Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this presentation of Castellum's Q4 report. From our side, it's myself, Christoffer Strömbäck, Acting CFO, and Pål Ahlsén, CEO.

There will be a Q&A session in the end of the webcast, and if you'd like to ask a question by phone, please dial pound key 5 on your telephone keypad and ask your question. Let's start.

Please go ahead, Pål.

Thank you, Christoffer, and thank you to all that are phoning in. I would like to start with saying that I've been here for almost 6 months, and I've got a very warm welcome from all of our staff, I'm very thankful for that, but also from shareholders that have reached out with questions, challenging questions, and also very good advice.

I hope that will continue going forward, because that's something that actually makes Castellum better being challenged by our shareholders. I really appreciate that.

The focus for us the past 6 months has been back to basics, sort of the new strategy of Castellum, and the focus is crystal clear. Our target is to deliver a 10% return on equity over the business cycle.

That's really been what we've been working on for the past 6 months. It's all about taking away waste, things that are not relevant, that are unnecessary.

It's all about leasing, decreasing our vacancy rate, increasing our occupancy rate, and it's about cost control, reducing our costs both in administration, but also in our operations. We have also gone through our portfolio to see which properties are winners that we can keep in the long term, and properties that are struggling a bit more, where we either have to change our business plan or we actually have to leave them to someone else who has other ideas or other visions for the future than we have.

That has been really the focus for the past 6 months, and we call that back to basics. One of the things we've done, which I mentioned, was decreasing costs.

Unfortunately, we were in a situation where we had a bit of a too big of a costume, which led to staff reduction, unfortunately, during the autumn, where 30 people had to leave Castellum. That costed us around 40 million Swedish crowns during the fourth quarter.

We believe, though, that the savings will be roughly the same amount going forward due to that action. One of the key things for us is having room to maneuver when it comes to the portfolio, freedom to change the portfolio.

Without that freedom or without that room to maneuver, it will practically be impossible for us to reach 10% return on equity. We had some writings or conditions in our bond agreements which we addressed in the end of last year.

It's called cessation of business, which sort of limited our room to maneuver. We asked the bondholders if we could change those terms and conditions.

The most of them agreed to that in December, but that also came in with a cost of roughly 30 million Swedish crowns, and that's also something that is in the report we are talking about today. Property values are down 2.5 billion last year and 1 billion in the fourth quarter.

The main reason for the value changes are change of expectations of future cash flow, which is mainly due to changes in long-term vacancy and rental prices or rental levels. In the fourth quarter, 1 billion Swedish crown in value changes, negative value changes, which is mainly Kista, half a billion.

Kista is a small proportion of our portfolio. It's well-known in Sweden, I would say, it's often written about it in the newspaper, and we have roughly 130,000 square meters in Kista, and it's around 2% of our portfolio, but it's struggling a bit with vacancy, and that's one of the challenges we have within our portfolio.

Finland, we have also changed sort of the expected long-term vacancy, which has led to a reduction in property value of roughly 200 million Swedish crowns. Net leasing for the year was negative 140 million Swedish crowns.

Most of The negative event was actually in the first quarter where net leasing was down 184 million Swedish crowns, and that was mainly two events. It was Boozt down in Malmö, and the bankruptcy of Northvolt.

Since then, the quarters 2, 3, and 4 has actually been positive, but not as positive as the negative events of the first quarter. Net leasing, 140 million negative.

Many people obviously ask if we can see a turnaround. We obviously hope so, but our focus is leasing, leasing, leasing.

Time will tell if there has been a turnaround or not. One of the things we've launched now actually in January is what we call Castellum Business School.

We believe that we need to raise the awareness within the company on how to understand the strategy, for example, but also to increase efficiency in the property management, in project management, and in leadership and things related to the Castellum business. We launched the Castellum Business School in January.

All staff will get relevant education given their occupation, but also 150 people have been selected to do the Castellum Business School MBA, including calculation, leadership training, and so on and so forth. We believe that that will be positive contribution to our aim to reach 10% return on equity.

My final point here in the intro is the fact that the board is proposing share buybacks instead of a dividend. That's in line with our new policy for capital distribution, and we think that is a wise thing to do today when the share price is where it is in relation to the net asset value.

We can actually go to the next slide and just give you background on Castellum. We are a listed company, obviously.

We have property value of roughly 137 billion, where most of it is in major cities in Sweden: Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö. We also have a strong presence in regional cities, growing cities like Örebro, Jönköping, and Västerås.

