customer empathy, profitable growth, resilience, and disciplined capital management. Together, these priorities support solid financial results and long-term value creation for customers and stakeholders.

We are well-positioned for further growth, and we will continue to focus on cost efficiency and profitability. Based on the progress made so far, we remain confident in reaching the financial targets for 2026.

We also see a strong foundation for continuing this positive development in the years ahead. With that, we'll now open the Q&A session.

Question-and-Answer Session Mitra Negård All right. We will now continue with our Q&A session.

Participants who wish to ask a question can join via Microsoft Teams by clicking the button displayed below the webcast window after registration. Questions may also be submitted in writing directly in the webcast player.

We will start first with the question we have received in our webcast player. It's from Qian Lu in UBS.

Qian asks, "The underlying frequency loss ratio improved by around four points year-on-year, despite a strong comparative base. How much of this reflects continued favorable claims trends versus pricing and underwriting actions?

Should we view the Q2 level as a sustainable run rate for the summer quarters going forward?" Jostein Amdal I can start on that one.

We have highlighted that from quarter to quarter, there is some volatility in the underlying frequency loss ratio, and that we have seen a favorable claims environment over the first two quarters of 2026. Having said that, the improvement is, to a large extent, a result of the discipline we have in our pricing, where we are focused on profitability ahead of growth.

We've seen that we've gotten the price increases through, more than the claims development has actually pointed to. It's been a combination of disciplined pricing actions and some volatility around the claims picture.

Mitra Negård Okay, moving on to Qian's second question. "Gross written product growth in private slowed to 5.6% year-on-year in Q2 from 9% in Q1.

Is that primarily a reflection of moderating price increases, or are there any volume or portfolio mix effects to consider as well? Could you provide some color on current pricing versus claims inflation trends across your key markets and major lines of business?"

Jostein Amdal As was mentioned by Geir under the presentation, in the first half of this year, we have seen some churn due to the termination of the agreements with seven of the eight fire mutuals. That's part of the explanation, and this, of course, will not be repeated.

This is a temporary effect in 2026. If you look forward, I think there is continuous strong volume growth in private Norway.

It is strong and will continue so. We have introduced today important new partnerships and the renewal of one very important one with Tekna.

We are taking steps to strengthen our distribution efficiency and the distribution capacity in private in Denmark. If you look at all these items together, I think there's reason for optimism about future growth, both in written and earned premium for the private segment.

Mitra Negård Thank you. I'll read the next question in writing here before we move over to the Teams participants.

This question is from Roy Tilley in Arctic, and he asks, "Can you say a bit more about the Tesla agreement? Is this the same agreement that Tryg currently has?"

Geir Holmgren The agreement with Tesla was actually signed just before the weekend. I don't know the terms and conditions regarding the Tryg agreement, but we are now Tesla's main and core partner in Norway going forward.

As already mentioned in the presentation, we do have a quite good market share when it comes to insurance regarding the Teslas on Norwegian roads. Now we are in a position where we actually get in touch with the customer from day one.

This is a very good starting point for maintaining a good customer relationship and further developing this relationship. I also want to point to this kind of agreement as a signal of the strong position we have within motor insurance.

We run only good agreements, which is very supportive of future growth within motor insurance. Mitra Negård Thank you.

All right, we'll move to the participants in Teams. The first question is from Thomas Svendsen in SEB.

We are now opening your line. Thomas Svendsen Yes.

Good morning. Regarding this idea of introducing VAT on insurance premiums that has been launched here in Norway, how much do you think your net premiums or prices to the clients have to be increased to sort of get break-even on the profitability level, considering that a lot of your costs also will be VAT deductible?

Also, as an extension to this, do you think this possible increased tax burden will be shared between you and your clients, or should we expect the clients to pay all the net tax increase here if it happens? Jostein Amdal As you know, this is a committee set down by the authorities to evaluate a broad set of tax issues.

They've come up with, amongst others, a suggestion to now start investigating or restart the investigation of introducing VAT for financial products in Norway. There is quite some way before this could be a reality, and it is highly uncertain, I would say.

For us, a substitution of the current finance tax—which is an increased employer tax and tax rate for the company—with a VAT isn't necessarily so bad. The numbers we have from this committee that's been set down suggest that they look at increasing tax revenues by NOK 2 billion to NOK 3 billion for the whole sector.

If that is correct, this needs to be captured somehow in our pricing. Really, as usual, the market situation will determine who bears the burden of such an increased taxation.

As you correctly point out, this also means that we can subtract more of our incoming VAT. The calculation is actually quite complex.

It's also a bit of a complex VAT to introduce, and that's the reason why very few countries in the world actually have this VAT on financial services or non-life insurance in general. Geir Holmgren I will just add a few comments.

