Let's get going. Good afternoon, and welcome to Nordea's Q1 2026 pre-close call. Please note that this call is being recorded for compliance reasons. This will be an audio-only Teams call, and we will keep you muted during the remarks and enable your microphones when we move over to the Q&A. If you wish to ask a question, please use the raise your hand function. We'll enter into our silent period on the 10th of April, so please contact us before that if you have any further questions. Our Q1 2026 report will be published on the 22nd of April. This call will focus on what happened back in Q4, relevant public data and macro trends in our markets. We will go through the macro indicators, the P&L statement line by line, and comment on capital at the end. The script will be published on Nordea's financial calendar webpage.
We would like to highlight that we will only ask questions related to already disclosed information, as well as publicly available data as of 30th of March, unless otherwise noted. To start off with, there's been significant volatility recently due to the geopolitical developments in the Middle East. Nordea is, of course, a strong, profitable, and very well-diversified financial services provider with a high level of resilience to short-term shocks. I would still like to flag two specific topics related to this. These types of sharp moves seen particularly in the interest rates across our home markets are generally not helpful for market making, especially as the moves have been against the consensus positioning. This can result in some losses on the trading side visible in Net Fair Value.
Market volatility on the sharp decline in both equity and fixed income markets creates a headwind for AUM and savings fee income, and the uncertainty also slows down capital markets activity. With that, let's turn to macro. Axel, please go ahead.
Yes. Starting with interest rates. There were no policy rate changes this quarter, and we saw no change in average Nordic policy rates quarter-on-quarter. Three-month interbank offered rates increased during the quarter, and the most notable change was in three-month STIBOR, where the average level in Q1 increased by nine basis points versus Q4. In equity markets, the US dollar-denominated MSCI World Index was 2% higher on average quarter-on-quarter, while the OMX Nordic 40 was 8% higher. On the fixed income side, the US dollar-denominated Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index was 0.7% higher. Remember also to adjust for FX as our reporting currency is euro. The US dollar versus euro was 0.6% lower on average quarter-on-quarter.
Further on FX movements, SEK and NOK versus euro are always the key currencies to track. What's relevant for the P&L is the average quarter-on-quarter development. There, SEK was 2% higher and NOK was 3% higher, presenting a tailwind for euro-denominated income in Q1 and a headwind for costs. If we then move to net interest income in Q4, we reported NII of EUR 1,765 million. As mentioned on the Q4 results call, Q1 NII is expected to come down quarter-on-quarter, mainly because of lower day count, so roughly EUR 40 million impact, as you can read from our NII bridge. We also said that Q1 would likely be the quarterly trough for NII, and that NII should grow in line with volume and margin developments. In terms of moving parts for Q1.
With stable average Nordic policy rates quarter-over-quarter, that means a fairly stable contribution from the deposit hedge. For volumes, we recommend looking at the system-level volume data available in each country and would say there are no meaningful changes in recent trends. As we highlighted in Q4 results, corporate lending volumes grew strongly and mortgage lending continued to pick up. We'd expect lending volume growth to continue, but of course, remains to be seen what effects current geopolitical situation in Middle East has. In Q4, lending volumes contributed EUR 11 million to NII. However, this was more than offset by lending margin pressure, which had a negative impact of EUR 31 million. Given the ongoing environment with front book margins below back book and the rapid increase in short-term rates affecting funding costs, it's reasonable to assume lending margin pressure impacting Q1 as well.
Rate expectations have shifted sharply higher, which of course could have a positive NII effect in the medium term should the policy rate hikes materialize. Short-term, this can create some headwind for funding costs. With regards to pricing actions on lending and deposit products, these can be found on our local websites. Just finally on FX, although particularly SEK has significantly depreciated since we reported Q4 results. The average FX movements still present a tailwind quarter-over-quarter similar to Q4. Just to note, roughly 30% of NII is in SEK and 20% in NOK. Around 20-25 million euro tailwind there. On 26th of March, we called a $1.25 billion additional tier one instrument. That will have an effect in the second quarter. With that, let's continue with Net Fee and Commission Income.
Handing back to you, Ilkka.
Thanks, Axel. On net fee and commission income, we reported EUR 853 million in Q4. Note that Q4 included annual and semi-annual fees of around EUR 26 million that won't be repeated in Q1. There's also a lower day count, meaning around EUR 10 million impact on this line. On savings fees, we already highlighted some of the market movements which net after adjusting for FX and our asset mix point at a slightly positive market performance effect on average AUM in the low single-digit percent. Slightly positive still on average, despite the sharp decline in relevant indices in March.
