Protector Forsikring

Investor Presentation • Oct 26, 2018

Oslo, 26th October 2018

Restaurant Louise | 26th October | From 10:00

10:00 – 10:45	Q3 2018 Investor presentation
------------------	-------------------------------

• 10:45 11:00 Coffee and snack
• 11:00 11:45 Status Company including HTD reserves
• 11:45 12:15 Investments
• 12:15 12:45 Something to eat
• 12:45 13:15 Reinsurance update entering 2019
• 13:15 13:45 UK including status Grenfell Tower
• 13:45 14:00 Summary and Q&A

Restaurant Louise | 26th October | From 10:00

10:00 – 10:45		Q3 2018 Investor presentation

CEO

11:00 – 11:45	Status Company including HTD reserves
11:45 – 12:15	Investments
12:15 – 12:45	Something to eat
12:45 – 13:15	Reinsurance – update entering 2019
13:15 – 13:45	UK including status Grenfell Tower
13:45 – 14:00	Summary and Q&A

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

Credible or not

• Danish Workers comp. 2016
• Reserve losses COI 2016
• Swedish Competition Authority 2017
• Management changes in Denmark
• Reinsurance Arbitration 2017 Munich Re
• Poor YTD result 2018
• NOK 146m Q3 2018 Gray Silverfish

• Any other areas missing?

• Growth steady going

• Sweden doing very well
• Always open communication (rate pressure)
• ROI higher than peers
• Turn-around Denmark
• HTD company reserves on the positive side
• Balanced Reinsurance Structures
• Any other areas missing?

	Guiding vs. Actual
	Volume		Profitability
Year	Guiding	Actual	Guiding	Actual
2009	5 %	20 %	92,00 %	96,50 %
2010	15 %	16 %	92,00 %	92,70 %
2011	15 %	19 %	88,00 %	85,30 %
2012	18 %	26 %	88,00 %	86,20 %
2013	18 %	23 %	91,00 %	86,70 %
2014	16 %	28 %	90,00 %	84,50 %
2015	18 %	20 %	88-90 %	88,70 %
2016	22 %	21 %	90,00 %	97,00 %
2017	16 %	21 %	92,00 %	93,10 %
2018	20 %	YTD 17 %	92-94 %	YTD 104,1 %

Cost Leader in the world

• Well defined and consistent strategy
• Value chain development
• Real secret: Culture and competent people to implement
• IT cost ratio 1 %, all developed internally
• Cost position will be improved going forward

Gross expense ratio	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Protector	11,2 %	12,1 %	11,9 %	10,0 %	7,7 %	8,8 %	7,6 %	7,5 %	6,8 %	7,4 %
Tryg	17,1 %	17,2 %	17,0 %	16,6 %	16,4 %	15,6 %	14,6 %	15,3 %	15,7 %	14,0 %
Codan/Trygg Hansa	20,2 %	20,4 %	16,7 %	17,6 %	18,6 %	19,5 %	21,2 %	16,4 %	14,8 %	14,5 %
Gjensidige	17,0 %	17,7 %	16,5 %	16,4 %	15,5 %	15,3 %	15,0 %	15,1 %	14,2 %	15,3 %
Topdanmark	14,7 %	14,9 %	15,4 %	15,7 %	15,8 %	16,2 %	15,7 %	15,9 %	16,4 %	16,1 %
If	17,4 %	17,6 %	17,2 %	17,3 %	16,9 %	16,8 %	16,7 %	13,0 %	16,6 %	16,3 %
Länsforsäkringar	21,0 %	22,0 %	22,0 %	21,0 %	21,0 %	19,0 %	19,0 %	19,0 %	19,0 %	18,0 %
KLP	26,7 %	29,1 %	30,4 %	26,5 %	26,4 %	26,2 %	23,1 %	21,1 %	22,8 %	21,8 %
Avg. ex. Protector	17,8 %	18,2 %	17,6 %	17,5 %	17,3 %	17,1 %	17,0 %	15,4 %	16,3 %	15,9 %

¹Numbers for Codan only before merger with Trygg-Hansa in 2015 and RSA Group Scandinavian segment in 2015

Quality leader in all markets Humble and Proud

Volume growth 20 % growth, 10 years in a row

Sustainable growth

• Profitability comes first, volume growth second
• Low capex entering new markets
• Geographical diversification increasing, < 50 % in Norway

¹Numbers for Codan only before merger with Trygg-Hansa in 2015 and RSA Group Scandinavian segment in 2015

• UK expected to be biggest geographical area in 2021

Protector	9,6 %	19,5 %	16,1 %	19,0 %	26,1 %	22,7 %	27,6 %	19,7 %	21,0 %	21,1 %	21,3 %
KLP	3,4 %	4,7 %	5,0 %	3,0 %	15,4 %	10,9 %	10,7 %	20,8 %	13,8 %	8,1 %	10,6 %
Gjensidige	-1,8 %	0,2 %	24,0 %	5,7 %	2,1 %	7,7 %	7,9 %	7,4 %	5,7 %	3,7 %	6,4 %
Länsforsäkringar	4,2 %	2,3 %	2,2 %	3,1 %	3,2 %	3,6 %	7,4 %	5,4 %	6,0 %	5,9 %	4,6 %
Codan/Trygg Hansa	12,8 %	1,7 %	0,3 %	-0,3 %	7,2 %	-1,0 %	-0,8 %	3,5 %	7,2 %	6,5 %	3,6 %
If	-0,7 %	-4,2 %	7,7 %	5,4 %	6,4 %	1,5 %	-2,8 %	-1,6 %	-2,2 %	1,5 %	1,0 %
Tryg	4,4 %	5,2 %	9,1 %	2,4 %	1,8 %	-4,0 %	-4,4 %	-2,7 %	-1,7 %	0,7 %	1,0 %
Topdanmark	0,8 %	-3,1 %	-1,4 %	1,4 %	1,0 %	1,5 %	2,6 %	-2,6 %	-1,6 %	3,5 %	0,2 %
Avg. ex. Protector	2,1 %	-0,1 %	8,4 %	3,7 %	4,0 %	1,6 %	1,0 %	1,6 %	2,0 %	3,4 %	2,7 %

Growth 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 avg. 08-17

729

871

2843

2374

3439

4163

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 NORWAY SWEDEN DENMARK UK FINLAND

1517

^{1202 1011}

1861

Profitability Combined ratio last 10 years 91 %

Key comments

• Average Return on Equity last 10 years >20 %
• Prudent and disciplined reserving methodology on the positive side
• Norway and Sweden have delivered very well
• Denmark, UK and Finland too early to say

