Good day. Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Kinnevik Q2 Report 2026 Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one and one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Rubin Ritter, Interim CEO. Please go ahead. Good morning also from my side, and welcome to today's earnings call, where we talk about the second quarter of 2026. I'm sitting here together with Samuel, our CFO, and together we will talk about update on the key priorities of the quarter. We'll cover net asset value, capital allocation, and then we have time for some closing remarks before we start Q&A. When I joined in March as Interim CEO, I promised to do a thorough and unbiased review of Kinnevik's team, culture, ways of working, and the portfolio. There was also a clear board mandate to make changes where needed to create a better starting point for a new CEO. In that context, our work in the second quarter was focused on four objectives. Objective number one was to start the transition towards a smaller and more focused organization with an achievement-oriented culture. I see that as a big opportunity for Kinnevik. I believe this company should be a place where it feels like working to be part of a small team that is handpicked, closely aligned, where we have joint clear objectives, where we have focused execution towards these objectives, where we have a joint sense of urgency that is motivating to everyone, and where we feel accountability for the outcome as a team. In this context, I have discussed with the senior leadership and we have redesigned the organizational structure to create more clear roles and clearer responsibilities. We have also moved forward to reduce the team size from about 45 colleagues at the end of 2025 to less than 25 colleagues today. We have also tried to make Stockholm the clear center of gravity for this team. We do have employees in different locations, including London, and they are very important to us. At the same time, we have made clear that we see the center of this company in Stockholm, and we bring everybody over every other week to be together here in the office as a team. We have also gone back to an office-first approach with the goal of spending more time together as a team to do the work together in the office. In this context, we have also started to change the culture, and I hope that you notice that we have an increased pace of decision-making. I think there were a large number of things that were relatively clear at Kinnevik that they needed to happen, and I think we have tried to adapt a new pace where we together discuss and debate, then we decide, then we implement, then we move on. The second objective was to reduce our cost base. Our purpose as a company is to be good stewards to our shareholders' money and capital. With that mindset, we need to look at cost as every kronor that we spend without impact is a kronor that we cannot invest to make a return for our shareholders. With that in mind, we together decided that our cost is too high. In the last earnings call, we communicated the goal to bring management cash costs down to around SEK 200 million per year as of 2027, which is a reduction by about 30% from the level of 2025, which was SEK 313 million. In this context, in the last months, the team has identified and also implemented a number of measures that are already sufficient to bring us to that target. Additional measures will continue to be worked on in the second half of the year to also create leeway for us to make also some new investments into the team where we see that as necessary. I also think there is a significant potential and a great opportunity that we can unlock by leveraging a more modern technology stack, which would enable us for more comprehensive use of AI. That work has also been accelerated in the second quarter. The third objective is to be very selective in follow-on investments to preserve capital. As you know, many companies in our portfolio are investing to grow very fast, and that is a good thing because the value of these growth companies lies in the future. Our role as investors is to support them on their journey, and sometimes that means that we will invest in follow-on rounds. This is a great opportunity for Kinnevik to deploy additional capital, at the same time, we need to be highly disciplined in our approach. First of all, because we want to be good stewards of our shareholders' capital, then secondly, because in this particular situation, we also want to preserve capital to be able to invest under a new investment strategy going forward. I think I can say that in the second quarter, we have been highly disciplined in capital allocation. Net investments amount to SEK 57 million in the second quarter, which is actually the lowest level since Q4 2019. In this context, I would also like to reiterate our goal to invest not more than SEK 1.5 billion in follow-on rounds to bring our existing portfolio to profitability. The fourth objective was to conduct an internal portfolio review. Together with the investment team, I've reviewed more than 35 companies. The key questions that we asked ourselves is: which companies have the potential to be a long-term success and to make a lasting difference to their customers? As a result of that, which of these companies have the potential to be long-term holds for Kinnevik based on their financial profile, their track record, but