Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Artur Wiza, on behalf of the management team of Asseco Poland.

I'm going to run today's meeting, which is about the results of the Asseco Group for Q1 2026. We are joined by the Vice President Karolina Rzońca-Bajorek, who is the CFO of the group, as well as Marek Panek, who is the Vice President of Asseco Poland.

In the first portion of the presentation, we'll present the operations and the financial results of our group for Q1 2026. In the second part of our meeting, as usual, we'll try to field your questions, which you will be able to send to us through the panel, the chat function.

That's it from all of myself, and we'll begin with the presentation of the operations, and I'd like to ask Marek Panek to kick off.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you very cordially.

I have to say that after our most recent conference, we received some advice that we weren't smiling too much even though the results were outstanding. We'll try to change that a little bit because we have a large number of reasons to be satisfied.

We've kicked off this year very well, and the best proof of that are the results that we published yesterday. If you take a look at slide number 2, this is where we want to kick off today's presentation.

You can see the fundamental parameters of our P&L. You see our revenue, which is nearly 4.4 billion złoty, which is up by 9% over last year in the corresponding period.

Our EBIT operating profit is 513 million, and our net profit is 228 million. As you will have noted, if you look at the pace of growth of EBITDA and net earnings, you can see why we're touting this quarter so highly, which we are now summing up.

As a matter of our ordinary course of business, I'd like to sum up our operations in individual segments as well as geographies where Asseco is active, and then I'll give the floor to Karolina, and then she'll say more about the numbers themselves. If we look at the split of the revenue by segments and in geographies, you can see that across the board, we have decent growth.

Starting on the left, you see Asseco Poland growing very fast, the fastest. All of the companies operating in Poland under the Asseco brand, we have 12% top-line growth.

We've broken through the 600 million watermark. Then we have Asseco International, which is 1.194 billion.

We have 7% top-line growth. Then we have Formula Systems, which is the Israel portion of the company, and we have more than 2.6 billion, we have nearly 10% growth in the top line.

Then I'll give you a short commentary. You would recall that not too long ago, we had the company Sapiens that left the Formula Systems group, and that changed the proportions in terms of the contribution to the top line in the individual geographic segments.

Up until now, Formula represented 66%, 67% of the overall group. Today, it's around 60%.

Asseco International is 26%, and the remaining 14% are the Polish companies' contribution. Perhaps you would recall that this used to be around 11%, 12%.

The contribution today is a little bit higher. Now we can look at the revenue by product groups.

Let's begin with the bar graph, and you see basically the group of our products. If we stop at the top, these are the most important core products.

This is our proprietary software, solutions for the finance industry, then solutions for public institutions, as well as ERP solutions. We have 8%, 18%, and 13% growth.

This means that we are very very elated with these results. The other segments are other IT solutions.

I've mentioned several times what this means. This is for the telecom industry as well as cross-sector solutions, which is difficult to qualify to a single sector, and so they can be sold anywhere.

Then we have infrastructure and other, and here we have a flat result. This is the lowest margin business.

Of course, we're continuing in that, but we're focusing on those aspects that are linked to our proprietary solutions. Then you have the solutions for public institutions.

They have the biggest portion of our revenue because they represent some 26%. 22% is the financial sector, and very close to that, we have 23%.

That's the infrastructural portion, which I discussed just a moment ago. We're very pleased with the fact that we have a high level of diversification in our business, and so in the current business environment, that's very important.

The 10% 10 top customers represent 13%, and the biggest customer of the group represents 2% of the entirety of our revenue. We don't have a situation in which we would be dependent on any individual or group or small group of customers.

Now, succinctly, let me say a few words about what's happening in the most important product segments. We'll start with solutions for finance sector.

Here, we have 970-odd million in terms of revenue across the group. This is 8% growth with respect to last year, and you can see what the contribution of the individual geographic segments is, what's the growth rate, and you can see that we have Asseco Poland leading the pack because this is nearly 20% more than last year.

Then we're not surprised by that because this is a portion of our business which we believe to be a very mature portion of our business. We have a large recurring stream in terms of maintenance and the development being done by our customers.

We have new projects being added. Maybe they're not any spectacular large new banks involved that would be join our portfolio of customers, but on that wide base of clients, we're able to generate revenue of nearly 180 million złoty, and we're at the same time able to generate dynamic growth in this sector in Poland.

We're talking about the banking sector because we're the unchallenged, uncontested leader in the banking sector. We're running operations for the largest banking sectors companies here in Poland as well as the cooperative sector, and we've been promoting cloud-based solutions.

More and more banks are participating in our initiative in terms of having a joint IT platform where we're offering full outsourcing of solutions for banking. We're very pleased to see that the queue of banks is getting longer and longer for that, and so we have a large number of projects.

If we think about Asseco International, you can see this is the biggest contributor to revenue. It's more than 400 million, a 5% top-line growth.

Here, we would emphasize that core banking systems, in the Balkans, is moving forward very nicely. Then we have Central Europe.

We have Slovakia and Czech Republic where we've been able to attract new customers in this segment. Then we have Formula, which is nearly 400 million.

After Sapiens was sold, and it had always been the leader, but after the sale of Sapiens, it's no longer the leader. It had always been the biggest contributor of revenue.

Now it's nearly 390 million złoty in revenue, and so we have a similar pace of growth as in Asseco International at 5%. The major player in terms of Formula in the financial sector is Matrix IT.

We should remember that's a combined or merged company of Matrix and Magic. Then we have solutions for public institutions, as I mentioned previously.

This is our largest area of activity. Nearly 1.15 billion in revenue.

We have very dynamic growth, it's some 18% growth across the group, and this is something that exceptionally pleases us. In Poland, we have 330 million, and so we have a 16% growth.

You should remember that here, we're again the uncontested leader in terms of projects for the public sector. We have a large group of large-scale customers, including ZUS Social Security Institution, the National Health Fund, and a few other customers I could mention.

