Kinnevik AB

Starting the conference now. Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Cinevic Q2 Report 2026 conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star, one, one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To answer your question, please press star, one, and one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Rubin Ritter, Interim CEO. Please go ahead.

Yes, good morning also from my side and welcome to today's earnings call where we talk about the second quarter of 2026. I'm sitting here together with Samuel, our CFO, and together we will talk about update on the key priorities of the quarter. We'll cover net asset value, capital allocation, and then we have time for some closing remarks before we start Q&A. So when I joined in March as interim CEO, I promised to do a thorough and unbiased review of Cenevic's team, culture, ways of working, and the portfolio. And there was also a clear board mandate to make changes where needed to create a better starting point for a new CEO. In that context, our work in the second quarter was focused on four objectives. Objective number one, was to start the transition towards a smaller and more focused organization with an achievement-oriented culture. I see that as a big opportunity for Chinnewick. I believe this company should be a place where it feels like working to be part of a small team that is handpicked, closely aligned, where we have joint, clear objectives. where we have focused execution towards these objectives, where we have a joint sense of urgency that is motivating to everyone, and where we feel accountability for the outcome as a team. So in this context, I have discussed with the senior leadership, and we have redesigned the organizational structure to create more clear roles and clearer responsibilities. We have also moved forward to reduce the team size from about 45 colleagues at the end of 2025 to less than 25 colleagues today. We have also tried to make Stockholm the clear centre of gravity for this team. We do have employees in different locations, including London, and they are very important to us. But at the same time, we have made clear that we see the centre of this company in Stockholm and we bring everybody over every other week to be together here in the office as a team. We have also gone back to an office-first approach with the goal of spending more time together as a team to do the work together in the office. In this context, we have also started to change the culture and I hope that you notice that we have an increased pace of decision making. I think there were a large number of things that were relatively clear at Sinevik that they needed to happen and I think we have tried to adapt a new pace where we together discuss and debate and then we decide and then we implement and then we move on. The second objective was to reduce our cost base. Our purpose as a company is to be good stewards to our shareholders' money and capital. And with that mindset, we need to look at cost as every krona that we spend without impact, as a krona that we cannot invest to make a return for our shareholders. So with that in mind, we together decided that our cost is too high. And in the last earnings call, we communicated the goal to bring management cash costs down to around 200 million kroner per year as of 2027, which is a reduction by about 30% from the level of 2025, which was 313 kroner. So in this context, in the last months, the team has identified and also implemented a number of measures that are already sufficient to bring us to that target. But additional measures will continue to be worked on in the second half of the year to also create leeway for us to make also some new investments into the team where we see that as necessary. I also think there is a significant potential and a great opportunity that we can unlock by leveraging a more modern technology stack, which would enable us for more comprehensive use of AI. So that work has also been accelerated in the second quarter. The third objective is to be very selective in follow on investments to preserve capital. As you know, many companies in our portfolio are investing to grow very fast, and that is a good thing because the value of these growth companies lies in the future. And our role as investors is to support them on that journey, and sometimes that means that we will invest in follow-on rounds. This is