Protector Forsikring

Investor Presentation • Jul 6, 2017

Q2 2017 Results

Grenfell Tower update and Investor presentation

Grenfell Tower Accident A Human Tragedy

Our deepest, most heartfelt condolences goes out to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and their families.

Grenfell Tower

• Day one and two

• 14th of June – Day one

• Dramatic fire breaks out in Grenfell Tower, early morning communication within Protector Team
• Notification to Oslo Stock Exchange
• Large Loss Management group in place. Contact made with broker and reinsurance partners
• Full internal project organization established
• First media responses answered
• Lead Claims Manager travels to London
• 15th of June – Day two
• Meetings with insured, partners and broker
• Several meetings internal and external

Grenfell Tower Accident -Timeline

World leading Reinsurance partners

Grenfell Tower

• Government involvement

14th of June

• Fire & Rescue on site
• Reports of several casualties and injured
• Mayor of London speaks
• Prime Minister Theresa May calls for government meeting investigation

15th of June

• Statement from the Queen
• Death tolls rising
• Tower block search may take months

16th of June

• Queen Elizabeth and Prince William visits the site
• £5 million fund to support victims
• Protests in London

Large loss

- Project organization day 1

Organization and lines of communication established

Project leader:
"Lead"/responsible:	HH
Decision level:	Large claim meeting
Subproject leaders:	SB, FØ, BSJ, MO, JK
Other resources:	others
Organization:	Large claim meetings three times every day first week
	All communication (who, what, when) decided in large claim meetings
	Adhere to policy wording, any deviations decided in large claim meetings (reinsurers must be involved)

Phase 1 project goals established

Subprojects defined,
and responsible
individuals appointed.
Main focus on
communication,
claims handling and
reinsurance

Initial action points defined and executed

Goal (quantitative):
Project aims to:	Aligned and clear communication to relevant parties
	Set up team to handle process with very good quality and support client, JLT, and
	reinsurers in best possible way
	Deliveries	Start	End	Lead	PL	Particip.
						external
Deliveries -	Fact finding	14.6.17		HH	BSJ
Milestones/activities/	Communication	14.6.17		SB	MO
subprojects:	Reinsurance $\blacksquare$	14.6.17		FØ	BSJ
	Claims handling	14.6.17		JK

ubproject	Action	Lead	PL.	Involved	Start	End	Comment	Status
ommunication	Message to stock exchange	SB	VK	HH	14.6.17	14.6.17		Completed
	ommunication Find professional PR support	HH	MO		146.17	14.6.17		Decided to deal with this ourselves
ommunication Handle media		SB	MO		14.6.17		Ongoing 58 in Scandinavia, MO in UK - reactive, but proactive if needed, handle each query on it's own merit	Communication package completed
ommunication	Press release	SB	SR	851	14.6.17		15.6.17 More information following queries and appearances, will be completed 15.6. morning	Completed and distributed
ommunication	Internal communication	HH	MO		14.6.17		14.6.17 E-mail to UK team, short information meetings norway, intranet message	roactive communication completed
ommunication		HH	MO	BSJ	146.17		14.6.17 First contact with AT and client - courtesy and plan	Completed
ommunication		SB.	BSJ	MO	14.6.17		15.6.17 Statements composed from comm pack, decide when to distribute 15.6. afternoon (when completed)	completed and distributed
ommunication		MO		SB. HH	14.6.17			saved in folder, SP responsible
ommunication		HH	MO	BSJ	14.6.17	14.6.17
ommunication		SB	BSJ	PS. MO. SB. SR 15.6.17		15.6.17
einsurance		FØ			14.6.17	14.6.17
einsurance		FØ			14.6.17	14.6.17
einsurance		FØ (CS)	PS (LG)		14.6.17	Ongoing
einsurance		FØ (CS)	PS		14.6.17	Ongoing
einsurance		FØ (CS)			19.6.17
einsurance		FØ (CS)						нальниц поли, там с раздив, мнег сарастам, познат госманае доче п.0
einsurance		FØ (CS)	FØ		146.17	14.6.17		Completed and communicated to large claim group
act finding		BSJ			146.17	14.6.17		Completed and confirmed
act finding		BSJ		FØ	15.6.17			Estimate received from CL
act finding		PS.		FØ	156.17
act finding		BSJ	AI	PS, HH	156.17	20.6.17
act finding		BSJ	AI	PS, HH	19.6.17	21.6.17
act finding		BSJ	AI	DR HH	19.6.17	21.6.17
Jaims handling				FM	146.17	14.6.17
Jaims handling		HH	FM		14.6.17		14.6.17 Who does what when in the claims handling process
Jaims handling		FM	MO		14.6.17		14.6.17 Summary of draft action plan in headings to be sent to JLT and client for their preparations
Jaims handling		MO	FM	JK, PS	15.6.17		15.6.17 Meeting will result in updated action plan

