Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

That's a pleasure to be with you for the first time in my position as CEO of Ayvens, and I will be very pleased to meet you in person in the coming days, weeks, and months. I'm hosting this call with Patrick Sommelet, and I will first present the highlights of the year, then Patrick will comment on our full-year and fourth-quarter 2025 detailed financial results, and we will then be happy to take your questions before meeting with you during our roadshows.

Let's go now directly to slide 5 on the key financial performance indicators. Ayvens posted strong financial results in 2025, delivering on its commitments towards shareholders.

Thanks to the group's focus on profitability, margins improved further in 2025 and stood at 565 basis points, up 32 basis points versus 2024. On used car sales, the group navigated smoothly through the normalization of its UCS results.

While the gross results per unit stood at €1,075, down €380 versus 2024, the sharp decrease in depreciation adjustments versus 2024 resulted in a higher net result per unit, which stood at €703, up 38% compared to 2024. The group made significant progress on efficiency, reflecting increased synergies on both revenues and costs.

As a result, our underlying cost-to-income ratio improved substantially, down 7.1 points versus 2024 at 56.1%. Bottom line, net income group share stood at €996 million, increasing 45% versus €684 million in '24, corresponding to a ROTE of 12.9%.

These strong financial results fueled capital generation, and together with reductions in RWA thanks to changes in regulation and optimizations, we propose a total distribution for the year amounting to €1.15 billion. This corresponds to a dividend per share of €1.01 versus 37 cents in 2024 and €360 million share buyback already executed last December.

In parallel, our capital position remains strong, with a CET1 ratio at 13.2% at the end of 2025. Let's now turn to slide 6 on 2025 key achievements.

Overall, Ayvens delivered on its strategic and financial roadmap, paving the way towards our Power Up 2026 plan objectives. Let me start with the financial targets.

As we just saw, the group delivered a strong set of financial results in 2025. On all aspects, they were in line or better than our guidance to the market: cost-to-income ratio 56.1, better than guidance; €357 million of synergies, in line with guidance; CTA spend in line with guidance; and gross used car sales results per unit stood at €1,075 per unit at the high end of our guidance.

Second, on business activity, we have kept a steady focus on profitability and balance sheet protections throughout 2025, as reflected in the 33 bps year-on-year improvement in our margins. We have successfully reshaped our footprint towards more profitable customers.

At the same time, we've kept a prudent stance on asset risk, notably on electric vehicles, for which we have closely monitored market dynamics and lowered our residual values accordingly. In parallel, Ayvens remained active in developing its franchise, in particular onboarding new partners such as Chery and extending the partnership with BYD.

Finally, the group achieved key milestones on the integration of LeasePlan: IT and legal mergers were completed in 17 countries out of the 21 overlapping ones where the group operates; 90% of relocations to single office has been completed across the group; 90% of the fleet is now operating on the targeted IT platform of each country. In parallel to a strong delivery on the 2025 strategic roadmap, Ayvens's shareholder structure has been reshaped with the sell-down and exit of the ex-LeasePlan shareholders.

Free float increased to 45%, driving trading volumes upwards. Let's now turn to slide 7 on earning assets.

Earning assets stood at €53 billion, decreasing by 1% compared to Q4 2024, but up €400 million versus Q3 2024. Funded fleet, totaling 2.5 million vehicles at end 2025, decreased by 84,000 units versus December 2024, with Q4 2025 showing a slowdown in defleeting versus Q3 2025 with a limited reduction of 14,000 units.

This is the result of our strategy, as we have primarily focused on profitability and tight asset risk monitoring rather than growing volumes. This is notably the case in the UK, where we are restructuring our broker business, in Germany, and in Turkey, which still operates in a hyperinflationary economy.

Beside these three perimeters, Ayvens's earning assets increased by 1.1% versus December 2024. In terms of deliveries by powertrain, BEV penetration stood at 32% and PHEV penetration at 12%, supporting earning asset growth thanks to the price effect.

Let's now move to next slide to conclude on the highlights for 2025. We recorded in 2025 strong and improving financial results across all lines of the P&L.

Revenues grew by 11.3% and reached €3.4 billion. They were supported by a strong increase in both margins and net UCS results.

Operating expenses were down 3.9% thanks to the ramp-up in the synergies extracted from the LeasePlan acquisition. Net income group share was up 45.7%, and diluted earnings per share stood at €1.11, up 52%, as it also benefits from the reduction in shares outstanding following the €360 million share buyback executed in December.

