Thank you. Thank you for joining our presentation of MT Højgaard Holding's Q2 results today.

I'm Rasmus Untidt, and I'm CEO. I'm joined by CFO Dennis Nørgaard on today's call.

Before we start the presentation, we wanted to highlight the front-page photo and the fact that the construction of new barracks for the Danish Armed Forces is progressing well and has already contributed to MT Højgaard Danmark's performance in the first in the second quarter of the year. We will now cover the highlights of the quarter and add some detail on the order portfolio before moving on to the outlook and taking your questions.

Please turn to slide two for an overview of the quarter. Q2 was significantly impacted by write-down on the Nordhavn Tunnel project announced in June after the joint venture partner entered a settlement agreement with the developer.

This meant that the results for the quarter were disappointing. Looking at the underlying operations, MT Højgaard Danmark delivered solid project execution with good results in the quarter.

The business unit improved earnings and profitability when adjusting for the results from joint ventures. The performance improvements delivered by Enemærke & Petersen in recent quarters did not continue in Q2 where certain projects posed challenges and resulted in write-downs.

Efforts are being made to get the positive development back on track. Enemærke & Petersen is focusing on its core activities, and the ownership of NemByg in Esbjerg was transferred to MT Højgaard Danmark at the end of June.

NemByg will continue under its own name with the current management team and benefit from MT Højgaard Danmark's knowledge and competences going forward. The change will strengthen NemByg's competitiveness and provide MT Højgaard Danmark with a solid position in Southern Jutland to match the presence in the rest of Jutland.

We closed the divestment of [Arssarnerit?] in Greenland and have now completed the wind-up of our international activities initiated back in October 2023.

Finally, the order book forms a solid foundation for the coming periods. We are pleased to see growth of 22% in our order portfolio of firm and unconditional orders after a very strong performance in Q1 this year and the preceding quarters in 2025.

Slide three, please. The underlying operations and results in our largest business unit were solid in Q2.

The settlement and write-down on the Nordhavn Tunnel project resulted in unsatisfactory financial performance and a downgrade of earnings guidance in July in June, sorry. Looking ahead, it is positive that the settlement ensured agreement on additional work and cost resulting resulting from delays as well as a new timetable with completion and handover planned for the end of 2028.

The activity level picked up pace in the second quarter after a slow start to the year because of harsh winter weather causing delayed initiation of on of work on some projects. Revenue was largely on par with the comparison quarter at 1.6 million billion and 25% higher than Q1.

MT Højgaard Danmark is catching up on the postponed work from Q1 as planned, while also executing swiftly and efficiently on large projects. Still, we do see several multiyear projects contributing modestly to revenue in the startup phase, as previously communicated.

EBIT was affected by the write-down and came to a loss of 68 million. Excluding joint ventures, MT Højgaard Danmark improved earnings by 5% to 106 million.

During the quarter, MT Højgaard Danmark handed over the third train workshop to long-term customer DSB. The collaboration was initiated in 2020 with early involvement and the project was delivered on time at the agreed price.

After the first year of planning, the project progressed smoothly with 19,000 m² of workshop footprint now handed over. The cooperation continues in Ringsted, where DSB is building another train workshop.

The order intake was moderate at 1.3 billion in the quarter after strong order intake in previous quarters. MT Højgaard Danmark grew the order book to 8.1 billion and the total order portfolio to more than 15 billion.

This provides a very strong foundation for growth in the coming years. Let's take a look at Enemærke & Petersen on slide four, please.

Enemærke & Petersen reported 14% lower revenue at 915 million in Q2. The activity level was lower and impacted by phasing of activities as some projects were completed while others were still in the startup phase.

Raunstrup delivered stable performance in the quarter. Earnings were impacted by challenging projects and a write-down on one large construction project which is 80% completed and scheduled for handover in spring 2027.

This put an unsatisfactory end to several quarters of gradual improvement, and EBIT was negative by 5 million in the quarter. The Enemærke & Petersen team is fully focused on regaining traction and profitability through improved pro- processes, strengthening risk management and tight project execution.

This quarter's results underline the importance of consolidating the change implemented in recent quarters to sharpen focus on the core business. We are pleased that the activities in Western Denmark have been reorganized after transferring projects to Raunstrup and the ownership of NemByg to MT Højgaard Danmark.

