Kinnevik Stock

Good morning. I'm Hannah Björk, Director of Corporate Communication. Welcome to the presentation of Kinnevik's Q3 results. Let me introduce our CEO, Helena Saxon, and our Interim CFO, Caspar Sjöstrand.

Helena will start with a summary of the quarter, our net asset value development and the key events in the portfolio. Caspar will then take you through portfolio performance and valuation. And Helena will close with our strategic priorities ahead. After the presentation, we will open up for questions.

With that, I hand over to you, Helena.

Thank you, Hannah, and hello, everyone, and very welcome to this Q3 call, my first as CEO of Kinnevik. I want to start by saying how grateful I am for the warm welcome from the team, our Board, our portfolio companies and to many of you that are on the line today. Let me kick off the presentation by making a few comments on my first 2 months here at Skeppsbron. I have started by getting to know the team, the companies and engaging with our stakeholders. I have been struck by the interest in our future and the strength of the team and the portfolio. I'm very proud to be part of this company and its next chapter.

Moving over to the headlines. Our net asset value landed at SEK 29.8 billion at the end of the quarter, equivalent to SEK 108 per share, up 1% since Q2. We invested SEK 165 million and divested SEK 183 million, ending the quarter at a net cash position of SEK 7.4 billion. Our unlisted companies delivered a total return of 1% and the Kinnevik B share delivered a total shareholder return of 19% in the quarter.

Turning over to valuation. This graph shows the development since Q2 broken down into its different drivers. And as we can see, our net asset value development this quarter was stable, supported by growth and currency. Multiples impacted NAV negatively, and this is somewhat softer than public peer development would suggest. I will explain why. But first of all, I want to underline that there has been no change in the valuation process. We value each company against a broad peer group and its respective outlook as we always have.

In this quarter, valuation -- in this quarterly valuation, we updated forward growth expectations in a few of our larger companies, and that held back multiples relative to listed peers. Peer groups set the valuation range for each company, but how they are each positioned within that range depends on the specific company growth and profitability outlook. This quarter, it meant valuations for a few of the growth companies did not follow peers fully. Caspar will add color to that later in the presentation.

We also wrote down our Climate Tech holdings, mainly Stegra, which we now hold at 0 value. Partly offsetting this, Enveda and Tandem Health strong funding rounds, of course, lifted their value by approximately 30% in the quarter.

Let me move over to 3 key events in the quarter. Firstly, Kinnevik invested SEK 12 million in Swedish health tech company, Tandem, which raised $100 million in the quarter. Tandem is a complete AI medical assistant integrated with 130 medical records in 14 European countries. The U.S. biotech company, Enveda, which is 9% of our portfolio, raised USD 311 million and is advancing 3 clinical programs for eczema, obesity and irritable bowel syndrome.

Kinnevik invested $5 million and now owns 11% of the company, which is valued at USD 1.8 billion. And Enveda will use the additional capital to scale its AI-enabled platform focused on identifying new chemistry for drug development. Cityblock, which is 6% of our portfolio and operates a value-based care model for especially vulnerable patients in the U.S., acquired Homeward Health in the quarter. This transaction was an all-stock transaction, diluting our ownership to 8%. The acquisition will bring growth, strategic benefits and synergies going forward. Cityblock has announced that its annualized revenue will now reach some USD 2.2 billion, and they will be serving almost 200,000 patients in the U.S.

With that, I'm handing over to our Interim CFO, Caspar Sjöstrand. Please, Caspar.

Thank you, Helena, and good morning, everyone. Let's turn to the valuation changes in the quarter for our 10 largest companies, which make up 75% of our portfolio. Our 2 largest holdings, Spring Health and Perk, both continued to grow strongly, while our fair values were broadly unchanged in the quarter. As we mentioned in the second quarter, pro forma for the Alma acquisition, Spring Health has forward revenues of around $1 billion at maintained profitability.

In the quarter, earnings growth and currency contributed positively, offset by dilution. Our multiple was broadly unchanged as we did not follow the HealthTech re-rating in full. However, Spring Health continues to be valued at a premium to its HealthTech peer group and at a discount to its key listed peer as last quarter. Perk was also broadly unchanged. Growth and currency tailwinds were offset by lower multiples as both transactional software peers and its key listed peer declined in the quarter. Perk has communicated that it is approaching $400 million in annualized revenue after growing an impressive 48% in 2025. That is roughly double the level reported at the time of its January 2025 funding round.

As Helena already mentioned, Enveda and Tandem Health both raised new rounds in September, which lifted their values by 30% to 35%. We have supported Enveda over several rounds since our first investment in 2023, and the company now has 3 drug candidates in clinical trials. In Tandem Health, we invested our pro rata share on a fully diluted basis, and we look forward to supporting the company as it builds an AI-native clinic operating system.

Mews, Oviva and Pleo decreased in value. For Mews and Oviva, updated forward growth expectations held multiples back relative to peers, although both companies continue to grow at high rates with focus on profitability. For Pleo, the decline mainly reflected lower peer multiples. Finally, Betterment, Cityblock and Instabee all continued to grow with little net change in fair value. For Betterment and Cityblock, growth was offset by lower multiples, while Instabee's growth and cash flow lifted its value, though multiples were flat.

Across the private portfolio as a whole, value was up 1% in the quarter to SEK 22.5 billion. Health & Bio added SEK 400 million, mainly from Enveda's financing round and emerging companies added another SEK 300 million, driven by Tandem Health. Together, they offset declines of around SEK 200 million each in software, mainly Mews and Pleo and in other investments and partnership funds, which includes write-downs in our Climate Tech portfolio.

Before getting into the quarter's peer developments, let me briefly cover how our companies compare with those peers. Over the last 12 months, our Health & Bio and software companies grew revenues by over 30%, including acquisitions. That is 2x to 3x as fast as the broader listed peer groups. However, profitability is lower. EBITDA margins are around breakeven in Health & Bio and still negative in software against 20% to 25% for peers. That reflects where our companies are in their development. They are earlier on the growth curve and still growing into their cost structures, while their peers are larger and more mature. The gap is, however, narrowing with combined EBITDA margins up 7 percentage points so far this year.

These differences are also why our multiples don't simply mirror those of our peers. We anchor our valuations in broad peer groups, but adjust for growth, profitability and scale, which is worth keeping in mind as we look at how peers moved in the quarter. It was a mixed picture across subsectors. HealthTech and vertical software peers rerated by around 10% and 5% on a median basis, while transactional software and value-based care peers declined by around 12% and 16%.

In subsectors where peers declined, our multiples followed with Perk falling less than its peers and Pleo and Cityblock somewhat more, where peers increased, updated forward growth expectations in a few companies such as Mews and Oviva meant we didn't follow in full. Finally, currency. With around 3/4 of our private portfolio in U.S. dollars and 1/4 in euros, the weaker krona added 3% to portfolio value in the quarter.

With that, I'll hand it back to Helena for some concluding remarks.

Thank you, Caspar. And to round off before Q&A, let me say a few words about our priorities ahead. We will build a more focused portfolio and concentrate on fewer, larger profitable holdings in later growth stages where Kinnevik can be the best owner. We will exert financial discipline, both with regards to capital allocation and management costs. Capital will be allocated to growth companies with a clear path to profitability, and we will bring our management cost down to SEK 200 million per year by 2027.

Finally, we are fully aware that trust can only be built through consistent delivery. Therefore, our focus will be on results and transparency. Kinnevik has a strong balance sheet, a committed Board, a motivated team and a portfolio of companies with significant potential. I am confident that we have what it takes to create shareholder value, and I look forward to keeping you updated on our progress.

With that, Caspar and I are happy to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions]

We are now going to proceed with our first question.

And our first questions come from the line of Derek Laliberte from ABG Sundal Collier.

So my first question relates to you haven't taken quite significant valuation reductions across the portfolio this year despite pretty strong underlying growth. How do you assess sort of the conservatism of your current valuation, particularly for your 3 largest holdings? And what would really need to happen for these valuations to start reflecting more of the operational progress that we are seeing?

Thanks a lot for your question. I think it's important to reiterate what Helena already shared in that we haven't changed anything in the valuation process or methodology compared to previous quarters. I do also think that it's -- although the market in general has been constructive, if you double-click on a few of the subsectors, then you see more of a mixed picture. For example, if you look at Perk, then horizontal -- sorry, transactional software was actually down and the key peer was down double digits in the quarter. So it's really a calibration around those factors. I think the same would go for both Spring and Mews, where the latest quarter for spring, we're still valuing the company at a premium versus the large peer group, and you had a little bit of a softer development there. So I think all in all, we think of these as the fair value of our companies, and they continue to grow, they continue to perform. Yes, so that's...

Okay. I appreciate the clarity. And then deeper on Spring Health, [ than ] the remaining your largest holdings and its valuation has, as you mentioned, been broadly unchanged this year despite what we understand as continued strong growth. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on the current growth trajectory, the margin development and outlook here. And to what extent is this unchanged valuation explained by multiple compression rather than changes to your operational expectations over the year?

Yes. I mean I think the themes are very similar to what we communicated in Q2. There's a strategic acquisition that closed in May this year. The company is continuing to do really well. It's scaling. It's been guided to over $1 billion of revenue on a run rate and is doing well in general. So no major updates versus last quarter. And as mentioned, we keep holding it at a premium to the broader health tech universe and in that same discount range to the key peer as covered in the Q2.

Okay. Cool. And on Mews there, it was marked down another 6% here in Q3 with the updated forward expectation you cite as one of the reasons. Could you elaborate here on what's changed in your expectation? Is it primarily a moderation in the revenue growth? Or are there also some changes to the profitability outlook? And how does that sort of reconcile with the company's continued expansion and the recent product developments we've seen as well?

Yes, it's more the former. It keeps growing very strongly. And as you saw on one of the slides, the -- our software companies are growing on average 30-plus percent. So it's more of a calibration than anything else. We continue to feel very good about the business, and it's continued to deliver.

Okay. And then just on Cityblock, just to understand kind of what's been going on there lately. What I can see, they completed this $116 million financing round alongside with the Homeward Health acquisition, but the valuation here is broadly unchanged. So just wondering if you could explain how this transaction affects Cityblock's, sort of, financial position and the growth outlook too and does this new financing round provide any new external validation of your current valuation?

Yes, it's an excellent question. Thank you. First of all, the -- we hold the current mark below the round. And in general, the company has continued to scale over $2 billion of annualized revenue, as we indicated. And I think here, the market backdrop was a bit challenging because as you can see from Slide 11 in the presentation, the market was actually down 16%. And I think when it comes to the acquisition, which was an all-share all-stock acquisition, we took a bit of dilution. And rather than sort of getting the synergy values from day 1, we would like to see them sort of grow into that. And therefore, we haven't we haven't rerated it on day 1, so to speak. So I think in general, on the business, it continues to perform as expected. It's more of a challenging market backdrop that drove -- that they grew into. And actually overall being flat in the quarter, we see as a sign of good health.

All right. That makes sense. And just finally, on the broader strategy here, I think -- I mean, it's quite clear what you want to achieve long term broadly written, but still how that will sort of be pan out is a bit uncertain. I mean, should we expect some more details around the strategy over the coming months? Or is this sort of set and we'll need to follow what you do, so to speak?

Hi, Derek. Helena here. Thanks for the strategy question. As you know, I've spent 2 months here getting to know the team here at Skeppsbron, meeting the companies, the founders, some of the larger shareholders as well. There is a lot of interest in our strategy for sure, and that's very flattering in a way. And I can just confirm that the Board and management are clearly aligned around the direction. Near term, we will focus on concentrating the portfolio, financial discipline, as I mentioned before, and we need to deliver shareholder value to rebuild credibility in the Kinnevik brand.

We are now going to proceed with our next question.

And the questions come from the line of Linus Sigurdson from DNB Carnegie.

I wanted to start to build on Derek's question on valuation. I mean you talked about broad-based growth, at the same time, saying that forward expectations held multiples back in several instances. I mean, could you just help us understand what's driving the lowered expectations, I guess, in Pleo and Oviva in particular?

Yes. Thank you for your question. I think in -- on Pleo specifically, as we outlined in the presentation, that is more the fintech peers being weak in the quarter, which drove most of the change. When it comes to Mews and Oviva, which we also comment on, it's more, again, calibration. And I think with some of our businesses, they're obviously treading on the balance between growth and profitability. We obviously value on mainly revenue and gross profit. So I think it's important to keep that in mind. We triangulate, but it's more calibration than anything else. And then equally, during H1, we didn't necessarily follow the market one to one. And then equally, we will not do that if not warranted in ongoing quarters, so to speak.

I can add on Oviva, which is a rather recent acquisition on our part. Oviva addresses a large unmet need in Europe among obese patients that get medication but need to change their behavior. They are developing well in terms of acquiring new patients and reaching new patients all over Europe, including the U.K. and Switzerland and Germany. In Germany, however, there has been some reimbursement changes that impacts the development for Oviva in the quarter.

Okay. That makes perfect sense. But just to be clear, there's no, like, material downgrade to sort of your outlook in Pleo.

No material downgrades.

No material downgrades.

Okay. And then what do you see as the main bottlenecks when it comes to exits as well as new investments? I very much appreciate your comments around timing and not letting the transformation be impacted by, say, time pressure. But I mean, beyond timing, what do you view as the main bottlenecks?

What was the question? The timing will not put pressure on how we deploy capital, of course, that would not be smart in terms of trying to make good deals. But bottlenecks otherwise, no, I guess it's about finding the right situations where Kinnevik can be the best owner and where we can really make a difference and create value for shareholders. And we're working on building the pipeline for that, and we will revert to you when we have more details to share.

That's fair. And then finally, I mean, how would you put the overall financial health in the portfolio in relation to your expectations coming in as CEO?

Yes. No, I have spent some time getting to know the companies, also traveling to meet founders and CEOs. It's been a very interesting journey, and I see significant potential in these companies. What's happened in the quarter is, of course, continued growth and improved margins. So I think that's a very positive sign.

We are now going to proceed with our next question.

And the next questions come from the line of [ Jonathan Sjöberg ] from Danske Bank.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Perfect. It's Jonathan here, Danske. So just one question here from my end. And it's on your view on focusing the portfolio here. So just let me explain this, balancing the current portfolio against new investments. So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think you are under 25 people working, while your NAV is scattered across a long tail of companies. And given, I guess, that you're naturally fewer and that every holding company requires some time, what should we expect here?

Are you going into a period where pruning the portfolio is the most important task compared to new investments? Or should we see a bit of both?

That's a good question. And it's true that we have a more focused team now with clear roles and responsibilities. And I think that's very good. We can make decisions faster and it motivates the team that we're just a small concentrated team. We have, as you say, more than one task. One is, of course, to deploy the capital in a smart way to generate shareholder value, but it's also to concentrate the current portfolio, and we have resources dedicated to just that. However, we will, of course, not rush into anything. We will optimize value also in the exit processes.

That's really interesting. I guess a follow-up on that. I think interim CEO, Rubin, he paused the action of new investments. Is that fully reignited now? Do you think we can see anything this year? Or is that too early?

I will not put a timetable on this for the reasons we talked about before. It's better we revert when we have more details to share. But of course, we are focusing on building a pipeline now to deploy the capital in the balance sheet.

We are now going to proceed with our next question.

And the next questions come from the line of [ Frederik Lunde ] from DNB Carnegie.

Congratulations on a good start with the transactions in Enveda and Tandem. And I appreciate that you -- and I agree that you should retain the flexibility on the balance sheet for the future. But I would like to just touch on capital allocation still. So it's good to see potential in the portfolio companies. But given this and that the Enveda and Tandem transactions were at a premium to previous reported NAV, I'm just curious how to reconcile the investment hurdle or potential you see in new future investments that could exceed buybacks? When you [ were ] effectively buying back your portfolio at probably 60% discount to NAV in the market today?

Hi, Helena here. It's a little bit hard to hear your question, but I think it's around buybacks related to deployment of the capital in new investments.

Yes. Just given the big discount in the share price and that you see big potential in the portfolio companies, you must have very high expectations on future investments outside of the current portfolio.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes. No, all form of distribution to shareholders is, of course, an owner question. But at this point in time, for Kinnevik, transforming the portfolio, the balance sheet, having a strong balance sheet gives a lot of financial flexibility, and it's strategic to remain to have that investment capacity going forward.

But the question is not really returning cash, it's deploying cash, right? So investing in a new external company should be valued versus buying back your existing portfolio through the shares.

Yes. No, I...

Just curious if you value those one to one, if that's a different investment proposition.

No, I hear what you're saying. And of course, buybacks should always be a tool to deploy when you think that's the best way -- best use of capital. But for us, in this transition period, we need the financial flexibility to transform the portfolio and make new investments.

[Operator Instructions]

We are now going to proceed with our next question.

And our next questions come from the line of Björn Olsson from SEB.

First, a question on semantics. You said earlier that you -- when explaining the lower valuations of Mews and Oviva, you said you had updated some of the forward growth estimates for some of your holdings. I think. Was that just a miscommunication? Or will this mean that you haven't reviewed all forward growth estimates for all of your holdings, and we will see more revisions to come?

Thanks for the question. No, it's mainly around the direction, meaning, the impact. So we obviously haven't changed anything in the methodology or process versus previous quarter. We go through all of the forecasts and do our calibration and so on. So that shouldn't be taken as an indication of anything. We go through every single company-by-company valuation in each quarter, and this is a representation of the fair value that we see today.

Maybe it could have been clearer. I agree with that. We, of course, review all the forward-looking estimates.

Okay. That's good to know. And then just a follow-up still that given this, I mean, you both are new here. So should we still view the slightly downward revised forward look as an example of the 2 of you and maybe more in your team being more conservative now when looking ahead? Or has this just been a mechanical effect? Because looking at the LTM revenues, I guess, software has gone from a year-on-year growth rate of 34% to 32% Q-over-Q. So is this just a reflection of this or your conservatism?

No, thank you for the question. I just want to reiterate that we have not changed the methodology for how we value our portfolio.