I now hand over to Patrick to take you through the details of the full-year and Q4 2025 results.

Thank you, Philippe, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let's turn on slide 10 with a detailed view on the full-year strong financial performance.

Starting first with the top line, margins stood at €2.9 billion, up 9.1% on a reported basis versus '24. This increase was mainly explained by the improvement in underlying margin, which stood at €3 billion versus €2.8 billion in 2024, despite the slight decrease in earning assets over the year.

In 2025, margin represented 565 basis points of our average earning assets, up 33 versus '24. They were further supported by a reduction in non-recurring items at -€17 million compared to -€115 in 2024.

On used car sales, the net UCS results reached €411 million, up 29.6% versus '24. As you can see from the top right-hand graph, the gross UCS result stood at €628 million, a decrease of €280 million versus '24, which was more than offset by the reduction in the negative impact of depreciation adjustments, which were down €374 million versus '24.

In parallel, operating expenses were down 3.9% and reached €1.88 billion on reported basis. The decrease is supported by a reduction of 4.9% in the underlying cost base, thanks to the growing synergies and the continued strict monitoring of costs across the organization.

Non-recurring items increased by €14 million. This increase results from a one-off IT impairment of €23 million, on which I will comment further in a few minutes.

Bottom-line net income group share grew 45.6% and reached €996 million, leading to a return on tangible equity of 12.9% versus 8.6 in '24. Let's now turn to slide 11 on our quarterly results, starting with revenues.

On revenues, our quarterly results show the same trends as for the full year. Gross operating income, total revenues, reached €830 million, marking a strong increase of 16.5% compared to Q4 '24 reported.

This is supported by both higher margins and higher net used car sales results. Total margin stood at €747 million, up 10.7% versus Q4 '24 on a reported basis.

This increase is driven by higher underlying margin at €749 million compared to 721 and lower non-recurring items, totaling -2 versus -€46 million in Q4 '24. As we communicated last quarter, at the end of October, Ayvens reached an agreement with the Lincoln Consortium on the contingent consideration and related matters.

The outcome of this agreement had a positive impact in total of €40 million on Ayvens's profit before tax in Q4 2025: €47 million were booked in leasing and services margin, which we flag as a non-recurring item; the remaining -7 is booked in other expense line on the income statement. Net UCS stood at €83 million, showing a significant increase versus €38 million at the same time last year, on which I will elaborate shortly.

Let's now turn to the next page on margins. Our actions to improve profitability have resulted in higher margins in euros in '25, despite the defleeting generated by the reshaping of our footprint and the resulting reduction in earning assets.

In Q4 '25, underlying margin reached €749 million, representing 567 basis points, up 26 versus Q4 '24. This was driven by an increase in leasing margin due to lower interest costs thanks to both lower funding cost outstanding and lower interest costs across all funding sources.

Underlying service margins were stable versus Q4 '24, the ramp-up in synergies being offset notably by the reduction in the fleet. Compared to Q4 Q3 '25, total margins were down 26 basis points.

As we indicated last quarter, Q3 '25 was a very high point, supported by lower than usual maintenance and tire costs as well as a few positives linked to ongoing integration and accounting harmonization. Negative impact of non-recurring items totaled -€2 million.

This was mainly helped by the exceptional revenues of €47 million from Lincoln Consortium, as we already mentioned. On the other hand, negative hyperinflation impact amounted to -€27 million, and we incurred one-off loan breakage costs of -€16 million.

These breakage costs are related to proactive termination of loans. The remaining impact from mark-to-market of derivatives is benign at -€1 million.

Let's now move to the next page on UCS and depreciation adjustments results. Net UCS results reached €83 million, up 120% versus Q4 '24, which stood at 38.

This increase results from a significantly lower level of depreciation adjustments at -16 compared to -€162 million in Q4 '24. Excluding these, gross UCS stood at €99 million, which is €100 million lower than Q4 '24, continuing the trend of previous quarters.

The normalization of the gross UCS results was very gradual over the first nine months of 2025, but accelerated in the fourth quarter, with gross UCS results per unit at 702 versus 1,110 in Q3 '25 and 1,267 in Q4 '24. Q4 '25 gross UCS results was impacted by the increase of the volume of battery electric vehicles sold, whose results per unit remain negative on the old vintages that are being sold.

