I'd like to welcome you all for the interim report presentation of FLSmidth. I'm joined by FLSmidth Group CFO, Roland Andersen, and I've been told that there's a picture of Roland where he's smiling, so we try to find that one for the next quarter. Bearing in mind the forward-looking statements. The key takeaways for the quarter are that I'm very pleased about mining order intake. In particular, service order intake, DKK 2.8 billion, I'm extremely happy about it. It shows resilience of the service market. Continued profitability, improvement in mining. Now we are posting 11.1% adjusted EBITDA, and also that when you look at the latter part of the presentation, good development in the gross profit.
Transformation is progressing at high speed, and one important sign of the progression is that we've been very fast in exiting the NCA business, and the backlog is only DKK 0.6 billion end of the quarter. This has actually exceeded my expectations of the pace of exit from that business. Cement market continues to be challenged, and we have seen a slowdown in the market and also a slowdown in the order intake. We are taking actions to rightsize cement to ensure good profitability going into 2024, and we are executing that rightsizing in the fourth quarter. We regard the sustainability KPIs. All the KPIs are improving apart from the safety, and we are zooming into safety, and we know where the development not has been good enough.
We know the sites, we know the regions, and we have actions in place to improve that one. On a positive note about safety is that many of you might know about the incident or hurricane that hit the mining show in Acapulco, and we are very proud that we had 30 participants in the mining show, and we managed to take them safely out of that hurricane hit area. So I'm very proud of that safety record of ours. So very well done, our organization. One of the best parts of our... the quarter is that good service order intake, DKK 2.8 billion is a good level. Comp is quite high last year. There's still variation between the quarters, but there's sequential improvement.
But 2.8 is good, it's high-quality orders, the mix is good, it's more spares and wares, and over time, the basic labor services portion will be very little. So as we said before, we are exiting basic labor service contracts. Healthy month also, or the quarter for the, for the products order intake, 2 large orders, and some smaller ones as well. Again, the quality of the order intake in product business is very good. Good product orders with a low risk. And also the mix is almost optimal. It's 60%... 65% service, which is ensuring a healthy backlog development and healthy mix then for the later revenues. On the revenue side, I don't really have any concern.
Everything's good here, and the numbers vary a bit depending on the timing of the deliveries, but happy about the revenues. And of course, revenues and profitability supported by improvement in the gross profit when you look at the total mining and cement numbers. This is exactly what we planned. We planned continuous improvement of EBITDA for mining, and it shows that we are in control, we are managing the risks, we are on top of the business, so it's continuous improvement. There have been no surprises for us in the quarter. There's still lots of transformation activities ongoing, and therefore, if you look at EBITDA, and then you look at the gross profit, you see a gross profit being at a healthy level, but there's still costs and noise between gross profit and EBITDA.
But both are developing really well. The challenging part of the business is the softness and the downturn in the cement market. We focus on stabilizing the service business. We make no compromises on quality of the orders. We are becoming product and service-centric also in the cement business, and we don't like projects.... And, part of the decline in the service business is that, we have taking less high risk, no profit, retrofit, upgrade orders. So the service business, what you see, you see 20% decline, and part of that is also optionality, that we decided not to pursue those high risk, low margin orders. And the remaining part of the service business is high profit, low risk, again, around spare parts, wear parts, and, professional services.
And if you look at then the mix for the cement, 65% service, so it will support our continued focus on profitability of the business. In order to preserve the profitability going into 2024, we are taking significant right-sizing actions to adjust the workforce and the cost level for low volume of the business for the next, year or so. Mix will get better compared to this quarter. As you can see from the orders, we are getting in more service, less capital, so that will be reflective then, in the mix of revenues going forward. The right sizing focus is on quarter four, so that we would have a good, healthy start for 2024. Underlying EBITDA is at a good level, 4.7. 11.7 is showing the one-off gain from sale of one of the product lines.
But the underlying EBITDA is 4.7, which is, from my point of view, at a good level. One of the proudest achievements of the quarter is the speed of the exit of the NCA business. In one year, we downsized the backlog from DKK 3.6 billion to DKK 0.6 billion, and this actually exceeded my own expectations of the speed. And then I hand over to Roland for the, for the more detailed numbers.
