Morning, everyone, and welcome to this conf call for Balder's Q4 and full year results 2025. With me in the room, I have Erik Selin, CEO, and Ewa Wassberg, CFO.

We will run through some slides, as usual, and then open up for questions.

Hi, Erik Selin here. If we look at Balder at a glance by year end, we have a portfolio value of 229 billion, and the composition is 54% resi and 46% commercial.

Occupancy rate at 95%. We have good liquidity, 24 billion.

Debt to assets, 48.1%, and the NAV is 94 in this quarter. Looking at the Q4 numbers specifically, we have rental income and NOI up 4%, and it's important to bear in mind that this is in Swedish krona that has been pretty strong lately.

Profit from property management in earnings capacity goes down 7%, and that is connected or explained by our proposed distribution of Norion share as a dividend to the shareholders. Also important to just bear in mind that if we look at year-end figures, the dividend is roughly 5.25 per Balder share, but NAV will decrease 4 kronor per share.

Like-for-like rental growth is in the positive territory of 2.7%. Here we have the earnings capacity then updated in more detail, and there you can see Norion effect is on profit from associated companies that goes down, but that is totally explained by the Norion distribution that we will most likely do after the AGM.

Now it's in the balance sheet booked as another asset that will be distributed, and that's why it will not be included in earnings from this year. With that, we end up with 6 billion and 5.06 per share ex Norion.

The portfolio is 80% in larger city and capital, as always, and we have the usual one: Helsinki, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Copenhagen. You can see the split also: residential 54%, as I mentioned, and then you have office 15%, retail 12%, and logistics 7%.

The longer-term trend is that we have been having quite a good increase over the long time period in profit from property management. This curve is only 10 years, but if we look back another 11 years, we have a long, good trend.

The latest year's been sort of flattish, and that is, of course, interest rates moving from zero and upwards. In our case, we more or less compensated with higher income, and we also had a lot of fixed interest rates, the effect came gradually.

Then having said that, if interest rates are flat, then the long-term trend will be that this curve will start to go upwards again. Here you can also see development for property value and LTV and occupancy.

LTV 48.1%, and occupancy now is 95%. It's almost always 96%, but ever now and then it happens with 95%, and this is whole percentage point, behind that is actually some tenths that move up or down, and then we round it up to a percent.

We think this is a okay result, and thanks to our organization for achieving this stable development year after year after year after year.

Looking at the financing, the current mix of funding is largely where we want to be, which is 50/50 split between bank and bond financing. The level of available liquidity is in line with last quarter, which is a little bit higher than usual, and we will also continue to have slightly higher liquidity during '26 due to higher concentration of maturities in the beginning of '27.

The interest rate fixing and hedging ratio is stable, and the average interest rate is unchanged since last quarter at 2.9%. Yes, here you can see the long-term trend of the portfolio value in relation to the net debt to total assets.

As you can see here, net debt to total assets continue to go down a little bit, and the current encumbrance level is at 23.4%, which also is reasonable expectation for the future given our funding mix that is somewhere between 20% and 25%. Over to the maturity structure.

If we start with the bank loans, the maturity structure is a result of the Swedish bank financing is typically quite short, even though we have bank financing in other countries as well. On the bank side, it has been business as usual, rolling maturities.

If you look at the bond side, we have more maturities in '27, which is the reason for the higher liquidity position. The funding market is very strong, and in such a situation, we might maintain a slightly higher level of liquidity as the cost of the additional liquidity is small relative to the security it provides.

Here is more sort of a structural overview of the funding and capital side. As we have said before, we will continue to have a balanced capital allocation until reaching our target of 11 times net debt to EBITDA, even if the distribution of the Norion shares as a dividend will temporarily work in the opposite direction.

Here is also an updated calculation on the convertible bond, which, when that is converting, assuming that we are above strike price, obviously will have very positive effect on the indebtedness number as well. In terms of funding strategy, there is really no change compared to previous quarters.

That was actually all from us, and on that note, I will leave the floor and open up for questions.

Thank you. A couple of questions from me, starting on Norion there.

