All Q&A

After the closing of SST, any other acquisitions, especially ones of meaningful size, would be in addition to this. A few smaller ones that we're a tuck-in, but it won't move the needle too much, except for give us more footprint with the big OEMs in contracts. We largely have what we need as we just close and what is in front of us at this point in time. Anything in addition to that in the back part of this year would be an increase in guidance, both revenue, most likely in that income-adjusted EBITDA.

We are seeing a lot of organic growth. I would say that the likelihood of this transaction, in particular closing, is quite high in our opinion. Of course, it could definitely be delayed or not even happen. I would expect that given the amount of our pipeline of M&A, that something would take its place quite quickly. In addition to the SST, we have that same pipeline. We do expect to be announcing deals in the not-too-distant future. Some of those we view would be decently significant. We have multiple ways to succeed, if you look at the slide towards the end of the deck on the summary page, I would point you to slide 23. You can see here that there is quite a bit of areas or levers to pull to hit the profitability targets and the growth targets that we've laid out. The commercial business is ramping quite quickly off the back of Freedom Power, also EnergyAid. We do expect some contribution of that with SST. More and more of the benefit of EnergyAid's coming to fore with additional OEM and asset ownership contracts are spreading across our base, both in Europe and the U.S. Endurance is cutting out our costs way faster than we expected, even four weeks ago. We're seeing a lot more acquisition opportunities to replace anything that may or may not fall out. We feel quite confident we've got multiple ways to win. You would say that if all these hit, does this mean that you could do better? I'll let you read in through it as you see fit. Does the 2026 revenue and EBITDA guidance reflect a H2 run rate or a year-end run rate? What is your expectation for a year-end run rate? It is a 2026 run rate. The exit of the year, so you can call it the second half was this focus on the exit, would be considerably higher. If you can do some back of the envelope math, you would say that sort of looks like $15 million on an exit, possibly more. That's about right. It's an overall annual projection, not a second half run rate, which would be higher.

It already did. The EnergyAid acquisition on April 1st already put us well into that, and we expect to continue to expand. The margin, as we stated in the materials, in the comments, it was roughly about less than 20 points off, but still about 20 points off our targeted gross margin of 45%. We expect to have, as we get the training done and when we acquire companies, a lot of these technicians or all these technicians are trained up. That's part of this cost savings in an acquisition versus an organic hire. If you look at that, plus more and more density as more and more sales are climbing for a variety of reasons that we've laid out in the deck, we expect that gross margin to be achieved sooner than we expected. We are there at this point in time, as far as positive gross margin and contribution on the service business, it will go much further up very quickly from here.

What I can say is that we have an expected revenue on the Gjosa project of between NOK 62 million to NOK 67 million, and that's upfront payment, a large part to ensure that we have a neutral cash flow during the development and then we get the final payment at the end of delivery to the buyer. And this is, of course, posted during the project period in terms of revenue and margin, the next 15 months. What I can say on a general basis, if you look at the project that has approximately NOK 60 million in revenues, you would expect a margin of between NOK 10 million to NOK 15 million. But this is project specific and can vary, and we will come back to more details on the specific margin on Gjosa in the future. But you can assess the margin to normally be in that range for that types of projects. And while we're at the question, I think it's very well worth noting that the pipeline of Fossberg Kraft is getting stronger and stronger. And normally, you have a time span of between 1 to 8 years from you start negotiating with the water rights owners until you have a finished project with concessions from the government to build a power plant. And now our pipeline has progressed that much further that we have several projects potentially coming in the future in addition to the strong pipeline of 85 gigawatts per hour that lies underneath. So we see this as a very good point for Fossberg Kraft and expect that to be a new leg for us to really benefit from going forward

What we can say is that the current market or the current macro environment is challenging at the moment, and that's because there is uncertainty on the macroeconomic development from customers and how they want to react on it. But what we're seeing is that the customers are slowly stabilizing around the current environment, and we're seeing uptick. The question is always how long will it take before they get back to full speed. We are seeing the uptick already, and we expect especially the summer months to be strong months as this is maintenance and service months for many of our customers where we have strong framework agreements. And we see, hopefully also going into the second half of 2026, we will be seeing a more full ramp-up of the customer base and the order book that we have built up. So I think we will see a Q2 that is also a bit below what we saw in Q4 and Q3, but we have an upside coming after that again. But I just want to note again that we are closely following the macroeconomic environment, and that's at the moment, the controlling factor in this part

This is really not something we're at liberty to discuss, if or if not this has happened. There's a process for these kinds of things. A bid would come in, the board would evaluate, and then see if there's a relevance to the bid, if it's good, if it's something that it's worth going to the market with. Then everyone would know about it. Before that, it's not actually an event that is worthwhile talking about. Our focus is to develop as good as possible and show shareholder value as good as possible. That's our focus. Being publicly listed, of course, you're always exposed to processes like that, which will be handled according to the governance structure if it happens.

