Thank you very much. Good morning and welcome everyone to the DFDS Q2 call.

I'm Michael Hansen, the CEO of DFDS, and today I'm joined here by our CFO, Karen Boesen, and our Head of Investor Relations, Søren Brøndholt. Today is my first conference call together with all of you in DFDS, just a brief introduction.

I've spent most of my career in international, operationally complex B2B businesses, most recently as CEO of Hempel, and before that almost 20 years with the A.P. Møller - Mærsk Group.

Much of that work has been about transformation, performance improvement, and making clear choices about where a company can create the most value. My leadership style is quite straightforward: facts, transparency, accountability, and then listening, but listening that leads to decisions and actions.

I've been with DFDS for a little over a month now, obviously not long enough to have all the answers, but on the other hand long enough to have some initial views. I see a company with very strong assets, leading positions in important markets, strong customer relationships, great operational capabilities, and a lot of talented people.

At the same time, we have also very clear challenges around our performance, complexity, capital allocation, and more fundamentally, making sure that we are absolutely clear on where DFDS should compete and how we can be different for our customers. We need to do two things in parallel: we need to continue to improve our business and deliver on the areas that are within our control today, and we need to take a step back and make sure that we have the right long-term direction for DFDS.

We'll come back to both of these elements during the presentation this morning. If we turn to the next page, I'll just briefly take you through the agenda of the call.

I'll just do a very brief intro now before elaborating a little bit more on the strategic review that we have communicated that we're commencing here in the middle of August. Karen will then take us through the Q2 performance, including the ESG numbers, after which I will sum it up through our outlooks and priorities, and we'll open up for Q&A towards the end.

Going to the next page. Before we go into all the numbers, I just want to make a brief reflection on why I believe that DFDS truly matters.

If we look across Europe, supply chains, they depend on reliability. Factories, retailers, communities, and millions of passengers rely on goods and travel arriving on time.

Behind that, we have our 16,000 DFDS colleagues who keep Europe connected, north to south, east to west. We don't just move freight or passengers, but we actually enable travel, trade, and economic activity across the continent.

Thousands of companies rely on us to keep their operations running, and that responsibility is truly what defines who we are and why DFDS plays such an important role in the European logistics and mobility infrastructure. If we turn to page 4, then it's also been very clear during my onboarding that one theme has been consistently coming up: ambiguity, a lack of one clear direction.

That raises some fundamental questions to all of us. Who is DFDS?

Where should we invest? How do we create competitive advantage?

How do we best combine our ferry and logistics businesses, and what kind of company do we really want to build over the next decade? That's not academic questions.

They're questions that need to guide decisions on fleet renewal, our footprint, our technologies, and not least our capital allocation. Without that clarity, it's really hard to make consistent choices.

That's why we have launched a strategy review, and the goal is not just to get a fancy document, but it's really about clarity for our business, about having one ambition and one direction for DFDS, clearer understanding of our customers, for colleagues, and for our investors as well about where we're heading. We'll complete this review within the next 6 months, and it will include financial ambitions as well.

In parallel with that, we will continue to drive the near financial performance improvements through the already established programs. Turning to page 5.

With strategic clarity, it all equally needs to be matched also with clarity in how we work together. With 16,000 colleagues across Europe, we need shared expectations of what I call the non-negotiables.

Number one: safety. It is the number one priority for this company across our vessels, our terminals, warehouses, trucks, and offices.

Collaboration is the second one. We'll succeed across our boundaries and not within silos, right, with a mindset of high challenge, high support.

Number three: ownership and discipline, to make decisions, take responsibility, follow through, and then operate with transparency, and not least, with integrity. Number four: our customers.

Every role across DFDS somehow contributes to the customer experience, which is our foundation for future sustainable growth. We will succeed if we act as one company with a shared commitment, clear accountability, and a collective success.

With this brief introduction to myself and to the initial perspectives of DFDS, we'll now go into the Q2 results, turning to the next page. We'll start out on page 7 with the Q2 safety performance.

I'm sad to report that we have had a fatality in May of 2026 involving a Dutch DFDS colleague, a truck driver who, during unloading operation on board one of our ferries in Dunkirk. The circumstances leading to this tragic accident are still being investigated by the authorities and in close collaboration with DFDS.

