Good afternoon, and welcome to Metsä Board's '25 results webcast and conference call. My name is Katri Sundström, and I'm responsible for investor relations here at Metsä Board.

We will follow our familiar format: first, our CEO, Esa Kaikkonen, and our new CFO, Anssi Tammilehto, who joined us two weeks ago, will walk you through the key highlights and financials. After their presentations, we will open the lines for your questions.

You can also submit questions via the chat at any point during the webcast, and I will present them to Esa and Anssi once we have taken the questions from the phone lines. Before we begin, let me highlight this important note.

With that, we are ready to start. Thank you for joining us, and I will now hand things over to Esa.

Thank you, Katri, and good afternoon, everyone. Before we move on to the result, let me briefly highlight the key themes guiding our actions right now.

Despite the challenging operating environment, we have successfully launched and begun executing our new commercial strategy, where focus matters more than ever. I'll get back to this later on with a few more detailed examples.

Second, our transformation program is progressing also well and already delivering promising early results. These achievements give us confidence that the actions we're taking are moving us in the right direction.

Third, our strong cash flow and solid financial position provide important stability. They give us financial flexibility and ensure that we can continue operating effectively in uncertain conditions.

Finally, our ongoing strategy work is sharpening our priorities as we go. It is ensuring that we are building a more competitive and customer-centric business for the long term.

Then into the results. Starting with an overview of the fourth quarter of '25.

Profitability remained in the red, reflecting continued market headwinds. Seasonality weighed on paperboard volumes, although prices stayed stable.

Market-related shutdowns at mills continued. On a more positive note, fixed costs declined compared to the last year.

In here, we are already seeing the impact from Tako closure and on our own actions. Operating cash flow improved clearly during the quarter, supported by a significant release of working capital.

The renewal of the Simpele mill marked also the end of a long investment period, and the upgraded board machine is now in operation. During the period, we also concluded the insurance negotiations related to '24 incidents at the Kemi bioproduct mill.

The Q4 result includes €40 million in compensation. Our longstanding sustainability work has once more been recognized, as we received a AAA rating in CDP's ESG assessment.

Due to the notable losses, the Board will propose to the AGM that no dividend will be distributed for the financial year '25. Then moving on to the business development, starting with folding boxboard.

In Europe, demand has remained subdued, while supplies has increased, keeping capacity utilization clearly below the long-term average. In the US, folding boxboard sales have declined sharply due to the import tariffs.

Generally, FBB can be partly replaced by heavier local grades, limiting our ability to pass through the tariff impact and resulting in only partially successful price increases. For the full year, delivery volumes for folding boxboard decreased by 10%, 6% in Europe and 17% in the US, while average euro prices remained stable.

Naturally, the closure of the Tako mill was one of the factors contributing to that decline in deliveries. Annual negotiations were concluded as planned, and given the current market conditions, we are satisfied with the development, both volumes and value, in the agreed '26 FBB contracts.

We are gradually returning to a growth path, although in the present market environment, it remains difficult to assess how durable that growth will be. Next, containerboard, which for the Metsä Board refers to white kraftliners.

In Europe, demand has remained stable but moderate for both coated and uncoated grades. In the US, our containerboard sales focus is almost entirely on the coated white kraftliners.

This grade is difficult to substitute, which has allowed us to implement tariff-related price increases more successfully than in folding boxboard. For the full year, delivery volumes remained relatively stable, while average euro prices decreased slightly.

Then moving on to the market pulp. Market pulp demand remains weak in both Europe and China, driven by soft consumer sentiment.

As a result, softwood pulp prices are depressed across all major regions, with China approaching levels that are unsustainable for many producers. Both Metsä Board and Metsä Fibre have taken market-driven shutdowns to reduce production and lower inventories.

Metsä Fibre's Joutseno mill, for example, was offline from June to December. In terms of volumes, Metsä Board's pulp and BCTMP deliveries declined by 8% year-on-year, while Metsä Fibre's deliveries increased by 16%, mainly reflecting the recovery from the Kemi incident in '24.

Despite this, both companies continue to operate clearly below capacity. With that, I'll hand over to our new CFO, Anssi Tammilehto.

