Thank you so much. Welcome to the presentation of our Q2 report.

My name is Jacob Lundblad, I'm the CEO, and with me today I have, as per usual, Patrick MacArthur, our CFO. Q2 showed stable financial development with good progress towards our targets.

Adjusted core operating profit came in at 1.5 billion Swedish krona, up 21% year-on-year. Core RoTE of 27%, and actually 29% on core capital employed.

On totality, we saw an 11% year-on-year organic growth in local currencies. Reported numbers are slightly higher.

All segments are contributing, particularly strong growth from credit cards in Germany and mortgages in Sweden and Norway. Especially glad to see that the secured space continues to deliver following the recovery last year.

Speaking about growth, I think it's also worth highlighting that we have a number of product launches in the pipeline: equity release Norway, mortgages Finland, corporate deposits, micro-SME lending adjacent to the scale-up of DBT, obviously. All scheduled for 2027, quite a lot of activity in the business right now.

In terms of NIM, we saw stable development quarter-on-quarter with underlying NIM coming in at 8.2. Cost-income ratio came in at 23%, flat quarter-on-quarter.

We expect to have impact on our cost takeout initiatives towards the end of the year, and that will reduce cost growth, but we remain confident that we will achieve our medium-term cost-income target of below 20% during 2027. In terms of cost of risk, we see a strong underlying trend, came in at 2.5% in Q2 despite 42 million kronas of macro provisions.

This is the ninth consecutive quarter with year-on-year improvement. We're now at the lower end of the normalized range of 2.5% to 3%, and at this point in time, we see that the positive development predominantly driven by our continuous improvements in underwriting, particularly within the Bank Norwegian operations.

Funding, we issued AT1 and senior preferred bonds during the quarter, yet again at tight spreads compared to earlier transactions. Strong capital position and capital generation: CET1 of 13.4, which is a 3.2 percentage points above regulatory requirements after deduction of anticipated dividend.

Capital generation is strong, and we also communicate that the board are evaluating a potential share buyback program as an option to ensure optimal capital level and manage surplus capital generation going forward. That was a summary.

We'll jump into the segments, flip page, please. Private loans now a rounding error from 100 billion Swedish krona.

Segment grew with 11% in local currency year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter, some tailwind from FX in reported numbers. Very happy with the development: Sweden and Denmark continues to deliver, Finland carries its weight, and with increased commercial focus on Norway, we're starting to see a pick-up there as well.

NIM performance is stable, at this point in time some slight headwind from delayed pass-through of high rates. Cost of risk continues to improve, came in at 2.9, which is an improvement both quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year.

We're flipping page to credit cards. Year-on-year growth of 11% in local currencies, tailwind from FX in reported numbers, portfolio now at 21.1 billion Swedish krona, solid growth in the Nordics, and Germany continues with a high-growth trajectory, NIM stable, cost of risk stable.

Let's flip to secured. Very glad to see that secured has picked up over the last year following a slower period.

Year-on-year growth at 12% in local currencies, 11% quarter-on-quarter, again slightly higher in reported due to FX. Growth is driven by high demand for our mortgage products, both in Sweden and Norway, which in turn is driven by high demand for near-prime mortgages.

At the same time, we see somewhat slower activity in the equity release product. NIM is stable quarter-on-quarter, slightly negative year-on-year driven by the near-prime mortgages.

Should be noted that although NIM is slightly lower in that segment, risk-adjusted margins are attractive. Cost of risk at 0.2%, down year-on-year, up quarter-on-quarter, very much normal fluctuations.

Finally, worth highlighting that we're working on expansion of equity release to Norway and mortgages to Finland expected to launch in 2027. That was a wrap-up of the totality and the segments, and I'll hand over to Patrick for more financials.

Great, thank you, Jacob. I will now go through the financials.

Starting off, I think we have overall have very good trend among the key drivers this quarter. We have an organic loan growth of 11%, we then have a good conversion of that growth into P&L with stable margins and solid income growth, and continued very positive P&L pass-through as credit losses are continuing down.

