Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you to this webcast based on today's press release. My name is Olof Grenmark, and I'm Head of Investor Relations. Today, we will have a presentation led by our President and CEO, Mikael Staffas, and our CFO, Håkan Gabrielsson. Mikael, welcome. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to this webcast regarding the announcement we just made this morning about the acquisition of a majority stake in Nexa Resources. I will go through some of the key features of both the target and of the deal, and then we will open up for questions and answers. If you look at this from a Boliden point of view, Boliden is clearly ready to take the next step. We've had a strong financial position for a long time, and we have a good balance sheet. We built a leading position in Europe that we already have, and with strong ESG potentials. We've shown a continuous organic growth based on profitable investments and successful exploration. We have a well-developed portfolio of projects, robust and efficient productivity, and seamless integration of recent acquisitions. We clearly feel ready for taking a next step. What are the rationale for this transaction? Number one, it's an excellent fit, and it provides an entry point into Latin America for Boliden on a very low risk compared to any other alternative. We are getting good operating cash flow generating assets with an existing management that will largely stay around to be able to manage this. We will also have one of the more important financial and industrial partners in South America to help us as they become a shareholder in Boliden. Latin America, of course, has attractive mining jurisdictions, and also fits well with a low carbon profile that is well known to Boliden. This also gives us access to Nexa's local sourcing. As you know, we today need to source about half of the concentrate for our smelters on the international market, which is based in lower South America, and this will make us better in those procurements. As I say, we will get Votorantim, one of the biggest industrial groups in South America, to come in and partner with us and become a shareholder in Boliden. This is creating a globally diversified and resilient operations. We're getting a significantly increase and become a significant player of zinc globally across both mining and smelting. A highly relevant portfolio of base metals and precious metals that will come with us. We will continue to focus on the operations as we've done historically, as well as focus on safety, and here the culture of the two organizations are quite similar. The transaction is immediately accretive to the Boliden shareholders. This is a company that has positive cash flows and positive results coming in from day one, and it is about an 8% or more better contribution to EPS. What about Nexa? Nexa is a mining and smelting, actually long smelting, just as Boliden, although with a slightly higher degree of integration. It has assets across Brazil and Peru, and we will come into the actual assets as we go forward. It is mainly a zinc producer, as you can see here in terms of zinc metal. It is the zinc metal from the zinc smelters. In terms of mine production, it does as always, you get byproducts coming from copper, from silver, and from gold. If you look at then the mining operations of Nexa, it is altogether five mines, with a variety of history. Aripuanã is the youngest and newest operations. It is a long life for mine that is coming to play, about 2 million tons per year. Production has been ramping up and is now producing well since a while back. Vazante is a little bit of a specialty miner in the sense that it produces a specialty concentrate that is very well integrated with the Três Marias smelter, we will see on the next page. About 2 million tons per year as well in terms of size, and it has been producing for a long time. If you move over to Peru, there is the Atacocha mine up in the Cerro de Pasco area. It has been in production a long time. It has had its ups and downs, but it has a concentrate plant capacity of 1.6 million tons, and it is moving on. It is very close geographically to El Porvenir, which is the last one here on the slide, which are going to, as we move forward, going to be operating more and more in combination. Then there is the Cerro Lindo operation, which is the biggest underground mine in Peru. Annual concentrate there goes around 6, 7 million tons, I should say, but also with a good long historic development. On the smelting side, there are three smelters. In Brazil, there are two smelters, Três Marias, which is somewhat a specialty smelter specializing on the concentrate quality that comes out of the Vazante mine, but can also take other sources and it is producing around 150,000 tonnes in a good year. Juiz de Fora is a smaller, more specialized smelter doing lots of zinc products, not just pure zinc, but all zinc specialty products, and also using on top of virgin feed, also quite a lot of recycling of zinc. Then there is Cajamarquilla, which is the big smelter which is located in Peru. It is the largest zinc smelter in South America, production around 350,000 tonnes per year. Very similar in many of the technology choices to our Kokkola smelter in Boliden, and in size also, similar to the Odda expansion as we are working our way forward. If you look at Boliden on a standalone and with Nexa consolidated in, we see that zinc increases a lot up to when we count for the 100% of the Nexa production up to well over 650,000 tonnes per year. There is also an increase in copper and in lead production. Precious metals as well, especially silver, comes up significantly, whereas gold has a marginal increase. We will also see that zinc resources and reserves come up quite a lot in line basically with production. We also see the zinc metal