Just a little bit curious on the technique on that one. Earlier distributions we've seen, just before the distribution, there is a adjustment of the value to market value.

Like in PEAB, there was a write-up made when Annehem was distributed. Two questions in one here.

I guess the valuation right now after the drop here is similar to what you have in the books on group level. Will you have such an adjustment of value before distributing, or are you going to net it out somehow?

That's the first question. The second question is, when you say distributing 5.50 and the NAV drop is 4, is that based on the year-end valuations, or is that based on today's valuation?

There won't be any sort of value change before the distribution. The distribution is sort of separated as of the year end, and now it's booked as a asset that will be available for distribution, and the NAV will be adjusted sort of accordingly.

There's not going to be any value increase or realization gain booked through the P&L. The numbers are per year end.

Thank you. Perfect.

Then, secondly, D shares. A little bit curious if you could maybe mention a little bit about why are you thinking about issuing D shares?

Is this something you need for the Norion distribution, or has that anything to do with hybrid, or is there anything else?

No, we don't need it for Norion nor hybrid. It's just to have optionality going forward.

It's a practical way to be able to do it, and then we add that when we have the AGM instead of, potentially, if we need it later, have an EGM.

Good. Then I'm a little bit curious about your thinking about repurchasing of shares.

With the NAV growth and the stock flat, the discount is increasing even further. Seen that you made some acquisitions, and I guess you have to evaluate the capital allocation on that.

Right now, do you see actually any good options or alternatives to the Balder share, actually?

Difficult to tell beforehand, but I think we can do both as we said last quarter. It's possible that we buy some shares and do some investments at the same time.

The split between those is a bit depending on share price and what possibilities comes around.

Yeah. On the co-ops, the apartments business there, with the loss that came through and has come through through the year, what is your thinking there?

Have you started to discount stuff, or is it more a volume issue that makes those unprofitable?

No, we have running costs, and we took over some apartments in Karlatornet that was slightly negative when we sold them, it's highly likely that that figure turned positive this year.

Okay. Good.

Then, I guess, I won't get an answer, but I'll ask anyhow. I hear what you're saying with the liquidity that you've had now for a while on a relatively high level versus history, and even though you say it's cheap, but it's still costing you a little bit.

Is that something that you use to have some maneuvering room to do some bigger transactions, or is it purely just to wait to pay out in '27? No,

the majority of it is because we have a lot of maturities in Q1 '27. We have two euro benchmark bonds maturing in the same quarter.

That in itself will lead to a liquidity position that is sort of 5, 6 billion higher than usual up until that we've had those maturities. Then I think you also have to look at how the pricing in the funding market is from time to time.

If you see attractive pricing, if you have a lot of incoming interest from investors, you might issue a little bit more, or you do it a quarter or two before you had planned. If you issue a bond one or two quarters ahead of schedule, and you can do that at attractive pricing, that might still make sense even if you actually carry a little bit higher liquidity cost.

We're trying to optimize and think sort of 24 months ahead in terms of maturities, liquidity needs, and how the market is currently, and what we see on the horizon. We try to optimize it from there.

Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Good morning.

A couple of questions from my side. I start off with rental agreements on your resi here in Sweden.

How have that developed? Are you able to give any guidance on maybe a possible range where it could land?

Most of them are finalized. We landed at slightly below 3.5%, 3.2%, 3.3%, I think, on the...

Okay. Okay.

My second question relates to Finland. Has been a quite heavy oversupply in the market there for some years.

Now we see some early signs on maybe lower vacancies, but could you put a little bit more flavor on that market just in terms of vacancies and rents?

I think there's no change to our sort of outlook for the medium term. There's been quite a drop-off in new supply de facto coming to the market.

With that, we know that occupancy should go up steadily, and at some point, there will be an increased sort of pricing tension in the market as well. It's very difficult to time this, I think, on a quarterly basis.

What we've seen in the later part of 2025 is that it actually has slightly less impact on the occupancy compared to what we had expected. That might also be temporary issues in terms of how migration flows move.

