Good evening, and good afternoon to those joining us from other time zones. We will start with a presentation by our CEO, Giuseppe Sica, and our new CFO, Luigi Lubelli, followed by Q&A.

Let me hand over now to Giuseppe.

Thank you, Caterina. Let's start on slide two with the key highlights, which reflect our focus on execution and the strategic deleveraging, which will have to continue in coming quarters.

This focus on execution and the resilience of the bank has enabled us to grow adjusted net profit by 8% versus first half 2025, even in what remains and will continue to be a challenging environment. Our payments and security services business continue to perform well, as you will see in a moment.

In line with our strategic deleveraging, we are managing the factoring and lending business in a very disciplined manner. We must act decisively on calendar provisioning, and have started to do so.

Notwithstanding the anticipation of calendar provisioning from 3Q to 2Q, we have maintained our pro forma capital ratios above regulatory requirements, as we said we would do. Finally, while we are pleased with our execution to date, we know that we have to address the effects of future calendar provisioning and are working to do just that.

This is why we have a number of strategic options under review, which includes, but are not limited to possible securitisation. A fundamental review in the business model is under consideration.

Of course, this has to be in the interest of all shareholders. Moving to key financial metrics on slide three.

BFF continues to be profitable, with RoE for the first half well above 20%, close to 30. The business continues to perform in line with expectations across the board.

Net revenues are up 9% year-on-year in what has been a complex first half for shareholders and employees alike. Adjusted net income is up 8%.

Factoring loans are down 5% compared to year-end 2025. This is fully in line with our strategic deleveraging and focus on profitability.

Deposits are down by a similar percentage, allowing for a constant loan-to-deposit ratio, which remains strong. It is not on the slides, as we are simplifying messages, but overall deposits grew versus Q1 2026.

Finally, our pro forma CET1 ratio stands at 11.1%. This is up versus year-end, even if we had to face the impact of the Bank of Italy report for almost 30 million and close to 90 million impact from the anticipation of calendar provisioning.

Let's look at net profit in more detail on slide four. BFF underlying business performance is resilient and drove an 8% increase in adjusted net profit.

This is thanks to robust performance of transaction services, which goes up year-on-year and continues to invest for growth, and is collecting successes. Disciplined management of factoring and lending, as already mentioned, and lower volumes will continue over time as we address calendar provisioning.

Collection focus remains high, and we've also strengthened our collection team. Finally, effective cost control.

I would also like to point out that our reported net profit would have been up 3% year-on-year if we exclude the impact of the Bank of Italy inspection report. Following slide.

Group profit before tax is up 7%, demonstrating our ability to maintain profitability in the context of our focus on strategic deleveraging. A bit more of detail on the various divisions.

PBT for security services and payments rose 15% year-on-year to 27 million euros. It would have reached 63 million if liquidity had been invested in Italian government bonds.

This would generate over 100 million 120 million if annualised. Factoring and lending performance was mainly affected by portfolio derisking.

The derisking will be apparent as I will talk about our net exposure to negative court rulings, which has gone down from 240 million at 2025 year-end to 100 million. Corporate Center has benefited from improved funding rates, focus on cost, and the HTC portfolio.

I'm now going to hand over to Luigi for more detail on the numbers, as well as the business performance.

Thank you, Giuseppe. Good evening, everyone.

Firstly, I'm delighted to have joined BFF and of having the pleasure of speaking to you today for the first time about our results. If we move to slide six, you can see the benefit of BFF's diversified mix of revenues, which I would like to draw your attention to.

In H1, 64% of net revenues were generated by activities outside our factoring and lending business, and this compares to 58% a year ago. This diversified mix allowed us to continue growing net revenues year-on-year, despite a decrease in factoring and lending, as a result of portfolio derisking, which also resulted in significantly lower exposure to negative court rulings.

As we already mentioned, the Corporate Center benefits from lower funding costs and larger HTC. In payments and security services, we benefited from higher commission income.

Let's now move to slide seven, where we show you the net interest income, which was stable compared to the first half of 2025. This primarily benefited from an improved spread, which was up 20 is up 21 basis points compared to a year ago, and offset the effect of a smaller loan book.

This is a trend that was already observed in the first quarter of this year. The improved spread reflects our increased focus on internal rate of return, even excluding LPIs, as well as on quick collections, which has resulted in lower reschedulings.