production coming up, and the combined will be over 1 million tonnes of zinc per year. This will make Boliden-Nexa combination one of the largest zinc miners in the world, together with Hindustan Zinc and Glencore. With a variety of assets, basically in second and third, and so on as their fourth quartile assets, the Nexa assets fit well within the Boliden assets, and that is not a surprise given that they are very similar in many senses in terms of geology, in terms of technology and so on, moving forward. If you look over to the smelter side, this will also perform and put us over 1 million tonnes, similar to Glencore and Korea Zinc in terms of size, with cash margins once again spread over the large part of the cost curve. With that, Håkan, I will leave it over to you to talk a little bit about the financials. Thank you, Mikael, and good morning. As Mikael pointed out, the financials in these transactions are attractive. The assets we are looking at, the assets involved are good assets that generate cash flow. We also see from the combined entity a strong consolidated EBITDA with limited additional CapEx. For the two companies combined, consolidated rolling 12 months EBITDA amounted to about $4 billion, whereas the CapEx amounted to roughly $2.1 billion. Mikael also pointed out that it is an accretive transactions with an immediate contribution of about 8% to EPS based on broker consensus. Looking at Nexa Resources, they have been generating a strong return on capital employed with about 20% in the most recent quarter. Going into a little bit more details about the transactions as such, the consideration is that Votorantim will receive 0.25 Boliden shares for each Nexa share, and that means that they will own about 7% in Boliden. That puts the equity value of Nexa of about $2 billion on 100% basis. Regarding the structure of the acquisition of Votorantim shares that represents just shy of 65% of Nexa's capital will be paid by newly issued Boliden shares. It has also been agreed that following closing, Boliden has agreed with Nexa to launch a voluntary tender offer, to purchase for cash any Nexa shares not acquired at closing at a cash price determined by reference to the fixed exchange rate agreed with Votorantim, and the 20-day volume weighted average price of Boliden shares prior to closing. Following the closing, Boliden will also launch a mandatory tender offer to minority shareholders of Nexa's listed Peruvian subsidiaries. Regarding approvals and conditions, this is subject to Boliden shareholder approval, where a simple majority is required. There is also the customary regulatory approvals needed and certain other closing conditions that are customary for a transaction of this kind. Let's see. It's stuck there. The slide doesn't change. Anyone can help change the slide for me? Take the next slide. Sorry, it seems to be stuck in the slide deck here. Let's see. Sorry about this. The key transaction milestones is that we are expecting closing in Q1 of 2027. That's the best estimate as of now. Before closing, we will need Boliden EGM for the shareholder vote. Nexa will also need an EGM, and then we have the regulatory approvals. After closing, we've talked about the voluntary tender offer to remaining shareholders in Nexa Resources, as well as the mandatory tender offer to minority shareholders in Peru. Mikael, with that. Well, thank you, Håkan, and I will not really say anything more than just summarize this, that we will be able to put a strategic fit and to put a new entity into our working, which is very similar and familiar to us with a metal and mining jurisdictions that we like, and providing also portfolio diversification to us. We will continue with the integrated mining to smelting model, which is an excellent fit with Boliden's existing operations. There will be additional cash flow generated to this for the mining and smelting units, significant growth opportunities with development upside, and the transaction is expected to be immediately accretive to Boliden shareholders. With that, I will turn it over to the operator and have start the questions and answers. If you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key six on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. I have two questions from my side. I will take them one at a time. Firstly, on the capital structure, Mikael, you have arranged for SEK 2 billion of financing, which is much greater than what you could possibly need to acquire the minority shareholders. Firstly, why was this financing arrangement needed? Then second, on a pro forma basis, your potential acquisition of minorities could push your gearing towards the high 30s or the 40s, which is much higher than what your target is. How does that feed into how you are thinking about your capital structure? That is my first question. Thanks. Yeah. Just to put it in perspective on this, the minority, we have agreed to extend an offer to the minority, which is similar to the one that we have for the majority. It is a cash-based offer, and that has to do with legal basis around that. We do not know, just to be very frank, what that take will be. As always, when you do things like this, you want to make sure that you do not stand without liquidity. So yes, you could argue that the backstop facility that we have arranged is more than ever needed. As I said, you do not want to stand dry in a situation like this, so that is lots of extra liquidity. Regarding the kind of balance sheet numbers, as you pointed out, yes, if we get 100% uptake, we will get up to the numbers that you mentioned. On the other hand, if we do get 100% uptake, we will also get 100% of the cash flow that comes out, and we are pretty certain that we will be able to work down the debt levels very quickly in that situation. We, just to kind of put on the obvious, we do not intend to change any of