Investor dialog

May 8, 2025

In my capacity as chairman of the board of Investor AB, what if I started by greeting you all with a warm welcome to all of you shareholders Investor to this investor dialogue, which is according to tradition at this stage. The idea of course being that we can have a wider debate, being able to give you replies, perhaps a little bit more delving into the detail above and beyond a little bit of the highly structured annual general meeting proceedings. You're all very welcome on behalf of myself, Christian, and Jacob Lund. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jacob, and such a pleasure to see so many of you here today. We plan to go on for about 45 minutes before we open today's general meeting of shareholders. We know that many are with us online as well. A warm welcome to all of you as well. Feel free to ask questions. You raise your hand if you'd like to ask a question. Then you wait until you get one of the roving microphones. One of our officials will bring a microphone to you. I have a few questions, however, to begin with before we open up for questions. Starting with you, Jacob. We were here a year ago. My first question to you back then was how gloomy is really the situation in the world generally? I sort of regret that I didn't keep that question in my back pocket until today. It's a highly complex environment we're living in. The world is changing radically and very quickly indeed. What's your thinking? What do you think we should do and think in these turbulent times? Well, just as you outline in your question, it is turbulent indeed. At the end of the day, this is really due to the fact that we are used to some sort of normal order of things, how we trade with each other, how companies operate in different countries, et cetera. Right now we are in a situation where we actually don't know for certain what's happening. The U.S., as we all know and are aware of, have their approach to tariffs, that in turn has created a situation where many are just holding off, waiting. Should you invest in a new factory perhaps? Establish a presence in a new country or not? What's going to happen to the economic development? Are we going to see a downturn in the business cycle? Well, it's all leading to uncertainty for decision-makers at all levels. People are sort of waiting around, and that's where we are currently, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone's speculating of course on where we are headed, but we don't actually know. In the major political camps, I know that there's a discussion going on right now. How about you, Christian? From a corporate perspective, how do we navigate this in all of our businesses? What do we do to identify opportunities through tariffs and all the other events that are coming? First of all, on Jacob's point, we don't know. Nobody knows exactly what's going to happen. We don't know the direct impact, what's going to happen to the tariffs, where will they end up, what levels, and even less the indirect impact on the economy. As Jacob said, when people are just waiting around, holding off with decisions, that's going to have an impact. We're quite convinced, nevertheless, that it's going to have a deep and fundamental impact on us. For us, as long-term, highly engaged owners, we want to stay close to our companies. We want to learn, understand, be ready to support them where necessary. We work, of course, in a very highly decentralized model, we know that preconditions differ from one company to another. It's very important that every company starts from where they are standing and look at what's best to do moving forward. Jacob, just as you mentioned, we need to be able to deal with questions and challenges, but you need to also be open for potential opportunities. Suppliers, for example, for a particular commodity or someone who would like to shift to another supplier in an uncertain world economy. There are many factors involved. Over the past year, we've also seen a negative impact in terms of sustainability related issues. Investor, however, has chosen to stay the course and focus on the transition to a greener environment. What are the main reasons, Christian? Well, I think it's fairly simple really. There are two main reasons why we're sticking to our course that we have open up. It's very important, it's urgent for the globe, for the environment, but it's also an excellent business opportunity. Those are the two most important reasons. Relating to sustainability, one of our companies, Ericsson, have been criticized because they have partly changed their wording when it comes to diversity and inclusion in their annual report, even though the company maintains their goals and maintain their efforts. What is our take on this as owners? Like Christian says, these are important issues, important issues to us, things that we can stand by. In the case of Ericsson, it is a little bit special. They are very clear about what they think about this, but they also need to consider the fact that they are suppliers, potential suppliers to the American government. The American President have issued an executive order concerning what you're allowed to say and not to say about these matters, and that's a law in the States. If you're gonna supply to the American government, it is appropriate to comply