Before he takes you through the financials, I want to once more welcome Anssi to Metsä Board. His expertise will support us well as we continue our transformation and prepare to renew our strategy.

Anssi brings also strong and versatile experience from senior financial leadership roles at Neste. Go ahead, Anssi, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Esa, and good afternoon, everyone. Super excited to join the company and to support the transformation in the situation the company is in at the moment.

As mentioned, we are already seeing some promising early results from the transformation program. On we go to the results in a bit more granular way.

Let's take a look at the sales and profitability quarter by quarter. Our sales decreased in the fourth quarter and reached €394 million, and the full-year sales then totaled at approximately €1.78 billion.

If we then look at the profitability, of course, the situation remains highly unsatisfactory. We posted negative €35 million in the fourth quarter, and the full year totaled -€80 million.

As mentioned, the actions are underway to improve the situation. It is also good to note that we had some significant topics included in the results in '25 impacting the comparability: so €27 million impairment at the Tako mill, and also €21 million related to the transformation program, and also a €35 million impairment related to the ERP renewal project.

Then let's take a look at the bridges both from quarter to quarter—or sorry, quarter compared to year-over-year—and then the full-year results. There were positive items in the fourth quarter, such as the foreign exchange rates, including hedges.

Also, lower fixed costs supported the result, mainly driven by the Tako mill closure in June '25. The negatives far outweigh the positives.

Just to note the most important ones: lower market pulp prices, weaker results from Metsä Fibre, lower paperboard volumes, and then we also had market-related production shutdowns, sold less unused emission rights, and also the energy costs weighed into the negative territory. Then if we look at the full-year results and the €150 million—approximately €150 million—decline, the picture remains largely as it is in the fourth quarter, but also the higher wood and logistics costs, in particular, weighed on the full-year results.

It's also good to note that if we look at the core businesses, the consumer board and cartonboard, these impacts contribute to approximately 1/5 of that decrease of €149 million. That underlines the strength and resilience of our core businesses.

Then let's switch gears to cash flow. Very happy to see a strong cash flow in the second half and in the fourth quarter, and a big thanks goes to the whole team who was able to generate this.

Our cash flow, both from operations point of view and after investing, was positive both in the third and fourth quarter. As you can see, our target was actually to release €150 million of cash, and we exceeded that by releasing more than €300 million of working capital in the second half of the year, which clearly exceeds the target.

Just to note the Q4 impact in the right-hand graph, you can see that the net working capital release is the largest contributor to the free cash flow. If we look at the balance sheet and the related metrics, it's good to note that the interest-bearing debt was €565 million, but net debt stood at €255 million.

Of course, the cash flow plays into our favor in this one. The liquidity in total is €560 million, consisting of the liquid assets and investments worth €310 million and also unused revolving credit facilities worth €250 million.

The company is also investment-grade rated by both Moody's and S&P. Also good to note that the elevated leverage is not, of course, something we are happy with—quite the opposite—but it's largely driven by weak profitability.

We have a solid financial position, and we are putting a lot of effort in maintaining it like that. With that, I'll hand it back to Esa.

Please.

Thank you, Anssi. Done.

Thank you.

Before we move on to the outlook, let's take a look at our investments. Our major investment projects are now behind us, as we noted earlier as well.

We are shifting from a period of heavy capital expenditure into a phase more focused on profitability and fully utilizing the capacity we have been building in the last years, fully aligned with our commercial strategy as well. During the year, the total investments amounted to still €140 million, with depreciation at €107 million.

We now completed roughly €60 million modernization of the Simpele paperboard machine. It is an important step in boosting product performance and moving the mill closer to be a fossil-free in itself.

Looking ahead, the downward trend in investments will continue this year. For '26 to '28, we expect annual maintenance capex to remain at €40 million to €50 million, with no major new projects planned now.

Smaller mill-specific investments remain possible, particularly those that support our 2030 fossil-free targets and are with short payback times. Finally, the Metsä Group-wide ERP project, which also cover Metsä Board, has been suspended, as Anssi was mentioning, also for the time being, and a €35 million impairment related to the project was recognized in the Q4 operating result.

Then let's turn to the outlook, starting with the operating environment for the next 3 to 6 months. In paperboard, soft consumer sentiment and US tariffs continue to weaken sales visibility.

