Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for joining our Q3 2022 results presentation. Before we start, I would like to draw your attention to our forward-looking statement in page two. At the end of the presentation, we will have a Q&A session. With this, let me hand over to our CEO, Jochen Eickholt. Jochen?
Thanks, Cristina. Thanks to all of you. A very good morning. In some parts of Europe, it's still very early in the morning. Thanks for joining us this morning. I'm privileged to be joined by our CFO, Beatriz Puente. We would like to take you through the results of the Q3 of this fiscal year. We try to also give an update on the financial targeting for this fiscal year, as well as presenting more details on part of our activities. After our little presentation, we shall be happy to take your questions at the end of the call. Now let's look at the Q3 results. I'm happy to announce that we got a record order backlog, which now totals up to EUR 34 billion.
That is led by the strong performance in offshore. It's also seeing contributions from a recovery in onshore, certainly versus the last and the previous quarter. Our Q3 revenue was in the range of EUR 2.4 billion. That equals a 10% reduction year-on-year. The EBIT margin was at -14.1%. The performance was impacted by the continuing discussion around our 5.X platform. We also continue to see supply chain constraints. We, of course, do have higher costs of energy, materials and logistics. We also saw difficulties in the availability of key turbine components. We had port congestion and further supply delays.
We also had then additional quality issues, specifically more from the legacy platforms, which hit us in the area of service. Services EBIT margin is then also going to recover for the fourth quarter of this fiscal year, but that was a hit. As for the debt profile, Siemens Gamesa has a net debt of EUR 2.3 billion and continues to enjoy a good access to capital. The ongoing sale of the asset element of our business in Southern Europe, the wind farm development, that is targeted to be concluded in Q4 of this fiscal year, and we expect an EBIT contribution out of this of EUR 540 million.
The targets for fiscal 2022, those had to be revised to reflect the ongoing market challenges, those I just referred to. In fiscal 2022, the revenue is projected to be at approximately -9% year-over-year in comparison to previous year. The EBIT margin is expected to be at -5.5%. Mistral, our company program, Mistral, is expected to help to stabilize short-term performance for 2022 and 2023, and also beyond that. As a program is designed to help us to deliver on our long-term vision. This includes various optimization activities. Now, sector forecasts are supported by the climate change. Of course, the market as such, in our view, continues to be promising mid- to long-term. Short-term, we are facing the difficulties, also some of our competitors are facing.
On the next slide, we see the continued, in my view, excellence in performance in the area of ESG. We have received a top-ranking result from all major agencies. If I now take or may take one of the examples here, the Standard & Poor's ESG valuation gave us some 83 out of 100%, placing us at the number two in Spain and the number 12 globally. This, in our view, is illustrating our continuous efforts, and it will remain to be a focus for our activities going forward. Now, with a view of the commercial activities in Q3, as I was indicating, we have a record order backlog in the range of EUR 34 billion. That reflects an increase of 4%.
The order intake of EUR 3.5 billion for Q3 was boosted by the strong offshore performance and, as I said, the recovery of the onshore activity. In terms of backlog, we have around 80% of the backlog in markets where we continue to see growth possibilities and trends. That's, in my view, a very positive sign. Next, please. On the onshore side, we saw a order intake recovery up to a level of 1.2 GW. Selective. If some in the audience remember the discussions we had in previous calls, we apply and continue to apply a selective commercial strategy which means we really focus on the more attractive part of the business.
The order intake as such, however, is aligned with various stabilization and ramp-up activities. We did experience longer negotiation phases with the customers, but also see an upward trend in pricing, and that is here now shown on the graph. We are combining price increases with cost mitigation measures of course in the end of the day to help us to develop the business going forward. If I recall the figures correctly, also this 0.89 perhaps is a number which is slightly too positive because as you can imagine, there are also things like variation orders in there which kind of are different in nature to the kind of first time booking of a number.
Even if we would subtract those effects, the trend is clearly positive and takes us back to pricing levels of the year 2017 or 2016. Offshore. Now offshore, we continue to maintain our leading position in offshore. We see a combined backlog and pipeline view of some 16 GW. And this includes roughly 8 GW of the orders for the SG fourteen megawatts machine. In the third quarter, we saw a new preferred supply agreement in Poland, and also maintained a strong position in the U.K..
Some will remember the fourth round of the CFD auction, and there, we've been putting ourselves into in the end today a rather favorable position. Next slide. Just over half of the company's order backlog is allocated to the service business units, and that service business unit as such then continues to show strong growth. Service has now some 84 GW of fleet under maintenance, and we have the retention rate of the customers of 68%. That in my view continues to be a strong pillar of our business. The figures of Q3 were impacted by the development which I indicated. Perhaps on more commercial details, let me hand over to Beatriz now.
