Thank you for opening this call, and welcome all to the half year 2026 results call of Exor. Two main highlights that we would like to present to you today.

We announced last year that we would progress with simplifying our portfolio, and we've progressed at speed with doing that. The most sizable one, Iveco, you've all followed closely, where earlier in the half year, the sale of the defense business completed to Leonardo, and also a few weeks ago, Tata formally launched its tender offer for Iveco, with closing to happen in two months.

Also during the period, we completed the divestments of Jaydee, Lifenet, and Nuo. I'm pleased to tell you that in the past days, we signed an agreement to sell our stake in Welltec, where we've owned the company through a business cycle, managing to run that business in a very well way with a price which will be substantially in line with what we put in our fair value in balance sheet, which returned a MOIC of 2.4 times, and we expect that to close in the first half of 2027.

That leaves us in an extremely strong position in turbulent times and leaves us in a good position to benefit from those turbulent times with a balance sheet that is extremely solid with 4 billion of deployable cash approximately. To give you the bridge of that, we started the year 1.4 billion of cash.

The proceeds from these divestments and some other divestments, like reinsurance vehicles and distributions from venture arm, deliver around 2.7 billion of proceeds. Then with some net cash inflow from dividends and some capital calls we made for Lingotto, you'll end up with approximately 4 billion of cash, of which we'll use half a billion in a buyback to execute in six months, and we'll speak a bit further about that later.

Moving on to the key figures. During the period, our NAV declined by 1.2 billion.

We'll go into the details of sources of changes of NAV. While our loan-to-value strengthened quite a bit, obviously, with the increase in cash position.

NAV per share fundamentally moves in line with our NAV as we did not buyback in the period, and our total shareholder return was below that because of the widening of discount. Composition of our portfolio changed on a few important items.

Ferrari strengthened a bit from 32 to 34. An important mover was CNH as well, with a very strong performance in the period moved from 8% to 10%, and obviously also cash up to 6% during the period.

If we then move to the breakdown of the change in GAV, there's a lot of numbers on this slide. The key one that explains the performance in this period is the change in value of our listed companies.

We'll break down all the other buckets in detail so we want to be extremely transparent and show you all the levers of performance, we'll dive into that a bit further, but all of them led in the period an increase from cash and cash equivalents from 1.4 billion to 2.2. As mentioned, from 300 million of investments, largely aligned with commitments with Lingotto, around half a billion of disposals, the dividend we did, and in other changes, the 676 million is the dividend inflow that we have less expenses.

If we then move to the core bucket of investments that we have, our listed companies, there you see the key driver of our performance was a strong decline in share price of Stellantis during the period. The other three big companies all performed well, with a notable mention for CNH.

Iveco seems like a weak performer here. Would like to note that they distributed the 427 million of special dividend following the divestment of Leonardo.

For TSR, they showed a strong green performance. Juventus and Clarivate were weak during the period.

Via Transportation, which recently IPO'd, and they showed similar trends of many US tech companies that IPO'd and weakened, and have now since rebounded and is underlying performing results. If we then move on to unlisted companies, we disposed in the period at Jaydee and Nuo, and after the period, we also sold Lifenet and Welltec, as I just mentioned.

In total, around 900 million of reduction of these unlisted companies, and shifting more to a listed portfolio. The change in value, there you see Institut Mérieux, and we'll speak later also about the direct holding in bioMérieux, because the change in value of Institut Mérieux is largely driven by the change in value of the listed bioMérieux.

Then moving to Lingotto and others, the Intersection Fund declined by 370 million approximately. You might recall that last year they went up 1.2 billion.

This is a logical volatility that will happen in the market, and I'm very confident given that they've never had a down year before, they will also drive to positive in these ones. Lingotto Horizon was the good positive surprise, where they have one investment in their portfolio which saw a unicorn round and because we were one of the early investors that shows a very nice uplift there.

Value of depth portfolio and the others moved steadily in the period. The investments we did were existing commitments for Horizon Innovation and Mosaic, and we invested in a very promising new hedge fund talent that was starting a new hedge fund with capital of 200 million that's deployed in this period.

Then we have the bucket of other assets, which before, at the start of the period, amounted to 2.3 billion. We've been disposing quite a bit of assets in that category as well, and that's an ongoing process we plan to do.

Key proceeds in the funds managed by third parties were 55 million of reinsurance vehicles, it's leftover from the PartnerRe disposal, and 38 million of distributions from Aura Global, the former Exor Ventures venture arm. Other assets were loans extended to Jaydee, and as part of the sale of Jaydee, these were also repaid.