In Europe, overcapacity keeps adding pressure to the market. On the market pulp side, in China, demand for pulp remains low, while in Europe, high raw material costs and FX pressures are likely to restrict the production going forward.

Then lower wood costs in Finland and Sweden are expected to support the profitability '26 onwards, while FX will be clearly more negative than in '25. We expect the negative FX impact in Q1 versus Q4 to be roughly €20 million.

Turning then to Metsä Board-specific factors for the first quarter. We'll continue to steer operations with a strong focus on cash flow.

Market-driven production curtailments are likely to continue, particularly in Husum, and strict capital discipline remains in place. Then, because the business activity is increasing in Q1, working capital will be affected by the seasonality and lower accounts payable as well.

Paperboard delivery volumes are expected to improve from the very low levels of Q4, and variable costs are declining, driven by lower wood prices and our transformation actions, and reduced personnel and ICT expenses will support lower fixed costs as well. Finally, there is no planned maintenance in the first quarter.

Now, having reviewed last year's performance, let's shift to the transformation actions that will put us back on a stronger path. Let me start with the Husum integrated site, which is a central here.

As a single integrated unit, it accounted for the largest share of last year's losses. The mill has faced weak pulp markets, lower folding boxboard demand due to the US tariffs, and significant FX exposure as well.

At the same time, Husum offers for us the strongest long-term growth potential in our portfolio. Our transformation includes cost savings and efficiency measures that focus particularly on Husum going forward, and new sheeting capacity, the deal was closed today in the Netherlands, will help us better leverage the integrate's strengths in Europe.

Taken together, our current assets provide a solid foundation for future growth, with our Finnish mills serving key segments efficiently, while Husum continues to offer the strongest long-term upside. Then, how have we progressed in our transformation in terms of euros?

Far, our main actions have focused on improving cost efficiency in Husum. In addition, we have launched our new focused commercial strategy, of which the profit impact will become more visible over time.

In Q4, we completed the change negotiations, which together with Metsä Group's shared service are expected to deliver annual cost savings of around €30 million. Additional actions include pulp mix optimization, reduced use of selected raw materials, and renewed procurement contracts, among others.

Overall, the EBITDA impact of the implemented actions was about €52 million at the year-end, with effects gradually materializing in '26. Looking ahead, lower wood prices and the expansion of our sheeting capacity in Europe will further support the transformation.

Then, before wrapping up, let me briefly summarize the transformation program, as it was presented earlier. The program has two phases: first, building a leaner and more competitive cost base; and second, enabling profitable growth through stronger margins, reduced complexity, and improved commercial execution.

With these actions, we'll restore profitability to that required level and secure sustainable growth for the future. As we have seen, the transformation is progressing, with the first tangible results already visible.

While there is still significant work ahead, we will continue to execute with discipline to deliver the full impact of the program. Then to summarize.

Our result ended in the red, mainly due to the market headwinds, with Husum most affected, given its exposure to the pulp market and US tariffs. At the same time, our transformation actions are showing encouraging early progress.

Our solid financial position and strong cash flow provide the stability we need in uncertain market conditions. Then looking ahead, we'll continue steering the business with a clear focus on customer centricity.

As we look forward, we will build on our strong asset base and continue developing all our mills for long-term competitiveness. In Husum, we acknowledge the need for significant improvement, but equally, it offers our strongest long-term growth potential, as was presented today.

Our strategy update is progressing also well, and we plan to share the revised strategy with you in the first quarter of '26. That concludes our presentation part, and we are now ready to take your questions.

Operator, please go ahead and open the lines.

Thank you very much. Hello, Esa.

Hello, Anssi. Good day to everyone on the call.

I'll start off with consumer board, folding boxboard. You're guiding for higher volumes in the first compared to the fourth quarter.

I just wonder where you're sensing that we are in this whole new rearrangement of the markets with tariffs now fully in place, etc. I can see that your folding boxboard volumes to Americas almost halved year-on-year in the fourth quarter.

Do you expect some of that fall to reverse in the first quarter? Is that part of your guidance?

Maybe let's start off with that, please.

Yes, thank you, Linus. I think that I will be starting with the second question, actually.