Combined Ratio	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	avg. 08-17
Topdanmark	82,4 %	91,1 %	93,3 %	90,3 %	88,0 %	91,5 %	86,0 %	87,3 %	85,1 %	82,0 %	87,5 %
Tryg	88,2 %	92,2 %	98,8 %	93,2 %	88,2 %	87,7 %	84,2 %	86,8 %	86,7 %	84,4 %	89,0 %
Gjensidige	94,4 %	94,8 %	95,3 %	91,9 %	85,3 %	89,2 %	86,0 %	83,7 %	83,4 %	85,4 %	88,2 %
If	91,8 %	92,1 %	92,8 %	92,0 %	89,3 %	88,1 %	87,7 %	85,4 %	84,4 %	85,3 %	88,6 %
Protector	95,8 %	97,8 %	94,2 %	85,3 %	86,2 %	86,7 %	84,5 %	88,7 %	97,0 %	93,1 %	90,9 %
Codan/Trygg Hansa	98,5 %	100,4 %	101,8 %	102,4 %	94,3 %	88,1 %	90,4 %	94,0 %	86,2 %	82,9 %	91,6 %
Länsforsäkringar	93,0 %	96,0 %	102,0 %	100,0 %	97,0 %	98,0 %	93,0 %	91,0 %	95,0 %	92,0 %	95,3 %
KLP	97,3 %	95,5 %	121,9 %	118,1 %	107,8 %	103,7 %	91,9 %	98,8 %	98,7 %	106,0 %	103,2 %
Avg. ex. Protector	91,3 %	93,6 %	96,7 %	94,2 %	90,0 %	90,0 %	88,0 %	87,7 %	86,8 %	85,9 %	90,0 %

¹Numbers for Codan only before merger with Trygg-Hansa in 2015 and RSA Group Scandinavian segment in 2015.

Strong investment result over the business cycle

Investments are core business

Better than peers

• Risk management through; Operational routines, mandate given by board, FSA stress test quarterly, internal stress test
• Investment portfolios in Norway, incl. Protector's, have enjoyed avg. NIBOR rates of roughly 1% above STIBOR and CIBOR in the period 2010-2017
• Slightly higher market risk than peer average in early years
• Better investment return than peer average for nine out of ten last years
• Approx. 75 % of result after tax from investments 08-17

ROI	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	avg. 08-17
Protector	-2,1 %	16,1 %	9,7 %	-2,3 %	8,9 %	7,0 %	5,3 %	5,2 %	7,0 %	4,8 %	6,0 %
KLP	0,4 %	8,3 %	7,2 %	4,5 %	6,5 %	6,5 %	6,5 %	4,4 %	6,1 %	5,6 %	5,6 %
If	-3,1 %	12,4 %	7,4 %	1,8 %	6,1 %	5,0 %	4,1 %	1,5 %	2,9 %	2,6 %	4,1 %
Gjensidige	-0,6 %	5,5 %	5,2 %	4,4 %	5,4 %	4,3 %	4,3 %	2,6 %	3,9 %	3,7 %	3,9 %
Tryg	3,5 %	6,6 %	4,3 %	4,8 %	5,1 %	2,5 %	4,3 %	0,7 %	3,7 %	2,1 %	3,8 %
Länsforsäkringar	-14,0 %	10,0 %	6,0 %	-2,0 %	5,0 %	6,1 %	6,5 %	4,6 %	5,6 %	7,2 %	3,5 %
Codan/Trygg Hansa	5,6 %	5,9 %	3,5 %	3,0 %	3,9 %	-0,4 %	3,9 %	3,0 %	2,8 %	2,1 %	3,3 %
Topdanmark	-6,9 %	7,3 %	4,8 %	3,1 %	6,9 %	4,1 %	3,4 %	1,0 %	4,4 %	0,5 %	2,9 %
Avg. ex. Protector	-2,2 %	8,0 %	5,5 %	2,8 %	5,6 %	4,0 %	4,7 %	2,5 %	4,2 %	3,4 %	3,9 %

HTD Reserves

The People Commited and experienced

Torstein R. Tønnessen (36) Reserving actuary

Protector Chief Actuary Nemi Insurance Chief Actuary Sparebank 1 Actuary

Vibeke Krane (47) CFO

Protector CFO EY Manager Jotne EPM CFO Telenor Int. control fin. reporting KPMG Manager

Protector CEO Ementor/Eterra CEO If P&C Dir Non-life Storebrand Bank CEO Storebrand Insurance Multiple pos.

Sverre Bjerkeli (59) CEO & Founder of Protector

Jostein Sørvoll (68 - Actuary) Chairman & Founder of Protector

Owns 3,2 mill shares Owns 1 mill shares

Protector First CEO then Chairman

Mr. Sørvoll has held multiple executive positions in the Norwegian and international (Re)insurance world.

The skill and work Target – Best estimate

•In sourced reserving actuary Q4 2015

• Bornhuetter-Ferguson is used on longer tailed products • Chain Ladder is used in addition on shorter tailed products

•Output from reserving models are guiding • Final reserves might deviate from model output

• No discounting is applied on reserves
• In Denmark some discounting used by peers => better Claims ratio

•Involvement in daily business to understand the risk and claim development

• Confront the brutal facts (from "Good to Great")

• React instantly when new information and insight improved

The Process Reserve calibration towards all business units

• •Quarterly meetings with claims handlers and reserving actuary Statements from claims handlers are assessed against claims reserves
• Status large claims movements and new
• Changes in claims handling practice and reserving practice
• Claims incurred last quarter
• Standard reserves
• •Quarterly meetings with BU management, CFO and actuary
• Possible errors are corrected
• Actuary and CFO meets CEO to discuss reserves
• Actuary sole judge and finishes his report
• Actuary and CFO meets the audit committee
• Actuarial report is sent and gone through by the Board of Directors
• Actuarial report is sent to Finanstilsynet (supervisory authority), CFO and actuary presents results

The actuary can report directly to the board and FSA

Factors influencing the reserve setting

It's not 2+2, but we are historically proven with run-off gains

History	Relatively short - 10 years
Clients	Commercial clients
Products	5 countries - 24 products
Tail	Some long tail
BU relation	Actuary and business closer
Growth	20 % p.a.
Process	Structured and consistent

Difficult? Competent and committed people with a structured process…

Historically prudent reserves Here are the results

Products	Country	Comment	GWP 19
Property	All	Large gains	30 %
7 Products with run-off losses	All	Some losses	25 %
9 Products with run-off gains	All	Some gains	15 %
Motor	NOR & SWE	Large gains	15 %
COI	NOR	Very large losses	8 %
Long Tail products	NOR	Some gains	7 %

Total gains HTD even after Gray Silverfish NOK 147m

Reserve outlook next ten years Reserves will be prudent

•COI 8 % of volume, commercial 92 %

•Some volatility should however be expected

•UK growing fast, but 80 % short tail and we have more reinsurance protection

Senior management in Protector – fit for fight

"I started Sweden and Denmark – finally something big."

• Employee since 2007
• Director Public sector
• Project Manager UK, DK & SE

Lars Ola Rambøl (50) – Director of Commercial Norway

• "Perfect timing I started one year ago. After 5 years with rate pressure and a 2018 bad winter. I'm the right person to get us back to combined ratio 92 %"
• Employee since September 1st 2017
• Multiple Director positions in Storebrand
• Professional IT background
• Merete Christensen Bernau (52) – Director Change of Ownership

"Small bug.....large claims – in 2019 we are either out of COI market or a success."