We're very pleased to see that more and more projects we're doing for relatively new customers, like the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance. We're cooperating with them for several years now, and we have proven ourselves as a reliable partner.

We're getting more and more projects, and so this is something that we're elated with. Let's not forget that in the public sector, we also have health care where we're very active, and today, you can say that we're being inundated with projects from the National Recovery Plan, and so we're at the phase of being dynamically signing contracts.

We're signing contracts dynamically because the pace is a whirlwind pace. If we talk about hospitals alone, we can say the beneficiaries of this program, and this is more than 150 hospitals, we're signing contracts with them in a relatively short period of time, and now we have to deliver and implement solutions for them.

You cannot yet see that in the figures for Q1. I think we'll see that in Q2, partially in Q3 of this year, but today, that is something that is actually make them lose sleep.

We have international. You can see that we have 140 million in revenue, and this is a very dynamic pace of growth at 29%.

What do we owe then to? This is because of the Slovakian and Czech markets where we've been observing the rebuilding of public projects.

You should remember that for a certain period of time, we had talked about stagnation in some of these countries linked to certain perturbations or disturbances of a geopolitical nature. Everything has stabilized.

We have new projects. We are running projects that we had started, we're maintaining them, we had implemented them, and this is all being brought together with very robust results in this sector.

At the end of the day, we have Formula Systems, and here, this is the major contributor with more than 680 million in top line with a very strong and robust pace of growth at 18%. Then the last sector that I want to speak to, these are ERP solutions.

You can see that we have more than 450 million in revenue, and the pace of growth is 13% across the group. As you've noted, we don't have Asseco Poland in this list because for the reasons that I mentioned at the most recent conference, we had practically one company operating in that, DahliaMatic, and this is a company that's operating in the Polish market, but in the most recent quarter of the last year, it was put in to Enterprise Solutions Asseco, which is consolidated through the Asseco International segment, and as a result, we can say that in Poland, we no longer have any ERP solutions, and that's why we don't have that line here.

We have the Asseco International segment with more than 285 million with 13% pace of growth, and we have Formula Systems with more than 173 million in revenue with the pace of growth in excess of 15%. We have the Enterprise Solutions as the main player in this segment, this is Asseco Business Solutions from Poland along with the entire group of Asseco Solutions, which is operating in Slovakia, Germany, Czech Republic.

We're also pleased that despite the stagnation in Germany, we've been capable of delivering a rapid pace of top-line growth, and the leader here is Asseco Business Solutions where we've had an increase of nearly 20% in top line for ERP solutions. Here, we owe our success to a project called the large-scale KSeF, which is a new invoicing system for the government, and so that was in Q1 of this year.

Formula, we have our own solutions in Matrix. Maybe it's a small system, but it's a proprietary solution.

We have some solutions of third parties, and then we have the HR systems in the MEAs, which we treat as ERP solutions, and we're pleased that that branch is also developing quite nicely. Now, in terms of our acquisitions, in the first quarter of this year, we had four companies that were added to our model.

They weren't large, spectacular acquisitions, but step by step, this is how we're working. We're adding newer and newer companies that are delivering what we believe to be interesting products or competences that were able to supplement our capabilities.

The Formula did this, and then Asseco International did one of them. On the right side, you can see two acquisitions which were completed in Q2 after the balance sheet, but we mentioned them in our report, and that's why you can see them here on the slide.

We do not cease these type of operations, we are doing screening, we're talking with new candidates, new companies, and so I believe that as a matter of traditional business, over the year, we should have a number of companies in excess of 10 that would join the company. I'll give the floor now to Karolina.

As regards financial information, Marek has already talk you through revenues, but 4 4.4 billion almost. Revenues from our services, 3.4 billion PLN.

EBITDA, 712 million, and EBIT, 515 million. Both indicators are up on non-IFRS.

As for net profit, 224 million PLN. As we can see, the dynamic of net profit is much higher, and in a moment, I will explain why.

As for quarter-to-quarter bridge, the first quarter last year, revenues amounted to slightly over 4 billion PLN, and what changed, 252 million came from companies that were in our group previously, it's organic growth, and 145 million was growth from acquisitions, and for the first time in a long time, we've had positive impact of exchange rates. Non-IFRS EBIT for the first quarter 2025, 443 million, and 92 million was organic contribution, 14 million came from acquisitions, and 5 from exchange rates.

Please note that the acquisitions which we had in the recent 12 months had very decent profitability. As for net profit, we show you the quarter-to-quarter bridge, but also the breakdown will show you exactly the delta origin from which segment the change comes.

Asseco Poland contributes the most, that is the holding company, but also the companies that we have in Poland. Negative delta on Formula stems from the fact that we show here the notation non-IFRS, and this shortage of contribution from Sapiens, hence this negative data, and Asseco International comes on top of that, plus 3 million adjustments between segments.

We are particularly happy about the fact that at all levels of profit, we saw an improvement in profitability. We saw a 10% growth in software and own services quarter to quarter, and 1.5 percentage points improvement on EBIT on non-IFRS, and 1.7 on EBITDA on non-IFRS.

We did not have any particular impact of one-off events, we can say that these were basically our operating results. When discussing companies, I will tell you more about the sources of those numbers.

It is also worth noting that at least two groups or two segments in our group had significant amounts of cash in the first quarter. This cash was efficiently allocated, and in fact, it was the delta on interest, almost 36 million, contributed, among others, to such a good net profit both in Asseco Poland and in Formula.

Those surpluses were recorded. Therefore, we had significant income from interest, which offset debt servicing costs.

The situation was reverse on currency transactions, and the minus, you can see here, comes mainly from Formula Systems segment, which contributes much less to what we see on net profit for shareholders of the holding company. It is also worth noting that we managed to reduce the efficient tax rate.

