Good morning everybody. Really nice to see so many people. We've got quite a few in the room, and we've got lots of people following the streaming. I wanna say two things briefly. One, ESG has never been more important. There is clearly a backlash against ESG in some parts of the world, but we just need to continuously work relentlessly on this field. The second thing I wanna say, we have a tremendous team here, and we want to continue to be world leading in this field. We have Carine and Wilhelm presenting, but first we're going to show you a short video. The skyrocketing electricity prices are now exposing the limitations of our current electricity market design. Climate risk is indeed a financial risk and needs to be managed as such. Our goal is to make it the leading fund in responsible investment and the management of climate risk. You have the whole thing about backlash against ESG, and we think it's really, really seriously bad. You know, we think that ESG, that is just not politics. It's common sense. We think the boards need to be more on the ball when it comes to the climate, and we will increasingly vote against boards which don't have a particularly, you know, credible plan for reductions. Active ownership works. We see that the companies change in the direction of our expectations. We are also very strong on increased diversity at board levels. That's the main message we have this year. Increasingly what we are doing is that we are voting against board members, and we are voting against boards. 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. Yes, it is long-term work, we're very pleased to welcome you to the launch of a responsible investment report for 2022. 2022 was a challenging year for many companies. Companies needed to take short-term action, they also need to consider the long-term implications of their decisions, that is really our main message to the companies. We want companies that create value over the longer term. How should they do this? They need to align their business with the goals of the Paris Agreement, they also need to consider other ESG considerations in their decision making, they need strong board who can guide them in their work. Last year, ESG was very much in focus. On the positive side, there was a critical look at greenwashing and also increased transparency. On the negative side, we saw a backlash against ESG, and this is a concern. For us, ESG is financial, and this is also reflected in our report. As you can see, we have much more data on ESG. As we have a full list of all company meetings where ESG was discussed, and we also have much more information on the results of our work. Last year was also a busy year for us, and you can see from the report lots of activities and exciting new initiatives. Just to mention a few examples, let me start with the Buy-Side Sustainability Summit we arranged in the London office with three of the largest investors in the world. Together we represented NOK 45,000 billion. 17 CEO came. We discussed issues around the pathway to a sustainable economy. We also saw better disclosure last year. A new organization has been established, the ISSB, with the purpose of getting a global set of corporate reporting standards on sustainability. This is important, it's great news. I've been closely involved in this work as the Vice Chair of the Investor Advisory Group. Last year, we also got our new expectations on human capital management. For many companies, people are at the heart of innovation, at the heart of value creation. What is the secret sauce, if you try to distill it down? The people. It's the people. On March the first this year, our leadership team, our executive team, will be 50/50 men and women. Wow. All based on meritocracy, doing jobs varying from heading trading, heading gas and low carbon energy. The people are, you know, focused on the customer and, you know, working as a team and looking over the horizon for opportunities and being bold, speaking up when you have a different point of view. You know, winning with integrity. Those are a couple of our behaviors. That's gonna create the culture that we want. We live in a much more transparent world, and people wanna be able. To relate to the people that are leading them. You know, you and I think, both believe that it is people who help us win, the best people. Overall, what we wanna have at General Motors is a culture where everybody can be themselves and be their best selves at work. You know, our foundational belief is if you can be yourself and be your best self, you're gonna do your best work, and that's gonna advance the company. You gotta have the best people. If your best people are hidden because your processes aren't fair or meritocratic, then that's not setting you up to have the best company possible. Yes, it's all about the people. Also in our company dialogue, company dialogue is really at the heart of our work as a responsible investor. What do you say, Wilhelm? I think it's actually the beating heart, the pulse of our responsible investment work. We meet companies every day throughout the year. We do it to present our investor views and expectations to them because that's how we drive change and improve our results in turn. We prioritize the biggest companies and the most material issues, and we make sure that we have experts from our governance side and our investment side in the meetings. Our portfolio managers, the decision makers, investment decision makers, took 2,000 meetings last year. I think the types of topics we raise illustrate this integration fairly well. 66% of meetings last year, we raised environmental, social, and governance topics. These discussions are quite broad. The slide is quite busy, but I think there are two things that stand out. These are topics that are important to us, but they're also topics that are important to the companies we invest in. It's about their business, their value creation, their plans, their results. Some topics have been increasing. Take climate change. 