a great opportunity for Cinevic to deploy additional capital, but at the same time, we need to be highly disciplined in our approach. First of all, because we want to be good stewards of our shareholders' capital. And then secondly, because in this particular situation, we also want to preserve capital to be able to invest under a new investment strategy going forward. And I think I can say that in the second quarter, we have been highly disciplined in capital allocation. Net investments amount to 57 million kroner in the second quarter, which is actually the lowest level since Q4 2019. In this context, I would also like to reiterate our goal to invest not more than 1.5 billion in follow-on rounds to bring our existing portfolio to profitability. The fourth objective was to conduct an internal portfolio review. Together with the investment team, I've reviewed more than 35 companies. The key questions that we asked ourselves is, which companies have the potential to be a long-term success and to make a lasting difference to their customers? And then as a result of that, which of these companies have the potential to be long-term holds for Cinevic based on their financial profile, their track record, but also their strategy and potential going forward. So clearly the bar needs to be very high. And I think the good news is that we have some great companies in the portfolio with a strong and growing track record and high ambition and a sound plan for the future. And I think if they deliver on that plan, they do have the potential to play a defining role in our portfolio going forward. On the other hand, the board also has been very clear that we want to transition to a portfolio that is more concentrated, that is more cash generating, and that has a more balanced risk profile going forward. And of course, not every investment that we have made in the past will also have a place in the portfolio of the future. Now, of course, we have a new CEO coming in with Helena as of August, and it will be her responsibility to continue to develop the portfolio going forward. And I hope that by doing this portfolio review, we have created a good basis for her to get to know the portfolio quickly, to form her own view and to take the right decisions, of course, together with the board. Now, coming to the financial performance, while we have been focused on these four priorities, we have also benefited from positive developments in our portfolio. Today, we can report that our NAV has increased to 29.6 billion kroner or 107 kroner per share. That is an increase of about 6%. This positive increase is primarily driven by the multiple expansion of our portfolio companies listed peers. At the same time, we have seen strong growth in the portfolio of about 28% on average year-to-date in our larger holdings, as well as EBITDA margin improvements by about 4 percentage points to negative 6%. We have been able to keep cash almost constant at 7.4 billion, which is in line with our objective to preserve capital. And I think we can say overall that this has been a very good quarter for our portfolio. We also have some important management changes that I would like to take the opportunity to address. So we have decided together with Samuel that now is the right time to make a change. Samuel will be leaving Genevik at the end of August after 13 years with the firm. And I'll have the chance to come back to this after Samuel's presentation. Kasper Höstrand will be interim CFO until a permanent successor is appointed. He has joined us recently as part of our investment team. I'm very confident that in combination with Helena's experience and the finance team that we have in place, he will be able to cover this important role really well and do a great job. It is not news to you that Helena Saxon will be joining us as new CEO as of August 1st. And I just would like to point out that I already have an active dialogue with her and we align on the most important developments and decisions. I'm also excited to announce that we have Hanna Björk joining us on September 1st. She will join as Director of Communication and Investor Relations. So most of the participants of this call will get to know her quite well going forward. She has many years of experience in this field, and I think she's exactly the right profile, and I'm very excited that she will be joining the team. And now I'd like to hand over to Samuel.