This effective tax rate came mainly from Asseco Poland, and it resulted from a battle that we fought with regard to gaining the possibility to recognizing some costs. For long time, we had negative interpretations of tax authorities in that regard.

Now, after quite a while, the interpretation changed, which allows us to make adjustments in retrospect, and this situation is going to stay with us on a regular basis. We can see that there will be a slight decrease of the effective tax rate.

As for loss in associated units that came from one-off transactions, and on a level of corporation, that was the only one-off that we see in those results. That was the effect of a revaluation of DSG stake.

They had their SPO, and the effect amounted to about 16 16 million PLN in contribution. That is actually the only one-off which offsets the effect of the shortage coming from Sapiens in the first quarter 2026.

The fact that we had spectacularly good dynamics on net profit is linked to the fact that the greatest contribution to growth came from Polish segment, and we consumed that almost 100%. There was only a very small leakage to foreign shareholders.

From this Polish segment, we had very good operating results plus this positive result that translated fully into our net profit. We illustrate here what I have just talked about: Asseco Poland holding company, improvement of profitability, operating profit almost 117 million compared to 86 for the same period last year, and a doubling on net profit contribution.

As for other companies in Poland, a very good quarter was recorded by Asseco Systems, and this good quarter, to a large extent, came from trust services in connection with KSeF, on this invoicing system reforms. We managed to increase the sales of our products in connection with electronic seal, hence, or among others, why we had such good results.

Also on Formula Systems, again, an excellent quarter in Matrix. Let me remind you that we had a merger in the first quarter, and it was completed.

Now the companies are being transformed, and I think the effects of the merger will be visible in the upcoming quarters. As for Asseco International, we are particularly happy about the fact that Central European market rebounded, and the main drivers were ERPs in Asseco Business Solutions, which is being consolidated in this line, and also very good results of ERP company in Germany.

Also, as Marek said, public in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, here we managed to improve profitability or change the conditions of providing certain services under contracts where we recorded losses. All those contracts expired, and now they entered the maintenance stage.

That is why we saw an improvement in the results in Central Europe. In Southeastern Europe, we have our ace here and particularly good results in core banking and payment.

Cash developed in the last 12 months, that is 112%, which is satisfactory, in Asseco over 119, and then 118, and Formula 104. If we look at cash in the first quarter, the indicators are worse, and I talked about it during our annual conference when I said that we had spectacularly good fourth quarter in cash result.

The fact that the first quarter was worse is linked to those prepayments being made in the fourth quarter last year. They pushed up the cash flow in the fourth quarter, we see the same missing in the first one.

Obviously, you cannot have a conversion of the result exceeding 100% all the time. I noticed there was also the question about cash flow, and I think I owe you an explanation on that.

Formula Systems had the worst cash flow in the first quarter, but it is nothing to worry about because operating cash flow was worse since Matrix IT had a major factoring transaction on its receivables, hence the cash flow was worse, but there is no reason for concern here. Also, there were questions about negative operating cash flow overall at the group level.

This operating cash flow is negative because we presented in our operating results tax that was paid for Sapiens transaction. This tax was paid in the first quarter, and that means that as regards P&L, the transaction of Sapiens sale was fully disclosed as discontinued activity in the annual results for 2025.

However, we should bear in mind that certain payables will have to be paid this year. For example, tax was paid previously, and we still have to pay bonuses linked to this transaction.

In cash flow, we will consistently throughout this year present the developments. I think in the second quarter, maybe in the third quarter, we will continue to show the expenditures related to this transaction, and we will consistently present this in the line of discontinued business.

As for balance sheet, we have very stable liquidity situation. At the end of the first quarter, net cash 2.9 billion essentially in all segments.

Relatively high values, and that translated into the result on interest. Let me remind you that in the Formula segment, we obtained money from sales of Sapiens in holding, hence this certain excessive liquidity.

Now dividend is to be paid out. On the 3rd of June, we should receive in Asseco Poland the money coming from this first tranche of dividend payment related to Sapiens sale.

In Asseco Poland, at the end of Q1, we also had cash obtained from sale of own shares, and that was distributed as dividend that has already been paid out. As for proportionate presentation, we have two slides showing organic results proportionately: delta plus 128 million, acquisitions plus 19, on operating profit, 63 million and 6 million from acquisitions respectively.

We see the same thing that I discussed earlier, namely, when the major contributor to improvement of profitability is Asseco Poland, in proportionate presentation, you can see that even more clearly: greater dynamics quarter to quarter in growth, even greater improvement in profitability, 2.6 percentage points EBITDA non-IFRS, almost 3 percentage points on operating profit. Proportionately, cash, very similar, 117% on the group level, 119 from Asseco Poland, basically the same number in Asseco International, 99%, and in Formula Systems, 91.

There was also a question about it. 1 billion 400 million PLN is the cash situation at the end of the first quarter in this proportionate presentation.

Out of that, 160 million from Asseco Poland, 450 from International, and slightly over 500 from Formula. Portfolio of orders, here I also have good news: 14% growth in backlog compared to the same period last year.

The most dynamic growth of backlog in Asseco Poland, and that dynamic comes from public segment first of all, then secondly from banking and finance, and slightly negative dynamics in corporate segment in Asseco Poland. 7% Asseco International and 15% Formula Systems.

The same proportionate presentation of backlog on your request: 13% at the group level, 20% in Poland, 17% in Formula, and 6% in Asseco International. That's all from me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Karolina. Thank you very much, Marek.

The satisfaction and the positive assessment of our results is visible, of course, in the questions. We have a large number of questions, we'll move on to fielding or giving responses to those questions.

Let me remind you that we have questions from investors in Poland as well as on the English language, and so we'll pull everything into a single bucket of questions, and we'll try to field or respond to all of your questions. Question number one.

Congrats. Is it correct that you built and own the software products that run Poland's National Pension platform, National Property Registry, court case management for bankruptcies, and architecture around utility billing?

