Hi, and welcome to our press conference. Today, our Co-pilots, Trond Grande and Nicolai Tangen, will present our main results in 2023. In addition, you will get some insights from what some of our fund expert that will call in from various our global locations. Then we will open up for questions after the presentation. Before Nicolai kicks it off, we will start this presentation with a film that will kind of sum up 2023. Inflation has been pretty strong lately. What is your view on the inflation picture right now? Inflation is not good for an investor, and so we have been concerned about this. Central banks around the world have taken arguably drastic measures to address that. Inflation has eased from its highs. That's very good news, but inflation is still too high. Ongoing progress in bringing it down is not assured. Silicon Valley Bank is no more. Shareholders of Silicon Valley Bank have filed a class action lawsuit following the bank's collapse. AI is the one that I've been thinking about my whole life. These models are still not very good. They hallucinate a lot. They're not very smart. They have all these problems, and yet people are using their human ingenuity to figure out how to work around that and still leverage these tools. As in this cycle, the big are getting bigger. How about this one? Meta, up 120%. Tesla's up 66%, and Alphabet up 39%. Now, I know I have the right to say this, that right now I, I've had enough of them because I talk about them every night. Two months of attacks by the Iran-backed Houthi movement on cargo ships in the Red Sea, disrupting commercial shipping and the global economy. We live in a more dangerous world. There's a fully-fledged war in Europe, a new war in the Middle East, and climate change is driving conflicts. In my mind, climate is as political as gravity. It's just not political. Then you have some climate effects which are negative on pricing. You have geopolitics, you have trade routes, just a lot of things. It's just not a very happy cocktail. Yeah, I think it's fair to say that, 2023 ended up a lot better than we had expected, a year ago. And Trond, what happened? No, absolutely. 2023 was a record year for the fund. We saw the biggest change in the fund's value ever, and the fund stood at NOK 15,765 billion at year-end, and that's also the record, record high for a year-end. You see in percent last year, it was up 16%, albeit after a weak prior year. And if you look at the kroner values, the fund was the returns were up by NOK 2,222 billion. So very, very strong numbers. Now, the fund invests in four different asset classes, with equities, exchange-listed equities, being by far the biggest one, 70%, roughly, invested in equities, and that was also the best performing asset class for us, returning 21%. After that comes fixed income, roughly 30% invested in fixed income. We saw returns of a respectable 6% on that portfolio. Most of that came in the fourth quarter, and we'll come back to that. We also have investments in unlisted real estate, which had a negative year last year of 12%. So that was hit both by rising interest rates and a falling demand for the types of real estate investments that we have had. And last but not least, a small asset class still, infrastructure, returned 4% for us. One should be careful, of course, of interpreting one-year results for such long-term asset classes. Yeah. And, another year of strong inflows into the fund? No, absolutely. Not as much as in 2022, when we had NOK 1,100 billion coming into the fund. Last year, we had NOK 711 billion coming into the fund, which is still, as you can see from this graph, a significant amount. Mm-hmm. So when we look at kind of the bridge here, you can see that there, you have the returns here of more than NOK 2,000 billion, you have inflows, NOK 700 billion, and then also we have the weakening Norwegian kroner with more than NOK 400 billion effect. So that kind of explains the change in value during the year. But we don't think necessarily these type of numbers will continue going forward. No, I mean, we had a really good year last year, but we should be expecting the fund, the fund's value to fluctuate. To, you know, show this, how this could be, could happen, we do stress tests of the portfolio. Last year, we had three different other scenarios. This time we have three new scenarios, two macroeconomic scenarios and one geopolitical scenarios, all indicating that if they were to come to fruition, the fund would fall with a roughly 30% in value. Cash flows? Yeah. So, the returns that we present have essentially two components. So you have the valuation of the assets that we hold, and also you have the cash returns that these investments deliver, right? So the coupons on the bond investments, the dividends on the equity investments, and the leases we collect from the real estate investments. This is a very stable part of the return, and last year we saw it also increase as the fund size increased. Yeah. NOK 320 billion of cash flow into