On slide eight, we look at fees and commissions. We continue to grow fees and commissions in transaction services, with security services achieving a 15% increase year-on-year, thanks to commercial activity, including the onboarding of 15 new funds.

On the payment side, the 4% growth was driven by a good performance of net commission income, and we have a solid future pipeline. We would like to highlight today that among our new relationships, we have also partnered with Revolut, and we have started rolling out specialized services for them.

This partnership is supported by a strong pipeline of additional services to be launched over time, and that highlights our ability to attract and support leading neobank and fintech players with tailored capabilities for the Italian market. In factoring and lending, fees and commissions related to the servicing of third-party portfolios were broadly stable year-on-year, underscoring our expertise in this area.

On slide nine, you can see our disciplined approach to cost management, which has allowed us to reduce our cost-income ratio to 46%, even after inflation and accommodating for our continued investment in transaction services, focusing on system upgrades. In factoring and lending, you see an increase in costs, which was related to the review of our processes.

Now I give the word back to Mr. Sica.

Thank you, Luigi. Let's look at our commercial performance on slide 10.

In security services, both assets under depository and assets under custody grew in the first half of the year. The overall reduction in deposits is linked to the rebalancing of the group liquidity mix.

In payments, commercial activity is picking up, and with a significant improvement in deposits in Q2, which was up 18%. Finally, in factoring and lending, we've been pursuing a selective approach to loan origination, focus on quality, profitability, and derisking actions.

The business remains highly profitable on an underlying basis, but we will continue to increase focus on profitability versus volumes, and improve operational effectiveness, which is key given the EBA definition of default. New ways to operate in the business will be needed in order to address the calendar provisioning.

Moving to our hold-to-collect Italian government bonds. We announced a repositioning of our portfolio on 28th of July.

This included the sale and investment of around 30.1 billion of HTC bonds. It was fully in line with the options set out in our capital conservation plan, and only has a marginal impact on recurring profitability.

The impact was not conservatively included in the previous capital conservation plan. Government bonds represent circa 40% of our total assets.

This also to protect the interest of all of our clients in the transaction services divisions. Liquidity remains strong and stable, actually improving versus Q1.

This is also reflected in stronger liquidity ratios. In particular, improved NSFR reflects lower past due.

Online deposits growth already observed in Q1 continued in Q2, making up for a slight decrease, 72 million, in the transaction services deposits. Cost of funding decreased significantly year-on-year, while spread was broadly stable.

Looking at the customer loan portfolio on slide 13, we already mentioned diversification is an important contributor to our resilience. This is also true for our customer loan portfolio.

Driven by our selective approach in origination as well as improved collection, the factoring loan book has decreased by 11%. Our factoring exposure accounted for less than half of the total loan book in the first half of 2026.

It also benefits from geographical diversification, with Italian factoring representing just below a third of the loan book. Now let me move to slide 14 on asset quality.

Net impaired loans have decreased 6% in the first six months of this year. The drivers of these results are probably more important.

We made significant progress on our net exposure to negative court rulings in this period, which decreased by 60% and stands now at 100 million versus 243 six months ago. Net NPLs, let me remind you, mainly represented by Italian conservatorships, are down by 25%.

UTP increased due to the impact of Bank of Italy report on the classification of certain Polish public hospitals. The cost of risk, at 12 basis points, is more than double compared to 1H, and reflects a more conservative approach to provisioning.

It's still 12 basis points. This follows the significant cleanup effected at year-end.

Slide 15 shows the quality of our origination, which has allowed us to collect 95% of the 2025 volumes, and already 70% of the first half volumes. In terms of POS-E collection, we have collected more than 2 billion euro in the first half, which corresponds to around 300 million of common equity tier 1.

As I've already done in Q1, let me give you the details of our calendar provisioning impact on the next slide. As we anticipated the impact of calendar provisioning from 3Q to 2Q, in light of the new EBA Q&A.

We now have an impact of close to 150 million from calendar provisioning. It's a big number.

As of June 2024, the impact would have been around 400 million. We are therefore efficient in reducing the portfolio affected by the calendar and will continue to be so.

The new reclassification from Bank of Italy, which we effected at year-end, adds additional burden, of course, as now also LPI are included in the contagion portfolio and tend to stay on our balance sheet for almost seven years, would be fully deducted from capital. That is why we are also exploring portfolio transactions, which of course will only happen if done at the right terms.

