Good afternoon. This is the Chorus Call conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the Buzzi SpA Full Year 2023 Results Conference Call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Should anyone need assistance during the conference call, they may signal an operator by pressing star and zero on their telephone. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Pietro Buzzi, Chief Executive Officer of Buzzi SpA. Mr. Buzzi, please go ahead.
Thank you. Welcome, everyone, to our Annual Results Conference Call. I assume that you have available, either in front of you or through the website, the presentation that we have been preparing for this event, for this conference. I will go through a part of it, maybe probably not all, and then we could use it as a reference for the Q&A session. Starting from the summary that we have on page one, the 2023 financial year was certainly a very, very good one. We closed with sales up about 11%. This was a data figure that already disclosed back in February. Then the recurring EBITDA, which was also drafted in February, eventually closed at EUR 1.24 billion, which is a very solid + 44% versus last year. Also, as we mentioned here, the higher results ever in the group history.
So really exceptional results in terms of profitability, which was coming from additional contribution, especially from Italy, Germany, and the U.S. Also, the margins, besides the absolute value, did improve significantly, about more than 600 basis points to almost 29%, which also represents certainly a record for our company, for our group. Besides the economic results, cash generation was also increasing very nicely. There was somehow a lower impact from the working capital absorption due to also, let's say, a kind of price momentum, which was still very favorable but not as much as in the previous year. And also considering higher CapEx, so the net cash generation was able to more than offset the higher CapEx spending that we went through during 2023. Return on capital employed and over the weighted average of working capital was also strengthening.
This did happen considering the higher cost of capital that we had during the year due to, in some cases, say, higher risk of certain countries or also higher, let's say, equity versus debt. Our balance between equity and debt was more skewed towards equity than debt due to the net financial position increasing during the year. We are proposing through the AGM a significant dividend increase, 33% up at EUR 0.60 per share. We can be happy, I think, about the development of the share price, which, if we look back at the last two years, has been up 133%, so quite an achievement also here. Reduction targets, looking at the sustainability program roadmap, are on track. Our targets are confirmed. We will be publishing together with the financial results also the sustainability report with all the details about our targets, achievements, goals.
We feel, let's say, confident and comfortable to be able to continue to follow closely, let's say, the pattern that was published two years ago with our roadmap, let's say, our journey to net zero. We will discuss more in detail the outlook for the current year or 2024 as a whole. We are clearly committed to perform as usual, let's say, at best, to continue to, in a sense, follow as much as possible the price-over-cost evolution and being able to remain at very high profitability level in a similar way like we did in 2023 after closing. Shifting to page 2, you see the key figures, 3-year developments, very nice improvements in net sales, EBITDA even better, margins even better with a small negative variance in 2022, which was, again, fully recovered, much more than recovered, and a nice rebound in 2023.
Return on capital employed above 14%, so quite a significant number also compared to peers and to the industry average. Dividend per share, very significant improvement, as we mentioned before, from EUR 0.40 two years ago to EUR 0.60 this year in proposal to the AGM. When we look at the volume variance in the following page, you'll see that these results came in a moment, let's say, in a macroeconomic or industry moment, which was not very favorable for the volumes, generally speaking. So we had a stable, let's say, result, slightly better in Italy for cement and ready mix. Eastern Europe, thanks also to the rebound in Ukraine versus last year, basically flat. U.S., slightly negative, but generally speaking, also not very different from the previous year.
More trouble, let's say, the situation in Central Europe or Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, where the market was definitely more under pressure in terms of residential and industrial activity and volumes lowering between 20%-25%, so quite a significant decline. However, this, unfortunately, did not translate in an unfavorable economic result, as we saw, thanks to the good performance of prices and also an overall cost environment, which was definitely more favorable than what we expected at the time of the budget approval. So at the time, let's say, the last month of 2022, where the cost outlook was definitely much worse than the way it really came in and translated into practice during 2023.
On the following page, we can see a similar exercise, so breakdown by regions, but devoted to the impact or to the different variances, or to the main variances that are associated with the turnover figure, the net sales. So where we are in the euro area, no foreign exchange effect like in Italy. You see slightly better volume variance and significant price variance. Even though in Italy, pricing did not really change during 2023, it was more carried forward from the previous increases. We had several increases during 2022 and then stable pricing during 2023. Instead, in Germany, pricing was much quieter, if you wish, during 2022 and increased much more significantly in 2023. At the same time, volumes suffer. And as you can see, the amount or the unfavorable variance associated with volumes was EUR 200 million, so quite significant.
Eastern Europe, as we said before, mixed trends or mixed variances. Also here, strong pricing overall, more flatish, let's say, volumes variance and negative foreign exchange effect that is coming mainly from, let's say, Ukraine and Russia, the two weaker currencies among, let's say, the Eastern European countries. Meanwhile, the Czech koruna and the Polish zloty remain quite stable, quite unchanged versus the previous year. In the USA, worsening of the dollar exchange rate, not too significant. But of course, since the business is very large, the absolute impact was not too small, -EUR 50 million approximately coming from the devaluation of the dollar. Some negative variance limited associated with volumes and strong pricing to more than offset both the volume and foreign exchange and negative impacts. Overall, you see that we, as we said before, we have approximately 11% improvement like-for-like versus last year in the net sales figure.
When we move to the following page, you have an idea of what has been the contribution during the year, both in terms of turnover and EBITDA. And you can see also from the graph which countries or which areas are above average in terms of profitability and which ones instead are below. So versus 2022, still the U.S., they still continue to represent, by far, let's say, the strongest country, the strongest contributor to our overall results and profitability. Even though, fortunately, in a sense, other areas like mainly Italy, but also the Central European area, perform better, relatively speaking, and are giving a greater additional contribution versus the previous year. And you can see that the Eastern Europe is more or less average in terms of profitability. U.S. is above average. Central Europe and Italy are below average.
Particularly looking at Italy, considering if you look back in the last, let's say, 10 years, the results that we have been achieving in the previous year and this year are really excellent and are really representing a completely turnaround versus what we were used to see or to experience, let's say, to leave only a few years ago. Next page, you see the EBITDA bridge, what has been the development from 2022 to 2023. Again, volume and prices, we did comment already about it. You see here in total what has been the contribution and the effect in real. In absolute terms, unfavorable in the case of volumes, very, very favorable in terms of pricing.
