Scor S/Adr

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the SCORE First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. There will be an opportunity to ask questions after the presentation by pressing star and one on your telephone keypad. In order to give all participants a chance to ask questions, we kindly ask you to limit the number of your questions to two. At this time, I would now like to hand the call to Mr. Thomas Fossard. Please go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon, and welcome to the SCORE Q1 2026 Results Conference Call. I'm joined on the call today by Thierry Léger, Group CEO, and Philippe Prudeux, Group CFO, as well as other COMEX members. Can I please ask you to consider the disclaimer on page two of the presentation? And now, I would like to hand over to Thierry. Thank you, Thomas. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. I'm glad to announce a strong start to 2026 with continued and disciplined delivery at all levels. The group net income reached 220 million euros in Q1, corresponding to an annualized return on equity of 21.1%. The solvency ratio increased by 5 percentage points to 220%, driven by strong underlying operating capital generation. All our three businesses contributed to the solid performance. I would like to point out explicitly that this was achieved including additional opportunistic buffer building of 300 million euros and precautionary, means 100% ID&R base, reserving for the Middle East conflict. The impact of the conflict in the Middle East is twofold. One is the direct impact on our business. As mentioned during the Q4 earnings calls, War risk is systematically excluded from standard insurance treaties. It is one of the very few exclusions that is truly universal regardless of market cycles or conditions. If war risk is covered, the exposures are priced for and carried mostly by specialized markets. Scores participation in this market is limited and within a strictly controlled framework. The second impact is indirect, related to foreign exchange and inflation in the context of heightened geopolitical tensions. These secondary impacts are monitored and managed as part of our regular processes in pricing, reserving and ALM. Let me now turn to the P&C renewals in 2026. In a more competitive environment, we have been able to increase the year-to-date premium income by 2.4%, by limiting the margin deterioration. We continue to focus on our preferred lines of business in line with our strategy to grow profitably and in a diversifying way. The April renewals represent around 12% of our insurance portfolio. We prioritize margin protection and implemented targeted portfolio management actions, including the non-renewal or resizing of underperforming business. It led to a reduction in premium income, but allowed us to maintain the quality of our portfolio, positioning our book for long-term performance. Consequently, the technical results deteriorated by 0.6 percentage points, better than the previous renewals. Looking ahead, we prepare for increased competitive pressure. We will continue to apply underwriting discipline and to focus on our preferred and diversifying lines of business. Our priorities are clear, capital allocation to the most profitable and diversifying lines, combined with disciplined underwriting. In an environment that becomes increasingly competitive and shaped by macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty, our teams remain focused on executing the Forward 2026 strategy. This has allowed us to deliver excellent results while continuing to reinforce the resilience of the group. I see SCORE well-placed to make the best out of the current environment and to deliver on the last year of our Forward 2026 strategic plan. Philipp, over to you.

Thank you very much, Thierry. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm pleased to present our Q1 2026 results. I will focus on the key highlights of the quarter. All three business activities delivered a strong Q1 26. Adjusted net income was 220 million euros, translating into an annualized adjusted ROE of 21.1, well above our 12% forward 26 target. On the P&T side, we delivered a strong ISR of 255 million euros. Insurance revenues grew by 5.4% at constant effects, driven by a satisfactory set of renewals, although reported growth was impacted by adverse FX effects. The combined ratio stood at an excellent 80.2%, reflecting very strong underlying technical performance. Our NASCAT ratio of 4.2% reflects a benign quarter, with the main impact coming from Storm Christine in Portugal. Underlying results are solid, with a 77.7% nutritional ratio, but includes additional buffer building. It also includes a mid-double-digit IBNR provision related to the Middle East conflict, reflecting a prudent view of potential further development. We are also satisfied with our life and health results this quarter, reflecting our focus to deliver steady quarterly performance for the last five quarters. The ISR stands at 107 million euros, with all components in line with our expectations, including the CSM amortization rate and the risk adjustment release. The experience variance is also within our expected range of volatility. The life and health business delivered 115 million euros in new business CSM, driven by growth in protection and longevity. We also significantly improved our capital position, with the solvency ratio increasing from 215 to 220%. This was supported by strong net capital generation in Q1, in line with our full year 2016. guidance of three to five points of Solvency II capital generation over the year. This translates into an economic value growth of 7.4% at constant economic. The economic value per share increased to 51 euros at the end of March 2026. We continue our strategy to improve the resilience of our balance sheet, both on the IFRS 17 and Solvency II. To that end, in this quarter, we added an exceptional amount of 300 million euro buffer to our P&C best estimate liabilities, which was made possible by an internal capital optimization. To conclude, SCORE's strong first quarter performance and strengthened balance sheet confirms the group's positive outlook. This gives us strong confidence in delivering the forward 2026 plan. And now, over to you, Thomas.