These results per unit are stable compared to Q3 '25. In addition, in the backdrop of end-of-year seasonality, results per unit on ICE cars declined for some brands and models.

These price and volume evolution by powertrains remain consistent with our scenario and overall financial trajectory. Conversely, thanks to the lower depreciation adjustment, net UCS per unit stood at 589, up versus Q3 '25 at 536 and also Q4 '24 at 239.

Total volume of cars sold were stable versus Q3 '25 at 141,000 units and down versus Q4 '24, which was at 158. This reflects the lower number of new vehicles which were delivered in '21 and '22 in the context of supply chain disruptions at the time.

Let's now turn to the slide on operating expenses. Total operating expenses stood at €477 million, broadly stable compared to Q4 '24.

Costs to achieve amounted to €34 million compared to €41 million in Q4 '24. Besides, an impairment charge of €23 million was booked this quarter.

It relates to the review of our IT portfolio of assets, which led to the write-off of those assets which have become obsolete in the context of IT migrations and the rationalization of IT applications across the group. Excluding CTA and this one-off impairment, underlying operating expenses amount to €420 million, a decrease of -3.1 versus Q4 '24.

This decrease is reflecting the ramp-up in cost synergies, which stood at €41 million versus 13 in Q4 '24, and also continued strict cost monitoring across the organization. Compared to Q3 '25, the underlying cost base increased by €8 million, which is explained by planned investment in commercial initiatives and service quality.

Combined with growing margins, the decrease in underlying operating expenses resulted in an underlying cost-to-income at 56.2, decreasing by 4 percentage points compared to Q4 '24. Let's now turn to the next page with the rest of the income statement.

Starting with the cost of risk, which stood at €28 million, representing 21 basis points of average earning assets versus 27 in Q4 '24. This is very stable compared to prior quarters in '25.

Profit before tax stood at €318 million, which is up 56.2% versus Q4 2024 as the result of higher margin and also net UCS results. The Q4 '25 effective tax rate stood at close to 27%.

For the full year, it lands at 29.1%, which is very close to our previous estimates. Ayvens's net income group share reached €232 million in Q4 '25 compared to 116 in Q4 '24.

As a result, return on tangible equity on this quarter came in at 12.3%, which is 4.5 percentage points higher than last quarter, Q4 '24. If we now turn to the next slide on RWA and capital.

Total RWA at the end of Q4 '25 stood at €53.7 billion, which is a decrease of about €600 million compared to Q3. The decrease mainly comes from the decrease of €400 million, which is resulting from our continuous efforts to optimize RWAs.

This quarter, the improvement comes from credit RWA, with the alignment of methodologies on prudential client segments as well as data quality corrections. It also comes from a reduction in the group's deposits due to our funding optimization.

This leads to a reduction of €500 million in RWA, and this is partially offset by an increase of €500 million linked to the growth in earning assets. This reduction in RWA, together with the capital generation, led to a strong and steady capital buildup throughout '25, resulting in an increase in Ayvens's CET1 ratio at 13.2% at the end of the year versus 12.8 at the end of Q3.

I now give the floor back to Philippe to present our outlook for 2026.

Thank you, Patrick. Our strong financial performance in '25 puts us in a good position for 2026, and I'm pleased to confirm and reiterate our core Power Up 2026 financial targets: cost-to-income ratio excluding UCS and non-recurring items at circa 52%; pre-tax gross annual synergies to be delivered at €440 million; CET1 ratio circa 12%; ROTE in the range of 13% to 15%; payout ratio to remain 50%, in line with the group's distribution policy.

On earning assets, the 6% CAGR over 2023-2026 is not being targeted any longer in the context of our strategic shift towards profitability and strict residual value setting. For the rest, our scenario continues to be the normalization of used car markets, with an increasing share of electric vehicles in the volumes to be sold in 2026.

The gross UCS results is estimated to stand in the range between €200 and €600 per unit. Integration will continue, with IT migrations to be executed in some of our core countries, namely Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK, and we estimate the associated costs to achieve to be below €30 million in 2026.

Now a few words on our strategic priorities for next year or for this year, 2026. First, the execution of IT migrations in the remaining countries will be a priority in order to fully extract synergies from the LeasePlan acquisition.

Second, we will aim at enhancing further our focus on customer satisfaction, on operational excellence. Third, we'll continue to prioritize profitability while preserving the value of our balance sheet by managing asset risk responsibly in an industry that still undergoes a transition to electrification.