Thank you, Jochen, and good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. On page twelve, we have the summary of the group financial performance for the period. Revenue for the group declined roughly 10%, reaching EUR 2.4 billion in Q3, and roughly a 12% decline in the nine-month period, reaching EUR 6.4 billion. Revenue performance is the result of the impact of the supply chain disruptions that we continue to see with a lack of critical components and also late deliveries. Also the lower than expected progress on the manufacturing of the ramp-up of our 5X platform that also all in are impacting our project execution, installation and also commissioning.
At EBIT level, the group ended the quarter with the losses of roughly EUR 343 million, a negative margin of 14.1% of our revenues, and losses of EUR 957 million in the nine months of the fiscal year. The group EBIT reflect the challenges that we face in the 5X platform, including manufacturing delays, inflation of material and transportation costs, and also the impact of supply chain disruptions on manufacturing and product execution and delivery. Considering the higher costs and also the updated assumptions on the market because of course market conditions on valuing our onshore backlog, the total negative impact in the quarter has been EUR 185 million. Many of course are related to the cost new assumptions in onerous contract.
Last but not least, also our EBIT is impacted as a result of lower revenues and of course resulting in a lower absorption of our overheads. In addition, during Q3, the group also experienced, as Jochen mentioned, additional costs coming from higher failures and also the cost of repair in several components of our legacy onshore platforms in North America. This impact has been seen in the service activity and explains also the low margin in the quarter that we foresee to have again in Q4, standard, you know, margins above 20%.
Below the EBIT line, we see an increase in integration and restructuring costs, reaching total amount of EUR 62 million in the quarter, and the increase is due to the ongoing actions on the optimization of our manufacturing capacity. Regarding our financial expenses, the group registered in the quarter financial income of roughly EUR 5 million, and also totaling EUR 16 million in the nine-month period. As we explained on the Q2 results, this has a positive impact due to the higher interest rates. Of course, you know, when we update the value of our provisions, providing this positive impact of roughly EUR 17.7 million in the quarter, and roughly EUR 46 million in the nine-month period.
Tax expenses amounted in Q3 to a tax income of EUR 5 million, and in total nine months to a negative tax expense of EUR 28 million. This is as a result of the group incurring losses in markets where the company as of today is not capitalizing the deferred tax assets. Also of course, we have profits in countries with higher tax rates. As a result of operating performance and the reasons I explained before, net income of the group amounted in the period in Q3 to a loss of EUR 446 million, and a loss of EUR 1.2 billion in the nine-month period.
Moving to the balance sheet, the group has invested EUR 183 million in CapEx in Q3, and roughly EUR 503 million in the nine-month period. This is in line with our expectations, and very important, roughly 65% of the CapEx has been deployed in offshore to maintain our key competitive advantage. Regarding the group net debt, I will cover that later on in the next pages. We move to page 13 to give you more color on the revenue performance. As we already explained, you know, group revenues, I will focus on the segment. WTG revenues decline was driven both in the Q3 and also in the nine-month period by the lower manufacturing and project execution activity.
Also has been impacted by the challenges that we have on the 5.X platform, and also because of the supply chain disruptions with significant bottlenecks in critical WTG components. Of course, it's causing us late deliveries for us. Offshore manufacturing activity grew in the quarter roughly 15% year-over-year, but the installation activity was down, driven mainly also causing you know lower revenues on offshore segment in the quarter. Service revenue of EUR 1.5 billion in the first nine months was up 9% year-over-year, fully in line also with our group expectations. Moving to slide 14, we see the EBIT performance of the group in Q3 and the nine-month period.
As I explained before, has been heavily impacted by cost inflation that are not only of course in raw materials, but as Jochen said, also in the cost of energy and transportation. Also, extra cost because of the supply chain disruptions and also the challenges that we have on the ramp-up volumes of the 5X, despite the team is focusing all the effort in improving the difficult situation that we have on the supply chain. Also, as I mentioned before, the impact of lower revenues is also driven by external and internal challenges. Of course, we have idle capacity increasing, you know, our or decreasing our absorption of the fixed cost.
In addition, on Q3, the performance has been impacted by costs of higher than expected failures on components and of course, you know, the cost of repairs in legacy onshore platforms, especially in North America. This, the total amount we have provided for you to have the impact, roughly EUR 113 million, related to these quality issues, with significant impact on the service division. As I said before, I strongly believe we count on service to deliver the standard, you know, margin on quarter four, which we consider it will be above, significantly above, 20%. Also, as a result of all this, we have to update also the backlog of mainly onshore profitability with this higher cost and new market conditions.
