I'm ready. Hope you are ready also.

Very welcome to this session from Västra Hamnen Corporate Finance. I'm standing here with the CEO, Joachim Samuelsson of Crunchfish.

We will talk about the company's year-end report just released, and we will talk about what's happened and what's going on and perhaps as a bit of an outlook as well.

We might get to that. Yes.

You might get to that. Brilliant.

Also everyone who is watching can use the Q&A function to write in questions, and we will address as many topics as we can as we go along. Let's start.

Yes, let's go, Martin.

Yeah. 2025, could you just tell us what happened?

Yeah. I think certainly a very interesting year for us, very transformational.

Started in Q1 that we slimmed the whole business, focused the business on offline payments only by closing down our gesture business. That sort of was sad to let that great technology team go, but we are now a slimmer organization and it was sort of a necessary move that we took in Q1.

In Q2, we realized that offline payments is something that needs to be part of a payment system. There is a system part of it, payment system, and then there are service providers.

These are the ones that are using the system, serving the end users. We realized that these are two different roles, two different responsibilities, and we want to equip the system with the ability to receive offline payments, not necessarily make them, because it's not their role.

That's the role of the service providers. That realization was a turning point for us, and we announced that this is sort of a turnaround situation for us because now we could really approach national payment systems to say that why don't you integrate our technology, and then you could do that.

We help you to receive payments in the system. The system is available.

Everybody can receive. We then, as a subsequent step, can equip the service provider with wallets.

That's what we did in Q2, announced that. In Q3, we talked about this is going well.

This is working. We have got a lot of interest.

We have been focused on India for many, many years. And—

In Q3 you traveled round—

We opened up from India to many more markets. Most importantly, we did get the opportunity to work with NPCI, that's the one you want to work with because they are the system operator of UPI, 20 billion transactions per year, but they are now asked by the Reserve Bank of India to also do the digital rupee system.

Digital rupee needs to work offline, and we work very, very close with them. We almost have a meeting every day with NPCI at the moment, it's a great collaboration and looking forward to that, and I'm sure we will come back to that.

Then Q4—

Yeah.

It's actually been behind the scenes except that we put out a new website because there are some significant things that has happened in Q4 that I'm very happy that we have this interview so I can tell about. You can read it on the website sort of, and you can read it in our report.

Q4 gives sort of three big things. One is that we've understood that the way we do offline payments is yeah, we always said technically it's superb, but it is a superior architecture and model to other models as well.

We have framed that and as we call it governed offline payment in a way that we can bound the risk. Offline means more risk than online payments, but we can bound that risk in a really nice way.

The other models that exist don't really bound the risk in that way. We do, which is important for anyone who want to introduce this.

Then what we did in Q4 is that we understood how our business model can be applied in a right way, which enables us to actually charge or get money from the system as well as the service providers, which is important in India and other places. The business model has matured, and we describe it.

There is a whole section on that in the year-end report.

We will talk about the business model as we go along as well. We'll come back.

Yeah.

The third thing, and this is the sort of cool thing, is that everything now, as I said, in Q3 we started to realize that this is not India anymore and it's not. It's moving to many, many other markets.

In many places it's not press release worthy yet, but it will be very, very soon. That means with a understanding of the business model, we can go in much more aggressively of how we should approach those opportunities.

It's not just India. It's much wider.

We can come back to that when we look at outlook 2026, as you said we will do. A lot of things has happened, and it's a really heavy sort of year-end report, but it builds on what we had already, in a way, was saying on the updated website.

Yeah. The headline of the report is Offline Payments as Critical Infrastructure.

How would you say that system operators have changed in their priorities of use of offline payment functionality?

If you're going to do offline, if you want resilience, as we know, payment systems tend to work when everything works. It's sort of online has to be there and the system in the backend has to be up.

If you're going to do this on a national scale, at scale, as critical infrastructure, then you want to keep that the online world is still involved. You don't want to move money out of the online world.

You want to keep it there so you have that control before you move money. We have that.

You also want to constrain the spending ability. You, Martin, you can't spend more offline than you actually control.

You want to have both those aspects. We uniquely have that.

We believe both aspects are absolutely key to have in an offline model. That's why we're saying that governed offline architecture is the way to do offline payments.

You can do it in other ways, but you sacrifice things on risk, on scalability, on interoperability if you're using other models. Governed offline models gives you what you want to have it as critical infrastructure in a payment system.

Okay.