The official statistics in terms of people moving into the urban areas is still very strong, actually. We feel that the picture is very similar to what we've said all along, but it's difficult to time it from a quarterly perspective.

If you think about the big picture, we've had in the last 7 or 8 years hardly any rent increases. At the same time, disposable incomes are up by 25% plus percent.

There's no issue with affordability. We know that new supply is falling off a cliff, and we see that in some of the cities where that has already happened, you see pretty quick recoveries in occupancy, actually.

At the same time, you have an sort of unabated movement of people to the urban areas. From a pure mathematical standpoint, something new needs to happen for this not to mean a recovery in the coming couple of years is our view.

Then let's see when and how and in which order things happen.

Okay. If I separate you're right, that the lower vacancies hasn't impact the rent levels to any extent, or...

No, there's always some seasonality in the Finnish market, we can't see any sort of trend shift yet. That's a little bit too early, I think.

Okay. My last question regards your key ratio net debt to EBITDA, which is currently at 12.

You have a target of 11. My question is really how eager are you to bring it down to 11 for 2026?

No,

we've said that's a long-term target, and obviously the Norion distribution will deteriorate that number slightly, it will set us back a little bit. I think we've said for a few quarters now that we care more about the direction than the pace of change in the current market conditions.

We also know that we have in 2028 the convertible presumably converting into shares, which will obviously support that number slightly as well. I think you should see it as a directional statement and in terms of where we want to end up, but it's not a 2026 target.

Okay. Thanks very much for taking my questions.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

On the Class D shares, hypothetically, if you were to issue those today, what would you do with the proceeds?

There're no such plans, I think it becomes very speculative. We haven't sort of made this disclosure because we have any plans of doing a new issue of D shares.

We want to get it into the docs so that we have the opportunity and possibility to do so. There're no plans currently at all, you shouldn't see this as a preparation for raising more capital.

That's clear. Then, given that you are looking into this flexibility, how do you think about different distributions on Class A and B shares?

We have had a capital allocation that has been very flexible for a very long time, and I think that we will be eager to remain flexible on that. If we, hypothetically speaking, should have D shares outstanding, we obviously need to change the dividend policy to accommodate that.

I wouldn't expect that you shouldn't draw the conclusion that that also means that we will become a regular dividend distributor on the B shares. We will pretty much, in that case, do what is required to cover the coupon or the dividend for the D shares, and then the rest will be capital allocation decision as per usual, where we really will always prioritize investing in the business and/or doing share buybacks as a means of employing capital than if we sort of really find no attractive ways of employing capital in an accretive way, then obviously, at some point, the distribution of a dividend becomes the remaining choice.

That principle will still stand in regards to the B shares. Then there might always be a little very small dividend because from a rounding error perspective, because you can't pay exactly the amount to cover the D shares only, but it's not going to be any material numbers as a default.

That's very clear. Thank you.

Thanks.

Good morning. A couple of questions on the earnings capacity.

Now focusing on the profit from property management line, 6 billion, it was 6.6 in the Q3 report, and obviously you're now excluding Norion. What would the number have been in the Q3 report excluding Norion?

We see the change in the associated company line, some 700 lower. Would that have been 5.9?

Is that the way to interpret it?

I don't actually have the exact numbers we had in the model. Given that we give rounded numbers to equal, or sort of to rounded hundred million SEK, I don't want to say which side of that we would end up if we hadn't had Norion in Q3.

Mind you also there's quite a lot of FX movement that has taken place in the last couple of quarters, and that's obviously impacted the total profit from property management side as well. I think that that's worth keeping in mind.

You've had some weakening, especially year over year, you've had some pretty noticeable weakening of the NOK, which impact the associated line in terms of Entra, and then you also have obviously the strengthening vis-a-vis the euro, which will impact everything we have in Denmark and Finland. That's part of the development that you need to factor in as well.

I think if you just look at the way things are accounted for, Norion is accounted for as a proportion of their net profit, it's pretty easy to calculate the precise contribution from Norion for last year as well.

