Kinnevik AB

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the presentation of Kinevix results for the fourth quarter and full year 2025. I'm Jorg Eganev, Kinevix CEO, and with me today is Samuel Sjöström, our CFO, and Christian Scherer, Senior Investment Director and Head of Health and Bio. We will begin today's call by walking you through the key events of the quarter, as well as the full year of 2025. I will then hand over to Christian, who will give you some more insights into our newest investments, Oviva, as well as other exciting developments in our healthcare portfolio. After that, Samuel will provide you with a financial update, including our capital allocation, our financial position, and net asset value development. Lastly, I will go through the priorities we set out at the start of 2025 and how we performed against them, and what our priorities are for 2026. And as usual, we will end with a Q&A. So let's start on page four. Q4 marked another quarter of solid operational development in our core companies. However, the trend of currency and public market headwinds, which we saw for most of 2025, continued. Adding to that, write-downs in several climate tech companies weighed on our net asset value. A write-up of MUSE was the largest positive contributor to NAV, but it did not fully compensate. All in all, we ended the quarter down 4% compared to Q3 and down 8% during the year. In constant currencies, NAV was down 3% in the quarter and up 2% during the full year. Over the year, public market multiples and currencies weighed on our NAV with around 6.5 billion SEC in aggregate. As mentioned, progress in many of our climate tech investments has been unsatisfactory. This is due to a combination of market and regulatory headwinds, weaker investor sentiment, and some operational challenges. For Stegra, their momentum remains strong in signing new customer contracts, and they continue to make progress in the plant construction in Boden. However, raising the capital required to move the project into production is yet to be concluded. We have made a material write-down in Stegra and some of our other climate tech investments this quarter to reflect this, which Samuel will speak more about soon. As a whole, our portfolio continued to mature in 2025, combining sustained growth with disciplined margin control. Our core companies grew revenues by 34% on average with improving margins. And including Aviva, they grew revenues by 40% in 2025, which is almost three times higher than public comps, and improved EBDA margins by four percentage points. 2025 was a year when we put capital to work in a disciplined and thoughtful way, balancing selected new investments with follow-on investments in our high-conviction companies. We doubled down on companies like PERC, Muse, and Invera, participating in these funding rounds, which attracted several new strong investors and which priced at meaningful valuation premiums to our NAV. We also invested in next generation AI native companies like Tandem Health, Strand Therapeutics, and Nori. And this ensures we have a strong bench of candidates to become Sinevic's core companies of the future. And late last year, we made a sizable investment in digital healthcare company, Oviva. It became one of Sinevic's largest companies from day one and a cornerstone of our healthcare portfolio. a flagship European investment that meaningfully strengthens our portfolio's growth, profitability, and maturity profile. As you saw in the release this morning, Torin Litsiam, Chenevik's Director of Corporate Communications, has left her position effective today. Torin has been a great support to me during my time at Chenevik, and I'm grateful for her significant contributions and dedication over the last 18 years with the company. I will hand over to Christian in a minute to speak more about Oviva and Spring Health's recent acquisition and the clinical momentum in Invera. But first, let's turn to page five for a deep dive on Mu's latest funding round. Running a hotel is a highly complex operation. You need to know at any given moment which rooms are available, what to charge for them, who's about to check in and check out, which events are taking place, which rooms have been cleaned, and how to plan staffing. Historically, these tasks were run by legacy systems or silent point solutions, requiring a lot of manual coordination and resulting in missed revenue opportunities. And this is where Muse comes in. They have successfully executed on their strategy and grown into an end-to-end AI-powered operating system for hotels, helping hoteliers to optimize pricing, payments, housekeeping, staffing, event management, and more. In short, they handle all operational complexity, so hotels can focus on providing remarkable guest experiences. And their success is evident. In January this year, they raised just north of 260 million euros in a round, which values the company at close to 20% above our mark in Q3. The round follows a 70 million capital raise early last year. And since our first investment in 2022, Schnevik has continued to take every opportunity to invest more in MUSE. This means that we are today the company's largest investor with a 10% ownership stake. Schenelig has achieved an IRR of close to 30% on the investments in use so far, with a meaningful upside still ahead. As the company addresses one of the largest markets in a portfolio, it is clearly outpacing the competition. Turning now to page six for an overview of our largest companies. We have already covered Muse, and Christian will cover our healthcare companies outlined on this page. But before that, I'd like to touch on the other two, Perk and Theo. At the beginning of last year, PERC, formerly known as Travel PERC, announced a $200 million round and later completed a rebrand to reflect the company's transition into an integrated travel expense and event management platform. In 2025, PERC reached annualized revenues of €360 million. hit a gross margin of 76% and grew revenues by 48%. Clio is also delivering strong performance and has grown by 65% CAGR in the last five years. They have a gross margin of 80% and now serve almost 43,000 customers across seven core markets. PLEO is by far the largest expense management SaaS company in Europe, which is also of great strategic value in a consolidating market. And their newest launch, PLEO Embedded, which lets other companies integrate PLEO's spending cash management tools directly into their own platform, has seen a very strong traction in the market. We're very excited to continue backing Avi, co-founder and CEO of Perk, and Jeppe, co-founder and CEO of Plio, and their respective teams on their continued growth journey. With that, I'd like to hand over to Christian to talk about the recent developments in our healthcare portfolio.

