Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Wacker full year 2025 results conference call. I'm Moritz, your call's call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be in a listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a question and answer session. If you can register for questions at any time by pressing star and one on your telephone. For operator assistance, please press star and zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's our pleasure to hand over to Jörg Hoffmann, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. Welcome to the Wacker Chemie AG conference call on the full year 2025 results. Dr. Christian Hartel, our CEO, and Dr. Tobias Ohler, our CFO, will walk you through the presentation. The press release, annual report, our IR presentation, and detailed financial tables are available on our webpage under the Investor Relations section. Please note that management comments during this call include forward-looking statements involving risks and uncertainties. We encourage you to review the safe harbor statement in today's presentation and our 2025 annual report for information on risk factors. All documents mentioned are available on our website. Chris?
Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for our full year 2025 results call. In 2025, we reported sales of EUR 5.5 billion and EBITDA before special items of around EUR 529 million. This result was in line with our guidance, which we revised in October. Although we ended up in line with our guidance and the market expectations, let me be clear, this is not where we want to be. This also clearly applies to our annual result of -EUR 805 million. The profit and loss was impacted by approximately EUR 705 million of restructuring provisions and impairments. Owing to the negative result and in line with our dividend policy, we will propose to the AGM on May 6 that no dividend will be distributed.
In this environment, we did not try to get back on course with incremental adjustments. We took bold steps to get Wacker firmly back on a path to success. Before I address our cost reduction efforts and guidance, let me quickly highlight our sustainability initiatives on the right side of the page. Wacker achieved top scores in the latest annual ESG assessments. By achieving an A rating in the CDP Climate Assessment, Wacker now has risen to the top of more than 21,000 companies worldwide. External ratings are important for us, and our leading sustainability profile is a differentiating factor in the market. Now on to PACE on page four. As you know, chemicals remain under pressure worldwide. This is especially true in Europe. Demand stayed weak across many industries. Uncertainty was particularly high. Trade and geopolitical tensions led many customers to delay orders and postpone investments.
At the same time, we face structural challenges on top of the cyclical downturn. New competitors are entering the market. There is overcapacity in many standard chemical products. In Europe, we have excessive regulations and high energy prices that are not internationally competitive. Both reduces Europe's competitiveness versus the U.S. and Asia. In this market environment, we must transform ourselves. We need to set Wacker firmly back on a path to success by significantly lowering our costs and strengthening our competitiveness for the long term. To strengthen Wacker's competitiveness, we launched the largest cost-cutting project in our history under the name PACE in October last year. The goal is to reduce production and administrative costs by more than EUR 300 million annually, with a focus on labor productivity, maintenance and engineering, production-related services, and procurement.
We are making good progress and already expect to achieve EUR 200 million of savings already in 2026. By now, all measures are clearly defined, and we have already begun with the implementation phase. By the end of 2027, all measures should be implemented. Headcount reductions are unavoidable. More than 1,500 positions will be reduced worldwide. Most of them are at our sites in Germany. The ambitious program will put us back on track and will secure Wacker's place among the world's leading specialty chemical companies. Now let's move on to the guidance on page five. For 2026, we forecast modest growth with group sales up by a low single-digit percentage . EBITDA is expected to be in the range of EUR 550 million-EUR 700 million.
Our forecast assumes that markets remain challenging while we deliver tangible savings from our PACE cost program. Please note that the outlook does not include potential impacts from the recent developments in the Middle East, which cannot be reliably determined today. CapEx is expected to be around EUR 300 million and well below last year. Now that many of our larger investments are completed, we have shifted our focus to filling capacities. Net cash flow is expected to be positive and significantly higher than last year. This will lead to clearly lower net financial debt by year-end. We are acting with discipline. We are tightening our cost base. We are improving our capital efficiency. We are sharpening our focus on areas where we can win, especially in specialties and technology-led applications. Yet, cost-cutting alone cannot secure our future.
We will continue to invest, accelerate innovation, and build the foundation for sustained profitable growth. Looking to page six, you can see that we have invested to expand our global leadership positions. We advanced our specialty strategy by bringing new silicone production facilities online across our global setup. In polymers, we invested in new VAE capacities in the U.S. In Biosolutions, we have sharpened our innovation edge with our new biotech center in Munich. In polysilicon, our new etching line strengthens our standing as the undisputed global market and quality leader for ultrapure semiconductor-grade polysilicon. We are particularly excited about this new facility. We are positioned very well here to support semiconductor growth, AI-driven by strong demand for high-performance chips used in AI applications and many others. Before I hand over to Tobias, let me highlight on page seven our focus areas going forward.
