A warm welcome to you all, and I mean every single one of you. I've been just outside speaking to you, some of you waiting in the lines outside. We apologize for the delays, but I think most people have made their way into this hall now. It is a great pleasure indeed to be able to continue with this so-called investor dialogue today at the China Theater. It's the first time we hold our AGM here. It's a very pleasant premises, and I hope you will all agree with me. Johan and I intend to do our very best to answer your questions under the auspices of our Head of Corporate Communication and Sustainability, Viveka. A warm welcome to every one of you. We've many shareholders here today. We have shareholders and others who are attending this dialogue digitally as well. That could be good to know. A special warm welcome to all those of you who are present digitally. We're going to have a Q&A session with Jakob Wallenberg and Johan Forssell for the next 45 minutes or so, the floor is open to put any question you may wish to any of our speakers. You raise your hand if you'd like to ask a question, please wait while one of our hosts or officials will bring you a roving microphone. We'd appreciate if you would begin by introducing yourself, then Jakob or Johan will answer your question. While you think about the question you would like to put to one or both of them, I'm going to kickstart this. We expect a high degree of activity from the whole audience here. To you both, first of all, this is a very particular year we leave behind us now, a year where we've had a pandemic over the past few years, a war in our proximity, disruptions in supply chains, inflation for the first time in many years now. Jakob, could you tell us a little bit about your perspective on all of this? Well, first of all, let me break away from any scripted focus to look directly at the camera, because I would like to turn to all those of you who are with us digitally online. We're very pleased to have you involved, and we'll try and bear this in mind throughout the dialogue. Back to your question, two things that cross my mind thinking of the past year or few years. We're currently living in a much more complicated world today than what all of us here today and with us online have become accustomed to, really since the 1950s onwards. Globalization, free trade, which Sweden is so reliant and dependent on, all of this has been encouraged, and it has laid the best possible foundation for entrepreneurship and businesses. We have all of these challenges combined with geopolitics, not least, of course, and technical developments, artificial intelligence, digitization. We can enter into all of that a little bit later, but all of this leads to a situation where it's more challenging and more difficult to run a business. What's really impressed me, if I can just add this straight away, is how the businesses in our portfolio have managed to relate to and deal with all of these rapid changes and continue to deliver good performance, both in terms of sales, in product development, and in cost control. That is not something you can be successful in unless you very carefully thought of how you wish to run your business. Myself, and I'm sure Johan as well, are very grateful to all of them for that accomplishment. Johan, turning to you. From a corporate perspective and a business community and entrepreneurship perspective, should one be pessimist or an optimist, or how do we interact with all our companies under these circumstances? Thank you. As you know, it's a very difficult question to give a straight answer to. As Jakob mentioned, we have identified many challenges. Both Viveka and Jakob have mentioned some of them already. Another major one they didn't mention is the difficult situation that central banks in the world globally find themselves in now. Inflation needs to be combated and brought down while not killing the economy, and it's a difficult balancing act that they need to manage. A positive angle before we move on to the issue of the future, we do see that it's not just challenges and negative things happening. We see many positives as well. Technological developments, Jakob mentioned, for example, opening up many new opportunities. When we look at the first quarter for our companies, the supply chains, the disruptions that we've seen over a long period of time are seemingly decreasing in numbers. Fewer, smaller disruptions, improving the efficiency of all our companies. When we look at our fully owned companies in Patricia and our listed companies, we see that generally speaking, we've reported very strong figures for the first part of this year. The situation is looking up. What does this entail when we gaze into the future? I would say that uncertainty. Well, there is always uncertainty, of course, but I would say that uncertainty is probably a lot greater than usual. I say this because many fear that we will move into a tougher downturn in the business cycle, whilst at the same time we have the concerns of, over interest rates and over inflation. It's difficult to know how it's going to all play out. As entrepreneurs, what do we focus on? Well, it's about talking close, working close to and working with the companies, being humble, saying that we don't know exactly where we're headed in this world, but we need to be prepared for different scenarios. If we see a weakening in the economy, we take one type of action. If we see some other development, we take other actions. Flexibility is a key concept, being very close to the markets to monitor what's happening. I'm trying to look to see if I see any arms raised in the air. I see several over