Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Wacker conference call, Q3 2026. I am Yusef, the conference call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be in listen-only mode and that this conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star followed by one on your telephone. For operator assistance, please press star and then zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or for broadcast. At this time, it is my 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 our third quarter 2026 results. Christian Hartel, our CEO, and Tobias Ohler, our CFO, will take you through the presentation. The press release, our IR presentation, and detailed financial tables are available on our website under Investor Relations. Management comments during this call include forward-looking statements involving risks and uncertainties. Please review the safe harbor statement in today's presentation and in our 2025 annual report for information on the relevant risk factors. Chris?
Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. In the third quarter, demand stayed subdued in many end markets, while geopolitical tensions continued to create volatility in energy, raw material, and logistics costs. In this environment, we are moving decisively to strengthen our competitiveness, raise operating performance, and sharpen capital allocation. Our results show Wacker is making tangible progress on the factors we control. Group sales increased by 9% year- over- year to EUR 1.47 billion, supported primarily by pricing action and a better volume and product mix.
Reported EBITDA was EUR 217 million, including EUR 35 million of special income in polysilicon from the cancellation of a solar contract. Excluding this effect, operating EBITDA rose 63% to EUR 182 million, up from EUR 112 million a year ago. PACE remains central for our improved operating performance. Cost-related savings of more than EUR 60 million in the third quarter, year-to-date savings totaled EUR 145 million.
With this, we are pretty much on track. You will notice that our net debt declined materially in the quarter. There were two extraordinary effects in cash flow. We sold down our stake in Siltronic to below 15%, and we changed the funding arrangement for phased retirement obligations. These two effects contributed EUR 290 million to a net cash flow of EUR 476 million. Tobias will address this later in more detail. Now, looking to the segments. In Chemicals, PACE, pricing, and improved mix strengthened profitability. In Biosolutions, sales in biopharma and life science chemicals developed well. In Polysilicon, semiconductor-grade volumes continued to grow while solar remained weak. In August, the U.S. Section 232 proclamation established a minimum import price program and tariffs on polysilicon derivatives. In its current framework, it does not achieve its objective to revitalize the U.S. polysilicon sector.
Specifically, it does not incentivize the use of U.S.-made polysilicon, and hence is a disappointment for us. We remain engaged in constructive discussions with the administration. For the time being, we will maintain the previously disclosed two scenarios in polysilicon. They are a semi and solar scenario and a semi-only scenario. We will not rush a decision, but we will act once clarity and certainty have been established. At our Capital Markets Day in September, we introduced REFOCUS, the next chapter in our evolution. It is a holistic approach to improve how we operate, compete, and create value. Our key message is simple: Wacker has leading businesses, leading technologies, and leading market positions. We have invested in our global footprint, in technology platforms, and in capabilities. REFOCUS is the next step. It is about leveraging our strength, increasing profitability, and becoming more selective in where we invest and grow.
With REFOCUS, we have taken bold steps to adapt to a more challenging market environment. We have clear strategic priorities for structure and processes, business model and value creation, and people and culture. Together, these actions are creating a leaner, faster, and more efficient organization. They are the foundation for our structural financial ambitions. We aim to drive GDP plus growth by improving mix and making selective investments in accelerate growth businesses. We aim to raise our structural EBITDA margin to 15% plus minus two percentage points, and aim to get ROCE back as soon as possible to above 10% and our cost of capital. The levers are defined: higher EBITDA from selective growth and PACE, strict capital discipline that leverages our existing asset base, and tighter working capital management. This is how we will lift returns while keeping the balance sheet strong. We have a plan in place.
Our business priorities are clear, selected growth in attractive markets, profitability, and ROCE. Our ambition is not simply to manage through a difficult cycle. It is to emerge from it as more focused, more profitable, and more valuable company. Turning to the guidance, we confirm our full year EBITDA range of EUR 625 million- EUR 750 million. After good operating performance and special income in the first nine months, we expect the full year EBITDA to be in the upper half of that range. PACE is on track and delivering visible improvements. We implemented a portfolio management playbook. We protected margins and managed cost, and we improved our resilience and maintained solid financials. The external environment, however, remains difficult. We do not see a broad recovery in our end markets. Competition remains intense, and the U.S. trade framework for polysilicon remains unresolved.