This was associated and was the key, if you wish, of the greater profitability associated with a much more stable environment in terms of variable cost, which in part is due to the fact that production was lower, but also to the fact that, generally speaking, energy cost, both fuel and power, did not increase or, in some cases, in some area, actually went down versus 2022. We continue to experience some inflation in the raw material environment. Raw material means both raw materials for either the raw mix, so the preparation of the cement mix, or raw materials that are used for the finish grinding, so for the final phase of the cement production. These have been still under a certain inflationary trend. But the main, let's say, energy factor were represented in several areas more a tailwind than the opposite.
In terms of fixed cost, inflation was still somehow present. We have here mainly labor and staff costs, let's say, and maintenance. Staff cost, to give an idea, out of the 58, increased by about EUR 42 million in favorable, let's say, variance. This is mainly, I would say, a consequence of the delay, in a sense, in inflationary trends. Usually, labor cost does not react, let's say, immediately and tends to be somehow postponed before catching up with the inflation rate. And this is what happened also to us during this year. So you have a more unfavorable variance than the one we had in the previous year. CO2 cost was also a significant, let's say, tailwind. This is because production two reasons, let's say, because production went down, so we had much less need of CO2 rights to be purchased, let's say, deficit.
And also CO2 cost, in general, during 2023 were declining. So the cost of CO2 rights went down. Both things, let's say, both the volume, the needs for CO2 rights, and the cost have been favorable during 2023. Some negative impact, as we saw before, from the foreign exchange and others, various fixed costs, including also the inventory changes that had an unfavorable outcome during 2023, meaning, for example, travels, some legal expenses, insurance, and other miscellaneous expenses that are more, again, similar, possibly, to staff cost, as we mentioned before, subject to some kind of delayed inflation during this year translated into a heavier burden. But overall, as you can see, thanks to some major variances, like the ones that we mentioned prior, this had some minor variances under the other items.
The overall impact on EBITDA was definitely very favorable and bringing the figure to a level which is record, as we mentioned before. Brief focus on energy cost on the following page. Our energy bill, this page refers specifically to the cement business, and it includes only energy, electrical power, and fuel. So our energy bill did increase still some during the year from EUR 529 to EUR 565, but obviously, much less than what happened during 2022 versus 2021. We are apparently, let's say, stabilizing at a level which is about double of what used to be before, let's say, the energy crisis, before the war, etc. In terms of weight on revenues, thanks to the strong development of pricing, we are at around 20% in 2023, same figure, the same reference for 2021, 2022, one year before.
It used to be more 16, 17 at the time, let's say, of, let's call it, no inflation or much lower energy prices. So there's been certainly a kind of step up which we have to probably live with. And overall, certainly, we have been able to manage in terms of financial performance in the last, particularly in the last year, but also starting from 2022 on. On the right, you can see the differences between power and fuel. And clearly, what has been between the two, the more favorable trend is associated with fuel. So fuel has been overall less of a burden than power.
Similar to the graph on the left, we see that when we look at the weight or the impact on revenues in 2023, thanks to the growth of revenues and the fact that these costs remain, let's say, relatively stable, is showing a favorable, let's say, trend, a favorable evolution in terms of weight on the unit revenue. So overall, not I mean, still pressure on the cost side, but the ability of the industry or of the company to manage it in a way not to worsen our operating and, let's say, overall financial results. If we move to the following section, there is a focus on the different countries. We start from the United States because it's the biggest and also has been the best performer. Development of sales, EBITDA, EBITDA margins was all quite positive.
Clearly, this is one of the countries where, thanks to the volume development, our, let's say, production capacity utilization remained pretty high, which is, together with the strong, let's say, favorable pricing environment, one of the major reasons of our high margins. So when you couple, let's say, favorable trending pricing, high capacity utilization, and a relatively stable cost environment, particularly for the energy cost, this usually translates into a significant improvement of profitability, which is what has been happening, what happened this year with a 5.4%, 540 basis point improvement in EBITDA margins. Italy was also really showing quite a nice improvement. Italy was coming, still is coming, from a much more depressed or subdued situation. So it's easier, in a sense, to see a bigger improvement in results because the comparison base, it's easier. Meanwhile, the comparison base of the U.S. is much more challenging.
Even considering this fact, we can say that our performance was certainly beating our expectation. Cement volumes, of course, helped in a sense that we did not suffer any decline. As we mentioned in the beginning, we had a carryover effect on pricing and an inflation which we did not expect, actually, before the beginning of the year in energy cost, which clearly improved the margin. Even considering less tax credit on energy cost because last year, it was EUR 38 million. Last year, meaning 2022, and this year, EUR 12 million. So there's quite a difference in this income stream or revenue stream.
Still, our EBITDA basically doubled, and our margins increased almost 1,000 basis points, so from 12% to 21%, which is a figure that, for a country like Italy and relatively mature and with much lower capacity utilization compared to the U.S., can be considered a strong and, I would say, very positive achievement. Central Europe is a mix because we have inside here, of course, countries that perform in a very negative way, I would say, about volumes, others that still with a negative volume trend did not suffer as much as, for example, Germany and Luxembourg. So there's a kind of a mix here. But considering, let's say, the region as a whole, the trend was, in a sense, not so different because we were able, in all countries, let's say, to increase prices. Basically, we had a profitability improvement everywhere.
It was stronger in Germany than in countries like Poland and Czechia. But the overall trend, let's say, was not very different from one country to another. So whereby, let's say, the volumes were more depressed, the price impact had a stronger effect. In those regions where volumes were still down but not as much, price impact was not as important, but still able to more than counter the negative volume trends. Also, the improvements in EBITDA margins here overall are quite significant. And also, in general, in absolute terms, is also quite significant. The comments that you see here on the right, yes, are in line with what I was mentioning before. So we had margin improvements in Germany, in Benelux.
Yeah, lower CO2 cost is an important point because, meanwhile, in Italy, we are still benefiting from a, let's say, CO2 emission rights reserve which are coming from the previous period. So we are not in the need to buy CO2 rights. The Central European area, instead, last year, but also this year, to a small extent, is in the need to cover, let's say, the surplus—sorry, no, not the surplus. What is the opposite? I mean, the deficit of CO2, buying CO2 rights. So it's a bit of an absurd, let's say, consequence. But when you're going down in volumes like it happened this year in Central Europe, your CO2 deficit is much more limited. In some countries, it was even zero. And so you are actually—it's the opposite of the operating leverage, in a sense, because it's true that you're reducing your capacity utilization.