Additionally, in the absence of external activities, Poland drives 35% of the estimated Q4 2027 calendar provisioning. That is why we have put in runoff a small factoring portfolio in the country, which contagions the rest and much larger of our profitable lending book in the country.

We should thus be able to significantly reduce the impact on calendar provisioning. On slide 17, we provide more detail on our common equity tier 1 ratio.

As you can see, this improved both on a stated and on a pro forma basis. Importantly, our organic capital generation remains very strong at nearly 2 percentage points in six months.

The combined impact of calendar provisioning and Bank of Italy report is lower than our organic capital generation. We have effected the sale of HTC bonds at the end of July, which has allowed to respect all capital ratios on a pro forma basis, which was not the case at year-end.

The sale was not included, as already said, in our baseline projections on which our going-concern status was based at year-end. A few additional points from slide 18.

RWAs are down 500 million since year-end. RWA density has also gone down.

Capital is up compared to year-end. We respect all capital ratio on a pro forma basis, including MREL.

Before we start the Q&A, I would like to summarise the key takeaways from this set of results on slide 19. BFF continues to achieve adjusted net profit growth thanks to its focus on execution.

The transaction services business is performing well. In line with the derisking program, the factoring and lending business is managed in a disciplined manner.

The pro forma capital ratios remain above regulatory requirements. Finally, the review of strategic options is ongoing.

Thanks for your attention. We will now start the Q&A.

To ensure that we can take everyone's questions, we kindly ask you to limit yourself to three questions.

Hello and thank you a lot for taking my questions. The first one is on the calendar provisioning.

You have described indeed the calendar provisioning H1 impact as a phasing shift from Q3 into H1, and so since calendar provisioning is a mechanical function of vintage aging, I was hoping if you can quantify what you expect from this same vintage in 2027. What guidance can you give today on the size and timing of those steps?

I understand from the press release that it should still allow you to be compliant to requirements, but more info would be very helpful. The second question is on the securitisation.

There has been no update on the timing, would you still expect it to close for Q3 2026? Is investor engagement on the junior and mezzanine tranches still active?

The third question is on the press speculating on a potential split of the group. Separately, today you have disclosed that the board has received preliminary non-binding expressions of interest from domestic and international parties.

Can you clarify whether a full or partial break-up of them is one of the structure under active consideration, or whether the expression of interest received relate to the group as a whole? Thank you a lot.

Thank you, Tommaso. I'll try to answer to the best of what I can say today.

In terms of calendar provisioning, we don't provide the explicit projections, but we say that we respect all capital ratios in 2027. The number we have today, I expect to go down in the next couple of quarters as we collect part of what was reclassified in June 2024.

Let me remind you, in the first half of the year— Can you hear me?

Yeah. Now I can hear you.

Sorry, I had a problem, Tommaso, I don't know. I will not repeat, but if I skip any of the points, let me know.

What I was saying is we have already offset the first wave of calendar provisioning impact and the impact of 30 million from Bank of Italy inspection report with our first-half earnings and deleveraging, this is as much as I would say. Again, there should be an improvement over the next couple of quarters because of the collections we are making.

As you've seen, we've gone from 400 to 140 in six quarters. On the securitisation, of course, once there are updates to be given to the market, we will give updates to the market.

We are working along the lines which I've said on previous calls. There is no point for me to add to that.

The securitisation needs to be done at terms which are fair and create capital for the bank. The board is not working on a split of the group.

We will have to analyse the various options that the bank has at its disposal.

Thank you a lot.

Good afternoon to everybody. I have a couple of questions.

One is a clarification slide number 16. The €141 million of calendar provisioning impact is the one in the second quarter of 2026.

Is it the one that is embedded in your CET1 ratio as of now, following the anticipation of the decision of Bank of Italy to bring forward in second quarter the impact of the calendar provisioning? That is my first question.

The second question is, if this €141 million is the one that is embedded in your CET1 ratio, and as we know that the calendar provision mechanically increases the coverage from 35% to 100% after another one year of vintage, is it fair to assume that the second quarter of 2027 is another relevant cutoff for another potential significant impact of the calendar provisioning, all else being equal, assuming that there are no collection or other managerial actions? Just to have an understanding of, on a static basis, what would be the impact on your CET1 ratio?