Thank you, Ruben, and good morning, everybody. So as usual, I'll take you through the NAV development and capital allocation for the quarter, and then I'll hand it back to Ruben before we open up for Q&A, after which Ruben will come back with some closing remarks. That means we are on page four of today's presentation and on the trading of the different public market peer sets that are relevant to our private valuations. And what we're showing on this page is not just the headline average move for each peer group, but the dispersion underneath it, because that dispersion really mattered this quarter. As you may recall, in Q1, we said that the public market drawdown in that quarter was relatively indiscriminate. Q2 was different. The re-rating was more selective, and we saw quite meaningful differences across different subgroups. Firstly, the average public SaaS peer multiple was up by around 20%, but the median that we show in the top red square here was up by only around 5% to 6%. And that informs that it was a concentrated move impacted by significant outliers, in particular among the large-scale peers. And hence, the headline average number overstates what happened for the typical company. Second, the market seemed to move from debating AI risks last quarter to rewarding more concrete AI tailwinds this quarter. The companies driving this in part overlap with the aforementioned outliers, but we saw the strongest multiple expansion in companies where AI is a more immediate demand catalyst in companies delivering, for instance, developer tools, data infrastructure, and cybersecurity services. Meanwhile, the multiple expansion in the application layer and other peer sets more relevant when valuing our portfolio was somewhat more muted. So this was a quarter where de-averaging really mattered, and we've updated the peer group spreadsheet available on our website to reflect the nuances in public market SaaS that this slide aims to provide. At the very bottom range of this chart, you see how multiples changed in our larger companies, where the moves in these various peer sets meant the spread of minus 7% to plus 18% in terms of multiple change in our investees, and a median increase of 4%. So moving on to the next page, page 5, and what this meant for NAV. Our NAV was up 6% in Q2, ending the quarter at 29.6 billion SEC, or 107 SEC per share, with the portfolio growing in value by 8%. In constant currencies, NAV was up 5%. The short version is that public market valuation tailwinds helped, but we also had some company-specific effects. Health and Bio was up 16%, in part driven by some solid operational developments at Citiblock, but primarily by Spring Health, which was up 29% in SEC fair value terms in the quarter. Spring closed its acquisition of Alma during the quarter, and on a combined basis, the company is now targeting $1 billion worth of revenue over the next 12 months, with gross margins in the high 50s and continued EBITDA profitability. As a consequence of the acquisition, our ownership stake was diluted from 14% to 12%, and we remained the company's largest investor. The acquisition means that we're valuing the combined company at a somewhat lower multiple than would be applicable for spring on a standalone basis. And as a reference point against Hinge Health, we are now carrying the company at a 15% to 20% discount on a gross profit basis and a 40% to 45% discount on a revenue basis. At Oviva, we took down our forward outlook slightly, driven mainly by a delay in the company's rollout plan, but that adjustment was more than offset by peer multiple expansion. Our software companies were up 7%, again mainly driven by peer multiples, and with PERC as the largest contributor of software NAV in the quarter. For context, relative to Navan, our valuation of PERC now implies a 5-10% discount on both a gross profit and revenue basis after the re-rating that's happened after Navan's IPO in late October last year. At Muse, we also adjusted our outlook downward slightly, here to reflect softer US macro trends, providing some headwind in that market. But again, this modest forecast adjustment was more than offset by positive peer multiples. Our earlier stage emerging companies were up 12% in the quarter, driven entirely by the revaluation of Wordsmith, which I'll get back to in a second. And the remainder of the portfolio, what we called prior strategies, was down 4% in aggregate, mainly driven by some multiple contraction at Betterment and a 0.2 billion sec write-down of our climate tech businesses. Transaction activity was limited again this quarter. Over the last 12 months, there have been transactions in 33% of the private portfolio by value, and those transactions have cleared at a 10% weighted average premium to our prior NAV marks. And turning to page six, that transaction deceleration was reflected in our capital allocation in the quarter, in combination with our increased discipline and selectiveness when we review follow-on investments. We invested in total 57 million SEC in the quarter, and our largest investment was our participation in Wordsmith's $70 million funding round, in which we participated with our 29 million SEC pro rata share. Wordsmith has had a strong start in our portfolio, with revenue up 14x over the last 12 months, and the funding round represents a value uplift of more than 3x relative to our entry price in Q1 last year. Meanwhile, as Ruben mentioned, we agreed two smaller divestments in the quarter with expected proceeds of 133 million SEK that will close and be accounted for during Q3. We have agreed to sell our stake in ODA for around 100 million SEK and in USKAN, a smaller asset dating back to our old Avito investment, for around 30 million SEK. Buyers in both transactions are existing co-investors, so both companies are in good hands. And these smaller exits put an end to two very different chapters while releasing some capital and rationalizing and concentrating our portfolio. Adjusting our quarterly capital allocation with these two agreed divestments means we would have been net divestors in the quarter of 76 million SEK. This all means that at quarter end, net cash stood at 7.4 billion SEK or 7.6 billion adjusted for these agreed divestments, up 75 million SEK from the end of Q1. So we remain in a very strong financial position with plenty of flexibility, and that's reinforced by the cost savings that we're implementing and that will begin to take effect during the second half of the year. as well as by our expectation to invest no more than around 1.5 billion SEC of follow-on capital into the existing portfolio. With that, I'll hand the call back to Ruben.