here, starting with at microphone point number one. My name is Bengt Jonasson. A simple question. There is a very annoying spotlight that is shining straight into our eyes. Could it be turned off so that we could enjoy what is happening on stage? Well, we will try. I'm afraid that maybe we cannot improve the lighting situation. We'll see what we can do. For now, we move to microphone station number eight. Well, my name is Ole Åberg. Investor has been saying that they're active owners in the companies where they are. Ericsson, for example, I'm not sure about the active ownership because we've had two years where the board has been denied discharge, you're on the nomination committee. What is your plan for getting things in proper order in Ericsson? Because it seems they are doing self-harm nowadays. We'll start with Jakob and then Johan. Well, I begin. As many of you know already, I'm on the Ericsson board, I've been there for many, many years. Your question is incredibly important, I have to say. I cannot see you because I also have a spotlight shining straight into my eyes. I apologize. I'm of the opinion that the problems, we all know that there have been problems linked to Ericsson. Number one, it's not acceptable at all what we have seen. It may not happen in our companies, this is something that we're working actively with, not just in Ericsson, also other companies as well. We're talking about things that happened before Börje Ekholm came on board, that has media decided to forget about. That is the case. Börje Ekholm and the management team, since he came on board, they have been working very actively with addressing these types of shortcomings. They've been working with identifying possible problems that have been in the past, they have submitted that type of information to government agencies so that all rules and regulations are complied with. I'm not going to go into any detail about the DOJ and that relationship, but I can say that the Department of Justice, those two cases that we have had more recently where there have been fines imposed, both of those instances have been non-criminal instances. One, where Ericsson did not submit administrative information in a proper manner and in proper time. It didn't have anything to do with misdoings in Iraq. That goes way back. To conclude, let me just stress that Ericsson said publicly that the TV show, Uppdrag Granskning, well, they did a big thing out of this, and they're even saying that there was bribery with money given to IS. There was an internal report what was being used by Uppdrag Granskning, and Ericsson in that report said it might be that there was some bribery. Now, for three years, they've been working actively, and U.S. government agents have also been working actively, and no one has been able to find any information that is proving or giving substance to what Uppdrag Granskning has presented as facts. Historic information, Börje Ekholm is not accepting any such behavior. He's doing all he can to develop the company in line with the value foundation that we have within Investor, and this work continues. I may add, because I'm the chair of the nomination committee of Ericsson. My task is to ensure that Ericsson has the best possible board of directors. I want to say that I've been with Investor for almost three decades. Over all these years, I have seen that now and then there is a company that ends up in a difficult situation. ABB, asbestos, SEB, the financial crisis, et cetera. Long-term shareholders as we are, we have to make sure that we can get through turbulent times and continue to develop. We have, in these examples that I've mentioned, we have seen that this is something that is profitable for us. When we are there trying to find the best possible board of directors for Ericsson, well, of course, there has to be continuity because there is a lot of skills and competences with those current directors. To just toss them out and find new people, we think that would be the wrong thing to do because we need long-term value creation. We've also worked very hard with finding the next chair. Now it's Jan Carlson. We've also worked very hard in order to find people with the right skills and competencies where we feel that, well, the board needed more of these competencies. For example, Christy Wyatt that now been brought onto the board, and she has been in California working with securities, among other things. We think that she can truly contribute to what Ericsson is now focusing on, and we need to take all those various aspects into consideration. We try the best we can all the time to ensure that we have strong board of directors, and we feel that we have such a strong board of directors within Ericsson. This is an opinion shared by all four major shareholders. Thank you. We will then continue with microphone station number five. No? We go to number one. Martin N Andersson from Lund. Our family has for decades been shareholders, and we've seen excellent returns. We'd like to express our debt of gratitude to senior management and the board of directors. You're very skillful, all of you. Here's a question, and it does not have to do with Electrolux. It's rather Stora Enso. Stora Enso is Scandinavian best forest company, and once it was in Investor AB's portfolio. Is there anything to suggest that Stora Enso will be returned to Investor AB's portfolio? And what would be the arguments against it? Stora Enso's business idea is very much moving with the times, a business focus on the future. Is there an opening there? Thank you. Let me first of all say that as of 2001, it is no longer in our portfolio. We've made the assessment that we have a number