Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Artemath conference call. I will now hand over to Thierry Delaas, CEO. Sir, please go ahead.
Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us on this call at such a short notice. I am here together with Bernard Boyer of Strategy and M and A, Manager Zetancien, our CFO and Vincent Negros, head of Gostik. Also with us, Izzy, I, our team.
You have seen a set of slides which we have just sent to you, which you can use as a reference for this call. So as you know, we have organized this conference call as we announced earlier this morning a project to acquire Assurant's Performance Additive business. And as you can imagine, I'm very pleased to announce this transaction as it is a company that we have been looking at for a number of years now and following Assurant's strategic announcement in May. So So we are very keen to pursue this opportunity. As you know, the adhesive market is still fragmented globally and there are many small targets available that we acquired or we continue to acquire, but attractive major targets are much harder to combine.
So this really was a great opportunity. Besides, I must tell you that over the past few years, we have been very selective regarding Equidistant despite our significant firepower and we have walked away from a number of potential targets in different fields as we have turned to our stringent criteria on strategic fit and value creation. So Assurant Performance Services is a high quality business with leadership positions in the industry as they live in The U. S. This business enjoys very good margins, a strong growth potential and a very talented management team.
The strategic fit between Assurant's Performance Additives and Arkema is evident. This is the case at the group level as this business will contribute to strengthening our Specialty Materials platform in line with our 2024 ambition to be a pure Specialty Materials player. And it is also the case, obviously, at Bostik's level, as we have many times expressed our strong ambitions to grow our Adelie business over the long term. In my view, for these strategic reasons, we were the natural buyers for this business. The timing for this transaction is also optimal as it comes in the context of Arkema's current positive dynamic with the recent disposals of functional polyolefin and PMMA, the start of a strategic review of your basis and the strong cash flow generation on the back of our excellent results this year.
In a nutshell, our shareholders exhibit should generate sales of around $360,000,000 this year with an EBITDA margin in excess of 25%. In both first class technologies and as a diversified end market exposure with a presence in building and construction, transportation, labels and flexible packaging to name the most important ones. Olivier's business as I showed is highly complementary with Bostik from a geographical viewpoint, Assurant has limited presence outside of The U. S. And the company has technologies that can be easily rolled out in Europe and Asia, where Arkema and Bostik have a stronger foothold.
From an application viewpoint, Assurant's product ranges can be found in flexible packaging, hot melt pressure sensitive additives and high performance industrial additives where Bostik already has a presence. Apart from this obvious and significant synergy with Bostik, there are clear synergies with our Coating Solutions segment on two levels. Firstly, with the axillary value chain, which is a backbone of pressure sensitive additives and secondly, in the formulation of emission, which is an area where we can complement and reinforce Ashland's know well. From a financial viewpoint, the offer is based on a multiple of 15 times EBITDA, taking into account the value of the tax asset. Besides, the level of synergies is very high given the potential of cross selling and geographical expansion.
We estimated them at around 12.5% of sales, which is high as you can see, which comes to around $45,000,000 once fully achieved. Taken into account the full amount of synergies, the multiple will be then reduced to 8.7x EBITDA in 2026, which is much closer to our own multiple. The fourth reduction is EPS accretive from Now one. And by 2026 according to our forecast, we will gain of earnings per share. So this projection is highly value creative for our shareholders.
Following this acquisition, we decided to revise upwards our midterm guidance from Bostik. By 2024, the segment should exceed billion, nothing has changed, but the EBITDA margin should stand at least at 17% versus our initial guidance of 16%, positioning Vostik amounts very best in the sector. So as a conclusion, because we wanted to keep this call short and concise and get your questions, I will conclude by saying that the acquisition of Ashland's performance Adelib represents a unique opportunity and constitutes a key milestone in the group's transformation and for Bostik development in particular. More importantly, the deal is highly value creative for our shareholders given the excellent strategic fit and strong synergy potential. And at the same time, it will increase the growth earning resilience thanks to an improved business mix.
So we'd like to thank you for your attention and I'm ready together with the rest of the team to answer your questions.
