Welcome to Arkema's third quarter 2024 results and outlook conference call. For your information, this call is being recorded. It will take place in a listen-only mode, and you will have the opportunity to ask questions after the presentation by pressing star and one on your touchtone telephone. I will now hand you over to Thierry Le Hénaff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Sir, please go ahead.
Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Arkema's Q3 2024 results conference call. With me today are, as usual, our CFO, Marie-José Donsion, and Investor Relations, Béatrice Zilm. To support this conference call, we have posted a set of slides which are available on our website. And as usual, I will start with some comments on the highlights of the quarter before letting Marie-José go through the financials. And at the end of the presentation, we'll be available to answer your questions. So the macroeconomic conditions we encountered in the third quarter remain broadly in line with what has already been observed for several quarters, namely a continued soft demand in a global challenging macro environment. Once again, there was no sign of rebound overall, and we should even add that the automotive sector has worsened, notably in Europe.
After an encouraging month of July, demand slowed down in September, which reflects inventory adjustment at end of the quarter at some customers. Despite this context, Arkema achieved, we believe, strong financial results, significantly higher than the average of its peers. We were able to deliver again a solid sales growth in Q3, up 2.9% compared with last year, driven by specialty materials in Asia and in the U.S., while Europe suffered from low demand overall. Besides, we increased our EBITDA by more than 5% and reached an EBITDA margin at the elevated level of 17%, confirming once again the strength of our portfolio, the high resilience of the group's top line, and profitability in these more difficult market conditions.
Our performance in Q3 was driven by our specialty materials and a good mix, which represent 92% of our sales, and recorded a significant 9% EBITDA growth and 80 bp s EBITDA margin increase compared with last year. To achieve this good result, we continued to manage strictly our cost and to push the commercialization of high-value added solutions, notably in those sub-markets supported by the global megatrends. If we look now briefly at the result of our three specialty materials segments, here are some key points I'd like to underline. First of all, adhesive. Adhesive delivered again a strong quarter in the continuity of the first semester. EBITDA significantly grew by 9% compared with last year, and EBITDA margin reached its record high at 15.7%. This was, we think, quite an achievement.
This very good performance was delivered in a low-volume environment, particularly in the construction market, while some industrial markets such as packaging or labeling showed a more positive dynamic. In advanced materials, EBITDA growth was also significant, at 10% year-on-year, primarily driven by high-performance polymer, while performance additives were facing the high comparison base of last year. And we were also impacted, as you know, by this temporary shutdown of our German organic peroxide plant. The segment benefited in the quarter from PIAM contribution, despite at a slightly lower level than Q2, from the positive dynamic in new generations to our specialties, and from the continuous development of our high-performance solutions in attractive markets like energy, sports, and healthcare. As I mentioned earlier, the automotive sector started to slow down, notably in Europe, and in particular, at least temporarily, the EV market seems to grow more slowly than expected.
The Coating Solutions segment resisted relatively well, while continuing to face low-cycle market conditions in the upstream part. Fortunately, the segment benefited from better volumes and an improved mix in the downstream additives and resin. All in all, EBITDA was up in this segment by 6.5%, and EBITDA margin reached a reasonably robust 13% figure. Beyond delivering this short term, we have continued to prepare our midterm future with a gradual ramp-up of our major organic projects, including the successful restart of our polyamide 11 operation in Singapore in September after its regulatory shutdown, the smooth completion of our investment in our new 1233zd capacity in the U.S., which is expected to start by the end of this year, and also we look forward to that, the preparation of the closing of Dow's laminating adhesives business acquisition expected in Q4.
We have also made significant progress on our CSR roadmap to decarbonize our value chain and a more and more crucial topic for our customers. As an example, thanks to improved process efficiency and the use of renewable and low-carbon energy, we have decreased even further the carbon footprint of our flagship bio-based polyamide 11, which is now 80% less than a comparable fossil-based polyamide such as PA12. In the additive space, we have also developed more and more products based on biosource or renewable raw materials, enabling to reduce their carbon footprint while maintaining their performance. Last and not least, you may have seen that we have recently announced some changes to the executive committee following the retirement of two of its members. With the appointments of Sophie Fouillat and Tilo Quink, with the evolution of Laurent Tellier, the executive committee maintained its set of competencies while further increasing its diversity.
With this new organization at the top of the company, we are well equipped to move on with our 2028 roadmap. I will now hand it over after this introduction to Marie-José for a more in-depth look at the financials before we discuss the outlook at the end of the presentation.