of areas where we consider Investor that we have good skills and the necessary network to develop companies further in health, in industrial technology, some other additional tech areas, and the financial sector. We have no plans currently to move into pulp and paper and forestry from our perspective. We have a sibling company which is very involved in Stora Enso, so I think I'll hand over to you. Yes. Well, we note that Stora Enso is where it is currently, and we do of course agree with you. It's a leading company after all, and it has a very interesting idea for the future, not least in the area of sustainability. Today, in fact, they can make almost transparent plastic-like materials, although it's wood fiber. It's extraordinary to be able to develop alternative products, options, alternatives to oil-based products using forest raw material, for example. It's in another company, and I don't think we'll see any business amongst us. Thank you. Microphone number eight then, up above us. Knut Sandberg is my name. I have a question about Electrolux. The last 10 years, the company has deteriorated, last year was not different. What will happen? Will you replace the CEO, the board of directors? When it comes to Electrolux, if we take one step back, I have to say that they have made a couple of good strategic decisions. For example, with Husqvarna when that was a spin-off, also Electrolux Professional. We are major owners in both of these companies. What we have in Electrolux, the consumer business, well, it is correct that the development we saw last year was not satisfactory. This has to do with two things, one being demand that was weakened in Europe and in the U.S. alike. The other explanation, which is worse, is that there are some inefficiencies internally. Our focus as an owner is to give support to the management team and support them so that they can get back to profitability, because that is priority number one, profitability and cash flow. We talk about stability growth. That is what it's about. Now it's about profitability in Electrolux. We have to get that back. What needs to be done? Well, one, if you have shrinking volumes, as they've seen, you have to work on the cost side. They're working with reducing that with some SEK 4 billion-SEK 5 billion. Next year they plan to be at a level where they will save some SEK 7 billion. Another important component is that they have built two factories in the U.S. It's about automation, modernization of manufacturing of new products. Here we can only say that the beginning of that hasn't been good enough. It's now about phasing in these new factories in a proper manner. There is a third component as well. If you want to get profitability up, you also have to look at some revenue that would be possible. Here, Electrolux, they have their aftermarket business that is today kind of limited, but it's also a part of the business where they're making a lot more money compared to just selling fridges or stoves. That is also why they now have a plan to grow that part of the business. We, Investor, we are supporting what is being done, and that is what is our focus. Now, station number two. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to delete a number of questions I had here, I'm going to put a question to you about Ericsson. In all solemn addresses, we hear that there's an absolute and complete no to bribes. As I see it, if you want to operate in some parts of the world, you need to abide by the conditions that exist in reality. That's what it's like to be active, live in various parts. What might it cost Ericsson now that they are in the hands of the U.S. Department of Justice? How is Ericsson's profitability likely to develop as a result? Of course, also the question concerning the fact that a discharge from liability is not granted to the board of directors, moments later, the board of directors are reelected as a whole. Are there no questions from abroad about this? I heard previously in Fermenta situation, I remember that Chen Jinghe, the President and Chief Executive Officer, was not granted discharge from liability, and still Rolf Nordström immediately reinstated him on the board of directors, as opposed to our chair. Rolf Nordström was possibly not quite as serious in his approach. What's the perspective on all of this? I assume that this is noted with a raised eyebrow, at least abroad. The question is, how high are they raised? What about SAS, where there's no more interest in pumping SEK 1 million after another into a sinking ship or plane, in fact, which is about to crash-land. Is it even possible to salvage SAS? What does the situation look like? It was said that Lufthansa nurtured some plans to place a bid. That interest appears to have dissipated. I have some contacts in aviation, in fact. I have understood that the overhead costs in SAS are way too high. The attempts should have been made to reduce them a long time ago already. Here, there is a serious case of neglect, as I see it. Thank you. Just three brief comments, then I am going to hand over to Jakob. First of all, when it comes to unethical behavior and corruption, we are crystal clear from Investor's perspective. We have an absolute zero tolerance level in relation to all our companies. SAS, we do not own SAS. I am going to pass on that one. Voting against granting this charge from liability and still voting to reinstate a board of directors is counterintuitive to me, too. If you vote somebody onto the board, you need to also show that you have faith and trust in them. Ericsson, bribes. You asked whether you still have to expect to pay somewhere in some places in the world. No, this is