Allianz SE (ALV) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Allianz Conference Call on the Allianz Group Financial Results for the First Quarter of 2025. For your information, this conference call is being streamed live on allianz.com and YouTube. A recording will be made available shortly after the call. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to our host today, Claire-Marie Coste-Lepoutre, Chief Financial Officer of Allianz SE. Please go ahead, Claire-Marie.

Thank you very much, Andrew. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm very happy to welcome you all to our first quarter call. As you will see as well, we have decided to change a bit the format of the call, adding to our usual set of slides, some pages which are providing some highlights and hopefully also leave more time for Q&A. We hope together with the team that you are going to like it. And as always, we welcome your feedback so that we keep on improving. Let me start on Page 4, which provides an overview of our first quarter results for the Allianz Group. Overall, you can see that we had a very good start into the year and that Allianz is very well positioned to achieve its 2025 and its midterm financial targets as we focus on executing our Capital Market Day levers, driving smart growth, reinforcing productivity and strengthening resilience. If you look at our top line, which is up by almost 12% and as you can see, supported by all segments, which is positive -- very positive, we emerged with a total business volume of EUR 54 billion, which is a record level in the quarter for the Allianz Group. Also at a record level is our operating profit at EUR 4.2 billion. And again, here, all segments are contributing. Our performance is supported by our focus on customers, technical excellence and productivity, as you will see as we go through the segments. Our shareholder core net income emerged at EUR 2.6 billion, which is a strong level. And we have, as you have seen, a lower translation of the growth of our operating profit into our shareholder core net income, which is due to 2 items. First of all, a higher level of restructuring this quarter compared to last quarter last year. And second, an exceptional tax item related to the decision to sell our stakes in the Bajaj Joint Ventures. And this will, over time, obviously, once we get the proceeds, create more shareholder value once we receive and we deploy them, right? So adjusted for this tax effect, our core EPS is up 7%, which is in line with our Capital Market Day communication. Our solvency continued to be strong. It's supported by a very good level of operating capital generation, which has offset the impact of our dividend accrual and our previously announced new share buyback program, which cost 4.4 percentage points of solvency ratio. Let me move to Page A5, and let's have a look at our P&C business. So we had a very strong quarter for the P&C business, which is leading to a record level of operating profit. This performance is due to both the earning of the growth and the very good level of combined ratio. With 7% internal growth, we see good top line development, further growing from the strong 2024 base. Out of the 7%, approximately 5% is price and 2% is volume in the quarter. So pricing and the volume effect is higher in retail, while on commercial line, pricing momentum is slowing as we expected and as we have already communicated in the Capital Markets Day. Maybe let me illustrate that a little bit more. On motor, we are seeing the highest level of rate in our portfolio as we continue to see discipline in most markets. Large corporate is moving towards flat rate. And the details of our portfolio illustrate well our underwriting approach against this background with double-digit percentage growth in new business volumes in Germany, as an example, as we went through our most successful 1/1 renewal in Motor. And by contrast, we were disciplined in markets like the U.K. or some line of business on the AGCS side. The overall level of combined ratio was very good at 91.8%, even slightly ahead of the first quarter last year, which had a very low level of natural catastrophes of 0.4%, while for this quarter, the cat load was 2.1%. What is striking in my view is that when you look at our portfolio, it is clearly the breadth of strong performance with a large number of operating entities, which are delivering a combined ratio in the 80s or low 90s even though, again, we had a certain level of natural catastrophes this quarter. Both retail and commercial are contributing very nicely to this 91.8% combined ratio. Retail has seen more -- has been improving strongly as we are clearly earning in the numbers, benefit of our pricing and underwriting actions. Commercial profitability remains at a very attractive level. It's lower compared to last year, but it's mainly due to the larger level of natural catastrophes we have seen in commercial and also the lower level of discounting in that subsegment. P&C overall continues to be well supported by our productivity focus as this is evidenced by the further improvement of our expense ratio. So overall, on P&C, we see strong growth. We see the earning of our actions that we have undertaken in terms of profitability, which is basically leading to a level of operating profit, which is at record level for the quarter at EUR 2.2 billion. Moving to Life and Health on Page A6. Here, you can see that our customer centricity and the disciplined underwriting we have put in place is clearly leading to an excellent performance across the board. To start with, what is particularly striking in our numbers is the continued strength of our new business production with sales volumes up 17% at a very healthy new business margin of 5.5%, which is driving to an excellent new business profit growth of 14%. We are delivering this growth after what was already a great new business level in 2024. So for me, clearly, it reflects the continued strength of our product propositions and our distribution initiatives. What is very strong as well is that our growth continues to be globally diversified, as I already mentioned last year. So this is really building on the continuous trend. And you will see as well that within our portfolio, almost all our entities have a value of new business growth, which is above 20%. The strong new business and also the healthy dynamic we see in our in-force have driven a good level of growth in our CSM this quarter. Clearly, this growth of the CSM will support our profitability going forward as we are going to earn this CSM in the future. And as a consequence as well of those good development, we have a normalized CSM growth, which is ahead of our yearly guidance at 1.9% and better than last year as well. This is leading to a strong development of our operating profit, which is supported by the earning of our CSM and as well the impact of a small portfolio transfer we have done between P&C and Life and Health this quarter. So clearly, we have a very healthy dynamic in the Life and Health segment. And from my perspective, this is fueled by many elements we have elaborated on during the Capital Market Day, including the need for trusted solutions, both on retirement and health in a volatile environment. Let me move to Asset Management on Slide A7. And here, you can see that our Asset Management business continues to see a good level of profitability. In the first quarter, we had strong net inflows of EUR 29 billion that has been emerging from both AGI and PIMCO. As you know, the assets under our management are also impacted by the market and the FX movements. And this quarter, the FX effects were negative by almost EUR 56 billion, which is basically leading then to an overall stable picture on the asset under management side. Our net flows continued to be supported by the strong relative investment performance of our franchise, which has supported a high market share of industry net inflows into active strategies into the quarter. Our overall revenues grew by 5%. As you know, performance fees can always be volatile. They are low at PIMCO for the quarter against the backdrop of high performance fees for first quarter last year. Our asset under management-driven revenues, which excludes this volatile item, grew strongly by around 10% in the quarter, as you can see, supported as well by a very stable third-party asset under management margin. Our operating profit increased by 5%, and this is exactly 25% of our full year outlook midpoint. As you can see as well, we continue our focus on productivity in the Asset Management segment as the lower performance fees are barely impacting the cost/income ratio. This journey will continue for the segment. And as an example, AGI has announced a strategic reshaping of its business recently, and we have posted in our nonoperating results an associated provision to support this in the first quarter. Let me move to solvency on Page A8. You can see as well here our strong capitalization at EUR 208 million, which is almost unchanged versus last quarter with the operating capital generation offset by the normalized dividend accrual and the EUR 2 billion previously announced share buyback. The market effects have been neutral in the first quarter with FX effects, increased interest rate volatility and movements in spread, offsetting the positive effects from the interest rate and the equities up in Europe. Our operating capital generation is very good at 6 percentage points post tax. This is driven by high operating earnings, especially in the P&C segment and also some noneconomic variances of our Life and Health segment, which accounts for almost 1 percentage point. On an annualized basis, this brings us well on track for our ambition of above 20 percentage point operating capital generation by year end. The Sconset transaction contributed positively as expected in the management actions. Part of the effect should actually be operating capital generation as the new business underwritten out of the new structure already in the first quarter benefited from a lower cost of capital. On the right side, you can see how stable our Solvency II ratio is under various stresses, our sensitivities are mainly unchanged versus year-end 2024. So this is clearly overall emphasizing the structural resilience of our group. Let me move to Page A9, where I'd like to spend a bit of time to highlight some of the key elements on how we are managing our performance during uncertain times. As I mentioned to you during the Capital Market Day, we have a very clear focus as an organization on structural resilience, and we do so comprehensively when it comes to financial volatility, risk management, balance sheet and liquidity strength or governance. Of course, the capital markets context in the recent days has been more positive, but we are mindful of the volatility which has been observed in the recent months and the debate which clearly persists on the macro outlook. So this page provides a summary of the key features to remember for the Allianz Group when it comes to the market, to FX and to macro sensitivities in the current volatile environment. I will clearly not go through those items in details, but this provides some elements highlighting our confidence in underlying assets and liability positioning and the option we have for risk mitigation. Clearly, we are very proactive as an organization. We constantly monitor, we stress test, we take actions as required. Also, our diversified business model, the strength of our franchises and the management toolbox provides strong downside protection to our organization. While clearly, this is super important for us to manage risk in volatile times, our strengths can as well allow us to take advantage of dislocations or capture opportunities as well. This can be to fuel growth or also to promote Life and Asset Management product propositions as an example. Let me move to Page A10 and conclude here. What I want to stress out is our strong performance in the first quarter. The first quarter has seen positive contribution from all segments, delivering again a record level of operating profit, fueled by good growth and underlying productivity. This very good start into the year allows us to reaffirm with confidence our outlook for year-end at EUR 16 billion, plus/minus EUR 1 billion with also good resilience in the context of any potential volatility. Those results are as well in line with our Capital Market Day targets if I address for the effect associated with the posting of the tax effect associated to the Bajaj transaction. This transaction will, over time, create value for our shareholders with the expected proceeds creating more opportunity for accretive deployment and financial flexibility. We are focused on executing our Capital Market Day targets with the first quarter already reflecting positively on the journey to deliver higher organic growth, improved capital generation and ongoing productivity improvements. With that, I'm happy to take your questions, and I hand over back to you, Andrew.

