Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Elekta's conference call for the fourth quarter and the full year of 2025 and 2026. My name is Peter Nyquist, and I'm Head of Investor Relations here at Elekta. With me here in the studio in Stockholm, I have our CEO, Jakob Just-Bomholt, and I would also like to welcome our new CFO, Klara Eiritz, as she started now, I guess, three months ago as new CFO of Elekta. Very welcome. Great to have you here. Today's agenda starts off with Jakob giving some key takeaways from the fourth quarter, including some strategic highlights. Klara will give us details on the financials and Elekta's outlook. After the presentation, we will have, as usual, a time for Q&A. Before I start, I want to remind you that some of the information discussed on this call contains forward-looking statements. This can include projections regarding revenue, operating result, cash flow, as well as products and product development. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in the statements. With that said, I would like to hand it over to you, Jakob, please. Thank you, Peter. A warm welcome to all of you. Warm welcome to you, Klara. Throughout the year, we have really been very clear on that Elekta, we are not trading at our full potential. We are a wonderful company, but we are not at full potential. To address that, we have said we need to drive significant transformation within the company. The way we think about it is that we really have a transformation that will take place over three phases. The first one, reset and stabilize. The second, improve profitability, and the last one, and most importantly, and long term, innovation-driven growth. If we look at phase I, I would almost say we are done, and we are actually a little bit ahead of what I expected now nine months ago. We have been working a lot to reset our operating model, really with the view of ensuring that we have empowered, accountable teams. We increase our velocity in how we operate, how we execute, how we innovate. We have been going through a simplification of our org setup. Some of you may remember we have now executed having nine organizational layers to six. We have decentralized. We are pushing P&L profitability to our regions. As a consequence, we did a really zero-based review of the organization. Today we have more than 500 fewer colleagues within Elekta than we were six months ago. We have been working quite intensely on strengthening leadership. When you realize you're not at full potential, you have to look yourself in the mirror. Part of that is, at least in our view, to strengthen the leadership bench. If you look at the executive committee, four out of six have been appointed within the last 12 months. We have seen eight out of 17 members in the executive management being new. I feel good about where we are. We are working on culture. We have many strongholds. We also have things we want to change, more customer centricity, more performance management, more accountability. We are hardwiring that into incentives from the very top to further down and really linking incentive payouts with the value we create for our shareholders. Lastly, we have been very clear on we want to improve the quality of earnings. The way we look at it is it really takes outset in three distinct pillars. First, to reduce the delta between what we capitalize of R&D cost and what we amortize. I am happy to say this quarter we actually deliver on that. It is good. We expect that also to happen going forward. With the plan of having you in, Klara, we said when you want to have quality of earnings, you would also need a quality balance sheet. We have been going through it in great detail. We are today announcing an impairment related to certain discontinued business activities, certainly also other things. You will share the details. It is non-cash items. We do not expect that to happen going forward. Lastly, you may recall in Q2, we did another impairment of our order backlog. I was also very clear on that that is it. When you make such a statement, you have to be very clear on that you take in quality orders going forward. We have been, I would say, prudent in what we call in as orders. We leave the year with a book-to-bill of 1.04. I actually feel good about it. It's a better indication of future revenue growth. Rather it's an initiative stemming from us desiring to improve quality of earnings. As I said, we are now done, give and take, with our reset and stabilize, we move into improve profitability. Clearly this quarter, from our point of view, was a step in the right direction. I look at EBITDA, there we have a very substantial increase, 4.5%, give and take, versus same quarter last year. Actually, EBITDA is the highest in seven years on the margin. It's good. As part of improved profitability, we have focused innovation that also links to some of the impairments. We know what we need to innovate, we know what is important for our customers. We'll unfold more of that at CMD in a couple of weeks. We are clearly working on strengthening the commercial execution. It also links to leadership culture and incentives. We spend a lot of time on pricing excellence. We do see cost of goods sold increasing from tungsten to microchips to logistics. It's important that we have a very strengthened structure to pass on those cost increases to our customers. We expect to do so. We have programs on OpEx and CapEx. Specifically for OpEx, I'll come back to it. It's fair to say that the OpEx savings have exceeded our expectations significantly. We have a very significant part of that in Q4. We can be happy about