Thank you, Thierry, and good morning to all of you. So I'll start with our revenue. So group sales amounted to EUR 2.4 billion in Q3, increasing by 2.9% year-on-year. Volumes were up 3.8% organically and the specialty materials perimeter, benefiting from the more favorable trends in energy, sports, packaging, and healthcare, while construction stays relatively low and automotive is slowing down. Volumes in intermediates were down, reflecting the quota enforcement mechanism in refrigerants, both in Europe and U.S. The price effect was fairly stable, standing at a - 0.2% in line with the evolution of raw material prices overall. The scope effect was positive at a +2.3%, corresponding essentially to the integration of PI Advanced Materials. And finally, currencies had an adverse effect of 1.4% on sales, reflecting the depreciation relative to the euro of the U.S. dollar and several Latin American currencies.
As Thierry commented earlier, Q3 EBITDA was up 5.4% year-on-year, reaching EUR 407 million, driven in particular by Adhesive Solutions and Advanced Materials. Actually, this is supported by increased volumes as well as a positive spread on pricing and mix. Depreciation amounted to EUR 161 million, including the impact of PI Advanced Materials consolidation and that of organic projects startup. As a result, recurring EBIT was flat compared to last year, standing at EUR 246 million, with a fairly stable EBITDA margin at 10.3%. Non-recurring items amounted to EUR 62 million in Q3. This is composed of EUR 38 million related to PPA depreciation and amortization, and EUR 24 million corresponding essentially to restructuring expenses, startup costs for our polyamide 11 platform in Singapore, and M&A costs linked to the acquisition of Dow's Adhesive business that we'll be closing soon. Adjusted net income stood at EUR 168 million, which corresponds to a EUR 2.25 per share.
Looking now at cash flow and net debt, Arkema delivered a solid cash flow generation in Q3. Recurring cash flow stood at EUR 190 million, which reflects a well-controlled working capital. Actually, working capital stood at 16.4% of annualized sales, which is very similar to last year, and it includes as well a total capital expenditure of EUR 167 million in the quarter. For 2024, CapEx is expected to reach a total of EUR 770 million in line with the annual guidance, and if we look ahead, taking into account the slower pace of development that we see on the electric vehicle market, we refined our analysis of potential future CapEx and plan to reduce our annual CapEx spend by around EUR 100 million compared to what was announced in the Capital Market Day back in September 2023.
So let's say for 2025, this means the CapEX spend is expected between EUR 650 million and EUR 700 million. Net debt at the end of September 2024 stood at EUR 3.1 billion. It includes EUR 700 million of hybrid bonds after the EUR 400 million outstanding hybrid bond that was redeemed in September 17th. In addition, Arkema continued to refinance its upcoming bond maturities in September and completed a EUR 500 million senior bond issue with a 10-year maturity and an annual coupon of 3.5%. So at the end of September, we have actually an average maturity of our own debt, which stands at 4.3 years, excluding hybrids, and with an average coupon of 2.2%. Net debt to last 12 months EBITDA ratio therefore stands at 2x EBITDA. Thank you for your attention, and I will now hand it over back to Thierry for the outlook.
Thank you, Marie-José, for all these explanations. As previously said, going into Q4, the macroeconomic environment remained challenging, marked by a low visibility of demand overall and the recent slowdown of the auto sector, even if we are not overexposed in this sector. As always, we will focus on optimizing the short term and at the same time as we finalize and ramp up our growth projects. Therefore, strict management of operations, of course, CapEx and working capital will remain among our top priorities in Q4. In this context, as the rebound of the macroeconomic environment has not materialized yet, which was one of the possibilities, as you know, we envisaged when we guided in July for the full year, we expect to achieve in 2024 an EBITDA at the lower end of the guidance range of EUR 1.53 billion.
This would mean a full-year performance likely above last year, reflecting the strong year in additive and the growth in high-performance polymers and coating solution downstream activities, while other activities would show more contrasted performances. Going into 2025 and beyond, we don't know yet what the market conditions will be next year, but we can confirm that Arkema, after several years of resilience in challenging market conditions, will be in a unique position to grow with 12 significant projects nearly fully financed. You know this project well, and these projects include organic CapEx and M&A. They should bring, for the most part, independently from the macro, around EUR 100 million of additional EBITDA every year up until 2028, thus more than EUR 400 million to be exact EUR 440 million additional EBITDA at the end of the period. This means in 2028, and you have the detail in the slide presentations.
So I thank you very much for your attention, and we are now together with Marie-José open to answer your questions.