• Director claims handling commercial Norway
• Director COI and leader of Cultural development
• Employee since 2005, 10 years experience from If…

Vibeke Krane (46) – CFO

"I'm prepared for Brexit, instant reporting and value add"

• CFO since August 2016
• Employee since December 2015
• State Authorized Public Accountant w. 20 years experience from finance and accounting

Hans Didring (39) – Country Manager Sweden

"Retirement forecasted in 2047. I will work hard to improve the business results every year until then."

• Started in 2011. First employee outside Norway.
• 6 years of experience from If and LF within Broker sales and service, Underwriting and IT projects.

Thomas Boutrup (37) – Country Manager Denmark

• "I started 14 months ago, some challenges but most of turn around is completed entering 2019"
• Started at Protector August 2017
• Senior underwriter and Partner RiskPoint
• Account executive IF, Team Leader AIG

Dag Marius Nereng (44) – Chief Investment Officer

• "I love what I do even higher than Liverpool football club"
• Employee since 2015
• 22 years of asset management experience
• 10 years as Senior Portfolio Manager in Handelsbanken

Leonard Bijl (54) – Director of IT

19

"World champion to deliver exactly what the business needs, to a third of the cost"

• Employee since December 2017
• 15 years Digital development/ IT management in IF
• 15 years in software industry (account and people mgt)

Challenger Strategy 2021

Starts with culture, ends with culture and management training

Lets further develop our DNA – Next Level

• Don't change Strategy
• Investments are Core, manage Risk
• Strong balance sheet important
• Profitability comes before growth
• Focus Claims Handling and top 8

Great @ work management program and talent development Next Level

Strategy 2018-2021 - Top 8 priorities "Don't change strategy"

• Claims Handling Falcon
• Profitable growth in Nordic
• UK
• ROI peer knock out
• Protector University
• IT as Innovator and Accelerator
• World class HQ
• Manage matrix organization perfectly

World leading claims handling 2017-2020

Rolls Royce: Reductions and Recourse

NOK 420m vs. target NOK 375m In front of schedule – important for profitability

Rolls Royce: Reductions and Recourse NOK 420m vs. target NOK 375m In front of schedule – important for profitability

CleanDesk: No delays in Claims handling – without compromising on quality

96 % clean Very strong result – CleanDesk made culture

20.042 of 20.861 clean days #FTEs x #workingdays

Rolls Royce: Reductions and Recourse

NOK 420m vs. target NOK 375m In front of schedule – important for profitability

CleanDesk: No delays in Claims handling – without compromising on quality 96 % clean Very strong result – CleanDesk made culture 20.042 of 20.861 clean days #FTEs x #workingdays

ICF: Instant customer feedback

Score of 3 out of 4 90 % of the time Strong results. Most of low scores due to claim outcome – not claims handling

Rolls Royce: Reductions and Recourse

NOK 420m vs. target NOK 375m In front of schedule – important for profitability

CleanDesk: No delays in Claims handling – without compromising on quality 96 % clean Very strong result – CleanDesk made culture 20.042 of 20.861 clean days #FTEs x #workingdays

ICF: Instant customer feedback Score of 3 out of 4 90 % of the time Strong results. Most of low scores due to claim outcome – not claims handling

FalconEfficiency: Target of 14,7 % efficiency increase 2018 vs. 2017

13,4 % increase YTD Good results

Rolls Royce: Reductions and Recourse

NOK 420m vs. target NOK 375m In front of schedule – important for profitability

CleanDesk: No delays in Claims handling – without compromising on quality 96 % clean Very strong result – CleanDesk made culture 20.042 of 20.861 clean days #FTEs x #workingdays

ICF: Instant customer feedback

Score of 3 out of 4 90 % of the time Strong results. Most of low scores due to claim outcome – not claims handling

13,4 % increase YTD Good results

FalconEfficiency: Target of 14,7 % efficiency increase 2018 vs. 2017

People and management development

Management Development programs New management training programs starts February 7th 2019

Protector University will support deliberate practice for key skills in different roles in Protector

Protector University – status Virtual Campus launched – 12th October

•29 competence pyramids established

•250 learning modules quality assured and ready

•We invite our broker partners to our campus

•Next step - define and understand what "on job training" means for us to release full potential

Restaurant Louise | 26th October | From 10:00

Dag Marius Nereng Chief Investment Officer

10:45 – 11:00	Coffee and snack
11:00 – 11:45	Status Company including HTD reserves
11:45 – 12:15	Investments
12:15 – 12:45	Something to eat
12:45 – 13:15	Reinsurance – update entering 2019
13:15 – 13:45	UK including status Grenfell Tower
13:45 – 14:00	Summary and Q&A

Investments Net financial assets > NOK 10 bn, float increasing

Strong investment result over the business cycle Better than peers

• Risk management through; Operational routines, mandate given by board, FSA stress test quarterly, internal stress test
• Investment portfolios in Norway, incl. Protector's, have enjoyed avg. NIBOR rates of roughly 1% above STIBOR and CIBOR in the period 2010-2018
• Better investment return than peer average for 9 out of 10 years
• Slightly higher market risk than peer average

Return on investments	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	YTD 2018	Avg 08-17
Protector	-2.1 %	16.1 %	9.7 %	-2.3 %	8.9 %	7.0 %	5.3 %	5.3 %	7.0 %	4.8 %	1.6 %	6.0 %
KLP	0.4 %	8.3 %	7.2 %	4.5 %	6.5 %	6.5 %	6.5 %	4.4 %	6.1 %	5.6 %	n/a	5.6 %
Tryg	3.5 %	6.6 %	4.3 %	4.8 %	5.1 %	2.5 %	4.3 %	0.7 %	3.7 %	2.1 %	0.0 %	3.8 %
2 Codan/Trygg Hansa	5.6 %	5.9 %	3.5 %	3.0 %	3.9 %	-0.4 %	3.9 %	3.0 %	2.8 %	2.1 %	1.8 %	3.3 %
f1 I	-3.1 %	12.4 %	7.4 %	1.8 %	6.1 %	5.0 %	4.1 %	1.5 %	2.9 %	2.6 %	1.0 %	4.1 %
Gjensidige	-0.6 %	5.5 %	5.2 %	4.4 %	5.4 %	4.3 %	4.3 %	2.6 %	3.9 %	3.7 %	2.0 %	3.9 %
Länsforsäkringar1	-14.0 %	10.0 %	6.0 %	-2.0 %	5.0 %	6.1 %	6.5 %	4.5 %	5.6 %	7.2 %	3.7 %	3.5 %
Topdanmark	-6.9 %	7.3 %	4.8 %	3.1 %	6.9 %	4.1 %	3.4 %	1.0 %	4.4 %	2.1 %	0.6 %	3.0 %
Avg. ex Protector	-2.2 %	8.0 %	5.5 %	2.8 %	5.6 %	4.0 %	4.7 %	2.5 %	4.2 %	3.6 %	1.5 %	3.9 %

1 H1 2018 return

2 RSA return based on investment return guiding for 2018 and relatively low investment risk.

Protector's financial underwriting process

Continuous process improvements

• Stress test to ensure volatility experienced in financial crisis
• Portfolio allocation based on risk/reward considerations/ high hurdle rate
• Thorough bottom-up analysis the cornerstone of our investment approach
• Dashboards and surveillance as background