This is still a proposal to do the assessment, and this is something we will definitely support with information and analysis from our side as well throughout the process. When it comes actually from a more structural view on this, it could be a benefit to actually change the existing tax on financial activity, going back to a more normal tax level on employers' tax and company tax, as we see in other parts of Norwegian business.

This could be helpful. Any kind of VAT on non-life insurance will probably have a negative impact on the premium level for customers as well.

This is the total mix of the consideration. Thomas Svendsen Okay.

Could I have a second question, just quickly? Last quarter you talked about increased competition on accident and health insurance products.

Anything new on that? Geir Holmgren Nothing new.

We are still in a position where we prioritize profitability before volume growth in the commercial segment. In this presentation, we had also a slide where we described the kind of activities we do to improve the quality and the performance of our commercial portfolio within insurance in Norway.

We see that over time, we have managed to improve the underlying frequency loss ratio, and that's due to the kind of expertise we are using to do the right risk assessment pricing, and to make sure that the customers that leave us are the customers with weaker profitability. That's the kind of ongoing work we are doing with this portfolio.

Doing the right thing on pricing, we are also in a position where we actually are still a very attractive provider for customers with the right risk level and where the pricing is good. Thomas Svendsen Okay.

Thank you. Mitra Negård Great.

Moving on to the next question from Vash Gosalia in Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Vash Gosalia Thanks, everyone. Maybe one or two questions from my side.

It's a little bit of a follow-up from Qian's question on GWP. Maybe just shifting the attention to commercial, where you've shown growth of 3.3%.

Could you give us a sense of what's happening within that 3.3—how much is pricing versus how much is volume? In the sense, have you given up some business just because it's too competitive or pricing's not there?

That's the first one. Maybe just in connection to that, could you give us a general sense of competition across the commercial space?

Then the second one, in Sweden, obviously it was impacted by run-off results. Could you just give us a sense of what is within those run-off results?

Is it more of an industry trend or is it a one-off? Thank you.

Geir Holmgren Okay. When it comes to what is happening within commercial Norway and Denmark, as we have discussed, what we see on the volume side is we terminated agreements with the fire mutuals in Norway by the start of the year.

This has had a negative impact during the first half-year when it comes to volume growth. We are still happy with the total result of that kind of termination.

It brings down the cost level. It is very positive that we have a direct relationship with the customers, and we see that we manage to continue with a large proportion of the total customer portfolio earlier regarded as a part of the fire mutual commercial customers.

It is a one-off short-term negative impact when it comes to volume growth. If you look at the total growth you see in the commercial segment, it is driven by price increases, and that is a result of how we have run this business for the last quarters.

Prioritizing profitability before growth has been important for Gjensidige as part of our strategy. Vash Gosalia Sorry, can I just ask a quick clarification on that bit?

It seems like the fire mutuals was your explanation for the private segment as well, but it is also the explanation for commercial. I just want to understand if it sits across both the groups.

I believe you were answering Qian's question on private, but I am just trying to understand what is happening in commercial. Sorry if I have gotten that mixed up.

Geir Holmgren The agreements with the fire mutuals are in both the private and commercial segments in Norway, and they are more specific down to some regions in Norway. We still have one agreement with the largest fire mutual, and this is going very well.

They are doing well in the business, running the business efficiently, and we have very good cooperation. If you look at what is happening after the termination of the eight agreements with the fire mutuals in private and commercial, we see that we tend to be a little more successful within the private segment compared to commercial when it comes to the proportion of customers that we have maintained.

Still, in total, we are very satisfied with the overall success when it comes to keeping the customers. We are losing some customers, and that has a short-term hit on volume growth as well, both in private and commercial.

Vash Gosalia Understood. Then if you could just help me with the run-off results in Sweden, please.

Thank you. Jostein Amdal It's specifically related to certain claims.

There is no trend you should read into that negative development in the second quarter. If you look at the year-to-date figures, it's just slightly positive.

We still believe we have very sufficient reserves also in Sweden. Vash Gosalia Got it.

Thank you. Mitra Negård All right.

The next question is from Ulrik Zürcher in Nordea. Ulrik Zürcher Yeah, thank you.

I was just wondering if we could get some more color on the drop in the underlying claims frequency ratio in commercial, especially in Norway. It seems like the trend is that it's dropping almost 10 percentage points between the winter quarters and the summer quarters.

If you look at many years now, motor is clearly one, but what are the other reasons? What is some sort of normalized difference between summer and winter quarters in commercial?

Jostein Amdal Well, it's a bit of a repeat on the first question from Qian, that there is some volatility, and the more you kind of narrow it down to a specific part of a segment like commercial in Norway, the larger the volatility just by definition. There is some luck in this, but there is also a trend due to long-term pricing above the claims development that has improved this underlying margin measure for many years, really.

The difference between a summer and a winter quarter or Q1 versus Q2 at the group level has been typically—it varies from year to year, but with a 10-year perspective—around two to four percentage points at the group level. For commercial Norway specifically, I don't really have the number here.