We have a portfolio also in Helsinki in Finland, roughly 6 billion Swedish, and 5 billion in Copenhagen. Then we have a pretty significant stake in a Norwegian company, office company, listed, where we have almost 38% of the shares.

5.3 million square meters, and a yearly contracted rent of 9.3 billion, and high sustainability focus. Christoffer?

Yes, thank you. Summarizing the full year 2025 and comparing it with the same period last year, it is negatively affected by mainly divestments and higher vacancies.

That is shown in sort of all of the results figures on this page. In addition to that, and as Pål mentioned, the negative value changes of the properties, 2.5 billion for the full year and 1.1 billion for the fourth quarter.

So -1.8% for the full year. This, all summarizing, gives an return on equity of 1.2%, which of course is much lower than our target of 10%.

Net leasing, Pål also mentioned, -140, a very negative one in the first quarter, and then the three quarters after that, positive ones, and in the fourth quarter, +26 million. Occupancy, fairly stable, 89.8%, roughly the same as last quarter.

We have during the year invested quite a lot, 4.4 billion, combination of investing in our properties, it's been most of it, and then in addition to that, we have also made some acquisitions during 2025. Pål mentioned a few one-offs, and we have a couple of one-offs in Q4 isolated, both positive ones and negative ones, and we will try to go through all of them during this call.

Looking at it in more detail, in the like-for-like portfolio, income increased by 26 million, that is 0.3%. Index contributed with 140 million, but it's then offset by higher vacancies of 190 million.

Then we have one of the first one-offs, which is 58 million in a one-off relating to a reversal of accrued annuity for the Northvolt. That's a difficult one.

We took the negative net leasing in Q1, but then now in Q4, we sort of concluded the final parts of the rental agreement with the bankruptcy estate, and then we had no cash effect, but an accrued one that we reversed during Q4. That was a positive 58 58 million in Q4.

Direct property costs, like-for-like, increased by 58 million, corresponding to 2.7%. We have a mild winter.

Now, we're talking Q4, not what we have seen after Q4, but in Q4, mild winter. The costs for heating and snow removal was actually decreased compared to last year.

Then that was offset by some higher rental losses, and we also during Q4 isolated took a couple of larger wasted projects or projects that we are not expecting to go through anymore. One-offs of that one recorded under maintenance in Q4.

Central administration and property administration, in total, increased by 54 million. Here, we have another one-off.

Pål mentioned it. Approximately 40 million of those 54 million is one-off relating to the staff reduction and head office reorganization.

We can go to next slide, please. Looking at leasing, renegotiations of 279 million, that is 11% of the total lease stock up for renegotiation.

Fairly the same rent as before, decrease of 0.1%, very flat. As I said, quite low volume of the total stock up for renegotiation.

The very large bulk of it, 62% or 1.6 billion, is actually just prolonged, prolonged at the same terms as before. That is something I think is very much worth mentioning.

Net leasing, we have been talking about already, and here you also have the figures in the graph up to the right showing that, as mentioned, the very big part of it was a negative one in Q1, and the very big part of that was the Northvolt bankruptcy. Then we have three positive quarters, not big figures, of course, but at least positive.

Property values, we have been through most of the figures already, actually. So 1.1 billion down in Q4.

Stockholm stands for 0.9 of that, and Finland, 0.2. As Pål mentioned, of the Stockholm 0.9 billion down, 0.5 billion is related to Kista.

Valuation yield, fairly flat, 1 bps up from last quarter, now at 5.64. Fairly stable as well.

I think we take the next slide then. Looking at the financial highlights and our funding situation, overall, the funding markets where we are present, i.e., the banking market, the SEK bond market, the eurobond market, as well as the hybrid market are all very favorable at the moment, I would say.

Very good market conditions, credit margins at good levels, and very much liquidity in all of the markets. Current spreads in the domestic or the SEK market is some 80 bps for 3-year money, some 110, 150 for 5-year money.

Banks offer us, typically, 5-year money, 110 to 130 bps, also at good levels, good volumes. I would say that most of them or maybe all of them would like to increase their positions.

That's very good. During Q4 isolated, we did not actually do that many funding actions.

We made one bond, 1 billion SEK, 122 bps, 5.25 years, bought back some bonds at the same time. Then, as Pål mentioned earlier, we made this consent solicitation.