Thank you for that, Mikko. So just having a quick look on the financials from a group level for Q3. So revenue up 2% to DKK 5.7 billion, and an improvement in gross profit margin to over 28%. An adjusted EBITDA margin of 10.1%, and a reported EBITDA margin of 8%. Profit and loss for the group for the quarter was DKK 272 million. Maybe worth noting here, the quarter, last quarter or the Q3 quarter in 2022, was the first quarter with TK in, and we had 11,800 employees at the end of last year's Q3.
At the end of this quarter, we had 9,670, and that reduction is reflecting our continuous synergetic integration efforts. We are almost completing the integration of TK by the end of this year. It's reflecting the digestion of the weak backlog in NCA ahead of plans. It's reflecting that our business simplification in terms of having less offices, reducing our geographical footprint to move closer to the installed base, bigger sites, but more relevant located, and lastly, the right sizing in cement. So improved earnings, improved revenues, despite the reduction in workforce. If you look at the gross profit, gross profit is the highest in nominal numbers, also the highest in terms of percentages for a number of quarters. Both mining and cement is moving forward.
Pruning of the product portfolio, the higher split of service versus capital, and more diligent restriction in the business that we take in, is supporting both the mining business and the cement business. And even our non-core activities, showing a positive gross margin for the quarter. If you look at our SG&A costs, they are also up for Q3. In SG&A costs sit integration costs for integrating TK's mining business into FLSmidth Mining. We are also having a considerable cost related to the exit of the non-core activities segment. We are getting closer to a full separation of mining and cement in two separate company structures that we have spent quite some efforts and resources on.
We are also working on bringing ourselves to a principal company operating model. ERP changes of purchase order workflows, and so on, are being prepared. That also, cost of that, sits in our SG&A budget for now. Our adjusted group EBITDA is up to 10.1%. On the right-hand side, we're trying to illustrate the bigger pockets in the movements compared to the same quarter last year. Last year we had also integration costs, and we had wind down costs for Russia. If you move on to now, then we have increased our revenue. We have significantly improved our gross margin. What's dragging down a little bit is our current higher level of SG&A, and then we sold our Advanced Filtration business in our cement business.
And then we deduct the current quarter's integration cost, and we'll be back at a reported group EBITDA margin of 8%. Moving to net working capital. Working capital is up, working capital ratio of 11.4%. As we move forward, are more restrictive in terms of projects taken in, prepayments from customers will come down. As we talked about last quarter, we are still executing on a number of projects that we inherited from TK Mining. They have considerably poor on milestone contractual terms connected to them, and that means that we're building up our work in progress and also clearing payables faster than we would otherwise have done in our legacy business.
That means that, including the working capital change from businesses we have sold, we end at a CFFO for the quarter of DKK -276 million. We've had investments of DKK 160 million, and then sales proceeds from the sale Koch Solutions and our filtration business of DKK 285 million, and that means a free cash flow of DKK -151 million, and a free cash flow adjusted for M&A of DKK -436 million. We remain at a leverage ratio of 1.0x, well below our capital structure target. If we have a quick look at our financial guidance, we have made a few precisions to our guidance.
If we start with mining, we still stand by a revenue forecast of around DKK 17 billion for the year. Previously, we set an adjusted EBITDA margin of 10%-11%. We are narrowing that now to 10.5%-11%, so we will be in the higher end of that range. Cement guidance is unchanged. For our non-core activities, we are narrowing the revenue guidance to between DKK 900 million and DKK 1 billion, from previously DKK 800 million and DKK 1 billion. And the loss of that business this year will be between DKK 300 million and DKK 300 million , instead of DKK 250 million-DKK 350 million . And that reflects that we are digesting the weak backlog and in the non-core activity segment faster than we had anticipated.
The total loss for that non-core activity segment remains of around DKK 1 billion, as previously communicated. So, if the loss will be a bit bigger this year, it'll be correspondingly lower next year. Important notes to this EBITDA margin dilution from the acquired TK Mining business still expected to be less than 2% for the year. We expect to spend DKK 550 million as integration cost for the full year, so these are integration costs for integrating TK Mining into FLSmidth Mining and nothing else. And then, the cement guidance include a one-off gain of around DKK 100 million from the sale of our NCA business. Our transformation is progressing well and slightly ahead of plan.
