Okay. Good afternoon, everybody.

Some information while we are waiting for the other participants. In case you have questions, please write them in the chat, and at the end of the session, we will answer, as usual, to all the questions you may have.

Okay. I think we can start.

Let's make a check. Everything is working.

Okay. First half of 2026.

Just 1 second. We have other two participants.

Someone else. Let's wait 1 minute more.

Okay. We can start.

First half of 2026, the keyword has been dynamism. As you saw from our press release, we had a very intense period thanks to the growth and also to the acquisitions that we had.

We will comment with all the details about all these activities. We closed the first half of the year with a turnover of €22.8 million versus €20.1 million of the first half of 2025.

It is a growth of 13%. It's 10% if we exclude the contribution of BLS, the acquisition that we completed at the beginning of this year.

Recurring revenue is 92%. As usual, we are very sensitive to the quality of our revenue.

In terms of EBITDA, we had an EBITDA of €6.4 million, which is a -4 with respect to 6.5 of the first half of the previous year. If we consider the adjusted EBITDA that basically exclude all the one-off costs related to M&A, it is 6.7, almost flat.

We will comment more on this when we will reach the slides with the profit and loss and the costs. The EBITDA margin was to 29%, and the net profit follows basically the EBITDA, €1.8 million versus €2.3 million of the first 6 months of 2025.

The net financial position is negative in the sense that it is a net cash position and not a net debt position, and it is a net cash position of €2.9 million despite the M&A activities and the acquisition of BLS, with 23.2 million in cash availabilities. Quite a lot of cash that we can use to support our plan.

Let's start from the corporate events. A recap about what happened.

At the end of March, we acquired BLS. BLS, it is a managed service provider mostly focused on managed cybersecurity.

It's basically an acquisition complementary with the acquisition that we made in 2025 of TWT. We acquired 65% of the stake in BLS for €1.3 million, which we funded with our cash reserves.

We have also an option to acquire the remaining 35%. The turnover of the company in 2025 was €2.5 million with a positive EBITDA and a net cash position.

All in all, for us, this was an acquisition to complement our offering in the managed service with managed cybersecurity, which is something in which we were not present, but where we see quite a lot of opportunities of cross-selling. Then after the end of the semester, and in particular on July 29, we completed the acquisition of the so-called Perimeter B1 by Tessellis, the old Tiscali.

It is basically a business unit that includes two companies, one that is called XStream and the other that is called Eterna. XStream is a company very similar to our Connesi, with some let's say industrial difference, but basically it's a managed connectivity provider focused on B2B connectivity, while Eterna is an MSP vertical on the hospitality industry.

We paid €4.2 million at closing, and we used our cash reserves. We started consolidating this company since the beginning of August.

It's important to remind also the numbers of let's say this business unit that we acquired: €12.7 million in revenue, more than 80% is recurring revenue, all the customers are B2B customers, very complementary with what we are doing with the rest of our companies in the group, positive EBITDA, and more than 3,000 business clients. It's important this deal, it's clearly a kind of turnaround deal.

XStream is a company that we were monitoring since 2022, quite a lot of time. We like the company.

It's a light turnaround in the sense that it's a company very healthy on the top line, but that needs some action to restore a good cash generation and a good margin on the bottom line. This is also why we paid solo for the business.

Of course, our challenge, and we are already very focused on that, is to restore profitability very, very quickly and to make, of course, the synergies with the other companies in the group. In terms of profit and loss, let's comment on the main results.

The net sales, Italy is still the primary contributor with 70% of the total turnover, followed by the Balkans. Croatia and Slovenia, they have a share of around 8% each and Bulgaria 9%.

We have a small presence in the Italian part of Switzerland, which accounts for 3% of the total turnover, while Serbia accounts for roughly 2% of our turnover. In terms of let's say growth, we had a good growth in Italy, close to 16% year-on-year.

It includes also the contribution of the acquisition of BLS and TWT. It's a partial contribution.