The order intake was moderate at 686 million in Q2, but the business unit maintained a strong order book of 6.1 billion after several quarter quarters with high order intake. Dennis will now provide a year-to-date overview.

Please turn to slide five.

Thank you, Rasmus. Financial performance in the first six months was impacted by the write-down on the Nordhavn Tunnel project and lower activity caused by the harsh winter in Q1 as well as the facing of our order portfolio.

Group revenue declined 12% to 4.7 billion. The decline was driven by Enemærke & Petersen, while MT Højgaard Danmark regained some traction in Q2 after a slow start to the year.

EBIT was negative by 10 million in the half year, driven by the write-down on the Nordhavn Tunnel project in Q2 and low cap- capacity utilization in Q1 due to the tough winter. Excluding joint ventures, the group's EBIT margin was 3.5% compared to 4.4% in the first half year of 2025.

Net financials were an expense of 7 million in the first six months against an expense of 13 million last year. The improvement was a result of higher interest income and lower expenses after the repayment of a subordinated loan last year.

The result of continuing operation was negative by 13 million compared to a profit of 146 million last year. The loss from discontinued operation was 10 million against 20 million last year, with no impact in Q2 after completion of the wind-up.

The net result for the year half year was a loss of 24 million against the profit of 126 million in the first six months of 2025. Cash flow from operations was an outflow of 69 million after changes in working capital driven by a negative development in construction contracts in progress and declining trade payables.

Cash flow to investments was an outflow of 46 million due to the last earnout payment related to the divestment of Aarsleff in 2021. Cash flows from financing came to an outflow of 110 million, which includes dividend payment of 77 million and repayment of leasing debt.

The first half of 2025 was impacted by a large repayment on the subordinated loan from Knud Højgaards Fond, which has been repaid in full during 2025. Please turn to slide six.

The lower earnings and changes in working capital during the first half of the year impacted key figures and ratios significantly. The changes in working capital were driven by construction contracts in progress and declining trade payables.

Cash flow from operations declined by 184 million, as mentioned on the previous slide, and the return on invested capital declined to 18% as invested capital increased and earnings declined. Despite the negative development, our balance sheet remains strong, with net interest-bearing debt still positive at 105 million.

Both business units are focused on improving working capital and ensuring disciplined capital allocation going forward. Slide seven, please.

Turning our attention to Q2 again, the business units won final unconditional orders worth 2 billion against 2.5 billion last year. Both business units maintain a selective approach to new projects to ensure a reasonable risk profile.

Orders were won through tenders, partnerships, collaborations, and own project development. MT Højgaard Danmark signed an agreement for the construction of a care home and senior housing in Nordsjælland after having developed the project in-house.

This is another good example of the synergies from having both development and construction competences. The largest order signed in the quarter was an extension of the motorway in Hillerød for the Danish Road Directorate with a contract sum of 277 million.

In Q2, Raunstrup contributed nicely to the order intake in Enemærke & Petersen. Having previously contributed to the conversion of several Netto grocery shops, Raunstrup has been involved in the in the development of a new store concept and received the first orders for conversions in Tilst and Århus.

Let's turn to slide eight. In Q2, our business units won orders worth 784 million, which have not yet been contracted.

When the contracts are final, these orders will be included in the order book as well. The contracts were won mainly by MT Højgaard Danmark and NemByg.

The largest order was a two-phased project for a new baggage factory to support future capacity expansion in Copenhagen Airport. MT Højgaard Danmark won the first phase of the tender covering planning and design in collaboration with the airport, Artelia, and CCO Architects.

After the first phase, the intention is to enter a 450 million turnkey contract for phase two and the construction of Baggage Factory East with expected delivery before the summer of 2030. We are especially pleased with a signing like this because it is another good example of repeat business with a long-term customer.

The award underlines the good client relationship with Copenhagen Airport as MT Højgaard Danmark also constructed and delivered Baggage Factory West in 2021. In addition to this, NemByg won a handful of contracts totaling a value of around 150 million.

I will now hand back to Rasmus for comments on the total order portfolio and the outlook. Please turn to slide nine.

Thank you, Dennis. At the end of the half year, our total order portfolio amounted to 24.7 billion.

This was an increase of 7% from last year and the highest level to date. The value of final unconditional orders increased by 22% to 14.2 billion after the ho- high order intake in the first quarter of this year and throughout last year.

