Fastighets AB Balder (publ) (BALDB) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome to Balder Q4 Report 2025. [Operator Instructions]. Now I will hand the conference over to IR Jonas Erikson. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this call for Balder's Q4 and Full Year Results 2025. With me in the room, I have Erik Selin, CEO; and Ewa Wassberg, CFO. And we will run through some slides as usual, and then open up for questions.

Erik here. If we look at Balder at a glance by year-end, we have a portfolio value of SEK 229 billion, and the composition is 54% resi and 46% commercial. Occupancy rate at 95%. We have good liquidity, SEK 24 billion, debt to assets, 48.1% and NAV is SEK 94 in this quarter. Looking at the Q4 numbers specifically, we have rental income and NOI up 4%, and it's important to bear in mind that this is in Swedish krona that has been pretty strong lately. Profit from property management in earnings capacity goes down 7%, and that is connected or explained by our proposed distribution of Norion share as a dividend to the shareholders. And also important to just bear in mind that if we look at year-end figures, the dividend is roughly SEK 5.25 per Balder share, but NAV will decrease SEK 4 per share. And like-for-like rental growth is in the positive territory of 2.7%. And here, we have the earnings capacity then updated in more detail. And there you can see Norion effect is on profit from associated companies that goes down, but that is totally explained by the Norion distribution that we will most likely do after the AGM. So now it's the balance sheet booked as another asset that will be distributed, and that's why it will not be included in earnings from this year. So with that, we end up with SEK 6 billion and SEK 5.06 per share ex-Norion. The portfolio is 80% in larger city and capital, as always, and we have the usual one, Helsinki, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Copenhagen. And you can see the split also residential, 54%, as I mentioned, and then you have office 15%, retail, 12% and logistics, 7%. The longer-term trend is that we have been having quite a good increase over the long time period in profit from property management. This curve is only 10 years. But if we look back another 11 years, we have a long good trend. The latest year has been sort of flattish, and that is, of course, interest rates moving from 0 and upwards. And in our case, we more or less compensated with higher income. And we also had a lot of fixed interest rates. So the effect came gradually. But then having said that, if interest rates are flat, then the long-term trend will be that this curve will start to go upwards again. And here, we can also see development for property value and LTV and occupancy. So LTV, 48.1% and occupancy now is 95% is rough -- it's almost always 96%, but every now and then it happens with 95%, and this is whole percentage points. So behind that is actually sometimes that move up or down, and then we round it up to 2%. So we think this is an okay result, and thanks to our organization for achieving this stable development year after year after year after year.

Looking at the financing, the current mix of funding is largely where we want to be, which is 50-50 split between bank and bond financing. The level of available liquidity is in line with last quarter, which is a little bit higher than usual. And we will also continue to have slightly higher liquidity during '26 due to higher concentration of maturities in the beginning of '27. The interest rate fixing and hedging ratio is stable and the average interest rate is unchanged since last quarter at 2.9%. Yes. So here, you can see the long-term trend of the portfolio value in relation to the net debt to total assets. As you can see here, net debt to total assets continue to go down a little bit. And the current encumbrance level is at 23.4%, which also is a reasonable expectation for the future given our funding mix that is somewhere between 20% and 25%. So over to the maturity structure. If we start with the bank loans, the maturity structure is a result of the Swedish bank financing. It's typically quite short, even though we have bank financing in other countries as well. So on the bank side, it has been business as usual, rolling maturities. If you look at the bond side, we have more maturities in '27, which is the reason for the higher liquidity position. The funding market is very strong. And in such a situation, we might maintain a slightly higher level of liquidity as the cost of additional liquidity is small relative to the security it provides. And here is more sort of a structural overview of the funding and capital side. As we have said before, we will continue to have a balanced capital allocation until reaching our target of 11x net debt to EBITDA, even if the distribution of the Norion shares as a dividend will temporarily work in the opposite direction. Here's also an updated calculation on the convertible bond, which when that is converting, assuming that we are above strike price, obviously, will have a very positive effect on the indebtedness number as well. And in terms of funding strategy, there is really no change compared to previous quarters. And that was actually all from us. And on that note, I will leave the floor and open up for questions.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Stefan Andersson from Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial.