That really depends on the market. If you look at the industrial market, there are various liquid lens technologies, which are all, I would say, more mature and more established in the industrial market than we are. There are other tunable optics, and there is also VCM, of course. On the AR/MR side, I think what we see mostly being discussed is potentially using VCM maybe, but maybe even more not using AF at all. We do know also that there are tunable optics based on liquid, which are also talking to this market, but as far as we know, we haven't seen any major activity on the camera side and the vibration side based on that. Maybe fixed focus and AF in that sense.

We answer this question quite regularly. It's something we will get back to if there's ever a change. In our internal base case projection, we have no further capital need. There are several uncertainties in the projections, and it's sort of hard to... it's kind of a never-say-never situation. Also, there can be other scenarios that occur where we will want to do that. That's, I think, about what we can say about that. It's more or less the same answer every time.

This is mainly intercompany transactions relating to the rental of properties, as well as a back office cost allocation, which is done at group level. It's primarily internal eliminations between the group companies.

Sure. The short version is we see the strongest momentum in the industrial upgrades, land-based aquaculture, and defense-related to activity. While offshore investments is expected to normalize from a very strong historical level. Overall, the portfolio is positioned towards several structural growth drivers, with good visibility through our order backlog, while we stay disciplined on our project selection and margins in the more competitive segments.

Thank you. This is a very important question. I think the right way to look at this is on a net basis, which is in two steps, which means refinancing and deployment. On the refinancing, roughly NOK 230 million of the bond issue will go to refinance existing bank loans and the RCF, as well as NOK 54 million of the seller's credit, which is principal plus interest on that seller's credit. A meaningfully part of that bond replaces other interest-bearing liabilities rather than adding a full incremental debt. On the remaining proceeds, about NOK 210 million is unintended for selected M&A and operational investments. Until deployed, that cash will be placed in interest-bearing accounts. In the period before deployment, the net interest-bearing impact is mainly the spread between the bond coupon and the deposit yield on that cash balance. When you then move from cash on deposit to actual investments or acquisitions, the intent is that those users of capital should, of course, contribute to higher earnings and cash flow over time. In summary, it's important to separate the interest cost of replacing existing debt and the interest cost tied to growth capital. That is expected to, of course, generate incremental results.

Når det gjelder Namibia-budet, som vel begynner å bli en stund siden, så har vi ingenting nytt å melde. Og jeg har heller ingen grunn til å tro at det kommer noe nytt der. Det er i grunnen alt jeg kan si om det. Det er ikke vi som kontrollerer hvilke henvendelser vi får. Men jeg har ingen grunn til å tro at det kommer flere hendelser i den sammenheng.

Seasystem har tradisjon for å gjøre det bra, det er et selskap som har veldig gode prosjektmarginer. Og som har prestert godt over tid. Dette er i det tradisjonelle markedet til Sea Systems, mooring-markedet, som vi viste noen eksempler fra i presentasjonen. Så var det en liten opphopning av prosjektavslutninger i Q4. Ikke fordi det var Q4, men fordi de faktisk blir avsluttet i Q4. Normalt sett har dette kanskje vært spredd noe mer utover året. Men disse resultatene for prosjektene var jo noe over de forventningene vi hadde. Men vi er konservative i prosjektkalkylene våre, og får betalt for det når vi løser prosjektene. Vi har utvidet produktporteføljen i Seasystems, til også dette med LNG til land uten for mye infrastruktur. Der er det slik at både prosjektstørrelsen er mye større og prosjektlengdene mye større enn dagens typiske Seasystem-prosjekter. Nå jobber vi hardt med å få inn de første ordrene, og sitter i studier.

Det vi kan si, er at vi har interesse fra flere prosjekter. Og som jeg nevnte i presentasjonen, så er vi allerede i gang med talte studier i dette markedet. Og vi har interesse fra flere. Når dette eventuelt vil materialisere seg, er vanskeligere å si. Men det jobbes intenst med markedet, og vi har veldig god respons.