Yeah. These system operators have obviously thought about this, but have they changed views since you've approached them with your new—

I think we confused them before, to be honest. That's why we needed to change them, because we appeared as sort of like a fintech company, like this offline is a feature, and it almost look like they didn't really understand us.

Now, a reason for changing the whole website is to appear like an infrastructure company, a serious infrastructure company that actually can give them as an infrastructural part of their payment system, not just as a feature. Before, I think our argumentation, we were a little bit all over the place.

I think it's much more stringent now and coming across as governed offline payments. I was just in Philippines at a conference.

Was one guy who sat next to me and he was also presenting a few times and he were in a few panels. He works in a UK-based company called 4.0.

He will release a sort of a Substack blog post, and he said, "I go to many conferences. I seldom learn anything new.

Crunchfish governed offline payments, this is really cool and it's really new." He describes it, he's has a banking or payments background, and I told him this was the best third-party explanation I've ever seen.

That's going to come tonight, I think. That's now I think they're getting it, not just system operators, but also payments professionals.

Remember, we didn't come from payments, the way we have described us in many years has been yeah, confusing. I think we always had a gem in what we did, but we failed in 2020, up to 2025, we failed in understanding that we have to deliver it both to the system and to the service providers.

We failed in the sense of positioning it correctly. I think governed offline payments, as we describe now as critical infrastructure enabler, is the right way to go.

I'm very happy with that change that came now in Q4.

Yeah. Also in Q4, part of this work in explaining what you really do, you published a white paper where you compare immediate versus deferred offline modes

in

offline payments. Yes.

Because these are the other two. That's the two.

Either you are immediate, you move money to device, or you're deferred, that's the card way of doing it, you sign out an IOU or a digital check, and you settle. Both have problems in his own right, but yeah.

Yeah. If you could just briefly elaborate on those two models, and then what does Crunchfish do in this context?

Yeah. I think if you go to "What We Solve" on our website, this is where we really describe it more, but I can do it briefly.

That in an immediate model, we can take a physical analogy. It is really like a banknote, but you do it as a digital banknote.

You go to an ATM, you take out money. That model also, you take out money from the banking system.

In my device.

The money is on your device. It's not in the bank anymore.

It's there. If you transfer it to me, you transfer money to me, and there's no settlement because it's called immediate model because immediately when you pay me, I have it.

No settlement. That's that model.

The potential risk with that is that it's high systemic risk, is that if anyone cracks the security of the device, then in a way you can counterfeit money. That's dangerous.

That's that model. It doesn't scale very well because both needs to have hardware on both sides, and it's linked to the underlying payment system as well, it's not very interoperable.

Then you have the deferred model. I got a lot of people who said, "Oh, look, Swedish Riksbank are talking about we're going to have offline payments.

Are Crunchfish part of that?" No, we're not actually, because they are just using offline as an exception, that this is in critical stores, petrol stations, grocery stores, pharmacies, if they are offline, if you have a physical card, you can pay up to 2,000 kronor.

No one knows whether you have 2,000 kronor in the backend. No one knows that.

There's a credit risk that accumulates with the entire population here who have these cards. What we do is, yes, we have like the deferred model.

Deferred means that in a subsequent step, we move the money online. That's how the card models do as well.

No money is moved from you with your physical card to me. You have just signed out a digital check to me.

That's all. Then we move money.

It's not a bounded risk there because it just accumulates, there's a credit risk all the time. We have a bounded risk in the sense that you can only pay what you previously have been authorized to pay.

We could keep track of that as well. There's so many, I think, advantages here.

Risk is bounded. It's a scalable system because we don't need to have hardware on both sides.

It's interoperable between even payment systems. Then this last thing, it's not just that the money stays in the banking system, that's a huge opportunity for banks because if you take it out, it's off their balance sheet, means that they can do less lending.

This is what they make money out of. In our system, the money stays.

It's just that you, Martin, if you're going to spend offline, they have taken it from you and they have put a sort of a hold on that money, but it's still in their balance sheet and they don't have to pay you interest. Our governed model uniquely creates actually a business opportunity for the banks because not only that it's safer and everything else, but it's actually sort of an economic incentive to do it.

Now we're looking at offline payments in this way: do resilience because now your online system will sort of work all the time, that's a good thing, but not only that, because some banks will say, "Well, we have online. It works 99% of the time.

Why should we bother with this offline, and how much does it cost?" Now the argument will be to them, "Well, you can make money out of this because the money that people reserve is a non-interest-bearing funding for your balance sheet.

