Mandatum Oyj (MANTA) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, and welcome to Mandatum's Q1 audiocast. My name is Lotta Borgström from Mandatum's Investor Relations, and I am pleased to be joined today by our CEO, Petri Niemisvirta; and our CFO, Matti Ahokas. During the audiocast, Petri Niemisvirta and Matti Ahokas will present the highlights and key developments of Mandatum's first quarter of 2025, after which we'll take the Q&A where you have the possibility to dial in for any questions you might have. Also, please don't hesitate to contact us at Investor Relations should you have any further questions. With these remarks, I will hand over to Petri. Please go ahead.

1 Thank you, Lotta. And now let's move on to the first quarter. Mandatum's first quarter went well despite turbulent market conditions. We achieved a 23% year-over-year increase in fee result, reaching EUR 18.8 million. The increase was mainly driven by improved cost efficiency and higher client assets under management that also saw a significant rise, up 12% year-over-year to EUR 14 billion. The improved cost efficiency was also highlighted by a 10 percentage point reduction in the cost/income ratio now at 55%, which I'm very happy about. These metrics reflects our strategic focus on profitability and operational efficiency, setting a strong foundation for future growth. Net flow increased to EUR 256 million during the quarter as an indication of strong client activity despite the market uncertainty. The net finance result increased by 73%, totaling EUR 51.8 million. The return on investment was 0.8%, and the rise in the discount rate reduced the finance expenses on insurance contract liabilities. Also, the net finance result includes a positive fair value change of Saxo Bank shares, totaling EUR 17 million. Profit before taxes increased by 32% year-over-year to EUR 62 million, whereas profit before taxes from the capital-light business, our strategic growth area, including Institutional & Wealth Management, Corporate client and Retail client businesses increased by 24% to EUR 20 million. Earnings per share stood at EUR 0.10 and organic capital generation per share was EUR 0.17. The Solvency II ratio stood at 207% as of March 31 compared to 210% at the end of 2024. The level is well above our midterm target and Mandatum continues to be a very well-capitalized company. In terms of assets under management, the steady growth in our Institutional & Wealth Management business continued. The 18% year-over-year growth is a significant achievement driven by positive net flows and favorable market conditions. March was, however, a challenging month in the investment markets and the total assets under management of EUR 14 billion was flat year-to-date due to negative market movements of EUR 177 million, even if the net flow development was positive. Net flow from the corporate clients increased significantly during the quarter. The growth came mainly from personnel funds. 4 new personnel funds were established during the quarter. The strong corporate net flow shows also the diversification of our capital-light business, highlighting the importance of corporate business to our growth story. Nevertheless, the market conditions were demanding for all the capital market players and net flow from the Institutional & Wealth Management business grew less than last year. We have been able to deliver a very good net flow and investment performance during recent years despite tough competition. The first quarter net flow of EUR 256 million was well above our 5% target of client assets under management, and we continue to increase market share in our key markets. Spring has, however, been extremely volatile in the global financial markets. This rocky road has obviously had an impact on us as well, but we actively continue to support our customers in all market situations and remind them that unusual markets tend to create unusual investment opportunities. The fee income was up 10% year-over-year, supported by an increase in assets under management and stable fee margin levels. Even though most of our sales were related to credit and fixed income types of products, our fee income margin remained at the same level at 1.2%. This means that we continue to have good discipline in our pricing. Also, it goes without saying that the product mix shifting towards institution will impact the fee income margin going forward. When it comes to operational efficiency, I'm really pleased with our improving cost/income ratio, now at 55%. As we have stated before, our business is scalable, and we can now clearly see that. The steady growth in our Institutional & Wealth Management business continued in the first quarter. In terms of assets under management, the largest growth came once again from international institutional clients, 55%. Demand for our credit products, especially in Sweden, continued to be very strong. This is a strong sign of the demand for our investment products in regions where we still have a significant market potential. The Mandatum Nordic high-yield fund was once again awarded the Lipper Fund Award as the best high-yield fund in the entire Europe over the 3-year and 5-year review periods. Our award-winning credit products, such as the Nordic high-yield fund are good examples of leading industry expertise. The largest increase in assets under management was once again in credit and allocation products, followed closely by external products. The returns on our credit and fixed income products are still at attractive levels and the good performance gave additional support to our sales. I would also like to remind you that Mandatum's real estate exposure is very low. In April, we announced that Janne Sarvikivi was appointed as the Head of Mandatum's Institutional & Wealth Management business area. He will start in his new role on 12th of May, 2025. I'm very happy that our management team will be joined by such deep management experience in the Nordic capital markets. And now let's move over to Matti on the figures.

