contentSlug

type

ContentSlug_ContentQuery

slug

ContentPageContentQuery

content

trendingContent

query ContentSlug_ContentQuery(
  $contentSlug: String!
  $type: [ContentType!]
) {
  ...ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO
}

fragment CompanyDetails_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    name
    description
    pageUrl
    id
  }
}

fragment ContentBasicInfo on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  type
  title
  lang
  createdAt
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
  }
  companies {
    viewerIsFollowing
    id
    name
    pageUrl
    forum {
      threadUrl
    }
    defaultInstrument {
      symbol
      id
    }
  }
  ...PublishingDetails
  ...Reactions
}

fragment ContentMetadata on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  title
  lang
  pageUrl
  alternatePageUrls: translations {
    __typename
    pageUrl
    lang
  }
  imgUrl
  description
  createdAt
  changedAt
  isPremium
  authors {
    __typename
    name
    pageUrl
    id
  }
  companies {
    name
    pageUrl
    id
  }
  tags {
    name
    id
  }
  ... on Video {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
    videoEmbedUrl(location: "inderes")
  }
  ... on Webcast {
    liveTime
    videoUrl
    videoEmbedUrl(location: "inderes")
  }
}

fragment ContentPageContentQuery_13QmVO on Query {
  content(slug: $contentSlug, type: $type) {
    __typename
    id
    type
    title
    isPremium
    lang
    htmlBody
    summary
    companies {
      forum {
        threadUrl
        latestPosts {
          ...ForumPosts
        }
      }
      name
      id
      viewerIsFollowing
      pageUrl
      defaultInstrument {
        isin
        id
        symbol
        marketOpen
        marketClose
        marketplace {
          region
        }
        returns {
          total
        }
      }
    }
    tags {
      viewerIsFollowing
      id
      name
      pageUrl
    }
    createdAt
    ... on Video {
      liveTime
    }
    ... on Webcast {
      liveTime
    }
    slug
    ... on CompanyReport {
      reportUrl
      researchContentUrl
      researchContent {
        title
        lang
        pdfUrl
        relatedContent {
          __typename
          ...PublishingDetails
          ...Reactions
          id
        }
        content {
          title
          lang
          htmlBody
          publishedAt
          createdAt
          changedAt
          isOutdated
          isPremium
        }
      }
    }
    ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
      reportUrl
    }
    ... on StockExchangeRelease {
      reportUrl
    }
    ...ContentBasicInfo
    ...ContentMetadata
    ...PriceAndRecommendation_Content
    ...CompanyDetails_Content
    ...ReportLink_Content
    ...KeyFigures_Content
  }
  ...TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn
}

fragment ForumPosts on ForumPost {
  text
  likesCount
  url
  author
  postedAt
  authorImgUrl
}

fragment KeyFigures_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  companies {
    defaultInstrument {
      estimateData {
        modelType
        reportingCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        transaction {
          date
          actualized {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
            nav
            navPerShare
            opexOfNav
            quarterlySharePrice
          }
          estimates {
            year
            quarter
            revenue
            revenueGrowth
            ebitAdjusted
            ebitReported
            ebitda
            enterpriseValue
            epsAdjusted
            dividend
            dividendYield
            sharePrice
            nav
            navPerShare
            opexOfNav
            quarterlySharePrice
          }
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PriceAndRecommendation_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  createdAt
  companies {
    name
    pageUrl
    defaultInstrument {
      priceData {
        tradeCurrency
      }
      snapshot {
        priceData {
          date
          lastPrice
          tradeCurrency
        }
        transaction {
          date
          recommendation
          targetPrice
        }
        prevTransaction {
          recommendation
        }
      }
      id
    }
    id
  }
}

fragment PublishingDetails on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  publishers {
    name
    imgUrl
  }
  authors {
    __typename
    id
    name
    slug
    imgUrl
    jobTitle
  }
}

fragment Reactions on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  id
  reactionGroups {
    reactionType
    reactionsCount
    viewerReacted
  }
}

fragment ReportLink_Content on Content {
  __isContent: __typename
  type
  isPremium
  ... on CompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on ThirdPartyCompanyReport {
    reportUrl
  }
  ... on StockExchangeRelease {
    reportUrl
  }
}

