The Fast Track to Investment at KIEF 2026 - KYIVSTAR GROUP LTD

So, I would like to start with a question to Volodymyr. Volodymryr was the facilitator of one of the first panels, so could you share some outcomes of the panel? Good afternoon again. Thank you for giving me the floor. I was really impressed with the speech of prime minister and people from the government. We discussed private sector investments, and according to the prime minister, $10 billion. That's the amount of public investments. That's more than in the private sector. And we need to find a response to this challenge. And starting from the first days, we've been having these high-level discussions about recovery of Ukraine, and always it was said that it is critical to engage private investments. So we had a panel discussion, and I'm afraid to take too much time, but basically we discussed that there is no easy way and there is not one fast-track tool. And citing the Minister of Economy. I can say that there are three main pillars for the Ministry of Economy to facilitate private investments. These are deregulation and simplification of procedures, the risking of investments in terms of war risks, yes, war risk insurance, and creating better conditions to manage human resources, because that is quite a big challenge for us now. So these are the priorities of the government, and business has an opportunity to share some comments. Well, to echo to what Vladimir said, according to the business council at the Ombudsman's office, the challenges for business in Ukraine, well, there are three critical barriers. have corruption so we need to reduce corruption and we need to reduce the procedures and we need to have it access to adequate justice so let us focus on procedures here probably and just a short question i would like to get a short answer from each panelist how do you assess investment attractiveness of ukraine today just maybe one sentence or one phrase good afternoon dear participants i would like to talk about two categories here a small privatization objects and big privatization objects so if we talk about small objects here we talk about our Ukrainian market and that's for the Ukrainian market, and as for the big items, so nobody's interested or foreign companies are interested. Okay, so depending on the assets, there can be many interested persons or there could be no one. Yes, it depends on the type of the asset, on the location of the asset because of the security risks obviously okay that will not be a brief question yeah but like in western parts it's easier to do things pablo thank you alexander welcome to your participants of today's event so okay if it needs to be brief for this blitz question. I think that the investment attractiveness is there, even considering some cases which are big or small or middle-sized. I will tell you more facts afterwards. But I see the prospects attractiveness even we have some bigger cases there is quite a big negative impact unfortunately because of the martial law and the actions of the aggressor state however we do see a certain actions of investors and i can see that we do do you see certain prospects for the future okay so you do see your prospects good volodymyr i would say that so far we see dominating investments which cannot be avoided that's what you mentioned we can say that it is about attractiveness but those investments are unavoidable as you said but under pressure of time as we spoke at the previous panel it is important not just what happens but how it happens so over a time many initiatives they are about new technologies and new operational solutions so i would say that we have certain attractiveness under pressure so unavoidable attractiveness of investment market of ukraine good sergey i can only say for the domestic demand on investment and i can give you the following numbers into 2025 we signed about 500 investment agreements and in seven months 2026 more than 800 agreements however in august the situation has changed drastically almost all the investments which were not at final stage clients declared that they would like to stop or suspend them so now we are in this situation when we had to stop uh dominica's uh uh please over to you now yeah i can actually understand a bit of ukrainian i'm lithuanian so so i have knowledge of some other slavic languages which helps in this case so well maybe just as a starter so i represent amber infrastructure and we are a global investor so we are present across all continents and we have together with affiliates we manage assets worth of roughly 39 billion euros and we've been present in central and eastern Europe for the last six or seven years. Basically, we've been managing a so-called Three Seas Initiative Investment Fund, which covers the area neighboring Ukraine, but not Ukraine, right? And so we can sort of compare how Ukraine looks comparing to other countries in the region. And I would say that if it wasn't for the war, it would be an interesting investment area or geography, just simply because of its size, right? And the natural resources that the country has and the talented people, right, Ukrainians have proven to be able to build, you know, new technologies, build innovations and do many other things. And we are focused on economic infrastructure. So basically infrastructure, which is required for daily operations of the country. And it is always needed, you know, in this kind of circumstances when the country is growing or is on a path to change, this is always need it. And, yeah, so just looking at those, like, large numbers or from a high level, it would be a very interesting country. That said, it's been struggling for whatever reasons. for many reasons actually it's been struggling for many years to overcome corruption hurdles and and some other hurdles and I think actually unfortunately