with American law and what the President has said. This balancing act is something that Ericsson need to relate to, and they do so in the way they have communicated, and we, of course, stand by that. This is not entirely uncomplicated trying to strike this balance. Final question for you, Jakob, before we open up for other questions. When this AGM soon will start, it marks a mark of the succession efforts that you've worked with for many years, with Fred Wallenberg being proposed as director of the board. That's a special day. Yes, it is a special day. I said that to Fred this morning when I saw him. This is a special day. I remember when I myself was in a similar situation a few years ago. And for the family, this means very much indeed having this kind of continuity and to create an opportunity for the next generation where skill and expertise is to be found and enabling them to join and get an opportunity to be elected to the board and being part of Investor's developments in the future. Yes, with that, we'll open up for questions, so please raise your hand and await one of the roving microphones. We have a question here, I think. Number 3 is the roving microphone. Yes. Investor is the single largest shareholder in SEB with 21.8% of the votes. You have opportunity to influence the decisions of the bank concerning important things such as how to invest in the fossil fuel industry, for example. Over the past two years, SEB is the Swedish bank that has provided the most fund in loans and bonds to fossil fuel companies at $2.8 billion to companies such as Equinor and Aker, who are planning to drill for oil in the Arctic, but also to German coal companies. I'm wondering what your position is concerning this and your chance to stop this in the context of an escalating climate crisis, which is being aggravated by the continued burning of fossil fuels. I think I should start by just asking you to tell us who you are. Yes, my name is Irma Kjellström, and I am part of a coalition of climate organizations, climate justice organizations that campaign for SEB to stop providing new loans to fossil fuel companies that are expanding the extraction of fossil fuel because that is in breach of the Paris Agreement, and it locks us into a climate collapse eventually. Thank you. It's nice to know that everyone knows who you are. I do think that's a very important question that you're bringing up here. I'll start by answering it, and Christian can complement it. This is not as easy as just when you have a relationship with, in this instance, between the bank and a company. I should say sorry, I should start at another end here. Of course, SEB has to make this decision. The management and the board will have to make these decisions. Of course, we can influence them to some extent as owners, but the decisions rest with them. My principal view is that we should not immediately terminate a relationship with a customer as long as the customer, of course, is not breaking the law or anything like that. As I understand it, the companies that you mentioned and other companies supported by the bank in various ways through this financing, they have plans on how to reduce their emissions and how to achieve the different targets that they've set up and in order for them also to comply with the norms that we stand by. That's my principal view of this. In other words, you can't just do that, and we have to comply with laws and regulations. No, I think you've covered the most important parts there. The bank and has which we want all companies to have a climate strategy and a climate policy that they abide by. As you say, Jakob, a transition will also require capital. I do not personally think it would be the responsible thing to do to walk away from that kind of relationship. Thank you. I think we have a question over there as well. Good reminder, Jakob. Please state your name and who you represent if you do represent anything aside from yourself. Number 6. Good afternoon. Ola Robè is my name. I have a question and a suggestion. The question is this: We have about half a million of people who are unemployed. 200,000 are receiving unemployment benefits. Money in Sweden. Through your company's Investor has a great deal of influence. Could Investor encourage all of your companies to employ more of these people, organize traineeships, et cetera, to try and bring more of these people back into the labor market? We can't have up to 10% not doing anything. That was my question, as it were. The second one is more of a suggestion. Jakob, you mentioned in connection with the inflation and the more expensive prices of food recently, I think it was in the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, I'm going to ask or make the same suggestion here. 0.3% margin was mentioned, perhaps Investor could set up a school for the retail food retail traders in the ICA chain. If they're operating with the sort of margins that have been mentioned, perhaps it's time to look for work elsewhere. Would you like to go first, Christian? I'm going to start from the end, in that line of questions and suggestions as Jakob. We're now going to perhaps set up a school, but it's important the point you're making because in terms of the points of view expressed in Sweden, we often hear that all food retailers are making huge money. That's