entirely unacceptable. This is international standards today. It mustn't occur. It's based not least on the fact that in the U.S., they've introduced a system where the jurisdiction in the U.S. is applicable to the whole world. This means that from a U.S. perspective, as soon as you work with U.S. dollars or you're listed in the U.S., or your company is listed in the U.S., they may prosecute you as an individual. It means that you cannot take the risk of committing an error somewhere else in the world because you might get caught and brought to justice in the U.S. as a result. This has had far-reaching consequences, and people understand. They realize that it's just not acceptable. As Johan said, it's an absolutely fundamental value in as far as we're concerned. The Department of Justice costs are known already. Ericsson has, on the one hand, already paid fines historically for bribery. Then they've also paid a smaller fine for the two shortcomings, which were of an administrative nature that I mentioned earlier. To our knowledge, there are no additional outstanding costs relating to United States Department of Justice. The Ericsson profitability comments have been made by the company themselves. They are in a downturn currently because U.S. volumes are dropping with where we have seen higher margins. India and other emerging markets are growing, but margins are lower. The company has a very positive outlook on the future. Speaking of Ericsson, I forgot to mention earlier, so I'll take this opportunity now. Everyone in here is the full understanding of and the impression that Ericsson did not answer questions because that's what we've seen in the press and media everywhere, and in particular, when it comes to Department of Justice, back to Torval's question. Here's the situation. The company was not permitted to reply. Instructed by the Department of Justice, media knew this, they chose to intentionally disregard it. I'm quite critical to the way media has dealt with the situation. This is an excellent opportunity to at least state clearly that the company was not free. They were not at liberty to speak freely, and they were not permitted to respond to questions of detail from media. The questions were highly relevant, no question about that. Everybody wanted an answer to that, the company was not permitted to reply. Now they can give somewhat more extensive answers, and they do so. SAS, finally, it's not a company owned by Investor. I have been involved there for many years. I know that the process the company is going through right now, it's an administrative procedure under so-called Chapter 11. The idea is that when they come out on the other side, it's going to be a company with new balance sheet, new agreements with the employees, laying the basis for competition on equal terms, on an equal footing with other companies. I believe we have a question at station number six. Annette Rogers. The last two years, I've been living in China. I'm curious about what challenges and opportunities you see in China for your companies. Perhaps both of you will want to reply. Well, of course, it differs a lot between companies and sectors. If we look at the big global companies that we have that have a big presence there, ABB, Atlas Copco, et cetera, we see that there has been a recovery after the pandemic when, well, things have been eased up. That is what we see in a shorter perspective. We also see an important structural issue that has to do with how to structure your value chain in a company. Here I can say that very often we see that companies will make their activities more regionally based. Companies invest significantly right now, for example, in the United States of America for those customers, but they also invest significant amounts in China. Both those things are being done. You may ask, what will this mean with globalization? Have we seen the end of it? I do not think so. We'll continue to do trade globally, at the same time, we'll see an increase in regionalization because there's a wish for increased resilience. I feel that if you're a bit more regional, you also create a better climate footprint, which is better for societies. That is what we see right now. And if I now look at this question from another angle, China, that entire issue basically is an issue about the relationship USA to, China, geopolitics, where the U.S. has decided that China is a threat. Security policy, we may leave that aside, also financially, where the opinion is that China, by being successful financially, will become a challenger and will challenge the U.S. leadership in the world, which means that we have a polarity. We have these two strong forces today that are opposed to each other. Two reflections from me. The EU, we are actually dependent on the European Union, this is very, very important to us in Sweden. The EU has to find its role and how to act towards China compared to the U.S. They're moving away from China. I am of the opinion that we need to find a way to have a dialogue with China, in spite of the shortcomings that are there when it comes to human rights and how foreign companies are being treated. There should be equal conditions compared to Chinese companies, this is something that some say is a problem. EU needs to find a proper role. What Johan said, well, individual companies, they have to find their way to work. This is something important. China is becoming the biggest economy in the world, we're dependent on them. They're dependent on us. We have to find a way to be able to discuss with each other, have a dialogue with each other. That will probably mean that we'll treat Eastern Asia in one way, then we'll