You won contracts this quarter in these areas. Can you give us a sense of how you won these contracts, and also conversely, how hard or not it would be for these entities to take out your software and replace it with something else?

We'll respond in Polish. I'll kick off, and then Marek will add something.

How we won these contracts. In fact, in Q1 last year, we were able to sign several contracts, primarily with respect to the public institutions, and in fact, maybe I can clarify.

In most cases, these are tenders that are under the Public Procurement Law. These are public tenders, and as a result, it seems to me that we have a lot of experience, we're highly seasoned in terms of how we should present price offers in these tenders.

We are capable, very capable of calculating risk, and this gives us a competitive edge, the experience we have and the understanding of customers' needs. In every tender, there is competition, of course, and this is something that we should reckon with, that the competition does exist.

Most frequently, these tenders are organized every four years, and of course, there are some tenders that are held earlier because the supplier selection procedure takes some time. It does occur that a portion of the tender is the subject matter of discussion before the National Appeals Chamber, and this is an entity which is somehow responsible for, let's say, educating on doubts about the tender procedures and final decisions in terms of what decisions were made by the customer.

At the bottom line is that nothing is given to us forever, and this is something we should remember. This is not our software.

Usually in these tenders, it's the case that at the end of the day, we turn over the copyrights to the customer, and that also means that there is a field or there's some room for somebody else would end up providing maintenance services. It does occur that we have certain contracts where the copyright is not, let's say, ceded or conveyed, but in the vast majority of cases, this is not a matter of licensing, but something we call modification services.

Realistically, we improve, we enhance, we augment software that's owned by the customer.

If you want me to add, I'll happily add something. Perhaps I could add something of a soft nature in respect to what Karolina said.

Please remember, if you look at the list of our largest customers in the public sector, usually these are institutions that have been working with us for many, many years. As Karolina mentioned, it's not the case that we have to be there because we have tenders.

The source codes are owned or held by the customers, and, somewhat in theory, some other company could continue the development process. The fact of the matter is that we have not, of course, broken their trust.

We enjoy the trust, extensive trust of these customers, and they very much appreciate that. We should admit that in many cases, we've heard very nice words from the customer side that we've done something well, that better times or that was impossible, the law wasn't catching up.

There were new requirements that were legislated or enacted, and so we were able to deliver on a timely basis. I think this is one of the reasons why we won, because the customers want to stick with us, because we haven't violated their trust or breached anything in the most time-urgent cases.

Sometimes the conditions are exceptional, and that there might be a, let's say, public procurement law trip, and this was the procedure that was the case during the pandemic. We were the supplier of first choice because of our reputation and the lengthy relationship we had with customers.

That meant that the customer trusted us in those trying times, that we were able, let's say, deliver those contracts.

That's a very good response. We'll go on to the next question.

Proportional cash flow from operations shows growth of 43% in free cash flow from continuing activities and 33% growth in cash flow from operations from continuing business. Yet consolidated free cash flow and cash flow from operations shows a decline.

Why are the proportional cash flow growth so much better than consolidated? What is about the parts that you don't own that don't seem to be as good, and does that matter to shareholders much or not?

Okay. This is what I was trying to address during the course of my presentation.

If we talk about discontinued operations and the tax paid by Formula as a result of the transaction with Sapiens in Q1, that means there was a negative cash flow in Formula Systems. If we look at the consolidated data on a proportional basis, there's only a small fragment, let's say 25%, that was in the proportional data.

In fact, if we look at the full consolidated viewpoint, it's negative cash flow. That's one reason.

The second reason, I mentioned that during the course of my presentation, that the Formula cash flow in Formula Group in Q1, well, the conversion was the lowest in terms of the operating segments within the group, and this was a result primarily of the fact that the Matrix IT company signed a contract, a factoring contract for a portion of its receivables. We're talking about 200 million shekels, and that money was credited in Q4.

This is not something that we should be worried about. This is something that happens on a regular basis, but basically, what was booked in Q4 means that it wasn't booked in Q1.

That's the difference.

Thank you very much. Couldn't find if you have a breakdown of the proportional data net cash position.

It looks like debt of 402.5 million PLN and a cash of 2.846. Is that right?

Would be the net cash position, not included leases, be about 2.4 billion, taking out some 1 billion PLN for the recent dividends that you have paid? Does this then sounds correct, roughly 1.4 billion PLN in net cash or so, net of these dividends?

Haha, I would say that's right, that would be the simplest response. Let me draw your attention to one detail, one specific matter.

If we look at the IFRS standards, if we have deposits in excess of three months, then the deposits are not treated as cash, but they're treated in our balance sheet as other financial assets in roughly 660 million złoty as of 31 March of cash, which was in Asseco Poland, and that's shown in other financial assets. I just wanted to give you that additional detail, but generally speaking, I would say that your hypothesis in this question was correct.

We're pleased that we have so many questions from abroad. This shows the interest, and we can see how our international investors are asking questions quickly as they learn our results.

Next question. The data proportional EBITDA is having a problem: Poland Infra, International Infra, International Other IT, Formula Infra, and Formula ERP.

Meanwhile, around 95% of the rest of the EBITDA looks very good. Could you give us a sense of challenges with those six six segments that are having problems, and maybe plans for those segments?

They look very different than the rest of the business.

That is true. The hypothesis in the question is quite correct and sound.

It's a totally different business from the software business. Let me start with the Polish segment.

Realistically, we have technical allocations. These are small amounts, I really wouldn't focus any attention there because we're talking about minor amounts of money.

If we look at the Asseco International segment, here, in the infrastructure, we have two large entities or contributors where things were worse. The first one is the company Asseco Spain.

This is a company that has atypical operations for Asseco, and basically, they're handling hardware. We wrote down a portion of the inventory, some 8 million złoty.

Realistically, this contributed to the fact that we have what's named a problem in the question. The second cause is the dedicated solutions segment from the Asseco Group.