Normally, higher capacity utilization is bringing, let's call it, a lower variable cost, sorry, a greater absorption of fixed cost. In this case, in general, under the ETS environment, a greater capacity utilization can translate into higher variable cost. This year, lower capacity utilization translated into lower variable cost and also so less need of buying CO2 and also less cost for the CO2 that we have been buying because the trend of CO2 rights during the year went also down together with the trend of energy cost in general. Eastern Europe, well, this is, let's say, a combination, of course, of countries that are inside the ETS and countries that are outside. Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine perform relatively well considering the situation. Russia is probably the only country where we went down in absolute terms and also somewhat, relatively speaking, for EBITDA.
The largest dent in Russia was driven by the negative forex. But overall, this area, let's say, taken altogether, was not performing very different from the Central European market because we saw, let's say, volumes decreasing somehow, and let's say, it's increasing due to price effect, EBITDA increasing, and EBITDA margins also increasing, not as much because we are starting from a level which is definitely much higher than the one of Italy or the Central European country. Looking at the joint ventures, they are also very important companies for us, even though they are not reflected directly into, let's say, EBITDA. So, of course, we use the one-line consolidation equity method both for Mexico and Brazil.
Certainly, the Mexican performance has been a very good one, very, very positive, volume up, one of the few countries where we actually experienced growth in cement volumes and ready-mix volumes, higher pricing, and fairly stable, let's say, production cost. So you see that this is the outcome was a clear improvement in total EBITDA numbers, figures, and also in EBITDA margins, which for Mexico clearly are at the top of the group because we are well, we've been enjoying, as I just said, both favorable volume and prices. But also, we are running at a very high capacity utilization level, and our factories, let's say, our plants are very competitive in terms of cost. And we are enjoying, let's say, a cost leadership position in the country. So whenever the prices are going up, we're certainly benefiting more than other competitors with higher production cost.
Brazil was a little bit disappointing in a sense that it's basically the only area, the only country where EBITDA suffered versus the previous year. This happened due to an industry environment, a market environment where cement volumes declined slightly. In part, this was due to also weather reasons in the first part of the year, part of 2023. As opposed to other areas and markets that we have been commenting, prices did not actually improve. There was a strong competitive environment, particularly in the Southeast area. Our joint venture was actually unable to improve pricing during the year. Due to that, our margins were weaker at the end, somewhat weaker versus 2022. So variable cost, fairly stable, but fixed cost like maintenance and G&A expenses are greater than the previous year.
To some extent, also, inventory changes affecting the EBITDA in a favorable way and small changes in the FX contribution. The outcome was not satisfactory. But I think that in an economical and also competitive environment like we experienced last year in Brazil, we cannot be fully satisfied, but we know the reason, let's say, why this happened. We are certainly more optimistic about what could be the outcome or the results for the following year. We're starting from, as opposed to other countries, with an easier comparison base, certainly in this area versus what has been happening or the results that have been achieved during 2023 in all other regions. When we move to the outlook for 2024, I think that we can briefly comment on the outline of this page.
There are, in general, let's say, macroeconomic conditions that are not too favorable for construction investment, particularly when we are talking about residential activity in all the regions. And you can consider that residential activity can range between 35, 40, sometimes 45% of the total. So it does represent, typically, considering both new residential and maintenance or restructuring, a quite significant portion of the overall cement demand. And we are not very positive about this specific portion of the demand for 2024 in all regions. We hope that and I think we have a good probability, good chances to see a support from to experience a support from the infrastructure projects, particularly in Italy and U.S., maybe a little less in Germany where the overall, let's say, economic condition of the country, of the construction industry will still suffer some.
This is our picture, pretty similar across the region in terms of volumes. Looking a little more closely region by region, we see that U.S. cement should be supported and, let's say, driven by infrastructure spending, including also it's not, let's say, infrastructure but residential activity in terms of industrial investments. In Italy, similar. We see demand stabilizing. Difficult to imagine, really, a significant improvement versus 2023, but yes, a similar level possible, particularly if the so-called recovery plan or plan of national recovery will be implemented and is being implemented. Of course, there are always delays and complicated issues to be overcome for all the projects to enter into the execution phase. We are seeing that this plan has been carried out and will translate into a strong support for cement consumption during 2024.
Central Europe, Germany, Poland, and Czechia, we don't see really possibility for the volume to rebound this year. On the other hand, we do not expect a similar decline as we experienced during 2023, sorry, mainly because of the weakness in the residential activity, like we were mentioning at the beginning. When we consider then the joint venture, we see a pretty stable, let's say, a pretty stable environment for Mexico. So certainly in good shape like it was in 2023. There are nearshoring activities related to the U.S. industries, U.S. industrial sector, but also some acceleration in infrastructure with the president coming to an end. There will certainly be some projects that will be completed, and we have cement demand during the first half but also the second half of the year. In Brazil, we are more optimistic.
We think that cement demand will be more supportive, probably not big steps up, no big changes. But yes, there is a possibility for the volumes to go up. There are social housing programs, and we are starting or we are at the level of interest rates that are quite high. And we should see some loosening, I mean, easing of the monetary policy, which can translate into definitely better environment for the construction industry during 2023. On the energy cost side, we are fairly optimistic in a sense that we don't see a reason for the energy cost to increase further. We are also to a relatively high extent already hedged overall, particularly as far as the power cost is concerned across our different regions. So the power cost component is hedged at about the level of 50%-60%.
And the fuel component should represent more a tailwind than the opposite. In particular, this includes also our effort and our, let's say, projects to increase the usage of alternative fuels that together with the benefits associated with this CO2 emission, they are also bringing benefits in terms of fuel cost. So we do have also some but this will not represent a huge improvement. But we do have also some energy projects and renewable energy projects that will be entering into production and will produce, let's say, energy for our plants directly without the need of buying, let's say, energy outside. And altogether, this means that our energy cost bill is expected to be quite stable and not a big risk for the current year.
We'll try to continue our efforts, really, to drive the prices in a way that price over cost will remain favorable or as favorable as we experienced 2023. Doesn't mean that we will fully achieve this result. It will depend on the market, on the competition. Certainly, this is an easier task in all countries where capacity utilization is high. It's a more difficult task in countries where capacity utilization is lower. But we've been successful so far in the last two years, and we try to be as successful as much as possible, at least also in the coming during 2024 and in the coming months. That's why our vision, let's say, our view for the full 2024 results is to be able to consolidate and to remain in line, pretty much in line with the 2023 level.
