Mandatum Oyj

Good afternoon and welcome to Mandatum's Q1 audio cast. My name is Lotta Burström. I am in charge of investor relations at Mandatum and I am pleased to be joined by our CEO Petri Niemisvirta, our new CFO Matti Ahokas, as well as the CEO for Mandatum Life Insurance Company, also the former CFO Jukka Kurki. During this audio cast, Petri Niemisvirta and Matti Ahokas will initially walk you through the highlights and key developments of today's report, after which we'll take the Q&A, where you have the possibility to dial in for any questions. Also, please don't hesitate to contact us at Investor Relations should you have any further questions. With these remarks, I hand over to you, Petri. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Lotta, and welcome everyone to Mandatum's Q1 result presentation. Let me start with our Q1 numbers, after which I will dive deeper into our business. Matti will continue more closely with the result in his presentation. Mandatum's first quarter was good in many ways. The profit before taxes increased by almost 50%, mostly due to increase in net finance result. Also, the fee result increased by 9%, mainly as a result of the increase in client asset assets and indicating steady performance in our capital-like business areas, such as institutional wealth management. The net flow during the quarter amounted to 246 million euros and contributed to the client's assets under management that increased by 16% to 12.5 billion euros. All this being as events, I'm very pleased with. Mandatum solvency position continued to be solid. The solvency ratio was 216.5%, adjusted for dividend accrual. Also, we succeeded in the organic capital generation during the quarter. Client assets under management increased by 5% during the first quarter, reaching 12.5 billion euros. The growth rates in all segments were even and showed steady growth, even if the client and asset mix varied a lot between the segments. One of our most important financial targets is the annual net flow. In medium term, Mandatum aims for a net flow of 5% of the client assets under management. The net flow of almost 250 million euros during the quarter equals annualized more than 8% of our assets under management, which is well above the target. I'm also content with the fact that all our segments reach positive net flow during the first quarter, lead by our fastest growing area, institutional and wealth management, with a 13.2% growth. A really good sales activity contributed to the strong inflow and the client outflow remained low, partly due to the consistently high level of customer satisfaction. The positive market movements contribution to the increase of in client assets under management was 369 million euros. All in all, we haven't seen any softening in the market and product mix, and our product offerings are working very well in the current market environment. The growth engine in our strategy is the institutional wealth management business. The highest growth in assets under management, as well as in the net flow, came from the institutional wealth management business. Within that business area, all client segments grew. The biggest growth in assets under management came from the sub-segment international institutions. The modest growth in the sub-segment private wealth management is explained by some large accounts being transferred to the sub-segment ultra-high net worth. Then over to different product areas. Mandatum's core competence is within credit products, where the growth was strongest, 11%. The mark-to-market yields in in our credit and fixed income products were still at a high level, and the good performance gave additional support to our sales. I'm also happy that the positive trend within our allocation products continued with strong growth numbers during the Q1. The fee income was up 10 percent supported by increase in assets under management and stable fee margin levels. Despite the fact that most of our sales was related to credit and fixed income type of products, our fee income margin remained at the same level, meaning that we have had a good discipline in our pricing, which is also one of our financial targets. And now over to you, Matti.

