SCOR SE (SDRB.F) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the SCOR P&C January 2026 Renewables Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions]. At this time, I would now like to hand the call to Mr. Thomas Fossard. Please go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon, and welcome to SCOR P&C Jan 2026 Renewals Conference Call. I'm joined on the call today by Jean-Paul Conoscente, Chief Executive Officer of SCOR P&C. Before we start, I would like to remind you that SCOR full year results for 2025 will be results -- will be released on the 4th of March. So when it comes to questions, we will be only able to refer to the renewals information that is provided in the press release and the slide. Can I please ask you to consider the disclaimer on Page 2 of the presentation. And now I would like to hand over to Jean-Paul. Jean-Paul, over to you.

Thank you, Thomas, and good morning, good afternoon, everyone. I would like to present to you today the results of the SCOR January 1, 2026, treaty renewals. These renewals account for around 2/3 of our reinsurance portfolio and around half of our projected annual P&C expected gross premium income for 2026. Additional details can be found in the slides and press release published earlier today. In a market that was competitive, we combined our disciplined underwriting and our Tier 1 franchise to achieve EGPI growth of 4.7%, excluding alternative solutions, with an increase of 2 percentage points in the net underwriting ratio. Using our close client relationships, we grew our alternative solutions portfolio by 80.5% with a wide geographical spread. The January 2026 renewals took place in the context of ample capacity for most lines of business and adequate reinsurance margins overall. Demand for reinsurance generally increased with insurers looking to purchase more limits or more volatility protection. However, in most segments, supply exceeded demand. Negotiations focused primarily on rates with terms and conditions broadly stable, including attachment points. Nonproportional lines of business saw the largest price adjustments, albeit starting from a historically high point. Rate movements on proportional placements vary by market and line of business in accordance with the past performance of those portfolios. Several global insurers and European insurers also took advantage of the reinsurance market dynamics to reduce the number of reinsurers they are dealing with. On our side, we focused our selective growth and on underwriting discipline. Outside of alternative solutions, we grew mainly in P&C lines where SCOR sees attractive opportunities by focusing on key clients where a shift to a more concentrated reinsurance panel offered opportunities for SCOR. We were also successful in transforming a number of new alternative solutions opportunities, leading to a strong growth at 1/1. In this competitive environment, we achieved growth across segments where profitable opportunities arose and protected margins in segments where price adequacy was limited. Our selective growth approach enabled us to maintain a resilient growth performance across our traditional lines and to outperform in our Alternative Solutions segment. The overall gross price change for SCOR's portfolio is minus 1.9% with minus 7.8% for nonproportional treaties and roughly flat for proportional ones. On SCOR's Cat XL portfolio, the rate change was minus 12%. In most segments, competition led to improved pricing proceedings, but terms and conditions remain broadly stable. We did not see a significant number of new aggregate covers or a shift in lowering cat retentions. The retrocession market also experienced strong competition with most participants looking to grow their exposures after several years of favorable results. Taking advantage of this environment, we were able to optimize our retro placements with a broadly stable structure and slight adjustments on nonproportional retrocession covers. The combination of these actions enabled us to limit the increase of our expected net underwriting ratio to 2 percentage points. With this outcome, we confirm for 2026 our below 87% net combined ratio for '26 assumption. As previously mentioned, we performed active portfolio steering resulting in the following: in P&C lines, we achieved solid growth with core clients and in markets in APAC and North America focused on property and property cat. I would like to highlight that despite the 12% -- 12.5% growth in cat EGPI, we expect our net exposures to most peak perils to be broadly flat versus 2025 outside of the U.S., where we remain underweight and want to grow our net exposures given the price adequacy of that business. As every year, we will provide more details on our net P&Ls after the Q2 2026 results. We achieved a strong 80.5% growth in alternative solutions, responding to our clients' growing demand for customized reinsurance solutions. This success was achieved across all geographies and focus on our core appetite for capital release transactions. In specialty lines, our premium income is flat as we protected our margins, growing some lines and reducing in others in a competitive environment. Let's move now to the outlook for the rest of 2026. We believe risk and volatility erosion will remain high, leading continued growth of reinsurance demand for the upcoming renewals for both traditional and alternative solutions business. In the absence of any major market shifting event, reinsurance market dynamics seen at January 1 should carry through the rest of the year with competition on the historically profitable segments. We also believe there will be continued flight to quality and to reinsurers that provide broad support across the different lines of business placed by the cedents. In conclusion, selective growth and underwriting discipline were the 2 guideposts of our successful delivery of the January 1, 2026 renewals. We continue the strong momentum of alternative solutions development. We seize opportunities for profitable growth in segments where price adequacy remains good, and we leverage our net portfolio profile to dampen the effect of the more competitive pricing environment. As we move into the next renewals, we're keeping our objectives unchanged. Continue to deliver on our Forward '26 ambitions with discipline, strengthen the resilience of our business through diversification and active portfolio steering, maintain high levels of client engagement through solutions, partnership and innovation. And with this, I guess we will now open to questions.

