Thank you very much and good morning to everyone and thank you for connecting to this call regarding the Q1 '26. You saw the presentation and the press release, there will not be a presentation on my side, but only few remarks on how the quarter was.

By comparing Q1 '26 with Q1 '25, I can make only a couple of remarks. A significant improvement in the technical profitability in life and non-life.

In particular, in life, the improvement was spread in all the line of business, traditional product, but also unit-linked and pension funds. Also in non-life, the improvement was very important in motor and non-motor, notwithstanding we maintained a very high level of prudence in our approach in reservation as usual.

Nevertheless, as you have seen, the combined ratio reached a 90% level that is a very important number in terms of KPI for us in comparison to what are our target in our industrial plan. On one side, a very important improvement in technical profitability that more than offset a lower contribution coming from investment income.

Q1 '26 was a quite soft quarter in terms of performance of financial market. Q1 '25 was a very positive quarter in terms of performance of financial market, and consequently, the contribution coming from investment was lower, more or less €50 million less than what we got in 2025.

Nevertheless, the quality of the number in 2026 in terms of investment contribution was very positive in the sense that the contribution coming from coupon and dividends in 2026 was stronger than what we got in 2025. We missed the contribution coming from financial assets that are marked at fair value through P&L, that in 2025 gave a contribution of more or less €80 million, and in 2026, the contribution was close to zero.

Consequently, the overall contribution coming from investment income was lower than €50 million, as I mentioned before. Very good the position in terms of solvency, not only due to the issuance of the restricted Tier 1 that we did in January of €1 billion, but also thanks to the contribution coming from the organic capital generation that also in the quarter was quite important and in line with our target of the industrial plan.

Having said that, I will stop with my remarks, and as usual, I am with Enrico San Pietro ready to answer to your question. Thank you very much.

Hello, and thank you a lot for taking my questions. I have a few.

The first one is on the attritional loss ratio, which rose to 69% at group level from almost 68% of last year. Can you walk us through the drivers of that?

How much of this reflects a more prudential initial loss peak approach? How much is from a mix shift towards health and how much is from underlying claims trends?

Should we read this as a temporary or just structural step-up? The second question is on the health premiums, which in Q1 seem to be decelerating a bit from prior quarters.

Also here, is this seasonality, mix-related or some kind of sign of more competitive market dynamics? At the same time, the bancassurance channel was very strong, also there how sustainable are these growth rates, and if this represents the first signs of the integration of BPER Sondrio?

That's it. Thank you.

I missed to comment on the performance of the top-line business, in particular in health. There is nothing that can be worrying on our side in the sense that health insurance has three main driver of growth.

The first one is the traditional one coming from the big contract that we have with large corporation or funds that in the quarter was flat because we did not have new contract coming in, and so it is a sort of consolidation in the quarter. I expect in the next few quarter to re-establish a single-digit growth in that line of business.

Regarding the bancassurance, bancassurance was very strong. Growth in the first quarter was higher than 30%, and so it is in line and it accelerated in the health insurance business.

There is nothing that in a sort of sense created a drag in the growth of bancassurance as a consequence of the integration with Banca Popolare di Sondrio. It was the opposite.

The growth coming from bancassurance was very strong, as strong was the growth coming from the agents, higher than 20%. The slowdown in health I can say is driven by the softness in the traditional area that I expect to improve in the next few quarters.

In the attritional, I ask Enrico to answer.

Good morning, Tommaso. As far as the attritional loss ratio is concerned, basically we have no issue about increasing number of claims reported, both in motor and non-motor.

Basically, we are usually very prudent, and this time we were even more prudent in estimating the future amount of claims, but we don't see any issue about the profitability of the attritional loss ratio and the current insurance business.

Okay. Thank you.

Fantastic. I hope you can hear me.

I'm outside at the moment, I'm traveling. Three questions.

It was a question on the flyer. I said if I take the profit for the quarter, including the bank, €430 million something, why can't I multiply it by 4 to get a full-year number?

Because the consensus is actually €1,475 [million?] .

I'm sure there's an easy answer to this, but it's basically a way of asking Is there seasonality in the business? The second question is on the solvency ratio, it feels like it's extremely high, nearly 300% in the insurance, nearly 250% including the bank.