We still expect to harvest DKK 560 million in annual runway cost synergies, effective from first of January next year, from the integration of TK Mining into FLSmidth Mining. We are on track with the synergy take out. In mining, we continue our risk management and de-risking. A higher percentage of our revenue, as well as a higher percentage of our backlog, is now classified than it was a year ago. Same thing in cement, a higher percentage of revenue and a higher percentage of the backlog is now qualified as lower risk orders and revenue correspondingly, compared to last year. We continue the simplification and our new operating model in cement.
We will be right sizing cement over the course of this quarter and a bit into next quarter, in order for cement to be right sized for in the next couple of years muted market outlook in construction business and building materials worldwide. On NCA, during the quarter, we sold DKK 400 million of backlog Koch Solutions. our backlog is down to DKK 600 million out of the quarter. As some of you will recall, we started with DKK 3.6 billion a year ago in Q4. That is now reduced to DKK 600 million, so we're quite happy about that progress. Similarly, on our simplification work streams, a year ago, we set out with about 150 offices.
Now, 50 of those have been vacated and are in the process of being wound down and closed out. We plan to go down to around 80, so there's 20 more to go, and those are the more sticky ones, or bigger ones, or more complicated to do, and we will do that during the course of 2024, as originally planned. More importantly, our pure play separation of mining and cement is on track, so we are currently operationally separating the mining business from the cement business. And from the beginning of next year, we will establish a separate-
... FLSmidth Mining holding group structure, and an FLSmidth Cement holding group structure legally separated. And operational separation will be finalized during first half of next year. So this is fully in line with our existing plans. And with that, I think we move to Q&A.
At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press the star and one on your telephone keypad. You may withdraw yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the pound key. We'll take our first question from Christian Hinderaker with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Yes, good morning, Mikko and Roland. Thanks. I guess my first question is on the product mix, and primarily within mining. I just wondered, if you can help us to understand to what extent your product profile, has any indexation clauses linked to cost of raw materials, steel in particular, across both the sort of equipment and consumable side?
Thanks for the question. We actually are managing the cost versus the sale price, mainly with the validity of the quotations, because in the broad-based inflation environment, indexes don't work well for us, explaining our inflation. So if you link it to steel price, for example, it goes up and down with the market, but it's not really explaining our cost base development. So how we do it is that we have a short validity for the kind of capital product, heavy capital product offers, and then we do repricing after the kind of validity. So we are locking in the cost base for the product. Let's say the quotation is valid for four weeks.
We have most of the cost base locked in, and then if customer will not decide in four weeks, we do repricing. So our focus has been repricing and short validity of the offers rather than indexation, because we haven't really found a good index that would explain the inflation in the cost base.
Good. Thank you, Mikko. I guess then secondly, and again, on mining, some of the peers have talked to the higher cost of capital, driving delays to decision making in the mining equipment supply chain. I just wonder if that's something that you've seen during the quarter, and what your sense is from your customers today, around thoughts into investment into year-end and 2024?
I think what we've seen in the CapEx market is that there's some softness in the market, but it's not very significant. And something might be explained for the inflation or slowness in decision making, but we still have issue in most of the countries with the permitting. So permitting delays in permitting, totally independent of the economic cycle, is equally big reason for timing of different CapEx orders. And it has been kind of disappointing to see that we haven't seen any speeding up of permitting in the main mining country, despite the talk about need for that one. But in practice, we still see slowness in decision making regarding permits in Chile, in North America. Peru is as slow as it has been in the past.
So that's why the timing of the capital orders is difficult to predict. Some softness in the market, but we are not concerned.
Okay. Makes sense. Maybe one for Roland then, on the free cash flow, I think -DKK 151 million in the quarter, partly led by higher working capital, which I believe you talked to being a function of lower payables and buildup of WIP on some of the TK projects. I'm just thinking about that in terms of how we should forecast in the quarter ahead. You know, how long should that WIP or high level of WIP be carried through? And then secondly, I guess linked to all of this, given the negative CFFO in the third quarter, does your prior guide, which I think was for a small positive CFFO for the year, still hold?
Yeah, thank you for that question. That's a good question. So first of all, we're still planning to deliver a positive CFFO for the year. So obviously we need a home run in Q4. I think that if we just point back to our capital markets day, where we talked about the working capital development. So as we become more restrictive to our risk appetite for big projects and becomes more of a service company, working capital as the working capital ratio, as working capital out of total revenue, will go north in terms of percentage. So as we push towards 2026, we will be closer to between 12% and up to 15% working capital out of total revenue.