that. Lastly, we have ongoing work on simplifying and standardizing our processes. At the very end, I hope we can conclude improved profitability within this year, maybe part of next year. The future of Elekta is really to drive growth through innovations. We'll continue to invest. We just come out of ESTRO. It confirms that radiotherapy is highly relevant. It's clinically efficient, it's cost efficient. We can become more precise. We can adapt more. We'll continue to invest in our roadmaps. We think customers are absolutely willing to pay for that. We look forward to sharing more when we meet in a couple of weeks. If I turn into the full year, as I said, book to bill of 1.04. We did see, we were a little bit negatively surprised in the Middle East. We did see specific customers delaying decision, most importantly, we have just implemented firmer order acceptance criteria throughout Elekta to ensure that the order backlog we have now is of very good quality, and is indicative of future revenue growth. In the U.S. specifically, we have seen on our CT-Linac portfolio double-digit growth. We expect that to accelerate linked to Evo also this fiscal year. We are on plan. We are positive. On organic growth, 1% linked to Europe, actually also our TIMEA region, our Middle East, Africa, India region. On gross margin, we did see an uptick despite FX and tariff headwind. Now at 38.4%, it's still too low. We need to be above. On EBIT margin, 12.3%. We clearly see that a lot of the work in becoming more efficient is really starting to have impact. Keep in mind, this quarter, we did have headwind from capitalizing less and amortizing more. If you look at the underlying EBITDA, it was an improvement from 8.6% to 11.2%, and that translated directly into cash flow. The cash flow almost SEK 1.4 billion, despite paying out SEK 300 million in severance payments. We saw for the first time in five years a reduction in net debt, which we are very happy about. That also allows us to sustain the dividends. The board approved yesterday dividend payments of SEK 2.4 per share, unchanged from prior years. If we look then on the next slide, specific key takeaways, as I said on the book-to-bill, we did see lower Middle East, Africa. That's really where it stemmed from. A bit of India. We were very clear on also saying no to a lot of orders last minute because we felt the criteria was not truly fulfilled, and we feel very good about that. Net sales decreased 1%, was really driven a bit by Asia-Pacific. Actually, we had some delayed project installation, understandably so, in the Middle East and Africa. I believe I also mentioned that at our last call. Had we not had those specific delays related to a very turbulent world in the Middle East, we would have had a positive organic growth in line with previous quarters, give and take. We will come back on the impairment of capitalized R&D and discontinued products. I'll leave that for you. Gross margin, highest of the year, a little bit, not slower than last year, we actually exceeded our expectations. Keep in mind we have FX headwind and also a bit of bill of material headwind. We managed to compensate through a price increase. On the EBIT margin, we are at 18.9%, and that really links to lower OpEx and lower service costs. A lot of the things we have been working on is now materializing into EBIT margin. This quarter, EBIT margin equals give and take the EBITDA margin. Lastly on cash flow, we saw a little bit lower cash flow in the quarter, but as I said, what really counts is the full year, and we are very happy to see that our net debt is coming down. On the commercial side, if we look at Americas, 1% growth. Evo launch continues as planned. We are positive about it, but more importantly, so are our customers. On APAC, we did see a decrease of 3%. We have seen a little bit of lower growth in some specific Asian markets, conversely, we see that the recovery in China that we talked about did actually materialize. On orders and revenue, we had 6%, 7% growth in the quarter, and we have had second half growth. The outlook is positive going forward. Lastly on EMEA, the momentum is still there. We have product launches. It's really Elekta Evo that is more than two-thirds of our solution sale. That momentum continues. As I said, Middle East, Africa, we have just seen a pause, understandably so in the quarter. The good thing is, I met here at ESTRO, a lot of both customers and resellers, and they're positive. Unfortunately, people still get cancer, and radiotherapy is cost efficient. I'm actually very impressed about the resilience, and we don't see this being a structural issue in the years ahead. If we look at our strategy progression, and if I just give a very brief helicopter perspective on the first one, I think we're doing well. I'm happy with what I see. We are ahead of plan. Focused innovation, we'll unveil that, but we are taking a number of decisions, and we know what we need to innovate. We have the plans in place, and we'll share that on CMD. There will be a strong systemic demand for what we will offer in the years to come. Expand in China, give and take, when we look at it, we are at 40% market share, 39%-40%. A bit higher when it comes to value, so it's clearly a position we want to defend. We are ready to compete. In the U.S., we are really on the hunt for more market share, and the portfolio is shaping up. We expect also high double-digit growth on orders this fiscal year, and then by the end of first half, it will start to materialize in revenue. On continued COGS reduction, here we are challenged a little bit because we have input factors hitting us. We really