Thank you. If you wish to ask a question over the phone, please press star one on your telephone keypad. If you wish to withdraw your question, please press star two. Again, please press star one on your telephone to enter the question queue and wait for your name to be announced. Our first question comes from the line of Tom Wrigglesworth of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Thierry, Marie-José, for your presentation. Thierry, just to come back to that last point, you talk about EUR 100 million of EBITDA growth on average for the period as we think to 2028. Can we just expand a little bit further on that in terms of, so in 2025, we shouldn't have the repeat of the German outage. Is that going to cost you EUR 30 million? And then how should we think about kind of net cost inflation? Can you balance cost pressures with cost savings in 2025? That's my first question. And my second question is, clearly, it's just a little bit more detail on the HPP performance. Within the auto picture that you're describing specifically on EVs, is it that Europe's weaker and Asia's stronger in its net balance, or on aggregate, it's still a negative?
Is there a big margin differential between you selling HPP products to Chinese EVs over European EVs? Thank you.
Okay. So to be clear on 2025, and we were not guiding on 2025. It's still not the topic today. We were telling you which contribution we should expect from a selection of major projects that you know, which you described on the presentation on page 16, but which is just a confirmation of what we already presented, I think, during the summer. So you have 12 projects, organic CapEx, and still the ramp-up of three acquisitions, one which is more old, which is strong, which is still ramping up, and another one which is expected for the end of the year. So the message there was to say, if you take these 12 identified projects, both organic and acquisition, okay, they should be nearly fully financed end of 2024. So the cash still from 2025 to be spent for this project will be, I think, EUR 100 million around, okay?
Then the EBITDA will come. So for the acquisition, the EBITDA has already started, for example, Ashland, and some will be new like for Dow. And for the organic CapEx, we should register. We guided for EUR 60 million, I think, which would be a bit below, okay, but we should be close to that. So most of the contribution will come from 2025. So what we say is that if you take these 12 projects nearly fully financed at the end of 2024, we should expect an addition of EUR 440 million, which will be built step by step over the years for 2028. This means that the contribution of these projects should be divided by four, or it should be more or less linear, around EUR 100 million additional EBITDA for 2025 coming from these projects.
It's not linked to any other points, whatever cost inflation or no one-off from the Günzburg site or whatever. This kind of element are the element which will be part of the guidance for 2025. As you know, we should start to guide at the end of next year when we publish the full 2024 results. I was a little bit long, but to clarify, I was mentioning what you should expect, which I think is unique in this industry, is contribution which is significant from projects which would have been nearly fully financed at the end of 2024.
Now, in 2025, cost pressure versus pricing, I think we have demonstrated our ability every year to be in terms of raw material evolution that we don't know, by the way, to be at least at par every year, hopefully to have a little bit of positive pricing every year. So we'll see for next year, but this is what we have demonstrated so far. I think we have managed more broadly raw material rather well. Despite the volatility, I think we have been able to adapt to different environments for raw material over the years, and we should be able to do so in 2025. With regard to HPP for EV, I think if it was your question, it was specifically EVs, is my feeling. Today, most of the EV is in Asia, including China. Europe and the U.S. is just starting.
So I would say the majority, the large majority of our sales are for the timing in Asia, but our intention is to step by step to benefit from the ramp-up on these two continents, depending on the speed that we don't know that they will have. In Q3, more specifically, I would say that the topic is more Asia because Europe has not yet very much developed, nor the U.S., even if we have a lot of contacts. And what we say is that in Asia, in EV, in Q3, we had less traction as we had in the first part of the year. That's all. But maybe I will tell you the contrary in Q1 2025. It's still very volatile, but I think at the end, the EV, at least for Asia, will continue to be positive next year and the years beyond.
Thank you very much, Thierry. Very clear. Thank you.
Okay. You're welcome.
The next question comes from the line of Emmanuel Matot of Oddo. Please go ahead.
Hello, Thierry. Hello, Marie-José. Four questions for me, please. First, why Q4 should be slightly down for EBITDA? Because despite an already challenging environment, Q2 and Q3 were up. Is it related to the recent deterioration of market conditions in automotive? Second, do you intend to step up your investment in the U.S. following Donald Trump's likely victory? Are you already well balanced between your revenues and your industrial production in this country, the U.S.? Third, how do you explain the strong volatility per quarter for intermediates? And my last question, why is there no improvement of your working capital compared to last year in percentage of sales? It is a top priority for you. Thank you.
Okay. The short question on intermediate was what?
How do you explain the strong volatility per quarter for intermediates?
Okay. So.