Thank you very much, Philippe. On page 21, you will find the post-coming schedule events. With that, we can now move to the Q&A session. Operator, can you take the first question, please?

Thank you. The first question is from Michael Hartner, Burenburg.

Thank you very much. So I saw these fantastic results, and I'm afraid the questions are a little bit on the sideline, but you talked about the retrocession benefit. I wonder if you can explain that a little bit. The only thing I noted is if I do the ratio of seeded premiums or seeded revenues to gross premiums, you actually seem to have bought more reinsurance. It has gone up from 26% to 29%. But that's my math, so that's maybe a bit silly. And the other question is own shares. So your share price is lovely, 31 or something. And you have this option which expires, I think, in the beginning of June to 28. Well, how does that work, please? Thank you.

Yes, thank you. So you're absolutely correct in terms of the insurance revenues. In line with what we communicated last year in terms of the change of structure, we moved from non-proportional excess of loss to more of a proportional cover, and as a result, you see the session rate in terms of insurance revenues going up. However, in terms of ISR and margin seeded, we saw actually improvements in the economics of our retrocession.

But the retro benefit, I think, also alludes to what's going to the... New business ESM, yes, correct.

So that is one place where you see it indeed. So in the new business ESM, you see that we spend less margin on the retrocession. No number, okay.

No number. To your second question on the option, so I think you mentioned 28th of June. The option expires on the 9th of June. So for your information, of course, we are well aware of the option and what it represents. All we can say, all I can say is that we will be rational about it and we will act in the best interest of our shareholders. It's also, I also want to make it very clear that we do allocate capital to the most attractive areas and that the option is one of the many options we have at hand and it's not necessarily the most attractive one at each point in time. Example, Q1, we have privileged balance sheet resilience.

What resilience?

Say that again, Michael.

What resilience? Sorry, I didn't, acoustically, I didn't hear what.

Yeah, balance sheet resilience.

Oh, balance sheet, yeah, yeah.

Okay, lovely. Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Can we move to the next question, please?

The next question is from Shanti Kang, Bank of America.

Hi. Yeah, thanks for taking my questions. So the first one was just on P&C on the attritional that was 77.7%. And you said that includes an IV&R load for the Middle East and some additional prudence that you've added there. If you strip that out, could you just give us a sense of the year-on-year deterioration in the attritional excluding that? And then this kind of feeds into my next question, which was just on discounting, which was a bit higher than I'd expected, given that we have lower CATs. But it seems like you added on the best estimate liabilities as well. So is that feeding through into the discount impact as well for Q1? Thank you.

Yeah, so on your first question, the underlying performance is very strong, and the answer to your question is that there's almost zero change compared to the previous quarter. And then your second question on the discounting, yes, so mechanically, by adding these buffer to the best estimate liabilities that mechanically increase the discount. This effect is less than a point, but that order of magnitude. And then there is the low NAPCAT activity that mechanically also improves the discounting. So these are the two main factors for this relatively high discounting that we observed this quarter.

Okay, thanks. I'm sorry, just to follow up on that. On the loading, could you let us know which lines you did add on? I don't think that was casualty, but I presume a sort of longer tail as a result?

You mean on the best estimate liabilities? It's across the board. It's IVNL.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Santi. Can we take the next question, please?

The next question is from Andrew Baker, Goldman Sachs.