Thank you, Georgie. I'll stay on page six for a minute to talk about a few encouraging updates in healthcare. First, many of you will have seen Spring Health announce its intended acquisition of Alma last week. Alma is a mental health company founded by physician Harry Ritter with over $200 million in funds raised. The company provides technology solutions to therapists to automate admin tasks and secures in-network rates with health insurers. Health insurers negotiate rates with Alma to ensure their members have access to one of the largest provider networks in the country. Alma adds 120 million in eligible lives to Spring's addressable market due to partnerships with many of the top health insurers in the US. The combination sets Spring Health up to achieve almost $1 billion in expected revenue in the year following the merger. For context, that's about 30 times larger than when we first invested in 2021. It also strengthens their client base alongside large employers like Microsoft and JP Morgan. Spring Health continued to grow at an impressive 80% CAGR during 2023 to 2025, reached profitability last year, and is emerging as the consolidator in the $240 billion behavioral health market. We could not be more excited about the path ahead for Spring Health. We're delighted our strategy of backing category winners is paying off. Health insurers is a good segue to CitiBlock. Their clients had a tough 12 months in public markets due to the heightened uncertainty in the government-sponsored healthcare market. Citi blocked it while navigating this period. The company diversified their client base, expanded to 10 markets, and optimized their contracts for profitability. The decision to increase the bar on acceptable contracting terms led to a decrease in our 12-month revenue outlook. However, We believe it is prudent to optimize for profitability in times of uncertainty and support this change. They now care for over 130,000 members and reached over $1.5 billion in ARR. We believe they require about $2 billion in ARR to achieve profitability, which is within reach when looking at their top of funnel pipeline activity. Finally, Medicaid plans more than ever are looking for at-risk providers able to bend the cost curve. Lastly, Inveda has continued to exceed our expectations with positive momentum since entering clinical trials last year. Their lead candidate in atopic dermatitis achieved positive phase 2a efficacy results, which warrants the progression towards expanded 2b studies. As part of this, the program will also expand to asthma, adding another large market to Inveda's pipeline. The detailed results will be released at an industry conference in spring. What we can say is the candidate shows potential for a best-in-class profile. The largest drug in atopic dermatitis, Dupixent, generates about 15 billion in annual sales. Further, Inveda advanced two more assets into the clinic, launching human trials in IBD and obesity. The obesity candidate is distinct from the GLP-1 pathway, which provides exciting differentiation because it has the potential to avoid the side effect issues of incumbents. Global pharma companies are under pressure to react to Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk's lead in obesity. Hence, we expect strong interest in this candidate over time. Lastly, the unicorn valuation in Veda Chief is another validator of the exciting pipeline momentum. Now let's focus on our most recent flagship investment in healthcare, Boviva on page seven. Oviva adds the care delivery angle to the obesity equation we are solving from multiple angles. We have been looking to transfer learnings from our U.S. investments to Europe for many years. We finally found a company of the quality we're looking for. Oviva is Europe's largest digital provider of weight-related care. The company supported over 1 million patients to date, tripled patient intake over the last two years, and is cash flow profitable despite still growing rapidly. The founders, Kai Eberhard and Manuel Baumann, built an incredibly reliable, robust, and well-run company. What impressed us the most is their patient-first mentality and clinical rigor. Oviva ran over 90 peer-reviewed studies and designed a care program leading to up to 15% weight loss in 12 months without any medications. Oviva is nationally reimbursed in the UK, Germany, and Switzerland, and is likely going to expand to other European markets soon. We have seen the US expand access to weight loss programs and medications intensively over the last five years and expect Europe to follow suit. Over 200 billion people in Europe live with weight-related chronic illness, costing us 1.5% in GDP per year. Early and precise intervention has been proven to generate better health outcomes for patients and better cost outcomes for health systems. Oviva is the clear leader in this space, both as a standalone program and alongside medication. Our $100 million investment makes us the largest institutional shareholder in the company. Oviva will become a core company from day one and improves our portfolio's performance in both growth and profitability materially. The investment follows our strategic priority to further mature the portfolio. We look forward to supporting the Aviva team and our partner investors on the board in building a pan-European chronic care leader. We believe we are a mere 5% on that journey today. I will now hand over to Sinevik CFO Samuel.