Going forward, in a competitive and fast-changing environment, we will continue to push and work hard to build a leaner and customer-centric mobility platform, reaffirm our commitments towards the value for all our stakeholders. I take this opportunity to announce that we will hold a Capital Markets Day on the 21st of September 2026 to elaborate on our strategic and financial roadmap beyond 2026.

Before that, we'll be on the road in the next few weeks together with Patrick, and I look forward to exchanges with you, shareholders and investors. This concludes our presentation, and we are now ready to take your questions.

Yes, good morning. Philippe, welcome.

I wish you a long and fruitful tenure. Patrick, congrats on the promotion made.

Two questions. First, despite all the distribution, you end up with a quite spectacular CET1 ratio, I guess the first question is what are you going to do with all this money, if we consider that 12% is still adequate CET1 threshold for you.

Lastly, because there's been a lot of debate this morning already on the level of used car sales, and Philippe, good luck with that cuz you're at the first question on used car sales, probably the first of 2 million by the time you finish your tenure, but even with that level of used car sales per unit, can we consider that a 13-15% ROTE target in the very long term for the company would still be something you're comfortable with? Thank you.

Thank you for the two questions. On the first one, I think in the past year, we say that as a cruising level, 12.5% of around 12.5% of CET1 ratio is something we feel comfortable with.

Of course, we can vary a bit up or down compared to this level. I think we've shown in 2025 that we are ready and willing to return excess of capital to the shareholders.

Obviously, we're only Feb the 6th, it's very early to talk about the 26 action on this respect. On the UCS, yeah, obviously, this is not the easiest thing to predict, but I think while we expect a normalization of the UCS, and everyone knows that if we had a perfect crystal ball, the UCS should be closer to zero, but we never have a perfect crystal ball, but long term, I think what is important is to drive the company focusing on what is fully in our hands.

What is fully in our hands is working on the leasing margin, on the service margin, on the opex, and on the remarketing efficiency. I think we have a lot to do on all these factors.

After that, the UCS depends also on the variation of the market. The purpose is to work on these items that are in our hands, and after that, the variation of the market, we predict as much as we can with a stance that is an intent to be careful.

That's what we want to do for the moment, especially as electrified cars market is not yet mature. I do think that on the short term, it's much better to take this stance.

On the long-term view, the BEV will become the new normal, but it will take a while, which means that for the moment, we should be rather careful, and as years go one after the other, we could be more and more aggressive. The purpose of the CMD will, of course, to be to give a trajectory on our financial from the coming years, but these are already a few thoughts about this topic.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

Welcome, Philippe. I have three, please.

Firstly, I'm interested in when you say that you want to preserve profitability and manage asset risk responsibly, but is there a risk of you being overly conservative on fleet growth? How do you assess your competitor's positioning against Arval, especially after the recent acquisition and significant growth that they have achieved in the last couple of years?

Will the conservative 2026 fleet growth be offset by margins being higher around current levels? That's my first question.

Second, a bit longer-term perspective, interested in hearing your views on the potential risks and opportunities presented by autonomous vehicles to your business model. If I can just sneak in a third, on ROTE guidance, 2025 is already at the low end of your 2026 guidance, and with more cost synergies to come, what would prevent you from not being at the mid- to high end of this range?

Is it mainly UCS, that's the main risk? Thank you.

Maybe let's start by the third question. That is a quickest answer.

I think your assumption is right, is the UCS results is always a very hard to predict, given the volatility of this market. We give a range of gross UCS result per car that is between 200 and the 600, and obviously, there is some consistency with the range that we give in the ROTE range of 13 to 15%.

On the first question, the stance that we have on the profitability and the asset risk, and the relation to competition. Let's summarize the thinking.

The thinking is our scale puts us in the first league, and it's clear that Arval, combining with Athlon, will be in the same league. That's something that we need to acknowledge.

I don't think that it can be a mid- and long-term vision to say that we wouldn't want to grow the fleet. That's the opposite.

It's to resume growth at a point in time is something that will be important, but I don't think that's a priority for 2026. The priority for 2026 is customer satisfaction and delivering on the financials and maintaining this strict stance on residual value.

This is fundamentally because I believe that technological improvement on BEV remains very significant. As you may know, I'm coming from a car maker, spent 27 years in the car industry.