How can we leverage this strength? I don't know whether to go in more business or make acquisitions.

It's just a question. Then the last one, and I'm being a bit critical here, but I don't mean to be critical, it's to understand, if I exclude from the non-motor the part which is bancassurance, which grew fantastically, the other part felt a little bit soft.

Is there something to note here? Thank you.

Okay. Considering the first question, unfortunately, Michael, it doesn't work in this way.

It's not so easy, the evolution of the quarters. You should not multiply by 4 the number.

That Nat Cat events are more impactful mainly in the third and fourth quarter, sometimes also in the second, but usually the first quarter is light in terms of Nat Cat impact. Consequently, first quarter number is a very good number, but you should not expect an evolution of the full 2026 by multiplying by 4.

It will depends on the trend in terms of Nat Cat events in the second half of the year, even if you know that we invested a lot in reinsurance protection, and so we are ready to face any kind of event in terms of Nat Cat by maintaining very solid our industrial target at the end of the industrial plan. Concerning the solvency, yes, we are in a very solid solvency number, both individually and consolidated and concerning the insurance group.

You have always to consider that we are in a situation where financial market are close to the top, equity market, credit market, also the spread of BTP versus Bund is I think close to the lower number after the Lehman crisis. You have to prepare yourself to face any kind of scenario in financial market, also in the prospect that there could be a risk-off stage, and you must have enough capital to face this kind of scenario, first of all.

Secondly, of course, we have and we can spend the capital that we have when and if we would have to grow in some line of business more than the assumption of the industrial plan. I'm thinking about bancassurance business, health insurance business.

We have not yet a clear picture on the evolution of the compulsory Nat Cat insurance protection in our country, and we have to be prepared to employ capital. We must have enough capital to do it, and this is the second purpose that we have.

Concerning the M&A activity, of course, if there would be a possible target in terms of M&A, you must have enough capital to take the opportunity. We don't have opportunity on the table today, but if we would, we would have also enough capital to take in consideration this possibility.

Then there is the final question concerning the trend in non-motor, and I will leave Enrico to elaborate on it.

Yes, good morning, Michael. As you have seen, the growth in non-motor overall was 0.8%.

The vast majority of our business lines are going according to the plans, and the figure you can read is related in particular to the marine insurance business that as you can see, SIAT, our marine insurance company, suffered a reduction of 28% of premium written related to the Strait of Hormuz blockade that is slowing down this kind of business, heavily slowing down. A couple of big corporate accounts we did not renew according to our disciplined growth strategy, and so basically I think that vast majority of our business is going according to our plan.

Fantastic. Very clear.

Thank you.

Yes, hi. Good afternoon, everyone.

Three for me, please. On top line, on the opposite side of non-motor, motor is progressing very well in TPL and other motor.

Actually, it is accelerating motor TPL, which is a bit counter-intuitive, considering that tariffs are slightly normalizing according to Eurostat. What is driving this?

Second question is on expense ratios that are worsening a bit in both motor and non-motor. I remember you were flagging to us that acquisition costs are linked to the loss ratio, an agent is remunerated more if the technical profitability of the agency is better.

I was wondering if this deterioration in the expense ratios is coming from the admin or the acquisition cost, and if you can remind us if the acquisition costs are linked to the accident-year loss or the loss ratio itself? The final one is on the tax rate.

Both life and P&C improved significantly, in the life business in particular from 32% tax rate to 23%. I was wondering how we have to read this sharp improvement in the two tax rates.

Thank you.

Okay. I will start, Gianluca, from the final question.

Yes, you should compare '25 with '26. In Q1 '25, we were quite conservative in considering not deductible some items that then impacted in the tax rate in 2025.

2026 should be misleading because you could expect an increase as a consequence of the increase of the IRAP tax that is effectively in power in the first quarter '26, but we had some item that more than offset this negative contribution, in particular the positive contribution in tax coming from some devaluation that we did in 2025 in some asset that have a positive impact in 2026. Concerning the other two question, I ask Enrico to elaborate.

Thank you.

