Good morning everyone, and welcome to this presentation of Castellum's Q1 report. There will be a Q&A session in the end of the webcast, and if you would like to ask a question by phone, please dial pound key 5 on your telephone keypad and ask your question.

Let's start. Please go ahead, Paul.

Good morning. As you probably all know by now, the main target in Castellum is to achieve a return on equity of 10% over the business cycle.

During the autumn, we launched a new strategy, one could say, which we called Back to Basics. One of the main principles in Back to Basics is to increase the transaction pace.

During the quarter, we conducted two transactions: one smaller in Linköping, and one bigger with the disposal of nine properties to AP7, with a profit of 750 million. Another principle in Back to Basics is to be very prudent with the capital that the shareholders have given us.

If we can't earn it, we will return it. During the quarter, we have repurchased almost 24 million shares.

Another principle of Back to Basics is to have a tight grip on costs. During the autumn, we sold our coworking operation called United Spaces, and we've made a reorganization and cost cuts at the headquarters.

The administrative costs, both in property management and in central administration, is lower this quarter compared to the first quarter one year ago, and it's almost 100 million lower, Swedish crowns lower. Of course, leasing, leasing, leasing is also one of the main principles in Back to Basics.

It's still slow, but we have positive net leasing during the quarter: 82 million SEK, whereof 72 million was the leasing to Ericsson in Hagastaden. Still slow, but positive.

Castellum, our property portfolio, valued to 138 billion, but we also have two joint ventures, or one joint venture in Gothenburg, Halvorsäng, it's logistics together with the harbor in Gothenburg, and then we own 37% of the shares of the listed Norwegian office company, Entra. We have a mixed-use portfolio, mainly with office, but also a large proportion of warehouse and light industry and public sector properties; 5.3 million square meters lettable area, and a high sustainability focus.

Now down to the details, I hand over to you, Christoffer.

Thank you. Looking at income and net operating income, both are down by some 3% compared with last year, Q1 last year.

This is mainly due to higher vacancies, but also higher direct property costs. However, with lower central administration, 24 million this quarter, 66 million last quarter, and in addition to that, somewhat lower interest costs, some 10 million, and a, and a better contribution from Entra of 17 million, this at least leads us at positive territory in terms of income from property management.

Property values were positive: 460 million, or 0.3%. As Paul mentioned, the net leasing for the period is 82 million, whereof the large leasing in Hagastaden to Ericsson is most of that.

Occupancy now at 88.0%, somewhat lower than the, the last quarter. On the investment side, we have net investments in the quarter of 679 million.

Of this is 886 million investments in existing properties, and then we sold properties for 214 million, not including the, the large AP7 transaction, but this was transactions we made and communicated in the end of last year. The biggest one is one asset in Örebro.

Into more details: income in the like-for-like portfolio decreased by 47 million, and that corresponds to 0, 2%, and that is mainly due to higher vacancies of 60 million compared to last, quarter, the quarter last year. Both income and costs are affected by this divestment of our coworking business.

This is the first full quarter without that business. Income decreased by some 45 million, and cost decreased by some 53 million.

That is a quarterly net positive effect of 8 million, in line what we announced in October when we sold the company, where we indicated a positive yearly effect of 30 million. That's quite spot-on.

On costs side, the like-for-like property costs increased with 47, 45 million, and of this, 38 million was due to higher costs for heating and snow, due to the colder winter than the year before. As Paul mentioned also, looking at administration costs, and if we add both property administration and central administration, costs are down 99 million.

However, half of that, 53 million, is related to this sold coworking business. Then please also note that we have 22 million of costs that we have moved from central administration to property administration.

This is part of that changes we did in the autumn, where we both reduced costs on the headquarters, but we also moved some staff to the regions. I would also say that we in this quarter has, have no material one-offs, which we of course had quite a lot of in Q4.

Looking at the leasing side, 14% of the total lease dock that were up for renegotiation were renegotiated during the period, with an average negative change in rent of 7.1%. It's quite small volume, and it's no specific or individual rental agreement behind it, it's actually a couple of them.

As usual, the largest proportion are extended at no changes in terms. This quarter, about half of the volume, 49% or 249 million, is, so, rolled over with no changes in terms.