not entirely true. Many are unable to sustain their business. Many of the ones within the Coop chain, for example, are on the verge of bankruptcy. It's not necessarily going to be good business for everyone, and that's what I was sort of aiming at in my comments. At one point you really got the impression that everyone should be called up to the Minister of Finance and told off for making too much money on the back of us consumers. That's not entirely the way it is. On the matter of unemployment, it's obviously up to each and every one of our companies to determine who they would like to employ and how many people they need to hire. The good thing that we note is that our portfolio is growing. It includes more people and more companies every year. If we look at the Swedish unemployment numbers, it's a tragedy, I have to say, because it is clearly a mismatch situation. There are companies every day who are looking for people. There's a shortage, in fact, in many sectors. At the same time, we have far too many people who are out of a job. Thank you. More questions. We have speaking point number five over there. Remember to introduce yourself. Yes. Hi, my name is Olga Nordqvist, and I am also a member of this coalition of climate justice organizations. I would like to bring it back to what Irma asked and SEB, because you talk about that you, of course, want your companies to comply with laws and regulations. SEB currently has so much money invested in fossil fuel projects that are in breach of the Paris Agreement. I'm wondering if you will use the influence that you have in the bank in order for them to speed up their effort of moving funds, you know, into the transition into a sustainable society. Thank you for the question. I can begin, and then you can add on to that, Jakob. Without commenting on what individual companies do, I can only answer in principle. As an owner, we have something called value creation plans around all the companies in our portfolio, where we identify the areas that we think are important to push for when it comes to the management and board. The climate transition is included in all of those. I think I have to go back to our previous answer. The transition itself, going from a brown or dirty industry to a green one, will require capital. The responsible thing is perhaps not just to terminate such relationships and walk away. What you give up then is the opportunity to participate, to have a dialogue, to work to influence together with this customer. If I continue on that note, the bank doesn't have any different view there. They are working with their customers in this direction, but I do respect the fact that all of us want this to happen overnight. Reality doesn't really operate like that. It will take time to change processes. It will take time if you shut down all the energy supply of that character, you might leave an entire country without energy, and that leads to other types of problems that the electorate and politicians also think are important to manage. It's constantly a balancing act. Laws, regulation with a clear direction staked out, it will take time. Thank you. We'll take number 4 over there. Thank you. Bo Olsson is my name. I usually attend these meetings. I often ask questions. It's been about 15 years now since I asked a question about whether it was not time to replace the vacuum cleaners and the washing machines after a journey to China. Now it transpires as Christian has taken on the position as CEO, you've succeeded to develop Advanced Instruments. I'm very pleased to see this with the new acquisition in the pipeline. When are we going to acquire Beckman Instruments, I'd like to know, while we're at it? Did you understand the question? Well, the question is when we would acquire a particular company, Beckman Instruments in Palo Alto. Well, Jacob tipped me off on a good policy, which is to comment on business once we have completed them, not the ones that we might potentially be looking into. I'm going to stick to that suggestion, which is a good tip. Advanced Instruments and Nova Biomedical are very interesting acquisitions, going to create excellent synergies, but I will get back to that later. Okay. While I have the floor, I'd like to also ask one other question, which is EQT. I come from a small village, small community called Tranås. You might be able to tell from my accent, but that's the case nevertheless. Where I come from, there's a company that used to be called OEM, and OEM was acquired by EQT. There was a really, really low offer, a bid that was placed, and they were able to somehow obtain majority. Then there was the annual general meeting of OVM for the shareholders, where you would have expected them to take part, to be present, but they didn't attend. They sent a representative from Vinge Law Firm to represent EQT. The entire shareholder meeting and everyone who attended were all terribly disappointed. In addition, they also made sure that they doubled the fees for the board of directors. That was not particularly pleasant. I hope EQT has an explanation for this. Thank you. I didn't understand that there was an actual question, but we thank you for those comments. Let me also just mention that I have a few questions that we've received in writing that have been sent in. Here's one from Lennart Sundstedt. There's