Large loss

Organization and communication

redefined for phase 2

- Project organization day 2- Underwriting/Risk Management added

Project leader:	AB
"Lead"/responsible:	SB
Decision level:	Steering group
Subproject lead (PL):	FØ, BSJ, MO, AB
Other resources:
Organization:	Steering group meeting every Wednesday, 30 minutes prior to M6/MUK
	All difficult external communication (who, what, when) clarified with Sverre
	Adhere to policy wording, any deviations decided in large claim meetings (reinsurers must be involved)
	Action plans developed by project groups and followed up in steering group.
	Subprojects' leaders organize own group meetings (frequency and duration as they see fit)

UW and Risk Management

Project aim, subprojects and corresponding leaders defined for phase 2

Subprojects for phase 2 defined and planned with action points, defining responsible as well as involved or external parties

Project leader:	AB						Project leader:	MD							Project leader:	CS.							Project leader:	DEST
"Lead"/responsible:	FM//K						"Lead"/responsible:	58							"Lead"/responsible:	$-105$							"Lead"/responsible:	I HH
Decision level:	Project group						Decision level:	Project group							Decision level:	Project group							Decision level:	Project group
Subproject leaders:							Subproject leaders								Subproject leaders:								Subpraject leaders:
Other resources:							Other resources:	VK, HH, PS, SR, BSJ, others							Other resources:								Other resources:	PS. AL. ND, DR, JR (UC)
Organization:	Subproject leader schedules group meetings (frequency and duration as they see fit) Project group reports to steering group in weekly meetings. Action plan developed by project groups and decided/approved in steering group.						Crawnization:	Subaraject leader schedules group meetings (frequency and duration as they see fit) Project group reports to steering group in weekly meetings. Action plan developed by project groups and decided/approved in thening group.							Organization:	Subproject leader schedules group meetings (frequency and duration as they see fit) Project group reports to steering group in weekly meetings. Action plan developed by project groups and decided/approved in steering group.							Organization:	Subproject leader schedules group meetings (frequency and duration as they see fit) Project group reports to steering group in weekly meetings. Action plan developed by project groups and decided/approved in steering group.
Goal (quantitative):							Coal (quantitative):								Goal (quantitative):								Goal (quantitative):
Project aims to:	Set up and coordinate claims handling to handle the process with very good quality						Project aims to	Aligned and clear communication to relevant parties							Project aims to:	Aligned and clear communication to relevant reincurers/Willis field Adhere to policy wording, any deviations decided in large claim meetings							Project aims to:	Understand the risk associated with Grenfel Tower, and improve future P&C UW Aid in aligned and clear communication to involved parties Reassure reinsurers about Protector's underwriting process
	Deliveries.	Start	Ind	Lead	125	Particip. external		Deliveries	Start	End	Lead		Particip. external			(reinsurers must be involved) Reassure reinsurers about Protector's underwriting process								Delveries	Start	End	Lead		Particip. external
Deliveries - Milestones/activities/	Claims handling	14.6.17 Ongsing FM IX					Deliveries - Milestones/activities/	Message to stock exchange		14.6.17 14.6.17 58		W	1914	Completed		Deliveries	Start	End	Lead		Particip. external		Deliveries - Affectores/activities	Alternative accommodation (check)		14.6.17 14.6.17 85J				Completed and confirmed
subprojects:							subprojects:	External PR-support		14.6.17 14.6.17 MM		MO		Decided to handle in- Acute	Deliveries -		34.6.17 14.6.17 FB				$10 - 100 = 1$	Completed	subprojects:	cower) Establish worst case	156.17		864		FØ. CL	Estimate received
	Demage handing	15.6.17 Ongoing FM IX						Handle media	14.6.17	Ongoing 58		MO		Communication	Milestones/activities/		146.17 146.17 70					Completed		scenario property						frage CL
														package completed	subprojects:									Establish worst case scenario casualty	15.6.17		P5		FØ. Kenendyr
								Press release		$14637$ $15617$ $58$ $18$			0.51	Completed and			14.6.17 Origins #8 (CS) PS (LG)
	Forensics	15.6.17 Ongoing FM			$-100$									distributed			14.6.17 Origing PD (CS) PS							Case study RBKC UW property		15.6.17 22.6.17 85/		LAL	PS_HH
	Lisbility	15.6.17 Ongoing FM			$-25$			Internal communication		14.6.17 14.6.17 HH		$-100$		Proactive comm. completed			14.6.17 Ongoing FM			AB-				Case study RBKC UW 19.6.17 23.6.17 85/ casualty				$\mathbf{A}$	PS_HH
												NG					39.6.17		FØ (CS)			Confirmed		Case study Grenfell Touse		19.6.17 23.6.17 85J		B 41	DR HH
	Other business	19.6.17 Ongoing						Establish contact AT and client		14.6.17 14.6.17 HH			1852	Completed								Monthester 26.6