Here, we had softer results year on year. Some of the projects were not recovered that took place in previous years, there was an organic backtrack.

Thank you very much. Now the next question.

Almost across the board, your margin expanded, and now in some cases margin are incredibly high, appearing as high as over 30%. Congrats.

Can you give us a sense of how you have been able to do this, and whether this is a one-off or the sign of some kind of structural change?

These figures in the question, profitability in excess of 30%, this is an EBITDA non-IFRS EBITDA result. We rarely use that for profitability as a profitability metric.

We look at the profitability of individual projects. We think about the fourth margin, which is sort of like EBIT, because we believe that this is the best metric of whether or not a contract is profitable, yes or no.

Factually, in this quarter, in some places, if we think about profitability, we've had some momentum. That's what I I call it.

As a group, we're highly diversified, but in Q1, this was a distinct period. If we look at infrastructure, which is small compared to the rest of the group, we can say that we had a very good moment in a business sense across the board with the exception of infrastructure.

Here, we should point out that the improvement in profitability, to some extent, this is a matter of a structural improvement in profitability. Here, we've been talking about our view when we talk about the the effectiveness of our work, working productivity, utilization of resources.

This is the outcome of work that's been done over many months and perhaps over the last two years. We have talked a lot about gaining or improving efficiency.

The second factor is this momentum that I was talking about is also reflected on the top-line side. We have certain contracts which are nonrecurring to some extent, and I would even say they're above average, their profitability is above average.

Evidently, we have a large number of contracts in our group, and it might happen, and of course, we're endeavoring to that, to have as many of these contracts as possible. As we look at what we have today in the backlog, I would say the following: what we've been able to improve fundamentally on the cost side, this is a result that can be done again.

On the revenue side, this is not necessarily the case, especially if we're talking about contracts where the distribution of revenue largely depends on the customer decision. Let me give you an example.

We have a contract where we have a fixed number of people rendering services under a framework agreement for the development of software, and the customer has valued or priced the services under that contract that were doing in the first phase of the project, analysis, feasibility studies, and things of that nature. The first stage of implementation have much better prices than at the final stage.

From our point of view, looking at this as a business, it's of secondary nature because the same people are working on very similar things. That's how the customer has priced things, that's the valuation the customer has attached to that, and that's how it's reflected in the financial statements.

This distribution of revenue is follows from that. We talk about, some sort of regular happenings, that, Q4 is the best quarter for us, and frequently that is, in fact, true.

Recently, we've seen some changes, some modifications, with the first two quarters of the year in our group, especially in Poland, especially in the public institutions segment, are exceptionally good.

Thank you very much, and now the question about Formula Systems. As for Formula Systems, which implies that you control it.

You are the largest shareholder. Also, many Formula Systems have increasing EBITDA margins.

Can you give us a sense of extent to which you are able to control Formula and influence them in the ways to improve margins, which are much lower than the rest of your segments? Please give us the sense of the extent to which you are able to influence their core business to improve margins, and whether they could get as high as your other businesses.

If you aren't able to control this dynamics, it may be easier if you didn't consolidate their financial statements because it is quite confusing.

Yes, indeed, the case is that the average profitability of the Formula Systems is much lower than of the other two systems. I will focus on Matrix IT because that's a large company.

Matrix operates under a completely different business models. This business model consists in Matrix providing time and material services.

In Poland, if we provide services to the public segment, we try to avoid time and material contracts, and for sure, we do not participate in any procurement procedures for such solutions. The specific nature of Matrix operations is such they prefer to have time and material-based settlements.

If we talk about time and material settlements, the risks for the contractor are lower, and the profitability of the contract is automatically also much lower. If I were to answer this question, I would say that we have influence on the strategic directions of development for Formula, but we control Formula by our management board members being directors on the board of Formula Systems.

However, we do not go down to the level of individual contracts, nor do we analyze operations of Matrix IT this way. Of course, we can try to talk about how profitability could be improved, and it seems that the time has come for us to talk about it.

As the situation in Israel is changing quite dynamically, and that is likely to continue for a while. We're talking about a huge company with an extensive infrastructure.

Maybe, Marek, you would like to add something to this?

No, I think you have exhausted the topic, and we have a long list of other questions. There was a question of AI assistant?

Yes, another question. Congrats on results.

Could you please share information on the collaboration between TSS and Asseco Poland so far? Could you share examples of influence and the best practices that you are currently working on the shortcomings identified in the businesses?

Collaboration between Asseco Poland and TSS is going on very well. In fact, we are getting to know each other.

We are talking about two very large structures. That has to be borne in mind.

What we had done in Asseco Group was to take a certain sample of companies, entities where we thought there was a lot to do. On the occasion of doing those things and using the opportunity of the transformation also linked to the succession, we wanted to discuss the possibilities for our businesses to improve our foundations of how we operate.

We looked at what Constellation does and what TSS does with their entities. Of course, we do not blindly follow all solutions that are applied in TSS business.

Please bear in mind that Asseco Group is a group that has its corporate culture. Secondly, even if you look at Q1 results where the spectacularly good results came from the holding company, well, in fact, that inspiration was not there yet.

We know how to do this business. We do not want to say that we are the best in the world, but we do claim we want to be the best in the world, and we are more than willing to accept an inspiration.

At the same time, we want to be extremely cautious so as not to spoil what today functions very well in the Asseco Group. If we take the perspective of finance on all of that, I would say that there are places which are very well-measured, things that allow us to monitor a variety of indicators.

Some are the indicators that TSS is looking at right now. I wouldn't like to get rid of what we have right now.

I wouldn't like to spoil what is functional today. At the same time, we can draw on an inspiration coming from TSS.

For sure, there are places where we still need to do some work, and the further we go from the holding company, the more of such work must be done because these were companies acquired at a certain point with their preexisting corporate cultures. All this transformation or the turning point in the history of our group, which is still to come on the occasion of succession, is a perfect opportunity to rethink what we have, what is functioning well, what does not work so well.

