加载中...
共找到 17,982 条相关资讯
Morgan Stanley's Katerina Simonetti joins 'Fast Money' to talk the state of the market, hurdles for the rally, and what she is looking at for both the near and long-term.
Investors now have one more reason to be worried about the world's largest debt market.
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq close at records after their best three-week run since 2020.
This system identifies repeatable setups across thousands of stocks, and you can test it yourself.
The small-cap Russell 2000 punched through to an intraday record high on Friday, capping a furious 13-day rally that marks the index's best run since 2020 and signaling that gains are finally broadening beyond the mega-cap tech leaders.
It's my view that we may be heading into the final sprint of the Middle East crisis. The April 17 Hormuz reopening matters because commercial traffic resumed, though passage still requires Iranian coordination, safe-lane limits remain, and the U.S. blockade of Iran-bound traffic is still active.
The U.S. Federal Reserve's Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman has told big bank executives that she does not expect the industry to stage another aggressive pushback in a bid win further capital relief, according to three people with knowledge of the communications.
Marley Kayden closes out the week with her final takeaways by examining some of the biggest winners on Friday. Both software and hardware stocks gave the tech trade lots of muscle, while a big slip in crude oil set the runway for travel stocks to soar.
Speculation the Iran war is poised to end sent risky assets surging anew, extending a month-long rally that's lifted the S&P 500 Index to a succession of records, added around $12,000 to the price of Bitcoin and pushed up credit and gold. Olaolu Aganga, Citi Wealth Head of Portfolio Construction and Analytics joins Bloomberg Businessweek Daily to discuss.
The official market close is undeniably the most important trade of the day. It determines stock and index returns.
Kevin Simpson, Capital Wealth Planning founder and CIO, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss Simpson's view on equities, what to expect next week and much more.
The Investment Committee debate how to position your portfolio after Iran's Foreign Minister declared the Strait of Hormuz will remain open during the ceasefire.
US stocks surged on Friday, with major indexes hitting fresh records as investors cheered Iran's decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and growing optimism around a potential end to the Middle East conflict. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 869 points, or 1.8%, while the S&P 500 gained 1.2% to cross the 7,100 level for the first time.
The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and collapsing oil prices have removed a key inflationary risk, driving a bullish shift in equity markets. Technology, consumer discretionary, and industrials are leading as lower energy costs and easing rate expectations boost profit margins and valuations.
Walter Hess: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our Q1 '26 trading update. I'm Walter Hess, the CEO, and I'm joined today by our CFO, Daniel Wuest. In line with what we announced at the full year conference, we will provide transparent quarterly insights into our path to EBITDA breakeven, which is why we are hosting today's call. Just a few weeks ago, during our full year '25 results, we outlined our strategic evolution from an online pharmacy player to the leading digital and AI health platform, the engine for our profitable expansion at scale. Today, we will show you the facts that validate our successful development. Let's move straight to the Q1 highlights on the next slide to demonstrate how well this engine is now accelerating. Overall, we achieved a strong revenue growth of 10.7% year-over-year. Our Rx business showed outstanding momentum with a 30.4% growth year-over-year alongside a strong 7.6% sequential growth compared to the previous quarter. The growth was fueled by accelerating month-over-month with a remarkable uptick in March, which also continues in April. Our high-margin Digital Services business continues to scale rapidly, achieving an impressive 63.1% growth rate while consistently increasing margins. In Q1 '26, we successfully expanded our ecosystem platform, growing our active customer base by 1 million year-over-year, whereas 0.4 million in Q1 '26, to a total of 12.6 million, which is a great achievement. And most importantly, and as you know, our main priority, we improved our adjusted EBITDA by CHF 10 million year-over-year to minus CHF 6 million, proving we are on track to achieve our breakeven target in the course of 2026. Let's move to Slide #5 now. The 30.4% year-over-year Rx growth clearly proves that our strategy to capture the potential of the Rx market is highly effective. It shows that the patients are more and more familiar with our Digital Services and increasingly value the comfort of home delivery. We saw a growth in Rx orders from month-to-month with a significant uptick in March, rounding off a very successful first quarter and also continuing into April. And this acceleration comes together with a more and further optimized channel mix, which pleasingly increased RAS, return on advertising spend, and decreased our customer acquisition costs even further. Ultimately, this is a strong start into the year, and it demonstrates the growing stickiness of our health platform. Our non-Rx business remains a reliable driver of value, delivering continuous and profitable growth of 6.5% year-over-year to fuel our broader ecosystem. We managed our OTC and BPC business according to plan to a growth rate of 4.4%. Our Digital Services, including TeleClinic, Retail Media and our Marketplace grew further by an outstanding 63.1%. These digital business lines are not just growing top line, they are delivering increasing margins and therefore, a significant EBITDA contribution. And on top of it, the strong platform performance and expansion also forms an excellent basis for our Retail Media business. And now I would like to hand over to Daniel. Daniel Wüest: Thank you, Walter. And also from my side, a very warm welcome to all the participants. Let's move to Slide #7, where you see the EBITDA bridge, which we also provided to you during the full year figures in March. And I want to start this with the following comments. We closed Q1 with an adjusted EBITDA, as Walter already said, with minus CHF 6.3 million, representing a substantial improvement of almost CHF 10 million, exactly CHF 9.8 million compared to the quarter of last year. That's proving our continuous path to profitability. The adjusted EBITDA margin improved by over 360 basis points from minus 5.7% to minus 2.1% in Q1 compared to the previous year's quarter. If you look at the chart and you see since Q1 '25, we have seen an ongoing quarterly EBITDA improvement driven by basically 3 factors: Better operational performance, focus on marketing efficiency and also very important to mention, disciplined cost management. Amongst other, you remember, we have closed the Heerlen Logistics operations last year. And this year, we have announced the closing of Ludwigshafen, the warehouse and their respective logistics operations, which have already contributed substantially on the cost side, but will further contribute during '26. And I can also confirm that with the closure of Ludwigshafen, we are very well on track. We will see first positive operational effects there in the second half of '26. We continue to be very transparent, and you see with this minus CHF 6.3 million in Q1 '26 in the chart on Page 7 that we expect the quarter result almost on the same level for Q2. And then as already mentioned in March, we aim for getting close to EBITDA breakeven in Q3 and there will be definitely EBITDA breakeven in Q4. And I think that's what the management team is kind of aiming to achieve. All in all, our Q1 results demonstrate that our measures are working and will further work because it's not yet done, and bet DocMorris is very well on track to achieve EBITDA breakeven in the course of the year. We are relentlessly executing our plan with precision, knowing that our strategy, the evolution from a leading online pharmacy to a leading digital and AI health platform will pay off. With that, I would like to go to Slide #8. There, nothing new. Backed by our strong Q1 performance and our current trading, where we see an ongoing positive trend from March, we are fully confirming our short and midterm guidance as laid out on the full year presentation in March. That means we confirm our '26 adjusted EBITDA target in the range of minus CHF 10 million to minus CHF 25 million, strongly supported by the improvements we have already seen and delivered in Q1. We are confident to achieve EBITDA breakeven even if we would be at the higher end of the guided external revenue growth guidance. And just for your memory, we guided mid-single-digit to low teens percentage range. And as you have seen in Q1, we can deliver on the EBITDA target even if we are at the upper end of the overall revenue guidance. All in all, we firmly reiterate our commitment to reaching EBITDA breakeven during '26 and achieving positive free cash flow in the course of '27. And with that, I hand over to Walter. Walter Hess: Yes. Thank you, Daniel. So before we move to Q&A, I want to briefly address the upcoming Annual General Meeting and the future Board composition proposals. Our Board proposes 3 independent nominees, Thomas Bucher, Nicole Formica-Schiller and Dr. Thomas Reutter. Together with our existing Board members, this composition brings targeted expertise across the areas most critical to further execute on our strategy. Management's clear preference is for continuity and stability. We are at a pivotal point in our development. Consistent, focused execution requires a Board that is aligned, experienced and ready to act, not one in transition. All proposed new nominees are fully independent and stand for the interest of all shareholders. We believe this is the right team to take DocMorris forward, and we encourage shareholders to support these nominations at the AGM. Let me conclude the call with a clear message. Our vision of health in one click is not just a concept. It is fully operationalized through our integrated digital and AI health platform. However, a strategy is ultimately defined by its execution. Our Q1 results deliver strong proof that our measures are working and DocMorris is firmly on track. We are not just making promises for the future, we are delivering today. This is clearly demonstrated by our strong Rx growth and the 63% expansion in Digital Services and our continuous EBITDA improvements. My clear statement to you is that the transition to a profitable digital health ecosystem is fully underway and is yielding tangible financial results. We have the right strategy. We have the right management team and the operational proof is in place. We are executing with absolute focus, and we are pairing the necessary sense of urgency with a clear commitment to long-term value creation. And with that, we would like to move over to the Q&A part of this call. Operator: [Operator Instructions] And we have already some questions. The first question comes from Mr. Koch from Deutsche Bank. Jan Koch: My first one is on Rx. Encouraging to see that the growth rate has accelerated again in Q1. If I analyze your Q1 number, I'm already quite close to your full year guidance. So is there anything we should consider here? Or is your full year guidance just a bit more conservative than in recent years? Then secondly, on profitability, could you confirm that the loss in Q2 is not expected to be higher than in Q1? And if so, the upper end of the EBITDA loss range looks quite unlikely as well. Any comments here? And then lastly, are there any upcoming regulatory changes that we should keep in mind? There have been some headlines on the potential changes to the cold chain requirements. So any color here would be helpful. Walter Hess: Yes. Thank you, Jan, for your questions. Let me take the first and third question. And then the second one, I would like to hand over to Daniel. On the Rx, what I just can confirm that we continuously improve the marketing mix, the performance of the marketing. And with that, we just see a really good development. And yes, so let's meet again in August, and then I can further -- or we can further give you more details about the growth and what you can expect also in the second half year and for the full year. About profitability, maybe Daniel? Daniel Wüest: Yes. I think that's always the backside of being very transparent and you did the right math or measuring up on the scale. I think it would be -- if you already would know how Q2 would come in, especially on the bottom line, then my life would be much easier, and we would now go out and [indiscernible] join with the fun. No, but on a more serious note, definitely, we aim for EBITDA -- quarterly EBITDA in the area of Q1 and knowing that Q1 and Q2 are usually the weakest quarters and with acceleration in Q3 and Q4. However, having said this, as Walter already mentioned, we see very good traction coming from March and also has been transferred into April, even that basically, we had 2 slower weeks due to the Easter time and related vacation. And therefore, I would kind of confirm your view that you could assume that it will be roughly on the level of Q2. But of course, we have -- the management has a higher ambition to maybe improve it to the upper end of the midpoint of the shaded bar, which you see in the chart. Walter Hess: Okay. And then coming to your third question about the regulatory development, and you mentioned the cold chain. So as you all know, there is a draft of regulation, which has been issued by the Ministry of Health. And now the EU Commission intervened and basically said that it's a violation of EU law again, we have to say. For us, it's a positive signal because we see it equally. So now the ministry has to adjust this draft. And it's really just a draft, and it's only on the regulation level. So we see it as a really positive sign as I think also the market has seen. Operator: The next question is from Mr. Kunz from Research Partners. Urs Kunz: I have just one question regarding Digital Services. If I calculated correctly, you had a growth rate of 110% in Q3 and then 95% in Q4. Now you have 63% in Q1. And this is a rather steep deceleration. Is that something we have to think about that it's going further down in the coming quarters? Or is it going to stabilize? Because you have your guidance or your inofficial guidance of mid-double-digit percentage range for the whole year, which would translate to, I guess, 40% to 60%. Daniel Wüest: Thank you, Mr. Kunz, for the question. I think your calculations of the last year and the quarterly development are, let's say, more or less right. And as mentioned, we indicated when we guided for Digital Services that we are aiming for mid-double-digit growth, which we would also translate into 40% to 60%. And with the -- we are now actually at the upper end. And I think in relation to TeleClinic, there, the TeleClinic was slightly below the average, but we have kind of disclosed for Q1. But as mentioned, you have to remember that last year, TeleClinic has won the TK tender, which is by far the biggest insurer in Germany. And there you have seen a huge increase in volume starting in December, but mainly in Q1. And you can expect and assume that there will be kind of a leveling out, i.e., that the base effect will then, from Q2 onwards, play in favor of TeleClinic. And having said this, TeleClinic has several tenders outstanding where we expect to get feedback rather sooner than later and which could then also basically, if they would go into the right direction, give some additional top line growth, which was not reflected in the initial guidance, which we had put out in March. I think just to add there, I think top line growth is one, and we also explained in March that in -- with TeleClinic, we always have years where with high growth, but let's say, stable profitability, margin development, which was last year because the growth was 3 digit, but the margins more or less were stable. And this year, and that deliberately, we see already in the Q1 that the growth is a little bit lower, but the margins have substantially improved, and we expect that this will continue during the year, meaning that we are not talking kind of a 3, but rather kind of a 4 as the first number in the margin profile. Urs Kunz: Okay. But all in all, you're quite confident that the growth rate in Digital Services in the next few quarters stabilize somewhere in this double-digit percentage range, mid-double-digit percentage range and then not kind of constantly going backwards? Daniel Wüest: No, no. I think we hope it will be the other way around, but let's see. But we are very confident that this 40% to 60% is for the time being that the wide range and not any -- adjustments to the downside are definitely not a topic for this year. Operator: [Operator Instructions] And the next question comes from Guillaume Galland, I hope I pronounced your name correctly, from Barclays. Guillaume Galland: See, I have one question maybe on the non-Rx and OTC side. So yes, could you give us a bit more color on what you're currently seeing in German OTC? And -- so your peers have flagged some softness in the market, which was seen in Q4. [indiscernible] in Q1. It seemed that OTC has slowed in Q1 for DocMorris. So keen to hear a bit more on the consumer demand and if you've seen any changes on the competitive intensity. Walter Hess: Thank you, Guillaume. Happy to answer that one. So obviously, the market is going on more or less the same level and pace as also the Q4. For us, it's important. We have a plan to grow mid-single digit with OTC and BPC, and this is the level where we manage growth in that part. And yes, so as you might remember, generating OTC growth would not be really difficult. So we could grow further, but it comes with a price. And our priority is very clearly on profitability. And this is why we decided also to soft guide OTC on mid-single digit, what works well in Q1 and also in Q2, the start in April. Guillaume Galland: And then regarding -- sorry, Rossmann and dm, any change here in terms of competition? Walter Hess: Sorry, I didn't understand your question. Guillaume Galland: Have you seen any switch in competition from Rossmann and dm in the market on the OTC side? Walter Hess: No, we don't feel additional competition at all. Daniel Wüest: Guillaume, so to make it very clear, I think on the OTC, we have compared from Q1 -- Q4 to Q1 this year, we have not changed anything. We have exactly the same amount of marketing spend, marketing ratio and everything. And that's the reason -- you do not have to ask us why in Q4, we all of a sudden got to a double-digit OTC growth. But I think that was somehow exceptional. But Q1 is really according to plan and budget and to guidance, which we provided this mid-single digit and this 4.6%, we are perfectly on track to -- in this respect. Walter Hess: Okay. So as there are no further questions... Operator: Yes, one more question. It just came in. I'd like to interrupt you. So the next question is from Gian-Marco Werro. The floor is yours. Yes, we can't hear you, Mr. Werro. I'm sorry. Walter Hess: But we can answer your question off the call at any time. So we are, of course, achievable -- available. Okay. So let's end this call. Thank you very much for taking part, for spending the time. I just can confirm we are really well on track. The management, the company needs stability and consistency, and we are strongly executing and fully focused on delivering the guidance that we have promised to you and to the market. I wish you a wonderful day and looking forward to seeing you and meeting you in August latest. Thanks a lot. Daniel Wüest: Thank you.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Q1 2026 Badger Meter, Inc. Earnings Conference Call. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star 1 again. As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn the conference over to Barbara Noverini of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Ms. Noverini. Barbara Noverini: Thank you, operator, and thank you for joining the Badger Meter, Inc. First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. I am here today with Kenneth Bockhorst, our chairman, president, and chief executive officer; Robert Wrocklage, our executive vice president of North America municipal utility; and Daniel Weltzien, our chief financial officer. This morning, we made the earnings release, acquisition announcement, and related slide presentation available on our website at investors.badgermeter.com. As a reminder, any forward-looking statements made on this call are subject to various risks and uncertainties, most important of which are outlined in our news release and SEC filings. On today's call, we may refer to certain non-GAAP financial metrics. Our earnings presentation provides a reconciliation between the most directly comparable GAAP measure and any non-GAAP financial measures discussed. With that, I will turn the call over to Kenneth. Kenneth Bockhorst: Thanks, Barbara, and good morning. Before getting into the specifics of the quarter, I would like to start by setting the stage for a more detailed discussion on our Q1 results and how we are thinking about our metering business more broadly. We operate in a market supported by strong long-term macro drivers, recurring replacement cycles, and increasing adoption of advanced technologies ranging from our ultrasonic meters to industry-leading cellular AMI, beyond-the-meter solutions, and recurring software and analytics. These durable factors, combined with solid execution, have driven consistent value creation over time. At the same time, it has always been true that our business can be uneven quarter to quarter and year to year. Over the 2023 to 2025 time period, robust revenue growth driven by multiyear cellular AMI share gains and overlapping project activity reduced the visibility of this inherent unevenness. In mid-2025, we began to signal that the revenue contribution from certain historical AMI projects would decline as deployments concluded ahead of awarded but not yet started AMI projects. As a result of this project pacing and backlog normalization dynamic, we previously communicated that our 2026 revenues would be weighted toward the back half of the year. On page three of our earnings slide deck, you can see the impact from project pacing in our first quarter 2026 revenue. In addition, short-cycle order rates, for which visibility is always more limited, were weaker than we anticipated, resulting in approximately $15 million to $20 million of lower revenue versus our internal expectations. As a result of those combined headwinds, first quarter sales were down 9% year over year to $202 million. While our expectations for a solid second half have not changed, the softer start to the year prompts us to anticipate full-year 2026 organic revenue to be on balance with 2025. Normally, I would turn the call over to Daniel at this point to walk through the financial results in detail. However, in light of the below-expectation sales results, I am going to turn it over to Robert to walk through greater detail on this multilayered customer dynamic. In short, Robert will explain our view that this first quarter outcome is timing-related and does not reflect a structural change in either market demand, our broader competitive position, or the long-term market drivers of our business. Robert will walk through a subset of anonymized details related to several awarded but not yet started AMI projects that are expected to begin deployment in 2026. This is not the level of project detail we would normally provide each quarter, but these awarded projects, along with others in the funnel, help to inform our outlook for the rest of 2026 and support our expected momentum into 2027. With that, I will turn it over to Robert. Robert Wrocklage: Thanks, and good morning, everyone. Please turn to slide four. To put the first quarter results into context, it is helpful to briefly revisit the 2023 to 2025 time period. During this multiyear time frame, we consistently described backlog as elevated in 2023 and 2024, with normalization progressing through 2025. That backdrop supported strong but moderating revenue growth. As shown on the slide, four sizable AMI projects that began deployment in 2023 were meaningful contributors during the same time period, collectively representing nearly 800 thousand connections. These were not the only AMI projects ongoing or completed during this multiyear time frame; rather, this selected cohort of projects represents the most significant project revenue contributors for illustrative purposes. Two of these projects, JEA and OUC, were supply-only projects, with our involvement limited to the shipment of our meters, endpoints, and recurring BEACON SaaS revenue rather than full deployment execution. PCU and Galveston were turnkey projects for which the scope of work included Badger Meter, Inc. products and SaaS, plus installation labor and ancillary equipment such as meter boxes and lids. As previously noted, both project size and scope matter. Turnkey projects generate significantly greater revenue than equivalently sized supply-only projects. That relationship is illustrated in the stacked bar chart and is one of several drivers of revenue unevenness. These projects ramped in 2023 off a prior year consolidated revenue base of $566 million. They peaked in 2024 and declined through 2025 as the projects approached completion. Over the same period, our generalized order backlog moved from elevated to more normalized levels. Together, the size and scope of projects combined with backlog normalization supported strong results over this three-year period while muting the impact of underlying short-cycle order variability, which was always present, just not visible in our results against this positive backdrop. Within these four AMI projects, you can see the revenue contribution is uneven, with meaningful variability quarter to quarter based upon project and customer specifics that are not related to underlying demand, competitive dynamics, or long-term market drivers. We entered 2026 with these projects largely completed and a normalized backlog. Against this 2026 backdrop, short-cycle order rates, where we have the least amount of visibility, were weaker than expected and thus the below-expectation revenue outcome. Now to the facts that have and will continue to inform our forward revenue outlook. Slide five highlights our forward look at awarded AMI projects that are expected to begin deployment in 2026. Importantly, this is not a top-projects list but rather a snapshot that illustrates several important characteristics of our business, competitive positioning, and technology leadership. Many of these awards have been known to us for some time—in some cases, years—with typical lags between initial award indication and deployment driven by a number of factors. These timing differences are common in our industry and contribute to revenue unevenness, and they also represent just one layer of the multistage opportunity funnel that informs our view of future growth. This list also reflects a wide range of funding sources including capital budgets, rate cases, grants, WIFIA loans, and other financing, underscoring broad funding availability and sources. Also illustrated here is additional information on competitive conversions, diverse deployment types, and technology adoption across both municipal and investor-owned utilities. Most importantly, this project set represents between 2.6 million and 3.6 million connections over multiple years, meaningfully larger than the prior project cohort of 800 thousand connections that supported growth from 2023 to 2025. Turning to the PRASA project, we received the first significant purchase order for the project in the first quarter, and we expect the utility’s installation partners to begin deployment activity around midyear. PRASA, together with the successful completion of the projects previously discussed on the call and others not announced, underscores our continued AMI success with customers of any size and complexity. In summary, while the first quarter results stand out relative to recent history, we view 2026 as a short pause, not a break in our trajectory. As we move into the next phase of growth, we expect continued expansion of our AMI installed base, and this in turn will emphasize ORION cellular AMI as the market standard for AMI, which creates opportunities for further meter share gain, recurring software revenue, and broader adoption of our beyond-the-meter solutions. With that, I will turn the call back over to Kenneth. Kenneth Bockhorst: Thanks, Robert. In addition to the project awards described by Robert, we continue to see constructive market and customer activity across our extended opportunity funnel, including pending RFPs and early utility engagement with consultants, which remains healthy as utilities continue to prioritize modernization, efficiency, and visibility across their water networks. These long-term secular drivers remain intact. Despite the soft start to the year, I am encouraged by the consistency we have delivered in gross margin performance, overall SEA discipline, and cash flow, which speaks to the strength of our team’s execution around the world and the resilience of our business model. From a near-term cost perspective, we have implemented measured cost reduction actions, including a 10% salary reduction for our executives for the next six months, to maintain spending discipline and protect margin integrity as we navigate revenue pacing throughout the year. I will come back at the end to talk about our outlook and the exciting announcement we made this morning around the acquisition of UDLive, but before I do that, I will turn the call over to Daniel to talk more about the numbers. Daniel Weltzien: Thanks, Kenneth. The contrast between 2026 and 2025 is clear. So let us get into those details. Turning to slide six, total sales