our capital structure goals over time because of this transaction. Thank you. That is very clear. The second question is on the synergies. This deal could be somewhat transformative to the Boliden investment case. However, there was no synergy number attached to the slides or to the communication earlier today. How should we think about the synergistic value of this deal? What value do you bring to the table by combining the two assets? Are there some numbers you can just share with us? Thank you. No. And well, number one, we have not, and that's on purpose. You have said there is no synergy numbers out there. There are potential synergies that we will look at over time. It depends a little bit also on what uptake we will have. But the feels of synergies are that there is clearly a synergy of technical sharing. There's a potential synergy of procuring concentrates in South America. And then the other synergies are more in line with having a wider portfolio and thus a less risky portfolio over time. But we have on purpose not put a number to these, and this is not a deal that is dependent on a high synergy number. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. The next question comes from Adrian Gilani from ABG Sundal Collier. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning. Two questions from my end. I guess, first of all, can you talk a bit about the sort of investment needs of the new assets and if you were to sort of put any potential bigger investments like mine life extensions into the current CapEx pipeline that we're familiar with for you guys? Just on investments in general, these assets are today cash flow positive or an excess cash flow positive with ongoing maintenance CapEx as it stands. There are not foreseen in the short-term foreseeable future any major investment for prolongations. There are prolongation kind of projects, but they will not be of a major CapEx extent. There is a whole set of potential in the portfolio of Nexa that will require CapEx, but those are, number one, voluntary, and number two, probably a few years out. So there should not be any cash flow, any need to provide cash flow into the Nexa system. Understand. As a follow-up, can you walk us through what underpins the cash cost position of the mines? They are all above the median and especially considering the significant silver byproduct. What is pushing them above the median cash cost, and are there clear improvements here that can be made fairly soon? You always have to be careful with these cash cost curves that you get, and you have to look into detail what silver price they have assumed, the consultants, when they make these assumptions. I do not think the silver price was really that high when they did these assumptions. So that is one thing that could be improved. Otherwise, it is fairly clear that these assets operate roughly at the level where they are. There is always somewhat of an improvement potential, but it is not a step change that would require CapEx as well. But these assets operate relatively well on regular operating maintenance CapEx. Okay. Understood. Thanks. The next question comes from Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Good morning, Mikael and Håkan. First question is just on the timing, and a bit more on the rationale. I guess on timing, why now? You do have some challenges within your current business in terms of Garpenberg, ramping up, et c., and this deal is clearly going to add another layer of complexity following a deal that you did not that long ago for Lundin Mining's assets. Any color around the timing? Then in terms of the fits, I understand the scale argument, but the assets are geographically very far apart. Is there anything that's going to be flowing out of this in terms of concentrate between the different groups where there are some potential benefits? As I said on the previous question, if you start with number two here, the synergies in that sense are not very big. Even though you could potentially, at certain times, have some concentrate going between the different continents. In essence, both Nexa Resources and Boliden are net buyers. Nexa Resources doesn't really have that much concentrate to sell. They might have some odd quality sometimes. But it's all about buying in South America from independent mines, both for Nexa Resources and for Boliden. Nexa Resources is, of course, being a local South American company, quite used to this and have well-established procurement resources. That's on the. The first question was? The timing of. Oh, the timing. Well, timing, you can argue a million times about timing, and also as a buyer, you do not really choose the timing always yourself. Having said that, we feel that the timing is actually quite good. We feel that we are actually through, even though you can argue we are not quite done, but we are through a major part of our investment programs. We are getting lots of things up and running slowly. So in that sense, the timing is relatively good for us as well. The integration of the Lundin Mining assets, you can never say that it is behind you, but it is very well advanced, and we, of course, feel strengthened by the relative ease that we have seen in integrating those two assets into the Boliden operating model. Thank you. If I could just ask two more as well. The release mentions post-closing mandatory tender offers for some of the subsidiaries in Peru. Can you quantify that for us in any kind of way? The second question, I guess, is just around your views on zinc smelting. Nexa Resources is also net long smelting capacity. We have seen TCs terms or spot terms plummet into negative territory. Is this deal, is your long-term fundamental view that we are ultimately going to see a rebalancing and the economics for smelters improve from where we are currently? Thank you. Well, I will start with the second one and say that economic terms for smelters is not that bad. Even though TCs are very low, the free metals that you get out of it, and including sulfuric acid, actually makes smelting a pretty good place to be in. It could always get better, but it is not a bad place just to kind of get that established first. The other one was around? The quantification of the minorities in Peru. Yeah, the minorities. We do not know exactly how much it is going to cost because this will be Lima Stock Exchange rules that set exactly the level of the offer price, as you have to go transparent through this. But we had estimated that if we get 100% uptake, that would be about SEK 3 billion. Okay. Thank you. That is a lot. The next question comes from Kaleb Solomon from SEB. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you for taking my questions, just two from me. You said the sort of ability to realize synergies partly depend on the tender offer take-up. Can you maybe give some color on what sort of initiatives would be harder to implement if Boliden only retains a sort of sizable portion in Nexa? If there is a minority in Nexa that remains, of course, any kind of commercial transaction between Boliden and Nexa will have to be done on arm's length relationships, and it is not going to be possible, for example, to integrate the trading activities, as Nexa has trading activity and we have trading activity today. There are certain limitations if we do not get up to 100% shareholding. Having said that, we will be able to do things already with the majority position, but it will be a little bit cumbersome as we always need to make sure that we do not mistreat the minority in Nexa. Okay. That is clear. Thank you. Can you just clarify if the sort of expected EPS accretion of 8% include any contribution from synergies or operational improvement? If not, can you give some color on what those could be? It does not, because that 8%, as mentioned, that is based purely on analyst estimates, so prior to the deal. As I said, we have not, and we will not give a number on synergies, but it is going to be a relatively small number, at least initially. So the 8% is based purely on existing operations. Okay. That is clear. Thank you. The next question comes from Jason Fairclough from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, gentlemen, and congrats on the deal. A couple from me. First, maybe you could talk a little bit about how you see the increased risk for Boliden from the exposure to these LatAm countries, versus the potential benefit from having a bigger footprint and ultimately running more assets. Jason, of course, we've had lots of discussion about risks of entering South America in different ways, given that that's an interesting place to be, given geology and everything else. We have concluded that what we're doing right now is the lowest risk that we've ever been able to establish around doing this. We get well-operating existing positive cash flow assets with management, and we also get a partner in the Votorantim team group that is local in South America to help us. Regarding Sweden and Brazil, there is a long history around that with defense or corporations in very tricky sectors, including defense and aerospace. From that relationship, we feel quite confident around the geopolitical risk. Peru is a little bit more risky, but once again, we also feel relatively confident. Peru has been through lots of political turmoil in the last 10 years, but relatively stable operating conditions for mining companies anyway, although there is a higher risk there, but we feel that we are relatively well-positioned to handle those. Okay. Thank you. Second question, if I could. Look, maybe my information is out of date here, Mikael, but my understanding was that at least one of the mines had been loss-making and was being effectively run at a loss, but to keep the smelter running. Is that true or has that situation evolved? I think that is not true, but there is partial truth to what you said. The Aripuanã mine, which is a relatively new mine, was clearly behind schedule in its ramp up and was losing money initially. It will still continue to ramp up because ultimately it was going to make money, which it is right now, and I would say it is more or less fully ramped up. I would argue, even though you have to ask Nexa management that, but that was not done in order to feed any smelter. It was done in order to get the mine up and running. There has not been any kind of other cross operation. There is a trick on how you manage things between the Vazante mine and the Três Marias smelter, because the Vazante concentrate is of such a quality that is not really sellable onto anybody else. Only Três Marias has a special equipment to handle that. It is the same way Três Marias can take in external concentrate, but not to a big extent. So those two have to be looked into in combination, and it has always been profitable in combination. Then you can argue a little bit about the transfer price between those two units because the classical benchmark TCs that are used is not really relevant because of the concentrate quality. Okay. Just to come back to a point that a few people have asked. You are long smelting. This group is long smelting, and obviously the group has a history of procuring concentrates to keep the smelters full. Is there actually room here to think about rationalizing some of the smelting footprint between the two businesses? Well, lots of things can be done over time, but as I said, as long as we have a minority, we cannot really look across the two units. We have to look at on the individual units. I think that we have to see what can be done in Nexa over time. It's a little bit of a difference here between Peru and Brazil, where Peru, it's pretty easy to be long smelting. There's lots of mining capacity in