Fantastic."

These two modes, if you say, the Reserve Bank of India, RBI, they changed from the immediate model to the deferred, or they are in a change?

They didn't change to the deferred because they don't want the deferred. Deferred is risky.

They had the immediate model where they actually transferred money locally on device. They have a huge system called UPI in India that is everywhere, and they want interoperability between the UPI system and the digital rupee system.

If the digital rupee system sort of sends money, that has no interoperability with UPI. Domestically, they want to create interoperability.

For that reason alone, it's actually good. Then the other reason is that they don't have to then have the big risk on the devices.

Yes, we are working with them now to have not deferred, because that would create huge credit risk. For if you think of a lot of Indians, their credit scoring is not such that the banks want to take high risk on them, they don't want to give all Indians 2,000 kronor to spend.

No. They need a governed offline model.

We have that.

That's where you come in.

Oh, yeah, we can.

Yeah. Other leading central banks, are they thinking the same?

Look at Bank of England.

Yeah.

Bank of England, I must applaud Bank of England, because I think they put out a paper, if you just Google on Bank of England and offline payments, they had a design note in October, in Q4, that really just talks about the two models: immediate and deferred. They're saying they're not going to go ahead with the immediate model, the digital banknote model, because they think it's risky and a little immature.

However, what they want to do is to have a deferred model. What they have, I think, liked is that we do like a deferred model where we let the money move online, but we also locally constrain how much you can spend.

It is like a deferred model, but it adds that local control as well. That's why we are, as the only offline model, chosen to be part now of the sandbox of the digital pound.

I don't think that will give us any revenue in the short term, but I think it's a great credibility that Bank of England has selected us to be part. I think it is part due to that we were much better to explain we have a governed offline model and its merits.

What about the ECB?

ECB is on track. They did a choice a few years back and they wrote a big spec on really trying to have an immediate model.

An immediate model has merits in the sense that it's great that you can transfer for me and then it's done, and it gives that immediacy and it's the most cash-like. That's what they have described, and that's what they're going for.

They have opened up for alternative as well. We are part of it.

We have worked with ECB as pioneer to show how offline could work in another way. I had a meeting last week, or the week before actually, before I went to the Philippines, with product managers and partnering managers of ECB about that they see merits in our approach.

They're going to open up actually because the digital euro will be a whole platform. They can, just like on a card rail, there are multiple ways of doing offline payments.

This can happen here as well. I think they're not at all closing the door for us.

The ECB is certainly not dead for us. We are continuing talking and we've already shown what we've done in the sandbox.

Yeah. You are in all kinds of discussions and talks.

Yeah.

The most advanced is NPCI in India, right?

In terms of where we have come the furthest. Absolutely.

They—

Could you give us an update on that project?

Yeah. What can I say?

We've defined how it should be done. We have sent them our SDKs, that should be integrated both on the system side, but also we have also our offline wallet that goes on the service provider side.

The project is that we are essentially wanting to integrate the ability to receive offline payments on the system. That's with our terminal.

Everybody should be able to receive. That is what the system puts in.

Then we have two participating banks. It is our good old IDFC that they are part of it.

The other bank is one of the big banks, one of the four big banks, the most innovative. They're known to be the most innovative in India.

They're part of it as well. Now it's the time for them to start integrating it here.

We've also contractually agreed, because we were a little bit saying we're so happy to work with you, could sort of have this for free, but we've actually been paid, but we've also contractually bounded that what we have delivered for you doesn't leak into commercial deployment. They have paid us for doing test.

Doing the test time.

Exactly, which is good. Most importantly, it's not what they paid, because it's not huge money, but still it's reasonable.

We have contractually said that this is only for testing. That doesn't give you any rights to use what we have now developed.

That needs a commercial discussion.

Yeah. How would you assess the probability of a commercial deal once the pilot is completed?

I think it's good. I think why would they otherwise spend sort of working with us every day?

They could have said no then and stop working with Crunchfish. That continues.

It's complex in the sense because they're a big organization, but we have scheduled meeting every day. Sometimes the daily meeting gets canceled, but it's intense.

Yeah. When could we expect the project to be finished?

There's actually a meeting what is it? Today is Thursday.

Tomorrow, it's a meeting with actually all the participating banks that we participate in, which is inviting in a way that layer as well. We're getting close to this testing and initial sort of phase.

Then it starts negotiation. The good thing here is that, as I described before, we have a business model where we enable the banking community, and I describe that in the year-end report.