If you're looking at the whole year, we had in '24 180,000 tonnes of FBB, and the tariffs kicked in, I think it was 9th of April, and then stabilized in August. The total decline of the volumes was in the whole year 35,000 tonnes, and it was predominantly in the food service segment, which we have not been actually earlier as well not that competitive.

In that sense, we do believe that there are growing actually accounts in US as well, and we see that clearly as well that we can bounce back partly in there. Then I was referring to the annual contracts also in our FBB business, and in that sense, I'm really confident that the customers have been earlier rather disciplined with the volumes as well that they have been actually contracting with us, I don't have any doubts that we will be bouncing back with those volumes as well with our key accounts.

Then, at the same time, we are, of course, seeking new opportunities all the time, and we see that there are some smaller competitors in European markets that are suffering mostly on this situation, not being competitive, and we're taking market share. I'm pretty convinced.

How much of a volume bounce-back are you expecting in the first or, say, the second quarter? Within the immediately foreseeable future, if you look at shipment to capacity in the fourth quarter, it was down below 60%.

It's an unsustainably low level, I would say. Is that also part of this renewed strategy that you are looking at?

Potential adjustments to your capacity? Or do you see that you can see a strong enough volume recovery within the foreseeable future?

If I would have that crystal ball, I would be very happy, but Linus, unfortunately, I have to kind of cause you, let's say, a bit of a negative answer in that sense, that we believe that we can bounce back, but, of course, we will not see full capacity utilization in a longer term. That's why I think that we have to be very cautious and sensitive and curtail the production where we must do that.

We'll not see that the capacity utilization rates will be in full swing in anytime soon. The market remains, let's say, subdued, as said, on the overcapacity that we have seen and also, let's say, this market sentiment as well, driven by the consumer confidence.

Could you please maybe put this acquisition of the Dutch sheeting facility into this perspective and explain how that's going to play in, and on what sort of magnitude that you expect to boost your own shipments?

Yeah. That's a kind of tactical move in that sense, that we have said that in current situation, we're too much exposed on the US market with our FBB, and especially Husum, which is targeted to that market.

Our commercial strategy says that we want to bounce back in the US, but at the same time, we seek new opportunities with our most competitive mill of Husum in our main markets in Europe. That is exactly what we're doing with this Winschoten acquisition.

By doing the acquisition, we are actually leveraging our capabilities in Europe. We will become more relevant to our customers.

We are more agile and closer to the customer, serving them better in the future. That's balancing Husum's instability currently well.

The capacity of Winschoten sheeting and distribution hub is around 100,000 tonnes, it balances this rather well.

Great. Thanks.

Yes, thank you very much. Now, you have very strong cash flow again in this quarter, well done on that.

My question is quite basic one, but an important one. When I look at your EBITDA or adjusted EBITDA in both Q3 and Q4, you are in negative territory.

I assume you have some better mills than others, essentially it means that some of your paperboard mills are generating a negative adjusted EBITDA. Why are you continuing to producing with negative EBITDA?

Is that not the rule of thumb to stop production immediately when EBITDA is negative in order to tighten up the market? What is the reason for that?

They are, of course, in a negative EBITDA, we are €9 million negative EBITDA last quarter. I think that if you look in the overall balance and capacity that we have, there is also always a game when we are looking ahead, when we do the deals.

This kind of big capacity that we have, sometimes in these times when we are having a difficult market conditions, supply-demand balance like this, and having an impact on the forex and also the pulp market, and then FBB having issues in US, that's a pretty complex situation with the integrate in Husum. Seeing that we have been guiding that the biggest losses that we have made last year were derived from the Husum, you can actually see that that has been the biggest struggle that we have had, and the biggest accumulated losses as well.

At some point of time, we have reached also negative EBITDA in that site.

I understand. The idea is it's a temporary issue in a way, and that's the reason.

Then also going back maybe to Linus' question on capacity utilization quite low, and you said it yourself, the markets are challenging, and it seems that this capacity you have, you're not going to reach close to full utilization anytime soon. Wouldn't the smartest thing then to be to sort of close the weakest mills in a way and then make sure that the strongest mills have a very strong capacity utilization?

Or is this also sort of your view that the market will recover in foreseeable future, and then you can fill up the weaker mills' capacity as well?

