Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this presentation of Handelsbanken's results for the second quarter and the first half of 2026. The second quarter was yet another solid quarter for the bank.

Operating profit was 6.7 billion, and the ROE almost 13%. We saw business growth with lending, deposits, and asset under management growing in the quarter.

Both NII and expenses were stable, and fee and commission grew to close to all-time high, mainly thanks to continued strong progress in our savings business. Income reached 13.5 billion, and with expenses of 6 billion, the cost-income ratio was 44%.

Asset quality remains solid, and the credit loss ratio was 0. As always, the financial position of the bank was robust.

After deducting deduction of anticipated dividends for the first half year of 4.77 kronor per share, equivalent to 82% of the profits for the period, the CET1 ratio was 250 basis points above the regulatory minimum. In other words, within the target range of 100 to 300 basis points above the regulatory minimum.

We see over and over again in customer satisfaction surveys that customers attribute a great value to our way of supporting them. As long as there is a clear customer demand for our relationship-driven model, we will continue to strive at further strengthening our capacities in the branches even more, just like we always always have done over the our 155-year-old year history.

Handelsbanken operates with a business model that some might consider quite unique today. We believe in being close to customers and in long-term relationships with strong, creditworthy customers.

Handelsbanken's model is not only customer-relationship-oriented, it's also run with a prudent risk appetite and always with a long-term focus. This model has generated very stable shareholder value over time, regardless of external factors such as financial crisis or different types of macro or geopolitical disruptions.

The shareholders' equity per share plus dividends has over time grown by on average 14% to 15% per year, and the stability in this growth is equally as important as the growth itself. The stability is also related to where we have chosen to operate.

Our home markets are situated in the northwest part of Europe, in democratic countries with stable political systems, and where rule of law applies. Countries which also have traits of cultural similarities and shared values.

[cough] These are also countries where we have recognized a very large scope of potential customers for a bank with our model, and where we can stand out in our offering and services. Importantly, the cash flow from our customers are also stemming from stable Western European economies.

Simply put, markets where the bank can grow profitability with stability over time. Now, if we take a closer look at the recent business development in our four home markets.

All the home markets recorded improved numbers and an overall business growth, starting with Sweden, accounting for 75% of the operating profits in the home markets. In Sweden, we are the biggest lender combined in the market.

Loan volumes have been relatively flat over the past year. Household mortgage lending has grown, but the corporate lending volumes have been slightly down.

When we look at the corporate business in Sweden, we would have been more happy if we had seen a pickup on the lending side, but at the same time, there are a few reasons why we why we remain optimistic about the corporate business going forward. First, as part of the bank's everyday managing of risk and housekeeping of the loan portfolios, some corporate customers are not on our books anymore.

This means that the inflow of new customers corporate customers were not visible in the aggregate volume development. Secondly, the indicator the interaction and dialogue with corporate customers have picked up materially over the spring.

Increased customer activity has many times been a leading indicator of forthcoming customer demands for loans and other services from the bank. Thirdly, other business volumes with corporates, namely deposits and asset under management, have shown a positive development.

Deposits overall are are up in Sweden, but the key outlier when it comes to growth is seen in the savings business, which I'll come back to more on that shortly. Operating profits in Sweden grew by 4% in the quarter, the cost-income ratio improved to 34, and the profitability increased to 16.3%.

Now, in the UK, which accounts for 13% of the profits in the home of our home markets, we have for the past year and a half seen a constant a consistent growth in both our house household and corporate lending. Deposits have been fairly stable while the asset under management are increasing, as you can see in the slide.

UK is the market where we stand out the most in customer satisfaction, which forms a solid base to build profitable growth from over time. Operating profit grew by 11% in the quarter, the cost-to-income ratio improved to 61, and the profitability increased to 12%.

In Norway, which accounts for 9% of the profits in our home markets, we stated 2 years ago that we needed to see a better balance between deposits, savings, and lending. Over the past year, the lending volumes have dropped, mainly due to increased low-margin competition, while deposits have increased.

The key improvement in Norway is seen in the savings business. Over the past 2 years, the market share of the net inflows into mutual funds in Norway has been materially above the market share of the outstanding volumes.

The operating profit increased in the quarter by 18%, the cost-to-income ratio dropped to 45, and the profitability improved to 11%. Finally, the Netherlands, which accounts for 3% of the profits in in the home markets.

