#1DEEP DIVE ON ON KINNEVIK'S VALUATIONS OF UNLISTED INVESTMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH KINNEVIK'S 2022 Q1 REPORT#2TODAY'S AGENDA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Our Framework and Principles Private and Public Markets Peer Sets Transaction Valuations Investee Performance Q1 2022 Value Drivers Valuations of Unlisted Investments Agenda & Presenters New NAV Split Q&A Today's Presenters Georgi Ganev Chief Executive Officer Samuel Sjöström Chief Strategy Officer Erika Söderberg Johnson Chief Financial Officer Torun Litzén Director Corporate Communications 2 KINNEVIK#3OUR VALUATION PROCESS OPERATES WITHIN IFRS AND IPEV GUIDELINES Regulatory Framework US GAAP IPEV & IFRS IPEV IFRS Our Framework and Principles Valuations of Unlisted Investments IFRS 13 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset in an orderly transaction between market participants ▪ Three techniques - market, cost and income ▪ International Private Equity and Venture Capital ("IPEV") Guidelines set out recommendations intended to represent best practice in valuing private investments Compliant with both IFRS and US GAAP I ■ I ▪ We make a collective assessment to establish the most suitable and relevant valuation methods Ambition is to value our businesses as any prospective investor or purchaser would, whilst taking a fairly conservative approach to expectations, forecasts and valuation levels Robust process independent of investment managers Approved by the Audit & Sustainability Committee Reviewed by external auditors, more in-depth formal review in Q2 and Q4, and full audit of Annual Report ■ In-depth recommendations on e.g. valuation techniques and how to use recent transactions to calibrate inputs used in valuation methods ■ I Third-party review of top 10 investments (at least) once per year, covering our valuation approach, technical correctness, peer group composition and distribution of value between different equity instruments 3 KINNEVIK#42021 WAS A RECORD-BREAKING YEAR FOR GROWTH INVESTING ▪ 2021 was a record year in venture and growth investing in the US and globally, driven by record-high inflows of capital as investors pursued growth and risk in a low interest rate environment. This led to - H ■ 1. II. III. ■ I Private and Public Markets expansive valuations - median fundraising multiples expanded by >30%, and one new unicorn was created per day, up 3x from 2020 All the while, dry powder across growth-focused private equity to early-stage VC funds exceeded USD 900bn at the start of 2022 ■ more and larger rounds triggered more by supply than by demand VC fundraising more than doubled to >USD 600bn, the number of VC financings in >USD 100m companies almost tripled, and the number of >USD 100m rounds grew by >140% Coming into 2022, the venture and growth market had a combination of - an intensified fundraising environment with fast processes and cross-over investors defocusing on diligence and governance high (mostly on-paper) returns; well-funded businesses; and massive amounts of dry-powder to be deployed Source: PitchBook, Preqin, FactSet, Kinnevik Estimates An Exuberant 2021 25.0x 20.0x 15.0x 10.0x 5.0x 300 200 100 Trailing Revenue Multiples Median US VC 2019 Early Stage US VC 2017 2020 1 2018 New Private Unicorns US, 2016-21 2019 2021 Late Stage US VC 2020 2021 Value Uplifts From Prior Round US Late-Stage VC 1 2019 PE Growth General VC SPACs Early VC Late VC ■Median 2020 Dry Powder 100 4 ■Average End of 2021, Across Pockets, USDbn 2021 200 300 3.0x 2.5x 2.0x 1.5x 1.0x 0.5x KINNEVIK#5AFTER EXPANDING MATERIALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC, MULTIPLES ARE NOW BELOW PRE-PANDEMIC AND FIVE-YEAR MEDIAN LEVELS 40.0x 35.0x 30.0x 25.0x 20.0x 15.0x 10.0x 5.0x Mar '17 Median Mar '18 Private and Public Markets EV/NTM Revenue, BVP Emerging Cloud Index, Q1 2017-22 >30% Revenue Growth Median Mar ¹19 Covid-19 willen Мновитимим me miser rechen. Mar ¹20 <20% Revenue Growth Median may - Five-Year Median Mar ¹21 тими Note: BVP's Emerging Cloud Index is designed to track the performance of emerging public companies primarily involved in providing cloud software to their customers Source: BVP, FactSet 2022 ► 5-Year US Treasury Yield (RHS) 5 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% Mar '22 Sector averages can be deceiving - the median SaaS businesses in BVP's Emerging Cloud index