These trends also come through very clearly on this on the page, that 10% 12% reported loan growth growth, which we convert into 13% revenue growth, and 21% operating profit growth. With that introduction, I will move into going through the page in more deep detail.

Starting off at the top with loan development, we had a loan growth of 12% in the quarter, including the effect of the DBT acquisition. If we look at on the at at organic constant currency growth, the growth rate is 11% versus our target of 10%.

Similar as last quarter, we see all three segments at about 10% growth, good business momentum across all areas. Moving on to the P&L, NIM came in at 8.1% reported, and adjusted for day count and FX, we're at 8.2%.

Overall, we continue to see very stable underlying NIM, with the headline numbers in Q2 also having some negative effect of delayed pass-through as we have seen rate increases in NOK and EUR DKK in Q2. Moving on to fee and commission income, we came in at 219 million SEK, which was a 10% growth year-over-year, we continue to see a positive trend here with growth largely in line with loan growth.

In total, we have operating income growth of 13% for the quarter, so as I mentioned, converting the loan growth well into the P&L. Moving on to cost costs, we have a cost-income ratio of 23% in the quarter, which was in line with Q1.

It is slightly up compared to the 22% level in Q2 2025, and we have reported growth of 20 20% including DBT year-over-year, and 17% excluding DBT. This growth is driven by a combination of transitionally higher cost growth, as we've outlined before, as well as temporary factors, as Q2 2025 had an unusually low cost base, and there's also a negative FX effect of circa 2% here year-over-year.

As mentioned, we expect to see cost takeouts having effect towards the end of the year, and remain confident with reaching our target of 20% during 2027. Moving on to credit losses, we have we have 2.5% cost of risk in the quarter.

This was negatively impacted by 42 million SEK in macro due to changed change forecast from our external data suppliers, would have been 2.4% excluding that impact. This is our ninth straight quarter with year-over-year fall in cost of risk, and we continue to see a very strong underlying trend here, primarily driven by continuous underwriting improvements, and also some continued positive effects from macro normalization.

This all takes us to a core operating profit of 1.5 billion SEK for the quarter, which is up 21% year-over-year. From a return perspective, we have very solid return in the quarter, with core RoTE of 27%, and core return on capital employed, excluding accrued dividends, of 29%.

Lastly, continue well capitalized with a CET1 ratio of 13.4%. Next page, please.

Double-clicking on loan book development by segment. Private loans, we have an FX-adjusted growth of 11% both on a year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter basis.

In the quarter, we see all countries contributing positively here, strongest growth in Sweden and Denmark, but after a few quarters of weak growth in Norway, we also see Norway doing better following that the increased commercial focus there. On credit cards, we see good growth across both Nordics and Germany, with a total FX-adjusted year-over-year growth of 10.6%.

Quarter-over-quarter quarter growth slightly lower at 9.8%, which is as expected, as there is seasonality in growth for credit cards, with Q3 being the strongest growth quarter. On secured, we continue to see strong growth here, mainly from the non-standard mortgage segment across both Norway and Sweden.

Move to next page, please. Looking at NIM and NII, we have a reported NIM of 8.12% in the quarter, adjusted for FX and day count, we had 8.16%.

That is slightly down versus the 8.22% in Q1 on like-for-like basis, and this reduction is due to the some temporary negative effects of delayed pass-through following rate increases in Q2 in NOK and in EUR DKK. Underlying, we continue to see a very stable NIM around the LTM level of 8.2%, with front and back book margins at same levels.

Next page, please. Moving on to costs.

In Q2, we had a cost-income ratio of 23% and cost growth of 17% excluding the effect of DBT. This development is largely in line with our expectations, expectation with transitionally higher growth in 2026 driven by business investments, and that cost takeouts are only expected to come towards the end of the year.

In addition, the year-over-year growth in Q2 is impacted by temporary effects, as the cost base in Q2 2025 was unusually low, and we also have some negative impact from FX, with circa 2% of the growth coming from FX. As mentioned, we have ongoing initiatives for cost takeouts, and have a clear plan for getting down to 20% cost-income ratio during 2027.