Just like in the UK, the distance to peers in terms of customer satisfaction is particularly large. Lending growth has been very strong, up 10% compared to last year.

Deposit volumes are slightly up, and also here, we have a trend now for numerous quarters with strong growth in asset under management. Operating profit increased by 13% in the quarter, the cost-to-income ratio dropped to 54, and the profitability increased to 11%.

Having a bit of trouble with the with the slides here. Now, if we look at the group financials of Q2 compared to Q1, the ROE amounted to 13%, and the cost-income ratio was 14 44, sorry.

NII was largely largely unchanged and down 1% adjusted for the currency effects. Fee and commission grew by 2%, mainly driven by increased asset manage asset under management.

The customer-driven NFT continued to be stable, amounting to around 500 million in the quarter. In the NFT, occasionally there can be some swings relating to market valuation effects on instruments used to hedge risk in the funding and liquidity management.

However, the market values of these derivative contracts pull to par over time, meaning that the NFT swings are temporary. In the this quarter, we saw such negative valuation effects, leading to NFT dropping to 160 million in the quarter.

Other income dropped, but that was that was entirely explained by the one-off VAT regain of 1.1 billion in the previous quarter. Adjusted for the currency effects and the VAT regain, total income dropped by 2%.

Expenses were unchanged, adjusted for Oktogonen and currency effects. Credit losses amounted to 30 million, which was equal to a credit loss ratio of 0%.

Regulatory fees increased by 11% due to a booking in Q2 for mandatory interest-free deposits at the central bank covering the next 12 months. All in all, the underlying the underlying operating profits decreased by 6%, primarily due to the NFT line.

Adjusted for the temporary drop in NFT, the underlying the underlying operating profit was actually up a touch. Now, if we switch over and look at the first half of the year to the same period last year, ROE again amounted to 13%, and the cost-income ratio was 42.

NII declined by 10% and 9% adjusted for currency effects. The decline was related to lower margins in the wake of lower short-term market rates.

Net fee and commission income, on the other hand, increased by 8%, adjusted for FX effects. The key driver was again the savings business and the strong inflows and positive market developments.

All in all, total income dropped by 4% on an underlying basis. The expenses dropped by 1%, despite the annual salary revision that comes into force on January 1st each year, general cost inflation, and increased spend in IT development.

The credit loss ratio was 1 basis point compared to net credit loss reversals last year. The regulatory fees were up this year due to the aforementioned mandatory interest-free deposit at the central bank.

Underlying operating profit was down 10%, explained by the drop in NII. All the other income lines were and expenses developed very positively.

Now, if we move over to and take a closer look at the NII development for the for this quarter compared to the previous quarter. As I mentioned earlier, the NII was flat over the quarter.

It's a it's a positive note that volume growth is now again starting to filter through into the sequential NII development. Increased lending and deposit volume contributed ni- with 90 90 million, or 1%, to the NII in this quarter.

The net of margin and funding, however, affected negatively by 249 million. The main reasons for the decline in is dividend is sorry, the main reason for decline is divided into three parts.

In Norway, there is a mandatory notice period of 8 weeks before customer rates can be raised. This lag effect affected NII by around 40 million to NII in the quarter.

This effect reverses when there is a quarter with flat rates. The remainder of the decline, around 200 the remainder of the decline, around 200 million, can roughly be explained by explained by two relatively equal parts.

First, market rates increa- market rates increased and resulted in funding costs increasing more than interest rates on the certain on certain assets, such as central banks deposits. There was also an element of lag effect in the sense that repricing of some customer rates come later than the increase of the funding cost costs for the bank.

Secondly, the bank paid out a record-high dividend to shareholders of 35 billion at the end of the previous quarter. This means less interest-rate-generating liquid assets for the second quarter for the bank.

Moving on, the day count effect, due to one more day in the quarter, and the currency effects, due to a weaker krona on average, contributed together with 156 million. Other effects were minor.

Now, the next slide shows the net fee and commission income reached this how it reached the second quarter with the with the highest level so far in the quarter and was up 9% compared to last year. The bulk of fee and commission relates to the savings business, especially in the mutual funds business.