growing by >30% trades at around 13x NTM revenues while the median business growing by <20% trades at around 4x NTM revenues KINNEVIK#6PRIVATE AND PUBLIC MARKET VALUATIONS ARE BEING RECONCILED, BUT THERE IS STILL SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF DRY POWDER IN THE SYSTEM ■ Private markets are now being brought in line with public markets ▪ IPOS, SPACs and de-SPACs have cooled down materially There is a flight to quality as it relates to both companies and stewards of capital, and companies should be seeing the true value of long-term patient capital over the next months and quarters ■ ■ ■ Private and Public Markets What's Unfolding in 2022 Fundraising is down materially - few companies dare to go into 'price discovery' mode and instead utilize internal rounds, investor-friendly terms, and convertibles when capital becomes more scarce, its allocators accrete more power Many companies that raised last year have huge cash balances, with no need to raise until next year in what may be a more benign market (in particular if they can burn more efficiently) ■ From a valuation point of view, we see two wedges - one between later stage companies and earlier stage companies, and one between the category winners and the category followers Later-stage businesses priced on more short-term expectations where valuations were set with reference to prices that cross-over investors could achieve a public market exit at are facing the most pressure ▪ We believe category-winning businesses with strong unit economics should still be able to raise capital at satisfactory terms, drawing on the flight to quality, whereas the median business that rose with the tide in 2021 may struggle (the former tend to overlap with businesses with strong cash balances) Source: FactSet, LionTree, Renaissance Capital, Forge Global, Pitchbook, Carta, CB Insights, Numis, SEC <(80)% # of US IPOs Priced 2022 vs 2021 YTD (24)% IPO ETF Q1 2022 (30)% Drop in >USD 100m Rounds Q1 2022 vs Q1 2021 >50bn SEK Raised Kinnevik Investees in 2021 (65)% Announced SPAC Deals Q1 2022 vs Q1 2021 (27)% De-SPAC ETF Q1 2022 (19)% Global VC Deal Volume Q1 2022 vs Q1 2021 >8bn SEK Net Cash Kinnevik PF Dividends 6 KINNEVIK#7WE SEEK TO BE SYSTEMATIC IN CONSTRUING PEER SETS FOR OUR UNLISTED INVESTMENTS, AND RESTRAINED IN AMENDING THEM ▪ In triangulating the relevant peer set, we focus on a handful of characteristics, including - I 1. Financial Profile e.g. top-line growth, margins, scale and financial strength 2. Business Model I Peer Sets Construing & Amending the Benchmark e.g.product/service offering, target customers, place in value chain 3. Geographic Footprint 4. Research Coverage and Other Technicals e.g. recency of listing and idiosyncratic shocks Peer groups are reviewed more in-depth once per year, but we make minor amendments throughout the year primarily to accommodate for additions on the back of new peers going public ▪ We typically prefer smaller peer sets of companies we track and understand over macro-level peer sets (e.g. BVP's Emerging Cloud Index) ■ The average peer set consists of 5-10 companies, and we tend to use one directly applied peer set and one or more reference groups Private transactions (that we do not participate in ourselves) are used for reference only, considering the lower quality, access and reliability of data ▪ At what relative level we value our companies to the peer group (premiums & discounts) depends on the above characteristics, as well as additional parameters, and is often recalibrated in connection with transactions that provide new and clear indications of fair value Source: FactSet Average Financial Profile Business Model Geographic Footprint Relevance InPost 20% Topline Growth 40% Gross Margin Box & home delivery Home market winner High customer concentration European Significant footprint in Poland Illustrative Example Pros & Cons of Budbee Peers Food Delivery >50% Topline Growth 35% Gross Margin Distribution models Top market positions Different service Developed Markets 7 Mobility 10% Topline Growth 50% Gross Margin Similar value proposition Increasingly tilting towards delivery More akin to a marketplace Worldwide KINNEVIK#8UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WE REFLECT PRIVATE MARKET INERTIA RELATIVE TO PUBLIC MARKETS BY MUTING UPWARDS AND DOWNWARDS PEER MOVEMENTS ■ H ■ I We seek to reflect the