If we do that, if we are able to do that, this would be certainly not, in my opinion, in our opinion, quite an achievement because we are talking about results that are exceptionally strong and extremely high. So certainly, it's a challenging goal. And we are, I think, exposed to more downside risk than upside due to the also third situation. But we are certainly committed to achieve it as much as possible. And of course, depending on the outside economic and demand and competitive environment, as I said before, it will be probably, as usual, I mean, easier in some markets and not as easy in other markets. But we'll try to do our best, as usual, to achieve it. I think probably for the sake of time, we have more information in the presentation about the sustainability results, which are also interesting.
But maybe we can go into that if you have specific questions. And then we have an appendix with more information on the financial results, detailed trends on volume prices by country, EBITDA by country. But I think that, yeah, cash flow statement, detailing cash statement, detailing the financial position. But again, as I said, not to carry on too much with maybe themes or topics that are not necessarily of interest to you. I would prefer to close here my speech and open the Q&A question and possibly use, again, the slide and the pages for the questions that will come. So thank you for listening so far. And I kindly ask the operator to open the Q&A question session. Sorry. Thank you.
Thank you. This is the conference operator. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on the touch-tone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star and two. Please pick up the receiver when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question is from Élodie Rall of JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. My first question is on pricing. In the U.S., you have mentioned that overall, you expect a little bit of pressure from customers, in particular when it's about imported cement. So I was wondering, first of all, what kind of pressure you're seeing and if you do expect overall somewhat what kind of price increase overall you expect for your U.S. exposure?
And if you could remind us what are the regions of imports for you and which they are. My second question is on pricing in Europe this time, if you have been able to push some pricing through, in which countries, and a bit of a summary of the outlook by country for pricing. And lastly, if I could ask why you have proposed to introduce an enhanced voting rights up to double voting rights per share. What was the rationale behind that? Oh, and lastly, what are your thoughts about U.S. listing, given we've seen a lot of your peers going that way? Thank you.
Which going sorry. The last one, the voting rights, you said U.S. listing going that way. You mean in.
So what are your thoughts about a potential U.S. listing, given we've seen a number of your peers listing in the U.S.? Thank you.
I was so far from this theme that I did not get it because it's actually something that I don't think we are considering at all. Okay. Well, on the pricing, I think there was the beginning of the year, in general, across, I would say, all regions an attempt to move prices up. We are talking about relatively small pricing freezes. So in line with the, let's call it, expected inflation, it can be 2%, 3%, something like so. So just to, as I mentioned before, to be able to offset a trend, particularly in fixed costs, that we expect still somewhat inflationary. In some regions, the fact that we are likely still to suffer from negative volume variance.
How much this move is going to be successful is still a bit early to really assess it, I mean, in a positive way or in a certain way because we have to see how the market is going to move, both in terms of volume and in terms of competition. So there is, I think, a possibility. There is a chance, certainly, for the market to receive, let's say, to accept this kind of increases, which are much smaller, much less significant than what happened in the past two years. But this is due to the, let's call it, deflationary environment that is almost overall. I mean, and also with the goal of bringing inflation down to a more natural, how could I say? Yes, natural level in the EU but also in the U.S., which is what is happening.
So I think cement will follow, in general, a similar pattern, so moderate price increases and easier, as I was mentioning before, to be able to actually realize these price increases where the volumes are stronger and where the capacity utilization is greater. So where we are closer to high usage, high utilization rates, it should be easier. I think it will be easier. Where we are suffering more from volumes and lower capacity utilization, certainly more difficult. So you know, I mean, what are the areas where capacity utilization is greater or where capacity utilization has been weakening in a more significant way? And this is where, I think, we will face more challenges. In the U.S., similar concept. Certainly, and fortunately, we're still in a phase where capacity utilization is relatively high.
It's not as high as two years ago, but we did not decline significantly in our sales volume. It is true that the pressure is coming mainly from imports, so specific to some regions where the imports can actually enter the country. It is true that there are some customers that also are particularly big. They can, of course, represent, in both sides, an opportunity or a risk in terms of volumes. These bigger customers, some of them have also the possibility to import cement. They have a direct, let's say, comparison between local price or local cement price or foreign cement price. We may be in the need to match, let's say, certain import prices, assuming that we want to preserve a certain customer. This is a typical, let's say, marketing strategy, which we have to decide on a case-by-case basis.
And yes, understand whether we want to give more preference to volumes or more preference or more priority to pricing level. And I think this describes pretty well the situation, not only for the U.S. I mean, this is true. It's true also in other countries. It's always true. But the country where this strategy with, let's say, marketing strategy will be more difficult, our goals will be more difficult to achieve is certainly where the capacity utilization is suffering or is going below a certain level. In terms of double voting, well, this is something that, how could I say? We don't see anything negative coming from the double votes. We and the board has been considering this as an opportunity, as something that could, tomorrow, give us. I say tomorrow because there will be at least 2 years now before an actual change.
And so it's something that we have to look in the long run, so beyond two years. And it's an additional tool, let's say, that the company has or can have in its pocket, in its drawer, to potentially use the shares, let's say, the equity for growth projects, combinations, or whatever. At the same time, possibly maintaining, from the standpoint of the family, a controlling stake, even in a situation that could come, may come, or may not come. It's just, as I said, something that an additional tool, I mean, an opportunity that we could use or not use that may allow us to do something that we would not do without the double voting. I don't know if I give the correct idea, but there are certainly the future, of course, nobody knows.
But there are some opportunity, growth opportunities that could come about where you could use, let's say, the capital, the shares combination that would allow the company to grow in a certain way and possibly do that without keeping, let's say, as much as possible the control in the hands of the family, which we think is also a key or has been, and we think will continue to be a key to the success of the company.
The next question is from Yassine Touahri of On Field Investment Research. Please go ahead.
Yes. A couple of questions. Just to come back on your comments on pricing in the U.S., is it fair to assume that the price pressure is mostly around the coastal area, around Houston, and maybe Louisiana? And is it fair to assume that prices in those regions may be locked down like 3%-4%? At the same time, I hear that from your competitor that you had high single-digit price increases that were announced in the Northeast along the Mississippi River, inland. Is it what you see? That would be my question on the U.S.