Thank you. The first question comes from Alex Turas from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Hi there. Good morning. Thank you for the presentation and congratulations. I can see why you've adjusted the purchase price to reflect the lower effective tax rate of these assets now that you can deduct goodwill amortization from pretax profit in your tax calculation. So could you tell us what the effective tax rate is for the business and how that compares with our key mid today?
Because that will help us do a like for like comparison on valuation multiple. And then just related to that, could you confirm whether you could take into account the time value of money on the tax synergies So if you discounted the benefits over time or if you just taken them at nominal value?
Okay, Alex, thank you for your question. I will hand it over to Marie Jose.
So Alex, regarding the tax rate, as you know, there is currently a tax reform in The U. S. That will probably move things a little bit in the next year. But at present, the tax rate of Ashland Adelie's business is around 24%, twenty five % effective tax rate, which is actually higher than what we have at group level for Arkema. Since you know, we are more around, let's say, 20% effective tax rate in our case worldwide.
The assumption we've taken to assess the tax synergies on this transaction is based on a reduction of value of 85% to The U. S. With an amortization period of goodwill over fifteen years, and we've used WACC of 7.5%.
Thank you, Marie Jose. So yes, go ahead.
Sorry, guys. Taking those into account, can you tell us what the effective tax rate would be of the assets when you've acquired them to take into account the goodwill and the fab ratio?
As I said, because there is a tax reform coming in The U. S. In fact, the current tax rate is probably not the right assumption to consider in the future. But at this present time, the rate we consider for The U. S.
Is indeed the 24%.
Which means that our assumption, Alex, is conservative by definition because this tax rate in The U. S. Will be increased as the benefit will be higher than that, that's the one we have taken.
The next question comes from Martin Rodriguez, Kepler Cheuvreux. Sir, please go ahead.
Thanks. On the synergies, you mentioned the 12.5% compared to sales of the target company. But compared to other M and A deals in the chemicals, this is rather a high ratio. What makes you really confident to achieve that ticker? You mentioned cross selling opportunities due to the complementary fit.
So is your estimate based purely on top line synergies? Or does it include cost synergies? And if so, can you elaborate on that cost synergies? And once the asset is fully integrated, how can you measure in the year 2026 that you have achieved these synergies? That was my first question.
The second question is on the financing. Maybe this is a misunderstanding from my side, but you mentioned in your press release that you look at this acquisition also with a perspective that you currently do the strategic review of your Fluorogas business. And in this context, my question is, do you make progress and receive already interest for that asset by strategic or financial investors? And as a follow-up, do you consider to sell the whole Fluorogas business or just the commodity part? Thanks.
Okay. So two very different questions, Marcin. So on the synergies, we have 60% top line and 40% cost. And the cost is between, let's say, raw material linked synergies and fixed cost and fixed cost is industrial optimization and G and A. We have two advantage in this unit credit deal.
The first one is that Ashland is very, very strong in The U. S, but has limited presence outside of The U. S, which mean Europe and Asia, where both Bostik and Arkema are, as you know, very strong. So because of this difference of which is significant in market positioning, the geographical synergies are very, very strong and we can really duplicate very rapidly what we have in The U. S.
To the other region. It's one thing which make it unique. And the second thing is that we benefit and I think this is why also we are natural buyer of the acrylic value chain because the acrylic is a specific backbone to the pressure sensitive. And this makes the difference between, I would say, high synergy, but in the current range. I'm sure you have in mind something like 8% synergy, which is more typical and we announced 12%.
And the differences between the 812% come from these two features, these geographical complementary complementarity and this report of the actual link of value chain, this means that the synergies are not only with Bostik, but also with the coating platform, which is great in fact. With regard to Fluorogases, so I will not otherwise, you would have been informed before. So I think the process, as you know, has been launched. What we want to dispose of are not the Fluorochemicals fuel specialty non emissives. These are the Fluorochemicals emissive business, which is linked to air conditioning, which is a good business, making a lot of cash and no name, but we are very consistent with what we have said so far to the market.