Thank you, Petri. Let's then look closer at the first quarter result components. As Petri mentioned, our fee result was up 23% year-on-year with assets under management up 12%. Year-to-date, our AUM was actually roughly unchanged, mainly due to negative translation effect from the weaker U.S. dollar as roughly 20% -- 25% of our client AUM is denominated in U.S. dollars. And of course, the weaker U.S. dollar had a small negative P&L impact on the Q1 fee result itself. Client margins remained stable in the first quarter when looking at on a 12-month rolling basis. Our income was up and costs were down year-on-year. This means that our cost/income ratio of the client AUM continued to decrease according to plan and was 55%. The net finance result came in at EUR 52 million despite the weak investment markets in March. Q1 turned out to be an only slightly softer finance result quarter at the end. Note that the Q1 net finance result also includes a net EUR 16 million revaluation of our stake in Saxo Bank. Note that we expect to book some more transaction costs related to Saxo once the transaction is finalized probably at the end of the year. Our result related to risk policies was unchanged compared to a year ago. And note that Q1 is typically seasonally a higher cost quarter in the risk insurance business, mainly due to the booking of reinsurance costs. The return on equity stood at 12.4% in the quarter. Note that the underlying level would have been some 3 percentage points higher when adjusting for the proposed 2024 dividend payout in 2 weeks. If we then look closer at the group net finance result, it was up to EUR 52 million. And in the with-profit segment, it was up to EUR 37 million. With-profit investment return in the quarter at 0.8% was in line with last year, but slightly below the normalized run rate as March investment returns were negative. Our with-profit fixed income assets continue to generate stable returns with a mark-to-market yield of 4.7%, and this was unchanged from Q4. In the first quarter, equities contributed positively. We continue to decrease our equity exposure as planned and were net sellers of equities during the quarter. The listed equity exposure was down to EUR 160 million or is now 5% of total assets, roughly 7% in the previous quarter. Private equity and private credit had a fairly normal quarter with a roughly 2% return during the quarter, but we had a EUR 2 million negative value change in our own real estate portfolio during the quarter. As long-term interest rates increased in the quarter, the discount rate change had a EUR 25 million positive P&L impact. And as communicated previously, the quarterly unwinding cost is now down to EUR 13 million compared to EUR 18 million a year ago. Worth noting is as well that the with-profit portfolio interest rate hedging ratio increased and was 88% at the end of Q1. This was a result of the increase in the overall fixed income exposure in line with our strategy and also means that the net finance result should become less volatile and more fee type. At the end of Q1, a 100 basis point decrease in the market rates would have translated to a EUR 13 million net decrease in the net finance result. Despite the turbulent markets, we continue to consistently generate capital. Organic capital generation was up to EUR 88 million in Q1. This measure, as you know, takes into account, for example, the own funds generation from income booked in the CSM as well as potential capital release from a lower solvency capital requirement. The main positive driver of the OCG in Q1 was the higher capital release in the with-profit business, driven by asset derisking in listed equities, as mentioned, and also a lower private credit exposure. As pointed out before, we think the OCG is a more relevant measure than the reported IFRS result when assessing our performance and capital generation of the period. Our own funds generation increased the solvency margin by 10 percentage points in the quarter. Looking at the solvency, our group solvency margin decreased to 207% following the dividend deduction, but remains well above the 170% to 200% target range. In addition, the announced sales of the Saxo Bank share when executed is expected to increase the solvency margin by around 35 percentage points. And back to you, Lotta.

Thank you, Matti. Thank you, Petri. And now let's move on to the Q&A. Please dial in for any questions you might have.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Andrew Baker from Goldman Sachs.

Okay. Two for me, please. The first one, just given the market volatility that we've seen in the second quarter, are you able to give a bit more color on your net flow development in the second quarter? And then secondly, again, sort of on the capital-light segment, are you able just to give us a sense of the current revenue margins that you're seeing on split between the Corporate, Institutional and Retail business, please?