also their strategy and potential going forward? Clearly the bar needs to be very high. I think the good news is that we have some great companies in the portfolio with a strong and growing track record and high ambition and a sound plan for the future. I think if they deliver on that plan, they do have the potential to play a defining role in our portfolio going forward. On the other hand, the board also has been very clear that we want to transition to a portfolio that is more concentrated, that is more cash generating, and that has a more balanced risk profile going forward. Of course, not every investment that we have made in the past will also have a place in the portfolio of the future. Of course, we have a new CEO coming in with Helena as of August, it will be her responsibility to continue to develop the portfolio going forward. I hope that by doing this portfolio review, we have created a good basis for her to get to know the portfolio quickly, to form her own view, and to take the right decisions, of course, together with the board. Coming to the financial performance. While we have been focused on these four priorities, we have also benefited from positive developments in our portfolio. Today we can report that our NAV has increased to SEK 29.6 billion or SEK 107 per share. That is an increase of about 6%. This positive increase is primarily driven by the multiple expansion of our portfolio companies' listed peers. At the same time, we have seen strong growth in the portfolio of about 28% on average year to date in our larger holdings, as well as EBITDA margin improvements by about four percentage points to -6%. We have been able to keep cash almost constant at SEK 7.4 billion, which is in line with our objective to preserve capital. I think we can say overall that this has been a very good quarter for our portfolio. We also have some important management changes that I would like to take the opportunity to address. We have decided together with Samuel that now is the right time to make a change. Samuel will be leaving Kinnevik at the end of August after 13 years with the firm. I'll have the chance to come back to this after Samuel's presentation. Caspar Sjöstrand will be Interim CFO until a permanent successor is appointed. He has joined us recently as part of our investment team. I'm very confident that in combination with Helena's experience and the finance team that we have in place, he will be able to cover this important role really well and do a great job. It is not news to you that Helena Saxon will be joining us as new CEO as of August 1st. I just would like to point out that I already have an active dialogue with her, we align on the most important developments and decisions. I'm also excited to announce that we have Hannah Björk joining us on September 1st. She will join as Director of Communications and Investor Relations. Most of the participants of this call will get to know her quite well going forward. She has many years of experience in this field, and I think she's exactly the right profile, and I am very excited that she will be joining the team. Now I would like to hand over to Samuel. Thank you, Rubin, and good morning, everybody. As usual, I will take you through the NAV development and capital allocation for the quarter, and then I will hand it back to Rubin before we open up for Q&A, after which Rubin will come back with some closing remarks. That means we are on page four of today's presentation and on the trading of the different public market peer sets that are relevant to our private valuations. What we are showing on this page is not just the headline average move for each peer group, but the dispersion underneath it, because that dispersion really mattered this quarter. As you may recall, in Q1, we said that the public market drawdown in that quarter was relatively indiscriminate. Q2 was different. The re-rating was more selective, and we saw quite meaningful differences across different subgroups. The average public SaaS peer multiple was up by around 20%, but the median that we show in the top red square here was up by only around 5%-6%. That informs that it was a concentrated move impacted by significant outliers, in particular among the large-scale peers. Hence the headline average number overstates what happened for the typical company. The market seemed to move from debating AI risks last quarter to rewarding more concrete AI tailwinds this quarter. The companies driving this in part overlap with the aforementioned outliers, but we saw the strongest multiple expansion in companies where AI is a more immediate demand catalyst in companies delivering, for instance, developer tools, data infrastructure, and cybersecurity services. Meanwhile, the multiple expansion in the application layer and other peer sets more relevant when valuing our portfolio was somewhat more muted. This was a quarter where de-averaging really mattered, and we have updated the peer group spreadsheet available on our website to reflect the nuances in public market SaaS that this slide aims to provide. At the very bottom range of this chart, you see how multiples changed in our larger companies, where the moves in these various peer sets meant a spread of -7% to +18% in terms of multiple change in our investees and a median increase of 4%. Moving on to the next page five, and what this meant for NAV. Our NAV was up 6% in Q2, ending the