Following the investigation's outcome, the learnings will naturally be integrated into our DFDS Safety First program to prevent a similar accident in the future. Looking at the sea and land-based safety, there's no material changes to the LTIF compared to last year.

As part of the strategy review, we will also revisit our targets for safety performance, because we have to do much better. With that, I'll pass it over to Karen to take us through the numbers.

Thank you, Michael, and good morning to everyone. We delivered a Q2 in line with our plans, which is satisfying, and we are happy with that progress.

It's a Q2 where both divisions delivered significant improvement year on year. Ferry improvements are supported by the lower net bunker cost, and Logistics demonstrated strong progress in their Boost projects.

Unfortunately, our Q2 result is also impacted by a one-off of 53 million. It's a one-off that relates to a litigation case that started back in 2015 and now has had a ruling in the opposite direction as the previous two rulings.

Result impacted negatively by 53 million, unfortunately. Moving on to our turning points, they all progressed in Q2.

We saw continued progress in our Mediterranean ferry business. Our ferry rates are sustained.

Jersey performance improved versus last year. We saw Logistics Boost projects continue to deliver quarter-on-quarter impact.

We are on track to deliver our 300 million cost program, with over 250 million delivered to date. Finally, TES is also progressing, but more needs to happen there.

Looking ahead, our earnings outlook and financial leverage improvements are on track, as we will report in more detail in the coming slides. We do see a market that is at the risk of some downside with the high oil price levels that we see across the globe.

Our fuel cost recovery is in focus across our network, and to ensure a stable level there, we have hedged some of our oil price exposure in the second half of 2026 to reduce this uncertainty. Moving in to the results, starting with page 9, our Q2 revenue.

Our Q2 revenue growth was driven by fuel charges due to the elevated oil product prices, both in Ferry and Logistics, but both divisions also saw some small underlying revenue growth when you disregard the fuel surcharges. A satisfying and improved growth in the revenue compared to our previous quarters where we have been more flat.

Turning to page 10 and a quick walkthrough of the key elements in our Q2 income statement. In addition to the 10% revenue growth of the quarter, we also delivered a 35% increase in the EBITDA level.

Our EBITDA was up with more than 300 million for the quarter. At the EBIT level, we have a quarter where we are up 291 million to 454 million EBIT for the quarter, which is more than double compared to the same quarter last year.

If we look at our financial costs, we also saw good improvement. We saw a reduced interest expense in the quarter of 24 million, and if you clean off the one-off 9 million interest cost relating to the litigation case that I just mentioned, the reduction is actually 33 million, or 16% reduction in our interest costs.

This is both driven by lower absolute debt, but also lower interest cost levels. Turning to page 11, we zoom in on the Ferry activities.

As already stated, we delivered a high year-on-year improvement with an EBIT of 423 million for the quarter, up 237 million compared to last year's Q2. This is driven by lower net bunker cost expenses, but also an improvement in the business units, where the key highlights are, and we have listed them on the slide: strong passenger results from Channel, good freight rates, and a Jersey improvement compared to same quarter last year.

Mediterranean, with the capacity taken out, we see an utilization that is overall up. Our rail services, which is associated with the ferry services from Turkey to Europe, also improved, and although we do see some slowdown in the Turkish volumes overall.

Both North Sea and Baltic saw some positive volume and rate development, but we are also challenged by higher costs in those areas, which, luckily, not offset all the positive improvements we see. Finally, Strait of Gibraltar were more or less flat with fewer sailings because of weather.

We also have provided the adjusted EBITDA excluding the one-off items that I have mentioned, which, of course, underlines that the improvement on the underlying is higher than what we report in the actual accounts. Turning to page 12 and looking at our Logistics results for the quarter, we had a strong underlying business improvement in Logistics this quarter.

Our EBITDA is up 39%, and EBIT is up 52 million to 85 million for the quarter, also here more than a doubling of the results same quarter last year. This is driven by strong performance recovery in both Nordic and Continent.

In Continent, the recovery from last year's foot-and-mouth disease is also contributing here. The UK & Ireland business continues to deliver stable performance.

Finally, our business unit TES, our Turkish and Europe South Logistics, improved on a like-for-like basis, but we continue to have challenges that we will have to address in an even more rigorous way, and we'll come back to that later in the call. Turning to page 13, cash flow.

We saw a strong cash flow generation for the quarter. This was driven by the better operating cash flow, the higher EBITDA, but also working capital where we both have seasonality impacts and we also had good impact from our working capital initiatives.