Yeah. I mean, we have been following the general price trend. So where are the announcements or the actual changes in the market have been of this magnitude, which actually, I don't think we had in any of our markets so far. But still, in some cases, yes, we were able to go up. If there is a trend that's in that direction, we will certainly follow.
Just to remind you that one thing is the announcement and one thing is the actual implementation and realization of the price improvements because, clearly, it takes, I would say, at least two months to have an idea if a certain price announcement will actually hold. So we are still in a phase where we're kind of uncertain and try to understand how the competition is moving, if there is a clear direction. If there's not a clear direction, how the customers are reacting. And very often, also, when increased prices is not for everyone. So yes, there is a trend in that direction, but what is the actual realization for your average price level can be ver y different.
And what is your exposure? If we look at your U.S. operation, how much of your business is exposed to the coastal area? Is it fair to assume that it's maybe like 15%-20% of your operation only that are on the coast?
Yeah. That is correct. No more. Yeah. But you mentioned Louisiana in a sense that yes, we are, of course, a big operator in the Louisiana market. But if the cement is landing in Louisiana, it can move up all the way to Chicago. So actually, the impact can be along the Mississippi River because a competitive import terminal or asset in Louisiana would be able to be competitive also going upstream all the way to Chicag o.
The second question would be on your comments about using your shares to develop the company. Is it fair to assume that if you had the opportunity to combine with another company or to acquire some assets in shares, this is something that you could look at? I'm just thinking about what this company in Colombia did, Cementos Argos, combining with Summit Materials. It was something which was very value creative. I'd just like to understand, when you're thinking about the future of Buzzi, do you think about do you think about the fact that you've got some assets in the U.S. that are not properly valued in your share price, or do you think more about the very long term and how to build a company which is growing and strong for the next generation?
No, no. I think both options are available. And again, the idea about introducing the double voting gives us simply more possibilities because, actually, the double voting, okay, clearly, it won't be like this. But if everyone was keeping his shares for two years or more than two years, that doesn't change anything, no? But since this is not going to be the case and since, instead, the controlling entity is likely committed, let's say, to keep its shares for the long-term horizon, I think that, yeah, this is opening up potentially. And that doesn't mean that this is going to happen, but certainly, potentially, it is opening up more possibilities. So I don't see nothing really negative about that because the control of the company yeah.
I think the question is that I see it could be positive, but I'm just trying to understand because it means you could use your shares to develop the company, either by merging with another entity or using your shares to grow. And I'm just trying to understand in which direction you would like Buzzi to go. Is it more exposure to the U.S., more exposure to emerging markets, becoming global, a focus in another kind of business than cement? That would be great to get a bit of a color about the way you're thinking about where you would like Buzzi to be in the next 5-10 years.
I understand. Well, normally, what we have seen so far, also in our history, is that the opportunities you may have a certain strategic vision, and we do have one, which is clearly the one of strengthening our position where we are already and maybe, but less likely, opening up new positions or new geographic areas. And so one thing is the strategic vision.
The other is what can actually occur, can actually happen, which very often is coming about and is coming on the table without any, how could I say, previous advice, without being it's something that you have to decide or to, yeah, evaluate and assess sometimes from one day to another because things are changing very, very quickly. And so that said, I do not rule out completely the possibility of tomorrow having, let's say, a growth pattern in a kind of combination with someone else. It could certainly happen. I mean, it depends from the ingredients. There have to be all the ingredients: financial, strategic, governance, whatever. So if all the ingredients are there, this could be certainly an outcome for the company.
The fact of having, let's say, the double votes in the hands of the controlling entity makes this, I don't want to say more likely because I don't know, but let's say certainly easier to evaluate than the opposite because some combination that maybe yesterday we would not have considered because they could translate into a minority position, tomorrow, we may consider it because they do not translate into a minority position.
Thank you very much. That's very helpful.
Yeah. Thank you.
The next question is from Alessandro Tortora of Mediobanca. Please go ahead.
Yes. Good afternoon to everybody. Ciao, Pietro. I have a question, if I may. The first one is related to if you can give us an update on the situation, let's say, in Ukraine, considering that there is still, let's say, or not, they're still waiting, let's say, for the final approval, the sale of the assets in Ukraine. And the second is also on Brazil. If you can comment a little bit also on, let's say, the possibility that it probably is on the seller side, how do you consider if it is something likely that maybe, let's say, by the end of June, the seller can decide not to implement the option? That's the first question. Thanks.
Thank you. Well, Ukraine is getting long, but we did expect that. It's not something that we did not expect. There was a first, let's call it, exam by the antitrust authority, which was not sufficient.
So we are entering into, let's call it, a second phase, more focus, more information, more, yeah, inquiries, which will take another, probably, at least 3-4 months. And then we will see the outcome. There is also, from the buyer side, the possibility in this second phase, if there was a negative, let's call it, assessment, evaluation by the antitrust to present already some, let's call it, corrective measures, which they may have in mind. I don't know, but they may have in mind, CRH. So I think we are off 50%, 50%-60% chance of going through the way it was agreed. And yeah, in 4 months, I would say, time, we will know if it's a 50, 60, or 100. And this is the situation. In Brazil, we don't know.
In any sense, that is not a topic that we discuss directly with our partners. We believe, I would say, that there is more than 50% likelihood that they will exercise the option this year because it's difficult to imagine really a significant change in their, let's call it, price, in their return. Looking at the, you call it, three years or three or six-monthly, let's say, period, difficult to imagine that to stay longer will translate into a much better result. So I think they are strongly considering to exercise the option already this year, which will trigger, again, another antitrust investigation where we don't have any risk, I think, but simply a matter of time of examining, let's say, the transaction. And so if this happens, I would expect the acquisition to be completed by probably last quarter.
Okay.
And then the third quarter or, yeah, fourth quarter.
Okay. Okay. Thanks. And then, let's say, I don't want to say clarification, but let's say just some major assumption behind the target to consolidate 2023 EBITDA. Is it already possible to have an idea of, let's say, that there will be some up and down by country? But do you already see, let's say, some countries you mentioned before, the U.S., but also maybe Italy, potentially more than consolidating their EBITDA? And on the other side, as you mentioned before, some countries, Central Europe, may be suffering and therefore reporting lower operating results considering the, let's say, weakness in the residential?
Yeah. I mean, what you're saying is what we have been saying, basically. So yeah, I think we have definitely more chances in the U.S. than in Italy to do better than in Germany.