Moving on to cost of risk. Next page, please.

Reported cost of risk in the quarter is 2.5% including 42 million SEK negative macro, and was 2.8 2.4% excluding the macro. However, Q2 is seasonally strong, and the LTM we had 2.7% cost of risk.

We continue to see very strong developments within credit losses, as we see the positive effect of both normalizing macro and our continuous underwriting improvements, in particular on the Bank Norwegian platform having effect. Overall, we see positive trend on credit losses continuing, and we see that there is potential for the cost of risk to continue down from the current LTM level.

However, as we mentioned before, the forward-looking nature of ECL may give us a bit more volatility in the coming quarters, given macro volatility. Next page, please.

We continue to have a strong capital position with a CET1 ratio of 13.4%, which is a 3.2% margin to requirements, and well within our range of 13% to 15%. The AT1 level is relatively high as we have included two new issues of in total 1.5 billion this quarter, one done in Q2 this year and one done in Q4 last year.

We have also we also have two quite sizable calls coming up in Q4 with a call of 1.4 billion AT1 and 650 million Tier 2. As Jacob mentioned, the board is actively evaluating buybacks as a tool for optimizing capital and managing excess capital going forward, and we will provide further updates on that at on that as and when relevant.

On the liquidity side, LCR and NSFR remain strong at 193% and 110% respectively. Next page, please.

Lastly, a page on return perspective. We have a core RoTE of 26.3% LTM, and we have a quite clear path for taking the last steps from the current levels to our target of 30%.

As we outline on the page, we have three key levers to work with here: two relates to financial performance, and then also a third potential lever from capital efficiency. Starting off with the two financial performance levers we have.

First, risk-adjusted margins: we currently have a risk-adjusted margin of 5.5%, and we see potential for this to improve further, while the NIM is stable, we have a clear positive trend on cost of risk, and see good potential to reduce it further from the current LTM level 2.7%. The other lever the other financial lever we have is real operational efficiency, and this is really about taking down our cost-income ratio from the current level 23% to our target of 20%.

As we outline on the page, every 0.1% in RAM improves core RoTE by by 0.7%, and every 1% improvement in cost-income ratio gives us 0.6% on return on tangible equity. Lastly, in addition to the financial performance, we also see further potential for improved capital efficiency through our capital stack.

With that, I hand over to Jacob.

I'll try to wrap this up on this slide that you've seen before, looking at the goals. We have a goal of 10% organic growth, and the addition target of reaching 150 billion SEK by 2030.

Happy about where we stand: 11% growth in constant currency, 12% reported, all segments contributing, and additionally, as outlined, we have a number of new product initiatives underway. Cost-income ratio, we just have a target of 20%, quarter came in at 23%, expect to see effect of cost takeout programs during the end of the year, and we remain committed to reach our target during 2027.

Core RoTE, we're at 27%, or actually 29% if looking at capital employed, clear runway to reach our medium-term target of 30. CET1 and dividends, we're at 13.4, within our range 13 to 15, we have a 3.2 percentage point headroom to requirement.

Focus now on efficient capital deployment and distribution of excess capital. Ordinary interim dividend equal to 40% of Q1 to Q3 profit will be paid in connection with the Q4 EGM, and lastly, we're putting in place share buyback as a tool, something that the board of directors will evaluate in due course.

I think that wraps it up, and we will open up for questions.

Good morning, guys. The first question from my side is on the cost side.

You're mentioning that you're planning cost takeouts by the later part of this year. Could you give any sort of ballpark guidance on the size of these takeouts?

Then second, you're also guiding to reach a sub-20% cost-income by '27. Should we expect this to come by the later part of '27, or do you have any indication of sort of when during the coming year we can expect this target to be reached?

I start off with the second part of the question, which is when in 2027 we should reach the cost-income ratio of 20%. It should be during 2027, and I think it will probably be towards the second half of that year, in second half of that year.