Hi, thank you for taking my questions. First one, just any views on the pricing outlook into the mid-year renewals will be helpful and any thoughts around terms and conditions. I guess as we're thinking about sort of price and volume trends, should we be anchoring more in what we saw in January or April or just any thoughts around that topic? And then secondly, is there any update on the CAVEA arbitration process? I guess relatedly, sorry, just coming back to the call option. My understanding on the call option was that there wasn't an adjustment mechanism for the dividends. So was there any thought around excising it prior to the ex-div date that's just gone? Or is there any connection with the arbitration process? Thank you.

Yes, so on your first question, Andrew, the outlook for the mid-year renewal, I'd say, remains similar to what we saw at the first half of the year, so a competitive environment. In this environment, our strategy will remain unchanged. We'll continue to prioritize on writing discipline. In terms of conditions, You know, what we saw in January and in April is broadly stable, and that's what we expect going forward as well. But, you know, the market remains competitive, and it will depend on which country, which line of business. But, you know, we expect a very similar trend to what we saw in the first quarter.

Regarding the COVID arbitration, we have, you know, it's still the same news, which means no news so far. And we expect to see this finalized before the summer. So that's with regard to the timing. You made a link to the call option that maybe I got wrong. Yes, there is somewhat a connection with the call option, so we can't see any. You also asked whether theoretically there's a possibility to call the option between now and the 9th of June. That's technically absolutely possible and therefore remains one of the options for us. But again, here I would like to emphasize that there are other options. And again, in Q1, we have privileged the balance sheet resilience very clearly. I hope I answered your question, Andrew. It was like two and a half questions.

Yeah, you can't blame me for trying. Thank you. Really helpful.

Thank you, Andrew. So we move to the next question, please.

The next question is from Real Hardcastle UBS.

Hey, afternoon, everyone. Can you just help me with the castle optimization on the internal retro? I think it is. First of all, is this all-owned funds benefit. And I'm trying to understand how extraordinary this really is or whether there could be some further optimizations, presumably with Philippe coming in, that you could be bringing to the table, looking at it fresh. Second question is somewhat linked. I'm trying to work out whether the 185% to 220% optimization range is still something that management would think about hard or whether it still stands really. And if not, what's causing the pivot if there has been one? Thank you.

So on your first question regarding the internal capital optimization, as you centralize capital into options, your legal entity structure, you get a benefit in Solvency II in form of a reduction of the risk margin. And so you're right to point out that this is an improvement in your own economic funds. And then you asked about the outlook. I mean, I can't really predict it. I can only tell you that Of course, you should expect that capital is front and center on my mind, and that, of course, we will look at every stone and turn it and see if there's something more to be optimized.

And I think there is some feeling that the era will continue. On the solvency optimal range, your question, yes, you're absolutely right, 185 to 220, that's the optimal range defined for the plan forward 2026. And this is unchanged and will remain. You have probably in the meantime understood that for the next plan, capital and cash generation will take an even more prominent position in our thinking. So expect an update on this range when we present the new strategic plan. Thank you. Thank you, Will. Can we take the next question, please?

The next question is from Cameron Hussein, JP Morgan.

Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one is just coming back to the kind of work you've done on the solvency ratio. In terms of the best estimate additions, clearly very welcome increasing resilience there. You mentioned, I think, in the commentary that this 300 million was exceptional. Do you think you'll want to continue to add here? And how might that kind of, you know, what that might mean for Solvency going forward? Because I think my conclusion from it all is really that, you know, your guidance and capital generation is probably still exceptionally cautious. The second question is on the life and health experience in the course. I mean, you're well on track for the run rate for the year, you know, on a costly basis. Is there anything to read into the 16 million or it's just normal volatility? Thank you.

Yeah, so maybe on your second question, that's relatively straightforward in terms of this is totally within what we would expect the normal volatility to be in that sense. And on your first question... Yeah, so I would say, you know, our strategy is to build resilience both in IFRS and in Solvency II, and it has always been. The reason why we felt the need to communicate is just the size of the addition of 300 million, and so you should take the size of this move to be exceptional. Now, going further, I think we will update you at Invest Today in the context of the next strategic plan on how we intend to build and use buffers.

Thank you. Thank you, Cameron. Can we move to the next question, please?