On the changes in value, also on the venture capital arm, they've made investments in some of the early AI companies both in AI businesses themselves as well as in infrastructure, and these all look to be unicorn investments, and that's driving a strong upward revision of valuation of Aura Global. Listed companies down by 237, 180 million of that is related to bioMérieux, and also Forvia, on the back of the weakness in automotive, like I mentioned on Stellantis, was down 50, 60.

That's the grand majority of that change. That's for a tour d'horizon of the performance of our portfolio, and gladly answering the questions in a moment.

As I mentioned, the change in cash and cash equivalents, the breakdown I showed you at a high level before: 861 million of dividends. We've received a bit more of dividends, but we chose to take half of the dividend of Philips in shares, but that you won't see here in the cash and cash equivalents, but that explains the bridge between dividends and dividend actually received.

Disposals, you see here that we just mentioned, investments and shareholder distributions equal dividends in this period. Given our sizable cash position, we also repaid one of our private placements just to make sure we treat our investment interest returns as efficiently as possible, and these borrowings were carrying a higher interest rate than on our cash position.

That's why we repaid that, ending with 2.2 billion of cash at the half year. On the debt side, not much to report, as I like it, being prudent on our debt position.

We have a debt position of 3.7 billion, in line with what we had last year. Maybe see a bit odd movement in other financial liabilities, 140 million.

That's just the timing of an FX transaction we did, which started at the end of the period and completed on the first day of July, so that's an accounting entry. The bottom-line number is 3.7 billion.

We have no redemptions anymore in 2026, nor in 2027. In these turbulent times on the debt and capital markets, happily fully funded on that side, and first redemption to follow in 2028, with a very well spread out maturity profile for the coming next 12 years.

That's that on the debt side. Let me now turn to a capital allocation decision we took in the board yesterday: doing a 500 million on-market buyback program, and we'll execute that in the next six months.

You'll see also in the announcement that we are very explicit that both because the shares trade at a substantial discount to our NAV and don't reflect our assessment of intrinsic value of our portfolio, we made this decision. We also said before, we do this because it's at a substantial discount as our NAV, because we feel that this is a good resource allocation.

Investing at our portfolio, which we like, at half of the cost is an investment that makes a lot of sense. We also chose to make the statement a bit stronger, because I think we actually in a triple whammy situation of: the discount is at a very high level, at 56% is a long time that we reached that, our companies are at depressed levels, and we have a cash position that is well utilized for.

We feel this is part of our toolbox, but also a part of our ongoing toolbox that we continuously evaluate to do. It's not an opportunistic transaction, and we also chose not to do this as a tender offer, but on-market program, which has started today and which will continue until the full year results in six months.

It's important for us because we are committed to driving NAV per share growth as we've always done, outperforming both on an absolute and relative basis. As I mentioned, buybacks are and will remain a critical part of our toolkit.

With those closing remarks, I would love to hand it over to the Q&A.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. I have actually two.

One is related to the situation at Stellantis. There is a plan and a recovery expected in the fourth quarter and the coming years, but the situation in terms of cash of the company has deteriorated.

I was wondering if there is a scenario in which Stellantis might need to raise cash, what is the position of Exor as a shareholder on that? I've read there is a lot of commitment in the report on some investments like Ferrari and so on.

I was wondering what is the commitment on Stellantis. The second question is on the performance of Lingotto.

It was very positive last year, not so positive this year. I was wondering if there is any specific reason behind that.

Thank you very much.

All right. Thanks, Alberto, for these good questions.

On Stellantis, we fully endorse the plan that has been announced by the management, and we're very confident in their execution of it. It's an uncertain market.

How they'll do on their cash position and a capital increase, I am not aware of any of those plans, and it's honestly also not really a question I can answer. These are more topics to raise to Stellantis management.

No view on whether they will need this capital injection. Lingotto, I think no particular reason.

The performance last year was very strong on the back of the hedge fund. Hedge funds have volatility, and we are very happy as a long-term investor to embrace volatility if the longer-term performance is good.

This fund has returned since inception I think an IRR of 24%. Calculate those numbers since 2018.

A stellar performance. If there is a blip in one month, there's no concern at all.

This is just the volatility that's inherent with such a strategy. For Intersection, that's just par for the course for the type of strategy that it is.

I was very encouraged to see the strong performance of Horizon. Horizon is a fund that invests in private investments.

It's now fully invested and in the monetization period, so that's usually the moment where you start seeing the large value step-ups and seeing our investors at Lingotto delivering on this is very encouraging. Hope this answers your questions, Alberto.

Thank you. If I can, an additional one.

You performed various divestments in the first half of 2026 and also afterwards. I was wondering if there is any opportunity for further divestments between your listed and unlisted companies.

Thank you.