Inspirations are more than welcome here. Marek, would you like to say something about M&A?

Yes, I will be willing to add some insights on M&A because here, we did a certain exercise, namely, we had a very close look at how TSS goes about its M&A transactions, what mechanisms they rely on, what they pay attention to, and that was a valuable lesson. I think we took advantage of it to rebuild our own processes, and we paid particular attention to the things that we found very sensible in what TSS does.

However, we are being very cautious in our approach to M&A topics. We are in this configuration model when we would like to have partners, and we had 100% of shares bought.

We had majority stakes, and there are a few significant differences between us and TSS. Nevertheless, I'm happy because we were indeed able to learn some lessons from them, and whatever we found sensible, we implemented in our model.

Also, it is no secret that this area of M&A is the area where by definition we wanted to collaborate. Representatives of TSS are also on the investment committee at the Asseco Group level, and together, we consider potential M&A projects.

There is one more topic that TSS brought, and it comes up in the following question. Could you please share the status on the resolution that was downvoted in the first general meeting on the bonus scheme?

Yes, indeed, that is a topic on which we are still working. It is relevant to us.

That is exactly what you asked about: the experience with TSS. TSS promoted that very heavily.

It also came up with this topic in conversations with other shareholders. They wanted to propose a bonus program for our managers.

It was rejected by a minimum majority of votes. We gathered feedback, we will present another proposal.

We are now finalizing work on this. For sure, we will first talk to the shareholders to convince them, to bring them around to our way of thinking.

Also, Adam Góral appealed to the shareholders for doing that before he left, and he stressed this was very important in the succession program. We are talking about not just bonuses, but a retention program for key managers whom we would like to support in this difficult transition period.

Succession is not just the change of a single individual. In fact, the company is undergoing a major change, which is to prepare us for further development under different circumstances, also taking into account the experiences Marek and Karolina have just described.

For sure, we'll return to you, and we will also ask our shareholders for assistance in obtaining acceptance of this program. Would you like to add anything on this topic?

Not.

We move to the next one. Congratulations on the spectacular results of Asseco Poland.

In the report, you mentioned integration of KSeF for medical companies and ABS companies. Was the first quarter 2026 the strongest quarter of this year as a consequence of involvement in those projects, and to what extent is it a good reference point for the upcoming periods?

That's a difficult question. Indeed, this quarter was spectacular, and it is a certain momentum.

The nature of momentum is such that at a certain point, it comes to an end. However, I do hope very much that the diversification that we have in the group help us to make sure that the things that happened in the first quarter and will not happen later, like recurring revenues, a large part of what we have in ABS is an operational one-off.

A different thing will occur in ABS as a result of KSeF, this invoicing system resulted in a new single product being built, which should generate recurring revenues. In brief, not everything is recurring.

We won't be able to repeat the things that we had in Q1, but a large portion of that is there. Health, this element of recovery program, which is a major growth factor, this was not very well visible in Q1 results.

Probably it will be more visible in Q2 results. Yet I wouldn't like to give you any forecast.

We do have ambitions here, but for sure, that will be a major challenge to get as spectacular results repeated.

Could you please share an idea what Asseco Poland considers as the realistic adjusted EBITDA margin target after implementing all TSS best practices?

We do not have such number. We do not have such target, and I think we do not intend to have one.

Our business is very diversified. Best practices of TSS are applicable, and they are interesting examples of how we can fundamentally or structurally improve the business, especially where we have product businesses.

Please remember, however, that a large portion of our business is project business, and here, of course, the best practices on how to cash receivables or how to organize work around professional services, for sure, that will come in handy. Nevertheless, we cannot say, keeping in mind how complicated this project mechanics is, how dependent it is on the market in which we operate, and so on and so forth, it would be irresponsible if I gave you any single number and said that this is what we are aiming at.

We are striving to improve quarter by quarter, and as of now, we are doing quite well, I think. There is a lot of inspiration coming from various sources, but let me reiterate: on the one hand, this inspiration comes, but on the other hand, we have our ambition to look at ourselves from a slightly new angle, and we want to improve the things that we believe is our expertise and a certain advantage.

If we look at the results of last year, what is seen very clearly is that the Asseco Group is able to very decently, last year that was 10% grow organically. On the one hand, we want to draw on those good practices, and we want to be inspired by them in the M&A process, but at the same time, we want to maintain our focus on organic growth.

Something that is our know-how is another area on which we want to focus. We intend to operate our way within our corporate culture in order to come up with ways of improving the results.

Another question. TSS current plan for excess cash flow that is not deployed by the year-end.

Specifically, would the company expect to return that cash to shareholders through the dividends or other capital returns, or retain it in the balance sheet for the future deployment? More broadly, how does TSS think about capital returns versus reinvestments when excess cash cannot be deployed within the current year?

I can say that honestly, I don't really understand the question. This question is about TSS.

Please remember that TSS is an important shareholder. It's a minority shareholder.

When we talk about the dividend in this company, basically, all shareholders make the decision about the level of dividend, but the proposals of paying out dividends are to be given by the management team. Voting on dividend proposals to a large extent is dependent upon how the largest shareholder is going to vote, and Adam Góral, along with TSS, is the largest shareholder.

That's how, in fact, the shareholders' agreement was construed. That's something that we've reported.

If somebody wants to understand the viewpoints of TSS about what we're going to do with cash, I would ask TSS. Please ask TSS directly.

If this is a question to us, then, of course, we will consider a variety of options. Liquidity position is relatively good or comfortable.

Once again, strategically speaking, we should think about how the Asseco Group should continue growing. We have always shared our results with the shareholders.

We have run a stable policy, and so we want to spend money on dividends. The first half, we've allocated to dividends in terms of the tranche that was paid out a few days ago, and we promised that the second half would be paid out in the form of a dividend, a subsequent dividend, and this is something we're going to stick to.