Grenfell Tower Accident

• Status, Property and Liability Claims Handling

Status Property – Claims Handling

• Kennedys picked as our legal counsel on regulatory issues
• The client is represented by the Head of Insurance Services
• Client has picked DWF as their legal counsel
• Cunningham Lindsey appointed to handle claims
• Hawkins Forensic Scientist appointed to investigate the fire
• We are evaluating potential damage site project managers
• At work determining the cost of securing the damage site, costs of demolishment and appointing experts
• Strategy and overview for recovery, as well as appointing experts

Status Liability – Claims Handling

• A similar claims handling structure has been established

Grenfell Tower - Other projects

Reinsurance communication

• Immediate contact after the event done
• Submission done
• Meetings in Manchester and London done

Media

• Strategy in place; reactive but open / proactive and open
• CEO and Regional Manager UK only
• Expected Q&A discussed and agreed
• Tracking developments

Underwriting / Risk Management

Underwriting / Risk Management

• RBKC was assessed as a good risk on Property

• More than 100 different criteria evaluated for property

• The most important factors are grouped into 6 different categories
• Each factor is evaluated on a scale from 1 (red) to 5 (green)

				PDBI Overview - Tri-Borough vs. Insurance London Consortium
LA	Claim vears				Various risk factors			Total
	10.00	Green	Red	White	White	Whi te	White	White
	10.00	White	Yellow	Yellow	White	Whi te	White	Yellow
- -	10.41	White	Red.	White	White	Whi te	Green	White
	10.17	Yellow	White	Yellow	White	Whi te	White	White
	10.00	Green	Red	White.	White	Whi te	White	White
	10.00	White	Red.	Yellow	White	Whi te	Yellow	Yellow
	10.00	White	Red.	Yellow	White	Whi te	Yellow	Yellow
	10.2	Yellow	White	Red	Yellow	Whi te	White	Yellow
	10.00	White	White	White	White	Whi te	White	White
		White	Red	Yellow	White	Whi te	White	Yellow
	9.50	Green	Yellow	Yellow	White	Green	Green	White
	9.17	White	White	Red	White	Green	Green	White
Kensington and Cl	9.33	Green	White	Red.	White	White	Green	White
Total		Green	Yellow	Red	White	Green	Green	White

Grade	Comment
Green	Very good
White	Good
Yellow	Some challenges - price accordingly
Red	Poor - No Quote or very high rates

• Tri-Borough was scored white (good) in total, based on a weighted evaluation of more than 100 factors

Underwriting / Risk Management

• RBKC results from inspections were very good

• Properties evaluated on building class, standard, fencing, deviations, criticality of deviations, cctv and neighbourhood

• Proportion of properties inspected broken down in groups (1 to 5)
• Building class relates to construction of the building and how modern it is
• Standard relates to levels of maintenance

																		Inspection Model showing London Boroughs Inspected
UW - input	UW - input	UW - input	UW - input															Various risk factors
Constituent Country	1A $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{v}}$	Muni Score	UW-Total score	UW evaluation						UW evaluation			$\overline{\mathbf{3}}$			Sum	Count	UW evaluation				UW evaluation				UW evaluation
England			2.5 White	White	0%	7%	45%	26%		22% White	0%	1%	63%	17%	19%	1%		3% Yellow	25%	4%	71%		0%	0%		0% White	3.29		3.29	63%
England			White	White	0%	0%	61%	39%		0% White	O%	ns	89%		0%	0%		0% Yellow	10%	17%	33%		0%	0%			3.26	0.00	1.82	62%		1,479,707
England England			4 White	Green	0%	0%	11%	47%		42% White						O%		0% Yellow	46%	13%		41% White	0%	6%		9% Yellow	4.03	0.06	3.84	44%		9,488,331
			4 White	White	0%	0%	48%	25%		27% White								18% White	33%	53%		14% Green	2%	6%		4% Yellow	3,46	0.24	3.10	64%		11,000,705
England			4 Green	Green	0%	2%	5%	52%		41% Green			15%	70%	11%	1%		9% Yellow	50%	13%		37% Green	0%	0%		0% Green	3.74		3.74	48%		2,549,828
England			4 Green	White	0%	2%	45%	34%		19% White		2%				2%		4% Green	23%	18%		51% White	14%	6%		6% White	3.96	0.04	3.46	46%		9,136,498
England			3 White	Green	0%	0%	17%	60%		22% White								0% Yellow	52%			17% Yellow	0%	19%		38% Yellow	3.75	0.25	3.50	56%		10,788,515
England	Contract On America		4 White	Green	0%	0%	14%			35% Green								0% White	25%	29%		46% White	4%	10%		10% Yellow	4.07	0.13	3.93	45%		8,298,269
England	Kensington and		4 Green	Green	0%		6%	36%		57% Green								4% Yellow	77%	11%		12% White	0%	5%		19% White	3.89		3.89	46%		4,369,538
England			4 White	White	0%	0%	71%	29%		0% Green						O%		0% Red	71%	29%		0% Green	0%	0%		0% Green	3.33	0.00	1.25	60%		3,300,130
England England			3 Yellow	White	0%	0%	29%	47%		24% Yellow	6%					9%		14% Red	74%	8%		18% Green	0%	4%		0% Green	3.68	0.10	2.69	50%		6,998,770
			4 White	White	0%	2%	36%	43%		19% White	0%				19%	0%		0% Green	17%	49%		34% Green	0%			0% Green	3.73	0.00	3.59	49%		9,319,527
England			3 Yellow	White	0%	0%	22%	35%		43% Yellow	4%			33%	24%	0%		0% White	26%	46%		28% Yellow	0%	7%		23% White	4.06	0.00	3.61	46%		7,022,390
England			4 White	White	0%	2%	13%	67%		18% Green	2%	0%	29%	62%	8%	2%		2% Yellow	63%	19%		18% White	1%	10%		3% White	3.93		3.93	43%		8,920,140
		2.72			0%	3%	27%	39%	21%		1%	4% F	34%	32%	20%	3%	5%		38% r	21%	26%		7%	5% F	8%		3.10	0.17	2.85	0.48	0.09	4234930.66