This is what we want to dispose of oil. And we keep the specialty, which are really linked to the natural market of Arkema, which is linked to the energy housing efficiency linked to battery. And I would say the process is developing as planned, but there is no breaking news to announce today in your question. But clearly, you can see the logic and thank you for the question of what we are doing and we have been doing since the market day, Investor Day. Now it's a year on year alpha where we have sold functional polyethylene and the PMMA.
We have launched a Fluorogas disposal and we have made some small bottle acquisition in the middle and now we have a major acquisition. This is about portfolio evolution and we are really moving very fast to reach our goal of becoming a 100% specialty material company. Thank
you. You're welcome.
The next question comes from Jatin from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Yes, hi, morning. A few questions from my side. Number one, it seems Ashland mentioned their last 12 EBITDA of about $82,000,000 versus what you guys are talking about pro form EBITDA of $95,000,000 Is the delta entirely because of the different time frame? Or have you adjusted certain items from their numbers to get to 95? That would be first question.
The second question was, I'm just curious why is the margin
of this business so
high? Like is it the function of product mix, etcetera? And can you also help us understand how has this business grown pre COVID? I'm just trying to understand what is the business where maybe there wasn't any investment in growth and maybe that explains why the margin is high? And last question was on financing.
Can we assume that eventually this or so essentially this deal will be financed using the cash on the balance sheet? So in other words, no new debt will be issued? Thank you.
Okay. So obviously, Rajeet will answer the last one. I will take the first two words. So I would say the first one is the classical difference between seller and purchaser. There is important allocation of corporate costs when you look at reported accounts of Ashland, so which gives you the AT.
And when you take out what needs to be taken out, which is not this allocation of cost, which is our view, so performance adjustment, which has been really being looked in detail many times, plus a little bit of time difference. You have also a few million time difference, you come to this 95. So we are quite comfortable on the 95, which gives you the multiple we have explained. And after that, we take, as Alex mentioned, the tax benefit. With regard to the growth, first of all, everybody which is more or less familiar with the identity business knows new already.
The ultrasound business was a very good one in terms of quality, management, customer intimacy. It's true that they have excellent technologies, which are very difficult to copy because even ourselves, we have never been able to match them. So where they are in niches, evaluated applications, superior know how, plus customer knowledge and intimacy, which has been built over years as it can happen in certain fields in the disease. So it's really a combination of management focus, long lasting customer intimacy and what is superior know how with innovation on certain fields which are growing regularly above GDP. So it's really a combination of that which gives you this kind of margin.
We know that because we have inside those team but also in the restaurant market now which is like that, where you have superior margin for the exactly the same reasons. For the financing, I will ask Madhuri Jose also.
Okay. So regarding finances, you understood correctly. So we are at a liquidity level of, say, it's close to billion, so we are paying cash this transaction. Basically, the good pro form a debt that we expect end of the year, basically, the normative level we have currently is around billion net debt prior to this acquisition. So then we have the enterprise value of the deal that we should be paying in the coming, let's say, four to six months.
So let's say the pro form a net debt to EBITDA ratio should be in the range of, let's say, 1.8x, 1.9x EBITDA at the end of this transaction.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Jose.
The next question comes from Sally Bambard from Ontario Research. Madam, please go ahead.
Hi, it's Sadi. First of all, many congratulations on this deal. Just one question from my side. Can you just give us some color on the pressure sensitive adhesive industry in terms of how big is this business for Accelent? And then in the competitive context, what would be their market share versus players like Bayer store?
And then when it comes to sort of growth, could you talk about growth around liquid adhesive for this business and overall growth? Do you think that this business is very similar to the top of the pyramid angle in terms of growth? Or would you say that actually the growth is somewhere in between for the traditional adhesives business, which is 3%, four % at the higher end, which is in the lower 5%? Thanks a lot.
Okay. Thank you, Jadeep, for your question and your nice comments. So pressure sensitive adhesive is a good is a strong market growing at more than 5% a year. You have application in different films like graphic films, labels, specialties. So there is not one pressure sensitive adhesive.
You have different momentum. And in terms of technologies, you have different range of technologies with different presence, a solvent bond, waterborne, UV. I would say that Ashland is really a key player in North America and Europe in solvent borne pressure sensitive additives, where I would say on the side of Arkema, we benefit more from know how in Waterborne, so it's very complementary. And again, we have some potential development, thanks to our Sartomer business line on the Lube technology. So I would say you have really some of the difference.
