done is to say that on what we call the risk program, that's basically fires that can be that large. On the risk program, we have increased from 100 million Scandinavian kroner or 10 million pounds or euros to 300 or 30.

That's because we have very solid datasets to document and to calculate losses up to 300, and the price is too high. Let's not buy it.

We can take that volatility, but obviously there will be slightly more volatility in our results, but the economic realities of it is that it's the right thing to do. The cat is different.

Natural catastrophes, that's different. Just like predicting the interest rate, I don't think we should believe that we are best in the world at predicting what the weather will look like and what climate changes will do.

Obviously, we have a view of both how we select risks when it comes to natural catastrophes. We have processes and data that aim to avoid the worst ones, where there will be the most flood or the most windstorm damage, but to predict the consequence of weather-related damage to our portfolio is difficult.

We have increased retention on the traditional program to the same level, or actually higher since it is in Danish kroner, as on the risk side, but that's only for the first loss. Then we've bought more reinsurance that reduces that to 100 million Danish on the second loss.

The reason is basically that we don't think we know exactly how to calculate that. On the UK liability, it's just too high price, then we say that you pay this price or we take it ourselves to the reinsurers, and some wanted to pay that price or take that price, and some didn't.

Then we took a higher share of the layer between 10 million and 25 million pounds on UK liability. We are much more comfortable with that portfolio today than what we were when we entered the UK, so that's yeah.

Any questions on the reinsurance side?

Thank you for the walkthrough, Henrik. One, I think that what you're doing sounds reasonable, absolutely, we like it.

What's your estimated or guesstimated increase in retention rate after this one? Because when we do our calculation, we end up that you estimate the large loss ratio to go up from 7% to 8%, and our estimation is that the retention rate will increase with around 2.0 percentage points.

Is that a fair assumption, would you say?

I think that's a fair assumption. Obviously it depends on how the portfolio develops, but with the '25 portfolio, it's a fair assumption.

The distribution policy, it is very similar to what we have had previously. What you do see is, for the one who has studied it next to each other, is that the arrow is slightly taller.

The green starts slightly higher up, and the blue box above 200 is slightly higher than the one below. That is to reflect the process that we have, where it's not really about these numbers.

200 or 150 is important. That's a bottom and then there are activities, but it's about the risks that we look at and evaluate every quarter on the different areas, mainly the insurance side and the investment side, but all the underlying risks from them, and then the stress scenarios and what we have in a stress situation, because what we always want to be sure of is that we are ready to act on profitable growth and good investment opportunities in a crisis situation, but at the same time not to get lazy, obviously, and make sure that we don't think that we can make a lot more than you if we don't see those opportunities right in front of us.

It's a quarterly process or continuous process with a quarterly decision, and it happens after we know what the results are, not before. Our long-term financial targets, no change in them.

It may seem a bit conservative to say 91% combined ratio with the past 5 years and the underlying realities when I say that they look good, and we deliver 85, they still look good. It is something about the growth.

Profitability is extremely important, but we also have to face the fact that in order to find new markets, there is a bit more uncertainty and price is the deciding factor. So 91% is long-term a very good return on equity.

The same there, conservative relative to those numbers, but I think that it is a good steering to have. Then we're back to the summary, and any questions on the totality or the last part?

Hello. My name is Per Halmrast.

I have a question. If I remember correctly at the last quarterly presentation, you talked about the possibility of entering a new market in the UK within real estate.

Could you say something about are you quoting for the 1st of April already, or is it too soon, and could you say something about your volume expectations in this market?

Yep. Good question.

Should probably have said something about it on on the volume side. It's we have quoted very selectively so far in the real estate market.

We have won a handful of clients in that market, but the selectiveness is due to the fact that we we basically only quote what looks like what we have from before, housing, for instance, in the real estate sector. In that part of the real estate segment, and especially for the large clients, it seems like the rates are are a bit too low, we haven't won many of the larger clients there yet.

We have quoted very little so far, the it's a bit unsure if if the market intelligence is is significant. We're building those databases with data from the, from the brokers, we're actually getting large data beta bases from the brokers.