one for you, Christian. What is Investor's strategy regarding the allocation, distribution between listed companies and Patricia Industries? Where does Investor see the best opportunities for value growth in the listed or the unlisted holdings? The answer is yes, meaning we have three business areas. It's listed companies, it's Patricia Industries, where we have our wholly owned companies, then investments in EQT. As we have said previously, we see opportunities in all of those three parts. Over time, including most recently, we have invested in all parts. I should say that we don't have a strategic goal to achieve a certain distribution between the different parts. We want to have an opportunity to invest where we see the best opportunities. That said, also linking back to Advanced Instruments and that acquisition, for a long period of time, we managed to make additional investments in those wholly owned companies, and we see that as a continued effort. We think it's a good way to really accelerate this journey of growth and also for Investor to put capital to work. Thank you. Lennart Sundstedt had sent a series of questions. I'm gonna ask one more, that is for you, Jacob. What do you think Europe and the EU needs to do to increase our innovative ability, reduce bureaucracy, and create the opportunities for startups to grow into large profit-generating corporations, and thereby reducing the risk that Europe's importance to the global capital will fall, will be reduced? Well, how much time have I got? It's an extremely relevant question. In the European Union and in Sweden, we talk a lot about competitiveness, i.e. our ability to be competitive. Europe has been lagging behind over the past 15, 20 years compared to the U.S. and China. It's very much about, as he's asking here, it is about our ability to innovate research and development, creating new companies, develop existing companies more quickly than we have done so far. From this, we can create growth. Growth means more employment opportunities, a larger tax base, better social security systems in different countries, et cetera. A lot of this is summarized in the so-called Draghi Report, which was produced by the EU, where they're pointing to a number of tangible things that we need to do. They're working on this right now, trying to create something out of this. That, just like any other issue at hand today, will take time. That's true. Number 2. Thank you. Stefan Ek. Stefan Ek is my name. I have a lot of experience from the IT industry. You talk about AI in the report a little bit at least. What do you see as concrete major productivity gains potentially? How do you ensure that you're not being left by the wayside, that you're able to keep up? Where do you expect the real revolution? Let me just say one thing, first of all. To us, this is a highly relevant question that you're asking, and we talk a lot about future-proofing, proofing our companies for the future so that they're prepared for it. The two issues we raise with all of our companies, the green transition sustainability, and the other one is what used to be digitization, now it's focusing mainly on AI. Those are important questions of principles. We had a board meeting within Investor today, we had half an hour set aside for discussing what AI will mean to Investor in the work we do on a daily basis. I just want to highlight how we try to address this in many different ways. Christian's going to tell us about what this means to all the companies. Thank you. Well, just as Jacob just mentioned, we see huge potential both within Investor and in the portfolio companies. The interesting point is that there are really opportunities across the entire value chain, from R&D, where many companies are using AI tools today to develop new products in R&D simulations, et cetera, to, of course, production. Efficiency generally, both in production and administration. What's really exciting, of course, is when you're able to use AI to make sure that the products or your offerings to customers become even more attractive to them. There are numerous examples, not least within Ericsson, who have highly advanced AI capability in their radio base stations already today. The final part, which you mustn't forget, is the aftermarket, where many companies today use AI to predict and determine where service and maintenance will be required to be able to deliver it even before the equipment breaks down. A lot of different opportunities across the entire value chain. The interesting point I have to say is that a lot of this can be done without us having to make or take any major risks in terms of the technology. The technology exists. We need to make sure that we know how we want to do it, that we've determined what competencies and skills we need, and what data we need for it. Excellent. Number six. Thank you. We have number 6 over there. Yes. Hello. My name is Tone Martensdotter. I'm from the same coalition of climate justice organizations. I would like to continue with this line of question because you didn't really answer our question. We do understand as well that a transition will not take place overnight. We do understand that you cannot just cut any ties immediately with the fossil fuel industry. What we criticize is that you have investments in companies that provide loans to