Another question, can you provide more details about the downsizing of the Polish factoring product? You mentioned that you are selling a small portfolio, which is providing a significant impact in terms of contagioing, is my understanding correct?

Thank you.

Thank you, Giovanni. Yes, the €141 million is what is already deducted from our capital as of June 2026.

However, as we already had around 50 million of calendar provisioning in the past, it's not all from the reclassification. I think the one from the reclassification which we quoted in the previous press release was around 85 million, and you're good with numbers, you can work out what the 65% would be.

However, as I already said to Tommaso, we offset the 85 and the impact of Bank of Italy inspection report with one semester of earnings. To do the initial numbers or the mathematical numbers would assume no collections, but we are collecting, and that's why we show what was the impact as of June 2024 and what is the actual impact, yeah?

I would say you can run the numbers, you should certainly account for a reduction of the overall impact because of collections and other measures that we are taking. On Poland, I was not very clear.

We have a small book, it's around 100 million, of factoring-like products, and this factoring is often beyond 180 days, and because of the letter which we received in March from Bank of Italy, it was classified as past due, which was not the case before, because it was a non-notification factoring. By running off or deleveraging—I didn't talk about disposal—by deleveraging and reducing this 100 million, the level of contagion on the lending book of Poland would reduce dramatically.

We would expect a significant number of our lending book in Poland to go back from past due to performing, which makes sense because our hospitals continue to pay us regularly, other than for this small factoring portfolio.

Basically to make it clear, you are doing what, I guess, you are not in the condition to do now in Italy, because the amount of contagioing exposure also is much higher when compared to the contagioed exposure, no?

Yes. In Poland, we collect this factoring on average in two years.

We can run it down quickly, and above all, the component of LPI is very small. In Italy, the impact of the LPI after the reclassification of March is much more important, and so we cannot collect this contagioing exposure in Italy that quickly.

Okay. Just a very, very quick follow-up, thank you for your clarification.

Again, back on that slide, I would assume that the decrease from €400 million to €141 million, does this impact reflect also this effect of Poland, or is it something that we will see in the future?

No, it will be seen in the future. This was a decision that was taken, in fact, after the 30th of June.

Thank you.

Good evening and thank you for taking my questions. The first one is on the calendar provisioning.

You said to expect to respect the capital ratios in 2027. What about 2028?

Do you have some updated expectation on 2028? The second question is on the strategic options that you mentioned on top of the securitisations.

I'm wondering if you can please elaborate a little bit more on what are you working on. The third question is on the impact of the disposal of the government bond portfolio you made in the second quarter of this year.

What will be the contribution of the government bond portfolio in the second half of 2026? More in general, if you can confirm your guidance in terms of net income for 2026.

Thank you.

On the impact, I start to go backwards. On the impact of the bond portfolio on the overall profitability, I don't think I can give you a number, but it's less than handful of million on a running rate basis.

As we have around 1 billion of bonds which yield 0.6% fixed, which are going to expire in 2027, we will largely more than offset the impact of this slightly lower net income. We have not updated our estimates for the year.

You've seen how much we have delivered in the first half of the year. On the securitisation, I'm afraid I can't give you much more detail than what I've said before.

I like to talk about things once I've done them, I've indicated what is the timing we are currently working towards. The calendar provisioning, yeah, we said we respect the ratios in 2026.

We said we respect the ratios in 2027. In the context of the annual report, we said we had a small breach in 2028.

Now, because of the anticipation of the calendar provisioning, one may have thought that we would have had a breach in 2027. We don't, and we don't because we have started to take actions.

These actions are precisely the sale of the HTC bond portfolio, which was not there, the deleveraging that I discussed a few moments ago with Giovanni on Poland, and because the bank remains profitable. On 2028, we have a potential small capital breach, that is on the assumption that we don't do any of the actions which are in our capital conservation plan.

There is some disclosure in the press release what these actions are, and I think we have many options that we can evaluate. We don't need to do all of them, I'm not too concerned about our capital ratios in 2028.

What is important for me to stress, and I take, yeah, your question as an excuse to that we all have to understand that, yes, we can manage the calendar, we can address the capital ratios, but we have to rethink the way we do the factoring part of the business to be able to generate more capital in the future.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone. One question for me.