In order to develop our potential even better, we formulated three overarching strategic priorities in spring 2025 that show us the way forward. These set our course and reinforce our ambition to lead, to innovate, and to grow in the years to come. First, we elevate our business model and value proposition. In chemicals, we are intensifying our focus on specialties. Here we can clearly differentiate ourselves and create superior value for our customers. Polysilicon, our focus is firmly on the semiconductor market. In Biosolutions, we are focused on advanced biotech solutions for health and nutrition applications. In all these areas, we can provide customers with high-performance solutions addressing the mega trends of today. Second, we unleash the potential of our structure and processes. We are committed to becoming faster, more efficient, and more agile.
To achieve this, we are harnessing the full potential of digitalization, automation, and AI across our operations. These technologies are not optional. We see them as essential drivers of our future competitiveness. Third, we excel with our people and culture. We foster a performance mindset with active entrepreneurship and accountability. We build global player capabilities through energized and empowered teams. We will succeed as one Wacker through strong collaboration across diverse teams. Our strategy is clear. The measures we are taking today will have a lasting impact. I have full confidence in our ability to shape the transformation ahead. We not only have the right technologies and solutions, but above all, we have the right team.
Now to our employees around the world, on behalf of the entire executive board, I would like to thank you sincerely for your commitment, your resilience, and professionalism making the difference. Looking ahead, 2026 will remain challenging. It is critical that we stay on course. Markets will not wait. Speed is essential. 2026 will be the year of execution, driven by spirit, speed, and confidence. Now let me hand over to Tobias.
Thank you, Chris. Good afternoon, everyone. Looking at the profit and loss statement, sales in 2025 were EUR 5.5 billion, with a reported EBITDA of EUR 427 million. EBITDA before restructuring expenses was down 29% year-over-year to EUR 529 million. Both sales and earnings were impacted by lower volumes and prices in some cases, as well as by negative currency effects. In 2025, we booked approximately EUR 700 million in impairments, write-offs, and restructuring expenses. These charges are reported throughout the profit and loss. Let me walk you through the main elements of those items now. EBIT came in at -EUR 180 million, and this includes, in addition to the restructuring expenses of EUR 103 million, also asset impairments totaling EUR 102 million.
Among other items, a EUR 89 million goodwill impairment in our Biosolutions business was booked. Below the EBIT line, there were two significant effects. First, we recognized an impairment of our stake in Siltronic, resulting in charge of EUR 308 million. Second, we recorded a write-off of deferred tax assets in Germany totaling EUR 194 million. In the appendix, you can find detailed notes outlining the specific amounts. It is important to point out that from the roughly EUR 700 million in total charges, some EUR 600 million are non-cash. The remaining EUR 103 million is the PACE restructuring provision. This amount should cover the expected costs here, and we do not expect further provisions for this program in this year. With the valuation adjustments taken at the end of 2025, we have significantly de-risked our balance sheet.
After all those special items, net income came in at -EUR 805 million. Clearly, this result is a call to action. As Chris spoke about, we have initiated the comprehensive cost program PACE. We are making good progress here and expect significant savings already in 2026. Looking at page seven, we ended 2025 with strong financials with a high level of liquidity at EUR 1.48 billion and with EUR 3.76 billion in equity. Our liquidity position was clearly supported by our targeted efforts to reduce investments in working capital. Total investments in working capital were 11% lower year over year, with both inventories and receivables being markedly lower. Inventories were EUR 268 million lower and accounts receivables were EUR 76 million lower.
This was a great effort, which clearly paid off, but this also clearly weighed on Q4 margins, particularly in the two chemical divisions. Liquidity was further strengthened by our successful placement of EUR 435 million Schuldschein with three, five and seven year tranches. This is part of our established strategy of having well-balanced debt maturities. Compared to the end of 2024, the balance sheet total is 11% lower. The largest changes stemmed from the same measures that impacted the profit and loss and consequently also our shareholder equity position. Despite last year's negative net income, we maintained a solid financial structure with a healthy equity ratio of 45%. Now looking at the operating segment, starting on page 10. At silicones, sales in 2025 were approximately EUR 2.73 billion, down 3%.