810 meetings on climate last year. 33% of our equity portfolio, NOK 2,500 billion or thereabout, we raised climate risk last year. Capital allocation, a topic that was important to the pandemic, but also more recently in the changing economic circumstances, the energy transition, the energy crisis. Human capital management, as we've said, but also other social topics are important for value creation and growth. We mention in our strategy plan that we'll look at consumer interest. What's that? Well, it's about your impact on consumers. Artificial intelligence, for example, increased regulatory attention and consumer expectations on responsibility and ethics, or digital addiction or digital obesity, your impact on consumers. Of course, we want to understand what the companies are thinking about this. Let me give you some examples from our board level dialogue last year. Well-functioning governance, well-functioning boards is the core of corporate governance. When we direct expectations on sustainability issues to the companies, we direct them to the board. It's the governance of environmental and social risks and opportunities. Last year, we held board level meetings with 17% of our equity portfolio by value. Let me give some examples of our discussions. Rio Tinto, we discussed board oversight, risk management, and strategy, responding to long-term issues, but also recent events. Nestlé, our fourth largest holding, some 2.8% of Nestlé we own. We discussed succession planning, strategy, but also sustainability. Then you have Shell, and I think at this point you probably get the picture, but again, the energy transition is a core topic because the energy transition for many sectors is the biggest economic opportunity and risk that they're facing at the moment. Of course, we want to discuss that with the boards. We also want to discuss it with companies on a more detailed level, and that's why we started net zero dialogues last year. Our aim is to discuss the energy transition with 70% of the emissions in our portfolio, some 200 companies. We've already started. We take a sectoral approach, focusing on our largest oil and gas companies, the miners, the chemical companies. We discuss the details of their implementation of their climate targets and disclosures. We see when we look at our engagement on climate change that those companies we engage with are progressing more than those we don't engage with. To us, that's really heartening. More generally, too, we see progress towards the goals we set for our thematic engagements. Last year, 96 companies met all the targets we had set for them, and many more showed very promising progress. I'll give a topical example. Forced labor in supply chains, a complex global issue facing technology, consumer companies, and energy companies. We raised it with 23 big companies in our portfolio last year, and we saw that 20 of them are putting systems in place to trace, to identify, to address forced labor risk. The big issue that remains is traceability. NL, the big energy company with lots of renewable energy. energy in their portfolio, now require tracing of raw materials to the source with their high-risk suppliers, and they also want to be able to visit their sub-suppliers to see what's going on the ground. Inditex, best known for their brand Zara, are putting specialists into their procurement teams to trace the raw material to the source level. These are complex issues, root causes well beyond these companies' control, but it's the sort of forward-looking approach we expect our companies to take. It's also something through these dialogues, learnings we make that help us in our voting, the real engine in our ownership work. Let's now look at the voting decision in 2022. We do a lot of voting. We voted on more than 120,000 resolutions in around 12,000 company meetings. We managed to do that because we have clear voting guidelines and principles. In general, we support the boards, but as you can see here, in around one-third of the board meetings, the shareholder meetings, we actually vote against the board recommendations. Why do we do that? When do we do that? Well, let's first look at the election of board candidates. Every year we vote for 46,000 board candidates. This is really our chance to influence the quality of the board. Here you see the main reasons for our against votes. For instance, we voted against the chair of JP Morgan and Microsoft because we don't think the CEO and the chair should be the same person. We need independent boards that can exercise effective oversight over management. At Coca-Cola, we voted against a board member because of so-called overboarding, too many other commitments, and not sufficient time to dedicate to the board work for the companies. We also want diversity in the boardroom, so we have voted against companies that don't at least have two women on the boards. The re-election of board members is also a chance for us to hold the board members to account for the conduct of the company. Let me give you one example. Last year we voted