The order book is broadly distributed across segments, project sizes, and geography. 26% of the group is compromised comprised of projects from construction partnerships and other collaborations.

The construction from awarded, but not yet contracted orders was 5.4 billion as several projects have been converted to firm orders over the last 12 months. This part of the order portfolio includes large infrastructure projects with early involvement for DSB, Metroselskabet, and the airport.

In addition, the estimated value of future assignments in construction partnerships was 4.6 billion. Finally, orders in joint ventures made up half a billion.

The total order portfolio is around 2.5 times our expected annual revenue, providing a robust base for the coming years. We will explore that further with a few comments on facing of the order portfolio on slide 10, please.

The record-high order portfolio with several multiyear projects ensures a good activity level and earnings potential in the coming years. At the same time, it enables our business units to remain selective in tenders and reduce longer-term risk.

Finally, it provides a better foundation for forecasting and attracting skilled people who want to contribute to exciting projects. The graph provides an overview of the facing of our order portfolio and some of the multiyear contracts until 2030.

Some of these projects are converting into firm orders, but production will cover a period of three to five years or even longer. These projects will generate significant revenue as activity picks up from 2027 and 2028, supporting our focus on improved quality of earnings.

For now, let's turn to slide 11 and the out- outlook for this year. We are maintaining the guidance issued in early June after the Nordhavn Tunnel settlement was reached.

Revenue is still expected to stabilize within the range of 10 to 10.5 billion, driven by increasing activity in the second half of the year. The order coverage increased to 91% at the end of June, which is almost on par with last year after a slow start to the year.

We have seen good project execution and catch-up on the postponed work across projects in Q2, and good progress is being made on some of the recently won contracts, including the construction of barracks for the Danish Armed Forces. We still expect the large-phase projects in our portfolio to contribute to revenue and earnings from 2027 and 2028 as production begins.

Operating project is pro- profit is projected between 225 and 275 million after the write-down mentioned before. Adjusted for the impact of the write-down, the revenue and earnings outlook is still on par with 2025 levels.

The guidance is based on MT Højgaard Danmark generating higher growth in the second half of the year, and Enemærke & Petersen completing a land sale before the turn of the year. Financial expenses and loss from discontinued operations are expected to be lower than last year.

There is thus a basis for the net profit to decline less than the operating profit in 2026. This concludes today's presentation.

We will now turn to slide 12 and the Q&A se- session. Operator, please go ahead.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions.

First one goes to to Enemærke & Petersen and and really just a a clarification because you talk about challenges to certain projects, i.e., plural, and then you also talk about a write-down on one newbuild project. Maybe just clarification on are we talking one or more projects, and and please if you could put that in in perspective.

Yes. Thank you.

Hi Kristian, this is Rasmus. The main issue relates to a newbuild project that is approximately 80% complete and and scheduled for handover in in in spring 2027.

The project has previously resulted in in in some write-downs. The new management team has identified a need for an additional write-down, and that's what we have recognized in Q2.

The majority or the majority of the write-down is related to this one project that is 80% complete. Of course, we have a portfolio of projects where you have small minuses and some small plusses, but the main project is this newbuild project.

It's a project that was initiated in 2019 and has had multiple phases and and deliverables. Now we are close to the end, and, unfortunately, we have seen some yeah, some, or, yeah, identified some some write-downs.

Okay. This specific project, is is that I mean something which would be in scope of what you would take in today in Enemærke & Petersen?

No, it would not. This this project this project would suit MT Højgaard Danmark much better today.

Back in 2019, it was a a different story.

Sure. Sure.

I I understand that.

Then

then along the same line now, you also highlight the new management has has reviewed this, and and as we know, you you you changed the CEO of Enemærke & Petersen not too long ago. You you also did the same in MT Højgaard Danmark.

There might be investors here fearing that that there is more sort of a review ongoing from from both new CEOs, and and which could essentially trigger more of of these kind of write-downs. Any sort of reflections on on that concern?

That's not the case. I can say that's not the case.

MT Højgaard Danmark has a very, very solid stable and strong core business. We have communicated where there was an issue and and that was a Nordhavn in tunnel.

We are not we are we are not in a process in reviewing other projects. That's that's not an issue.