Okay. And then just finally, you are investing your pro rata share of Tandem, but not in Enveda. How come?

That's true. Good catch. We have deliberately taken a smaller share of the Enveda financing round. We have already a stake in Enveda that we're very happy with. We also have other biotech investments, and we feel that the exposure to that sector is the right one. And we participated with $5 million, as I'm sure you saw, and we thought that was the right number.

Thank you. There are no further questions showing. So I'll now hand back to the management team.

Okay. Thank you, everyone, and we will see you in Q4.

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Kinnevik Q2 Report 2026 Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Rubin Ritter, Interim CEO. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good morning also from my side, and welcome to today's earnings call where we talk about the second quarter of 2026. I'm sitting here together with Samuel, our CFO. And together, we will talk about update on the key priorities of the quarter. I will cover net asset value, capital allocation, and then we have time for some closing remarks before we start Q&A.

So when I joined in March as Interim CEO, I promised to do a thorough and unbiased review of Kinnevik's team, culture, ways of working, and the portfolio. And there was also a clear Board mandate to make changes where needed to create a better starting point for a new CEO. In that context, our work in the second quarter was focused on 4 objectives. Objective #1 was to start the transition towards a smaller and more focused organization with an achievement-oriented culture. I see that as a big opportunity for Kinnevik. I believe this company should be a place where it feels like working to be part of a small team that is handpicked, closely aligned where we have joint clear objectives, where we have focused execution towards these objectives, where we have a joint sense of urgency that is motivating to everyone and where we feel accountability for the outcome as a team.

So in this context, I have discussed with the senior leadership, and we have redesigned the organizational structure to create more clear roles and clearer responsibilities. We have also moved forward to reduce the team size from about 45 colleagues at the end of 2025 to less than 25 colleagues today. We have also tried to make Stockholm the clear center of gravity for this team. We do have employees in different locations, including London, and they are very important to us. But at the same time, we have made clear that we see the center of this company in Stockholm, and we bring everybody over every other week to be together here in the office as a team.

We have also gone back to an office-first approach with the goal of spending more time together as a team to do the work together in the office. In this context, we have also started to change the culture, and I hope that you noticed that we have an increased pace of decision-making. I think there were a large number of things that were relatively clear at Kinnevik that they needed to happen. And I think we have tried to adapt a new pace where we together discuss and debate, and then we decide, and then we implement, and then we move on.

The second objective was to reduce our cost base. Our purpose as a company is to be good stewards of our shareholders' money and capital. And with that mindset, we need to look at cost as every krona that we spend without impact is a krona that we cannot invest to make a return for our shareholders. So with that in mind, we together decided that our cost is too high. And in the last earnings call, we communicated the goal to bring management cash cost down to around SEK 200 million per year as of 2027, which is a reduction by about 30% from the level of 2025, which was SEK 313.

So in this context, in the last months, the team has identified and also implemented a number of measures that are already sufficient to bring us to that target, but additional measures will continue to be worked on in the second half of the year to also create leeway for us to make also some new investments into the team where we see that as necessary. I also think there is a significant potential and a great opportunity that we can unlock by leveraging a more modern technology stack, which would enable us for a more comprehensive use of AI. So that work has also been accelerated in the second quarter.

The third objective is to be very selective in follow-on investments to preserve capital. As you know, many companies in our portfolio are investing to grow very fast, and that is a good thing because the value of these growth companies lies in the future. And our role as investors is to support them on that journey. And sometimes that means that we will invest in follow-on rounds. This is a great opportunity for Kinnevik to deploy additional capital, but at the same time, we need to be highly disciplined in our approach. First of all, because we want to be good stewards of our shareholders' capital.

And then secondly, because in this particular situation, we also want to preserve capital to be able to invest under a new investment strategy going forward. And I think I can say that in the second quarter, we have been highly disciplined in capital allocation. Net investments amount to SEK 57 million in the second quarter, which is actually the lowest level since Q4 2019. In this context, I would also like to reiterate our goal to invest not more than SEK 1.5 billion in follow-on rounds to bring our existing portfolio to profitability.

The fourth objective was to conduct an internal portfolio review. Together with the investment team, I've reviewed more than 35 companies. The key questions that we asked ourselves is which companies have the potential to be a long-term success and to make a lasting difference to their customers. And then as a result of that, which of these companies have the potential to be long-term holds for Kinnevik based on their financial profile, their track record, but also their strategy and potential going forward. So clearly, the bar needs to be very high. And I think the good news is that we have some great companies in the portfolio with a strong and growing track record and high ambition and a sound plan for the future. And I think if they deliver on that plan, they do have the potential to play a defining role in our portfolio going forward.

On the other hand, the Board also has been very clear that we want to transition to a portfolio that is more concentrated, that is more cash generating, and that has a more balanced risk profile going forward. And of course, not every investment that we have made in the past will also have a place in the portfolio of the future. Now of course, we have a new CEO coming in with Helena as of August, and it will be her responsibility to continue to develop the portfolio going forward. And I hope that by doing this portfolio review, we have created a good basis for her to get to know the portfolio quickly to form her own view and to take the right decisions, of course, together with the Board.

Now coming to the financial performance. While we have been focused on these 4 priorities, we have also benefited from positive developments in our portfolio. Today, we can report that our NAV has increased to SEK 29.6 billion or SEK 107 per share. That is an increase of about 6%. This positive increase is primarily driven by the multiple expansion of our portfolio companies' listed peers. At the same time, we have seen strong growth in the portfolio of about 28% on average year-to-date in our larger holdings as well as EBITDA margin improvements by about 4 percentage points to negative 6%. We have been able to keep cash almost constant at SEK 7.4 billion, which is in line with our objective to preserve capital. And I think we can say overall that this has been a very good quarter for our portfolio.

We also have some important management changes that I would like to take the opportunity to address. So we have decided, together with Samuel, that now is the right time to make a change. Samuel will be leaving Kinnevik at the end of August after 13 years with the firm. And I'll have the chance to come back to this after Samuel's presentation.

Caspar Sjöstrand will be interim CFO until a permanent successor is appointed. He has joined us recently as part of our investment team. I'm very confident that in combination with Helena's experience and the finance team that we have in place, he will be able to cover this important role really well and do a great job. It is not news to you that Helena Saxon will be joining us as new CEO as of August 1. And I just would like to point out that I already have an active dialogue with her, and we align on the most important developments and decisions.

I'm also excited to announce that we have Hannah Björk joining us on September 1. She will join as Director of Communications and Investor Relations. So most of the participants of this call will get to know her quite well going forward. She has many years of experience in this field, and I think she is exactly the right profile, and I'm very excited that she will be joining the team.

And now I'd like to hand over to Samuel.

Thank you, Rubin, and good morning, everybody. So as usual, I'll take you through the NAV development and capital allocation for the quarter, and then I'll hand it back to Rubin before we open up for Q&A, after which Rubin will come back with some closing remarks. That means we are on Page 4 of today's presentation and on the trading of the different public market peer sets that are relevant to our private valuations. And what we're showing on this page is not just the headline average move for each peer group, but the dispersion underneath it, because that dispersion really mattered this quarter.

As you may recall, in Q1, we said that the public market drawdown in that quarter was relatively indiscriminate. Q2 was different. The re-rating was more selective, and we saw quite meaningful differences across different subgroups. Firstly, the average public SaaS peer multiple was up by around 20%, but the median that we show in the top red square here was up by only around 5% to 6%. And that informs that it was a concentrated move impacted by significant outliers, in particular, among the large-scale peers. And hence, the headline average number overstates what happened for the typical company.

Second, the market seemed to move from debating AI risks last quarter to rewarding more concrete AI tailwinds this quarter. The companies driving this in part overlap with the aforementioned outliers, but we saw the strongest multiple expansion in companies where AI is a more immediate demand catalyst in companies delivering, for instance, developer tools, data infrastructure, and cybersecurity services. Meanwhile, the multiple expansion in the application layer and other peer sets more relevant when valuing our portfolio was somewhat more muted.

So this was a quarter where deaveraging really mattered, and we've updated the peer group spreadsheet available on our website to reflect the nuances in public market SaaS that this slide aims to provide. At the very bottom range of this chart, you see how multiples changed in our larger companies, where the moves in these various peer sets meant a spread of minus 7% to plus 18% in terms of multiple change in our investees and a median increase of 4%.

So moving on to the next page, Page 5, and what this meant for NAV. Our NAV was up 6% in Q2, ending the quarter at SEK 29.6 billion or SEK 107 per share, with the portfolio growing in value by 8%. In constant currencies, NAV was up 5%. The short version is that public market valuation tailwinds helped, but we also had some company-specific effects. Health & Bio was up 16%, in part driven by some solid operational developments at Cityblock, but primarily by Spring Health, which was up 29% in SEK fair value terms in the quarter.

Spring closed its acquisition of Alma during the quarter, and on a combined basis, the company is now targeting $1 billion worth of revenue over the next 12 months, with gross margins in the high 50s and continued EBITDA profitability. As a consequence of the acquisition, our ownership stake was diluted from 14% to 12%, and we remain the company's largest investor. The acquisition means that we're valuing the combined company at a somewhat lower multiple than would be applicable for Spring on a stand-alone basis. And as a reference point against Hinge Health, we are now carrying the company at a 15% to 20% discount on a gross profit basis and a 40% to 45% discount on a revenue basis.

At Oviva, we took down our forward outlook slightly, driven mainly by a delay in the company's rollout plan, but that adjustment was more than offset by peer multiple expansion. Our software companies were up 7%, again, mainly driven by peer multiples, and with Perk as the largest contributor of software NAV in the quarter. For context, relative to Navan, our valuation of Perk now implies a 5% to 10% discount on both a gross profit and revenue basis after the re-rating that's happened after Navan's IPO in late October last year. At Mews, we also adjusted our outlook downward slightly here to reflect softer U.S. macro trends, providing some headwind in that market. But again, this modest forecast adjustment was more than offset by positive peer multiples.

Our earlier-stage emerging companies were up 12% in the quarter, driven entirely by the revaluation of Wordsmith, which I'll get back to in a second. And the remainder of the portfolio, what we call prior strategies, was down 4% in aggregate, mainly driven by some multiple contraction at Betterment and a SEK 0.2 billion write-down of our Climate Tech businesses.

Transaction activity was limited again this quarter. Over the last 12 months, there have been transactions in 33% of the private portfolio by value, and those transactions have cleared at a 10% weighted average premium to our prior NAV marks. And turning to Page 6. That transaction deceleration was reflected in our capital allocation in the quarter, in combination with our increased discipline and selectiveness when we review follow-on investments.

We invested, in total, SEK 57 million in the quarter, and our largest investment was our participation in Wordsmith's $70 million funding round, in which we participated with our SEK 29 million pro rata share. Wordsmith has had a strong start in our portfolio, with revenue up 14x over the last 12 months. And the funding round represents a value uplift of more than 3x relative to our entry price in Q1 last year. Meanwhile, as Rubin mentioned, we agreed 2 smaller divestments in the quarter with expected proceeds of SEK 133 million that will close and be accounted for during Q3.

We have agreed to sell our stake in Oda for around SEK 100 million, and in YouScan, a smaller asset dating back to our old Avito investment for around SEK 30 million. Buyers in both transactions are existing co-investors, so both companies are in good hands. And these smaller exits put an end to 2 very different chapters, while releasing some capital and rationalizing and concentrating our portfolio. adjusting our quarterly capital allocation with these 2 agreed divestments means we would have been net divesters in the quarter of SEK 76 million.

This all means that at quarter end, net cash stood at SEK 7.4 billion or SEK 7.6 billion adjusted for these agreed divestments, up SEK 75 million from the end of Q1. So we remain in a very strong financial position with plenty of flexibility, and that's reinforced by the cost savings that we're implementing and that will begin to take effect during the second half of the year, as well as by our expectation to invest no more than around SEK 1.5 billion of follow-on capital into the existing portfolio.

With that, I'll hand the call back to Rubin.

Thank you, Samuel. And before going into Q&A, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you, Samuel. You have been with Kinnevik for 13 years, with quite a unique career, I can say, starting as a very junior team member and now ending it as CFO of the company. During the time I've been here, I've witnessed firsthand that the team holds you in high regard, both as a colleague and as a leader. And on behalf of the Board and the team, I would just like to say thank you for your commitment and your hard work for the firm, and also personally thank you for helping me to lead the company over the last months through a period of change.

With your long tenure, of course, you also hold a lot of knowledge. And so I'm thankful that we found an agreement that you also will be available to us to support also after end of August when needed. And then, yes, I want to say, I hope you will enjoy spending some more time also with your young family. You have a young baby boy. I know it's a priority for you to spend time with them. And I can tell you from experience that will be a very valuable and rewarding period in your life. And yes, I wish you all the best.

Thank you very much, Rubin.

And with this, I think we can hand over to Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] We will now take our first question from the line of Linus Sigurdson from DNB Carnegie.

So firstly, you said that you expect management costs in line with 2025, including this one-off. Can you just confirm that you are tracking along to this SEK 200 million run rate target?

Yes, I can confirm we are kind of on that trajectory to reach the SEK 200 million as a target starting beginning of next year. And we also, of course, already will feel those reductions in the current year, but then we also have restructuring costs and one-off costs that will offset some of this, which is why we expect to be around the level of 2025, including the restructuring cost.

Okay. That's clear. And then looking at Spring Health. Could you just talk a bit about the new financial profile following the Alma acquisition here? I mean what changes and what sort of prompts this increased valuation discount?

Linus, it's Samuel. So I think there are 2 main impacts of the Alma acquisition. The first one is that it changes the mix in the go-to-market of Spring, where Spring historically, with its core EAP product, is selling into large enterprises, whereas Alma strikes agreements with the large health plans and then it's more of a consumer-facing business. And we feel, both intrinsically and when we do analysis on the public comps, that an enterprise-focused go-to-market strategy with, call it, proven commercial ROI, warrants a slightly higher valuation, all else equal.

In terms of the financial profile, Spring, over the last 12 months, grew faster than Alma and made a higher margin. So there, again, the blend, where we are quite cautious and do not ascribe much weight to the synergies that the management of the 2 companies expect have a financial profile that puts Spring in a slightly lower growth territory by a few percentage points, call it 1% or 2% lower EBITDA margin in the short term. Again, the management of both companies would disagree with that. They think they'll be able to unlock a lot of synergies here, but we want to be on the conservative side also in the underlying financial estimates that we value besides what we're trying to do on the multiple side this quarter.

Okay. That's very clear. And then my final question, could you just give some color on how you feel about the valuation levels in the exits that you've made in this quarter? And then I guess, with this increased sense of urgency, is it fair to assume that there's more similar deals in the pipeline for H2?

I feel good about the exits, Linus. I think clearly, Oda, I'm sure there will be case studies written about that investment and the Mathem investment. But I think loss aversion is a bias that's part of the dark side of running a permanent capital investment vehicle. And there, based on the look forward, we feel very good about selling our shares in that company and also selling it to existing shareholders, which I believe all the stakeholders in this company will like. So in terms of relative to NAV, I think the Oda divestment is 20% above where we held it in the last quarter. But clearly, in relation to the capital that we've deployed into the 2 businesses, Oda and Mathem, in particular, during COVID, it's not a good outcome. But that shouldn't influence how we make capital allocation decisions in the here and now.

Maybe just to add back to the second half, you alluded to the sense of urgency. And I think as a company, it's always important to have a sense of urgency. I think that's part of the job. But of course, on the other hand, we need to be on the topic and it is a priority to us. But then also, there is no rush, right? So I think we will look at each opportunity as it presents itself with a lot of focus.

We will now take the next question from the line of Björn Olsson from SEB.

Rubin, you mentioned that you've conducted a major portfolio review. And I'm just thinking, since you're saying that you have some great companies, has the review changed your view on capping the amount to SEK 1.5 billion of potential additional investments in existing holdings?

Yes. Thank you. So it has not changed my view. I think the SEK 1.5 billion continues to be something where we would say that's probably the maximum of what we want to be investing into bringing the existing portfolio into profitability. And nothing in the portfolio review has suggested that we would need to spend more. And then I also think we don't want to spend more because we also want to preserve capital to be in a position to make new investments, following an updated investment strategy.

Maybe just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Also in Q1, I've explained that the SEK 1.5 billion is really what we talk about bringing existing portfolio companies into profitability. Of course, if those portfolio companies were to be profitable in the future and compounding at good rates that we like, we always could take the decision to increase our allocation in them, right? But that is then a different type of discussion. The SEK 1.5 billion is talking about the discipline and follow-ons in bringing existing portfolio companies into a state where they can grow profitably.

Okay. That helps. And then second then on the new strategy, I mean, you're alluding to it a bit here and in the different press statements issued by you when announcing your incoming CEO, as an example. You're guiding that you're pivoting towards later-stage cash-generative enterprises. Could you give just a bit of flavor on that logic and perhaps also some reflections on what went wrong in the past that makes you do this pivot?

Sure. I think the reflection on the past is, of course, that we have, over the last years, really focused investments on quite early-stage enterprises that are fast growing, that have exciting plans, but that also require a lot of capital and that, of course, also have a certain risk profile, where actually different levels of risk are layered on top of each other. You have business model risk, you have execution risk, you have product market fit that might not be fully proven out. So I think we have just, in the past, taken a lot of risk. And in the discussions we had in the Board, I think it became clear to us that given also that we are a permanent capital and listed vehicle, this might not be the right strategy for us going forward, but that we need to move towards a more balanced risk profile, where also the companies that we have in the portfolio can really stand the test of public scrutiny.

And I've also experienced this now firsthand when working on the report for the first quarter and the second quarter, the companies that we have currently in the portfolio, they are not easy to value. And of course, I understand our shareholders want to understand them in great detail. But then the nature of the businesses is such that they are just hard to value and maybe also sometimes not very straightforward to explain. So in this context, we have said the portfolio needs to be more balanced in the risk that we take. The companies need to be a little bit more mature. And then we also would like to see some cash generation in the portfolio because being a permanent capital vehicle, I think that's also an important part of the mix to have cash generation that comes from within. So you don't have to sell companies in order to make new investments.