against 61 board members in 18 companies due to lack of management of climate change risk. CEO pay is another area where we tightened our votes last year. We also have been quite vocal on this. The background is really the spiraling CEO pay and the generous payout of bonuses often disconnected to long-term results. In 2021, the median pay for the 500 largest US companies had risen to $15 million. That's around NOK 150 million. We stepped up our vote against remuneration practices with just outcome were unusually costly and there is not a good alignment with shareholder interests. To give you an example, we voted against the pay package for CEO at Apple, which was around $100 million. The interesting thing and the good thing is that the companies care about our voting. After we voted against the Apple pay package, the company asked to meet with us to see how they could restructure the package so we would vote against next year. It's good to see that this year Apple has proposed a reduction in $50 million of the CEO pay. Let's look at the shareholder proposals. 2022 was a record year when it comes to shareholder proposals on sustainability, 407 in total. Here you see the main topics of these proposals, and climate change and human capital were the top ones. This really gives you an indication of what shareholders care about. These proposals are sometimes difficult to decide how to vote. We have created a framework that sort of take us through this in detail, and we describe that in our report. We voted on around or we supported around 38% of these shareholder proposals. That probably doesn't sound very high when you think about that these also are things we care about. The reason we voted against was mainly because they were either too prescriptive, sort of micromanaging the company too much, or we thought the company had already taken actions or made commitments within the area. It's also interesting to see how shareholders' proposals often reflect issues that matter for societies. Last year we saw some interesting emerging themes. As an example, at Walt Disney, we supported a proposal asking for gender and racial pay gap. Proposals like these, we saw those coming in the wake of sort of Black Lives Matter. At Walmart, we supported a shareholder proposal asking for the company to report on potential risk and cost of laws limiting access to abortion rights and broader reproductive rights. These type of proposals came in connection with the reversal of abortion rights in the U.S. Another example of an emerging theme was animal welfare, a proposal that came up in McDonald's. Through the voting, we want to influence the company. We want to be an owner and influence through the voting and through dialogue. There are cases where we may decide to divest, and I'll now give the word to Christopher, who is leading our brilliant work on risk-based divestments. Thank you, Carine. I'm gonna give an overview of our risk-based divestments for 2022. Before I do that, I want to provide some context. The fund has two distinct instruments for removing companies. The first is ethical exclusions recommended by our independent Council on Ethics. They are removed from our benchmark and therefore don't impact the fund's relative returns. The other, which I'll talk about, are our risk-based divestments. These are financial decisions made by us, by the asset manager. They remain in the benchmark, and therefore, we are affected by the performance of these companies after we invest, and we are measured by that, and we also report on that. A little bit about the process. We monitor both the portfolio and the benchmark for ESG risk every quarter. That's 9,000 companies. We do that systematically across a variety of topics. We also monitor news flows associated with our companies every single day. We look into themes, emerging themes, where we think ESG risk is growing. Finally, every quarter, there are companies entering our index benchmark that we are expected in general to invest in. two years ago, we started screening these companies as well. Since 2021, we've screened roughly 1,000 companies this way. We call this pre-screening. When do we think that risk-based divestments are appropriate? Well, first of all, it's when we see severe ESG risk that we don't think we can mitigate sufficiently through active ownership tools, which is our preference. Secondly, since these are financial decisions, they influence our relative risk. We typically focus on smaller companies, so small investments that have a relatively low benchmark weight. All right. Excuse me. This overview provides the number of risk-based divestments we've done every single year since we started doing this in 2012. Roughly 440 companies in total. Three years ago, we decided to make scaling up these divestments a strategic priority. One of the contributors to that is our pre-screening process. Last year, we divested from 74 companies, and that's the highest number in a single year. Pre-screening companies or companies captured through the pre-screening process accounted for roughly a third of these. Which topics did we focus on in 2022? As you can see, wide variety of topics across ESG, environmental, social, governance issues. The largest share of these companies were divested from because of human rights related issues. For example, we divested from several companies where we saw systematic failures to address health and safety risks over a long period of time. We also divested from companies linked to forced labor practices. Normally, we don't