Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this press conference. Today we have published two new reports, our annual report, whose figures were presented at a press conference in January, and also our responsible investment report for 2021. Our Chief Governance and Compliance Officer, Carine Smith Ihenacho, will now present the highlights of our ownership work in 2021. After her presentation, our CEO, Nicolai Tangen, and Deputy CEO, Trond Grande, will give a brief market update. Finally, we will have a Q&A session where you may ask questions to both Nicolai, Trond, and Carine. With that, I give the word to Carine. Thank you, Line, and good morning to you all. The world has sadly changed dramatically since we planned the publication of the responsible investment report. We still think it's valuable to present our main activities and some of the results of our work. Let me say this straight away, active ownership works. We see that the companies change in the direction of our expectations, but it doesn't happen overnight, it doesn't happen to all companies, it doesn't happen in all markets. Active ownership is long-term work. We work with responsible investment at three levels. At the market level, portfolio level, and company level. At the market level, we work with expectations, standards, regulations that raise the level for many companies. At the portfolio level, we divest from smaller companies with unsustainable business models and invest more in environmentally friendly companies. Whilst we can adjust the portfolio's tails in this way, our main work is to drive change at the companies we own. To drive change, we need to be an owner. The report, as you see, is structured around these three levels. Rather than to go through this in detail, I will focus on three main themes, and that is climate, voting, and company dialogue. Climate and nature were focus areas last year. As you know, we had the Skancke report on how the fund should work with climate risk. We wrote two Asset Manager Perspectives on climate risk and our work. We published new expectations on biodiversity and ecosystems. Why is this important for an investor like us? At the company level, we estimate that about 30% of the companies in our portfolio are dependent on nature in some way, either in their operations or in the supply chains. At the macro level, ecosystems and the climate are closely linked. Robust ecosystems will help reduce warming and also the consequences of climate change. We state clearly that we expect companies to account for their own impact and for the steps they take to manage business risk following changing nature. This is a big challenge for us and the companies. Last year, we also sharpened our expectations on climate risk. We expect the companies we own to set strategy and targets in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and we follow up with dialogue. Here you see some of the dialogues we had on climate. As an example, we started a dialogue with seven integrated energy companies to understand how they plan for the transition to a low carbon economy. Last year, for financial reasons, we increased our holdings in several integrated energy companies. The transition requires big capital expenditure, and many of these companies will be important in the transition. For the fund, it means that we will engage even more with them on plans and targets for net zero. We want their climate transition to succeed. We always define clear objectives for our dialogues, track which companies responded, our engagement progress, and where we achieved our goals. You can read much more about this in the report. It is encouraging to see that many companies are taking actions. Every year, we measure around 1,500 companies reporting on climate change, and here you see the developments the last three years. The percentage of companies assessed as very good has increased from 27% - 50%. Is this because of our work? Companies are, of course, exposed to pressure from many stakeholders, other investors, customers, employees, policymakers, civil society. We do believe that our engagement has contributed to these developments, and we have some measurements that support it. We see that the companies we have engaged with on climate risk have improved more than the companies we did not engage with, and this is encouraging. Climate change also gives investment opportunities. We have environmental mandates where we invest in listed companies in three main types of activities, as you see from this slide. We have been doing this for over 10 years, and at the end of 2021, we had NOK 107 billion invested in 86 companies under this mandate. Last year they gave a return of around 22%. Being a concentrated portfolio, it has been more volatile than the rest of the firm but has given an annualized return of 10%. In addition, as many of you know, we have acquired a 50% interest in an offshore wind farm outside the Netherlands, and we will gradually build up this renewable energy portfolio, investing mainly in wind and solar power generation. Our preference is to be an owner. For smaller companies with high risk, and where we believe ownership will not work, we may decide to divest. Last year, we reduced our exposure to climate and nature risk by divesting from seven companies due to nature and four due to climate risk. In total, we did risk-based divestment for 52 companies last year. We actually interestingly expanded the framework for risk-based divestment to include companies being added to the fund's benchmark index, so-called pre-screening. Nine of the companies you see here on risk-based divestment were actually based on this pre-screening of companies. All together, we have divested from 366 companies since we started doing this in 2012, and it has made money, too. Here you see this. Risk-based divestment have increased the cumulative return on our equity by almost half percentage point. As you see here, it is the climate divestments that have had the most impact on this increased return. This was climate. Over to voting. We usually say that voting is the engine of our responsible investment. Voting give us the power to influence companies. We use this power actively to nudge the companies in the right direction. This year, we also started publishing all of