That's the reason of the impact of EUR 185 million, mainly related to cost deviations in onerous contract. If we move to page 15, I want to cover the cash situation of the group and also the leverage. As we also mentioned on Q2, we foresee that Q3 will be the quarter with the peak of the leverage, and has been the case, roughly, EUR 2.3 billion. The main reason for that is the increase of working capital of roughly EUR 765 million.
This mainly reflects the early production and also of course the delays that we are having on installation and to a lower extent, also the safety stocks, both also being impacted by the supply chain conditions that we have. Also, of course, our cash flow is deteriorated by the operational performance and also because the investments, as I mentioned before, are CapEx of roughly EUR 503 million. It's important to say, as Jochen mentioned, we are very well on track on the disposal of wind farm business. For us, you know, we foresee to close the transaction early September with a net cash contribution of roughly EUR 550 million. Also, of course, significant contribution on EBIT as well of roughly EUR 540 million.
Last but not least, I will mention that we have roughly EUR 4.5 billion in credit lines and loans. In Q1, we extended the maturity of our EUR 2 billion credit line to 2027. In Q3, I want to highlight also we refinanced all the short-term maturities, roughly EUR 675 million, that now are due by the end of 2023, beginning of 2024, as we share with you the pro forma new maturities. Very important, with no change on the conditions.
Also, during the period, we have drawn roughly EUR 2.7 billion. We have a cash position of EUR 1.2 billion, therefore, roughly EUR 3 billion in liquidity. Last, I will highlight that all the debt that we have on the credit lines have no covenants associated to our unit funding lines. As you see here, after the refinancing, we'll have no short-term liquidity constraints. Now let me hand over to Jochen to cover the market outlook, our target for 2022, and the initiatives of Mistral. Thank you.
Thanks, Beatriz. Now perhaps, as indicated, it's the time to give an update on the outlook for the sector and the company as such. As you see on this chart, the overall demand situation continues to be very strong. We see that there are you know, ever-increasing, if you wish, outlooks for the size of the market in the different parts of the world. We see that, for instance, the European Parliament continues to back up 45% of the energy target or continues to back that 45% energy target in line with the REPowerEU plan. The German parliament approves the Easter Package, but there's the further packages yet to come.
Please remember that in Germany, there is a policy to have most of the legislative work being completed by the end of this year. Another prominent example is the latest CFD round in the U.K., leading to the overall confirmation, if you wish, of another 10 GW in demand, out of which seven are in the field of offshore. I think it's relevant to mention that the mid to long-term perspective really is such that we see in offshore a major growth, and we continue to see that growth. You know, the pure growth rate figures as such are really tremendous. In many cases, we believe we even have to answer the question of how one possibly can provide the related capacities.
That's right now also ongoing discussions between us and our customers. On the onshore side, it's a little bit different, but there also the market continues to be strong. Of course, challenges remain, and we have to see that, despite all the positive outlooks, our industry, perhaps I can't even say that, but certainly I can speak for us, we are in a difficult situation. If you now look at some of the numbers which are shown here on this chart, we may perhaps make it slightly understandable that, under the given circumstances, the ambitious target we would like to announce now on the EBIT pre-margin is reduced down to -5.5%, coming from the previous communication of -5.0%.
Q3 was impacted by the numbers shown specifically and on top of other effects, by additional effects coming from the legacy platforms hitting us in the service business, that was discussed. Of course, we continue to see difficulties in the ramp-up, and we of course continue to also see effects from other influence factors like the COVID development or, for instance, also geopolitical tensions. The revenue guidance remains where it was, so we expect that to be in that range of minus 9.0% to be more precise. Margins continued or continue to be squeezed by all the different effects we were referring to also in the course of this presentation.
Our onshore business, and that is what needs to be remembered, is still suffering from onerous contracts in many cases and also idle capacity, in the NFLA driven by lower than anticipated volumes. We will carry out further assessment on the onshore legacy platforms to improve our commercial position. Of course, still a risk of delays to customers' investment decisions, is something we have to consider. We have actions in place to reach the long-term target of 8%+, as indicated here on this chart. The main lever or the main program or the main framework to achieving that is our Mistral program. Mistral program as such, is looking at activities in, if you wish, three horizon levels. First of all, we have to mitigate the ongoing headwinds.