this war has I mean despite of how unfortunate this war is actually the country has seen some positive changes in the in the way it deals with business. So I can probably, once we discuss further, I can give more and more. It's blitz, Dominik, it's bliz. So just a very brief statement, just a Very Brief Conclusion from your side. Yeah, so generally speaking, I think it's moving in the right direction in terms of administrative burden or reduction of administrative burden on private companies. And this is set in the context of the war that we have. Okay, so I can sum up this Blitz round. So we are not very attractive or bankable, but we do have prospects. Okay, good. Then let us talk about practical fast track architecture. So, Volodymyr, let us start with you. It's our tradition. So Nexol is a big investor. They have not left, but they are investing in new assets and developing the existing assets. So you invested into the mining company. I do not know how long it took, but the fact that you gave the approval in 2024 and you got control in mid-2025 and you made a payment in November 2024, I guess. And it kind of surprised me because what was your experience with this investment deal? What did you expect to happen faster, maybe? Thank you. It was an interesting experience for us because Maxwell Holding, we operate in 11 countries, including ukraine and we get experience in different countries ukraine has its specifics and the program of privatization announced by the government of ukraine it was a kind of a challenge for us and we decided to participate in november 2024 you rightly said we took part in this kind of call for proposals and we got the chance to buy this asset so my first impressions were that like access to information access consultations were at the level that we could make this decision and for Ukraine per se it is quite a good progress it's rather an exclusion than a rule right if you work with the M&A in Ukraine it's a rather exclusion well the our holding has just one case of buying this, requiring this public property. Well, I'm speaking in general. I would like to speak about this particular deal. So, it was a good experience for us to decide to sign this deal. Really, signing the deal took more time than we expected. and later in June we started to manage the asset and we had all the documents ready. Can we call it fast track? Probably no, but we got an experience in the process. We shared our proposals with the government and we believe that we were able to have a constructive dialogue and we gave some recommendations for the following competitions. Of course, time matters. Time matters. And when there are some delays, there can be consequences for the production. And the UMCC titanium lost part of its business. In any case, changes in the management shifted the focus. And in the last 12 months, we were able to increase the production. There were 37,000 a ton, and now there was a growth in the past year. Of course, it required more investments. Of course we paid resources at the holding. In addition to the investment, we added some expenses, more than $35 million into operational activities to rebuild and recover the production. It is happening. We appreciate this experience. We are really open in our dialogue with the government. We want our experience to be considered, and we appreciate this cooperation. Thank you very much. Serhii, a financial question to you. An investor has paid 4 billion Ukrainian hryvna in November, but only took over the asset in June. Could we propose a solution from the government's end for the investor to be able to generate an income from this asset? Any solutions? Look, can we put in place a solution? Theoretically, yes. Practically, I'm not aware of solutions like this, of loans like this or whatever. It is a difficult question because for us as bankers to assess the capability and capacity of a company to take it over and to take the asset over and then bring it back online, it's difficult. Plus, in this case, the company was in, let's put it this way, in a stress, under conditions of stress. And then if I generalize, banks work more in a commercial segment where things are predictable, where things are clear. It's just the way the rules work, because we need to assess assets formally, see collateral, etc. This affects our capital flows as well. So the question is well posed, but it has not been addressed before. But if we look at it in more detail as something like an escrow account approved by government that is in support of the fulfillment of the investment obligation that arises from the competition, would that work? Because six months is a significant period of time. Look, what I can tell you is that over the last five years, this is something that started before the war. There's been a bit of a shift. The amount of trust in government on the side of the banking sector has grown significantly. So if this were a mechanism that provides a guarantee, so the trust grows in direct proportion to the share of the government in the banking sector, doesn't it? Yeah, maybe. Maybe that is what's happening. But I wouldn't connect those two things like this. I would say that government is becoming more and more predictable, thanks to well-performed obligations, previous obligations. and uh and and the government fulfills its obligations on quite clear commercial terms when they're not interested in our uh costs etc there we're unwilling to engage but when it's mutually beneficial when it provides us with the predictability and forecastability that we need that's nice um these kinds of agreements exist in the market so they can serve as preconditions precursors of such a solution. Pablo, what did this agreement look like from the point of view of the Anti-Monopoly Committee? Six months feels quick to me, but it might be too long from point