Can we rule out a capital raise, an equity raise, at this stage? You've managed to protect your capital Tier 1 ratio despite a number of headwinds, and it looks like it's going on an upward trajectory from here.

Is it fair to say that a capital raise is not an option at this stage? Thank you.

Thank you. For the same question I got asked at year-end, and probably also first quarter, and I said that we are not working on a capital raise.

We're not working on a capital raise because, at the moment, we don't need capital. For the more fundamental reason that I said before to Manuela is we need to rethink the business model of the bank in factoring to be profitable and to generate capital.

This is the prerequisite of anything that we are working on, frankly the target for anything that we are working on.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, and thank you for taking my question. I have three.

The first one is on the depository bank. Can you give us some colour on the reasons why depository assets are declining quarter-on-quarter, and also the evolution of deposits both in Depo and the payment business?

In particular, we see a sequential decline in Depo and a good increase in the payment business, if you could provide us more colour, it would be helpful. The second one, on loan loss provision, can you comment on the writebacks, if I'm not mistaken, in the factoring and lending division and on the adjusted loan loss provision in the adjustments column, which seems higher than those required by the Bank of Italy?

The last one, on NII evolution, can you explain better the decline in NII in the factoring and lending division, which, if I'm not mistaken, went from €65 million in Q1 to €41 million in Q2? How much is the associated provision release?

Just a quick clarification on the slide: you stated that IRR excluding LPIs is 6% compared to 9% including LPIs. Is it correct to say that 1/3 of interest income derives from the accrual of LPIs?

Thank you.

Thank you, Davide. Let me stress again, we are very pleased with the execution of the transaction services, both Depo Bank and payment.

Depo Bank lost one client in the second quarter. This client communicated to us around two years ago, before anything that happened to BFF, that they would leave the company, and they went somewhere else.

That drives the decrease in deposits of the depository bank. At the same time, we have had many onboardings, and frankly we have had more in July, probably one important one yesterday.

That was to be expected. On payments, I'm happy that you noticed the increase of the deposits of the payments, because I said on the previous call that the decrease we had in the first quarter of the year was driven by a single counterpart that gone out.

We have normalized that, and it's under control. I think the profitability of factoring and lending and the lower net interest income has been driven by a few factors.

One has been the reduction in the loan book. That's then more than offset by the better pricing on front book, but overall the impact remains negative.

The other thing is the derisking that we have taken in the factoring and lending with regards to negative sentences. That has an impact also on the net interest income, which you have seen there.

I think it will be much lower in the following quarters. Yes, and part of the releasing provision is precisely related to the retrocessions that we have been doing, which had a negative impact on part of the revenues of the factoring and lending.

We have associated those provisions to partially offset those decreased revenues. On the LPI, the 6% is a good number.

It's not good enough, and we want to do better. To have a business that yields 6% with the public administration as counterpart excluding LPI is not a bad business proposition.

I don't think you can and should assume that the net interest income is 2/3 maturity commissions and sorry, 2/3 as maturity commissions and 1/3 LPI. That's for a variety of reasons, is because the LPI also impacts negatively our interest income for the rescheduling, but also the impact of the back book is not negligible.

On the other hand, we do collect LPIs, yeah? The reason why we give this number here is precisely to stress what I think was embedded in your question, which is probably the market is overstating the importance of LPI in our net interest income.

I hope I have answered the questions.

Thank you. No, thank you, very clear.

Hi, thank you for taking my questions. I have three.

The first one, just coming back on the deposits, I know you've had a number of inflows, but have any other depositors started or said their intention to exit, started the process of outflows? Is there any risk around your deposit rating, anything that might be kind of contractual?

Then my second question is on the capital conservation plan, you point to potential issuance of Tier 2 and senior. Have you sounded out investors already, and how do you view the current market conditions?

Then my last question is, could you just explain in a bit more detail when you point to the potential valorisation of assets? Thank you.

No,

thank you. Thank you for the questions.

I think on deposits, I've said probably most of the things to be said. We had this one client which communicated to the bank two years ago that they want to exit.

Some clients has gone out. Some clients has gone in and more are coming in in July and August.

That's good in depository bank. On the contractual exit rating, this is a topic which does not get too much of my attention in the sense that clients are always or almost always free to leave, and they have not left.