give out the names of companies that we do risk-based divestments on. These are forward-looking judgments. They're often based on incomplete and uncertain information, and they're a mix of quantitative measures and qualitative judgments. Were we to release these to the public, they would have an impact on the market that we don't wish to have. However, given the extraordinary interest in the Adani story and the scale of this is a group with a number of large companies that are significant to a market we invest in, I want to briefly summarize how the fund is positioned relative to Adani-linked companies. We have monitored the Adani Group companies for many years as part of our monitoring processes. Corporate governance has formed part of this monitoring alongside many other ESG topics. As the slide shows, since 2014, we have divested from six Adani-linked companies, mainly for reasons linked to handling environmental risks. In 2014, and in, there were two companies divested from because of their mining operations and the impact on deforestation and subsequently on local communities. We've also divested from three companies on the basis of their greenhouse gas emissions and the exposure to the energy transition. I should also note that the last two divestments in 2021 and 2022 was a result of our pre-screening process. These were Adani companies that were entering the global index and that we screened and divested from prior to them entering that index. In terms of our exposure to Adani-linked companies, I wanna start with the six companies we've divested from, we obviously have no exposure. The benchmark, the underweight to the benchmark was roughly NOK 5 billion at the end of 2022. We remained invested in three Adani-linked companies at that time, Adani Green Energy, Adani Total Gas and Adani Ports, with a combined exposure of roughly NOK 2 billion. These figures can be found in our year-end holdings list, which is public. Since year-end, so the 5 weeks since year-end, we have further reduced our exposure in Adani companies significantly. Today, for all intents and purposes, we have no exposure left in these 9 companies. With regards to fund returns, we had a loss on the underweight of the Adani companies we divested from up until 2022. With recent events, we have gained most of this loss back. If we look at the other 3 companies that we had not divested from prior to 2022, we had a positive P&L. Combined, these 9 companies combined, we are roughly even as of today with regards to returns. With that, I want to hand over to Wilhelm again, and he will give us some early highlights on the implementation of our Climate Action Plan. Thank you. Thank you, Christopher. In our report this year, we have an entire appendix dedicated to climate information, TCFD appendix. I think it's actually maybe the most exciting part of our report. We made public a Climate Action Plan back in September last year, and we are already today reporting more on our climate risk exposures and our engagements. Last year, we engaged with 51% of our portfolio emissions and our unlisted real estate investments by value, already 26% are on the net zero path. If you look at something we've focused on for a while already, the carbon footprint of our portfolio, we see that this went down in 2022 in relative terms and absolute terms, it's also below benchmark. This is also the long-term trend, and what it actually shows is that the emissions associated with our portfolio are going down. It doesn't say anything about the future risk of our portfolio. We're also presenting scenario analysis showing that the highest value of the fund is at risk in a delayed energy transition or in a world where climate change is not addressed, high climate change risk. We look at the implied temperature alignment of our portfolio for the first time. Early modeling shows that this is around 2.4 degrees Celsius. That's where we are. Where are we going? The core KPI of our plan is the targets that companies set. We see that 17% of companies have not now set net zero targets for their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, equaling to some 56% of our emissions. I believe that's actually the more important number. This number has been accelerating also through the energy crisis, showing how companies are balancing short term and long term objectives. I'm not saying that targets will solve things for us, but if you think about some of these target setters, Meta, for example, company with revenue the size of national GDPs, they have a 2030 target for their value chain because they believe that the need to decarbonize is acute and something we need to do now. That helps us when we work with companies, engage with companies that have not set targets so that they can start target setting, improve their disclosures, because we really want them to be on the front foot in their management of climate risk, because we want to be on the front foot in our management of climate risk. To do that, we've also announced our Climate Advisory Board. We will be supported, advised by four really impressive people with skills covering finance, law, experience from civil society, from industry. We have Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor, who also sits on the board of ConocoPhillips. We have Huw van Steenis from Oliver Wyman, previously the chair of the UBS Sustainable Finance Committee, who worked closely with Mark Carney at the Bank of England. We have Bjørn Otto Sverdrup, who chairs the executive committee