At EUR 336 million, the full year EBITDA was 1% below 2024. Last year we saw weak order intake and uncertainty weighing on key end markets such as automotive, construction and consumer-related industries such as textiles. At the same time, imports from Asia into European commodity markets intensified. For 2026, we expect sales in silicones to be at the prior year level, with higher prices and volumes being offset by negative FX effects. The EBITDA margin should come in slightly above the prior year level from cost savings. On page eleven, full year sales in polymers were EUR 1.38 billion, 6% below the prior year. EBITDA declined by 19% year-over-year to EUR 158 million. Performance was defined by lower volumes, negative FX effects and lower ASPs.
Over the course of 2025, end markets remained largely unchanged. Construction-related powders showed small growth year-over-year, while Western Europe and China remained weak here. Consumer-related dispersions faced lower demand. For 2026, we expect sales in polymers to be at the prior year level, with higher volumes and partially higher prices being offset by negative exchange rate effects. We expect the EBITDA margin to be slightly higher than the prior year from cost savings. On page 12, sales in Biosolutions were EUR 360 million, down 4% year-over-year. EBITDA decreased to EUR 21 million from EUR 35 million a year ago. Earnings over the course of 2025 were impacted by soft demand in established products and reductions in BioPharma. Low utilization rates weighed on our performance. The Q4 EBITDA also saw negative effects from our inventory management.
For 2026 in Biosolutions, we expect sales to be high single-digit percentage higher than prior year with an EBITDA at around EUR 30 million. The market environment remains challenging. We will stay focused on strengthening our commercial activities, filling capacities and cost management. On page 13, full year sales in polysilicon came in at EUR 883 million, 7% lower year-over-year. EBITDA decreased to EUR 96 million. This was due to low solar demand and very low plant utilization rates. We stayed focused on tight inventory controls. We actively took steps to adjust production with the goal of reducing inventory in stock while maintaining minimum production volumes. On the positive side, semi developed very strongly. Volumes were up by a double-digit percentage higher than prior year.
With our new etching line, we are positioned very well to support semiconductor growth, driven by strong demand from data centers and AI. For 2026, we expect sales in polysilicon to be a low double-digit percentage higher than prior year. EBITDA is forecasted to be at the prior year level, and this despite higher energy costs this year due to lower CO2 compensation. Earnings are clearly supported by significantly higher semi sales and efficiency gains. On the other hand, solar remains challenging with no significant effects from trade policies included in our outlook. Let's move on to Others on page 14. For 2025, the Others EBITDA came in at -EUR 185 million. This figure includes the restructuring provision of EUR 103 million for PACE, which was booked in the Q4 .
Excluding this, the other EBITDA would have come in at -EUR 82 million, and this is lower than last year, driven by the lower absorption of group infrastructure costs and low hydroelectricity output. As you can see here, the CO2 compensation scheme held back the other EBITDA during the first three quarters of last year. In the Q4 , when the payment for CO2 compensation arrived, we saw a reversal of the debits to others of the first three quarters. This dynamic in the Q4 of 2025 is not as evident as in 2024 due to the masking effects of the PACE provision. This year, the effects of the CO2 compensation on our quarterly results will be more muted. We calculate with about EUR 70 million compensation for the full year, EUR 90 million less than last year.
For the full year 2026, others EBITDA, there's anyhow no effect from the CO2 compensation. We forecasted for 2026 others EBITDA -EUR 50 million as we see a continued underutilization of infrastructure. Now, let's look at our net financial position on page 15. In 2025, we generated a gross cash flow of EUR 543 million. Gross cash flow was supported by targeted initiatives to reduce the investment in working capital. The cash flow from investing activities was EUR 546 million, including the dividend payment of EUR 124 million. We ended the year with a net debt of EUR 886 million. Looking at page 16.
For the Q1 of 2026, we see sales at about EUR 1.35 billion with an EBITDA between EUR 140 million and EUR 160 million, as compared to the EUR 119 million last year. Sales are expected to be lower due to the significant exchange rate headwinds, while EBITDA comes in higher year-over-year with cost savings coming through. As Chris stated, recent events in the Middle East and volatile energy markets clearly increase uncertainty. Energy and raw material prices have climbed in the past week, creating new headwinds. To reliably service our customers, we will look to pass on the higher cost as we have done in the past. Forecasting the impact of these effects reliably is not possible at this time. Before we start with the Q&A, let me summarize.