Great. Thank you, Claire-Marie. Okay. We're ready for questions. Just a couple of housekeeping points. [Operator Instructions] With that, I think we're ready for the first question, which looks to be from Andrew Sinclair from Bank of America.

Two for me then. Firstly, just on Viridium, actually. What can you tell us about the transaction, what's it cost for Allianz, how much you'll get from it? And really what it brings to Allianz to do this transaction, is my first question. And second, I suppose, is actually just a slightly kind of big picture question on Life and Health. You've -- you've looked at income insurance. You've taken a stake in Viridium. You're doing what was a huge amount more organically, some really punchy sales there, really good news. Is this just a signal that this is the right time in the cycle to be pushing more for growth in Life? Should we be getting more excited about Allianz maybe pivoting a little bit towards Life and Health and a real growth opportunity here?

Okay. Thank you very much, Andrew, for your questions. So maybe let me start with Viridium. So with Viridium, you know we are part of the consortium of investors, and we have an equity stake that is around 20% in Viridium. We are really happy to be part of that consortium. And the rationale for us, I will say, is threefold, as I have mentioned to you. So first of all, being the CFO, it's clearly a very good investment. It's double-digit IRR. So we are happy with the expected value generation from our investment there in Viridium. Secondly, we also want to -- I mean, we also see that as an opportunity for our asset management business. And over time, this will provide opportunities for deploying more of our own asset management into Viridium. So that's clearly part and connected to the communication we have made in the Capital Market Day of supporting more convergence between Life and Asset Management. So that's clearly part of that logic. And the third dimension is that for us, it's very important that at European level, there is a good quality back book integrator that is available. And obviously, with the knowledge we have, but also with the knowledge that other parties joining the consortium have, we are now establishing a high-quality back book operator for the European market, which is providing flexibility to the market as well. And we may also become, at some point, a client of that back book operator as well. Now I think you were asking also in particular...