Overall, we got the results that we were expecting, so that's good. Average interest rate, 3.1%, stable compared to last year, actually down a little bit since the year before, and we see potential for actually reducing this a little bit going forward.

Also on the financing side, we have a couple of one-offs. Together, they are approximately 50 million.

As Pål mentioned, 30 of them are connected to this consent solicitation, and then we have an additional approximately 20 for refinancing and early redemption, both coupled to loans and to bonds. Quite large one-offs in the financial items as well.

On this slide, we have our financial key ratios, very stable, I would say, small changes compared to last quarter. Loan-to-value, 36.5%, ICR, 3.2, good headroom to our policy.

We have LTV policy of 40%, ICR policy of 3 times, good headroom there. At the beginning of this year, S&P confirmed our BBB flat with stable outlook.

That's about what has happened on the ratings side. Debt maturities, still stable, 4.3 years.

We are quite happy with our funding situation and our key ratios, stability. Then, I hand over to you, Pål.

One of the things which we are very good at, I would say, within Castellum, and it's the reduction of energy consumption within our properties. Last year, we actually reduced the energy consumption in our portfolio with almost 7 7%.

That's one of the things I really like about Castellum is this key focus on reducing costs for energy, but then also from a sustainability perspective, that's something to be very proud of. 58% of our portfolio is sustainability certified, and we actually have 24% of our electricity self-generated.

High level of sustainability within Castellum, something to be proud of.

Super. If you'd like to ask a question by phone, please dial pound key 5 on your telephone keypad and ask your question.

The first question comes from Jan Ihrfelt at Kepler.

Okay. Good morning.

Thanks for taking my questions. I actually have four of them.

I start with the sentiment on the rental market, office market. Have you seen any change in Q1 compared to Q4?

Reluctant to speculate, and it's very early actually in the quarter to say anything about that. When I speak with the staff in the offices, I can say they still say that it's a challenging market.

Our only focus is to do whatever we can to reduce vacancy.

Okay. Next question, you had a net letting figure for the full year of -140 million.

I'm just a little bit asking about the overhang into 2026. How much of this 140 million has already hit the P&L?

We actually don't have a specific figure on that one. Typically, there is a lag, as you know.

In this case, it's very much so. We've got a big portion, as in Q1 was the Northvolt, and they have actually paid rent for the full year 2025.

Not all of the volume, but quite a lot of it. That is coming in with full effect 2026.

We don't have a

specific

figure.

No. No, exactly.

Okay. Bringing down vacancy, it's now around 10%.

I'm just looking at some kind of time frame here. At what point in time would you get down to 5%?

Have you any time frame there?

That's an impossible question to answer, and we are not doing that type of forecast. As I think I mentioned that in the Q3 report, that we know that it will probably be a bit worse before it becomes better in relating to previous question.

We're not making any forecast when it comes to vacancy ratios.

Okay. My last question regards the one-off, the 40 million, and where is it recorded?

Is it all in central administration or is it split to some other lines?

It's split between central administration and property administration.

The ratio there between them?

I don't have that ratio, actually. I can come back on that.

Okay. Thanks for taking my questions.

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

Thank you, and good morning. Part of your back to basics strategy is to, I quote, "divest non-core assets."

Far, since you assumed the role as CEO, Pål, you haven't done that much. I think there was some 300 million completed in Q4, and you announced through a press release an additional 500 million, which, in the context of a portfolio of 137 billion, is not that much.

Then you also mentioned that you made some changes to your bond terms in the fourth quarter. My first question is, is there anything now holding you back from finding significant divestments?

No, I wouldn't say so. The transaction market is quite vivid, I would say.

Christoffer mentioned that the market for lending money is very favorable right now, it's a huge interest actually in making transactions in the property world. We see we have lots of discussion, people reaching out to find a deal.

Nowadays, if I may reminiscent of how it was 30 years ago, transactions went much faster than they do today. The due diligence phase in making transactions are so much more due diligent, to say.

Even if I wish that we had a higher pace, that's not how the business works nowadays. I can assure you that we are doing everything by hand to reach this target of a high transaction

pace. My second and final question is, what is a non-core asset in your portfolio?

To be quite honest, I've never ever used the word "core" or "non-core," so I never said that. Our core assets are the ones we have, I would say.

Some of them are perhaps giving a too low rate of return given our expectations of the future. Our core assets are actually commercial real estate in Sweden.