Despite these persistent headwinds, Wacker enters this new phase from a position of strength. We have leading technologies, strong market positions, and a high-quality asset base built through years of targeted investment. The focus now is execution with urgency and discipline. Through REFOCUS, we are concentrating on the opportunities that are within our control to improve profitability, increase returns, and accelerate value creation. We are confident that this will unlock upside in earnings and strengthen Wacker's competitiveness for the long term. With that, let me hand over to Tobias.
Thank you, Chris. Good afternoon, everyone. Third quarter sales increased by 9% year-over-year to EUR 1.5 billion, driven by higher prices, better mix, volumes, and FX. EBITDA before special income in Polysilicon rose 63% year-over-year to approximately EUR 182 million. This strong improvement reflects PACE savings, disciplined pricing, and positive volume and mix. PACE contributed more than EUR 60 million in the third quarter. As Chris commented, PACE is on track, and we expect to achieve approximately EUR 200 million in savings this year. Including the special income reported, EBITDA was EUR 217 million. The other segment was minus EUR 27 million in the third quarter, and for the full year, we expect EBITDA and others of approximately minus EUR 15 million after the refund of Q2 related costs in the fourth quarter. After depreciation of EUR 114 million, EBIT came in at EUR 103 million.
Below EBIT, the sale of Siltronic shares in the third quarter only had a limited effect of about minus EUR 1 million in the financial result. 11 years after the IPO, we reduced our stake in Siltronic to below 15%. Instead of using the equity method, we will now measure the investment at fair value through the other comprehensive income. Future valuation changes will therefore be recognized directly in equity rather than in the P&L. Going forward, only future dividends will be recorded in our P&L.
All told, net income reached EUR 87 million, equivalent to earnings per share of EUR 1.68. We are not relying on a market recovery to improve performance, and the third quarter figures demonstrate stronger underlying earnings and disciplined cost management. Our balance sheet remains strong. At the end of September, shareholders' equity stood at EUR 4.3 billion, while liquidity remained robust at about EUR 2 billion.
Working capital rose 10% from the beginning of the year to approximately EUR 1.6 billion, primarily due to the seasonal increase in trade receivables. Inventories declined as we continued to reduce stocks of solar-grade polysilicon. Pension provisions declined by about EUR 100 million year- to- date to EUR 522 million. This reduction was driven by the capital payout option and by higher discount rates. Overall, we keep our financial position solid with a 49% equity ratio and a strong liquidity base. Now let's turn to the operating segments. Silicones generated third-quarter sales of EUR 729 million, supported by pricing, mix, and FX. EBITDA rose 35% year-over-year to EUR 116 million, driven by pricing, mix, and a strong cost performance. As Chris mentioned, we have implemented a portfolio management playbook. We will direct resources towards markets with strong structural growth demand that align with our strength.
Among those segments, Silicones have most accelerated growth portfolio units in the Wacker group. Here, we are focused on capturing structural growth trends in areas like e-mobility, healthcare, and electronics. These businesses are performing well. Year- to- date, sales are significantly higher than a year ago. With our recent downstream investments, we are now well prepared to capture growth around the world, close to customers and markets. We can drive substantial growth in selective markets. Only limited new investments will be needed. Now looking at Silicones full year guidance. We continue to expect mid-single digit percentage sales growth with price increases to offset cost inflation. The EBITDA margin will be above the prior year level on PACE and strong operational performance. At Polymers, third quarter sales reached approximately EUR 381 million. Sales increased year-over-year as we looked to match raw material costs with price increases.
EBITDA in the third quarter was EUR 75 million, 58% higher than last year. The increase was mainly driven by a combination of higher prices and lower operating costs due to measures under the PACE cost and efficiency program. In addition, earnings benefited from raw material volatility. While Silicones will see targeted investments to capture structural demand growth opportunities, we are already well invested in Polymers. With unmatched global economies of scale, we focus on strong execution and applying our disciplined pricing playbook to protect margins and maintain reliable customer service in a volatile raw material market environment. Now looking at Polymers for the full-year guidance. We continue to expect mid-single digit percentage sales growth with a dynamic pricing management. The EBITDA margin is expected to be above the prior year level on PACE and on strong operational performance. At Biosolutions, third quarter sales reached EUR 100 million.