When we now do a deal with the system, NPCI, who are the banking association, that this is the National Payment Corporation that owns all the big banks, we can say that to have all our technology and use it for free for anyone, then we can do a deal at that level with them. That's as a first.

Then we open up for us then after that selling to all these service providers, which is a subsequent here. We have an opportunity to do a deal with NPCI that is using this fact that the banking community that NPCI serves is actually having a business opportunity here, and we can have revenue sharing with that business community.

That's sort of one level. Then it is the service level.

The good thing here with a deal on the service level is that it is our technology that enables India to pay offline. That means that, because NPCI want to have a vendor-neutral, anyone, not just Crunchfish, should be able to service the service providers.

It means that we're using the word FRAND licensing. It stands for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.

Other vendors than Crunchfish can actually go and sell offline wallets. It's our underlying system, this money-making out of the system should benefit Crunchfish regardless who delivers the actual wallets.

We, on the system level, we will benefit from that level regardless of who delivers the wallet. Then add to that whatever wallet deployments we can do.

Given that they use your offline payment functionality.

Overall the whole system uses, and that gives us one sort of negotiation point and with a system which goes early. Then, after that, there is individual service providers, banks, or that we can individually compete with others.

That's the community we're putting together. That has clarified during Q4, and we write the whole section called System-Wide and Service Provider Licensing has all this, as well as explaining why the banking community actually this is business opportunity for them.

Another thing that you bring up in the report is closed loop wallets.

Yes.

Could you just give us a little description of what is that and how this is a faster way to market for you?

Yeah. No, absolutely.

I think, as a lot of people here are listening are Swedish, we have the Swish system here in Sweden. It's the same app everywhere, but it is actually in two levels.

There is Getswish, the company owned by banks, they deliver the system. Then it's the individual banks that issues actually the Swish app to you.

There's a system, Getswish delivers that, they have the acceptance of Swish payments, and the actual payment capability is delivered by banks, but using the same app, all right? In a closed loop system, you can almost look at as a whole Swish is like a closed loop, but they have this hierarchy.

It's a system and service providers. A closed loop system is they just are the one

They control the whole—

Exactly. They are the service provider, and they're also the system operator.

They operate the system just like Swish does and they are also the service provider. We started in 2012 here in Sweden with national payment systems, Swish.

This was the launch in December 2012. In many countries, that came later.

There were companies that invested in that, "let's take the market and offer digital payments with instant." That became like closed loop wallets.

They are present in many countries in Asia. I was just in the Philippines and I met with GCash, 80 million, 80 million users.

They dominate. Everybody's using GCash because it's the most user-friendly and they have a dominant position.

That exists. There's DANA in Indonesia, 160 million; Easypaisa in Pakistan; and there was Paytm, what a great player in India, that was doing a closed loop wallet as well.

It exists in many countries. Actually, an interesting thing is that Alipay, who's also a closed loop wallet, one of the two in China, they have strategically invested through their investment arm, Ant Ventures, in always the leading wallet.

They are like a family of closed loop wallets in Southeast Asia. We got to GCash and we got to Philippines last week, and Philippines is a country where they have connectivity problems.

It's realized by the central bank. It's realized by, yeah, everybody.

They need to focus on this. We have already done a commercial offer to GCash, and the good thing here is that we don't have to first work on the system level, and then we sell to the service provider.

In the GCash opportunity, it's one decision maker. It's one integration, so much faster and much faster rollout as well sort of.

So

Your solution can be applied in the payment rail as well from GCash?

GCash has a closed loop system there which is just like if you think of how Swish works in Sweden. GCash is the same.

They have a Swish system as well where the banks participate, just like in Sweden. They called InstaPay.

GCash is a big node in that as well. If we get GCash, then they will start, and that would be a great enabler because a lot of people on InstaPay are using GCash, but that will drive adoption from others as well, and also interest, I think, InstaPay.

As I said, we had an offsite meeting with the central bank, we met with the most leading, innovative bank in just like we have in India, we met with them, and they are keen to do a POC with us as well, and it was a fantastic week in the Philippines.

That's nice. Jumping to something else, you write about CMA Small Systems in the report.

Yes.

Who are they?

It's a Swedish company, actually. They develop sort of payment capability online.

They can do, say, a payment switch as a component. They are doing that in, I don't know, 10, 15 countries.

They are our partners. We talked about Pakistan, they are the switch provider there delivering the underlying sort of payment system of not just the switch, but also the payment system of Pakistan.