Okay. Second question on the earnings capacity: What type of impact and to what extent have CPI indexation on the commercial side from the 1st of January, and for that matter, new rents in, particularly in the Swedish resi portfolio, how much has that affected rental income in the earnings capacity since it's unchanged compared to Q3?

We always factor in all negotiations for Swedish housing and all the indexations that we know of when we cross the year end, that has been factored in. I would say the unchanged part is more of a FX movement.

It's currency who lower down the number, actually. In constant currency, it would have been higher, of course.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Morning.

Morning, all. I just have one follow-up on the occupancy rate, specifically for the industrial and logistic segment.

It looks to be down 3 percentage points Q-on-Q. In the same time, rental income is up.

I'm trying to sort of understand the sequential move. Is it Balder acquiring vacant properties in this segment, or is there something else happening here between Q3 and Q4?

Thanks.

I actually need to dig into that number a little bit further. I don't quite recognize it.

I know that we've done some acquisitions that has impacted the number, as you say. I can't say whether that is the full explanation.

Can I get back to you, Fredrik, on that?

Yes, absolutely. Yes.

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. You mentioned that Norion Bank is no longer included in the profits, it's not in the P&L numbers.

Does it mean that it's also not in EBITDA, and hence the net debt to EBITDA 12x leverage is already excluding Norion? If upon distribution, it shouldn't change on that basis?

No, sorry for being unclear there. It is included in the reported numbers for Q4 and the full year of 2025.

In our report, we have something called the earnings capacity, which is more of a snapshot as of the 31st of December, it's a proxy for annualized earnings given the portfolio we have at the 31st of December. In there, we have excluded Norion.

If you want to look at that as some kind of forward-looking earnings capacity, there Norion is already excluded. The 12 times net debt to EBITDA still includes Norion shares, so that will be impacted by 0.8, 0.9, something like that, negatively.

Thank you. You're doing your share buyback presumably, but also you talk about the convertible in 2028.

Would you say that taken together, the impact on leverage should be broadly neutral?

I think the major impacting factors between now and if you take a 2-, 3-year perspective, is obviously that we have an underlying growth in our earnings in EBITDA. We have a cash flow annually that improves the balance sheet position as well.

I think those are sort of probably more impacting in that time horizon compared to the buybacks that we've done so far at least, and compared to the conversion of the convertible. The convertible would be corresponding to roughly one year's free cash flow for the company.

It more depends on how we sort of steer the balance sheet from here in terms of growth opportunities and potential buybacks, depending on where we find the most value, really.

Sure, that makes sense. Then just one final thing from me.

There's a small amount left on your hybrid, who has a first call in 2026. I was wondering, is that included in your bond maturities as 2026?

No, so that's recorded at the formal maturity, which is longer. We currently have a sort of couple of billion SEK, 2, 3 billion SEK outstanding remaining of that, but it's not recorded in the '26 maturities.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Hi, good morning. A couple of questions from my side.

Firstly, just maybe on Finland residential, I was just wondering what are the sort of implications you're seeing in the market from the housing allowance rolling off and then sort of stricter rules also on permanent residency coming in in January? Is that sort of impactful for the rental market, as you see it?

It's difficult to know exactly what is doing exactly what. It should have some effect, but for us, it's impossible to quantify it.

It happens, from now on, it is there.

Right. Then I guess the housing allowances, they already were coming off, is there I guess some sort of a demand impact you're seeing maybe on smaller apartments, because I guess students would have used them quite a lot as well in the past?

Most likely, but it's impossible to know exactly, right? Most likely, that have been the effect, most likely.

It must have some effect if you take away subsidies, but for us, it's impossible to quantify it, but could explain some of the weakness, absolutely.

There is a tendency in 2025 that the population growth does not fully correspond to the occupancy increase. There's a slight dispersion between the two.

That suggests that there on average should be slightly higher number of people living in each apartment compared to the previous year. That might be one such impact.

I think the important thing from our perspective when we both set to run the business and when we think about it strategically is that, as I said before, you've had a number of years with too high supply into the market. There's one of the best affordability situations that we've ever seen, and we all know that the Finnish economy has been pretty weak in the last few years, but it doesn't take away the fact that there is a large need for housing in the urban areas.