Growth year-over-year was driven by biopharma and life science chemicals. EBITDA came in at EUR 8 million, supported by higher sales and disciplined cost management. Biosolutions has substantial upside but operates well below its potential. We established a cutting-edge biotechnology platform, but filling capacities has taken longer than expected. Targeted actions are required to unlock future potential. We have shifted our focus to commercial excellence. We implemented a strategy to deepen relationships with customers to fill our CDMO platform. We are following a strict milestone process to rebuild growth and our efforts are already beginning to pay off. Now looking to the full year guidance for Biosolutions. We continue to expect EBITDA to be around EUR 30 million. At Polysilicon, third quarter sales were approximately EUR 225 million. Double-digit higher semiconductor-grade volumes offset lower solar volumes.
Reported EBITDA of EUR 44 million includes EUR 35 million in special income from the solar contract cancellation. Excluding this amount, operating performance was like the preceding quarter. Strong semiconductor demand and cost savings support the result, but profitability remains impacted by lower solar pricing, higher energy costs, and solar inventory destocking. Now looking to the full year guidance for Polysilicon. We continue to expect high single-digit percentage sales growth and an EBITDA of close to the prior year level, including special income. Earnings will be clearly supported by double-digit percentage sales volume growth in semi and PACE-related savings. Both help to offset the substantially higher energy costs this year. Now let me turn to the net financial debt and cash flow.
The first nine months, gross cash flow increased to EUR 569 million, reflecting the significant improvement in earnings as well as a liquidity effect of EUR 120 million from a change in the funding arrangements for the phased retirement obligation. Working capital reduced gross cash flow by EUR 71 million, primarily due to the seasonal increase in trade receivables. At the same time, lower inventory levels released EUR 73 million in cash. This highlights our continued focus on inventory management. Cash flow from investing activities before securities amounted to EUR 119 million. Proceeds from the sale of Siltronic shares contributed EUR 355 million of cash, offsetting capital expenditures of EUR 244 million during the period. For the full year 2026, we expect CapEx of approximately EUR 300 million. At the end of September, net financial debt stood at EUR 261 million.
We now expect it to decline to around EUR 200 million by year-end. Let me close by placing these figures in the capital allocation framework of REFOCUS. REFOCUS also changes how we prioritize capital allocation. Over recent years, we have invested in our global footprint and capabilities. That investment phase is now behind us. Those assets provide a strong foundation for future growth. Going forward, our priority is to leverage existing assets and expertise to drive commercial success. We will keep CapEx below depreciation and in the range of EUR 300 million-EUR 400 million. Despite lower investments, we will be able to accelerate growth by focusing resources on the most attractive opportunities. We will maintain solid financials with a financial leverage target of around 1x EBITDA, preserving flexibility for selective growth and shareholder returns while maintaining financial resilience. In summary, our priorities are clear.
Deliver PACE, improve capital efficiency, convert our installed capacity into profitable growth, and allocate resources only where Wacker can create differentiated and sustainable value. That concludes my part, and we are now ready for your questions. Operator, we are ready to begin with the Q&A.
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 then two. Participants are requested to only use headsets while asking a question. Anyone who has a question may press star one at this time. Our first question comes from Anil Shenoy, Barclays. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi. Good afternoon, and thank you so much for taking my questions. Just the two, please. The first one is on EU protection. So earlier this month, the Critical Chemicals Alliance, they included silicones in the preliminary list of critical molecules, where the EU is considering more targeted trade protection and support for critical production sites. So I was wondering how meaningful could that potentially be for Wacker's European silicon operations, particularly given the Chinese overcapacity in the upstream silicones. So some color on this EU protection will be really helpful. And the second question is on Polymers and construction market. So Polymers seems to have had a particularly strong quarter in Q3, and even the order book you said is higher year-over-year.