Thank you very much, Jean-Paul. So with that, we're going to start the Q&A session. Operator, can we take the first question, please?

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

The first one is just on retrocession. So I guess in last year's January renewals, you got a much bigger offsetting benefit from retrocession on the net underwriting ratio. I think some of that was pricing and some was the change in structure. But are you able to just give a little bit more detail on the differences in the retro impact between what we saw last year and this year? And then secondly, obviously, now that we have the renewal data, are you able to give us any sense on how you would expect the first quarter '26 new business CSM to develop versus the prior year?

Thank you, Andrew. On your first question, so the retrocession program in 2026 remains broadly unchanged from last year in terms of structure and types of covers purchased. As usual, we made targeted annual adjustments to reflect our evolving risk appetite and to optimize the conditions in the market. And last year, we had done more significant changes to the program in terms of attachment points and shift between proportional and nonproportional. In 2026, we benefited meaningfully from lower pricing as the retro market was highly competitive, mirroring what we observed on the assumed side, particularly for catastrophe covers. We're also able to achieve higher ceding commissions on proportional retrocession, which also strengthened the overall economics. Terms of conditions in 2026 remain broadly stable, in line with what we saw on the assumed book. That said, we were able to achieve some lower attachment points or slightly improved wordings on selected programs, but it was fairly limited. And we continue to see strong appetite from alternative capital providers for retrocession placements, which supports both capacity availability and competitive pricing. So hopefully, that answers your first question. On the second question, it's a little bit difficult to answer. We'll provide you more details when we present our Q1 results later this year. I would say typically, the new business CSM is reflected in the EGPI more or less. The big difference is on proportional covers you only -- you take out the commission. So on nonproportional EGPI growth and new business CSM are in line, but on proportional, you have to look at the risk premium. So I can't tell you more than that, but we'll provide you that information, of course, at the Q1 results.

The next question comes from Shanti Kang with Bank of America.

So I was just wondering if you could talk us through how pricing adequacy is differing per line. And if there's anything that really surprised you about the renewals this year that might lead into how you guys are thinking to deploy your capital in the next renewal set, for example? And then just on specialty, I saw that, that shrunk a little bit year-on-year and growth was flat. Could you just tell us a bit more about the drivers of that and where you may be pared back?

Thank you. On your first question, so we were not surprised by the market reaction. Actually, I think the outcome was very much in line with what we had expected. Price adequacy, we see as very high on cat, not just because of pricing, but also because of the structural changes that took place in 2023 and has been stable ever since. So we think cat as a line of business, despite the change in pricing seen at 1/1 still remains highly attractive. In specialty, it varies. I mean the competition was quite intense. I think many reinsurers want to grow in specialty, which increased the competition. Some lines of business we still see as good price adequacy like credit and surety and IDI. We see marine engineering coming under more pressure, still price adequate, but under more pressure. And I think we had expected some more hardening on aviation and cyber, which really didn't take place. And there, we basically protected our margins for those lines of business. So hopefully, that answers both of your questions.