Hi, Gianluca. About motor business, yes, we have interesting growth in MTPL.

As you are imagining, it's not only about the retail business that is growing related to the average premium growth, but is something around 3% more or less. The rest is an increase related to fleet business.

Also on motor other damages, we have a growth on the retail business, still related to increase of prices on the coverage that are needed, some additional increase in price. Like we explained in our previous meeting, we are seeing last year and also this year a significant increase in growth related to a important distribution agreement with Stellantis that is driving both growth and profitability so far.

This is about motor. Expense ratio, the main explanation of the increase of the expense ratio is what you just said about the commission ratio that is related to the technical profitability of the business.

This correlation works with a delay, and so basically reflects the year after or, in some cases, a couple of year after fully what's happening on our technical profitability.

Sorry, the technical profitability is the underlying without PYD, I guess,

or it's

the overall?

No. It's the overall, but this is a very complex issue.

Basically, we have several form of remuneration related to technical profitability in motor and non-motor. In motor, for instance, we take into account two-year results of the technical profitability of every single agency.

When we report the profitability of a year, for instance, the 2025 profitability will be reflected from the 1st of July 2026 into the commission ratio we are giving to our agency, basically depending on the previous two years of the results. Something similar there is for non-motor for the individual results of the single agent, and this arrives, of course, with a delay, a significant delay.

Also, there is an important scheme that is related to the overall company profitability that is shared for some part with our agents, and this works year by year, a few months of delay in seeing that. Basically, we are still seeing effects of the improvement of the technical profitability of the last two years.

Sorry, Enrico, you said you got some fleet contracts explaining the plus 5.5% in motor TPL. Is that maybe explaining the deterioration in the accident-year loss ratio, or it has nothing to do?

No. Not at all.

Okay. Clear.

Thank you.

Hi, everybody. Thank you for taking my questions.

The first one is again on technical profitability. In particular, this quarter we saw that was quite benign in terms of Nat Cat.

On the other hand, we had prior-year development that provided a stronger contribution to the combined ratio versus last year. My question is if you intend to manage in an integrated way the evolution of Nat Cat with prior-year development, and in particular the margin of prudence that you're still adopting in reserving?

The second question is on the financial results, in particular how do you expect the evolution of rates could impact the financial results based on what the current curve is discounting? Then I have two other questions.

One is on capital, you have indicated why you want to preserve a significant high level of capital. If another element that was not indicated is the distribution, I was just wondering to understand clearly it is quite early, but if you see some room to improve the distribution and if there is any scenario where you could consider a share buyback?

The very last one is on BPER. In particular, we saw that BPER will launch a share buyback.

Far it has indicated that it will not cancel shares, but if we assume that at some point could cancel the shares, then there is the possibility for Unipol to overcome the threshold of 20%. Could you consider going above this threshold or you will keep the threshold as so selling eventually the shares in the market?

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you to you, Andrea, and I would start from the question concerning the level of capital.

As I said before, I argue in general the concept of excess capital. We are in a position in which we have a very strong position of capital in the prospect of facing any kind of scenario of financial market or financing the extra growth that we should have in some area of business like health or bancassurance.

As I said several times, if at the end neither of these two scenario should realize, we could think about the possibility to distribute more capital. Actually, we already did it because in the announcement of the dividend that we will pay in few days, we increased our target in terms of capital distribution to more than €800 million, and we have also set this number as a sort of floor for the next distributions.

Having said that, we are still in the first half of the year. It's very early to think about what we could do in 2026.

Everything is all set for a good profitability also in 2026, but I would postpone the discussion on capital distribution at the end of the year, having already increased the target of the industrial plan in terms of dividend to at least €2.4 billion in the three years versus 2.2 that we disclosed in May 2025. Concerning our stake in BPER, as we have an exposure of less than 20% in BPER.

We will of course be compliant with the rules with any decision that BPER would take in terms of canceling or not canceling the shares. We will be compliant with what the regulation says in terms of authorized shareholding that we can have in BPER.

We will respect what BPER will decide to do with their shares. Concerning the first one, I would leave Enrico on reserve release and Nat Cat.