A couple of questions -- sorry, a couple of questions from me. Starting on Norion there. Just a little bit curious on the technique on that one. Earlier distributions we've seen, there's an -- just before the distribution, there is an adjustment of the value to market value. So like it was a write-up made when Anaheim was distributed. Now I guess 2 questions in one here. I guess the valuation right now after the drop here is similar to what you have in the books on group level. But will you have such an adjustment of value before distributing? Or are you going to net it out somehow? That's the first question. And the second question is when you say distributing SEK 5.50 and the NAV drop is 4%, is that based on the year-end valuations? Or is that based on today's valuation?

Yes. So there won't be any sort of value change before the distribution. So the distribution is sort of separated as of year-end. And now it's booked as an asset that will be available for distribution and the NAV will be adjusted sort of accordingly. It's not going to be any value increase or realization gain booked through the P&L. And the numbers are per year-end.

Perfect. Then secondly, B shares. I'm a little bit curious if you could maybe mention a little bit about why are you thinking about issuing B shares? Is it -- is this something you need for the Norion distribution? Or is it has anything to do with the hybrid? Or is there anything else?

No, we don't need it for Norion or hybrid. It's just to have optionality going forward. So it's a practical way to be able to do it. And then we add that when we have the AGM instead of potentially if we need it later, have an EGM.

Okay. Then I'm a little bit curious about your thinking about repurchasing your shares. I mean the -- with the NAV growth and the stock flat, the discount is increasing even further. I've seen that you made some acquisitions, and I guess you have to evaluate the capital allocation on that. So right now, do you see actually any good options or alternatives to the Balder share actually?

Difficult to tell beforehand. But I think we can do both, as we said last quarter. So it's possible that we buy some shares and do some investments at the same time. But the split between those is a bit depending on share price and what possibilities comes around.

Yes. On the co-ops, the apartments business there, with the loss that came through and has come through the year, what is your thinking there? Have you started to discount stuff? Or is it more a volume issue that makes those unprofitable?

No, we have running cost, and we took over some apartments in Karlatornet that was slightly negative when we sold them. So it's highly likely that, that figure turned positive this year.

Okay. Good. And then I guess I won't get an answer, but I answer anyhow. I mean, I hear what you're saying with the liquidity that you've had now for a while on a relatively high level versus history and even though you say it's cheap, but it's still costing you a little bit. Is that something that you use to have some maneuvering room to do some bigger transactions? Or is it purely just to wait to pay out in '27?

The majority of it is because we have a lot of maturities in Q1 '27. We have 2 euro benchmark bonds maturing in the same quarter. So that in itself will lead to a liquidity position that is sort of SEK 5 billion, SEK 6 billion higher than usual up until we've had those maturities. Then I think you also have to look at how the pricing in the funding market is from time to time. If you see attractive pricing, if you have a lot of incoming interest from investors, you might issue a little bit more or you do it a quarter or 2 before you have planned. If you issue a bond 1 or 2 quarters, ahead of schedule, and you can do that at attractive pricing that might still make sense even if you actually carry a little bit higher liquidity cost. We're trying to optimize and think sort of 24 months ahead in terms of maturities, liquidity needs and how the market is currently and what we see on the horizon. And we try to optimize it from there.

The next question comes from Jan Ihrfelt from Kepler Cheuvreux.

A couple of questions from my side. I start off with rental agreements on your resi here in Sweden. How have that developed? And are you able to give any guidance on maybe a possible range where it could land?

So most of them are finalized. So we landed at slightly below 3.5%, 3.2%, 3.3%, I think.

Okay. Okay. And my second question relates to Finland. There has been a quite heavy oversupply in the market there for some years. We see some early signs on maybe lower vacancies, but could you give a short -- I mean, put a little bit more flavor on that market just in terms of vacancies and rents?