Our strategy and the measures we have taken will prove effective and put Wacker back on the road to success. Wacker has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to adapt successfully to new circumstances time and again. I'm therefore convinced that we will successfully navigate the challenges that lie ahead. Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchtone telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered the queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use only handsets while asking a question. In the interest of time, please limit yourself to two questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. One moment for the first question, please. The first question comes from Christian Faitz from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead.
Yes, thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. Two questions, please. First of all, in polysilicon, what is the current split roughly between semi-grade and solar grade? The second question is actually pertaining to current conditions in the light of the Iran conflict. Would you see demand for your construction-geared products being impacted by the heightened conflict? If I look, for example, at basic things like cement, which has been considerably up recently on the back of this conflict, higher overall construction costs might temper construction activity worldwide. What is your take on this? Actually, what do your salespeople see in the very recent weeks in terms of demand momentum? Thanks very much.
Okay, Christian. Christian, here on your first question. I mean, you know, we don't disclose in detail the split between semiconductor and s olar. What I can tell you is, I mean, we had double-digit growth in semi last year, and also we will expect double-digit growth in semi going into this year. I mean, if you look at the numbers and make an estimated calculation or guess, I think you can see that today we are already selling more semiconductor, not only in sales but also in volume. That's all I can say on this matter. Maybe let me start with a general comment on the conflict in the Middle East. I mean, this is certainly not adding more certainty, but adding another layer of macroeconomic uncertainty. It's on energy pricing, it's on raw material availability, logistics, and also I think on end consumer demand.
For us, it's still too early to have a kind of a clear picture and to have numbers on that. I mean, we are obviously diligently working on it. As we said in the speeches, have not included into our full year guidance. I can tell you, I mean, at the moment, I would say it's not really adding optimism for 2026, especially not in the short term. Maybe Tobias can give a little bit more flavor on the effects. I think in general, I would say, the conflict is more weighing on the overall demand situation, and we have to see how long it goes, and maybe then it could reverse an additional demand as you said, on the construction. It's too early to conclude.
I think in general, we have.
Yeah.
To add in, Tobias, here. In general, we have seen the typical seasonal pattern.
Mm-hmm.
With quarter-on-quarter development and also with order intake. Yes, you could argue that order intake from some very smart buyers is a little bit pulled into the system right now, trying to avoid potential price increases. But I wouldn't count too much on that very short-term movement. I think we are not in a position to have a good scenario on what does that mean for end market demand. I mean, the days are really super volatile as we all experience them. I think the more pronounced effect will be on energy and on raw materials. As I said in speech, we have our mechanisms in place to, yeah, pass that on to our customers. We also believe that our competitors will be largely in the same position as we are. It's nothing specific to Wacker. It's specific to the entire landscape of competitors.
Great. Thanks for the additional color, both.
The next question comes from Thomas Wrigglesworth from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Christian , Tobias, thank you very much. Two questions, if I may. The first question, if we can just talk a little bit about the cost savings, and what you've baked in of the EUR 200 million gross savings for 2026. How, you know, do we start small and then that, you know, and we finish on a much stronger exit rate? Your thoughts and forecast there would be very helpful. Secondly, just on the polysilicon moving parts, specifically, you know, we understand semi-grade is doing well. But could you share with us, on the solar side, you know, is the business steady now and set to be steady for 2026? Do you have visibility on those volumes, or will you have to flex with the market, you know, as things progress? Thank you.
Thomas, thank you for your questions. I will start with the cost savings on PACE, and Tobias will continue. First of all, I think what needs to be clear, we started the PACE project in Q4 of last year. Yet we also worked on cost savings throughout the year, of course. I mean, we have the WOS program, and also we started measures last year, like a hiring freeze in Germany and in the U.S., which is also something which we already see today in the numbers. I think that's important to keep in mind that we are already, you know, worked since last year on cost measures, seeing effects already now in Q1.
Yes, I mean, in general, you can say on the pace, I mean, it's progressing. We implemented measures in China. You could say China is already finished. In the U.S., we did a lot already. In Germany, we are also in the negotiation with the works council. Once we have a clear solution here, we can implement even more measures. Yes, it will be increasing throughout the year.
The 200
Maybe I
Yeah.
The EUR 200 million, I mean, we also worked on non-personnel measures.
Right.