have two tracks. One is the price excellence I outlined. That is just going to be a muscle. I will also personally stimulate within the company because we need to see CPI plus increases coming out through the system. Then we run a lot of COGS cost reductions throughout the company, and we will announce a new COO starting in the company 1st of August. Let me close here by saying on the operating model, the split between COGS and OpEx is maintained. We have no reason to believe otherwise. Its significant impact in earnings Q4, it significantly exceeds what we guided at SEK 500 million. The restructuring charge is a notch below what we expected at SEK 421. As you see, the last point, the workforce is reduced by more than 500 employees, and that has translated into the savings. As I said, the real core of the operating model is to innovate faster, to execute faster, to get closer to our customers. With that, I'm going to close. All right. Hello, everybody. Klara Eiritz here, new CFO of Elekta, started the 1st of March. I will speak a little bit about the financials then. Starting with the full year, Jakob has mentioned some of this, so some repetition, but we'll do it this way. Adjusted for currency effects, net sales increased by 1%, and the growth was driven by the EMEA region and recent product launches, especially in Europe then with Evo and Elekta ONE, as well as also service growth and price increases also mainly for Europe. Adjusted gross margin was up a little bit year-over-year, driven primarily by these price increases for Europe. However, partly, or that offset then the negative currency effects and tariff costs year-over-year. Adjusted EBIT landed at 12.3% for the year, driven by said price increases and lower OpEx, of course then, due to the implementation of the new operating model, which allows us to run the company on a lower cost level. Adjusted EBITDA margin improved as well, but the improvement was a bit less than for the EBIT margin due to lower capitalization and higher amortization. Let's look at the fourth quarter in isolation. Sorry for this. Okay. I'll just continue talking and see if we can get the numbers up. Adjusted for currency, net sales declined 1%. Business momentum continued in Europe and sales also increased in Americas. However, this was fully offset by lower sales in APAC due to the Japanese market slowing down. Despite growth in China, during the fourth quarter, APAC sales dropped by 3% in constant exchange rates. Due to the ongoing conflict in Iran, sales in the Middle East were down a little bit also, and this hampered the total growth numbers for EMEA compared to last year then, despite the continued momentum that we see in Europe. In constant exchange rates solutions decreased sales by 2%, while service sales were unchanged compared to last year. Maybe I'll stop there before we move on. Should I continue, Peter? We have some problems here with the slideshow. Can the listeners hear? Yes. Yes? Okay. All right. Yes, the book-to-bill ratio was 0.96 in the fourth quarter, for reasons mentioned by Jakob here in the beginning of the call. Also for the full year, the book-to-bill ratio was 1.04 then. Gross order intake in the fourth quarter decreased by 15% in constant exchange rates. Gross order intake in the fourth quarter decreased by 15% for the reasons that Jakob mentioned. A decline in the Middle East, but also stricter policy for order intake recognition at Elekta. While these measures temporarily, of course, affected the book-to-bill ratio, they also reflect a more disciplined strategy, focused on improving our order quality without impacting our growth ambitions, of course, going forward. In the fourth quarter, adjusted gross income was SEK 1.9 billion, representing an adjusted gross margin of 39.9%. A slight decrease, mainly driven by changes in foreign exchange rates, while we saw improvements from price and product mix that contributed positively in the quarter. Tariff costs and strengthening of the Swedish krona against major currencies had a negative impact corresponding to a total amount of around SEK 200 million. Maybe also worth mentioning is that last year was favorably impacted by unusually strong software sales. That's something to keep in mind also when looking at the year-over-year comparison. Adjusted EBIT came in at SEK 902 million, representing a margin of 18.9%. The higher adjusted EBIT margin derived mainly from a lower cost base than due to changes to the operating model, as well as also lower R&D spend. What I mentioned in the beginning with, of course, price increases and all those things, they trickle down to the bottom line, of course. We also see a somewhat higher amortization and lower capitalization that offset some of those positive effects then. Reported EBIT amounted to minus SEK 461 million, representing a margin of -9.7%. The reason for the negative reported EBIT was the IAC, or the item affecting comparability, of SEK 1.4 billion that we booked now in the fourth quarter. Gross margin was impacted by items affecting comparability corresponding to about SEK 19 million. Most of the IAC can be found in OpEx and other operating income and expense. Right. We can go to the next one. Yes? Before we get into more details around the one-off items, a few words on currency then. FX had a negative impact on revenue of about -7%, mainly driven by the stronger SEK versus main revenue currencies, U.S. dollar and euro. The effect on COGS and OpEx, on the other hand, was favorable as the stronger SEK versus main cost currencies impacted the cost base favorably. We have some positive currency effects between gross margin and EBIT