Thank you, Christian. Good morning, everyone. So I'll take you through our capital allocation and NAV, and then it's back to Jorgi for his closing remarks. Kicking off on this page nine, investments in the quarter were entirely centered on Aviva and brought full year investments to 3.6 billion SEC. To echo what Jorgi said, you can arrange that 3.6 billion in three deliberate buckets. Firstly, we invested 1.6 billion to support existing businesses like Muse and WebA and ERA. Secondly, we put 1.1 billion to work in new AI-native companies in our focus sectors like Tandem, Nori and Strand to ensure that we have a solid bench of future core companies. And thirdly, now in Q4, we invested 0.9 billion SEC into Oviva, ensuring our capital allocation this year helped accelerate the ongoing maturing of our portfolio. The capital we deployed came mainly from our net cash position, but we also released 0.4 billion SEC by exiting a handful of financial services companies during 2025, with additional proceeds expected in an earn-out in the coming years. This brought net investments during the full year down to 3.2 billion SEC and our year-end net cash position to 7.6 billion SEC. Meanwhile, even after the addition of a cohort of younger companies during the year, 82% of our private portfolio is invested in companies that are either profitable or deemed funded to break even. Now looking into 2026, we entered this year with a clear capital allocation plan. Firstly, we're going to continue working actively to create optionality in our portfolio, driving liquidity events and creating divestment opportunities. We see our work to date beginning to crystallize into more tangible opportunities, and we're targeting to free up more capital from exits than the 0.4 billion SEC we released in 2025. And secondly, we're going to focus almost exclusively on reinvesting into our existing companies. With the new investments made in 2025, we have a balanced exposure to the innovation happening at the early stage in our focus sectors. So during 2026, we will be carefully deploying capital into our most promising companies, including some of these 2025 additions, to help drive our companies and our portfolios maturity forward. In total, executing on this plan clearly means that we're expecting a lower net investment pace in 2026 than what we upheld in 2025. And it also means that new investments will be financed by recycling capital that we release from exits. Georgi will be getting back to these priorities in his closing remarks. So for now, we will move on to this quarter's NAV on page 10. NAV was down 4% in Q4 to 35.9 billion or 130 SEC per share, with the reversal of a tax provision made in 2020 adding 897 million SEC to NAV at year-end. Meanwhile, our private portfolio was down 8% in the quarter. As Jorgi mentioned, Q4 was another quarter of adverse currency movements, predominantly in the US dollar, We also faced negative movements in comparable public market multiples that impacted the carrying values of companies where we lack guidance from transactions and instead rely on our internal models. Over 2025 in total, public comparable multiples brought a 2.4 billion SEC negative impact on our valuations, and currencies brought a 4.1 billion negative impact. adding up to an aggregate 6.5 billion SEC worth of NAV that we would otherwise be recording on the balance sheet this quarter. While the negative developments in public equity markets influenced our internal valuation models, we continue to see transactions clearing above our NAV with a reassuring margin. with the most recent example clearly being the funding round in MUSE, closing 19% above last quarter's valuation and 45% above our valuation in Q4-24. MUSE's round and PERC's rounds from 12 months ago are both good examples of the decoupling that we see in valuation multiples in SAS during 2025 and the start of 2026. Fast incumbents are facing pressure. Seat counts are stagnating. Spending budgets are being cut. There's competition from AI tools, and investors are worried about barriers to entry. That means that growth rates out there are decreasing, and the premium investors pay for growth is increasing. What we see in companies like Muse and Perk is not only that they're growing much faster than their public comparables, but also that that growth is coming from building integral systems for their customers that are harder to replicate or replace. And that is coming through in where these companies are valued in these recent transactions. The guidance from transactions in companies like Muse was the main case of why in Q4 valuation multiples in our portfolio contracted less than peers. Over the full year, our multiples came down on equal step with peers by around 10%. Looking back over the last 12 months, including Muse, we've seen transactions in 45% of the