So I think this is kind of the broader thinking that we had in the Board. And then, of course, when it comes to the specific strategy and what specific new investments should look like, there, I really would like to emphasize that we have, with Helena, a new CEO coming in, and it will be her role to talk to you about that strategy more specifically, because that's something that she, in my mind, needs to own and needs to shape. And I think that's what she's also excited to do. So there, I'll have to defer you to her coming in and then talking about this in greater detail.

That makes sense. And just so I understand it correctly then, on the SEK 1.5 billion cap that you assess is required for potential follow-on investments for your holdings to come into profitable territory, how much of this SEK 1.5 billion would you assess is roughly, and perhaps this is to you, Samuel, is assessed to be allocated to your top 5 or top 10 holdings?

I'll chime in, Björn. I think out of our top 10 holdings, it's virtually only Enveda where we see funding rounds happening, at least with the use of proceeds to finance continued operational burn. As we said in Q1, this SEK 1.5 billion target is slightly more tangible when you look 6, 12 months out, and then beyond that, it will all depend on company performance. So I think the investment we made in Wordsmith this quarter is a good indicator of the type of investments we may be making if companies perform, to help them continue to mature and get into profitability territory.

We will now take the next question from the line of Derek Laliberte from ABG Sundal Collier.

So you have previously indicated here that financing needs obviously are limited and you've also indicated that creating liquidity is becoming sort of an increasing focus. I was wondering if you could update us on or share a bit of flavor on where you see the highest probability of exits over the coming years, and whether also the market conditions here are becoming supportive enough to start crystallizing value at a higher rate?

Yes, thank you for your question. So I think we have been and we are very clear that driving towards a more concentrated portfolio is a priority for us and really developing the portfolio going forward. I'm not sure if we, as an investment company, should be much more specific than this. And we will look very carefully at the portfolio, as we have done in the review. We will, of course, share that also with Helena. And then the team is working on the different parts where we see maybe the opportunity to create a path to liquidity. But I think it's difficult for us to guide you with a lot of detail towards specific names or specific points in time.

As you know, many of those are -- almost all of those are private companies. We're talking about minority stakes. So I think we need to take this step-by-step. I can assure you that we are looking at this with great focus and that we are working on it. But I don't think we should be more specific in guiding publicly towards specific exits.

Understandable. And looking at -- well, previously, Q1, you made this big reset in valuations. Obviously, peers were down a lot, but still appeared like a pretty conservative approach there. And I would say also the same thing in Q2 here. I mean, generally, has your sort of valuation methodology changed anything even more towards the conservative side? And how do you view this in terms of conservativeness in relation to, call it, the observable market transactions?

Yes. Maybe I can actually comment on it because, obviously, when I came in, I was also eager to understand how does the valuation process work in detail. And I think it's important to point out that Kinnevik does have a sound valuation process, and that's also the process that we have followed both for Q1 and Q2 with the help of the finance team, with the help of our auditors, with the help of the Audit Committee. So we have not kind of fundamentally changed the methodology.

Of course, as I have pointed out, a portfolio of fast-growing and partially also early-stage companies that do not have very direct peers sometimes in the public market, some have, others don't, there is, of course, also always a degree of judgment and interpretation where we have tried to be conservative, but also within reason, because I think we need to show the value for what it is. So that's how I would describe how we went about it. Samuel, do you want to add anything or is that it?

No, just to echo what you said, Rubin, and Derek, I think perhaps the key event in our valuation process this team has not been a change of the process, but rather how we're trying to relate to the fairly recently listed peers for our 2 largest assets, Spring and Perk. But that's more an input into that process and how we regard those 2 peers, and less so a matter of a change in process or level of conservativeness.

All right. And another question on a more general basis here following the discussion around AI disruption earlier this year. I mean, can you say something about how you assess the preparedness of your largest software holdings here? And are you seeing AI mainly as a competitive threat or more as an opportunity to accelerate growth and actually improve margins?

Yes. Of course, there continues to be like one core discussion that we have also when we do the portfolio review. And I think we have a broad array of companies that are affected in different ways by AI. Some like Wordsmith, the one that Samuel talked about, where we did the follow-on investment in Q2, is sort of an AI native company, and we have some more of those examples in the portfolio. And then we have some software companies where I think, just broadly speaking, AI, of course, can be both, because it is a disruptive force in technology, but then it's also a tool that agile software companies, of course, will adapt and take on board and use to drive their business more effectively, being it because it allows them to better serve their customers, or because it allows them to more cheaply update their code base, or because it allows them to automate processes. So I think we see all of those examples playing out in the portfolio.

And I think Q1 has been quite harsh on software. I think Q2, we have seen in the markets that the view already is changing. And I think this will continue to be a theme that evolves over time, because it's just such a fundamental shift in technology. Maybe over time, we'll realize that it is a fundamental shift to technology, but maybe not as fundamental of a shift towards what fundamentally makes a good business model. So I think that will be interesting to observe, because I think ultimately, it's about does the company have the right mindset to serve its customers in the best possible way, to drive towards the right decisions, and to have a sound plan going forward and a strategy that takes into account everything that's changing, but also everything that stays the same. Yes, so we will continue to have this debate, and it has been very interesting also for me to observe how it is playing out and how it is affecting our portfolio.

Okay. Great flavor. And then I just had a question. You mentioned Wordsmith. They're a fairly small investment, but just wondering a bit why you have decided to invest in this company specifically? It just seems like there are a number of actors with similar exposure here. What makes this company unique from your perspective?

Yes. As Samuel pointed out, that investment was made, I think, beginning of 2025. And my understanding is also after taking a closer look at the company, the team is very excited about AI being a driving force in how the legal market changes and the legal profession changes. And as you pointed out, there are a number of players active in this field, as you might expect, given that the rise of LLMs, of course, obviously, will change the way that legal work is carried out.

What we are excited about, in the example of Wordsmith, is that their approach is geared more towards how does the legal function in an organization or a company work and how can it be improved through the use of AI. So if you would think of one approach being how can technology and AI be used to make the work, for example, of a law firm, more efficient, I think Wordsmith approach is more how is the legal function embedded into processes in a company and how can those be made more efficient through the use of AI, which is a different approach. And I think it's a very interesting approach. But of course, as you say, it is a competitive market, by the way, like anything relating to AI. So it is an exciting opportunity, but also it is a competitive market, but we think the team is well positioned to take their shot at being successful.

Great. And then a final question on Oviva, which is a new large investment here. You had this successful study showing the 12% weight loss over 9 months. Just wondering to what extent you expect these new results or study to help drive future growth and also what makes this company unique compared to, call it, other weight loss programs?

Yes. Clearly, I think this study -- the clinical studies the company has made in the past helps them in their conversations with the larger European payment systems in convincing them that they should offer it to the patients that they cover, because this actually works, and it's proven out. So hopefully, it will improve one of the levers of our investment case, which is the geographic expansion. And hopefully also they can replicate this success in other services for other conditions.

We will now take our final question from the line of Georg Attling from Pareto Securities.

I just have a couple, starting with -- I mean, you mentioned Hinge and Navan here, both doubled essentially in the past 3 months. Has that in any way changed the prospects of IPOing Perk or Spring in the near term?

Georg, it's Samuel. Look, clearly, Navan and Hinge being manifestly appreciated by public market investors is helpful to a Spring or a Perk going to the public markets. With that said, both our companies are very much focused on their operations. Spring has just closed the acquisition of Alma. They want to integrate that into their company and organization. So we're in no rush. But clearly, at the current valuation levels of those key comps, it's difficult to argue that the state of public markets is prohibitive to our companies going to market. But again, there is no rush to IPO either business.

That's clear. Second question on the future new investments that, I guess, Helena will make. Will she start on a blank page when she joins, or have you already sort of come up with a short list or have a couple of companies that you have interest in?

Well, as you know, for the past months, we have decided to pause new investment activities. But then, of course, there's also a long list of ideas that the team has. So Kinnevik is an active investment company. So there will be several things to start off from. And of course, there's also expertise and ideas in the team. But then I think at the same time, Helena also has the benefit that if she likes, she can also take a very fresh look at things, and there I also see a benefit. So I think it will be up for her to decide how she wants to do this. I think that's her role, and that's why we hired her.

Okay. Just a final question on some of the movements here in Q2. So Betterment multiple down 7%, but peers up 17%. If you could explain that dynamic and also another quite a large cut in the Climate Tech valuation. So just wondering how you feel about the current valuations of those Climate Tech assets?

Sure. So on Betterment, it's hard, right, because the comp set isn't the perfect one. Betterment is an assets under management fee play, whereas the comps we tend to compare Betterment with are mainly commission driven. And then clearly, we have Wealthfront that IPO'd last year that is going through some quite considerable idiosyncratic factors that is impacting where it trades today. So what we've done this quarter is just trying to take a closer look at that comp set and reflect where Wealthfront is to a slightly larger extent than has been the case in the past, similar to what we're doing with Hinge and Navan for Spring and Perk. So it's a bit of a recalibration that tends to happen for these companies where the comp set is far from perfect. Performance-wise, there is nothing to complain about. Betterment continue to track to plan in a very solid way. But we've just refined our approach slightly on the comp side of things.

On Climate Tech, maybe one clarification. The Stegra round that closed in Q2 is not impacting what's happening in that subgroup of our portfolio. What is happening is that there is some dilution in the company where we've elected not to invest. And other than that, the changes are largely stemming from this internal portfolio review that Rubin has mentioned, where we are recalibrating our valuations based on a variety of aspects and one being our appetite to deploy more capital in certain businesses. So that has influenced the move in valuation this quarter.

This concludes the Q&A session. I would now like to turn the conference to the speakers for closing remarks.

Yes, thank you. And thanks, everyone, for a good discussion. This is also my last earnings call with Kinnevik, and I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank this group for your engagement and support. I really enjoyed our interactions, and appreciate all the questions or the insights and also the advice.

I also would like to thank the Board for their trust and continued support. I would like to thank the team. They have been incredibly constructive. We have had many very open and truth-seeking debates on how we can jointly do what's best for Kinnevik. And I think I'm really proud of the progress we have been able to make in a very short period of time. I'm looking forward to hand over to Helena in a few weeks. I think she will be the right leader at the right time on the journey of rebuilding trust and creating value for Kinnevik. I wish her the best of luck, her and the team, and I look forward to working with her and the team as a Board member. Thank you very much.

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Kinnevik First Quarter Report 2026 Webcast and Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Rubin Ritter, Interim CEO. Please go ahead.

Welcome, everyone, also from my side. Thank you for joining. My name is Rubin. I'm Interim CEO at Kinnevik since about 4 weeks. This is my first earnings call. And so far, I'm enjoying the work with the team. It has been very busy weeks. So there is a lot to talk about. And I would suggest we get started right away. I will be presenting today together with our CFO, Samuel, who you all will know quite well. Just to briefly go through the agenda, I will start with some reflections on our priorities and actions over the last weeks, and then Samuel will talk about the investee operational development, our NAV capital allocation, and then we'll have time for Q&A.

So maybe to start out with a very simple question, which is why are we here? What's the purpose of Kinnevik? And in my mind, there is kind of a simple answer to that question, which is that our purpose is to be good stewards of our shareholders' capital and then generating attractive returns while taking appropriate levels of risk.

There are probably also other more ambitious answers to that question, but I like this as a starting point for what we want to talk about today. And then, of course, I also want to mention that Kinnevik obviously has a long history of living up to that promise and doing exactly this. But what do we need to be good stewards of our shareholders' capital also in the future?

I think we need a culture that is focused on joint achievement and on performance. We obviously need that within our own team at Kinnevik, but we also need that as an expectation towards our portfolio companies. In this context, I think it's important to strive for values like true ownership. So I want everybody on the team to act like an owner. Accountability, I want everybody to feel accountable for the outcomes that we generate.

Focus on simplicity, which to me means to focus on the few things that really drive value and to not do anything else than that, and to do those few things in the most simplest way possible. And then also clarity and candor, which to me comes back to honest and truth seeking debate in the team. So this is really the type of values that I want to strengthen within Kinnevik during my time as interim CEO.

So in the spirit of clarity and candor, let's start by confronting some hard facts. In the first quarter of 2026, our portfolio is down 22%. That is a substantial number. It's driven by primarily 3 effects: The first one being a derating of our listed peers due to macro and AI. Secondly, continued challenges that we see in the Climate Tech portfolio. And then thirdly, of course, also our own evolving views on our portfolio.

Now of course, we can debate if we all agree with the market's assessment that has been quite harsh, for example, on SaaS companies recently, and personally, I probably disagree with some of that, and I would find that many of the founders that we work with will actually find good ways to leverage AI to their advantage. But I think the bottom line is that we need to accept that the market price for many of our portfolio companies just has changed, and we are reflecting that really to the full extent in our NAV.

Now as a first consequence of the ongoing portfolio review, which is not concluded, but has started, we have taken the first decision, which is to discontinue the sector of Climate Tech. I personally actually believe that Climate Tech has a great purpose. And so I don't really kind of like this decision personally. But then again, if we just look at the hard facts and take an honest view, I think it's clear that we have not been able to live up to our expectations.

And by the way, just to mention, I think we're not alone with that. It is a sector that has been challenged in many ways and has been difficult for many investors. So on that basis, we have taken the decision to not make new investments in the sector and also not to report it separately going forward. However, of course, we will continue to be good and supportive shareholders to the assets that we do own.

We have also done some work to simplify our reporting. I hope you have noticed, we have reduced the length of our reporting from about 40 to about 20 pages. We have tried to make it more plain and we'll continue to work on this going forward. We have also decided to discontinue the idea of core companies. I understand that this concept has been helpful in many of the discussions around the portfolio in terms of focusing on some of the maybe larger holdings. But I also think it has introduced a kind of strategic rationale to the portfolio discussion by saying some companies are core and others are not.

So I believe that this distinction might not be helpful to a company like Kinnevik, so we will not report on that dimension going forward. Just to be clear, of course, all 5 of these companies are very important to us, but they are important because of their scale, because of their quality, because of their potential, because of their founders and not because they are core or strategic in nature.

Now we have also worked intensely in the team to review our organization and our ways of working. And we have and the leadership team decided on some organizational changes that are far reaching. In my assessment, I saw many things that I liked. I see high engagement with the team. I see a sense of deep loyalty to Kinnevik. I see a desire to collaborate and to do well and to improve and to learn and to grow. But I also think that when I look at the organization as it is today, I don't feel it's necessarily fit for purpose and fit for what we want to do in the future. And I think that relates to its size, but also in many ways to its complexity.

And I would like really to make a shift from a mindset that feels a bit focused on different departments and different views more towards a feeling of being one team where just people have different roles and different accountabilities, but ultimately, are one and the same team. So the goal is to be smaller and more focused in our organization to enable more direct communication, stronger collaboration, alignment and then also faster decision-making. I hope that by doing these changes, every team member will have clearer accountability and also the ability to create more impact for the team and for our shareholders.

We have also worked intensely on a cost review. And this, I think, ties really back directly to the concept of stewardship. Because when we look at how we invest, we invest really from our own balance sheet, which means literally every krona that we spent unnecessarily is a krona that we cannot invest and cannot make compound for our shareholders. I think in this context, we also have to consider that we do not have cash generating assets in the portfolio currently.

So a first review of our cost base signals a significant savings potential that we want to realize by the end of this year. And we aim for a target level of management cash cost of around SEK 200 million per year, starting by 2027. I'll actually come back to that point on the next page with a bit more detail.

Now also in the spirit of making every krona account, I think we also need a very disciplined follow-on approach. Many companies in our portfolio are investing to grow fast, and so they should. And I think this is also exciting because the value of many of these companies lies in the future. So we should be investing. And I also believe that our role as investors is to support these companies on the journey. And sometimes also, that means to be investors in follow-up rounds, which I see as a great opportunity to be presented with those opportunities to allocate more capital.

At the same time, I think to be good stewards of our capital, of course, we need to be disciplined in these decisions. We need to look at a variety of factors, at the long-term potential of the company but also at the execution track record, the financial performance, the competitive moats and how they are building and evolving, the question of whether or not we can build a substantial stake in the business and have the influence that we would want to have, and also at our own return expectation, which needs to be balanced with the risk that we are taking.

So I look at ourselves as a supportive shareholder. But I think it's also important to say that we have the ability and maybe sometimes also the obligation to say no if we think that the investment is just not right for us. So in that context, our goal is to invest not more than SEK 1.5 billion in follow-up rounds in the existing portfolio. And we should not think of this as a budget, but more think of this as a cap.

So some of the things that I outlined here will help us to preserve cash. And I think that is important also for my role as interim CEO because my objective is to provide optionality for a permanent CEO. By reducing management cash cost and by being disciplined on follow-on investments, I think we're doing exactly that. And my expectation is that this would leave Kinnevik with around SEK 5 billion in discretionary investment capacity. Of course, this number is not including any capital from potential exits in the coming years. In the context of preserving cash to create investment capacity, the Board is not pursuing share buybacks at this time. Also, the Board is proposing that the AGM provide authorization to the Board to be able to decide on buybacks in the future.

So to briefly summarize, and I realize that this has been a lot, but I guess also a lot has been going on. So there's a lot to talk about. But just to recap, I think our purpose is to be good stewards of shareholders' capital, generating attractive returns with an appropriate level of risk. And we have a long-standing history of doing just that.

But we are also on a journey where many things will change, and we are working on a number of levers, focusing on those things that we can influence to make sure that we also live up to that purpose in the future. So there's a lot of work to do, and I'm very confident that we'll make good progress in the coming weeks and that these steps will make the company stronger.

Now there are just 2 areas where I would like to provide a bit more background. The first one is the cost reduction and the cost review. So just to briefly walk you through our logic. We have started with the 2025 reported management cost, which was SEK 341 million. We have then deducted all noncash items, which are primarily depreciation, amortization and LTIP and then have arrived at the management cash cost for 2025 of SEK 313 million, which is kind of our baseline.