The seasonality impacts is mainly two parts: it's our build-up of prepayments from passengers up to the high summer season, and it's a mechanical thing around the ETS charges, which is cleared with the EU in Q3 every year. Our investments for the quarter were 316 million gross and 247 million net when you take into account our asset sales of 69 million.

They were mainly related to ferry dockings and acquisition of transport equipment. In total, our adjusted free cash flow for the first half year of 2026 amounts to just over a billion, which is a good result.

Turning to page 14, looking at our financial leverage. With the reduction in net interest-bearing debt over the past 12 months of more than 2 billion, our debt-equity ratio is now back at 50/50.

Combined with the improved earnings levels, I'm happy to report that our leverage ratio in Q2 was down at 3.4, which is within our target range. Finally, turning to page 15, a word on our ESG results for the quarter.

First, our emission intensity, which increased by the quarter, unfortunately. Our absolute emission levels remains at level with last year, but due to the fewer sailings over the quarter, in absolute terms, that means that our intensity per sailing goes up.

In terms of e-truck fleet, we now have 151 electrical trucks in our fleet deployed around Europe, which adds to lower emissions, but also provides some cost reductions where we are exempted from road tolls. Finally, looking at our gender diversity, our overall rate of women remained stable, whereas we saw a good progress in women in non-office-based positions increase from 10% to 14%.

With that, I will hand back to you, Michael.

Thank you very much, Karen. When we look at the outlook for 2026, you will have seen that we have increased the revenue outlook to now 3% to 5%, driven by the fuel surcharges, as you've just heard from Karen, that was previously otherwise on level with 2025.

When it comes to our EBIT outlook, then we have raised the lower end of the outlook to 1.2 billion, so that we now have a range of 1.2 billion to 1.4 billion DKK for 2026. When it comes to our CapEx, it's left unchanged at 1.7 billion DKK.

Then this acquisition CapEx, you would have seen in our reports that we have received the conditional clearance regarding the Naviera Armas in Strait of Gibraltar, which have got to do with the acquisition of their ferry operations. That dialogue is still going on with the competition authorities, and that also means that we have not included it in our CapEx or cash flow outlook.

Lastly, our adjusted free cash flow, we have raised to 500 million, to around 500 million. Previously, it was above 250 million DKK.

If we turn to page 18, then I'll summarize the key priorities for the rest of the year. Safety First: it does remain a key priority for all of us in DFDS to have an even safer work environment.

Performance improvement in the near term: we are absolutely committed to making and continuing the performance improvements that are needed across our turning point actions, but also across the wider DFDS business. The cash flow focus will continue, not least through working capital focus.

Then we are committed to deliver on the green transition and DE&I targets as well. Last but not least, we will complete the strategy review, as I mentioned before, within 2026 as well.

Ending these pre-prepared messages, we are now ready to start the Q&A.

Hello. Hi, good morning, and welcome, Michael, to the new role.

A couple of questions from my side. Firstly, can you add any color at all on the bunker spread tailwind versus organic growth for H2 baked into the guidance?

Then on H2 demand, I think the release mentions that Q3 started in line, but you also flag oil price risk to demand. With July freight volumes that we just had released 3% lower, should we think of this 3% lower as the run rate for H2 if the spreads stay where they are today?

Then finally, perhaps on leverage and capital returns, you are at 3.4 times, inside the mid-term target. What needs to happen for the dividend or the buyback to be back on the table?

Thank you.

Thank you, Jakub, for your questions. As that was a little bit difficult to hear your first question, but what I heard was your question is around potential tailwind in our business included in our guidance for the second half?

Yes. I was just wondering if you could add any color on the split relating to the fuel tailwind versus the organic growth that you baked into the guidance for H2.

Yes, thank you. Obviously, there is an impact of both in our Q2.

We see the recovery that we are seeing across our business, in both divisions, are continuing in the second half, and that has been within our expectations throughout the year. Those are affirmed as we recheck our forecast over the summer.

Then, of course, we see the higher oil price levels compared to what you could call, at least what we had last year and the years before, which also will have some impact in our results of the second half. That was the first question.

Second question, the lower volumes that we came out with this morning for July, we don't necessarily see that as something that will sustain throughout the rest of 2026. In parts of Europe, July is a vacation month, and that means that freight volumes, at least in the Northern Europe part and the North Sea, which is a significant part of our business, is impacted by vacation period.