On brokerage and advisory over the past three years, we've seen an average quarterly run rate of around EUR 50 million, based on the Dealogic and Mergermarket data. ECM and M&A data for January and February were slightly more active than last year. Given the geopolitical developments, March is likely to be much slower. This could result in brokerage and advisory being slightly down year-on-year. Summarizing, we mentioned already on the Q4 results call that Q1 NCI is expected to come down a bit quarter-on-quarter, and the recent geopolitical developments further reinforce that view given the recent market performance and lower capital markets activity. On net insurance results, just briefly mentioning that Q4 amounted to EUR 64 million and in the past four quarters the average quarterly run rate has been around EUR 60 million.
Moving on to Net Fair Value, we always think of this line being worth about EUR 1 billion a year, with the key contribution on the customer side being fairly stable at around EUR 200 million per quarter. You get the more volatile treasury and market making elements, which can be anything from 0 to EUR 50 million in a quarter. We've in the past pointed at Q1 or the first half being slightly stronger than the average quarter. However, the sharp shift in rate expectations in the opposite direction of broad consensus is likely to result in a clearly weaker than normal market making result for the quarter, particularly compared with the very strong market making result in Q1 of 2026.
Hence, it's more likely that we'll be within the normal quarterly range of EUR 200 million-EUR 250 million in Q1 2026, and more likely around the midpoint rather than the high end of that range. On costs, firstly, as we disclosed a few weeks ago, we will book restructuring costs of EUR 190 million in the first quarter. Just a reminder that these are excluded from our 2026 financial outlook. Apart from that, we will book the full year resolution fee in Q1 as per usual, which makes it a slightly higher cost quarter than the average. Last year, the resolution fee was EUR 35 million. In addition, the average FX movements present a headwind in the quarter. However, we'll continue to manage costs to deliver on our full year cost to income ratio outlook of around 45%.
On credit quality, for loan losses, our credit quality has been very strong, and we don't see the current situation having any meaningful direct impacts. Our Q4 loan loss level was 7 basis points, excluding the reduction of the management judgment buffer. You know our long-term loan loss ratio guidance of around 10 basis points or lower. Regarding taxes, in Q4, our tax rate was 23.5%, and you should expect similar going forward. Finally, on capital, our CET1 requirement stood at 13.8 at the end of Q4, and the Q4 CET1 ratio was 15.7. The current buyback program is ongoing and was announced already in Q4, so no impact on CET1 ratio in Q1, and the program will be completed no later than 8th of May. Finally, a reminder on our dividend policy.
Our policy is to pay out between 60%-70% of annual profits in dividends. Last week at our annual general meeting, the move to semi-annual dividends was approved by the shareholders. Regarding equity modeling, just as a reminder, some of you have assumed the dividend payout to reduce equity already in Q1, but the earliest payment date is the 2nd of April, so this will not have an impact on equity in Q1. For the semiannual dividend, note that we aim to distribute an amount equaling 50% of the first half profits in Q3. Lastly, in terms of housekeeping, from Q1 2026, we will change how we report assets under management in order to better align AUM and savings fees development. Firstly, we will break down AUM into one investment product AUM and two other assets.
Investment product AUM, which includes funds and other products carrying a recurring fee, represent the lion's share of total AUM. It also has a more direct link to savings fees. Other assets mostly consist of single securities which carry a very low or no fee at all. Secondly, we will break down investment product AUM by business area in order to have a better linkage between AUM and savings fees in the business areas. Q4 AUM would have been only slightly lower than originally reported due to these changes. We will publish a restatement file before the Q1 report. To close off, as said, our first quarter report will be released on the 22nd of April, and our silent period starts on the 10th of April. If you have further questions, feel free to contact us before that. Now let's move.
You can look up your [inaudible]
First in line.
Yes. Hi. First of all, you mentioned that you don't expect the current term will have any impact on your asset quality. I guess that means that you still expect to release the lion's share of the management overlay, the EUR 276 million in 2026. That's the first one.
Probably no change to what we've said before, and I'm not necessarily gonna, you know, re-stamp the timing on that one. I said I don't think there's direct implications of the current situation. I think where of course, like we all know, should things get prolonged, you may have different types of events come through in terms of growth and so forth. Direct impacts, we don't really see in the books as such.
Okay. Thank you. Secondly, I mean, you announced a deposit rate cuts to on the most savings accounts in Norway that's expected to come into effect on the 5th of May by 20 basis points. Since then, NIBOR is up quite significantly. If we assume that NIBOR would stay here, would you expect to go through with those cuts?