Bottom-up analysis	Quarterly update							New ideas and watchlist

Capital allocation alternatives

Goal to maximize shareholder return

Main capital allocation alternatives

	1.	Determine minimum hurdle rate
Capital allocation	2.	Calculate returns for all internal and external investment alternatives available, by return and risk
approach	3.	Deploy capital in the most attractive alternatives above hurdle.
	4.	Release underperforming capital

Externally communicated ROE target of > 20 %

Return on equity target of >20% per year on average

Insurance and investments ties up Solvency Capital

Due to T1/T2 loans RoE of 20% equals a RoSC of 15,1%

Somewhat higher ROE vs. RoSC due to subordinate loans

Capital allocation alternatives

Insurance with high RoE's even at high combined ratios

Allocate capital to the alternatives yielding highest return on that capital (above high hurdle rates) to generate best possible risk adjusted return for shareholders

Illustrative RoSC calculation approach

Applies also to different insurance products

Product
Float to Premium	1.07
SCR to Premium	0.17

								CR
		84%	86%	88%	90%	92%	94%	96%	98%	100%	102%	104%	106%	108%
	0,0%	56%	49%	42%	35%	28%	21%	14%	7%	0%	-7%	$-14%$	$-21%$	$-28%$
	0,3%	57%	50%	43%	36%	29%	22%	15%	8%	1%	-6%	$-13%$	$-20%$	$-27%$
	0,5%	58%	51%	44%	37%	30%	23%	16%	9%	2%	-5%	$-12%$	$-19%$	$-26%$
	0,8%	59%	52%	45%	38%	31%	24%	17%	10%	3%	$-4%$	$-11%$	$-18%$	$-25%$
Risk Free	1,0%	60%	53%	46%	39%	32%	25%	18%	11%	4%	-3%	$-10%$	$-17%$	$-24%$
Interest Rate -	1,5%	63%	56%	49%	42%	35%	28%	21%	14%	7%	$-1%$	$-8%$	$-15%$	$-22%$
	2,0%	65%	58%	51%	44%	37%	30%	23%	16%	9%	2%	$-5%$	$-12%$	$-19%$
Return on	2,3%	66%	59%	52%	45%	38%	31%	24%	17%	10%	3%	$-4%$	$-11%$	$-18%$
Float	2,5%	67%	60%	53%	46%	39%	32%	25%	18%	11%	4%	$-3%$	$-10%$	$-17%$
	2,8%	68%	61%	54%	47%	40%	33%	26%	19%	12%	5%	$-2%$	-9%	$-16%$
	3,0%	69%	62%	55%	48%	41%	34%	27%	20%	13%	6%	$-1%$	-8%	$-15%$
	3,3%	70%	63%	56%	49%	42%	35%	28%	21%	4%	7%	0%	$-7%$	$-14%$
	3,5%	71%	64%	57%	50%	43%	36%	29%	22%		8%	1%	$-6%$	$-13%$

• Pre-tax return on Solvency Capital

• 15% after tax implies ~18% pre-tax

Capital allocation alternatives

Allocate capital to the alternatives yielding highest return on that capital (above high hurdle rates) to generate best possible risk adjusted return for shareholders

Equities – Capital consumption and RoSC

Today we need a return of above 11% + safety margin to reach RoE target

Key variables to ROE in equity investments are (1) our risk tolerance (stress levels) and (2) portfolio returns

Bonds – Capital consumption and RoSC

Can reach RoE target with materially lower capital consumption

Bond capital requirements very sensitive to market spread levels

Opportunistic buy back

Clearly an attractive capital allocation alternative if meeting hurdle

Capital allocation alternatives

Buy back of 4.4 million shares @ 57,50

Opportunistic – below intrinsic value

• Excess capital due to: • lower growth • lack of equity ideas meeting hurdle rates • lack of fixed income ideas meeting hurdle rates • Sharp share price drop creating a buying opportunity at perceived attractive levels long term • Bought back 4.4 million shares at 57,50 totaling 254 mnok 24. July 2018 Buy back process: • Safe harbour and auction considered. • Safe harbour would have taken 6-18 mnths • Largest shareholders presounded on Monday 23. July. • No interest on prices below 55,- • Low volume on 55,- • Some volume on 57,50 • Just above 300 mnok in volume at 60,- • When we set the price at 57,50 almost all volume at 60,- was lowered to 57,50.

Capital allocation alternatives Other alternatives better

Capital allocation alternatives

Available capital allocation frame

Excess capital a headwind for returns

Excess (and poorly performing) capital provides available capital allocation frame

• 1. Holding too much excess capital is a significant headwind for returns.
• 2. Patience is also key, when there is nothing intelligent to do it is a mistake to try to be intelligent

Portfolio statistics Strong outperformance since inception

Investment performance evaluated over the long term

Equity investments – status overview

Equity portfolio snapshot

Equity portfolio	Expected return
Securities	5 year expected p.a. returns	Discount to intrinsic value	Upside
Security 1	14%	25%	34%
Security 2	18%	36%	57%
Security 3	14%	24%	32%
Security 4	19%	38%	62%
Security 5	16%	31%	44%
Security 6	19%	38%	61%
Security 7	11%	14%	17%
Security 8	7%	$-5%$	$-5%$
Security 9	7%	$-5%$	$-5%$
Security 10	6%	$-11%$	$-10%$
Security 11	13%	20%	25%
Security 12	16%	31%	45%
Security 13	24%	50%	101%
Security 14	19%	37%	60%

	Forecast precision
Baseline intrinsic value end Aug 18	Intrinsic value change	Intrinsic value adjustment MNOK
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
	$-4%$	$-5.4$
	$-2%$	0,0
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
	2%	2,6
	0%	0,0
	0%	0,0
		-2,9

• Disappointing performance vs. expectations YTD
• Several intrinsic value estimates significantly downwards adjusted
• Process learnings:
  • ̶ Likely positive bias in expectations (although short time frame). Expectations re-set accordingly.
  • ̶ Expand the "too hard pile", added checklist items (base-rates, short-interest etc.)
• Low equity weighting
• Objective to increase over time, while maintaining discipline and hurdle rates
• Overall good avg. expected return and margin of safety in current portfolio

Meeting hurdle rate & higher level of predictability in analysis

Good company and/or especially strong terms, but too pricy

Low confidence on our predictability on factors affect key investment points/risks

51

Fixed income portfolio data Reduced risk, A+ vs. A- last CMD – not reaching for yield

Factor	30.09.2018
Market value	9 060
Yield (%)	1,8
Spread (bp)	113
Average rating	A+
Duration (yrs)	0,3
Credit duration (yrs)	2,3

¹Average rating based on a mix of official (66%) and internally evaluated ratings (for securities missing official rating(34%)).