And I really wanted to talk about cash cost because cash is king. So that's what we should be talking about. We have then made our considerations around the target of how we think the team should be set up for the coming years and the review of nonpersonnel costs. And on that basis, we have defined SEK 200 million as our new target annual management cash cost. Now you should think of this number as kind of a steady-state cost number. So it might deviate in some cases, such as inflation, FX changes, changes in cash-based incentives that depend on the outcome of those years and the related performance but also significant deal-related or other one-off costs.

So to get to this target rate, we are targeting a reduction of about 35%, which I think is substantial. And we are aiming to take the restructuring costs that might be associated with this primarily this year. Of course, now the task will be to make those changes without taking away anything that is material to our performance and value creation. And I think there is a good path of doing that. We'll be working to implement these changes in this year and then aim to reach the new target cost level for the full year in 2027.

The second area I wanted to dive a bit deeper into is the idea of cash preservation. So you should think of this chart not as an exact plan, but more as a way to think about it and an indication. So per the end of this quarter, of the Q1, so the last quarter, we have SEK 7.5 billion on the balance sheet. And I think the goal is to spend as little of this as possible. And if we would look at what we have to spend going forward. It's, first of all, the cost for our own team, which I just talked about. If we take a reserve for that for the coming 5 years, 5 x 200, gets us to SEK 1 billion. And then I've talked about the follow-on where we want to stay below SEK 1.5 billion for the current portfolio, which brings us then to SEK 5 billion in cash that will be available to the next CEO, and my goal is to maximize that number.

So with that, I hand over to Samuel to take us through the following sections.

Thanks, Rubin, and good morning, everyone. So I'll cover investee performance. I'll work my way into NAV, and then I'll end on capital allocation. Then we'll open up for Q&A, after which, Rubin will give some closing remarks.

On performance, based on preliminary numbers, our larger companies have started the first months of 2026 broadly on plan. In Q1, our health investees grew revenues by 28% on average compared to last year and improved EBITDA margins by 3 percentage points. And our software investees grew by 32%, while improving margins by 7 percentage points. In the quarter, we also saw Enveda continue to deliver on important milestones. Their discovery platforms, lead drug candidate, completed very successful Phase Ib studies demonstrating both efficacy results well above the current standard of care and clear signals that the drug is well tolerated and safe. These are promising results, which the company will now try to confirm in Phase II studies.

So operationally, our larger companies outside of Climate Tech have had a solid start to the year. But as reflected in the significant public market volatility, there are material and continued uncertainties out there, both in the short term and in the long term. And for us, I'd say that sits mainly in 3 areas.

Firstly, rising oil prices clearly may impact air travel, and that would hold back growth at Perk and Mews. Now we're yet to see that come through in actual reported performance, and our forecast do not incorporate this potential impact, but I should say that Perk shared some observations of the recent travel trends that they're seeing a few weeks ago, and we've put a link to that on this slide.

Secondly, there is continued uncertainty around U.S. policies for federal funding of Medicaid and Medicare. Now that's something we, probably you and Cityblock clearly have grown accustomed to in the last quarters, and it's something that we're trying to factor into our projections.

Thirdly, the key topic across our focus sectors is AI disruption and how this is feeding into the long-term growth expectations, terminal values and thereby, ultimately, share price performance of public software companies. We published an article on our website that combines our perspectives with some insights from across the portfolio. And while these clearly do nothing to alleviate the compression in public market multiples, we feel they do provide important nuances when one reflects on our conviction in the longer-term outlook for our companies.

But moving to Page 7, the way public markets digested AI disruption was the primary driver of valuations this quarter. We saw broad and significant multiple contraction across our public peer sets, particularly in software and software like health care technology services. It is evident that capital is rotating into other sectors with public software being the weakest performer year-to-date with index declines of around 20% to 25%.

As a result of this uncertainty and rebalancing, the sector is now trading at its lowest multiples in roughly 15 years. This drawdown was fairly indiscriminate across types of companies, but we do see a few patterns. Two in particular stand out and they also resonate with our own hypothesis. And that's, firstly, that fast-growing companies continue to command significant valuation premiums in public markets. And secondly, looking at share prices over a longer time period than just Q1, more vertical software companies that provide specialized services have outperformed less critical horizontal application companies.

And these stronger performing companies are often not only the systems of record, but also form core workflow systems. And this, many argue, should enable AI and vertical software to become more of a feature than a threat. Again, please make sure to read the article that I mentioned that we posted on our website. And please also note that we're providing some subcategories of peer groups in our standard spreadsheet published on our website this quarter. And as trading patterns in public market evolve, the subcategorization may grow in importance going forward.

Having said all of that, again, in Q1, the market drawdown was still fairly indiscriminate. So what we're doing on this page is that we're showing the quarter's changes in multiples in our larger investees, and we compare them to the trading of their respective public peer groups. The black lines chart the multiple movement from the bottom to the top decile company in each peer group, and the red label dots represent our larger companies.

As you can see, we have generally stayed within the trading ranges that we've seen in public markets when we reassess the multiples we value our businesses at. And we've also considered the recency of larger transactions in companies like Mews and Oviva that warrant a somewhat milder but still substantial multiple contraction.

In other cases, like Cedar and Pleo, we've been a bit harsher considering the lower growth profile of these companies relative to other industries. Our valuation model suggests that this is fairly proportionate to what we're seeing in public markets, where slower growing public software companies have traded down some 10 percentage points more than their faster-growing equivalents. And lastly, at Cityblock, we've focused more on the trading of the more tech-enabled peers rather than the traditional care providers to try and reflect this underlying market narrative.

Moving to Page 8 to put this multiple headwind in absolute terms, it brought an SEK 8.3 billion negative impact on private valuations this quarter. And that obviously makes it the driver of our private portfolio decreasing in value by 29% in the quarter. Adding net cash and public assets, NAV was down 22% in the quarter and in Q1 at SEK 27.9 billion or SEK 101 per share.

Going by sector. Health & Bio was down 20% and software, the sector most vulnerable to public market multiple contraction, was down 38%. Our Climate Tech companies, meanwhile, were down a meaningful 56% in aggregate, and this was a decline driven more by individual company circumstances. The main driver was the announcement of the funding round at Stegra in which we have elected not to invest. And with the clarity gained here, we've taken a revised view of the fair value of our investment and have decided to write it down to EUR 10 million. If the company hits the business plan that underpins this funding round, we expect to be able to recoup our full investment over the coming 5 to 6 years. And we've discounted this expectation at a conservative rate of return to reach the fair value that we report today.

As Rubin mentioned, we've narrowed our sector focus. That entails us not making any new investments in Climate Tech, and it also means changes to how we categorize our NAV. And as we make this change in today's report, we have made sure to provide a full breakdown of the fair values of each company in Climate Tech and the valuation reassessments that we're making this quarter. And on our website, you will also find the spreadsheet providing a historical pro forma NAV overview based on this new amended categorization.

In our NAV statement in today's report, we now also show the value of our investments based on the last transaction that we've noted in each company. In the current market volatility, fair value ranges widened and our valuation process places a very short expiry date on transaction-based valuations. But we hope you find this additional detail helpful, nonetheless. More specifically, over the last 12 months, we've seen transactions in 46% of our private portfolio by value at a 9% weighted average premium to our preceding NAV assessment.

So the transaction pace in our portfolio has come down a bit over the last quarters. And moving to Page 9, you also see that reflected in our capital allocation in Q1. Because in the quarter, our only investment was effectively the completion of our EUR 20 million participation in Mews' funding round that we announced earlier this year in connection with our Q4 report. Net investments amounted to SEK 116 million after the sale of a real estate property as part of the rightsizing of our cost structure that Rubin went through.

And after HQ costs and treasury income, our net cash balance was largely unchanged in the quarter ending at SEK 7.5 billion. So our financial strength and flexibility remains strong, and is reinforced by the cost savings and the SEK 1.5 billion follow-on expectation for the existing portfolio that Rubin went through. And looking ahead, we're continuing to execute on the capital allocation priorities that we laid out earlier this year, driving towards a more concentrated and more mature portfolio.

And with that, we'd like to open up for Q&A before Rubin gives his closing remarks.

[Operator Instructions] Now we're going to take our first question. And it comes from the line of Linus Sigurdson from DNB Carnegie.

So starting if you could help us break down these SEK 1.5 billion you're talking about. Is this primarily through continued participation in primaries in the larger companies? Is it tilted more towards the emerging companies? I guess, especially, as you mentioned, it excludes some of the opportunities for follow-ons?

Yes, sure, happy to give some more color on that. So I think the SEK 1.5 billion is derived by going through the portfolio and looking at where do we see follow-on demand coming up in the coming years, and then just taking the sum of that. Of course, those things are difficult to foresee. So it might be more tilted towards younger companies. It might be tilted to companies that already have larger scale. But overall, the idea is that this is the amount that we expect we -- the limit to what we might need to bring the portfolio to profitability in follow-on rounds.

I think separate from that, I just think it's important to underline that to me, if there is one company in the portfolio that reaches scale and profitable growth and starts to go into the phase where you would talk of them as a compounder that continues to execute, but on the basis of a much more mature profile or as being listed. And then if Kinnevik were to decide to double down on that asset and take a larger ownership stake, to me, that would be a different logic. And that would fall into the SEK 5 billion discretionary investment that we might choose to make going forward. So this is, I think, a bit how our thinking of the SEK 1.5 billion differs from the SEK 5 billion that the firm has available long term.

Okay. That's clear. And then if you could talk a bit about how you've set up processes to make potential exits? I mean should we think about this as a portfolio wide effort? Are you targeting certain types of companies? And if this is what you mean when you say the portfolio review is not concluded.

No. I'm sorry. By saying that the portfolio review is not concluded, I'm just sort of indicating that in the 4 weeks that I have been here, I have not been able to dive deep into every one of those assets, right? So we have started with that, and you see that already some decisions have come out of that process. But I think for practical purpose, we are still in the middle of it. I mean, Kinnevik has more than 30 portfolio companies. And I think it takes time to go through that, and it will take us more time going forward.

In terms of exits, so I think for Kinnevik in the midterm, it would be wise to move towards a more concentrated portfolio. At the same time, I think it's very difficult to time these things. And I also think it's not in the best interest of our shareholders to rush into exits. So there I think we just have to be balanced in how we approach it.

Okay. I appreciate that. And then my final question, I mean, I can understand this waiting to pursue buybacks ahead of a permanent CEO being in place and your comments around optionality and the SEK 5 billion. But what types of actions do you envision a permanent CEO could take?

I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but I think a new CEO could take all sorts of actions, primarily also defining what will be new focus areas for investments going forward and how do we want to complement the existing portfolio that we do have that, as we know, consists primarily of younger companies, fast-growing companies, how do we want to complement that with investments potentially in other sectors or with a different maturity profile. Those will be decisions to be taken by a new CEO, also in line with the new strategy going forward.

The question comes line of Derek Laliberte from ABG Sundal Collier.

I appreciate the clarity. I wanted to follow up on the potential exits here going forward. I mean, how do you view the possibilities for that? And how high on the agenda is it right now as it could sort of change your outlook for what you provided for the balance sheet going forward? I mean looking at some of this, especially the prior core assets, it seems quite clear that they are quite attractive in sort of the private market space. So how do you think around that?

Yes, as indicated, I think directionally, over the next years, I would like to see a more concentrated portfolio. So I think that is something that we definitely will look at and consider. But then at the same time, we live in a very volatile world. I think it's very difficult to give more color or like a specific forecast on how exactly that will play out. So I think we just will be investing a lot of time to go through the portfolio to review the different options that we have. And I can promise to you, we'll be very active in thinking about where to take the portfolio and what actions would be in the best interest of our shareholders.

I just find it very hard to make specific forecasts on that topic. So I would not want to promise something that is then hard to influence because it also depends on many other factors. And I think it would be wise for us -- like if I think of this as my portfolio, I think I would try to really carefully strike that balance to become more concentrated going forward, but then also to try to find the right time and the right moment and the right price if I wanted to make any exits.

Great. That's very understandable. And on the write-downs here, I mean, apart from the peer declines outside of Climate Tech, what do you mean about what has changed in your underlying view of the assets outside there because we see Perk being down 43% and Pleo down by 40%, which does some pretty extremely in the light of how peers have moved and also the latest transaction values in the market.

Derek, it's Samuel. I'll try to answer that one. So naturally, our views and our companies are evolving continuously. But as we stated in today's report and in the prepared remarks, there hasn't been any meaningful changes to the outlooks for our larger companies in this quarter.

So what we're trying to do here and what our process is trying to sort of apply onto our private portfolio is this very substantial drawdown in public markets. And there, we believe, and the models tell us that it should be affecting our investees in varying degrees. So as you rightfully state, Oviva and Mews have recently raised funding rounds. That typically leads to slightly milder but still meaningful write-downs because as I mentioned, the expiry date on transaction valuations in this type of volatile market is very, very short.

And then we have companies that are growing slower, such as Cedar and Pleo. And the data tells us that those should be impacted slightly harder than a company growing a bit faster all else equal. And you mentioned Perk. Clearly, there, we have a comparable in Navan. That company is trading at around the same levels it was doing at the turn of the year. So our process makes us feel obliged to move closer to where Navan is trading, even though our view on Perk's long-term value creation potential has not changed one bit.

So I'd say the write-downs you're seeing and the variations in write-downs you're seeing in this quarter is less driven by a change in view on our individual companies or their performance. It's about how to apply this very significant derating in public markets across a set of investees that share some characteristics and have some differences in between them.

Appreciate the clarity. And then looking at the 10 largest assets you list here, can you say something about which of these you are the most sort of comfortable with in light of the potential of AI disruption here? And where do you see the biggest risks in the portfolio?

So naturally, as you can imagine, we and our companies are spending a lot of time assessing how our company's best can adapt to a changing environment, not something that clearly we're used to. I don't want to reduce the write-up that we've put up on our website to a 30-second answer. But to give you some examples, like we see very strong moats and aspects like Mews' ownership of quite complex workflows at hotels.

We see moats and Enveda's ownership of proprietary data, and we see defensibility at Oviva in terms of the trust from customers and regulators that they've built up over several years of real-world operations. But I'd refer you to that write-up on our website. And I think in terms of how the risk of AI disruption is reflected in our valuations this quarter is mainly through this relatively indiscriminate derating that we're seeing in public peers. And we're not sort of trying to be smart when applying that in terms of thinking about the longer-term view on AI that we have in the piece on our website, but the valuation process is much more quantitatively driven.

Got it. Okay. And then just on this organizational simplification you're carrying out. I mean, looking forward, what will be sort of Kinnevik's action as an investor going forward as you see it?

Well, I think Kinnevik's focus really over the last years has been to invest into fast-growing challenger type companies that take on big problems and try to solve them differently through technology. And I think that is really the type of business that we have been focused on in the past. And of course, we'll also continue to work in that field and continue to evolve our view and continue to try to find great opportunities.

But then I think in terms of how to build capabilities there, it's also, to a large extent, driven by what future strategies and future focus a permanent CEO looks at. And I think that can only be answered once that person is on board. When we think or when I think about the target org, we try to provide that flexibility in the way that we structure the work in our investment team, to do it in a way that we can continue to cover those sectors that we are focused on right now in a really good way.

And in my mind, that's not always a function of the number of people. It's also a function of many other things. And then how to have the flexibility to add new ideas and investment themes that will define the future of Kinnevik once it is clear what those are.

Perfect. And finally, I mean, given that you're striving for more efficient operations, does having sort of 2 offices and teams align with that vision?

So in my mind, I think that going forward, Stockholm should be culturally, and also from where the team comes together, much more the center of gravity. We'll continue to have colleagues that live in different places across Europe and London will be one of them and will provide good opportunities for them to work there and meet companies. But I don't think we should think of that as a second half, not only in terms of the cost that presents, but also and maybe more importantly, in terms of what that presents in terms of having different cultures. I mean, Kinnevik is before the change and after the change, ultimately a small team. And I think there is a big benefit to have 1 physical place where the cultural center of gravity is. And I think, for Kinnevik, that should be in Stockholm.

The question comes from the line of Bjorn Olsson SEB.

Two questions on the organizational changes. First, could you give any more flavor in terms of where you expect to find the cost efficiencies? Is it from the investment teams, back office or just sort of across? And second, I mean, culture is something that's in the walls. So when you now strive to increase the performance culture in your company, do you have any sort of tangible actions planned in terms of either changed incentive schemes or any sort of change of key staff or similar?

Thank you for the question. So I think in terms of where we see savings potential, I think it's really -- we look at it across the board, and across all those different topics that you have mentioned. It comes down to a leaner target organization, but also then on nonemployee-related costs, there are opportunities that we see, such as office cost, IT cost and many others. So it gets very granular very quickly.

But I think we just really also owe it to everybody that we do that tedious work. And essentially, we're looking at every single contract, and we are reviewing if we need it. And what is the value it creates, and is there a simpler and more efficient and better and also a cheaper way to do it. So that's clearly a focus.

I think in terms of performance culture and achievement culture, you are 100% right that this is not something that can be impacted just within a few weeks. I think that is -- obviously, those processes take more time. And I think a lot of that will also be then hopefully brought forward by a new CEO. But to me, it is really a lot about leading by example, how do you take decision? What quality of argument do you accept? What do you not accept?

So I think it's in the -- in many of the details of our daily collaboration that I think culture comes through. And just to be clear, that's also not just about me changing that, that's also about kind of the team bringing out the good things that we see and encouraging the team also to lead itself and each other in that regard. So I think that is something I'm quite passionate about and where I think we can make a lot of progress.

You mentioned incentives. I mean incentives, of course, also play an important role. But to be fully frank, I haven't looked at that in the first 4 weeks, but I agree it's an important theme, and it will be important for the long-term success of the company that we get incentives right. That is, by the way, saying that they are not right, but they need to be right, and I haven't reviewed them yet.