We have that available. We feel pretty good about the sort of medium-term perspective in that sense.

Then you might always have some of these more technical factors impacting the quarterly developments from time to time, but I wouldn't say it changes our view on a couple of years horizon.

Understood. Then maybe on Denmark residential as well.

I guess there was quite a lot of noise in Copenhagen with municipal elections around rent controls and things of that nature, but I guess what are your views around that in the sense that could this become sort of a national debate and could it be the case that buildings built after 1992 could become sort of strictly regulated as well?

I think there's already a regulation in place in Denmark, which basically stipulates that when you first move into an apartment and there's a market rent setting, from thereon, the property owner can only index by CPI. That's a pretty sort of fair model that is transparent and easy to sort of understand for all parties, definitely protects the tenant, and in some cases, you obviously have buildings where tenants have been staying for a very long time.

Let's see what happens. It's impossible, I think, for us to speculate on potential regulatory changes.

There's even been discussions by some of the political parties in Sweden to adopt the Danish model into the Swedish system, because it is pretty balanced between having on one hand a market economy, at the same time protecting tenants. Let's see.

I don't have any sort of great insights into what might happen to the Danish regulation.

Got it. Then final question just on capital allocation.

I just wonder where do you see sort of best opportunities right now, if you look across sort of your own portfolio, where would you like to add exposure, also being cognizant of what's available on the market? I guess adjacent to that for hotels, you have some exposure and there's this large portfolio from Pandox on the market.

Is that something of interest perhaps?

I don't think we will be buying from Pandox if I'm guessing. I don't think so.

Otherwise, we're very happy with the hotels, and it's been a good year in especially Copenhagen, if you look at RevPAR and occupancy and stuff. Otherwise, we do as always: We look at basically in the Nordic market and try to see what makes sense to add to the portfolio to increase the shareholder value over time.

We don't decide before what's good or bad, it's all about pricing.

Got it. Thank you.

Hi, guys. Good morning, and thanks for taking my question.

Just a follow-up on my last question on the hybrid. Just taking your latest thinking, are you still thinking that you don't need the instrument in your capital structure and that you would call this year?

That's my first question.

We haven't announced that we will call it, and we will make an announcement before we call it, we'll see. In the past, we always call at first call date.

We felt, and we've said this before as well, we felt that the hybrid instrument was a bit complex for our taste. It tends to be, on paper, very attractive, provides cost of equity in good times, and then less good times in the credit market, it becomes a bit more cumbersome to roll the outstandings forward, and you also have an optionality in there that is embedded that you pay for, but that in practice, you can't really utilize.

Far, we've come to the conclusion that we are not looking to issue any new hybrid at this point. Obviously, things might look different 1, 2, 5 years from now, who knows.

That's our current view of

this. Thank you very much.

My next question is on the Norion distribution. Have you been in touch with S&P and are they fully on board in that?

Yes, this has been announced quite a long time ago, and they were obviously informed even before it was announced as well. This is already sort of part of the plan and should be part of their modeling for the future, well, from 6 months back, basically.

You don't expect a negative reaction from S&P?

No, that would be immensely surprising.

Okay. My last question is given where the bond markets are at the moment, pretty hot, to say the least, how does that compare to your bank funding at the moment?

A little bit depends on how you look at it. It's always difficult to compare side by side because one is secured, the other is unsecured, and you might have slightly different tenor structures, etc.

I would say currently, we are roughly on par between bond financing and bank financing. A little bit depending on which market and tenors you look at it, bonds might actually be slightly tighter than the bank financing in the short end.

That's super clear. Thank you very much.

That's it for me. Thanks.

Thank you.

Yes. Good morning.

Just coming back on the Class D share that you may want to issue. Just to fully understand how you are seeing it.

You said that you want to streamline and simplify Balder with the Norion disposal, which is a fair suspension in my view. You want to add a new class action that would, in my view, further complexify the structure.

Just to understand, how do you view this item? Is it equity or perpetual debt for you first?