Obviously, the road to that level will be a bit bumpy, and I think we see the first signs now that admittedly, TK have a bunch of projects that was not up to the standards we would have put in terms of cash generation. But as we move forward, there will be less prepayments. Work in progress will be less of a cash generator, we will have more inventories, more receivables, as is more normalized in a service business. So to conclude for the year, we still expect CFFO to be positive. The year has never been projected to be a great cash year. There's also provisions turning into cash. And on longer term, net working capital is anticipated to move closer to 12%-15% of LTM revenue.
That's very clear. Thanks for that.
We'll move next to Claus Almer with Nordea. Your line is open.
Thank you. Yeah, also a few questions from my side, one for cement and one for mining, and I'll do them one by one. So the first question is the cement. In the report, it is stated that there is better margins in the order intake. Is this on gross margin, contribution margin? Is it driven by scope, or is actually a better margin per, let's call it, product category? That would be the first question.
So, regarding order intake in cement, over the last year or so, we have seen continued improvement in product margin or gross profit for the business that we are taking in. So the service margins for the spare parts and professional services are healthy, and also we've seen significant improvement in product order intake margin. So I think the margin development in order intake and revenues is not a challenge for us. I think it's the loss of the volume means that our fixed cost base is too high. And of course, we be very selective as well, that we don't take volume in, which is low or no profit in terms of projects. So very selective in the capital order intake.
We focus on products and products for the margin requirement, and then on service. For the order intake that we get in, the margin level is actually pretty good. The issue now is that, or challenge is that, because of the loss of volume in the business, we need to adjust our cost base. So it's more to do with the self-help, with the cost base, to adjust the kind of operation to a lower volume of business for the next year and a half.
Okay, and then just to be sure, Nick, so the better margins, is that versus last year, or is it versus Q2? Or how should we really think about the, let's call it, quality of the backlog?
Yeah. So, Claus, thank you for that. I think it's in a continuous improvement, right? Because we have introduced risk mitigating features. We have risk on different countries, different sort of deliveries. So margin in the backlog will improve gradually as we move forward. So both.
Okay, that sounds good. Then my second question goes to the mining division. Deflation, cost input deflation, is that a pass-through to the customers? And if yes, is that margin neutral, improving or, you know, decreasing? How to think about that?
So far it has been margin improving. So yes, we've been able to price in the cost plus a bit, but we are anticipating that the upside from that will be less going forward over the last year and a half in terms of kind of pricing, both in the products business and also in the service business. But going for next year, we believe that it's stabilizing, but it will be stabilizing at a good level. So we are quite happy now where we are, and it has been inflation plus increases.
Some metals are going down, so there will be some cost deflation when you look at the input cost, I guess. Will that benefit, you could say, will that be passed through to the customers, or will you be able to keep part of that effect on your own books?
So if you think about input cost, it's actually going down less or not at all in some areas. So that's why I said earlier, if any of the input costs is going down, it might have a bit more impact on the heavy capital equipment there, when there's plenty of steel, but it doesn't follow well on that one. So of course, if the input cost is going down, there's a competition, and of course, we try to basically share the benefit of any cost reduction between us and the customer. So far, we haven't seen significant input cost reduction in our capital products or service. So it's still inflation is broad-based.
Okay, thank you so much. That was all from my side.
We'll move next to Lars Topholm with Carnegie. Your line is open.
Yeah. To reach your guidance, you need DKK 5.8 billion in revenue for the rest of the year. And if I look at your note on your backlog, only DKK 2.9 billion of that becomes revenue in Q4. So just wonder, how, how you bridge that. And then a second question goes to your provisions, which net are a little less than DKK 100 million lower by the end of Q3 than by the end of Q2, or, or is it also the, the others? Thanks.
Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that, Lars. So, regards to the guidance, there's an element of backlog conversion.
... And then there's an element of inbound orders, and that's how it will stack up, and Q4 will be a revenue quarter that is relatively similar to Q3. So, cement and mining. So a number of our provisions, majority actually, of the changes in the quarter is turning to cash, and very little of that is reversed. And it has to do with mining and also with our non-core business. I don't know if that adds some flavor.
Yeah, and what's the 50 split?
Yeah. Uh.
Okay, that, that's very clear, Roland. Thanks.