These are typically effective more quickly structural savings, lower budgets for various items from technical spend to, I mean, it's not a game changer to travel. These effects we already see at the start of the year, but through more personnel measures coming effective throughout the year, there should be a slight progression in this year, reaching the EUR 200 million in total savings.
Mm-hmm. On your question on the poly side, well, as we said, I mean, growth is largely coming in 2027 from the semi side, which is progressing very well. Solar will remain challenging, and we have no significant effect from trade policies, i.e. the Section 232 included. As we also said last year in the call, we had long-term contracts in 2025. We do have long-term contracts in 2026 on the solar side. Yes, I mean, it will remain challenging business, but we see it more on a steady side.
Just as a follow-up to that, you know, is there a need for a strategic review of the solar business or is the growth in the semiconductor side strong enough now that you feel that you'll just grow into your semi business and the solar business doesn't need strategic review. It will just shrink proportionally to a point where it's not meaning, you know, where it's less material.
Well, I don't think it needs a strategic review because a strategic review is already done. The strategic review has a very clear answer. If there is a positive Section 232 announcement, that could open, you know, for the next years an opportunity for us in solar, which we will obviously continue. If the Section 232 is not in a positive way, then it is very clear that solar will not be a continued business for us. We also said in this case, we probably have one plant too many on the poly side.
Okay. Do you have a hard stop as to when Section 232 arrives or not? Because it's certainly been a roller-
Sorry, but we are obviously not deciding the 232. It's the Department of Commerce and the President of the United States. If you wanna have an exact timing on it, better to ask them than us, if I may say so.
Will do. No, no. Thank you both very much. Very clear.
Sure.
The next question comes from Matthew Yates from Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Hey, good afternoon, gentlemen. Thanks for taking the time. A couple of questions, please. The first one on the silicones division. Can you give me the capital employed of that business? I don't think you've disclosed at the divisional level what the capital employed is in the past, but I'm particularly curious in the context of you've spent EUR 1 billion in CapEx since 2021 in that business. I'm trying to understand the current return on capital and maybe thinking about where that could get to over the midterm.
The second question, just to follow up a little bit on the earlier discussion around energy and feedstock, specifically as it relates to methanol, which if my chemical knowledge is right, I think you use that as an input, both directly and indirectly in the silicones and polymers business. Can you just shed some light on how you go about sourcing that as a feedstock? I take your point on this as an industry-wide issue, but do you have any reason to believe that Wacker's sort of logistics and relationships would be any sort of competitive advantage or disadvantage in the sort of degree of methanol cost inflation you might see over the coming weeks and months if this crisis goes on? Thank you.
Matthew, on the second part, I can give you an answer or try to give you an answer on the methanol side. First of all, none of our competitors in the silicones space is kind of backward integrated into methanol. All of these guys like us are procuring methanol. Methanol is this super commodity globally available from many, many sites. We also have a sourcing strategy, obviously, which is multi-source, multi-region. From that perspective, I do not expect major, you know, advantages or disadvantages, although I cannot argue for our competitors. I would say, methanol is a rather liquid commodity, which is easily available. There might be impact on the pricing side, which we see from the conflict in the Middle East. Typically, our raws are linked to index prices, and that's typically also what I would expect from our customers. As our competitors also are trying to pass the higher costs on to the customers. That's at least what we will try to do.
Matthew, to be clear on the capital employed, we, as you already said, we are not publishing that on the segment level. Your observation is completely correct. We invest substantial amounts in silicones for good reasons. We see growth opportunities, but in this environment, we haven't been filling those sufficiently. That's why our performance is sub-cycle for both EBITDA margin and for EBIT margin.
The focus will be to increase utilization and as part of the PACE program to work on the fixed cost structure. Also specifically in silicones to improve performance. Because historically, with the segment and I think as part of the capital markets day in 2022, we had some numbers on the two segments, silicones and polymers combined. We do have the potential of earning twice cost of capital in-
Mm-hmm
In this. Our strategy going forward to go more for specialties is also asset lighter. This means that we are truly, I mean, targeting this and the upstream for us is just a feeder, and this is not core strategy. For that reason, we will also not put any further money in that beyond maintenance CapEx. That's how I can describe it with respect to our ambition also to bring silicones ROC back to historic performance.
Okay. If I can just follow up, because today you have taken various impairments across the business, most notably Biosolutions, which was also an area you invested money into. Why have you not taken impairments in the silicones business? Where does the degree of confidence come from that ultimately the investments you've been making in recent years will provide a reasonable return?