were $202 million, representing a 9% decline year over year. Utility water sales declined 10% year over year, reflecting the project pacing and weaker short-cycle order rates referenced by both Kenneth and Robert. Lower metering product revenue was partially offset by increased BEACON SaaS, SmartCover, water quality, and network monitoring product revenues. Collectively, beyond-the-meter product line growth was a bright spot in the quarter that should not be lost in the broader revenue headline. Sales for the flow instrumentation product line were down 4% year over year. Turning to profitability, gross margin was 41.7%, down 120 basis points against a record gross margin in 2025, primarily reflecting product and project mix. Gross margins remained robust and near the top end of our normalized range, which reinforces the durability of our pricing discipline and structural mix benefits, despite lower year-over-year volumes. Selling, engineering, and administrative expenses were $49.2 million, increasing $3.1 million year over year, driven primarily by $1.2 million in transaction costs associated with the UDLive acquisition, higher personnel costs, and an additional month of SmartCover SEA costs, offset by reduced incentive compensation expense based upon the first quarter results. SEA as a percentage of sales increased by 360 basis points year over year, primarily due to the deleveraging effect of lower volumes in the quarter, which we expect will be temporary. As a result, operating earnings were approximately $35.2 million and operating margin was 17.4%, compared to a record 22.2% in the prior-year period. As awarded projects begin in the second half, we expect operating leverage to improve while maintaining our typical level of cost discipline. The effective income tax rate was 24.8% compared to 24.4% last year. Diluted earnings per share were $0.93 compared to $1.30 in the prior-year period. Primary working capital as a percentage of sales decreased from 20.9% at year-end to 20% as of 03/31/2026. We generated strong free cash flow in the quarter of about $30 million, in line with 2025. As is normal, our first quarter reflected typical seasonality within incentive compensation and retirement plan contributions paid out for the previous year. In 2026, we repurchased 256 thousand shares for a total of $38 million and have $115 million left on our share repurchase authorization. With that, I will turn it back over to Kenneth. Kenneth Bockhorst: Thanks, Daniel. Before I give the outlook, I want to highlight the acquisition we announced this morning. Please turn to slide seven. We signed a definitive agreement to acquire UDLive for $100 million, funded with cash on hand plus contingent consideration. UDLive, a UK-based provider of hardware-enabled software solutions for sewer line monitoring, complements SmartCover by extending our sewer monitoring capabilities across a broader range of use cases, network conditions, and geographies. Much like SmartCover in the US, UDLive has built a leading position in the UK, pairing low-power, easy-to-install sensors with proprietary analytics software that delivers continuous, real-time insight into sewer network conditions. The value and differentiation of UDLive’s sewer line monitoring technology is evidenced by a 90% tender success rate since its inception and routinely high technology assessment scores from utilities and consultants. Please turn to slide eight. The combination of SmartCover and UDLive within our BlueEdge suite of solutions positions Badger Meter, Inc. as a global leader in sewer line monitoring, offering customers options across hardware-enabled software platforms and communications configurations, consistent with our choice-matters approach. For those familiar with our history, there is a clear parallel to our acquisitions of ATI and s::can, which together created a comprehensive water quality platform and extended our geographic reach. The strategic rationale for UDLive and SmartCover is similar within the sewer line monitoring market. In the trailing twelve-month period ended February 2026, UDLive generated approximately $22 million in revenue and delivered positive operating profit. The transaction will be accretive to EPS in year one, and we anticipate closing in April. We believe our global channels can further accelerate UDLive’s growth and enhance operating leverage over time. Now looking ahead, we continue to expect 2026 activity to be back-half-weighted as awarded AMI projects advance into deployment. As you are aware, we typically do not provide formal guidance; however, we recognize that investors are navigating this project pacing dynamic for the first time in several years. With that in mind, we are offering additional transparency to our current view, informed by today’s inputs of revenue pacing for the remainder of the year. As awarded projects enter deployment and short-cycle orders recover from first quarter levels, we expect sequential improvement in absolute quarterly revenue dollars as the year progresses, resulting in full-year 2026 revenue, excluding the UDLive acquisition, to be in line with 2025. More specifically, we expect second quarter 2026 organic revenue dollars to sequentially improve from the trough of Q1 but to be down year over year against the highest quarterly revenue figure in the company’s history. In the near term, our focus remains on discipline to manage near-term variability while building momentum throughout the year. Importantly, our financial model is built to support our capital allocation priorities across uneven operating conditions, enabling continued investment in the business, returning cash to shareholders, and value-enhancing M&A while maintaining a strong balance sheet. We will now open the call for questions. Operator: We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star 1 again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality. If you are muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Nathan Jones with Stifel. You may proceed with your question. Good morning, everyone. Robert Wrocklage: Morning, Nathan. Morning, everyone. Kenneth Bockhorst: Hey. Good morning. Nathan Jones: I guess I will start with the short-cycle orders first. You talked about maybe $15 million to $20 million less than expected on that, which is, you know, half or more of the miss versus consensus during the quarter. I have been around with Badger Meter, Inc. long enough to remember the volatility in some of those. Is there any color you can give us on what underlying reasons for that were? I mean, there was some pretty bad weather in the Northeast during the quarter. Is it weather-related or something else? Any color you can give us on that? Kenneth Bockhorst: Yes. I think the key to remind the group—some people newer to the story—that the unevenness that you have recognized because you have followed us for a long time is not new, as we talked about, and there is really not one underlying thing. We are selling to 50 thousand utilities across the country through various different replacement cycles. The variability has always been there, and we have talked about this a few times. Sometimes the variability is there in an equal amount to the high side. But when it is to the high side, it does not really affect people’s view very much because that is all goodness. In this particular case, I would not limit it to one thing. It just happened at this particular time and with unfortunate timing given what Robert had just talked about on where we are in the midst of this air pocket, but not really one thing. It is relatively normal. Robert Wrocklage: I would just add that we are certainly not chalking it up to geographic weather by any means. While it is generalized, if we look at our customer segmentation of where the weakness came from, it is indicative more of timing aspects than anything related to our positioning in the market or share or other things. So this is absolutely timing-based. Nathan Jones: I guess I will ask one on PRASA. You talked about having got the first PO for that, which is great, and expecting the first installations to start midyear. Are you more confident today that the project will ramp up on time and ramp up in the second half? I guess investors have been concerned that the Puerto Rican government has not been exactly the most reliable in terms of getting things done, not for Badger Meter, Inc. specifically, but overall over the last few years. So just your level of confidence that it really does ramp up in the back half of the year. Kenneth Bockhorst: Yes. Robert will probably have something to add here as well since he is managing that very closely. The fact that we brought it up last month shows that we already had quite a bit of confidence in it. The fact that we have a PO and that we know installation partners are lined up—our confidence is higher today than it was before. Robert put his hand up, so he agrees. Nathan Jones: Okay. Fair enough. I will pass it on. Thank you very much. Kenneth Bockhorst: Alright. Thank you. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Reeve with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Jeffrey Reeve: Hey. Good morning. I appreciate all the color thus far. For your updated guidance, what is the risk that some of the late second-half starts push into 2027, and is this outlook appropriately conservative now? Kenneth Bockhorst: I would call this additional transparency rather than guidance because, given the variability, it is hard to guide from quarter to quarter or year to year. As the year progresses and we get closer to each of these projects getting into deployment mode, we see more activity. Some of these that you can see on the list are turnkey, and we are actively engaged with them on the upfront planning. For those that are supply-only, in some cases, we have POs; in some cases, they are still planning. As we get closer and closer, our confidence level is better today than it was ninety days ago. Jeffrey Reeve: Appreciate that. Then can you remind us what specifically is in that short-cycle mix? Maybe what percent of sales? Is that muni budget-driven? Macro-driven? What drives that? Kenneth Bockhorst: A lot of people—even though we talk about short-term variability and why we do not necessarily size or talk much about backlog—is because the majority of the business is short cycle. Distribution is very short cycle. Individual utilities that we sell directly to that are just doing the ordinary buying and are not in an in-flight AMI project are often ordering, and those tend to be short cycle. Utilities order when they want them. Everybody in the industry is at normal lead times. We have basically reverted back to normalized lead times and backlog from before the supply chain constraints and COVID. Even when backlog was elevated, it moved from short visibility to slightly more visibility; it was not like we had a huge backlog that we were chunking through. Jeffrey Reeve: Got it. Appreciate that. I will pass it on. Operator: Your next call comes from the line of Analyst with Baird. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Andrew Krill: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to build on your commentary about short-cycle order weakness being timing-related. Does the flat organic outlook contemplate any recovery opportunity relative to that $15 million to $20 million, or does it assume that short-cycle weakness persists here? Kenneth Bockhorst: By definition, because it is short cycle, we do not have a tremendous amount of hard order visibility. It is not like we have seen a few weeks of excess purchase orders coming through that would change our view. Our view is informed by talking to our distributors and hearing what they are seeing in the field because they are out talking directly to customers. It is also informed by the direct sales relationships that we have with our direct sales force. We are not getting from the market in any way that people are constraining budgets for the normal replacement demand that comes with metering. It just happens to be an air pocket at the same time that there is a project air pocket. Robert Wrocklage: The thing I will reinforce here is the variability that we are talking about specific to Q1 that is now more visible has always existed, inclusive of the 2023 to 2025 time frame. It was less visible in the revenue outcomes because of the backlog condition combined with the projects in flight. I just want to make it clear that this variability is and has always existed. It is just happening to be more visible in 2026. Andrew Krill: Okay. Then on the flat organic outlook for the year, can we dial in 2Q versus the second half a little bit more? Kenneth, you mentioned 2Q would be down year over year. Should we assume a similar decline to 1Q? Kenneth Bockhorst: Given the short-cycle nature of the largest portion of the business, I am not going to size it. I wanted to give enough detail to make sure everyone understands that we do not just snap back to growth on a year-over-year quarterly basis, especially against an all-time record quarter. We are just trying to be realistic. I am not looking to size it to a number in between, but we absolutely expect sequential growth that is likely below last year. Andrew Krill: Alright. Thank you very much. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Krill with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Andrew Krill: Hi. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. I want to ask about gross margin. They held up well in the first quarter considering. Is there anything you would call out there? Then could you give us some help on how they should trend the rest of the year? Do you think still near the higher end of your 39% to 42% target range, or could there be some sequential pressure as these projects ramp? Daniel Weltzien: The important thing to point out is a couple of things. One, the 39% to 42% range we still have confidence in, and that is where we anticipate operating for the rest of the year. In terms of the Q1 result, as we pointed out in the prepared remarks, some of the areas where we saw strength in the first quarter were around the meter technologies—of course, our BEACON SaaS revenue continuing to chug along with the recurring nature that it has—and all of those being above line-average margin, which helped us get to this blended rate in the first quarter. As we progress throughout the year, again, our expectation is to continue to operate within that range. We have talked previously about turnkey projects potentially having different margin profiles than sales through distribution, for example. So mix factors may exist. But, again, just reiterating that the range we talked about historically is still reasonable. Kenneth Bockhorst: To add to that, from an operating point of view, your question was what we see as these projects ramp. Our value-based pricing principles all remain intact, so we are extracting the price that we deserve for providing this value at a price that customers see the value to invest in. Whether it is a little lower on the front side on gross margin, it feels really good on the SEA leverage side and vice versa. So operating profit in any of these cases is something we are comfortable with. Andrew Krill: Thanks. That is helpful. Switching to Section 232 tariffs—it has been a big debate the past couple of weeks with some of the changes to how those are implemented. Can you give any color on how that impacts Badger Meter, Inc., in particular the Nogales facility? If most of what you are bringing into the US used to be excluded under USMCA, is that now a headwind you have to deal with, and how are you going about doing that? Daniel Weltzien: The team in Nogales and here in the US that is managing this for us continues to do a great job in managing the supply chain to optimize costs of our products, and that includes the tariff situation. The short answer is if we look at our tariff exposure over the last 12 months, it has not really changed even in light of recent news as we sit here on 04/17/2026. Always subject to change, but as we sit here today, I do not think about tariffs differently than I have over the last couple of quarters. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Bobby Zulper with Raymond James. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Bobby Zulper: Thanks for taking the question. I had come to the conclusion that your overall volumes of meters might be in the neighborhood of 20% elevated versus pre-COVID. What are your thoughts on that statement? Kenneth Bockhorst: I do not have a lot of thoughts on that specific statement, and I do not mean that to be a snarky response. Our revenue is driven by many factors. When you look at what Robert just talked about on projects—turnkey versus supply-only—and the other dynamics that roll through, plus the new products we have added beyond the meter, I do not know how you would draw that conclusion. We have gained meter share over the past few years; I will agree to that. But in terms of specific sizing, I do not think I will get into that. Bobby Zulper: Fair enough. Appreciate it. One clarifying question on the Section 232 tariffs. Do they get applied to the full value of either the meter or the cellular device when they go in and out of Mexico? Daniel Weltzien: We do not talk about tariffs on individual product line-item levels. Any exposures that we do have are on the component side of our business as we are procuring materials, generally. Bobby Zulper: Okay. So I am assuming because you are getting your brass bodies in Milwaukee, those are not getting tariffs themselves. It would just be the electrical equipment that is going into the meter and the cellular devices. Daniel Weltzien: I will remind you the majority of the copper that we use is recycled brass, which is primarily in the US because you are not going to ship that around the world typically. So yes, that is not where we have exposures. It is on things like electronics and other components that may be sourced elsewhere in the world. But again, as we are shipping products in and out of Mexico, USMCA provides us protection from a tariff perspective. Bobby Zulper: Alright. Thanks very much. I appreciate it. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Analyst with Jefferies Financial Group. Your line is open. Please go ahead. James Coe: Good morning. Thanks for taking questions here. I wanted to ask about the awarded projects that you put on the slide. It seems like seven out of nine awarded projects involved full or partial competitive meter conversions. That is pretty impressive. What do you think is driving that success given the strong incumbent bias in the industry? Have you experienced any meaningful losses of your incumbent positions to competitors? Kenneth Bockhorst: Thanks for the question. One of the dynamics we have explained over the past several years is that our portfolio—the resiliency of cellular AMI and the leadership position we have taken in software—has enabled us to convert market share. Looking at some of the projects we highlighted today, two of them are generation-one fixed network combo utilities that used to be someone else’s meter and someone else’s radio. During generation two, the water utilities decided that they no longer wanted to be on a fixed network, they went out to RFP, and we won that. After winning the AMI RFP—because it was not a full-product RFP—we then also converted the meters afterward. We have another project where we were the meter incumbent but someone else’s AMR radio was on it, and because of our relationship and our cellular technology leadership, we were able to convert from a competitive AMR drive-by to our ORION cellular with BEACON SaaS. We have others where we converted both meters and radios. For the most part, we have been a 121-year leader in the industry for meters; now we are also the leader in the industry for AMI, and we are pulling in both ways. James Coe: Got it. Very helpful. A clarification on the short-cycle orders: there is no particular reason that caused the slowdown—it is more inherent variability. If this inherent variability continues in a negative way throughout the year, does that pose downside risk to the outlook, or does the outlook assume improvement? I want to understand the dynamic better for the remainder of the year. Kenneth Bockhorst: The first thing to remember in the metering industry is that nothing gets canceled. Things only move right because eventually you have to replace your meter if you want to improve nonrevenue water or conservation. Frankly, about 80% of the market has a radio attached to it, and once the radio goes dark, you cannot read the meter at all without manual reads. The dynamics of the business are that it only moves right. We have this timing issue here. We do expect some recovery; we do not expect it to stay on the weaker side of uneven. It is still where we have the least amount of visibility, but we do expect some upside compared to the current quarter. Robert Wrocklage: Just to be clear, what we are saying for the whole year is flattish. Do not hear flattish as flat—hear flattish. There is some variability in that, not a wide degree of variability. We are giving you the direction, but know that there is some variability accounted for in that descriptor. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Michael Fairbanks with JPMorgan. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Michael Fairbanks: Hey. Thanks for taking our questions. As we look at this new project-level disclosure, how should we think about the 800 thousand connections over the last three years relative to overall volumes? Then the same question as we look ahead to the 2.6 million to 3.6 million—overall expectations? Kenneth Bockhorst: Projects have variability between turnkey revenue being much higher than supply-only and other pieces, so we are not going to size the revenue of what they were, but you can see they were impactful. As you compare that, simple math says 2.6 million is more than three times 800 thousand. Do not take a ruler and draw up 300%, but we do expect the next three to five years of these projects to be more than the last three years of those projects. Daniel Weltzien: The other point is we provided this additional level of detail this quarter given the result, and we felt it was important for analysts and investors to understand what is informing our forward look and the high single-digit outlook that we have continued to talk about consistently across the business. Having had this visibility over the last number of years as we saw these projects moving throughout that multiyear funnel is what has informed our view. Michael Fairbanks: Great. Thanks. I will leave it there. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Analyst with Barclays. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Analyst: Good morning. I appreciate the time here. Congrats on the UDLive acquisition. I wanted to focus on your thoughts and strategy in the connected sewer line market. Do you have a view on how penetrated that market is today? Could you elaborate on the driving forces underpinning adoption of those products? How do utilities think about the value proposition or typical paybacks? Kenneth Bockhorst: What we really liked about SmartCover, which we acquired slightly more than a year ago, is that it is the leader in the US market, which is a fantastic smart water market. Adoption is very early, but the problems are very real. By early, it is less than half a percent of the manhole covers in the US that have monitoring on them. The payback is quite simple. If you have experienced any of the rainfalls in the Midwest this week, combined sewer overflows are a significant and real problem that nobody wants. Inflow and infiltration is a real problem. Cleaning optimization offers the ability to save a lot of money, with almost an immediate payback by having monitoring in place. The dynamics are extremely real, and every utility understands the value of implementing this technology. In the UK, adoption is also very early. These two markets, in particular, are exactly where we want to be because they are already the largest—albeit early—and fastest growing at the same time. Within both markets, and in particular the UK, regulation is really driving this. Utilities are being mandated to do it. Inside the UK AMP8 spending cycle, there is a massive amount of investment allocated—and actually demanded—to be spent in this area. Acquiring the two premier brands in the two largest, fastest-growing, regulated markets with a clear understanding of why they are needed feels really good to us. Analyst: Thanks for that. One more on the project disclosure: once a project actually starts to ship, how predictable is the timing around deploying the rest of those units? Does it follow a fairly typical deployment timeline? Kenneth Bockhorst: I would refer you back to slide four. Even within the four projects, there is variability throughout those three years. Often it comes down to available labor, or a utility may find another priority for a few weeks. While over a three- or four-year period it can be fairly predictable, over a three-month period it is really not. Daniel Weltzien: That is an important reason why, for PRASA, for example, we point out it is prone to hurricanes. As a hurricane might come by, that might impact a quarter or two of shipments. So you cannot just draw a straight line on that project in particular, but it applies across the board. Analyst: Understood. Appreciate the color. That is all for me. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Scott Graham with Seaport. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Scott Graham: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the question, and thanks for all the additional detail. I have one and then a follow-up. For incremental margin for the year, we can see what the decremental was for the first quarter and I would assume something similar in the second quarter. Does the second half, with implied top-line growth, get us back to that 25% to 30% level that we have seen from you for incremental margin, or does PRASA hurt that? Daniel Weltzien: On PRASA, because it is the largest project we have ever done in a competitively bid, very attractive opportunity, the gross margins on that are not at the line-average level as other projects we have been awarded. However, the SEA leverage on a project like that is still very interesting and gets us back to operating leverage that is in line with the rest of the business. Generally, as we think about the business and getting back to this flattish top-line result, we do not have a different view in terms of gross margins, and we are managing our SEA such that it should be flattish to where we were a year ago as well, which results in incrementals that look the way they do this year. That is more information than we have given historically—we do not give guidance—but I wanted to connect some of those dots we have tried to paint throughout the script. Scott Graham: When you say SEA flat, you mean in dollars? Daniel Weltzien: If you look over the last number of quarters, our SEA dollars have been relatively flat, and that expectation is not different moving forward. Keep in mind, we are closing the UDLive acquisition in April, so there is more SEA work to be done there. If you are asking on an organic basis, my answer was more to that. Scott Graham: Got it. Thank you. My quick follow-up: you have talked a lot about high single digits as the way to look at you long term. With 2026 rolling out the way it does and you indicating that you are going to exit the year with a lot more momentum—Q4 this year versus Q4 last year—can we get back to that high single next year or perhaps higher? Kenneth Bockhorst: I will talk to sentiment and what we think we know, stopping short of giving you a number. As we progress through the year and these projects head into deployment—while they may be uneven, they will be en route—we will certainly feel better coming into 2027 than we did coming into 2026. Our views on the long-term health of the market remain unchanged. I am not going to give you a number for 2027, but I do expect us to be back into a momentum period coming out of this. Scott Graham: Appreciate that. Thank you. Operator: Just as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star 1 again. There are no further questions at this time. We have reached the end of the Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Barbara for closing remarks. Correction. Apologies. We have one more question from Bobby Zulper with Raymond James. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Bobby Zulper: Thanks for letting me jump back in. I just had a question on price and maybe related price/cost. In tracking some of the larger competitively bid projects, specifically Glendale, it seems like some of that pricing is below maybe what it was in 2022 and 2023. Does that look consistent throughout your business? Can I extrapolate that trend to the rest of the business? Kenneth Bockhorst: First of all, Bobby, we are not going to comment on price project to project because there are so many different variables. Out of respect for our customers, we will not talk about price from project to project either. Bobby Zulper: Alright. Thank you. I appreciate it. Kenneth Bockhorst: You are welcome. Operator: There are no further questions at this time. We have reached the end of the Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Barbara for closing remarks. Barbara Noverini: Thank you, operator. As a reminder, Badger Meter, Inc.’s inaugural Investor Day will take place on 05/21/2026 in New York City. Virtual participants may access the event through a live webcast accessible on the Badger Meter, Inc. Investor Relations website. During the event, we will provide greater color and tangible examples of the evolution of our BlueEdge portfolio along with a discussion of the key drivers enabling growth of our comprehensive suite of smart water management solutions. In addition, Badger Meter, Inc.’s second quarter 2026 earnings release is tentatively scheduled for 07/22/2026. Thank you for your interest in Badger Meter, Inc., and have a great day. Operator: This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending, and you may now disconnect.