The next question is from Ivan Bokmat of Barclays.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. I mean, my first question is just a small follow-up on this Solvency 2 buffer. Can you help me understand the risk adjustment buffer that you've been building under FRS 17? Does that fully translate into solvency, and therefore this $300 million just builds on top of this? Maybe you could try to help us understand what the that buffer might be in absolute terms after, you know, since you started building it up, it's probably well over 500 million and then 300 at the top. My second question is related to this limit of the price deterioration of 350 basis points to just 60 that you've mentioned, Jerry. It looks very impressive. Maybe you could give a little bit more color on that and think that would you be able to use similar levels for the June-July renewals? Are we seeing any improvements? Because I think some of your peers in Bermuda have been suggesting that seasons are buying more. So just wondering if you could maybe quantify to give some color how it looks by regions. Thanks.

Okay. So on your first question, so the resilience that we added, the 300 million, is really an addition to our Solvency II balance sheet. And it's somewhat unrelated to the risk adjustment where we continue opportunistically, quarter by quarter, to build buffers if the performance allows to.

On your second question, Ilan, the price change of 3.5 reflects basically the the price change for business renewed one year to the next on a gross basis. In addition to these price changes, you have to take into account portfolio on-running actions, which you could see in the slides there was quite a number of it at April 1st, and the benefit of retrocession as well. When you take all of that together at April 1st, the net margin deterioration was limited to zero 0.6 points. And then when we look at year-to-date, that's, you know, where we see the overall deterioration year-to-date of two points or less. That's really, you know, what you should be focusing on more than the price change.

On the region's demand, yes. Also on the region's demand, Ivan, yeah.

Yeah, sorry. On the reinsurance demand, we do see increased demand from sedants. With the price decreases, you know, there's ability for sedants to keep some of the savings but also use some of the savings to buy additional reinsurance. And we do see this. And most of the additional buying has been, I'd say, at the top of programs due to buy more limits. So there is an increase of reinsurance demand, but still today lower than the amount of capital available from the supply on the reinsurance side.

As Jean-Paul was talking, I was thinking about what's the easiest way to explain how we can have a 3.5 point price iteration but still have only a 0.5 iteration of the combined ratio. So you also, beyond what Jean-Paul said and direct or positive retroimpact, You should also imagine that the business we let go is obviously a business with high compliance ratio. So by just letting it go, it has a positive impact on the compliance ratio.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, Ivan. Can we move to the next question, please?

The next question is from Ian Pierce, BMP Paribas.

Hi, afternoon, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one's just on the capital generation guidance for the full year. So, obviously, you've done five percentage points, even if we sort of normalise the positive, that still puts you in the range for the full year guidance already. So, just trying to understand why this sort of implication is a very low capital generation guidance for the remainder of the year. And also understand the subsidianality in it, but just trying to understand why we shouldn't expect much for the remainder of the year. And the second one is, just going back to this point on the call option, because I'm not sure the question was fully answered or I understood the answer. Can you just confirm if there is an adjustment for the dividend in the call option, with the implication being, if you are going to call it between now and the strike date, why you wouldn't have called it before going ex-dividend? I just want to understand that closing entirely. Thank you.

Yeah, so on the net capital generation, you're right to note that five is at the top of the range of three to five, but part of it was the low NASCAP activity in the first quarter, and so we would not change our view on the full year, not knowing what the NASCAP result would be for the rest of the year. And And then on top, there's always some seasonality in the capital generation anyhow. On your second question, you're correct that there is no adjustment to the dividend. The fact that it got X, indeed, would be considered.

Thank you, Jan. Can we move to the next question, please?

The next question is from James Shock City.

Yeah, thanks. Good afternoon. Many of my questions have been asked, but I had a couple left, if I can. I guess on the call option, I'm just trying to understand the financial logic of what you just said. because if the call option is going to expire in about a month's time and it's just gone out of your ears on a very healthy dividend, then for all intents and purposes, it looks like you're not going to exercise that call option. But were you allowed to sell the call option in the open market? So that's the first question. And then secondly, my understanding of what's happened in terms of the – the sort of buffering and the increase in resiliency is that you kind of moved about 200 million out of the risk adjustment into the best estimate liabilities. That's one reason why the risk adjustment's gone down despite the very healthy level of new business. So my question kind of is what has that done to the confidence level in each because you've been steadily moving up the confidence level on the risk adjustment and it was 77.5, 82.5% for year 24. So, presumably that's come down, and if you move 200 into about 30% liabilities, what does that do for the confidence level there?