If that's equity, would you keep your current internal metrics unchanged as net debt to total assets of 65%?

Yes, there's no change in our view on the financials or credit metrics at all. Class D shares, I'm sorry, we should probably have specified that in the report.

The Class D share is an instrument that is pretty common in the Swedish market, which is a fully It's an ordinary common equity class of shares. The differential is between the B shares, the current outstanding shares, is only in terms of the dividend distribution.

That's the difference. In the Swedish market, the custom is that you always pay a dividend which is enough to cover the dividend coupon on the D shares at least.

It's actually from a credit metric standpoint, capital standpoint, there's literally no change. There's no difference compared to ordinary shares in a liquidation situation, there's no difference from an S&P perspective, there's no difference from an accounting perspective, it's all part of the same common equity.

The only thing is that you differentiate between two share classes in who gets a dividend first.

Okay. No, I'm asking the question because, as you may know, some investors could classify the Class D shares as a perpetual debt, but it's open to debate.

My second question... No,

sorry to interrupt you. I think there are instruments that might be open to debate.

I don't think Class D shares is one of those that might be open for debate, because in the past, it's been quite a lot of companies that used, and ourselves included actually a number of years ago, they used pref shares of various kinds. Those had, in addition to the dividend preference, they also had a differentiation in a liquidation situation, and they also had accumulation of unpaid coupons.

The difference here and the reason why S&P treats this as a fully 100% equity, and why it's accounted for as equity, is that there's no such thing. If the company can afford to pay a dividend, this guys would, in theory, then get their dividend first.

There's nothing binding the company to, in a stressed situation, leaking cash flow. This is actually not one of the instruments that is difficult to interpret in that sense.

I understand. My second question is on your top line growth expectation.

Can you guide us through the like-for-like rental growth for 2026, and what is your estimated indexation and occupancy changes for this year?

No, we don't give any outlook in that sense. In 2025, we had a like-for-like of 2.7% for the full group.

This year, we will have, if you just look at the delta, this year, we will have slightly lower indexation for the Swedish resi portfolio. Then I think in Denmark, there shouldn't be a large change.

The Danish inflation and CPI indexation has been pretty low for some time now already, so that should be pretty similar to what we saw last year. There's not been any dramatic changes in the Swedish CPI numbers either, on the commercial side, it would more be a matter of what pricing tension you will see in the market based on how occupancy moves.

Then the Finnish resi market, as I alluded to before, we see that occupancy is going up, and at some point, we should have slightly better pricing tension in that market. It hasn't happened so far.

Let's see when that starts happening. It's difficult, I think, to give a precise prediction of that.

The trend, I think, is in our favor there. I think that's broadly what I can give you, should be fairly similar, slightly lower probably due to the Swedish resi on a pure like-for-like basis.

Then obviously, you will have the reported numbers being impacted by everything from transactions to FX movements, etc.

I see. Maybe a final question, as a follow-up on Swedish resi.

Do you see a lot of opportunities currently on the market? Do you have any clue on the pricing?

Do you mean sort of primary transactions in the

property... On portfolios that could be on the market currently, actually.

If you look at the transactions that we have done in the last 12, 18 months, and we tend to like doing transactions where we can get an accretion in terms of yield compared to what we already own. The first test is obviously that it needs to be in a location where we want to be and where we have our property management organizations in place.

Other than that, we want to have an accretive impact on the full portfolio when we do incremental transactions. We've been extremely tilted to the commercial side in the last 18 months in the transactions we've done on the Swedish side.

Sato did an acquisition of 1,000 apartments last summer in Finland. We've done one or two smaller resi transactions in Sweden as well in particular cases where we already have a decent footprint in some area, and then another property comes out for sale, if we can get a decent yield on that, that might be worth doing.

I think the pricing is actually fairly both on centrally located commercial and on resi in Sweden, it's not that easy actually to go out and buy things that are accretive compared to our back-book yields.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, everyone, for listening in. Where to find us if you have any follow-up questions during the day, and just feel free to reach out.

Thank you.