Yes. Thank you, Andrew, Petri here. We can't comment the ongoing quarter. But of course, it's market turbulence, especially in April, which is more or less now in a different level as well today than it used to be a month ago. But of course, the April was really turbulent market and, of course, affecting all the players in the market in many ways. But unfortunately, we can't comment the net flows in an going quarter. And when it comes to fee margins in different segments, we have stated those in previous presentations. And I don't have exact numbers, but it's in Retail. If the total there is 1.2% as a combined, it's less than 1% in our Institutional & Wealth Management. Of course, there we are selling to professional buyers, institutions. And the higher end, close to 2% is in our pension business, private pension business, old portfolio and group pension business. And let's say, the wealth management, especially asset management fees are under 1%. And as we have stated, the further we go, the growth is coming more and more from Institutional & Wealth Management side. It's in -- even though we have very disciplined pricing, the average margin will go down if we grow with this number as we have seen in the wealth management side. But it's -- it has kept its level very well better than we thought. So it's still 1.2%, and we haven't seen any erosion on that side really.

The next question comes from Antti Saari from OP Markets.

First, I would like to ask about the other result. It was mentioned that higher interest expenses affected it negatively. Could you tell us something about this?

Antti, the answer references to last year. Remember that we took the bridge loan for our -- the Saxo Bank stake, the EUR 200 million we discussed in May. So if we then look at Q1 over Q1, then the interest rates were higher. So that references to Q1 '24.

Okay. Yes. That's clear. Then I'd like to ask you about cost level of asset-light business. In Q4, you mentioned that the cost base was a bit higher than normally. Would you now describe it as normal what we saw in Q1?

Yes. I think you could say it's kind of roughly normal at the moment. Of course, like Petri also mentioned, we were paying a lot of attention cost management, and that is paramount all the time. Our FTE numbers are also down a bit. So that, of course, should kind of contribute positively. The most important thing, of course, is on the fee result, if you're looking at that, as mentioned, is the currency impact. As I said, over 25% of our AUM is linked to the U.S. dollar. And that means that it has had an impact on the income, but hardly any impact on the costs. So I think that's a bigger item explaining the movements in the first quarter.

Exactly. So pretty normal cost base to model?

Yes.

The next question comes from Hans Rettedal Christiansen from Danske Bank Markets.

I have 2. The first one is on the net flow development this quarter. And you obviously don't split based on sort of geographies, but you do on the AUM. And so I was just looking at the international institutional AUM, which is sort of showing a sequential decline quarter-over-quarter. And so I was wondering if you could maybe give some qualitative comments around how that part of the business is affecting the net flow number for this quarter? And the sort of follow-up question to that is also your cost income is obviously very good in Q1. But is there any way you can kind of perhaps increase the distribution that you have into the international market, which would perhaps take the cost income somewhat higher? And then my second question is on the -- in the organic capital generation slide, where you split it out by the SCR and the capital component, you've included a sort of comment on the 150% calculation. So I was just wondering when you're looking at the overall targets for the solvency, should we, as the with-profits book is kind of declining, also kind of assume going forward that the solvency target should be coming down with that?

If I start with the last question and then Petri can talk a bit. Just out of curiosity, I think if you look at sequentially, the international institution is not down, but it's actually up. But Petri can comment a bit more on the net flow development. On the last question, you're absolutely correct, and it's a very good observation that we have a different capital or the with-profit and the capital-light capital requirement, which it should be. It's actually very natural and definitely a factor that plays a role here. And now we've, in our organic capital generation, kind of taken this because it is clear that the with-profit business has a higher capital requirement compared to the capital-light, which is a lower capital requirement. Then of course, the question is that what is the exact level where it should be. I think we will come back to that at our Capital Market Day and talk a bit more about the kind of development there. But it is clear that both capital-light and with-profit should not be EUR 170 million to EUR 200 million. There is a different and now we've taken EUR 150 million for the capital-light and EUR 200 million for the with-profit business. So that is the reason, and it's good that you notice that, that was the change we did in the first quarter.

