The following is excerpted from the question-and-answer section of the transcript.
(Questions from industry analysts are provided in full, but answers are omitted - download the transcript to see the full question-and-answer session)
Question: Tryfonas Spyrou - Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. KG, Research Division - Analyst
: I guess, just coming back to the frequency topic. I mean, I noticed that Norway has a much higher sort of deterioration in the underlying loss ratio
versus Denmark. So I was wondering if you can maybe point out any sort of changes in behavior or patterns that could explain that? And again,
you mentioned changes in Ts and Cs that you're putting through. Is that to sort of tackle or address a certain issue? Is there anything that sort of
cut you out in terms of the coverage? Or just trying to understand what is really driving the frequency dynamic a bit more particularly in Norway
versus Denmark? So that's the first question.
The second one is on the Pension. Again, the result is obviously very weak. You did mention volatility in this given IFRS 17. Is there any sort of
steering you can give us going forward in terms of what should we expect under sort of the Pension result?
Question: Tryfonas Spyrou - Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. KG, Research Division - Analyst
: Okay. Just on the differences between the countries. Is there anything you notice in terms of pattern and behaviors in Norway versus Denmark or
even Sweden? Anything you can give us more color on?
Question: Hskon Astrup - DNB Markets, Research Division - Analyst
: 2 questions from me. The first question is on repricing. And I just wondering how much on average are repricing in Norwegian not a portfolio to
contract the 5% to 7% in claims inflation and also the higher frequency?
And then on the competitive situation in Norway, I know it's early days, but what I will see in terms of pricing actions from your competitors both
to contract higher frequency and the claims inflation?
Question: Hskon Astrup - DNB Markets, Research Division - Analyst
: If I may just follow up...
Question: Hskon Astrup - DNB Markets, Research Division - Analyst
: That's a good point. And just one quick follow-up. So if you are now pricing the higher end of 5% to 7% of motor, do you think that, that not
sufficient to counter the claims inflation side of the higher claims? Is that correct?
Question: Thomas Svendsen - SEB, Research Division - Analyst
: I have 2 questions. First, on the solvency ratio and sort of solvency position. So since it will take a lot of time to get the internal model approved.
Why don't you just lower or have you considered lower your solvency range target to sort of mitigate that problem that you are -- has more capital
than the solvency ratio indicates?
And the second question, it doesn't look like that when looking at the premium growth, but do you see any behavioral changes among your clients
due to the fact that the price of insurance are increasing? Or is sort of the demand constant despite the price hikes?
Question: Thomas Svendsen - SEB, Research Division - Analyst
: Okay. And just a follow-up on -- actually, 2 follow-ups just on the solvency. Again, can you just give an update on sort of how you see the solvency
in relation to rating and how much rating is sort of decisive for your solvency capital or solvency capital targets?
And second, a follow-up on this claims frequency. Is there anything you can do with the products like within motor, sort of the retention on the
money that the clients need to pay for themselves is quite low even for very expensive cars? So they have to pay EUR350 to get a repair down. Is
this something you can do with the products there to sort of increase the retention and maybe have the same price or do something smart with
the products to mitigate this increased claims frequency?
Question: Vegard Toverud - Pareto Securities AS, Research Division - Analyst
: I'm returning to also this frequency issue. As you have highlighted it yourself in the report and the presentation. As I understand you're happy with
your pricing compared to the inflation part, but it's the frequency that has increased and you're making a point of it, and you're also changing
terms and conditions. So I'm just a little puzzled how this all fits together. The frequency now being at the lower level than in 2019 came as a surprise
to you to such an extent that you had to change or that you had to start to work on changing terms and conditions to maintain the claims. Is that
the correct interpretation?
Question: Vegard Toverud - Pareto Securities AS, Research Division - Analyst
: But it's not very clear to me if you're experiencing a normalization. You're making a point that the frequency is now lower than it was back in 2019.
So have you expected the frequency to stay at the COVID-19 level? Is that the case? Or have the COVID impacted your models in any way? Or are
there other interpretations? Or how should we interpret the full information package here?
Question: Vegard Toverud - Pareto Securities AS, Research Division - Analyst
: Okay. I hope that we can have an opportunity to return to this topic at a later stage.
| 