So, yes, in the first quarter we decided that the resilience of our balance sheet was our priority, and it was a conscious decision. do not exercise the option and rather put $300 million into our best estimate liabilities. On your second question, yes, you're correct in increasing the $300 million into the best estimate liabilities. It was compensated by a reduction in the risk adjustment. which again was reduced by the amount of buffer that we chose to build in this quarter. In terms of the confidence level, we would evaluate that again at the end of the year, but it's given as a range, and that range is actually decently wide in terms of monetary value.

I see. And you weren't able to sell the option on the open market, correct?

No, I mean, I think we're not day trading the options, no.

Yeah, not quite what I meant. But if there's a value in that call option, then it would have made sense to sell it before it went to ex-div, wouldn't it?

Yes, but what I'm trying to say is there are many considerations that go into that decision that what you're suggesting is not as easy as you make it sound in the sense of the complexity of it.

Okay.

All right. Understood. Thank you very much.

Thank you, James. Can we move to the next question?

The next question is from Darius Sadkauskas, KBW.

Hi, thank you for taking my questions. Two questions, please. The first one is, are you able to provide grassroots and premium growth year-on-year in the first quarter in both P&C and life and health segments? And the second question is, would you be able to give us sort of the moving parts for the numerator and denominator in terms of solvency? You know, you think the solvency situation increased by five points. what changes did you see at the numerator and denominator, and how much, how many solvency points did the 300 million contribute? Thank you.

Yes, so I'm We don't communicate anymore on GWP, so unfortunately we won't be able to answer your first question. On your second question, we would only communicate first half on the slate between owned funds and SCR.

Okay, no problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Gaius. Can we move to the next question, please?

The next question is from Ben Cohen, RBC.

Oh, hi there. Good afternoon. I had a couple of questions on the life and health division. Could you give us a bit more colour about the growth that you saw in the new business, CSM? It looks like you're kind of well on track probably to beat the outlook that you've given there. And the second question was just on the negative cash flow in Q1 in the same division. I think you reiterated that you're going to get to a neutral position for the full year. Could you just talk us through where that delta is is going to come from.

Thank you. Yes, so on the new business CSM of life and health, we said repeatedly that on the financial solutions and longevity, it's lumpy and therefore it fluctuates from quarter to quarter. The good result in terms of CSM was protection and longevity, so we were able to transact a significant notional on U.S. longevity, and that was the reason for the good result in new business CSM in Q1. And then on the cash flow, I would say this is a relatively small number. And we would say broadly neutral, and it's in line with expectations, and we stick to our commitment of 2026 of reaching a neutral cash flow in life now.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Ben. Can we move to the next question?

Next question is from Vinit Malhotra, Mediobanca.

Yes, good afternoon. Thank you, sir. I've come up with two questions. One is on the April renewals. I mean, so it seems that from reading the presentation that the property CAD exposure has gone up or property CAD premiums went up about 4.6 points mentioned here. Speciality lines where, you know, where you had all, you know, the diversifying lines seems to be a bit worse. I'm just curious, you know, most of the cut seems to be in US casualty or casualty and motor. Is that a correct reading? And could you just give a bit of picture on the rationale behind these moves? Also in the context of the current conflict in the Middle East, is there some hope that some of the specialty lines demand improves over time for the next renewals or for the next period of time? So that's on the business side. And just, you know, I'm sorry to, pardon my ignorance, please, but you know, the 300 million buffer, how should we simply read it? Is it, has it been a benefit to the solvency too from this 300 million? I mean, how should we explain it? that this is the benefit of this number because it's clearly not the, you know, the prudence building you do every quarter, as you mentioned. And it seems to have affected positively the EOF. How should you like us to read that number, please, if you don't mind? Thank you.