So it's difficult to talk about one market and some of different market where I would say, Assam is more U. S. And some of those are rented where Bostik and the rest of Arkema is more waterborne than other regions. So it's very complementary, but the good thing is that it's a niche market, very performance oriented. I don't know if we would say high end of the pyramid, but it's certainly high quality niche and market growth well above GDP at about 5%.
Just one follow-up on the topic. If basically are you saying that with your know how in UV and waterborne in the future, when I say future, maybe in two years' time or so, you can enter the water and the UVborne leases market, which Ashland is not present right now?
Yes. Ashland has already started some development, which are interesting. We have some other routes, so it's very good to share them and to see how we can accelerate. But clearly, the idea is where Ashland is more limited in presence, we can really complement with and see what we call a cost selling with Goustique and archim accounting regime presence. So it's very interesting from this standpoint, very complementary in our geographical presence and technological competency.
So very good from this standpoint.
Thanks a lot and congrats again.
Thank you, Jadib.
The next question comes from Jeff Arup from UBS. Sir, please go ahead.
Yes, good morning and congratulations on the deal. Just two questions from me. First of all, could you just sort of comment on what the organic growth of the business has been over the last five years and also how EBITDA margins have trended over that time? And the second question is how many years do you think it will take for the ROIC of the acquisition to get back to the group's cost of capital of, I think you said, 7.5%?
I think for the first question, I think
we should be there for 2024 emissions, which is too much the cost of capital. In terms of growth, Vincent, if I'm right, we have delivered some things like 3%, four %. Four % on that path growth. And we believe that if not double, we can nearly double this growth with this what I've explained to Jellip, which are these geological and technology synergies. So this is the idea.
You have we will have external growth that they have had in the past of 4% and we will nearly double it with this cross selling synergy that we see from the geographical standpoint and the complementary renewal. So this is very exciting from this standpoint.
So you think organic growth for the business will be 68%?
Yes, exactly. Yes, exactly.
The next question comes from Brian Sandler. Please go ahead.
Good morning. Thanks very much for the questions. Just two for me, please. First one is on capital investment and one off cost. I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about the phasing of of any additional CapEx as you integrate the business and also just in terms of quantity around one off costs.
And then the second question just on a little bit on the digital footprint of this business and how that will compare to Arkema's current digital footprint in the Adhesive Solutions division and where you see that going over the five year integration? Thanks.
So I would say with regard to one off cost, we assume $15,000,000 1 point 5 million dollars 1 off integration cost, typical administrative cost, information systems, etcetera, on the business. And with regard to CapEx, we have planned for on the period of three, four years, million CapEx to implement the synergy because as you have understood, the nature of the synergy are mostly geographical. And because of that, we need to make sure to extend the capacities in the regions where they are more limited. And so all in all, it's what we have put in our model. With regard to the digital footprint, frankly speaking, it's too early to answer.
We are really focused on I don't know if one of the team wants to answer instead of me, but I think we think there will be interesting certainly complementarity, but it's too early at that point.
Thanks very much. You're welcome.
The next question comes from Andreas Herner from Stifel.
Yes, good morning. Andreas Seine from Stifel. First, just a clarification. Did I get that right? The closings should be at the beginning of next year, so four to six months it would mean one.
And the second is the acquisition lifts your margin to a new level. Does that mean that for FOLA, both on acquisitions, you will be more that they selected and future acquisitions also meet this higher target of the acquisition, the maintenance is more in that region of north of 30% after synergy. That's the second question. And the last one is, the same split different to what you have published by now with Industrial Assembly and Construction Consumer. Will you share more broader split on your adhesives business in the future?
So Marc Jose will answer the last one. So with regard the second question, can you repeat it? It was not the line was not very good.
Sorry. So the exhibitions in the future probably have not always been margin accretive from the outset at a much lower level. When you go now to 17%, then I think that quite a number of acquisitions or targets we are looking at at considerably lower margin and would be within this synergies dilutive. So does that mean that in the future, you will look for a different profile of acquisitions in the acquisition?