I think there's no change to our sort of outlook for the medium term. There's been quite a drop-off in new supply coming -- de facto coming to the market. And with that, we know that occupancy should go up steadily. And at some point, there will be an increased sort of pricing tension in the market as well. It's very difficult to find this, I think, on a quarterly basis. What we can see in the later part of 2025 is that it actually has slightly less impact on the occupancy compared to what we had expected. But that might also be temporary issues in terms of how migration flows move. So the official statistics in terms of people moving into the urban areas is still very strong actually. So we feel that the picture is very similar to what we've said all along, and it's difficult to time it from a quarterly perspective. But if you think about the big picture, I mean, we've had in the last 7 or 8 years, hardly any rent increases. At the same time, disposable incomes are up by 25-plus percent. There's no issue with affordability. We know that new supply is falling off a cliff. And we see that in some of the cities where that has already happened, you see pretty quick recoveries in occupancy actually. And at the same time, you have a sort of unabated movement of people to the urban areas. So from a pure mathematical standpoint, something new needs to happen for this not too many recovery in the coming couple of years is our view. And let's see when and how and in which order things happen.

Okay. If I interpret, you're right that the lower vacancies hasn't impacted the rent levels to any extent or.

No. I mean there's always some seasonality in the Finnish market. So we can't see any sort of trend shift yet. That's a little bit too early, I think.

Okay. And my last question regards your key ratio net debt to EBITDA, which is currently at 12x. You have a target of 11x. And my question is really how eager are you to bring it down to 11x for 2026?

We've said that's a long-term target. And obviously, the Norion distribution will deteriorate that number slightly. So we set us back a little bit. So I think you need to look at it. I think we've said for a few quarters now that we care more about the direction and the pace of change in the current market conditions. We also know that we have in 2028, the convertible presumably converting into shares, which will obviously support that number slightly as well. So I think you should see it as a directional statement and in terms of where we want to end up, but it's not the 2026 target.

The next question comes from John Vuong from Van Lanschot Kempen.

On the Class B shares, so hypothetically, if you were to issue those today, what would you do with the proceeds?

I mean there are no such plans. I think it becomes very speculative. We haven't sort of made this disclosure because we have any plans of doing a new issue of the shares. We want to get it into the docks so that we have the opportunity and possibility to do so. So there are no plans currently at all. So you shouldn't see this as a preparation for raising more capital.

Okay. That's clear. And then if you -- given that you're looking into this flexibility, how do you think about dividend distributions on Class A and B shares?

I think we -- I mean, we have had a capital allocation that has been very flexible for a very long time. And I think that we will be eager to remain flexible on that. If we, hypothetically speaking, should have the shares outstanding, we obviously need to change the dividend policy to accommodate that. But I wouldn't expect that you shouldn't draw the conclusion that, that also means that we will become a regular dividend distributor on the B shares. And we will pretty much, in that case, do what is required to cover the coupon or the dividend for the B shares. And then the rest will be a capital allocation decision as per usual where we really will always prioritize investing in the business and/or doing share buybacks as a means of employing capital, then if we sort of really find no attractive ways of employing capital in an accretive way, then obviously, at some point, the distribution of a dividend becomes the remaining choice. But that principle will still stand in regards to the B shares. And there might always be a little very small dividend because from a rounding error perspective because you can't pay exactly the amount to cover the B shares only, but it's not going to be any material numbers as a default.

The next question comes from Lars Norrby from SEB.

A couple of questions on the earnings capacity. Now focusing on the profit from property management line, SEK 6 billion. It was SEK 6.6 billion in the Q3 report. And obviously, you're now excluding Norion. What would the number have been in the Q3 report, excluding Norion? Is it -- we see the change in the associated company line some SEK 700 million lower. So would it have been SEK 5.9 billion? Is that the way to interpret it?

Honestly, I don't actually have the exact numbers we have in the model. I mean they're always -- given that we give rounded numbers to equal or sort of rounded SEK 100 million, I don't want to say which side of that we would end up if we hadn't had Norion in Q3. But mind you also, there's quite a lot of FX movement that has taken place in the last couple of quarters, and that's obviously impacted the total profit from property management side as well. So I think that's worth keeping in mind, you've had some weakening, especially year-over-year, you've had some pretty noticeable weakening of the NOK, which impact the associate line in terms of you also have obviously the strength vis-a-vis the euro, which will impact everything we have in Denmark and Finland. So that's part of the development that you need to factor in as well. But I think if you just look at the way things are accounted for, Norion is accounted for as a proportion of their -- it's pretty easy to the precise contribution for last year.