These are promises that were made to our shareholders, and we will fulfill those promises. When it comes to the rest of the cash, it's I think pretty evident that we're also thinking about growing, and some of these funds will be invested in organic growth, some of it will be invested in M&A activity, and some of it will certainly be paid out in the form of dividends.

We're trying to be very fair, very transparent in everything we do, but I would be grateful if some of the corporate prerogatives would be left to those entities and those persons who are entitled to exercise the prerogative.

Thank you very much for that. If we look at the backlog of Asseco Poland, it's growing faster than what you communicated in March.

If we think about the backlog growth with the project for hospitals, is this year's accumulation of projects, does that mean that 2027 in Asseco Poland could be softer because of having a high base effect, or some of the projects, could they last longer? What's your view on that?

It's very difficult for me to say when we'll hit the peak on this subject. I can reflect on individual businesses, and what I started to talk about, when I mentioned health care, it's actually the fact that the National Recovery Plan is a major contributing factor to growing income or top line, but this is not something that you can see in the results entirely.

I think it will be much more visible in Q2 or even Q3. In Q2, I know that's the case.

The backlog is quite strong. Please remember that the backlog that we report is the backlog for the specific year up until the end of 2026.

The backlog is construed having in mind the contracts from the public sector, but it's also padded because after four years of working hard, doing a lot of sales work, we've been able to sign a contract, let's say, in Africa, the contract in Togo, which is co-financed by the BGK, the National Development Bank. There's a little bit about in the press, so that backlog or the growth rate of backlog, we have certain contracts where we could say, well, this growth rate is being sustained.

We have another couple quarters in the public sector. We have a pipeline that's quite sizable, and there are other projects where we're going to make some attempts, we're going to strive to perform there.

If we look at the potential upside, well, you can never be calm about what's happening, but we're worried the least here today, and the strong backlog that we hold. I think something is a good harbinger for what this year could deliver.

More information about results, the more questions we have. Was Q1 results supported by nonrecurring events, settlements of a contract or contracts, or is it just a matter of reflection of the overall business environment?

Would this support the second hypothesis?

Generally speaking, the results are the results of operating activity. Of course, of the overall group, the entire segment, but if I were to respond to this question, generally speaking, yes, the fact that backlog looks the way it looks, there was no distinct one-offs.

If we were to come down to the individual specifics, I mentioned two contracts where they were building the result, or two topics, they're not contracts, but this is the government invoicing system. That's not something that will be a recurring factor because we built a product where we'll recognize the revenue all at once.

The effect of 8, 9 million złoty in terms of our revenue, that's a one-off, but that's something we have booked. The second topic is the contract where I said it's in the public sector, and the customer values that in an atypical fashion, that the revenue is spread out in such a way that the first two quarters the most strongly.

Those are two things or two topics which I could enumerate here which we could put into a basket of, let's say, less recurring. Generally, the responses as follows: there in our results, we don't have anything that would be fully typical of a one-off nature.

That doesn't alter the fact that when we speak generally about the results of Asseco Poland over the last two years, we've mentioned that there are certain legislative changes, and of course, the government invoicing system is a clear example of a legislative change. It's a booster, and that's why the results look the way it is.

This is the National Recovery Plan, changes of legislation, the inventory invoicing system, and then also what's happening in the energy sector, CSIRE. I could mention a large number of things here, but the logic would suggest that if we had these changes, that something else will show up in that industry as well, and then also in banking, and then in the public institutions sector.

As long as we're prepped to do or handle those legislative changes in our software, these things will continue to act as boosters for our results.

It's not only legislative changes I would add here to what Karolina said, but there are new budgets or new areas where investments are being made, like SAFE or bigger spending on the defense sector in Poland. This is another area where if more spending is going to take place in the IT sector, we'll be able to benefit from that.

The same is true of European budgets. Let me add, whether or not there's a positive impact by the National Recovery Plan only in this year, will it be visible also in 2027?

I think Karolina has more or less responded to that question. Real estate that you own, and it seems like many people work from home, the office space is not fully utilized.

Is there perhaps an opportunity to perform a sale and leaseback that would unlock some of the capital for shareholders while rental yields are low?

We do have a portion of the real estate which is own real estate in Poland, that's the office in Warsaw, the office in Rzeszów. We analyze a variety of options here.

Let me talk about the financing capabilities, no decision has been made to enter into a sale-leaseback transaction. I can say that in the Excel spreadsheet, this is not something that proves it would generate or be accretive.

That's more a matter of the function of the purpose that we have by doing that calculation. If we look at the operating expense and the financial cost of such an operation, today it does not seem to me that that would be a viable option, but that option always does exist.

Of course, we keep our finger on the pulse, and we make this type of calculations. The fact that people are working from home, that's, of course, true, but that doesn't alter the fact that our operating paradigm means that we want to build a company that for many, many years to come will deliver phenomenal results and will continue to develop.

In our opinion, the opinion of the Asseco Poland management team, people who are coming to work to offices, there are certain things that aren't measurable, but we're able to achieve them because people come to the office and work in the office. We are highly attached to this idea that this work that we do should be of a hybrid nature.

It's not something that's entirely self-evident that we should, let's say, dispatch or discard this space because this could be something that would be rather myopic or ephemeral in nature. The fact of the matter is that most of our people today come to office in a 3+2 model.

Naturally, we could say that, well, in theory, we could put together a model where the same desk would be occupied for three days by one person, two days by somebody else, or like a hot desk solution, but it seems to us that that would be counterproductive. We want to encourage people to work in the offices because having in mind today what's happening with AI, the fact that people are sitting together, there's greater creativity.

When they're sitting together, we're able to solve problems more quickly. This builds genuine value in the Asseco Group.

In terms of the tools that we have, if we have a programmer who's working totally remotely, and the attachment to the employer is rather limited, well, we don't want to bring people to a level of just being tools, because then, in fact, it's very easy to replace those people if you're thinking only about them as tools. This is not where we're building the value of the Asseco Group.