The next question comes from Iain Pearce with Exane BNP Paribas.

The first one is just coming back to the cat exposure growth. And I'm just trying to understand the comment around the PML moves when we look at the premium growth and take into consideration the pricing move that you've discussed on the cat book. So when you say PML is broadly flat, is that -- I'm sort of reading this as you expect most of the PMLs to be flat, but it sounds like the U.S. one should be up quite a bit. Just trying to think about the growth that you've done in the cap. Is that the right way to understand it? Or do you expect all PMLs to be broadly flat? And the second one is just on the 1.9% risk-adjusted pricing move versus the 2 points of combined ratio or underwriting margin impact that you expect. Just trying to sort of walk between those 2 numbers, considering that you sound like you expect a fairly nice tailwind to the underwriting ratio from retrocession changes, retrocession pricing. So just trying to understand why you wouldn't see a smaller number there on the underwriting ratio versus the risk-adjusted pricing.

Thank you. So on your first question, we try to manage our cat exposures year-on-year to be broadly flat. The guidance we had given for '26 is to grow our cat exposures in line with our shareholder equity. So in the U.S., we started expressing last year that we're still very underweight and want to retain more of the risk because out of all the cat business, it's the one that we see as the most price adequate. So we did some of that last year, and we'll do that again in 2026. For the other peak perils, when I say broadly flat means that there's some perils that will be up compared to last year and some perils will be down compared to last year. But overall, outside the U.S., broadly flat. As I said, we'll provide you more information on that in July this year. And how we achieve that is basically adjusting the retrocession program to achieve the net profile that we're looking for. On your question on the pricing risk adjustment. So it's just a coincidence this year that they're very close. The price adjustment that we published year-on-year is a gross price adjustment, and it takes into account only pricing effects. So it doesn't take into account change of commissions or anything like that. And it's the same methodology that we use in prior years. So this allows you to compare year-on-year how we view our pricing change in '26 versus how it was in '25. Whereas for the guidance we provide you on the net combined ratio, there, we do a calculation of the impact on margin, which is really, I think, what you and what we are interested in. Hopefully that answers your question.

The next question comes from Michael Huttner with Berenberg.

You talked about broadly stable attachment points. I just wondered how broad is broadly basically? Is it like, before they were, I don't know, EUR 100 million, and now we've gone down to EUR 80 million or EUR 60 million? I'm trying to gauge because it sounds like some clients, some good clients, I guess, got some attractive deals and others didn't. But it's not -- I'm a bit confused. And then the other point, which I think was the previous question, I'm not sure I got the answer right. So the price adjustment growth, 1.9%, the combined ratio impact 2%, but retro -- surely retros, one is gross, one is net. So retro sort of softened the 1.9% down to 2. I don't understand. It sounds like there was actually no improvement in retro or there's a moving part which I'm missing.

Okay. Thank you, Michael. On your first point, attachment points, so the reason why we say broadly is because, as you mentioned, there's a few clients that were able to buy covers at a lower attachment point, and they were able to do so either because their attachment point was higher than their peers or they felt that they just want to retain less. And in general, the market supported that. But I'd say it's a few limited cases. And if you look across the whole portfolio, it was very limited. But there are cases. And that's why we don't say it's an absolute, but it was fairly limited in number. On your second question, the minus 1.9%, again, is pricing. Then when you have to look at the margin, you also have to remember that this 1.9% is very different between nonproportional and proportional. Typically, if you look in terms of margin, the proportional business is where you have in relative terms, lower margins and the nonproportional in relative terms, higher margins as a percentage of premium. So as the price decreases were higher on nonproportional, then the margin fall was higher on the nonproportional. And so the retro help compensate all of some of this. But as I said, it's just a coincidence that this year, the price change and the deterioration in margin are very close. It's more the dynamic of the portfolio between proportional and nonproportional.

The next question comes from Vinit Malhotra with Mediobanca.