the fund. Absolutely. Now, the relative return, i.e., what we achieve relative to the benchmark we measure ourselves against last year was negative 18 basis points. It consists of various parts, and here they are. Yeah, we run quite a few different strategies to try to beat the benchmark that we're given. Last year, we saw very good returns from our Fixed Income investments, essentially firing on all cylinders. Yeah. We saw good returns in our internal equity management, and also our external managers, who are equity managers, predominantly in emerging markets, also returned a very good in 2023, 11 basis points at the fund level. Then these good results were held back by investments in real estate. We just saw that our real estate investments did not perform as well as the other asset classes, and they are also funded by us holding less equities and bonds. So when equities and bonds do good, and real estate doesn't do as good, we will get a drag on our relative performance, a meaningful 74, 47, sorry, basis points in negative contribution to the return. Mm. Slightly longer-term development of excess returns. Yeah, so you should look at the relative returns also in a long-term perspective. Cumulatively, in kroner, we've added NOK 318 billion kroner. Yeah. Now, moving on to what's been going on in the markets, starting with equities, very, very strong returns of 21%, and it was a year, in a way, which was split in two. Pretty weak until the last two months, and then a very, very strong rally. Now, the rally, as you know, was driven to a large extent by technology, and Trond, perhaps you want to comment briefly here? Yeah. So here you see the equity portfolio broken down by the sectors. And you can see on the top there, clearly, the technology sector, returning more than 50%, sorry, last year, was the by far the best performing sectors. You should also notice how every sector actually ended up in plus for the year as a whole. Mm-hmm. So this is in money? This is in kroner. That's what matters, right? Again, you see technology adding NOK 900 billion, almost, of the NOK 2,222 billion, so that's almost half of the returns coming from the technology sector. Yeah. And on a names basis, you'll see that Microsoft was the biggest contributor, followed by Apple, NVIDIA, which makes the microchips, which is used in AI, Meta, which includes Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla, and then Novo Nordisk as kind of the first non-technology company. And we'll come back to Novo Nordisk, a bit later here. We can look at, the index also, in a different way. We can take out the top seven contributors, and then you'll see then that the S&P 500, that the return of S&P 500 was half of what was actually reported. So pretty dramatic effect by, by the top seven here. And to shed some more light on what's been going on in the tech sector, we'll speak to Richard Green, which is one of our senior PMs coming in from London. Richard, why did the tech companies do well last year? Hi, Nicolai. There are a few reasons behind tech's strong performance last year. The first won't really surprise anyone, I suspect: AI. Artificial intelligence technologies have been advancing for a number of years, but last year they saw an inflection point as large language models like ChatGPT took off. We saw Jensen Huang, the CEO of the AI chip company NVIDIA, put it like this: "AI had its iPhone moment." NVIDIA was the biggest beneficiary from this trend. It's experienced an unprecedented surge in sales. Its market value increased by NOK 9 trillion in just a year. But there were several other technology companies which benefited from this trend. And also, last year wasn't just about AI. Many of the headwinds that we'd seen in 2022 reversed for tech. The micro-macroeconomic environment became more favorable with expectations of falling interest rates. There were cost streamlining measures during the year, and there was a resumption of the long-term trend of increased digitization after a post-pandemic pause. The combined effect was very positive for tech companies, but it was most pronounced for the largest ones. Should we be worried about this concentration in the top names? Narrow market leadership can be an indicator of future market weakness, and it certainly was concentrated performance in last year. But it's not the first time we've seen this sort of effect. There have been groups like the Four Horsemen, the FANG, now the Magnificent Seven before, and one of the interesting things is there's a strong element of continuity between these groups. Some companies appear in them, period after period and have performed over decades. Others haven't had such durable business models. We might therefore see some divergence in future in the performance of these names. Great. Thanks, Richard. Now, the technology sector wasn't the only sector where we saw a few companies dominate. No. So in healthcare, as we already mentioned, we saw remarkable performance from the Danish pharmaceutical company, Novo