Sorry, just -- I mean, I'm conscious on the Asset Management opportunities you mentioned. I mean there's another massive asset manager on that agreement as well. Is there some sort of specific Asset classes or any more detail you can give us in terms of where you'll be able to provide Asset Management support for Viridium?

So I cannot be extremely specific, Andrew, I think it will not be appropriate in the setup. But maybe if you look at what was the strength of Viridium in terms -- historically, in terms of value creation as an operator was more by optimizing, I think, operationally the setup. So we clearly see a lot of opportunities for optimization on the SA and the asset side from the level of expertise we do have on the matter.

And then on the Life stuff?

Yes. So basically, I think -- I'm not sure I 100% understood your question on Life and Health. So basically, what you were asking is where -- do we see like M&A opportunities in general in Life and Health versus the organic growth that was basically what you were asking? Or should we concentrate more on organic growth, right?

Essentially, you're saying we've probably spent more than a decade of composite insurers pushing hard towards P&C and kind of edging away from life. I think income insurance is probably the first time we've seen a big-tented Life acquisition in a while and then you followed up with Viridium. Is this really any sort of calling the turn in the cycle that you're saying now actually is the time where we should really be pushing the mix back towards Life and Health after a decade or more of moving away?

So basically, I mean, you know that for us, we have our 3 pillars. And I think when you look at it in the current environment, first of all, the Life and Health business is operating at a really good level of ROE. And we are very stringent, as I was mentioning also in the Capital Market Day at looking at the profitability of each of our segments and their contribution to the overall. So that's why I think as well, Andrew, we have always been mentioning that we like our 3 pillars, and we believe that the 3 pillars are clearly part of our strategy. And compared to many of our peers, we have never really moved away from Life. And we also, by the way, seeing that Life and Asset Management are strongly coming together. So that's the logic. Clearly, with interest rate up now or -- I mean, increasing, having increased, there is clearly also more opportunities in the Life and Health segment compared to what was available in the Life and Health segments when interest rates were -- I mean, negative or close to 0. So this is strengthening the further appetite, but also the more flexibility you can create strategically in that segment. We also see a lot of opportunity on the protection side and on the health side that we are also developing very strongly. I would say mainly organically, but we also see opportunities from an inorganic perspective. So for me, it's just very logically in line with our strategy. We have a lot of focus to produce growth in an organic manner, but we also are selectively looking at inorganic opportunities when they emerge and when they make sense against the guidelines I have always provided back to you.

Next question is from William Hardcastle. Will, go ahead -- sorry, Will from UBS. Go ahead.

First one is, I guess, can you help us to understand how you think about that P&C margin delivery? We know that in the past, runoff has often been managed alongside NatCat. I guess how do we think about discounting volatility, which looked higher today? Do you always let this flow through the P&L? Or is there a management of that at all through attritional? And the second one is just seeking an update really. We've seen a lot of capital market FX volatility quarter-to-date, April and May. I guess, can you give us an update on the asset management AUMs and net flows so far, please, or at least to the end of April?

Yes. Thank you very much for your question. So indeed, a lot of market volatility. So I hope that's why also we have provided this overview on what it means for us and how we are thinking about it overall on this new page. But when it comes to the Asset Management segment, where we stand at this point in time in the quarter, we have seen mid-single-digit net inflows in the quarter. So we are -- we see good developments clearly after also a month of April that I think was very volatile, obviously, as we all know. Then you were asking around P&C margin delivery, right? I think -- so we have given a target for the entire year. Our guidance for the combined ratio is around 93%. So we are clearly very comfortable with this guidance for 2025. And clearly, they are like the moving components you are highlighting. So for us, what is important is that we believe that the normalized cat load is around 3% that basically also our normalized level of runoff is as well between 2 and 3 percentage points. So that's also the type of magnitude you should have in mind. And then when it comes to margin development, I mean, we have also normal seasonality that you should -- I mean, discounting also -- sorry, like discounting, we are also on track for the discounting guidance we have provided, but we also have some seasonality in the discounting effect. And that's clearly what you see now in the first quarter where the discounting is higher, which is just quite logical because you have a higher level of reserves in the -- at the beginning of the year and you have a lower level of reserves towards the end of the year so as such the base for discounting is reducing itself during the year. So you have that seasonality effect. And then the last piece of seasonality, and then I come directly to answer your question, but the last piece of seasonality is clearly at the beginning of the year, when you are an actuary or when you are reserving actuary, you are always more careful in what you are picking as being your attritional loss ratio, right? It's very natural because you are just in the first quarter. So you have not seen all the evidences that could allow you, as an example, to relax some of the assumptions you are going to use to pick up your attritional loss ratio. So we don't -- so -- and then I think, to your question -- so I think that's the way we are thinking about it, usually more careful, in particular, in the attritional loss ratio peak at the beginning of the year and then waiting for the quality of the business and the quality of the underwriting to evidence itself to then emerge later in the year. And then I think if you're asking a more generic question on how we are managing runoff against the rest, I think it's very natural. I would say that when you are in a very positive environment where you see emerging -- I mean, strong level of profit, you can also be a bit more careful in your best estimate peak within the best estimate range, exactly along the lines of what I have mentioned in the full year call, right? And that was typically the experience we had, in particular in the commercial segment in the first quarter.

Next question is from Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Go ahead, Michael.

Fantastic. And congratulations on amazing results. I was actually a bit disappointed that your CEO was known because he would have -- he might have reacted a bit more to why the stock is down. Anyway, on PIMCO and also on the solvency. So PIMCO, you talked about restructuring, and that's clearly a big charge. I just wondered if you can talk a little bit about that and what the benefit could be as in the cost ratio or growth or whatever. And also, I know I've asked the question in the past, you've always batted it back, but maybe I'd be lucky the plan to maybe buy out some of the founding members of PIMCO, where we are at and what you're thinking on that? And then on solvency, that was the one number, which I really do think -- I mean, the operating capital generation is fantastic. But the solvency number itself, and I don't understand why it was clearly off consensus. I just wonder if you can talk a little bit more about how you see that. It's really strange consensus, which I think is there's a lot of fake cyber analysts, I'm not one of them, but to them then you reported 208. So there's clearly something there. I can't explain it.