Okay. So with regard to the date of closing, so we expect four to six months for the closing. Obviously, the obvious is better for all of us. So we start now really tomorrow, really a big priority to try to speed it up as possible, but take four to six months. In terms of acquisition
for the Adeliv, each
acquisition is of different nature. You can have hard synergy. You can have more of a top line synergy. So depending on which kind of synergy you can have, you can start with acquisition with lower margin, but where the synergies are very high. But I would say more and more with Bostik, if it is your question, we focus on the acquisition with margin already above 15%, okay?
And this has been the recent experience with Elixir Brands, with Leap, with FixaT, with Prochimere and we were modest. So this one is rather unique and with EBITDA margin above 25%. But I would say, if you look recently, most of our acquisition has been at least at 16% and we should continue in this direction. So not really any change. And don't forget that a significant part of the increase of EBITDA on the VASIC will not come from acquisition, will come from the continuous improvement by the team of the current business, which is direct value creation.
Marie Jose, the last one?
So regarding segmentation, as you know, we published today around four segments. So the three segments which constitute our specialty portfolio are the Adelis, the Materials and the Coating Solutions. Basically, on the Adelis, the split in terms of business was roughly fifty-fifty between construction consumer in one hand and industrial assembly on the other hand. The impact of the transaction of Ashland basically increases the share of Industrial and Assembly Agencies, like I said, by five to six points in the split of the business itself. And it gives also a bit more momentum to North America versus the heavyweights we traditionally had in Europe for the Adelis segment.
We normally give some color when we comment the performance of Bostik around those elements. So both between construction consumer and industrial assembly at the end and from a geographic color sometimes on the other hand. But we don't plan today to further segment, let's say, the business in two different calls. Clearly, the next segmentation objective for us is once we are finished basically with the Fluorogas portfolio reshuffling. Probably, at that point in time, the intermediates, we need to revisit, but this would for me be the trigger in the future for a change in segmentation for ARPMR.
The next question comes from Georgina Nihamoto from Goldman Sachs. Madam, please go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I've just got one left. I'm just wondering about the raised margin target, so 17% for the Adhesives business by 2024.
Do you think that's a bit conservative given the potential that you have to roll out the Ashland businesses advanced technologies across Europe and Asia. And I'm also wondering what could be the impact on profitability in other segments. And so for example, you could roll out new capacities in the pressure sensitive technologies in Asia and start to integrate the Coating Solutions business or the acrylic assets that you have there. Is that something that you see potential for in the future?
Okay. So first of all, I would say, mechanically, if you make the math, you gain 1.5 points.
1.2.
One point two. So So you gain 1.2 points and you know Georgina that our current level is 14%, okay, which is our target for this year. So end of twenty twenty one, we will be at 14% pro form a plus 1.2% is 15.2%. And we say that after 2022, '20 '20 '3, '20 '20 '4, so three years, we'll get from 15.2% to 17%. So I would not say it's a stretch, but it's quite ambitious target.
So I think it's very consistent. I would not say we have margin for maneuver. We are conservative. I think we are realistic. It's quite a demanding target, but I think it's completely achievable.
But I would not say we should target something abroad because if you make the math, it's really very consistent with what we say on business plan, etcetera, consistent with what we have said so far. So basically, I think 70% is really what we have in mind, which is we position us at a very, very good level. I mean, 17, we started Bostik at 10%. And if you look at the adhesive business, including companies like Cica, the one which are at 17%, they are not so many. So with a level of capital intensity, which is around 3%, so which makes in terms of EBIT something which is very high.
So I think it's a very, very good target. After that, you mentioned the other business, I would say by definition, depends where you put the synergies, but by definition of the synergy, we have allocated all the synergy to Bostik, which means after that in the real life, it may be slightly different. But I would say, we count also what we will do in the coating. So you will get some benefit on the acrylic monomer, which will be limited, but which will participate to the synergy. But it's really compared to the whole synergy, it's a limited number.