It's gone down significantly per quarter.
Sure. On the Q4, first of all, if you make the math, it should still be quite a solid Q4. Last year, we had, it's not specific to automotive, whatever. We are not overexposed in automotive. In automotive, certainly, we have a little bit of effect in the HPP, but I would not make a case there. No, it's just that last year, we had in refrigerants or in intermediates, we had, maybe it comes also to your last point, which is the point, your third question. We had last year quite a good refrigerant business in the Q4, which is a little bit atypical because normally, the seasonality is quite low in refrigerants. And this year, we should be more normalized. So you can expect maybe, I don't know the exact number yet, but maybe EUR 15 million less in refrigerants in the last quarter. So it's one explanation.
And you have still a little bit of our site in Germany, where we had EUR 8 million, and we should have a number close because we say EUR 15 million in total for the semester. We had only EUR 8 million in the third quarter. So we should have maybe EUR 6 million, EUR 7 million in the second quarter. So we know it makes the difference with last year. But again, if you take out last year, if you look at long history, including before COVID, we should be above where we were in the past before COVID. So it should be a solid first quarter, but not at the same level as we had last year, which was specifically robust.
With regards to the investment in the U.S., I think your question is a little bit of a paradox to me because we are now in the U.S., North America is getting close to 40% of our sales thanks to all our investment. We have a few investments, including two major ones at Nutrien, the three major ones, Nutrien, 1233zd, and the DMDS in the U.S., just starting really to ramp up significantly next year. So I think we are full speed in the U.S., and we'll continue to be full speed. So for us, there is no question there. It's really we continue to invest in the U.S. because we strongly believe since 20 years in this part of the world.
Intermediates, I mean, we have been able in intermediates to have a relative stability year after year, which is quite a good achievement, I can tell you, because the nature of this business is volatile. So we have been able, despite all that, to be rather not perfectly stable, but rather stable in intermediates. Now, per quarter, the volatility is inherent to the business. So you can have a stronger quarter than a lower quarter, but at the end, the year is rather stable, and this is what we target. So I have no comment. It's more the nature of intermediates, but don't forget that 92% of our sales are now specialty materials where you don't have this kind of volatility. So we should appreciate that. Working capital? I will ask Marie-José .
Okay. So as I mentioned, in fact, working capital is very comparable in terms of percentage of sales to last year. The normative level we target is around 15%, which we normally try to reach by year-end. So for me, frankly, no major change in our management of this metric inside the company. This being said, it's fair to say that we were probably having a better track record in H1, and we were probably a little bit surprised by some, let's say, a disappointing September month, which contributed to this ratio, basically being at the same level as last year. But for me, I mean, this metric remains a key point of attention of the company, and therefore, there should be a significant contribution of working capital in Q4.
Okay. That's very clear. Thank you very much.
The next question comes from the line of Aron Ceccarelli of Berenberg. Please go ahead.
Hello. Good morning, Thierry. Good morning, Marie-José. I have three questions. My first one goes back to slide 16. If I compare it to your slides from the Capital Market Day, basically, you reduced the CapEx by around EUR 100 million per year, but the total EBITDA has just been reduced by EUR 10 million from EUR 650 million to EUR 640 million. The reason is because if we understood correctly, you basically have this project already financed. When I look at the CapEx for the next few years, the EUR 650 million to EUR 700 million, there should still be an element of growth there because your maintenance CapEx should be something around EUR 550 million. What kind of EBITDA growth should we expect from this element of growth in your CapEx?
And also, maybe can you tell us if you are still expecting EUR 40 million contribution from new projects in the second half of this year? My second question goes back to your footprint. So when I look at your global footprint, you have around 150 plants with a majority, let's say, 40% in Europe, despite your sales contribution from the whole continent has decreased from 50% to 34% over the last few years. So what's the competitive advantage to keep the strong foothold in the region? And would you expect this to remain like that in the future? My final one is on coating solutions. So I see strong pricing, strong volumes. What's really preventing margin to expand? Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for these various questions. So on the first one, first of all, thanks for recognizing that we are very consistent with the Capital Market Day. The reason why, in fact, we save the EBITDA change is not so big. The first reason is that, first of all, we still plan to deliver and to deliver well on our different projects, which would be reassuring for you. And the second one is that part of the CapEx, which we have not identified yet, but which was in the envelope of the CapEx, we are ramping up from 2027. So you were in the middle of the, so when you look at the ratio, it's not completely right because when you start to spend with new CapEx, you start to spend in, I would say, in 2026, 2027, 2028. You start to deliver more in 2028, 2029, 2030, etc.