We are not yet a mature industry in terms of BEV, and at the beginning, the pace of progress is very steep, quick, which means that the residual values in percentage of listing price are much lower with BEV compared to ICE. That is an effect that will decrease over time.

It makes more sense, for the moment, to remain careful on the BEV, to focus on fixing the customer satisfaction issues, to prepare the company for next developments. That, as we see gradually the acceptance of the BEV by final customers growing, that will be the time to accelerate.

That's the kind of broad scenario that I give. After that, we see that in the daily life that, for example, when we are in dual supply with some competitors, and in which it's just a battle on RV because we're already selected in dual supply, some orders go to the others on BEV.

It's not a problem of operational excellence of the company. In that case, it's a pure assumption that is difference on the RV on BEV.

I prefer at that stage to be mistaken, being too careful on the BEV, rather than and losing potentially some share, than the opposite. This is, I would say, a 2026 view, and we'll continue to adapt in function of the evolution of the market and we'll tell you more in the CMD.

We should not conclude that Ayvens doesn't want to grow. There will be a second step with more growth, and I think it will make sense.

Your second question was about autonomous vehicles. When you see what happens in both China and the US, you see that autonomous vehicle for me has a clear future for a number of usage.

It means that we should pay a lot of attention to work with these players and offer them our services, because, well, these cars are autonomous, but they need also the same kind of services that we've been always able to provide, and in which it's our core business. For me, no doubt about the fact that autonomous vehicle will increase in volumes and will become significant, because it answers well some customer needs, and we are seeing now that both American players and Chinese players are entering in Europe.

That's what I could tell on your three questions, hoping that I answered your questions.

Thank you. Just a follow-up on the first question on margins.

Are you confident that given the fleet growth will be relatively lackluster in 2026 as well, margins, could it be maintained at current levels?

As we don't guide on margin, but if we are consistent with the policy that I have indicated, we should have an evolution that is consistent with what we've seen between 24 20 but what in the I would say in the last months since the year of 2025.

Thank you.

Thank you and welcome at Ayvens. I have only one question.

Would you be able to share with us some hints on your underlying assumptions that brought you to give this UCS guidance in terms of volume, price, mix, and maybe assumptions by motorization, qualitative assumptions indeed? Thank you very much.

Let's have in mind that in '26, we've got cars that were put on the road mainly in 2021 and 2022, and there are different factors that go in different directions. You've got on the ICE cars, it was a period in which production in the auto industry was very low, and that has a tendency to support the prices of the ICE cars, which remain the majority of the volumes.

This goes in a favorable direction. On the other hand, you've got an increasing number of BEV coming back, to give you an idea, there should be around 20% more BEV coming back in 2026 compared to what we had in 2025.

That's generating a headwind in our UCS results, as at that time, 2021-2022, the forecast of residual value were not, let's say, careful enough or not taking enough into account the future improvement of technologies. That's something that is going clearly in the opposite directions.

After that, in terms of global volume between 2025 and 2026, we don't expect a huge variation of volume of sold cars, so that should not be the main driver. In 2026, well, and there can be, after that, impacts of the regulation, because it's obvious that when some countries implement some incentives of new vehicle, it can have an impact.

It's more than it can have; it has an impact on the used car market. In the crystal ball, you've got things that go in different directions, and so globally, we plan for the normalization of UCS.

Maybe one important point is to have in mind that what happened in 2025 at the end was consistent with the price scenario that we had, even if was not consistent quarter per quarter. There were differences with Q2, Q3 being more favorable than the price scenario, and Q4 a bit less favorable, but all in all, the ending point is consistent with the price scenario of the company, which is a very important point.

In 2026, we confirm our pricing scenario and hence the normalization of the UCS results that we've indicated.

Thank you very much. That's very helpful.

Hi, could you give us some guidance on the leasing and services and contract margin outlook? It's been very volatile quarter-to-quarter, even stripping off the €15 million gain you had last quarter.

It's come a long way back, and I'm just struggling a bit to understand quite why it's so volatile quarter-to-quarter when this is ultimately three- or four-year business. Some help understanding those movements and what we can expect in 2026 would be helpful.

Then a second question, just coming back to the surplus capital, when do you envisage it will be the right stage to take a view on distribution of that surplus? Because obviously, if it continues to accrete, it starts to be very material and would imply a harder or more restrictions on distributing just because of the liquidity, etc.

Thank you.