Thank you very much, Petri. Good afternoon. Let me touch a bit on the financial highlights of the quarter. Our profit before tax has increased by 47% to 47 million euros, and earnings per share increased by 60% to 8 euro cents. Our cost-income ratio improved slightly to 65%, and our return on equity to 9.3% in the quarter. So let's look at some of the result components. Firstly, our fee result. increased by 9% to 15 million euros compared to the first quarter of 2023. The main reason for this was a 16% year-on-year growth in asset center management and a clearly positive net flow, and Petri already explained some of the key drivers behind this. It's worth noting that the comparison figure for the fee resulting in Q123 included a one-off gain actually a CSM loss component recovery of 1.2 million euros. And adjusting for this, the fee result would have increased by 18%, so more in line with the assets under management growth. Actually, our asset management fee result increased by 22% year on year. Our net finance result more than doubled to 30 million euros compared to the first quarter of 2013. I'll come back to the details of this a bit later. And then the result related to risk policies was slightly down to a lower CSM release, but this is a small item and can vary between quarters. So going over to the net finance result. As you know, this includes mainly the net investment results for the with-profit business. In the first quarter, the net finance results stood at 29.9 million euros. This translates to an investment return of 0.9% compared to 1.8% in the first quarter of 23. Note that the first quarter last year was affected by the very positive equity market returns, but also very good fixed income returns. Our fixed income asset return was 1.1% in the quarter, This is actually slightly below the expected return of the portfolio. And the main reasons for this was mainly the higher share of cash in the portfolio, as well as some negative mark-to-market changes from higher rates. Our listed equities returned 2.6% in the quarter, and other investments 0.2% to 0.5%. I think it's worth noting that we have continued to decrease the equity weight in the with-profit portfolio also during this quarter, and this has also had an impact on the returns. In addition, changes in the value of our stake in Enento had a €4 million negative impact in the quarter. This was actually positive in the fourth quarter. And finally also our private equity investment returns were very low in the quarter. If we then turn to the cost of liabilities, they decreased to 6 million euros compared to 58 million euros in the comparison quarter. The main reason for this was the around 10 basis point higher discount rate that decreased finance costs of insurance liabilities by a total of 13 million euros. During the same period last year, the decreased discount rate had actually a negative effect of 41 million euros on the finance costs. Unwinding costs were 19 million, so roughly at the same level as the previous year. If we then look at our solvency ratio, our solvency to ratio was 221% of minimum in the first quarter, and at 216% when you adjust for the dividend accrual, which is the new thing we show on this slide. Note that the regulatory symmetrical adjustment for equities was increased by four percentage points, so the SCR for listed equities increased to 44% in Q1. And this actually had a negative impact of five percentage points on the solvency ratio. So, adjusted for that, it was unchanged quarter on quarter. All in all, the solvency ratio remains comfortably above the 170 to 200 percent long-term target range. Our organic capital generation, which we use as a KPI, was 69 million during the quarter. supported by a continued reduction in the SCR and a capital release in the With Profit book. Back to you, Petri, for some closing remarks.

Thank you, Matti. So, to conclude, I'm very pleased with our Q1 result. We had a good start to the year 2024, and we performed in line with our financial targets. Our core competencies are valid in the current business and market environment, And we have laid excellent groundwork for year 2024. This was all from my part. Now let's move on to questions and answers. Thank you.

If you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key 5 on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key 6 on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Hans Retterdel-Christensen from Danske Bank. Please go ahead.

Hello, and thank you for taking my question and the presentation. I just had a couple of questions. Firstly, starting on the AUM side and specifically on the retail AUM, you've had quite good growth now over two quarters. And I was just wondering, sort of what the underlying drivers of this, and if it's perhaps the Danske agreement that is sort of working better than it has been over the past couple of years, or if there's anything else to keep in mind there.

Thank you very much for your question. This is Petri Niemi-Svirta here answering. Yes, I'm happy with the process, what we have seen in the Danske cooperation as well. There are no one silver bullet or one explanation for a good process, but let me put some of them. I guess one thing is that, as you mentioned, that new agreement in last autumn and process we have done together with Danske and the cooperation in, let's say, New Start and in different mood and extremely good cooperation and feelings between each other has affected so that there is now really clear vision both sides to increase the business and grow the business. And I guess also the Dan's case more on growth mood in Finnish banking and Finnish banking business in all areas, which is affecting positively to our business as well. So a lot of good changes, not no special changes in products and so on, but it's improving products, improving the business and the cooperation. There's a lot of smaller things which are now affecting very positive way.