They are our partners into now when they want to go offline. We are part of, in a way, similar to InstaPay in Philippines.

We're part of that, and that will be announced very soon who's going to be the winner. They've said mid-February, which is sort of now-ish, which is kind of cool.

That's a huge country, 250 million people in Pakistan.

Sliding over to the business model, how would such a deal be structured with a technology provider such as CMA

Small Systems? A technology provider will be that now when we have clarified our business model, how it works with a system operator and how it works with a service provider, they are, in a way, just representing us and we are going in together.

They typically sell their system and they make money out of that, and we make their system better and we come along side-by-side offering our system unless the regulator or the customer there, the banking system or whatever it is, says, "We want one counterparty." Then we will be a component provider to who owns the contract.

It will either go by them. We have our model quite clear how we want to charge.

Yeah.

I see. You outlined the business model quite extensively in the report.

We talked about it quite a lot already. Yeah.

Could you just summarize some of the key points?

Key points is that if we look at what we worked long time with India, system level, we have a way by what we called, a system operator would like that it's vendor-neutral. They don't want to lock themselves in with us, we can offer a licensing model which is we are, in a way, part of sharing what the banking community gets out of this because it's our model that delivers that, and it's just fair that we can get that money.

That could be certainly the more people use it, the more people reserve and the more we make there. It can also be like an upfront payment.

There is a component because the system can make money out of this. We have a way to actually monetize that.

Then there is this level on the service provider level. These are the ones serving end users, the banks and the application providers, and there we have the same model.

Here's the governed deferred model that you provide?

The governed is for the system. It's a governed model for the whole system.

It's

not only for the banks?

The banks is just a participant. They deliver the offline wallet in a governed system.

If there's a governed system, overall it's governed, you control the risk for the whole system. Then the service provider, the banks, who deliver end users a wallet in their hand, they pay for a subscription, software as a service, that they have that, just like we did for IDFC.

There is a model where the IDFC pricing model applies to the banks just like IDFC, but then there is a system charge as well. Then if we have a closed loop wallet, we can collapse everything.

One negotiation, but both components still applies.

Yeah. Okay.

Three legs, if you—

Two legs. It is on the system level and it's on the service level.

These are the two legs. If you're a closed loop player, then you act in both capacities:

you're

both a system and a service provider. We can talk to them about that there is two components now.

Now if we talk about the GCash offer that we've done, the commercial offer for them, is that you make money out of this. This is not a cost to you; you make money.

We want to share that moneymaking. Then you want to deploy this as well, and we want to 80 million users you have, we want to be part of that as well.

Yeah. Then we have the technology providers as well.

The technology provider are just their role is to service either they sell to systems or service providers, and we could equip them with our technology so they can go out and sell to all of them.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Just to remind everyone who is watching, please send in questions and we will address them. Let's do some financial questions.

All right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Last year you secured financing with a directed share issue. In that package, there were options or warrants that will be exercised in March, is that right?

Yeah. What we did was to get 4 million shares was a directed issue to three players.

It was a unit emission, they got 4 million shares, that was what they paid I think 3.50 for, 14 million to the company. Then there was also then tied to that was that they had an equal amount of warrants and that they should exercise now between 3 and 4.

Right now, we're actually out of the money because we are at 2.50. What we did, because there is a floor, they will never go below 3, never above 4.

We also secured a loan offer, which is from one of the players on 10 million that we in Q2 could draw on if we want to. We have secured financing that it would either come from the warrants if we get it sort of to Yeah.

We have to increase the stock price right now, and otherwise because we will measure it between 5th of March to 18th of March, and that will determine in a way the price for these warrants. Then we have in Q2 the chance to exercise a potential loan if we want to, and we can do that even if we exercise the It's decoupled, we can do yeah, we don't have to do anything.

It's our option.

Yeah. I see.

Looking at the figures compared to '24, the sales figures seems a bit low.

Yeah. For Digital Cash, we're still just charging in a way for pilots.

Yes.

We're not charging for the commercial deployment. The money is low for Digital Cash, and last year we did a yeah, closing deal with OPPO for I think 1.5 million, and that explains in a way the drop.

We're still at just selling pilots right now, but this is what could change now given all the endorsement of our governed offline model that stop selling pilots, actually charge for the system instead, which is a different matter, and that's what we're trying to move into.

Yeah. I'm running out of questions soon, if you have any questions, please write them in.

Send them in, and we'll try and address them.