Sure. I mean if you want, I can be a bit emotional as well on the share price, but I will not do so, but clearly, I agree with you. So let's say on the restructuring dimension that we are mentioning. So the restructuring I mentioned that went into the first quarter results, in particular, among others, right? I mean, by the way, I think there were also quite some comments on the restructuring. There are -- I mean there are always a bit of volatility in the restructuring items. You never know when they emerge, right? So this quarter, we had a bit more this quarter versus last year, which was extremely low. And by the way, remember that for the full year last year, the restructuring was EUR 670 million, right? So anyway, so going back to your question. So the restructuring I was mentioning in the Asset Management segment is related to -- it's not related to PIMCO, it's related to AGI, right? So what AGI as mentioned, is a strategic reorganization in particular that is being implemented actually to support strongly the growth strategy of AGI. The focus is on optimizing the setup in the public market segment and also in designing a new setup for the private markets to expand further the client offering on the private market. Clearly, also this strategy implies that there will be discontinuation of certain activities. There is as well clearly job redundancies. We will be streamlining also the organization in order to basically increase the quality of service delivery to the customers and also having a more efficient organization overall. So I will not provide the granular details of this one, but it will be supporting -- it's supporting both strategically higher growth and also bottom line improvement ultimately. Then I think you had a question on the operating capital generation for the quarter, right? Indeed, it seems there is a bit of confusion. So this operating capital generation is post-tax pre-dividend. So before we were used to present an operating capital generation that was post-tax post-dividend. So if you were to take our 6 percentage points this quarter, it's equivalent under the old metrics to 3 percentage points of operating capital generation post-tax, post-dividend, which compared to 1 percentage point last year. So it's clearly much stronger compared to last year. And it's really a demonstration of, as I was mentioning, high quality of our earnings in general and also some positive variances, which have emerged from the Life and Health segment. So I hope that answers your question on the operating capital generation. And I think you had the last question, which now I missed.

Just on solvency, why 208. I know 208 isn't a number, and you're not responsible for what analysts say, but it's still the difference. I don't understand it.

On the overall 208, this is what you mean, right?

If I could ask Michael, you're trying to understand why we missed consensus. Is that the question?

Yes, that's basically it, yes.

I mean if I could add my input -- I mean, I think -- we can't tell exactly how you guys model everything. There was quite a big accrual in the quarter for the buyback, which we flagged, but I'm not sure all the consensus captured the ordinary dividend accrual. And then -- the final point, as Claire-Marie has already highlighted, the market impacts, you might have expected to be positive, and they were, but we had some offsets from FX and interest rate volatility. But again, the key point is that the capital generation is what we're focused on, and that clearly, we think was a good number. The next question is from Andrew Baker from Goldman Sachs. Go ahead, Andrew.

So the first one, are you able to just give a bit more detail on the pricing dynamics that you're seeing in AGCS by line of business? And then secondly, just on retention. So you've talked about retention being one of the highest sort of areas of retention for the group. There's no sort of mention of it today. So just curious, how are you tracking -- I appreciate it takes some time to come through, but how are you tracking against your retention initiatives? And what's the best way for us to sort of see your progress here from the outside given the disclosure?

Well, I think on AGCS, what we see is that we see rates change reducing across the board. So I think like the softening is happening across line of business and across geographies in general, right? And then the status is quite different depending on the line of business and the geographies where we see the highest level of price reduction or softening will be in financial lines, in cyber, but also quite largely in property. And around -- in general, around -- I mean, in general, across the business, we are still at level of rate adequacy that is positive. So we are still on a base where we can grow from, right? So I think it's more -- we have -- we are in a situation where we have to be extremely nuanced and selective in the way we are growing. That's what we see. And secondly, we also see good opportunities in some areas where the market is also started to adjust again a bit like -- so typically, that will be liability or marine where we see also positive rate change as an example. Most negative market, definitely at this point in time, will be U.K. and Australia at this point in time. And then you were having a second question around retention, right? Which is how to think about it. So the way we are looking at it from -- actually, we are measuring retention ratio in our business, but indeed, we are not communicating our retention ratio externally. And I don't think it will make sense because you have many components, right, which are showing up in the level of volume we are seeing, where we have like the price and the volume effect and also like a different dynamic on the new business versus the renewed business. So it will be very, very complex to share. But what you can see, nonetheless, when you look at our business and the level of internal growth we are showing on Page B9 as an example, you will see that we have a higher -- I mean, lower level of internal growth in the U.K. as an example, which is clearly linked to the fact that we are being very stringent when it comes to rigor in the underwriting, which basically is showing up then in our own dynamic approach. To the opposite, I will say, we have a lot of growth initiatives, which are leading to a very high level of internal growth, as an example, in Germany or in Latin America to take like a very different market where we are really tapping into the market momentum, also leveraging into new tools, new practices in terms of distribution to support the growth. Another example of that more on the commercial side will be Allianz Partners, where you can see as well the very high level of growth we are having, which is building on the -- also on good retention and new business as well.

Next question is from Iain Pearce from Exane. Go ahead, Iain.

The first one was just on the motor combined ratio, the 92.2% that you reported in Q1. That's a significant improvement on what you reported for last year and a massive one on 2023. I'm just wondering if you see that as a sustainable number and particularly with the rate increases that you're talking about in the first 3 months of the year, if you expect that numbers to continue to improve in the remainder of the year? And the second one was on the organic capital generation. So obviously, a very strong number, but you flagged some one-offs in the Life and Health segment from nonoperating variances -- sorry, noneconomic variances. Could you just talk on what they are and how big that benefit is?