also deriving from realized and unrealized currency effects on the balance sheet. If we move to the next slide and we talk a little bit about the one-off item of SEK 1.4 billion. This amount is a combination of impairment of previously capitalized R&D costs, and goodwill, as well as provisions for other balance sheet items, mainly trade receivables. If we start with the trade receivables part here, we have done some provisions for specific projects, but it's mainly an update of the general model for expected credit losses. We're essentially adapting a bit more of a prudent approach to receivables that are long overdue, and in the balance sheet, we could see that these provisions have eroded over time, and we want to restore them back to more normal levels. The R&D impairment in Q4 is related to products that are no longer part of the strategic roadmap and that will not be launched. We also have examples where we have similar development projects that are being combined into one, and this means that we must give up some of the parallel development costs that are currently activated on the balance sheet. These decisions and the consequential impairments give us a balance sheet that is better aligned with current business assumptions and our strategy going forward. For competitive reasons, we will not disclose, of course, further details around which products, projects, or initiatives that we're talking about here, but we can say that with these adjustments, we have a balance sheet that is well in line with our strategic ambitions and that will help us build our commercial success going forward. The impairment of goodwill is related to the Kaiku business in Finland and the strategic decision to start to wind down that business. Can go to the next one. Cash flow after continuous investments amounted to Let's see. This is the full year, sorry. Yes. Or, sorry, for Q4, amounted to 1.1 billion SEK, including severance payments of approximately 160 million SEK in the quarter. The full year cash flow improved 336 million SEK to 1.4 billion SEK. The improvement year-over-year mainly is due to more favorable movements in working capital and lower investment levels. Let's say a few words about the dividend proposal related to the fiscal year of 2025, 2026. The board proposal to the AGM in August or September, can't remember, is an unchanged dividend of SEK 2.4 per share. This would equal SEK 917 million split in two installments as usual. That is the proposal to the AGM. Maybe on to a few comments on the EBITDA margin. You can see those numbers in the gray boxes at the bottom here under the graph. For five consecutive quarters, we now see an improvement in the 12-month rolling EBITDA margin, which is encouraging and something that we were focusing on when we assess the business. Great. A few final words on the outlook for 2026, 2027. We expect sales in constant currency to increase year-over-year. With that, we also expect an improvement in the EBIT margin. On our Capital Markets Day on June 17th, we will present more details related to midterm financial targets going forward. We will talk more then. Thank you. I hand back to you, Jakob, to close off the call. I'll do it very brief. We do see both full year and Q4, as you outlined, Klara, strong improvement in profitability. We are happy about that. It translated into cash. Keep in mind, we said that we wanted EBIT to be closer correlated to cash generation. It's being delivered upon, a reduction in it, that very important for us. We have done the balance sheet review. It will not impair our ability to grow and execute and deliver great products in the future. I personally would say short term, above all, we'll focus on improved profitability and create the foundation for innovation-driven growth. Very soon we will pivot towards pursue innovation-driven growth, and we will share that in greater details at the Capital Markets Day. Great. Thanks, Jakob. Thanks, Klara, for the presentation. We are now open for the Q&A session. Operator, we open that line now, so please. I think we have the first question from Hassan Al-Wakeel, Barclays. Yes. Thank you. Just a reminder for questioners, if you wish to ask a question, you may press star and one. The first question comes from Hassan Al-Wakeel from Barclays. Please go ahead. Good morning, Hassan. Good morning. Thank you. Morning. Thank you for taking my question. A couple, please. Yes. Can you talk about the order intake you're seeing in the U.S. and how customer conversations are progressing, particularly as it relates to changes in U.S. reimbursement, with level one to three reimbursement implemented earlier this year, and whether this is triggering lower revenues for centers and an elongation to replacement cycles? Secondly, on China, you talked previously about confidence of double-digit growth in H2, and beyond. Q4 looks to be slightly softer than that. What was different versus your expectations, and how do you consider the risk of new entrants in China impacting your ability to grow double digit, particularly given this is a market that isn't expected to contribute to growth for many other med tech companies? Thank you. Yeah, maybe I'll start China, then I get into the order intake and U.S. specifically. In China, it's absolutely right. On revenue, we came at 6% orders, 7% here in Q4, so that was slightly lower than double digit. It was one missed installation, so sometimes we operate at these margins. I do think we saw what we outlined, back to growth second half, so that's important. The market recovering, that's important. Strong market share, and we also expect to grow in this fiscal