Help Martin. Help Martin.

Help me now. Returning to your focus for 2026—

Yes.

Execution and revenue generating is stated in the report.

Yep.

What can we expect from Crunchfish near-term, for the whole year?

I think revenue, yeah, that's as everybody understands, that's the best way to get financing is get it from your customers. Getting revenue, and we have to move from just doing pilots and actually offer system deployments.

We have that opportunity now not just in India, as I said. We don't have to wait until the banks go on.

We have started negotiations with NPCI that we've told them that there has to be a licensing here on that level. We have also many others.

I just told you about possibly a fast track system operator as Sir, GCash as one opportunity, but it exists many others as well. I think we have sort of, yeah, a handful where we actually can go and sell systems.

I really like the closed loop opportunity because we're not just first selling to a system and then go for the service provider. Here the closed loop wallets are fast track because they are one company, one company to integrate with, and it's sort of

the Those organizations are huge. They have—

They're extremely profitable. It's been a good business to do these things.

No, I think, and they in countries where the connectivity is sort of spotty, like it is in the Philippines, but it's many countries to say. Around India, I think, we are in contact now.

We said we left two people or the team go around Gestures, which was sad. These were our colleagues.

We've added two people. We haven't really announced it, but they work as consultants to us.

It's Robert in Hong Kong and it's Mika in Thailand. They're doing a great job being around and getting these national payment systems sort of fired up on that there is a way to get payment availability with a governed offline model.

You will expect more of that. Particularly, as I said, closed loop wallets is fast track opportunity for revenues for us.

The fact that we can actually sell as well, we have to be able to sell on the system level with the new business model clarification that is described in the report is also providing opportunities to actually pull revenue earlier. I sort of think this way.

If someone would say that we could significantly improve Sweden's payment system, and we have the backing of the central bank, and we are talking directly to sort of the payment system of Sweden, and we have the banks are on board, wouldn't that be a great thing? We have the model which is patented and everything.

Now what I'm really excited about is that that's what we have achieved in the Philippines. Philippines is 10 times larger than Sweden.

They have 120 million, not just 11. There we have just after a week here, it's really exciting that met with the central bank, they really liked it; met with the innovative bank, they want to do a POC with us; met with sort of GCash, they said, "Give us a quote for the system, not just to try it," because they understand it works.

That is an opportunity. That's just one country.

Then you have yeah, a few others in the world.

Then

the big gorilla then, 10 times bigger than Philippines, is India, where we are still very much there, but it's just that it's yeah, happy that we got on the inside that with this we understood system and service and that allowed us into it. Now yeah, but it's still there.

We're working on it. I'm excited that we have a governed offline model which is yeah, I think the way to do offline payments, even if other approaches exist.

Who wouldn't like to have bounded risk and a business opportunity with it if you're a system operator? We uniquely deliver both these things, so that's why And I'm proud that we've, in Q4, with the website and also the report that we put out, are able to articulate it really well and it resonates with the, yeah, ecosystem.

Great. Great to hear.

I've run out of questions, but obviously things are brewing at Crunchfish.

No, it's busy time. We're a small team.

Look, we are 15 people, and we're sitting with a stellar technology which is not just solves a problem for the world, but it actually brings the decision makers just money, which is not a bad thing. If you normally get an improvement, you expect to pay for that improvement.

We can offer it as a business opportunity, which is even better.

Sounds great. Gives us all the reasons to follow the news flow of Crunchfish—

I think so.

In the near-term, and maybe medium-term as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thanks a lot, Joachim, for coming and explaining and talking about the report. Also everyone who is watching, thanks for watching.

Thanks for—

Can I add one thing?

Yes, of course.

We're using two analyst firms. Very happy with Västra Hamnen and they do this quarterly reports.

Because we have such a massive report, it's a big piece, and it's not easy to get our Q4 report in 8:30 and we stand here at 9:00, no one has been able to read or can ask questions about such a piece. We do offer an opportunity tomorrow at 12:00 noon in Swedish that you could join as well, it will be about similar topics that we talked about today, Martin.

You're

always first. You are the first analyst who report.

This gives an opportunity, and that was announced as well. The invitation is in our press release for that.

That gives an opportunity to ask questions tomorrow. I welcome all to join that as well, but I want to thank you, Martin, for always being first one on the line to ask a question about a big report.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Joachim. All who's watching, go home and digest the report and sign up for the web cost tomorrow as well.

That's all for now. Thank you.

Thank you.

See you.