have Europe and then the Americas, and we'll have different methods vis-à-vis them, depending on cultures, geopolitical aspects, et cetera. I mentioned beginning here that this is one of the big changes that we see in the world today. It's also something for companies to address and to think about when working with a forward-looking perspective. Right now it's something that makes things kind of complex. We have many questions, and we'll continue with microphone number two. Oscar Andemo is my name. AI and ChatGPT change a lot, too, in the ways we work. I spoke to a programmer, the other day. He said he could triple his productivity. As a small business owner, this is quite easy to implement. What do the bigger companies do to implement all this? Generally, what's your view on AI? The two global trends we see right now are the climate transition and technological transition. If you start from that perspective, whether it's big or small company, a lot remains to be done. Just managing all the data that companies today can collect is an enormous task. A lot more can be improved in data management alone. The technological opportunities to produce smarter products for customers, and connecting these products to improve your service offering is another step. The ChatGPT that you mentioned comes in as the next step. There, in many industrial companies, they're only at a very early phase, but a lot of different technologies are out there. That is one, but from my perspective, I would say that technology as a sector, as a segment, is an area where a lot remains to be done. Some companies have made some progress, but a lot remains to be done, basically for all companies. It's important for us as owners to continue to support our companies, invest a lot of money where needed in this important area. What we try to do is in line with what Johan points to. In relation to the individual companies, we're talking about future-proofing. Those are the two main areas we focus on. Sustainability, it is so very fundamental, so that it needs to be a driver for all individual companies, and then digitization/AI, artificial intelligence, as the second pro- component. It's important to the individual company to avail themselves of all the existing knowledge, but you need to also do it in relation to competitors who are also learning about this, of course. The importance of ensuring that individual companies are at the forefront is very important. We do this through general dialogues with companies, with board representatives. You try to broach the subject, address it, and then we have direct dialogues with CEOs and Chairmens of the Board, boards a few times a year in a more focused manner, and this has become perhaps the single most important issue to discuss in that context. I'd like to underline, in fact, that sustainability is something we can all take to heart. It's quite tangible, and it has become quite a simple process to get full support and understanding in the companies for the need to do sustainability. When it comes to digitization and artificial intelligence, it's more complex a task because it is more complicated. Most of us sitting in here are not software programmers. If we'd had a group of 20-year-olds, quite a number of them would have been, in fact. Young people's knowledge is high. Those of us who are a little bit older, we know a great deal less, and it's the same in companies, of course. There are fewer people who know this, and that's why it's more difficult to get the full impact. We all understand the importance, but you have to move from words to deeds, to action. Just an addition, the main focus, as Jakob says, is to drive these issues and awareness in individual companies, but we also have a major advantage in Investor. We have non-competing businesses. Our businesses do not compete mutual. We don't own both Epiroc and Sandvik, for example, to take one simple example, and that's a real benefit because it means that we can bring together key individuals in our companies and let them have an exchange of experience in these important areas, be it sustainability, technological transition, or for that matter, China. Here, we have quite a number of fora. Viveka, for example, is involved in the sustainability forum together with all of our companies. Jakob and I invite chairman twice a year in all our companies. We discuss important areas. China, for example, has been one topic for discussion. We can share experience, discuss important issues, and it's a very crucial part of our business model. We don't know everything at Investor, we realize this, but there are many companies who bring a lot of experience to the table, and we can learn from each other. Microphone number five. My name is Matts Broman. I have a question having to do with something that's kind of unpleasant in developments. We see American advisory services where they encourage big owners who buy stock in Swedish companies, and then they're being encouraged to use this to not grant a discharge. This is something that I feel is problematic for the ownership structures, and it's very unpleasant. It gives a very unpleasant feeling because this is one of the preconditions we have here in Sweden. This is why we've been able to develop nice companies. We've been able to bring capital into companies While maintaining the ownership structure. Do you have any reactions and any plans on how you will react to this very unpleasant development where I feel that this is abusing our legislation? With 10%, of the votes, you can totally ruin this structure, and it's basically terrorizing the companies by refusing discharge. With something that is, well, reasons being