Operator: Good morning, and welcome to State Street Corporation's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. Today's call will be hosted by Elizabeth Lynn, Head of Investor Relations at State Street Corporation. We ask that you please hold all questions until the completion of the formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question and answer session. Today's discussion is being broadcast live on State Street's website at investors.statestreet.com. This conference call is also being recorded for replay. State Street Corporation's conference call is copyrighted, and all rights are reserved. This call may not be recorded for rebroadcast or distribution in whole or in part without the expressed written authorization from State Street Corporation. The only authorized broadcast of this call will be housed on the State Street Corporation website. Now I would like to hand the call over to Elizabeth Lynn. Elizabeth Lynn: Good morning, and thank you all for joining us. On our call today are CEO, Ron O'Hanley, who will speak first, and then John Woods, our CFO, will take you through our first quarter 2026 earnings presentation, which is available for download in the Investor Relations section of our website, investors.statestreet.com. Afterward, we will be happy to take questions. Before we get started, I would like to remind you that today's presentation will include results presented on a basis that excludes or adjusts one or more items from GAAP. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP or regulatory measure are available in the earnings release addendum. In addition, today's call will contain forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those statements due to a variety of important factors, such as those referenced in our discussion today and in our SEC filings, including the risk factor section in our Form 10-Ks. Our forward-looking statements speak only as of today; we disclaim any obligation to update them even if our views change. With that, let me turn it over to Ron. Ron O'Hanley: Thank you, Elizabeth. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. I will begin with a few broader observations before John walks you through our financial results in more detail. Reflecting on the first-quarter operating environment for a moment, several factors shaped investor sentiment in Q1, including the Iran war, divided views on the long-term impacts of artificial intelligence, and rising concerns on credit quality in certain parts of the financial system. Against this geopolitical and macroeconomic backdrop, we remain firmly focused on serving as an essential long-term partner to our clients and helping to deliver better outcomes for the world's investors and the people they serve. We continue to execute effectively on our strategy, supported by our distinctive capabilities, deep operational strengths, and a conservatively positioned balance sheet. That strategic positioning allowed us to deliver strong growth, underpinned by continued financial and strategic progress during the first quarter. Our results in the first quarter also underscore the inherent strength and diversification of our business model, which allows us to successfully navigate times of uncertainty and heightened market volatility, as we saw in Q1, with both FX trading and NII contributing meaningfully to our year-over-year financial performance. The scale, capabilities, and leading market positions of our core businesses, working together as one State Street Corporation, provide balance across varying market environments, reinforce the value of our platform for clients, and accrete value for our shareholders. Slide two of our investor presentation outlines our first-quarter highlights excluding notable items, which John will address shortly. We had a strong start to 2026, with broad-based positive year-over-year revenue performance across the franchise. Reported earnings per share increased 22%, while excluding notable items, EPS grew a very strong 39% year-over-year, supported by record quarterly fee revenue, NII, and total revenue. Importantly, substantial positive operating leverage in the first quarter drove another quarter of year-over-year pretax margin expansion. Quarter after quarter, the proof points continue to demonstrate that our strategy is delivering consistent, durable improvements in financial performance, with Q1 marking our ninth consecutive quarter of year-over-year positive operating leverage, excluding notable items. Stepping back from the quarter for a moment, I want to highlight some of the many growth opportunities we are realizing and see ahead at State Street Corporation. Through disciplined business investments and focused execution against a clear set of strategic priorities, we believe we are well positioned to continue to accelerate growth and deliver substantial and sustainable returns for our shareholders. We are drawing on deep, broad-based, technology-driven innovation and delivering digital platforms, compelling AI tools in AgenTx, and client solutions. Together, these capabilities help our clients succeed in a constantly evolving market while strategically pivoting State Street Corporation to faster-growing segments of the industry. In digital, we are focused on building the market infrastructure clients need to bridge seamlessly between traditional and digital finance. Following the recent launch of our digital asset platform, we are executing against a clear and comprehensive product roadmap that includes tokenization of assets, funds, and cash for institutional investors. These capabilities are designed to drive greater efficiency, enhance liquidity, and support new avenues of growth for markets, our clients, and for State Street Corporation. We are well advanced with clients to support their launch of tokenized fund strategies this year. Furthermore, State Street Corporation is deeply engaged in a number of digital asset-related industry initiatives, including DTCC's tokenization efforts, as well as Fnality's work to create an ecosystem of central-bank-connected, blockchain-based payment systems. These initiatives are key to the development of digital markets and consistent with our track record as a critical infrastructure provider and standard setter. Across alternatives, including private markets and hedge funds, we continue to see compelling long-term growth potential as the segment matures, with clients leveraging State Street Corporation to bring innovative solutions to markets. Our leadership positions across both investment servicing and investment management position us well to capture opportunities as we broaden access and simplify operations for clients, and our clients' clients. In wealth services, we are investing in leveraging Charles River's capabilities alongside our strategic partnership with Apex Financial Solutions to build a differentiated, fully digital, and globally scalable wealth custody and clearing solution. This positions us to serve wealth advisers and self-directed wealth platforms and unlock a new avenue for growth that leverages our strength across investment servicing and investment management. And finally, in State Street Investment Management, our strong track record of innovation, differentiated solutions, and scaled franchises in areas such as ETFs, cash, and retirement, to name just a few, create multiple avenues for growth. An illustration of our progress is the way we provide barbelled investment exposure at scale to serve distinct client needs. At one end, SPYM, our low-cost S&P 500 ETF, is gaining strong traction in retail and wealth channels. It ranked as the number one asset-gathering ETF globally in the first quarter, with $27 billion of inflows in that fund alone. At the other end, SPY continues to anchor institutional usage as the market's liquidity benchmark, with nearly $4 trillion of notional value traded in the quarter, representing roughly 17% of total U.S.-listed ETF volume. Together, this underscores the strength, breadth, and flexibility of our platform across client segments, and our abilities to successfully extend from our leading position in SPY to other high-growth ETF segments. Our scaled franchises within management also create a competitive advantage and will enable us to capitalize on several important global trends, including the shift from savings to investment, the move globally towards funded retirement systems, the expansion of digital assets, and the continued democratization of investing. For example, in digital, we are preparing to launch the State Street Galaxy Onchain Liquidity Sweep Fund, a tokenized private liquidity fund designed to support 24/7 on-chain liquidity for institutional investors. Together, these strategic initiatives underscore the broad range of opportunities ahead as we focus on driving near- and long-term growth, enhancing client capabilities, and strengthening our platform. At the same time, the next phase of our operating model transformation will strengthen our ability to deliver sustainable growth and long-term shareholder value. We are scaling AI-enabled capabilities, embedding more agile ways of working across the organization, and continuing to modernize our technology. With a continued emphasis on operational excellence, consistent execution of our strategy, and delivering for our clients, we are strengthening and improving our core end-to-end capabilities in technology, for the deployment of our AgenTeq platform and AI foundry to scale and accelerate AI in high-leverage areas, while also advancing capabilities in areas such as State Street Alpha and Charles River Development. These actions position us to operate more effectively, partner more deeply with clients, and help drive the next phase of industry evolution. To conclude, we are pleased with our strong start to 2026 while recognizing that our potential is even greater. We see broad-based strength across the franchise, and our first-quarter results reinforce that our strategy is translating into consistent and durable improvements in financial performance. At the same time, we continue to transform across the platform and accelerate the deployment of AI agents, which holds significant opportunity for State Street Corporation and our clients given the investment, operational, and technology intensity of what we do. In July, we will provide a detailed update on our strategic growth and transformation initiatives and how these position us to drive stronger performance over the medium term. We are encouraged by our progress, mindful of the environment, and confident in our ability to continue delivering as we move through the year. With that, I will turn it over to John to walk you through the first quarter in more detail. John Woods: Thank you, Ron, and good morning, everyone. We had an excellent start to 2026, with broad-based year-over-year growth across the franchise, driving record quarterly revenues and over 600 basis points of positive operating leverage in the quarter, excluding notable items. These results reflect disciplined execution alongside ongoing investment across our portfolio of strategic growth areas. Now let me dive into the details of the quarter, excluding notable items, starting on slide three. In the first quarter, total revenue increased 16% year-over-year to a record $3.8 billion. Fee revenue of $3 billion increased 15% year-over-year, driven by strong performance across investment management, investment services, and markets. Net interest income of $835 million increased 17% year-over-year, primarily reflecting continued net interest margin expansion. Expenses of $2.7 billion increased 9% year-over-year, driven by higher revenue, strategic investments, and the impact of currency translation, which was a headwind to expenses but a benefit to revenues. Taken together, this performance drove a significant improvement in profitability with 400 basis points of pretax margin expansion and a roughly four percentage point increase in ROTCE to 20%. Before moving on, let me briefly touch on notable items recognized in the quarter. Notable items totaled $130 million pretax in the first quarter, or $0.35 per share after tax, reflecting repositioning charges and the rescoping of a middle office client contract. Turning to slide four, servicing fees in the quarter increased 11% year-over-year to $1.4 billion, reflecting higher average market levels, the benefit of currency translation, and continued organic growth supported by net client asset activity, flows, and new business. AUCA ended the quarter at a record $54.5 trillion, up 17% year-over-year, primarily reflecting higher period-end market levels, positive client flows, and net new business. First-quarter servicing fee sales were $56 million. These were well distributed across regions and aligned with our strategic focus areas, particularly back office services and alternatives clients. Looking ahead, we continue to target $350 million to $400 million of sales in 2026. The pipeline remains healthy, with broad geographic and customer segment representation including APAC, EMEA, emerging markets, and alternatives. Additionally, we reported one new Alpha mandate win during the quarter, highlighting continued client engagement with our integrated front-to-back platform. Moving now to slide five. Management fees increased 23% year-over-year to $724 million in the first quarter, driven by higher average market levels and net inflows. Assets under management increased 20% year-over-year to $5.6 trillion, reflecting higher period-end market levels and continued client inflows. Net inflows totaled $49 billion for the quarter, led by strength across index strategies and solutions including ETFs and fixed income, as well as our cash franchise. Within ETFs, net inflows were $25 billion, driven by strong flows and market share gains in our U.S. low-cost suite. As Ron noted, SPYM, our low-cost S&P 500 ETF, was the largest asset-gathering ETF globally during the quarter. We also continued to advance product innovation and strategic partnerships, launching 57 new products and solutions during the quarter that are creating new avenues for growth. As a signpost of that progress, our State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF surpassed $1 billion in assets under management during the quarter. We were also pleased to see our investment-grade public and private credit ETF, developed in partnership with Apollo Global Management, reach a new high watermark during January with AUM of over $800 million. Turning to slide six. Markets remains one of the key pillars of our One State Street strategy. It plays a key role in linking our investment services and investment management platforms, strengthening the connectivity across the firm and enabling more cohesive client-led solutions. FX trading revenue increased 29% year-over-year to $435 million in the first quarter, reflecting a strong 25% increase in client trading volumes, which reached a new record level as we supported clients amid a dynamic market environment. Securities finance revenue increased 2% year-over-year, supported by growth in client lending balances. Moving on to slide seven. Software services revenue increased 7% year-over-year in the first quarter, driven primarily by higher professional services and software and data revenues, reflecting continued SaaS go-lives and platform adoption across our client base. Software business momentum is also reflected in our annual recurring revenue, which increased 12% year-over-year, and our revenue backlog, which increased 11%. Turning now to slide eight. First-quarter net interest income of $835 million increased 17% year-over-year, primarily reflecting a 16 basis point expansion in net interest margin to 116 basis points, and average interest-earning asset growth of 1%. The year-over-year increase in NIM reflected improvements in funding mix, continued benefits from investment portfolio repricing, and runoff from terminated hedges, partially offset by lower average market rates. Growth in interest-earning assets was driven primarily by higher client deposits, partially offset by a reduction in short-term wholesale funding. Turning to slide nine. Expenses were up 9% year-over-year in the first quarter, excluding notable items. Currency translation accounted for approximately two percentage points of the increase. Of the remaining seven percentage points, approximately five percentage points reflected higher revenue-related costs, with the remaining balance of two percentage points driven by continued strategic investments and run-the-bank expenses, net of productivity savings. Moving now to capital and liquidity on slide 10. Our capital levels remain strong, enabling disciplined capital deployment aligned with our strategic priorities. At quarter end, our standardized CET1 ratio was 10.6%, down approximately 100 basis points from the prior quarter. The decrease primarily reflects higher risk-weighted assets associated with a normalization of RWA in our Markets business from episodically low levels in the prior quarter, along with the impact of U.S. dollar appreciation in March and, to a lesser extent, equity market appreciation on the final day of the quarter. Turning to capital return, in the first quarter, we repurchased $400 million in common shares and declared $233 million in common stock dividends, resulting in total capital return of $633 million, equivalent to a payout ratio of 90%. Before moving on, I would call your attention to a new slide 13 in the appendix on our NDFI loan portfolio. This lending remains disciplined and client-focused, primarily supporting investment services clients. In addition, this is a highly collateralized and diversified portfolio that has performed resiliently across cycles and continues to support durable client relationships. Turning to our full-year outlook, which, as a reminder, excludes notable items. We continue to assume that global equity markets are flat this year on a point-to-point basis from 2025, while remaining mindful of the potential for variability in the operating environment. Against this backdrop, we now expect fee revenue growth in the 7% to 9% range, an increase from our previous outlook of 4% to 6%, reflecting a stronger-than-expected Q1 along with continued organic growth and solid momentum across the franchise. Turning to net interest income, following our strong first-quarter performance, we now expect NII growth in the 8% to 10% range, representing an improvement from our previous outlook for low single-digit growth. We currently expect expenses to increase by 5% to 6%, up from our prior 3% to 4% outlook, primarily reflecting higher revenue-related costs. Finally, we continue to expect an effective tax rate of approximately 22% for the full year and a total payout ratio of roughly 80%, subject to board approval and other factors. We will now open the call for questions. Operator: At this time, we will open the floor for questions. You may remove yourself at any time by pressing star 5 again. Please note, you will be allowed one question and one related follow-up question. Again, that is star 5 to ask a question. We will pause for just a moment. Our first question will come from Glenn Schorr with Evercore. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Glenn Schorr: Hi. Thanks very much. I am happy about the pickup in NII, and I think the NIM expansion during the quarter was great. I find it interesting that average interest-earning assets were only up 1%, so I am interested if you could talk to the tug-of-war dynamic of better NIM but not a ton of earning asset growth. And does any of that change within your updated guidance? Thank you. John Woods: Thanks for the question, Glenn. I would say that we are very pleased to see our net interest margin progress, and as mentioned, much of that is coming on the funding mix side of the balance sheet. As we see growth in deposit levels, which surged in the first quarter, we are continuing the plans from the last couple of quarters of reducing our short-term wholesale funding. That is higher-cost, and we find that to be an appropriate rotation to higher-quality funding on the funding mix side. Interest-earning assets will be less of the story. Q1 was driven almost entirely by net interest margin. I think that is a similar story for our guide for 2026. The range that we talked about earlier is almost entirely driven by net interest margin as well. Interest-earning assets are really going to be something we keep an eye on, but not what is going to drive net interest income in 2026. Elizabeth Lynn: Operator, we can take the next question. Operator: My apologies. Our next question will come from Alexander Blostein from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Alexander Blostein: Hi. Good morning. Thank you for the question. I was hoping we could spend a minute on the goals you are trying to achieve from the next chapter of State Street Corporation's transformation. I know you alluded to the fact that you will provide a lot more detail in July, but since you opened that door, can you give us the overarching goals you are trying to achieve? Is that faster revenue growth, better profitability, or both? I believe your last official medium-term pretax margin target is somewhere in the low 30s. Is the goal to get that into a higher range over time? Any high-level framework would be helpful. John Woods: I will start off here. As you may have heard me comment on this in prior sessions, we had a goal to get to 30% pretax margin, which we delivered on in 2025 and again here in early 2026. You are seeing us meet that threshold, and the guide that we delivered today, if you play that through, implies in the neighborhood of 31% pretax margin. We think we are moving the platform forward from a profitability standpoint. The second big driver will be growth. In July, you will hear from us an updated view about what we think this platform can deliver over the medium term from a profitability standpoint. We feel there are extremely attractive opportunities to grow profitability metrics—pretax margin and other metrics—and we also believe we have very unique opportunities to grow this platform overall from a revenue standpoint. The building blocks of all of that will be the increasing business execution discipline that is emblematic of what you are seeing in organic growth across our fee line items. We will talk about what that can deliver for us. The other two big categories I would highlight: first, a distinctive portfolio of strategic initiatives that can drive unique, outsized benefits into the platform over the medium term; and second, transformation. Within transformation, there are several pillars. We will talk through our ongoing operating model transformation, embedding agile ways of working across the entire enterprise, and really solidifying a product-platform approach to delivering our services to clients. A second pillar will be the ongoing modernization of our technology and infrastructure, which we are excited about. And lastly, all things AI, where we have continued to make investments and make progress. We will wrap all of those building blocks together and what we believe they will contribute over the medium term in our commentary you will hear from us in July. Alexander Blostein: That sounds great. Looking forward to that. My follow-up: a question around ETFs, both in terms of growth and expense perspective. There has been increased focus on distribution platform fees that may come online towards the end of the year—Schwab is discussing that. Any early thoughts on the implications that might have on both ETF growth for State Street Corporation and incremental expenses that you might be willing to incur if you were to stay on the Schwab platform? Ron O'Hanley: Alex, it is Ron. We are very familiar with what some of the platforms are doing. Most of these platforms are close partners. In terms of our long-term strategy and performance, we are not concerned about this. If you have been following what we have done in ETFs, we have continued to broaden that platform, moving from where we started as an institutional provider to not only maintaining that institutional leadership but growing both in client segments in the low-cost wealth channel and in channels outside the U.S. You will see pockets of the kinds of things you are talking about, but we do not see it as any kind of substantial risk or headwind to our overall ETF business. Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Kenneth Usdin with Autonomous Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Kenneth Usdin: Hi. Thanks. Good morning. This quarter, you showed the ability to put up meaningful operating leverage and also have a higher cost growth rate to even deliver that. Were you able to pull forward some spending, or was it mostly revenue-related costs? And as you look forward to the new 5% to 6% cost guidance, how are you balancing expected efficiencies, and how much FX translation are you including in the full-year guide after the hurt that it was in the first quarter? John Woods: A couple of comments. In the first quarter, there was about a 2% impact from currency. When you take that 9% expense growth, you are really starting with 7% ex-currency. That 7% is predominantly revenue-related; five percentage points of that would be revenue-related, which leaves a net 2%. Within that 2%, we have run-the-bank costs and our strategic investments. Those are in the neighborhood of, if you break that out, call it 6% of spend in running the bank and investing in exciting initiatives. We fund a lot of that through productivity, which is the net 4% of productivity that we delivered in the first quarter. We will continue to monitor our productivity trajectory, and the same storyline holds with the 5% to 6% full-year guide: the incremental growth you are seeing is majority revenue-related, and then there will be other costs as we continue to fund strategic investments, partially offset by productivity. The storyline for Q1 holds for the full year as well. Kenneth Usdin: Thanks, John. As a follow-up, with strong NII and strong FX trading, do you expect that to run-rate, or do you expect a natural come-off given the types of volatility and environment that we saw in the first quarter? John Woods: On FX, we had a strong quarter. Two things have to come together: first, you need the franchise in place to take advantage of opportunities and be there for clients. The investments in client acquisition, product extensions, and geographic expansion in Markets have served us well in Q1. Second, we had elevated but healthy volatility where liquidity was still good but there was a lot of turnover. Those combined to deliver Q1. For the rest of the year, when you think about our fee guide of 7% to 9%, we assume those FX conditions moderate gradually throughout the year. We are not depending on Q1’s highly favorable conditions being maintained to deliver 7% to 9%. For NII, our original guide was up low single digits; now it is 8% to 10%. We originally viewed NIM at 100 to 110 basis points; for 2026 you could see 110 to 115 basis points, slightly off from Q1’s 116. NIM is the main driver, with funding mix a larger tailwind. Overall deposits will be up, helping that funding mix. We previously said maybe $250 billion of deposits; probably in the range of $250 billion to $260 billion for the rest of the year. We will look to pay down some higher-cost debt and continue to optimize the funding mix to drive NIM. All of those building blocks are incorporated into the 8% to 10% NII guide. Ron O'Hanley: Ken, I want to underscore a point John made on FX. We have invested for years in expanding client volumes and ensuring we serve as much of our investment servicing clients as possible. We expanded geographic capabilities and, importantly, expanded the ways in which we can meet our clients technologically and how they can trade with us. We did that when there was not a lot of volatility, preparing for when normal volatility returned. We are seeing the benefits of those past and ongoing investments. Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from James Mitchell with Seaport Global Securities. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. James Mitchell: Maybe just a follow-up on deposits. Up nicely with a big mix shift to noninterest-bearing deposits, which I think was a particular benefit quarter over quarter. How can any further optimization around pricing affect deposit growth from here, and how are you thinking about the mix in your guide? Thanks. John Woods: I mentioned the level of deposits; I would anchor to that $250 billion to $260 billion range. On mix, we originally talked about around 10% noninterest-bearing. That is still a good anchor over time, but in 2026 it appears we have a slightly higher noninterest-bearing opportunity than that 10%. For deposit drivers, there are external and internal drivers. Internally, we control continuing to grow our platform, serving clients, and growing AUCA—another record this quarter—which is where we source those deposits. Second, client segment growth: alternatives is growing faster than non-alternatives and, pound for pound, brings more deposits with a more attractive mix. Externally, deposits tend to rise when money supply and GDP are growing, when rates are stable or falling, and given our business, if volatility and risk-off rise, we tend to grow deposits. Broadly, our NII line is a bit of an offset to other line items, similar to what happens in Markets during higher volatility like in Q1. James Mitchell: Any thoughts on April from here—what you have seen so far? John Woods: I would say moderating from here. We had extremely positive conditions in Q1. Still very solid trends. I would stick with the $250 billion to $260 billion deposits and maybe slightly better than our 10% noninterest-bearing guide, as mentioned earlier. April trends are good in NII and deposits. James Mitchell: Great. As a follow-up on the wealth management business—across regions, EMEA was the largest contributor to net flows in the first quarter, I think $29 billion. What vehicles and asset classes drove that? Was it lumpy, and can that momentum in Europe continue? John Woods: On net asset flows, fixed income was very strong and led the way, followed by multi-asset. And you heard how well our low-cost suite did this quarter, and ETFs in general. Those were the bigger drivers, with fixed income one of the biggest. Operator: Our next question will come from Michael Mayo with Wells Fargo. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Michael Mayo: One short-term question and one long-term question. Short term, I think you said revenue backlogs are up 11%. If that is correct, can you size that a bit more in terms of the level of backlog versus history and where that is coming from? Long term, Ron, back to AI: some say they will remodel their entire business around AI; one bank has specified expected AI benefits; some say business models will be destroyed due to the AI scare trade; others say it is overrated. Where do you stand? John Woods: Thanks for the question, Mike. That 11% was with respect to the Software Services line alone, and that is correct. Uninstalled revenue is up 11%. Multi-year revenue growth in this space has been around that level, so that continues our expectation of around 10%—low double-digit growth—over the medium term, and as we continue investing, we may do better. ARR grew 12% as well. I will turn it over on AI. Ron O'Hanley: Mike, we are very positive on AI, and a lot of that has to do with the nature of our business, which is investment, operational, and technology intensive. Where are we? First, it is comprehensively embedded across the enterprise. We have broad access and accelerating adoption—virtually every employee where it makes sense has access to the tools, and usage is scaling rapidly, with repeat behavior indicating the tools are becoming part of daily workflows. Second, on development and technology systems, we are fully enabled there, and we are already realizing productivity gains. It is giving us the ability to do more, faster, and get to projects that previously would not have made the cut. All of our developers have access to AI development tools, and we are seeing acceleration in new technology development and modernization. Third, it is what you do with it after that. We have built a centralized AI hub with a deep use-case pipeline that is beginning to scale and will scale over the back half of 2026. This platform supports over 200 AI use cases now, with 70 already live. As they mature, we expect tangible business impact to begin emerging in the back half of 2026 and then accelerating. Fourth, agentic service delivery: given the operational intensity of what we do, the opportunities are significant. We have agent-enabled service delivery coming online in July, and our AI Foundry to repeat and scale this. Do we think AI destroys the business model? We do not. These are widely available tools; the advantage is in how you deploy them. The real power is not just operational improvement, but creating real agility in how the organization operates—how we face off with clients and organize work internally. We see more opportunity than risk. Michael Mayo: The three words “annual business impact”—can you dimension this in any way, starting late this year or next year? John Woods: It will start scaling in 2026, and we are going to dimension what the impact will be over the medium term. It will be very meaningful and a very important pillar of how we drive value and bottom-line impact, while also expanding resources to invest in our strategic roadmap. As we get later in the year and start looking at run-rate benefits exiting 2026 into 2027, we will come back and articulate the near-term benefit. Michael Mayo: So we will get this on the second quarter earnings call? John Woods: Earnings call. Operator: Our next question will come from Ebrahim Poonawala with Bank of America. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Ebrahim Poonawala: You spent some time in your prepared remarks around tokenization and your digital asset platform. Should we think about all of this as mostly retaining the customer activity that you already have, just moving from analog to digital, or are there new revenue opportunities from tokenization and moving on-chain? Ron O'Hanley: It is both. Given our client base and market share with sophisticated clients, they expect the best the market has to offer. Some use cases are already very real. Tokenization of assets is a net new opportunity for us. Tokenized money market funds are a real use case—beneficial to the market and liquidity, and will result in core revenues for us. The on-ramp/off-ramp bridge from traditional finance to digital finance is also a real opportunity. Think of new railroads being laid; the interchanges are underdeveloped. Volumes are growing fast off a small base, and part of the reason is underdeveloped on- and off-ramps. Being part of that infrastructure is a second source of new revenues. We see both retention and new revenue. Ebrahim Poonawala: Are these capabilities built in-house, or are there targeted platforms where M&A or partnerships make sense? Ron O'Hanley: We always think about make versus buy. Even on make, partnerships are another lever. Our Galaxy product is a partnership with Galaxy. We are tied into emerging fintech platforms in the U.S. and hotspots in Europe and India. We will continue to explore M&A, but we also have confidence in our organic capabilities. It will be all of the above. Operator: Our next question will come from Brennan Hawken with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Brennan Hawken: Good morning. John, you gave clear color on deposit trends and how those feed into NII. I was curious about expectations around the euro and GBP deposits. The forward curve there has gotten hawkish with two hikes in the outlook. Are those hikes included in your updated outlook? And betas on those currencies were low during the recent rate cuts. Should we expect low betas when those rates move up? John Woods: In the guide, we assume one hike, with the Bank of England and the Fed on hold, and the ECB in for one hike. We acknowledge there could be more than one. From a sensitivity standpoint, it is not a huge quarterly driver—around $5 million per quarter. On betas, for U.S. dollar, betas were relatively symmetric in the tightening and easing cycles, around 75% to 80%. For the euro, a similar expectation but lower than the U.S., maybe in the 50% range, and relatively symmetric up and down. Brennan Hawken: Follow-up for Ron: you do not expect much impact to your ETF business from changes wealth firms are working on. Active ETFs are not big for you, but could you share your perspective on active ETF platform fees and why the impact would be manageable for SPDRs? Ron O'Hanley: Active ETFs are absolutely growing, and we are a beneficiary on the servicing side. One reason for growth is the vehicle often being better aligned with distribution trends—control over portfolios in wirehouses and the rise of independents. The buyer’s fee comparison is less about active ETF versus passive ETF and more around active mutual fund versus active ETF, which helps the value proposition. We can realize opportunity in ETF growth around the world. We were early in Europe as a sponsor and servicer; growth was slow at the beginning, but take-up is accelerating, and we think real growth is yet to come as distribution shifts from banks toward platforms that will deploy ETFs. Even in places like the Middle East, funds businesses are skipping over old mutual funds and going right to ETFs, building modern platforms. It is a vibrant, growing sector, and we are well positioned as both sponsor and servicer. Operator: Our next question will come from David Smith with Truist Securities. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. David Smith: Thanks. On the capital front, you have been running more at the high end of the 10% to 11% CET1 range for most of the last year, but you were in the middle this quarter. Are you now more comfortable running mid-range, or is this just a transitory move down given elevated balance sheet at March-end? Then any early impressions on potential impact of the new RWA and GSIB surcharge rules proposed last month? And is the 80% payout ratio target on a GAAP or adjusted basis? Thank you. John Woods: Our operating range is 10% to 11%, and we have articulated recently that we have been operating at the upper end. That has not changed. You can see some variability on quarter-ends based on the specific day’s activity. March 31 was an exceptionally active day, with larger movements that drove the 10.6%. If you look at the averages for Q4 and Q1, average CET1 was at the upper end of 10% to 11%, and that is how we continue to operate. On Basel III, we are constructive on the proposed approach. It delivers a more targeted view of credit risk RWA, and we expect a benefit on credit risk RWA that exceeds the additional RWA on operational risk. We will frame magnitudes as we continue to study and await final rules, but generally we see a net benefit. Lastly, the 80% payout is on a GAAP basis. Operator: Our next question will come from Analyst with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Analyst: Hi. Good afternoon. On the private credit side, appreciate the incremental disclosure on the NDFI loans. It looks like the majority of those loans are non-BDC loans, and you also mentioned some of the safeguards on the BDC loans themselves. How are you thinking about growth in that NDFI portfolio going forward, and how do you assess safety around that portfolio? John Woods: These are our clients—non-depository financial institutions broadly are an important part of how we support the customer segment, primarily investment services clients. As part of the broad suite of services, we support them from a balance sheet standpoint. This is highly strategic lending for us. The categories are extremely well positioned from a risk-return standpoint. We have never had losses in subscription finance or in the triple-A CLO book, which comprise the large part of the NDFI book. On BDC lending, we are down to $1.6 billion, senior secured with substantial subordination—about 80%—behind our positions. It is diversified with ongoing structural protections. This will be a growth area for us; you could see low- to mid-single-digit growth, commensurate with continued penetration of this attractive segment. On private markets servicing, elevated redemption requests can have a marginal impact, but it is limited. The round trip is a net positive for us: redemptions may have a small impact on servicing fees but result in higher deposits. Net-net, very stable in terms of revenues and fees. We see this as a temporary flow-related issue rather than systemic. Ron O'Hanley: It is important to remember the attention is on a very small piece of private credit—those in semi-liquid fund structures. The vast majority of private credit is not in those structures, and there is no reason to believe private credit will not continue to grow. In regions like Europe or Asia, significant expansion of bank balance sheets is unlikely, yet credit appetite will continue to grow. In the GCC, for example, banks are highly profitable but do not have many places for balance sheets to grow; capital needs are significant and will be fulfilled by private credit. You will see careful examination of semi-liquid vehicles and expectations for retail and affluent investors, but that is a relatively small segment. John Woods: To tie back to the $1.6 billion on the slide, less than half of that is in the non-public, semi-liquid space that is getting attention. Overall BDCs are 4% of loans; less than half of that—around 2% or less—is in the space getting headlines, and well less than 1% of total assets. Operator: Our next question will come from Vivek Juneja with JPMorgan. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Vivek Juneja: Thanks. First, you had a scoping charge of $41 million. This was the second one in the last 12 months. Can you give some color? Is it the same client? Same type of issue? What is driving these, and why have we seen two in the last 12 months? Second, on Schwab charging a fee for their distribution platform—will you absorb it, or pass it on? Lastly, on the charge-off jump this quarter—what type of loan was that? Ron O'Hanley: These are idiosyncratic. It is not the same client and not for the same reason. In this case, it was an existing Alpha client that will remain an Alpha client. It was one part of their insource-to-outsource journey within our middle office business. They intended to outsource more; we mutually agreed this was not the time to continue that outsourcing journey. It is within the middle office and is an insource versus outsource decision by the client. On Schwab, we do not have a concrete plan yet because we have not seen the final. We will decide once we see it and come back to you. John Woods: On the charge-off, this was a COVID-era commercial loan. Coming out of high-margin contracts from around 2021, when those rolled off, the name had pressure and went into nonaccrual. We took the opportunity to exit. It was substantially reserved, so not a big P&L impact; we crystallized it and moved on in Q1. It does not extend into other portfolios and has nothing to do with NDFI. Operator: Our next question comes from Analyst with Wolfe Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Analyst: Hi. Good morning. This is actually calling in for Steven today. We appreciate the color on the drivers of expense growth, including the 4% from net productivity savings. Given headcount was down 2% year-on-year, how much did that contribute to overall efficiency savings? Looking ahead, do you see potential for further headcount optimization? John Woods: Headcount will be something we consider, but there are puts and takes. We are growing and investing in businesses, so we may add in some places. Gross productivity levers—automation, reengineering, zero-basing processes—reduce reliance on headcount where possible, and we use that capacity to hire in other areas. Round trip, we expect continuing contributions from headcount, but with puts and takes as we invest elsewhere. It is a meaningful portion of the 4% productivity. Operator: Our final question will come from Gerard Cassidy with RBC. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Gerard Cassidy: John, you have had strong positive operating leverage—ninth consecutive quarter excluding notable items. How much of it is structural—your scalable platform and mix shift—versus cyclical tailwinds like FX volatility or rising market levels? And Ron, with investing in AI today, does scale become an even greater challenge for smaller players to compete against companies like yours and the large money center banks? How important is scale to successfully compete in this business? John Woods: Across the board, we have had organic growth in the quarter—durable, reflecting multi-year investments, business execution, and a sales culture that is paying dividends. We are seeing organic growth across all fee line items. In Markets, from a distance one might say environmental factors, but it is not only environmental. Long-term client relationships and platforms we have built are very attractive, and connectivity between Markets and our Investment Services and Investment Management clients is very strong. We believe we have a durable opportunity to drive attractive positive operating leverage that will reflect in pretax margin improvements over time. Environmental factors can help, but even without them, we believe we have a very attractive opportunity to grow pretax margin through positive operating leverage given the organic drivers. Ron O'Hanley: The importance of scale has not gone down. The investments required around technology and cyber just to stay where you are—forget about growth—are significant, imposed by regulators and increasingly by clients. Layer on the revolution we are seeing with AI—not just bringing in the technology but profiting from it—the scale around people and know-how is hard for smaller players. If we are moving toward true digitization of finance, that will take time; it is not just showing up with a new platform, but recognizing the long-term transition and building on- and off-ramps, which is where you make money, and which require scale. We do not dismiss innovators; we follow them, partner with them, and in some cases buy them. But we are not seeing one of them developing into a true scaled player to compete in our pocket of the market. Operator: There are no further questions. I will now turn the call back over to Elizabeth Lynn for closing remarks. Elizabeth Lynn: Thank you all for joining us today. Please feel free to reach out to Investor Relations with any follow-up questions. Thank you again, and have a nice day.