Okay, that's very clear. And then I was also wondering on the uh mark to market yield that you you give in the presentation which now stands at 5.3 down from 5.7 it's sort of moving in the opposite direction that i would have assumed given the slight increase in rates over the quarter and i i assume that's because you're shifting into more investment grade uh credit uh so i was just wondering what sort of normalized level perhaps we could think about once you're done with this sort of ongoing shift in the investment allocation?

Yeah, thanks for the question. As pointed out in the with-profit portfolio, we are in the kind of cash conservation mode basically due to internal dividend payouts planned later on in the year. So that is impacting the asset allocation we have a clearly higher share of cash than previously in the portfolio. But in general, you should expect a slight increase of that. This is more of a tactical allocation and based on the internal dividends. Jukka, anything from the life side that one should kind of think about here?

Well, you're right that we are preparing to pay dividends at the end of this year, and also as we have not made any decisions related to Tier 2 loan, which is first call date is coming, we are also preparing partially for that when it comes to increasing our gas position. And yes, you are right that we have continued this transfer from high yield to investment grade. All this has impact on the market yield.

Thank you. And then just finally for me on the sort of non-core assets that you hold. There's been some speculation in the press over Q1. Are you able to sort of comment anything around that? your plans or thoughts and what is going on in Saxo Bank and Inento?

We have nothing new to comment really. As we have stated before, we are managing those assets for value and those assets are not strategic for us. So once the valuation and time is right, we will to our decision. So, so short answer, no, no, any new, new to add what we have previously said.

So Hans, the announcement earlier today, we sent out about the, the financing of, of, of the, of the deal, which has slightly changed partly due to that. It has dragged on a lot longer than previously thought. So, so that is the, maybe the, the news.

Yeah. Got it. Thank you very much for the answers.

The next question comes from Antti Sori from OP Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi, it's Antti here. A few questions from my side. Firstly, if you look at the field results compared to Q4, Assets under management increased by 5%, fee result 13%. You have made a lot of investments to future growth in the past, but perhaps the cost base is becoming more and more stable. So it's this kind of operative leverage that we should expect going forward.

Yeah. Hi, Antti. It's Matti here. Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that you're absolutely correct that we are seeing kind of leverage on the cost base in a sense where our assets are growing and their income is growing faster than costs. But nothing special to notice on that side. I think it's proof that the leverage in the business is working.

So this is perhaps good proxy for the future?

Well, The only thing we've obviously said is that we expect that the fee result will grow and the assets under management will grow. So you need to do your own math on the situation. And as we've shown also, our margin are stable. So all in all, I think this is the kind of situation one should be looking at.

That's clear. Secondly, in the statement today, you said that you acquire Saxo using bank loan instead of the loan that Sampo offered you, which means to me that terms must be significantly better. Could you open up the price and term of the bank loan that you're taking?

Well, we won't go into the details of the transaction as such. But remember, this deal was actually set up a long time ago and it was a kind of backstop. in terms of the financing if needed. And of course, the other thing is that this has dragged on a lot longer than planned because of the regulatory approvals have taken so much time. So actually also we need less financing from the holding company And this was also a very favourable term. So I think that's what we should say about this. But the terms are favourable in our opinion.

That's clear. That's all from my side. Thank you.

The next question comes from Ulrik Söcher from Nordia. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. And nice to see you up and running, Matti. I got two questions, if you may. First one, I was wondering if it's anything new on or when we should expect you to start refinancing the tier two bond. And the second question, like follow up a little bit on that. You report a cost-income ratio that's moving average for 12 months. That's like 65%, very stable. But I think you report 58% in this quarter. But it's a 12-month moving average cost-income we should really look at.

Yeah, hi, Ulrik. Thanks. Firstly, on the tier 2, you're absolutely correct. We have a 250 million tier 2. a bond coming up for call in October, and typically most companies do refinance this. And we're probably going to do the same thing, but we haven't made any decisions on the topic yet. We still have time on that, but that's actually the norm, as you say it. And then you're absolutely correct. We've kind of changed the cost-income ratio to a 12-month rolling average, We believe it gives you a better picture altogether on the situation, but it is true that the leverage has improved. Of course, one of the big drivers here is that if you look at the AUM growth was 16% year-on-year, but 5% quarter-on-quarter, which is higher annualized, 20%, as you know. So that, of course, is helping there a bit. But we have a strong focus on costs. internally and also a strong focus on discipline pricing. Thank you.