Good point. So then just a minor follow-up. So in terms of redundancy costs, when you're sort of rightsizing, that should probably be lower than if the FTE reduction is a smaller part of the SEK 100 million in cost savings?

I think personnel is a part, just like many other pieces, and there will be also redundancy costs related to personnel but also related maybe to other contracts that we might want to get out of. And the idea would be to incur the majority of that still this year.

Now we're going to take our next question. And the question comes from the line of Oskar Lindstrom, Danske Bank. My apologies, there are no questions from Oskar. Now we'll proceed for the next question. And the question comes line of Johan Sjoberg from Nordea.

I had a couple of questions actually. Starting off, Rubin, I mean, looking at your -- I understand you're 4 weeks into your temporary job and you have a lot on your plate right now. But on the other hand, I mean, you have tons of experience, you have aboard with a similar amount of experience. You have Samuel also, who is well on track, how things have been progressing with the 30 portfolio companies.

So my question for you is how long time do you think it would take you to sort of get your head around all the companies, which was to sort of focus upon who will be sort of your concentrated portfolio over the coming -- in the foreseeable future?

Yes, sure. I mean I personally would think of it as a kind of ongoing process and ongoing discussions and considerations that we have in the team. And I think we also have many ideas in that regard already. And as you mentioned also, we're not doing everything from scratch. There is existing views and existing knowledge, obviously, in the team, right? So sometimes it's also just about following up on that and servicing those pieces. So I think we're incredibly focused on it.

But I don't think it would be wise to now put ourselves in the corner by sharing specifically what our thoughts are on individual companies. I think that's not advisable. But as in any good investment company, I think those discussions should be ongoing as ordinary course of business also to just always be up-to-date on your portfolio on the different type of companies, and what our position on them should be going forward?

I understand. So you have to sort of push a little bit here on the 30 portfolio companies. So when you talk about a more concentrated portfolio, what sort of range are we talking about here? Are we talking about below 20 or are we sort of -- once again, I understand it's early, and you don't want to sort of promise anything, but just for us to get some sort of feeling here.

Yes, right. I mean, to be frank, I think a lot of that also comes down to strategic decisions by a new CEO, but then I also don't want to shy away from an answer. In my view, it's not necessarily about a magic number. So I don't think there is kind of the perfect portfolio that is 10 or 15 or 25. But it's really about, in each of the companies to have a position that allows us to be a meaningful owner and to only have such a number of positions that you can cover with a kind of small, lean, but very experienced and high seniority team, that you have only positions where you can have a meaningful value add to those companies where you truly can be a great owner of that business and provide the right level of leadership to those companies.

So those would be some of the considerations I would be focused on. And I don't have the number for you. I don't think of it in those terms, but I do think that the current number is too large. I think that is also given -- I mean we all know there is a large bucket of what we call other companies that has to do with previous strategies. And I think a lot of these things just have maybe a bit accumulated over time. And there we need to think through how to take that into a good direction going forward.

Perfect. And we also talked a lot about the new CEO. Could you just give an update on how that process is ongoing here? It's been since November that the first decision was out. And you had a lot of time. I understand a lot of -- it's been a full headwind in Q1 in terms of how the market is viewing this sort of company, but also what is done right now.

Sure. I mean that search process is led by the Board and then more specifically, a subcommittee of the Board. And I'm sure they will give an update as soon as they have an update. But there's not really a whole lot more I can say on the issue. I'm on the subject. I'm right now incredibly focused on the inner workings of Kinnevik and all the work that we outlined in the presentation.

Okay. Final question, Samuel, maybe you can help with this one. I mean just looking at the NAV or the write-down of NAV in the quarter, I think it's great that you have taken down the NAV because obviously, the market has not believed in sort of the underlying figures here. And sure, we've seen multiple contractions during the first quarter.

But then on top of that, also you had some -- you also changed your view of growth for some of the few companies. And I guess, first of all, this is not a number, which I guess, Rubin, you feel much more comfortable with also, although just 4 weeks into the job. But just to get a feeling for, I mean, Samuel, maybe just looking at sort of the multiple impact on the write-down, how much would that be? And sort of what is the impact from your sort of changed view on the NAV also?

Thanks, Johan. So I mean the easiest way to answer your question is to refer back to the page where we show that multiple contraction had a negative impact on NAV in excess of SEK 8 billion. And again, in terms of how we've applied the multiple compression we're seeing in public markets onto our portfolio, that is sort of flowing through our process, which is unchanged and is sort of intrinsically rigged, to be conservative, to be objective and to be as numbers driven as possible.

And clearly, valuation levels in our portfolio has come down over the last quarters and last years. And I think that's 2 reasons mainly. Our portfolio has matured and that public comps have derated significantly. So in this quarter, specifically, we're taking that significant hit from the public peers.

We've learned a lot over the last couple of years, and those learnings are clearly sort of ingested into our quantitative models. And then as always, there are individual considerations, but then again, those individual considerations are mainly of a technical and quantitative character in our different regression analysis and so on.

So again, in terms of outlooks on our companies, looking at the larger investees as a group, those are largely unchanged. And in Q1, the larger companies have delivered on expectations. But yes, there is a lot to decipher in the public market moves in Q1.

I'm just referring to sort of looking at the software down 38%. I mean just looking at sort of the presentation which you gave ahead of -- these are clearly below. And once again, I don't have a problem with it at all, but it seems like you have written it down more than sort of what the multiple seems to report, multiple contractions, that's sort of my -- maybe I'm wrong here.

To summarize, I think we are confident with the variations that we have put out in Q1. I think that's the bottom line of it.

Now we're going to take our next question. And the question comes line of Oskar Lindstrom from Danske Bank.

I hope you can hear me this time. I have 2 sets of questions. The first one is on this ongoing portfolio review. And could you see adding back a cash flow-generating asset as opposed to more of the growth-oriented assets that you have today as part of the portfolio, again, to sort of have that balance between cash flow-generating assets and growth assets? That's my first question.

I think it's a very relevant question. And I think it also falls into that category of future strategy where, again, I just want to be careful with my own view, given that I'm also only here temporarily. But I think there is -- my personal view is, there is merit to what you are saying. And I think there needs to be the effort to make the portfolio more balanced.

And my understanding is also, I don't oversee kind of the full 90-year history of Kinnevik, but my understanding is that also even though the company has a history of backing challengers and taking technology investments at early stages and kind of betting on the future in a way, in my understanding, that was at many times also balanced with more mature, more cash-generating assets in the portfolio, maybe also some of them being listed.

And to me, that seems like an advisable idea because right now, of course, and that also became apparent when we went through the valuation exercise, one challenge that we clearly have, and I think it's also something that the team here internally really tries to live up to very hard, is that we have a portfolio of private fast-growing assets that are just really not easy to value. I think we can all agree on that.

And then every quarter, of course, we have the expectation of public shareholders that want clarity and transparency, also for very understandable reasons. And every quarter, again, we have to kind of bridge that gap, and that's not an easy task to do, and that's also not easy on the team here internally. And I have also experienced that now firsthand when going through the valuations.

So I think also in that regard, it might be a path to just make our lives a bit easier and also to generate a more balanced outcome for shareholders. So I think there's merits to that idea. But then again, I think it's also subject to the general strategic discussion going forward.

My second question is on the roughly SEK 1.5 billion of follow-up investments that you've talked about. How soon could that SEK 1.5 billion needs to be spent and you estimated? Is it like front loaded or sort of evenly over the years or how soon?

I really understand the question. And I think I would also love to know, I think that's the honest answer. I mean we have some view and some visibility on what demand might be coming in the coming months, but then it's also really difficult to forecast. And just maybe also to reiterate, I think it's really important to think of this not as a budget that we intend to spend, but it's more kind of an estimate or like a cap that we want to limit ourselves to because I also think in my perception in the market, there has been the perception that maybe the majority of the cash that we have might need to be deployed into the current portfolio. And I think our message is just that we really don't think that, that is the case necessarily.

So that is the context why we have talked about this number, the SEK 1.5 billion. But then really, it will be a bottom-up exercise. I think every follow-on opportunity has to be assessed in its own right. I tried to speak to what are some of the characteristics and some of the analysis and some of the considerations we will make when we evaluate whether or not to participate in those rounds. And I think that is really what will be happening. So it's very much bottom-up. I wouldn't want to forecast it too detailed on a time line. And I think of the SEK 1.5 billion as an estimate and the maximum number.

Just a follow-up there. The SEK 1.5 billion, is that within the next 5 years? Just to clarify that once more.

Yes, I mean that's probably like a reasonable assumption. We talk about the existing portfolio, right? So like theoretically, it's a number into kind of eternity because we have the existing portfolio. It continues to drive towards profitability. And at some point, more and more of these companies just will not need further follow-on investments, right?

So then they fall into a different category where we can, of course, always think about if we want to accrue to a larger stake because we think it's a company really want to be holding long term with a larger allocation, but that's been a different consideration, right? So as the portfolio grows towards profitability, that number will be deployed, and it's difficult to put a number on it, but probably 5 years is a valid assumption.

[Operator Instructions] And now we're going to take our next question. And the question comes from the line of Nizla Naizer from Deutsche Bank.

I just have two from my end as well. Rubin, thank you for your thoughts. And I was just curious, there must be some sort of conversations that come your way that says, look, with valuations crashing the way they've had, aren't there any opportunities in the market also to sort of deploy capital in some very interesting assets that are now probably attractively valued, maybe in sectors that are topical like AI? How do you sort of deal with those kind of topics that come your way, given Kinnevik at the end of the day is an investment holding company? Some color there would be great.

And second, I guess, we're halfway into April, have you all seen the valuations of the peers that you're using as comps stabilize so far in Q2? Or has it also been volatile with the geopolitical sort of news that's out there? Some color there on what's going on with the comp base would be great quarter-to-date.

Great. Thank you. Maybe I can comment on the first question, and then Samuel can take the second question. So I think you have a great observation that obviously volatility always also creates opportunities. And it is exactly in that context that I also see Kinnevik's SEK 5 billion of cash available to investments as a great asset to be able to potentially act on opportunities. And I also expect the Board will continue to be volatile going forward. So I think in that context, that balance sheet just becomes a very strong asset in the way that I look at it.

In terms of AI, I mean, Kinnevik already today has exposure also not only to software companies that are taking this new technology onboard very decisively, but also to some AI native companies. And here, maybe I can also point you to the piece that Samuel already has referred to on our website on building business -- our thoughts on building businesses in the age of AI.

Yes, Nizla on what we're seeing in peers, April to date, I'd say that volatility remains very high. If you look at cloud ETFs, they were up 5% yesterday and a week ago, they were 10% lower than they are today. So it seems to continue to sort of bounce around, both in terms of share prices, but I'd say sort of the volatility and the underlying drivers seems high as well with new AI product releases every week and clearly, what's going on in the Middle East and the posturing from the U.S. administration. So volatility is persisting in April. In terms of absolute levels, they are roughly around where we ended Q1. But again, very volatile still out there.

Dear speakers, there are no further questions for today. I would now like to hand the conference over to Rubin Ritter for any closing remarks.

Great. Thank you all for your participation, for your time, for your questions and the good discussion. Maybe just to reiterate, as we have also pointed out in the Q&A, Q1 has been a tough quarter in many ways to our shareholders, to the team, to the company overall. A lot of things have been happening.

And I also think that during Q2, we will just be very busy as the world continues to be volatile, and as we start to take some of the steps that we have been discussing. We have been talking about the cultural shift that we want to work on, how we want to work on preserving cash, for optionality for the future and how we want to move towards a gradual portfolio concentration by balancing that with the time that it might need.

And I think many of those changes will also take time and hard work. But at the same time, when I try to see through this, I also see many positive things. I'm just really convinced that the changes that we have talked about will make the company stronger. And I really think that the cash position that the company has will create options going forward. And as we just discussed, I think that's particularly valuable in a world that is as volatile as ours.

I do think we have great companies with great potential in the portfolio. And even though we have talked about the NAV impact on this quarter, I think we just should not forget that these companies are there and that they continue to execute. And I see a quite good path and a good chance that their value will also become much more tangible going forward.

So I think this provides the basis for the company being significantly stronger in the future than it may seem today, and that is what we as a team are really focused on. So thank you again for your time, and have a good day.

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to Kinnevik Q4 Report 2025 Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] Please note that today's conference is being recorded.

I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker, Georgi Ganev, CEO. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the presentation of Kinnevik's results for the fourth quarter and full year 2025. I'm Georgi Ganev, Kinnevik's CEO. And with me today is Samuel Sjostrom, our CFO; and Christian Scherrer, Senior Investment Director and Head of Health & Bio.

We will begin today's call by walking you through the key events of the quarter as well as the full year of 2025. I will then hand over to Christian, who will give you some more insights into our newest investments, Oviva, as well as other exciting developments in our healthcare portfolio. After that, Samuel will provide you with a financial update, including our capital allocation, our financial position and net asset value development. Lastly, I will go through the priorities we set out at the start of 2025 and how we performed against them and what our priorities are for 2026. And as usual, we will end with a Q&A.

So let's start on Page 4. Q4 marked another quarter of solid operational development in our core companies. However, the trend of currency and public market headwinds, which we saw for most of 2025, continued. Adding to that, write-downs in several climate tech companies weighed on our net asset value. A write-up of Mews was the largest positive contributor to NAV, but it did not fully compensate. All in all, we ended the quarter down 4% compared to Q3 and down 8% during the year. In constant currencies, NAV was down 3% in the quarter and up 2% during the full year. Over the year, public market multiples and currencies weighed on our NAV with around SEK 6.5 billion in aggregate.

As mentioned, progress in many of our climate tech investments has been unsatisfactory. This is due to a combination of market and regulatory headwinds, weaker investor sentiment and some operational challenges. For Stegra, the momentum remains strong in signing new customer contracts, and they continue to make progress in the planned construction in Boden. However, raising the capital required to move the project into production is yet to be concluded. We have made a material write-down in Stegra and some of our other climate tech investments this quarter to reflect this, which Samuel will speak more about soon.

As a whole, our portfolio continued to mature in 2025, combining sustained growth with disciplined margin control. Our core companies grew revenues by 34% on average with improving margins. And including Oviva, they grew revenues by 40% in 2025, which is almost 3x higher than public comps and improved EBITDA margins by 4 percentage points.

2025 was a year when we put capital to work in a disciplined and thoughtful way, balancing selected new investments with follow-on investments in our high conviction companies. We doubled down on companies like Perk, Mews and Enveda, participating in these funding rounds, which attracted several new strong investors and which priced at meaningful valuation premiums to our NAV. We also invested in next-generation AI native companies like Tandem Health, Strand Therapeutics and Nory. And this ensures we have a strong bench of candidates to become Kinnevik's core companies of the future.

And late last year, we made a sizable investment in digital health care company, Oviva. It became one of Kinnevik's largest companies from day 1 and a cornerstone of our healthcare portfolio, a flagship European investment that meaningfully strengthens our portfolio's growth, profitability and maturity profile.

As you saw in the release this morning, Torun Litzen, Kinnevik's Director of Corporate Communications, has left her position effective today. Torun has been a great support to me during my time at Kinnevik, and I'm grateful for her significant contributions and dedication over the last 18 years with the company.

I will hand over to Christian in a minute to speak more about Oviva and Spring Health's recent acquisition and the clinical momentum in Enveda. But first, let's turn to Page 5 for a deep dive on Mews' latest funding round. Running hotel is a highly complex operation. You need to know at any given moment which rooms are available, what to charge for them, who's about to check in and check out, which events are taking place, which rooms have been cleaned and how to plan staffing.

Historically, these tasks were run by legacy systems or siloed point solutions, requiring a lot of manual coordination and resulting in missed revenue opportunities. And this is where Mews comes in. They have successfully executed on their strategy and grown into an end-to-end AI-powered operating system for hotels, helping hoteliers to optimize pricing, payments, housekeeping staffing, event management and more. In short, they handle all operational complexity, so hotels can focus on providing remarkable guest experiences.

And their success is evident. In January of this year, they raised just north of EUR 260 million in a round, which values the company at close to 20% above our mark in Q3. The round follows a EUR 70 million capital raise early last year. And since our first investment in 2022, Kinnevik has continued to take every opportunity to invest more in Mews. This means that we are today the company's largest investor with a 10% ownership stake.

Kinnevik has achieved an IRR of close to 30% on the investments in Mews so far, with a meaningful upside still ahead. As the company addresses one of the largest markets in our portfolio, it is clearly outpacing the competition.

Turning now to Page 6 for an overview of our largest companies. We have already covered Mews, and Christian will cover our healthcare companies outlined on this page. But before that, I'd like to touch on the other 2, Perk and Pleo. At the beginning of last year, Perk, formerly known as TravelPerk, announced a $200 million round and later completed a rebrand to reflect the company's transition into an integrated travel expense and event management platform. In 2025, Perk reached annualized revenues of EUR 360 million, hit a gross margin of 76% and grew revenues by 48%.

Pleo is also delivering strong performance and has grown by 65% CAGR in the last 5 years. They have a gross margin of 80% and now serve almost 43,000 customers across 7 core markets. Pleo is by far the largest expense management SaaS company in Europe, which is also a great strategic value in a consolidating market. And their newest launch, Pleo Embedded, which lets other companies integrate Pleo spend and cash management tools directly into their own platform, has seen a very strong traction in the market.

We are very excited to continue backing Avi, Co-Founder and CEO of Perk and Jeppe, Co-Founder and CEO of Pleo and their respective teams on their continued growth journey.

With that, I'd like to hand over to Christian to talk about the recent developments in our healthcare portfolio.

Thank you, Georgi. I'll stay on Page 6 for a minute to talk about a few encouraging updates in healthcare. First, many of you will have seen Spring Health announced its intended acquisition of Alma last week. Alma is a mental health company founded by physician Harry Ritter with over $200 million in funds raised. The company provides technology solutions to therapists to automate admin tasks and secures in-network rates with health insurers. Health insurers negotiate rates with Alma to ensure their members have access to one of the largest provider networks in the country. Alma adds $120 million in eligible lives to Spring's addressable market due to partnerships with many of the top health insurers in the U.S.