Rightfully so, they were specified in the past, mostly by the ongoing 5.X onshore platform ramp up and the supply chain disruptions. Midterm, we will work on further optimizing the margins and address various further levers to improve on profitability and cash flow. We categorize that in the areas of the top line growth and the top line development. The competitive product as such must obviously also meet gross margin targets. Operational excellence is a thing we focus on a daily basis on, and lean structures and efficient capital are also leading to various additional measures. On top of that, we of course continue to look at further structural levers to address the full potential of our company mid to long term.
For instance, when it comes to the deployed technology in our turbine systems, or the setup of the supply chain and also the operating models. Now, if I may, take the last one here as a very good example. We intend to introduce a new operating model to our company by January 1 next year. It is designed around a simplified and leaner company structure. We will have, in the future, a harmonization of the different technology developments. We will have one technology development team across onshore, offshore, and service. There wants to be the role of a COO of our company introduced. When it comes to the chief operating officer, that function will include also the manufacturing and also the quality management activities. There also a further harmonization is attempted.
On the business side, the business units, they will focus on the sales, the project execution, the customer project execution, I have to say, and also the product roadmaps. They will of course then in this context, maintain full P&L responsibility. I did observe that, in the past we had established different structures across, the regional setup of the businesses. In the future, that will be harmonized. We will have one regional standardized setup for all the businesses. We of course continue to discuss capacity optimization when it comes to footprint and structure, and that happens across Siemens Gamesa globally. We transition many of the supply contracts rather to long-term or life cycle contracts, specifically when it comes to direct materials.
We have seen that too much of, in this sense, short-term procurement, if you wish, is just seem to be too risky and too difficult to handle for us. Of course, I and even myself will focus a lot on the stabilization of the product development process and the product quality, and we'll do this by dedicated programs. Now, this as such indicates already that there is some substantial amount of complexity behind this, and this is why it's even if the entire organization is focusing on this, still takes its time to become successful. Going forward, which is the next chart. Going forward, we'd like to have the details of the new operating model finalized by October the first.
We will certainly use the existing very good context to also our social partners to have all the internationally related and important and needed negotiations in place, and the intention is to go live in January the first. With that, allow me to summarize a little bit once more where we stand. We said we are going to kind of continue, this is in a way the discussion we had in the very beginning on the key points. We continue to observe a strong order intake. We have a record order backlog. The results in Q3 were not as satisfactory as we were hoping to see them, but in the end of the day, the minus 14.1% are something we have to recognize and to acknowledge.
We saw a continued good access to liquidity. We saw a very strong progress on our so-called asset sale. We have to adopt our fiscal year 2022 targets. The most prominent example is the development of the -5.5% on the EBIT pre-margin in relation to previous communication. Perhaps sometimes underestimated in its effects, the Mistral program is now rolled out and will continue to substantially contribute to the development of our company. This happens under the overall good market outlook we observe and continue to observe. Thank you very much for this now. Cristina?
Thank you, Jochen. With that, we are going to open the session to questions. If you could say your name and question, please try to ask no more than two questions.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Q&A session starts now. If you wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. We kindly request that you limit your questions to one per attendee. Please be informed that in order to assure audio quality, we recommend that all questions will be asked from landlines. Thank you. The first question comes from Vivek Midha from Citi. Please go ahead.
Hi, everyone. Good morning. Thanks very much for taking my questions. It will seem like one question. Could I maybe ask on the 2023 commentary you've given us, helpful color on 2023 EBIT margin. Would it be possible for you to give us any color on free cash flow next year and, you know, items like the onerous contract provisions, CapEx, and so on? Thank you.
Thank you, Vivek. Good morning, and thank you for the question. Regarding 2023 kind of a new target guidance, we'll provide you know more color as a standard process with year-end numbers. We'll provide of course revenue, EBIT, and of course, as you said, you know, net cash generation of the company. I will provide that, as I said, you know, after our year-end results.
Okay, understood. Thank you. In that case.
Thank you.
Would it be possible to just quickly ask on the assumptions around input costs within the 2023 commentary. What are the assumptions around freight costs evolution? Yeah, is there any benefit at all in 2023 or beginning 2024 to see, for example, lower steel costs? Thank you.
Well, we continue to observe the effects of the overall situation, which means that in some commodities, we continue to see the high price levels for 2023. In some commodities, we see an improvement on those. In total, and as the picture is showing for us, in total, the pure material cost will continue to go up. That is even in spite of the effects that we right now, for instance, in some commodities see decreasing prices. We still also have to bear in mind that the overall systems and the, how shall I say, the trading of the commodities through the different stages of value add, that adds a timeline or a time lag and a time delay effect, which then totals that up. On the freight cost side, I think we see a relaxation of the situation.