of you of taking over the asset. What did it look like from your side? Yeah, I think you're spot on in highlighting how the agreement looks from different points of view what it may look like from the regulator's point of view in addition in in such a serious transaction in the market for titanium ore and and other related substances when we saw that the share being handed over is 100 we obviously had a list of very serious questions. When it came to the term, to the time frame, there were a number of issues and they arose in relation to speeding up the process or perhaps even avoiding phase two altogether, not even being the responsible person on this case specifically. But of course, I followed the case on a systematic basis, I can say that the case was addressed as quickly as possible on the side of the Anti-Monopoly Committee. The case was opened in December 2024, and then on the 25th of May 2025, permission was provided. Before that, a number of procedural moments had to take place under Phase 1, under Stage 1. And the anti-monopoly committee was not losing time unnecessarily. And so if we consider the situation of how long similar cases take to analyze and address, Similar in terms of the complexity of the assets, the price of the assets, the size of the share being handed over. And here we were discussing the full monopolization of a market. But also a market that is entirely new. There were no vertical or horizontal relations. We did not need to consider competitors and anyone being harmed. And when we were running the analysis, the SNP test, it was clear to us how the new owner would be meeting their obligations. So comparing this to more complex cases, you cannot equal this specific case to some of the other possible cases. But in terms of the impact, the complexity and the cost of the assets, We almost set a record in terms of how quickly consideration under Stage 2 took place. I'm talking right now as the regulator and sharing our point of view, obviously. I'm aware that other points of view also exist. We are under an obligation to perform certain rules under the relevant law. There is a certain amount of information that I cannot share with you at the moment. This relates to closed confidential information, which was run through our law enforcement agencies and that relates to national security. This was one of the first messages that we had to review together, and this all was handled within the timeframes that I've mentioned before for phase two. So, speaking about the investor themselves and the new owner, we understood that the longer we take to consider the case, the higher are the risks posed existing to the integrity of the assets, to the assets' continued operation and operability. and it had a direct impact on how much the investor would need to additionally invest to bring these assets back into operation. We were aware of this pressure. And again, with all due responsibility, I mentioned that this is something that we were aware of and we were considering and we took into account. We were trying to move as quickly as reasonable. It was at the end of March this year, 2026, in line with the obligations of the new owners, we received information about them actually meeting some of those obligations. So we are moving. Obviously, I must stress that where signs of monopolization are evident evident or where a certain player is coming into ownership of 35% or more, this is not a direct indication that phase two will be triggered. In this case it was necessary and a certain scope of issues had to be addressed in the sense of the nationality of who is owning the new assets and so on. So having received all this information on the 29th of May 2025 we went ahead green-lighting the agreement. Pavlo, do you have this sort of a priority or a KPI that relates to speeding up or increasing the efficiency of considering applications working with future applicants so that they prepare better with their dialogue with the Anti-Monopoly Committee. We do have a KPI like this. There's a whole suite of measures that is undertaken by the Anti- Monopoly Committee for everyone to understand what I'm talking about here. I'm gonna mention that every single word I'm uttering here can be corroborated by actual figures and actual data. This is not necessarily about the time that the Anti-Monopoly Committee has been working under my management. We have certain timeframes set. We have the general culture of communication that exists at the Anti Monopoly Committee and so on. The issue of communication aimed at speeding up the consideration of applications. We have the standard procedure of consultations, and unless you treat these consultations seriously, and unless are willing, unless you are invested into them, unless you perform this procedure properly, you will not be able to achieve a positive outcome. These consultations are crucial. They need to be serious, not just formal. They need offline, face-to-face, and they enable the kind of interaction between the Anti-Monopoly Committee and the applicant, where the applicant is well informed of what kind of information they need to include into their application. Over the last two years that we've been following this new approach, it is after the first consultation that the applicant understands whether consideration will be limited to just phase one or that this will involve a phase two. And it will be explained to them why that needs to be like that. And it's not just a whim. It's not a sign of administrative pressure and so on. And the applicant finally understands, if phase two is going to be triggered, what they need to do, what kind of evidence they need to provide, what information they need to share to obtain the permission for concentration of course with obligations highly likely they get an idea of what the obligations might be and