That might be a bit of a premature going there, I think. I think it's good to remember that, you know, the difference, of course, with the market rates and the actual policy rates also matters for the deposits. Like we pointed out, you know, when we look at the changed rate environment overall, you know, should the policy rate hikes actually materialize, you know, you could see some NII positive coming from that. Of course, then you need to think about what the impacts to the broader economy would be given why it's appearing. In the short term, the market rates move up. This is more a kind of a funding cost, lending margin pressure type of situation as such.
I want to know what was maybe the repricing of our business decisions on Norwegian deposits on this call.
Oh, okay. Finally, just have you said anything about what you expect in terms of net headcount development in 2026?
Not for 2026 as a standalone basis. You've seen our release regarding the restructuring.
Yeah.
provision that we take. We refer to around 1,500 FTEs being affected by that. You know, looking at last year, well, our FTE number reduced by roughly 1,300, so gives you maybe some perspective. We don't have any specific kind of steer in terms of what the 2026 ending point would look like.
Oh. Okay. Thank you.
Thanks, Magnus. Andreas, please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi, Ilkka. First a follow-up on your loan loss provision side. Does this mean that you haven't made any assumption changes in your IFRS9 model? Is that due to your macroeconomic scenarios haven't yet or maybe it won't, but they haven't made any changes, because that's what you're using, right? Should we expect no changes from that side?
I'll partly have to park that as well and leave it to later. What I would say, sort of, looking back a little bit, last year with Liberation Day, if you recall, we basically had a situation where, you know, the macro forecast didn't really change in April.
Mm-hmm.
What we did was change the weighting of the scenarios.
Yeah.
Now, the effect of that was quite limited. Now, if I remember correctly, going to 100% adverse scenario was about EUR 30 million in the collective provisions last April. So it doesn't have a huge impact as such. Of course, we're assessing and looking at the situation, and should there be any changes then we'll come back to that in Q1 as we report. We'll just point out based on that kinda historical piece of evidence that it's not a dramatic shift that would happen in any case, based on that.
Good. On your hedge, the market is now pricing in quite much higher rates from the ECB and the Riksbank and Norges Bank. If we start to see rate hikes, how should we think about the hedge effect in the coming quarters?
What we've always said is that it's, you know, in the short term, the hedge performance is more linked to short-term rates because that's the pay leg in the hedge.
Mm.
Then longer term, of course, there's the repricing effects as still, you know, low rate era hedges are being repriced and re-entered into. That depends a bit on fixings and timings like that. But if we take, you know, the short-term effect of that, then probably, you know, the short-term rates would move, then the hedge would work as it should and offset some of the impact of the rate changes as such. But it's good to remember the difference between the market rates and the policy rates 'cause they have, you know, different timing effect. Policy rate is more the one that impacts deposit margins directly-
Mm.
Market rates have less of a direct impact from that perspective.
Okay. Thank you.
Thanks, Andreas. Jacob, go ahead. I think, Jacob, you're on mute. If you can unmute and then go.
Sorry. Can you hear me now?
There you go. Yeah.
Great. Thank you. Sorry. I just wanted to clarify, you made a comment at the start of the call which sounded quite cautious with respect to, trading income and asset management activity. But then when you got into the details on the call, it sounded like you're looking at the mid-range to normal for your trading income and slightly higher AUMs. So am I... That first comment, was... Like, how should I read this? It just seemed like you were sending two slightly different messages, on this.
I think first let's check Net Fair Value. Our usual seasonality Net Fair Value tends to be that especially first quarter and the first half overall is higher than average. Clearly now with the volatility and the sharp rate move in particular, we think it's gonna be a bit lower. Still with the normal range, but maybe more in the kinda mid part of that range rather than the top end or even higher as it usually has been in Q1. This is something that we've said before that we'll try to point out some of these developments as they come.
Of course, we're talking about the market making bit in particular, so more like a one-time topic as such would not really affect the recurring parts and the strength of the business as such. On the fee side, you know, I think it's just been a quite dramatic reversal in March, like we all see. But still the average levels are a little bit above the average levels in Q4. Therefore, you know, you'd expect a slight positive from market performance from that perspective. Obviously March has impacted as such, but it doesn't mean the full quarter would be negative from that perspective. On capital markets activity, of course, March probably is quite quiet given the uncertainty in the market at the moment.
Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much.
Hope that clarifies a bit. Thank you. Sofia, go ahead.