That's helpful. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The next question comes from Mark Freshney from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Hello. Thank you for taking my questions. Firstly, on the U.K. CFD round, where 7 GW of offshore cleared and some capacity was not in there, so I think it's fair to say we've probably got 8 GW. Is it fair to say that with the exception of perhaps one project, Siemens Gamesa is preferred supplier to pretty much most of it, you know, seven gig of the eight? Just secondly, on the actual contracting, I think you spoke about this a bit, but one thing is the price, the other thing is indexation cost plus. Can you talk about how rigorously you're imposing those terms and whether you're enforcing them? Thank you.
Well, thanks, Mark. Yes, indeed. We feel, in the end of the day, in a rather good position for the U.K., and it is a little bit confirming the strategy we had. We feel that this will clearly help us specifically to maintain our market position in offshore. On the material indexation or perhaps in a broader context, the inflation compensation, we are very rigorous with new projects. There is a bundle of measures typically which is going to be applied, and I was referring to that also in the most recent, in the other calls.
Of course, depending a little bit on the situation of also our customer, we have to make sure that the risks of inflation are covered and there is by now the application of various levers to make sure that this is happening. We did adopt the risk contingencies in our projects. We have a material specific discussion sometimes with our suppliers. We use the element of indexation on the commodity side, and there are further elements to that. Believe me, we are very rigorous on applying these levers.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. The next question comes from Supriya Subramanian from UBS. Please go ahead.
Hello. Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Just a follow on the indexation clause. I just wanted to get your thoughts on how sticky do you think these price increases are that you have taken in a world of, let's say declining raw material prices. I understand that the impact may not come immediately in 2023. But do you think that ASPs get adjusted down more quickly?
Or do you think given that, you know, the price hike came with quite a bit of lag versus raw material prices, you'll be able to command higher prices for a slightly longer period of time? My second sort of quick question is just the EUR 113 million charges that we took in the service business. Is that a one-time? Are we done with those, sort of, the breakdowns and costs related to that? Or do you forecast some more costs coming in the next few quarters? Thank you.
I will start with your second question, and then first one, you know, we'll cover, you know, by Jochen. Regarding, you know, the EUR 113 million, yes, we consider that is not recurrent, you know, for us. You know, it's more a one-off. That impact is spread between onshore and service, you know, in the Q3. For us, we are taking a very proactive, let's say, measures or improving, you know, the quality of our platform. As we said, you know, it's mainly focused on legacy onshore platforms.
Right.
We will proactively address those quality issues with a strong, you know, campaign in the coming, you know, quarter.
Could you, sorry, just quickly, any ballpark indication of between the onshore equipment and service, what's the breakdown between EUR 113 million?
No. I mean, we prefer no. As very sensitive information, we prefer not to split. As I said, you know, it's heavily impacting also our service performance. What we can give you color in that we foresee to have a service, you know, fourth quarter quite strong, very, very strong. Going back to a level of, you know, 20% margin.
All right. Got it. Thank you.
Perhaps on the other part of the question, now what we did apply and continue to apply is a rather rigorous monitoring of the so-called attractiveness of a project, which covers then obviously the whole set of T's and C's, and also the pricing in relation to this. In this discussion, we try to apply a concept of what we call selectivity. Projects have to be above certain thresholds under various aspects in order to be approved by us. That is a process which we newly introduced with my arrival here in this company, and that continues to be a core element of our business activity when it comes to the overall improvements of the projects.
We have to observe all the various aspects of price increases and inflation, which we discussed and that we continue to expect also for the upcoming periods. We feel that the measures, the protective measures, if you wish, we have put in there increasing or including the price increases, that takes us onto a positive path. But of course, we are not here the ones who can speculate about the future. If I just, you know, watch out the press articles and the press communication, then we have to see that we probably are well advised to remain careful here. Clearly, however, when it comes to the pricing, specifically in onshore, we see a positive trend.
Okay. Got it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The next question comes from Sean McLoughlin from HSBC. Please go ahead. Mr. Sean, please go ahead.
Sorry, I was on mute. A question on component failures, just building on the previous question. What were these? Why were they so unexpected and expensive? What is the risk that we see further similar failures on other legacy machines?