It adds to the synergy, but it's a limited number. So consider that to make the story short, already strong target for Rostiq, very nice and realistic. And with regard to coating solution, it will be an addition. Most of the addition will be in the Bostik P and L and some of them but not so material compared to the total which we have been announced of 45,000,000 in the quoting solution. But at the end of the year, it's a growth.
And it shows you, which is certainly in the element of your question, that between the different platforms of Arkema, the three legs that we have, coating solution, adhesives and also high performance polymer, they are very close to each other.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Thierry, and congratulations. It must feel like a great result after a busy summer.
Okay. Thank you, Georgina.
The next question comes from Jean Luc Romain from Cinci Market Solutions. Sir, please go ahead.
Good morning for your congratulations for your acquisition. I was wondering with the 95,000,000 EBITDA you gave for 95,000,000 and the multiple of 15 times, we arrived to $1,400,000,000 Should we the difference between $1,650,000,000 and $1,400,000,000 is that or you value the tax advantage?
Yes. Okay. Thank you for asking the question because we thought it was clear in the press release, but then I think it's clear for everyone, yes, the difference is there. And this is what Mario Jose has reemphasized answering one of the questions before.
Yes. So that's about $200,000,000 of tax advantage. Thank you.
So not conservative, as I mentioned.
So yes, this is based on 24%.
Correct.
Thank you.
We have a new question from Laurent Favre from Exane BNP Paribas. From Exane BNP Paribas. Sir, please go ahead.
Yes. Good morning, Laurent. Thank you and congrats. My two questions, Thierry. Number one is on the M and A pipeline side.
You've mentioned that the balance sheet would get a comfortable level of gearing. Should we assume that you're not closing the acquisition side in terms of bolt on acquisitions? And then the second question is around net pricing for, I guess, this new type of asset in Avisi. So we spent a lot of time talking about raw materials and pricing for Bostik back in July or August. Given that they are more focused in terms of raw material purchasing and that their customer base might be a bit more sophisticated, more industrial, bigger companies, should we be assuming that the raw material squeeze may be bigger for them in the short term and you may require a bit of time to work through that net pricing in 2022 during 2022?
Okay. With regard to the M and A pipeline, and tell me if I answer your question. So this one is obviously a major one by the side, by the value creation. And we want to try to speed up the first the time between signature and closing and then the execution of the deal as much as possible. So I would say in terms of major for us, this is really our focus and we'll be busy for certain time of it.
Beyond that, we'll continue to make small bolt on, which is as you know our capacity, okay? And they can be really value, value creating even the ratio resources spent on the side is high. All the small ones, which we have been doing in the past three years, has really created a lot of value. So we continue. So what you should see from and then the pipeline is very big, but we continue to be selective.
So I would say every year you can continue to count between, let's say, three, four small bolt on every year. And from time to time, as I mentioned, a major one, which is the one we are making today. So I don't know if I answered your question, but this is a profile of what we'll be doing. Sure.
That's the question, Sadek. Thank you.
Okay. Now your question on the pricing, what was specifically on
comment on national specifically, but on this type of assets.
Yes. So clearly, the more specialty you are, it's maybe a paradox for you, but you see that with our acrylic value chain, which has reacted very quickly on the raw material, while for domestic it takes more time. It's true that the more specialty and on prem you are, the more it takes time to pass the full impact of raw material and it works in the same direction. But on the other side, when the raw material are tight, you have normally strong volumes, which help. This is why this kind of business are quite resilient and this is what happening to Ashland and this is what is happening to the Sysco.
So to answer your question, I would say, in terms of EBITDA profitability between margin and volumes, you see really strong resilience and robustness. In terms of margin percentage squeeze, you cannot temporarily a couple of quarters where you suffer more. But overall, it's not longer than that, okay, because you have pricing power, but you are, let's say, more progressive in the way you develop your pricing on pure specialty. And on businesses, we are a little bit more upstream, okay? But at the end, I would say, you talk about couple of quarters, not more than that.
So we are quite confident for this business for 'twenty two, but also for the rest of Bostik, whatever the raw material scenario is. And you can see it on the on Bostik. I think I remember when we talk about 14% margin for Bostik on this year, there were some doubts which were expressed and we tried to answer. And in fact, raw material wave has been significantly higher and we still confirm the 14% for the year.