It might be hotels, it might be offices, it might be logistics or light warehouses, and so on and so forth. I never actually used the words "core" or "non-core."

We are more, let's say, looking at what we believe that they can give us in return going forward. Those who are helping us in reaching our target, that's our core assets.

That's not office, that's not that, that's not this. That's how we're thinking about that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lars. Next question from Nadir at UBS.

Hi, good morning. Can you hear me clearly?

Yes. Yes.

Wonderful. Thank you both for taking my questions.

I've got a few, and I'll ask them one by one, if that's okay. Firstly, you're saying on your capital distribution, you are now allocating your full distribution to buybacks rather than dividends.

I think, Pål, you mentioned, quote, unquote, "simple mathematics" in your presentation. If there is a simple way to split it, then is your thinking that if you're trading at a discount, you then do buybacks, and if you're trading at a premium or closer to NAV, you're doing dividends, or is there a more nuanced way that you're looking at the distribution policy going forward?

It isn't really that simple?

I would say it's really that simple, even if you can make it a bit more complicated. Now the discount is quite big, right?

It's 32%, 33%, and then you don't have to think about it that much. Once, and hopefully when that gap closes, we have to have a deeper discussion when it's time to switch to dividend from share buyback.

Got it, okay. A quick follow-up to that as well.

What is your exact execution plan on the buybacks through the year? I know it's 1.2 billion kronor.

It isn't a small proportion of your market cap, how do you propose you perform the buybacks this year?

Our thinking is that we should wait until after the AGM. We think that we should adopt the financial results for 2025, i.e., the part of that results that we are distributing to our shareholders.

We will wait until AGM, and we will come back with details after that.

Got it, very clear. Thank you.

My second question is, I won't be using the word "core" and "non-core," as Pål mentioned, but looking at some pain points in the portfolio, such as Kista and Finland, where you've taken more substantial write-downs in values and also they have elevated vacancies, what is your thinking on these regions and generally your focus on trying to become more Sweden-centric? I think that's something you mentioned in your Q3 report.

More Sweden-centric, I wouldn't write that. I would say continue, we are already Swedish-centric, so that is not a change, I would say.

Kista, it's a small proportion of our portfolio. It's very well-known in Sweden.

That's why we highlighted it. It's struggling.

It has been struggling for a long time. We are piquing our brains finding a way to reduce vacancy and make a turnaround in Kista, and I would be quite honest to say that that's not an easy nut to crack, but we are really working on that.

Vacancy, 22% in our portfolio, probably in Kista, perhaps more than 30%. It's a challenging market, but, again, small proportion of our portfolio.

Again, we are really piquing our brains trying to figure out how to make a turnaround, at least for our properties in Kista. Finland, yeah, it's also a challenging market, just as it has been in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö, and Copenhagen, and to some extent also in Oslo.

Again, we are also trying there to find ways to reduce vacancy and keeping rent levels stable just as we do for Kista.

That's very clear. Thank you.

My third question is then moving to a different part of the Nordic region, Entra, and your stake there. I think you mentioned that it's a fairly attractive market in Norway at the moment, despite the swap rates being slightly higher, inflation is more elevated relative to, let's say, Sweden and Finland.

What are you thinking on the Entra stake going into this year? I know there was an increase in the stake in Q1 last year, are there any thoughts on this?

I really like Entra. Entra is a great company.

I think Castellum can probably learn quite a bit from Entra, I appreciate the cooperation we have with Entra. Obviously, it's not an optimum situation, I think, where we have the stake we have.

Balder has its stake it has. It's a low free float for other shareholders.

Perhaps it's not the best long-term solution. Don't have any answers to the long-term solution today, not at all, but what one should say is that Entra is performing quite well, it's not hurting us in any way having that stake in Entra, because it's a good company.

They have a nice portfolio, nice management, and so it's not something that is dragging us down, not at all, on the contrary, actually.

Very clear. My final question is on your recent leasing of the Infinity building in Hagastaden.

I know there's been some talk in the press of who the tenant may be, but could you provide some more details potentially on the yields, the rent levels, and more generally the discussions you've been having on lettings? Are they with larger tenants and public companies, or are they increasingly with smaller companies and potentially SMEs?

Actually, we cannot elaborate at all. We've sent out the information we can send out, and that's been a request from the tenant.

We will disclose more when they have either used or not used the option to reduce the number of square meters they will have, and then we will provide you with more information. Obviously, we're very happy that Ericsson has selected our building Infinity.