The combination sets Spring Health up to achieve almost $1 billion in expected revenue in the year following the merger. For context, that's about 30x larger than when we first invested in 2021. It also strengthens their client base alongside large employers like Microsoft and JPMorgan. Spring Health continued to grow at an impressive 80% CAGR during 2023 to 2025, reached profitability last year and is emerging as the consolidator in the $240 billion behavioral health market. We could not be more excited about the path ahead for Spring Health. We're delighted our strategy of backing category winners is paying off.

Health insurers is a good segue to Cityblock. Their clients had a tough 12 months in public markets due to the heightened uncertainty in the government-sponsored healthcare market. Cityblock did well navigating this period. The company diversified their client base, expanded to 10 markets and optimized their contracts for profitability. The decision to increase the bar on acceptable contracting terms led to a decrease in our 12-month revenue outlook. However, we believe it is prudent to optimize for profitability in times of uncertainty and support this change. They now care for over 130,000 members and reached over $1.5 billion in ARR. We believe they require about $2 billion in ARR to achieve profitability, which is within reach when looking at their top-of-funnel pipeline activity. Finally, Medicaid plans more than ever are looking for at-risk providers able to bend the cost curve.

Lastly, Enveda has continued to exceed our expectations with positive momentum since entering clinical trials last year. Their lead candidate in atopic dermatitis achieved positive Phase IIa efficacy results, which warrants the progression towards expanded IIb studies. As part of this, the program will also expand to asthma, adding another large market to Enveda's pipeline. The detailed results will be released at an industry conference in spring. What we can say is the candidate shows potential for a best-in-class profile. The largest drug in atopic dermatitis, DUPIXENT generates about $15 billion in annual sales.

Further, Enveda advanced 2 more assets into the clinic, launching human trials in IBD and obesity. The obesity candidate is distinct from the GLP-1 pathway, which provides exciting differentiation because it has the potential to avoid the side effect issues of incumbents. Global pharma companies are under pressure to react to Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk lead in obesity. Hence, we expect strong interest in this candidate over time. Lastly, the unicorn valuation Enveda achieved is another validator of the exciting pipeline momentum.

Now let's focus on our most recent flagship investment in healthcare, Oviva, on Page 7. Oviva adds the care delivery angle to the obesity equation we are solving from multiple angles. We have been looking to transfer learnings from our U.S. investments to Europe for many years. We finally found a company of the quality we're looking for. Oviva is Europe's largest digital provider of weight-related care. The company supported over 1 million patients to date, tripled patient intake over the last 2 years and is cash flow profitable despite still growing rapidly.

The founders, Kai Eberhardt and Manuel Baumann built an incredibly reliable, robust and well-run company. What impressed us the most is their patient-first mentality and clinical rigor. Oviva ran over 90 peer-reviewed studies and designed a care program leading to up to 15% weight loss in 12 months without any medication. Oviva is nationally reimbursed in the U.K., Germany and Switzerland and is likely going to expand to other European markets soon.

We have seen the U.S. expand access to weight loss programs and medications intensively over the last 5 years and expect Europe to follow suit. Over 200 million people in Europe live with weight-related chronic illness, costing us 1.5% in GDP per year. Early and precise intervention has been proven to generate better health outcomes for patients and better cost outcomes for health systems. Oviva is a clear leader in this space, both as a stand-alone program and alongside medication.

Our $100 million investment makes us the largest institutional shareholder in the company. Oviva will become a core company from day 1 and improves our portfolio's performance in both growth and profitability materially. The investment follows our strategic priority to further mature the portfolio. We look forward to supporting the Oviva team and our partner investors on the board in building a pan-European chronic care leader. We believe we are a mere 5% on that journey today.

I will now hand over to Kinnevik's CFO, Samuel.

Thank you, Christian, and good morning, everyone. So I'll take you through our capital allocation and NAV, and then it's back to Georgi for his closing remarks. Kicking off on this Page 9, investments in the quarter were entirely centered on Oviva and brought full year investments to SEK 3.6 billion.

To echo what Georgi said, you can arrange that SEK 3.6 billion in 3 deliberate buckets. Firstly, we invested SEK 1.6 billion to support existing businesses like Mews, Enveda and Aira. Secondly, we put SEK 1.1 billion to work in new AI native companies in our focus sectors like Tandem, Nory and Strand to ensure that we have a solid bench of future core companies. And thirdly, now in Q4, we invested SEK 0.9 billion into Oviva, ensuring our capital allocation this year helped accelerate the ongoing maturing of our portfolio.

The capital we deployed came mainly from our net cash position, but we also released SEK 0.4 billion by exiting a handful of financial services companies during 2025 with additional proceeds expected in an earn-out in the coming years. This brought net investments during the full year down to SEK 3.2 billion and our year-end net cash position to SEK 7.6 billion. Meanwhile, even after the addition of a cohort of younger companies during the year, 82% of our private portfolio is invested in companies that are either profitable or deemed funded to breakeven.

Now looking into 2026, we entered this year with a clear capital allocation plan. Firstly, we're going to continue working actively to create optionality in our portfolio, driving liquidity events and creating divestment opportunities. We see our work to date beginning to crystallize into more tangible opportunities, and we're targeting to free up more capital from exits than the SEK 0.4 billion we released in 2025.

And secondly, we're going to focus almost exclusively on reinvesting into our existing companies. With the new investments made in 2025, we have a balanced exposure to the innovation happening at the early stage in our focus sectors. So during 2026, we will be carefully deploying capital into our most promising companies, including some of these 2025 additions, to help drive our companies and our portfolio's maturity forward.

In total, executing on this plan clearly means that we're expecting a lower net investment pace in 2026 than what we upheld in 2025. And it also means that new investments will be financed by recycling capital that we release from exits. Georgi will be getting back to these priorities in his closing remarks.

So for now, we will move on to this quarter's NAV on Page 10. NAV was down 4% in Q4 to SEK 35.9 billion or SEK 130 per share, with the reversal of a tax provision made in 2020, adding SEK 897 million to NAV at the year-end. Meanwhile, our private portfolio was down 8% in the quarter. As Georgi mentioned, Q4 was another quarter of adverse currency movements, predominantly in the U.S. dollar. We also faced negative movements in comparable public market multiples that impacted the carrying values of companies where we lack guidance from transactions and instead rely on our internal models.

Over 2025 in total, public comparable multiples brought a SEK 2.4 billion negative impact on our valuations and currencies brought a SEK 4.1 billion negative impact, adding up to an aggregate SEK 6.5 billion worth of NAV that we would otherwise be recording on the balance sheet this quarter.

While the negative developments in public equity markets influenced our internal valuation models, we continue to see transactions clearing above our NAV with a reassuring margin. With the most recent example clearly being the funding round in Mews, closing 19% above last quarter's valuation and 45% above our valuation in Q4 '24. Mews' round and Perk's round some 12 months ago are both good examples of the decoupling that we see in valuation multiples in SaaS during 2025 and the start of '26.

SaaS incumbents are facing pressure. Seat counts are stagnating, spending budgets are being cut. There's competition from AI tools, and investors are worried about barriers to entry. That means that growth rates out there are decreasing, and the premium investors pay for growth is increasing. But what we see in companies like Mews and Perk is not only that they're growing much faster than their public comparables, but also that, that growth is coming from building integral systems for their customers that are harder to replicate or replace. And that is coming through in -- where these companies are valued in these recent transactions.

The guidance from transactions in companies like Mews was the main case of why in Q4, valuation multiples in our portfolio contracted less than peers. Over the full year, our multiples came down on equal step with peers by around 10%. Looking back over the last 12 months, including Mews, we've seen transactions in 45% of the portfolio at valuations on average 38% above our preceding NAV. Looking further back, also into 2024, when we had big funding rounds in Perk and Spring, we've seen transactions in 86% of the portfolio over these last 2 years at valuations on average 16% above our preceding NAV.

In the appendix to this presentation, we've added some extra details on valuations this quarter that we hope you find useful. But now I'll move into some of the more specific considerations this quarter, starting with our core companies on Page 11. On average, underlying constant currency valuations of our core companies were down 5% in the quarter. And this translated into a 7% decrease in Swedish krona fair value. Operational performance during the quarter and re-underwritten outlooks into 2026 were overall reassuring. But as Christian mentioned earlier, we made a cut in the near-term outlook at Cityblock, driven by a relatively large contract falling out of the new sales pipeline. Meanwhile, we rebalanced our multiple relative to Cityblock's imperfect peer groups based on clear signals in the private market. That means that at year-end, we are valuing the company at a multiple of 1.1x the company's $1.5 billion ARR.

Mews is, as you've heard, valued in line with the recent funding round's valuation and does not include the EUR 20 million that we invested into the company in January. The round's valuation guidance means that we expanded our multiple while broader software peers contracted by 7%. At Perk, we instead made a significant cut in our valuation level to reflect that peer multiple contraction. And our valuation is now back to just a few percent above where the company's $200 million funding round, closed some 12 months ago, despite the company's strong growth in 2025.

Peer multiples also explain this quarter's write-down of Pleo, where we, on top of that, also took a one-off dilution effect from an expanded option program, which weighed on our fair value by an additional 5%. And lastly, at Spring Health, we contracted our multiple with 9% or by around 15% pro forma the Alma acquisition. And we continue to benchmark our valuation against both lower gross margin SaaS companies and healthcare technology companies when valuing Spring, and we're holding the company at a more conservative level relative to these peer groups than where the 2024 funding round closed at. In this quarter, we also found support for our valuation in secondary transactions occurring in connection with the Alma acquisition.

So in summary, for our core companies as a group, it was another stable quarter from a performance perspective, albeit with a temporary setback at Cityblock. And the quarter's write-down was mainly stemming from negative impacts from comparable public market multiples and currency movements.

Moving on then to the last page of this section, Page 12, which shows the full private portfolio by categories and sectors and highlights the main movements outside of our core companies. As Georgi touched on, we've made 3 larger write-downs in climate tech this quarter. At Agreena and Aira, our write-downs reflected cuts in both companies' growth outlook. At Agreena, sales in Q4 last year were below expectations, causing us to make a considerable downward adjustment. And at Aira, the company held back on their growth ambitions in order to continue to target cash flow breakeven with the funding raised during 2025. When they have achieved that, they can again allow themselves to invest more into growth.

The largest write-down in NAV terms was of our investments in Stegra. The company's funding round remains ongoing and in awaiting the round outcome, we recorded a 49% write-down of our investment that seeks to reflect the expected potential dilution of our shareholding in the company that this round of financing may cause. When we know the final outcome of the funding round, we will be able to readjust the valuation of our investment more precisely.

Lastly, our more mature companies, i.e., Betterment, Cedar, HungryPanda, Instabee and Omio remained profitable through 2025 and grew revenues by 13% on average. This group's underlying valuations were down by 5% in the quarter, also mainly driven by changes in peer multiples.

So to summarize my contribution to today's presentation, Q4 ends a year during which external headwinds weighed on our NAV by SEK 6.5 billion, but where we saw solid performance from our core companies that will carry into net asset value accretion in a more stable environment. Capital allocation during the year was deliberate and strategic, and we're entering 2026 with a strong net cash position and a clear set of plans and expectations for how to reallocate our capital during the year.

And with that, I'll hand it over to Georgi to expand on these reflections on 2025 and on these 2026 priorities.

Thanks, Samuel. Let's now move to Page 14. As mentioned at the start of this presentation, 2025 was a year when we sharpened our focus on developing a stable, more mature and more profitable portfolio. We allocated capital in a way and follow-on investments were focused on our high conviction companies, and we made selected new investments in our focus sectors, most notably in Oviva.

While climate tech was, as mentioned, disappointing, the portfolio in aggregate delivered solid operational performance throughout the year. In 2026, we expect our core companies to continue to improve their margins whilst growing revenue by over 30%. And this increasingly profitable growth will serve as an engine of value creation going forward.

2025 also brought several material proof points, large funding rounds in Perk, Mews and Enveda, and we released almost SEK 400 million through exits in financial services. And 2 weeks ago, both Spring Health and Tandem Health announced large acquisitions to accelerate growth, and we look forward to celebrating Spring hitting the combined $1 billion revenue in a few quarters.

We have also aimed to improve transparency by increasingly sharing performance disclosures from our companies, and we included a new page in our quarterly report dedicated to this. And our valuations are being validated. During the year, 45% of our private portfolio saw transactions, which on average valued our companies 38% higher than our preceding NAV.

Let's now turn to the last page of this presentation, Page 15, for a look at the priorities we have set during 2026. It may be somewhat of a transitional year, but as evidenced by the high level of activity in our portfolio, we are not slowing down. We will continue to support our companies in maturing and delivering strong results. We will actively seek liquidity and divestment opportunities, and we will reinvest our capital through strategic, selective and proactive follow-on investments in our most promising companies. As Samuel said, new investments will be conditional on successful recycling of capital, and we enter 2026 with an expectation for a material lower net investment pace.

I look forward to delivering on these priorities and reporting on our progress during my final quarters as CEO.

And with that said, we are now ready to answer your questions. So operator, please open up for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] We are now going to proceed with our first question. And the questions come from the line of Derek Laliberte from ABG.

I was wondering, firstly, from your perspective, how sort of the weak peer developments of late here and also the, call it, broken issue in Navan here impact your potential IPO plans for companies like Perk and Spring Health over the coming year or so?

So yes, we have seen a pressure on software multiples for sure. But I think it's also important to unpack what we're seeing. Firstly, it seems like the market is really valuing growth. So kind of high-growth SaaS company is definitely trading at a premium. Secondly, we see a very big difference between kind of vertical SaaS or vertical software and horizontal software. So in the peer groups of, for instance, Mews, we see very clear kind of premium to those valuations compared to the average. So that's very clear.

In terms of Navan, yes, there are, of course, similarities with Perk, but it's also a very kind of specific situation for that company going public with, I would now say, in hindsight, the wrong timing with a very short history, which makes them even more volatile in the market. And there's also a clear difference. I mean, Perk showed already in the last quarter of 2024 that they could actually make money and scale their platform, albeit at a very, very smaller kind of revenue base. That's kind of one clear difference. And they're also growing faster. And their kind of main focus in Europe, which is even a more fragmented market, makes their inventory more kind of unique, if you will. So there are clear differences.

But of course, going straight to your question about the IPO plans, we see that it's quite rough out there, and it's very volatile for new candidates. We think we have very strong IPO candidates in our portfolio, but we will, in no mean rush any IPO or put pressure on the company, but instead wait for the timing that creates the best value for our shareholders long term.

Okay. Great. Thanks for that clarity and flavor. Then on -- I was wondering here, it feels like it was some time ago, we talked about Cedar here. So just wondering on if you could give an update on the company's operational performance where you also here say that the financial profile has improved and there's been a secondary transaction.

Yes.

Derek, it's Samuel. I'll start, and then I'll hand it over to Christian for a more intelligent answer. But just in terms of how we're dealing with Cedar in the valuations this quarter, Cedar is a company that sort of reached that inflection point where they've been consistently cash flow profitable for some time, and they're showing much stronger growth endurance or even growth rates coming up relative to the peer group. So we feel very encouraged about both the outlook, but also in terms of how robust our valuation is. And this is also a quite large U.S. company. So there is some secondary trading in this business, and we're seeing clear signals that we're holding it at a price where investors are willing to trade.

But Christian, maybe you want to give some more color on Cedar.

Yes. Happy to. I think this is actually a similar topic to what Georgi discussed before in terms of vertical SaaS. And what we are seeing is companies that drive significant ROI for their clients are much better protected than horizontal SaaS, right? And Cedar, through their product suite, can generate massive ROI for their client base, for health systems in the U.S.

Remember, they're doing the patient out-of-pocket expense collection and doing that correctly in a consumer-friendly way in a one-click payment way, actually materially improves the performance on collections and health systems, they operate at an EBITDA margin that is razor thin, say, 1%, 2%, 3%. And actually bending those collections positively can have a really big impact on the overall EBITDA of a health system that is to the size of, say, $30 million, $40 per year. And they are, therefore, happily paying for the Cedar service, and Cedar is really well protected that way.

Now on top of what they can do now is drive AI applications into their client base given their scale and use, for example, the most cutting edge in voice AI to reach patients better, to also take the calls directly with patients that have issues with their billing and payments, and that eases the entire process to get the payments done early and faster. So we're really excited about the product suite expansion at Cedar. And as Samuel said, the model in itself is highly profitable because the ACV, the contract sizes, they can get per client. And also, if you look at it on a per FTE basis, are really, really high. So in terms of long-term EBITDA margin, this can be a very, very strong set of unit economics at scale.

Okay. And on Cityblock, I was wondering if you can explain more closely here what happened with this contract fallout here affecting the outlook because, I mean, I didn't realize there was, I mean, call it, large concentration here in the pipeline?

Happy to, Derek. So the contract sizes in Cityblock are very large. They range from, say, $100 million to $300 million in ARR or even above that. And to actually launch with one of their health plan partners, takes a long time, right? You have to go through the contracting. You have to then size the population the right way. Stratify the patients according to what matches to Cityblock's care model, et cetera, et cetera. And then you set up the local operations. That can take a long time, right. And so these are -- these sales cycles are long, and the contract sizes are very large, and that just naturally leads to lumpiness in how the sales work, but it's not necessarily a negative sign.

This client actually, they haven't gone with a competitor here. It's just that they needed more time to assess what they're going to do with their population in that specific state that we were talking about. But there are other very material ARR contracts in the pipeline now. We just try to be cautious in terms of that visibility and then factor them into our outlook once they're closer to contracting and completion.

Okay. Great. I appreciate the clarity there. And then on Spring Health, just a clarification, and apologies if you mentioned this somewhere. But you're saying that this new current valuation is in line with the implied valuation by this -- the transaction with the acquisition of Alma here.