quarter at SEK 29.6 billion or SEK 107 per share, with the portfolio growing in value by 8%. In constant currencies, NAV was up 5%. The short version is that public market valuation tailwinds helped, but we also had some company-specific effects. Health & Bio was up 16%, in part driven by some solid operational developments at Cityblock, but primarily by Spring Health, which was up 29% in SEK fair value terms in the quarter. Spring closed its acquisition of Alma during the quarter, and on a combined basis, the company is now targeting $1 billion worth of revenue over the next 12 months, with gross margins in the high 50s and continued EBITDA profitability. As a consequence of the acquisition, our ownership stake was diluted from 14% to 12%, and we remain the company's largest investor. The acquisition means that we're valuing the combined company at a somewhat lower multiple than would be applicable for Spring on a standalone basis. As a reference point against Hinge Health, we are now carrying the company at a 15%-20% discount on a gross profit basis and a 40%-45% discount on a revenue basis. At Oviva, we took down our forward outlook slightly, driven mainly by a delay in the company's rollout plan, but that adjustment was more than offset by peer multiple expansion. Our software companies were up 7%, again, mainly driven by peer multiples and with Perk as the largest contributor of software NAV in the quarter. For context, relative to Navan, our valuation of Perk now implies a 5%-10% discount on both a gross profit and revenue basis after the re-rating that's happened after Navan's IPO in late October last year. At Mews, we also adjusted our outlook downward slightly, here to reflect softer U.S. macro trends, providing some headwind in that market. Again, this modest forecast adjustment was more than offset by positive peer multiples. Our earlier-stage emerging companies were up 12% in the quarter, driven entirely by the revaluation of Wordsmith, which I'll get back to in a second. The remainder of the portfolio, what we call prior strategies, was down 4% in aggregate, mainly driven by some multiple contraction at Betterment and a SEK 0.2 billion write-down of our climate tech businesses. Transaction activity was limited again this quarter. Over the last 12 months, there have been transactions in 33% of the private portfolio by value, and those transactions have cleared at a 10% weighted average premium to our prior NAV marks. Turning to page six, that transaction deceleration was reflected in our capital allocation in the quarter in combination with our increased discipline and selectiveness when we review follow-on investments. We invested in total SEK 57 million in the quarter, and our largest investment was our participation in Wordsmith's $70 million funding round, in which we participated with our SEK 29 million pro rata share. Wordsmith has had a strong start in our portfolio, with revenue up 14x over the last 12 months, and the funding round represents a value uplift of more than 3x relative to our entry price in Q1 last year. Meanwhile, as Rubin mentioned, we agreed two smaller divestments in the quarter with expected proceeds of SEK 133 million that will close and be accounted for during Q3. We have agreed to sell our stake in Oda for around SEK 100 million and in YouScan, a smaller asset dating back to our old Avito investment, for around SEK 30 million. Buyers in both transactions are existing co-investors. Both companies are in good hands, these smaller exits put an end to two very different chapters while releasing some capital and rationalizing and concentrating our portfolio. Adjusting our quarterly capital allocation with these two agreed divestments means we would have been net divestors in the quarter of SEK 76 million. At quarter end, net cash stood at SEK 7.4 billion or SEK 7.6 billion adjusted for these agreed divestments, up SEK 75 million from the end of Q1. We remain in a very strong financial position with plenty of flexibility. That's reinforced by the cost savings that we're implementing and that will begin to take effect during the second half of the year, as well as by our expectation to invest no more than around SEK 1.5 billion of follow-on capital into the existing portfolio. With that, I'll hand the call back to Rubin. Thank you, Samuel. Before going into Q&A, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you, Samuel. You have been with Kinnevik for 13 years, with quite a unique career, I can say, starting as a very junior team member and now ending it as CFO of the company. During the time I've been here, I've witnessed firsthand that the team holds you in high regard, both as a colleague and as a leader. On behalf of the board and the team, I would just like to say thank you for your commitment and your hard work for the firm. Also personally thank you for helping me to lead the company over the last months through a period of change. With your long tenure, of course, you also hold a lot of knowledge. I'm thankful that we found an agreement that you also will be available to us to support also after end of August where needed. I want to say I hope you will enjoy spending some more time also with your young family. You have a young baby boy. I know it's a priority for you to spend time with them. I can tell you from experience that will be a very valuable and rewarding period in your life. I wish you all the best. Thank you very much, Rubin. With this, I think we can hand over to Q&A. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one and one again. We will now take our first question from the line of Linus Sigurdson from DNB Carnegie. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Firstly, you say that you expect management cost in line with 2025, including these one-off. Can you just confirm that you are tracking along to this SEK 200 million runway target? Yes, I can confirm we are on that trajectory to reach SEK 200 million as a target starting beginning of next year. We also, of course, already will feel those reductions in the current year. We also have restructuring cost and one-off cost that will offset some of this, which is why we expect to be around the level of 2025, including the restructuring cost. Okay, thanks. That's clear. Looking at Spring Health, could you just talk a bit about the new financial profile following the Alma acquisition here? What changes and what sort of prompts this increased valuation discount? Hey, Linus. It's Samuel. I think there are two main impacts of the Alma acquisition. The first one is that it changes the mix in the go-to market of Spring, where Spring historically with its core EAP product is selling into large enterprises, whereas Alma strikes agreements with the large health plans, and then it's more of a consumer-facing business. We feel both intrinsically and when we do analysis on the public comps that an enterprise focus go-to-market strategy with, call it proven commercial ROI, warrants a slightly higher valuation, all else equal. In terms of the financial profile, Spring, over the last 12 months, grew faster than Alma and made a higher margin. There again, the blend where we are quite cautious and do not ascribe much weight to the synergies that the management of the two companies expect have a financial profile that puts Spring in a slightly lower growth territory by a few percentage points and call it 1% or 2% lower EBITDA margin in the short term. Again, the management of both companies would disagree with that. They think they'll be able to unlock a lot of synergies here. We want to be on the conservative side also in the underlying financial estimates that we value besides what we're trying to do on the multiple side this quarter. Okay, thank you. That's very clear. My final question, could you just give some color on how you feel about the valuation levels in the exits that you've made in this quarter? I guess with this increased sense of urgency, is it fair to assume that there's more similar deals in the pipeline for H2? I feel good about the exits, Linus. I think clearly Oda, I'm sure there will be case studies written about that investment and the Mathem investment, but I think loss aversion is a bias that's part of the dark side of running a permanent capital investment vehicle. There, based on the look forward, we feel very good about selling our shares in that company and also selling it to existing shareholders, which I believe all the stakeholders in this company will like. In terms of relative to NAV, I think the Oda divestment is 20% above where we held it in the last quarter. Clearly in relation to the capital that we've deployed into the two businesses, Oda and Mathem, in particular during COVID, it's not a good outcome. That shouldn't influence how we make capital allocation decisions in the here and now. Maybe just to add, back to the second half. You alluded to the sense of urgency, I think, as a company, it's always important to have a sense of urgency. I think that's part of the job. Of course, on the other hand, we need to be on the topic, and it is a priority to us. Also there is no rush, right? I think we will look at each opportunity as it presents itself with a lot of focus. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Björn Olsson from SEB. Please go ahead. Thank you. Rubin, you mentioned that you've conducted a major portfolio review. I'm just thinking, since that, you're saying that you have some great companies. Has the review changed your view on capping the amount to SEK 1.5 billion of potential additional investments in existing holdings? Yes. Thank you. It has not changed my view. I think, the SEK 1.5 billion continues to be something where we would say that's probably the maximum of what we want to be investing into bringing the existing portfolio into profitability. Nothing in the portfolio review has suggested that we would need to spend more. I also think we don't want to spend more because we also want to preserve capital, to be in a position to make new investments, following an updated investment strategy. Maybe just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Also in Q1, I've explained that the SEK 1.5 billion is really where we talk about bringing existing portfolio companies into profitability. Of course, if those portfolio companies were to be profitable in the future and compounding at good rates that we like, we always could take the decision to increase our allocation in them. Right? It's a different type of discussion. The SEK 1.5 billion is talking about the discipline in follow-ons and bringing existing portfolio companies into a state where they can grow profitably. Okay. That helps. Thanks. Second then, on the new strategy, you're alluding to it a bit here and in the different press statements issued by you when announcing your