It will be a great building, and I think Ericsson will have a nice time sitting there in Hagastaden in our building.

Very clear. Just to follow up on the size of maybe the tenants that you're speaking to more generally in the market for lettings, are they larger tenants and companies, or do you think the general size of those companies and is there more skew to SMEs?

Our portfolio is a broad palette of very different type of buildings. We just don't have office, we have other type of buildings as well.

We have everything from very small tenants making components to whatever, industrial, and we have office, small offices and big offices. We are speaking to a very broad palette of Swedish businesses.

That's very clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Next question, Édouard from Deutsche Bank.

Good morning both. Basically, I had two questions.

The first one is on the consent solicitation process for your bonds. As you mentioned, you got approval from majority of your bondholders.

However, there is still one particular bond, the '29s, which actually has even more constraining language compared to the other ones, which hasn't received consent. Hence, I was wondering what you intend to do with this particular bond, because I guess 2026 in any case is due in the very short term.

I'm totally agree. When we say that we have better flexibility now is of course that the volume outstanding that is having this language is much lower, and should we in the future sometime have transactions on the table, then we will manage that at that point in time.

You may at some point revisit the consent vis-à-vis this bond when you sell an asset? Exactly.

We will have a look at that at that point in time. Thank you.

My second question is about the hybrid. I was wondering what and when you intend to do regarding the non-call '26?

We're very happy with our hybrid. It's, as running with the 3.125% coupon, which is, of course, very good level, we are happy about that.

We like the instrument. We like the levels we have today, and do not want to speculate about future actions regarding the hybrid.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next question, Pranava from Barclays.

Thank you for taking my question. I have a couple of follow-ups on what you just said regarding the consent solicitation.

With the '26 and the '29s together, that's roughly 30% of all your bonds outstanding. Clearly that is not giving you the amount of flexibility that you suggested.

If I could ask, what was driving the timing of the consent solicitation that you did last year if you had not lined up any specific action immediately? The second question, regarding your hybrid, the hybrid language, of course, doesn't have the same kind of constraints, but I was wondering if there's anything that would potentially require a consent solicitation as well.

To answer the first question, back to the transaction market, it's also that transactions take time, going into transactions, it's very helpful with better visibility of our situation. That is probably the answer to the first question.

Now we think that we have that flexibility. The results were pretty spot on what we were expecting, we're happy about that.

The '26, that's very close. It's coming up now in September, I think it is.

Thank you. Regarding the hybrid?

Sorry, I didn't get the question there. Regarding the hybrids, is there any language in there that would accelerate or impede your change in portfolio?

No, no language in the hybrid, what I'm aware, no. Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next question from John at Kempen.

Hi, good morning. Just on the net letting, are you seeing any differences between geographies and asset classes in terms of terminations, as well as leasing?

I think in general, what one can say is that the market that has been struggling in the downturn that we have been experienced is, first of all, office and in major cities, in bigger cities. Then we have had a softer downturn in regional cities, where it has perhaps not been a downturn.

Offices in major cities like Stockholm and Gothenburg and Malmö, and Copenhagen and Helsinki is struggling a bit more than we can see in regional cities.

The positive turn in Q3 and Q4, is that skewed to any specific asset class or geography?

Could you repeat the question?

That net letting turning positive in Q3 and Q4, is that driven by any specific region or a specific asset class?

No.

Clear. You mentioned that you're looking into improving the occupancy in more challenging markets.

What ways are you seeing in your first look into that? Can it be easily solved with, say, CapEx or does it even make sense to invest CapEx into these more structurally challenging buildings?

I think it's very difficult to answer generally what to do. It has to be case by case.

In some cases, it makes sense to upgrade the unit and adapt it to the wishes of the tenant. In other cases, it might be given a discount.

In other cases, it's just answering faster than we've done historically. It's very different and you have to look it on a case-by-case.

What we've said is that we have to be more flexible, we have to be faster, and we have to really listen in to what the clients are wishing for, so that we can grab the clients that are out there before our competitors grab them.

Just maybe to ask it differently, do you see the CapEx spend in, say, '26, '27 to be higher than '24, '25?

Reluctant to speculate, but I would say it's probably would be around the same level as this year.

That's clear. Thank you.

Hi, guys. Thanks for the presentation.

I've got three questions. Two are linked, I'll ask those together.