The positive effects from the strong net inflows into A AuM as well as positive market developments increased the sa- savings-related fees by 14% compared to last year. Other fees were stable.

Again, we would like to highlight the consistency in the organic growth of the savings business in this bank. The bank's market share of outstanding mutual funds volumes in Sweden is 12%, but over the past decade, the bank has attracted 27% of all net inflows into the market.

For the first 6 months of 2026, 40 40 46% of the net inflows into the Swedish mutual funds markets went into Handelsbanken's funds. Over time, this these strong net inflows have added signifi- significant number customer, sorry, AuM.

Over the past decade, the bank has seen accumulated net inflows of almost almost 320 billion, significantly outpacing peers. The success comes not only from an appreciated offering and strong performance in the funds over the years, but also the bank's distribution capacity where advisors are close to and have a deep relationship with the customers, parallel to an appreciated offering and distribution in our digital channels.

Now over to the expenses. As mentioned previously, costs are down compared to last year, while staff costs are down marginally, and other expenses are down more despite despite a pickup in the IT development spend.

As new technology emerge, such as in the field of AI, it's essential for the bank to embrace the opportunities, as we do. The bank invests roughly 3.3 to 3.5 billion per year in IT development.

In Q2, the IT development spend was 6% higher compared to last quarter same quarter, sorry, last year. As we continuously invest in new IT development, we also continuously roll out new tools in the bank, supporting our advisors in creating business opportunities, enhancing customer experience, and to be able to work more efficiently.

Within the very broad space of AI, there's no doubt that there's an abundance of opportunity opportunities arising. Today, the bank has several AI initiatives in play, spanning from facilitating simpler tasks relating to administration to more advanced fields such as AML and transaction monitoring, and, of course, code assistance.

At current, the investments in AI tech fits within the current run rate of our IT spending. Next slide shows our asset quality and credit losses.

Over the past decades, credit losses have been very low, which they should be in a bank with Handelsbanken's risk appetite. The difference compared to peers really shows in the volatile times when there is an economic downturn.

The average quarterly credit losses since 2019 has been 3 million SEK per year, equal to 0%. That includes not only the outbreak of the pandemic, but also sharp swings in policy rates and inflation, the disruptions of the supply chain following following geopolitical uncertainties with the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, etc., etc.

Still, more or less no credit losses, underlying the strength of the bank's asset quality. The bank is in a very solid financial position.

Credit risks, funding risks, liquidity risks, and market-related risks are prudently managed, and the capital position is very strong. After an an anticipated dividend for the first 6 months of of the year of 9.4 billion, corresponding to 4.77 kronor per share and the 82% of the earnings generated, the CET1 ratio was 250 basis points above the regulatory requirement.

The bank is thereby within the range target range of 100 to 300 basis points above the regulatory requirement. The strong financial position creates trust and confidence, as well as a prerequisite prerequisite for continued stable and profitable growth.

The bank's exceptional position as one of the world's most stable banks was again confirmed by the leading rating agencies during this the first half of this year. In Q2, Moody's also raised their baseline credit assessment rating of the bank to the highest level, a1.

This is a level shared with only a handful banks globally. No other privately owned bank in the world has a higher combined corporate rating by Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's.

This is achieved by our long-term connected, long-term, and customer-oriented business model, combined with a low risk tolerance and a very strong financial position. Finally, to wrap up, Q2 was yet another solid quarter for the bank, with a ROE of 13%.

Business volumes are growing overall. NII was stable, and fee and commission grew, driven by continued strong development in the savings business.

Costs are under control, and asset quality remains very strong. The capital position is solid, enabling the bank to anticipate healthy dividends equaling 82% of the earnings in the first half of this year.

We have satisfied customers in the bank, this quarter confirmed by our first position on the savings side in the Kantar Prospera annual survey among institutional asset managers. With those final remarks, we now take a short break before moving moving into the Q&A session.

Thank you so much.

Hello, everyone, and welcome back. This is Peter Grabe, Head of Investor Relations speaking, and with me for this Q&A session, I have Michael Green, CEO, and Mårten Bjurman, CFO.

As always, we would appreciate if you would ask one question at a time in order to make sure that everyone has a chance to ask their questions. Follow-up questions are, of course, warmly welcomed afterwards.

With that said, operator, could we have the first question, please?