portfolio, at valuations on average 38% above our preceding NAV. Looking further back, also into 2024, when we had big funding rounds in PERC in spring, we've seen transactions in 86% of the portfolio over these last two years, at valuations on average 16% above our preceding NAV. In the appendix to this presentation, we've added some extra details on valuations this quarter that we hope you find useful. But now I'll move into some of the more specific considerations this quarter, starting with our core companies on page 11. On average, underlying constant currency valuations of our core companies were down 5% in the quarter. This translated into a 7% decrease in Swedish krona fair value. Operational performance during the quarter and re-underwritten outlooks into 2026 were overall reassuring, but as Christian mentioned earlier, we made a cut in the near-term outlook at Citiblock, driven by a relatively large contract falling out of the new sales pipeline. Meanwhile, we rebalanced our multiple relative to Citiblock's imperfect peer groups based on clear signals in the private market. That means that at year end, we are valuing the company at a multiple of 1.1 times the company's $1.5 billion ARR. Muses, as you've heard, valued in line with the recent funding rounds valuation and does not include the 20 million euro that we invested into the company in January. The rounds valuation guidance means that we expanded our multiple while broader software peers contracted by 7%. At PERC, We instead made a significant cut in our valuation level to reflect that peer multiple contraction. And our valuation is now back to just a few percent above where the company's $200 million funding round closed some 12 months ago, despite the company's strong growth in 2025. Peer multiples also explained this quarter's right hand of PLEO, where we on top of that also took a one-off dilution effect from an expanded option program, which weighed on our fair value by an additional 5%. And lastly, at Spring Health, we contracted our multiple with 9% or by around 15% pro forma the Alma acquisition. And we continue to benchmark our valuation against both lower gross margin SaaS companies and healthcare technology companies when valuing Spring. And we're holding the company at a more conservative level relative to these peer groups than where the 2024 funding round closed out. In this quarter, we also found support for our valuation in secondary transactions occurring in connection with the Alma acquisition. So in summary, for our core companies as a group, it was another stable quarter from a performance perspective, albeit with a temporary setback at Citiblock. And the quarter's write-down was mainly stemming from negative impacts from comparable public market multiples and currency movements. Moving on then to the last page of this section, page 12, which shows the full private portfolio by categories and sectors and highlights the main movements outside of our core companies. As Jorgi touched on, we've made three larger write-downs in climate tech this quarter. At Agrina and ERA, our write-downs reflected cuts in both companies' growth outlook. At Agrina, sales in Q4 last year were below expectations, causing us to make a considerable downward adjustment. And at ERA, the company held back on their growth ambitions in order to continue to target cash flow break-even with the funding raised during 2025. When they've achieved that, they can again allow themselves to invest more into growth. The largest write-down in NAV terms was of our investment in Stegra. The company's funding round remains ongoing, and in awaiting the round's outcome, we recorded a 49% write-down of our investment that seeks to reflect the expected potential dilution of our shareholding in the company that this round of financing may cause. When we know the final outcome of the funding round, we will be able to readjust the valuation of our investment more precisely. Lastly, our more mature companies, i.e. Betterment, Cedar, Hungry Panda, InstaB and Omiu, remained profitable through 2025 and grew revenues by 13% on average. This group's underlying valuations were down by 5% in the quarter, also mainly driven by changes in peer multiples. So, To summarize my contribution to today's presentation, Q4 ends a year during which external headwinds weighed on our NAV by 6.5 billion SEC, but where we saw solid performance from our core companies that will carry into net asset value accretion in a more stable environment. Capital allocation during the year was deliberate and strategic, and we're entering 2026 with a strong net cash position and a clear set of plans and expectations for how to reallocate our capital during the year. And with that, I'll hand it over to Jorgi to expand on these reflections on 2025 and on these 2026 priorities. Thanks, Samuel.