Yes, I hope you can hear me. So my 2 questions, please. The first one will be on the specialty lines, which -- I mean, one of your focus areas has been what you've called the diversifying lines, which we have talked about engineering, those kind of things. I mean you mentioned specialty lines seem to have more pressure. Could you just comment a bit about whether your strategy of that diversifying lines was still in play in these renewals? And second question is just to -- I don't know if it's too premature versus your results state, but at the 9 months, the commentary on combined ratio normalized was, say, 87.4% and then there was supposedly a 2 points of prudence and now we are taking a hit of 2 points. Is it a safe assumption or fair assumption that when you're still maintaining the better than 87%, you're basically saying the prudence may not be added this year, and that's the 2 points, which will keep the number where it is or better than where it is or at the target at least.

Okay. Thank you, Vinit. So on specialty lines, our target is still what we call diversifying lines, which was Marine, Engineering, IDI and International Casualty. We saw competition across all those lines of business. Probably the one where competition was the most intense was marine and engineering. So there, we always look at the price adequacy and now we're getting close to what we view as the -- what we call the hurdle rate. So the -- if you like, the loss ratio above which we don't make the margin that we're expecting. So it was still the strategy. But as the competition got more intense, then the growth that we had projected for the lines of business was revised downwards. We see in the past, credit and surety, for example, agro were not really lines that were targeted for significant growth. Those lines are still quite price adequate. And so in those lines, we didn't necessarily target growth, but we maintained the portfolio there, and we grew single digit. And then as I mentioned before, cyber and aviation, we had hoped that the market would turn more than it did. And so there, we kept the portfolio flat. On your second question on the net combined ratio, if we look at the first 3 quarters, the 87% when you take out the prudence, we were still quite good, probably in the low 80s. And so we think with the renewal that we achieved at January 1, maintaining the below 87% is still very feasible, and we still think that we can add some prudence as well in 2026.

So you ended up, so you might still book some prudence. Is that what you're saying? Sorry?

Yes, we might. We might. Again, depending on the performance of the year, but the pricing of the business as we see it still should allow us to do so.

The next question comes from Darius Satkauskas with KBW.

So you had a lot of growth in your alternative solutions. And when it comes to your net underwriting ratio impact, it excludes alternative solutions. So I'm just wondering what kind of impact would you expect from that material growth? That's the first question. And the second question, can you just help us understand where is this growth coming from? And why now 81% is a large figure. Is it sort of your typical capital relief? Is there spread-based stuff there? What's going on?

Okay. Thank you, Darius. On your first question, so we're very pleased with the continued growth in AS. As a reminder, these structures are -- these are transactions that are highly structured. So they deliver a very high ROE because of the low capital intensity. And each transaction is fully bespoke with client-specific parameters and margin structure tailored for each client. Under IFRS 17, the AS book is underwritten with a typically lower net combined ratio than the traditional book because in IFRS 17, you only book the premium at risk and not the entire premium. So the contribution of the AS book to the group combined ratio was positive, although still limited because once you take into account only the premium at risk, the overall volume is small compared to the overall P&C book. So I think when we present the Q4 results, we'll provide you some guidance there. But -- so it will be a positive contribution, but still limited overall. To your second question, why the growth now? I think this type of business is very lumpy. So sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. There's been a few players that have been well established in this marketplace. And so displacing them is not easy. And I think what we've been able to do is basically gain market traction through our marketing efforts with our clients using our franchise. Second, I think we build our credibility in the space and clients are a lot more comfortable to see us let's say, as a peer to some of the more established players that have been there for a long time. And that's why we've been successful with this January 1. Are we going to continue on the same success rate for the rest of the year? It's very difficult to tell because as I said, the business is lumpy. And so I think for the rest of the year, we'll continue the same strategy. But I think we'll win some and we'll lose some. So I think January 1 was an exceptional outcome, but I wouldn't really be able to project that is going to be the case for the rest of the year.

The next question comes from Ben Cohen with RBC.