So I think like -- maybe I'll start with the operating capital generation question. So like we have like this 6 percentage point growth, right -- 6 percentage points of operating capital generation. Out of this one, the Life positive variances are almost 1 percentage point of operating capital generation. This is why I was mentioning the fact that I think it is above 20 percentage points of operating capital generation is the right reference point for the year as we have already announced, right? So we are basically fully on track for the operating capital generation we had announced. I think those positive variances on the Life side, they are just reflecting on some of the -- so they are -- first of all, the outcome of both positive and negative of -- some negative also life variances we have seen. They are mainly related to some of the adjustment of our lapse assumptions as an example, also some correction -- some expectations of having -- I mean, lower -- sorry, lower level of inflation we have observed against our own assumptions. So it's correcting basically for the effect of more conservative assumptions we had in our Life & Health operating results versus what has materialized, which is a very good sign, which basically means as well that we were maybe a bit too conservative on some of those operating capital generation emergence in the previous years, which are now being corrected, if you want, naturally as we adjust some of our assumptions against reality. And then I think on motor combined ratio, I'm not -- could you repeat what was exactly your question? So you were using...

Well, so you reported 92.2% for motor in the quarter. That's a massive improvement on what we've seen in versus last year and the year before. I'm just trying to establish if there's any sort of one-offs you've seen, anything particularly positive or if that's the baseline that we should be earning through the rate increases that you're getting at the start of this year from?

No. I think so basically, what we see in the motor market in general is a lot of discipline in terms of pricing as in many -- actually, in particular, the European market, there is still need for well-behaved environment as we continue to see some inflationary trends, which are a bit sticky in particular on the motor market. As you know, and basically see the same as what I mentioned last year, we had anticipated some of those effects. So we continue to benefit from this environment, and we also see that being earned as well into our profitability. But I would not expect that to change fundamentally in the upcoming quarters.

Next question is from Vinit Malhotra from Mediobanca. Go ahead, Vinit.

Just one on the Life piece is on the normalized CSM, which is -- has grown very strongly. So it's 1.9%. I think the annual target is about 5%. So I'm just curious whether there's anything one-off-ish here. I mean you have mentioned [gap gen] in Life had some one-offs as well. And also, we've seen very, very strong growth in Life. So just curious to hear about CSM and growth in Life. A very quick one on the German combined ratio, where I'm just sort of following up here because is it just linked to the motor recovery? Just -- you just described, I mean, there's an 80 basis point improvement year-on-year in Germany, which is quite strong. So I'm just cross checking if that's all motor. And if I can just follow up a little bit on the sensitivities. There seems to be an increase in the gross effect from 3% at 4Q to 5%. And in the past, we talked about how it was a good achievement to reduce it. So I'm just curious if this is just market volatility hitting that number or something else to note...

So thanks a lot. On the CSM development, I think there is -- I mean, there is nothing particular to be highlighted in the CSM development. I mean I think the main point to be highlighted is that the CSM -- the normalized CSM growth is connected with the development of our value of new business, which is always a bit higher in the first quarter compared to the first -- I mean, to the further development into the other quarters in particular because you have some businesses that renew more in -- on the 1st of January. So typically, you will have some protection and health business in the French market as an example, but you have other markets like that, where you have this more new business, if you want, coming up in the first part of the year that then is being -- is coming through in the normalized CSM growth. So that's why we always see that pattern that we have a higher level of normalized CSM growth in the first quarter and usually a lower level of normalized CSM growth, as an example, in the third quarter, which is traditionally a bit lower compared to the other one as an example. Then I think you were asking a question around the combined ratio in Germany, right? That's what you were asking?

Just following up whether it's all motor-driven improvement.

So the question was, is it all motor driven? Is that the question?

Yes please.

Yes, okay, right.

For Germany, yes. So I think like a lot -- I think we -- what we see in Germany across the board is really good earnings of all the underwriting actions that have been taken in retail. So we see a very strong improvement in retail in Germany across the board, I would say. And motor is a very strong contributor to that improvement as well. I did not have this opportunity this morning, so I can also leverage this one to congratulate our German colleagues for all the work they have done that is really coming through as well in terms of both growth and profitability, by the way. And then your last question was around sensitivities as well?

Yes, about the cost, the combined effect, which we sometimes look at in volatile markets. It's gone up a little bit from 3% to 5%.

Yes, indeed. So there is nothing particular to be highlighted here. It's just like sort of noise from the growth effect. So it's really small, and it's actually even a bit lower. It was actually slightly lower in the fourth quarter, indeed, but there is nothing special to be read into it.

Thanks Vinit. I'll note that you snuck in 3 questions there, but anyway. So next question is from William Hawkins from KBW.

A couple of questions also on the Life business, please. In Slide B19, can you help me just understand the outlook for the expected in-force return, the EUR 748 million. Can I just multiply that by 4 and assume in the future that it rises in line with the CSM, which feels simple, but hasn't recently been the case. So that EUR 748 million is actually quite flat year-on-year and is actually down about 8% on the fourth quarter. And whilst your stock isn't that sensitive to interest rates, your notes on the next slide refer to interest rate sensitivity and lower over return assumptions. So I'm just trying to get a feel for is that EUR 748 million a stable base I can roll forward? Or do I need to be clever, probably do. And then secondly, also on the Life business, yes, has market volatility in April had any impact on the AZ Life U.S. operating profits? And again, do we have any way of gauging sensitivity to that? April has been a volatile month for equities. And in the past, that can have hedging effects in AZ Life. So is there anything that we need to be calling out for that, please?