Derek, I'll take that one. It's roughly in line with where those transactions will happen at closing of the merger. There is some moving parts in there because obviously, there will be earn-outs and such. But roughly speaking, those secondary trades are happening at a high single-digit, low double-digit discount to where we're holding the asset. And there's been little incentive from the stakeholders' part in that transaction to try to bolster any valuation here. So we feel that it's providing some support for where we're holding it in our internal models.

Okay. Great. And just finally on Aira. What -- I mean, from your perspective, what would you say have been the key issues for this company because it does look pretty messy from the outside here with some significant operational pivots, call it? And I mean, why do you continue to invest in this franchise?

Derek, let me take that one. I think firstly, if we go back a few years ago, all the projections on heat pump development in Europe were, I mean, significantly higher, right? So they have been almost like reset in new projections by everybody. That's kind of one reason that it puts pressure on kind of sales. Secondly, as we know, there has been a lot of changes when it comes to policies and subsidy schemes that, of course, also impacts consumers' ability and willingness to change their heating system.

Despite that, the company has been growing very, very fast. And we have earlier talked about the sales run rate of over EUR 200 million, which is, of course, very impressive given that they have only been in the market in a short period of time. But I think the operational challenge right now is to actually get a higher efficiency in the installation process. And this is, to be clear, nothing that is done easily, and it's also nothing we have seen anyone else being better at.

So Aira has an ambition because they kind of control the entire value chain to do this better at scale. And what Samuel said is that for the beginning of this year, Aira will kind of focus on that efficiency rather than maximizing growth. So they have been growing very fast, and now it's really about to improve those unit economics installation. And when we see kind of strong results there and a high efficiency, the company can grow again. That's where we are.

We are now going to proceed with our next question. And our next questions come from the line of Oskar Lindstrom from Danske Bank.

Three sets of questions from me. The first one is just on -- maybe I misheard here, but you were talking about pressure on healthcare budgets as a negative. Did I understand that correctly or...

Yes, there has been pressure on health plans. If you look at the health plan share price performance over the last 12 months, they have suffered materially. And I can explain why that's the case.

And is this just in general sort of public sector healthcare budgets or companies looking -- but shouldn't that be a positive for the growth outlooks and sort of markets for the types of healthcare services your companies or assets are offering?

Yes. I think it's important to actually to dissect this according to which target market you're focusing on, right? So healthcare budgets in the commercial markets are growing rapidly, almost 10% per year, in some cases, even larger, and we have a big share of employer focused and commercial market focused investments. Spring Health is one of them, Transcarent and Pelago are others, and they're all benefiting from that trend, obviously, Transcarent as well. And then there are the health plans. And I think in value-based care, what you're seeing is an increase -- would you mind going on mute?

There's an increase in the care utilization, but health plans are obviously at risk for that, right? And so it depends on whether they're getting reimbursed at the rates that reflect this increased medical expense. And this is lags, often lags for a year or 2. And in that period, the margins get squeezed for a health plan. And if you're an at-risk provider, you're effectively taking risk on these members as well. And -- so your P&L works a bit similar to a health plan. So it can mean that in the short term, your margins get squeezed until the rates -- the reimbursement rates are readjusted for that increased medical expense the next year or the year after, and then you can expand your margins again.

So this is what is hurting the health plan sector and the value-based care sector, but in some ways, actually benefits our employer-focused model, if that makes sense.

I'm going to read through the transcript again to get all the details there. I want to get on to my second question, and this is regarding the guidance there that you would reduce investments in 2026. Would you be willing to quantify that? And what sort of share or rough share is going to go into existing companies and how much is going to go towards new investments?

Oskar, it's Samuel. I would position it as follows. On the exit side of things, we think we're going to beat 2025's SEK 0.4 billion. On the follow-on side, it's highly sensitive to the opportunities we see and our ability to convert some opportunities more preemptively. But the plan we're looking at now doesn't stack up to more than what we invested in follow-ons during 2025. So I hope that gives you some sense of where we would end up on a net basis.

And then clearly, if we are successful on the divestment side, then there's more flexibility in terms of where we deploy both into the existing portfolio, accreting ownership but also considering new investments that can help continue to drive this maturing of the portfolio that we've seen over the last 2 years.

So it's not necessarily going to be a significant reduction in net investments? It's going to be sort of about the same or slightly smaller? I'm just trying to get a feel for what the impact on your net cash is going to be, say, a year -- when we're standing here a year from now.

I see. Right. So to be very clear, doing follow-ons in the high conviction businesses in our portfolio, that is something we will most definitely do. That will most likely stack up to an aggregate number slightly below the SEK 1.6 billion we did in follow-ons in 2025. And on exits, there, we think we'll beat the SEK 0.4 billion that we achieved in 2025. So to do the math for you, you're looking at a number of no more than SEK 1 billion net.

All right. The final question, again, coming back to this issue, and I know it might be difficult to answer, but I'm going to put it to you anyway, is in terms of sort of public offerings here for some of your core assets, do you feel that you're closer to that now in terms of time, from now compared to where you believe you were a year ago?

I mean I think you need to kind of decouple the readiness of a company to go public, right, from the market opportunity and the window. So if I start with the first one saying all our core companies have matured and continue to grow at a high pace. And I think that's very attractive in the public markets. As I alluded to earlier, investors pay a premium for growth. You have to show that your model works and that you can convert to high gross [indiscernible]. The other thing is obviously the market conditions. And I think even if the window has been open over the last couple of quarters, we've seen a very volatile market, and companies with limited history, if you will, have been punished very hard in these volatile markets.

So I think it's -- for the second part of the question, as I said earlier, we will not push our businesses. This needs to be company-led, and this needs to be done with a view that it's good short term and long term. So being ready is one thing, taking the opportunity to go public is another thing that is very much market dependent.

[Operator Instructions] We are now going to proceed with our next question. And our next questions come from the line of Julia Angeli Strand from Handelsbanken.

I have one on Mews. Could you elaborate a bit on the valuation? Because it seems like you have a higher valuation than this funding round. And is there a particular reason to that?

Julia, it's Samuel. We are valuing our stake in the company at the exact same valuation as the funding round took place. I think what might make the quarter-on-quarter move slightly confusing perhaps and also adding to that is the fact that the round closed in Q1. So first of all, the EUR 20 million that we invested as part of the round, that is a Q1 event that's not recorded in today's report. And that is also why you see us posting an 8% ownership stake in Mews, whereas after this round, we're going to own 10% of the company.

What happened in 2025 was that we made 2 follow-on investments into Mews, one in Q1, one in Q3, in total, around SEK 400 million. Those investments were made at valuations that in part depended on where this new funding round closed. So those 2 investments, you could say we've valued as if they were debt and held them at nominal value. And now that we know the funding round's outcome, we can adjust the valuations of those investments as they are converted into equity as part of this round.

So that hopefully explains the quarter-on-quarter move. But to be very clear, we are valuing our investment in the company at the same price as the funding round took place at.

Okay. And the valuation of your stake of 8%, is that pre or post latest investment?

That is on a pre-money basis. So the price per share in the funding round based on the number of shares we owned before the funding round happened.

We have no further questions at this time. I will now hand back to Mr. Georgi Ganev for closing remarks.

Thank you very much for listening and for the questions. And as a last reminder, we will report the results for the first quarter in 2026 on the 16th of April.

Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you, and have a good day.

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Kinnevik Q3 Report 2025 Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] Please note that today's conference is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to your speaker, Mr. Georgi Ganev, CEO. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone, and welcome to the presentation of Kinnevik's results for the third quarter 2025. I am Georgi Ganev, Kinnevik's CEO; and with me today is our CFO, Samuel Sjostrom; and our Director of Corporate Communications, Torun Litzen.

We will begin today's call by walking you through the key events of the quarter, including our core company's performance. Samuel will cover our capital allocation, financial position and net asset value development. I will then give you an overview of how our portfolio has evolved and matured over the last 3 years and what that means for us going forward. Finally, I will reiterate our priorities for 2025. And as usual, we will end with a Q&A.

So let's start on Page 4. Q3 marked another quarter of stable operational performance in our core companies of today with selected investments in the core companies of tomorrow. Our portfolio continues to mature and our companies are successfully balancing growth with margin control. Our net asset value was up 2% and amounted to SEK 37.5 billion or SEK 136 per share at the end of the third quarter. The fair value of our private portfolio was up 3% in SEK and 4% in constant currencies. We ended the quarter with a net cash position of SEK 8.6 billion after investing SEK 1 billion mainly in our existing companies.

During the quarter, we invested additional capital into our core company, Mews, on the back of proof points in its go-to-market strategy and product development. We also participated in funding rounds in Enveda and Aira. Drawing on our successful partnership with Mews, we also welcome Nory to the portfolio, an AI native vertical SaaS company targeting the restaurant industry.

Let's move to Page 5 for an update on the performance of our core companies. As a group, Spring Health, TravelPerk, Pleo, Cityblock and Mews continued to demonstrate strong growth during the quarter while improving profitability. In the first 9 months of 2025, they grew revenues by 35% on average and improved EBITDA margins by 2 percentage points year-on-year. This solid performance has been fueled by the rapid integration of artificial intelligence, which is fundamentally changing how our companies operate and how they deliver value to their customers.

We have seen firsthand how AI has been transformative across our portfolio, driving automation, personalization, smarter decision-making while unlocking new levels of efficiency. With meaningful scale and deep customer engagements already established, our core companies are uniquely positioned to leverage AI. For example, Spring Health is using AI to reduce the admin burden on clinicians while delivering personalized care with a speed and precision that was previously out of reach. During the quarter, the company secured several major contracts, and as a result, we slightly raised their outlook for future growth.

TravelPerk continues to invest in AI-driven innovation to remove friction from the travel experience. The company has embedded AI across its platform from automated customer support to internal AI-powered assistance, driving significant growth and profitability improvements. Gross margins now exceed 70%, up from 40% at the end of 2022, with revenue growth of 50% year-to-date.

Mews revenue management solution, Atomize, has doubled its customer base over the last 6 months. Since being acquired by Mews late last year, Atomize has evolved into a next-generation generative AI-powered engine, combining insights with real-time pricing and customer segmentation tools. I will expand further on Mews on the next slide.

As our portfolio continues to mature and strengthen its profitability, we are seeing greater predictability and more stable operational performance. Our core companies are delivering on key lead indicators, signaling continued positive progress into 2026. We are confident that this solid performance will continue to be reflected in our net asset value growth with a very limited need of additional capital.

Let's now move to Page 6. In the quarter, we made a EUR 15 million secondary investment in Mews. The company continues to execute on their multiproduct strategy to capture a larger share of hotel economics and to create a more attractive, stickier and higher-value customer relationships. On this note, Mews announced the acquisition of housekeeping platform, Flexkeeping in late September. This adds another key product to Mews platform, increasing the addressable share of wallet of hoteliers by more than 15% and draws on an already strong customer overlap with Mews. Meanwhile, the company has improved their onboarding of new customers throughout 2025 and signed new customers above our initial expectations.

In August, they passed EUR 330 million in run-rate revenues. As you can see on the right-hand side of this page, Kinnevik first invested in Mews at the end of 2022 and have invested more capital on 3 occasions since then, including the most recent investment. Consistent with our capital allocation strategy, we have continued to deploy capital as the company has continued to deliver on its plan and hit key milestones. Mews have grown run rate revenues by more than 3x over our 3 years as shareholders. And we're very happy to have found a way to invest more capital behind Mews and their CEO and Founder, Matt Welle and Richard Valtr, and we look forward to updating you on the company's progress in the coming quarters.

Let's now move to Page 7. In just 5 years, Enveda has scaled to become one of the fastest-growing tech bio companies globally. In the quarter, we invested $20 million in Enveda's $150 million funding round alongside strong and well-known partners, both new and existing. It was also announced that Mikael Dolsten, former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer and current Novo Nordisk Board member, joined Enveda's Board. This successful capital raise comes on the back of clinical validation of the company's AI-powered drug discovery platform, which is advancing candidates 4x faster and at 1/10 of the cost compared to the industry average. This is demonstrated by its leading drug candidate targeting eczema, which recently successfully completed Phase 1a clinical trials.

The new capital will advance multiple more programs into clinical trials. The company's promising pipeline of therapies target eczema, asthma, inflammatory diseases, obesity and more. These are conditions that affect more than 100 million adults in the U.S. alone. As in the case of Mews, we have made 3 follow-on investments in Enveda as the company continues to deliver on its strategy. The most recent round values Enveda 55% above our book value from the second quarter in USD terms.

I will now hand over to our CFO, Samuel Sjostrom.

Thank you, Georgi, and good morning, everyone. So I'll do the usual run-through of our financials, capital allocation and NAV, and then I'll hand it back to Georgi for his closing remarks and for a look at our portfolio's evolution over the last few years.

But starting by covering the last few months on Page 9, we invested just north of SEK 1 billion in Q3, bringing year-to-date net investments to SEK 2.3 billion. As indicated in the previous quarter and as Georgi just laid out, our investments in Q3 were mainly directed into our existing portfolio with the SEK 169 million secondary acquisition in Mews and our participation in Enveda's and Aira's funding rounds with roughly SEK 0.5 billion in total.

The fourth more meaningful investment in the quarter was our new investment in the smaller and younger "Mews" for restaurants, Nory that Georgi also covered earlier. That meant we ended Q3 with SEK 8.6 billion in net cash and with 73% of our portfolio being invested in companies that are profitable or deemed funded to breakeven. And that's a number that's coming down a bit in this quarter, mainly due to our investment activity and the large write-up of Enveda.

Looking ahead, our investment pipeline is focused on opportunities and companies that are advancing the ongoing transformation of our portfolio towards a more stable balance of growth and margins rather than holding this transformation back. And this is after us having spent the last 12 months carefully making sure our portfolio has a strong bench of young future core company candidates within our focus sectors. And I know Georgi will get back to this ongoing shift in our portfolio when I'm gotten you through my usual updates.

With these factors, our net cash position and the quality and growing maturity of our portfolio combined to ensure that we continue to plan and execute on our capital allocation from a robust platform. And looking into 2026 and '27, we see strong potential for our focus on creating optionality for monetization and liquidity beginning to bear fruit, driven both by the development in our companies and in the general market environment.

With that, let's move on to this quarter's NAV on Page 10. NAV was up 2% in Q3 to SEK 37.5 billion or SEK 136 per share. In constant currency terms, NAV was up 3%, with underlying NAV growth again held back a bit by currencies, this quarter by some SEK 0.4 billion. Year-to-date, the negative impact from currencies amount to around SEK 3.4 billion or a double-digit percentage headwind faced by the underlying value growth in our portfolio.

Our private investments were up 3% in the quarter or 4% in constant currencies, with overall stability across the portfolio. Multiple contraction in our private portfolio amounted to negative 3%, and that's a magnitude on par with public markets. Meanwhile, transaction activity within the existing portfolio continued to provide supportive valuation feedback. Looking back over the last 12 months, meaning Q4 last year and the first 3 quarters of this year, we've seen primary or secondary transactions in half of the private portfolio by value. And on average, these deals have been clearing at valuations 26% higher than our preceding marks.

Outside of the portfolio, as you will have seen, IPO activity in pockets of public markets relevant to us and our portfolio have been picking up. Renewed market volatility in October aside, these are continued signs of the public markets' appetite for more growth-oriented equity stories like those of our core companies, driven by the fact that these types of growth businesses have become rare in public markets over the last years. With that, I'll move into the customary details and valuation movements in the quarter, starting with a quick summary of currencies and multiples on Page 11.

Starting on the right-hand side of this page, the U.S. dollar and the euro both depreciated by a bit more than 1% in Q3, leading our private portfolio's value-weighted currency basket to be down by around as much. As I mentioned, these currency headwinds meant a negative impact of SEK 0.4 billion on our NAV. And again, year-to-date, these headwinds have carried a negative impact of around SEK 3.4 billion. Meanwhile, trading in the key valuation peer sets of our private portfolio on the left-hand side of this page was relatively tightly fanned out around the average negative 3% multiple contraction with the most pronounced negative movements in our software comps.

As I mentioned earlier, our portfolio followed these movements 1:1 on an aggregate level, with valuation multiples in our portfolio coming down by an equally large 3% on average. So in summary, a pretty stable quarter for currencies and multiples by 2025 standards with some 4% aggregate headwind faced by our private portfolio by these external factors.

If you excuse me and in case you haven't already, please make sure to have a look at the deep dive presentation that we posted on our website a few months ago that covers the process behind the valuations of our private businesses and the main considerations involved. In the back end of that presentation, you also find a hopefully helpful guide on the information that we provide in our interim reports valuation section. So with that, let's look at how our company stood up against this headwind, starting with our core companies on Page 12.

On average, underlying constant currency valuations of our core companies were up 2% in the quarter despite multiples contracting by 5% and this translated into a 1% increase in Swedish krona fair value. Operational performance during the quarter and lead indicators on 2026 performance were overall reassuring and was what helped offset these external headwinds from multiples and FX.

As Georgi mentioned, we upgraded the outlook on Spring slightly after some large contract wins and TravelPerk continued to invest the funds raised earlier this year, causing intentional pressure on margins in the short term. Pleo continued to carefully dial in their growth investments to ensure unit economics remains healthy, leading us to again revise down our growth expectations on the company by a few percent in the quarter in exchange for stronger margins.

Cityblock meanwhile, has faced gross margin pressure during 2025, in line with the industry-wide increases in cost of care reported by the major health care payers in the U.S. Meanwhile, the demand for Cityblock services from these payers and thereby the company's growth pipeline remained very robust. Against the backdrop of this growing demand for their unique care model, the company is thoughtfully dialing in their growth rate to ensure they do not take on too much risk during a period of accelerating industry cost trends and regulatory uncertainty.

Lastly, at Mews, as you heard Georgi go through, we saw continued strong developments on the product side, including through the acquisition of Flexkeeping, and the company was beating plan on new signings. The company also passed EUR 330 million in run rate revenues in August, and while SaaS revenue remained on plan, we adjusted down our near-term expected transaction revenue slightly in the quarter, mainly due to a shift in customer mix.