the area, lots of concentrate to buy. Brazil is a little bit more challenging situation, but I think this will evolve over time, and we'll see what we can do. Okay. Thanks very much, guys. The next question comes from Matt Greene from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Mikael, you mentioned there's limited synergies at the moment. I guess it is accretive because Nexa is cheaper and possibly because this company has faced a number of challenges on several fronts in recent years. I guess, at this point of the cycle, do you see better risk-adjusted returns in Nexa versus your existing organic growth pipeline? Well, you are saying the word risk-adjusted, and it of course depends on which risk you use. But I will say that short term, the risks in Nexa we feel are quite limited. The technology risks are more or less behind them. There is always a geopolitical risk, but as I said before, we do not think it is too much, and everything else equal, Nexa has good cash flows. We have not really talked too much about this, but Nexa has a higher debt level than we are used to, so we will bring up our consolidated debt level, not immensely, but to some extent. We would of course, also be quite happy to run down the debt level in Nexa to some extent, as we now start getting good cash flows. Got it. Okay. I guess in your due diligence, what were the top areas of risk that you see? Is it more around technical? Is it more around cultural? Obviously, Peru they are facing social issues there as well. Can you just flag where do you see the key risk here on the execution front? Well, you mentioned a whole set of them, and we have looked into technological and geological situation. There we feel very comfortable. We also feel comfortable saying with geopolitics. Another area which you have not asked yet, but if those who read the Nexa annual report will figure out that Nexa has had quite some tax issues, which are well known to us, and we have looked into them, and we have spent quite some time in the due diligence understanding the tax situation, especially in Peru, which has been a little bit tricky to them. We have also looked into the people side. We looked into the health and safety area. Nexa has worse numbers than we do, but we have a sense that they have a program already in place, and that we could probably enhance a little bit to get health and safety cultures in even better level. Got it. That is all from me. Thanks again. The next question comes from Richard Hatch from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Just a few questions from me. I am still going to follow up on this bridge funding. If 35% of the company that you do not own is $715 million in value, and then the minorities in Peru are guided to SEK 3 billion or about SEK 315 million, that gives me about $1 billion U.S. Again, why do we need to have a bridge facility of $2 billion? Is that just purely conservatism or is there something else that I am missing there? That is the first one. It is purely conservatism, and what you have to of course always know is that if there is something you could be fearful about is that next week or in a month from now, we will somewhere between signing and closing, we get a major recession on our hand. That is of course always a risk. Over time, these things will go up and down. In that number, we have also calculated in that we will survive through a major Lehman Brothers-type crash in the midst of this thing. Yes, you can call it conservatism. Okay. Thank you for that. Can you just help me on the board composition? You are saying that Nexa Resources has got nine board members at the moment, but I guess some of them are not independent because of the Boliden stake. Then you are going to have four board members. Can you just help us think about how that board composition is going to look like? For example, will you sit on the board of Nexa Resources, Mikael, or how are you thinking about the Boliden representation on the board? That is the second one. We will have Boliden representatives, around four people. As you said, three independents. That makes a board of seven. Regarding the exact composition and the exact names, we will come back to that when we will have the summon for the next EGM that will do the changing of the board. Yes, I will be personally involved in the board. Okay, thanks. The third one is, clearly you take nearly 65% of the company, you have control. You suggest that there are potential synergies there, but they could come over time. So the third question is why not just go more aggressive and just take the whole thing out right here, right now, and get on the track of getting on to those synergies rather than take a half sleeping position in owning business? That was the third one. The present setup where Nexa is a Luxembourg-incorporated company with operations in South America and in New York Stock Exchange listing makes things a little bit challenging to do that, which we maybe would have liked to do. There is, for example, no sweep. In order to really make sure we get 100%, we would have to make the offer very attractive to get even the last shareholder across the line, which would have been perceived to be maybe too expensive, at least if we are going to make it that sweep, and we have decided that we will do a voluntary offer. Here I have to be careful because I am not allowed to say anything except exactly what is written in the press release. But we have made sure that the minority shareholders are treated in a way equal to the majority. Then somebody could argue, why do not you just issue shares to them? Well, due to, once again, the strict set of regulations, it is almost impossible for us to issue shares to a small shareholder in the U.S. due to the prospectus requirements of the New York Stock Exchange, therefore that will be a cash consideration there. Okay. That