I do not see it as representative for the full year. Finally, coming back to the leverage, as I said, very pleased to be within the range of our target, which also corresponds to our external rating, and with that, we remain investment grade.

In terms of timings of potential new dividends and buyback, that is obviously a conversation that we will have at the right time with our board and ultimately has to be decided at that level. It's not something I have any news on in this call.

Thank you.

Thank you. Michael, welcome on board, and then to the questions.

Firstly, maybe could you elaborate a bit on the strategic review in terms of the degree, how comprehensive and open-minded that is? That would be the first question.

Then second question, just curious whether you've been in any dialogue or contact with any of the executives from Grimaldi? Then thirdly, obviously there are some changes in the board, whether you could put some comments on whether you know Niels Smedegaard from previously and maybe put some comments on the reason why Polaris is coming onto the board.

Then I have another question, but let me just wait with that. Sorry.

Yeah. No, thank you very much, Kristian.

If we start out with the first, which was around the strategic review that we have now initiated, we go into it with a very open mind. That means that we will look through the entire portfolio, turn every stone, to speak, and see what should be the building blocks to the future DFDS.

That's a process that I don't want to kind of make any kind of preconceived ideas about other than saying that we go into it with a very open mind and really with the aim of creating the foundation of the future DFDS. That was your first question.

Second was about Grimaldi. No, I have not met up with the executives from there.

Number three was about the news regarding the board of DFDS that was released yesterday. I have not previously worked together with Niels Smedegaard, I haven't got any kind of previous work experience with him.

With regards to Polaris coming in, or rather I should say Jan Johan Kühl being nominated, then that's really a matter for the Lauritzen Foundation to answer that question since they're the one who have nominated him.

Good. Then just a follow-up on the question previously.

I'm just wondering on the Polaris part, whether you could put a bit more, I guess, it's also because they buy a stake. That would be natural.

Do you know whether there's been any dialogue between Polaris and Lauritzen Foundation in that regard in how that stake came into place? I would just follow up on that.

Then a follow-up on the bunker spread, just a bit unsure on what specifically you said, Karen, in terms of previously when you guided in connection with the Q1 results, you said that you had included in your guidance a normalized spread level. I'm a bit uncertain on what you're saying now is that on a net-net basis, obviously the spread especially has been higher in Q4, you're beginning to hedge some of it, and then obviously you have some headwind from the fluctuation in the bunker prices.

What is the net change compared to the previous assumptions in the guidance? Sorry.

I'll just take the first question and then Karen will take the second. With regards to Lauritzen Foundation and Polaris, I can't comment on it.

That's really a question, again, for the Lauritzen Foundation to answer, I don't have more color to add to that. With regards to bunker, Karen?

Yeah. Fair enough, Kristian.

I probably wasn't too clear on that. I'll try to be as clear as I can.

It is correct that when we went out with our first increase in guidance back in April, we also said that there was an inclusion of bunker spread improvements, to speak, in our guidance, mainly for the first part of the year. Obviously, at the moment, we see that sustained, and as mentioned, both in our report and briefly by me in my voiceover of the slides, is that we have gone out and hedged part of that for the second half to ensure stability in our earnings.

That gives us stability and are contributing to allowing us to lift our lower level of our guidance up, and also therefore the midpoint. We have included the effect both of the floating part and the hedging part in our guidance for the year, again acknowledging that there is very high uncertainty on the levels.

Just over the one last 1 and a half months, we have seen significant swings upwards again, whereas they were downwards in June. We anticipate in our planning that we will continue to see these swings in oil price levels also in the coming months, and have taken those swings and potential downsides into account as well.

Okay. I guess is it fair to say then, thank you for that clarity, that was helpful, but just I guess obviously that's one of the reasons why you raised the low end of the guidance, but I guess that would also be an argument why you should raise the high end of the guidance.

You should lift the guidance range as is, I guess, on the top, in the higher end of the range, you could argue then it's an underlying downgrade if you have included some tailwind from this spread, which is now included in the guidance, or am I missing something?

I wouldn't use the words an underlying downgrade, but as I said, we see high uncertainty and both up and downsides to the current oil price levels, which we have taken into account.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Good morning, Michael and Karen, and also welcome from my side to you, Michael.