they will have an understanding of how other market players, be it a highly competitive market, low competitive market how they will follow this track, how they will consider this case and what their feedback might be to the new owner. So we are working on this. We are working continuously. This is being done systematically and now as a consequence I can mention some figures. We've reduced by two and a half times the duration of consideration at phase two, starting from 2023. So wherever we even when the share is over 35%, but these are pretty rare cases, but we see that the case can be closed down with phase one. We always use this opportunity, we always use it to shorten the timeframe that it takes. In order to make investments more attractive in order to improve the investment climate in ukraine and to ensure positive progress for our economy so this sort of fundamental understanding on the side of the economic agents that the regulator is there to regulate it is not unduly discriminating against anyone this contributes to a positive investment culture what is that thank you olena So, what did the case of privatization of UMCC show to the state property fund? Well, it showed that even despite the martial law, large-scale privatization can happen, and that is an important case in this regard. Also, not talking about the specific UMCC, I want to say that the fund ensured privatization of five big objects during the martial law, and it tells us, well, I would like to say about two things. The first thing about the quality of preparation of the object by the fund, and the second thing is specific interest in the area of work in the location so some prospects right some prospects something that we are not able to assess as a state fund so we can prepare we can tell about all possible issues if there were any arrests what about the property rights if any land belongs to the organization, but only the investor can understand why they need this asset, if they need the asset now or maybe after the martial law is over. But, for example, choose to invest now. If we take the example of UMCC, this year we were preparing all objects of large-scale privatization, and we tried to give all the security information to a wider range of stakeholders. We have an open-door day. It is about a specific object before the auction, and we invite mass media, potential buyers, just stakeholders who would like to learn more about this specific case. And we respond to all the questions, of course, not giving some commercial or classified information, Otherwise, we share, we talk to people. Yeah, I accept that this is what I see, that you act as a professional organization, but still you are a state fund. So how can you fast-track this process? Well, we work on improving the regulations to decrease the terms and the exposition, and we stipulate the discounts of 50% for certain conditions. So we give our proposals to the government, and we feel that we are heard. And some recommendations have been implemented already. Thank you. Sergei, can Ukrainian financial system quickly fund such deals? I understand that banking system is not usually fast, but still, is it possible to get funding quite fast and in the necessary amount? Is it real? Well, about these deals, there are two aspects here. the liquidity and the capital. About the liquidity, I can say that in the banking system, there are enough liquid assets and some things are related to the national bank operations, the certificate and the bonds, but potentially it can facilitate such deals. And we have quite good examples of banks uniting their efforts to offer a syndicate funding. And I can say that the biggest syndicate amount was $370 million. Was it before the war? Yes, it was before the War, but it was actually completed this year because it was for five years. During the full-scale invasion, we had like a syndicate for $3 billion. There was a record deal of $20 billion, but it did not happen because the state did not make a final decision. Those were all deals with the state guarantees. And it happened quite quickly, like three months from the first conversation about the deal started. And I think that considering that we are talking about several banks, not one, that is quite fast. And we also had the first commercial deal, three banks, three billion for DTAC. the agreement and the conversations lasted a bit longer, like six months. But this was just a commercial project. So the money is there. What is missing? The capital. Because today some panelists already said that the banking system of Ukraine is too small. It is one tenth from the Polish banking system, for instance. And one of our restrictions is the level of capital. I think that you probably all know that the banking system has a higher tax. It's 25 percent in the normal situation, and now for more than four years it's 50 percent. So it takes away the capital. So instead of accumulating capital, the state decided to take this money away. So there were some messages today from the representatives of the state that they want to be partners with the business. But I can honestly say I don't feel that the state is trying to be partner for the banks. Even when the state announced, is announcing some support programs for the business, nobody really asks us if we are ready to take part in those programs, what are our issues. So the issues are about the capital and relevant restrictions. Thank you. Dominikas. I say we do not have a big business community here. We have quite a small community. You are a new person in this panel. But for you and for Amber Dragon, So, what are your mandate investments and what are you interested in in Ukraine? Could you take a few minutes to speak about that? Yeah, so first of all, I have a mandate to invest into economic infrastructure. So, What is economic infrastructure? These