So you had only a partial benefit from these projects. With regard to the project contribution in H2, so we say EUR 40 million, we should be more close to EUR 30 million. So this means that for the full year, not EUR 60 million, but more EUR 50 million, EUR 55 million, still to be concerned. The only reason being it's not the technical ramp-up of the CapEx. It's just that, as we mentioned, the second half is a little bit soft in the macro. There is no rebound. And because of that, we have a little bit less of contribution in this. But at the end, it changed nothing about the momentum we expect, as I confirmed when I talked about the EUR 440 million and the EUR 100 million for around EUR 100 million for next year. When you say 150 site, you should not forget that a big part of the site are linked to adhesives, to plastic.
And so you have some sites. You have 20 persons. You have 40 persons because they are very local. So you remove a site, you have no business anymore. So it's important if you want to continue. In Europe, we were in terms of sales and footprint quite heavy. And when we started Arkema now, it's something which is more balanced. Still, certainly some work to do in terms of footprint, but depending also on the evolution of the demand. We are quite flexible on that as we have ever been, and we review our footprint all the time. But when you say 150, a big part of them are in Europe. Don't forget that the mix is different. The presence of Bostik is still quite robust in Europe. And it's an advantage because we are quite profitable with Bostik in Europe.
So we should not, let's say, consider that because we have a site in Europe, it's a disadvantage. I think we try to have a state-of-the-art site in Europe, and when we are not, we see what we have to do in order to improve or in order to reduce our footprint. In Coating Solutions, the only thing which is preventing margin to improve is really the low cycle in the upstream. So with this kind of low demand environment, it's difficult to have for acrylic acids, acrylic monomer, high margin. And I would even say that the margin we have delivered so far in the year is relatively good compared to the context. So now to do more, it's easy. We have EUR 100 million of EBITDA, which is missing from the cycle in acrylics in Europe and U.S.
So you have to consider it as an upside for the midterm.
That's great. Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
The next question comes from the line of Chetan Udeshi of JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. And thanks again for your slide about the contribution from projects. It's very useful, as always. I'm just struggling a little bit. You said previously to one of the questions that the contribution this year is a bit lower because of the macro context. And if I look at the volumes of Arkema and try to compare versus 2019, and I know you don't run the business on volumes. That's fair. But in your materials business, we are still 10% lower than 2019 organic. I'm just trying to tie these things together. On one hand, you've been investing in projects, but yet your volumes are lower than 2019. So how do we square that, and how do we see the growth in terms of the business in general from an organic perspective?
The second question was just more a clarification, which is if I look at your R&D, historically has ranged between EUR 60 million-EUR 70 million per quarter. I think for some reason this quarter it was EUR 47 million. So just curious what has changed in that line in Q3. Thank you.
Okay. So on the first one, I think you forget, or maybe it's not included in your questions, the evolution of the mix, which is considerable. Our pricing power has been very significant over the period because we have adapted to the world as it was changing. So we had some line with volumes down and some line with volumes up where we invest. And I see the rationale of your question, but where we invest are businesses on which we have had growth since 2019, so on which we are sold out. So we invest in order to continue to grow. Okay? And then it comes back to the question previously of Aron, is that what we do is that ongoingly we review our footprint of our site because on certain sites, we have lost volumes because the world has changed.
I mean, the world is permanently changing, and the DNA of Arkema is to adapt to these changes. So we try to, even if we don't are too visible on that and make too much noise, we permanently review our footprint, reorganize our sites in order to cope for those sites who have lower volumes since 2019. And on the other side, where the business line is really developing strong, we invest. And this is why you have this page 16, where all the businesses which are mentioned are businesses on which we have very significant growth. So the mix between 2019 and between 2023, 2024 has significantly changed. And this is why we are able to deliver comparable level of EBITDA in a far less favorable macroeconomics with lower volume in 2023, 2024 than 2019. This is because the mix has considerably improved.
In fact, we have spent with higher value in average. Hopefully, I was clear. On the R&D expenses, maybe Marie-José, you want to comment?
Actually, you probably noted an adverse phenomenon in EBITDA, Chetan. In fact, there has been a EUR 20 million swing in terms of classification of various items between those two lines, but clearly it will be corrected back in Q4. No operational underlying phenomenon there.
Thank you.