That's very clear.

The next question comes from Joko Terveinen from SEB. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, it's Jaakko from SCB. I would like to touch a bit on the equity gains you made in the with-profit portfolio. Could you remind us how the equity portfolio splits between the geographies? Have you opened up that?

Hi, Jaakko. It's Matti here. You're absolutely correct. If you look at our portfolio, first of all, this is a run-of-legacy portfolio, as you know. It's part of the with-profit book. We've decreased. We've continued to decrease the equity weight. Historically, it was very high, and now we have kind of decreased it to a level of 7% altogether from around 9% in the beginning of the year. So there's a kind of de-risking process still ongoing here. Then, of course... The other factor which is important, not which is in the net finance result, not part of the with-profit portfolio, is the Enento stake, which was 4 million negative in the quarter, 6 million positive in Q4. And you can say, actually, that this is not an index portfolio. You should kind of track international indices with all together. We have no U.S. equities. It's a very Finnish-focused portfolio altogether, but I think I'll leave it there for the details. But I think the main point that we want to make is that you should not look at S&P 500 as a proxy for our equity returns here.

Okay, but if I look at the Finnish equity indexes performance during the first quarter, you clearly beat those indexes. So you have some international equities there as well.

Yeah, we do. There are some European equities there. But I think the main point we're trying to make here is that this is a runoff portfolio in a sense, and a de-risking mode is still continuing. So that is the issue I'm trying to make. I understand. Thanks.

Then on the net flows during Q1, it was a pretty nice level you showed there, but still down year over year. Is it so that the Q1 is seasonally the strongest quarter, at least by looking at the past two years it has been, but perhaps a follow-up here. Is it safe to expect similar pattern in NetFlow scene last year, going towards the coming quarters?

Yeah, it was down compared to last year Q1, but still we are happy with the level of our sales and outflow as well. Our business and especially our customer segments are so that it varies quite a lot between the months and also with the quarters. So there are seasonality in our business because, you know, summer is coming and what we have seen in the past and the months are not the same, but Our aim is to grow net positive every month and every quarter. But the seasonality, what we have seen in the past, I guess it's quite obvious it will be still there.

Maybe also worth noting is that Q1 last year was by far the highest ever. So the comparisons are a bit, I would say, maybe unfair in that respect.

Okay, good thanks for that. Then looking at the international asset management, it increased during the quarter. Could you talk a bit on the recent progress and plans going forward in terms of the international business?

Yeah, as you mentioned, we are quite happy with the process, what we saw during the Q1 in Sweden and Denmark, positive net flow and also the higher standard management. We are putting, of course, a lot of effort and thinking how we can speed up the growth in those areas, but not things special to mention at this point. So we continue with the plan we have at this point and at the existing structure what we have.

Okay, thanks. Then finally a bit technical question on solvency. How big was the symmetric adjustment impact on the SCR during the quarter?

Did you mean in percentage points or euros?

In euros, please.

It was 40 million euros, roughly.

Okay, great. Thanks. That's all from my side.

As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Michelle Ballator from KBW. Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you for taking my question. So I have two questions. So the first question is about capital management. I mean, obviously, I mean, your solvent is above the target, your target, and when should we expect some updates in terms of, you know, if you want to do share buybacks or special dividend or whatever, in terms of, you know, if there is a timing where we can expect some decisions in that regard. And the second question is about if you can remind us in terms of M&A, what kind of approach you will take, what kind of target you have in mind when it comes to M&A. And then, sorry, there is a third question on the uh, leverage. I mean, uh, the, the carbon leverage does not include the, um, the, the, the loan that you're taking now to, to, to finance the acquisition of SAC. So if I'm correct, so, so can you, can you give us an update there? Thank you.