We had a good growth in Slovenia, close to 10%. In Croatia, we had a growth of 1.3%, but this data must be further analyzed, in the sense that on our core business, the growth was very close to the Slovenian one, but in Croatia, we are dismantling some kind of old hardware reselling business, very low margin.

It's something that we are doing since 2025, and of course, it impacts the representation, but the reality is that we are growing very well, like we are growing in Slovenia. We had a huge growth in Switzerland where we grew by 29% mostly thanks to some marketing actions, pretty effective, that we put in place, and a good growth also in Bulgaria and Serbia, where we grew by 7%.

If we consider the segments, cloud computing is still the main contributor with 32% of our turnover, €7.1 million. Cloud hosting amounted to €5.2 million, accounting for 24% of our turnover, very close to business connectivity, which accounts for 23% of our turnover, €5.1 million.

Data center and networking is ancillary in the sense that accounts for 7% of our turnover, €1.6 million, while managed IT accounts for €1.1 million. Then we also have the other segments, which basically includes some hardware resale, some projects, and which accounts for 9%.

In terms of performance of the different segments, cloud computing decreased by 1.6%. Basically, it's interesting to observe the mix in the sense that, as on cloud computing, we had the issue of the churn of a few clients that were acquired by some other companies in our industry, which basically dismantled the infrastructure.

We were able to replace the churn thanks to the growth of the AI infrastructure, which now accounts for more than 5% of the turnover of this segment and which is growing very fast, approximately it's doubling, with respect to the first 6 months of 2025. We are very confident on this segment for the future because we are observing this recovery and increased trend thanks to the AI.

The AI mostly impacts this business in terms of future opportunities for the moment. If we consider cloud hosting, we had a growth of 14%, pretty strong, and the same for business connectivity, where we had a growth of 12.7%.

Very good growth also in the managed IT, +74%. Of course, there is the contribution of the M&A, but it's fair to say that also TWT, the company that we acquired in 2025, is growing very, very strongly with more than double-digit growth.

We are very happy about this performance. We had a drop down in the data center and networking, -10.

As data center and networking, for us, is not exactly core business. It's something where we are a little bit opportunistic depending on our relationship with our customers.

As we have data centers that we use mostly for our own needs, but since we have some free space, we also rent it out through colocation to some key customers and key partners. We can move to the EBITDA.

In terms of EBITDA, as you can see, we started from 6.6 in 2025. We had the positive contribution of the new sales and then some impacts mostly by material cost, service cost, and personnel cost.

Material cost, it's something that in the reality is related to change in the perimeter, it's related to the M&A activities that we have done. There was not a huge impact in this part of the costs.

The impact that was more evident is in the personnel cost and partially also in the service cost. What is the reason behind this increase?

We decided basically between the end of the last year and also at the beginning of this year to increase a little bit our investment on AI, in the sense that, as we launched Regolo on the market, this internal startup that basically had very good reach from the market, from the customers. As we are very prudent as a company.

Sometimes, we believe that we are too prudent in a world that is very bully about AI. We are not on the side of being bully in the sense of investing whatever it takes.

We realized that it was time to be more brave and to invest a little bit more to play, especially on Regolo, a European game. As with DHH, basically, we are a group very much focused on local markets, but not with Regolo.

Regolo is something that we are launching and developing on the international market. We decided to be brave, to sacrifice a little bit 2, 3 points of EBITDA for a short amount of period, not for life, but to bet and to be ambitious.

We have an opportunity. We are part of this innovation effort and innovation ecosystem about AI since the very beginning.

We don't want to lose this opportunity. This is what you observe in this numbers.

In terms of capital allocation, it's always the same logic, quite boring, in the sense that our operating cash flow, €5.7 million, 86% is the cash conversion from the EBITDA adjusted to the operating cash flow, a little bit higher if we consider the real EBITDA. Then we invested, as usual, on tangible, which is fiber and hardware, €2 million; intangible, close to 0 because we basically don't capitalize the R&D that we carried out by our employees.