Thank you, Samuel. And before going into Q&A, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you, Samuel. You have been with Trinovic for 13 years with quite a unique career, I can say, starting as a very junior team member and now ending it as CFO of the company. During the time I've been here, I've witnessed firsthand that the team holds you in high regard, both as a colleague and as a leader. And on behalf of the board and the team, I would just like to say thank you for your commitment and your hard work for the firm, and also personally thank you for helping me to lead the company over the last months through a period of change. With your long tenure, of course, you also hold a lot of knowledge, and so I'm thankful that we found an agreement that you also will be available to us to support also after end of August when needed. And then, yeah, I want to say I hope you will enjoy spending some more time also with your young family. You have a young baby boy. I know it's a priority for you to spend time with them. And I can tell you from experience that will be a very valuable and rewarding period in your life. And, yeah, I wish you all the best. Thank you very much, Ruben. And with this, I think we can hand over to Q&A.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To answer your question, please press star one and one again. We will now take our first question. From the line of Linus Sigurdsson from DMV, Carnegie, please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning. So firstly, you say that you expect management costs in line with 2025, including this one-off. Can you just confirm that you are tracking along to this 200 million run rate target?

Yes, I can confirm we are kind of on that trajectory to reach the 200 million as a target starting beginning of next year. And we also, of course, already will feel those reductions in the current year. But then we also have restructuring cost and one-off cost that will offset some of this, which is why we expect to be around the level of 2025, including the restructuring cost.

Okay, thanks. That's clear. And then looking at Spring Health, could you just talk a bit about the new financial profile following the acquisition here? I mean, what changes and what sort of prompts this increased valuation discount?

Hey Linus, it's Samuel. So I think there are two main impacts of the ALMA acquisition. The first one is that it changes the mix in the go-to market of Spring, where Spring historically with its core EAP product is selling into large enterprises. WHEREAS ALMA STRIKES AGREEMENTS WITH THE LARGE HEALTH PLANS AND THEN IT'S MORE OF A CONSUMER FACING BUSINESS. AND WE FEEL BOTH INTRINSICALLY AND WHEN WE DO ANALYSIS ON THE PUBLIC COMPS THAT AN ENTERPRISE FOCUSED GO TO MARKET STRATEGY WITH CALL IT PROVEN COMMERCIAL ROI WARRANTS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER VALUATION ALL ELSE EQUAL. In terms of the financial profile, Spring over the last four months grew faster than Alma and made a higher margin. So there again, the blend where we are quite cautious and do not ascribe much weight to the synergies that the management of the two companies expect have a financial profile that puts Spring in a slightly lower growth territory by a few percentage points. and call it 1% or two lower EBITDA margin in the short term. Again, the management of both companies would disagree with that. They think they'll be able to unlock a lot of synergies here, but we want to be on the conservative side also in the underlying financial estimates that we value besides what we're trying to do on the multiple side this quarter.

Okay, thank you. That's very clear. And then my final question is, Could you just give some color on how you feel about the valuation levels in the exits that you've made in this quarter? And then I guess with this increased sense of urgency, is it fair to assume that there's more similar deals in the pipeline for H2?

I feel good about the exits, Linus. I think clearly ODA, I'm sure there will be case studies written about that investment and the MOTEM investment. But I think loss aversion is a bias that's part of the dark side of running a permanent capital investment vehicle. and there, based on the look forward, we feel very good about selling our shares in that company and also selling it to existing shareholders, which I believe all the stakeholders in this company will like. So in terms of relative to NAV, I think the ODA divestment is 20% above where we held it in the last quarter, but clearly... In relation to the capital that we've deployed into the two businesses in particular during COVID, it's not a good outcome. But that shouldn't influence how we make capital allocation decisions in the here and now.

Maybe just to add to the second half, you alluded to the sense of urgency. And I think, you know, as a company, it's always important to have a sense of urgency. I think that's part of the job. But of course, on the other hand, so we need to be on the topic and it is a priority to us. But then also there is no rush, right? So I think we will look at each opportunity as it presents itself with a lot of focus. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Bjorn Olsson from SEB. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Ruben. You mentioned that you've conducted a major portfolio review and I'm just thinking since that you're saying that you have some great companies. Has the review changed your view on capping the amount to 1.5 billion of potential additional investments in existing holdings?

Yes, thank you. So it has not changed my view. I think the 1.5 billion continues to be something where we would say that's probably the maximum of what we want to be investing into bringing the existing portfolio into profitability. Thank you very much. Maybe just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, also in Q1 I've explained that the 1.5 billion is really what we talk about bringing existing portfolio companies into profitability. Of course, if those portfolio companies were to be profitable in the future and compounding at good rates that we like, we always could take the decision to increase our allocation in them. But then it's a different type of discussion. The 1.5 is talking about the discipline and follow-ons in bringing existing portfolio companies into a state where they can grow profitably.