fragment TrendingContent_1jQ2Cn on Query {
  trendingContent(type: ARTICLE) {
    __typename
    id
    title
    lang
    pageUrl
    createdAt
    type
    imgUrl
    companies {
      squareLogoUrl
      name
      id
    }
    authors {
      __typename
      imgUrl
      id
    }
    publishers {
      imgUrl
    }
  }
}


relais-solid-top-line-development-while-costs-above-expectations-nordea

__typename

title

isPremium

lang

htmlBody

summary

companies

createdAt

publishers

authors

reactionGroups

pageUrl

translations

imgUrl

description

changedAt

Relais Group is an importer and wholesaler for the automotive industry. The group focuses mainly on the development of automotive electronic equipment for trucks. Examples of products that the company supplies include lighting products, applications for warning lights, camera systems, and other spare parts for heavy vehicles. The largest operations are found in the Nordic and Baltic markets, with customers in the aftermarket industry.

Juho Toratti has been writing about Relais   Although Relais Group’s second-quarter earnings fell short of expectations, the performance from April to June was still in line with the company’s strategy. Relais’ revenue continued to show impressive growth across all segments, and the company’s operating cash flow developed excellently. In the earnings call, Group CEO Christian Gebauer pointed out that the second-quarter performance pushed the first-half cash flow to a new record of 17.2 million euros. According to the company, this development was supported by a focus on working capital management, cash conversion, and disciplined capital allocation.  Note. IR-seuranta (IR Coverage) is a channel for SalkunRakentaja and Sijoittaja.fi’s corporate partners for background and analytical articles, as well as other interesting investor information. This article is part of a commercial partnership with the company. The article does not contain investment recommendations.                   Sijoittaja.fi – 14 Aug 26              Relais Groupin kassavirta vahvistui – kasvupanostusten tuloksia odotetaan...    Relais Groupin liikevaihto ja nettorahavirta kasvoivat Q2:lla. Markkinat kuitenkin odottavat merkkejä siitä, että yhtiön strategia näkyy tuloskehityksessä.

Hi @Jageksi , Thanks for the questions! Challenging us is allowed and actually encouraged; this is completely normal in investor relations work, whether on a forum or in live meetings  For all companies, various provisions impact the result quarter by quarter, either up or down. We don’t normally comment on changes in credit loss provisions (and indeed, we didn’t in Q2 last year, as you mentioned). This time, we really felt it was necessary due to the large swing between quarters. The intention was not to downplay money spent previously. That, too, has been capital allocation. There was a justified reason for it at the time, but the systems were no longer suitable for the updated strategy, which is why they had to be written down. The intention was to communicate what the impact of the write-down was in this quarter. Regarding share ownership, most other owners in the management team and partly on the board became owners in connection with acquisitions. I bought the shares myself as soon as I started, and I am indeed part of the incentive schemes. In general, among other things, occasional insider projects and regular closed periods restrict the trading of all insiders. (@JP199 we will return to those questions you posed to Christian as soon as possible).

Thank you for the quick and comprehensive answer! I actually had to check the Q2 2025 report to see if there was any mention of the positive 0.6M impact from the provision at that time. There wasn’t, but I agree that changes in such provisions are part of normal operations, and I don’t think it’s necessary to highlight them unless the difference is significant. I will note, however, that with these calculated changes, companies often tend to be more hush-hush about positive adjustments, while negative changes serve as convenient scapegoats. That last sentence isn’t directly related to Relais, just a general observation. Regarding the IT project: it is true that the write-down does not have a cash flow impact now, but there was one in previous quarters, and to put it bluntly, that 0.9M was “wasted” money. In reality, the situation isn’t quite that simple, as you always learn various things during a project even if it isn’t continued. JP199 asked a good question about this. This, too, is more of a general thought and no longer directly related to Relais, but I personally lean towards the school of thought that development projects should be expensed directly instead of being capitalized. You can always say that we should look at the “official” EBITA where the write-down is visible, but for Relais, adjusted EBITA generally provides better comparability. This write-down is just a good example of how its expense impact never appeared in the adjusted EBITA. In the big picture, I am a satisfied shareholder, but whenever company management wanders onto the forum, it’s always fun to challenge them a little  Lastly, I would like to ask about your own Relais shareholding, as it is, after all, public information through reports. I fully understand if you don’t want to comment on this at all, and that is more than OK  . Using common sense, I think ownership of 1,000 shares is quite small when compared to, for example, the Board and other members of the Management Team. Many of them have, of course, likely acquired a significant portion of their shares through acquisitions or similar means. I also assume that you participate in those share incentive schemes, but I assume that they don’t prevent buying shares from the market, unless you have some insider project going on, which, in your serial acquirer model, is more than likely  .