Then we have right-of-use, €1.6 million, basically the data center facility renewals. Last but not least, the financial investment, which in this case is related to the acquisition of BLS.

In terms of business outlook, what we can expect from the second part of this year? An acceleration, in the sense that, leaving aside AI for a moment, we were very dynamic also on M&A.

Especially the acquisition of XStream, it's something that impacts our numbers in a meaningful way. For sure, we will have an acceleration in the growth of our turnover in the second half of this year.

Then we'll have a good organic growth across the group, and we expect and we are very confident to keep it. We also expect to capitalize also on the effort that we are doing on AI that is already producing good results.

It's something that we believe that we can keep and hopefully also improve within the end of the year. It's not finished the year, and we continue to be active also on M&A.

We have capital. Despite the fact that we accelerated, we don't want to lose moments also on this.

We are going on on our efforts to consolidate the MSP market. We didn't stop on M&A, we have some discussions that is ongoing.

As always, this is a recap of our journey, but I would ask you to share your questions in the chat so that we can comment on this. Okay.

Let's start from the first one by Marco Greco. Couple of weeks ago, an international law firm announced the purchase of its own AI servers and GPU in order to set up a proprietary private AI infrastructure and not to be dependent on any single vendor of technology provider.

I guess you read basically the question in the chat. Basically Marco is asking if we feel some kind of higher demand from the market in terms of private AI.

Antonio, this is your bread and butter. Okay.

Good afternoon to all, and thanks for the attention in this meeting. To Marco, the question is real in the sense that we are observing in a relevant way demand for private AI or for not public one.

To be clear, to be honest, as a group, we are present actually only in the business or private AI. Then, from our point of view, all the business that we see is a kind of business mostly related to private AI.

Then the discussion that is present in the questions posed by Marco is between private AI, in the sense that you can have a private infrastructure in the cloud or private infrastructure in on-premise. Actually, to continue to stay honest, on the market, in the area of the private AI, the expenditure on on-premise AI is much bigger than the expenditure on cloud private AI.

This is the situation in the market. If you get the information from, I don't know, IDC or Gartner, more or less, this is the approach.

This kind of approach is strongly affected by, especially in Europe, by the Next Generation Fund, in the sense that Europe decided to invest a lot of money in AI infrastructure, as there are AI factory projects and so on. This kind of investment are basically concentrated on on-premise private AI.

Then when you get the amount of the investment in terms of money, the great part of this investment are related to private AI, but on-premise. This is the scenario to be honest.

This exactly the part of the questions that mentioned Marco of the famous law firm that decided to do this. Something's changed in the sense that, for example, if you consider in Italy, now is active the some other kind of financial assistance to the company, like, for example, the Cloud Voucher.

Actually, the Cloud Voucher are referring only to, for example, cloud infrastructure, no more only related to on-premise purchase. Then this is what we are observing actually.

Obviously, as I mentioned before, we are present only in private AI area, and then we don't are so interested in follow the public AI one, but we need to consider that in this area, there are present OpenAI, are present Anthropic, and so on that are actually the player that still investing a lot of money in marketing and so on. This is the scenario.

What we see as real data in the area of private AI is that we are in a scenario in which there is a huge demand. The half of the demand is a sort of explorative demand, in the sense that there are a lot of companies of different size that try to do experimentation.

They don't have a clear project. There is another half actually that grew in the last time that are working on real project, real project validated in the company project that on which the company expect clear results.

This is the scenario that we see.

Okay.

The other questions, I know, from Giorgio

From Giorgio, basically there is a question about the Seaweb churn, then about the AI profitability,

and Then up to you for the first part, and then I can comment on Seaweb churn.

In the first part, there is not a question. I guess it is more a comment.

I know.

Do you see? Okay.

No, the first part of the question basically is related to the EBITDA margin that we expect in the second half of the year because in order to reach consensus, we need to have a very good EBITDA margin. He's also asked about the potential effect of the M&A that we did on the margins.