Nordisk, and it's now actually the biggest company in Europe, ahead of the French luxury brand, LVMH, company. So to shed more light on this, we will have, Gemma Game from London, our Head of Healthcare. Hi, Gemma. Hi, good morning. Good morning. So what can you tell us about what happened in healthcare sector last year? Well, the biggest news in the healthcare sector was the launch of safe and effective weight loss drugs called GLP-1 agonists. The companies that make them, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, have become household names, and you may even have heard some of the brand names of individual medicines, such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound. Anyway, the biggest news in the healthcare sector last year was in the summer, when we got the first evidence that GLP-1 agonists produce meaningful health benefits beyond the cosmetic effects of weight loss. In a clinical study, Novo Nordisk's Wegovy reduced the risk of fatal and non-fatal heart attacks and strokes by 20%. As you can see from this chart, this news helped to propel Novo Nordisk to be the largest company in Europe and Eli Lilly to be the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. But the story is far from over. Obesity is linked to around 200 different diseases, and I'm looking forward to data on whether GLP-1 agonists can be effective treatments for chronic kidney disease, obstructive sleep apnea, Alzheimer's disease, and even test whether they extend human lifespans. For the 1 billion people living with obesity around the world today, this is really exciting. Fewer than a fraction of 1% have been treated so far, so we're early on in the launch trajectory. We've just heard about the Magnificent Seven. Perhaps in the future, we'll be talking about Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk as the world's first trillion-dollar healthcare companies. Very good. Exciting news. Now, another sector which did really well was the financial sector. Now, this was a sector where we also had some real crisis. We had the Silicon Valley Bank, which went bust, and we are now the lead plaintiff, together with AP7 in Sweden, to try to recover some money. Also, you remember that, Credit Suisse was taken over by UBS, and the fund has built a big stake in UBS, so really, really exciting. Now, we have Pablo, our senior financials portfolio manager, live from London. So, Good morning. Good morning. Glad to be here. So, last year in our sector was all about deposits. You have to remember that up until 18 months ago, with rates at zero, banks did not make any money on deposits. On top of that, there was a lot of liquid in the system. So, deposit didn't matter. They had no value. When we met the management teams of the banks, we rarely discussed deposits. We talk about loans, about regulation, about expenses, but rarely about deposits. Now, that changed last year in a very significant way. Deposit became relevant. So going into 2023, there were two big debates. The first one was about volumes, volume of deposits, and the question was: Will deposits stick around? Will banks manage to keep the deposit base they had? And what we saw is a very clear divergence as the year progressed. So the good, the stronger banks, the good quality banks, managed to keep the volume of deposit and grow them. And we also saw significant outflows in some of the weaker banks. Nicola, you mentioned Silicon Valley Bank. That was the most extreme example, but we saw that in other banks. So that was the first debate. The second big debate was about the pricing, about the cost of deposits as rates went up. And here as well, we saw a very clear divergence. We saw that banks with good quality deposits, a lot of transactional deposits, managed to keep the cost of deposits at a very low level, and banks with low-quality deposits, with hot money, had to pay up to keep their existing deposits. So, very clear divergence on those two fronts. Now, as a team, going into the year, we focused on what we believe were the higher quality franchises, the stronger banks, and that strategy has worked and has paid off. Very good, and, excellent work there. That's a good way to go into the second largest asset class we have. Absolutely. We need to talk about fixed income as well. We've all seen how these short-term rates have moved up over the last 18-24 months. More importantly for this asset class and our investments is the long-term rates, and that's essentially, for 2023, a tale of two halves. It went up, the U.S. 10-year Treasury, hitting 5%, and then it fell sharply again. So to shed some more light on what's been going on in the fixed income market, we will have our Head of Fixed Income Europe, Gøril Havro. Good morning. Hi. So what can you tell us about this rocky road of the fixed income markets in 2023? Yeah. It's actually the year ended not too far from where it started, even though central banks have been hiking. So U.S. 10-year Treasuries ended the year at 3.9%, very close to where