On the first point, well, again, we don't guide on margins, but we had anticipated in Q3 that service margin will be lower in Q4. That was anticipated and announced to the market.

I will ask Patrick to give you a more

Yes, hello, Matthew. Hello.

Indeed, we said in Q3 that all the lights were green and margins in Q3, it should be no good surprise that it comes a bit down base point in Q4 2025. Again, as we have discussed many times, we don't guide because there is this volatility on a quarter-per-quarter basis.

This is an annualized number. Again, it's not reflecting a stable yearly number.

Specifically to answer a bit more in detail on your question, between Q3 and Q4, we had higher than usual repair, maintenance, and tire costs in Q4, which were driven mostly by a harsher winter starting early in the season and leading to costs for tires and replacing those tires. This is playing a role on the decrease in service margin.

Okay. As to your second question, I would say there is no precise timeline.

We are very early in February. For the moment, I'm much more focused on a few topics, well, that are change of organization that we announced this morning with the departure of John Saffrett and a change, and I can elaborate on that if it is of interest to you, with an idea with this organization to improve or to simplify the organization and have a faster decision and also a leaner organization.

That, we focus on both execution on 2026, on the different priorities that I've mentioned, with a renewed focus on customer satisfaction after a period in which the company was more centered on itself. We really need to be more centered on the customer, the market, the competitors.

The second big priority is to build the strategic plan. We've launched workstreams that will make the detailed work two weeks ago already, and that's our priorities.

After that, well, as we said earlier, we've shown in 2025 that the excess of capital can be returned to shareholders, and it makes sense. We will see month after month how the situation is evolving, and in function of the evolution, we will give a communication to the market.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Nicolas O'Sullivan from UBS. Thank you for taking my question.

The first one will be on a follow-up on the leasing and service margins. I just wanted to confirm if you still see that the range of 550 to 580 basis points leasing contract service margin is still correct.

Secondly, do you think that the print you delivered today in Q4, if we strip out the RMT effect, is it the right way to see the business in 2026 as you implement those synergies? That would be my first question.

The second question would be on actually those synergies. You actually used to communicate or actually disclose in the slides in Q3 and previous quarters on the gross synergies you delivered each quarter, and that's not the case.

I just wonder why that changed, and also what specifically led you to add €13 million in CTAs for 2026? Thank you.

On the first, the range that you mentioned in terms of margins make sense. I think it's consistent with the evolution of the business.

The second question, to be frank, in terms of what was communicated before in detail, I'm not sure to have understood exactly the question. What is clear is the accumulated CTA that we have on a three-year basis of the plan are consistent with what we had announced.

There is a slight timing effect in the sense that the CTA this year is at the low part of the range, and some is postponed probably to 2026. With an accumulated at the end of '26 that is fully consistent with what was previously announced.

Patrick, if you want to elaborate or

Yes, I think you were looking for the disclosure on synergies. They're on page 6, footnote number 3, where you can find the details on the full year, on the quarterly basis, and we will keep on updating the market with those detailed numbers, which are important.

Indeed, a bit less CTA spend so far, some residual CTA in 2026.

Understood. Basically the timing effect, I guess in terms of CTA is the timing slight delay, is that related to what you said on customer satisfaction, and also if I can follow up actually on cost?

Underlying expenses quarter on quarter are up 2%. Is that also related to the whole discussion on client satisfaction efforts?

No, I would not link that directly to the customer satisfaction. For me, the question of customer satisfaction is more about rigor in execution, about a number of processes that we need to improve, and about managerial focus that has to be increased at all level of the company.

As well tell you, well, I had large experience of big mergers, and experience shows that in big mergers, it's pretty difficult to keep the single focus on the customers and external world. Naturally, people have more focus on what happens internally in the company, because all their time is taken by legal mergers, process mergers, IT mergers, HR contracts mergers, etc., etc.

No, I would not take this CTA to customer satisfaction, more with the cadence of the migration of IT of the different countries.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Yes, thank you for taking my questions. I just have one, actually, because a lot of things, you've given quite a bit of color.

Just going back to used car sales, what are you seeing right now in terms of dynamics, because I guess it feels like there has been some stabilization. I'm just wondering kind of how we should think about the outlook.

Thank you.

Okay. When we think about the dynamics of the UCS, we have to split per energy, because these are different dynamics.