So, Vinit, I'll answer your first question. On PropertyCat, The growth we achieved was mainly out of the U.S., where we still see the price adequacy as attractive, sort of in line with what we saw January 1st. You know, for the Asian renewals, which is another big part of the April 1st renewal on the cap side, their overall exposure was mainly flat because the price decreases significantly We're reaching basically a level where price adequacy was, you know, just break even in our view. So that's what happened on the property cat side. On the other lines of business, we did have a significant reduction of the U.S. casualty book renewal on April 1st. You have to keep in mind that it's a very small renewal, so dominated by just, say, a few renewals. where, again, our view of price trends and price increases led us to take some underwriting actions and reduce our exposure to these portfolios. On the specialty lines of business, it was, I'd say, very line of business specific and market specific. We saw a growth opportunity on the credit and surety side, mainly coming from India, where we're one of the market leaders of that segment. through our terms and conditions and our pricing, and so there we see the attractive opportunities. On other lines of business, like marine or engineering, the market was more competitive, and there we slightly reduced our portfolio. That's the result of what you see here is the aggregation of all this together.

Which also we need the answers, like your two and a half question. whether the Middle East might have an impact on some of the specialty lines. So we cannot really see, Jean-Paul, an impact on marine and aviation.

We're still waiting for it. Jean- So far there's been no impact on the April 1st renewals. You know, we'll have to see, you know, as Thierry mentioned, the losses that people are forecasting are mainly coming from affirmative war coverage. So that market has reacted. but the other lines of business, not so much yet.

Okay. Thank you. So, Vinnie, on your second question, if we had not added this prudence, then the solvency ratio that we would have printed is 225%, right? And so that means that for future shocks, We have these five points available, and that's why we insist that this improves the resilience of our balance sheet.

Indeed.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Annette. Can we move to the next question, please?

Yes. And as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone. The next question is from Michael Hartner-Berenberg.

Thank you for the second opportunity. Just two. One is on life and one is on the CMD. So the life growth, I know one of my peers said he was strong, but I'm still thinking it's quite weak because he came from such a high level in the past. When are we going to see the ramp up of growth that we were hoping for? Because I think he was switching from mortality to other lines. Yes, and then the other question is on the CMD. You said the next CMD, when is it, please?

So on the second question, it's on December 4th. December 4th, thank you.

Beginning of December. Sorry, Michael, sorry to everyone. It seems the date is It's not yet fixed, but yeah, very beginning of December. Sorry for that. So Pilar, over to you for the next question.

On the first question, Michael, yes, our teams remain fully focused on delivering the plan in both protection and non-protection line of businesses, therefore longevity and financial solutions. In Q1, we had a good new business CSM generation, which is coming across all the regions, including protection, and as well a good success on longevity strategy. you know that the longevity and finshol are lumpy nature transactions by definition. In any case, it's difficult to predict execution, but what I can say is that we are very confident by the current pipeline of deals that we have, and we have still three quarters to make it happen.

And I was just surprised that you mentioned protection, because I thought protection is the bit where you were reducing, and it's actually growing.

Protection keeps being a core line of business to us, but I can say we are being very selective. We have our preferred line of businesses depending on the different geographies, and we are pricing case by case according to our discipline and the writing policy.

But you have a good memory, Michael, because when we introduced the new business strategy in life and health in 24, we had, as one measure, a minimum hurdle on the profitability side, and we expected, as a result of it, to lose some of our new business due to that hurdle. Actually, Pilar and other members of the life and health team have been I think, tooth and nail to keep the business, and we're actually able to keep almost all of the business, which explains why actually on the protection side we have not seen the reduction that we thought we would see. So we are actually pleasantly surprised to keep the protection business at higher margin. More of the growth, however, in the next years will be clearly from longevity and structured solutions.

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michael. Can we have the next question, please?

That was the last question, so I start the conference back to you for any closing remarks.

So thank you very much, everyone, for attending this call. The investor relations team remains available for your follow-up questions, so please do not hesitate to give us a call. The reminder score will release the Q2 26 results on the 30th of July. with a call, as usual, at 2 p.m. CET. And with this, we are wishing you a very good afternoon. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over, and you may disconnect your telephones.