they started, in spite of the Fed hiking by one percentage point through the year to 5.5%. And in Europe, the divergence was even more pronounced. The ECB hiked its depo rate from 2%-4% through the year, while German 10-year yields actually came down from 2.4% to 2%. So why is that? Well, interest rates are hiked in response to inflation expectations and broader economic conditions in the near term, where the longer rates include market estimates of what central banks are going to do in the future, compensation for inflation, and a risk premium or term premium. ... So future inflation expectations started to stabilize and even decline towards the end of the year. Markets started to expect central banks to cut, and then ten-year yields started to decline. To add to that, given the higher level of interest rates and the outlook for bonds to start performing, there's been inflow from other asset classes to fixed income markets, and that's reinforced bond performance. But as you say, it's been a rocky year in between here and quite a rollercoaster ride, with changing narratives in the fixed income markets. So the bank troubles that we saw in March led to increased risk premia, but rates falling, because the belief is that central banks will cut if you do have a financial crisis. On the other hand, in the fall, we saw rates increasing because markets noted that incoming economic data was looking stronger than expected, particularly in the U.S., expecting fiscal policy to remain expansive, and that led to 10-year Treasuries to increase to 5%, and German ones to touch 3%. So, as I said, we got this change in expectations towards the end of the year again, yields came down, and the market converged on what you can now call a soft landing scenario with resilient growth and abating inflation. Thank you. Thank you so much. Very good. Moving on to the third asset class, real assets. So we had significant decline in the unlisted, i.e., the real estate, which is not listed on the stock exchange, while the listed returned better. All in all, a 0% return. Now, to shed light on this, we have Mie Holstad, who is our Chief Investment Officer for Real Assets. So, Mie, what's been going on in your sector? Well, Nicolai, it has been a very challenging year for our real estate investments. We have seen a significant repricing, and the main reason for that was the combination of rising interest rates and rising inflation. When you look at our combined results, although it is close to 0% in total, there are big differences across the listed and private markets. Listed markets are typically much quicker to adapt to economic changes, and the signs of falling rates and falling inflation towards the end of last year led to a real bounce back for our listed portfolio, resulting in a return of 17%. Looking at the combined strategy, the listed portfolio actually provided us with flexibility to react to market events and adjust the portfolio during the year. So at year-end, only 10% of the listed portfolio was actually invested in the troubled office sector, while the rest was invested in residential, in certain parts of retail, in data centers, and those were all relative winners last year. So switching focus to our private portfolio, 2023 will actually mark the worst year on record, with a total negative return of 12%. So as you can see on this slide, we have now had 6 quarters of value decline, and since the peak in the second quarter of 2022, the value of our private real estate portfolio is down more than 22%. So our portfolio has been well positioned, but not at all immune towards the market backdrop and the structural changes going on in the office sector, in particular, in the U.S. So all this being said, we are actually seeing a positive trend in the rental markets across most of our holdings, except from in the U.S., where increased vacancy is still a challenge. So to round off, Nicolai, it is, as we all know, a lot of uncertainty out there, and it is hard to predict when this falling trend will turn. Thank you. Yeah. Last thing, we'll round it off with the investments we have in unlisted infrastructure for renewable energy. This is still a small portfolio, but it is a growing portfolio. So last year, we announced two new investments, one in offshore wind in Germany, and the other one, a partnership with Iberdrola for onshore wind and solar in Spain. And a few of you might have noticed that we, last week or two weeks ago, announced that we have expanded on the partnership with Iberdrola, adding more wind and solar in both Spain and Portugal. Very good. To sum up, total returns last year, 16%, 18 basis points behind the index return, more than NOK 2,000 billion, and market value, close to NOK 16,000 billion. Now, we also want to bring your attention to the fact that we've published the full holding reports. Also, the full stress test analysis is on the website, and on the twenty-seventh of February, you'll get the full annual report, including the board's assessment of last