is helpful. My last one, Håkan, just a quick one on how you are going to report this. You say you are going to report it as a separate segment. Can you just give us any kind of steer as to how we should think about the modeling of this? It will be an interesting one. Thank you. Well, I think it is good to treat it as a separate segment. Regarding the consolidation, if you have a majority ownership like this, we will get the full numbers in, we will get the full EBITDA, the full revenue, all of it, and then we will have a liability reported to the minority. Apart from that, it will be kept as a listed company with their filing requirements and as a segment in our books. Okay. All right. Thanks very much, Håkan. The next question comes from Johannes Grunselius from SB1 Markets. Please go ahead. Hello, gents. I also have a question on this consolidation going forward. How should we think about the balance sheet in Nexa? Will that be consolidated in Boliden or will it be separate? Well, when it comes to financial reporting, if we talk about consolidation in financial reporting, then the way you do is that you include the full balance sheet, and then you report a liability or a share of equity that belongs to minorities. So in all the numbers you see, you will have the full Nexa balance sheet. Then, of course, Nexa is still a separate listed group with filing requirements and their own balance sheet and so on. We will keep it apart from that perspective. But looking at an annual report, for example, of Boliden, you will see Nexa numbers included everywhere. Okay. That's good. Also wonder about forecasts here. You referred to consensus estimates. I think there are a handful of analysts covering this company. But I guess your own sort of forecasting is aligned with consensus. Can you comment on that? It's always very difficult to comment on those things. But, as also pointed out, there are relatively few analysts following Nexa, but there are a couple, a handful. Put it this way, we don't feel that they're over-aggressive on the Nexa opportunity. Okay. Good to know. My final question is that if I look at the last few quarter reports from Nexa, would you say that those operations are representative for what you expect for 2027, 2028 in terms of operation, or any deviation we should be aware of? Well, I think you can read that into the Nexa guiding and it's not made it possible for me to guide anything about the future of Nexa, given that it's a separate traded entity. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. The next question comes from Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Please go ahead. Morning, everyone. Just a couple of follow-ups on the risks. Just was curious whether you could just quantify the rehab liabilities within Nexa and whether you are comfortable with the methodology of estimating of that and whether there would be any changes if it is aligned with your, I guess, measurement and standards. Then just wondering on other liabilities within the business, such as the tailings, whether, I guess, Nexa is committed to aligning their tailings to the global standard and whether you see any need for remediation work and CapEx on that front. Well, we do not see any immediate need to change anything on the dam side, on any CapEx into that. They are relatively well managed and well handled, the dams. On the reclamation reserves, yes, we have been through that. There is, of course, always a risk that you are under reserving for reclamation questions. But we have a sense that what is reported in the Nexa reporting is accurately reflecting the technical reports that are in place. Okay. Can you just confirm the enterprise value you gave in the release, that does not include those reclamation liabilities? That is a very good question that I need to look at. The reclamation liabilities that are on the balance sheet are in that reported value. Yeah, exactly. Whatever is not on the balance sheet, as I said, we don't think is that much, because I think the balance sheet is fairly reflecting what we read on technical reports. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from Boris Bourdet from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Good morning. Two questions on my side. Boliden used to be quite balanced between copper and zinc. Obviously, this operation increases the weight of zinc. Is it the first step of repositioning towards a priority on this commodity, or do you see this new footprint in Latin as a way to further expand also, maybe later, in the copper? That is the first question. The second question is on Votorantim, 7% ownership. What visibility do you have? What is the commitment of Votorantim on that? Thank you. Zinc versus copper. I think this is the same answer as I have gotten many times before when we do something somewhere, whether we are changing the balance. The answer is, we like copper and we like zinc, and we like both of them. I have said many times that for us to grow inorganically in copper is quite unlikely because copper asset prices have come to a level where it is very difficult to motivate the price when potentially buying them. Whereas zinc, we feel is a little bit undervalued and it is a higher chance. If you look at Nexa. Nexa, we are also getting a portfolio of projects with it. These are projects in various stages. None of them are ready for investment now, and they are into the future. But there are quite a few copper projects in the Nexa project portfolio. So yes, potentially we could get more copper coming out of South America over time through this acquisition, but there are many ifs and buts before we get there. Regarding Votorantim. Votorantim have committed to being on the Boliden board, being an active shareholder in Boliden. They have also agreed to a lockup period, which is stepwise coming down, but basically a three-year