	Total bond portfolio comments
•	Significant spread tightening

• Reduced risk in bond portfolio
• Bargain opportunities not plentiful in current market in our opinion
• Absolute minimum hurdle rate used when deciding on new high yield investments
• Currently well positioned with ample liquid investments for new investments if meeting our hurdle rate
• Barbell strategy

Fully internally managed fixed income portfolio Sector distribution migration

Sector distribution comments - internally managed bond portfolio

• Well diversified portfolio
• Move towards higher rated bonds
• No exposure to oil services sector which deviates from 32% of outstanding high yield volume in Norway
• Low exposure to real estate high yield sector which deviates from 30% of outstanding high yield volume in Sweden

Portfolio statistics

Internally managed portfolio vs. benchmarks, end of September 2018

• 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

¹Protector graph adjusted for the difference between NIBOR and corresponding index rate in portfolio countries since the inception of investment portfolios In Sweden, Denmark, Finland and United Kingdom. ² Crossover bond funds: Storebrand Rente +, Arctic Return Class I, Carnegie Corp. Bond, Handelsbanken Høyrente, Holberg Kreditt, Pareto Høyrente, Alfred Berg Income, Eika Kreditt, Landkreditt Høyrente. ³BBB+ avg bond funds: Storebrand Rente +, Arctic Return Class I, Carnegie Corp. Bond, Handelsbanken Høyrente, Pareto Høyrente, Alfred Berg Income, Nordea OMF.

Investment summary

Investments are core

• Financial Underwriting Model continuously developed
• 6 people on board o 2 Portfolio Managers o 4 Analysts
• HTD ROI better than peers o Also risk adjusted
• Only willing to invest if investment is above a high hurdle rate.

Restaurant Louise | 26th October | From 10:00

LUIU LUITU	U IAUARTA LUARA ARTA ALLI X TANJEN TIME TA ----- UU LUIU IIIVUJUUI MIUJUIIUUI I

• 12:15 12:45 Something to eat

Restaurant Louise | 26th October | From 10:00

10:00 – 10:45	Q3 2018 Investor presentation

10:45 – 11:00	Coffee and snack
11:00 – 11:45	Status Company including HTD reserves
11:45 – 12:15	Investments
12:15 – 12:45	Something to eat
12:45 – 13:15	Reinsurance – update entering 2019
13:15 – 13:45	UK including status Grenfell Tower

Fredrik H. Øyan Director P&C and Reinsurance

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

Purpose of reinsurance in Protector

Why and how we buy reinsurance

Purpose of reinsurance in Protector Why and how we buy reinsurance

• Why we buy reinsurance
• Ensuring appropriate protection and reducing volatility
• Reinsurance functions as an alternative to capital
• The type of reinsurances we buy
• Proportional (Surplus), non-proportional (XL) and other risk transfer (QS)
• Historically property has been protected by QS/Surplus, other classes by XL treaties
• Engagement with reinsurers and long-term relationships
• Extensive number of individual meetings = trusting relationships develop over time
• Renewal submissions presented to the market primo Q3
• Reinsurance programmes placed by our reinsurance broker

Reinsurance programme overview

HTD development and walk-through of Property

Reinsurance going forward 2019 and Future

Reinsurance programme overview

Illustration of current reinsurance structures

Current property reinsurance structure

• Limited fluctuations in reinsurance panel; strategic partnership in focus, Development of carriers 2004-2019
• Increased retention to NOK 100m as business growth leads to increased risk appetite is being developed and capacity is required

Property renewal 1.1.2019 New structure

Current Nordic Casualty and EB structure

• Both Nordic Casualty and EB are stable programmes in terms of structure and "lead" reinsurers
• EB programme has historically had a lower retention, and should now be considered a CAT programme
• Casualty har increased capacity in line with a developing risk appetite and internal competence
• The programmes have historically experienced negligable claims impact
• Reinstatement between 2 and 4 on all layers @100%, «free on unlimited layers»

Current UK Casualty structure

All amounts in GBP

• Programme initially placed 1.3.2016 for 18 months
• First renewal shortly after the GFT tragedy and Ogden rate increase – challenging negotiation, acceptable outcome
• Increasing portfolio balance and no further losses to the programme prior to renewal 1.9.2018
• Pricing level still in the higher end, retention is increased
• All but two reinsurers participating in GFT loss are still supporting the programme
• Testament to continued confidence in our UW processes, risk selection and strategic development
• Reinstatement «free and unlimited» on lower layers, between 2 and 4 on higher layers @100%

Reinsurers' ratings

Consistent panel: A- to AA-

Reinsurer rating overview Consistent panel over time with rating from A - to AA -

Renewal 2019

Backdrop

Property Submission – backdrop to the renewal 1.1.2019

Analytical approach – Data and results

• A comprehensive Property Submission was produced in Q2 2018 with the aim of achieving a favourable renewal per 1.1.2019
• Key take-outs were the following:
• Low exposure and low risk to the reinsurance program with a retention of NOK 100m
• Healthy Property portfolio with very good HTD loss ratio
• Highly significant database based on all segments allowing benchmarking against market averages; Database of an accumulated exposure of NOK 80 000 bn in insured values
• Protector outperforming the market with respect to better claims figures than a highly significant database of comparable risks. This applies both for smaller and larger claims.
• Well-defined UW strategy through analytically driven processes and consistent risk selection over time, accompanied by focused risk management initiatives.
• Placement has been completed with a strong panel of reinsurers and at good terms

UK Casualty Submission – backdrop to the renewal 1.9.2018 Analytical approach – Data and results

• A comprehensive Casualty Submission was produced in Q2 2018
• Key take-outs were the following:
• Reduced risk and a return to "normal" as the book has developed positively from a portfolio balance view as well as iro limits, underlying deductibles, geographical footprint and segment composition
• A challenging year, improvements have been made to both our proposition and class specific offerings
• Nordic support gives UK the means to succeed in particular related to structure, processes and underwriting methodology
• Shifting to markedly reduced risk profiles is resulting from an increasing balance in the portfolio between classes of business, types of trade and vehicle categories
• The placement was completed 1.9.2018 with a strong panel of reinsurers and at good terms
• Reinsurance pricing too high relative to portfolio – improved terms expected as the book grows

EB and Casualty renewals 1.1.2019

Expecting unchanged structures

• EB and Casualty Treaties in the Nordics have historically been stable both in terms of structure and carriers.
• Renewal 1.1.2019
• Casualty
  • The expectation is for the programme to continue unaltered
  • No change to «lead» of the programme
• EB
  • No changes expected to the structure of the programme
  • A group of Lloyd's Syndicates will continue to «lead» the programme
• Ample capacity in the reinsurance market for Nordic Liability and Motor
• Placements to be finalized medio November, good terms expected

Linking specialists to reinsurance

Underwriting and Risk engineering

Underwriting and Risk engineering How we link our specialists to reinsurance

Risk Engineering Underwriting Reinsurance Submissions Reinsurance Negotiations Close collaboration iro exposure assessment Presenting to reinsurers and high degree of visibility Joined-up and coordinated approach to risk appetite

• Large team of underwriters and risk engineers involved in regular meetings with reinsurers
• A number of business units contributing to analysis and preparation of submission documents
• Negotiations facilitated by reinsurance brokers Protector management «hands-on» involvement
• Broad involvement in reinsurance analysis and discussions contribute to increased competence iro assessment of Large Loss provisions, trade assessments and relationship building