Thank you very much. So basically, on your first question on the expected in-force return. Indeed, I think like you know how this expected in-force return is made of, right? It's related to both our VFA business and our BBA business. So in the VFA business, this is based on the market rate we expect and then the expected over return we expect to see. And on the BBA business, we are using a locked-in rate, right? So I think the reason why the expected in-force return in general is lower this year compared to last year is related to the fact that we -- I mean, interest rates are moving down. That's basically what is mainly driving this one. So I think last year, I had provided as well to you what was the formula. I think the team can provide that again to you. But in a nutshell, what you do for -- I mean, to estimate our overall expected return, you take for the VFA business, what is our market -- what is the market rate. And just to give you a sense, it moved -- the risk-free rate basically moved from 3.4% last year to 2.3% this year. So that will be the main driver of this effect. And then you have some weighting effects that you need to inject that the team can explain in details to you. And when it comes to the locked-in rate on the BBA side, it also went down a little bit from 4.5% to 4.3%. That's also explaining why the expected in-force return is lower. So for more details, you can reach out to the team. They will give you the exact formula, but that's the overall direction. And then on AZ Life, you are right that we can -- I mean, some market volatility can impact indeed the hedging cost for our product in the AZ Life portfolio. For most of our business, those changes can be managed within the product ratio. We do -- I mean, we use things like the crediting or the participation rate as an example. So it's basically, this logic is applied to our entire book, except for the historical legacy variable annuity book where this is coming directly on us. But basically, there has been no significant impact in the April market movements. And actually, even under any circumstances when we do stress testing on what may impact, it will be something like a low double-digit kind of level of impact, so not something that would structurally impact our performance. So you can be really reassured as well from that perspective.

Next question is from Hadley Cohen from Morgan Stanley. Go ahead, Hadley.

Just a couple of quick questions remaining from my side, please. Firstly, and apologies if I've missed this. In the valuation result and other in P&C, I think it was just below minus EUR 800 million for FY '24. And I think you said at the time, it was in line with normal expectations. But I think the guidance is now for minus EUR 500 million to EUR 600 million a year on a normalized basis. I'm just wondering what the -- what's changed there? And if there's an offset somewhere that we should be mindful of? And then my second question is in relation to Slide B 9, which is very useful, so thank you very much. But more specifically on that, I'm just wondering around your U.S. asset exposure. I guess, beyond those assets backing the -- your U.S. liabilities, how are you thinking about your U.S. exposure on the asset side more broadly right now? Does it structurally still make sense to have the exposure to the extent you do?

So I think -- so I think your first question was on the valuation results and other, right, where we see indeed lower -- I mean, lower -- like we -- sorry, our normal expectation for the year will be something around EUR 500 million to EUR 600 million annually. And this is basically lower for this -- it will be lower now going forward as we have been reclassifying some of our VFA business, basically from P&C to Life & Health. So as some of the businesses moved away from the segment, this is no longer going to impact the valuation results and others. So that's why you should use that guidance more of 0.5 to 0.6 for the full year. Nonetheless, we also had a negative FX effect that came through in the -- in the quarter as well, which is linked to the very, very small level of FX variation we see on some of our business, which basically has also impacted that number. Obviously, as well, this element on the valuation results and other is offset in the income -- by the interest income, obviously, that you need to take as well into account when you are going to do the correction overall. I think also the team can provide you with a more line-by-line item if you want to do the full assessment on that side. And then you were asking in general on U.S. exposure. So I think the way we are -- in the asset portfolio, right, that was your question. So I think it's -- in general, we have our portfolios that are very diversified, and we don't take -- and if you look at the overall page where we are showing how we are thinking about it, in general, we have this very structured approach of matching our assets and our liabilities as much as possible. You see that -- and then we take some structured decision when it comes to certain type of asset classes, typically on the equity side, so our listed equity will be hedged. In general, our alternatives portfolios are hedged in the P&C segment, except for the private equity exposure, where we have decided economically that it was not making sense to hedge that portfolio. And this is -- this portfolio, you see creating a bit of market movements in the non -- sorry, nonoperating side. Here, we clearly see that the economic trade-offs make sense. We are mainly focusing on hedging our balance sheet to protect the resilience of the organization. And there, the cost of hedging will not make sense against the expected value creation. This is a very low level of exposure overall because our private equity exposure in P&C against the entire P&C portfolio is something like 1% of the overall asset base. So that's a very low level, and that makes sense in terms of risk return profile and also volatility management.

Next question is from Kamran Hossain from JPMorgan. Go ahead, Kamran.

The first question is just on the direction of travel and commercial. So obviously, it sounds like the personal side still has some tailwinds behind it in terms of mostly coming through. On the commercial side, prices have peaked and now slowing down. How should we expect Allianz to behave in that environment? Do you think you'll reduce volumes to defend margin? Or do you think the combined ratios will inevitably kind of trend up? Just really interested in kind of what your approach is going to be because it looks like in Q1, you cut volume a bit, so are you seeing defending margin. The second question is just a follow-up clarification on Will's question a while back. You told us about kind of you're having mid-single-digit flows quarter-to-date, which I assume probably includes a bit more than April. Could you just maybe tell us how the PIMCO AUM has moved quarter-to-date? I just don't want to get a surprise in Q2. I've seen some of the FX and other asset movements might outweigh the quarter. So just trying to figure those things out.