So overall, I think there are I mean, there is certainly a level the level reached in 2023 is so high, so, let's say, favorable. It's setting, let's say, the bar is setting really a very high level. So that's why to imagine to easily overcome this level, it's really not a likely option, not a likely scenario. There will be, yeah, there's likely to be a mix, a mix of improvements and negative or unfavorable variances, which of the two will prevail. It's a little bit difficult to assess now. And yeah, I think we can be more precise after three, four months. We have a better idea. The year started not too well, let's say. There was also some weather impact. Italy, for example, as you know, had a lot of rain in March.
So, okay, they are not months with a very important the second quarter, of course, will be much more important. We have the Easter week this year in the first quarter, so definitely less working days. So I do not expect the first quarter showing a clear direction towards better results, probably more likely to be somewhat weaker. But I would not, from that, extrapolate necessarily towards the end of the year. So first quarter, so and so, probably second quarter, we have to see, and then we can be more precise. But yes, I do expect a mixed result and a very, very challenging, let's say, comparison day, certainly.
Okay. Okay. Thanks. And then, let's say, the last question is just related to if you can give us an idea of the step-up in CapEx. You forecast this year compared to the around, let's say, EUR 300 million, but also, let's say, a comment on the tax rate that this year, let's say, last year, 2023, was pretty low. So just to give us an idea of a sustainable level also for this year, 2024. Thanks.
Probably not in terms of tax rate because we had two impacts. They are both associated with the third well, in one case, it's a deferred tax. In the other case, let's call it negative taxes, which are kind of a dream, but sometimes they do happen. But they are related mainly to the in one case, that we did recognize by about EUR 40 million additional deferred income taxes, positive, let's say, deferred assets, deferred tax assets. Tax assets?
Yeah, tax assets because by running, let's say, the projections for the next 5, 6 years, we realize, according to the financial plans, let's say, in terms of financial plans, that we have more possibilities or more chances to recover tax loss carried forward than in the past year. So there were some deferred tax assets that were not recognized until last year. And this year, 2023, we did recognize. And then there was a similar effect associated with our tax, let's say, consolidation, which is carried out at the level of the parent, which was a transfer, let's say, of tax credits from the operating companies to the holding companies, which also translated into another similar effect. Now, it was almost another EUR 35 million, more than EUR 30 million.
So in total, it's more than EUR 60 million, which is really not recurring and nothing to do with the, well, formally, it has to do with the current tax for the year. Current, in part, deferred, but it's not repetitive. It's not recurring, for sure. So I would expect the tax last year, we had the opposite because we had non-deductible expenses. And so the two are really not comparable. We should go back to something that is more, I don't know, 18%-20%, our, let's call it, ordinary tax rate in the coming year.
Yeah. Okay. Okay. And the last one was on the CapEx, Mr. Pietro.
The CapEx, yes. The CapEx, well, we always have a challenging budget. I mean, a budget where we are willing, let's say, and trying to put into the pipeline and realize an important project. And usually, we are not always able. But let's say that, in our opinion, would certainly be no less than 350. Maybe 380 if the organization is able to really go through all the engineering and execution purchasing. We have no delay on the supply, procurement, etc. But let's say 350, 380.
Okay. Thanks a lot.
Yes.
The next question is from Brijesh Siya of HSBC. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good afternoon, gents. Hello. So I have possibly three. So starting with the dual voting, is that more related to the decarbonization CapEx which you are expecting in the future? I know you previously talked about the huge cost attached with it and the partnership that is required to ensure that there's a solution. So can you give us a little more color about what you think about decarbonization CapEx? Because this is linked to your balance sheet strength. You have EUR 800 million of cash, and you talked about having a dividend of only EUR 0.60. So you're holding cash on one hand. On the other hand, you have this decarbonization CapEx. So how do you kind of balance between shareholder return and the future requirements for CapEx?
I didn't get really to match your question in the sense that were you mentioning the double voting at the beginning of your question?
Well, I think, yeah, double voting. So my question is whether that is more related to you are trying to kind of combine with another company to have this decarbonization CapEx kind of invest by others.
No, no, no, no. As I said before, it's something that we think we should have in our governance.
We think we should be one of the two available, but it's not that we are thinking to carry out our decarbonization plan. I mean, we will be able without the need to combine with someone else our decarbonization plan fully. So the potential combination with someone else is something totally different. As I was explaining before, it can be an opportunity if all the conditions are there, and the double voting can be helpful. But there's nothing to do with our decarbonization plan, our roadmap, and our willingness to be able to accomplish that on a standalone basis. So that's our clear direction.
And in terms of the pricing in the U.S. and import pricing, I believe you continue to kind of export from Italy to the U.S. East Coast. So when you look at the arbitrage between your export to U.S. and what the local production is, are you able to kind of find any arbitrage where you can kind of use the import as a means to kind of reduce your cost base and hence possibly compete more effectively with the marketplace?
No. I mean, the volumes that we are being shipping, and we probably ship also this year from Italy to U.S., is simply a substitute of another volume coming from somewhere else in a sense that if we look at our capacity utilization in Texas in the Houston area, but also landing in New Orleans and moving up to the river, we need some cement from outside sources. As long as this is economically feasible and also, of course, fully in line with all the transfer prices regulation, we try to do it from plants that have capacity available. We have a plant in Italy directly at the seaside that can load, let's say, ships in a very effective way. And that's why we do it. If it's a win-win situation between the two countries, there's no reason why not to do it.
Understood. And in terms of your U.S. growth plan, you talked previously about thinking about plan, but yeah, cost was a major issue. Is it still in consideration about doing a brownfield or thinking about a greenfield in the U.S.?
Yeah. Well, a greenfield is extremely difficult. I do not say impossible because nothing is impossible, but extremely difficult. Certainly, on the brownfield, this is something where there's no, let's say, decision being made. But there are one or two options under assessment, under study that will bring us to a decision sooner rather than later because anyway, both considering, let's say, the prospects of the demand, the age of some plants, and our regional network, we will certainly, if not today, in some years' time, we are in the need of some significant renovation, which will bring together with that also lower CO2, higher energy efficiency, etc. So a number of benefits.
Understood. And the final question on the shareholder return, you rightfully kind of raised the dividend per share. But I think the buybacks could have been given that your balance is strong. Would you kind of—I mean, you haven't done for 2023, but is that something still in plan to probably raise it further in 2024 when you see the cash flows continue to flow in?