When we have a more granular model that can separate the different types of risks within real estate, we are very ready to to make that a a quoting machine. We have there we have the the model, the people, and the setup, we're feeding that with data.

Then we've said that it's approximately 1 billion pounds in in that market for what we have risk appetite for. Over time, and I don't know what that is, let's say it's could be 3 years if things if there's if it's a hard market and a rational market, it could be 7 years if it's a bit up and down, but but that we should have a large share of that market, meaning at least double-digit percent or higher than that, is is quite obvious because there is a lot of attrition attritional losses and cost will matter in in that segment.

It's very similar to what we do. Nothing in the figures for now, no no good understanding of the market situation, but but we're preparing, still preparing.

1st of April is not necessarily a very large date. It's more spread out on the real estate sector.

Good morning. Thomas Svensson from SEB.

Question to your UK business, just to help us to try to calculate sort of the trajectory of the combined ratio there. The business you have today, that's the back book, and then you have the front book.

How many years do you think it will take before you have replaced the favorable business with the new, maybe softer business?

I've commented on this before, and we haven't changed the view on it, other than that the parts of the portfolio that should be out in 1st of April '26 is going to be smaller than what we estimated. It's not coming out for tender.

Basically what you can say is that for all the business we wrote in '23, which is the big inflow, 1st of April '23, it will be some clients with then 3 years, but I'm saying that that's a smaller share than what is the normal, and then some clients with a 4-year before they go to market, and then, let's say that it's approximately, I think I said that before, 40% on 4 years and 40% on 5 years, and then 20% on 3 years. Then maybe it's 42% and 42%.

16%, yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Good.

If we look away from France, but just on your combined ratio. I was thinking, are you prepared to go materially above or somewhat above 91% in certain of your established markets if some are below and you think about the average on your existing business, looking away from France?

I think on existing business, we are prepared to write contracts over time that can be slightly above 91% on short-tail business if it makes sense, and that can mean first year and not to do a two-price system, but that it is necessary to come in on a higher combined ratio than or significantly higher than 91% on the first year, with mechanisms and risk management initiatives that make it profitable over time. Maybe more interesting I think is that we're more interested in looking at new segments or going into business that we find data for, but that are new to us, which there's a bit more uncertainty around.

We have a strong book in the bottom

there. Thank you.

Hello, David Valderhaug. A question regarding volume in Sweden going forward.

You mentioned that it's still somewhat irrational pricing there and as such a bit harder to gain volume. Should we expect the coming years, '26, '27, to be at approximately '25 levels, or do you expect that to decrease or increase based on the market situation?

I think that it's it's very hard to to predict what the competitors will do over the next two, 3 years, but but I what we see now is that it is still more difficult in in Sweden, and and that probably doesn't change tomorrow. There are a couple of market movements in Sweden that can give us more opportunities.

One of the largest players in Sweden is is not they haven't officially gone out with with it, but but they are not very interested in in brokers, and and that can give some better opportunities, more opportunities. There are also some large initiatives on facilities in the Swedish market, that goes for the whole Scandinavian market, where we have a very strong position with the brokers to to do that cooperation.

Then and then we're in a game where it's more about finding an efficient way of dealing with clients that are slightly smaller, and and give them a good product through a broker, and that can grow the broker market share the broker's market share. That's since the largest Scandinavian broker is headquartered in Sweden, they they are furthest ahead there.

There are some market opportunities that can be bigger, but but the competitive landscape is a bit volatile in in Sweden.

You probably been asked this question many times before, but why did you really choose France?

The short version of that is that we looked at many countries on a high level. Do the brokers have a good market share, and is the market large enough that it is an interesting to us?

Is data available in that market? Public sector has been important for us, that is a market that has the same dynamics as we're used to, with public procurement regulations and a similar type of insurance purchase.

Then we, through the high-level analysis, we started in Spain. We didn't get data in Spain.

Then we went to France, which was number two. Then we met the brokers, got data in France, and then we can go to the table and at least have a similar starting point as competitors when it comes to competence and understanding of the history.

No more questions? Thanks for meeting or listening in.

Wish you a good day.