very abstract. Jakob, you addressed this in the annual report in the letter from the chair, and perhaps you wanted to start. Yes, I can start, and then maybe Johan wants to continue about discharge. Let me take one step back. We have an American organization, ISS, and they give advice to owners, pension funds, et cetera, that are not located in Sweden, and they give advice as to how these administrators are to vote, for example, at the Investor annual general meeting. It said that if a company has class A and class B shares, then you should not grant a discharge. You shouldn't vote in favor of discharge because ISS, they feel that Class A and Class B shares is something that is bad. I say that the reason why we have this differentiation, where we have some shares that have one vote, others that have 10, well, this is something that has to do with shareholders and the freedom to contract that we have in Sweden, where all shareholders have agreed that we are to have a differentiation between classes of shares, where everyone can vote, that has been voted on and signed. This is a basic fundamental principle, and you might want it to be able to use it, for example, when you have a company that's started and the entrepreneurs, they want to have the control, but they need to bring in capital. This we've seen in many different situations in Sweden. We feel, Investor, we feel that this is something that is, in principle, deplorable, this proposal, because we have an agreement that has been entered into. ISS, they want us to be in breach of that agreement because they do not like a differentiation between different classes of shares. We are working against that together with other organizations, other investment companies in Swedish business. We're working towards politicians, and this is something that we've been working with for some 20 years now. Now it has been highlighted again, and that is thanks to the actions of ISS. Johan, and discharge, let me stress that this is something that is a horrific, unfortunate proposal. If we talk about discharge, like you said, this is a very important way to protect minorities in a Swedish ownership model. If there is a reason to be able to address claims for damages towards a board of directors that has misused their position, then you should have that possibility to not grant a discharge. To talk about in this context, it's ridiculous because there is no basis, no foundation for such claims for damages. You're holding a board of directors hostages when the board of directors has nothing they can do because this is a contract between shareholders, and it's the shareholders who have that decision-making, so it's a very poor proposal. Well, we're running out of time, but one more question, station number three. Bo Olsson is my name. Hello. I have a couple of questions. In 2015, actually, I asked questions before 2015. I had a question for Johan, for example, on what to do with Electrolux, and now I've understood that things are happening indeed in Electrolux. I had worked in China for a number of years at that point for the furniture companies beginning with I and ending with A, and I had seen the development they had for their appliances sales, and I think reality was catching up, and it's time to sell off parts of Electrolux and maybe top up the coffers. Who knows? Johan? Well, I'll just comment to say that currently our focus, is fully and entirely to work together and support senior management and the board of directors to raise value creation, raise the revenue. We're going to have one final question from speaking point number eight up above. Sverre Linton from the Shareholders Association Aktiespararna. Thank you for giving me the last question of the day. Electrolux has been addressed already by many, and they've been addressed in rumors a year and a half for, well, the last weeks. Sobi and what happened a year and a half ago, where you've, were in favor of that proposal. Now Sobi, is it a long-term holding, or are you waiting for a new proposal? Well, we were clear back then that you cannot be either/or. We said immediately that we'll take the responsibility, we'll be the main owner, we will develop the company, we'll work forcefully in that direction. I have to say that looking at the developments with the management team now, they have been successful in developing the base activities, hemophilia. At the same time, they've been able to grow other products so that they've been able to develop the product portfolio of the company, and we're happy with what we've seen. Thank you. We will soon begin our annual general meeting. Therefore, we now wanted to say thank you for questions, all the different questions, the bit different questions, and a few final words for our shareholders. Thank you. I'd like to say exactly the same as I said when we started. We're pleased to see that so many of you have chosen to join us here today. I very much believe in a more personal contact like this one, and that a shareholding at the level of individuals is something we very much appreciate. We are the company with 540,000 shareholders, the largest number. You are only a fraction of all those shareholders, of course. Clearly, we have become popular, a popular choice as a share to buy, and we're very proud of that with a portfolio of excellent companies that represent Sweden in so many ways. Thank you to all of you. Thank you. Thank you specifically to those who've attended remotely as well. At 3:00 P.M. the annual general meeting of shareholders will begin. And to those of you who are here, have a look in your paper bags. There might be something to eat and drink in the meantime. Thank you.