companies that are involved in fossil fuel expansion, meaning that they continue to prospect for oil and gas when we already have enough oil and gas for the transition, we already have sufficient quantities to provide countries with the energy they need. We do not need to look for more, still this is what you are indirectly supporting. What you're supporting is really that the climate crisis will continue. What I'm wondering here is how you can defend fossil fuel expansion, that we should continue prospecting for more of it. Shall we? I'll put it like this. I cannot talk about the details in each individual company that you're pointing to here because I don't know. I cannot really respond in any detail. I come back to, just like you are, I am also repetitive in my character, and I'll say the same thing again. It wasn't really my intention to give you a blow below the belt when I said that. I think your questions are very relevant. At the same time, you must also respect that there is a political process. What you are opposed to at the end of the day is that a political process doesn't change things. We are trying to abide by the laws and regulations as we've tried to describe. I assume that SEB is not working with companies that violate laws and regulations. In light of that, we will continue to support SEB. This will take time. Very good. We go to number 2. Peter Rorke is my name. I have a question for Christian Cederholm. In information in the news, we read that you spend a lot of time looking at portfolio companies, Husqvarna and Electrolux. I question this very much. When you look at Husqvarna, we can leave Electrolux outside of this issue. If you look They had the same-Chairman appointed by Investor over the course of 10 years with a drop in 25% on the share price over the course of these years. The company, in addition, is operating in a market segment with good products. And they've had a chair who clearly spent a lot of time and focus on Northvolt most recently. From Investor, I think it would have been nice if you had taken action a long time ago. I really think that there are excellent preconditions for a promising future. Lundbergs even saying that the company is lost in the market generally, doesn't know where it's heading. Now there's a new chair, which we hopefully can expect a lot from. Lundbergs have said that they're interested in the development and whether or not shares should be purchased in Husqvarna. They really think investors should think very carefully about it. Going into Husqvarna and Electrolux could be a way of showing your support for Torbjörn Lund. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for that tip. I didn't hear a question per se. Yeah. Knut. My name is Knut Knutsen. I have a question regarding Investor. It's really tricky to speak into a microphone like this, what was it I was gonna ask about? Oh, that's right. Patricia Industries. Is the point that the unlisted holdings would remain unlisted? If I understand the question correctly, that is whether we have any intention to list those companies in Patricia Industries. The simple question is, no, that's not part of our strategy. We think that if we find such nice companies as we have, those of us who are engaged in them, we can grow together with them over several years and decades, then we prefer to do just that rather than selling it. All right, then we'll take number 5. Yeah, [Foreign language]. Thank you. Johan Sjöström is my name. I represent KPA Pension and Folksam. Over the past number of years, we've seen opposition to sustainability work growing in the U.S. in particular with various political forces involved, and many of your portfolio companies have significant operations in the U.S., as we heard earlier. I'm wondering if this development in any way has an impact on how you as owners reason when it comes to the sustainability work done in the companies. We heard a little bit about this earlier about the difficult balancing act that is required, perhaps you could tell us a little bit more. Thank you. I'm going to give Christian the opportunity to get to the details. I just want to repeat what I said earlier. As a point of principle, we have absolutely the same approach today as we had previously, including all the operations we're involved in in the U.S., and that will remain the case. We will continue to try and communicate this in various ways. What does this mean in practical reality, Christian? Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that in the U.S., just as you mentioned, is a very important market to us. Important to us and to a very large number of our companies. We've been there. We've had a presence for over 100 years. We intend to remain there for at least another 100 years. It's an important market, no question about that. As Jacob pointed out, you need to adapt to the extent necessary to the various governments. That goes for the U.S. and other countries. You don't always agree on everything. When we weigh it and look at the situation overall, the U.S. remains a very important market to us. We want to continue to operate there. It's interesting, if you go back to the question you asked about Ericsson earlier, the important point is really what we do. The way we see it, at least, there are none of our companies who are not doing things in this area, and