Okay, that helps. Thanks. Then second, on the new strategy, you're alluding to it a bit here and in the different press statements issued by you when announcing your incoming CEO as an example. You're guiding that you're pivoting towards later stage cash generative enterprises. Could you give just a bit of flavor on that logic and perhaps also some reflections on what went wrong in the past that makes you do this pivot?

Sure. I think the reflection on the past, of course, that we have over the last years really focused investments on quite early stage enterprises that are fast growing, that have exciting plans, but that also require a lot of capital and that, of course, also have a certain risk profile where actually different levels of risk are layered on top of each other. You have business model risk, you have execution risk, You have product market fit that might not be fully proven out. So I think we have just in the past taken a lot of risk. And in the discussions we had in the board, I think it became clear to us that given also that we are a permanent capital enlisted vehicle, This might not be the right strategy for us going forward, but that we need to move towards a more balanced risk profile, where also the companies that we have in the portfolio can really stand the test of public scrutiny. And I've also experienced this now firsthand when working on the report for the first quarter and the second quarter. The companies that we have currently in the portfolio, they are not easy to value. And of course, I understand our shareholders want to understand them in great detail. But then the nature of the businesses is such that they are just hard to value and maybe also sometimes not very straightforward to explain. So in this context, we have said the portfolio needs to be more balanced in the risk that we take. The companies need to be a little bit more mature. And then we also would like to see some cash generation in the portfolio, because being a permanent capital vehicle, I think that's also an important part of the mix, to have cash generation that comes from within, so you don't have to sell companies in order to make new investments. So I think this is kind of the broader thinking that we had in the board. And then, of course, when it comes to the specific strategy and what specific new investments should look like, there I really would like to emphasize that we have with Helena a new CEO coming in, and it will be her role to talk to you about that strategy more specifically because that's something that she, in my mind, needs to own and needs to shape. And I think that's what...

she's also excited to do so there I'll have to defer you to to her coming in and then talking about this in greater detail that makes sense thanks and just just so I understand it correctly then okay on the 1.5 cap that you assess is required for potential following investments for your holdings to come into profitable territory how much of this 1.5 would you assess is roughly and perhaps this to you Samuel if SS to be allocated to your top 5 or top 10 holdings.

I'll chime in, Bjorn. I think out of our top 10 holdings, it's virtually only in VEDA where we see funding rounds happening, at least with the use of proceeds to finance continued operational burn. As we said in Q1, this 1.5 target is slightly more tangible when you look six, 12 months out. And then beyond that, it will all depend on company performance. So I think the investment we made in Wordsmith this quarter is a good indicator of the type of investments we may be making if companies perform to help them continue to mature and get into profitability territory.

Thank you, and thank you, Samuel, for your time.

Thank you.

We will now take the next question. from the line of Derek Laliberte from ABG Sander Collier. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning. So you have previously indicated here that financing needs obviously are limited and you've also indicated that creating liquidity is becoming sort of an increasing focus. I was wondering if you could update us on or share a bit of flavor on where you see the highest probability of exits over the coming years and whether also the market conditions here are becoming supportive enough to start crystallizing value at a higher rate. Thank you.

Thank you for your question. I think we have been and we are very clear that driving towards a more concentrated portfolio is a priority for us and really developing the portfolio going forward. I'm not sure if we as an investment company should be much more specific than this. And we will look very carefully at the portfolio as we have done in the review. We will of course share that also with Helena and then the team is working on the different parts where we see maybe the opportunity to create a path to liquidity. But I think it's difficult for us to guide you with a lot of detail towards specific names or specific points in time. As you know, many of those are, almost all of those are private companies. We're talking about minority stakes. So I think we need to take this step by step. I can assure you that we are looking at this with great focus and that we are working on it. But I don't think we should be more specific in guiding publicly towards specific exits.

understandable and looking at well previously Q1 he made this big reset in valuations obviously peers were down a lot but still appeared like a pretty conservative approach there and I would say also the same thing in Q2 here I mean it generally has your sort of valuation methodology changed anything even more towards the conservative side and how do you view this in terms of conservativeness in relation to the call it the observable market transactions?