Let's now move to page 14. As mentioned at the start of this presentation, 2025 was a year when we sharpened our focus on developing a stable, more mature, and more profitable portfolio. We allocated capital in a way, and 401 investments were focused on our high-conviction companies, and we made selected new investments in our focus sectors, most notably in Aviva. While climate tech was, as mentioned, disappointing, the portfolio and aggregate delivered solid operational performance throughout the year. In 2026, we expect our core companies to continue to improve their margins whilst growing revenue by over 30%. And this increasingly profitable growth will serve as an engine of value creation going forward. 2025 also brought several material proof points, large funding rounds in Perk, Muse, and Envera. And we released almost 400 million SEC through exits in financial services. And two weeks ago, both Spring Health and Canem Health announced large acquisitions to accelerate growth. And we look forward to celebrating spring, hitting their combined $1 billion revenue in a few quarters. We have also aimed to improve transparency by increasingly sharing performance disclosures from our companies, and we included a new page in our quarterly report dedicated to this. And our valuations are being validated. During the year, 45% of our private portfolio saw transactions which on average valued our companies 38% higher than our preceding NAV. Let's now turn to the last page of this presentation, page 15, for a look at the priorities we have set during 2026. It may be somewhat of a transitional year, but as evidenced by the high level of activity in our portfolio, we are not slowing down. We will continue to support our companies in maturing and delivering strong results. We will actively seek liquidity and divestment opportunities, and we will reinvest our capital through strategic, selective, and proactive 401 investments in our most promising companies. As Samuel said, new investments will be conditional on successful recycling of capital, and we enter 2026 with an expectation for a material lower net investment pace. I look forward to delivering on these priorities and reporting on our progress during my final quarters as CEO. And with that said, we are now ready to answer your questions. So, operator, please open up for Q&A.