I see. It is a possibility. It is certainly a possibility. Clearly, the share price is less attractive if you wish. I mean, I'm very glad that the share price went up so significantly, so nicely. This is a big advantage for our shareholders, certainly. On the other hand, this makes the buyback option a little less attractive. Doesn't mean that we will not consider it. We can certainly consider it. With the same amount that you can put on the table, you will buy less shares. It's clear. That's a good thing and could still represent an advantage for the shareholders as a whole.
Okay. Understood, Mr. Buzzi. Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
The next question is from Luka Agrawal of Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Hello. Just two quick ones from me. One is on the optionality of a net cash position.
Just wanted to know what your thoughts are on what's the kind of most likely use of that. Is it expansion of CapEx, shareholder distribution, M&A? Good to hear thoughts on that. And the second is kind of related, actually, is on the decarbonization program. There's been a couple I mean, this year, I guess, carbon capture has kind of been focused with Heidelberg's carbon capture plant going online. Holcim has announced quite a few projects in that area. And given you have this kind of net cash position, I was wondering if we could expect acceleration of the decarbonization program and if you may invest in these type of technologies in the near term. Next.
Invest in them? What was the last?
Invest in carbon capture technologies in the near term.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, sure.
These three days are one of the key topics and the topic that will certainly require a significant amount of money. There is a bit of a delay between, yeah, the cash generation and the actual usage because, I mean, these topics or these projects require a lot of time and studies before becoming mature and also before going to the real industrial level from the industrial pilot or big size. Yeah, there is already something in the pipeline, something we are committed. There are some others where we are in the studying process. The outlook for that, I mean, smaller projects or smaller industrial pilot is relatively short-term, meaning, I would say, two, three years. Much bigger projects, still, if you look at our roadmap, they will occur more likely in the, let's call it, second period, so between 2030 and 2050.
So in the meantime, yeah, we may be building a more positive financial position, which will allow us, on one side, yeah, to be able to face these bigger projects when they come about. And on the other, to consider certainly other options. The one that you mentioned, in theory, they are all available. And the fact of being more liquid makes them also, at least from a financial standpoint, certainly more feasible. Doesn't mean that we have to necessarily spend the money if we are not convinced. In the same time, we will try to follow, as much as possible, also policy or program of shareholder returns, which goes up, doesn't go down. I think we can show that this has been happening in the last two, three years. The increase in dividend is one example.
The dividend level that we have set today, the idea behind it is to have a level which is sustainable and can grow. We have always been following a certain policy as far as dividend payments is concerned that has been, if you wish, conservative or prudent. But the idea is to do something that can be sustainable in the long run, so to avoid the possibility tomorrow to reduce it or to cut it. I think this is the idea behind it. In addition to that, strictly legally speaking, the dividend payment is coming out of the Buzzi S.p.A. legal entity. So it's true that we are looking at the results always from a consolidated standpoint. But when we are talking about the dividend, legally speaking, this is a payment made by the parent company where the results are not certainly similar or much lower than the overall group results.
And so there is not a perfect match. So I think, again, it's good to have more options available, and we will try to use it to put this money at work in the best possible way.
Okay. That's clear. Thank you.
The next question is from Gregor Kuglitsch of UBS. Please go ahead.
Oh, hi. Good evening. So a couple of questions. Can you remind us what the Brazil consideration would be? Perhaps you can tell us the equity check that you would have to pay if the option gets exercised now. And I guess also the debt that sits. I know it's a sort of intercompany loan, but I think you put it on. You kind of take it off your net cash. So essentially, what I'm looking for is the net cash reduction or net debt increase all in, ideally.
Yeah. The net impact should be around EUR 500 million, of which around EUR 350 million is the actual cash out. And then the other EUR 200 million is the impact following the consolidation of the entity because we have currently an intercompany loan towards the Brazilian entity, a credit that's a receivable, which is included in the net financial position because it's an interest-bearing receivable that will disappear. It will be eliminated through the consolidation. And the net financial position of the Brazilian entity will enter the consolidated statement. But this is, practically speaking, zero. So it's balanced. They don't have basically neither liquidity nor net debt. So they are basically at zero today. And so the outcome on the net financial position is, we think, around EUR 500 million.
Okay. Thank you. And the second question is coming back to your energy slide. So you're saying the energy bill was EUR 565 million, I think, that's excluding Russia. Fine.
Exactly.
So what I'm trying to figure out is I'm looking here over time. It looks to me like your energy bill, I don't know, maybe a few years ago, let's say fuel, for example, used to be EUR 150. Now it's EUR 270. Electricity, EUR 160. Now it's EUR 300. But we're seeing petcoke pricing come down a lot. We're seeing coal pricing come down a lot. Electricity is higher than it used to be, but it's still coming down a lot. So I'm a bit surprised about your statement of a flat energy bill for this year. I just wanted to understand how conservative that is or if there's a timing or if I'm missing something. I guess I would expect it to drop quite considerably at some stage. But obviously, I don't know your hedge position, so I just want to understand. Yeah.
No, I mean, meanwhile, on the fuel, we are basically very little hedged. We are basically on the spot market. So if there is yeah, it's happening for petcoke. You're right. If there is a tailwind or a benefit, we should see it in our book. Yeah, with the delay, always with the delay because usually, we purchase, let's say, six months in advance. So we are not hedged. But anyway, we have to make sure that we have the fuel available. So we are obviously targeting, let's say, about six months in advance for the needs. On the energy, it is a little different because the hedging that I was mentioning was done during 2022-2023, sorry, to cover the 2024 needs up to, let's say, 50%-60%.
So we have been buying the 2024 needs at 2023 levels, average levels, so during the year. And that's why we may need one more year to see the full benefit. So there's kind of one-year delay for about 50% of the total. For the rest, if there is a benefit, we will get it, let's say, immediately.
Okay. And could you give us a rough idea? Because I'm looking here at power costs, I don't know, EUR 70-80 per MWh if you buy forward spots, even lower. But let's say that's the kind of forward pricing. Where would you say your bill was last year? Doubled that, roughly? Is that fair?
Yes. Yes, more or less. It all depends on the country. Of course, it is.
Yeah. And I mean, Europe average for Europe, I think.
Europe, yes. Yeah, yeah.