Yes, Petri here. So first question about net flows and especially the international institution part of that. You are right, we are not giving the exact numbers how net flow is divided between the subsegments. But if you look at the Slide 6, and you can see what area is really growing and year-on-year, how it has been changing. So it's obvious that it's our international business had a really big portion of our net flow in last year and also lately. So we are very pleased that our international business, especially in Sweden, is going really well. We have seen some -- and also high net worth, ultra-high net worth, I guess the less net flow, what we have seen is in our institutions in Finland. And that's partly explained so that we have concentrated a lot to sell our private debt fund, which is commitment based. So we don't see the net flows on that side, even though we have been very active among Finnish institutions, and we managed to raise fund almost EUR 200 million to that fund, but it's commitment based and that's not shown as a net flow there. But it's not giving exact figures, but international part is getting more and more important in our net flows. And when it comes to our cost/income ratio, I would say that we are -- we have already done and we are all the time increasing the number of our salespeople in those areas we see as a good business, where we have seen good business plans, meaning international, Finland Corporate, Finland Wealth Management. And what we are doing is we are scaling our processes, support functions and so on. So we try to invest those areas which are really giving us growth and streamline those areas that are, let's say, burning our money.

And if I may continue, I think Petri had a very important point here that when looking at the net flows, Hans, I think it's -- you should remember, especially the fact that we do sell also commitment-based products as well as fund-based products and the kind of fee generation is slightly different, but they are also fee generating. And depending a bit on the quarter, in some quarters, we sell more commitment-based and then -- which don't show as net flow. And in some quarters, we, of course, sell more flow-based products altogether. But it's a combination of these factors, and it's important to kind of understand the totality. And the commitment-based ones will show as net flow in the quarters when they are called, but there's still kind of, so to say, money in the bank.

The next question comes from Jaakko Tyrvainen from SEB.

A couple of [ typical ] ones, and I'll start with a very strong quarter in the Corporate segment. Was this strength during the quarter purely driven by the mentioned for new personnel funds and the timing of those? And how was the kind of underlying performance of the Corporate segment, excluding these funds?

Yes. Thank you, Jaakko. Petri here. It's -- yes, as we said, it was mainly related to personnel fund because net flow is -- let's say, so the group pension business is more like this. It can grow double-digit numbers from quarter-to-quarter. It's not that kind of business, very good business, but the growth rates are not that high. Personnel fund business is the new kid in town in a certain way. So the growth numbers are also very high. And having in mind the market share we have in that business is that -- and lately, last years, we have established a lot of new personnel funds and now it's really started to gain success as well. So the companies who have established last 2, 3 years, new personnel funds and they are very successful companies, they are paying a lot of bonuses to personal funds as well. And this spring was really high on that side. So we are happy that we have customers on the Corporate side who are doing really well in their business season, which is, of course, affecting to our business as well.

And if you look at then the overall Corporate segment, you were asking, Jaakko, if you look at the performance, it's been actually really good as well. So I think it's not only this, it's a broad-based positive development with around almost EUR 7 million in profit before tax for the segment.

Then on the -- you are about to pay a dividend of more than [indiscernible] in a few weeks. Just to understand the technical issues here, is the money now sitting in the with-profit book or the portfolio there? Or do you have the kind of cash already separately in hand to pay the dividend?

Well, it is a very technical question, but absolutely, the money is on our bank account in our holding company, so ready to be paid out to the shareholders once the AGM approves it -- in the holding company.

Okay. So it shouldn't kind of dramatically impact on the original portfolio, the amount of euros over there?

Correct. Yes. Now I understand what you're kind of referring to. Absolutely. So we normally pay out the life company and the subsidiaries pay out the internal dividends roughly at the end of the year -- close to the end of the year. So that money has been kind of at the holding company level for a while.

Okay. That's good. I guess it was the first time you are kind of reporting capital-light profit separately. And there you have -- on the table, you have with-profit and the line other. Regarding this line other, what should we expect kind of for a run rate going forward? Now it included the gain from Saxo, I believe, but what should we expect for the coming years?

Yes. Of course, it's including a lot of items, but the biggest ones are typically the -- or the kind of biggest recurring ones are holding company. Funding costs, we have the EUR 200 million loan from a bridge loan, and then we have another EUR 100 million loan as well. So the finance cost of that is the biggest item there, and you can quite well easily calculate how much the interest cost on that is roughly. Then of course, we do also have the holding company cost there, but probably somewhere between EUR 20 million to EUR 25 million is the kind of level at the moment. And then, of course, once we repay the loans, it will change a bit. But maybe our kind of main point is that you shouldn't multiply that by 4. You will get to a too high negative figure if you do that.

The next question comes from Michele Ballatore from KBW.