Yes, maybe I can actually comment on it, because obviously when I came in, I was also eager to understand how does the valuation process work in detail. And I think it's important to point out that Genovica does have a sound valuation process, and that's also the process that we have followed both for Q1 and Q2 with the help of the finance team, with the help of our auditors, with the help of the audit committee. So we have not kind of fundamentally changed the methodology. Of course, as I have pointed out, a portfolio of fast-growing and partially also early-stage companies that do not have very direct peers sometimes in the public market. Some have, others don't. There is, of course, also always a degree of judgment and interpretation where we have tried to be conservative but also within reason, because I think we need to show the value for what it is. So that's how I would describe how we went about it. Samuel, do you want to add anything?

No, just to echo what you said, Ruben and Derek, I think perhaps the key event in our valuation process, this team has not been a change of the process, but rather how we're trying to relate to the fairly recently listed peers for our two largest assets, Spring and PERC. But that's more an input into that process and how we regard those two peers and less so a matter of a change in process or level of conservativeness.

All right, thanks for the flavor and another question on a more general basis here following the discussion around AI disruption earlier this year. I mean, can you say something about how you assess the preparedness of your largest software holdings here and are you seeing AI mainly as a competitive threat or more of an opportunity to accelerate growth and actually improve margins?

Yes, of course, there continues to be one core discussion that we have also when we do the portfolio review. And I think we have a broad array of companies that are affected in different ways by AI. Some like Wordsmith, the one that Samuel talked about, where we did the follow-on investment in Q2, is an AI-native company, and we have some more of those examples in the portfolio. And then we have some software companies where I think, just broadly speaking, AI, of course, can be both because it is a disruptive force in technology. But then it's also a tool that agile software companies, of course, will adapt and take on board and use to drive their business more effectively being it because it allows them to better serve their customers or because it allows them to more cheaply update their code base or because it allows them to automate processes so I think we see all of those examples playing out in the portfolio and I think You know, Q1 has been quite harsh on software. I think Q2 we have seen in the markets that the view already is changing. And I think this will continue to be a theme that evolves over time because it's just such a fundamental shift in technology. Maybe over time we'll realize that it is a fundamental shift to technology, but maybe not as fundamental of a shift towards what fundamentally makes a good business model. So I think that will be interesting to observe because I think ultimately it's about does a company have the right mindset to serve its customers in the best possible way, to drive towards the right decisions and to have a sound plan going forward and a strategy that takes into account everything that's changing, but also everything that stays the same. Yeah, so we'll continue to have this debate. And it has been very interesting also for me to observe how it is playing out and how it is affecting our portfolio.

Okay, thanks. Great flavor. And then I just had a question mentioned. Wordsmith, they're a fairly small investment, but just wondering a bit why you decided to invest in this company specifically. It just seems like there are a number of actors with similar exposure here. What makes this company unique from your perspective?

Yes, as Samuel pointed out, that investment was made, I think, beginning of 2025. And my understanding is also after taking a closer look at the company, the team is very excited about AI being a driving force in how the legal market changes and the legal profession changes. And as you pointed out, there are a number of players active in this field, as you might expect, given that the rise of LLMs, of course, obviously will change the way that legal work is carried out. What we are excited about in the example of Wordsmith is that their approach is geared more towards how does the legal function in an organization or in a company work and how can it be improved through the use of AI. So if you would think of one approach being how can technology and AI be used to make the work, for example, of a law firm more efficient? I think Wordsmith's approach is more, how is the legal function embedded into processes in a company, and how can those be made more efficient through the use of AI? Which is a different approach, and I think it's a very interesting approach. But of course, as you say, it is a competitive market, by the way, like anything relating to AI. So, you know, it is an exciting opportunity, but also it is a competitive market. But we think the team is well positioned to take their shot at being successful.

Great, and then a final question on Aviva, which is a new large investment area. This successful study has shown a 12% weight loss over nine months. Just wondering to what extent do you expect these new results or study to help drive future growth and also what makes this company unique compared to other weight loss programs?