• Kensington and Chelsea performed well against criteria, with the highest proportion of buildings classed as a 5
• Neighbourhood evaluated well majority of borough is affluent, well maintained
• CCTV coverage excellent across all of London
• Deviations found deemed not to be critical

In the Public sector, Protector has inspected over 10.000 buildings, with a sum insured of more than GBP 87 bn.

For RBKC, 30 % of the sum insured was inspected.

Underwriting / Risk Management

• Liability: Supporting premium decision and market levels

• Combining white and green factors results in an overall green rating

• Relevance and importance of factors are considered
• Most important weigh more heavily in the final rating
• These are clients that we want

• Price accordingly

• Combining all of the evaluation criteria allows Protector to form an overall view of the risk at hand

• The final rating determines how we price our tender response
• White/green clients get discount from subtotal groups when pricing

		Client information	Sums insured				Summary other factors
UW	IID		.	Various risk factors				Total	Want	Current insurer
AJ				White	Green	Green	White	Green	Yes
$\overline{A}$				Green	White	Green	White	Green	Yes
AJ				White	Green	Green	White	Green	Yes

• All Councils benchmark very well versus peers in terms of social services and highways maintenance
• Resulting in lower ground up rates and frequencies
• Most common claims are slips and trips, with no issues with asbestos or disease, large losses appear to be isolated incidents and not as a result of poor routines
• Repudiation rates are high, 15% better than average for highways related claims, given foundation by following best codes of practice for highways and Number 1 in the UK from Ofsted inspections
• The Tri-Borough Councils provide a wide range of services these are well funded and operated

Risk Management

• Post Grenfell Tower Tragedy

• A stronger focus than ever is on Fire & Safety in UK

• Thousands of people are now discussing and implementing improvements

• Many risks will improve - but how much?

• Protector Risk Management post Grenfell Tower preliminary action plan – finished July 7th , first actions taken
• Updated plan will be finished medio August

Risk Appetite

• Post Grenfell Tower Tragedy

• Protector is top 1 / top 3 in the Nordic Market

• We stand firmly behind our UK operation
• Targeting a top 3 position in the UK market broker based
• We will review, learn and develop together with our brokers

• We are here to stay

Grenfell Tower Accident

• Financial Impact

• Too early to say, will take years, preliminary reserves are highly uncertain

• We don't give detailed information about products, liabilities or any other client and/or reinsurance confidential information. The following figures are preliminary, uncertain and will include both property, liability and other potential related costs.
• Gross claims all products preliminary estimated to GBP 50m

• Net claims GBP 2,5m

• All gross figures in the following investor presentation are exclusive Grenfell Tower.

• All net figures includes Grenfell Tower.
• This is done in order to support investors to understand the underlying reality of Protector's development. The formal figures in our quarterly report will include Grenfell Tower, gross and net.