Robin, thanks. I think that that is a very topical question in that sense, that of course, everybody's always asking this question regarding these capacity closures, but I have been responding to this already earlier that our mills actually, if you're looking at the capabilities that our Finnish mills have, actually they are very well directed to those customers' end segments that we are actually seeking also focused growth going forward, and they are in a really good situation while we are looking at their capability to serve their customer segments.

Then we have this Husum mill, which is having a multiple issues on the forex and pulp and then FBB. That is the biggest opportunity, obviously, we will not even consider actually closing down this kind of a mill, which is actually providing us a best opportunity, and thus we will be in the market in a longer term to see and fulfill the capacity, which is really competitive and actually carries excellent quality as well, and a lot of expertise in this company.

Thanks. I do understand that, yes.

A final question I have is, would it make sense for you or others in Europe or in the Nordics to consolidate? How do you see that sort of as an opportunity for you or the market you work in?

I'm sure that the owners will be considering all things to actually sort this capacity issues and supply-demand balance, for sure, and we are not, of course, excluding also these kind of issues that if they arise at some point of time, we will consider also options.

Thank you, Esa. Thanks.

Thanks, Robin.

Thanks, Esa and Anssi, for the presentation. Couple of questions from my side.

Starting with the cash flows, these were strong in H2. To put it in this way, how much of this is structural actions, and how much relates to temporary supply chain arrangements that you have made?

Maybe Anssi.

Thanks. Thanks for the question.

It is, I think, both related to the wood purchases and the trade payables, basically the payment agreements related to those, but also it's related to us being able to just lower the inventories. Us being able to lower the inventories is both linked to seasonality and also how we run the mills, but also related to our targets: what is the, in a way, minimum we can operate in.

It's a combination of these factors, but I don't have any numbers on those specific items that how much were we able to, for example, free up cash from the wood purchases, but those are the main elements. Would you like to elaborate or—

I think it's good enough answer. Thanks, Anssi.

That's clear. Second question, I think we have spoken about the Husum, but how about how you see the Finnish platform currently, after the Tako closure?

How is it performing? Is it in line with your expectations, or do you have still some adjustments to make?

Again, I think that I'm referring to the earlier answer that I had. I think that our mills in Finland are in an excellent shape.

We have a good expertise, the products are in a quality-wise in a top-notch, and the environmental performance is good, and the offering and the value proposition is well respected and appreciated by our customers as well. In that sense, I don't see any bigger headaches in a Finnish mills.

Of course, the capacity utilization could be higher also there, but that's not in a catastrophic level at all.

That's clear. Maybe final question from my side, obviously topical one now with the lower pulpwood costs.

Could you give any indication how first of all in Q1 and then entering Q2?

There is, of course, always a lagging timing in that sense, that it comes a little bit later when the statistical kind of evidence is appearing on a wood markets. That's up to 4 to 6 months after which it's also visible in our cost base, these changes in the wood market, if that's answering to your question.

Yeah. There is no change to, let's say, normal lagging effect on this as you have had, maybe lower sourcing of wood at the end of the year?

Of course, we are procuring the wood according to the needs as well, and that is part of the operative networking capital discipline that we will be actually having going forward as well. If the activity is lower, then we are procuring less wood, of course.

Thanks. That's all for me.

Thanks.

Okay. If no more questions on the line, let's move on to the chat then.

Esa already went through the outlook for Q1, but if we could once more repeat the elements that are impacting the Q1 results, maybe, Anssi, you can take this one. The main elements.

Yeah.

Thanks, Katri, and thank you for the question. The FBB volumes are expected to increase, and the containerboard then, on the other hand, remaining quite stable.

We are, of course, with the transformation program seeking for benefits in variable costs and fixed costs, so that is, of course, something we are pretty much seeking after. We also mentioned in the financial statements release in the outlook section that the FX rate will have approximately a €20 million impact compared to Q4, this is, of course, due to that.

It's, of course, a big item in that sense. Other items also impacting the Q1 profitability compared to Q4 is, for example, that in Q4, we had insurance compensation from the Kemi event, so that is something that we don't then expect for Q1 anymore.

Those are maybe the main pieces of the puzzle.

Very good. Then there's a follow-up, again relating to this working capital release.