Excellent. Thank you, Thierry. You're welcome.
The next question comes from Andre Noel from Chemical ESCG. Sir, please go ahead.
Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. It's just a short one. Obviously, you're buying a company with a much higher multiple than where our camera is trading. Do you feel like the company and management has moved on from the sort of phase of risk when a few years ago when we saw Elliot around and the possibility of others coming forward like that.
I'm not sure I catch your question, but clearly
I said what I'm saying is maybe some might see some value construction in terms of buying a company much higher. So I guess it shows a comfort level that you've moved on from a few years ago when Elliot was around, if that makes it any clearer.
So first of all, I will tell you a minute, we don't comment rumors, so we have never commented. And secondly, on the acquisition, if you look at the story, we have made, well, Bernard, how many acquisitions in the start? 13. 13. So we have made 30 acquisitions in the start and you have all kind of multiple profile or whatever, which is very important in the value creation and we have been in terms of value creation, you can see the evolution of the share price over the years very strong.
So I don't think it's a change in strategy at all. I think when we bought Softomair, we paid significantly more obviously, we paid significantly more in multiples and when we bought the in acrylics in The U. S. So it depends really the time, but at the end value creation is great. So we'll continue to focus on, I would say, on value creation.
But now as we say, after synergy, which is what comes, we said that net of the benefit of tax, we would have paid 8.7 in 2026, which is not so far from our current multiple. And don't forget on rule that our strategy we strongly believe that our multiple should be higher.
A year.
So and that it will be helped further by portfolio transformation. So it's not a sort of static game or static vision. You need to look in dynamics. We believe that with a portfolio transformation and unfortunately, we can start to see that today. The share price will benefit and the value creation will benefit and so we get this value.
And but at the same time, it's not enough. We want to take down the multiple and this is what we do because we announced for 2026 a multiple meeting down at 8.7. So I think it's very consistent and I would not say that our strategy has shown so much. I think we want to be a pure player on specialty and we are ready to buy some high quality asset at high price because we believe that it's worth doing it for the transformation of the portfolio. And maybe last time, you know that we have sold recently our functional polyethylene business and our PMME business.
I think we benefit also from this environment at higher multiples. So you see it for the acquisition, you see it for the disposals.
Thanks very much. And just a follow on, if I may. Do you think the fluro gas is the emissive side, will that I know it's a complicated setup there and probably be a complex solution there. But do you think that will move the needle finally? I know you've been frustrated about multiple for many years.
I think so first of all, you say it's complex. Okay, it's your words, but I think it's completely manageable. We are providing that with other disposals which we are more obligated. So it's not an issue so much for us. And then the gain is, I think that it's not one let's say one component of portfolio transformation, it's many components, it's a sum of different components, which at the end takes the company where we're going to take it and where we believe we benefit from this appreciation from this market.
So I think PMMA disposal on one step. Fluorogas, when we will do it, we will be another step. And acquisition of Ashland is another one. Ashland disease, the return we are making with Lustig are also other ones. And but not only external groups on disposal is also what we do organically.
For example, I think that all this capacity addition in PVDF or battery are really value operative and we specialty business will take the profile of the company here and the same for this project of Proimide delivered, biosource Proimide in Singapore. So it's just some of element at the end. The company I mean, it will be even dangerous to believe that one movement will change the company. Now, I think we have started the transformation of the company nearly twenty years ago. I would say fifteen.
Okay. Okay. I will repeat it. But so more than fifteen years ago and I think we what you have, I think, which is good with our camera is that at the same time, we are able to deliver the short term, but to deliver a journey which is supported by your long term vision. And I think it's unique with Arcelor.
Thanks very much for the full answer.
You're welcome.
We don't have any further questions. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you that if you wish to ask a question, please press 01 on your telephone
Okay. We don't no
more questions, Mr. O'Brien. Okay.
Thank you very much for participating with this short notice. And as I we told you, we are very excited and to get this opportunity to welcome this very talented team for a very good business. And I think it will be a bright move for Arkema again. So thank you very much and looking forward to see you in February.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.