With regards to the specific amount of cost takeouts, I think it's pretty the kind of how our cost base has to develop over the next 18 months for us to reach the target of below 20% by during next year. We're not going to communicate a specific number of cost takeout, but clearly, we need to have a very disciplined cost growth in 2027 to reach our target of 20%.

We should rather view it as that the trend of growth will stop, and then it will sort of flatten out. That's the plan basically.

That is basically the plan, yes.

Great. Second on buybacks.

I understand that it's a BOD question and not for you, but still, could you give any explanation on the timing of announcing this now versus previously? Second, in terms of your buffer level, you're at the lower end of your CET1 buffer range, while talking about capital efficiency.

Should we view this that you might review your CET1 target range as well in conjunction to this?

I can start with timing. In terms of that, I think it's important for us to ensure equal information to all stakeholders, and obviously getting a share buyback program in place entails a number of the applications, and we need to submit applications to SFSA, etc., etc.

We just want to ensure that no one picks that up and makes a splash of it. It's better to be open about that this is a tool we want to have in the box.

I think where we are in our CET1 target level, we communicated target level 13% to 15%. I think we've stated historically and consistently that we are very happy to be at the lower end of that range, given the operating profitability that we have and that we have a 7% P2G.

We are very happy to be towards the lower end of that range. Then I think the other part of that story is clearly that, given that with a 40% payout ratio, we generate quite a lot of additional CET1 every quarter.

The kind of 13.4%, that's the static position we have right now, but it clearly grows every quarter from organic capital generation after 40% payout ratio.

Clear. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. Two questions from my side.

The first one is on net commission income. It grew by 10%, I think I saw in the presentation there.

Last quarter, it was quite low growth rate year-over-year. We have previously talked about it can be lumpy, but over time, it should grow above the growth rate of the loan book.

Can you talk about expectations here if we should see a trend shift in the second half, or how we should think about this income line looking into the coming quarters?

I think over time, I think it's fair to have the kind of slightly above loan book growth perspective on it, that's kind of the over time perspective. Then I think 2025 was a very strong year for fee and commission income, and 2026, we have a good development on it.

You should look at a longer-term trend, and the longer-term trend, there we are above loan book growth given the drivers. Each individual quarter, we're not going to be at that kind of specifically at that level, but look at it at the trend level.

Fair enough. Thank you.

I know that credit cards and secured both deliver double-digit loan growth in the quarter. However, year-over-year, it looks like adjusted operating profit is lower.

What needs to change for these segments to generate stronger operating leverage?

I think it's slightly the different stories in those two segments. I think credit cards is very much driven by a very, very strong comparison.

If you look at a trend on kind of any form of trend basis, you're not going to see the same case there. You have a stable NIM, stable cost of risk in credit cards, and 11% growth.

Clearly, the drivers are there. The reason it's down year-over-year on a quarterly basis is that Q2 '25 was an extremely strong quarter both on a fee income and on a cost side, the comparative quarter was extremely strong.

Then secured, I think there we have had a bit of a shift in the business there, where NIM is clearly down year-over-year, which is the reason that operating profit does not have the growth rate there. Now what we've said on secured is that given positive change in NIM that we saw the last few quarters, we expect a stable NIM level there.

We also expect growth to result in operating profit growth there, but at a stable NIM level from where we are now. Credit cards, very much driven of a very strong cost and fee quarter last year.

Secured, we are seeing strong growth there at a stable NIM level from the current level.

Thank you. If I might squeeze in a third question, I know that the lending growth is progressing according to plan, while deposits only have grown by 1.5% year-over-year.

Is this an ongoing shift in the funding mix that we see, or should we expect to see a reversal, and that you should ramp up deposits further looking ahead? Should this impact the NIM going forward?

How should we think about that?

I start off with the last question is that we don't foresee any changes in the funding mix that will impact our NIM, but we will always optimize across our funding sources, which is kind of secured, it's doing warehouse funding, it's doing senior unsecured, it is doing deposits. We're always going to optimize across those three on what gives us the most kind of effective funding cost on a total basis.

We guide for no significant shifts in our funding mix, so that's what we continue to see. We don't foresee any big shifts there, but it's always going to be a little bit different quarter-to-quarter based on where we think the optimal funding is.