The reality is that we acquired a company, XStream, that is in a turnaround situation, and our challenge is to act very fast in the first month of this year in order to start 2027 with a good cash generation and recovering the margins with the idea of increasing month after month the margins of this company and the effect of the contribution on our numbers. We don't expect a positive contribution from XStream and Eterna to our margins in 2026.

We expect positive contribution starting from 2027 ongoing. On the other hand, of course, there will be a positive contribution on the revenue.

This is what we expect about the margins. In terms of the Seaweb churn, Antonio, up to you.

Basically, the question is if the bulk of the impact has been absorbed or not.

Yes, just another additional information about the first question that we need to consider that as Nico told before that Eterna is a company that lose money and XStream is a company that is not so profitable. Then if you put the attention on the absolute value, we are confident that we will be able to manage the value, but if you put the attention on the EBITDA intensity in terms of percentage of revenue, to be really honest, we expect a drop in the H2 for the effect of the speed on which we will be able to do the turnaround of Eterna and of XStream.

Then we are obviously very, very strongly concentrated in this moment to try to maintain and hopefully increase the absolute value of the EBITDA and the bottom line, but for us is clear that we will leave on the table some percentage intensity of the EBITDA in this phase. Historically is a absolutely common for us for each of the M&A that we do.

In this case, we need also to consider that the size of the company is not so little, and then we will observe a much bigger effect from this kind of pump and dump, okay, regarding the EBITDA percentage. Regarding the Seaweb churn, we have already discussed about this in the previous earning calls.

We will lose some relevant customer, very, very old customer. One of it was a customer with a ancient about 15 years, a very, very long-term customer.

There are two aspect that we need to take in care. The first one is that when you have a customer seasoned that comes from 10 years, 20 years ago, and so on, you have done a very, very long journey of optimization.

Then from this kind of customer, is normal that you are able to extract a lot of marginality because you have optimized the service, optimized some little things, and especially if this customer are not so little, but are I don't know, middle customers, you need to take in care this. Now, we are replacing this very, very seasoned customer with the newest one that comes in great part from the AI segment.

Then the first effect is that the marginality of a young customer is quite different from a marginality for a very, very long seasoned customer. This is the first point.

The second point that we need to take in care is that the fact that we have recurrent revenue is a positive things when you acquire a customer, but you need also to consider that when you lose a customer, you lose also the recurring part of this customer. Then we need to take in care this when we try to evaluate the forecasting for the future.

Regarding the last part of the comment that is very, very interesting, is, "Okay, but what is the marginality of the GPU services?" This is very, very interesting as a question because the market in this moment is strongly confused.

I prefer to represent you the two different businesses. Since we have the GPU part that actually is the most relevant, we decided to not disclose the number until now, but this is the relevant part.

Beside this, we have also the Regolo. We started in create revenue also with Regolo.

We started more or less in March with the first invoices. Then we have actually two different revenue stream: the first one that is relevant that comes from cloud server GPU basically, that is infrastructure, pure infrastructure; and the other revenue stream that comes from Regolo that is much more a platform, is an AI platform.

Then we see two different scenario, in the sense that on the first one, the infrastructure, the situation about the marginality is very, very simple to predict and more or less aligned to the one that we have with the old classic cloud computing business. You need to consider actually if we reason about the first margin, we have in the range of 50% and 100% in terms of first margin.

That is more or less the same that we have with cloud computing. The relevant aspect is much more related to the customer that is a young customer with a young infrastructure, we need to put a little.

Differently from cloud, what we observe on GPU actually that the volatility of the service is very, very much higher than the cloud one. What means?

Means that when a customer decided in the past to purchase a cloud infrastructure, more or less, despite the fact that exists elasticity, pay-per-use, and so on, at the end, they maintain the service for month and months, years and years. On the CPU, the business model is different, and the aspect of the pay-per-use is much more effective, and then you see a huge volatility in a per-customer revenue, but this is connected to the type of the business.