I just wanted to ask in terms of -- you made a reference to benefiting from a reduced number of counterparties in the market. So I guess that's about taking market share. Could you maybe give a bit more color there? And the second question was on your growth that you've had in North American property cat, where do you see your market share there now versus what you would see as your kind of natural market share on a global basis?

Thank you, Ben. On your first question, the reduced panels is something we saw mainly in Europe and a few large global insurers where those companies are trying to limit their core panel to something between 7 and say, 10, 11, 12 reinsurers with whom they place maybe 80% or maybe a higher percentage of all their programs. Those clients view that as a benefit, still good competition because you have a large number of participants, but makes it easier for -- if there are specific losses, if there are discussions around wordings and things like that to have a limited number with a broad relationship overall. So this is something, I think when the market in 2023 was hardened, clients took as many reinsurers as they could because capacity was scarce. Now as we enter a market where capacity is in larger supply, they want to go back and sort of rationalize their panel a little bit. And in that movement, SCOR benefited because we have a wide breadth of covers we can offer across lines of business, across geographies and meaningful capacity. So we gained from that movement at January 1. On your second question on North American property, we view our share right now as really small, undersized compared to, I'd say, our average market share on a worldwide basis. And so after this renewal, we're -- I think we're making headway, but we still have room to grow further without growing outside our exposures. So of course, we'll continue to be selective. It will be dependent on terms of conditions and price adequacy. But that being a given, we think we still have room for growth in the U.S.

The next question comes from James Shuck with Citi.

I just had a couple of questions, please. Firstly, so on the rate reduction of minus 1.9%, I believe that's net of CPI inflation rather than loss cost inflation. If you could just help me confirm that for me. And then kind of on loss cost trends, can you help me understand what your assumption is for loss cost inflation and whether there's been any changes to your modeling assumptions within that, please? And then secondly, just keen to understand, I want to try and link the capital deployment that kind of happened, let's say, in '25 with what you've seen early in '26. And indication you've given for the increase in the solvency ratio to grow kind of 2 to 4 points in '25 and '26. So is the capital you're deploying consistent with that 2 to 4 points across both years? Or do you think it's a bit higher or a bit lower?

Thank you, James. On your first question, so what we define as price change is similar to prior years. So it's the movement in price per unit exposure adjusted for structure change and share change. So it reflects the primary rate change for proportional covers. And then for nonproportional, it's the insurance rate change and the reinsurance rate change. So it does not reflect the change in commissions or our updated view of risk. So CPI is included in there, but our view of loss cost inflation is not included in that. On your second question regarding the Solvency II, I prefer to defer that question to the full year results in March. We'll give you an update and an outlook for 2026.

The next question is from Chris Hartwell with Autonomous.

Just a very quick question. Just wanted to sort of explore the growth in U.S. cat specifically. I mean you mentioned that you will give more detail on PMLs later in the year. But I wondered if you could just give a little bit of color on the type of sort of seed that you are growing this book with or sort of types of risk. I mean is this more of the sort of regional specialists? Or is this sort of the national programs? Just trying to get a better feel for the risk that you're actually opening yourselves up to on U.S. cat.

Yes. Thanks, Chris. The ones we had most successful with at January 1 were the national writers and sort of the larger regional ones. Those were the placements where there was opportunities for us to grow our shares. I think on the smaller clients, we see prices as probably tighter and competition also greater. So it was more difficult.

The next question is a follow-up from Michael Huttner with Berenberg.

One is mix and the other one is what are we missing kind of thing? So on the mix, I think speaking to you for IR team, the -- or maybe it was in the slide somewhere, I don't know. Nat cat is about 10% of your book. Your peers are closer to 20%. So this was 25%, obviously. Where do you think we'll end the year in '26, this 10% -- and then -- or where would you like to end the year? That's maybe the better question. And then the second, so you -- there have been several answers saying basically that you're getting more business because you're global, you've got a big reach, you've got -- you do lots of lines. So -- and I guess the cedents see you as high quality. Your PE in the market here doesn't say the same from the equity markets. Where do you think the disconnect is?