are real assets, such as energy production, transport assets, such as sports, for example, then digital assets, such as fiber networks, towers, and similar assets. We do not typically engage into growth strategies or strategies which require very sort of like labor-intensive type of investments. We go into something that is sort of assets that produce and generate economic value to the overall society, right? So we are a commercial fund, so basically we are targeting returns. And obviously for a country like Ukraine, those returns have to provide some kind of premium comparing to anything else that we do in other surrounding countries. and actually we were quite surprised that there are quite a number of projects actually that we would look at right and we would consider them as bankable if we disregard obviously the security and the and the whole risk situation but generally what is missing i would say in this market we still see a lot of projects which are unprepared. So people who have good projects, they simply, they don't spend time on getting ready with all the documentation and getting ready with all due diligence, for example, which we look at quite seriously. So, you know, technical documentation, legal documentation, financial track records, all of those things are very important to get to make the projects bankable just because the project is great and because it's a great opportunity for somebody who is local doesn't make it attractive for somebody from outside if it is not prepared right so this part is is really missing then the second part i would say is well on the regulatory side i think you know if you have too many changes and you know sort of like unexpected changes so to say in the regulation this does not help to build the investment climate there was for example last spring there was a sudden change in in energy caps in in the for the energy assets and this immediately well it was reversed later on right but it immediately this kind of hiccups they they send a you know a wrong signal to the investors, because if investors would otherwise be interested in this kind of asset, out of the sudden, they don't know, you know, whether they are interested and whether this would provide them the returns that they would be targeting. And for the rest, I think at least my experience is that on the, you Know, like permitting side, for example, I Think Ukraine has done a good job, You know, it has actually managed to speed up all the permits and all of that that is needed to actually go into construction of projects. The part, there are still some bureaucratic sort of remnants. Well, we as a company, we've had to go through four, I think, approvals from competition council. I cannot say that they were delayed or anything of that sort. But it is just simply we always fall into that category that we have to go through competition council approvals, right? And this is even if the merge is happening outside Ukraine, right, so in some instances, right. So this is quite interesting just, you know, as an experience. so i guess the you know the resources could be allocated somehow differently not to to go into into every tiny little transaction so um and uh well generally uh what we do is that we're targeting uh returns in the economic infrastructure and we have raised already the first fund, which was funded mostly by FIs. And we've been selected to manage the EU flagship fund as well. So I think what is necessary for this kind of, in this kind of environment is obviously the presence of IFIs. Without IFIs, unfortunately, we like it or not. I mean, you do whatever you like. For private investors, it is simply, you know, there needs to be somebody else to at least help to some extent to the risk the uh the projects and then at the back of the support of ifis we can uh you know attract uh private investors okay thank you thank you dominicas uh so dominicas raised a quite interesting topic uh readiness of Ukrainian companies, public and private companies to the process of acquisition or merger. So, Olena, I have a question to you. We have now a number of big deals. So you work with due diligence. So how much time does it take to prepare state assets, public assets? I think that it sometimes can take years from the first meeting to finalizing the deal what can you say from your experience well that is true to be honest there are some objects which we prepare for several years but some we prepare in six months it depends on the portfolio of the asset on the history on the track record any possible issues etc there are major issues if there are arrests there is criminal record criminal proceedings so that takes a lot of time usually if there is no such track record then in six months we can prepare it okay good so we see that now there are no major auctions so that is because of the security situation, first of all. So, what can you say about Odessa Port, about Sumy Chemical Production Company? Well, for Sumy chemical production company, that is because the security factor, of course. And the same goes for other objects which are close to the contact line. The auctions are not happening for them. But also the geopolitical factor is quite relevant. For Odessa, we had about five NDAs from the companies, but then nobody actually took part in the auction. So they said, okay, after the elections, we are going to talk. Maybe that is because of August that Sergei mentioned when in August we had a gravation of the security situation while it can also be a factor of course but as i'm saying when potential investors they were thinking about nda they realized what the situation was with security so we think that the geopolitics is also important dominica's a question to you have you seen the documents of idea support because it looks like the investments you could be interested in uh yeah we've