We are really confident about the ability to get a good marginality, more or less the same that we have observed in the past on the cloud computing. Also considering that we decided to play the game in a different way, in the sense we don't have decided to purchase CapEx and CapEx, gigawatt and gigawatt of GPUs and something like that, we have decided to play the game to have a very, very strong agreement with some selected vendor, and basically, we leased the equipment more or less in the same moment in which the market required the equipment, and then we don't have buffer in this.

This is a good point for us. On the other side, on the Regolo side, the situation is very, very different, in the sense that, to be really honest, actually, the Regolo business is not so profitable.

We are in search of the right asset to obtain profitability from Regolo. This is not a topic only for Regolo, but if you take a look to the figures of OpenAI or Anthropic, the size is different, but the mood is exactly the same.

Then, actually, in Regolo, what we are doing is to find the right way of the proposition in order to create marginality. As you can see, we have decided to bet on compliance, for example, on regulation and so on, in order to increase the price of the service.

Actually, this appear a good approach. We have a good traction, for example, in Germany, in Holland, in Austria, in the some country that in this moment are much more interested to compliance, to sovereign of the data, and so on.

We are betting on this. Actually, this is a curiosity because the number of Regolo are very, very not relevant in the sense that they don't impact on the marginality.

What we expect is that the number that comes from the platform can grow a lot, and then we need to take in care the marginality. I can absolutely reassure you that for us, marginality is one of the first concern on which we work.

Okay. I think we can move to the next question.

It is always about the EBITDA margin. Marco commented that the EBITDA margin declined by roughly 500 basis points year-on-year, and he's asking for the breakdown.

If you want, Antonio, I can comment on this or otherwise up to you.

No, up to you, Nico.

Okay. Maybe we can share this so to be more specific.

This is from our report that will be on our website in these days. Let's take the different items related to the costs so that we can see everything in detail.

If we take the material costs, we can say that basically the main factor was related to TWT and the consolidation of TWT in this year, €585,000 of variation, and the other is BLS with €192,000 of variation. Basically, material costs are very much under control, and the variation is related to the M&A activities that we have done.

If we have a look at the service cost, this is interesting because we see a change as always in TWT because of the consolidation, full consolidation of the period, and BLS, €255,000 TWT and €200 BLS, but also an increase in DHH S.p.A. of a little bit less than €300,000.

This increase is mostly related to the fact that we increased the number of activities on the investor relations. As you observed, our stock became more liquid, but it is also the consequence of the fact that we have let's say more coverage on our company and we are doing more activities on this.

The other effect is on the organization because, of course, in order to accelerate and to prepare what you have observed, we invested a little bit to make our organization stronger. This is the other thing that you observed in the service cost.

The rest is very much under control. Personnel cost is where you observe as always TWT and BLS for the variation, 150 TWT and 174 BLS, but you observe in Seeweb the topic that we were mentioning about the staff that became stronger, let's say our bet partially on Regolo and partially on the development of our sales activity, €193,000.

Basically, this is it. I guess I commented on Marco's question.

Then we have Tommaso's one. The first one is related to our initial assessment of the Perimeter B1, basically some detail about the integration and restructuring plan, the timing and the kind of actions that we are putting in place.

The second one is about the GPU and related margins, but we already commented on this. The third one is about GPU capacity and GPU CapEx.

This is up to you, Antonio. Maybe, Antonio, you can comment on the first and the third, the second is already answered.

Okay. I can start also on the question related to the B1 perimeter of Tessellis, in the sense that we have started the turnaround activities.

As is clear that in XStream and Eterna, there is some quantity of waste in the sense that we need to clean at the company. There are some also some asset on which we are reasoning in most cases intangible asset, on which we are reasoning about the real consistence of this asset.

There are some OpEx, part of them related to the employee, other part related to some external cost in consultant. There are space for do a reorganization.

Probably in the initial time, we don't prefer to start in a very, very aggressive way on head count. The first idea was, "Okay, since we have a lot of people in this company, try at the beginning to reach the efficiency that is correct from this kinds of head count."