development of public markets, all the while being mindful of the fact that investors take different approaches to valuing more established publicly listed businesses relative to high- growth private businesses ■ ■ Peer Sets Premiums & Discounts ■ Therefore, movements in peer multiples may at times be muted by increasing/decreasing the discount applied on the average peer multiple when valuing our investees, leading to our valuation levels developing more slowly around the underlying trend ■ Public markets make sense out of billions of signals every second and distill bits of information and emotion into a direction Note: Private markets take longer to reflect a new reality because private ownership changes hand less often and between fewer parties Hence, private markets tend to lag behind public markets Material changes in discounts to average peer multiples are due to equally material idiosyncrasies, either at our investees (typically transactions) or in constituents of smaller peer groups Changes can also be informed by amendments of the peer group - The flurry of listings of value-based care peers caused us to systematically decrease an excessively conservative discount over a number of quarters We seek to reflect significant movements such as in Q1 2020 and Q1 2022 - more quickly and directly Similarly, the IPO of InPost a key peer for Budbee gave a stronger reflection of public market valuations of last-mile delivery and led to our valuation implicitly being at an excessively conservative discount that we sought to narrow over time +80% +70% +60% +50% +40% +30% +20% +10% (10)% (20)% (30)% (40)% (50)% Peer Multiple Changes vs Discount Adjustments % Change in Peers (Y-Axis) vs %-Point Change in Discount (X-Axis) Discounting harder when peers expand Discounting harder when peers contract (30)pp (20)pp (10)pp Scatter chart shows actual data for a limited set of more late-stage businesses on an LTM revenue basis (which is not necessarily the applied valuation method) +10pp +20pp 8 +30pp Discounting less when peers expand Discounting less when peers contract +40pp +50pp KINNEVIK#9A SLIGHTLY SLUGGISH REFLECTION OF PUBLIC MARKET MOVEMENTS MEANS OUR APPLIED MULTIPLES CHANGE WITH MORE SUSTAINED MARKET TRENDS 20.0x 17.5x 15.0x 12.5x 10.0x 7.5x 5.0x 2.5x (2.5)x (5.0)x Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Actual Investee Data, EV/2021 Revenues, Q1 2020-22 Q3 2020 Premium Peer Sets Q4 2020 Discount Q1 2021 Q2 2021 Peer Multiple Q3 2021 Investee Multiple Q4 2021 Q1 2022 Our valuation levels typically fluctuate less intensely around the same underlying trend as public market averages (Note that the chart illustrates multiples on an unchanged fiscal year and as such there is underlying expansion due to time-value of money and forward revenue growth) 9 KINNEVIK#10VALUATIONS ASCRIBED TO OUR COMPANIES IN FUNDING ROUNDS OR OTHER TRANSACTIONS ARE IMPORTANT CALIBRATORS OF PREMIUMS/DISCOUNTS TO PEERS ▪ Transaction valuations calibrate how we value our companies relative to their listed peer group ■ ■ Considering (our relatively conservative approach and) the fact that investors typically price companies further into the future than our models, transactions tend to provide the largest changes in valuations in any given quarter Key factors that are taken into account when calibrating our valuations based on transactions include - ■ Rights such as liquidation preferences, where investments enjoy some downside protection (see overleaf) The participants in the transaction, e.g. primary or secondary equity and existing or new investors ▪ The size of the transaction as % of the company For younger high-growth businesses, the concept of "growing into" or "catching up to" a valuation still holds and may lead to a fairly static valuation for a number of quarters after a transaction ▪ Bar material changes in our companies or their peers that render a transaction-inferred valuation irrelevant, we decouple our marks from transaction-guided levels earlier for later-stage companies (sometimes as quickly as one or two quarters) and later for earlier-stage companies (sometimes as slowly as four or six quarters) Source: FactSet Transaction Valuations Their Influence on Our Valuations Investee PLEO VillageMD CITYBLOCK cedar TravelPerk oda Betterment budbee jobandtalent spring health Time of Transaction December 2021 October 2021 September 2021 