I would say the BEV prices continue to decline, but I would say as expected, and it's logical, and I think it will continue like that, and that's what is embedded in our price scenarios when we set the residual values. After that, on the ICE market, when we take what happened in Q4 versus Q3, we have not seen very significant price move except in Italy, in which there was a decrease in the ICE prices.

Once again, it was something that we were expecting in terms of global scenario of ICE. On the PHEV, the plug-in hybrids, we've got a decline that is relatively similar to overall, if I take the main markets, compared to what we got in BEV, and that's also was consistent with our pricing scenario.

Forward-looking, I would say ICE, I think, should continue to be quite robust, and BEV and PHEV should continue to decline. After that, when you think about Q4, there is always an element of seasonality between Q4 and on Q3.

One of the reason is the car makers tend to push a lot on the end of the year on destocking their used cars. I was doing that in my former life, and that has an effect on the pricing on the market, because they want to have a balance sheet that is the best possible in terms of stock.

We always see that every year. This year, it was maybe a bit more pronounced than some other years due also to the fact that in some markets, like in the Netherlands, the modification of benefit-in-kind regulation in the 1st of Jan 2026 pushed some defleets and some higher return, and that put some pressure on the local market.

That's what I can tell you at this stage.

Great, thank you for the color. Then the other thing is just on the earning asset, I understand your comment around fleet volumes, but just what should we expect sort of going forward?

It looks like you don't want to guide too much, but any progression we should have in 2026, '27? Thank you.

I will answer for 2026. After that, for 2027, I think we will answer later on.

For 2026, what we plan is a fleet in volume that will be flattish, flattish basically, which means, given the per-unit pricing evolution in particular due to the mix of BEV, a low single-digit growth for earning assets.

Thank you very much.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Just a couple kind of broader ones.

The first one on fleet growth. I know you've kind of spoken about prioritizing profitability and risk in '26, that's well understood, but just kind of more broadly, what's the kind of opportunity in the kind of market backdrop there, if you did want to get a bit more aggressive?

Would it be fairly receptive, and if you could give a bit of kind of color by geography as well and maybe inside outside of Europe? I know most of the business is focused on Europe.

That's the first one. Then the second one, again, just kind of a bit more long term, I'm just wondering if there's any trends that you want to flag in the services business?

I guess you've been operating a fairly large portion of your fleet being electric vehicles for a few years. Do you see any kind of structural differences in the maintenance spend in general, is maintenance costs kind of higher inflation that you're still facing, yeah, fairly costly maintenance spend there?

Just basically any changes, I suppose, into the way that the services business is run.

Thanks for the two questions. I will start with the second one.

Electrifications can mean different things between BEV and PHEV. On PHEV, the car is more complex.

In fact, it's more than traditional ICE. That's coming from my previous life, I would say.

On the BEV, it's obvious that some operations that exist on ICE cars do not exist, and that we can see that as a challenge, but I think they are also opportunities to have other services more specific to BEV car that we need to implement in the coming years. That's a first point.

The other part is efficiency of procurement of the components of the cost of service margins have to be improved. That will be something we will also work in the strategic plan, because this need to be addressed.

We cannot just stay there and say, well, the mix of BEV, ICE moves and it's unfavorable. That's something that is a point of attention, and that we need to work on in coming months.

On the fleet growth opportunities, I think it's a question of geographies on one side, it's a question also of segments in which we want to operate. If we talk about geographies, at the moment, if we want to have a prudent stance, it makes more sense to push on Italy, Spain, for example, rather than in the UK.

In that respect, restructuring of the UK activity, I think, makes sense, because the return on tangible equity that we can get in that country for the moment is not as high as what one would like. In Italy and Spain, with a percentage of BEV that is quite low and margins that are quite good, it's a place where we, I think, would make sense to push more.

That, you can think about the segments of market, and obviously moving to small fleets is something that is a direction that makes sense for us. Our bigger strength is on the biggest fleet, and we are one of the very few, or not to say the two players, to be able to address all kind of customers.

We've got opportunities on smaller fleet segments.

Great. Thank you.

Morning, all. The depreciation adjustment from gross to net UCS result was quite a lot lower in Q4 versus Q3.

I was just wondering if you could explain the reason for that, please, and also given the €83 million undisclosed stock of unused depreciation adjustment, how you expect that to unfold over the course of '26? Then my second question is just on the sort of '26 volume flattish.

Is that flattish to the upside of zero or flattish to the downside of zero? Thank you.