Operator: Welcome to the Nederman Holding Q1 2026 Report Presentation, [Operator Instructions] Now I will hand the conference over to speakers CEO, Sven Kristensson; and CFO, Matthew Cusick. Please go ahead. Sven Kristensson: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this presentation of Q1 for Nederman. Our headline has been resilient in a volatile market because it's been an eventual quarter again. And what we can see is that we are still strengthening our position in the world although it remains very turbulent. The first quarter, we continued to advance a position in a very volatile market. There is high activity across all divisions that all having good pipelines, less good order intake. Because we had lower orders received, although the activity picked up at the latter part of Q1 and continuing here in in April, we'll see what that means. We are strengthening our presence in a structurally growing industry. And by that, we mean that we are entering new fields like Food, Pharma and Life Science related, et cetera, and resulting in a lower sales and EBIT or profit margin. Matthew Cusick: If I move on to some of the key financials then, if we go on to -- on orders received, as Sven mentioned, for the quarter as a whole, orders received were weaker than a very strong Q1 last year. It must be mentioned 3 of 4 divisions in Q1 last year -- I'll leave it at 2 or 4 divisions in Q1 last year had their record quarters for order intake. I don't want to get into a debate on currency rates. But like Sven mentioned, order activity clearly picked up, particularly during the second half of March, negative currency impact. That's something that you analysts listening will have heard and we'll be hearing from lots of companies. It's around 9% quarter-on-quarter for us in Q1 this year. Orders ultimately were SEK 1.267 billion versus just over SEK 1.5 billion in Q1 last year. That's 6.7% down currency-neutral, 9.2% organic. The charts that we see on this slide for orders received, you can see that basically half of the drop in order intake is currency related. On the next slide, sales lower than Q1 2025, I put a comment in there, in line with Q3 2025's order intake, which gives a little indication on the sort of lead times. It's not the same lead times across all 4 divisions. But SEK 1.257 billion was approximately in line with Q3. Again, currency impact, minus 9% also on sales. Currency-neutral order sales were down 2%, so less of a drop than on the order intake and it's purely looking comparative-wise, organically minus 5.5%. Profitability, these lower sales volumes and are apparent -- we did have very strong gross profit margin. Something that's quite pleasing is the increased productivity in our factories. We had rather good utilization in the factories in the E&FT division during Q1, which Sven can come back to. Unfortunately, currencies also affect profitability. Approximately 12% SEK 12 million of the drop in EBITDA is pure currency effects largely due to the U.S. dollar, which was down quarter-on-quarter, nearly 15% compared to Q1 last year. Ultimately, what that meant was that the EBITDA for Q1 was SEK 117 million versus SEK 143 million last year. The EBITDA margin, 9.3% versus 10.1%. Earnings per share, SEK 1.31 versus SEK 1.69 in Q1 last year. Cash flow from operations, very slightly negative. It was a typical quarter 1, I would say, in the Nederman world. Typically, what we see in quarter 1 is that we've received some orders just before the year-end, and we've received down payments on those orders, and we start executing on those. So the working capital development is usually less favorable in the first quarter. We are still lacking some larger orders, which -- for which we received down payments, once those start coming in, that will boost the cash flow from operations rather well. On the net debt front, very little movement, we could say since the year-end. Division by divisions, Sven, we start with E&FT. Sven Kristensson: Yes. Extraction and Filtration Technology here, during the quarter, we had a bit low orders received and that was mainly due to very few larger orders in Americas, where we could see a new hesitation to sign. However, the base business, as we call it, the traditional small project, the ones that do not have to go to the boardroom, actually grew in the division. And there was a significant order intake growth for service as well. Since we have, over the last few years, put much effort in growing in especially European and the North American organization to have a strong service, which also prolong the relation with our customers. Profit margins increased versus Q1 and that is due to operational efficiency. We have been talking about the investments we've been doing, not only in Helsingborg, we have a new factory setup for RoboVent brand in Detroit area. We are continuously upgrading now, and we'll come back to that in Charlotte factory as well. And we had a decent capacity utilization in the factories, although there is plenty of room to grow that. But increased operational efficiency, maintain our margins. And if we go to European market, we had an increase in order to receive. And again, it was strong base business, midsize, small, midsized solution orders. And then there were 3 major orders and that was to commercialize manufacturing Defense actually Naval area and wood products. So that's what we see. If we look at the Americas, as you have noted, the orders received were significantly behind Q1, which in all fairness was a record year, a record quarter, but we've seen the hesitancy in U.S. market to put the pen to the paper. One major order was, however, secured and that was winter manufacturing. Base business grew. And again, several small midsized orders. And again, service where we have focused over the last few years, as mentioned before, also in the U.S. market grew. So currency neutral sales growth with strong service business. In Asia, lower orders received and sales-base business also weaker, and it's a challenging market environment. Some cost cautiousness has been taking in some of the Asian part of it. Key activities. We continue to launch new products. As you probably have seen last year, we spent almost 3% on R&D, and we see how that pays off. GoMax, I will not go into the details, but it was again we were again awarded a technological award and the reason of the -- how they formulate it was smart technology with an efficiency and sustainable design. Continued investment in operations in North America, we have started the further in-sourcing project in Charlotte for this division and that will further lead to efficiencies in our supply chain and in a further step also more or even less, even if it's very little that comes from outside U.S., 80%, 85% is local content in this division in U.S. We have launched new versions of the partner web shops. So we continue also our digital journey when it comes to being up-to-date. Matthew Cusick: When it comes to financials for E&FT division, orders received SEK 578 million in the quarter is 8.6% down currency-neutral albeit from, like Sven mentioned, a record quarter at that time. Q2 actually exceeded that, but this was a record at the time. Sales, SEK 592 million and an EBIT -- adjusted EBIT very nearly in line with the same period last year despite lower sales. So this is a little bit what we're talking about in terms of resilience. We've managed to keep the margin up. We actually increased the margin in this division to 12.2% from 11.6% in Q1 2025. Moving on then to Process Technology, Sven. Sven Kristensson: Yes, Process Technology. Here, we have significant larger orders and projects. And it's glad to say that we actually had order intake growth in the quarter. There were a few -- for several major orders secured. And again, a very strong aftermarket development with strong growth. And again, we see the result of a few years of focused activities. So again, we got a order backlog that increased. And if you remember our acquisition of Euro-Equip, they are giving a positive contribution, both orders, sales and profitability. So we are very pleased with that addition. The 3 parts, we start with Textile and Fiber. Here, we see the continuous overcapacity, but also a slight pick up. So maybe the Textile segment has bottomed out, but I will not promise that, but we'll see. But it's been couple of years with very low demand. Again, we have the energy saving as for textile plants orders have reached record levels. We passed 1,000 units here during the quarter. And again, we show the capability of technical leadership and new development and helping our customers to save energy in a world where energy prices are soaring. Foundry and Smelters. We actually also here had organic growth in order intake. There was a very large order for copper recycling in U.S. We have, over the few years specialized in our technology to be and are the technology, commercial leading partner when it comes to recycling of metals and materials. And again, positive impact from Euro-Equip, continued strong activity within the recycling. However, that is signed that they are a bit slow to take the decisions, but for a mid- to long-term recycling of metal will continue. The need of copper, the need of aluminum, we cannot have it on landfill, which is the case in U.S. and in Asia. In Europe, we are quite good, especially on aluminum, where we have 80% to 90% recycled material. Customized Solutions, stable development, new order in U.S. pharmaceutical industry. We are sort of moving in, as mentioned, to a little bit new territory. We have been doing it before, but we are more focused now on finding pockets of growth in this environment. We secured 2 projects in India, and that is geographical expansion. We are using our strong footprint in India for the Textile and Fiber. And from that bridge head, we are now increasing our capabilities and also taking in other areas from the division. Service business continued to grow. So again, key activities, sales of energy-efficient carbon bladed fans for textile plants exceeded 1,000 units, good milestone. We continue to invest in test center upgrades and ongoing improvement to existing product lines. Again, we show with our innovation capabilities where you can save energy and make your choice. So again, we are far ahead of competition when it comes to technology and integration of digital solutions. Matthew Cusick: Financials for Process Technology. Order intake was SEK 346 million in the year, which was even at prevailing rates growth, currency-neutral nearly 14% up. Euro-Equip, part of this currency neutral growth, but even organically, like Sven mentioned, we've gone up there 2.9%. Sales very slightly down to -- or slightly down to SEK 321 million, but adjusted EBITDA is increasing SEK 29 million is 9.1%. You see there that the boost from the growing Service business, for example, which has stronger margins. So 9.1% on rather modest sales figures is what we see from Process Technology in Q1. Duct and Filter Technology then, Sven. Sven Kristensson: Yes. Duct and Filter. Here, we've seen, and it's very much based on the U.S. side, where the majority of the sales come from. Development in the quarter, we had a bit of a decrease versus the record Q1. So the year started very slowly, but it picked up later in the quarter. And again, of course, based on this, there is very limited backlog, the sales decrease versus Q1 2025. But we do deliver solid profitability with very good factory efficiency. As you remember, we have now invested in the 2 parts of -- and fulfill 2 parts of the manufacturing in Thomasville. We have automated. We have invested in in new technology in both standard sizes and also now inaugurated the XT, which is larger dimensions. And we see how that, despite the fact that the volumes, are a little bit slow can maintain good gross margins. Again, of course, massive negative currency effect since most of the business is in U.S. dollars. Nordfab, which is deducting we saw increased activity in March, and that was actually giving us organic growth for the quarter as a whole. Project wind battery manufacturing made significant contribution to the order intake. And that was very much so that EV battery factory are now converted into battery factories for storage, et cetera. So we say maybe some of that business is rebouncing and coming back. EMEA orders resales increased slightly compared to last year's Q1. Menardi, which is filter banks had a very slow order intake, but saw a slight recovery in March. EMEA performed well, but it's a much smaller portion of that subdivision. Launch of BIM Toolbar, US and Europe, launch of HygiDuct Australia, Thailand. Solar panel installation Thomasville is providing significant reduced environmental impact and also cost impact. The sun is shining in North Carolina, a significantly more than here in Helsingborg. Continued investment in tools and equipment to enhance product quality and streamlined manufacturing. And as you've seen, we are seeing positive effect of the automation and the significant investments we have made in manufacturing and logistics. It's not only the manufacturing, it's also the setup with Nordfab now, which is giving us capability of balance and have more efficient manufacturing. We have started the project where we have subs, where we have possibility to have shorter lead times. So we have started opening in Texas, Dallas warehouse. We are only shipping the emergence in part directly, the rest we take from a warehouse. And again, we have been able to have 100% delivery accuracy despite the hike in orders in late March, very positive for the market, and we are getting new distributors who want to work with us. Matthew Cusick: Financials for Duct and Filter Technology. External order intake was SEK 180 million in the quarter, down from the record Q1 last year, SEK 224 million that's 7.4% currency neutral. Obviously, as Sven mentioned, the currency impact on this division is very high sales. SEK 194 million, down from SEK 241 million. Adjusted EBIT of SEK 37 million is 18.9%. And we think, again, this is showing resilience. Last year, Q1 was 22.1%, which is the highest quarter for this division in all of history. But 18.9% still rather pleasing on somewhat more modest volume levels. If we then move on to final division, Sven, Monitoring and Control Technology. Sven Kristensson: Yes. Monitoring and Control. Here for the quarter, we had real decrease in orders. Revenue was also decreasing, but there were very big variations between the different business units. And of course, the low sales volume, the profitability was reduced. If we look at NEO Monitors, the total order intake was slightly reduced there, and that was due to Asia. That hold a little bit in the quarter. We have seen growth in the U.S. and we have over years have seen significant growth for NEO Monitors in the U.S. market where we were a very small player a few years ago. But by the investment in Houston, our sales office and service organization, which is now consisting of up to, if I remember correctly, 12 persons have given us direct access to the petrochemical industry in in the area. And we also see that it leads to major orders, and we are deepening our cooperation with the large one since we now are located with a strong service team in the neighborhood. The European orders and sales grew organically and they had a stable demand. We have significantly increased the production efficiency, all of the real manufacturing going on in Oslo, and we have restructured from a small almost, call it, startup manufacturing site and electronic assembly site that is much more efficient much more quality and that work is continuing. Gasmet, the order intake reduced and it was partly on a nonrepeat major order, but it's also punishing the the large dependence on public sectors like customs, police, universities that is a base business and that has impacted, especially in U.S. and Asia, where there has been reduced spending in these sectors. But we have also received new orders from new customers in Singapore and South Africa. Auburn, based in outside Boston in Beverly, saw organic order intake growth. We could definitely see that the order intake picked up in March. What that means going forward, we don't know. We had slightly -- sales slightly behind this very strong Q1 last year, but the orders are coming back. We have reviewed and updated the product portfolio, and that continues, and we are hereby getting the permits, the , et cetera, and strengthening our platform for expansion in India, China, but we're also having other activities to go outside the U.S. market that is dominant for Auburn's product. We have added a product like PM Laser to upgrade, and that has given a new boosting interest on the U.S. market, where we have a very strong position, but we want to also grow that in Asia and in Europe. Our activities in Asia were halted, but we are restarting them. They were halted due to the difficulty to sell from U.S. to China with 100% custom tariffs which was the case in a period. But we are now restarting those activities. Again, key activities, launch of PM Laser, new technology from new application particle monitoring. We have established sales offices in Korea and Singapore. We have continuous improvement to existing product. We are also increasing the integration between Insight and Olicem, also here an increased awareness with customers, and we are linking these products together. Ongoing new product certifications and that's partly what's needed to bring in larger volumes of our Auburn products to Europe. We also doing preparation for capacity and efficiency investment in Gasmet facility in Finland. And that is linked to and is similar to what we've been doing in Auburn and in NEO. Matthew Cusick: Financials for Monitoring Control Technology. Orders received SEK 163 million in the quarter, down from the record SEK 249 million in Q1 last year. Remember in Q1 last year, we had 2 orders in this division that alone combined almost reached SEK 50 million, but nevertheless, 28.5% down currency neutral. Sales, SEK 168 million versus SEK 198 million. That's down 8.2%. And we see the impact of the margin -- on the margin of the volume drop on this division. Adjusted EBIT to SEK 20 million is 12.1% versus 18% last year. If we move on then, Sven, to the outlook. Sven Kristensson: Yes. Demand remains subdued in many sectors, but the growing Service segment and a very strong vehicle offering means that we are performing very well in the current uncertain market. Following a very weak start, activity picked up towards the end of the first quarter, which, if continues, will bode well for performance in the quarters ahead of the year. The pipelines are strong, but the order intake is low. At the same time, there is considerable uncertainty in the market, very difficult to forecast broader recovery in demand. However, when that gains momentum, we are extremely well placed to improve our profitability. With a strong balance sheet, we continue to invest in operational efficiency and in continuously improving our offering. That means that we will be able to continue to strengthen our position, regardless of the market situation. But in a world where awareness of damage that poor air quality does to people is growing. Nederman, with its leading offering in industrial air filtration has an important role to play and a good opportunity to continue to grow. Matthew Cusick: Briefly on the financial calendar. Then we've got our Annual General Meeting next Tuesday, at 4:00 p.m. The interim report for Q2 is released on the 16th of July and the Q3 is released on the 21st of October. The year-end report will be released on the 12th of February next year. And with that, I think we can open up for any questions that people listening may have for us. Operator: [Operator Instructions] The next question comes from August Flyning from Handelsbanken. August Flyning: Two questions from my side, please. To start off with, you mentioned that activity picked up towards the end of Q1. Could you give us some more color on what drove that improvement in the final weeks of March and whether it was broad-based or more concentrated in terms of both divisions and regions. Sven Kristensson: I can say across the divisions, it was rather widespread. Process Technology is more volatile, as you know, August. So, their large orders come in when the Board decision happens, the large projects come in. But we did see in Monitoring and Control Technology, in E&FT and in Duct and Filter, we definitely saw a pickup in it. So it was rather the broad range. Regional-wise, not so much -- there's no reason it picks out one way or the other in that. APAC is still slower, and we think that is likely to do with what's going on -- it can have something to do what's going on in the Middle East right now. August Flyning: That's very clear. And on tariffs then, I know you guided to approximately SEK 5 million in quarterly tariff costs going forward. Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit more on kind of products or shipments that primarily relates to now given the fact we have an updated here Section 232 on steel-based products. Matthew Cusick: Yes, that may benefit us. We are also -- and we're not doing this in order to -- so that, first of all, that will likely benefit us somewhat assuming we don't change anything in our production flows. On the other hand, we're also investing in the production in the U.S. in Charlotte, which will mean that slightly less then transatlantic, but this is still rather a small impact for us, is not -- we're not changing anything strategically down to based on the tariff. And we will not do in the foreseeable future either. Operator: The next question comes from Anna Widstrom from DNB Carnegie. Anna Widstrom: So firstly, I just wanted to ask because I know that the number of employees is down. So could you maybe elaborate a bit on basis relating to cost savings or any effect from something else? Matthew Cusick: Number of employees is largely related to production sites. It's not -- there are -- we have made some cost savings in APAC, but that's relatively small relative to the number of -- relative to the number of reduction. There are -- we do have some temporary employees that fluctuate over time. And at the moment, obviously, with less volume, we are able to adjust the production capacity accordingly. But it's not something a major restructuring that you're seeing there or a major focused reduction. Sven Kristensson: And we also have the fact that with the automization in the different factories, you have here and there, you have 2 less needed because you have it automated with AGVs, as you have 2 less are and so on. So that's an ongoing process. It's not we have not seen the need for a larger restructuring. Anna Widstrom: Okay. Perfect. My second question is on how -- if you maybe could give some details on how we should view the Duct and Filter Technology margin, just given that we probably have a lot of FX effect. So maybe some sort of guidance on how that specific margin would look if we didn't have the U.S. dollar. Matthew Cusick: Yes, the margin in itself in percentage terms isn't massively effective for that division because the vast majority of the -- so there's not an awful lot that's going transatlantically. The Swedish krona is -- when we translate is the main issue with that division. We are margin-wise on that division, like I mentioned, we're rather pleased with the 18.9% they do. And that does show that, for example, the where we've introduced these AGVs into the factories and a little more automation. We have seen a reduction in the direct labor percentages for that division, which is making -- even on modest volumes, we quite -- we got we've got rather good margins. So some volume increase or to give even more leverage in that division. Anna Widstrom: Okay. Perfect. Then also a specific question for Gasmet. Just thinking now when public spending seems to go down quite a lot, are there any specific customer segments that you sort of try to increase your sales efforts towards? Sven Kristensson: Yes. They have a handful but it's mainly to start more having broader geographical base for the existing that is something ongoing. They have a growing cooperation with Olicem and hereby also increase the after-market capabilities in that area. So it's Energy and it's APAC that we need to further grow. But it's also a problem. We don't know what will happen in the U.S. spending because that is a significant part of it that has been universities, other school, It's been customs authorities, police, and so. And their spending has gone down dramatically over the last 6 months, I would say. But I think we will -- I can't give you a promise that it will be a boom within the couple of weeks, but we are working very strongly to find, as we have been doing in other areas. If you look at the EFT for instance, when we acquired -- when we acquired RoboVent, 85% of our sales were auto-related. And the downturn in that market would have given us a significant downturn of our sales. But by using the knowledge in using these applications in food-related, other areas we have now been able to maintain the volumes there. Although both you and I would have liked it to be icing on the cake that we grew it and still had a significant auto part. But now we see that maybe the auto industry is starting to reinvest again. We see that there's a lot of service orders coming in, and that's the first time that they are reopening their lines. Anna Widstrom: Okay. Perfect. Just 2 more from my side. So firstly, looking on the product mix that you have in the order intake. Is there something that we should be aware of in terms of like margin impact for the quarters ahead? Matthew Cusick: Not really, you could say, if I take Process Technology, they're still doing very well on service, so that we expect there rather good margins will continue to be solid. E&FT, a little bit growing in the Service business as well. So that also helps. Monitoring and Control Technology, one of the issues we have there and why we were a bit lower is, some of this public spending is on these portals units, which do have extremely good margins. So that is less solid. But I would say, Process Technology in E&FT have got healthier margin backlogs than they had 12 months ago, albeit lower in our [indiscernible] Anna Widstrom: Okay. Perfect. And my final -- sorry, go ahead. Sven Kristensson: But if you could also Duct and Filter has also very -- since we, as mentioned, we had very low portion of personnel cost. It's extremely low, and that is several percentage units down since we made the investment over the last 2 years. So that means that an increase in volume or recovery in volumes will have also in that division, very strong impact. Matthew Cusick: Even a modest increase across the group in volumes will -- should increase the margin quite significantly, we think. Anna Widstrom: Perfect. Just a final one, if you could tell us a bit on if you've noted any impact yet from the Middle Eastern conflict in either costs but also perhaps activity from the oil and gas customer. I mean you mentioned one order, but that doesn't sort of related to this. Sven Kristensson: The impact is very hard because the biggest impact is the hesitation and what we've seen, the hesitation to sign larger contracts. And it's the same as when we had what they call Liberation Day. It's not a tariff, it's such -- it's more the unsecurity among our customers, and that means that they are some sort of holding back on doing the large investment. And part of the problems in -- or the overcapacity in Textile and Fibers related to the uncertainty also how can you ship things over the ocean. And what is happening, and where should you invest. Should you invest in Carolinas Guatemala or should you continue to do in India and so on. So more the uncertainty that has an impact. Then there is, of course, potentially an issue as we had during COVID period on shipment capacity and so on. If we get vessels stuck around in Hormuz Strait or in Suez or wherever. So, I wouldn't say... Matthew Cusick: I'll try and pull out one positive out of the Iran conflict. Might be, but we have -- and like you said, we haven't seen this at all yet, and you may be hinting at this. If this drives investments in oil and gas. Sven Kristensson: Petrochemicals... Matthew Cusick: Petrochemicals or anything around the new investments if countries decide themselves, they need to invest themselves more, that could mean a macro boost for those sort of industries, which would be good for example for NEO Monitors, Gasmet, in particular. We've not seen it yet. But that would be -- if I'm going to put one positive out of it, there are -- like at the moment, this hesitation is the key issue for us though. As you say, a it's been hesitation. Anna Widstrom: Okay. So you've yet to see sort of actual cost increases for you that you need to sort of offset to what customers... Sven Kristensson: There has been -- there is some, of course, that will come on plastics and so on and polymer, steel has gone up a little bit due to the energy cost and so on, and they are seeing some increase. But that is so straightforward, so that you can handle and you can make a sort of -- this is -- if you can go on a plane, you will see on your ticket, we have added a surplus for energy costs and so on. And that's not a big issue to handle. It's more the uncertainty and the lack of volumes that is problematic. Operator: There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments. Sven Kristensson: Thank you for taking time listening to us and we will have the Annual AGM meeting on Tuesday, and we will have a short comments from that as well next week. And after that, we will be back for the second quarter in July. Thank you for taking the time.