year. Specifically on new entrants, absolutely, it's there. We don't want to name them. You know them. We see a host of smaller struggling to really get a foothold, and then we have one larger. We compete, and I actually consider China being a good lab for strengthening the competitiveness of Elekta, because when we compete in China, we can also compete elsewhere. I outlined, when we look at units, we assess that last fiscal, we roughly had between 39% and 40% market share. If I then turn on to U.S. first on reimbursement, there's actually a reimbursement crisis within radiotherapy. We see a lot of independent clinics struggling. It's less an issue for us, I would say, first because we have not had our full share, secondly also because we worked a lot towards adapting the treatments, and there the reimbursement environment is actually much more favorable. You're well compensated when you do replans instead of one treatment with the same dose for 30 fractions. All in all, a challenge in the U.S., specifically for Elekta, we actually feel it serves us well. Does it then extend the buying cycle time? Yeah, maybe it does a little bit, but given where we are, we are less focused on what's happening in the market, but more focused on actually selling to existing and new customers and get back to our fair market share. Thanks, Jakob. Very helpful. Thank you. Thanks, Hassan. We'll move to next question, and that's from Mattias Vadsten at SEB. Good morning, Mattias. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Perfect. Good. Thanks for taking my questions. I have two. The first one, continuing on APAC, it was a bit surprising to me where it decreased in Q4. You're heading in the right direction in Q3, I thought, so if you can maybe comment on Japan, because you outlined that quite clearly, and I don't know if Japan is around 15% of APAC, so it must be a quite steep decline there. Maybe explain Japan a little bit in more detail. Yeah. The market in general is roughly 1,100 linacs in Japan. If you assume 15-year lifetime, you can expect how many will be purchased every year. We saw a dip relative to that equilibrium last year. The outlook, there's been change in the reimbursement code. The outlook is actually favorable this year, so we expect to bounce back. Just give you a little bit of color, I was with the head of JASTRO, the society in Japan, and there the outlook is from government that in 15 years we will see 24% more patients being treated by linear accelerators than today. The long-term potential is good in Japan. We saw both Japan, actually also Indonesia, where there's a big government tender being softer than what we expected. Yeah, it also surprised us a little bit, coming into 2025, 2026. Thanks. You had a second question, I think. Yes. Thanks for that answer. Very clear. It is this order criteria changes that you have, some questions to that. If you could give maybe some examples of orders that you no longer consider, what regions this is mainly relevant for. I guess in the end of the day, also, anything you can say to give a sense of the margin improvement you see by these initiatives is helpful for us, of course. I would say in Q3, orders were quite good, if I remember correctly, so and I guess you have had these initiatives then as well. Yeah, if you could comment on that a bit. Yeah. First I'll just direct you to the nominal order intake. You look at it year-over-year. I look at it also on nominal. As such, it was not a bad order intake, but obviously with the significant decline to Q4 last year. On order intake criteria, if I just speak at it broadly, we have for years seen that our order backlog grew much faster than revenue, and it became bigger and bigger to the point that we said we impair it. We also said we don't want to see that happening again. For private sector orders in general, we need a prepayment. We need a very clear site delivery. It really boils into we need to have high certainty that that order materialize into revenue within a three-year time period. We have, by the way, also on service orders, in general, tilted towards more yearly orders than multi-year orders. I'll just come back to, we did see some softness, particularly in the Middle East, and I can give you some specific examples. All in all, the way I encourage you to read it is that the order or book-to-bill of 1.04 is now indicative of future revenue growth. That's at least how we look at it, and we wanted to create a stronger link between what we report at order intake and what we expect as revenue going forward. On a very specific example, I can tell you, we got some deals we said no to every exception from the rule. Some of them, we actually got prepayments, but that was from the distributors, but we still didn't get pen to paper from the end user, then we said no. We have said no to end-year discounts. We have said no to airfreighting equipment in to install within the fiscal year. That's part of the commitment we have been very clear on. We want good quality of earnings. Thanks. Thanks, Mattias. Can I just have a quick follow-up? Sure. I think that's a very helpful answer. This that you said around yearly orders on the service side compared to multi-year orders, would you say it's a material impact on the order development that we see year-over-year? It depends a little bit from region to region. I would say in general, we think it's more favorable for Elekta to do single-year service contracts that we can then renew because the customer, I wouldn't say it's captive, but we typically have a long-lasting relationship. We have been very clear on, we don't want to incentivize a behavior within Elekta where there's an incentive to make a five, 10-year service agreement when it's better for the company to do a yearly. Over time, we will reflect on should we show the full order intake, or should we more show the solution order intake because it's actually more descriptive. Makes sense. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mattias. We'll move on to the next question. Erik Cassel at Danske Bank. Please, Erik, good morning. Hi. Good morning, everyone. I also want to talk a bit on orders and maybe start on the stricter acceptance criteria. Good color on it previously. I just wanted to see if we can try to single out what sort of effect that had. For one, if you can talk about the solutions part of it, what sort of orders did you, say, decline to book now, and on what basis, and what was the impact? Also then on service, what was the service impact of it all? Any sort of color on that I think would be super helpful today. Yeah. I think I gave a lot of color towards Mattias. Just in general, we just say no to all orders, recognizing them in our book-to-bill. They are part of our funnel if they don't live up to the criteria. I believe I also said now half a year ago that we hold our regional managers highly accountable to that orders coming in should materialize to revenue because we incentivize not them, but salespeople on orders. Of course, if you pay commission, you expect revenue. Yeah. I appreciate that you gave a good qualitative color on it. I was just more asking on the numbers side, if you can say anything on numbers, what the actual impact was so we can sort of distinguish between what was more market-driven, so to speak. Yeah, I think the best, or it doesn't directly answer, but I think the best guide we give you here is that we have worked fairly hard on getting an order intake that is more descriptive of future revenue growth. In the past, we saw a CAGR significantly higher for order intake than materialized revenue, and that's not a sign of a healthy order backlog. The way we look at it, we look at it distinctly from service, from software, from solution, but we don't share these numbers here. Maybe we will consider it going forward, but we don't here. Okay. Fair. Just a quick follow-up on the service yearly instead. I was just wondering, does that open up for competitive tendering on the service side of your business every year? Or do you still have some sort of, I guess, multi-year agreements on it to make sure that you actually get continuous service? In many regions, we in general see a very high, what we call service attachment rate, close to 100% in the mature market, less so in developing market. Then we have certain perspective on how to increase that service attachment rate, both within our product and in our commercial execution. I actually feel we have untapped potential in the service area. Okay, just last question then. I saw that the regional adjusted margins were down quite a bit, obviously global costs were down dramatically year-over-year. I was just trying to reconcile if there is any sort of change in reporting now that you're running a more decentralized business, or costs are just moved around, or are there any non-recurring items you can talk about in terms of central costs when it comes to, say, more hedging, et cetera, so we can understand that a bit more? Yeah. The Q4, I understand, and it's a good catch. It's a little bit of transition quarter. We changed a lot of reporting lines the 1st of February, and that then linked into cost centers. We have a number of global functions now being decentralized into regions. It's really the total number you can look at. When we look at it, we can just say costs have come down very, very significantly, both supporting our gross margin, because we actually had bill of material increase, but that was strongly compensated by service and installation efficiency. Then obviously on OpEx and what I said in the beginning stands, of course, that we expect now the cost savings to significantly exceed SEK 500 million. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I'll jump back in queue. Thanks, Erik. Next question is from Ludvig Germunder at Handelsbanken. Good morning, Ludvig. Good morning, Ludvig Germunder from Handelsbanken. I'd like to start with a more general question on the cost savings and pick up on where you ended there, Jakob. You've been talking about those SEK 500 million in annualized savings before, and now you're predicting, I think, that you expect cost savings to exceed the SEK 500 million. Would it be possible to give any number of how much you expect them to exceed the SEK 500 million? As a second question to that part, since you mentioned that a significant share of those were realized already now in Q4, would you be willing to give any sort of ballpark number what the significant share is equal to? Yeah. I think we would like to reserve that for our CMD. That's our thinking, because then we very quickly get into a more detailed guide for the year, and we think it's important we deliver that as a total package. I think we take a step in that direction by saying that a significant part has been achieved in Q4. We saw that accelerating throughout the quarter, that I can say. We do expect the amount to significantly exceed the SEK 500 million. We are ahead of plan actually on it. Most importantly, Ludvig, if I just come back to, we did it really to accelerate the pace of the company. I see that's happening throughout the company. We'll give you a very detailed OpEx, but we feel good about where we are. That's of course also evidenced in what we report in EBITDA. It's quite