The next question comes from the line of Georgina Fraser of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good morning, Thierry. Good morning, Marie-José. It's one long question and also a bit of a follow-up to Aron's question on Coating Solutions margins. So today, you've already got very impressive margins in adhesives. You're very close to your 2028 target already. You're still 400 bp s short in Advanced Materials. And if I mechanically take the EUR 100 million in EBITDA that you said is missing from the cycle in Coating Solutions, then that means you're kind of already at the 16% target or 17% target that you have for 2028. So my question is, is there anything that is over-earning in adhesives, or do you actually see upside to your 2028 target given what you've already achieved today? And what's needed in Advanced Materials to deliver that extra 400 basis points? Thank you.
Thank you, Georgina, for your question. No, I would say in adhesives, we should, yes, we should be close this year to 15.5%. It's more 15.5% than 16%. And normally, if we work well, we gain half a point a year. And we say we target 17%. So if you add, so this means that we should reach the 17% in three years, which takes us to, so five, six, seven in 2027, maybe instead of 2028. So there is maybe one year difference. We'll see. But don't forget that we will integrate Dow, for which it's a low-cost acquisition, which is very good, certainly a very strong payback. But it will take a little bit of time as it will take a little bit the margin down at the beginning. Okay? So because of that, we lose a year. Okay?
We try to be stable next year and then to go up again. So I mean, if you factor this, you go exactly in 2028 at 17%. Obviously, if we can do better, we'll do better, but for us, it's very clear, half a point, and because of Dow, we lose a year, but we lose a year, but with a project very attractive. Okay? For HPP, frankly speaking, if you look at the quality, a big part of the projects which are page 16 on organic CapEx are for HPP. So if you factor this project in HPP, we'll be easily at the 2028 target which was disclosed at the Capital Market Day. So for us, I would not say it's a no-brainer, but frankly speaking, I would be disappointed if we are only at 23% in 2028 for this business, advanced materials, in fact.
Now, and then there was a last question. No? They were the only two, Georgina? I thought there was a .
No, that was it. It was just a really long one question which you answered.
You said you had one on coating. You had something on coating.
I was saying if.
It was a comment or it was a comment or a question?
It was just a comment. I was saying from the cycle gets you to the target. So all very clear. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much.
The next question comes from the line of Geoff Haire of UBS. Please go ahead.
Good morning and thank you for the presentation. I was just wondering if we could talk a little bit about your exposure in autos, whether or not you'd be willing to sort of split that down between sort of EVs, hybrids, ICEs, and also comment on regionally what you're seeing in autos at the moment?
So on auto, I think we have no problem to disclose our number. We are around 7% of our sales in auto, half of it being in EV and half of it being on traditional cars.
Thermal.
On thermal. We don't make the split between EV and hybrid, but given the conception of our products, they are far more in pure EVs than in hybrid. I would say it's mostly EV, even if we have some good sales in hybrid. But I put EV, hybrid together, and thermal on the other side, and I would say it's half, half, and not exactly the same product lines. Now, by region, I would say the majority less than half, but the bigger region is in Asia. And then it would be split equally between U.S. and Europe. Okay?
Okay. Thank you.
The next question comes from the line of Jaideep Pandya of On Field Research. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Sorry to ask you this, but on the intermediates, can you tell us how is the path for quotas looking like in the U.S. and in China, and what should we really expect from this division in the next couple of years to come? Do you think that stability around the 200 plus minus level is sort of the level of EBITDA we should be thinking, even as volumes go down? Second question really is around Bostik. I think this was asked before, but in the current margin, which is phenomenal, is there any sort of price versus raw material benefit you're getting, or is this going to continue to progress into 2025 given the product mix is improving and you will have probably synergies from Dow as well? And then the last question really is on the PI Advanced business.
I know it's a public company, but what are you seeing with regards to the product pipeline given now we are seeing clearly electronics as an end market improving? So could you give us some information around this and also on the legacy electronics exposure of Arkema and how you're trying to combine the two and achieve synergies? Thanks a lot.
Okay. So with intermediates quickly, it's mostly for quotas, it's mostly a topic in U.S. and Europe and more than China for us. Okay? The idea on the evolution of EBITDA for refrigerant is that it goes down progressively rather slowly over the years. So we will lose every year for the coming years, stay at something which is material but lower than what we have, and it should be a slow decrease. But you have to know that this is a refrigerant part. The fluorogas or specialty fluorogas, low HFO, are specialty fluorogas, they are part of the HPP. So all in all, our fluorogas business is in good shape, is growing. But by nature, the refrigerant part, which is in intermediates, will continue to decrease in the coming years at a reasonable rate.