of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, who is also leading Equinor's sustainability work up until very recently. Jennifer Morris, the CEO of The Nature Conservancy, a leading international global NGO. With these people to support us and challenge us, we are convinced we will sharpen and improve our climate risk work in the years to come. Yes, absolutely. These were some of the highlights of our work in 2022. You can read much more in the report, so happy reading. Great. Thank you for this presentation. We will now open for questions. Please use your microphone so the people on the stream can hear you. Kjetil, E24. Ja, kan jeg bare ta det på norsk eller? Ja. Ja. Dere gir jo en del sånn mer detaljer og sånn om en del dialog her, for eksempel det her med Eni og Shell om utslipp i Nigeria og en del andre sånne, hvor man går litt mer i dybden da. Hva slags erfaring har dere med at de fungerer de her dialogene? Er det, når man fram for eksempel når det gjelder Nigeria, har de, så at Eni fortsetter å slippe ut, mens Shell kanskje har fått redusert litt utslippene fra eller på en måte tyveriene fra rørledninger og sånn. Har det noen funksjon, og er dere strenge nok i dialogen? I mean, you're right. We give a lot more information in this year's report and lots more details on the dialogue. We think we've taken this sort of openness to a new level. The question is, you know, does it work? Yes, it does work. You know, our dialogues work in the sense that when we look at companies we have had discussions with, they improve more in the direction we want than other companies. Overall, it does work. Does it work in every single case? You know, some companies it works better than others. You asked specifically on that dialogue with Eni and Shell, it's a particular dialogue where we do active ownership work based on a recommendation from the Council on Ethics going back quite some years ago. As we say in the report, it's a very difficult area. It's a very difficult issue. You know, we have taken the discussion up to board level. They clearly care about it. They listen to us, and we believe they're working hard on it, but it's not easy. It's not an easy fix for the companies. Just some additional comments. We have had specific examples where companies have come back to our energy team and explained that they have now a plan in place for emission reductions because of the work we've done. Only a few weeks ago, we had a big bank explaining to us that they were splitting the role of chairperson and CEO because of the work we had done. We do get specific feedback on this as well. Victoria Reuters. Thank you. Mr. Tang, I see that in the report you mention that ESG has been more or less portrayed as a political issue, and you find it worrying. I wonder if you can elaborate on that and find any concrete examples of how that view has influenced companies. Well, we see it in particular in the U.S. We've seen a backlash starting in a way in Texas. You've seen implications for some of the big asset management groups in terms of how they vote and behave, and the pressure they are seeing from politicians. It's clearly become a political question. We think that's really worrisome. There were a couple of other effects as well. You see, typically when people lose money, ESG considerations is coming down on the agenda. We think that's a worry too, because we think you need to work on this relentlessly, whether you have positive or negative P&L. Just follow up. Concrete examples of companies who have been sliding back on ESG issues as a consequence of this. Well, it's well reported in media that, you know, BlackRock, for instance, is seeing a lot of pressure from various, government institutions in America. Energy companies doing that? Yeah, this seems like the pressure is, they are spending more time on, more time and effort on lobbying, you know, in that field. Sigur Aftenposten. Du driver dette arbeidet etter to prinsipper. Etikk, der man har noen etiske retningslinjer der man skal ut på grunn av etikken, og så driver du med risikobasert nedsalg der man tydeligvis da gjør det ut fra forventet lønnsomhet. Det siste først da. Den risikobaserte nedsalget, har det gitt pluss eller minus i avkastningen når du ser fondet samlet i 2022 og kanskje opp gjennom årene? Du nevnte denne indiske gruppen litt. Der var det even. Samlet sett, hvordan det ser ut? Og da for å ta etikken nå, har det kostet eller har det i ettertid vist seg at etikk, også etikk, var lønnsomt? I'll answer on the ethical side. Maybe you can take on the risk-based divestment. Ja. You know, we report every year also in the report the financial implication on the ethical exclusions. Just to say, in general, we've lost money because of the companies we're taking, based on products and gained on the companies we've taken out on conduct. That's sort of in general terms, but you can read more in details on, in the, in the report. On the risk-based- On the product side is coal, which was, where there was a big swing, right? Because the price of coal companies have gone up lately. Yeah. The question about risk-based divestments and their returns. As I said, we report on this. It's, there's a graph in the, and a table in the report. It has been positive since inception as a whole for the 440 companies, 26 basis points. If you look at it annualized, it's roughly NOK 1 billion. But this is, well, volatile. It goes up and down. We think of this as a way to reduce long-term risk in the portfolio. We don't spend too much time looking at short-term fluctuations. As Nicolai