March 2021 January 2022 April 2021 September 2021 January 2021 December 2021 September 2021 Transaction Valuations 10 Largest Unlisted Assets, LTM Revenue Basis Peer Multiple Contraction (Since Then) (30)% (40)% (40)% (40)% (30)% (70)% (25)% (60)% (40)% (50)% Value Change (Since Then) (10)% (11)% (22)% (12)% (10)% (16)% +70% (11)% (15)% ✓ Offset ✓ Revenue Growth Offsetting Peer Multiple Contraction 71 ✓ Offset Almost offset 71 Significantly more than offset More than offset X Less than offset Almost offset Significantly more than offset More than offset Significantly more than offset 10 KINNEVIK#11WITH INVESTORS PRICING OUR BUSINESSES ON THE BASIS OF EXPECTATIONS, SIGNIFICANT VALUE UPLIFTS MAY BE FOLLOWED BY A NUMBER OF FLAT QUARTERS NEW +70% From a premium to peers... Transaction ARR +30% One Q Transaction Valuations Growing Into a Valuation (Illustrative) Near-Term Forward Multiple +80% Two Q's Peer Benchmark Multiple +30% Three Q's 0% ...to in line with peers 11 One Year Provided markets remain relatively stable, we may allow companies to 'grow into' their valuation for a few quarters until the mark looks more grounded in public market valuation terms - this catching up may however be preceded by another transaction pushing the multiple horizon further into the future KINNEVIK#12LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES CAN CAUSE SOME IMMOBILITY IN OUR FAIR VALUES, IN PARTICULAR IN INVESTMENTS WHERE WE HAVE ONLY INVESTED IN ONE ROUND ■ ■ In the event of an exit at a valuation lower than a company has raised capital at, contractual liquidation preferences can skew the allocation of value away from % ownership towards the benefit of investors over management, and of shares purchased at a higher valuation over shares purchased at a lower valuation ■ Very broadly speaking, we are invested in three varieties of equity capital structures - No liquidation preferences ■ Transaction Valuations I Liquidation Preferences Liquidation preferences where all investors rank equally in proportion to the capital they have invested, commonly referred to as pari passu ("equal footing") Liquidation preferences where investors rank differently, typically in order from latest round to earliest round, often referred to as standard seniority ▪ We typically take liquidation preferences into account when valuing our investments both from a fundamental perspective and an allocation of value perspective ▪ The prevalence of liquidation preferences in late-stage growth companies went from >50% in the early 2010s to just above 10% in late 2021, as investors sacrificed protective deal terms in exchange for deal flow access Source: Pitch Book Our investments in new businesses in 2021 are protected by these types of downside protections 20% 20% 20% 40% Ownership Common ■Series A Effect of Liquidation Preferences Illustrative Examples 77% 15% 8% Invested Capital With pari passu preferences, all preferential investors recoups their investment at valuations exceeding total capital raised, and share value in proportion to invested capital at valuations lower than total capital raised ► With ranked preferences, Series C recoups their investment at valuations exceeding capital raised in the Series C round before other investors receive anything, Series B recoups at valuations exceeding capital raised in the Series B and C rounds before Series A receives anything (and so forth) ► Common shares are typically only worth something at valuations exceeding invested capital, and do not receive their ownership % of value until the valuation is at or exceeds the last valuation the company raised capital at ► At valuations between total capital raised and the last valuation the company raised capital at, common shares and preferred shares issued in earlier rounds typically receive the full value differential in order to "catch up" to preferred equity issued in the most recent funding round Series B Series C 12 KINNEVIK#13WE CONTINUOUSLY REFORECAST INVESTEE PERFORMANCE, WITH MORE IN DEPTH ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH FUNDRAISES New Investment Our Investment Case Investee Performance Key Parameters Performance Reforecasts Up/Down Follow-On Investment ap Investee Plans & Budgets cuts --------- 13 KINNEVIK#14IF OUR UNLISTED INVESTEES FORMED AN EQUALLY-WEIGHTED INDEX OF STOCKS, IT WOULD BE DOWN BY AROUND 20%, IN LINE WITH RELEVANT BENCHMARKS