Okay. On the first question, so yes, you're right, nat cat represents roughly 10% of the overall book. I don't -- don't expect that to change significantly in 2026. '26 is the last year for '26 strategy. So there's no intention of making any dramatic changes for this. When we start looking at the new strategic plan for '27, '29, there we might revisit and have different ambitions. But for 2026, it might go up slightly, but it's not going to be very different. On your second question, it's difficult for me to say. It's more a question I should ask you. Where is a disconnect. I think all we can do is keep delivering good results, trying to explain the actions we're taking. The clients see us as a reliable partner. a broad partner. And that's why on par with, let's say, the larger reinsurers. I think that's why they want to work with us. Why doesn't that translate into market price is more a question to you than to me.

The next question comes from Benoit Valleaux with ODDO BHF.

The first one, very quick, just to check based on what you've said regarding nat cat. So it's fair to assume that your nat cat budget for this year will be unchanged to 10 percentage points, just to confirm this. And the second question, in the end, this round of renewal has been a bit tougher than initially expected, let's say, in September, October. It's maybe a little bit too early, but what's your early view on April and June, July renewals? And maybe a third question, if I may, regarding cyber. Can you give some comment on pricing trends and profitability, sorry?

Yes. Thank you, Benoit. On nat cat, I confirm that our cat budget is unchanged for 2026 at 10%. Your second question regarding the early view of upcoming renewals. Again, I think what happened in January 1 was not a surprise. If you remember 2025, we saw some beginning of softening in January and probably more competition on pricing in April, June, July renewals. As a result, our expectation today would be the April, June, July renewals will continue to be competitive, but probably with price adjustments that won't be as strong as what we saw in January because it was an adjustment from the prior year and with all the capacity. So that would be our expectation at this stage. Regarding cyber, I think there's -- the results have been mixed, to say the least in cyber. There haven't still been any very large losses. But I think the lack of, let's say, high returns in cyber would have give us hope of a tightening of the market, but we just don't see that. I think competition remains quite high, both on the primary side and the reinsurance side. And it's a line of business that many reinsurers want to grow to diversify their book, especially on the cat side. So from a market dynamics, it remains very competitive.

So the next question comes from Michael Huttner with another follow-up from Berenberg.

So this is really unstructured question, so apologies. But if I go to investors and I say, well, yes, SCOR is a great company, it's undervalued, it's everything. The question which comes back is, yes, but what is SCOR about? Is it just a kind of normal reinsurer like any number of reinsurers? Or does it have a particular focus, a particular area of expertise where they can say, I am, but SCOR is good at this and there's a little bit of a niche here or whatever. And it's a very broad question. You might say it's too complicated. But it's to try and bridge that gap between what clearly your clients see and what we see.

Thank you, Michael. It's not an easy question. I think how do we define ourselves? Really, we define ourselves as not a specialist in one line of business or in one geography, but as a global reinsurer being able to address, I'd say, most of the risk transfer issues that the client face. So that's really our proposition to be a global reinsurer with a broad offering of solutions. And what makes us different is we're smaller than the big ones. So we're probably more nimble, can react faster. We have a wide geographical spread. So we're very close to our clients, and this allows us to really have a good understanding of what their needs are and have the ability to react quite quickly to market dynamics or to new needs.

Yes. Just one follow-up. When Thierry arrived, I think he cut line sizes because you had lots of secondary exposures, which I think may have been outsized. Has this changed?

Yes, this has changed. This has changed before Thierry arrived when we did the remediation of the portfolio, I'd say, 2019 to '22. There was a rightsizing of the exposures across all lines of business.

And this hasn't -- you haven't loosened this?

No, no, no.

Okay. Thank you so much.

I think the results show that.

Can we take the next question please.

[Operator Instructions]. Gentlemen, we do not have any more questions.

So thank you, everyone, for attending this call today. As a reminder, we'll go now in a quiet period until March 4 for the publication of the full year results 2025. With this, I wish you a good day. Thank you. Bye-bye.

This does conclude today's call. Thank you for participation. Ladies and gentlemen, you may now disconnect.