Well, we do see, we do observe, the component failures in typically two or three broader categories. One is related to the blade technologies. So sometimes we see the so-called wrinkles or cracks, if you wish, after some period of time, not always to be predicted. We then see also difficulty in some parts of the electrical system, both the generator and the converter systems. Those also have to be rectified. I think this is the rough categories of what we're looking at. What we have to establish is that, you know, sometimes these turbines already are a couple of years old. This is why also for us, it's in the sense of the responsible business unit, rather a service discussion. Of course, those problems are not originated in the service business.
That sometimes makes it difficult to establish the problem as such on a technical level and then put corrective action in place. We continue to believe that the situation as such obviously is covered by the numbers we indicated on. If we have questions where components fail in an unpredicted manner, obviously please imagine what sort of sometimes even mid to long-term evaluation is needed to establish root cause and the right level of corrective action.
Understood. Am I if some of these turbines are two years old, are these actually still under warranty?
Well, we have different terms and conditions on the warranty side. Warranty conditions go up to, I think, two years, sometimes up to five years even. Typically kick in, at least this would be our hope, service contracts, and those are then the framework to rectify those issues.
Understood. Lastly, if I can just specify whether these were in onshore or offshore turbines.
Well, the things we are discussing mostly when it comes to the current discussion are around onshore turbines. Onshore, older turbines. Onshore, not 5.X if you wish.
Thank you.
Just to clarify, it's mainly onshore. I mean, the things that we are discussing on the platforms, as we said, you know, two years for onshore, or five years for offshore, and of course, the service warranty goes up to 35 years for you to have all the information.
The service contract.
Yeah.
Thank you. The next question comes from Gael de-Bray from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Yes. Good morning, everybody. Thanks very much for the questions. Look, firstly, could you elaborate a bit more on the so-called decisive actions you're taking to turn around the business, in particular regarding potential headcount reduction? I mean, generally speaking, do you think it would make sense to cut jobs to reduce losses, you know, considering that the market will likely pick up again in a year or two?
That's question number one. I'd like to have a couple of clarifications, please. Firstly on the revenue guidance at minus 9%, is this now fully updated for currencies or not? Secondly, on the EUR 130 million charge, I think I'm getting a little bit confused here. It's booked mainly in services, but also in onshore. Is this, you know, fully in addition to the EUR 185 million provision, or is it included, or is a part of that included within the EUR 185 million provision? Thank you.
Well, thanks, Gael. Let me start with the first part of the question, and then perhaps the FX effects and the detailed numbers are going to be answered by Beatriz. What you describe is indeed part of the difficulty. We definitely do feel that it doesn't make sense to reduce, let's say, headcount capacities when we foreseeably need them again. This is part of the difficulty. Still, we do believe that in some parts of our organization, there are capacities way beyond the actual need, and that needs to be rectified. Now, that is true for part of the manufacturing portfolio, as well as part of the overhead or administration or structure of our organization. This is what we mostly look at.
We will continue to work on detailing that and get in touch with our with our social partners to have all the right and relevant and legally binding and legally necessary discussions. What you described is really part of that difficulty we find ourselves in, and this is why it's not so easy to come out at rather short notice with the idea of having to slash that and that capacity, and off we go.
Gael, regarding your question, I think the one that you referred to the revenue, the new kind of target for the -9% is always, you know, we provide that on a comparable basis. Of course, the reason for going to the lower end of our former unit target is mainly the issues that we have on year to date, the Q3 results. To your second question is like how much of the amount that we have on the EUR 113 million are of course embedded in the -EUR 185 million. As we said before, we prefer not to provide, you know, the breakdown of that, you know, within, you know, onshore and offshore, sorry, onshore and service.
Of course, you know, a portion of the onshore hit is fully impacting the EUR 185 because this is related to our projects that are onerous, mainly, as we said, are impacting projects in North America because of the reasons that Jochen said. That portion has been, of course, causing this EUR 185 update on the backlog. A portion of that is hitting the onerous contract.
Okay. Thanks very much. Can I have a quick follow-up on the headcount question? What is the share of the workforce today, which is in the structure, you know, in the overhead administration and the likes?
I mean, we try to communicate on that to try to make sure that we are not confusing because our structures are slightly more complicated. What we discussed typically is that we would like to centralize some of those functions, and by that streamline the, how shall I say, line of command, if you wish, in those functions, specifically when it comes to CTO and COO. Now, that has the potential that we can become more efficient and also has the potential that, for instance, the number of different technological solutions for similar purposes is going to be reduced.