You obviously mentioned you focused on leasing, leasing, leasing. I just wondered what your view is on sort of rental value per square meter, i.e., are you focused purely on reducing vacancy, in which case you'll allow rent concessions, lower rents to come through, or are you focused on rent per square meter, in which case you'll happily have a higher vacancy holding out for that higher rent, just to get a sense there?

Then linked to that, can you give us some color on where your current portfolio rental income sits versus market rent? If all your tenants left and you re-let all of your assets today, would that be at a higher or lower rent than you've currently got in the portfolio, assuming that there were tenants available for that?

I've got another question which I'll ask in a second. Thanks.

Very good questions. If I may answer the second one first, it's a difficult one, but I appreciate the question, and it has to be booked a bit on the speculation side from my side.

I would say that we probably would reach roughly the same level as we have today. If our tenant left, we would have some premises that would be rented on a high level, some on a lower level, but on average roughly about where we are today.

The first one, could you repeat that one?

It's just looking and thinking how you think about leasing, which is obviously the focus. Is it just reducing vacancy and therefore you get rent concessions, or is it we're focused on the rental level, in which case we'll live with higher vacancy?

It's completely dependent on actually the market and sort of the demand in the market. In some markets, you really have to give concessions, lower the rent to get a tenant.

It's better to have cash flow and not having cash flow. In other market, it's better to wait, because there we know that there's demand there, and we write a lease contract over 5 or 7 years, and we don't want to lock in a too low rent level, obviously.

Again, boring answer, I understand that, but it's really on case-by-case depending actually on the particular building we are looking at, not dependent on the particular market or asset class, it's really on case-by-case. That's one of the things we've really been talking about here since back to basics, that we really need to have smart thinking about every premises we have within the portfolio.

It's similar to what we're seeing in other markets. As you say, it's very asset-specific, not necessarily market or submarket-specific.

Just the final one, you mentioned Entra's not hurting, but just looking at their reporting, vacancy's been increasing and its earnings yield is much lower than your earnings yield. You could argue that capital would be better spent selling Entra and basically buying back your shares, you announced obviously the share buyback today.

I just wondered how you think about that, and where the comment around Entra's not hurting us, it's benefiting us, when actually if you look at the numbers, you could argue the opposite, that it would be better to rotate that capital elsewhere. Thanks.

I would agree to some extent to what you're saying, that we could probably, if we had the cash, use it wisely as well, not just having it in Entra. Entra is also in a market where demand has fallen a bit compared to as it was before, but not as much, perhaps, as in Stockholm or Copenhagen.

I was tilting more towards that when I said that Entra is not hurting us at least.

The underlying market is a bit better position than some of your other markets, is that fair?

I would say so, yes. Yes.

Okay. Perfect.

Thank you very much.

Yep.

Good morning. You mentioned some one-off costs associated with canceling projects.

Would you possibly be able to let me know if the number of projects canceled was higher than usual, maybe what the nature of these projects was, how much CapEx was associated with this, and then maybe how or why you made the decision to cancel these projects?

That was early stage one-offs. That is, of course, something that we are always doing, sort of going through actually every quarter, but then, of course, sometimes you put it more on a spot, not any specific areas or so more business as usual, but a little bit higher than usual.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Morning.

I have two follow-ups on the transaction market comment you made earlier, Pål, where you alluded to a relatively strong market on the sort of back of cheap financing. The first one is, are you able to call out any specific segments in your current portfolio which might be up for sale and where you believe interest would be high in the market?

Secondly, looking at the transaction market and the interest and your decision to do share buybacks today, do you believe it is possible to find sort of acquisitions of decent volume or size in the direct market which are more attractive than your own share at this moment? Thanks.

Thank you. I think the transaction market, as I said, it's driven now by a lot of funding being available to low spreads, so that's the main driver.

Also, I think there's been a couple of years where companies has not done that many transaction, and that's also driven up demand a bit. They see potential now for restructuring their portfolios.

If there are any specific parts of our portfolio which has extra interest from potential buyers, no, I can't really say that at this stage, actually. No, we have lots of discussions with people, and it's a broad palette of different types of discussions, I would say.

Now, I have to ask you to repeat the other questions.

Yes, sure. The second one is on the back of your decision to do share buybacks and the current discount to NAV and the transaction market today, do you believe it is possible to find acquisitions in the direct market which are more attractive than your own share?

Possible, but difficult.

Now that's good enough. Thank you.

Thank you.