On the adhesives, I would say that we try to get incremental net positive pricing every year. Most of the story of Bostik, and we expect that from the team, is with more volume driven. We have invested a lot for the volume, both in R&D and in certain selected CapEx. So the team is doing a good job on that, but we expect them to ramp up quicker, and back to the point of what we have lost against 2019, we believe that there is a little bit of growth. We should come with some recovery of business that we have lost after COVID or during COVID, and that we should get back in the coming year.
So, more volume story, but still a little bit, but more incremental positive net pricing year after year as much as we can, but far more limited than what we have had in the past years. With regard to PIAM, so as you could see, we have some good expectations from electronics. It was quite strong in Q2. Q3 was more moderate, but still quite solid. Q4 is a low season, so it should be less than that. So now it's really linked to what we can expect from the launch of the big consumer electronics company. Hopefully, there will be a success. It's too early to say, so we'll see. I would say the strategy of Arkema, as we have mentioned when we bought PIAM, is certainly to benefit from their strength in electronics and to expand it more geographically.
But I would say we want to diversify their business portfolio, certainly in batteries where they have some position, but we want to accelerate their position with the development of EV. And also it's more industrial businesses where they were rather weak and where we can bring a lot. So the PIAM story will not be far from being a pure electronics story. On the contrary, we have plenty of other cards to play that we start to play by putting the teams together. I think I answered your question, Jaideep.
Just if I may follow up on PVDF, one of your key competitors will ramp up plant, I guess, towards the end of next year in Europe, and there have been delays on the U.S. side. When you look at PVDF as a product, and you've known this product very well for the last decades, what is the outlook from your point of view with regards to the capacity you have? Do you want to sort of optimize the mix and not invest in fresh CapEx, or do you think that on a 10-year view, there is a need for fresh CapEx, especially in the U.S., and therefore, we could expect an announcement from Arkema over the next six months on PVDF.
So on PVDF, as we have mentioned many times, our strategy I mean, the growth of the market, which was 7% in the old time, has with EV nearly doubled. Okay? The message we pass is that we don't want to double our growth. We want to stay with what it was by focusing on the high end of the range. And because of that, we continue in terms of CapEx to do what we have been doing in the past 20 years, which is from time to time to add a new reactor with some amount of money which is reasonable. So we'll see when it is, but certainly there will be investment in the U.S., maybe again somewhere in Asia, maybe in Europe, I don't know. But we are quite pragmatic on that.
The idea is really to go step by step with incremental investment from time to time in order for us to be able to deliver this 7% average growth for PVDF worldwide.
Okay. Thanks a lot.
The next question comes from the line of Ranulf Orr of Citi. Please go ahead.
Hi. Morning, all. Thanks for taking the question. Actually, I'd just like to go back to the project, please, and apologies if I missed this, but my question is really, what gives you the confidence that you can still deliver this linear ramp-up in earnings contribution given the macro? I mean, the demand environment, autos, EVs, is well below kind of where we hoped it would be back in the end of 2023. So why has the ramp not become a lot more back-end loaded? Thank you.
No, thank you for the question. It's a fair question. In fact, it's not one project. It's a sum of 12 projects which intervene in different areas. So I will not comment them all. But for example, if you take HF with Nutrien, it's a back integration. So this is mechanical. It's not linked to the macro. The HFO- 1233zd is linked to a new legislation in fluorogas. So I would not say it's mechanical, but I mean, it's not linked to the macro again. For maybe a third one, and we'll stop on this, for the biofuel in the US, even if we take conservative assumption because of the macro, this is a key trend which is not depending too much on the macro. This is really the development of the biofuels, and the DMDS is a key element of this.
Then we have another one which is more for green energy in China. We have no doubt that it will continue. You can have some quarters which are better than others, but it will continue. So the way we position these 12 projects are for we are not immune to the macro, but we already took some buffers when we published the EUR 440 million. We think it's still quite a solid assumption. And by taking a linear progression of EUR 100 million per year, I think we are confident. But the main reason why is that it is supported by megatrends. It's a project-by-project. Every project is different. They have all their rationale. And we have also superior technology which outperforms current technology. So I would say these are some elements that I could share with you.
Great. Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
The next question comes from the line of Matthew Yates of Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Hey, good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking the questions. Perhaps they're going to be for Marie-José, I would imagine. But it's clear that Arkema's been a very well-invested business with your CapEx. We'll talk on this call about the contribution from new projects. Can I ask you about sort of the operating expenses in the part of the cost base? You have taken what we might call contingency measures over the last 18 months or so. Would you describe those as temporary savings, and they need to be reinvested in the business as we go into next year, or is that a more permanent thing that you can reduce the cost base on? I ask because it's an issue that Evonik have flagged today. The second question, so not the most exciting one, but it's just around taxes.