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Could you remind us of your strategy for driving growth and profitability in the markets outside Sweden?

Because looking at the returns on allocated capital across your geographic footprint, Sweden delivered return on capital of 16.3% in Q2, while returns on capital in the UK were below 12 and in Norway and Netherlands at 10.9. What are the key levers to improve profitability in this lower-return markets while maintaining competitive positioning?

More broadly, how do these differences in returns on capital influence your capital allocation decisions across the group? Continuing to allocate capital to markets that are generating materially lower returns than Sweden?

Thank you.

This is Mårten speaking. Thank you for the question.

I think I want to start with UK. Obviously, we have a quarter where we are really happy with the outcome.

We see growing volumes both in the mortgage space and also in the corporate space with a pace that we are super happy with. Generally speaking, in the UK, we have a huge potential.

As Michael said earlier on, we have a second-to-none customer satisfaction level in the UK. We are, slowly but surely, growing into our portfolio in terms of costs, i.e., as volumes grow, you will see key figures in that market enhance only by that.

Not only that, we are also deploying multiple solutions to the branch office network in the UK to provide efficiency gains that are needed. You should look at UK as we are growing into the cost costume over time as volume will increase, and they do.

For UK, we are super happy for the moment. We are even more happy with that if you look at the Netherlands standalone in terms of growth pace, albeit they are super small in the group, of course.

If you look at them standalone again, I couldn't be more happy with the pace. I think if you zoom in on the corporate lending book, we have doubled that in 6 or so years, which is fantastic, of course.

Still they are relatively small. [cough] Also, they need to work on their efficiencies in terms of reducing manual processes in the branch office network and so on.

Norway is a different matter, as you know. We have a significant pressure in terms of competition in the Norwegian market, and we've had so for some time.

We are not alone in this, of course, and we see margins in our book decreasing, and we see that amongst our peers as well. That being said, if you look around a little bit in the Norwegian business, not only looking at the lending, and you look at the other parts, we are really happy with what we have accomplished in Norway as well in terms of the growth of assets under management, what they are doing keeping their costs under control, and also now we see the deposits are increasing a bit, and we need that quota to be a little bit better going forward.

All in all, I would say remember that we are super long-term in what we do, and in all these three markets, we see potential for our model working with our decentralized model. All in all, we are happy, even though at some point in time one country might lag behind a little bit, but over time we are happy.

Thank you.

Good morning and thanks. My question is on the margin headwind of 122 million on the NII in Sweden.

You mentioned some repricing lag. Is it on the corporate side you see the margin pressure, or is it on retail?

How confident are you, given the competitive dynamics we currently see in Sweden, that you will be able to pass through the higher funding cost and regain those margins?

Thank you for the question. We see margin pressure both on the mortgage side and also on the corporate side in Sweden.

It's both. I don't want to guide any further as you know in terms of what we see ahead for the coming periods.

We can just conclude that in Sweden, as of now, we see a competition obviously that has an impact on the margins.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Coming back to Gulnara's question on the international division, it's in two parts, but it's the same topic, really.

I just wonder, why have you reduced your capital allocation to the division so much in the quarter? I see that what's left in the central units used to be 19 billion in Q1 and it's now 55 billion in Q2.

Then, of course, that helps the ROE on the divisional basis. Then also I struggle to understand why Gulnara said that you do 12% return on equity in the UK, but that's, of course, with a fictional tax rate of around 20%, but while you actually pay 28.

Why don't you report your divisions with the tax rate that you actually pay there? Both related to the same topic.

Yeah.

Thank you, Andreas, for the question. You should bear in mind that we had dividend paid out in Q1, in terms of allocated capital, that obviously had an effect, first and foremost.

On the tax question that you had, yes, you can always debate on how we allocate internal costs, for example, taxes, for example. If you want to have, in your calculation in profitability measures for the UK another tax rate, please go ahead.

Then you need to deduct that from somewhere else in the group, because otherwise the figures won't add up group-wide, I guess. All in all, I guess again, bear in mind that UK is a market where we are super confident that our model is really fit for purpose in terms of growth, and bear in mind also that we are super long-term in what we do.

Just so I understand, I don't need to deduct it on group level, because the taxes you pay in the UK, of course, pays on a group level. Right?