Solvency based QS

Shock-absorber and capital relief

Solvency based reinsurance solution

Cushion against negative solvency changes – effective from July 1st 2017

• Covers all lines of businesses across all jurisdictions
• Intention of minimum 3 year duration, with annual renewals
• Renewal for 2019 in progress
• Minimum cession 10% maximum cession 50%. Protector decides
• Will secure Protector against sudden and unforeseen negative changes to the solvency ratio

Change in Property reinsurance structure

P&L effects

Change in reinsurance structure property

From Surplus to XL in 2019

P&L effects due to the change Key figures

earned Net premium	Significantly increasing	claimsratio Net	Unchanged
Claims for account own	Significantly increasing	Net ratio cost	Significantly increasing
from Commissions reinsurers	Significantly decreasing	combined ratio Net	Unchanged slightly increasing or
result Net	Slightly increasing

Net claimsratio	Unchanged
Net cost ratio	Significantly increasing
Net combined ratio	Unchanged or slightly increasing

*Effects are ex. GFT

• Slightly improved technical result
• Retention rate up approx. 12 percentage points in 2019 (Up from 71% in 2018)
• Significantly lower commissions, results in a smoother quarterly periodization of the technical result
• Less difference between net and gross figures

Summary – Reinsurance in Protector Approach to reinsurance – Entering 2019

• Background
• Reinsurance is a cruicial part of Protector's history
• Territorial expansion and new classes (UK) adds complexity , but…
• … gradual retention increases and alignment of programmes gives clarity

• Entering 2019…

• Strong relationships in the reinsurance market
• Significant data underpinning our propositions and outcomes
• Many specialists underwriters and risk engineers involved
• Good renewal (1.9.2018) of UK Casualty
• Significant change to Property XL Treaty
• Stability in all other programmes

Restaurant Louise | 26th October | From 10:00

Henrik Høye Country manager UK & Director Commercial and public

10:45 – 11:00	Coffee and snack
11:00 – 11:45	Status Company including HTD reserves
11:45 – 12:15	Investments
12:15 – 12:45	Something to eat
12:45 – 13:15	Reinsurance – update entering 2019
13:15 – 13:45	UK including status Grenfell Tower

Our DNA

Heading Towards Vision 2020 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

On Schedule, but meeting some «speed-bumps»

Very large potential, great start on quality

Grenfell Tower and Risk Management

UW and Risk Management

Market leader Nordics, Consistent approach transferred to UK

• Analytical and data driven underwriting
• Competent and experienced Underwriters
• Focused Risk Management approach
• Inspected more than 12 500 buildings in public sector
• UW discussions between risk engineers and UWs form important assessment for the overall risk
• Hands on approach to loss prevention

RBKC Underwriting and Assessment

Well documented Process, Conclusion from reassessment remains the same

• Portfolio of housing properties, approx. 7000 buildings
• RBKC underwent extended UW process
• Protector inspected ~2/3 of the RBKC portfolio
• RBKC Claims Experience was good
• Benchmarked against UK
• Lower frequency on Arson and Criminal Damage than UK average
• Internet researched shed light on 9 previous losses no "deal-breakers"
• RBKC was assessed as a good risk…
• …and still is

Claims handling

• Manage claim and client
• Keep lawyer cost at low level
• Process is key
• Align with reinsurance companies
• Proactive and professional communication to involved parties
• Full property settlement finalized 17.08.2018
• Liability will take many years to settle

Reinsurance

• Claims handling involvement and support
• Align reinsurance with Risk Management, UW and renewal season
• UK Casualty Reinsurance contract renewal completed, most of the panel still on-board
• Arbitration with Property Reinsurer postponed to May 2019
• Second pleading to the arbitration panel sent

World leading reinsurance partners

…In total 11 Reinsurance partners

The four The main purpose for Protector is;

Grenfell Tower To ensure correct settlements to injured parties and minimize the share of payments to legal advisors

projects To learn and prevent similar events from happening again

Risk Management/ UW

• RBKC walk-through
• Lesson learned from Grenfell Tower
• UW well done

Inspection examples

Construction Cladding

• New broker and client initiatives incl. inspections
• Grenfell Risk Management report

Media/Communication

• Reactive and open
• On the spot and credible
• No media advisor
• All requests handled internally
• Brokers, Reinsurance companies and «insurance society» updated

Role of Insurance in such a Tragedy In the Periphery of the Event, How do we focus our efforts?

1. Ensure correct settlements to injured parties

2. Minimize the share of payments to legal advisors

1. Learn and prevent similar events from happening again

Grenfell Tower Property claim settled

Arbitration with Munich Re postponed to may 2019

• Property released to client 1st August 2018
• Tower not likely to be reinstated, memorial park in the future
• Settlement agreed with client 17th Aug. money transferred 14 days later

• Good feedback from client and broker

• Reinsurance arbitration with Munich Re postponed to May 2019

• Munich Re acts as a post Grenfell Tower underwriter
• Worst case scenario down to MNOK 85 (from NOK 100m) due to full and final settlement of GFT Property claim

Claims Handling update Total insurance claim still unchanged at £75m

Liability

• Unprecedented claim, call for unprecedented actions!
• Liability is yet not established. However, we are making payments without prejudice
• Paid out loss of contents to the GFT survivors
• Established a rehabilitation program for GFT survivors, many referrals so far
• Solicitors have combined close to 600 clients expected to make a claim, majority not from GFT, but walkways

Recovery

• Potential liable entities ("PDs") mapped
• Protector will invite "PDs" to a meeting, inform and establish further process
• Public Inquiry going on, expert reports will provide evidence for subrogation
• Protector expects many recovery possibilities
• RBKC will probably have a lot of uninsured losses

Feedback from RBKC & JLT Protector proud to receive such statements

"From the very beginning of needing to formulate an insurance response to this terrible tragedy, Protector have stood side by side with RBKC and have worked in supportive partnership facing the unique and complex challenges together"

***

Ray Chitty

Head of Insurance Service – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

"The prompt settlement of the Property Damage claim was important for our client. It allows them to focus all of their attention upon the consideration of the third party compensation claims."

***

Stuart Winter

CEO - UK Retail at JLT Specialty

Post GFT Risk Management report

Based on a Review of Public buildings in Public sector in total not Grenfell Tower as such

Risk Management and underwriting Post Grenfell Focused and achievable approach, we are more competent than…

Immediately after Grenfell Tower

• Street view entire TB exposure
• All TB's allocated into risk bands low high
• First hand inspection and verification of assumed high risk locations
• Start process of updating UW and inspections routine

We have tagged and classified more than 400 TB's in our portfolio and more than 600 from our database – which is growing rapidly

Simple but effective methods of tracking progress when inspecting implemented

Has the Site Manager/Caretaker been provided with Fire Safety Training?		n
Wes.	No.	MOL
Is the Housekeeping Inspection process satisfactory?		h
Yes.	No	N.OL
Were Housekeeping standards good at time of inspection?
West.	No.	NGL
His Lot Lines	Ell Additioner	R Add Action
Are safety complaints reviewed and actioned promptly?		n
Yes.	No.	N.OL
Storage/obstructions policy in communal areas? is this 'Zero Tolerance' or 'Managed Use'?
Zero Tolerance	Managed Use	No policy.