I haven't looked at that. Ulrik Zürcher Is there high volatility in property as well, in addition to motor?

Jostein Amdal Yeah, property would typically be volatile, but more on the overall loss ratio because there are more large losses in property than in motor in commercial. There is some volatility also in our definition of large losses—which is above NOK 10 million—but there is volatility in the number and size of claims also below NOK 10 million.

That's the way it is really. Ulrik Zürcher If I understand, okay, it's at the group level, but you would expect more a 2 to 4 percentage point seasonality than almost 10 percentage point seasonality, even in commercial Norway over time?

Jostein Amdal That was the seasonality I tried to describe, not the volatility. Ulrik Zürcher Yeah.

Okay. 2 to 4 percentage point seasonality in commercial Norway as well, roughly.

Jostein Amdal I told you it was the group. You decide for yourself what you want to believe, but I don't have the figure for commercial Norway.

Ulrik Zürcher Okay. Yeah.

Thank you. Mitra Negård All right.

The next question is from Vinit Malhotra in Mediobanca. Vinit Malhotra Yes.

Sorry, I was on mute. Yes, good morning.

My first question is, again, back on Tesla. I'm just curious if Tesla is now no longer selling their own captive insurance in Norway, or are you also competing with that?

What does this say to the market about your view on EVs and motor insurance? Is it a sign of confidence from your end to make this agreement?

My questions on underlying have been addressed, so I'll let it be for now. Thank you.

Jostein Amdal Yeah. Tesla has had an agreement with Tryg, so it's not been a captive product.

We've kind of taken over that distribution arrangement after a negotiation with us. As Geir mentioned, there is a wider perspective than just selling insurance.

It's cooperation with Tesla to the benefit of both our customers and Tesla owners. We've talked about for a longer time our profitability expectations around EVs being the same as for fossil fuel cars.

As long as we have enough data, we are able to price these as precisely as we have for any other fossil fuel cars, really. It doesn't really make a difference there.

Claims differ a bit, but our data to price them are just as good for EVs now. Vinit Malhotra Sure.

Thank you. One more follow-up, please.

The fire mutuals you talked about, is there something else you can say about why this kind of an impact or change occurred from your end on these kind of partnerships? Geir Holmgren When it comes to the fire mutuals, that was a kind of assessment we did throughout last year.

The main reasons for evaluating such agreements and deciding on whether we should terminate or not were regarding cost efficiency, which has an impact on our distribution efficiency and profitability when comparing different types of distribution channels and agreements. The second reason was regarding how we actually, over time, work with the customers.

In our view, the most proper way is to put ourselves in a position where we could develop the customer relationship and create value over time. When we didn't actually succeed with these terms when negotiating with the fire mutuals, it was a clear solution that we should terminate the agreements.

Vinit Malhotra Sure. If I can just follow up.

Sorry, go on. Geir Holmgren A consequence of terminating is that now we are seeing that even though we see a negative impact on volume—which is a one-off thing throughout 2026—we are very satisfied with the success level when it comes to how many customers we are keeping after termination.

Now we are bringing down and improving the distribution efficiency regarding these customers, and we are developing the customer relationship, selling more products, and improving the total profitability for these customers and for Gjensidige. Vinit Malhotra Sure.

Lastly, if I may, just a follow-up of understanding. The underlying in Norway private was around 1.4 points better.

Commercial was 4.2 points better. Is the difference coming more because commercial has this active portfolio effect, which you mentioned, which is steering customers?

Is that a good summary of why the difference exists between these two lines? Thank you.

Jostein Amdal I think it's maybe not that useful to compare the change for private Norway and commercial Norway as such. They are two separate segments in terms of customer targets and so on.

We try to prune the portfolios and optimize pricing decisions for each one of them very separately. We are extremely satisfied with the development in both segments in terms of the underlying improvement.

It's not a direct relationship with the improvements in those two segments, I would say. I look at them separately.

Geir Holmgren The risk is different and the product mix is different when comparing these two segments. Within private, we use tariffs.

In commercial, it's a combination of tariffs for the smaller customers, and then we tend to do more individual underwriting for the medium-sized and larger customers. I think there are many reasons to point out why there are some differences when it comes to annual frequency loss ratios.

Vinit Malhotra Sure. Thank you.

Mitra Negård All right. Next, looks like the last question comes from Nimrat Kaur in Bank of America.

Nimrat, please. Your line is open.

Okay. Nimrat, we'll give you just another moment, and if not, we will move on.

All right. Doesn't seem there are any further questions, we will round off here.

We will be participating in investor conferences and broker-organized investor meetings in August and September. Please see our financial calendar on our website for more details.

Thank you for your attention today, and have a great summer. Geir Holmgren Thank you.