I see. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I just want to come back to the costs, because when I look at consensus into next year, people are forecasting double-digit volume growth, they're forecasting revenues growing slightly faster than volumes, and to get to 20% cost-income, you need to have a quarterly cost run rate that's lower than Q2.

It's essentially zero cost growth '27 on '26. Is that the right way to think about it, that with 20% growth, a slowdown in cost growth leaves a very, very broad range?

Are we actually needing to see negative cost growth versus the Q2 level for you to hit your targets, or are we much too bearish on revenue growth?

No, I think we can't comment exactly on consensus, but I think the case is really that we're going to have underlying cost growth at the same time as we have very clear cost takeout plans to come through during H2. In order to hit the target of 20% next year, which we expect to hit, we are going to see very low cost growth in 2027.

We shouldn't be surprised if the run rate is let's call it similar to this quarter at least next year, which will get you broadly to the 20?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Then you talked about a delayed pass-through of rates in the private loan business.

Could you talk a bit about how big is that impact, and this will come through in the second half, or we need to kind of wait for the whole book to roll? It's a multi-year, kind of very slow pass?

No,

no, it's a very short-term impact. We have base rate increases in Norway and in EUR DKK in Q2.

Then the way it works is kind of mostly I think we had the same dynamic when rates were going down one and a half, two years ago, but then obviously it was positive, which is that when rates go up or down, the funding side reprices quite quickly, and the asset side, i.e., the loans, they are variable rates, but they have different repricing times depending on which country we are in. That we have to notify the customer, and then the repricing comes through.

In Finland, it updates every month, the pass-through is kind of around 4 weeks. Denmark, the pass-through is 4 to 6 weeks.

In Norway, it is 8 to 10 weeks to pass through on that side. Which means that when we see these rate changes, we have basically a month where it's hit us on the liabilities side, but not asset side.

Then I guess one can do the math around it. Around 55% of our book is in the countries that had increased rates.

Yeah. Was probably around a month for that effect in Q2.

Then that kind of comes to the number it hits on the NIM in Q2.

A single-digit basis point impact?

Sorry?

It would be a single-digit basis point impact on the NIM?

Five,

whatever,

yeah. Exactly.

Exactly. We see the main difference between the 8.22% FX and day-count-adjusted NIM in Q1, we had 8.16% here, I would say if it wouldn't have been for the pass-through effect, they would have been very similar.

Yep. Finally you mentioned that you signed an NPL sale during the quarter of 400 million, where you expect a positive impact in Q3.

Any guide for how meaningful that impact is, and I'm guessing that'll be booked on the credit loss line, is that correct?

It would be booked. The last NPL sales we've done over the last I guess 12, 18 months, we typically seen meaningful profits on those sales, and compared to book value.

We will have a profit here, we will communicate that around at Q3, but it will be kind of in the mid double-digit type range.

It's on the credit loss line, right?

Yes, credit loss line.

Yeah. Then when we look at DBT or the corporate loan book, it looks like there was sub-1% growth quarter-on-quarter.

How should we think about the growth potential? I'm guessing you acquire something, then might be there's a start-up period, and there might be parts of the portfolio you might choose to exit, etc.

What should we expect in terms of growth? I'm guessing sub-1% Q-on-Q is not the ambition.

No,

obviously the ambition is that it should fit our overall financial profile, we expect more. If the growth during the quarter was you're right, it was quite slow, and and that relates back to the fact that DBT earlier optimized for liquidity and not profitable book growth, long-term profitable book growth.

That is obviously something we're changing as we've entered this marriage. A lot of focus intently right now on commercial initiatives, forward-leaning, catching new ground, playing in in segments that weren't available before due to high cost of funds, clearly opens up the market, but also working on book protection, i.e., working with the existing portfolio of clients.

Thank you. Just finally on the buyback discussion, do you have any preference between how you think about buybacks versus dividend?

I think you said the dividend, the 40% is there no matter what, but should we think of it anything above that more likely buybacks than special dividends, or is there any thought around that?