Okay. Second question on the earnings capacity. What type of impact and to what extent have CPI indexation on the commercial side from the 1st of January and for that matter, new rents in particular are in the Swedish resi portfolio, how much has that affected rental income in the earnings capacity since it's unchanged compared to Q3?

We always factor in all negotiations discounting and all the indexations that we know of when we cross the year-end. That is being factored in. I would say the unchanged part is more of an FX movement. It's currency who lowered down the number actually. So in constant currency, it would be higher, of course.

The next question comes from Fredrik Stensved from ABG Sundal Collier.

I just have one follow-up. On the occupancy rate, specifically for the industrial and logistics segment, it looks to be down 3 percentage points Q-on-Q. In the same time, rental income is up. So I'm trying to sort of understand the sequential move. Is it Balder acquiring vacant properties in this segment? Or is there something else happening here in between Q3 and Q4?

I actually need to dig into that number a little bit further. I don't quite recognize it. But I know we've done some acquisitions that has impacted the number, as you say. But I can't say whether that is the full explanation. Can I get back to you, Fredrik, on that?

Yes, absolutely.

The next question comes from Pranava Boyidapu from Barclays.

You mentioned that Norion Bank is no longer included in the profit. So it's not in the P&L numbers. Does it mean that it's also not in EBITDA and hence, the net debt-to-EBITDA 12x leverage is already excluding Norion. So upon distribution, it shouldn't change on that basis?

No. So sorry for being unclear there. So it is included in the reported numbers for Q4 and the full year 2025. But in our report, we have something called the earnings capacity, which is more of a snapshot as of the 31st of December as a proxy for annualized earnings given the portfolio we have at the 31st of December. And in there, we have excluded Norion. So if you want to look at that as some kind of forward-looking earnings capacity, there, Norion is already excluded. But the 12x net debt to EBITDA still includes Norion shares. So that will be impacted by 0.89%, something like that negatively.

And you also -- you're doing your share buyback presumably, but also you talk about the convertible in 2028. Would you say that taken together, the impact on leverage should be broadly neutral?

I think the major impacting factors between now and if you take a 2-, 3-year perspective is obviously that we have an underlying growth in our earnings and EBITDA. We have a cash flow annually that improves the balance sheet position as well. So I think those are sort of probably more impacting in that time horizon compared to the buybacks that we've done so far at least and compared to the conversion of the convertible. So the convertible would be corresponding to roughly 1 year's free cash flow for the company. So it more depends on how we sort of steer the balance sheet from here in terms of growth opportunities and potential buybacks depending on where we find the most value really.

Sure. That makes sense. And then just one final thing for me. There is a small amount left on your hybrid, which -- who have a first call in 2026. So I was wondering, is that included in your bond maturities as 2026?

No. So that's recorded at the formal maturity, which is longer. So we think we have sort of a couple of billion SEK to SEK 3 billion outstanding remaining of that, but it's not recorded in the '26 maturities.

The next question comes from Andres Toome from Green Street.

A couple of questions from my side. Firstly, just maybe on Finland residential. I was just wondering what are the sort of implications you're seeing in the market from the housing allowance rolling off and then sort of stricter rules also on permanent residency coming in, in January. Is that sort of impactful for the rental market as you see it?

It's difficult to know exactly what is doing exactly what it should have some effect, but it's -- for us, it's impossible to quantify it. But I mean, it's happened. So from now on, it's already -- I mean, it's there.

Right. And then I guess the housing allowances, they already were coming off. So is there, I guess, some sort of a demand impact you're seeing maybe on smaller apartments because I guess students would have used them a lot as well in the past.

Most likely, but I mean, it's impossible to know exactly right. I mean -- but most likely, that have been the effect, most likely. It must have some effect if you take away subsidies. But for us, it's impossible to quantify it. But could explain some of the weakness, absolutely.