Fair clear. Then the order intake for Enemærke & Petersen is is I think you described it as moderate.

It it's a bit on the low side. I I know order intake is is volatile, but but maybe just some some comments on on what we should read into that and how you see the market right now for for that business specifically.

We are very conservative. We we like to have growth, but before we can have profitable growth, we we need to have profit.

That's our focus, we are conservative when when we are bidding on projects. That's why the the intake in in Enemærke & Petersen is not higher.

We are not aggressive in any way.

Enemærke & Petersen also have a a good order backlog, if if you look at that one and also see Q1 order intake, which was fairly high, I would say year to date, it's still decent.

Priority number one in Enemærke & Petersen is profitability.

Understood. That that's quite clear.

Then the last one for me is just on on the working capital, which has increased fairly substantially here in in the first half and also the key reason your your cash flow is is negative. What what has driven this, and and what do you expect should happen in in the second half of the year?

It's it's it's obviously mainly driven by the construction contracts in progress, and there are some let's say moving parts on on some of these open items, which we expect to be settled in in Q2. We I don't expect it to be a negative as a in general item going forward, let's put it that way.

Do you plan for a positive cash contribution from working capital in the second half of the year?

Yes. Yes.

Is there now you've you've talked about the write-down turn in Nordhavn Tunnel and then this one newbuild project for E&P, is there any link to these two projects specifically and then the the increase in net working capital?

Some, but actually not that much. Yes, there is a bit.

Fair enough. Great.

Thank you. That was all for me.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kristian.

Yes. Hi, guys.

Also a couple of questions from my side going back to Enemærke & Petersen and the write-down that you've conducted here in Q2. Can you just maybe go into a little bit more detail on exactly what went wrong and why, and and how you make sure a project like this will not occur again?

It's a very broad question, and we could talk about that for quite some time. It's in the production part.

It's in the execution part. What we have done, when we see a problem like that, we put in more experienced people to assist.

What we have also done in this is that we are a group, and we have had the good fortune to have some strong people from MT Højgaard Danmark who are also assisting in reviewing it. What's gone wrong?

Multiple things, but it's all in the execution of the project. It's day-to-day business and being able to do an accurate cost to complete.

We have full attention on it. From Holding, we can't do that much, but the management team in E&P are very close to the project.

Okay. Thank you.

That's very clear. The short-term run rate EBIT margin for E&P, does today's write-down change anything going forward for the coming quarters in next year or still expecting above, say, 3% EBIT margins for the segment?

Anders, Dennis here. We don't guide on the EBIT margin for neither MT Højgaard Danmark or Enemærke & Petersen.

What we have written in the report is that the project will be finalized in the spring of '27. When we write down a project like this, it will, of course, impact the earnings from that project in the period until delivery.

You will see an impact from this until delivery.

Okay. It's not like this write-down has initiated some sort of internal review of all the projects you have ongoing in E&P, which would essentially drive earnings down a little bit to ensure that something like this doesn't happen anymore?

There should be a clear review of all projects ongoingly, always ensuring you have a proper cost to complete. I know it's something that the management in Enemærke & Petersen are very focused on.

There is internal review made on an ongoing basis. I would say if you look at the future for the other projects, we don't expect it to be the same issues as we have for this one project we have here, if that answers your question.

It does, yes. Thank you very much, Dennis.

A final one for me then. Just some clarification on the guidance for the full year.

You retain it on EBIT, but you also mentioned that it, of course, depends partly on an expected land sale gain for E&P. Just to get my head around this, if everything in H2 goes as expected in terms of reaching the midpoint on earnings, but you end up not selling the land plot, will you still end up within the guided EBIT range for the full year?

I would say the reason for mentioning the expected gain in the report is obviously that it has an impact on the outlook. The impact if it's not materializing will most likely have to revisit the outlook.

Okay. You don't see a scenario where you don't sell the land plot, but you end within the current range on EBIT?

Not realistically, no.

All else equal, no, yeah.

Of course, it's a project business, things can go up and down. If what we look at now, yeah, the answer to that would be no.

Okay. Thank you very much.

That was very clear, and all for me. Thank you, guys.

All right. Thanks, Anders.

Thank you. Thank you for participating in our call today.

If you have any follow-up questions, please get in touch with us after this session. You all have a nice day.

Thank you.