Yes. So I think on the second question, I mean, clearly, understand I cannot provide you with such level of details that's clearly not something that is available at this point in time. Then I think your question on commercial, right? I think commercial, what is very important from my perspective is, first of all, to look at the structure of the Allianz portfolio when it comes to commercial. We have, I think, a very different book compared to many of our peers. This is made of the large corporate book, which is basically the AGCS book. Then we have Allianz Trade, so the credit insurance book. We have the MidCorp portfolio. And also, we have also the Allianz Re portfolio that is part of this overall made up of our P&C commercial and specialty portfolio. And clearly, the dynamic of those different businesses is different. And also the cycle effect in those various portfolios is as well different depending on where we are. So I think the point you were making is more related, as an example, to AGCS, where I was mentioning we see in general that we are at a good level of rate adequacy that has reduced clearly, but still it's not negative rate adequacy. So there is space for growth, in particular in areas where we feel quite strong, like specialty will be an area, but also the multinational business where we have a lot we can play with or ART as well, where there is also a lot we can offer in that business. On trade side, clearly, in general, I mean, like the -- we are more cautious on the underlying assumptions as we see also some of the underlying risk increasing, but the quality of the underwriting currently -- I mean, the quality of our underwriting is very strong, clearly, as always. But what we see as well is that the emergence of profit is also very strong in the current environment. So we will see no reason to also take negative assumptions when it comes to the profitability on the trade side beyond some normal level of normalization overall. And MidCorp is also in a very different stage depending on the various markets with some markets being more challenging than others and it's very connected with what I was mentioning before. So mainly, I would say, U.K. or Australia will be markets which are more challenged from a rate dynamic, which does not mean that this is not rate adequate again to mention. So overall, we are very comfortable with the development of our commercial book. I also forgot, sorry to mention Partner that is also contributing to the commercial portfolio that has also a different dynamic. So overall, no reason to change our guidance. We feel strong on the approximate combined ratio of 92% for the commercial business with continued careful trajectory, but still a strong trajectory as part of the overall P&C portfolio.

Next question is from Andrew Crean from Autonomous. Go ahead Andrew. I think you might be muted, Andrew. Hello, Andrew, are you muted. We can't hear you. I'm afraid. So we'll come back to you. If we could move to the next question then. It Is from Henry Heathfield from Morningstar. Go ahead, Henry.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Just a small couple of questions, please. I'm wondering, Anne-Marie (sic) [Claire-Marie], if you could talk a little bit more about what happened to the performance fees in PIMCO. I think in the past, it's been highlighted that in Q4, they tend to be a bit heavier loaded in Q4, but it doesn't look like that's entirely the full picture here. So I was wondering if you could just kind of run through that a bit. And then in Corporate and Other, that's kind of looks to be coming in quite a bit below your EUR 800 million full year target. So I was also wondering if you could talk a little bit about what's driving that?

Yes. Maybe on the Corporate segment and Other, there is really nothing in particular to be highlighted. It's always an area where we are definitely very cautious when we set our outlook. So the level of cautiousness, if you want on the spend on the Corporate segments are being confirmed for the quarter. So for PIMCO -- for the level of performances of PIMCO, I mean, as I mentioned, and you rightfully said so as well, performances are always volatile, right, in nature. And last year, it was particularly strong for the first quarter. Maybe just to give you a sense on how to think about it, like in the previous 10 first quarters, we had on average a performance fee share of around 4% of our total revenues. So with a range of 2% to 6% of the revenues associated to the performance fees in the first quarter of 2025. So this year, we had 2% of performance fees against the total level of revenues. So it's basically within the range, but you see it at the low end of the range. And if you follow that same logic for the full year over the last 10 years, actually, we have achieved a performance fee share that is in terms of percentage of total revenues that is between 4% and 10%. And so we expect to be within that range for 2025. There is nothing I can say more at this point in time because obviously, there is a volatility that is also connected to the volatility of the market in the performance fees.

Next question is from Fahad Changazi from Kepler. Go ahead, Fahad.

Just very quick follow-ups left. On Solvency II capital generation, it looks like the Life underlying capital generation was about EUR 1.1 billion. Is that a good level to build from? Or will it be a bit higher due to the assumption change? I'm not sure if it's including or excluding any experience variance there? And another one just on the extra capital management actions. You just did Sconset Re transaction, of course. But again, can you give us any insight into other management actions we'll be implementing in 2025 to increase Solvency II capital generation?

So I think on the implementation of the actions for our organic -- for our operating capital generation in the year, I cannot really give you an answer. If you look at the full toolbox that I mentioned in the Capital Market Day, clearly, we are working on -- I mean, many, many levers to improve our operating capital generation. And I think some of them will start bearing fruits as well this year, but also some of them will clearly provide an uplift much later on, either towards the end of the plan or even outside of the plan horizon. So at this point in time, I can really not give you more details, except reassurance that we are really working very actively on it, and we see a lot of momentum in the organization around the topic. Then I think you were asking...

Could I just -- could i just follow up on that? You said some outside the plan, but we are still sort of on track for the '24, '25 operating capital generation target, of course.

Yes, that's a 2027 target, yes. So the target, just to be clear, is more than 20% on the metric you see the 6% for Q1. More than 20% is what we said as a target for full year '25. And then yes, the target is actually 2027, not '24, '25.

The reason is that there are also -- I mean, out of those -- I mean we are working on many different levers, right? Some of the levers also will be related to getting some regulatory approvals. So obviously, will take time and are also linked to the fact that there is a lot of preparatory work and also -- so that will take time to emerge. There are also a lot of other actions which we think should provide a benefit earlier on. But you also have a lot of underlying other effects like I don't know the mix is contributing to that, some of the diversification benefits and so on and so forth. So it's very difficult to give a very precise impact levers by levers and exactly when they are going to earn. So I think at this point in time, having a level of ambition that is strictly superior to what we had last year is from my perspective, a good guidance. And then I think you were asking a question on the Solvency II operating capital generation for the Life segment on a stand-alone basis or like basically how much of the correction we should be taking out of the positive variances, right?

Yes, that's correct.