Operator: Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Polestar Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Anna Gavrilova. Please go ahead. Anna Gavrilova: Thank you, operator. Hello, everyone. I'm Anna Gavrilova, Head of Investor Relations at Polestar. Thank you for joining this call covering Polestar's results for the fourth quarter and full year 2025. I'm joined by Michael Lohscheller, Polestar's CEO; and Jean-Francois Mady, Polestar's CFO, who will comment on the performance, and then we will open the floor to analysts' questions. Before we start, I would like to remind participants that many of our comments today will be considered forward-looking statements under the U.S. federal securities laws and are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that may cause Polestar's actual results to differ materially from what has been communicated. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the future financial performance of the company, production and delivery volumes, financial and operating results near-term outlook and medium-term targets, fundraising and funding requirements, macroeconomic and industry trends, company initiatives and other future events. Forward-looking statements made today are effective only as of today, and Polestar undertakes no option to update any of its forward-looking statements. For a discussion of some of the factors that could cause our actual results to differ, please review the risk factors contained in our SEC filings. In addition, management may make references to non-GAAP financial measures during the call. A discussion of why we use non-GAAP financial measures and a reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measure can be found in the appendix of the press release and in the Form 6-K published today. Now I will hand over to Michael. Michael Lohscheller: Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us today as we present our full year 2025 results and provide an update on recent developments across the business. As you are all aware, world around us continues to throw up challenges, but we are making good progress, and we are focusing on delivering against our strategy. I want to update you on the most recent developments within technology, our financing situation and future model lineup expansion. But before that, a few words on the year that just passed. 2025 was a record year for Polestar in terms of retail sales. We delivered over 60,100 cars during the year, in line with our guidance of 30% to 35% growth and a new record for our young brands, an achievement to be proud of given the competition and market conditions. 2025 was also a year in which we took significant steps to adapt our commercial strategy and footprint. An important foundation for our future growth and journey towards profitability. We accelerated the expansion of our network of retailers by 50% from 140 to 210 retail sales points and have worked hard to improve our operational efficiency, whilst also preparing for the company's largest ever model offensive which we presented in February. During the fourth quarter, we made several announcements that reinforce our position as a technology leader in the EV segment. The upgraded model year '26 Polestar 3, which is being tested by the world's leading automotive media in the U.K. this week has received several upgrades, including an 800-volt architecture, this means our flagship SUV offers customers charging speeds of up to 350-kilowatt up to 500 kilowatts of power and 6% better efficiency. It also has an upgraded NVIDIA processor, taking its computing power from 30 to 254 trillion operations per second. The same upgrade is also being offered to all existing Polestar 3 customers. We are the first OEM to integrate Google's Live Lane Guidance in our cars. It's already being rolled out to Polestar 4 for customers across the U.S. and Sweden with more to come. Further evidence of our strong relationship with Google came in November when we demoed Google's AI-based Gemini assistant in Polestar 5. This service brings a whole new level of interaction and experience to our cars and it will be rolled out via over the air updates to existing Polestar customers. We have made solid progress on securing additional financing in the last month. Starting in December 2025 through a series of the 3 equity financing rounds, we have raised $1 billion of new external equity with the support of Geely Sweden Holdings. These placements strengthen our balance sheet and widen our shareholder base. Concurrently, we have announced agreements with Volvo Cars and Geely Sweden Holdings for the conversion of approximately $640 million of shareholder loans to equity. These conversions once completed, will reinforce our liquidity profile and maintain Volvo Cars ownership in Polestar at approximately 19.9%. Both the equity finding rounds and the debt-to-equity conversions are a clear sign of the continued support that we enjoy from our major shareholders. In February, we presented the details of our largest ever model lineup expansion with four new cars planned in the next 3 years. Polestar 5, our 4-door GT, which was presented during the end of last year is expected to start deliveries in the summer. This car sets a whole new standard in EV Performance segment, combining design, performance and luxury in a way that has never been done before. Later this year, we will bring a new variant of Polestar 4 to the market. Our global best seller, which represented 65% of our deliveries in the first quarter of this year will bring even more versatility to an already incredible car. This will help us to address a wider segment and offer more customers an alternative based on their lifestyle and needs. First deliveries are expected to start in fourth quarter, with production for all markets taking place in Busan, South Korea. Our next model will be the next-generation Polestar 2, the car that built Polestar's brand with over 190,000 Polestar 2 on the road, this car already has a huge following end customer base, which we have an opportunity to capitalize on. completely redesigned with the latest in drivetrain, battery and UX technology, Polestar 2 will play an important role in our future success. Our compact premium SUV Polestar 7, provides an attractive entry point to the brand, offering a level of performance and design that this segment lacks today. The pace at which we are developing and bringing those models to market is a testament to the value of our asset-light model. Our ability to work in close collaboration with partners and the sign of our underlying ambitions for more profitable growth, targeting wider, more profitable segments. Before handing over to Jean-Francois for the financial details, I'd like to just spend a moment reflecting on the first quarter of this year 2026. Our sales team has worked incredibly hard to carry over our record performance in '25 into the start of this year. Our retail sales in the first quarter totaled some 13,100 cars a record number for a first quarter, translating into a year-on-year growth of 7%. Europe remains our largest region, and we saw particularly strong sales increase in some of our most important markets, including the U.K., which grew by 20%, Sweden, which grew by 17% and Germany, which grew by 35%. Outside of Europe, we performed well across several markets, most notably in Australia and South Korea, two established markets that delivered strong growth. In the U.S., changes to government policies have had a negative impact on EV demand in general. But the launch of Polestar 4 across North America is off to a good start with strong media reviews and good customer feedback. Growing at near double digits in the current market, given our relatively young age compared to the competition shows what's possible when you have an engaged and growing network of retailers, an established service network in great cars. Interest from existing and potential regional partners remains high, and we expect to grow our network to reach approximately 250 sales points by the end of this year, a growth of 20% compared to the end of 2025. Market conditions are becoming more challenging amid ongoing geopolitical developments. But as I've said before, we are fully focused on proactively handling the issues and challenges that are within our control and building the stronger poster. I'll hand now over to Jean-Francois and look forward to taking your questions in a few minutes. Thank you. Jean-Francois Mady: Thank you, Michael. Good morning, good afternoon, everyone. 2025 was a year of record retail sale for Polestar, as Michael highlighted. And consequently, we achieved substantial revenue growth and a near breakeven adjusted gross profit. We also made meaningful progress on cost discipline and organizational efficiency. And we improved our capital structure profile and liquidity position. This performance was delivered despite a challenging market, exerting pressure on pricing and a geopolitical environment that led to higher tariffs and duties in 2025. Looking at the financial results for the full year 2025 and as preannounced, retail sale exceeded 60,000 cars. This represented an increase of 34% year-on-year in line with our growth target of 30% to 35%. The growth was driven by the continued transition to an active selling model and consequently, an accelerated retail sales network expansion, leveraging our attractive model lineup. Polestar 4 groups, best-selling model and it made up just over half of the volume. By geography, we saw particularly strong performances in Europe, led by the U.K., Germany, Belgium, and the Nordic region and in Asia Pacific with South Korea. Europe, including the Nordics, delivers 78% of our total volume. Throughout last year, our U.S. business was challenged by higher tariffs, regulation and policy changes. For example, changes in regulation meant that value of compliance credits used by company to offset lower efficiency fleet decrease. Furthermore, at the end of the third quarter, the tax credit for EV purchase expired. This market represented 7% of our retail sale, down from 14% in 2024. We operate in 28 countries worldwide, including 17 in our key regions of Europe. In cooperation with our partners, we opened 71 new sales points and sign up 54 new retailers in 2025. Most of this expansion was in Europe. Volume growth and our offer of three models translated into significant revenue growth of 50% year-on-year to surpass $3 billion. The increase in revenue of over $1 billion was driven by higher volume effect of $559 million, higher revenue per vehicle as a result of favorable mix development of $271 million. Carbon credit revenue were higher by $181 million, under the new EU pool agreement. However, these positive factors were partially offset by pressure on pricing. Of the total sale of carbon credit of $211 million, $192 million is booked in revenue and $19 million is booked in other operating income. We have achieved the target of a 3-digit million dollar amount in 2025 as we guided in January 2025 and expect a similar level in 2026. Gross margin was a negative 35% in 2025 due to impairment expenses of USD 1.1 billion for Polestar 2, Polestar 3 and internal development projects, which include Polestar 5. The key factors driving the impairment on changes in regulation and policies and tariff leading to higher production costs, mounting pressure on pricing and slower demand in the upper EV premium segment and competitive dynamics Overall, adjusted gross margin, which excludes the impairment expenses and other unusual items, improved to a near breakeven level of negative 0.7% from a negative 12.5% a year ago. Positive developments contributing to the improvement of the adjusted gross margin were: first, a growing share of Polestar 4 and the improvement of geographical sales mix. Secondly, increase in carbon credit revenue of $181 million. Finally, continuous product cost reduction is being delivered through commercial negotiation and decompensing initiative, driving lower cost of material, contents and batteries. Cost of sales, excluding impairment expenses increased in line with higher volume and related production. There was further impact of higher duties and tariffs. Selling, general and administrative expenses improved by $34 million compared to 2024. Headcount reduction of almost 25%, optimized marketing and administrative spending and overall cost discipline resulted in cost saving worth USD 100 million, a 12% decrease year-on-year. However, this saving with SG&A expenses were partially offset by higher sales agent remuneration, which increased by $65 million, in line with higher sales volume. Research and development expenses were $78 million, up from USD 38 million in the prior year, driven by additional spending on new programs with a lower capitalization rate. In 2025, net loss results primarily reflect the impairment expenses. Adjusted EBITDA loss of $783 million narrowed by 27% or close to $300 million of improvement as we reached the near breakeven adjusted gross profit and optimize SG&A. If we look at the result of the fourth quarter, retail sales exceeded 15,600 cars in the quarter, an increase of 27% compared with the fourth quarter of 2024. Revenue was USD 887 million, up 54% year-on-year, supported mainly by higher volume, a favorable model and channel mix evolution, carbon credit sale of USD 88 million, lower adjustment of residual value guarantee related to the North American markets and positive foreign exchange impact, partly offset by pressure on pricing. Gross margin improved in the quarter year-on-year by 109 percentage points, but remained still negative at 38%, largely due to significantly lower impairment expenses of $340 million booked in the fourth quarter of 2025 compared to $622 million booked in the fourth quarter of 2024. Adjusted gross margin improved to a positive 2% versus negative margin of 39% in the comparable period, supported by a favorable product and geographical sales mix with proportion of Polestar 4 in the sales mix at 66%, of which 84% of Polestar 4 cars was sold in Europe. Higher carbon credit sale of $88 million versus $11 million in the comparable period and lower residual value guarantee adjustments related to the North America market. The positive effects were partially offset by pressure on pricing and higher duties and tariffs. The net loss for the quarter was USD 799 million, an improvement of 32% compared to the prior year period, mainly due to factors explained earlier and lower impairment expenses in the quarter. Adjusted EBITDA improved substantially to negative $223 million compared with negative $470 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. This improvement was driven by adjusted gross profit turning from negative $224 million in the fourth quarter of '24 to positive $17 million in the fourth quarter of 2025. On the funding of our operation and liquidity with strong support of Geely Holding, Polestar secured in total USD 1.2 billion of new equity investment from existing investors and external financial institution from June 2025 to March 2026. In June 2025, we raised $200 million of new equity from PSD Investment and existing investors and an entity that is controlled by Mr. Li Shufu, Founder and Chairman of Geely Holding Group. Since December '25, we have raised a further $1 billion from a number of institutions over 3 rounds. The share price at which these investments were raised was $19.34. Through this transaction, we broadened our shareholder base and improve our free float to over 40%. Moreover, our partners, Geely Sweden and Volvo car agreed to convert into Polestar equity, approximately $639 million of the respective outstanding shareholder loan owned by Polestar under relevant agreement, of which Volvo car converted the first tranche into Polestar equity and the maturity of the remaining balance of the shareholder loan was extended to December 2031. Geely Sweden is expected to convert about $300 million into Polestar equity later this quarter. After this event, Volvo car is expected to convert a further $65 million to maintain its shareholding in Polestar at 19.9%. This transaction, raising equity from existing and external sources and debt-to-equity conversion by our partners a major step towards enhancing our capital structure and liquidity position and helping Polestar to strengthen its balance sheet. We are grateful for the continued support shown by Geely Holding and their confidence in Polestar vision. In terms of loan facilities in 2025, we secured about $1.6 billion worth of new 12 months term facilities and renew about $3 billion of existing 12-month term facilities. These facilities allow for efficient funding of Polestar operating and investing activities. Our cash position at the end of December 2025 was approximately USD 1.2 billion. We continuously engage in a constructive dialogue with our club loan lenders. Polestar exited the year in compliance with all its covenants and the club loan members agreed to amend covenants for 2026. In terms of guidance for 2026, we reiterate low double-digit growth rate for retail sales volume with progress through the year and in line with seasonality. The sales mix will continue to evolve to include a greater share of Polestar 4 group. Our best-selling model and later in 2026, the new Polestar 4 variant, Polestar 4 SUV. To conclude, our priority remain: first, driving growth through the active selling model and our expanding sales network and leveraging our attractive model lineup. Second, improving processes, streamlining the organization and finding further operational synergies; third, extracting efficiencies and sustaining cost cutting and financial discipline. And last but not least, focusing on cash conversion cycle management and exploring sources of future funding. Now I will hand over back to the operator. Operator: [Operator Instructions] We will now take the first question from the line of Andres Sheppard from Cantor Fitzgerald. Anand Balaji: This is Anand on for Andres. Just to kick us off, maybe I was wondering how much of a headwind do you expect from tariffs and geopolitics given the significant manufacturing in China? And do you expect the plant in the U.S. and South Carolina to offset this a little bit? Can you give us some color there? Michael Lohscheller: Yes. Thanks, Andres. So obviously, it's a time of uncertainty. That's fair to say, right? But I think the manufacturing footprint we set up is quite good because, obviously, as you know, we produce also in North America, also now in South Korea and in China, but there is uncertainty. And obviously, we'll make sure we try to balance this as best as we can. And that's also why then in the midterm, we want to localize more here in Europe, as we outlined, right? The Polestar 7 as a compact SUV car coming then into a European facility. But I think we do the right things. We have flexibility and that's also why we consolidated the Polestar 3 in Charleston, right, to have one manufacturing footprint for the Polestar 3, but it's fair to say it's a time of uncertainty. Anand Balaji: Got you. I appreciate the color. And separately, with autonomy really becoming a significant theme in EVs. I was wondering if you could talk to us about how you view the space and maybe remind us of what your autonomy plans are with Polestar? Michael Lohscheller: Yes. I mean that's an important topic for us because obviously, we stand for innovation. We have documented several times, right? We brought innovations early to our cars. For example, the Google build in was one element. But autonomous driving is an important topic. It will not come overnight in steps. And that's why, for example, the partnership with Mobileye but also the access to the Geely ecosystem is important. So obviously, we will go to Level 2, Level 2+ and then go step by step. But it's obvious a topic for the future because it makes life easier for consumers we see that, but it comes gradually. So not overnight and also not from Level 2 to Level 4, but it's something we are very focused on. And the good thing is that we have access to the technology through various partners, right? And it's a very dynamic field. And obviously, we also want to take a leading position there. Operator: We will now take the next question from the line of Dan Levy from Barclays. Trevor Young: It's Josh on for Dan Levy. So I have one and then a follow-up. First question for you after the head count initiative last year. Can you just walk us through the latest cost initiatives and maybe the cadence of those? Jean-Francois Mady: Okay. So thanks, Dan, for the question. So indeed, we have achieved quite significant fixed cost reduction when it comes to head count in 2025. So we have decreased headcount by 25% which is a significant achievement. On top of that, we have optimized our marketing and communication spending. But I will say that we will continue as well to look at for more synergies moving forward. But when it comes to cost reduction, also, I just would like to stop a bit on the product cost reduction where we have achieved also some relevant results in '25 compared to '24%, especially on the Polestar 4 where we have reduced the product cost reduction by low double-digit level year-over-year, which is a great achievement, not only in material but also in battery. And of course, we don't want to stop here. We'll continue focusing on those product cost reductions through commercial negotiation, but also decontenting of our product while not compromising on the premium positioning. So I would say we are continuing marching. For us, it's very much important to improve, I would say, our cost, not only the product cost, but also our fixed costs. So we are well oriented entering 2026, but more to come on those two topics. Trevor Young: Great. And then just in terms of the latest outlook for monthly cash burn. Could you walk us through the puts and takes there and what we should keep in mind for this year and then going forward? Jean-Francois Mady: Yes. So in 2025, the level of cash burn is on average around USD 120 million per year. So I will say it's very similar to 2024. So one could say that we're not improving, but structurally, the cash burn is improving in a sense that we are improving our operating results. We have cut the losses when it comes to adjusted EBITDA by USD 300 million year-over-year, when you look at also the working capital, we have decreased significantly the level of inventory by around 7,000 new vehicle year-over-year. However, this positive impact has been compensated by higher activity when it comes to receivable due to the increase of volume, but also higher cash out when it comes to our payables due to 2024 payable entering 2025. Also, it is fair to recognize that when you look at the level of indebtedness, we have a heavy weight in terms of financial interest. And also looking at the cash out related to our investing activities, we still had in 2025, a tail of cash out related to legacy program. But entering 2026, so we are going to continue improving the operating results with all the actions that we have put in place with the improvement of the volume, sales mix but also offer action on the cost, as we just discussed, but also fair also to comment that due to the restructuring of our capital structure with the recent debt-to-equity conversion, the weight of financial interest in our operating cash flow will reduce. Same as well for the CapEx cash out during the last Strategy Day on the 18th of February we reiterate the fact that we wanted to move on the unique platform strategy, and we wanted to rely also on Geely Group technologies. And of course, that's going to help us, I will say, to reduce CapEx cash out moving forward. So we are confident that the cash burn in 2026 should improve versus 2025. Operator: There are no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the conference back to Michael Lohscheller, Polestar CEO, to conclude the call. Michael Lohscheller: Yes. Thanks, everybody, for joining, and we'll be in touch as we will review the Q1 results in 3 weeks' time together. So I wish you a wonderful day and talk to you soon. Bye-bye. Operator: This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Welcome to the Independent Bank Corp. First Quarter Earnings Call. Before proceeding, please note that during this call, we will be making forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from these statements due to a number of factors, including those described in our earnings release and other SEC filings. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any such statements. In addition, some of our discussion today may include references to certain non-GAAP financial measures. Information about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliation to GAAP measures, may be found in our earnings release and other SEC filings. These SEC filings can be accessed via the Investor Relations section of our website. Finally, please also note that this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Jeffrey J. Tengel, CEO. Please go ahead. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Thank you. Good morning, and thanks for joining us today. I am accompanied this morning by CFO and head of consumer lending, Mark J. Ruggiero. When we last spoke in January, I highlighted several major areas of focus for Rockland Trust in 2026: organic growth, expense management, and capital optimization. Our first quarter results reflect progress in all of these areas. While reported loan and deposit growth were somewhat muted, I will talk later about why we remain encouraged with our ability to continue to grow organically. And we held the line on expenses and continue to proactively manage our capital. The first quarter also saw continued NIM improvement, increasing 13 basis points from the fourth quarter. This reflects pricing discipline across both our loan and deposit portfolios. Excluding loan accretion income, our adjusted NIM rose by 8 basis points. Mark will elaborate on our NIM during his comments. Excluding M&A charges, expenses were down 1.5% from the fourth quarter as we realized the impact cost savings from the Enterprise transaction, which was offset by seasonally higher employee and occupancy costs. Additionally, the quarter reduction benefited from the absence of certain outsized expenses incurred in the fourth quarter. With the investments we have made in people and technology over the past few years, we believe we have the scale to continue to grow without significant additions to our expense base. We returned $94 million of capital to shareholders in the first quarter, including the repurchase of 802,000 shares for $63 million. I would like to point out that despite our aggressive capital actions, tangible book value rose to $47.86. We also recently announced an 8.5% increase in our quarterly dividend. With expected further improvement in our profitability and moderate balance sheet growth, we expect capital management to remain a key priority for the balance of the year. There is a significant amount of work underway as we prepare to transition our core operating platform from Horizon to IBS, both part of the FIS ecosystem. The conversion is scheduled to take place in October. The new operating system will provide additional product capability and enhanced efficiencies that reflect the size and scale of our organization. This is an important milestone for Rockland Trust and will position us for future growth. Related, I would like to take a moment to talk about AI. This is obviously a topic on investors’ minds. In the first quarter, we established an office of digital innovation. We have established a governance framework around our AI activities to ensure we stay within the guardrails of our moderate risk profile and any actions are consistent with our award-winning culture. This governance framework includes a steering committee that will serve as a clearinghouse for AI use cases. This will allow us to make AI investments in those areas that have a meaningful payback and avoid the proverbial boiling the ocean. I expect us to start with some relatively easy use cases as we build muscle memory. Over time, this should enable us to gain confidence in our ability to execute and take on bigger, more impactful applications. I mentioned earlier that loan and deposit growth was somewhat muted in the quarter. Given the Iran war, the marked volatility in interest rates, and the lingering inflationary environment, it should be no surprise there is not a uniform consensus on the current business climate from our bankers and customers. The duration of the war and its impact on oil prices will dictate the ultimate effect on distribution companies, contractors with truck fleets, manufacturers, construction firms, and energy-intensive operators. Clients broadly expect prolonged energy and commodity price volatility to weigh on cost structures. While a notable share of our clients indicate that they have adjusted to the current rate environment, others suggest that the higher rates have delayed expansion plans. Lastly, inflation remains a dominant concern across sectors, particularly with respect to labor, health care benefits, materials, and utilities. Suffice to say, the environment is best characterized as somewhat challenging. I would summarize our customers’ mindset as cautious. Importantly, though, we have not seen any meaningful stress in our loan portfolios as a result of the current environment and our customers continue to manage through this very well. With that as a backdrop, our total commercial loans declined by $50 million from the fourth quarter. If we peel back the onion a bit though, underlying results were stronger than reported. For example, excluding the impact of the $39 million decrease in our dealer floor plan business, which we are exiting, our C&I loans rose at a healthy 7% on an annualized basis. In addition, we would note that the office portfolio contributed $56 million of the $94 million drop in commercial real estate balances for the quarter. Our CRE concentration now stands at 283%, and we believe we have achieved most of the targeted reduction in transactional CRE business. While we have reduced transactional CRE balances, we funded $179 million of relationship-based CRE loans in the first quarter and added $290 million of CRE commitments. We still like the CRE asset class and will continue to support our clients in this space the way we always have. This dynamic continues the rebalancing of our commercial lending business. C&I loans now represent 25% of total loans versus 22% at year-end 2024. It is important to note that our C&I growth is being driven by core relationship banking. We do not have any exposure to the NDFI or private credit segments that have driven much of the industry’s loan growth. In summary, we are optimistic about our market position. We have the product set and talent to drive commercial loan growth going forward. Our approved commercial loan pipeline totaled $313 million, up from $278 million at year-end. But importantly, we will not sacrifice credit structure or rate for new business. This is consistent with how the legacy Rockland Trust has always operated. On the funding side, period-end deposit balances were essentially flat. The 1.5% decrease in average deposits from the fourth quarter is consistent with prior years, as seasonality tends to adversely impact business operating balances in the first quarter of the year. DDAs represent 28% of overall deposits, and the cost of total deposits was 1.36% in the first quarter, highlighting the immense value of our deposit franchise. Similar to the loan portfolio, and as we have said many times, we will not sacrifice rate to show deposit growth with transactional one-product customers. With respect to asset quality, our net charge-offs were 11 basis points for the first quarter, and have averaged just 11 basis points over the last year. As we suggested last quarter, we are not out of the woods yet with respect to our office portfolio. This quarter, several office loans exited the bank while a couple of new office loans were added to criticized status. We continue to believe the challenges within our office portfolio are identifiable and manageable. As I have mentioned in the past, there is no quick fix here. We remain diligent in managing this portfolio segment. While we are confident the worst is behind us, we will continue to be transparent with the market as we work down this asset class. Our wealth management business continues to be a key fee income driver for us. Despite an incredibly volatile market, our AUA were essentially flat at $9.2 billion as positive net asset flows and strong relative portfolio performance mostly offset market-related declines. Importantly, we were pleased with the diversity of new client inflows. Revenues grew at an 11% annual rate driven by higher asset-based fee revenue and insurance commissions. We believe first quarter results represent another step forward in driving improved profitability at Rockland Trust. We remain focused on accelerating our organic growth, reducing our CRE office portfolio, and prudent capital management. These actions, coupled with our industry-leading deposit cost, disciplined expense management, and operational excellence, will return INDB to our historical market premium valuation. I feel particularly confident about Rockland Trust’s positioning across our markets, driven by the strength of our products, the dedication of our people, and the effectiveness of the strategies we put in place. I want to thank all Rockland Trust employees for their tremendous efforts in making the first quarter a success. Every measure of our success is a direct result of their commitment. On that note, I will turn it over to Mark. Mark J. Ruggiero: Thanks, Jeff. To summarize the quarter results, 2026 first quarter GAAP net income was $79.9 million and diluted EPS was $1.63, resulting in a 1.31% return on assets, a 9.02% return on average common equity, and a 13.67% return on average tangible common equity. Excluding $3 million of merger and acquisition expenses and the related tax impact, the adjusted operating net income for the quarter was $82.1 million, or $1.68 diluted EPS, representing a 1.35% return on assets, a 9.27% return on average common equity, and a 14.05% return on average tangible common equity. As Jeff alluded to in his comments, we maintained our robust CET1 capital ratio at 12.87% while repurchasing $63.3 million in capital during the quarter and increasing our common dividend 8.5% to $0.64 per quarter. With only $24 million left on the current repurchase authorization, we anticipate establishing another round here in the second quarter as we continue to prioritize capital return to shareholders amidst an uncertain economic environment. We saw this element of uncertainty play out during the quarter in a couple of areas. The first area I will note is in regards to pricing competition, particularly on the deposit side. As a bank that has never looked to lead with rate, we have seen some flow of excess customer funds leave for pricing that we are not willing to match. This dynamic, combined with seasonal volatility, led to the fairly flat deposit balances quarter over quarter. We operate with conviction that finding the right balance of pricing discipline while supporting our relationship customers is crucial. And we believe the Q1 results of flat deposit balances while reducing the cost of deposits 10 basis points is a strong outcome of this philosophy. On the lending side, we saw demand impacted in a few areas, as all of the macroeconomic uncertainty that Jeff just talked about is keeping some customers on the sidelines. Our largest commercial portfolio, multifamily, is one particular asset class where we have seen this impact. With the reduced CRE portfolio much more representative of our legacy relationship lending profile, and an overall concentration level now in the low-280% range, we are comfortable suggesting a forward growth strategy commensurate with our historical approach. While this CRE strategy continues to play out, we remain extremely optimistic over our near-term C&I growth prospects. Reiterating the $39 million decrease associated with our winding down of the dealer floor plan portfolio, other C&I balances increased $78 million during the first quarter, or 7% on an annualized basis. In addition, the rebuild of our approved total commercial pipeline should bode well for second-half growth in 2026. On the consumer side, typical seasonality drove reduced overall volumes in the mortgage business, but an increase in salable activity kept mortgage banking results relatively flat while absorbing runoff of lower-yielding portfolio balances. And home equity volume has remained consistently strong with the $10 million increase in balances despite continued lower utilization rates versus pre-COVID levels. Switching gears a bit, the combination of the deposit cost reductions that I just discussed along with loan and securities cash flow repricing dynamics drove a solid 8 basis point lift in the core margin. And with elevated purchase accounting accretion versus the prior quarter, the reported margin rose sharply to 3.9% for the quarter. The balance sheet remains very well positioned to continue to drive consistent improvement in the net interest margin, while providing flexibility to lever up or down as needed to stay neutral to any short-term rate changes from the Federal Reserve. Moving to asset quality, we highlight the following notable items for the first quarter. Total nonperforming assets increased to $98.7 million, or 0.52% of total loans, driven primarily by the downgrade of one office loan which has an approximately $2.8 million specific reserve established. Net charge-offs for the quarter were $4.8 million, or 11 basis points annualized, with $4 million related to a CRE relationship that was partially reserved for last quarter. And as a quick positive update, this $4 million charge-off loan was associated with a nonperforming office loan that actually repaid the full remaining balance subsequent to year-end, in fact, just a few days ago. The first quarter provision for loan loss was $5.5 million. And while total criticized and classified loans increased versus the prior quarter, Q1 levels of 4% of total commercial loans remain in the range we have experienced over the last year or so. The downgrades to criticized status during the quarter were primarily isolated to a few credits, with no identified loss reserve recognized at this point. Our fee income businesses performed in line with expectations for the quarter, coming in relatively consistent with the prior quarter results despite fewer days in the quarter. Jeff provided color on the positive momentum within our wealth management group, and we are also pleased with the continued expansion of our treasury management services as many of the newer C&I customers leverage the full suite of cash management products that we offer. On the expense side, I will first point out that we did have a final round of severance related to the Enterprise acquisition that made up the majority of the $3 million of M&A expenses for the quarter. Total core expenses of $139.9 million are slightly higher than our guidance due primarily to significant snow removal expenses, which were a little over $2 million for the quarter. We remain focused on analyzing all areas of the bank to ensure expenses are appropriate and justified as we move forward into an environment where we know technology will play a larger role. Along those lines, our work on the upcoming core conversion is ongoing, with approximately $1.1 million of expenses in the first quarter directly attributable to those conversion efforts. And lastly, as expected, the tax rate increased from the prior quarter to 23.38%. With that, I will now finish up by revisiting our 2026 guidance. First, we reaffirm our two primary profitability targets for 2026. The first is return on average assets of 1.4% and the second is return on average tangible capital of 15%. Regarding loan growth, we update our CRE and construction full-year estimates to now be flat to low single-digit percentage increases. All other loan and deposit estimates remain unchanged. For the net interest margin, we increase our estimate to suggest that 2026 fourth quarter margin will now be in the range of 3.9% to 3.95%, while still assuming a 10 basis point impact from purchase accounting accretion. All other guidance remains unchanged from the prior quarter. That concludes my comments. And with that, we will now open it up for questions. Operator: We will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star 1 again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality. If you are muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Justin Crowley with Piper Sandler. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Analyst: Hey. Good morning, everyone. Hi, Doug. Good morning. Was wondering if you could start off on loan growth. Tweaked the guide a bit lower on the CRE side, of course. So I was just curious if you could expand even a little more on what informed that decision. And then also if you could just give us a sense, you mentioned some caution on the borrower side, but just as far as demand, how you have seen borrowers respond with some of the heightened macro volatility and how long you think that could maybe persist. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Yeah. On the CRE side, it is interesting because the commercial real estate market has gotten very, very competitive. It is really competitive at the low end with a lot of the smaller banks and the mutuals, and we see it at the larger end too with some of the larger banks. And it is a space where, as I said in my comments, we are not going to stretch for structure or for rate, and so we think that the environment is really very, very competitive. So we are continuing to support our existing clients where we can. The other thing that I think is providing a little bit of a cloud over the commercial real estate business in Eastern Massachusetts anyways is the prospect of rent control. And so a lot of the multifamily projects—these would be mostly construction loans—really are not happening. A lot of the investors are on the sidelines and they are not commencing with any of the historical pace that they would have in the construction space in that multifamily asset class. So we have definitely seen a marked slowdown there. With respect to the second part of your question, it is kind of hard to pinpoint when that is going to turn. If you could tell me when the war is going to be over and when the price of oil is going to return to where it was prior to the war, I think I might have maybe a little bit better answer, or maybe in listening to our clients have a better sense for how they are thinking about it. But I think caution right now is definitely the word I would use to express how generally our middle market and lower middle market client base feels. It does not mean there is no activity at all. We still have clients that are very healthy and very strong and they will continue to invest where they think it is prudent. But it definitely is causing the owner-operators that we typically bank—it is just giving them pause, and it probably makes them think a little bit long and hard. You know, the phrase about measure twice and cut once I think is definitely something that they are running through their minds. Analyst: Okay. Got it. That is helpful. Mark J. Ruggiero: Sorry. I was just—from a guide standpoint, I think all of that uncertainty certainly has increased a bit over the first quarter. And I think just a bit of a positive element to it that, you know, the $40 million office loan we had a sense could come to fruition here in 2026. But having that play out in the first quarter and creating a little bit more of a drag on net loan growth was—those are probably the two primary drivers to just being practical around the expectations going forward. But I think in terms of opportunity and the pipeline growing, as Jeff alluded to, there is still a lot of optimism and positivity there. I think it is just, you know, a little bit more uncertainty with the war and the office payoffs, to be quite honest, driving the guide reset. Analyst: Okay. Understood. And then just flipping to, you know, on the credit side, you saw nonperformers up a bit and then had the criticized inflow. Can you provide a little more detail on the drivers there? I think you mentioned office is a factor, at least on the nonperforming side, a bit. I am not sure of the extent when you looked at criticized balances. And then I know it is pretty formulaic at this point, but just how do you call the input, how that gets you to an allowance that was pretty flat for the quarter, and just where you feel or how you stand on credit quality? Jeffrey J. Tengel: Yeah. I will take the first part of that, Justin, and then I will let Mark take the second part. With respect to the criticized assets, we really had three larger loans that moved to criticized status that make up the bulk of that increase. And all three are in different asset classes. Only one of those is in the office asset class, one of them is C&I, and the other one I think is the multifamily space, which is really the first multifamily loan that I think has been criticized in quite some time. And in that particular instance, it is just a little bit slower lease-up, which we are not overly concerned about. It is just taken a bit longer, and we were just being prudent in moving it to criticized status. But still feel really, really confident that things are going to work out. So that is the quick overview of the increase in criticized loans. And as Mark pointed out, we are still well within the historical levels of criticized loans that we have operated at in the past. I will let Mark address the second part of your question. Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah, I think from a provisioning standpoint, it dovetails into a bit of that answer, which is obviously the downgrades on those loans Jeff talked about drive a bit higher allocation in the model as you would expect. But they are not at a point now where we have any reason to suggest there is a specific reserve or actual loss reserve that needs to be set. So as a—call it a risk-rated 7 loan versus a risk-rated 6 loan—there is a higher allocation in the model, but it will not move the needle too much. So that drove a little bit of the need for provision. I talked about the $4 million charge-off in the quarter. That was a couple million dollars higher than what we had reserved as of last quarter. So that required a couple million dollars in provision. And then, you know, we are tweaking the model a bit to have a bit more of a conservative macroeconomic environment factor playing through. I think on the consumer side, we feel really good about the credit picture right now, but I think you would be naive to suggest there is not a little bit more pressure on the health of the consumer. So, you know, $1 million or $2 million of added reserve on mortgage and home equity portfolios is appropriate. So those would be the three main drivers behind the $5.5 million provision. Obviously, there was not much loan growth, so that helps from a provision standpoint, but it was really the charge-off, the downgrades, and a little bit of build on the consumer side. Analyst: Great. And then just one last one. You know, a good chunk of the buyback in the quarter. Obviously, a lot of volatility in the market. But with average pricing coming in about where we are at today, just curious if you could speak a little more on the ability and appetite to keep this sort of a pace as you look to reduce excess capital. Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. I can tell you it will absolutely be a priority. You know, the goal high level would be to keep capital relatively flat. Now we can lever up and down a little bit from there, but I think that is the right level that will allow us and afford us to do a bit of management over holding company liquidity, CRE concentration, and obviously optimizing capital. So I would—we have not announced a new plan yet. I am very comfortable suggesting we will likely put one in place here in the second quarter. But the level of buybacks should be at a pace where we are going to try and keep capital relatively flat. Analyst: Great. I appreciate it. I will leave it there. Thanks for the time this morning. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Thanks, Michael. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of David Conrad with KBW. Your line is open. Please go ahead. David Conrad: Yes. Thanks. Just really a follow-up on the capital and the buyback. I mean, your CET1 level is about 12.09. Mark J. Ruggiero: And you started the buyback, and it really did not budge. And I think earnings power is going to improve even if loan growth improves a bit. So maybe balance the discussion of why you would want or desire to keep that flat instead of working that down a bit, and how you weigh the environment with, like, narrowing credit spreads and excess competition with potential—using that for a potential buyback to offset that. Chris O’Connell: Yeah. It is a fair— Mark J. Ruggiero: question. You know, I think we are still feeling like there is a growth path that we would like to leave some level of capital flexibility. You know, ideally—I have said this a few times now—ideally, we would grow into that excess capital position, but we also are being realistic and recognize, you know, we are talking a lot about uncertainty in the environment. That is going to keep loan growth somewhat at bay. So we absolutely are looking at a minimum to basically keep flat. Doing more than that, David, to be honest, some of the practical limitations there will be funding. So in a holding company–bank structure, the way you will typically fund that ideally would be through earnings and through bank-to-holding-company dividends. Doing that at a pace that exceeds earnings puts some pressure on the ability to rely on that as a funding base. So we would have to go to the outside market to borrow if we really wanted to ratchet that up. And I am not saying we would not do it, but we are still weighing that pro and con. And then we are still being cautious about keeping CRE concentration at a range that we think is appropriate and allows us to grow when the market turns. So that 280% to 290% range, we are very comfortable with. But the more we do on the buyback side, the more that constrains keeping that CRE ratio in that range. We are trying to find that right balance of, like I say, at a minimum keeping capital flat. That will not pressure funding and/or CRE concentration. But when you start to exceed that, we would just have to weigh sort of the pros and cons. David Conrad: Got it. Fair enough. And then maybe a follow-up. Just regarding the Fed’s proposal for Basel III, just want to get any thoughts on risk-weighted assets with any potential benefit in your mortgage or CRE portfolio, given their guidance? Mark J. Ruggiero: Yep. Yeah. We have done some rough modeling on that and think we would be comfortable suggesting our impact would be aligned with probably what you are seeing as sort of the industry expectation. Meaning, with 25% of our book in the consumer space—mortgage, home equity—where our LTVs are, I think you would expect to see somewhere around 15 basis points of risk-weighted asset relief there. And then on the commercial side, in general, 5 basis points of RWA relief. So that probably pencils out to 7% or 8% sized basis points. So 5% reduction in RWA, 15% reduction on the mortgage side. It is about a 7% to 8% reduction in risk-weighted assets, which gives you about $150 million to $160 million of capital relief when this comes to fruition, which certainly allows for an expectation for even more buyback or, obviously, just more capital flexibility. Chris O’Connell: Great. Perfect. Thank you. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Steve Moss with Raymond James. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Mark J. Ruggiero: Hi. Good morning, guys. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Hi, Steve. Chris O’Connell: Hey, Jeff. Mark. Mark J. Ruggiero: Maybe just— Analyst: you know, going back to the loan pipeline here and loan yields, just good to see the step up in activity and the organic growth there. Just kind of curious, where are you guys putting on loans these days? Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. On the commercial side, Steve, it is low 6s—probably 6.10% to 6.20% range. Runoff is in the 5% to 5.25% range on the commercial side, so you are still getting that 100 basis point lift or so on the churn. On the consumer side, there is not a lot of portfolio mortgage going in, but that is probably a little bit lower yield, call it 5.75% to 6%. Most of the home equity volume continues to be prime, so that is obviously at a better rate. But the biggest driver on the commercial side, call it, low 6s replacing low 5s. Chris O’Connell: Okay. Analyst: And then in terms of the securities cash flows here that you have coming off, just curious—Mark, you mentioned deposit pricing, obviously saw some things run off. Are you thinking of using some of those cash flows to continue to manage higher-cost deposits lower, or are you thinking about parking those in securities here or just what is the dynamic of thinking going forward? Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. I think from a balance sheet position and liquidity management perspective, we would be looking to keep the securities portfolio pretty flat where it is. I probably would not want it to get too much lower. Where we are—maybe down to 11%–12% we certainly would be comfortable—but I think I would expect to see the majority of the cash flow go back into the securities portfolio. We are seeing good yields there, and we are very conservative in terms of managing that portfolio. We are buying deep-discounted, fairly matured mortgage-backed securities. We are not stretching for yield in that portfolio, but we are getting, on average, 4%–4.25% rate. And that is replacing—in the first quarter, actually $100 million that came off was at a 1.50% rate. I would expect more of what is going to run off in the second half of the year to be closer to 2%. But that dynamic, giving you 200 to 225 basis points of lift on the securities book, is another big driver of the margin expansion you saw. But I would—long way of saying I would expect us to keep that portfolio relatively flat. Analyst: Okay. Appreciate that color. And then in terms of just the multifamily business in Massachusetts, you guys have about a $2.9 billion book. Just kind of curious, with the rent legislation here, are you guys going to tighten underwriting standards? Are there any thoughts of adjusting the way you operate on that front? And could that be a little more of a headwind beyond just this year if it passes? Jeffrey J. Tengel: Yeah. I mean, the—the most obvious headwind would just be the muted new business coming from construction loans in the multifamily space. As I mentioned in my comments, I think a number of investors—and I have spoken to several of them—they will tell me, look, we have choices. We do not have to invest in Massachusetts. We can invest in Connecticut or New York or wherever. And so I think until that issue gets—there is some clarity around it, I think there is going to continue to be muted demand on the construction side. Within the existing portfolio, our multifamily portfolio is—I would suggest—pretty seasoned. It has been underwritten consistent with historical Rockland Trust conservatism. We do not underwrite to trended rents or any of those sorts of things. So we feel really good about the existing portfolio of multifamily loans that we have because we have not seen any signs of stress as we move through these quarters. So I think the biggest challenge is going to be with new business as opposed to feeling like our existing portfolio is going to experience stress. Analyst: Okay. Fair. And then in terms of just going back to the office credit here, just want to clarify with regard to the payoff and the charge-off. Is it fair to—did I understand correctly that you charged off the $4 million and then the remaining balance, which I am assuming is the $13.07 million on the—in the deck—was paid off just a few days ago? Or is it just the recovery? I am just kind of— Mark J. Ruggiero: No. No. We charged it off to the P&L to what we knew was going to be the sale price, then that sale went through this week. Chris O’Connell: That is what I expected. I just was not quite sure I heard it right. Okay. Great. And then one more thing just on the noninterest-bearing dynamics for the quarter. Just kind of curious—they went down quite a bit but EOP was flattish. Was there anything seasonal that maybe we should have been thinking about? Jeffrey J. Tengel: On the deposit side? Particularly? Chris O’Connell: Yes. On noninterest-bearing. Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. Yeah. There is definitely seasonality, particularly in our business segment. When you look at the data in the reporting for the quarter, we are encouraged by a couple of things. The first is we still brought in new relationships and deposit dollars associated with new relationships that outpaced closed relationships. So where we saw some of that average deposit pressure is in existing balances being utilized. And I would attribute that to a couple of things. One is typical seasonality—tax payments, distributions, whatever it may be. We always see the low point of our deposits in the first quarter of a calendar year. Second is, I think there is some level of just inflationary pressure that is probably increasing to some modest degree a level of spend. I think that is putting a little bit of pressure on outstanding deposit balances. And then third, to be very candid, there is some money that we knew we let go due to just not a willingness to match some of the rates that we are seeing in our market. So you may see a customer with X amount of dollars in their account. They are carving out a small piece and looking for top rate, and we are going to—sometimes that answer is we price up and match. Sometimes, depending on the overall relationship, we have been willing to not match. So all three factors are in play in the first quarter, but I would say the biggest majority is your typical usage that we would look to see rebound in the second quarter. Chris O’Connell: Okay. Great. I appreciate all the color here, and I will step back in the queue. Thank you very much. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Laurie Hunsicker with Seaport Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Laurie Hunsicker: Yeah. Hi, Jeff, Mark, and Jerry. Good morning. I wanted to stay where Steve was on office. So just to go back to office for a minute because I am just a little bit confused. When I am looking at your office nonperformers of $53.8 million, that $18 million that repaid is already out of those numbers, correct? Mark J. Ruggiero: It is the $13.7 million that is out of those numbers. Laurie Hunsicker: It was originally $18 million, charged down to $13.7 million, and that paid off in April. Correct? Mark J. Ruggiero: Correct. Laurie Hunsicker: Okay. Perfect. Right. So—and then you initially had a $2 million reserve on that in the fourth quarter, so you took another $2 million before you charged it off, and then this new one came on, you took a $2.8 million specific reserve. So if I look at your loan loss provision for the quarter, it basically was all office. Am I thinking about that the right way? Mark J. Ruggiero: The new nonperformer, the $17.7 million, that has a $2.8 million reserve. We had already reserved $2 million of that last quarter. So there is—the appraisal suggests a bit more of the cure, so to speak, that would be needed. So it was only another, call it, $800,000 of provision needed to establish that reserve. So I’d say modest reserve build. Laurie Hunsicker: Perfect. Perfect. Okay. And then the $17.7 million that is new, is that a Class A or B? And do you have any occupancy—can you give us any kind of color around that? Mark J. Ruggiero: The $17.7 million new? Yes. Jeff, do you have whether that is A or B? I do not. But it is basically—the issue with that is it is a single tenant, life science tenant that has represented to us they will be exiting the facility. It is probably Class B would be my—if I had to venture a guess. So we do not expect sponsor support when that happens. So we would likely be looking at a future foreclosure, and the reserve that was established is based on an appraisal kind of on an as-is basis. Laurie Hunsicker: Gotcha. Okay. And just remind me, your life sciences book—how big is that? Jeffrey J. Tengel: It is not very big, Laurie. I do not have it in front of me, but I would say it is $100 million, plus or minus. It is not very big, and it is a little bit lumpy. I know we have a couple of larger loans in there. One in particular that—it was a construction loan, and we may have spoken about this in the past, but it continues to lease up really well, which is kind of bucking a trend in that space. And so it continues to get better. Honestly, that larger loan that I am referring to is criticized, and we think it is likely to get upgraded sometime over the course of 2026. Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. That is a $28 million loan that is in the Q4 maturity bucket. So that is $28 million out of the $54 million—that is life science. If you recall, it was once an empty building when we first started talking about this, so it has been a very positive development. Jeffrey J. Tengel: With good sponsorship, I might add. Laurie Hunsicker: That is great. And actually that segues to my other question. By the way, I love the slide 10 details. Thanks for continuing to include that. So yes, you touched on the $54 million that is coming due in 2026. Is there anything—kind of looking between the third and the fourth quarter, you have got $20 million coming due and obviously of the $54 million you just touched on the $28 million. Is there anything, or I guess maybe how should we be thinking about that? Is there any color you can give us on those loans? Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. To be honest, some of them we probably talked about in the past. I mean, they each have their own story. Based on those stories, if there is any loss exposure, we have reserved for it. But as you know, I think that we have probably talked about most of the loans that have a specific reserve on, and a lot of these either do not have a reserve because we expect full resolution or they are pretty modest reserves. So we feel genuinely good about that. I think to provide maybe one notable update—so I believe it is a fourth—yeah, one of the fourth-quarter maturity items now. It is about a $10 million loan that was originally intended to mature here in the first quarter, so if you went back to our deck from last quarter, I believe you would have seen a $9.9 million—or it would have been part of what was set to mature in Q1. That was extended to Q4. But that is a participation deal. The sponsor is looking to refinance or sell. Cash flow is improving. We felt a short-term extension was the right call to get that to a resolution that we still feel would get us paid out in full. So that one is probably one worth noting. But in general, like I said, the rest of the short-term maturities we feel—knock on wood—pretty good about. Laurie Hunsicker: Okay. And then just switching over to the dealer floor plan loan. So you mentioned you are discontinuing that book. How quickly does that book run off? And can you give us the current balance and just any color behind your reasoning for discontinuing? Jeffrey J. Tengel: Yeah. So the reason we decided to exit was we felt like we did not have scale to compete. The segment that we are in tended to be smaller—I will say relatively undercapitalized used car dealers. That industry, as you know, has consolidated quite a bit, and the larger, more well-capitalized companies did not really fit our traditional profile. And so as we looked at it, we said to ourselves, we are not very big in this space, and we do not really feel great about the prospects to grow it in a meaningful way. And I am not a big fan of hobbies, and I tell our people all the time, if we like the business and like the space, then let us put resources against it and let us grow it. If we do not, then let us exit because otherwise we are going to make a mistake and it will come back to bite us. And so this was a good example of where we just did not feel good about the go-forward strategy and our ability to be a meaningful player, and so we decided to exit. I think it started with, maybe, $100 million–$150 million roughly outstanding, and we are down to, I think, $70 million or $80 million. It has actually gone quite well, to be honest with you. Our team has done just a terrific job of facilitating the placement of a lot of these relationships with other banks so that the client—we are very trying to be very client-centric—the client is not disadvantaged. They are able to get financing from another local bank that is interested in being in this business. And so I think we have done a nice job of doing this without a lot of customer disruption or negative implications in the market. Mark J. Ruggiero: I just looked it up. I think we are actually a little—it is only about $50 million, a little over $50 million, left. So I would imagine, Laurie, that will play out over the next year—probably nine to twelve months. Yeah. We will probably be substantially done by year-end. Laurie Hunsicker: Okay. That is great. Okay. And then expenses, obviously, great guidance that you gave on 05/15. But if I am just looking very high level, so you are at $143 million for this quarter—$3 million of merger dollars, $2 million of snow, and then $1 million of core conversion systems—that takes you down to $137 million. And then, obviously, this quarter had the FICA. How much was the FICA? Mark J. Ruggiero: Payroll taxes quarter over quarter are up $1.2 million. I would not suggest that goes back down. You know, that will gradually reduce over time. So if I had to predict, Laurie, it is probably—you get $300,000 or $400,000 of expense relief in Q2 versus Q1, if you follow me. Laurie Hunsicker: Okay. I mean, that is—yeah. I am just looking and—just seems like your core expenses, taking out that core, seems—I mean, you are running better, lower. Right? Am I thinking about that the right way? Or is there some other where—something that we do not know? Mark J. Ruggiero: You are. You are seeing the full cost save. There was a little bit here in Q1 that I admit we did not capture—a little bit left of M&A. So you actually had that in for half of the quarter in the expense base as well. We are also cognizant that April is when we do our annual merit increases. So you will see an uptick in salaries, all other things being equal, just from annual merit—call it 3% on average. So I think it is holding the line. That is the mentality we are talking about—hold the line in all the major areas. I would hope and expect to see kind of in that $138 million-ish, $139 million range. Jeffrey J. Tengel: And just as an anecdote, Laurie, we have talked a lot about the number of bankers that we have added over the last six to twelve months, mostly in the C&I space, and we have been able to do that without any net incremental increase in our FTEs in that commercial banking space. It has been people who either have retired or we have performance-managed out or whatever. So when you look at the totals of our salespeople in our commercial space, it is relatively flat despite the fact that we have added a lot of really talented people over the last twelve months. Laurie Hunsicker: Gotcha. Okay. That is great. And then, Mark, just one quick question. You flagged the outsized loan accretion income, and I appreciate that. But do you have a spot margin for March—maybe even a spot margin—core? Mark J. Ruggiero: Core spot for March was—it was 3.72%. So in line with the total quarter. February actually had a little bit of a lift. We saw some more securities accretion with a little bit elevated payoff. So I still expect it to increase, obviously, off of that number, but spot was 3.72%. Laurie Hunsicker: Okay. Great. And then, Jeff, last question for you. I know you have been penciled down on M&A. Any sort of refresh now that EBTC is fully digested and your core systems conversion is right around the corner? How are you thinking about that? Jeffrey J. Tengel: Yeah. So just to be clear—pencils down on bank M&A. We still remain interested in—if it was in the wealth space or if there were unique deposit opportunities, whether it was branches or other ways that we could improve the overall franchise. But I would say we are still pencils down on bank M&A. The conversion that we have coming up in October is really a big deal. And so we are pretty focused on getting that done and getting it done well. As I told a bunch of our people a few days ago, we have one chance to make a good impression through this conversion. So we have to get it right. And so we have been spending a lot of our time and energy making sure that we do that. We also feel like we have a lot of really positive momentum and a good path to growth in a number of our core businesses, whether it is the wealth business, which we talked about, the C&I business, which we have been talking about the last couple of quarters. So we feel like organic growth very much remains top of mind and one of the things that we are focused on in addition to getting the conversion done well. And that, coupled with the environment—the environment right now is, as you know, a little bit uncertain—but I would characterize our posture as pencils down. Laurie Hunsicker: Great. Thanks for taking my questions. Thanks so much. Jeffrey J. Tengel: You bet. Thanks, Laurie. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Matthew Breese with Stephens Inc. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Analyst: Good morning, everybody. Mark J. Ruggiero: Morning, Matt. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Hey, Matt. Analyst: Mark, maybe to start with you. Can you provide, if you have it, the spot cost of deposits at quarter end and just maybe expand upon your commentary around competition? I would be curious in terms of where is the most aggressive—product-wise and competitor-wise? Are you seeing that mostly from the bigger banks or the mutuals? Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. Taking the latter—both, to be honest. Massachusetts is a bit of a unique environment. You still have a lot of mutuals at play that are good operators but can be a bit aggressive on pricing. And we are seeing offers even from larger banks, other typical similar-sized banks, a lot in the 4-handle on the deposit side. In some cases, even 4.25%. I think I saw a 4.50% offer out recently on a pretty large relationship. So it is very, very competitive. And it is those types of dynamics that I was alluding to where, of course, we are looking at the overall relationship, and if there is a portion of money that needs to be a 4-handle and the overall cost of deposits is where we would like it to be, that is the relationship we are going to continue to support. It is when you start to get the majority of a deposit looking for, in some cases, higher than 4% rates. That is a tough one to justify, in my opinion. So you are seeing some of that dynamic. And like I said, it is probably heightened by the level of mutuals. And I can appreciate in the markets where we—especially where we did the Enterprise deal—you have some competitors in that space that are going to look to be aggressive because they view it as an opportunity. The spot rate on the cost of deposits for March, I am pretty sure, was right in line, Matt, with the quarter—like around 1.36%. So we are at a point now where, you know, I think you are still seeing the Fed cut in December. We were able to make some reductions. You had a little bit of the CD book still giving us some benefit as that was repricing. You are basically at a point now where any CD maturities are going to be neutral to cost of deposits, and because of the competition, I would imagine new money coming on is going to challenge the 1.36% rate to some degree. But I think keeping deposits flat or slightly up in this environment will be a pretty successful profile. Analyst: Got it. And then maybe just transitioning that into the NIM and the NIM guide. The presentation suggests that you are going to end the year with a NIM in the 3.90% to 3.95% range. I am assuming that is the core NIM. Is that accurate? Mark J. Ruggiero: That is reported NIM with a 10 basis point accretion assumption. Analyst: So the 10 bps would be additive or—I am—is that all that is going to be—So let us work off of the low-3.70s core NIM this quarter. Expected, anticipated expansion is to 3.90% end of the year. Tack on another 10 bps, all-in NIM close to 4% or just over by the end of the year. That is the way to think about— Mark J. Ruggiero: No. I would suggest 3.72% core goes to, call it, 3.82% core. Tack on 10 to get you to the 3.90% to 3.95% range. Analyst: Got. Okay. So I guess with that in mind, just considering flat deposit costs, and then your roll-on versus roll-off dynamics are still accretive by, it sounds like, 100 or so basis points, it feels like the longer-term trajectory here is north of 4% on that NIM. Is that a fair—is that a fair assumption? Mark J. Ruggiero: I do think if the rate environment stays—if the longer term and longer part of the curve stays where it is and we could move the loan yield closer to 6%—then yes, I think a NIM above 4% is a realistic end goal. I think that the guidance now—call it, you know, 3 to 4 basis points of core expansion per quarter—does take into account the fact that we may see a basis point or two tick up in cost of deposits if we are being realistic. So I think that is a little bit of the development that I would suggest over the next three quarters—you are going to get the loan repricing benefit, you are going to get the securities repricing benefit. Our goal will be to keep deposits flat, but having the pricing pressure that is out there, I would say that is an area where you may see that eat into it slightly—where it is probably more like, as I said, a 3 to 4 basis point core margin expansion. Analyst: Got it. Okay. Jeff, maybe one for you. We talked about transactional commercial real estate a few times now. I am not sure I have ever seen a dollar amount put on it. What is the identified balance of transactional commercial real estate? Where was it? Where does it stand today? I think you said it is not as much of a headwind to growth. But maybe just characterize for us where you want it to be. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Yeah. That is a good question, Matt. I do not know that we have a specific number that I would point to in terms of what that is. We have actually talked about trying to get a bit more specific and then ring-fence it and be able to talk about our commercial real estate business as a core relationship, legacy Rockland Trust–originated business, and then a transactional book. But it is obviously less today than it was a year ago, year and a half ago. If I had to venture a guess, I would say it is probably somewhere between $300 million and $500 million—maybe towards the lower end of that, $300 million. But we have not really put pencil to paper to identify how much it is and then when it is running off. As you can imagine, some of the transactional real estate just has a maturity date that is well beyond the next year or two, and as long as it is performing, we are just going to have to continue to live with it. And that is not necessarily a bad thing because we are getting the income off of it as long as the credit profile is okay. It is really the ones where we feel like there is some stress that we have been a lot more proactive at addressing and looking to move off. Do not know if that answers your question. Analyst: No. That is great. The first one is just—I would love your view on which way the pendulum is swinging on the rent control. You know, just sort of kind of a quick Google search, it sounds like it is contested. I am just not sure to what extent. I would be curious what you think there. Is this, like, a likely outcome or not? Jeffrey J. Tengel: Yeah. I do not know. Maybe we need to go to the betting markets to see what they are saying about this. My own intuition—and this is not based on any inside baseball or anything like that—is I think there is a good chance it does not pass because there is so much research out there that would suggest that it is not a good thing for the economy or for commercial real estate. In general, it can have a muted impact on new affordable housing, new development, and that is clearly not what we would like. We want to continue to see investments in affordable housing and new development. But we are hopeful that that argument kind of wins the day, but I am no expert on this and my crystal ball is not all that precise. Mark, I do not know if you have— Mark J. Ruggiero: I was going to add—in terms of significant influence, our governor has publicly stated being against it. I think there is a lot of business community lobbyists, including a chamber that I am part of, that would likely start to weigh in and lean in on suggesting why this is not a good answer for the economy. So the question becomes whether those voices outweigh the voters—the consumers that on paper hear rent control and think that will help my pocket. So will the business community’s messaging of why, in the long term, this is not good help defend what probably has some consumer momentum to get it passed? But I think to Jeff’s point, there will be enough lobbyists and business offset to hopefully come against that. I think the other mitigant here, though, is even if it does get passed, Massachusetts—you look at the last decade historically—rent increases have been below 5%, which is the proposed cap of rent increases if this were to go through—greater of 5% or CPI. So this is a state where rent has been pretty well contained, and it is partly because there is so much demand and need for affordable housing. So I do think if this does get passed, there is a path forward here to suggest that it still works without a meaningful impact on our economy, but there is a lot of opposition against it. Analyst: Great. Last one. Jeff, you had mentioned at the onset some work into AI and putting some resources aside for it. Just curious what your initial impressions are—love your thoughts on impacts to the longer-term expense trajectory or maybe even revenue benefits. Just curious. That is all I had. Thank you. Jeffrey J. Tengel: It is probably a little too early to quantify what we think the benefits will be. I would say it is making—just for us, it is initially going to be around things like efficiencies, freeing up people’s time to reinvest in other activities if they are doing things that are very standardized and routine and we think can be easily accommodated through a chatbot or something like that. I am a believer in not trying to bite off more than we can chew, meaning I would like to get some wins under our belt here, which in my mind probably means a bit more modest use cases. And then once we get some wins under our belt, I think that will give us some confidence that we can continue to do this well. And I think, as I said in my comments, we can develop some muscle memory around how we roll this out. And then, as we think about use cases, the more confidence we get, the bigger the use cases we will take on, which will have a bigger impact on the company. My intuition would also be it is going to probably lean more towards the expense side of things versus the revenue side of things. But a lot of that is still TBD. Analyst: Appreciate it. Thank you. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Thanks, Matt. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jared Shaw with Barclays. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Analyst: Thanks. Good morning, guys. Just a couple quick ones to wrap up. So, Mark, I do not know if you have the securities accretion—you still called out some of the indirect impacts, but do you have the dollar of securities accretion this quarter, and maybe actually last quarter? Mark J. Ruggiero: I do not, only because it is basically just like any other discount on a bond is how we are capturing it. So I do not have the actual dollar amount, Jared. I would have to follow up on that just to give you—sort of the discount amortization, I guess, on the Enterprise bond is how I would quantify that. Analyst: Right. Okay. And then when you look at the—do you still feel that you can get to that 80% CD beta through the cycle? And then, I guess, how are you looking at staying active in the deposit space given the competition versus sort of the loan-to-deposit ratio? And how are you thinking about that dynamic? Mark J. Ruggiero: Yeah. I think on the CD beta—all-in, I think cost of CDs is right around 3.30%. Let me just triple-check my math here. Yeah, so right about 3.30%. So I think in terms of repricing down, as I mentioned in one of my earlier answers, we have probably seen the vast majority of that. So even though Fed funds are sitting around 3.60%—you know, one-month money, brokered CDs in the one-month space—probably closer to 4% now. So I think of it as we have sort of achieved that beta based on where we are today in our CD ladder. I would expect, because of the pricing pressure that is out there and the competitive dynamics, we still have a four-month 3.60% offer out there. That is the primary driver of any new CD money. So I think it is going to keep, like I said, cost of CDs somewhat at bay at where they are right now, if not maybe a little bit of an uptick. In terms of the overall deposit strategy, I would just reiterate what I was suggesting earlier, which is continuing to stay as competitive as we think is appropriate on what we value as total relationship funding, and continuing to do what this bank has done for such a long time in attracting new money. That is the branches. That is the retail network involved in their communities. It is working with nonprofits. It is the C&I wins that we have been having typically coming over with more deposits. We still have good CRE relationships that hold money with us. So a lot of those pieces are still in place that have been able to drive deposit growth for us in the past. And then we will just couple that with being really smart about our pricing strategy. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Only other thing I would add to that, because I agree with everything Mark just said about our deposit gathering, is we are trying to get a little bit more focused and a little bit more specific around some of the market disruption that is happening here. And we think that that is an opportunity for us because I think we are viewed as sort of the stable—not a lot of change going on—and that is not true with some of our competitors. And so we have been very focused on developing marketing programs and having both our commercial and our retail bankers—arming them with data—to help them try and take advantage of some of the market disruption that we are seeing. So we are really focused on deposits. We know that is an important part of the overall company and funding the loan growth that we hope to achieve. So it is a lot of the things Mark talked about, it is being more strategic with some of the market disruption that we are seeing, and then we have a number of businesses that are not credit-oriented businesses—they are just deposit verticals—that we are doubling back on and seeing if there are ways that we can accelerate the growth in some of those areas. Analyst: Great. Thank you. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Thanks, Jared. Operator: There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to CEO, Jeffrey J. Tengel, for closing remarks. Jeffrey J. Tengel: Thanks, everybody. Appreciate your interest in INDB and Rockland Trust, and have a great day. Operator: This concludes today’s call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.