No,

I would say that if you have the group figures in front of you, then and you allocate more taxes to the UK, then you need to deduct it somewhere else.

Not on a group level. I can deduct it from other.

In Sweden.

In Sweden, but that's on that division. I'm just trying to understand the UK compared to the group level.

Got it.

Okay. Let's leave it at that.

Thank you.

Yes, hi. Good morning.

Just following up there on Norway. It hasn't really changed that much since the autumn of '21 when you announced the divestments of Denmark and Finland.

I think even Denmark, if I remember correctly, was even more profitable than you are in Norway right now. It is, as you said, super competitive environment with DNB supported by the state, Nordea will probably tell us tomorrow that it's looks awful, and you have the Norwegian savings banks being super strong in the regional areas.

Perhaps the change is probably asset management and the saving business to some extent, but it's not nearly enough. Yes, you're long-term.

You've been there for I think 40 years or so, the beginning of the '90s. Isn't it time now, Michael?

Since you became the CEO, you addressed the cost base to start with. Secondly, you reduced the capital position, managed it down to within the range.

Isn't it time for a strategic view of your geographical footprint? The same on the UK, yes, you want to grow into the current cost base, and we're seeing volumes are growing and you tapped into the broker channel, but there's not much happening to NII, really, despite the recent rate trajectory.

Looking forward, you might continue to grow, but if rates in the UK progress in line with expectations, I guess it's going to be quite tough for a number of years also going forward. Primarily Norway seems like you should basically sell it and distribute the cash to your shareholders.

Why shouldn't you? We've been waiting for a very long time for that business to turn around.

Thank you, Magnus, for your question and remarks.

When it comes to the strategic kind of footprint in the bank, that's always a topic that we debate and discuss. You're of course quite right with given the history now for my 2, 2.5 years that we've managed to bring down cost and efficiency and we've with that also been able to pay out and bring down the equity in the bank, which is good, actually.

Now, of course we're looking to which markets we are in and where we should be. I think we are in a good place in these four home markets.

In Norway, if you compare to Denmark, I was not involved in the Danish decision, but there was so many things in both in Denmark and Finland that needed to invest in, the decision was to divest. In this case, Norway has a very strong offering to the market.

We have already invested in technology and digital solution for customers, and we have also taken down costs there. I think, and we now managed to swing a bit in the P&L when it comes to where we get the cash flow from customers to more asset management and capital-light and all that.

I think, actually, for now, absolutely we will stay in Norway. I think we will continue to strive hard in the UK, and the Netherlands is there as well, and they're growing quite good.

You can always debate whether you look short-term or long-term. I think my view is that we have a strong business case in all of these countries a long-term, and we will absolutely work very hard to make that happen, and to be able to grow with scale, and do that without increasing cost in these countries.

I'm very hopeful that we will do that over time, Magnus.

Yep. Okay.

Thank you. Will be interesting to follow, as always.

Just to add, you could also argue if we don't have anything right now, of course, on the table, obviously not, but we look into also, can we increase growth in these countries by other things like buying and purchasing things? We haven't any discussion about that right now, but we think about that, too, as well.

That's very interesting, because then it sounds like you have a different view than the recent management teams, as you missed two recent opportunities in Norway, for example, where you want to grow. You missed Sbanken, and I don't think you even looked at it, and you missed Danske's business, although you were actually bidding for Fokus Bank back in the beginning of 2000s.

Now I don't think you were even there looking for it. Would you say that you have a different view, that something has changed here compared to previously?

You also got numerous questions in the past about why you haven't pursued any inorganic growth measures in the UK.

I don't think I have a different view, and I would not actually review my predecessors. I just say that the opposite of selling, as you did there mentioned, is of course to grow, and there we always look into if there is something that we could add on.

We don't have anything at the table right now, and my main focus is of course to grow organically. That's how we run the bank.

If we have an opportunity that fits us, we look into that. It's nothing new, actually.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi. Here is Sofie from Goldman Sachs.

Thanks a lot for taking my question. My question would be on net interest income.

You kind of flagged that there was around 250 million kind of drag to net interest income this quarter, which was partly from the funding cost and partly on less income on the cash positions, and then it also included the Norway notice period impact. Just wondering if any of those impacts or if we should expect any of those impacts to kind of reverse in incoming quarters, or it was really more that you had this drag and then it's kind of steady state going forward?