Thank you, sir. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. Once again, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. This will take a few moments. Thank you. Once again, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. We are now going to proceed with our first question. And the questions come from the line of Derek Laliberte from ABG. Please ask your question.

Okay, good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. I was wondering, firstly, from your perspective, how sort of these weak peer developments of late here and also the... call it broken issue in Navan here, impact your potential IPO plans for companies like Perkin and Spring Health over the coming year or so?

Hi, Derek. So, yes, we have seen a pressure on software multiples for sure. But I think it's also important to unpack what we're seeing. Firstly, it seems like the market is really valuing growth. So kind of high growth SaaS company is definitely trading at a premium. Secondly, we see a very big difference between kind of vertical SaaS or vertical software and horizontal software. So in the peer groups of, for instance, Muse, we see very clear kind of premium to those valuations compared to the average. So that's very clear. In terms of Navan, yes, there are, of course, similarities with Perk, but it's also a very kind of specific situation for that company going public with, I would now say in hindsight, the wrong timing with a very short history, which makes them even more volatile in the market. And there's also a clear difference. I mean, Perk showed already in the last quarter of 2024 that they could actually make money and scale their platform, albeit at a very, very smaller kind of revenue base. That's kind of one clear difference. And they've also grown faster. And their kind of main focus in Europe, which is even a more fragmented market, makes their inventory more kind of unique, if you will. So there are clear differences. But of course, going straight to your question about the IPO plans, we see that it's quite rough out there and it's very volatile for new candidates. We think we have very strong IPO candidates in our portfolio, but we will in no mean rush any IPO or put pressure on a company, but instead wait for the timing that creates the best value for shareholders long term.

Okay, great. Thanks for that clarity and flavor. Then I was wondering here, it feels like it was some time ago we talked about CIDAR here. So just wondering if you could give an update on the company's operational performance, where you also hear say that the financial profile has improved and there's been a secondary transaction.

I'll start and then I'll hand it over to Christian for a more intelligent answer. But just in terms of how we're dealing with Cedar in the valuations this quarter, Cedar is a company that sort of reached that inflection point where they've been consistently cash flow profitable for some time and they're showing much stronger growth endurance or even growth rates coming up relative to the peer group. So we feel We feel very encouraged about both the outlook, but also in terms of how robust our valuation is. And this is also a quite large US company. So there is some secondary trading in this business. And we're seeing clear signals that we're holding it at a price where investors are willing to trade. But Christian, maybe you want to give some more color on Cedar.

Yeah, happy to. I think this is actually a... a similar topic to what Georgie discussed before in terms of vertical SaaS. And what we are seeing is companies that drive significant ROI for their clients are much better protected than horizontal SaaS, right? And Cedar through their product suites can generate massive ROI for their client base, for health systems in the US. Remember, they're doing the patient out-of-pocket expense collection and doing that correctly in a consumer-friendly way, in a one-click payment way actually materially improves the performance on collections and health systems. They operate at an EBITDA margin that is razor thin, say 1%, 2%, 3%. And actually bending those collections positively can have a really big impact on the overall EBITDA of a health system that is to the size of, say, $30 million, $40 million per year. And they are therefore happily paying for the Cedar service. And Cedar is really well protected that way. Now on top, what they can do now is drive AI applications into their client base. given their scale and use, for example, the most cutting edge in voice AI to reach patients better, to also take the calls directly with patients that have issues with their billing and payments. And that eases the entire process to get the payments done early and faster. So we're really excited about the product suite expansion at Cedar. And as Samuel said, the model in itself is highly profitable because The ACV, the contract sizes they can get per client, and also if you look at it on a per FTE basis, are really, really high. So in terms of long-term EBITDA margin, this can be a very, very strong set of unit economics at scale.

Okay, thanks. And on Citiblock, if you can explain more closely here what happened with this contract fallout there affecting the outlook, because I didn't realize it was, I mean, call it a large concentration here in the pipeline. Yeah.

Happy to, Derek. So the contract sizes in Citiblock are very large. They range from, say, $100 to $300 million in ARR or even above that. And to actually launch with one of their health plan partners takes a long time, right? You have to go through the contracting, you have to then size the population the right way, stratify the patients according to what matches to CityBlock's care model, et cetera, et cetera. And then you set up the local operations. That can take a long time, right? And so these sales cycles are long and the contract sizes are very large. And that just naturally leads to lumpiness in how the sales work. But it's not necessarily a negative sign. This client actually, they haven't gone with a competitor here. It's just that they needed more time to assess sales. what they're going to do with their population in that specific state that we were talking about. But there are other very material ARR contracts in the pipeline. Now, we just try to be cautious in terms of that visibility and then factor them into our outlook once they're closer to contracting and completion.