Grenfell Tower Accident

• Summary

• A terrible tragedy, worst in decades

• Claims handling project quickly up and running
• Communication is challenging and important
• Competent and experienced partners picked
• Involved parties' feedback and advice is appreciated
• Let's all learn from this tragedy
• RBKC has been through a thorough UW process, scoring the risk as good
• Fire & Safety situation in UK is better than Norway
• We stand firmly behind our UK operation

Q2 2017 Results

Our DNA

Vision The Challenger

Business Idea This will happen through unique relationships, best in class decision-making and cost effective solutions

Main targets Cost and quality leadership Profitable growth Top 3

Values Credible Open Bold Committed

Highlights Q2 2017 result

• Profitable growth continues – despite Grenfell Tower

• Grenfell Tower Fire

• Tragic event, minimal net financial effect for Protector
• Operating profit before tax of NOK 169,5m (NOK 254,9m)
• Net Combined ratio 90,7% (93,7%)
• GWP growth of 23,4% (23,4% local currency)
• Gross expense ratio 7,5% (5,1%)
• Investment return NOK 116,1m or 1,3%

Unchanged guiding for 2017
Net combined ratio	92%
Volume growth	20% (22% local)
Cost ratio	<7%

• Solvency ratio of 177%, prepares for growth in 2018-2020
• We stand firmly behind our UK operations

Gross written premiums Q2 2017

• Nordic growth leader – slightly ahead of schedule

• GWP total NOK 890,5m up 23,4%

• Strong growth in UK (NOK 130,9m)
• Strong Norwegian growth Q3 expected
• Change of ownership: early cut off underlying growth expected to be somewhat higher (will be accounted for in Q3)
• Housing sector entered in the UK > NOK 20m
• Sub segment to the Public sector

Business unit	Q2 2017 NOK m	Q2 2016 NOK m	growth NOK %	growth LCY %
Commercial Public & Norway sector	365 5 ,	354 6 ,	% 3 1 ,	% 3 1 ,
Change of Ownership (COI)	151 5 ,	172 7 ,	% -12 3 ,	% -12 3 ,
Sweden	204 0 ,	149 9 ,	% 36 1 ,	% 39 3 ,
Denmark	17 7 ,	23 9 ,	% -25 9 ,	% -35 3 ,
UK	140 8 ,	10 0 ,	% 1311 4 ,	% 1295 3 ,
Finland	10 9 ,	10 7 ,	% 1 6 ,	% -7 3 ,
Group	890 5 ,	721 8 ,	% 23 4 ,	% 23 4 ,

¹Exclusive Grenfell Tower 2 inclusive Grenfell Tower

Claims development Q2 2017

• Grenfell Tower tragedy stands for 58,7% of the gross claims ratio
• Gross claims ratio 77,4%¹ , down from 89,5% in Q2 16
• Q2 run-off gains amounted to NOK 24,3m or 3,2%
• Net claims ratio 89,2%² , down from 94,3%
• Net impact of Grenfell Tower tragedy dismissible
• Claims handling value chain further development good progress

• Underlying trend is good

Cost ratio Q2 2017

• Cost leader in Europe

• Gross expense ratio 7,5%, up from 5,1%

• As explained last year, 5,1%, was underlying higher
• No real cost issues
• Net expense ratio 1,5%, up from -0,5%
• Cost on a normal, very low level
• Higher cost due to UK and Finland
• Our claims handling cost is higher than peers
• Efficiency program in claims handling started
• 1,5-2,0pp improvement possible next 2-3 years
• Full-time employees now 283

Scalability and improvement programs (incl. claims handling cost) will lead to lower cost level next two years

Commercial and Public lines Norway

• On track, focus on claims handling, very large win Q3

• Volume up 3,1%

• Good hit-ratio P&C, poor hit-ratio EB
• 1 very large win
• Renewal rate 92%

• 1 in Norwegian Broker Associations quality survey

• 3 rd year in a row, 2 out of 3 awards received
• Strengthened focus on claims handling
• 50 % of all employees, large potential
• Improvement in value chains, digitalization
• Very strong volume start Q3
• Biggest customer ever on board July 1st

Change of ownership insurance (COI)

• Technical surveys in focus

• Number of Open Claims still on a good level

• Court results slightly weaker than in Q1
• 37 % 26 % 37 % (win, draw, losses)
• Very good recourse and claims prevention results
• COI released report about Norwegian housing market
• 40 pages based on facts, shows that conflict level is low (1,8%)
• Good reception from relevant decision-makers (politicians, broker industry, etc.)
• IT-solution (iPad-app) for technical surveys launched, ProTakst
• Training course held for 70 participants (15 locations), very good feedback.
• Will increase efficiency and quality on technical surveys
• Housing-prices is cooling down, but high real estate turnover is expected

Sweden

• Strong growth, profitability on track

• Volume up 36,1% (+39,3% in SEK)

• Renewal rate 71%

• One very large non-renewal, 33m

• Gross CR of 100,3% (72,5%)

• Gross combined H1 100,5%
• New Q-record for claims cost savings, 40,1m
• Net CR of 96,1% (87,0%)
• Net combined H1 86,4%
• Strong new sales
• Continued high hit-ratio, > 40% (nr. of wins)