We're always evaluating our portfolio, and as you've heard in previous calls, we're long-term investors, we're not going to invest and divest all the time. We always look at are we the best owner of these businesses for the long term, or is there a good opportunity from time to time.

That's always the case. I hope you understand I give a generic answer rather than a specific one.

As you've seen, we're very action-oriented.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Hi, Jon Pérez from Kepler Cheuvreux. Thank you for the presentation.

Just one question from me on portfolio construction in the context of the next investment. The press release mentioned about 4 billion of cash ready to be deployed.

In the past, I think I recall the sectors that were mentioned were healthcare, luxury, and tech. I would be keen to hear about how you think of portfolio construction considering the rest of the current portfolio and whether there are specific thematics that you would be happy to get exposure to with your next investment, how you think about long-term moats in the current environment, and whether there are specific risk factors that you would like to avoid, and any clue on the timeline would be welcome as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, John, for these thoughtful questions. Portfolio construction is obviously a critical part of what we do.

During PartnerRe disposal, we said these are the three sectors. They're still sectors that we like a lot and where we have a lot of domain expertise and where we know where the hidden gems are hidden.

It doesn't mean that we'll only invest in these sectors. What we're primarily looking at is large listed companies in which we can acquire a shareholding of 15% to 20% for an investment of at least 2 billion, 2 billion being approximately 5% of our gross asset value.

The thinking of that is we want to have the right level of diversification in our portfolio. At 5%, it's an investment makes an impact, so that's why we have a lower threshold of 2 billion for these large listed companies where we have then an influence similar as we have in our other listed companies.

It's what can we contribute as a shareholder, being an active shareholder where we can add value either in turbulent times to offer long-term stability to the company or in companies that go very well, but need a shareholder also to keep the management sharp and driving long-term performance. That's overall what we look at.

Then we look at individual sectors where there's a structural tailwind, and within those sectors, companies that have a right to win and where there's also a fit with the ownership structure that we do and the way we drive value creation with us. That's in general our philosophy around searching for the next large one.

We are patient shareholders, but we're also patient investors. As I mentioned in my opening, these are quite turbulent times, and turbulent times bring opportunities for the patient.

We're not in a rush to deploy. It is about finding the right company at the right price, the right partner.

I will not give any timing on when we envisage to make the next investment. Obviously, sooner rather than later, obviously, we want to deploy capital, but we are patient to wait for the right moment.

I hope that answers your questions, John.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yes, good afternoon, Guido. Thanks for taking my questions.

Actually, I have two today, if I may. The first one maybe building on the previous question in terms of portfolio composition, and my question is specifically with regard to concentration risk.

Today, if we look at Ferrari, it's about 39 39% of your GAV. It's your largest position, and you have always positioned the Ferrari investment, and I fully concur with that, as a luxury brand.

It's not a car manufacturer, which is good today, because we all know the challenges that the car industry is facing. It's a luxury brand that has performed very well for you.

At 38%, I wonder how you feel about that 38%, because if you look at some other players in the luxury brand segment today, LVMH, Hermès, if we had said at the beginning of the year these companies could be down almost 40% in market cap year-to-date, we would never have believed it. It's a great brand, it's a luxury brand, but it's 38% of your portfolio.

How do you think about that? If you could kind of walk us through that in terms of how you evaluate that at the board meetings.

I just would love to understand that a little bit more if you could help me here.

Good question. Did you have another question, or was this Yes.

Yes, the second question, Guido. In the letter from your chairman or CEO, John Elkann, was reference made to an approval reached with Philips, which would open the way to a potential increase in your stake holding.

If you maybe can just kind of elaborate a little bit on that. I would imagine that would be within the constraints of what you just shared before, meaning large listed companies between 15 and 20%.

Does it fit within that context that we should look at that potential increase in the Philips stake?

No, I'll comment on that. Maybe to take that one first.

I think the renewal of the partnership with Philips is, I think, a testament to our investment working well and our partnership with the company working well, adding value to the governance of Philips. That has been evidenced also with the company opening up to increase our stake further.

Previously we had a limit of 20%, that now increased to 22%. That doesn't mean that there's any action now taken to increase it or that that's imminent, but we have the opportunity, and we see that as a vote of trust from Philips that they value our ownership.

I would say that has been the key takeaway from that investment

from that update. That would happen, Guido, that would happen in the form of open-market purchases if you were to decide to increase that, or

Do

you look at a block trade, or yeah, okay.

We have not decided anything on if and when that would happen. First if,

and then

when we do it, we use whatever we need to, but it's not on the table.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Ferrari, I think it's a very good question. Maybe to repeat what I said following the block trade that we did on Ferrari, 3 billion, now a year and a half ago.