I have 2 questions. The first question is about the capital generation. So the capital generation, of course, was very, very strong because we were seeing 10 percentage point contribution. This is well above the average of the previous quarters. And you mentioned the derisking -- ongoing derisking. I don't know if it's still ongoing. I mean, if we can expect for 2025, a positive contribution on the SCR side from the further derisking if you are doing more. So this is the first question. And the second question is about the other element in the solvency walk that you published. There is -- you mentioned transitional measures unwinding. I was wondering what is the contribution of transitional measures overall to the solvency ratio?

Yes. On the first question on the capital generation, overall, it's -- the derisking is expected to continue. I think we've kind of alluded to that already previously that over time, we believe that the with-profit portfolio should be more or less almost entirely fixed income instruments. And at the moment, as you know, we are in a situation where, for example, around 75% is fixed income. So you should expect that this will be a positive contributor going forward. The main obstacle here is the fact that a lot of these instruments are fairly illiquid, like the private equity, especially also our real estate part in these markets is difficult to kind of liquidate very fast, and we're not in a hurry to do so. But over time, you should expect that this portfolio should be, as I mentioned, a bit like fee like that it's very highly hedged and then very low exposure to anything else except fixed income, and that should also mean higher predictability, but also a lower capital requirement and a capital generation overall. Then in terms of the transitional measures, it is actually fairly small altogether, but we're talking about roughly between 5 and 8 percentage points.

The next question comes from Jan Erik Gjerland from ABG.

When it comes to the risk results, you shed some light into there were some one-offs last quarter. Is it so that this now is the new run rate, so to speak? You have some in the corporate area and some in the retail area, so we can better understand the result generation from the risk policies. And secondly, we have seen a lot of disability and disability increase in the Norwegian society. We also see it in the Swedish society. So just wondering how do you see this in the Finnish society when it comes to the old with-profit book and also how it comes to the potential the new book and how you sort of price this risk into your premiums and how easy it is to reprice? Then secondly, on Hans' questions where you have had some success in both Sweden and Denmark, and you touched upon your success in Sweden this time around. How has Denmark done? Is that -- so they were sort of very well done last year and it's halted a little bit? Or is Denmark still sort of a market where you want to grow? And how fast is it growing this time around?

I start with the risk policies, Jan Erik. This is a pretty volatile item, as I mentioned, especially in the first quarter, we booked the reinsurance cost here. So that typically means that Q1 is lower. I'd say that the kind of run rate is somewhere between EUR 30 million and EUR 15 million on an annual level. It can be varying every now and then. But Q1 in terms of risk policies return is a bit lower because of the kind of cost related to that altogether. And I think if Petri continues on the...

Yes, Petri here. So if I continue with the disability question, it's as far as I know, the Norwegian and Swedish situation disability and the market behavior and the pricing, especially in those countries, Finland is totally different. So disability pricing and market situation has been always so that it's a kind of very profitable business. So we haven't seen those -- that kind of pricing related to unit-linked or with-profit that we have seen, for example, in Norway. So I would say that we don't have any problem with disability neither in old book or new book -- new business. And when it comes to new businesses is that in Corporate business, of course, we can change the pricing. It's yearly policies. And then about Denmark, yes, we have spoke a lot of Sweden because we have seen really, really high growth on that side, and we have an office at that moment in Stockholm. But of course, Danish business has went well as well, and we are keen on to stay there and, of course, to improve and increase our business in Denmark as well as well in whole Scandinavia, even though we haven't yet started in a certain way in Norway, but we are trying to do that. And we have sales activities over the border there as well. So the whole Scandinavia is our target area to enhance our Institutional & Wealth Management business.

Maybe just also to kind of remind you, Jan Erik, that all of our new policies since '23 don't have any insurance component in the unit-linked policies there. So they only have a savings component. But of course, that what you referred to, the policies sold before '23, they, of course, have the insurance component there, which Petri referred to.

Yes, very clear. On your commitment-based fee or fee funds or how we should treat them, they sound like more like private equity sort of income-related stuff where you have potentially book, a running fee or something and a commitment fee, et cetera. So how should we think about the -- how the earnings is coming through from these funds? Is it when you sort of get the commitment? Or is it during the lifetime of the period? Or how should we treat that kind of level of AUM now coming into your book with these kind of private equities like commitment funds?