It's ultimately a question for the board.

Yeah. No.

I think we talked about those components before, that we have kind of two strict components here, which is the capital for growth, and it's the dividend. Those together don't absorb the full capital generation that we have at our target rate.

Then

the rest there we will deploy, we will either deploy it through M&A, or we will distribute it out, either through buybacks or dividends. I think, as Jacob said, it's really a board question of the dividends versus buybacks.

We are making sure that we have the tool for buybacks as well, and then it's for the board to evaluate that during the autumn.

Perfect. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

I would like to start by asking on the net interest margin in secured. Could you just help us think about how much more sort of mix shift to near-prime we should expect in the next, say, 12 months?

Also whether there's any sort of structural floor in the segment on how low the net interest margin could go in theory?

I think given the NIM movement in Q1, I think we gave quite a clear guidance on how we think that's going to develop, and we think NIM will be stable from the current level in secured. It's what we can see in the business, that's what we foresee, stable NIM from the current level.

All right. That's clear.

Could you also say anything about what you're seeing in terms of competitive pressure from the other smaller banks? Is there anything different from, say, at the start of the year, particularly on private loans?

No, Nick. I think we are in a pretty stable environment overall.

I think we communicate that we saw a little bit of increase in competition through 2025. Since then, we've had a very stable environment, and yeah, I think everything is going as we expect.

We're growing all products above 10%, we have stable margins, and we have falling cost of risk.

Okay. That's clear.

The cost takeout measures that you mentioned that should have an effect in the latter half of this year, could you elaborate on what kinds of takeout measures you're referring to? Obviously

we wouldn't be so kind of communicative around this if we wouldn't have quite clear costs that we are going to take out. It's, to a large extent, is external costs that we are buying today, I don't want to communicate what they are, because they are going to impact contractual relationships that we have.

We have clear plan on where we're taking out costs, and basically, this will impact towards the very end of this year, and then we'll have a bigger impact in 2027. We have clearly identified costs that we are taking out through H2.

Okay. Fair enough.

Just one final question. Seeing as you've now seen the full effect of the removal of the tax deductibility on interest on Swedish private loans, have you seen anything different this time around on the positive Q2 seasonality on loan losses?

Could you maybe say anything about what investors should expect in the future on this?

I think we've got a lot of questions about it back when it happened in it was 2025 when it was announced, or 2024 when it was announced. I think we said then we think this will essentially be a rounding error in other things that happen.

I think that's the way it's played out. If we go look very, very specifically, we can possibly see some effect of it, but it's very, very minor, and it's kind of lost in the overall developments.

Way as expected. No, I

totally agree. I think it was implemented in a period where everyone expected base rates to come down, which was also the case, so that met up.

Also, again worth pointing out that deductibility is still there for the mortgage product, and a high proportion of our customers obviously has mortgages as well.

We got the number, right, the impact is a few hundred SEK per month for customers. It's nothing.

It's lost in the noise.

Okay. That's very clear.

Thank you very much.

Great, thanks. Good morning.

I've just got a few questions, please. Firstly, on the costs again, just thinking about the shape of the cost growth.

You mentioned very low cost growth in '27, which looks to me that you'll have underlying cost growth, but you have cost saves coming through in '27. Does that mean in '28, these cost saves on an incremental basis fall away and we sort of go back to a higher level of growth in terms of cost growth in 2028?

That's the first. The second, on credit cards, are you seeing any shift in customer behavior, whether it comes to revolvers versus transactors with the higher rate environment?

I'm just thinking about the NIM, the long-term NIM trajectory for the credit cards business here. And

Sorry, can you just you were breaking up a little bit. Can you just repeat the question on the credit cards?

I got the question on cost, but can you take the credit card question again?

Sure. Just on the credit cards, in terms of customer behavior on transactors versus revolvers, are you seeing any shift in customer behavior here, and more in the context of the long-term NIM trajectory of the credit cards business?

Yeah. Clear.