I start with the last question, uh, Michele, uh, you're absolutely correct. It does not include it. So, uh, But the leverage is not an issue in our case basically at all. So there is no restricting factor in that respect from a leverage ratio point of view. We're at 15% on a leverage ratio, which is a very low figure.

Yeah, and Petri Niemisfirta here. So answering the first two questions, starting with the first one, is solvency ratio and possible... dividends and higher dividends. As we have stated before, we are cautious and conservative when we are looking at our balance sheet and our solvency ratio. Still, of course, in the long run, this is not an explanation anymore, but still we are quite a new listed entity, not part of the sample anymore, so we have decided to be very conservative with our balance sheet in the beginning. And, of course, our solvency situation is also quite much related to our SACS ownings and NMT ownings. So, of course, if those assets, as we have said, we manage those for value, move away, so then the situation will be different at that point. And the next question about the M&A. As well, we have said that we are very conservative on that side too. So we only look at very carefully those assets that we can clearly see that they added shareholder value and must be something which will speed up our growth and creates more scalability or gives us more distribution. if we can find those kind of issues and clearly see that they added shareholder value, then we are ready to think about those. Of course, we are examining and looking at all the options around our business areas and the geographical areas we are doing our business.

Okay, thank you.

Maybe one could add here as well, the fact that As you saw from the regulatory approval for us buying Saxo, it took quite a long time. So these things take fairly typically quite a long time to be closed and finalized. And it's only next week when we have our AGM and we are paying out 166 million euros in dividends. So that is also happening as we speak altogether.

Okay, so just to follow up, so can we exclude completely any additional capital return before the non-core assets are dealt with, let's say?

Yeah, it's, let's say, never say never. Our capital structure is, of course, a key driver, how we look at our balance sheet, but it's, of course, we have to remember that Saxo and other non-core assets are a big part of our equity risk part, and so we are very conservative with that, and so... We tied with our plan that we will distribute this 500 million in three years, and the 130 of that will finalize in a week now.

The factor, of course, in play is that we need also the liquidity to pay out any extras whenever that time may be.

Yes, then we have a couple of questions coming from Kaspar Mellas at Inderes. First question, what lies behind the other investment return for the group that was minus 0.9 million euros in the quarter?

I guess you're referring to the segmental information altogether. So the main reason behind that was the Enento mark-to-market change in the quarter. We had some positive investment returns otherwise there as well, but that was the main driver behind it.

And then over to the next question. Is 5 million euros a fair assumption for a normalized rate for group costs? And did you have any cost-related one-offs during the quarter?

I assume that this is also related to the segmental information. I think first of all a word of kind of caution here when looking at these figures as we've changed some of the kind of customer allocations compared to last year and so the the figures are not entirely comparable all together as that and the five million euros also includes the the interest costs on the on the tier two so so but overall there's nothing special behind it but I would actually rather look at the kind of condensed P&L rather than the segmental one when doing the estimates all together.

And then the last question from Kasper Mellas. Did you have any one-offs in the fee result and what did the fee result for retail clients, sorry, why did the fee result for retail clients increase so much from the comparison period? And I think he's referring to the other result from investments and asset management services or

Yeah, again, I think this is based on the segmental information. So as I said, don't look at the comparison to last year. We've done some allocation changes between this, and so the figures are not entirely comparable to last year. This is the first Q1 we report as a listed company. So bear with us here. No kind of extraordinary performance fees on the fee line.

Mellas also asks if 8 billion euros is a sustainable run rate for the group, but I think the same explanation goes for that.

Yes, and if this is referring to the investment fee result, obviously what we've said is that we expect that our assets under management in the capital light business should grow. So if that happens, also this item should grow.

Okay, that was all for today. Thank you for joining us and have a good rest of the week. Goodbye.