You already went through what were the elements on the 2025, the inventory management and then the financing arrangements of wood purchases, but what about going on to the '26? Can we expect something similar in '26 than in '25?

Thanks once again for the good question. As Esa was mentioning, it would be good to have a crystal ball, but unfortunately, we don't.

Of course, we make thorough planning on these premises, and I think it's safe to say that the big-ticket items were made in second half of '25. We continue to push and to squeeze cash out from the working capital and from the supply chain, but the big items were, in a way, in H2 in '25.

Yes. Then to the market-related downtime in paperboard operations, as well as Metsä Fibre's pulp, and especially in Q1, what can we say about that?

We see that there is still need for curtailments in FBB side, also some WKL-related as well on a market basis. Then pulp, of course, having still high wood raw material cost and US dollar headwind, and then the pulp market is not, let's say, very hot currently, based on those, some curtailments might be seen as well.

Fair enough. Then the question related to FX impact for the full year of 2026?

We have a rolling hedging approach, like what is typical in an industry like this. We have now given guidance on the Q1 impact, but the rest of the year will remain to be seen then later on.

Yep. Also the sensitivities, what we are disclosing, yep.

Then the emission rights and the sold emission rights for full year '25, what was the impact, and what can we expect on '26?

It has been in decline in the past three years. I think that it was €35 million roughly, sold emission rights '25, and then this year, we're expecting kind of emission rights sales approximately €20 million, something like that.

Yeah.

Okay. Then price pressure in folding boxboard, are we seeing any?

We see index price down, and how do you expect the increased competition to impact folding boxboard price going forward?

As I said in the presentation as well, I think that we are happy with the added-value, let's say, progress in the annual contracts as well, and volume commitments that we have received from the customers. We go customer by customer, and there is no clear single price point in FBB because we have such a kind of a vast variety of different value that we are providing to the customers.

We are pricing customer by customer and create also value customer by customer. I don't see that our price is not in that pressure that the market indicates.

Good answer. Then about the US tariff, do you anticipate any tariff impacts on your business?

Of course, we will see that coming also into our books. From '25, we paid some €20 million tariffs, and this was based on the volumes that we had since April, the 9th, when they were actually set.

From that point onwards, we have been paying €20 million. Of course this year, it will be depending on the volumes that we are delivering and the value.

I got the information that there would be one follow-up question on the line. Do we have that?

We could take that still.

Yes, thank you, guys, for taking an additional question from me. Now, this is maybe for Anssi, perhaps a bit of a tricky question, but now I can see that you have produced less paperboard than you have delivered, and that has generated excellent cash flow, probably the right thing to do in this kind of environment.

Often time, that then creates negative cost absorption and a negative impact on the reported earnings. Is there any way you could sort of give the magnitude of these actions' impact on reported EBIT or EBITDA?

Thanks, Robin. I think it's a good question.

Unfortunately, I don't have a specific answer to that one. I think the way how we described the Q4 result was there.

I think it's a good point, and we will have to, of course, look into that, unless you have something to elaborate on that one. I think we have to just stick with that one.

I understand. It's a tricky sort of thing to calculate sometimes, but if you can, maybe for future, because sometimes you see when companies stop in a way producing and deliver, they get quite a hit on the reported earnings, obviously cash flow is then strong, and then vice versa when is the opposite.

Perhaps we can come back to that.

Thanks, Robin. I think I would refer to the fact that we are steering on cash flow basis.

We are all the time optimizing cash flow, I think that continues. We take that into account.

Of course, there's a discrepancy between production and sales or delivery volumes. Then, of course, when we have curtailments, for example, there might come these situations where we need to take that into account when we steer the next quarter, for example.

This is something that I'm sure is now taken into account, but I think it's a good question, and we'll have to come back to the actual quantification if we wish. Thanks.

Thank you.

It appears that we have no further questions, either on the line or through the chat. With that, we will bring today's presentation to a close.

If you have any additional questions come up later, please feel free to reach out our investor relations. We are always happy to continue the discussions.

Before we finish, let me once more remind you that we will publish our updated strategy during the first quarter, and our next results, Q1 results, will be announced on April 29th. Thank you all for joining us today, and I wish you a productive rest of the week.