Then the idea was in the ability to stress the challenge on the top line beside with the marginality. We have a clear goal in the short term for the end of the year and for the Q1 of the next year in which we need to have two healthy company, for sure, at the beginning.

We are working on this. We will have a sort of progressive step that we want to put on the table.

The first one are much more oriented to stress the efficiency in terms of top line in order to cover the costs that we have mainly that comes from personnel and from other some typical costs. If we don't observe this kind of reaction, we will become much more aggressive on some cost cut.

This is a strategy that is not so different to the strategy that we have applied in the other company that joined the group in the past. To be honest, the situation of XStream and Eterna is not so similar to the one that we have managed in the past, but more or less the situation, the main pillars are the same.

What we observe at the end is coherent with what we have paid, more or less. Regarding the EBITDA on GPU, I think that we have already discussed on this in the sense that is not so different to the one that we have in the cloud computing area in the past.

There is an interest questions of Tommaso about what is the ratio of the current utilization. This is a sort of, I don't know, winning point for us, and then I want to give you the real number despite the fact that this is not public.

In this moment, we have 89.96% of infrastructure filling. You need to consider that in order to reach the 50% of the first margin, you need to stay over 60% of filling.

89 is one of the biggest fill factor that we can observe across all the player. This is thanks to the fact that basically we don't purchase the equipment, but we have created a sort of continuous stream between the vendor and the customer, and also thanks to the fact that we have already the data center, and then we need basically to use the data center that we have.

Honestly, we have put in place also a little strategy in the sense to try to encourage the abandon of the service from the our colocation customer not so brilliant from the marginality in order to have space available for use for cloud and for GPUs. Then this is the first question.

I will move to the second questions of Luca Todesco. What are the expected investment in next 12, 18 year?

In the reality, the investment of Regolo are only in human resources, external consultant, and marketing activity. This because the infrastructure part is a sort of virtual usage of the infrastructure that we already have in Seeweb that we name Cloud Server GPU.

Regolo is on top of the exact same service that we in Seeweb propose to the market. That are exactly the same.

In this create a huge huge synergies in the usage of the GPU. Then we don't have a capacity dedicated to Regolo.

We regard Regolo as a normal customer. Then, obviously, this create a negative effect in the sense that Regolo don't pay for the part of infrastructure that use, but we are not able to create revenue on this part of infrastructure.

On the other side, we don't have a sort of CapEx and CapEx equivalent multiplying among the different seals. What we expect on Regolo is very, very difficult to do a forecast in this moment because we are in actual situation in which the amount of revenue is very, very low, and we are in search of the right business model.

Then, any kind of speculation about what will expect among 12 or 18 months will be more or less the similar of the speculation of the Anthropic. In the sense, I don't know if someone of you take a look to the last report of Anthropic.

The idea of Anthropic is very, very interesting. If we remove all the cost, we will be profitable.

This is the idea of Anthropic. We are not so strong as Anthropic, and then, actually, we are not profitable in Regolo.

We are completely convinced that putting the good knobs in the business model, we will be able not only to become profitable, but to have a profitability similar to the our normal standard around 30% of EBITDA. That is our group gold standard that we don't want abandon.

Up to you, Nico, regarding the M&A. I think that

Basically, Luca is asking the like-for-like growth in Italy without M&A. Basically, in 2025 in the first 6 months, we generated €13.4 million.

In 2026, we generated €15.6 million. There was a change, a positive change of €2.1 million.

The variation related to M&A is 0.56. Basically, if we exclude the variation, the growth in Italy is no more 16, it is above 10, it should be 11 or 12, something like that.

That's it. I don't know if you have other questions.

Otherwise, we can end this call, and then stay in touch for the next update with the results of the third quarter of this year in November. Okay.

Apparently no more questions. Thanks a lot.

As always, we come back to our work, and stay in touch. Bye.

Bye-bye. Good afternoon.

Bye.

Bye.