that's what's really important to us. Number three. Thank you. That brings us to number three. Yes, Jan-Olof Hedberg is my name, and my question to Investor concerns risk management. Partly, I got my question answered in the previous question, but Investor has a fairly extensive exposure in the U.S., and many people now are saying that you move your assets to Europe. Europe is not gonna do much, much better, but much better than the U.S. in the future anyway. Are there any plans to change that? I would also like to have a comment regarding the climate crisis. The authority there is IPCC, and they've said for 25 years that the only way of tackling this quickly is to harness all the CO₂ in all large plants, but the market has said no to this because it would change the conditions of competition. Today, they're spending thousands of billions of dollars dealing with the damages. Why not subsidize it so that industries can do that? I think the EU climate policy is just a sham as long as we don't deal with those major problems. There were several problems. Several questions, sorry. Well, I can begin then. It's not as if we are aiming with our investings to end up in some kind of a geographic distribution. That's not true. We have companies that we think have world-leading excellent products. We want to have them to have a presence everywhere. That's why we call geographic expansion is very high up on the agenda in many companies. That means, besides being strong in, say, North America and Europe and a few other geographies. We also want to invest actively to gain access to other markets as well. To that extent, there is a certain amount of diversification. We're not actively going to work towards leaving the United States. Moving a plant or building a new plant, that takes a very long time. What is happening in the here and now in politics is not necessarily the same four years from now. That goes back to my answer to the first question. We're kind of waiting and seeing now. We're not making any major decisions until we know a little bit more about what rules and provisions will be in place. Regarding your second question or answer about, should EU change their, legislations and regulations, the only thing I can say is that many people are trying to find different tools for handling these issues, and what you mentioned there is one of many ways that are being discussed, of course. Thank you. Number 4. We're gonna have to start wrapping up. Jo. Jag heter. Sven-Christer Nilsson is my name, I have sort of a rhetorical question probably. When Trump was elected, there was a lot of hoo-ha, there would be car tariffs introduced in the U.S., both of our blocks started shouting in protest. Even the Social Democrats were opposed to car tariffs, that made me recall that a number of years ago in general elections to the parliament, the Conservative Party, the Moderate Party, had a logo, "No to the car tariffs proposed by the Socialists." I'm wondering, does Investor perceive Trump as a Social Democrat? Well, that was the today's single most original question, you said it was a rhetorical one, right? You've already given the answer, I believe. Shall we go to number 6? Shall we move on to number six? My name is Mats Broman, I have a question concerning We discussed the subject of meritocracy and taxonomy. Taxonomy, it's called. Sorry. This has been discussed for a number of years when it comes to appointing talent, where they've talked very much about from a sustainability perspective you should have this diversity when appointing talent, when not only purely meritocratic considerations should be made. I would like to know what your answer is to that in Investor when it comes to recruiting new talent, executive talent, because this is something that has been discussed in many contexts, that we should use other methods than just pure meritocratic ones. I can begin. Yeah. I think that the media debate in Sweden about what Investor said about this issue about a year ago now, was a little bit misleading because Investor has a very clear view on this. We want to appoint people that are skilled and talented. We believe that if you sort of address all cultures, all genders, all different sectors of society, you also have a better chance of getting the best individuals, and it perhaps are not only white Anglo-Saxon men. That's what we think. We're trying to live by that. We think that is the best way of developing individual companies. That does not mean that we apply positive discrimination. We're really trying to look at their skills and expertise and also how different groups of people complement one another in an organization. We think that is good for the development of the culture and thereby the company. Nope. Well put. Just by looking through the entire population when you're looking for new recruitments and giving everybody an equal opportunity to develop, that's the only way you can apply true meritocracy. There is no inherent contradiction there. Thank you for that, and thank you to all of you who posed questions. Thank you for arranging this event, and thank you for a very good and constructive discourse in general. Thank you to you two trying to answer all the questions. We have about 15 minutes until we start the AGM in earnest. Thank you for now, and we will meet again shortly. Thank you