When they leave, as the case of this client which I talked about a few moments ago, it takes relatively long time. Anyways, we are not seeing that.

On the issuance of bonds, I think we are now leaving for the holidays. I hope to go a bit on holidays now.

We'll see what happens when we come back, or later if we want to wait. You asked also a question about valorisation of assets.

I think I mentioned that we may consider, apart from the securitisation, also small disposals if done at the right terms for the firm.

Thank you.

Thank you for taking my question. Three questions at my end.

A follow-up on calendar provisioning, if I triangulate this €85 million of calendar provisioning for Q2 to get to 100% coverage would suggest an extra calendar provisioning in Q2 next year of €200 million. Is it fair to assume that you expect most of this headwind to be mitigated by effectively collection and a strong organic capital generation of the bank?

Secondly, you mentioned the bank needs to rethink the factoring business. Could you expand on what that means?

Does it entail, for instance, more regular usage of securitisation for instance? Lastly, in terms of issuance, sorry, I understand obviously we go into the holiday season, but how do you think about your MREL ratio in the context of the bond due for call next year, the senior preferred bond due for call next year in March, more precisely?

How do you think about this refinancing? Thank you very much.

Hi,

thank you, Stéphane, for your questions. I don't want to run into a debate about maths, but if 85 is 35%, the 65 is not 200 million, is much less.

Second, that assumes that we do no collection. We do collect, that's why we showed the slides going from 400 to 140.

On the bonds, I don't like to be at the level of capital I am now. We want to be higher, and that's why we're working on the options we are working on.

There was another question, sorry, Stéphane, which I missed, if you could repeat that for me?

Yes, of course, Mr. Sica.

My last question was really around the factoring business. You suggest the bank to rethink the factoring business, and if you could expand on what that means effectively.

Thank you.

Yes, I think the key issue of our business model is very simple, given the reclassification of March, which is the fact that LPI stay on our balance sheet for 2,400 days on average. That means that they will, by definition, go in calendar, and they continue to generate a high level of past due.

That's the part we need to deal with. How is the best way to deal with?

Could be a recurring securitisation, could be a partner to buy forward flows of LPI when they become past due. These are the kind of ideas which are in mind, among the others.

We don't have to rush. We have to find the best one for BFF.

We don't have to rush because I think our calendar provisioning is not above 200 million, and that excludes any capital generation and deleveraging that we can do with little harm to the business.

All right. Thank you, Mr.

Hello, good evening. I have three questions.

You mentioned the potential sale of a Tier 2. I was wondering at what level does the Tier 2 work on your side?

I guess there is a ceiling above which you wouldn't want to go, just roughly speaking. The second question is, does the sale and the acquisition of the HTC bond portfolio is going to lead to a mark-to-market of this portfolio on capital going forward?

Sorry to come back to the calendar provisioning, but don't you have an impact from the 1.3 billion reclassified at full year '25, which supposedly, from the EBA Q&A, should come two years after, I would have thought at Q4 '27, why basically you have to provision to bring provisioning at 35% on those 1.3 billion? Those are my three questions.

Thank you, Domenico. The Tier 2, no, I don't have a level in mind, but whatever level investors have in mind is too expensive for me, we'll have to find a middle point.

On the HTC mark-to-market, no, I don't see that risk. There is no level above which that becomes mark-to-market.

On the calendar, yes, I think somebody at the very beginning of the call asked me what are your projections, and we don't give the projections. Of course that we'll have to go into calendar.

Now, the 1.3 is your number at the moment of the reclassification. That number, if that is right, is down by many, many hundreds of million already now.

As I said during answers, 35% of that number is coming from Poland, which we can manage relatively quickly. I don't want to make things look easy, because I know things are not easy.

There is a part which we can solve more quickly. There is a part like the LPI on which we have to study solutions, but absolutely there will be an impact from reclassification, it's in our numbers, and we don't see capital breaches in 2027.

Okay. Just coming back on the HTC portfolio, I thought that the action basically triggered a different classification and therefore the mark-to-market to capital, am I totally off?

We would have said so in the press release.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Sorry, I thought it was done.

Thank you. Thanks to all the participants, and thanks for all the questions, and I look forward to speaking again soon in the context of our nine-month results or earlier in the various roadshows that we keep doing, and we are always happy to see investors.

Thank you.