Because if you look at the cash-generating units, Matthew, you have a decent coverage. There's no need to take impairments on that. Completely different in those segments where we took action. We are very confident that our asset values are really justified also by future cash flows.
Okay. Thank you very much.
The next question comes from Sebastian Bray from Berenberg. Please go ahead.
Hello, good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. My first one is on polysilicon. The decision about whether to close a plant seems to be tied to when Section 232 comes to an end. What is a bad outcome for Wacker that could trigger the closure of a plant? My understanding is that the investigation is pretty likely to introduce some quite hefty barriers to entry in U.S. solar. Are perhaps there some concerns around the ramp-up of United Solar projects, domestic U.S. capacity additions? I think Tesla has been looking at the polysilicon market more recently. My second question is on silicones. How has this business been going in the first two months of the year? And have the price increases announced by Wacker largely been implemented successfully? Thank you.
Sebastian, it's Christian. On your first question on the Section 232, what would be a bad outcome? Well, a bad outcome I can tell you would be that there's essentially no restriction or very limited restriction on material coming into the U.S. You can argue how likely that is, but I think it is. I don't want to speculate on it. Obviously, you have some information which you referred to. That would be a bad outcome. Then we have to take a decision to step out of the solar space and to close one of our sites.
Sebastian, on Silicones, the first two months of the year, they are below prior year in sales, mainly from that huge change in exchange rate. I mean, we still had a $1.05 in last year in the first two months. Now we were close to 1.20, now at 1.16. That makes a huge difference and standard prices are still low, also lower than prior years. There's also headwind from there. As I said before, we are against all this headwind from sales. We are expecting EBITDA for the first quarter to be at a similar level than last year from the cost savings coming through. As Christian, I mean, explained, we started the PACE program in Q4 officially, but we started to work on some measures even before, and especially with respect to external spend.
We are starting very cautiously on technical spend on travel and so forth. This helps. That's why results will be better. With the destocking in the second half of last year, we can run production now at a higher level to serve the demand. That also, as you know, gives you a bit of an uplift in profitability. I think it's a decent start in challenging environment, mainly from self-help from our side.
That's much helpful. Thank you for taking the questions.
The next question comes from Chetan Udeshi from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi, thanks for taking my question. I'm a bit confused on your silicones guidance, because you are saying standard prices are down year-on-year, volumes are down. How is the EBITDA flat? You know, I mean, I don't know if the self-help is so substantial, and if it is so substantial, can you quantify it? I mean, you said EUR 200 billion of gross savings. How much of these do we think stick in terms of net savings? I think your inflation should be something like, you know, EUR 70 billion, EUR 80 billion a year, I suppose so. I'm just curious, are we talking about EUR 120 billion, EUR 130 billion of net savings, and is that more front-end loaded, which is helping your numbers? The second question I had was on polysilicon.
You said you want sales again, you know, high single digits, down year on year, but EBITDA close to last year. What's going on, especially with the energy cost also increasing because of low CO2 compensation? It just doesn't. The math doesn't add up somehow. I was just curious. I was going through your annual report, and it seems your advance payment from customers have shrunk by half last year. It is a bit counterintuitive, given that you started up this new facility for semiconductor-grade in Burghausen. I was expecting maybe that number should be going up rather than halving. What sort of confidence should we have in terms of the, you know, filling up of this capacity going forward based on this lower advanced payments? Thank you.
Okay. Maybe I'll start with the silicones. I meant that in the Q1 , I mean, exchange rate is the core headwind. Prices in standard products are still low, but I didn't say that volumes are down.
Mm-hmm.
The stabilization in profitability really comes also from solid seasonal volume recovery plus a lower run rate also of the plants, which gives the according fixed cost dilutions and all the cost measures that we mentioned. With respect to the savings from PACE, we are trying to understand the net savings. It's obvious that the net savings are pretty close to 100% when you start the program. The net savings get a bit eroded by inflation when you go to the last years of the program. We have a very good recovery rate in this year and maybe in 2028, if you account for inflation with personnel and also non-personnel costs.
Yeah, there will be an erosion, but net savings would still be above 50% from the program that is effective. Yeah, maybe on the poly side. For the Q1, well, obviously, what we said, there is double-digit growth we see in the highly profitable semiconductor space. Yes, there is a much better cost base despite less CO2 compensation. Where is it coming from? Well, it's coming from measures we took already last year. For example, at our site in Charleston, we've reduced headcount already. That is taking effect now in Q1.