Hi, Andrea. Starting with Nat Cat, the first quarter was quite benign, the the amount of the claims reported was lower than last year.

Of course, the first quarter is not that relevant in the overall results of the year, as you know is the third quarter that is the most relevant one. As you remember, we took a very prudent approach on this kind of business line, and at the year-end 2025, we introduced a relevant strengthening of our risk adjustment calculation using a probabilistic approach, estimating the average loss that could be reported in related to our book.

We are not going to release this kind of prudence soon, because the idea is to keep it and strengthen it until something relevant happens. When a relevant event will happen, we will have this this amount of money to use to absorb a part of this this issue.

As far as the prior-year prior-year development in claims, it was a good quarter. Basically, you have to expect a prior-year release quite significant since we are very prudent in reserving the current year, and so as you can see from the presentation, the increase was in non-motor.

The main reason is that last year in the first quarter, we accounted a relevant amount around €30 million on the the book of the loss reserves in the active reinsurance book. It was a one-off to strengthen and it proved to be even more prudent that it was needed, but definitely this is not going to repeat this year or in the future.

Sorry, Andrea, I missed to answer on the share buyback. I see was a part of the question.

We don't plan to do share buyback. As we only focus our capital distribution in cash dividends.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Just one from my side, and it is on labor cost flexibility because I was wondering if you could give us a bit of color on the impact on the potential renewal of insurance national labor contract under discussion currently in ANIA.

If I'm not wrong, Unipol still applies ANIA national labor contract, given the proposal salary increase of €280 over 2026-2028 and €1,000 one-off for 2025, should we expect any visible impact in terms of cost base or expense ratio, or is this already full embedded in your plan assumptions? Thank you.

Yes, thank you to you. Yes, we participated to the discussion concerning the renewal of the contract.

There is this agreement to €280 per month for the fourth level that is a number that match our forecast, and so we already considered the impact of the renewal of the national contract in the evolution of the numbers that we have concerning 2026 and mainly all 2027. This renewal does not impact in any way on the evolution of the investment that we do in human resources in this industrial plan.

Very clear. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for taking my questions, and good morning, everyone. I've got one question about your cost of claims.

I was wondering whether you already perceive some inflationary impacts on this, and considering that the tariffs were softening, were expected to soften this year, if you are ready to respond in case you feel any tensions on this. Thank you.

Yes, Elena, actually it's very early to make an assumption on the evolution of the increase of the oil price on the domestic inflation. Of course, it is not a good news in terms of possible evolution of inflation in our country.

We are working on trying to do some forecast concerning an adverse scenario where the increase of the oil price can have an implication on the claim inflation. Generally, I don't think this could create a similar scenario to what we did in 2022-2023 after the COVID, because it is true that the implication on inflation will be negative, but it is a sort of supply-side driven increase of inflation.

It is not an increase of inflation driven by a stronger demand, as it happened in 2022 where the level of interest rates was negative across the board until the 10-year maturity. Today, the absolute level of interest rate is quite high on one hand.

On the other hand, there are some forces that are working on the opposite side in a much more structural way. You can consider the contribution coming from investment in artificial intelligence in order to improve the productivity of the workforce that is working in the opposite side.

I don't expect actually this could be a structural increase of inflation rate that could driven a new hardening stage in prices in motor. Having said that, in the assumption of the average cost of claim in the first quarter, we were conservative also in consideration of the possible implication of inflation in 2026, and so we are already, in a sort of sense, pricing this supply-side increase of inflation that we can have this year, but nothing expected to be structural in order to set up a new hardening period for prices, at least for the moment considering the information that we have today.

Morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions.

It's Qian Lu from UBS. Just a couple of clarification questions on the reserve prudency.

You said that you were more prudent with estimating future claims this time, what's driving that increased prudence, please? Is that mainly related to the potential inflationary risks from the Middle East conflict?

Then I think you mentioned that you strengthened the risk adjustment at the end of last year, and you intend to maintain this strength, and just to clarify that the PYD this quarter was one-off in nature, and the underlying reserve strength is intact, if not stronger. Thank you.