I don't think we've had the opportunity to discuss any impact in the French market from potential tax changes. Can you just remind me, given sort of your deferred losses, whether or not that's going to impact the tax rate of the group going forward? Thank you.
Okay. I will let Marie-José answer on the second one. On the first one, it depends really on the and we'll see where we stand early next year on the macro evolution. Clearly, there is always arbitration between reducing costs in certain areas, reinvesting for growth in other areas. We try to do that as much as we can. But clearly, we'll continue to dig in and to review all our operating expenses to see if we find further potential savings. As you know, we have announced already at the Capital Market Day, and it's still alive, these EUR 250 million on five years split between fixed costs and variable costs. So your question is more, can we do more than that? And clearly, this year, we have saved more than the EUR 50 million that we had in mind with some temporary savings that should come back next year.
But on the other side, we are working on some other ideas. So it's permanent, let's say, analysis that we are doing with the teams. It's true that we are a little bit less visible in what we are doing than other companies. This is our style. You know us since many years now, but it doesn't mean that we are more shy than them at all. I think it's part of their day-to-day and our duty to implement new savings all the time. So we are really on this matter, and we have new things which will come to offset at least the one-off that we had this year on top of the 250 that we have mentioned. So now I will ask Marie-José to answer for the tax.
Regarding the 2025 Finance Bill that is actually not finalized, so I would say it's the caveat of my answer, but at this point, what we see from a corporate tax standpoint is that there should be no effect on Arkema's corporate tax rate. We have indeed numerous tax losses that we can utilize in France and, let's say, a rather limited profitability in that market. The second aspect would be, let's say, the social charges, so we are assessing the different measures. I would also think there should be a limited effect of those proposed measures. At this point, we assess something like EUR 3.4 million impact next year, depending on the bills that we pass or not this winter.
Maybe to complete what Marie-José is saying is that we should try to fight this EUR 3.4 million. It's EUR 3.4 million, but we are not the only company in France to fight against it, clearly. Anyway, the topic of Europe is beyond that because there is quite a gap in competitiveness in the current years in Europe versus Asia and the U.S. So we really, among other companies, are passing the message in order to not. The topic is not just to attack, but it's also to continue to reduce what has been done in the past years in order to improve the competitiveness of our operations mostly in France. But there is still a long way. This is why we have a tendency in Europe to focus on high-added value products. Otherwise, it's difficult to get positioned in a competitive way on things which are more commoditized.
Okay. Thank you.
The next question comes from the line of Alex Stewart of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Hello. Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions, and thanks for the discussion. Just wanted to clarify the EUR 100 million on upstream acrylics as the cycle normalizes. That's presumably the European, U.S., and Chinese business, or is that just developed markets? Just curious on that. And then on PI, could you talk a bit about how the redistribution of cash flow will work? You're a majority shareholder, but there are still minority shareholders. Will the company continue to pay dividends as it did in the past? Will you push for a higher redistribution of dividends? I'm trying to figure out how the cash flow comes back to Arkema. Would be very interested in your views on that. Thanks.
Okay. So I will let Marie-José answer the second one. I will take the first one. I mean, what I said before is that it's the 100. We could get it for most part of it, let's say, U.S., Europe. If you include China, it could be a bit more. But let's say this is the order of magnitude. Indexed indicators worldwide, let's say, can be maybe 120 if you take the three regions, but it's an order of magnitude. What does it mean, normalization? But we are there. Okay?
Regarding PI, we own 54% of the company, so it's fully integrated in our books. Then you will find basically the minority shareholders' portion just below net income, just above net income, sorry. In terms of cash, we've not guided on a different pattern, let's say, compared to historical trend. It's hard to recognize that because the results of PI have been severely impacted by the slowdown of the electronics in 2023, there has been a stop in any dividend payment, also due to the fact that there was a pretty ambitious CapEx plan that they had to digest. This has reduced a lot the dividend distribution. Going forward, it could basically resume. At this point, we don't envisage, let's say, a change in pattern for the shareholders, the historical shareholders of PIAM. No indication that we will revisit their policy.
Thank you.
Do we have a last question?
Mr. Le Hénaff, there are no more questions.
Okay. So thank you to all for all your questions and for the quality of the discussion. And don't hesitate if you have any further questions to contact directly Béatrice and the team. Okay? Thank you very much. Have a good day.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes Arkema's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.