Also keep in mind, last year we had pre-operating costs for our etching line in Burghausen, which we don't have obviously this year as the plant is running very well, and we are also getting higher volumes out of this plant. With the advance payments, well, you know, I can't tell you all on the specific details, but I mean, we have long-term contracts with our customers, and some of these contracts fade out, are replaced by new ones, and therefore, I think just looking at advance payments does not give you a better picture on the quality of the contracts. We have increasing volumes, and what you see actually in the growth of the semi poly business last year and today is based on long-term contracts. We elaborated on this, that we already have contracts that go well into the thirties. Therefore we keep very positive on that development on semi.
Got it. Thank you.
The next question comes from Jaideep Pandya from On Field Research. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Thank you. First question is really around the capacity landscape you see in China, mainly talking about silicones and polymers. I mean, given the increase in cost that we have seen post-war, how much of this you think is going to have a structural impact on some of the right-hand side of the cost curve capacity, you know, in the extension of the VAM value chain and, you know, DMC value chain, if at all, any? And then on the second part of the question, you know, relating to sort of Matt's question around sourcing of methanol. I mean, if this continues, you know, well into next three, four months, how much of this sort of is going to be an issue for you?
The last question is just around your, you know, raw material costs and energy costs that you've baked in for the year. Could you give us some guidance of, you know, what was the current or what is rather the current assumption on a year-on-year basis and, you know, any sensitivity around you know, how things have changed post 28th of February.
To be out here, maybe I start with the last one, although it's one of the most difficult ones. For sure, I mean, things change quickly. We also have done some sensitivity, but I don't wanna give you a quantification of that. Nevertheless, what I can tell you on the energy side, we are hedged by three-quarters for this year. I mean, even when electricity prices and gas prices were going up, I think there's limited impact for this year. I mean, who knows what's going to happen next year. On the raw material side, you mentioned the petchems, also the impact on the Asian suppliers, and that links to your first question.
I think there will be a general movement of raws up. We are playing in fields, silicones and polymers, where all our competitors do have to buy or to produce at those elevated costs. For that reason, I think there is a good mechanism, and there's a good chance of passing that on to customers. Will that be 100% effective? Most likely not. I think in times of strong raw material costs, typically, chemicals can still perform. I think especially with the increase of the raw material prices and costs in Asia, these markets typically move much more quickly also on the sales prices.
We have either only spot prices also with our customers, or we have monthly price adjustments, so that can be very effective. On the sourcing of methanol, as Christian said, I mean, we as all the others, we are not backward integrated. Everyone has to bear the cost of methanol, and that's part of the DMC cost next to the silicon metal. So I think it would move up DMC prices, and it would need to be passed on to customers. I think it's from today's perspective, we don't have availability issue. We are just talking about pricing trends and cost trends.
Just one follow-up. I mean, we have seen this in the polypropylene or polyethylene market in terms of a bit of a mad scramble for material in the last, you know, 10 days or so. Are you seeing that in any of your markets, where customers are trying to order as much as they can before prices sort of settle at an elevated level?
I mean, as I said before, in China, I've heard from our division that some smart buyers try to now place orders, but they get rejected. So-
Okay.
I think-
All right. Thank you.
It's just, I mean, you can't outsmart the industry by placing an order for the entire year on today's costs or today's prices. I think that doesn't work. Yeah. No.
I guess my question was more from an availability. I guess, you know, what we are seeing in some of the other chemicals is people are really concerned about the availability and want to reserve volume, which sort of shows there is some demand trend in the underlying markets. That was sort of my question is, are your customers saying to you, "We want the material because, you know, we have demand, like, you know, from our customers." It was more the question of volume security rather than price locking.
I think, Jaideep , I would say it's probably still a little too early, at least for the products we have, because it's still a weak demand pattern. I think that's, you know, if you compare it to 2022, I mean, in 2022 we had really strong end markets. I think people got more nervous more quickly. So far we don't see it on a broader scale.
All right. Thank you so much.
Ladies and gentlemen, this was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Jörg Hoffmann for any closing remarks.
Thank you, operator. Thank you all for joining us today and for your interest in Wacker Chemie. Our next conference call for the Q1 2026 results will take place on April 29th 2026. As always, don't hesitate to contact the IR department if you have further questions. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now over. Thank you for joining, and have a pleasant day. Goodbye.