Lard Friese: No, that’s okay. So these were your questions, Ashik. Then I hand over to Matt.
Matthew Rider : Okay. Let’s first break down the — so the reinsurance transaction, we’ll break down the €225 million for you. So basically, on a U.S. statutory basis, we have a gain on the transaction. We had a gain on the transaction. That amounts to about €355 million. We also had to — because we had to transfer assets to the reinsurer, we took losses on bonds in order to be able to fund the transfer of assets and the losses on bonds were about €180 million. And then the balancing item here would be the release of the RBC required capital of €50 million. So hopefully, that answers your question. The second one related to the U.S. holding company, and I think you pointed out that in the, let’s say, the normal conversion of our RBC ratio to our group Solvency II ratio, we had a few differences because there are some things that are happening, again, outside of the regulated entities, but they are happening in the holding company.
So there are a couple in there. You may recall — the first one is you may recall in the — at the Capital Markets Day, we signaled that there was a — that we were going to restructure an earn-out agreement with one of these WFG founding agents. And that — so that has an impact on the holding company, which would not have been reflected in the RBC ratio. If you combine that with a couple other ones, there was also an impairment of — I think it was a software asset that was sitting on the balance sheet at the holding company, and that was related to the project to bring in the TCS — previously outsourced business into us. And then there was a contribution to the employee pension scheme, which happens outside, again, of the regulated entities.
And if you add those up, you get to about 3 percentage points. The other one that I kind of flagged in my opening remarks, relates to tiering limits on the Solvency II reporting. So in this case, we were — we had more of a restriction on DTAs at a group level, and it really relates to the fact that we had a little bit higher DTAs in the U.S. And because of the transaction with a.s.r., there was a tax settlement part of that, which reduced deferred tax liabilities. So we don’t get that offset. And as a consequence of it, you got that, let’s say, breakage I think, in the Solvency II ratio. And then finally, we had that deal with La Banque Postale, that we actually closed after the end of the quarter, but we did reflect that — there is actually capital implications for that — required capital implications to the tune of about 2%.
So in general, so should you care about the U.S. holding company? Yes. The U.S. holding company will come back to sort of normal by the end of the year as we work through some of these, let’s say, the timing of funding for the WFG earnout as well as a couple of other little bits for the — for that TCS in-sourcing. So it should not be an issue. By year-end, we’ll have it straight. The last one was a very general assumption about CSM. So I want to — so I’ll talk in general about that. CSM, you should care about. CSM is a — you can think of it as a store of value. You can think of it in some manner as a present value of future profits. And over time, we will release that CSM into earnings. So that’s actually the biggest driver of the insurance operating result.