Once more for your questions, that is star and one. We'll move next to Nick Housden with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Hi, Mikko, Roland, thanks for taking us through so far with the Q3 results. Some are saying they're seeing a bit of destocking, others are saying they're not. I'm just curious to hear what your thoughts are there, and in particular, with regards to the consumables business.
We haven't really seen market-wide destocking. There might be individual customers if they stock too much, they might be running out of the stock, but we haven't market-wide destocking. So typical, of course, if you have operational spares and wears, you continue consuming those on kind of ongoing basis. So there's not much kind of destocking possibilities there. Then you have a part of the spares which are sometimes called capital spares, which are kind of one-off spares that you use for the mill every 10 years or 15 years or so. But we haven't seen any or wear parts.
Of course, customers continue to look at optimizing that you don't have too much excess stock, but at the same time, they won't have enough stock so that if there's a maintenance shutdown, that they have a kind of a mill liners, they are ready to go so that there's no risk. So we, we haven't seen, we haven't seen anything that we would, see the kind of market-wide. Individual customers have individual circumstances, but, in the market, we, we can't say that we've seen, destocking.
Understood. Thanks. And then, my second question just relates to, you know, the delayed decision-making that we're seeing on the mining side. It seems to be linked to higher interest rates, obviously, and especially for the junior miners. Yeah, it seems like this is going to be a topic that's with us probably for at least another couple of quarters. So I suppose what I'm wondering is, yeah, if we've not got so much in terms of new equipment coming, does this mean that we'll see more kind of upgrade activity in aftermarket business as the existing fleet gets more heavily utilized?
So actually, your comment and question regarding junior miners, yes, we've seen that one, and, but, nobody's canceling anything. So we've just seen that when the CapEx has gone up a bit, you need to update your business cases. And typically, it's not equipment-related CapEx, because if you build a new mine, biggest part of the cost is actually EPC cost, not actually cost of the equipment. So, the junior miners, of course, everybody's also kind of making CapEx plans. You need to update and sometimes raise the kind of CapEx spend estimates from the original business case. So we haven't really seen... I think the business cases do stack up, but we've seen some delay with the junior miners. And some of the timing issues are actually not even CapEx related.
As I said earlier, we've seen continued delays in authorities, in permitting in all mining countries, despite the intent or the most government saying that we want to support mining, but when it comes to licensing, it's equally slow as before. And we've seen, disappointingly some delays, not because of the willingness or unwillingness to lay out the CapEx, but just that the licensing has been delayed by one year, two years, six months. So it's we've seen still that, and that is also, so also causing lots of uncertainty regarding timing.
Okay, understood. Thanks very much.
We'll move next to Kristian Johansen with SEB. Your line is open.
Yes. Thank you. So my first question goes to the P&L dynamic in, in mining in Q3. So if I look at SG&A costs, excluding the integration cost in mining, it, it is notably higher in, in Q3 than what it was in, in Q1 and Q2. And similarly, as you also pointed out, the gross margin in Q3 in mining is also notably higher than, than Q1 and Q2. So, so just trying to figure out here, I mean, the levels we see for both gross margin and SG&A in Q3, is, is that what we should expect going forward or are there other dynamics which would change this going forward?
So as I tried to explain, we have a number of transformatory work streams running that we are not calling out as one-off. So it has taken significant resources to prepare for the pure play, separating mining and cement in two separate corporate structures. We are also running a simplification exercise of our entire business that is over and beyond the synergy outtake. And also preparing for a future principal company operating model requires the initial thinking on what we do with the ERP platform. So we have some costs sitting in SG&A that will continue for some quarters, also during the course of next year. I think we always flagged that there will be a couple of transformatory years, 2023 and 2024.
We will be done with synergies by the end of this year, then we'll not talk anything more about synergies, but the rest is still not fully done. So pure play needs to come in place, simplification of both mining and cement group and the ERP solutions, and so on. So there's some, what we classify as transformational costs sitting in the SG&A, but we're not calling it out as one-offs.
Okay, that's very clear. And then just to the gross margin, so you should expect 30% going forward?
I think the gross margin is probably the first proof in the pudding that what we're doing may work. You know, so this is fundamentally indicating that our business becomes stronger. And once we are done with everything we do on the SG&A, then margins will pick up on EBITDA level.