Finland - E-services launched

• Public sector on track
• Hit-ratio >30% on volume and nr.
• Commercial sector advancement
• Several new large Motor customers won
• Three new broking companies placed customers

• Tender volume still low but rising every month

• E-services l@unched 1/7

• Update policy and upload information
• View policy, terms & conditions and invoices
• Download claims data

Denmark results Q2 2017

• On track, H1 operating profits before tax NOK 8,7m

• Net combined ratio 132,2% (YTD 103,7%)

• Net claims ratio Workers Comp. ~ 110%. Slightly more conservative than earlier communicated (100%)
• Gross combined ratio 116,4% (YTD 104,5%)
• 25,9 % GWP decrease (-35,3 % in DKK)
• Renewal rate 34%
• ComeBack '17 is well on track within Service and Claims handling
• Still limited risk appetite on new WC volume

• New country manager will begin august 1st - Thomas Vængebjerg Boutrup

• Large volume quarter, high activity, Grenfell Tower

• GWP YTD NOK 157,1m(> 80 clients)

• GWP Q2 NOK 140,8m
• Grenfell Tower Projects up and running

• Net and gross combined ratios influenced by Grenfell Tower, underlying reality too early to say

• Very good feedback from the brokers

• The challenger is warmly welcomed
• Team of 20 people aiming for "cultural lead"
• Recruitment of 20 people next 12 months

Protector's key success factors

• Cost, quality, profitability and growth

Gross expense ratio	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	Q2 2017
PRF	7,7 %	8,8 %	7,6 %	7,5 %	6,8 %	7,5 %
Gjensidige	15,5 %	15,3 %	15,0 %	15,1 %	14,2 %
Codan/Trygg-Hansa1	18,6 %	19,5 %	21,2 %	16,4 %	14,8 %
Tryg	16,4 %	15,6 %	14,6 %	15,3 %	15,7 %
Topdanmark	15,8 %	16,2 %	15,7 %	15,9 %	16,4 %
If	16,9 %	16,8 %	16,7 %	13,0 %	16,6 %
LF	21,0 %	19,0 %	19,0 %	19,0 %	19,0 %
KLP	26,4 %	26,2 %	23,1 %	21,1 %	22,8 %
Avg. ex. PRF	18,7 %	18,4 %	17,9 %	16,5 %	17,1 %

Net Combined ratio	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	Q2 2017	Avg. 12-16
Gjensidige	85,3 %	89,2 %	86,0 %	83,7 %	83,4 %		85,5 %
Tryg	88,2 %	87,7 %	84,2 %	86,8 %	86,7 %		86,7 %
If	89,3 %	88,1 %	87,7 %	85,4 %	84,4 %		87,0 %
Topdanmark	88,0 %	91,5 %	86,0 %	87,3 %	85,1 %		87,6 %
PRF	86,2 %	86,7 %	84,5 %	88,7 %	97,0 %		90,7% 88,6 %
Codan/Trygg-Hansa1	94,3 %	95,3 %	90,4 %	94,0 %	86,2 %		92,0 %
LF	98,0 %	97,0 %	93,0 %	91,0 %	95,0 %		94,8 %
KLP	107,8 %	103,7 %	91,9 %	98,8 %	98,7 %		100,1 %
Avg. ex. PRF	92,8 %	92,3 %	88,5 %	89,6 %	88,5 %		90,3 %

Source: TNS Gallup surveys and Finnish Insurance Broker Assocation (FIBA)

Revenue growth (GWP)	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	Q2 2017	Avg. 12-16
PRF	26,1 %	22,7 %	27,6 %	19,7 %	21,0 %	23,4 %	23,4 %
KLP	15,4 %	10,9 %	10,7 %	20,8 %	13,8 %		14,3 %
Gjensidige	2,1 %	7,7 %	7,9 %	7,4 %	5,7 %		6,2 %
LF	3,2 %	3,5 %	7,4 %	5,4 %	6,0 %		5,1 %
Codan/Trygg-Hansa1	7,2 %	-1,0 %	-0,8 %	3,5 %	7,2 %		3,2 %
If	6,4 %	1,5 %	-2,8 %	-1,6 %	-2,2 %		0,3 %
Topdanmark	1,0 %	1,5 %	2,6 %	-2,6 %	-1,6 %		0,2 %
Tryg	18 %	-4,0 %	-4,4 %	-2,7 %	-1,7 %		-2,2 %
Avg. ex. PRF	5,3 %	2,9 %	2,9 %	4,3 %	3,9 %		3,9 %