This is part of the effects. Of course, that then in the end of the day also needs to contribute to some cost saving, and that is what we're targeting at, and this is what makes the approach we follow slightly more differentiated. The centralization of the functions in many cases will lead to an optimization of processes, of the needed capacities, also of the tool landscape.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you. The next question comes from Akash Gupta from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Yes. Hi, good morning, everybody, and thanks for your time. My question is on onshore wind business. Maybe, Jochen, as part of this new organization structure, are you looking to revisit your onshore footprint and maybe becoming more selective, especially after your U.S. competitor announced last week that they are stepping away from international opportunities and focusing more on North America? Like, are you also considering similar set of action in your onshore business to focus more on the regions which are more profitable than the others?
Yes, we clearly monitor the regional developments, and it leads to already us refraining from specific opportunities where they are not sufficient or sensibly profitable. That may lead to further consequences, but that is not established yet. Akash, the thinking, of course, is right. We indeed have set up a system for us where we focus on those markets on a, let's say, a smaller number of core markets where we want to be successful on. There is this effect.
Maybe a follow-up on offshore business. I think you earlier said in your comment regarding capacity discussion with customers. The question I have is that, if you look at your market share in the U.K., especially after U.K. CFD auction, do you have enough capacity already to meet these requirements, or do you need to expand further, in your capacity to meet your order commitments from the latest auction?
Well, so far, we see that our plans are kind of in line with with our, how shall I say, success, in those discussions. Going forward, I clearly see that to change. I foresee capacity shortfalls in our industry.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. The next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead.
Hi. Thank you for taking my question. I was wondering whether you could give us an update about the takeover by Siemens Energy, and particularly I think around the time when they launched the offer. We didn't have the results of the U.K. CFD auctions, you know, the recent Inflation Reduction Act from the U.S. A few other events that have happened which would definitely work better for the medium-term outlook. Just wondering, is there any process or to kind of take these into account in the buy, you know, the minority buyout process? And maybe just a side impact. In your slides, you didn't talk about the Inflation Reduction Act from the U.S. Any comments on how that impacts your operations would be helpful.
First of all, the takeover process, please forgive us that we are not Siemens Energy. The offer was announced. The offer right now is in its approval process by CNMV, which is the Spanish financial markets supervision authority. I would assume that this, how should I say, this approval process moves on. The next step then would be that approval, if it moves on, and then that offer would be out. Beyond this, it's very difficult for us to comment on potential next steps because we are not the party who actually is deciding here. Please forgive us that that perhaps is something which I may refer to or which I may redirect to our colleagues of Siemens Energy. Now, when it comes to the various ele-
Okay.
Sorry?
No, no. Sorry. Please go on.
Now, when it comes to the element of cost or inflation compensation and cost compensation, that is an ongoing exercise. I was, I think, rather clear about our policy. Of course, that policy has regional flavors. We have to see under which circumstances what is thinkable. I have to tell you that the most recent developments in the U.S., there is this infrastructure bill discussion that in my view is something which will have an extremely positive outlook onto the development of our whole industry. Since we are a player in the U.S. as well, we also hope to benefit from that.
Okay. Thank you so much.
Thank you. The next question comes from Lucas Ferhani from Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Good morning. Thank you for the time. My question again would be on the service division. You have also one of your key deals, which highlighted issues kind of related to older legacy platforms. I just wanted to ask if you see this kind of problem you're having at the moment bring any change in your long-term assumptions for service. Could it be the case that potentially we need more maintenance for the turbines, especially at end of life? Does that bring any kind of changes in the way you're seeing the way you price the warranty? Also just to comment again on what you said regarding service in Q4. You said you expect to recover but still be impacted. Could you just detail a little bit what that means? Thank you.
Well, thank you. Right now, not. I mean, what we foresee for the future when it comes to the new types of turbines, that the needed service work will become more sophisticated. That, in my view, means that we typically find ourselves in a rather better position than in the past to actually take over the responsibility for those service activities. This is rather a midterm development, yeah. The turbines become more complex, and the service works will become more sophisticated. Regarding the quality deficits, I don't see any major change regarding the models we operate according to. That so far is in my view, really foreseen in our business planning. Therefore, I would not see that as a trend.
Regarding your second question, what do we mean by the impact on service, you know, profitability? Of course, we have the hit on Q3. What we mean is that, Q4 standalone basis, you know, service will have delivery margin above, quite above, you know, 20%. Of course, on a year-to-date or for a full year of fiscal year, of course, we cannot catch up with the impact of Q3. What we mean is that, we see a very strong unit performance continues to be on the servicing of business.