Net leasing, as mentioned, 82 million. In addition to the Ericsson deal that we have talked about, we can also mention that we have some positive net leasing in Denmark of some 20 million, and we have some positive net leasing in the Mälardalen region of 18 million, and that is roughly a lot of a new leasing to [Light and Industrilås?]

. Looking at property values, as mentioned, they are up with some 400 million, mainly due to the Infinity project in Hagastaden, some 300 million plus, and also the divestment of nine properties to AP7, approximately 250 million up.

That was also communicated in the press release in, in that transaction. If we take those two, two away, the remaining part is actually a little bit lower than, than the last quarter.

138 billion of fair value, and this then of course includes the 5.6 billion transaction with AP7, as that one is closing in, in Q2, or a smaller part, part of it is actually in Q3, but the big part in Q2. Also in this quarter, we have actually lower cash flow, cash flow expectations in our valuations, and that's the downward pressure on rental levels.

That's the explanation to this smaller negative value changes if we exclude Infinity and AP7 transactions. Looking at the financing side, market conditions remain favorable despite increased volatility.

We saw some credit spreads widening during the quarter as the conflict in the Middle East escalated, but we have recovered continuously during the quarter, and now in the beginning of Q2, and spreads in the bond market are some 10-15 bps wider than the lows before the conflict started. Nordic banks continue to offer very competitive pricing and are willing to increase volumes.

It's also on this side that we have been active in the quarter, on the secured side, with the refinancing of, in total, 6.8 billion in bank loans. The average duration of those loans has been just over 8 years, quite long credit duration in the bank loans that we were offered currently.

That is of course contributing to the increase in our average debt maturity. We still have some 18 billion in cash and unutilized credit facilities, and providing us with sort of comfortable backup to the upcoming maturities, which are, not, not very big.

Financial key ratios broadly stable compared to previous quarter. However, a slight increase in the loan-to-value, now at 37.5%, mainly explained by, by the fact that we have bought shares in the quarter of some 2 billion, while the proceeds from the transactions comes in Q2.

ICR stable at 3.2 times, and comfortable headroom against policies of 40% LTV and 3.0 times ICR. As mentioned on the previous slide, average debt maturity is now slightly higher, 4.5 years, and average fixed interest term is three, 3 years.

Interest-bearing liabilities slightly up, same explanation, a bit higher due to the mismatching, acquiring shares in the quarter and proceeds from the transactions in, in the next quarter. Looking at divestments, we have done, as mentioned, two larger, one large transaction and one bigger small transaction.

The large one we have talked about quite, quite a lot already, 5.6 billion public assets, 100% leased out, sold to AP7. Fair value as of Q4 was 5.15 billion, the earning, total earnings effect was 750 million, and that one is closing now in Q2 and Q3.

The smaller one, maybe, maybe not small for the Linköping market, 256 million, sold to the Öhman family. A bit different, 25% vacancies from our perspective, quite a lot of investment needs in the portfolio going forward, and a, a good transaction from, from our perspective.

An update on the share buybacks that we are conducting. After the, the divestment of the portfolio to AP7, the board announced that we are initiating a share buyback program, in total of 3.4 billion.

Of that, we have so far, so far acquired for 2.7 billion, that is up until today, or yesterday evening at least. Out of that, some 2 billion was acquired during the quarter, and the remaining one now in April.

Average price: 113 kronor per share. The large lease during the quarter: 24,000 square meters in Hagastaden, the entire building, and we have 15-year duration.

Then it, then it includes an option for the tenant up until 1st of June this year, roughly in a month, we will know if that, then they have the optionality to decrease it to a 5-year tenant with approximately half of the volume.

To wraps things up, some words on our sustainability performance. The day-to-day work to decrease our energy consumptions goes on as previously, and during the quarter, we have reduced the energy consumptions in the like-for-like portfolio with 4%, and roughly 1/4 of our electricity is self-generated, mostly by solar panels.

Before we let all the questions in, let me just summarize a bit. We have positive net leasing: 82 million, whereof 72 from Ericsson, it's the fourth quarter in a row with positive net leasing, but very low figures, one could say, it remains slow in the leasing market.

We made a transaction, two transactions, very successfully, I would say, and that's part of the Back to Basics principle to remove everything that we don't believe will give a 10% return on equity. The cost savings program we conducted during the autumn now comes into the figures.