There is a tendency in 2025 that the population growth does not fully correspond to the occupancy increase. There's a slight dispersion between the 2. So that suggests that there, on average, should be slightly higher number of people living in each apartment compared to the previous year. That might be one such impact. But I think the important thing from our perspective when we both sat around the business and we think about it strategically is that, as I said before, you've had a number of years with too high supply into the market. There's one of the best affordability situations that we've ever seen. And we all know that the Finnish economy has been pretty weak in the last few years, but it doesn't take away the fact that there is a large need for housing in the urban areas. We have that available. We feel pretty good about the sort of medium-term perspective in that sense. Then you might always have some of these more technical factors impacting the quarterly development from time to time. But I wouldn't say it changes our view on a couple of years horizon.

Understood. And then maybe on Denmark residential as well. I guess there was quite a lot of noise in Copenhagen with municipal elections around rent controls and things of that nature. But I guess what are your views around that in the sense that could this become sort of a national debate? And could it be the case that buildings built after 1992 could become sort of strictly regulated as well?

I think there's already a regulation in place in Denmark, which basically stipulates that when you first move into an apartment, then there's a market rent setting from there on, the property owner can only index by CPI. That's sort of fair model that is transparent and easy to sort of understand for all parties, definitely protects the tenant. And in some cases, you obviously have buildings where tenants have been staying for a very long time. So -- but let's see what happens. It's impossible, I think, for us to speculate on potential regulatory changes. But there's even been discussions in -- by some of the political parties in Sweden to adopt the Danish model into the Swedish system because it is balanced between having on one hand, the market economy at the same time protecting tenants. But let's see. I don't have any sort of great insights into what might happen to the Danish regulation.

Got it. And then final question, just on capital allocation. I just wonder where do you see sort of best opportunities right now if you look across sort of your own portfolio, where would you like to add exposure also being cognizant of what's available in the market? And I guess, adjacent to that, for hotels, you have some exposure and there's this large portfolio from Pandox on the market. Is that something of interest perhaps?

I don't think we will be buying from Pandox, if I'm guessing. I don't think so. But otherwise, we're very happy with the hotels, and it's been a good year in -- especially Copenhagen, if you look at RevPAR and occupancy and stuff. Otherwise, we do, as always, we look at the -- basically in the Nordic market and try to see what makes sense to add to the portfolio. to increase the shareholder value over time. We don't decide before what's good or bad. It's all about pricing.

The next question comes from Othman El Iraki from Fidelity International.

Just a follow-up on previous question on the hybrid. Just taking your latest thinking, are you still thinking that you don't need the instrument in your capital structure and that you would call this year? That's my first question.

We haven't announced that we will make an announcement before we call it and say, but in the past, we always call it first call date. We felt -- and we've said this before as well, we felt that the hybrid instrument is a bit complex as it says. It tends to be very attractive cost of equity in good times and less good times in the credit market, it becomes a bit more cumbersome to roll the outstandings forward. And you also have an optionality in there that is embedded that you pay for, but in practice, you can't really utilize. So far, we've come to the conclusion that we are not looking to issue any new hybrid at this point. And obviously, things might look different, I guess in the last, let's take that in.

Okay. And my next question is on the Norion distribution. Have you been in touch with S&P? And are they fully involved in that?

Yes. I mean we've been -- this has been announced quite a long time ago, and the growth informed even before it was announced as well. So this is already sort of part of the plan and should be part of their modeling for the future since -- well since 6 months back basically.

Okay. So you don't expect a negative reaction from S&P?

No, that would be immensely surprising.

Okay. Okay. And my last question is, given where the bond markets are at the moment, pretty hard to say the least, how does that compare to your bank funding at the moment?

A little bit depends on how you look at it. It's always difficult to compare side by side because one is secured, the other is unsecured. You might have slightly different tenor structures, et cetera. But I would say, currently, we are roughly on par between bond financing and bank financing, a little bit depending on which market and tenors you look at it. Bonds might actually be slightly higher than the bank financing in the short-term.

The next question comes from Pierre-Emmanuel Clouard from Jefferies.

Yes. Just coming back on the Class B share that you may want to issue. Just to fully understand how you are seeing it. So you said that you want to streamline and simplify Balder with the Norion disposal, which is a fair assessment in my view. But you want to add a new class action that would, in my view, further complexify the structure. So just to understand how do you view this item? Is it equity or perpetual debt for you first? And if that's equity, would you keep your current internal metrics unchanged as like net debt to total assets of 65%?