If we look at things on a point basis, I'm not saying that we don't calculate things. We do calculate things, and we do compute.

We do, of course, give consideration to various options, but it's very important not to lose from sight the overall picture. We're not talking about the results, we're not fighting for the results of Q2 or just the results in 2026.

We want for the Asseco Group to build value for the long term. The biggest value in this group come from the people who work for this group.

People who are working together, hand in hand, determine what this group is capable of doing. It seems to us that we need those buildings in the model that we have.

It's a great response, Karolina. The journalists added, why us?

Why do we have such success and there are other IT companies that aren't generating such great successes in Poland? I think this is what Karolina said a moment ago.

We have more than just the fact that we're hiring people. We're building value, and we're trying to care for our employees because this is our greatest asset.

The next question is about the revenue from the government invoicing system, whether that's a one-off. Karolina already addressed that question in her previous response.

Could you please share whether the revenue contribution from acquisition 45 on slide 12 is from those acquisitions made in Q1 2026 only or is the total revenue contribution from those acquisitions made over the period Q2 '25-Q1 '26? Many thanks.

Yes, as when we show acquisitions, these are the results of companies that weren't in the consolidated version of Q1 2025, they were purchased after 31 March 2025. You can see them in the results of Q1 2026, but we didn't see them on a comparable basis in the corresponding period.

The next question is basically the put option liabilities under the Formula Systems. It has grown over the course of a single quarter by nearly 100 million złoty from 439 to 530 million złoty.

Based on the text there, the valuation or the evaluation of that is based on the company's and certain factors. Does that mean that the operating results of these acquired companies has improved so greatly, or was there revision of forecast for the upcoming years?

This is a very specific question. In Formula, we have a large number of puts.

There's the purchasing model in the Asseco Group. In Asseco Poland, usually we sign contracts with put options, and they're usually on a symmetric basis, and with calls on the other side.

We have symmetric call and put options. Generally speaking, the increase that we've seen in Formula is, in part, a result of the fact that we have, in fact, changed the valuation, the underlying valuation.

When we put evaluation on a put option, we try to determine a multiple against the results, against the earnings. Are we saying that the results have improved?

Does that mean the annual liabilities? In part, that's true, and that's part of the reason why the growth has taken place.

To a large extent, this is a result of the fact that in 2025, an acquisition was made, and there was also a put option. Basically, we have new liabilities that have appeared as a result of new acquisitions.

That's that. There are also some other financial things in terms of reversal of discount rates, and this could also have an impact on the valuation to be paid out or not, dividends being paid, and something else that's also quite important is the fact that put options can be in different currencies.

We have to translate everything into Polish złoty. These payables can change also as a result of FX rates and gains and losses.

If somebody wants to have this broken down in great detail, that's something we could do, but I don't think we want to drill down into the details. You can ask this question through IR, and I'll try to give the response.

Congrats on the results. Given the significant cash balance and somewhat depressed valuation of software business, is there any plan to accelerate M&A operations in the coming quarters?

Marek.

As M&A activity is something that we've been doing for many, many years. We are not sitting on our laurels.

We're talking with new candidates, new companies. This is something that we want to continue.

The fact of the matter is that this market has changed a bit, and this is something that we've been talking about for several quarters, and I've conveyed this message to you. We have potential investors from across the world in terms of private equity, venture capital, international players who are pouring over in our markets.

We haven't seen that competition. We're talking about smaller countries in the Balkans or Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, where a few years ago, the market looked totally different from what it looks like today.

All this taken together means that we do, in fact, see prices which are unacceptable to us in terms of the expectations of the sellers. Of course, we don't want to do acquisitions at every expense.

We want to have a good return on our acquisitions. We want to have suitable returns for us and our shareholders, and this is something that we take great pains to achieve.

In Poland or in some of our markets, we have fewer number of acquisitions. Generally speaking, we continue to talk.

We are doing some scrutinies. We have some letters of intent signed in Poland.

This does not always mean that the transactions will transpire. Even though a letter of intent has been signed, sometimes we would retract from that for one reason or another.

Responding to the question, we, of course, want to continue this activity. We're looking for interesting companies, competences, and products that would fill out our picture, would contribute to us.

We're very selective because we want those valuations at a specific level.

The next question. Do you expect the coming quarters of 2026 to be similarly strong in terms of EBITDA and net profit expansion as Q1 2026?

Do you see 800 million PLN net profit attributable to parent company in financial year 2026 as within your reach?

I would put it this way: a simple multiplication of Q1 results by four is unlikely to get us to any number that we will actually deliver this year. As I have said, our ambitions are high.

Yet there are objective factors which do not allow me to say today that this quarter is going to be repeated in the following three quarters. We do not share our forecasts, we do not provide information on that.

If I were to say whether that is within our reach or not, I would say yes, it seems so. However, we cannot promise that.

For sure, there are ambitions. We budgeted less, that's something I can say, which does not change the fact that the situation we are facing today, after the efficiency improved in many areas, drives this optimism and increases our appetite.

However, not everything is under our control. Obviously, we cannot promise anything, yet we can say that our ambitions are high.

The last question, I think an interesting one. What was, in fact, underlying reason of the highest, historically speaking, EBITDA in Q1 for Asseco Poland?

Maybe I will help Karolina and Marek, and I will answer this. We have said so many things, you can guess what that was.

At the end of the day, that was the work of a huge number of our teams delivering various things with the situation in the market with increasing IT solutions in many segments, and also new products, like this governmental invoicing system or new major changes in the system. Our historical expertise lets us allows us to deliver those results.

On this note, I would like to thank you for such a big number of questions, and of course, we invite you to the following presentations of the first six months of the year results and then investor presentations. Thank you very much, the audience.

Thank you very much, Marek and Karolina.