With that, I think we can hand over to questions.

Yes, we do. If you'd like to ask a question by phone, please dial pound key 5 and ask your question.

The first question comes from Tobias Kaj, Nordea.

Good morning. Thank you for presentation and for taking my questions.

First, I have a couple of general questions. Regarding your portfolio, is it possible to in some way quantify how large proportion that you think that doesn't meet your return requirement?

Not really. I think we are looking at that continuously.

One thing that's very important in that equation is actually what prices you can achieve. It's difficult to answer that question.

I would say there's a big proportion that actually can achieve 10%, and there's a proportion also that I would say is borderline, and then there's a proportion that probably not, depending on prices, that not will meet our 10% return requirement. I cannot give you a figure on that right now.

That's fair. Kind of follow up, how does that view impact your view on projects?

If you complete a project with a long lease to a stable tenant and it's fully let, is it possible to continue to own those kind of properties, or should that property be sold as they are completed? Or do you kind of give promises to the tenant that you will remain as a long-term owner so you can't sell it?

The last question, that's very uncommon, that you have to promise tenants to keep something forever and ever. I wouldn't say that that's a question.

If we complete something and, obviously then the property in it is in its prime, the demand for those type of properties may very well in different markets, depending on the market and interest rate, may be very high. It's from case to case, I would say.

Thank you. Regarding your renegotiations, even though it's a small number, is it related to some specific region or some specific category?

No, actually not. It's quite a lot of different underlying rental agreements, and actually different categories and different geographies, so that's unfortunately not the case.

Okay. Regarding your admin expenses, both the level of expenses for central admin in Q1 and the movement from central admin to property admin in Q1, is that a reasonable level also for coming quarters?

Or are there some seasonal variations in those numbers?

No, no seasonal variations. That's roughly in line with the expectations, although we of course not guide on it, but quite clean so to say, no one-offs in it,

and... Perfect.

That's all for me. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question, Lars Norrby, SEB.

Good morning. A question about buybacks.

By the way, love your comment there, if we can't earn it, we will return it. You still have some way to go on the 3.4 billion buyback program that you have.

On top of that, I guess you have the capital distribution for '25, a few hundred million on that one. To do even more than that, would that necessitate more divestments of properties?

At least we do not have any plans for more than that, should we not do any more divestments.

You've done some quite sizable divestments, the 5.9 and the close to 300 million or so, but still your total portfolio is something like 138 billion. Why haven't you been able to do more?

I guess you want to do much more than that, isn't that true?

What we say right now, I would say that we find a big interest in general on the property transaction market to make transactions. That's quite clear.

More in detail than that, I don't think we can answer more in detail than that. We have discussions with interested parties, and as soon as we have something to tell, we will definitely tell.

Thank you.

Next question, Nadir Rahman, UBS.

Hello, sorry, can you hear me now?

Yeah. Yeah.

Oh

sorry, I think I was muted. Apologies.

Sorry, I'd already started. Yes, I have two questions from me.

The first one is in your report, if we look at the value decline in the markets that you mentioned have a lower expected cash flows, I'm assuming this is firstly not Kista and Finland, which you said you took value declines on in Q4. Could you give some more color as to where this decline was concentrated?

Then I can ask my second question after this.

Not really any concentration to that. You are correct that sort of Kista and Finland was more Q4, this is more broadly across the portfolio.

Okay. The second question is on the slight decline in rental income, and of course, and occupancy as well.

You're mentioning that this is largely due to the effect of the legacy negative net lettings from last year. When do we expect this to start to inflect and we start to see a more positive effect from any positive net lettings from the last four quarters?

Do you have an indication of when we see that inflection?

We don't really have that indication, or maybe we have that indication, but we don't guide on it. What we could mention is of course that Q1 last year was very negative, net leasing-wise, and then at least positive, very small figures, but positive Q2, Q3, Q4, and now positive again in Q1 this year.

We can't give more details than that.

Fair enough. Sorry, just to come back to my initial question on the value decline, instead of any regional concentration, is there any asset class, for example, offices or any other sector, that you see this value decline occurring in more?

Not really that either. It's actually in different asset classes.

Quite small volume in the big perspective, I would say.

Very clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Next question from John Wong, Kempen.