a big improvement year-on-year by 4.5%. A lot of it stems from these operational efficiencies. Okay. I see. Thank you. Just one more question, please, on the impairments that you take in the quarter. Would you be willing to give me any comment around why you're doing this now and not together with the order book write-down back in Q2, for example? I'm just trying to understand what's happened now and how to think about how things are going. All right. Yeah. I'll do it very short and then to you, Klara. The reason why we did it now was really coming into the company, first priority was on order intake. I do think we have guided that we wanted to improve quality of earnings. I wanted a new CFO in who could look at the balance sheet with a fresh perspective. That was one of the first assignments you got. We had your view, Klara. Yeah. No, exactly. As a new CFO, I think it made sense to do that as part of me coming on board. I wasn't here when you did the right sizing of the order backlog. Just a quick follow-up, if I may. How does this impairment now change the R&D amortization levels going forward? How should we think about that? They will go down a little bit, but the amortization levels are also, of course, dependent on what products that we commercialize, and so going forward. It's a give and take, but if you just look at the effect from the write-downs now, there is a small effect on the amortization going forward. Also some of the write-downs that we did are related to things that were not set to start to amortize. It was set to start to amortize in a few years also, so it's hard to be super specific on that. Of course, a small effect, yes. I think you should model that capitalization will equal amortization. That's at least our base assumption. Okay. Thanks, Ludvig. Thank you for that. I'll get back into the queue. Yep. Do that. We will have Kavya Deshpande from UBS coming up here. Morning, Kavya. Morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Two from me, please. The first one, the order review, sorry, the order criteria. Am I correct that it was newly applied in Q4? Is it stricter than the criteria that had led to the previous backlog cancellations? That we've seen over the last 12 months. If so, could we see a further review of the backlog going forward? The second question was on service revenue growth. By region, it looks in the Americas, it was flat in constant currencies, despite a very weak comp. Is there anything to call out specifically for America's service sales growth in Q4? Thank you. No, same criteria that has been applied throughout the year, I would say. Same criteria, same interpretation. Those criteria were not to the same extent in place Q4 last year, hence part of the comp difference. We did get fewer orders than expected, particularly in the Middle East. On the service side, we do show overall growth for the company. I don't have specific comments on the U.S. Understood. Thank you very much. Thanks. We'll move to the next question, from Veronika Dubajova at Citi. Good morning, Veronika. Good morning. It's Van Nguyen from Citi on behalf of Veronika. Okay, good. Thanks for taking my questions. I have two, please, and one modeling follow-up for Klara, if I may. The first question is, and apologies, back on the order intake growth, can you comment on the dynamics in order intake in Q4 outside the Middle East and Southeast Asia? The U.S., we talked about it, but how about EMEA, ex Middle East, and the rest of APAC? The second question is related to the reduction in absolute R&D spend. What was behind it in the quarter, and what's your outlook for growth R&D going forward? Then I will ask my follow-up for Klara after. Thanks. Yeah. We did have substantial impact by specific orders in specific North African, Middle East countries that led to lower than what we expected order intake in Q4. Then, as I said, it really also linked into fairly firm interpretation of what we put in the order backlog. I'll come back to what I've said, that with the order backlog, it's now a more appropriate guide for future revenue growth. That's where I would say we are on the order backlog. Yeah, what was the second question again? That was on R&D spend. Oh, yeah. R&D spend. Yeah. I don't want to give a guide for next year, but part of our OpEx savings is linked to a more focused R&D strategy and more R&D efficiencies. We have been also delevering and setting up a new organizational structure within R&D, that reduces the overall R&D spend. We still expect to maintain a very healthy and high R&D spend, gross spend, in percentage of revenue, because we can see there's a lot of innovation to be harvested. And then you had a- Okay, thanks. detail question, Yes. Yeah. Yeah. For Klara, if I could, can you provide any color on the FX impact for fiscal 2026, 2027 on revenues and also through the margin growth and EBIT margin, please? Yes. For the full year of Sorry, you mean the full year 2025, 2026? You mean the quarter, right? No, sorry. For the coming fiscal year. For the coming fiscal year. No, I don't think we speculate in currency effects going forward. Is that okay, Peter, to say that? Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thanks. We'll move to Oliver Reinberg at Kepler. Good morning, Oliver. Hi. Good morning, guys. Three questions from my side. Firstly, just on inflation and tariffs, can you provide a bit of color what you have in mind in terms of the inflation impact for the new upcoming year, and whether tariffs are still a headwind or potential tailwind? Any kind of quantified guidance would be helpful. Secondly, on services, it's usually a stable growth driver. We had, I think, overall globally now, flat sales in Q4. Also, the full year was a bit more moderate with 3% growth only, while normally pricing should provide a support. I assume there's not any kind of larger impact from moving from multi-year to single-year contracts, but any kind of color on that would be great. Thirdly, just checking, it sounded like on the outlook for this year, which is a bit vague, can we actually expect this to become more granular as part of the CMD? Thank you. You want to start? Yeah, absolutely. When we look at inflation, it has two dimensions, cost and price. We clearly see on cost a certain inflationary impact from logistics. We put tungsten in our machine. Price have come up a bit, now it's dropped by 55%, by the way. Also other microchips that we put and apply in our software also. We are under pressure on the bill of material, but we expect to offset that by operational execution and then price increases throughout the system. It goes back to the point I said on price discipline. We really come in with some very strong floor pricing requirement and margin requirement. On service growth, yeah, we have 3% growth. You can say it's modest, but it's a service growth, and in general, our business is on the service side predictable. Many of our contracts have a CPI clause. Those who do not have, we will review and renegotiate, because cost is coming up. We don't want to be further specific on the outlook, except we'll come back to that at CMD, where we hope to be more granular, or we expect to be more granular on this year and our midterm target. Great. Thanks, Oliver. We'll move to the next question from Kristofer Liljeberg at Carnegie. Good morning, Kristofer. Good morning. Just one question on orders and these more stricter criteria. Could you comment on what you think the average time now from order to sales is? The reason I'm asking is your comment also that the book-to-bill of 1.04 is a better indication of sales growth. Would that imply that you could grow 4% or so in the new fiscal year? Yeah, as I said, we don't want to give the guide for this fiscal year until we meet on the 17th of June. Book to bill, it actually varies a lot from region. If we take our Asia Pacific region, it's faster. It's actually a little bit longer in more mature markets. Give and take, 12 month. As I said, there are quite significant regional differences. You good with that, Kristofer? Yeah, sorry, I was muted. You think it's fair to assume that orders that have been booked now this fiscal year is a better indication of sales growth in the new fiscal year than it has been for many years? I remember if you go back a long time, that was a pretty good indication, but it hasn't been for at least 10 years, maybe more. Yeah. It's not a guide, but as I said, part of our quality of earnings is to make sure we have a backlog that is actually a better indicator for future revenue growth. That's really the purpose of disclosing it. What I can say, it's a better guide than prior years. Okay. Thank you. We will share the specific guide with you when we meet on 17th of June. Great. Thanks, Jakob. We are now open for the last question for this session, and that's from Sten Gustafsson at ABG Sundal Collier. So please, and good morning, Sten. Yes, good morning. A lot of good questions on the order criteria. I think we can maybe move to something else. In terms of sales, and just to clarify, you said something like, your sales growth for the quarter would have been in line with previous quarters if it wasn't for the Middle East. Can you confirm that I heard that correctly, and preferably also maybe quantify what you're referring to? Is that 2% or something like that? I think we would have been 1%, 2% organic growth if we didn't have specific projects being delayed in the Middle East. Okay, perfect. Thank you. My last question would be, do you think that some clients, mainly in the U.S. or other regions, are hesitant to book Evo until they see the new Siemens machine coming out during the fall, or expected to be launched in the fall? It's not what we see, Sten. We see our funnel, our orders, developing as per plan. Keep in mind, we come from a small base, so we are the challenger, not the incumbent. There is a strong systemic demand for having vendor competition in the U.S. We actually just don't see it play out, and that's why we also call out here, we expect double-digit order growth in the U.S. for this fiscal. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thanks, Sten. That concludes the Q&A session for the Q4 earnings call. Maybe, Jakob, some final remarks before we close the call? Yeah. We closed the year. It has been an eventful year. I think a lot has been achieved. We, as I started out by saying, we are not at full potential. We are not happy with the top line growth, Middle East or not Middle East, but it was in line with our plan because we have focused on reset and stabilize. Now we need to improve the underlying profitability. Here, I will say the quarter is a significant step in that direction. We see a very significant EBITDA uptick from Q4 last year. We see that translate into cash flow. We see our net debt coming down. As I also ended up by saying, long term for Elekta to be at full potential, we need to grow at or above the market. Great. Thank you, Jakob, and thank you, Klara, for the first presentation here at this call. By that, we close the call. I look forward to see you all at the CMD in Stockholm on June 17th. There are still opportunities to sign up for that on our webpage, so please do that, and it's going to be an exciting event. Thank you, and goodbye.