incoming CEO, as an example. You're guiding that you're pivoting towards later-stage cash generative enterprises. Could you give just a bit of flavor on that logic and perhaps also some reflections on what went wrong in the past that makes you do this pivot like? Sure. I think the reflection on the past, of course, that we have over the last years really focused investments on quite early-stage enterprises that are fast-growing, that have exciting plans, but that also require a lot of capital. That, of course, also have a certain risk profile, where actually different levels of risk are layered on top of each other. You have business model risk, you have execution risk, you have product-market fit that might not be fully proven out. I think we have just in the past taken a lot of risk and, in the discussions we had in the board, I think it became clear to us that given also that we are a permanent capital and listed vehicle, this might not be the right strategy for us going forward, but that we need to move towards a more balanced risk profile. Where also the companies that we have in the portfolio can really stand the test of public scrutiny. I've also experienced this now firsthand when working on the report for the first quarter and the second quarter. The companies that we have currently in the portfolio, they are not easy to value. Of course, I understand our shareholders want to understand them in great detail. The nature of the businesses is such that they are just, yeah, hard to value and maybe also sometimes not very straightforward to explain. In this context, we have said, the portfolio needs to be more balanced in the risk that we take. The companies need to be a little bit more mature. We also would like to see some cash generation in the portfolio, because being a permanent capital vehicle, I think that's also an important part of the mix, to have cash generation that comes from within, so you don't have to sell companies in order to make new investments. I think this is kind of the broader thinking that we had in the board. Of course, when it comes to the specific strategy and what specific new investments should look like, there I really would like to emphasize that we have, with Helena, a new CEO coming in, and it will be her role to talk to you about that strategy more specifically, because that's something that she, in my mind, needs to own and needs to shape, and I think that's what she's also excited to do. There, I'll have to defer you to her coming in and then talking about this in greater detail. That makes sense. Just so I understand it correctly, okay, on the SEK 1.5 billion cap that you assess is required for potential follow-on investments for your holdings to come into profitable territory, how much of this SEK 1.5 billion would you assess is roughly, and perhaps this to you, Samuel, is assessed to be allocated to your top five or top 10 holdings? I'll chime in, Björn. I think out of our top 10 holdings, it's virtually only Enveda where we see Funding rounds happening, at least with the use of proceeds to finance continued operational burn. As we said in Q1, this SEK 1.5 billion target is slightly more tangible when you look six, 12 months out. Beyond that, it will all depend on company performance. I think the investment we made in Wordsmith this quarter is a good indicator of the type of investments we may be making if companies perform to help them continue to mature and get into profitability territory. Okay, clear. Thank you. Thank you, Samuel, for your time. Thank you. We will now take the next question. From the line of Derek Laliberté from ABG Sundal Collier, please go ahead. Thank you and good morning. You have previously indicated here that financing needs obviously are limited and you've also indicated that creating liquidity is becoming sort of an increasing focus. I was wondering if you could update us on or share a bit of flavor on where you see the highest probability of exits over the coming years and whether also the market conditions here are becoming supportive enough to start crystallizing value at a higher rate. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for your question. I think we have been, and we are very clear that driving towards a more concentrated portfolio is a priority for us and really developing the portfolio going forward. I'm not sure if we, as an investment company, should be much more specific than this. We will look very carefully at the portfolio as we have done in the review. We will of course, share that also with Helena and the team is working on the different parts where we see maybe the opportunity to create a path to liquidity. I think it's difficult for us to guide you with a lot of detail towards specific names or specific points in time. As you know, almost all of those are private companies. We're talking about minority stakes. I think we need to take this step by step. I can assure you that we are looking at this with great focus and that we are working on it. I don't think we should be more specific in guiding publicly towards specific exits. That's understandable. Looking at, well, previously Q1, you made this big reset in valuations. Obviously peers were down a lot, but still appeared like a pretty conservative approach there. I would say also the same thing in Q2 here. Generally, has your sort of valuation methodology changed anything even more towards the conservative