Short-term pain and long-term gain seem to be the interpretation of analysts at Carnegie and Nordea. Fair value is 15.5 - 21e, with slight downward revisions to forecasts.                   access.dnbcarnegie.com              DNB Carnegie Access:                              https://research.nordea.com/api/reportfileapi?id=b2d087b4-79a9-46be-968a-cb337eb10a77

Hi there, and welcome to the forum! My questions are likely for Christian: How does Relais’ organization look now, just over six months in, from the perspective of a decentralized operating model? Have any significant measures been required to reinforce the model, considering that in the previous period, for instance, a partially centralized IT system was implemented—which has now been abandoned? Do you see any risks here, given that the operating model is being altered to some extent from what employees are used to? How have personnel received the changes—has there been any friction (such as employee turnover), or rather positive reactions and local accountability/entrepreneurship? What kinds of incentives do you think work best for the local management of a Relais subsidiary when pursuing efficient capital utilization and your target ROCE percentage? Sweden is well-known for many successful companies whose key advantage has been precisely a decentralized operating model. Does Christian have any role models or inspirations among these companies or their leaders?

Hi @Jageksi! Thanks for the questions. You are quite right; the change in credit loss provisions is an item that weighs on the adjusted EBITA. Credit loss provisions are part of normal operational activity and generally fluctuate within the profit results without requiring much commentary. This time, we decided to highlight it because the impact between quarters was larger than usual. We have an accounting policy that provides a specific mechanical definition for the provision. In addition to this, management uses its own discretion regarding the provision. In our assessment, we have arrived at a level that we believe is sufficient for the current receivables portfolio. The write-down of IT projects relates to the fact that, in our decentralized organization according to our updated strategy, there was no longer any use for them. This has no cash flow impact, as the development costs recorded on the balance sheet were incurred in previous periods. Operating cash flow and organic revenue growth were positive aspects of this quarter. We continue to work hard toward our goals!

Answering my own question. The credit loss provision for trade receivables is included in that adjusted EBITA, and it certainly has a significant leverage effect compared to the comparison period, when the change in provision was +0.6M and now it is -0.6M. In my opinion, credit loss provisions in accordance with IFRS standards are booked quite aggressively, so I am not overly worried about this, even though it is always a nicer situation if customers pay their invoices on time. @SebastianS could probably confirm that there was no change in the calculation method here, right? The write-offs of IT projects totaling nearly a million really do sting a bit. Of course, it’s foolish to pour more money into a project if it has no significance for the company’s future. Based on the report and the interview, there is certainly reason to expect stronger performance in Q3. In 3 months’ time, we will be wiser again

Relais Group

Relais Q2 adjusted EBITA of EUR 8m was up 6% y/y and came 14% below Modular Finance consensus of EUR 9.4m. There were EUR 0.6m higher credit loss provisions and if adjusting for these, Q2 EBITA...

Relais Q2 adjusted EBITA of EUR 8m was up 6% y/y and came 14% below Modular Finance consensus of EUR 9.4m. There were EUR 0.6m higher credit loss provisions and if adjusting for these, Q2 EBITA missed by 8%. Organic sales growth was 4% y/y in Q2 (Nordea +2%) with broad based growth. All segments beat our top line estimates. Net sales were EUR 110m (+33% y/y), 2% above consensus. Overall, the Q2 EBITA miss was driven, in addition to credit loss allowances, by organic growth investments and relocation of Raskone flagship workshop (organic adjusted EBITA growth: -13% y/y). Gross margin came 20bp below our expectation. Operating cash flow was strong at EUR 6.8m (EUR -0.2m a year ago). Relais does not give short-term outlook for 2026 but notes satble market conditions in Q2. On initial take, we expect consensus to make small negative estimate revisions on the back of the Q2 miss while solid organic growth can be viewed positively.

Relais: Solid top line development while costs above expectations - Nordea

Relais: Solid top line development while costs above expectations - Nordea