Following Grenfell Tower

• First hand inspection and verification medium – low risk TB's on risk
• Updated underwriting process and evaluation factors
• Questions and questionnaires updated
• TB benchmark model up and running
• Updated inspection routine in relation to cladding and TB's
• RM report on Protector TB's completed

Guidance

documentation in development

Electrical installations inspected throughout?	Voc
Gas & heating systems subject to maintenance & inspection?	Voc
Site tour - communal areas
Emergency Lighting provided in communal areas?	Yes.
How many fire escape staircases?
Is clear evacuation signage present?	Yes
Are floor level signs provided?	No
Are fire evacuation procedures clearly communicated and signposted?	Ves.
Fire Action Notices provided on each floor?	No
Waste Chutes present & good seal?	Yes.
Are service cupboards and risers adequately fire stopped?	Voc
Were Housekeeping standards good at time of inspection?	No
is there a refuge?	No
Internal inspection of flats		Score (-2
Fire Door provided at the entrance? Does it fit well, have auto closer, have protected letter box and 3 hinges, intumescent seal?	No
Type of Automatic Fire Detection	Domestic Hard wired
Are central ventilation/extract systems fitted with dampers?	N/A
Gas supply present?	Vec
Internal Fire Door for lobby or kitchen?	Yes

Risk Management A crucial part of sales and Margin Management

• Risk engineering team with experience from insurers, brokers and large corporations
• Risk engineers form part of the underwriting- and sales process
• Bespoke RM solutions to meet client needs in partnership with their brokers

Current examples include:

• Bespoke E-learning training course to improve fire safety for Tower Block caretakers
• BCP training for new management team following organisational restructure
• Developing audit apps for clients' property managers to enable consistent inspections
• Driver Supervisor training programme on Work Related Road Safety Management and accident investigation
• Independent audit of internal property valuation process

The UK market

UK Market Overview £10bn of the UK market relates to domestic risks written outside of Lloyd's

In-scope UK Commercial estimated by stripping out Personal lines, Lloyd's and risks with large global exposures

• 1. Personal Lines: Commercial risks align with Protector's existing model and capabilities, therefore c.£32bn of Personal lines GWP was removed from scope
• 2. Lloyd's of London: Less conventional risks are often placed into Lloyd's and would be less attractive to Protector. Therefore £3bn of Lloyd's GWP was removed
• 3. Global Clients: £1bn of non-Lloyd's GWP is estimated to originate from large global entities. Removed as Protector is not currently set up to service these clients

Breakdown of UK Non-Life Insurance Market | Total GWP (2016)

UK Market Distribution Landscape

Distribution of UK Commercial lines continues to consolidate through M&A activity

Distribution primarily controlled by the largest four brokers, which have seen strong organic growth and invested in acquisitions

• Marsh and Aon's respective acquisitions of Bluefin (Nov 2017) and Henderson (Oct 2017) have concentrated market share amongst the top four brokers
• With 25+ smaller brokers behind the top four, Protector would need to consider where to invest time in building relationships and aligning strategies

In-scope market by region

The London Company Market accounts for £2.9bn (28%) of in-scope premium

The North and South East represent the largest markets outside London and both returned to overall GWP growth in the last 12 months

• Regional markets are almost all served by local brokers and insurers with strong local competition, leaving limited reliance on London expertise or capacity

UK Commercial insurer operating models

UK Commercial business is dominated by large insurers with multiple offices

London is utilised for larger & more complex risks whereas a local presence is often required for more conventional risks

Note(s): Insurer locations broadly correct as of February 2018 Source(s): Insurer websites and marketing collateral, Aon Practitioner insights, Aon Inpoint analysis

Competitor landscape Over half of UK Commercial market premium is consolidated among the top five insurers

Motor is the most concentrated line, with many insurers only quoting where they already have a P&C relationship (e.g. AIG, Aviva)

Insurer GWP share | In-scope UK Commercial market by LoB

> 35 Individuals, Key Roles Defined and Covered Good level of expertise, committed to our culture, still high recruitment activity

Broker Satisfaction UK 2017 Far ahead of #2

Important

There is a tendency in the second quality survey that Protector's quality score is reduced as a result of a combination of new standards and recalibrations

Broker Satisfaction UK 2018

Aim to be far ahead of #2

• 2018 Survey distributed same time as in 2017
• Same questions, which have been calibrated for relevance with brokers over 10 years
• Our purpose:
• Receive feedback for focus on where to improve
• An opportunity for a structured dialogue with our brokers
• Measure how Protector's quality is perceived (one of four targets is Quality Leader)
• The quantative target is same nominal scores as 2017
• A high ambition

The Segments

Poor new sales in Public Sector, due to price…

…but rapidly building large datasets and learning quickly

• Very low hit-ratio on quoted volume 1st April (largest renewal date)
• Mainly due to price
• Quality scores improving significantly during the year
• 3 clients lost due to quality in tender response
• More than 80 public sector clients in portfolio
• England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
• All datasets significantly bigger than the Nordics' combined
• Claims and exposure data for > 1/3 of the UK (~10yrs)
• Activity for 2019 tenders increasing from October

Gaining traction in Commercial Sector

Selection of segments and brokers is key

• Close to 500 tenders seen, 60 % quoted
• Risk appetite to be clarified with brokers
• Careful on liability
• ~60 % of quoted volume is motor
• Cost advantage is key
• Increasing inbox for property and liability
• 10 broker houses in focus
• Selected geographical offices only
• Mapping facts for expansion to more offices and broker houses
• Increased market activity in focus for underwriters in Q4