Now I got the question. I think on the cost side, looking at 2028 costs, I think we're going having a bit of an unusual year this year compared to both history also compared to history where the cost takeouts has end up being very lumpy this year due to commercial periods and other factors.

We have a very kind of lumpy cost takeout in 2020 in 2026, impacting our cost growth this and the trajectory 2026 versus 2027. Our aim here, and what I think we will achieve, is a more even cost takeout going forward.

I don't foresee that we will have this kind of 12% growth one year, zero next year, that it would kind of go this up, down, up, down. They should be more smooth, but then I think we'll always be in a situation where we will not be exactly at 30% every quarter.

There is volatility in the cost base in the quarters, and a certain volatility in the cost takeouts, but I think we're seeing possibly a bit of an extreme effect '26, '27. That's on the cost side.

On the transactor-revolver question, which is a very interesting question, I think we got this question a little bit around Q1 in the sense of if we get into a worsening macro, higher rates, and so, how would that impact us? Then we said, probably we start seeing increased revolver rates in the credit cards as a result.

Clearly, we can't really see any negative macro effect in consumer behavior, that's the starting point, and we also don't see any kind of shifts in transactor-revolver behavior in the credit card book. Clearly, part of our strategy in credit cards is to increase the revolver base over time, and that still holds.

Over time, our strategy is to increase the revolver proportion in that segment, but there's no kind of macro effect here, but we are gradually, consistently working with transactor-revolver split.

Great, thank you. Just one more on the Sorry, go on.

I was going to say, there's been no kind of shift in any There's no There's been no shift here, but we're generally work with transactor-revolver proportions, and attempt to build the revolver proportions up. Great,

great. Thank you.

Just one more question on the new business initiatives that you are expecting in 2027. Are these costed out as well, you've already invested in these initiatives, or they'll be happening soon in the course of this year, or they're already in the cost plans, or are these incremental things that we should be thinking about?

No, we think we essentially take those into account in our cost outlook. Clearly, again, they can default to volatility around it, but it's not that this will suddenly drive costs in a different way than we are kind of outlining our expectations now.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Just one remaining from me.

Just wondering if you regain some commercial momentum in Norway launching new products, are risk-adjusted NIMs different in Norway versus the other countries at the moment due to the higher rates?

The risk-adjusted margins are not different in Norway compared to other markets on the private loan side.

If you're successful there Yeah, I'm just thinking because the market growth in Norway

No, there's no big shift there.

It's

on the private loan side, it's quite similar across the market. Credit cards varies more, given that we have different transactor-revolver splits across the different markets, but private loans, it's not that there are big shifts between the market on risk-adjusted margin basis.

Then in general, just so it's 100% clear, is that the NIM in the private loan segment on a group level is you project that to be relatively stable going forward?

We project relatively stable margins in totality, and that kind of implies that, given private loans is 70% of the business, it implies relative stability there as well.

Yeah. Thank you.

Hi. This is Sofie from Goldman Sachs.

Thanks a lot for taking my question. My first question would be on trading income.

It was negative this quarter. How should we think about trading income going forward?

What's kind of a normalized run rate trading income for you? Then my second question would be just going back to the share buyback and M&A.

I realize that you're evaluating a share buyback, but why not do M&A instead of share buyback, and what's the kind of thought process of thinking about the share buyback and not maybe putting more emphasis on M&A? Thank you.

Sofie, I can start with the latter one there. Again, we think it's our job to look at M&A, and if we find something attractive, we might pursue it.

The extra room in terms of capital can be used for M&A, extra dividend, or share buybacks. Time will tell.

I think

on trading income, I think we guided before that on a run rate basis, we will probably expect that to be negative 15 to 25 million per quarter, but there's going to be volatility there. I think in Q1 it was positive, this quarter was slightly higher, but if we look at it on a rolling basis, we expect to be slightly negative every quarter, kind of in the range over time of 15 to 25, but then there is volatility in this line, which means that some quarters is positive, some quarters is slightly more negative.

What's driving the negative trading income? Is it hedging, or

It's cost of holding swaps.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much for listening in. Looking forward to interact again in due course.