So we do not split in absolute as part of the overall outcome, the operating capital generation because I mean, again, you have this mix effect and you have also the diversification effect that is coming through in the operating capital generation. So what I would do is that I will take the overall numbers we have shared and then you can reduce it, I mean, a little bit from the almost 1 percentage point of positive variances we have been sharing with you that is coming from the Life side. And then normally, you will have a positive additional -- positive additional elements that is going to come through from the earnings of the Sconset structure into the Life operating capital generation, but which we have not yet reflected at this point in time.

Next question is from James Shuck from Citi. Go ahead, James.

I just wanted to ask about the sort of underlying loss ratio development, if you like, for the undiscounted attritional loss ratio ex-NatCat. So 10 basis points of improvement year-on-year. You do give us the split of the total combined ratio between retail and commercial, but really interested in what's happening on the underlying trend. So can you split out what the trend was between retail and commercial on the underlying loss ratio for me, please, in Q1? And then secondly, just in terms of cyber insurance, can you just remind me what your premium size is in cyber and what line sizes -- what line minutes you tend to put down, please?

Sorry, could you repeat your question on cyber?

I think I got it. I think he wanted roughly how big we are in cyber and typical line size or retention. Is that right?

Yes, that's right. Yes, that's right.

Okay. Maybe I first answer your question globally, right, on the attritional -- on the undiscounted attritional loss ratio. So I have provided the guidance for the year-end results that we expect -- if you take all the elements I have been mentioning, we expect our attritional loss ratio to be within the 71% to 71.5% corridor in terms of experience. And actually, what we have seen in the first quarter and as published, I think, on the page, we are at 71.5%. So we are well within our corridor of undiscounted attritional loss ratio which is also slightly improving compared to last year. And then when you look in the underlying, actually, we have also further additional effects is that we have the Arch transaction that is contributing negatively to the undiscounted attritional loss ratio. And we also have the transfer of the health business that moved from the P&C segment to the Life & Health segment that is also contributing negatively to the undiscounted attritional loss ratio. So if I bring all of that together, what we see is a sort of 30 bps improvement of our undiscounted attritional loss ratio year-on-year. And then -- and basically, it means that we are well within our expectations for the undiscounted attritional loss ratio for the year at this point in time in the quarter. And then I think more generally on your question on what's happening between retail and commercial. In retail, we really see the full earning of our underwriting action that is coming through the undiscounted attritional loss ratio. We see also very strong level of stability in the undiscounted attritional loss ratio on the commercial side. And the reason why the commercial loss ratio or combined ratio overall is higher is what I mentioned. We had -- I mean, much, much higher level of NatCat load in the quarter for the commercial business. And also remember, the discounting effect on the commercial side. So basically, the reduction of the discounted benefits on the commercial side is much higher because the commercial business tend to be longer compared to a longer duration, compared to the retail one, and that's basically why you have this higher negative effect of the reduction of the rates on the combined ratio for commercial. Then I think you were asking for cyber insurance. So overall, we have approximately on stand-alone cyber and tech PI, we have approximately EUR 350 million of GPW. So -- and we indeed see the softening I was referring to as part of the overall cyber -- development of cyber. We take a very, very cautious approach when it comes to our underwriting on the cyber side. So we have small risk limits which are basically between EUR 10 million and EUR 15 million depending on the businesses. So when it's new business, it raised EUR 10 and when it's renewals, it's more of EUR 15 million. And in addition to that, we have a very, very conservative reinsurance structure that is made of several layers, which are first aggregating and so on and so forth. So basically, we have a quota share. We have an event and an aggregate XL in place. So we are extremely well protected when it comes to cyber risk overall.

And now we have our last question, which is a follow-up question from Michael Huttner from Berenberg. Go ahead, Michael.

The one is place, but also knowing whether we're ahead of plan or whatever on the expense ratio of 24.1%, which feels like a huge improvement on last year. And then the second one is on Life. I'm sorry, I'm being really nitpicky. You said the Life ROE was fantastic, in your really lovely financial supplement, it is good, 14%, but it's actually down on all the quarters last year when it was 16%. If you think it's relevant just to say, but if you know of anything, it would be interesting.

Sorry, just to be clear, Michael, because it's quite hard to make you out. Your questions were focused on the expense ratio trajectory and then...

On the Life & Health, which actually came down quarter-on-quarter or relative to last year.

Sure. Yes. Understood.

Okay. Very good. I think like one of the main driver for the Life ROE being down, as you mentioned, right, is related to the fact that the numerator has been impacted by the tax provision for Bajaj. So that's the main explanation. If you want the exact details, you can -- you can liaise with the team, they will basically give you the exact effect, but the main driver is clearly Bajaj. What I think is super important, Michael, is the quality at which we are underwriting basically our new business. And clearly, our Life and Health new business [ROC] or basically like where it's positioning against as well our Solvency II ROE expectation is well above 15% across the portfolio. So we have a very strong performance at which we are underwriting our Life business. So we are very confident on the quality as well of the future profitability that are going to emerge from our Life business. And then I think your other question was P&C expense ratio -- indeed, in the P&C expense ratio, I think for the quarter, we have a 50 bps improvement of the P&C expense ratio. Not all of that is related to productivity, obviously. We have a mix effect, as always, in the P&C expense ratio. And the second special effect is related to also the Arch transaction that is still creating noise a bit between the attritional loss ratio, as I have just mentioned, and the expense ratio, basically offsetting a bit each other. So that's what's driving also partially some of the improvement of the expense ratio. What is more important is that fundamentally, we see the underlying expected trends to deliver against our expectations of minus 30 bps year-on-year associated with our productivity initiatives.

Great. Thanks, Michael. And that was the last question. Maybe before closing, if I could just remind you, Munich is a very nice place in late spring. We have, in a couple of weeks' time, our Inside Allianz session, which will be focusing on our commercial business, our health business, AZ Life and also some technology. So I'd encourage you to sign up if you haven't, when we can give you even more details. And with that, thank you very much, and that concludes our Q1 '25 call. Thanks.