lockup period for some of the shares, indicating that they are at least in the short to medium-term, very much committed to staying around. Very clear. Thank you. The next question comes from Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Thanks. I just have one follow-up question on Nexa. Basically, they do have a U.S. listing. Do you see this as an opportunity, or do you see any advantages in having multiple listings for Boliden and tap into a broader set of investors? Is this something that you have considered while going after Nexa? That is my question. Thanks. No, I would rather say we looked at Nexa as an operating entity, and that is what we are looking for. The U.S. listing has been something that is a part of the Nexa history and a part of what we need to deal with there, and we are going to deal with it accordingly. But I do not think that we will be looking at diversifying Boliden's listing into the U.S., if that was your question. Yes, that was it. Thank you. The next question comes from Jason Fairclough from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi, folks. So another round two question. Just in terms of the mechanics of a potential squeeze out. I have asked ChatGPT this morning about how that could work, and I got a very long answer that does not actually give me an answer. How are you thinking about how a potential squeeze out might work after a voluntary takeover offer? Number one, this is on a long-term scale. In the short-term, a little bit unclear, but it would have to include maybe something like re-domiciling or re-listing, which all these things are not quite easy, and therefore we said that we do not have any plans like that. We might have something that we could consider in the future, but as of right now, we will, for the foreseeable future, be having a minority ownership and a New York listing. Mikael, just to make sure that I understand. The deal completes sometime early in 2027. Do you immediately launch the voluntary takeover offer for the minority shareholders in Nexa? Yes. Yes? Yes. Yeah. Okay. If we were to consider a voluntary, sorry, a squeeze-out, that would happen sometime after the completion of the voluntary takeover offer, but no specifics here on the timing. No specificity more than that we have promised the existing board of Nexa that we will not do it, at least in the short term. Okay. All right. That's clear. Thank you very much. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Richard Hatch from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, just here we go again, some more questions. Can you just help us? Firstly, can I just clarify, the long-term intention here sounds like you want to control the whole business 100%. Should we interpret this as being, it's really only a matter of time before you find ways to either redomicile the business, delist it or relist it, sorry, and find a way to take your ownership up from that sort of 64.5% to the 100%? Is that the right way to consider how this goes into the medium to long term? That's the first one. The answer is that we are committed to Nexa long term. Exactly how that will play out, we'll have to see. The first unknown in this is what is the uptake going to be in the voluntary offer, which we do not know. That outcome then might make us think about how we do in the next step. Understood. Okay. The second one is, perhaps I should also say I'm engaging a bit of ChatGPT, but, if I look at the Nexa shareholder register, it would appear that it's got a lot of very small shareholders that own the stock. Are you able to step into the market to buy some of those shares, or is that something that you are unable to do from a securities regulation standpoint? Just wonder if you can, after the voluntary, if you don't get what you want in the voluntary, whether you can step into the market and start buying on market. Is that an option available to you in time? In the agreement that we have with the present Nexa board, there are some time limitations to that and some limitations to how we can do that. But fundamentally, from a regulatory point of view, we can do that. Okay. Without triggering a mandatory, well, I guess, without triggering mandatory takeover offer or anything. No, we are not triggering a mandatory. We could put it the other way around. Had we triggered a mandatory, we might not have been so sorry about that. Therefore, we are giving a voluntary because this does not trigger mandatory in the combination of Luxembourg and New York. Cool. Very helpful. Thanks for your time. You are welcome. Thank you. There are no more questions at this time, so I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments. I will just make a very quick comment. Thank you all for listening. As you understand, this has been a very long thing in coming and doing. I got the question earlier this morning from some of the journalists, and I have made a very clear point that, because there was a question, who initiated this thing? Is it the seller or the buyer? And I said, That is almost impossible to tell, because we have been discussing different things for the last, I would say, almost 10 years, not quite, but at least five years with Nexa about potential projects, about potential cooperation, about different things. And exactly who came up with the idea that eventually led to this conclusion is a little bit difficult to put a pure number on. But lots of people have worked on it a long time. Lots of people in both organizations have also, of course, spent lots of time getting this deal together. It has not been an easy one, given the fact that we had the combination of a Swedish buyer, a Luxembourg target with listing in the U.S. and operation in South America, has kept some lawyers busy for a while. But I am very proud of the solution we have come to, and this is very good going forward. Thank you.