said, we believe this makes financial sense over time, and that's why we do it. Hva er forskjellen på å drive dette arbeidet i Kina og i Nederland? Yeah, I mean, it's different in different markets. I think the issue in many emerging markets first starts with, it's harder to get information from the companies. Also, it varies from regulations within a country. I mean, we first and foremost look at companies rather than countries. Of course, a lot of the activities we see in some emerging markets is really based on the. It's a value chain on companies operating in developed markets. It's hard to sort of differentiate and say one company is just in a developed market, but they, you know, the value chain may be international. In general, lack of information in emerging markets, sometimes it's lack of the same regulations that we see in developed markets. Kari, Bloomberg. Yeah. I'm just going to follow up on a couple of questions. On the energy sector specifically, there have been record profits in the recent week. Maybe a little bit of a rollback or rethinking of some of the climate targets. Are you at all concerned about that sector and what some of these record profits mean, and how is that going to affect your dialogue going forward? Yeah. I mean, as we said, it's been a challenging year for many companies, and it's, we're living in an energy crisis war. It's a lot of tough decisions a lot of companies need to take. What we've seen, as you see, some of the energies companies have said will increase production of fossil fuels compared to what we had said earlier. For instance, let's take BP. We also see we'll increase our commitment to renewables. What we're saying is we understand the companies need to do short-term adjustments under difficult circumstances. We're concerned with the, you know, the long terms. We very much say to the companies they need to have a net zero goal 2050 and have a target, short and medium-term target for how to get there. You know, they may adjust the trajectory somewhat, because of the, you know, what's happening in the markets, what's happening in geopolitics. They have to keep an eye on getting there to net zero 2050, and we'll still push for that. If I can add also sort of big, big picture, you know, energy costs are high. That means that companies are trying to save costs on energy, so there is a lot of energy efficiency going on. In terms of investment, I think IEA came out with a report saying that in the next five years, we will see the same investments into renewables as we did in the last 20 years. There is also, you know, a real ratcheting up of investments into renewable and non-fossil energies. You actually mentioned Analysys, and I thought that was a really interesting example. How much, how transferrable is what they're doing to other companies? I mean, have you noticed in your dialogue, there must have been quite a bit of learning back and forth. Are you taking that into other conversations with other energy companies and utilities? Absolutely. That's really one of the things we believe really works with our sectoral approach. This question of traceability is not really even in the sector. As I said, it's technology too. It's consumer, making sure that you understand where things are sourced. That's, yeah, that's crucial. It also goes down the value chain. We believe it's how you can essentially, in the end, improve conditions on the ground. One more question, then I can let somebody else ask questions. You brought up some big company names, Apple, McDonald's, all those big companies. What happens when you just get no give on some of the things they? I mean, you can't divest in some of these companies. You're sort of, the biggest stick that you have in your toolbox isn't there. I mean, what we said in the beginning is ownership is long-term work, right? They may not listen to us, this year, maybe not next year. We're a long-term investor. We'll keep on pushing. Mm. What we see is improvement year for year. Maybe not one specific company is doing exactly what we say, but that's ownership, right? Trying to push every year, seeing some improvements. Even though we are a minority investor, we are there. You know, they'll see us every year at the general shareholders meeting. We'll vote every year. We'll meet with them. We think with that we can, you know, continue to push. Interestingly, for instance, when it comes to the split of the chairperson and the CEO role, in the U.S. over the last 10 years, it's gone from 45% to 35%. A lot of these things are moving in the right direction over time. Thank you. Victoria, Reuters. About money then. The focus on ESG has meant that the rate of return on equities was 0.01% annually since 2012. There seems to be no material advantage to keep doing this. Can you explain why ESG should remain a focus for the fund? I think that refers to just one thing, which is the divestments. It's the whole picture. Oh, you're referring to the divestments. Yeah. No, no. It's from the table on divestments. Is that? Yeah. I mean should we..., I can say why these are important. What's important to say about these divestments is that they're highly selective, right? We are targeting the worst of the worst companies through a systematic process where we consider ESG risk, and we have had a positive return. In fact, it even what we have seen in the last few years through a market that is quite volatile and it is changing. We still have a positive return. This hasn't kind of dampened our enthusiasm for these. We still think it's