As a group, positives and negatives were largely netted out and our expectations on the next 12 months remain at the growth profitability profile in line with expectations in the previous quarter, with our core companies as a group expected to grow by between 30% to 40% on average with an average EBITDA margin somewhere in between breakeven and negative 5%.

So in summary, for our core companies as a group, it was another stable quarter from a performance and valuations perspective, albeit as always, with a mix within this group and another round of negative impact from public market multiples and currencies.

Moving on then to the last page of this section, Page 13, and looking across the full private portfolio by categories and sectors. Starting with closed or ongoing funding rounds in 3 of our more novel businesses. Our fair value of Aira came up by 20% in the quarter as a result of the funding round that was completed. The rounds underlying valuation was just a few percent ahead of our Q2 assessment, but we saw a larger valuation effect from collapsing the convertible equity capital structure that has been used to fund the company during its incubation phase of the first 2 years of operations.

With Aira now having reached that next phase and stage of maturity, the scale of the company with EUR 200 million in run rate sales and this normalized capital structure means that our valuation of the business can be more dynamic going forward. Meanwhile, at Enveda, we revised our valuation upwards by 55% on an underlying USD basis, also here to a level in line with the quarter's funding round.

And earlier this week, Stegra announced it was also in fundraising mode after having secured commitments from its larger leading shareholders. This funding round remains ongoing, and at the end of Q3, our fair value remained unchanged in euro terms. We'll be able to reassess our valuation of the company in connection with our Q4 report when we should know the outcome of this funding round and how it may impact the business case and the value of the company and of our investments.

Lastly, our more mature companies, meaning Betterment, Cedar, HungryPanda, Instabee and Omio have remained in EBITDA profitable territory during 2025 to date and have grown revenues by around 12% on average. This group's underlying valuations were up by 6% in the quarter, mainly driven by performance-driven write-ups of Betterment and Cedar, and you continue to find a dedicated page covering this group of our more mature companies in Note 4 of today's report.

So to summarize the financial section of today's presentation, Q3 was another stable quarter with capital allocation and operational performance on plan and a private portfolio increasing in value by 3% with the continued stability in performance offsetting some 4% headwind from currencies and public market multiples.

With that, I'd like to hand it back to Georgi to reflect on the development of our portfolio over the last couple of years and to give us closing remarks.

Thank you, Samuel. Let's now move to Page 15. As mentioned, our portfolio continues to mature, and we are seeing increased stability and predictability and more stable operational performance. On this page, we have outlined the progress made across our portfolio in the last 3 years. Our core companies are balancing growth investments with disciplined margin control. Growth rates have come down from over 175% to around 30% to 40% expected over the next 12 months. But in return, margins have improved significantly, and we expect our core companies to approach breakeven as a group over the next 12 months.

Combined gross profits have increased by 5x in actual numbers. Meanwhile, multiples have come down by more than half. We have worked hard to increase exposure to our high conviction businesses and our core companies today constitute 51% of our portfolio compared to 22% at the end of 2022. This has been driven by active capital allocation and strong value creation in our companies. Today, we are operating from a position of strength. We have a portfolio of companies with increasingly stable performance and limited capital needs, which contributes to clear path to liquidity and monetization. This enables focused capital allocation, which brings me to the final page of today's presentation, Page 16.

Looking ahead, we expect this trend of maturity and increased profitability to persist across the portfolio. The funding need continues to come down, and we have the financial capacity to support our high conviction businesses with new capital as they deliver on key proof points. Examples during the last year include follow-on investments in TravelPerk, Mews and Enveda, which have all delivered according to plan and hit key milestones, demonstrating stellar operational performance.

In parallel, as Samuel also mentioned, our investment pipeline is focused on carefully identifying opportunities and companies that would reinforce the increasing maturity of our portfolio. Going forward, we remain relentlessly focused on executing our priorities, disciplined capital allocation, stability in performance and delivering proof points and increased transparency.

We look forward to keeping you updated on this progress. We're now ready to answer your questions. So operator, please open up for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Derek Laliberte from ABG Sundal Collier.

Sorry, I was on mute. I was wondering on TravelPerk, given the news lately about its peer, Navan IPOing, et cetera. I mean from your perspective, how does TravelPerk differentiate itself versus its key competitors like Navan and [ Konga ], I suppose.

Thank you, Derek, for your question. Georgi here. So I think, first of all, we think it's positive that the market opens up for these type of businesses. And we have now with Hinge, with Navan and so forth, seen that there is an appetite for companies that we have in our portfolio. And concurrently, they are also then maturing as we've said, and they're getting ready for the public market.

Looking at TravelPerk in comparison, I think the main difference is that they're extremely strong in the SMB market. So the unmanaged travel space where people are actually moving in to use one of these solutions. We think that is a better positioning than Navan. Then obviously, we also know from the S-1 filings when we compare the notes that Navan is a great company, probably twice the size. But since TravelPerk already demonstrated that they can be profitable around EUR 200 million in ARR, it seems like their scalability is coming faster. That in itself, I think, is a very strong position of TravelPerk as we see it.

And our next questions come from the line of Linus Sigurdson from DNB Carnegie.

So looking at the margin improvements year-over-year and this Q2 figure was lower -- sorry, 2% figure was lower than in Q2. Is this driven by these investments that you talked about in Mews and TravelPerk in the growth? Or is there something else to factor in when you compare these 2 numbers?

Linus, I'll address that. It's what you say really. On margins, it's driven by TravelPerk investing the funds that they raised earlier this year. That's both just weighing a lot on the company's margins in absolute terms as well as on the core companies as a group, but also perhaps more in particular on the year-over-year change in margins considering, as I think Georgi just said and we stated a few quarters ago, TravelPerk were actually profitable during late 2025, and they're now deliberately investing a lot through OpEx. So that's driving that on margins.

While I'm added on growth, it's really Spring that's coming down a bit in 2025 relative to what we expected. But also as we tried to make clear in the prepared remarks, they've been converting a number of large contracts during the year, which will convert into revenue next year. So we feel we have a good visibility on an acceleration in growth at Spring next year. And considering Spring and TravelPerk are -- have the highest weights in that core company group, it's really those 2 businesses that are driving these changes.

Understood. That's very helpful. And then secondly, how should we think about your near-term pipeline for investments in capital allocation? I'm thinking specifically about Q4 in terms of what opportunities you have, both in and outside of the portfolio.

I think that we have reached this inflection point when we have a number of core companies that are having -- they have reached scale and also kind of proven their business model. So that will continue. And as I said, in -- on the call earlier, we expect value creation to come from these companies delivering rather than allocating necessarily more capital into these businesses. Having said that, as we demonstrated this quarter, we will look for opportunities to accrete more in companies we really like Mews. That's more of a secondary opportunity, right?

I think on the new company side, we have also a very strong bench of up-and-coming companies that can become the core companies of tomorrow. So we don't see a reason per se to add more businesses to our portfolio. We will be very selective, and we will also address opportunities both in terms of our existing companies, how they can continue to accelerate their journey towards profitability or new investments that also would kind of rather accelerate this transformation of portfolio maturity rather than holding it back. So very highly selective, more focused on addressing these opportunities that would further accelerate this matured portfolio.

And the questions come from the line of Joren Van Aken from Degroof Petercam.

Just coming back to Spring Health because you mentioned in the print that future growth improved after a big contract. I see peer multiples went down 2%. So I was a bit surprised to see that Spring's multiple went down by 7%, especially as Hinge is up double digits, its share price over Q3. So could you talk a bit more about the reasoning here for the multiple moving?

It's Samuel. Look, Hinge, as we've said, is a super relevant comp to Spring. Having said that, it's just one business. So when we look at where we were end of the quarter, I think Spring was at a revenue multiple around 20% below Hinge and around as much above on a gross profit basis. But just a week before quarter end, Hinge was at a premium to our valuation of Spring. So these individual stocks will sort of bounce around, which is why we're triangulating against a larger peer set of both health care technology companies like Hinge and like Spring, but also SaaS businesses with structurally lower gross margins as is the case with Spring. So there's a lot of nuances going into it. And where we come out net-net is that the multiple on Spring should be coming down by around 7% in this quarter.

[Operator Instructions] And our next question come from the line of Ramil Koria from Danske Bank.

I have a bunch actually. Maybe if we start on capital allocation and exit opportunities, you sound quite upbeat on the ability to exit or create liquidation opportunities for '26 and '27. Could you -- maybe against the backdrop of SEK 5 billion to SEK 10 billion into 2030 exit framework, could you size what one should expect in the coming 2 years? And what kind of assets would you be looking to potentially exit?

Cool. We'll start there, Ramil. It's Samuel. Firstly, on exits, I think what we've talked less about is that we've invested a lot of work into that during a quite subdued period in the market the last couple of years. And with this improvement in our companies and the portfolio's overall financial profile, meaning improvements in terms of stability and maturity and also this general market environment becoming a bit more constructive, that's sort of what's underpinning the fact that we feel very confident about our ability to generate both monetization opportunities, but also just liquidity in the portfolio over the next 12 to 24 months.

I think in terms of what companies, clearly, Spring and TravelPerk are arguably the companies closest to IPO considering their progress, potential exit candidates, we'll get back to those once those exits have actually happened rather than to try to guess it today. On the capital allocation framework, just want to make clear one thing, again, and that's at the Capital Markets Day last year, the slide you're referring to was a set of expectations. It's not necessarily a framework that we're looking to execute on.

And as Georgi laid out, and as I think I covered as well in the prepared remarks, there is no longer that capital need from the existing portfolio. And that gives us a lot of discretion and a lot of degrees of freedom. But that level of discretion and the degrees of freedom should not be interpreted as, okay, now we're going to lose our discipline. On the contrary, the bar is super high, and we're going to be extremely disciplined.

And in terms of new investments, as Georgi laid out, those will be focused over the near term on opportunities that are accelerating this trend towards stability and towards maturity rather than to reintroduce risk into the portfolio with the achievements that we have behind us. So I think that's probably what we can say today, but I hear you in terms of coming back perhaps early next year with a bit more details on the plans ahead.

Makes sense, Samuel. And maybe on the 2 potential IPO assets. First off, on Spring, given growth decelerating this year and accelerating into next year, and the new sizable contract, does that mean that perhaps an IPO is not on the cards in the sort of -- in the near term until you ramp up on that contract and actually see growth rates reaccelerate? And on TravelPerk, could you just shed some light on the benefits, the pros and cons basically of going public now versus waiting, given that the company raised funding a mere a year ago roughly?

Ramil, I will take that, and I start with your second part, which is TravelPerk then. I think looking at the market today, your award, of course, for being profitable and then maintaining a higher growth. That's, I think, something that you're slightly more limited in the public market versus staying in the private where you can invest more aggressively into growth levers, right? So that's kind of the overarching assessment, whether you should go public or not.

Given the fact that TravelPerk has a very, I would say, proven stable platform, we think it can definitely go public in the near term and still demonstrate its ability to grow with improving margins over a long period of time. That gives us the flexibility then to own a liquid asset. But on the other hand, we are long term with our investments. We want to create as much value for shareholders as possible. So I think it's too early to tell whether we are looking for a kind of near-term IPO or whether it's better to wait a while for TravelPerk. But what we have said before is that we want our core companies to mature, so we have the ability to go for these events.

On Spring, yes, of course, you're absolutely correct in a way where you see that you are rather investing for future growth, that's not at a deal timing. We think, however, that with the kind of lead indicators being contracts signed for 2026, that will show a very positive momentum. But on top of that, as I also mentioned in my remarks that Spring is investing as TravelPerk and Mews heavily into new functionality also based on AI, meaning that they can reduce further costs not only for themselves, but for therapists, clinicians and create even more value. And of course, that is something we would like to see and to be able to demonstrate before you go to the public market.

So it's a combination of both growth, but also product development and kind of proof points in that product road map, if you will, that will be important to kind of follow throughout 2026 and then take a decision. But also there, the company said they are preparing themselves, so they are ready when the time is right.

Okay. That makes sense. And then on Betterment, I mean, we've seen Wealthfront file S-1, and you did refer to it in the report. But could you -- knowing that Wealthfront's sort of revenue model seems a bit different from Betterment, could you shed some light as to differences between the companies from your vantage point?

Sure, Ramil. I'll give it a shot. I'd probably summarize it the following way. Wealthfront has a higher share of cash products in its AUM. They also have a higher share of what's called float revenue, i.e., interest on clients' idle cash. Whereas Betterment, they have a higher share of more investment advisory products, both in its AUM and in its revenue. And that's up to anyone to sort of have a preference for we like Betterment profile more, and we also like the differentiating progress that Betterment is showing in terms of building out their B2B capabilities and offering rather than just a B2C product.

So Wealthfront, it's not a perfect comp, as you say, but it's a very good one. They seem to be around 50% larger in terms of revenue scale. We seem to be growing at around the same pace, but they are making a lot higher margins, which -- and I don't want to sound like this guy who thinks everything is positive, but the fact that Wealthfront are doing the margins they're doing at the scale that they have to me, that feels like a very strong indicator on the profitability of Betterment's model when they gain a bit more scale. But let's see how public markets feel about Wealthfront. But that's sort of how I would compare the 2.

Okay. Okay. For what it's worth, I agree on that, Samuel. But just before I wrap it up on my end, just a brief follow-up on that. Would it be possible for Betterment to also sort of drive revenues stemming from interest and idle cash on their platform? Is that -- is there something technically that does not enable Betterment to do so?

No. And they are -- and clearly, during the last couple of years' worth of interest rate hikes, they have been making a lot of money off of cash products as well, but the mix is different.

Okay. That's very clear. And then finally for me, if I may, on Aira, just trying to sort of understand. Okay. So it's fully equitized now. You've cleaned up the sort of the financing structure of the company. But just trying to understand the reason for the value uplift and then also why you've decided to increase your equity stake, your equity ownership of the company?

It sounds like a Samuel question. I'll try to answer it because I don't want this to sound esoteric, and I tried to be clear in the remarks, but let me give it another shot. So the financing that Aira has raised to date has been through convertible equity effectively, and that's now being converted and collapsed into a more normal capital structure. So our underlying valuation of the business is up in the quarter in low mid-single percentages. The remaining effect on our fair value is a consequence of that change in capital structure. And that's also why you see us owning a larger chunk of the business despite the fact that we're taking pro rata in this last round.

So it's a bit technical, but I think this quarter's 20% write-up should really be seen in the light of us holding this investment at invested capital in euro terms for around 2 years now during the company's incubation phase. So we've effectively made like a 10% IRR while the company has gone from 0 to EUR 200 million in run rate sales. So it's a bit of a bump this quarter. But that, again, sort of if you draw it out over 2 years and you consider the fact that we're now entering this next phase, of a simple capital structure allowing for more dynamic valuation reassessments and also the company sort of reaching that level of scale, I hope it sort of at least contextualizes that write-up a bit more.

And the next questions come from the line of Andreas Lundberg from SEB.

You mentioned a few things about the growth assumptions for the core companies in the next 12 months, including some contract wins. But are there any other indicators or lead indicators you refer to when you say it point to a strong 2026?

Thanks, Andreas. It's Samuel. I'd probably single out 3 of the best examples. Georgi mentioned Mews beating on sales. As I think we've touched on in the past, they call it, post-sales process at Mews is quite lengthy. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to onboard with these clients after you've actually sold the deal. So that gives us a very good visibility on revenue next year provided that Mews can actually onboard these clients on time.

And on the onboarding side of things, there, we've also seen a lot of improvements at Mews because that has been an issue in the past where they -- during the first half of this year has basically cleared out their entire backlog. So that's one good indicator.

Spring, similarly, the way that model looks is that they basically sell now. And as we said, they've landed a couple of large contracts. Those contracts typically kick off in January next year. That's typically the case. At times, we have contracts starting sort of end of June. But typically on 1st of Jan, that's when you see the contracts actually launching and converting to revenue. So again, a fair amount of visibility because we see how much annual contract value that they've actually sold and contracted.

Last and third example is Cityblock, where it's sort of similar to Spring in that we see them signing contracts and that the actual launch of those contracts and Cityblock taking on board the care of those patients is timed into the future, again, typically 1st of Jan. And for Cityblock, we've seen them by August having sold around 85% of expected revenue next year. So again, a business model that gives us a fair amount of visibility on top line, I should say, because having said all of that, while top line expectations may feel very well underbuilt on margins, it's a lot more dynamic. But those, I'd say, are the 3 best examples of these types of lead indicators.

I can maybe add actually a fourth one coming from the product dimension, Andreas, and that would be, we have seen in these businesses their ability to both develop organically new products or with these bolt-on acquisitions, enhance the value proposition to the customer. So in Mews, for instance, the rollout of dynamic currency conversion has shown very strong traction. We see the acquisition of Yokoy on the TravelPerk side. And that also gives us more confidence on the gross margin development and the kind of share of wallet, if you will, from the customer, which is also not only contracts being signed, but actually a larger part of that customer's share of wallet, if you will.

Okay. Cool. And lastly, a few ones on Stegra. What is the total size of the financing round? And what are your assessment so far on the company's progress? And what are your sort of key rationales for when you decide or considering to take part of the next round?

So I will refer to what the company has communicated. It's a funding round around SEK 10 billion, but that will be based on equity, new equity, debt, but also partnerships around outsourcing of one or several components in the value chain. So today, I think it's too early to say exactly what that equity component would be. We also know that the lead investors have already committed capital as well as the founder. And as a kind of relatively small shareholder, we have, I would call it, the flexibility to actually wait and see how this shakes out and then take a decision based on what's best for Kinnevik in our investment. I can say that so far, we have not committed in this round. And we also feel going back to our remarks on capital allocation that our exposure is already relatively high to this type of investment. So that's where we stand today. But it's too early to give you a definitive answer.

We have no further questions at this time. So I'm now going to hand back to CEO, Georgi Ganev, for closing remarks.

Thank you very much, everybody, for listening and for your questions. And as a last reminder, we will report our results for the fourth quarter and full year on the 3rd of February 2026. Thank you. Bye.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you, and have a great day.