At that time, the concentration of Ferrari was reaching 50%. At 50% and also the multiples the company was trading, exactly what you were saying is a sizable risk.

If half of our portfolio trades at this value and there's a potential for the share price to decline to such a level, it is prudent to reduce the concentration. That's what we've done at that time, and these were the considerations.

At this moment, the multiple at which Ferrari trades is significantly below the multiple it was trading at when we did that transaction. The 30 yeah, 7 or 39% of GAV that it represents now is still far below the 50, and also the multiple is not at the same level.

It's not the same situation. We always look at our portfolio from what is the upside, but also, obviously, the downside.

Very good. Thanks for that clarification, Guido.

Maybe just a quick follow-on if I may. In your search for attractive additional investment opportunities as you build out your portfolio, if a right transaction were to present itself and you don't have sufficient liquidity to do that transaction, would you be willing to consider monetizing part of your Ferrari investment so that you would basically kill two birds with one stone: one, raise the funds needed to make a very accretive transaction, and secondly, to reduce the concentration risk in the portfolio?

We are an investor, we do what every investor does. If we see an attractive opportunity to invest in, we will do that, and then we'll review our sources of funding.

We first of all look obviously if we have cash, or still headroom on the debt side. If we don't, and we really like the new opportunity more than the least attractive one at that moment in our portfolio, we'll look to monetize something in our portfolio.

That is a process that is exactly similar as any investor does, we're not different there.

Fair enough. Thank you so much, Guido.

Very helpful.

It's not that Ferrari will or is on top of the list. We think Ferrari is an amazing company, and we're very happy.

Okay. I see that.

I agree with you. Thank you so much, Guido.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Guido.

The first is just a very quick clarification: the firepower of 4 billion, this does not include the buyback, which is on top?

The firepower is 4 billion, and from that you would deduct 500 million for buyback. After buyback, there's 3.5.

Okay. It's 3.5.

By then, we're at the start of the year, then we'll start getting dividend inflows again. That's basically the counting.

So 1.4 current cash, 2.7 of expected cash inflows from disposals, around 300 million of net free cash flow, and 300 million of commitments gets you to around 4 billion, less 500 million of is 3.5 net firepower.

Okay. The second is a follow-up on what you commented in the past.

You are looking primarily, but not only, to healthcare, luxury, and tech. In luxury, in your previous calls, you mentioned it is difficult to find something interesting.

Are still these three sectors your main priority, or as you mentioned, we are open to other opportunities, but as a secondary option, or always looking at these three?

No, we're very open to other sectors, and we're also actively considering other sectors, but with the same structural tailwinds, less correlated to the current part of our portfolio to also make sure we have diversification in business from a sector-wise, and then finding companies that have opportunities for great returns within those sectors. We're not bound with those sectors at all, but we do have a great network and understanding of those.

We're definitely not limiting ourselves.

Okay. Looking back in the last 18 months that you had already had a very good firepower, but nothing happened.

I remember you mentioned the prudent and patient approach, and so on, but is it because there is a lack of interesting opportunity, because the prices are too high, because you need better visibility on some of your assets, as you mentioned In the previous question was Stellantis, the question mark for a need and eventual cash injection? Just to know what happened in the last 18 months if you bid for something that didn't materialize, or there is lack of serious opportunities?

We did not miss any transactions. We look at Berkshire Hathaway and their cash position.

Our firepower in that sense is, in as a percentage, much much smaller. They're also very patient, and I think this is a time where there will be many opportunities.

It's an active choice of us not to deploy now. We have, obviously, potential targets.

We continue to look for others, but we will remain very disciplined in putting our money to work, because we invest for the long term, we try to find a good opportunity at a good price with a good partner. Hope this is clear, Martino.

Yeah. The last one on Lingotto, is there any update on the strategy in terms of asset under management, third parties' contributions, and this kind of things?

No,

no update there in the half year. As I mentioned, we're very happy with the performance of And in principle, it's great that Lingotto grows assets under management because it gives it some scale.

As you might remember, because you've been around Exor for a long time, when we announced the start of Lingotto, we invest for returns. This is not about assets under management from third parties and creating management fee income.

We want to make investment returns, and that's where Lingotto has been a very strong contributor to our overall returns. As we always do, in the full year, you'll see more information on the overall side of Lingotto.

Okay. Thank you, Guido.

All right. Thank you, Martino.

Nothing from my side, except for thanking you for being in this call and your time, and looking forward to read about your views in coming months and reports. Thank you all, and please you know where to find myself, Maarten, and Niccolo in case of questions from the press side or from future on.

Thank you very much, and have a nice day. Bye-bye.