If you could just elaborate a little bit if there is anything that will reverse in incoming quarters. Similarly, on the 350 million hit that you saw in the trading line from your hedging in the ALM book, should we expect any reversal in incoming quarters?

Thank you.

Thank you, Sofie. Starting with the 249 on the NII, [cough] I think it's correct to say that the notice period obviously will pass, and so that was a Q2 effect only.

If we have market rates on a certain level and policy rates at another level and they stay that way, then obviously our cash position that we have on central bank accounts, that will stay as is in terms of the spread. That is not a one-off.

The dividend is paid out. We are obviously making money each quarter, but dividend is paid out.

I think it's a little bit of both in terms of the NII swings that we went through earlier on. On the NFT line, where we have valuation effects on derivatives, we have super clear evidence that over time that effect, if you isolate that effect on that line, that will be 0.

That is 0 on a quarterly basis average. This quarter it's not, obviously.

That is a temporary effect for sure.

Maybe just on the derivatives position, how would you say that the position is? Is it in the money or out of the money, or I assume second or first quarter it wasn't at 0.

How should we think overall that the total position, are you kind of at 0 or in the money or out of the money, the reversal, if you see what I mean?

I see what you mean, Sofie, but I will not comment on that. It's one of those topics where I cannot comment.

It's a lot of moving parts and so many factors to weigh in. All I can say is what I just said, that it will sometimes swing a little bit in the quarters, but if you have a 12-months perspective or even longer, then this is really nothing.

Okay. Maybe putting it differently, did you see any positive mark-to-market impacts in the first quarter or Q4 from this derivative position?

Sofie, I think I stick to what I just said. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi, and thank you very much for taking my question. It's a follow-up again on some questions that others have asked on the business mix.

Let's take the four countries that you have right now and assume that you're happy with your presence there. Your criteria, to my mind, is stable countries, typically with low debt-to-GDP ratios, where you think you have a competitive advantage or where you can grow over time.

Is there any country that you are looking at where you would potentially look to expand? Because the fundamental issues with investors for you has not been the cost, it's not been the asset quality, it's been the growth profile.

I wonder if, at a management level, you have looked at country expansion to sort of solve that issue. Thanks.

The quick answer for that is not at the moment. On a longer term, we always look into how to grow.

Right now, we're happy as we are.

Thank you.

Morning, and thank you for taking my question. I was just wondering why you didn't take the opportunity to reduce the 250 bps management buffer this quarter on the CET1.

I also noticed there's a 30 bps tailwind from the sovereign exposures. Any thoughts there would be helpful.

Thank you. No,

it's just a formal decision from our point of view that it would take a lot for us to change that in the quarter within the year, such as this one in Q2. We are still at 250, obviously, and we are happy with that for now.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks for taking my questions, and good morning to everybody. I have just one, which relates to slide 4, where you show business growth in all markets.

The lending in that chart in Sweden, which is 75% of your business, which makes all the rest of the discussions albeit irrelevant, is flat in 1 year. Now don't get me wrong.

Sweden is not Czech Republic, is not Hungary, is not Poland. The country is growing kind of 3%, 3.5%.

You're flat, which means that in real terms, you are actually down in a year. Can you elaborate why you're down in real terms or flat in nominal terms when the rest of the country is actually moving up a bit, at least a bit?

Is that a deliberate decision? Can you elaborate on that, please?

Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you for the question.

It's a fairly relevant one, because, as you say, Riccardo, that it's obviously relevant for the group in terms of the volume that we have in Sweden. If you look at our performance in terms of lending growth in Sweden over longer periods of time, then you will see that sometimes we are a little bit above the market and sometimes we are lagging behind the market.

It's quite correct what you state, that as of now and since a couple of quarters, we have been lagging behind the growth in the Swedish market. If the question is if we are happy with that, the answer is obviously no.

We would have liked to see other figures. What is comforting is what Michael alluded to earlier on, that we see activity levels in the branch office network that are really really high.

We have seen also effects of that in the deposit side, and we have also seen streams from the corporates into asset management. Obviously we would like to have seen that activity materialize into lending as well.

Also bear in mind that over time we have also connections in our corporate lending book that are not fit for us anymore for various reasons, and then we exit them. Bear in mind that this is a net figure as well.