side? How do you view this in terms of conservativeness in relation to the, call it the observable market transactions? Yes, maybe I can actually comment on it because obviously when I came in I was also eager to understand how does the valuation process work in detail. I think it's important to point out that Kinnevik does have a sound valuation process and that's also the process that we have followed both for Q1 and Q2 with the help of the finance team, with the help of our auditors, with the help of the audit committee. We have not fundamentally changed the methodology. Of course, as I have pointed out, a portfolio of fast-growing and partially also early-stage companies that do not have very direct peers sometimes in the public market, some have, others don't. There is of course also always a degree of judgment and interpretation where we have tried to be conservative but also within reason because I think we need to show the value for what it is. That's how I would describe how we went about it. Samuel, do you want to add anything or is that? No, just to take what you said Rubin and Derek, I think perhaps the key event in our valuation process this time has not been a change of the process but rather how we're trying to relate to the fairly recently listed peers for our two largest assets, Spring and Perk. That's more an input into that process and how we regard those two peers and less so a matter of a change in process or level of conservativeness. Thanks for the flavor. Another question on a more general basis here following the discussion around AI disruption earlier this year. Can you say something about how you assess the preparedness of your largest software holdings here and are you seeing AI mainly as a competitive threat or more as an opportunity to accelerate growth and actually improve margins? Yes, of course that continues to be one core discussion that we have also when we do the portfolio review. I think we have a broad array of companies that are affected in different ways by AI. Some like Wordsmith, the one that Samuel talked about where we did the follow-on investment in Q2 is sort of an AI native company. We have some more of those examples in the portfolio. We have some software companies where I think, just broadly speaking, AI of course can be both because it is a disruptive force in technology. It's also a tool that agile software companies of course will adapt and take on board and use to drive their business more effectively because it allows them to better serve their customers or because it allows them to more cheaply update their code base or because it allows them to automate processes. I think we see all of those examples playing out in the portfolio. I think Q1 has been quite harsh on software. I think Q2, we have seen in the markets that the view already is changing. I think this will continue to be a theme that evolves over time because it's just such a fundamental shift in technology. Maybe over time we'll realize that it is a fundamental shift to technology, but maybe not as fundamental of a shift towards what fundamentally makes a good business model. I think that will be interesting to observe, because I think ultimately it's about does a company have the right mindset to serve its customers in the best possible way, to drive towards the right decisions, to have a sound plan going forward, a strategy that takes into account everything that's changing, but also everything that stays the same. We'll continue to have this debate. It has been very interesting also for me to observe how it is playing out and how it is affecting our portfolio. Okay, thanks. Great flavor. I just had a question, mentioned Wordsmith. They're a fairly small investment, but just wondering a bit why you have decided to invest in this company specifically. It just seems like there are a number of actors with similar exposure here. What makes this company unique from your perspective? Yes. As Samuel pointed out, that investment was made, I think, beginning of 2025. My understanding is also after taking a closer look at the company, the team is very excited about AI being a driving force in how the legal market changes and the legal profession changes. As you pointed out, there are a number of players active in this field, as you might expect, given that the rise of LLMs, of course, obviously will change the way that legal work is carried out. What we are excited about in the example of Wordsmith is that their approach is geared more towards how does the legal function in an organization or in a company work, and how can it be improved through the use of AI. If you would think of one approach being how can technology and AI be used to make the work, for example, of a law firm more efficient, I think Wordsmith approach is more how is the legal function embedded into processes in a company, and how can those be made more efficient through the use of AI, which is a different approach, and I think it's a very interesting approach. Of course, as you say, it is a competitive market, by the way, like anything relating to AI. It is an exciting opportunity, but also it is a competitive market. We think the team is well-positioned to take their shot at being successful. Great. A final question on Oviva, which is a fairly new large investment there. This successful study are showing that 12% weight loss over nine months. Just wondering to what extent