our votes five days before the shareholder meeting, so everyone can see how we will vote. Our goal is to vote on all shareholder meetings. In 2021, we voted on 120,000 resolutions. It is a big machinery. Our starting point is to be supportive, but we vote against where we believe this is in the long-term interest of the company, and we voted against, as you see here, on 6,000 resolutions, which is just under 5% of all resolutions. Maybe more interestingly, we voted against at least one proposal at 29% of all meetings. How do we know how to vote on each of these 120,000 resolutions? We have clear principles and detailed voting guidelines. So, over to dialogue, sorry not yet. Let me just talk about first the three focus areas we had in 2021 when it came to voting. One was, as you see on the blue line here, executive pay. Some companies adjusted their pay plans to compensate for weaker results under the pandemic, and that's why, for example, we voted against GE. Or incentives were not long-term. That's why we voted against Alphabet and Harley-Davidson. Another theme was board accountability. We started holding the board to account for management of climate risk by, for the first time, voting against board members. Diversity. We raised the bar and targeted companies in developed markets with less than two women on the boards, and that's why we voted against Discovery and Monster Beverage. Last year, we saw a new record with 44 shareholder resolutions on sustainability getting majority support, and this shows both that the resolutions are getting more relevant and also a shift in shareholder sentiment. We have some examples of resolutions that gained majority support. There was a proposal on setting emission reduction targets. Here you see Rio Tinto and Phillips 66 got majority support. A proposal on disclosing lobbying and political donations. They got majority support from Netflix and United Airlines. A proposal on reporting on diversity and inclusion in Union Pacific Corp. Now we come to company dialogue. We usually say the voting is our engine and the fuel is our dialogues. Dialogues are how we get to know the company and convey our expectations. We prioritize selected themes, sectors, companies within environmental, social, and governance issues, the so-called ESG issues. The dialogues where we raise ESG issues have increased over time, as you see here, up to a record 71%. Here you see the split in more detail, and this really shows which topics are meaningful to us, but also which topics are meaningful to the companies we have invested in. I've already talked about climate change, but saved this one because we had 796 meetings on climate change last year. This covers 33% of the fund's equity value. That means we have engaged with assets worth nearly NOK 3,000 billion on climate change, and this really feel like something. Biodiversity is also quickly increasing as an engagement topic, so is human capital, and there are also many discussions around core governance issues. We do see companies change in line with our expectations. Let me just give you some example. Banco Santander. We started the dialogue with 17 banks on climate risk, and all the 17 banks now have a net zero ambition for their financed emissions by 2050. Banco Santander has also included a goal of phasing out exposure to thermal coal mining by 2030. Another one, Adidas. It's an example of a company that has set science-based targets last year to reduce its emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. Vodafone focus on children's rights and develop a new tool to assess risk and also reduce the risk. Novartis. We had an initiative in the healthcare sector to develop a guidance on anti-corruption, and last year, Novartis published a new anti-bribery report in part inspired by the guidance we published. Of course, these example doesn't tell the full story. That's why we increasingly track change and match this with our own activities and the KPIs we set. We have made more than 4,000 assessments on how companies manage sustainability risk. It's from these assessments that we can see that the companies we had engaged with improve more than the rest of the companies. As an example, we have followed up companies for weak reporting. We see that the companies we have followed up improved 12 percentage points from previous year compared to 4.7 for those we didn't contact. If you look at single thematic engagement, we see the same relationship. We will continue to develop our methods for assessment and also how we report on results. To sum up, it's been another busy year with lots of activities. We are pleased to see that our ownership gives results, and we believe this, it's a clear link between these positive developments and the long-term value creation of the fund. Although we see changes, there is still much to do. With this, I give the word to Nicolai. Thank you very much, Carine. Well, really tremendous job from the ownership team last year. As you know, the annual report is out today, the responsible report as well, and the holding list. Please have a close look there. Now, we are going also to give you a quick update on the current market situation because the world is very, very different now compared to what it was when we last met at the end of January. We are seeing tragic pictures coming out of Ukraine, and it's impacting the market in a very significant way. Now, as you know, we are a global index-based asset manager, and that means that we have investments in Russia. At the beginning of the year, we had shares at a value of roughly NOK 27 billion. Now, of course, what's been going on since in the stock market has meant that the values are significantly lower. We estimate that they are now at roughly NOK 2 billion-NOK 2.5 billion, but that's also a very uncertain number. Now, as a financial investor, we decided to sit still at the end of last week, but then of course, things changed over the weekend. Yeah. As you know, on Sunday, the Norwegian government announced that we will freeze our investments in Russia, and that we will, in due course, divest our investments in Russia. We will implement and have implemented these decisions in our portfolio. We have given instructions to freeze all assets, meaning that we don't sell and we don't buy any Russian assets