The underlying figure is that we have attracted new customers, but we have also obviously customers that have left the book.

Fine. Thanks for that.

Your risk cost is 0, 0. Is not the time maybe to, if I may say, to take on board some extra risk?

Because even if the cost of risk goes up to 5 basis points, that probably would be worth doing it instead of having 0 risk cost, whatever happens on this planet, and having the loan book growing nowhere when the rest of the world is moving. Don't you think it's time maybe to take a little bit more risk on board, given that you are starting from 0?

How it works in this bank is that the branches are actively chasing business locally within the corporate and private market, of course. They choose where they find it the most attractive for our shareholders over time to do the lending.

It's not that the CEO of the bank actually steers exactly how the risk should be taken in the bank. That's not how it works.

We manage the portfolio very carefully, and I think in general, banking is about lending out money and then getting them back. That's the foundational banking.

It's not how much you lose, not for us, and there can be so many different ways of doing banking. This is the way we do it.

We don't like losing money. We want to have it back.

We do business with very highly rated customers, profitable business with these guys, and then they pay back when they don't need the money anymore. That's how we run the bank, and that's how you should look at us.

When it comes to taking more risk, we take the proper risk in all of our home markets, in all of our branches, and they choose whether they want to do business, and I support that.

Okay. Thanks.

Hi. Thank you for taking my question.

It was similar to the last question, but could I ask, you're mostly a real estate lender, both on the corporate and the retail side, and over the last decade, there's been a number of floors put in, which I guess has made the risk-based approach to lending a little bit different. Have you adjusted in the branches, I guess, the lending standards to reflect that very low-risk lending and slightly higher-risk lending carry the same capital charge?

Also if I look at your commissioning income as a bank, it seems like the type of business you do generate relatively low commissioning income compared to your peers. I guess all these things kind of contribute to your lower-than-peer ROE situation.

I know you let the branches run it, but do you think, given where you sit in terms of profitability, that you may need to rethink a bit here how you're running the bank? Thank you.

Okay. Let me start from the back end of that question.

Obviously, yes, we are looking into increasing the capital-light income, which will have an effect on the ROE figure, obviously. As you have seen, we have put some efforts into growing our savings business, i.e., the assets under management, for quite some time.

Yes, it takes time to move those figures. We are moving in the right direction in terms of increasing that actually in all four home markets for the quarter.

Obviously, we are helped with market swings also a little bit, but if you deduct that, we see healthy inflows at least in three out of four home markets this quarter. Yes, we are constantly looking into how to increase our profitability.

That's our job, right? Yes.

Again, we run a decentralized bank. We are into meeting our customers and take a broader look at their needs and the needs from them in the future as well.

Out of that, we're building the business from a profitability standpoint. Michael?

Yes, and I just want to add that of course you're right if you look at the balance sheet where we have the vast majority of our exposures towards the real estate part of the sector. When we visit a branch in Handelsbanken, most of the works that they do in their business is not with the few real estate corporates, it's the huge amount of SMEs and mid-corps that they work with every day, which do not lend as much as a real estate company do, because that's part of their balance sheet.

Working with these SMEs, there's so much opportunity to do more than just lending. You do business with the owner family, you do business on the asset management side, you do payments, you do a lot of stuff that really brings on return on equity in these SMEs and mid-corps.

That's what they put most of their time in the bank. It's how you measure it.

If you measure it just on the balance sheet, yes, that's very heavy on that side. If you measure on workload and business opportunities and the workflow they do, that's more into these regular kind of business, not the real estate corporates.

Just on the risk-weight floors, do they filter into the sort of Because I guess your attitude has been that you don't have loan losses and, as you said, you want your money back. The regulatory environment changed quite a lot in terms of the capital charge that you're exposed to and thereby the ROEs.

No, I think the way you should see it is that if the bank is faced with higher capital requirements for a product, that's obviously cost that the bank has to take somehow. How we allocate those costs within the bank is nothing that we disclose in particular.

I don't think that you necessarily should put the two together, the capital requirement to the credit losses. I think they're two separate items, really.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yes, thank you very much for all the questions and for your participation. As always, if you have any follow-ups, you know where to find us in the IR department.

With those words, again, thank you very much, and we wish you all a very nice summer. Thank you.