do you expect this new results or study to help drive future growth? Also what makes this company unique compared to, we'll call it other weight loss programs? Derek, clearly, I think this study, as the clinical studies the company has made in the past, helps them in their conversations with the larger European payment systems in convincing them that they should offer it to the patients that they cover, because this actually works and it's proven out. Hopefully it will improve one of the levers of our investment case, which is the geographic expansion, and hopefully also they can replicate this success in other services for other conditions. All right. Thank you very much. That's all. Thank you. We will now take our final question from the line of Georg Attling from Pareto Securities. Please go ahead. Hello, thanks for taking my questions. I just have a couple starting with, you mentioned Hinge and Navan here, both doubled essentially in the past three months. Has that in any way changed the prospects of IPO-ing Perk or Spring in the near term? Hey, Georg, it's Samuel. Look, clearly, Navan and Hinge being manifestly appreciated by public market investors is helpful to a Spring or a Perk going to the public market. With that said, both our companies are very much focused on their operations. Spring has just closed the acquisition of Alma. They want to integrate that into their company and organization, so we're in no rush. Clearly, at the current valuation levels of those key comps, it's difficult to argue that the state of public markets is prohibitive to our companies going to market. Again, there's no rush to IPO either business. That's clear. Second question on the future new investments that I guess Helena will make. Will she start on a blank page when she joins, or have you already come up with a shortlist, or have a couple of companies that you have interest in? As you know, for the past months, we have decided to pause new investment activities. Of course, there's also a long list of ideas that the team has. Kinnevik is an active investment company. There will be several things to start off from, and of course, there's also expertise and ideas in the team. I think at the same time, Helena also has the benefit that if she likes, she can also take a very fresh look at things, and there also see a benefit. I think it will be up for her to decide how she wants to do this. I think that's her role, and that's why we hired her. Okay. Just a final question on some of the movements here in Q2. Betterment, the multiple down 7%, but Perk is up 17%. If you could explain that dynamic? Also another quite a large cut in the climate tech valuation. Just wondering how you feel about the current valuations of those climate tech assets. Sure. On Betterment, it's hard, right? Because the comp set isn't the perfect one. Betterment is an assets under management fee play, whereas the comps we tend to compare Betterment with are mainly commission-driven. Clearly we have Wealthfront that IPO'd last year that is going through some quite considerable idiosyncratic factors that is impacting where it trades today. What we've done this quarter is just trying to take a closer look at that comp set and reflect where Wealthfront is to a slightly larger extent than has been the case in the past, similar to what we're doing with Hinge and Navan for Spring and Perk. It's a bit of a recalibration that tends to happen for these companies where the comp set is far from perfect. Performance-wise, there's nothing to complain about. Betterment continue to track plan in a very solid way. We've just refined our approach slightly on the comp side of things. On the climate tech, maybe one clarification. The Stegra round that closed in Q2 is not impacting what's happening in that subgroup of our portfolio. What is happening is that there is some dilution in the company where we've elected not to invest. Other than that, the changes are largely stemming from this internal portfolio review that Rubin has mentioned, where we are recalibrating our valuations based on a variety of aspects, and one being our appetite to deploy more capital in certain businesses. That has influenced the move in valuation this quarter. Okay. Thank you very much. Samuel, good luck in whatever you do next. Thank you very much. Thank you. This concludes the Q&A session. I would now like to turn the conference to the speakers for closing remarks. Yes, thank you, and thanks everyone for a good discussion. This is also my last earnings call with Kinnevik, and I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank this group for your engagement and support. I really enjoyed our interactions and appreciate all the questions, all the insights, and also the advice. I also would like to thank the board for their trust and continued support. I would like to thank the team. They have been incredibly constructive. We have had many very open and truth-seeking debates on how we can jointly do what's best for Kinnevik, and I think I'm really proud of the progress we've been able to make in a very short period of time. I'm looking forward to hand over to Helena in a few weeks. I think she will be the right leader at the right time on the journey of rebuilding trust and creating value for Kinnevik. I wish her the best of luck, her and the team, and I look forward to working with her and the team, as a board member. Thank you very much.