Thanks a lot for taking my question. I was just wondering with the EUR 190 million of restructuring costs and the quite significant staff cuts. Should we already expect the reduction in staff costs in Q1, or that's more to come later in the year?
What we pointed at was that the benefit in terms of run rate costs would come through in 2026 and 2027. It will take some time for the actual restructuring initiatives to go through and therefore start delivering some of the structural cost savings associated with it. You should not maybe think about it from a very short-term impact as such, but rather gradual as we work through it.
Okay. That's very clear. What about? Are there any one-offs that we should be aware of? I saw in the Finnish press a couple of weeks ago, there was that Nordea got like a small fine from the ECB. Are there any one-offs that we should be mindful of?
On the resolution fee that we flagged already, the fine you refer to relates to, you know, or let's say it's about EUR 2 million, so it doesn't really make a big difference in terms of the numbers as such. Other one-offs, I can't think of us being or having flagged any specifics. We'll then call now, but we'll obviously see when we have the quarter together, then be able to talk about it in more detail.
Just a follow-up from the previous question. On the IFRS modeling, if you update the scenarios, is it the auditors who are asking for it, or is it Nordea internally driven if you were to update your IFRS macro scenarios with Q1?
I think it's more our decision to, if we need to or feel like there should be caution in that, to change. Like I said, you know, take the reference from a year ago and think about the effect it has. It's not a dramatic effect in any case, and when we haven't communicated whether we do any changes or whether the models and the macro assumption changes are sufficient. I won't touch too much on that, but I just say that it's not something that would kind of cause any material changes to our performance as such.
Okay. A very final question. On the wholesale funding, could you just remind us how much is kind of floating versus fixed? And the fixed part of the wholesale funding, how much of that is swapped? In relation to your comment that higher short-term market rates would kind of impact your funding costs.
Generally, you should think about the whole bank operating in the short-term rate and in a way. When we think about long-term funding, usually they get swapped in the short end. That's the norm as such.
Okay.
Same goes for fixed lending as well. That's largely you'd think about that as being swapped to the short end.
Okay. It's fair to assume that all the wholesale funding is basically short-term linked to interbank rates three months, but also that the long-term corporate lending is also all three-month like interbank rates.
That would be the general thing. I think overall, you know, no need to take it out of proportion as such. Usually we've had whenever there are kind of sharp moves in market rates without the respective, you know, policy rate change, there are some effects that come from that and in terms of timing and the differences there. I don't think it's an item that you need to dwell on too much, but just take note of it.
Okay. That's clear. Thank you.
Thanks, Sofia. Namita, go ahead.
Hi, Ilkka. Just two quick questions. On the asset management fees, how much were the performance fees in Q4?
The total semiannual annual fees and performance fees were EUR 26 million in Q4.
That was all booked in Q4?
Yes, correct.
Okay, fine. Just on this AT1 that's been called, I'm guessing the coupon is like 6% or something like that, so the impact on NII should probably be like high teens million EUR.
I don't have the exact number now, but I think if you recall last year when we issued AT1s and we still had this one outstanding, we did make comments in terms of the impact of that doubling in a way. We'll give more detail once we get further, but it will not impact Q1, but it will be a benefit in Q2.
Okay.
Not huge numbers, but a benefit nonetheless. That will help going forward.
Okay. Thank you.
Thanks, Namita. Ricardo, go ahead.
Thanks, thanks, Ilkka, and good morning, everybody. Just a quick one, couple if I may. The first one, from what you said at the start of the call, do I get it right that the 9 basis points increase in STIBOR three months should not have too much of an impact and not for just one month? Just to be sure I kind of perceive correctly what you meant. The second question I have is, if I'm not mistaken on, when you have to calculate your IFRS9 losses, you use a weighted average of the value scenarios, and correct me, Ilkka, if I'm wrong in that. If that is the case, could you remind us, what is the weight of the adverse one and the baseline and so on? Thanks.
Yeah. First on STIBOR, I think it's 9 basis points average for Q1 over Q3. Sorry, Q4. The average is 9 basis points higher. That will have a small effect on the funding side. Then on the scenarios and please guys on the call shout if I remember incorrectly, but 20 60 20 I think is the scenario weighting. 20% on the downside, 20% on the upside and 60 on the base case.
Okay.
Nobody's shouting, so those are the numbers.
Okay, thanks, Ilkka. Thanks a lot.
Super. Thanks, Ricardo. All right. I think that's all the questions. Thank you very much, everyone. Enjoy the long weekend ahead and we will certainly speak soon.