Source: Top Quartile of Bessemer Cloud BVP, FactSet (12)% daq Internet (22)% Q1 2022 Value Drivers Write-Down Put in Perspective (Indicative and Approximate) ARK ETF (30)% Average Kinnevik Investee (21)% Weighted by Value (14)% After Liquidation Preferences (12)% From (21)% down on an equally-averaged equity value to (10)% down on an NAV SEK basis via portfolio weights, liquidation preferences and currency tailwinds After the Weakening SEK Key mitigants to the broad-based correction in Q1 is that (i) we do not believe we hold an 'average portfolio' but rather a group of assets that should be benchmarked against above-average comparables; and (ii) our companies are generally growing materially faster even than these comparisons, bringing valuation levels down materially when looking into 2023-24 revenues (10)% 14 KINNEVIK#15REVENUE GROWTH IS MORE THAN OFFSET BY CONTRACTING MULTIPLES IN Q1 Note: 32.6 Q4 2021 +5.3 Q1 2022 Value Drivers From 2021 Q4 (Approximations), SEKbn Effect of revenue growth on the basis of Q4 2021 LTM revenue multiples Revenue Growth (8.5) Effect of multiple contraction on the basis of Q1 2022 LTM revenues Multiple Contraction +1.6 Net Investments (0.0) Net effect of factors such as liquidation preferences and currencies (both positive), cash burn (negative), and the change in fair value of unlisted emerging markets investments (negative) Other 31.0 Illustratively based on LTM revenues and multiples, which clearly are not the valuation method applied in valuing each of Kinnevik's investments Q1 2022 Multiple contraction has a >25% negative effect on our fair values in Q1 2022, as peer multiples have contracted across all peer groups (albeit at varying magnitudes) 15 KINNEVIK#16IN THIS QUARTER, WE ARE DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF CATEGORIES IN OUR NAV FOR A MORE REFINED DEPICTION OF OUR PORTFOLIO Healthcare Services Consumer Services Financial Services Recategorization of existing portfolio New NAV Split Redefined Categories Value-Based Care Virtual Care Platforms & Marketplaces Software Consumer Finance Early Bets & New Themes Care delivery companies taking risk and being paid on the basis of patient health outcomes Businesses that deliver general or specialized care services through virtual channels Companies connecting buyers and sellers of products and services, or playing a direct and curated role in the transaction itself Software services companies with a blend of subscription and transactional revenue Companies primarily offering B2C financial services such as banking and asset management Smaller early-stage investments and investments drawn from new, more exploratory themes 16 KINNEVIK#17THE RECATEGORIZATION BRINGS SAME-LEVEL OR INCREASED TRANSPARENCY FOR MORE THAN 90% OF THE GROWTH PORTFOLIO Value-Based Care babylon CITYBLOCK Transcarent VillageMD Virtual Care Parsley Health Quit Genius spring health Teladoc Software 25 Investments Making Up >90% of Growth Portfolio cedar omnipresent PLEO SURE TravelPerk New NAV Split Consumer Finance Betterment LUNAR monese raisin Constituents Platforms & Marketplaces budbee Common 熊猫外卖 HungryPanda jobandtalent Mathem oda 'omio Vivino >15 Investments Early Bets & New Themes Emerging Markets Tele2 The key determinant behind the recategorization is the listed companies used as benchmarks in valuing our unlisted businesses 17 KINNEVIK#18WE ARE PROVIDING MORE SPECIFIC, ALBEIT AGGREGATED, METRICS ON OUR UNLISTED COMPANIES RELATIVE TO THEIR MORE MATURE LISTED PEER GROUPS Note: Investment Value-Based Care Virtual Care Platforms & Marketplaces Software Consumer Finance Average Growth (2021) Kinnevik Unlisted Investee Averages 105-125% 215-235% 40-60% / 140-160% 130-150% 30-50% Average Gross Margin (2021) 5-15% 35-55% 30-40% / 60-80% New NAV Split Key Data Points 60-80% 50-70% Average EV/R (2022E) 5.5-7.5x 17.5-20x 1-3x/6-8x 30-40x 8-10x Average Growth (2021) 55% 80% 40% / 45% 35% 40% Peer Group Averages Average Gross Margin (2021) 25% Gross margins comparable to relevant peer groups, but not necessarily between NAV categories due to differences in business model and accounting standards 45% 40% / 80% 80% 55% Average EV/R (2022E) 18 3.0x 3.5x 1-3x/6x 11.5x The key drivers of our valuations relative to peers are (i) differences in growth rate and (ii) levels and recency of transactions 8x KINNEVIK#19Q&A#20WE INVEST FOR A REIMAGINED EVERYDAY