Okay, great. I appreciate the clarity there. And then on Spring Health, just a clarification, and apologies if you mentioned this somewhere, but you're saying that this new current valuation is in line with the implied valuation by the transaction with the acquisition of Alma here?

Hey, Derek, I'll take that one. It's roughly in line with where those transactions will happen at closing of the merger. There is some moving parts in there because obviously there will be earnouts and such. But roughly speaking, those secondary trades are happening at a high single digit, low double digit discount to where we're holding the asset. And there's been little incentive from the stakeholders part in that transaction to try to bolster any valuation here. So we feel that it's providing some support for where we're holding it in our internal models.

Okay, great. And just finally on ERA, from your perspective, what would you say have been the key issues for this company? Because it does look pretty messy from the outside here with some significant operational pivots, call it. I mean, why do you continue to invest in this franchise?

Hi, Derek. Let me take that one. I think firstly, if we go back a few years ago, all the projections on heat pump development in Europe were significantly higher, right? So they have been almost like reset in new projections by everybody. That's kind of one reason that it puts pressure on kind of sales. Secondly, as we know, there has been a lot of changes when it comes to policies and subsidy schemes, but of course also impacts consumers' ability and willingness to change their heating system. Despite that, the company has been growing very, very fast. And we have earlier talked about their sales run rate of over 200 million euros, which is, of course, very impressive, given that they have only been in the market in a short period of time. But I think the operational challenge right now is to actually get a higher efficiency in the installation process. And this is, to be clear, nothing that is done easily. And it's also nothing we have seen anyone else being better at. So Aera has an ambition because they kind of control the entire value chain to do this better at scale. And what Samuel said is that for the beginning of this year, ERA will kind of focus on that efficiency rather than maximizing growth. So they have been growing very fast, and now it's really about to improve those unit economics installation. And when we see kind of strong results there and high efficiency, the company can grow again. That's where we are.

Okay, great. Great color. Thank you.

Thank you. We are now going to proceed with our next question. And our next questions come from the line of Oscar Lindstrom from Danske Bank. Please ask your question.

Yes, good morning. Three sets of questions from me. The first one is just on, maybe I misheard here, but you were talking about pressure on healthcare budgets as a negative. Did I understand that correctly?

Yes, there has been pressure on health plans. If you look at the health plan share price performance over the last 12 months, they have suffered materially. And I can explain why that's the case.

Is this just general sort of public sector health care budgets or... But shouldn't that be a positive for the growth outlooks and sort of markets for the types of healthcare services your companies or assets are offering?

Yeah, I think it's important to actually to dissect this according to which target market you're focusing on, right? So healthcare budgets in the commercial markets are growing rapidly, almost 10% per year, some cases even larger, and we have a big share of employer-focused and commercial markets-focused investments. Ring Health is one of them, Transcairn, Pelago, or others. And they're all benefiting from that trend, obviously. Transcairn as well. And then there are the health plans. And I think in value-based care, what you're seeing is an increase... Excuse me. Would you mind going on mute? Yeah. There's an increase in the care utilization, but health plans are obviously at risk for that, right? And so it depends on whether they're getting reimbursed at the rates that reflect this increased medical expense. And this often lags for a year or two. And in that period, the margins get squeezed for a health plan. And if you're an at-risk provider, you're effectively taking risk on these members as well. And so your P&L works a bit similar to a health plan. So it can mean that in the short term, your margins get squeezed until the rates, the reimbursement rates are readjusted for that increased medical expense the next year or the year after, and then you can expand your margins again. So this is what is hurting the health plan sector and the value-based care sector, but in some ways actually benefits our employer-focused models, if that makes sense.

I think so. I'm going to read through the transcript again just to get all the details there. I want to get off to my second question, and this is regarding the guidance there that you would reduce investments in 2026. Would you be willing to quantify that and what sort of share or rough share is going to go into existing companies and how much is going to go towards new investments? Thank you.