as of Monday morning. We will also, together with the Minister of Finance, develop a plan for how to divest from the Russian market. The Minister of Finance has already indicated that this will take time. We received the letter confirming these decisions on Monday, and we will respond to the Minister of Finance within the timeframe we are given, which is two weeks, i.e., the March 15th. I would like to emphasize that we are developing this plan under extreme uncertainty. Markets are essentially closed in Russia. There are multiple sanctions, meaning that we need to know how to best sell these companies without violating these sanctions. Also there is a lot of news coming out on a daily basis. The plan will be hence very different from other plans that we have had for such transitions. We will just have to do the best that we can to exit the market. I would like to emphasize that the details of the plan will, as with previous plans, probably not be public. We have full transparency of the investments that we have. Last night we disclosed our annual holding list, and that includes our Russian investments. On this slide you see the top 10 Russian holdings as of year-end and their corresponding value at that point in time, which was NOK 27 billion. We're also given here the estimate of their value as of Friday close, which was for the same 10 companies, NOK 12.9 billion. Now, Nicolai has already said things are developing, and some of these companies also trade with the so-called ADRs, American Depositary Receipts, or GDRs, Global Depositary Receipts, on other exchanges in the West. We have tried to estimate, to the best of our ability, the current value of these holdings or the total holdings of Russian assets, and we think that amounts to roughly NOK 2.5 billion as we speak. However, this is of course highly uncertain. We entered the Russian market in 2008, at the time when emerging markets generally came into our reference index. We treat the Russian investments the same way as we do with the other emerging markets we have, i.e., roughly three-quarters of the investments have been run by our external managers. We have instructed both the external managers and internally that the assets are frozen. Now, the Russian assets coming into the year accounted for a relatively small proportion of the fund, 0.2%. The investments themselves have been, you know, a smaller part of the decline of the fund. More importantly has been the impact on the overall global capital markets. As of yesterday, the fund was down 6.1%, and that compares to a positive return last year of 14.5%. Yes. You all know that the fund is invested roughly 70% in equities, and hence it's the broad markets that are the most important and the performance of the equity markets that is the most important for the fund's return. The equity markets are down roughly 8% so far this year, and this comes then after a 20% return last year, just to give you a comparison. Looking at the different sectors, there's been a broad decline, essentially all sectors performing in negative territory. Tech has been the most underperforming. However, that has been the most overperforming sector in the previous years. Now, in uncertain times, with energy prices rising, oil and gas, there is no obvious thing that the energy sector has been performing in positive territory for us this year. Yeah. As a long-term investor, we are used to volatility, and we are, of course, sitting through this kind of volatility. We have to remember that over the last three years, so, 2019, 2020, 2021 combined, the fund had positive returns of more than NOK 4,000 billion. We have previously said, and we continue to say, that we don't expect these incredible times to continue. We expect, you know, continued volatility in the markets. With that, Line? Yes. We will open up for questions. Please use your microphones as this press conference is being streamed. Yes. [Lars Blomberg.] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] Gwladys Fouché. Did the fund sell Russian stocks on Thursday and Friday last week? We had an investment meeting on Thursday morning and we decided to do very little. We didn't freeze the activity, but the net activity was very limited. Does the ban by the Ministry of Finance include Russian stocks that are listed in London and New York? Yes. Is it part of your assessment that the fund may just need to write off those Russian investments as losses? Well, I think it's way too early to see. We gave an estimate today with the inputs that we have of NOK 2.5 billion, but it's as I stated, very, very uncertain. It might be that they are essentially worthless at some point. [Stig Ø. Sigurdsen]. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] Okay, anyone else? Lars. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content]] [Mikael Dien]. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Sigurd, Aftenposten]. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] Gwladys Fouché What are the biggest risks to the financial markets today? I'm sorry. What are the biggest risks to the financial markets today? I would say the same as we mentioned when we last met at the end of January, geopolitics, inflation. The war in Ukraine is shifting the balance between those two factors. Well, no, we have seen some geopolitics, but we don't know whether we're going to see more inflation, if anything is higher than it was when we last met. [Mikael Dien]. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Jan, Nettavisen]. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Lars Blomberg.] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] Gwladys Fouché. You've long warned of the risk of a significant fall in the overall value of the fund. The first big drop in the value of the fund was in 2008. The pandemic has not caused any decline in the overall value. Do you think the war in Ukraine could create it? Well, we have, we are in the middle of a war. It has created some decline in the value of the fund, whether it will continue, whether it get bigger. I don't know. Kjetil, E24. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content] [Non-English content]. [Non-English content] [Non-English content] Okay, we will now wrap up this session and move on to one on one interviews. Thank you so much for coming.