		Number of Visits P/Year		Brokers Account GWT in EMIII	Char Share GVP 2017		New sales GVP		Overall GWP (New plus renewals)		Focus Areas
Region _	Yearly Target	Pro Rata Target to d	Actual _	Total Commersi	Total	KAM	Total Target	Result Total	Goal	Res. ×	focus Areas 3 ٠.	Focun Areas 2 ı.	Focus Areas 3
Glasgow	ź.			15,000,000		Paul			ø		Understand account make 10 - size and breakdown per LOD	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
I early				10,000,000		Paul	700.000		700.000	٠	Understand account make 10 - size and breakdown per LOB	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
Manchester		×				Paul			ø	٠	Understand account make 10 - size and breakdown per LOD	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
Newcastle	а	$\overline{z}$	٠	20.009.000		Paul			$\mathbf{a}$	$\bullet$	Understand account make 10 - size and breakdown per LOB	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
Skellield				5.000.000		Paul	225,000		225,000	٠	Understand account make up - size and breakdown per LOB	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
Ricmingham	٠	٠		70.000.000		Matt	250,000		250,000	٠	Rroker Vicits - StrategelTrading	Increase tender submissions	Increase mote percentage
Glasgow	6	$\epsilon$		95,000,000		Matt	450,000	810.00	450,000	930,000	Maintain momentum following recent large win be more visability from relevant UV's	Understand make up of the overall account so we can have a more targeted approach for the remainder of H2	CAPITE INTERNATIONAL WITHIN THE office with increase visability and phgone called. Video and sales and him.
Leeds	12	$\mathbf{z}$	٠	40.000.000	525,000	Matt	1,100,000	63,750	1,625,000	996,250	Fil. to meet the team propertly is Leeds to build up relationships - Obtain up to date structure chart	Understand make up of the overall account so we can have a more targeted approach for the remainder of H2	Identify top 3 pipeline accounts for H2 - 2018
Manchester	25	$\overline{\mathbf{r}}$	$\overline{17}$	80.000.000	1.782.319	Matt	1,400,000	4.661.96	3.992.319	6.413.614	Increase tender submissions	Increase quote percentage	Broker Visits - Strategg/Trading
Leads	$\mathbf{r}$	$\overline{\phantom{a}}$	$\bullet$	÷	378,880	Matt	1.825.000	782.00	2,795,000	282,000	Management of Quotes Understand account make in - size and	Management of existing book / claims	Broker Visits - Stratege/Trading
Dradiond					656,580	Craig	150,000	796.19	750,000	796.197	breakdown per LOD Arrange visit to see Mark Neuitt, Linsay Crew,	Develop a genuine pipeline Develop a genuine pipeline and arrange quarterly	Understand Property Owners book
Bristol		٠	ż		177,000	Crain	175,000	530,600	175,000	538,600	Rob Cotteral	meetings to discuss
Leeds					176.345	Crain	200,000		200,000	٠	Understand account make in - size and breakdown per LOB	Develop a genuine pipeline	Property & Casualts to meet broker to discuss potential
Skeweburg	٠	٠	٠		321,455	Craig	50,000	776.187	50,000	776.187	Can we help Jelf attain larger property/Casualty sisk s	Develop a genuine pipeline
Birmingham	12	×		10,000,000	31800	Matt	410,000		443,350	30.951	Understand brokers account - GVP and relationship map	Aralesis of NTUs	Inscoor too 5 accounts
Leeds	$\mathbf{r}$	$\overline{ }$	$\bullet$	8,000,000	1,001,546	Matt	1,950,000		3.001.623	513,055	Understand brokers account - PRF share	Joint new business prospecting	Ensure Qtr reviews go ahead
Manchester	24	$\mathbf{H}$	$\mathbf{r}$	12,000,000	705.174	Matt	2.150.000	768.74	2.810.433	1,356,478	Raltionship Map	New Broking Director Mcr - Phil Vright	Face to face - quotes E75k plus
Nottingham	R.	$\ddot{\phantom{1}}$	$\mathbf{r}$	2.000.000	305,000	Matt	650,000	305,000	970.250	385,000	Understand their account	Relationship map
Reading	a.	$\ddot{\phantom{a}}$	$\bullet$	8.000.000	53.575	Matt	400,000		456,254	57.951	Understand their account Understand account make in - size and	Relationship map
Reliam		$\rightarrow$	٠	10.000.000	÷	Paul	COR ROA		600,000	$\bullet$	breakdown per LOB	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
Manchester	٠	$\bullet$		10.000.000		Paul	COR 800		500,000	٠	Understand account make in - size and breakdown per LOD Understand account make 10 - size and	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
Newcastle	٠	$\rightarrow$	$\bullet$	10.000.000	270,000	Paul	600,000		883,500	$\bullet$	breakdown per LOR	Relationship map	Joint new business prospecting
Birmingham	٠			20,000,000		Lee	650,000	66,000	650,000	66,001	Arrange office visit to understand account make up and key contacts. May be an opportunite to do this initialle ria Manchester	Identify opportunities/pipeline until end of 2018.	Priotice and opportunities that arise.
Glasgow	٠	$\ddot{\phantom{0}}$		20.000.000		Lee	COR 800		500,000	٠	Ve need to prioritise office visit ensuring we speak to keeperople.Keeperople from Protector should also attend:	Ve need to better understand brokers account better than we do at present. Obtain realistic pipeline cases. Ast straight forward question how	Ensure we are proactive on quotes that we receive.
Manchastrar	m	٠		30,000,000	51782	Lee	1,558,000	1005110	1,604,287	1,005,120	Currently good traction with this office but little understanding of the accountmake up. I have requested this via Allison Castillo	Arrange visit to build up realistic pineline	Friority to be given to Marsh Manchester quotes

		2018
Casualty	Won	Lost	Hit ratio
Green	337.677	3,826,740
White	1.002.802	7,110,660	129
Yellow		287.658	œ
Red			œ
Total	1.340.479	11,225,058

The Housing Sector is Protector's «home turf»

Speed bumps lead to a slow start, good traction from 2019

• Market size of ~ £300m, only £12m quoted in 2018
• Expect quote volume to increase significantly in 2019
• Low deductibles, low value exposures
• Datadriven underwriting
• Relative importance of cost leadership is high
• Good working relationship with broker
• Focusing on increasing efficiency and quality in total value chain

Profitable Growth – according to plan

«Scratching» the market surface, insignificant, but ok status on profitability

• Too high pricing, but learning quickly in Public Sector
• Good renewals (processes and results)
  • All clients renewed, rate increases achieved
• Very high activity, but poor new sales (in particular April 1st)
• Good attritional loss ratio, but early
• Gaining traction in Commercial Sector
• Few, but good renewals
• Increased inbox for new business, 3 very large clients won
• Ok loss ratio, reinsurance motor too expensive
• Small inbox, but good hit ratio in Housing Sector
• Few new clients available, good hit ratio, largest HA in UK won
• High frequency of water claims, but early

		Quote Activity	2018 per Q3 (£m)
Segment	# quotes	Hit-ratio	Quoted vol	Hit-ratio
Public	112	21%	67	7%
Commercial	272	22%	41	22%
Housing	38	37%	12	39%
Total	422	23%	120	15%

Volume full year 2016	Volume full year 2017	Estimate 2018	Estimate 2019
25 MNOK	252,9 MNOK	$>500$ MNOK	$>850$ MNOK

On Schedule - Close to critical mass in 2019 Cost ratio will rapidly decrease

• Critical mass not reached, building for scalability
• Claims Handling insourced in 2018
  • Several manual processes before efficient systems are implemented
• The biggest potential (Commercial sector) gaining traction in 2018
  • Recruited for overcapacity, already scalable
• Gross cost ratio (incl claims handling) ~20 % in 2018, significant drop in 2020
• Casualty reinsurance is too expensive, but with variations
• Should improve as record is proven
• Increased retention should be expected
• Loss ratios are volatile (insignificant), in particular net of reinsurance
• Linked to reinsurance cost for liability
• Influenced by a significant share of non-conventional programs in portfolio

	Gross claims %	Net claims %
YTD 18	66,9 %	115,5 %
YTD 17	883,4 %	128,6 %
Earned 18	274,3	113,3

On Schedule, but meeting some «speed-bumps»

Very large potential, great start on quality

Restaurant Louise | 26th October | From 10:00

Sverre Bjerkeli
CEO

13:45 – 14:00	Summary and Q&A
13:15 – 13:45	UK including status Grenfell Tower
12:45 – 13:15	Reinsurance – update entering 2019
12:15 – 12:45	Something to eat
11:45 – 12:15	Investments
11:00 – 11:45	Status Company including HTD reserves
10:45 – 11:00	Coffee and snack