Yes, this is a position that we have for a very long time, the prudence in the reserving policy. In particular, we underlined this point when we commented the final-year result where we decided to position ourselves in the top percentile in terms of assessing the risk adjustment that we have to post in the reserving approach in general.

In particular, we did it in 2025 in the property area and concerning the probabilistic expectation of the impact of Nat Cat events, but in general the positioning of the risk adjustment in the IFRS 17 approach is focused to position ourselves in the top percentile in terms of risk adjustment, and it is a way to manage what we call the prudence in the reserving approach. This is the point.

Concerning the inflation is more or less the same. In assuming the average cost of claim in the first quarter of the year, we have adopted a very prudent approach that considers also the possibility that there could be a spillover of the increase of the oil price in the average cost of claim in motor.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. Just two clarification points, I think in motor you said motor TPL 3%, and you said motor own damage was higher.

I just wondered if there's a figure there. Then the second, you spoke about strong operating capital generation in the context of the strong solvency.

I just wondered if you can remind us what the target is and how much higher or lower you are from that target. Thank you.

Yes, Michael. Concerning the capital generation, I leave Enrico to answer to the other question.

Yes, I said that we had again a quite strong contribution coming from organic capital generation in the quarter. We usually do disclosure in the first-half result, and you will have a full disclosure when we will talk about the first-half result, but on a qualitative way, we had an organic contribution positive of a couple of hundred million in the first quarter.

We had negative contribution coming from economic variance because of the negative performance of financial market in the quarter. You can see negative performance of equity market, even if that was quite muted in the quarter, but the BTP-Bund spread widened a little bit, the credit market was not in a good shape.

I'm talking about the first quarter. After the first quarter, financial market performance improved a lot.

We had positive contribution coming from non-economic variance thanks to the different performance coming from our portfolio compared to the assumption of the industrial plan. Then you have, in terms of capital contribution, the contribution coming from the issuance of the restricted Tier 1.

Overall, I can say that the organic capital contribution in the quarter was in the whereabout of €200 million.

Thank you.

I'm not sure that I understood fully the question. I guess if it's about motor, it's about growth or about...

On the own damage, I think you said and excuse me if I misunderstood, that you raised the pricing in motor own damage. I just wondered if...

Oh

yeah, okay. When you look at our figure in motor other damages, the growth is very strong, and there are two main reasons.

On the retail business, the reason is that we are completing repricing of some motor other damages coverage, especially kasko and natural events, and still we are seeing an increase in the average premium. The most relevant part is related to the growth of production in the distribution agreement with Stellantis.

Stellantis, of course, in Italy is very important as a market share, and basically the new vehicles, the new cars that are sold with some kind of financing scheme are also insured in a good percentage of this kind of sales and are insured for motor other damages. Stellantis dealers are very good in selling this kind of cover that, of course, is driving our growth.

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

Hi, thanks for the follow-up. Just a quick one on pricing and claims inflation.

Could you please update us on the current trend in Italy, both in motor and non-motor, please? Thank you.

Okay. We'll start with motor.

In motor, pricing is basically slowing down. We had a period in which, as a market, we had to face the increase of the cost of the claim related to the update of the Milan Court table about bodily injury compensation for claims.

This phase is basically over, and that's why the average increase of the price is now quite small, let's say around 2%, 3%. Of course, the main concern is what can happen in case of a new inflation increase related to Hormuz Strait blockade and cost of price of oil, and in that case, of course, it's quite easy to forecast a new phase of the market in which the price could increase to offset the effect of the increase of inflation.

Far on the cost of the claim, we are not seeing yet an impact of a new phase of inflation, but it is something that we are looking very very carefully to understand what's happening and to be able to respond in the most proper and fast way. About non-motor, we are in a period of the cycle in which, especially for property business, we had a spike after 2023 atmospheric events for our pricing, but also for the market pricing that had a significant increase.

This phase is definitely over. Nowadays, what we are seeing is prices are stable or also for some kind of business decreasing in non-motor.

In non-motor, we have so far a very benign situation, both for loss frequency and also for the average cost of the claim.

Super helpful. Thank you.

Okay. No closing remarks.

Thank you very much for attending this conference, and we will meet again for the first-half results. Thank you, and have a good day.