First question also on the bunker spreads. You state that you have hedged some of your exposure for H2.

Could you be a bit more specific? How much of your exposure has been hedged for H2, and also if you have hedged anything for 2027 would be my first question.

Yes. Thank you, Ulrik.

In terms of how much, there are routes or areas that are exposed to the spread between HFO and MGO, and then there are other routes where the surcharges is a clean MGO-to-MGO pass-through. There are the pass-throughs, which are contractual, completely industry standard, they affect our business units differently depending on whether, as I know a lot of whether the vessels have scrubbers, right, and can sail on other fuels.

It does not apply to our entire fleet, far from. Therefore, if you look at overall how much of our total bunker cost we have hedged for the remainder of the year, then you are below half.

If you look at it on where you have this, how shall I say, this spread exposure, then it's a little bit above half.

Understood. Is that for H2, and what about 2027?

Looking into 2027, obviously we are looking into that, and we have started looking into locking in something for Q1.

You cannot quantify whether that's... No, that's too

early at that point in time. We have commented on it this time because it is an impact to our second half, and it also gives us a reassuring and comfort in our guidance.

It is actually not a new thing for us to do this, and we do that on rolling four quarters, but obviously the further out you come in the four quarters, the lower the volume we have hedged. It is something that we have done for several years.

That's very clear. Perhaps moving on to the Mediterranean ferry segment.

What is the latest update here, and how are the financials trending in this part of your business? You have increased your prices in Q1 and supposed to recover some of the losses you made last year.

Is it trending in the right direction here in Q2?

Yes, it is indeed. What we see, first of all, if we look at the overall market, we see a migration from road to ferry, which is obviously important as well, that ferry as a segment is gaining traction relative to road.

That's point number one. Point number two, we see that we continue to hold on to our volumes regardless of the reduced capacity that we have in the Med, which obviously means that the underlying operational results are improving in the Med as well.

We'll continue to work with that, you could say the calibration between price and volume and so, but we're satisfied with the progress so far.

All right. Then on the TES turnaround, I think you've previously mentioned that you expect to be break-even by 2027, but not this year.

In light of your comments about soft export volumes from Turkey to Europe and the soft economic environment in Turkey, is this business plan tracking according to your previously announced plan?

When we look at TES for this year, we have guided that it will come out thereabout relative to 2025, on par with a very dissatisfying results in 2025. That also means that we continue to have a very intense focus on the operational turnaround in TES.

That comes through significant cost reductions, better utilizations of the assets, better utilization of our capacity, our efficiencies, and so, but it's a longer journey, I have to say, Ulrik. It's a complex business, it's a big business, we continue to have a lot of focus and resources deployed in turning it around.

For this year, we are guiding in line with 2025. Underlying, there are improvements when you disregard the PPAs that you'd remember from last year, but it is a significant operational improvement that is required in TES.

That's very clear. Then my final question on net working capital, we saw another positive development in Q2, and that's despite the higher bunker prices and rates.

How should we think about that going into the second half of the year?

Thank you, Ulrik. As I mentioned, and by seasonality, it is a temporary thing over the summer, right?

That is both in terms of the seasonality in our passenger prepayments and also in this ETS, which this year is 100% of our emissions offset versus only 70% last year, right? There's an increased volume of ETS as well.

Overall, that means that we have a quite significant change in our working capital position from Q2 to Q3. Obviously, I would assume your question also relates to the fact that we have delivered a billion in adjusted free cash flow from first half and still guide around 500 for the full year.

That is driven by this reversal of the improved working capital, partly of course we still have a good working capital position due to the other initiatives we've done, but there is this, if you look at net just movements, those two factors are impacting quite significantly. Then also our investments in second half, we expect them to be at a level that is twice the level that they were in first half.

Those two effects combined takes our adjusted free cash flow in second half down to a lower level than where we end the first half.

That's very clear. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Yes, morning. Thank you for taking my questions, and also for my part, welcome, Michael.

The first one is on the Ferry Division. You had a tough start on Jersey last year, just want to sort of get a sense of the earnings, EBIT delta here in the quarter, Q2 versus Q2 last year on the Jersey part, if you can help a little bit on that.

That's the first one.

Yes. Thank you, Lars.