Okay. Okay. And then I think on Monday, there was quite a few announcements from the U.S. Department of Energy regarding a number of subsidies for carbon capture. I think one was for Vicat. One was for Heidelberg. But there were also quite a few kind of calcined clay projects from a number of competitors. So I wanted to understand whether you're also trying to get these subsidies. And if not, why not? And what your kind of view is on perhaps expanding capacity through other means. And I'm talking specifically about, obviously, clinker ratio, calcined clay, rather than building new clinker plants.
Well, calcined clay , it's an interesting subject. But we have been working significantly on that topic. But we see small possibilities overall to find the right sources or the right quantities to really impact, let's say, our overall CO2 footprint.
So there could be some regions, some plants where we will be able to use or produce or to combine, let's say, this project. But at least in our geographies, we did not find enough, let's call it, interesting sources to really invest or think about and make a project on that. On the other subsidies, well, Lorenzo can tell a little bit more. Certainly, we are looking at it. I think we may be successful.
Yeah. We are, I mean, looking for subsidies. It's definitely part of the roadmap. We are actively looking at these opportunities, I would say, in every country, in every region, starting from, again, country-by-country approach, so trying to really, yeah, take all the advantages that every country could offer. And also, I would say, leverage on, say, Innovation Fund opportunities, which are absolutely fine. We have some projects that could be, let's say, part of the story. And also in the U.S., again, same for the other regions. We are looking at opportunities, funding, subsidies from the DOE regarding, I would say, all the low-hanging fruit in our roadmap, so starting from reducing clinker factor to renewable energy sources. But also in carbon capture, I would say U.S. are the place that offer quite interesting opportunities.
Okay. Then maybe one final question. I think in your statement, you referenced the sort of risk of meeting certain thresholds. I guess you mean the ETS thresholds, the sort of the famous 85%. I don't know exactly. Could you just tell us where in your network that you think that's a risk, how you think you'll be dealing with it? I guess we saw, I don't know, for example, one of your large competitors simply shut down a plant, I think, to kind of sort this out. So what do you think? How are you going to manage that situation?
We did not understand, actually, that decision. It was not totally clear to us, at least, because it didn't seem necessary. But yes, in general, if you look longer-term with the gradual declining allocation, let's say, of free allowances, certainly and in some countries where the capacity utilization is declining, certainly, there is a strategic vision about which plant should continue to produce and which ones should not. Up to now, in terms of, let's say, free allowances granted, we are still, I would say, within the 85% in most of the kilns. So we are not. We are losing some free allowances because of the declining factor.
And we will lose, of course, more with the introduction of the CBAM. But the pure, let's say, interval 85 + 15, - 15, we can live with it. Even though, clearly, in some countries like Germany, this could trigger some competitive behavior, which is not how could I say? Which is not what we would like because can translate into more pressure on the price side. This is what I was commenting in the beginning, speaking about countries where capacity utilization is getting down. So there is one more reason, again, to be aggressive on volumes if you are if there is a risk to lose free allowances.
Okay. And then maybe, sorry, one final question coming back to this whole voting rights, merger thing. I mean, I guess my question to you would be, if you look at the multiple of your shares, I don't know, 4x, 3, 4x, something like that, EBITDA, I guess, how do you think how would you stack that up if somebody you merge with somebody? Would you care particularly of difference in multiples? Or would that be a consideration as well? Because it obviously will determine also sort of value creation for the family and, I guess, all the shareholders.
No, clearly, if you enter into this kind of discussion or real project, the market is a reference because it does exist. And the market is always true in a sense because the market is the market. But I think that you will not be the only reference point. I mean, you have to, I think, consider valuation, which is looking at, yes, market multiples, but not only. I mean, we are not certainly here or willing to underscore the value of the company in case of any combination.
Thank you.
As a reminder, if you wish to register for a question, please press star and one on your telephone. For any further question, please press star and one on your telephone. The next question is a follow-up from Yassine Touahri of On Field Investment. Please go ahead.
Yes. Just to follow up on the strategy and where you would like Buzzi to be in the medium term, would you like to have a larger exposure to the United States where there is a lot of growth potential medium term? Would you consider investing more into Europe? Or would you prefer to grow more in emerging markets? I'd just like to understand how you're thinking. If you had a blank sheet of paper, what would be the ideal geographical footprint of Buzzi?
I would say that certainly, the priority would be towards, let's say, countries where we already operate for good reason, many good reasons, that we know. I mean, we know the market. If you do something in an area where you already operate, to extract synergies is much easier. You have an organization in place which is already working effectively. So this is certainly the preference.
And within the markets where we operate, Europe has not the same interest or the same potential interest as, for example, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, like Mexico or Brazil, mainly because of the regulation, the constraints, the pressure, the norms associated with the decarbonization, etc., which makes it, at the end, a little less competitive and less interesting. So it doesn't mean that we don't want to reach our goals. But to do that with more flexibility or a different approach, like is happening in the U.S. or Brazil or Mexico, is certainly better than a highly regulated area like Europe.
And would you like to? I think in the U.S., you have a big position in cement, some in ready-mix concrete, but you don't have aggregate. Do you feel that it is something that is missing in your portfolio? Or you feel that you don't really need it?
I think you would surely have less priority than cement or ready-mix.
And when I'm looking at your exposure in Latin America, could you consider other countries such as, let's say, Colombia, Argentina, which are consolidated and that have interesting long-term prospects? Or would you prefer to focus on your existing footprint in Brazil and Mexico?
As I said, yeah, prefer to focus on the existing. Other countries totally new, we may consider them. It's not a straight no. But less likely. And of course, each country is different from one another. So each one has a position, let's say, in the priority list, certainly. Yeah.
And maybe a very last question. When you think about your listing, your listing is in Italy. I think a lot of investors are not valuing your assets fairly in the U.S. Would you consider, in a combination, the opportunity to move your listing in the U.S. where investors are much happier to pay the full price of the assets in cement?
I mean, the way we are now, no, because we don't. That overall, the cost would be greater than the benefits. In a potential combination, maybe.
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Buzzi, there are no more questions registered at this time.
Thank you. Thank you so much for listening. I don't know how many of you are still listening. This has been a long afternoon. Anyway, thank you. I hope the conference was helpful and informative enough. Enjoy the next week, Easter week, if you do have some vacation. Enjoy them. If not, enjoy the week anyway. Yeah, we stay in touch. Thank you. Bye-bye.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect your telephones. Thank you.