Profit & loss Q2 2017

- Strong growth and improved technical result

[1.000.000 NOK]		Q2 2017	Q2 2016	YTD 2017	YTD 2016	FY 2016
Gross premiums written		890,5	721,8	2 977,9	2 634,0	3 439,0	GWP growth 23,4% in Q2, 13,1% YTD
Gross premiums earned		927,3	873,0	1 785,9	1 655,9	3 250,4
Gross claims incurred		(1 262,0)	(781,4)	(2 046,3)	(1 489,1)	(3 005,0)
Earned premiums, net of reinsurance		757,8	720,4	1 468,0	1 352,0	2 669,0
Claims incurred, net of reinsurance		(675,7)	(679,0)	(1 334,0)	(1 289,0)	(2 540,4)
Net commission income		33,2	34,3	119,8	119,6	118,5
Operating expenses		(44,9)	(30,7)	(91,2)	(63,9)	(167,0)
Other income/costs		(17,0)	(10,6)	(28,4)	(7,2)	(38,3)
Net financial income		116,1	220,5	142,6	188,6	499,3	ROI 1,7% YTD
Profit before tax		169,5	254,9	276,8	300,1	541,1
Tax		(22,9)	(31,1)	(60,5)	(59,7)	(88,4)	Low tax due to zero tax on equity gains
Profit before components of comprehensive income		146,6	223,8	216,4	240,4	452,7
Comprehensive income incl. tax		18,4	(1,1)	29,6	(8,0)	(3,4)
Profit for the period		165,0	222,7	246,0	232,4	449,3
Claims ratio, net of ceded business	(1)	89,2%	94,3 %	90,9%	95,3 %	95,2 %
Expense ratio, net of ceded business	(2)	1,5%	-0,5 %	-2,0%	-4,1 %	1,8 %
Combined ratio, net of ceded business	(3)	90,7%	93,7 %	88,9%	91,2 %	97,0 %
Gross claims ratio	(4)	136,1%	89,5 %	114,6%	89,9 %	92,5 %
Gross expense ratio	(5)	7,5%	5,1 %	7,4%	5,6 %	6,8 %	"World leading" expense ratio
Gross combined ratio	(6)	143,6%	94,6 %	121,9%	95,5 %	99,2 %
Retention rate	(7)	81,7%	82,5 %	82,2%	81,6 %	82,1 %
Earnings per share	(8)	1,70	2,60	2,51	2,79	5,25

(1) Claims incurred, net of reinsurance in % of earned premiums, net of reinsurance

(2) Operating expenses in % of earned premiums, net of reinsurance

• (3) Net claims ratio + net expense ratio
• (4) Gross claims incurred in % of gross premiums earned
• (5) Sales and administration costs in % of gross premiums earned

(6) Gross claims ratio + gross expense ratio

• (7) Earned premiums, net of reinsurance in % of gross earned premiums
• (8) Profit before other comprehensive income divided by weighted number of shares

Investments

Core business

Investments

- Beautiful "Float" growing rapidly

Priority 1 is to never allow any risk for solvency issues or fire sale

Portfolio statistics

- In-house managed equity portfolio vs. OSEBX end of June 2017

Key Figures	In-house Managed Portfolio	OSEBX
Performance	121,6%	13,3%
Dividend yield	2,3%	4,1%
P/E NTM*	13,9	14,8
3 yr sales CAGR	27%	-2%
3 yr EPS CAGR	27,9%	-21%

*Factset estimates except for one company not listed where own estimates are used

• Extreme outperformance in period
• Cannot, and will not expect similar outperformance in the future
• Comfortable with periods of underperformance as long as underlying performance is good
• Goal to beat market over time

Investment performance evaluated over the long term

Portfolio statistics

- In-house managed portfolio vs. benchmark end of June 2017

Portfolio data 30.06.2017
Size NOK m	6209
Yield	2,54%
Duration	0,37
Credit duration	3,17
Average rating	BBB+1

• Navigating in a very hot market
• Significant outperformance in the period
• Cannot, and will not expect similar outperformance in the future
• Goal to beat benchmark over time

Investment performance evaluated over the long term

34

*Benchmark bond portfolio made up by basket of cross-over funds: Storebrand Rente +, Arctic Return Class I, Carnegie Corp. Bond, Handelsbanken Høyrente,

Holberg Kreditt, Pareto Høyrente, Alfred Berg Income, Eika Kreditt, Landkreditt Høyrente, Skagen Høyrente

¹Average rating based on official and shadow rating

²Protector graph adjusted for the difference between NIBOR, STIBOR and CIBOR from February and March '17 when portfolios were created in Sweden and Denmark, respectively.