year's results. Also, reminding you about the investment conference, which we have going on on the twenty-third of April. You are heartily welcome. We think the lineup is really, really strong. It will be live streamed in the afternoon, so hope to see you there. Marthe? Yeah. So that marks the end of their presentation, meaning that we will move over to questions. You know the drill, raise your hand, and then when I give you the word, please use the microphone so everyone on the stream can hear you. And then we will start with the Finansavisen. Christer, please go ahead. Yeah, hi. I have two questions regarding the relative return, because if you take out real estate, you actually had the positive relative return in the equity market and the bond market last year. Can you say where in the equity market you managed to deliver positive returns? Yeah, do you want my second question now, or? We can do one at a time. Yeah. It was pretty broad from the equity markets. We did well in the financial sector.... We did well in- Technology. -technology. It was pretty broad. I would say where it was negative was in the energy sector. We had negative relative returns, but apart from that, generally pretty good results. Do the- In the fixed income market, it was broad as well, so really firing. Okay, thank you. And then my second question is, it's a bit surprising that you managed to deliver positive relative returns because you have expressed concerns about the stock market in the recent year or two. And I would suspect that the fund had taken protective measures, and then you deliver positive returns, relative returns. So can you explain, like, is it-- do you have protective measures in the fund now to, or you don't, or? Okay. So, the fund is run really close to the index, okay? So there is no way that this fund can have real protective measures. We are just too large. There is no counterparty which can take that risk, right? So we have to be relatively fully invested for the long term. We can, from time to time, have an underweight in equities. We had a small underweight in equities, last year, but nothing very big. And it's important to say also that the risk-taking is decentralized. So these are portfolio managers who run their portfolios, and they are the people who have generated these excess returns. So this is not, Trond and I sitting up here on the fifth floor. These are our portfolio managers, which we have in Singapore, London, New York, and also here, and they run their portfolios and have combined, managed to tweak out these excess returns. So it's pretty, it's pretty impressive. Yep. Kari, Bloomberg. Yeah. Hi, good morning. Can you talk a little bit more about what was happening in the real estate sector, and what changes can be made to address some of the negativity that you're seeing there? Yeah. Well, as you know, there were, there are, a lot of factors contributing to the decline in the real estate sector. It's a combination of the COVID, where people still are working from home, so there is less demand for office space. You have had the increase in interest rates, which have hit some developers and some real estate owners. You've had problems in the banking sector. We mentioned Silicon Valley Bank, so there have been some of them, some of the local banks have extended less credit. So it's been a really tough market for real estate generally. And, you know, debt levels have been pretty, pretty large for many of them. So, what's going to happen from here? It's difficult to say. It's interesting to see the difference between the listed and the unlisted. So the listed tend to move quicker. It's now kind of moved back up. And then we'll see what's going to happen with the unlisted market. I suspect there are some interesting opportunities out there, but we shall see. The relative return that we report in the real estate market is because we measure the real estate values, which have declined in value. We measure them against a big proportion of equity values, which have gone up in value. So therefore, the relative reporting is quite negative. And if I looked back at the half year, it looked like it was slightly worse at the half year. Does that reflect what Mie was saying, that sort of the listed portfolio improved a little bit towards the end of the year, and that was what was going on there? Correct. The listed improved generally because expectations for interest rates were coming down. Can you also talk a little bit about the energy sector and what you're... I mean, that was a huge driver a couple of years back, and, yeah, what you're seeing there, and also, how it fits into sort of your, your attitude towards, in investing in the green transition and your, your mandate. Yeah. So there's multiple parts to that, but, when we mention, the energy sector here, specifically on the equity side, it's again within a delegated mandate structure. So we have mandates per sector, and we have a specific, energy mandate. Some of them are, you know, more traditional