On the first question, I'm going to ask Patrick to answer to give you the details.

Yes, good morning. As you may remember, in Q3 '25, we booked an additional prospective depreciation or depreciation adjustment of €48 million in relation to the UK fleet, given the price evolution we were contemplating throughout 2025 in the country, especially on best car.

As UK is a difficult country, well open to competition and external international competition when it comes to tariffs. It's not as protected, and we have therefore a very significant level of price pressure in this country.

This is the main part which impacts the level which is lower in Q4 than in Q3. Then, as referring to the second part of your question, we give, as in each quarter in the appendices, the way those under-rhythms of the 83 million of remaining adjustments in depreciation will take place and be accounted for in actual results for '26 and '27.

Okay. On your first or second question, I don't remember, well, flattish is the best thing that I can say now.

Frankly, in terms of priorities, I don't think that for Ayvens, this is the key point to say if flattish will be above zero or just below zero. I don't think it's what matters more for us in 2026.

I think what matters more is execute well on the last IT migration that we've got in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK side. Second, fix the processes and improve customer satisfaction in the countries that have been disturbed by the previous IT migrations to be able to have solid basis for future growth.

Because it does make sense to push more on growth if your processes are not fixed and if it's to make your customer unhappy. I cannot give 10 priorities to the people.

I prefer to give a limited number of priorities so that they can execute on them. This is a short-term vision, and it's not intention to shrink the company, obviously.

That's for the short term.

Thank you. I think that's clear.

Just coming back to your point that it's not your intention to shrink the company, obviously. This is a balance sheet business, and shareholders would like to see the balance sheet growing profitably, but it feels like '26 then remains a transition year still, based on the priorities you've outlined before.

Is that a fair assessment?

In terms of 2026, that growth is not the priority of 2026.

That's clear. I look forward to seeing the CMD at the end of the year and finding out what the priorities are for the following years.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yes, good morning. Three from me, please.

The first one is on the cost-to-income, you are ahead of your target, huh, for 2025, but you maintain the 52% for 2026. How comfortable are you with the 50% 52% given that you are ahead of that target?

The second point is on your funding costs. If you look at your latest round of financing, they are much better, huh, compared to what prevailed two years ago.

Is there a scenario where you will benefit from tailwinds from those lower cost of fundings as you renew the contracts? Finally, I have a question on the general pricing environment, how do you feel the competition right now?

Is pricing more conducive or is competition more fierce than, let's say, a year ago? Thank you.

Okay. On the cost-to-income ratio, that's fair to say that we're better than what we had guided for 2025, which is to say good news.

52% is an important number, we have confirmed that, and it will not be the end of the story, because we're in an industry in which we cannot stop to improve. It's important to have this mindset of kaizen, as the Japanese say, of a permanent improvement.

It's an important milestone, and that it's not the end of the story. Anyway, we ask all the teams to think about the next steps and not only in terms of number, but in terms of concrete actions to be able to deliver the further improvements.

On the funding costs, you're perfectly right that the last news were good in terms of funding costs. Obviously, as you well know, it progressively goes into the margin.

It's not overnight, but so when you talk about windfall, I don't think we can say that you will have a big windfall in 2026, because this is something that is coming progressively into the margins. Patrick, feel free to elaborate on that if you want.

On the pricing environment compared to one year ago, I wouldn't say that it has changed very significantly. We can see that a number of competitors are following us in terms of RV moves.

We tend to be the first to move, and that a lot of people are looking at what we are doing. We've got a number of markets in which people follow us, in particular on decreasing the RVs on BEV to be consistent with the evolution that we project for the price of these cars in the future.

I would not talk about very significant move compared to one year ago in terms of pricing environment. Patrick, if you want to elaborate on this topic more, I don't

Thank you. On the funding cost, it's true that we have had better prices level.

We have also been able to optimize the volumes during the year, which translate into lower funding cost in euro, obviously, after having merged the entities in some countries. We are bigger, and it's part of the impact of some non-recurring items in Q4, as you have seen in the disclosure, to allow some source of financing which will help future years.

Okay. Thank you.

It's 11:03. I think we need to be respectful of time, I will thank you all for your attention and for your questions.

As always, our Investor Relations team is available to answer any further questions you might have. Once again, I will reiterate that it will be a great pleasure to meet you in person in the coming days, weeks, and months.

Thanks a lot to all of you.

Thank you.