Investment performance Q2 2017

• Strong underlying development

• 1,3% return on investment portfolio, net investment result of NOK 116,1m

• Equities; return of 4,0%
• Portfolio consist of 15 companies
• Good underlying development
• Two companies sold as their target price was reached
• Bond portfolio; return of 0,7%
• Spreads further tightening
• No high yield exposure in bond funds
• Lower total risk than benchmark

Balance sheet Q2 2017

• Strong & growing fast

[1.000.000 NOK]	30.06.2017	30.06.2016	31.12.2016
Owner-occupied property	13,7	13,6	13,7
Financial assets*	11 398,3	8 261,5	8 537,6
Bank deposits	285,5	45,9	204,3
Other assets	2 173,8	1 372,1	1 091,7
Total assets	13 871,4	9 693,1	9 847,4
Total equity	2 317,2	2 051,3	2 268,2
Subordinated loan capital	1 241,4	648,1	645,9
Total reserves	7 282,6	5 551,4	5 148,0
Other liabilities*	3 030,1	1 442,3	1 785,3
Total equity and liabilities	13 871,4	9 693,1	9 847,4

* Financial derivatives has for informational purposes been netted in this balance sheet.

Strong capital position:

• SCR coverage ratio 177 % pr. 30.06
• SCR fully covered by Tier 1 capital only
• NOK 194m dividend paid
• Full Tier 2 utilization; some Tier 1 restricted capacity

Composition of SCR:

• Net insurance risk 52 %
• Net market risk 39 %
• Other risks 9 %

Available SII capital:

• Assumed dividend of 40 % on YTD17 result
• Guarantee provision subtracted from own funds

Shareholder matters

• Per 30.06.2017

Shareholder	No. Shares	Percent
STENSHAGEN INVEST AS	6,550,000	7.60%
ODIN NORDEN	4,485,857	5.21%
SWEDBANK ROBUR SMABOLAGSFOND AND NORDENFON	5,763,756	6.69%
OJADA AS	3,563,116	4.14%
HVALER INVEST AS1	3,186,809	3.70%
STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMP	1,902,531	2.21%
ARTEL HOLDING A/S	1,873,451	2.17%
FROGNES AS	1,649,916	1.92%
GENERALI PANEUROPE LTD	1,523,350	1.77%
VEVLEN GÅRD AS	1,450,000	1.68%
JOHAN VINJE AS	1,437,841	1.67%
SKANDINAVISKA ENSKILDA BANKEN AB	1,400,000	1.62%
AVANZA BANK AB	1,362,582	1.58%
NORDNET BANK AB	1,359,814	1.58%
PETROSERVICE AS	1,283,815	1.49%
BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES	1,122,844	1.30%
FONDITA NORDIC MICRO CAP INVESTMEN	1,100,000	1.28%
VERDIPAPIRFONDET DNB NORGE (IV)	1,088,886	1.26%
MP PENSJON PK	1,045,379	1.21%
ODIN NORGE	1,031,201	1.20%
20 LARGEST	44,181,148	51.28%
OTHERS	41,974,457	48.72%
TOTAL SHARES	86,155,605	100.00%
1 CEO, Sverre Bjerkeli

Related parties shareholding

• Management's direct and indirect shareholding totals 3,5m shares or 4,0% of current outstanding shares
• Board members directly own a total of 11,1m shares or 12,9% of current outstanding shares
• 33 employees own directly and indirectly a total of 3,8m shares or 4,4% of current outstanding shares (incl. management)
• Protector owns a total of 11 235 own shares

¹ Share price adjusted for dividends, no reinvestment of dividends Data pr. 30.06.2017

Profitable growth + investment return = success

Summary Q2 2017

• Profitable growth continues – despite Grenfell Tower

• GWP growth of 23,4 % or NOK 168,7m

• On track to 20% annual growth
• Net Combined ratio 90,7% (93,7%)
• Solvency ratio of 177%, prepares for growth in 2018 and 2019

• Grenfell Tower tragedy in focus

We stand firmly behind our UK operation

Unchanged guiding for 2017
Net combined ratio	92%
Volume growth	20% (22% local)
Cost ratio	<7%

Q2 2017 Results

Q&A

Key ratio description

Ratio

• (1) Claims ratio, net of ceded business
• (2) Expense ratio, net of ceded business
• (3) Combined ratio, net of ceded business
• (4) Gross claims ratio
• (5) Gross expense ratio
• (6) Gross combined ratio
• (7) Retention rate
• (8) Earnings per share
• (9) Return on Equity (ROE)
• (10) Return on Solvency Capital

Ratio calculation

• (1) Claims incurred, net of reinsurance in % of earned premiums, net of reinsurance
• (2) Operating expenses in % of earned premiums, net of reinsurance
• (3) Net claims ratio + net expense ratio
• (4) Gross claims incurred in % of gross premiums earned
• (5) Sales and administration costs in % of gross premiums earned
• (6) Gross claims ratio + gross expense ratio
• (7) Earned premiums, net of reinsurance in % of gross earned premiums
• (8) Profit before other comprehensive income divided by weighted number of shares
• (9) Profit before other comprehensive income divided by average shareholder's equity
• (10) Profit before changes in security provisions less tax divided by sum of average shareholder's equity and security reserves