Yes. So there's no change in our view on the financials or credit metrics at all. Class B shares -- sorry, we should probably have specified that in the report. So the Class B share is an instrument that is pretty common in the Swedish market, which is a fully -- it's an ordinary common equity class of shares. The differential is between the B shares or the current outstanding shares is only in terms of the dividend distribution. So that's the difference. And in the Swedish market, the custom is that you always pay a dividend, which is enough to cover the dividend coupon on the B shares at least. So it's actually from a credit metric standpoint, capital standpoint, there is literally no change. There's no difference in -- compared to ordinary shares in a liquidation situation. There's no difference from an S&P perspective. There's no difference from an accounting perspective. It's all part of the same common equity. The only thing is that you differentiate between 2 share classes and who gets a dividend first.

Okay. I'm asking the question because as you know -- as you may know, some investors could classify the Class B shares as perpetual debt, but it's open to debate. And my second question.

Sorry to interrupt you. I think there are instruments that might be open to debate. I don't think Class B shares is one of those that might be open for debate because there is no -- in the past, there's been quite a lot of companies that used and ourselves included actually a number of years ago, they use pref shares of various kinds. Those had in addition to the dividend preference, they also had a differentiation in a liquidation situation and they also had accumulation of unpaid coupons. So the difference here and the reason why S&P credits this as a fully 100% equity and why it's accounted for as equity is that there is no such thing. So if the company can afford to pay a dividend, these guys would, in theory, then get their dividend first. But there is nothing binding the company to -- in a stressed situation, leaking cash flow. So this is actually not one of the instruments that is difficult to interpret in that sense.

Okay. I understand. And my second question is on your top line growth expectations. So can you guide us through the like-for-like rental growth for 2026? And what is your estimated indexation and occupancy changes for this year?

No, we don't give any outlook in that sense. So in 2025, we had a like-for-like of 2.7% for the full group. This year, we will have -- if you just look at the delta, this year, we will have slightly lower indexation for the Swedish resi portfolio. Then I think in Denmark, there shouldn't be a large change. The Danish inflation and CPI indexation has been pretty low for some time now already. So that should be pretty similar to what we saw last year. There's not been any dramatic changes in the Swedish CPI numbers either on the commercial side. It will more be a matter of what pricing tension you will see in the market based on how occupancy moves. And then the Finnish resi market, as I alluded to before, we see that occupancy is going up. And at some point, we should have slightly better pricing tension in that market. It hasn't happened so far. Let's see when that starts happening. It's difficult, I think, to give a precise prediction of that. But the trend, I think, is in our favor there. So I think that's broadly what I can give you. So it should be fairly similar, slightly lower probably due to the Swedish resi on a pure like-for-like basis, then obviously, you will have the reported numbers being impacted by everything from transactions to FX movements, et cetera.

Okay. I see. And maybe a final question, as a follow-up on Swedish resi. Do you see a lot of opportunities currently on the market? And do you have any clue on the pricing?

Do you mean sort of final transactions in the property.

Yes, on portfolios that could be on the market currently, actually.

If you look at the transactions that we have done in the last 12 to 18 months, and we tend to like do transactions where we can get an accretion in terms of yield compared to what we already own. I mean the first test is obviously that it needs to be in a location where we want to be and where we have our property management organizations in place. But other than that, we want to have an accretive impact on the full portfolio when we do incremental transactions. And we have been extremely tilted to the commercial side in the last 18 months and the transactions we've done on the Swedish side. SATO did an acquisition of 1,000 apartments last summer in Finland. We've done 1 or 2 smaller resi transactions in Sweden as well in particular cases where we already have a decent footprint in some area and then another property comes out for sale. If we can get a decent yield on that, that might be worth doing. But there's no -- I think the pricing is actually fairly both on centrally located commercial and on resi in Sweden, it's not that easy actually to go out and buy things that are accretive compared to our back book yields.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments.

Okay. Thank you very much, everyone, for listening in. You know where to find us if you have any follow-up questions during the day. And just feel free to reach out. Thank you.