seen many documents from from various attempts to privatize assets in ukraine and uh well that process is still evolving i mean that's a good example on how i think they started the first time i heard about it was like more than a year ago right yeah and it's still evolving and uh to be honest we don't know where it is now you know like in terms of in terms of actually concession and being awarded but to the extent that we've seen the documents i can say that although due diligence formally was performed certain aspects there we did not see it as a market standard to be honest so you know like and and and that's that automatically makes you know any kind of conclusions internally for us you know it makes it a sort of like a difficult decision then to to to move ahead so so yeah that's the short comment on that yeah i see i see what you mean pavlo if we consider this from the point of view of the anti-monopoly committee what is the level of applications uh that you're seeing could they be more qualitative and could it be could you then be considering them faster or is this not an issue really in 2026 um the issue i mean there are a number of issues uh but the problem has i guess been developing has become more acute. It is multi-vectoral, starting with just the low quality of the applications, where, you know, where the control relations are not being made clear, where information is included, but you are seeing elementary mistakes, whether they are intentional or not, where information is not disclosed, that makes it impossible for the Anti-Monopoly Committee to make a decision. Then, if you go back to 2023, the amount of applications that we returned out of the overall number of applications that received in 2023 it was 46.5 percent this is unbelievable uh we ran a serious analysis of all of this and uh we saw uh that in 2024 this percentage went down to 22 and a half percent yeah we saw that in 2025 so yeah we started from 46 and a 1 in 23 then 20 uh Okay, I'm forgetting it. I think 24.5% was the indicator for 24%. 2025, the amount of returned applications went down to 13.8%. Right now, in the first nine months, we're seeing 17%. So, we are bouncing back. The amount is growing again. And in order to understand the reasons contributing to the dire situation, I have been looking out, I have been talking to my subordinates to understand what is contributing to this alarming trend, which obviously then undermines all of the subsequent stages of consideration. The answer I hear from my subordinates is that it's all down to the quality of documents. Yeah, just the quality of the applications submitted to the Anti-Monopoly Committee. Am I clearly illuminating what the issue is? I believe so. I imagine somewhere the hope is that the transaction is simple enough and and stage one is what's going to be enough. The applicant might not be aware that the Anti-Monopoly Committee considers the application much more deeply. It remains unconsidered. It takes longer, and so on and so forth. It all costs time and, therefore, money. The tendency becomes negative in terms of wasting everyone's time without progress. Yeah, and this reflects negatively on the preservation of the assets themselves, whether they are managed by ARMA or the state property fund. So obviously, we start with these elementary negative consequences. All of this can be prevented by submitting high-quality documents. And one of the peculiarities of the work of the Anti-Monopoly Committee is that consultations can only be held after the application has been submitted. Rejecting the application is not our first course of action. We can share feedback, we can request clarifications and additions, again, to preserve everyone's time and not to force the applicant to apply again. So therefore, the 17% that we're seeing after the first nine months of 2026 reflects the figure where we were unable to address the issue through consultation. So I would very much call on economic agents to consider the quality of the documents that they provide and engage with the regulator. We're open, we're very willing to help them out. We are very much interested in considering these cases as quickly as possible. Vladimir and Domenikas, I have questions to you. Your international experience, what would you bring over into Ukraine based on your international experience? How do you improve this whole system in Ukraine? I would think we need to be speaking about liberalization. My experience has only been negative internationally, but we have a very specific geography. We work in Uzbekistan, for example, which has this little autocratic flavor to everything that's done. So, Volodymyr first and then Dominika second. What would you introduce into the Ukrainian context? I'll have two comments. The second comment will answer your question directly. First, I was listening very attentively to everyone's perspectives on improving the situation. We mostly focus on mergers right now and the acquisition of assets. But the attraction of investment isn't limited to M&A. And there are many projects that do not involve a merger and an acquisition. and it's more broadly just about attracting investment. Many large companies cover this path. They invest in CapEx and your group of companies, Alexandre, are very well aware of this situation. You need to invest large amounts every year to restore telecommunications, banking, etc. This is a tough path as well and it is often long And it's often, I think, something to touch upon in our discussions. In Nexo Holding, we have good experience in Temco, where a large amount of investment is directed towards a restoring connection, towards introducing innovations such as 5G and so on. So the question of how do we improve the system in Ukraine, I would agree with Domenikos that IFIs play an important role, because without this risk sharing, as