Hey, Oscar. It's Samuel. I would position it as follows. On the exit side of things, we think we're going to beat 2025's 0.4 billion SEC. On the follow-on side, it's highly sensitive to the opportunities we see and our ability to convert some opportunities more preemptively. But the plan we're looking at now doesn't stack up to more than what we invested in follow-ons during 2025. So I hope that gives you some sense of where we would end up on a net basis. And then clearly, if we... If we are successful on the divestment side, then there's more flexibility in terms of where we deploy both into the existing portfolio, accreting ownership, but also considering new investments that can help continue to drive this maturing of the portfolio that we've seen over the last two years.

So it's not necessarily going to be a significant reduction in net investments. It's going to be sort of about the same or slightly smaller. I'm just trying to get a feel for what the impact on your net cash is going to be, say, a year, you know, when we're standing here a year from now.

I see. Right. So to be very clear, doing follow-ons in the high conviction businesses in our portfolio, that is something we will most definitely do. That will most likely stack up to an aggregate number slightly below the 1.6 billion we did in follow-ons in 2025. And on exits, there we think we'll beat the 0.4 billion that we achieved in 2025. So to do the math for you, you're looking at a number of more than a billion. All right, thank you.

The final question, again, coming back to this issue, I know it might be difficult to answer, but I'm going to put it to you anyways. In terms of public offerings here for some of your core assets, do you feel that you're closer to that now in terms of time from now compared to where you believe you were a year ago?

I mean, I think you need to kind of decouple the readiness of a company to go public, right, from the market opportunity and the window. So if I start with the first one, All our core companies have matured and continue to grow at a high pace. And I think that's very attractive in the public markets. As I alluded to earlier, investors pay a premium for growth. You have to show that your model works and that you can convert the high-growth market to the bottom line. The other thing is obviously the market conditions. And I think even if the window has been open over the last couple of quarters, we've seen a very volatile markets and companies with limited history, if you will, have been punished very hard in these volatile markets. So I think it's for the second part of the question, as I said earlier, we will not push our businesses. This needs to be company led and this needs to be done with a view that it's good short term and long term. So being ready is one thing. Taking the opportunity to go public is another thing that it's very much market dependent. Excellent. Thank you.

That's clear. Those were my three questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Oscar.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. We are now going to proceed with our next question. And our next questions come from the land of Lulia Angelis-Frand from Handelsbanken. Please ask your question.

Good morning and thank you for taking my question. I have one on you. Could you elaborate a bit on the valuation? Because it seems like you have a higher valuation than the funding round. And is there a particular reason to that?

Hey, Julia, it's Samuel. We are valuing our stake in the company at the exact same valuation as the funding round took place. I think what might make the quarter-on-quarter move slightly confusing, perhaps, and Also adding to that is the fact that the round closed in Q1. So first of all, the 20 million euros that we invested as part of the round, that is a Q1 event that's not recorded in today's report. And that is also why you see us posting an 8% ownership stake in Muse, whereas after this round, we're going to own 10% of the company. What happened in 2025 was that we made two follow-on investments into Muse, one in Q1, one in Q3, in total around 400 million SEK. Those investments were made at valuations that in part depended on where this new funding round closed. So those two investments, you could say we've valued as if they were debt and held them at nominal value. And now that we know the funding round's outcome, we can adjust the valuations of those investments as they are converted into equity as part of this round. So that hopefully explains the quarter-on-quarter move. But to be very clear, we are valuing our investment in the company at the same price as the funding round took place at.

Okay, and the valuation... of your stake of 8% is that pre or post latest investment?

That is on a pre-money basis. So the price per share in the funding round based on the number of shares we owned before the funding round happened.

Okay. Thank you. That was all of my questions.

Thank you. We have no further questions at this time. I will now hand back to Mr. Yogi Ganesh for closing remarks.

Thank you very much for listening and for the questions. And as a last reminder, we will report the results for the first quarter in 2026 on the 16th of April. Thank you very much. Have a nice day.