mandates, and some are geared towards what you're alluding to, the transition, the energy transition. So but, I mean, these are, these are, as we all know, very uncertain times in terms of this energy transition. You know, the, the concerns about energy security has, has come in as well. So they are, they are volatile stocks, and, last year we had a, had a bad year with some of those investments, but we're still hanging in there. Energy transition mandates have generally developed negatively, kind of on the back of less focus on ESG, lower valuations for some of these companies, some supply chain problems, et cetera. Does that mean for a large investor as yourself, that it's better to be investing in the Exxons versus the BPs? Well, we think a combination of all the above, right? We have specific mandates which are just targeting the transition, and we are also invested in the integrated energy companies because we think they are also part of the solution going forward. Then we have Jone, Minerva, please. The tracking error is quite stable, but does the increased concentration of returns in the equity sector also increase risk that's not captured in those kinds of numbers? Yes and no. So, the reported risk of the fund is unchanged compared to a year ago. Is it more risky to have a few companies accounting for a big proportion of the fund? Yes, probably. You know, you have now companies like Alphabet, which is bigger than the whole combined value of the Swedish stock exchange, right? Yeah, so it is more risky, but this is something which has been going on for many years, and it's, I would say it's reflecting a trend in society where you know, winner takes it all. And you see it to the extreme extent in some of these platform companies, that the fact that you have size gives you huge opportunities to develop your business. You see it in particular now with AI initiatives, which are so expensive to develop. You know, to train these models, you just need an unbelievable amount of money, and you need access to the latest microchips. So, probably you'll see this development continue going forward. Gladys Reuters. In follow-up, in tech stocks, are you underweight or overweight at the moment? We are equal weight. Can you expand on why you're equal weight? Well, we generally... so everything else being equal, we, we are generally equal weight the market, okay? We have a, a really great mandate, which is given to us by the Ministry of Finance, which, by the way, does a great job. And so everything else being equal, we tend to be pretty close to the index unless we see big opportunities either way. And so now we are relatively equal weight. On a different topic, can you update us on the plans to cut back on the total number of companies you wanted the fund to be invested in? Is it a question that's still relevant, or? Yeah. Do you want to take it? Yeah, no, absolutely. So that was decided that the benchmark should change from capturing essentially the 98% of the equity markets to capturing 96% of the equity market. At that point, it meant roughly 2,500 fewer companies, but only 2% of the NAV going out of the benchmark. Now, that is a transition that is ongoing. We started, but we're selling it down, you know, pro rata, so you won't see it too much in the number of companies that we hold before we're actually out of all of those companies. I have to say, I think this is great. We then have fewer names. It reduces complexity in the business without really doing anything to our diversification. And the thing you can be sure about is that if something goes wrong anywhere in the world, we own it, okay? So by not having to own 2,000 tiny, tiddly companies, you know, it just makes our job a bit easier. And do you, how many companies will you be... what number of companies will you be invested in, in what year, roughly? That is a tough question to answer. The reason why is that, you know, these indices, they're very dynamic, right? There's a lot of companies coming into the index and companies going out of the index. Lately, it's been more companies coming into the index. Mm-hmm. So what looked to be a reduction of 2,500 might not actually be a full 2,500. We'll have to see when we get there. Yeah. Jone Grønvik. When NBIM first began talking about unlisted infrastructure some years ago, it was in the context of hedging against inflation. How has this worked out in this cycle? Yeah, I know your own infrastructure investments are quite new and small, but you must be looking at other players as well in this field. Yeah. I think it's hard to judge by the small portfolio that we have. It's a lot of idiosyncratic risk to each and every project, of course. It's 0.1% of the portfolio, so it's tiny. Yeah. So, but it's being built gradually. Over time, you would expect to have some, It's real, assets is real, then you should have some protection against inflation in the long run. In the short run, what you see dominating the picture is the energy prices in itself, which has been super volatile, right? So, it's way too early to kind of say that we have seen the inflation hedge of the real assets. But it's too early for you, but you must be looking at other players- No ... in this area as well. Yeah, we haven't changed our opinion on the, how this works on a longer timescale. Yeah. Mikael Dem. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on Kari's question on energy companies. In 2022, you took an overweight position in integrated oil companies, and that turned out to be very favorable. You're saying that in 2023, it was sort of the opposite. Could you, first of all, expand on the you know, the size of the underperformance tied to the energy sector? And then maybe say if you had an overweight, underweight position, and whether you differentiated between U.S. integrateds and European integrateds. I saw, for example, that you increased your stake in BP, for instance. Mm. Thanks. We have been close to the index on the energy sector. So you're right, a couple of years ago, we overweighted the integrated energy companies because they were just so dramatically sold down, and we took a relatively large overweight position. We are now equal weight. The underperformance in the energy sector is relatively limited. I mean, these are not very big numbers. And there is no big difference between the U.S. and Europe in terms of how we are positioned relative to index. We have Christer Finansavisen. ... Yeah, thanks. It makes sense if you're skeptical to the future returns to the stock market. It seems reasonable to be underweight the high-priced tech stocks right now. But you say that you're equal weight right now, but is it like... Is there a chance that you might go underweight based on the fund's views on the stock market? The thing with investing in the market, you have to be agile, and you have to have all possibilities open, right? We are now equal weight. Yes, we have the possibility to go underweight. I'm sorry, this is going to sound a bit stupid. We also have the possibility to go overweight, right? Like we've done with the energy sector, where we have moved around a tiny bit. We had a small overweight in parts of last year in the technology sector, but that was neutralized during the year. So, but we have not gone underweight. Any more questions? Yeah, Kari, Bloomberg. Can I just ask your views on the, I mean, we've gone through several years of various dramatic geopolitical issues. What are the geopolitical issues that you're keeping in mind as you look forward into 2024, and do you have any thoughts on which sectors they will benefit from those upheavals? Well, the thing is that you have geopolitical hotspots a lot of places these days, okay? So what are the ones that we need to look out for? Well, the tension between America and China is negative for economic growth and world trade. The fact that people are nearshoring more and moving production closer to home, it's an inflationary force. We are seeing the effect of the geopolitical tensions in the Middle East through longer trading routes, higher freight costs, so that's negative. And, of course, the most scary geopolitical situations are the ones that you don't know about, which haven't happened yet, right? It's the unexpected, which takes you by surprise, and that's always the case in the stock market. It's the kind of, it's really the unknown unknown that spook markets. We have Kjetil, E24. Yes, you have increased the ownership in many places, of course, because you've got a lot of money in there. But we have, for instance, China; there's a little bit of growth there. What can you say about that? Why is the shareholding up or the value up there? Yeah, so you, you pointed that out yourself. So we had NOK 1,100 billion last year, or in 2022, NOK 711 billion in 2023. So all that needs to go into the markets. Starting point is 70% equities, 30% bonds, depending on where we are on rebalancing between the two asset classes. But by and large, it will mean that we are buying equities, and we're buying a piece of everything, and then we're also buying a piece of Chinese equities. So that's also the reason why you also increased in, for instance, Israel, where it went from NOK 13 billion-NOK 15 billion? Exactly. Any further questions? Yeah, Kjetil, please go. We have some some parties mentioning, like, SV is mentioning that they want to ban all weapon producing stocks. And I was just wondering, that's a political question, of course, but do you have any... Do you know how much money the the fund has in weapon producers all over? Not on the top of our heads, unfortunately, and it's also always a definition, a question of definition, right? So this could be large industrial players having a weapon production, albeit small. So it depends on how you define it. Yeah. Last chance. Any further questions? No. Okay, then we will round this off, and we will take one-to-one interviews outside there afterwards. To everyone following the stream, thanks a lot for calling in. Thank you. Thank you.