Of course, if you look at mining and cement gross profit, it a little bit has to do also with the mix, so that if service order intake is 65%, is relatively a bit higher than if the products share is a bit more, then it's slightly lower. So we are driving improvements both in the product business gross profit, and then in service business gross profit. So we are internally driving improvement in both, but then, of course, combined numbers is a little bit quarter by quarter, also, mix has an impact on that.
I think-
Maybe, maybe just so things doesn't go off the rails. We have a strategy plan all the way to 2026, right? So there are some things we need to do both in 2024 and 2025, until we move into our long-term guidance range, just to point that out.
Understood. Then my second and last question here is just on the right sizing of the organization in cement. So you say you can get that in Q4 and Q1. Can you in any way quantify what are we talking about, how many employees do you expect to reduce and what's the potential financial effect?
So, we don't actually specify a number of employees, but if the order intake is down by 25%, of course, then 25% of cost needs to go out in rough terms. And now, a year ago, we had organization of 3,700, and now it's below 3,000. But if you see the further decline in the volume, about 25%, so of course, we need to have a kind of a sustainable cost level for that business. So, it's dominantly headcount reduction, but we might also look at selling some of the assets which are not strategic for the cement business going forward.
So it can take two different forms, or it will take, one is the right sizing, especially on the project side of the business and engineering, which, due to de-risking decisions and also of our quality requirements for the product businesses, is going down faster. So we need to rightsize that operation. And then, of course, looking at some if we have some assets which are not important for cement going forward. But, most of that will happen quarter four. Some, as Roland said earlier, will go into next year, but this will ensure that we have a healthy, profitable cement business in 2024. So we are looking at always one year ahead rather than kind of just in front of our nose.
Sure. So just to clarify, an SG&A reduction of roughly 25%, that would be a fair assumption of what you're aiming for?
We are also looking at reducing COGS, because we have actually quite a lot of engineering resources sitting in the COGS. So it means that we are looking at COGS resources because they are going forward with a low volume, they are underutilized, under absorbed. So we will look at both SG&A, but also the kind of what is sometimes called fixed COGS, meaning COGS resources which are in our payroll, engineering, procurement. When the volume is going down, we need less of that. So it's basically you can see the cost reduction both in COGS and in SG&A. But headcount is good to follow. That is a good indicator of what we are doing, because that is including both SG&A and COGS.
Makes sense. Great, thank you.
We'll move next to Klaus Kehl with Nykredit. Your line is open.
Yeah, hello, Klaus Kehl from Nykredit. Also one question from my side regarding cement. And obviously, there's a lot of moving parts, both positives and negatives going into 2024. But I guess, yeah, the starting point is that your backlog is down 22%, and all else equal, that could indicate that you will lose DKK 1 billion in sales in 2024. On the positive side, we've talked about better mix, better quality, cost reductions, et cetera. All up,
... Is it correctly understood that what you're trying to achieve is to get to an underlying earnings in 2024, in the range of what you have delivered here in 2023? Would that be a fair conclusion of all these moving parts?
So I think, yeah, thank you for that, Klaus. So I think your reasoning is we're not and we will trim that business, so there will be more product pruning, there will be more de-risking, there will be divestments of smaller and non-strategic pockets of products or companies that we have, and there will be a right sizing of the organization. And that means that we will maintain a, as Mikko said, a healthy, profitable cement business, and we're also maintaining our long-term-
thinking a little bit less around the quarterly dynamics. Just eager to understand your relationship in terms of distribution rather, in terms of customer inventories. I guess, what proportion of consumable spares, capital spares, would be held on your balance sheet in regional distribution hubs versus those that might be on site, and vendor managed? Just to get a sense for the structure.
We haven't seen anything, any significant changes now, either stocking or destocking. Then, regarding the supply chain, we haven't seen change in the relationship, what customers are stocking at their site and what we are actually holding in our inventory. So that relationship has not changed since that kind of COVID independent. But relationship between what we are stocking and customers are stocking has not changed over the course of the year, and we don't see that changing either. I think it's similar to what it was.
Thank you, Mikko. That's helpful. And just in terms of what it was, just to help with that, I mean, if you have 100 spares, would you have 70 on your books at your sites or?
At this time, I would like to turn it back to the speakers for any closing remarks.
I would like to thank you for your time and for the questions. So the key takeaway for me is that healthy development in mining in terms of the order intake, profitability improving. We discussed about gross profit. You can see that there's profit there, and then still some co- on your picture in that one. So you were happy for the full year result. Thank you very much.
Thank you.