Q2 last year was was really our first year in in operations in in Jersey. We I believe we started 28th March, we had only three days of March, and then Q2 was really our first quarter in operation last year, and that was affected by a significant amount of one-off costs, both getting vessels compliant with with US regulations, UK, sorry, UK regulations overall, and also getting crewing optimized and and trained and so forth.

In terms of quarter-on-quarter impacts from Jersey in itself, again combined with with as it as as it is part of our full Channel division, it's of course not a very significant number, but it is a double-digit millions improvement quarter-on-quarter.

Can you narrow that, high or low double digits?

It's not high double digits, right, but it's not

a,

yeah.

Okay. Then also if you stay in that area, Hibernia Line started up, I can't recall, was it the 1st of June, a new route which partly competes with some of your routes, maybe just a few words on if there's been any impact there.

I couldn't find any comments on it in the report.

That's true. They started up, I think it was the 26th of June or something like that, a route between Ringaskiddy and France, Boulogne-sur-Mer, where they'll have two vessels deployed, I believe.

We see a smaller reduction in our volumes in our Dunkirk-Ireland route, but it's not something that we see as a material impact on our business.

All right, clear. Then on the Mediterranean situation, I think if I recall correctly that you have reduced capacity by close to 50% compared to end last year.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but just sort of a sense for the split now in terms of the ferry or capacity between you and Grimaldi on the Turkish routes, and also if there are any more news about we've been discussing this for quite a while, that Grimaldi may consider putting in yet another vessel.

It's certainly not 50% we have reduced in capacity. We've taken three ships out of the rotation down there, but we have largely maintained our volume, which means that we have been able to drive our capacity utilization significantly up.

When we look at the shares, as you're asking, then the market is divided into ferry and road, and it is 54% ferry, 46% road, and out of which we have around 34% of the total market, including road, which then in turns lead that we're north of 60% in terms of the ferry capacity. We're still by far the largest operator in the area.

Comments on Grimaldi perhaps still considering putting in more vessels?

Sorry. They deployed four ships, as you'll remember, and there's been considerations, as we understand it, about a potential fifth vessel and so.

I don't know their operational plans and so. We focus on driving our own tonnage and optimizing our own utilization and pricing.

Could it happen in the future? Yes, but it also depends on whether they will get access to the necessary terminals and so.

We don't know. Our focus area, quite honestly, is about improving our own performance.

Understandable. Regarding the own performance on TES, I know this is still early days and you've been here for a month or so, but maybe sort of any considerations about the share of own production in TES, and also I don't know if you can or will share how much the EBIT was for TES in the second quarter.

I think the loss in the first quarter was around 100 million. Is it more or less in line with that, or is there any sort of quarter-on-quarter improvements in the EBIT into the second quarter for TES?

As I said before, TES is a significant turnaround. I think it's fair to say that the company that we acquired was in a worse state than we had anticipated, so that continues that work.

You talked about our own productions. I assume you're referring to the utilization on our own ferries and so, so that's around 12% to 13%.

Then you talked about the EBIT improvements. We have an underlying improvement in TES, which is a little bit disguised by the PPAs, as I said before, that were included last year and so, but we do see underlying improvements, not least because of the cost reductions that we have done in the area.

Okay. Then one two more, really shortly.

One short, which is the foot-and-mouth, just to get a sense for the swing factors in Logistics, to what extent the earnings impact from the foot-and-mouth last year, and what kind of sort of tailwind has that provided here in the second quarter?

It's embedded, Lars, in the recovery and the improvement you see overall, but again, we are probably if we stay on the same line, we are in the low double digits here.

Okay. Then last one, I don't know if you can answer that, but I'm just a little bit curious about the timing of the EGM.

Now, I think under most normal circumstances, a change in the board of directors could have waited probably until the normal AGM, which will be next year. Maybe, I don't know if you can comment on this, the sense of urgency apparently why it should be an EGM and not sort of a normal AGM?

We communicated last night that at the request of the Lauritzen Foundation, we have called for an EGM on the 8th of September. That has been their desire to make that proposed change at an EGM as opposed to waiting for the AGM in March of 2027.

The reason behind it is really for them to answer.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, and thank you very much to everyone participating. On behalf of the DFDS team, we're super excited about the future.

Company holds significant potential, but there's also challenges on the way ahead, and therefore we have initiated the strategy review. We're excited about going into that, and as I said in the call, we'll turn every stone, and so with that, thank you very much for participating, and have a great weekend when you get to it.