a good tool. As I said, we have decided to scale these up for that reason. It's not an option to own these companies, you know? We divest them because we think there are risks for human rights violations, right? For climate, you know, bad stuff in climate, bad stuff with water management, you know, mistreatment of employees, that kind of stuff. It's just not an option to own it. I mean, it's just This is not a consideration. Okay, it's costing us a bit of money not to own it. It's just like, it's just a complete no-go to be in these companies. Kari, Bloomberg. You haven't really touched on it today yet, like, are there big differences between what you're seeing in fixed income versus your equity investments in terms of on this particular subject, in terms of transparency, in terms of, yeah, how you invest, how you're thinking there? Yeah. We, we give some. We discussed that a little bit in our report this year, more than before. You know, fixed income instruments are different. There's a different, you have different rights. You hold them for a different time. They pay back. You are different on the, you have all the rights vis-à-vis the company. The underlying risks are the same. The names are the same. We integrate ESG in those assessments too. In terms of the market, you see an increase in sustainability-linked bonds of various shapes and forms. We are really keen to see those being marketed, for want of a better word, according to clear and credible methodologies, so that we understand both how they are priced and what they're contributing to. We have a significant amount of money invested in those companies' green sustainable bonds through our bond allocation. Sigur Aftenposten. skatt er vel et av de temaene du jobber med, og spørsmålet er denne globale minimumsskatten, ikke globale, men internasjonale minimumsskatten som det er blitt arbeidet med, 15% er vel den gjennom BEPS i OECD og sånn. Det arbeidet, har det nå virkelig satt ut i livet? Har dette begynt å bite i praksis, eller er dette fremdeles på et sånn utrednings skråstrek vedtaksstadiet? You know, for us, we don't It's a good thing that you have agreement on minimum tax levels. It gives predictability for companies, and it makes maybe our risk assessments easier. We don't essentially have a view on, you know, to the extent to which it bites and how far countries have got on their journey for it. We think it's a positive thing. Jeg spurte ikke om på en måte noe synspunkt på det, men statusen for det nå. Er dette nå satt ut i livet sånn at det begynner å virke på disse store multinasjonale selskapene som i utgangspunktet nesten ikke har betalt skatt? I don't have the numbers on that. It's probably still some while until you see it happening across the board. Kari, Bloomberg. Just wanted to double-check. You've said it earlier, but Adani, pretty much no exposure at this point? Correct. as in no exposure, or as in pretty much no exposure? For all practical purposes, no exposure. Okay, great. I actually had a question. It was the ISSB and Principles for Responsible Investment. I think those were both in your report. How excited are you about being part of these big investor groups? Like, I mean, there are many of them. How useful are they? Does it help to be coupled, or is it in some ways binding? Yeah, is coupling to something that maybe gives you less freedom? I can answer on ISSB at least. You know, I'm a vice chair on the advice group. Very good Vice Chair. Very good Vice Chair. We're very excited about ISSB because we have for a long time said we need better reporting on sustainability for the companies, and it needs to be comparable, and it needs to be also easier for the companies instead of having a lot of different frameworks to relate it to one global set of standards. That is what the ISSB is working towards, and that is absolutely fantastic news and an area where we have sort of really been involved for a long time. When it comes in general to let's say cooperation with other investors, we do a lot of that, and we are a member of PRI. Now I think I should give the word to Wilhelm, because he's actually on the board of PRI. That's right. Yeah. We see a lot of value in these collaborations. ISSB was the biggest thing that happened last year in my view. PRI is much more long-term work, but, you know, we meet a lot of common asset owners and investment managers with a lot in common. We work around principles for integration of ESG that we believe in. That's great. Where you see much more interesting kind of maybe topical work going on are in these more specific initiatives on climate disclosures, tax disclosures, and other things that we participate in. Again, they have been really valuable. Valuable to share experiences and valuable to build, essentially, build, competency together and set out some better standards for what is still a reasonably unstandardized, part of, investment management. What about adding clout to your activist stance? Is it also useful to be part of these groups in terms of you have a bigger body of money that is- I think for us, maybe less so. If you look at it in the market, yes, these coalitions have been really impactful and achieve a lot in my view. We feel that we, in many cases, we are big enough to have an individual voice. Any more questions? Okay, I don't see any more hands, so we'll wrap up this session and move to one-on-one interviews. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you for following the stream. I hope you will read the full report. Yeah. Have a good day.