we call it, attracting large scale or even significant investment in Ukraine or financing in Ukraine for investment programs is either problematic or almost impossible. This is something that we completely agree with. The DFC recently agreed an investment for Vodafone for 150 million US dollars. This is just an example that you need to share risks. And perhaps incorporating our experience is that investment works well where international financial institutions are involved and various risk-sharing tools are in place. That's a very important element that we draw from our own international experience. And now, Dominik, it's over to you. first of all okay maybe i explained it already earlier right but sometimes people don't understand really how much of importance there is in all the on making the projects in the right way because our strategy so basically first of All just addressing one of the points that colleague mentioned here is we are focused on greenfield investments right so more than 70 percent of our investments will be greenfield so building new new things and even if we build new things at some point of time we cooperate with some kind of local partners right we're not the ones who are going on the ground you know and acquiring for example land to build energy projects right these are this is done typically through some local partners and you know all of this has to be done in a certain way which would allow us eventually to successfully build the assets, and then more importantly, at some point of time, to be able to exit from those assets. We have a limited tenure of our fund, right? So in a matter of, let's say, 7 to 12 years, we would be exiting from those assets. And if there were some very significant mistakes done somewhere at the very start of building those assets, it can be legal, it kan be technical, it can be whatever transparency lack of transparency right this will result into lower valuation at the exit and this would result us not achieving our targets and this is not something that we want to risk right so so this is you know and and we as well as many other international investors we would be looking at those things just to make sure that you know we protect the investments that we we are committed to so yeah so that would be the first thing and then secondly let's hope in in a period of time when we start doing exits we hope to be able to attract other international groups who would bring in their standards and they would help to elevate the general level of specific industries where perhaps ukraine has for the time being less experience in those industries. Okay, thank you, Dominikas. Thank you, Dominikis. We still have three minutes, so I will have a final blitz question to all of the panel participants. What are some of the conclusions that you've drawn from this conversation? Well, first of all, I guess I take with myself the idea that Ukraine is a highly attractive country for investment, but the time has not yet come, so to speak. Our role as government officials is to ensure transparency, openness, simplifying the procedures to help those investors who are interested in purchasing something, investing in assets. It is our role to provide them with the maximum kind of support, maximum kindof data to advance their investment projects. Okay, thank you, Pablo. Thank you very much, Alexander. If I'm specific, very pinpoint, something that I noted for myself, and that will be streamlined in all of our cases of interaction with businesses, We will make more energetic and we will provide even more attention to large businesses. We will probably separate them into a special track for engagement with them, starting with meetings at the Anti-Monopoly Committee, so that we specify within the powers bestowed in us some of the criteria and the algorithms for submitting applications to the Anti-Monopoly Committee And removing deficiencies in the applications so that in terms of transparency and openness, the applications are as good as possible. And so that they are accumulated in such a way that understanding, there is much more understanding on the side of businesses in terms of what they need to apply at the end of November I'm going to have an important meeting with businesses we do these biannually and twice every every year and this algorithm that I've just discussed here we're definitely going to communicate it to two businesses we will we will specify these algorithms to eliminate deficiencies so because what I've heard here today is very important And our relations with small and medium businesses are a little more formalized. But when it comes to large cases, I see that there is a lot of room for maneuver, so to speak. So we need to make things clearer. So we don't have a lot time, but yeah, just very shortly, I would like to... I actually have improved my score for the attractiveness despite the war. I see during this discussion that the attractiness of assets greatly depends on the strategy of Ukraine, transparency and actions of the government. I would like to thank the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine and the State Property Fund of Ukraine for being open, for having this dialogue. Those are all interrelated things. Thank you, Sergei. I would also like to add that I am grateful not just to representatives of the state, but also to representatives from international companies. The fact that they are here shows us interest in Ukraine. And what we heard today is a good example. We see that we have things to work on to make this interest real. Thank you, Dominikas. I think everything has been said already. We just carry on with the reforms to improve transparency and the standards and the international community will come when the market is ready. So I will just want to thank our panelists. Let us give them a round of applause.