Yeah, there are clearly, I think, this study as the clinical studies the company has made in the past helps them in their conversations with the larger European payment systems in convincing them that they should offer it to the patients that they cover because this this actually works and it's proven out. So hopefully it will improve one of the levers of our investment case, which is the geographic expansion. And hopefully also they can replicate the success in other services for other conditions. All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We will now take our final question from the line of Georg Adling from Pareto Securities. Please go ahead.

Hello, and thanks for taking my questions. I just have a couple, starting with, I mean, you mentioned Hinge and Navon here, both doubled essentially in the past three months. Has that in any way changed the prospects of IPO-ing Perk or Spring in the near term?

Um, Hey, Jörg. It's Samuel. Look, clearly, Navan and Hinge being manifestly appreciated by public market investors is helpful to a spring or a perk going to the public markets. With that said, both our companies are very much focused on their operations. Spring has just closed the acquisition of Alma. They want to integrate that into their operations. company and organization. So we're in no rush, but clearly at the current valuation levels of those key comps, it's difficult to argue that the state of public markets is prohibitive to our companies going to market. But again, there's no rush to IPO either business.

That's clear. Second question on the future new investments that I guess Helena will make. Will she start on a blank page when she joins or have you already sort of come up with a short list or have a couple of companies that you have interest in?

Well, as you know, for the past months, you know, we have decided to pause new investment activities. But then, of course, you know, there's also a long list of ideas that the team has. So, you know, Genevieve is an active investment company. So there will be several things to start off from. And of course, there's also expertise and ideas in the team. But then I think at the same time, Helena also has the benefit that if she likes, she can also take a very fresh look at things and there also see a benefit. So I think it will be up for her to decide how she wants to do this. I think that's her role and that's why we hired her.

Okay, just a final question on some of the movements here in Q2. So betterment, the multiple down 7%, but peers up 17. If you could explain that dynamic and also another quite a large cut in the climate tech valuation. So just wondering how you feel about the current valuations of those climate tech assets.

Sure. So on Betterment, it's hard, right? Because the comp set isn't the perfect one. Betterment is an assets under management fee play, whereas the comps we tend to compare Betterment with are mainly commission driven. And then clearly we have Wealthfront that I built last year that is going through some quite considerable idiosyncratic factors that is impacting where it trades today. So what we've done this quarter is just trying to take a closer look at that comp set and reflect where Wealthfront is to a slightly larger extent than has been the case in the past, similar to what we're doing with Hinge and Avant for Spring and Perk. So it's a bit of a recalibration that tends to happen for these companies where the comp set is far from perfect. Performance-wise, there's nothing to complain about. Betterment continue to track plan in a very solid way. But we've just refined our approach slightly on the comp side of things. On climate tech, maybe one clarification. The Stegra round that closed in Q2 is not impacting what's happening in that subgroup of our portfolio. What is happening is that there is some dilution in a company where we've elected not to invest. And other than that, the changes are largely stemming from this internal portfolio review that Ruben has mentioned, where we are recalibrating our valuations based on a variety of aspects and one being our appetite to deploy more capital in certain businesses. So that has influenced the move in valuation this quarter.

Okay, thank you very much, and Samuel, good luck in whatever you do next.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. This concludes the Q&A session. I would now like to turn the conference to the speakers for closing remarks.

Yes, thank you and thanks everyone for a good discussion. This is also my last earnings call with Cinevik and I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank this group for your engagement and support. I really enjoyed our interactions and appreciate all the questions, all the insights and also the advice. I also would like to thank the board for their trust and continued support. I would like to thank the team. They have been incredibly constructive. We have had many very open and truth-seeking debates on how we can jointly do what's best for Cinevik. And I think I'm really proud of the progress we have been able to make in a very short period of time. I'm looking forward to hand over to Helena in a few weeks. I think she will be the right leader at the right time on the journey of rebuilding trust and creating value for Cinevik. I wish her the best of luck, her and the team, and I look forward to working with her and the team as a board member. Thank you very much.