Hi, good morning. In the previous energy crisis, Castellum wasn't really fully hedged against electricity costs.

With the war ongoing, could you provide a bit more color on how well you're now protected against a surge in electricity prices?

Yes, we changed that a couple of years ago to a more, maybe more normal, I don't know, but at least a different hedging strategy, more classic 80, 60, 40, 20% strategy. I would say better hedged, not fully hedged, but better hedged and quite sort of evenly over the couple of the years.

That's clear. Thank you.

Just on the share buyback, I think in your latest press release from this week, I noticed that there were no repurchases done on Friday and Monday. I suppose that also coincides with the share price above 125.

Could you provide a bit more color on this?

That's correct. That was, as of lately, we have bought back shares through this safe harbor procedure as we have been in closed period, and then we instructed the bank of that share price maximum.

Thank you. Then just lastly on the occupancy, I noticed you restated several numbers.

Could you highlight what has changed and why it has changed?

Could you repeat the question?

On your occupancy definition, I noticed you restated some historical numbers in the quarterly reporting. What has changed in the definition of occupancy and why did you change it?

What we have changed is that previously our occupancy was for the sort of full period, and now we have changed it into end of period. The reason for that is that we think that's more accurate, especially when you come to the end of the year when you are very much affected by the vacancy level in the sort of first quarters of the year.

I think that's more common that the vacancy figure or occupancy figures are end of period figures.

That's clear. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Next question, Paul May, Barclays.

Morning, guys. Thanks for the presentation.

Just a couple of quick ones from me. You mentioned obviously looking at disposals and selling assets where you don't fit your return requirements.

Just wondering who would be the buyers of those assets, because there's not many buyers or much capital out there that's looking for the low returns that you wouldn't anticipate on those assets and hence you're trying to sell them. Wondering if you could give some color on that would be great.

Then secondly, on the operating environment, appreciate it's not particularly easy out there, and as you've highlighted, it's quite tough. I think you've talked about improving the leasing environment, improving the operating metrics.

When should we expect those to actually flow through into real numbers in terms of occupancy and NRI growth, which seems to be getting worse rather than better? Is it to do with your weaker assets or weaker locations, or do you just think it's a market-wide soft leasing market that just requires time before that starts to improve?

Thanks.

I can start with the first question. We actually disagree a bit.

We think it's plenty of interest out there, plenty of capital out there interested in a very large proportion of our assets. I would say that's from different kinds of capital or investors as well: local and foreign, institutional and private, listed real estate companies and private equity funds, and not at least the Swedish institutions.

We think it's very much interest in the transaction market.

Regarding the operational figures, vacancy and like-for-like growth, I would imagine, we are not guiding, but I would imagine that we will continue to see a pretty slow market for a while. We haven't seen any turnaround as of yet, anyways.

Until we reach sort of a new equilibrium where we are, we probably will see figures that are a bit on the down slope before it turns. I think we indicated that during the autumn, that it will get a bit worse before it can improve.

Now we at least have positive net letting, even if it's dancing around the zero, but it's still positive. We are not seeing a rapid increase in demand for our properties in the rental market as it is.

Cool. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks.

Next question, Pranava Boyidapu, sorry if I'm pronouncing it wrong, also Barclays.

Hello. Thank you for taking my question.

I'm Paul May's credit analyst. On that note, I would like to get a little bit more clarity on what your, if you can't earn it, we'll return it policy means for the bondholders, because, again, at the cost of sounding repetitive, there are some loose ends with the consent solicitation that didn't go through specifically for the Castellum '29 euro bonds.

Just wondering, at what point in your business plan does it seem like you could potentially consider the bondholders on the side of a cessation of business event?

Same answer that we have said before, that we, when, if and when we come to that point in time that we are having such transactions sort of on the table, then, then we will handle it at that point in time.

Then I have a second question regarding your hybrid debt, which is I believe a billion with the first call next year. I was wondering if you had any plans in terms of how you expect to refinance it considering the size of it.

I assume that the hybrids will remain a part of your capital structure, and if there are potentially different currencies you might consider or is it going to be euros?

Also on that one, we will announce our plans sort of when we have decided on our plans.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. That seems to be the last question of today.

Thank you all for listening, and thanks for the questions.

Yes, thank you. Until next time.