Yes. It's actually -- it's a good component mix things a bit more difficult. But if you look at -- we've kind of shown how much the alternative investments are of our portfolio, and that's part of the kind of product portfolio that we sell to our customers. And especially in this quarter, we've been very active more in the commitment based. In some cases, they are that the commitments generate fees already. In some cases, they don't generate fees instantly. So -- but they show as net flow and AUM only when these are called. And so of course, in times when, for example, in Q1, when we've been very active in selling these commitments, they don't show as AUM net flow and very little commitment -- sorry, fee component there as well. But over time, they, of course, will generate fee results.

Okay. So it's more linked to when you actually have the net flow from your funds. So when you committed, you don't get sort of a big fee anywhere. So it's more of a low entry base. And then when they actually is committed and you get it through net flow, then you book a larger fee or a fee component to these kind of sales. Is that how I should read it?

Yes, exactly. Sorry. Jan Erik, you're absolutely correct. That is exactly how it works.

Okay. Very good. Just so we understand how important this will be in the future.

The next question comes from Kasper Mellas from Inderes.

Your fee result divided by assets under management has been quite stable for 3 quarters in a row now. So does this mean that the scalability of your profitability in the capital-light segment has reached its limit or were there some one-off expenses in Q1?

Yes. Kasper, it's -- as I mentioned, I think the main reason now in the first quarter was the fact that there was the FX change quite significant. If you look at our products, as mentioned, over 25% are more or less linked to the U.S. dollar. They are in either alternatives. The global funds, for example, our retail fund have a very high -- the U.S. stock market is over 60% of the global market. So that plays a big role. And as our costs are mainly or almost predominantly in euros, there is no offsetting factor there. So that was probably the most important factor. And you can do the math yourself, if you look at how much the dollar has weakened, what the impact potentially would have been on the AUM and also with that respect on fees. So in terms of the euro-denominated fee result, I think that was the most important factor to look here. And no, I would not say that the scalability is in any way over. Quite the contrary, we are focusing a lot to grow the fee result faster than our assets under management.

Okay. And then if you want more elaborate why your organic capital generation from the SCR reduction was so high even though the reported SCR in with-profit business reduced only slightly by EUR 6 million according to my calculations. And the organic capital generation was also quite high compared to [ EDPS ] in Q1 last year as well. So is there any kind of seasonality we should expect to continue going forward?

No. Of course, the main thing is that if you look at, for example, if we kind of -- we were selling -- net sellers of equities by almost EUR 50 million in the quarter. So quite -- and as you know, the solvency capital requirement of the equity portfolio is very high, over 40%. So that makes a big difference. The same thing goes for that we had some capital redemptions in our own investments regarding private credit, which also has a super high capital requirement. So when that share goes down, then there is an SCR release and that is shown as the increase in the organic capital generation. So no seasonality, more of our own impacts altogether. And then, of course, there was in the with-profit segment as well, if you look at that we've seen that the -- some of the -- sorry, in the capital-light segment, we had an regarding the fact that especially the retail funds were actually down year-on-year because of the dollar impact. So that, of course, was a factor that helped the SCR as well. So own actions and then the market development when the assets under management grow, typically, the -- it requires capital. And now when it was a bit of a softer quarter in terms of our fund performance, there was a positive contribution from that side.

Okay. But the difference between the reduction in your reported SCR compared to the organic capital generation from the SCR reduction that you reported, EUR 26 million, there's a big difference. Could you...

Other items in the SCR of the group as well. So there are a lot of other items. When you look at the organic capital generation, we look at these factors, which we consider kind of organic capital generation, not related to the SCR as such. For example, the symmetric adjustment was one factor there, which is not in the organic capital generation, but it is in the SCR.

The next question comes from Ulrik Zürcher from Nordea.

Just one question. I was wondering, what is the amount of liquidity you hold on a holding company level outside the upcoming dividend? And what sort of liquidity do you need to hold at that level?

Well, yes, Ulrik, we don't really kind of normally comment on that. That's kind of -- doesn't really make a difference from a solvency perspective. But of course, we do have the liquidity to pay out the dividends, and then we do obviously need something for the holding company kind of expenses as well. But probably in the magnitude of EUR 30 million to EUR 40 million is the kind of required liquidity underlying in the holding company level to run the business.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers.

So that's all folks. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you for the good questions, and have a good rest of the week.