Perhaps a slightly more generous comment. I can certainly speak for our company, and the mood our company is in right now is not sustainable. What is needed at the end of the day is something which we typically refer to as inflation compensation. You could also make it even more simple and could say we need to have a higher revenue for the megawatts, or we need to have higher prices. That continues to be a problem, in my view, even for the entirety of the industry, if you look at the results of our competitors, but certainly it is a problem for us.
We need to find solutions in order to get a better result. Specifically, when you look at the overall situation, the whole wind sector finds itself in. There are so far, obviously players who rather benefit from many of the more recent developments, and others don't. That needs to be considered, because in the end of the day, we continue to believe that we need to play a strong role in whatever it's called, the energy transition.
Great. Thank you.
Thank you. The next question comes from Ajay Patel from Goldman Sachs.
Morning, thank you for the presentation. Apologies if I may be asking a question that's already been answered. I cut out, so I had to dial in. I've got two issues I wanted to discuss. Firstly, could you give us a bridge of how the underlying margin is moving from Q3 to Q4 to be consistent with the full year guidance? Even if you take off the disposal expected in Q4, there's a sizable improvement. Just a better understanding of the components would be really helpful. Then on the second side, it's more sort of understanding the depth. What are your expectations for the full year in terms of the components that will move to improve the situation?
You know, how much of a working capital reversal, for example, are you expecting? That we can just get a better understanding of how you'll lead this year going into next year, where you've already indicated that margins would be negative. Just trying to understand, you're clearly in a company that is in recovery, what capital needs are you gonna need for that journey?
Thank you for your question. Regarding, you know, kind of, bridge on Q3 to Q4, we try to give you more insight on the Q4 performance with two things. As we said, we have hit the target for our revenues and the EBIT, you know, for the full year, with the -9% on a comparable basis, EBIT target of -5.5%. We provide you, so in theory, you can build that bridge. We provide you the implied contribution of the disposal of the wind farm business with roughly a contribution to EBIT of EUR 540 million. That will explain, you know, how we will improve.
Of course, Q4 will be on a year-to-date basis, our results of Q3 will be foreseen to be the lowest throughout the year because you will have the positive contribution of this transaction. It will contribute in everything, revenues, EBIT, and cash. Actually the figure for cash is quite similar to the potential, you know, EBIT contribution, EUR 550 million in cash. So again, you know, for us, you know, as we stated in the previous, you know, Q2, Q3 will be the highest leverage for the company because we foresee to have the EUR 550 million cash in, as I said, in the beginning of September, and also some improvement on that will help us also on the working capital.
We will provide, you know, guidance target, you know, for 2023, as I said, you know, with year-end results, and therefore also any need for strengthen the balance sheet also we will provide at that time, of course, based on the new outlook of for 2023 and on how we see the market, on the coming year.
Thank you. The next question comes from Mark Freshney from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Hello. Thank you. I have a follow-up question regarding the patent dispute issues. I know it's something that's gone on for decades, particularly with one of your particularly litigious c ompetitor who uses it as a commercial tool. Could you give us an overview of where we are on the patent disputes in any market where it may be inhibiting your ability to win projects? Thank you.
Well, right now, thank you very much. Let me try to simplify that matter a little. Indeed, there are different players in our sector, and some follow a policy to use a patent-related litigation as a tool. We feel a little bit like being dragged into some of those discussions and that's not necessarily our intention, but anyway, it is like it is. We have two cases or two principal structures what's being discussed. We have some rather software-related activities where right now we continue to be in dispute in various markets. However, so far, my view is that we kind of manage the situation rather well.
So far there is a rather mixed picture in recognizing the validity of the related patents, but we've already established turnarounds on our side should that, in the end of the day, be the ruling. There's a second family of discussions which are more hardware-related, and that is what the most recent ruling was about in the U.S., and that now clearly states that there is a hardware concept violation of a big North American competitor in relation to our or in conjunction with our patents.
The first indications were, and the first rulings were, that there should be some kind of licensing agreement in place, and the North American judges even established a sort of level of where those licenses should sit. This is now part of the discussions and ongoing discussions. We find ourselves right now free from these, you know, how shall I say, patent-related disputes in a rather positive and rather good situation.
Thank you very much. Well done.
Okay. Thank you. I think, we are going to conclude the call now. Jochen, I don't know if you want to.
No, I think, we tried to bring across some key messages. As always, we are also open for further communication, if that is sensible and helpful. We would like to thank you very much for all the good questions and also for the ongoing observation of the fate of our company and like to continue that discussion at the planned and foreseen dates and possibilities. Thank you very much.
Thank you everyone, and have a good holiday break and happy to follow up with any questions you may have.