Given that roughly two-thirds of the business is exposed to construction, that is including paints and coatings, are you seeing any genuine improvement in underlying construction volumes or order activity, perhaps? If so, is it broad-based geographically or is it concentrated in any particular market? Thank you.
Anil, as Christian, I take your first question on the EU, Critical Chemicals Alliance. Yes. This is something that has been started by the EU Commission recently. We are also taking part of it, obviously, together with the Chemical Association. Let me put it this way. I think the idea is good. It's a comprehensive framework. It's a lot of chemicals being in there. Let's see how it will eventually work out. I think I made a lot of comments in the past also regarding EU politics. Always great ideas, but when it comes to implementation and to real effects, it's a different story. Therefore, I would say it's too early to say. It might have an impact, but I would not expect it to be quick.
Anil, Tobi, on your Polymers question, I think it's fair to ask a question about the Q3 margin, which is exceptionally strong. Q3, we had sales of EUR 381 million and EBITDA of EUR 75. I think if I look at the drivers, the key elements are PACE and a disciplined pricing management, while the raw material volatility and the timing also supported earnings. Look at it this way, as input costs decline, our selling price, I also expect it to adjust, although not necessarily always at the same time and one for one. For that reason, our margin in this quarter is really well above average and does not reflect, to me, it does not reflect a sustainable margin to deliver, as we are operating in a pretty short value chain, and I think it should not be extrapolated.
It does not come from a construction market uptick. We don't have any clear signals on that. We are moving mainly on similar volumes as last year, and our performance mainly comes, as I said before, from PACE, from our own operational performance, and from our price management in a super volatile environment.
Okay, great. Thank you. That is very helpful.
Our next question comes from Chetan Udeshi, JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. I was just wondering if you can help us with some guidance on how you are thinking about Q4 across your key divisions. If I take the top end of the guidance that you are guiding to, it comes to about EUR 150 of EBITDA in Q4, roughly. Are you comfortable with that? Maybe if you can just help us in terms of how should we think about the sequential decline because of seasonality, perhaps energy costs, how is that feeding into your business? Anything that you can share will be quite helpful. In polysilicon, I was just wondering, you are doing a run rate of EUR 9 million EBITDA in Q3, which is not very different than what the underlying run rate was in Q2. I am just wondering why is the semi trend not showing up more in your numbers?
Your sales were up actually year-on-year by 14% in Q3. Clearly that semi strength is visible in your sales, but then somehow the EBITDA is virtually zero. I do not know why is there such a big mismatch between the two numbers, notwithstanding some catch up for the German power subsidy, et cetera. It just feels like semi is already running full cylinders and yet the EBITDA in this business is virtually zero. How can that change in the future? Thank you.
Tobias, yeah, I get a start with your first question on Q4 and the 2026 outlook. The Chemicals order backlog is good. It is above prior year, and we expect typical seasonality, also from the order pattern of individual months. August was a bit slower, September better again, and October looks good. From a mere operational business performance, we would be even running towards the upper end of our guidance range. But please bear in mind that we have EUR 70 million of special income from the one-offs. One was in the second quarter from the adjustment in our pension system, and the other same magnitude was in Polysilicon this quarter. There will be one effect towards the year-end as with our strong performance, operational performance beyond expectations, our strong target achievement will lead to additional bonus accruals that will have a dampening effect.
Those dampening effects will keep us more in the range, in the upper half of the range, so not allowing us to go towards the top. So much for the outlook for 2026. It is a normal seasonal pattern and I think the year overall is much stronger than we expected, basically on the two factors, PACE and operational performance. Okay, and Chetan, on your second question on the polysilicon. Yeah, well, rightly said from you, the semi business is developing well. We have double-digit growth also this year. What is dragging the whole division, obviously, is the development we see in solar. Last year, we were also able to sell more solar material than we are selling this year. This is the reason why Q2 or Q3 is pretty much in line to the run rate of Q2.
That is the reason why we really don't see the strength of the semi business. It is the underutilization. It is the underutilization that we have with the three plants delivering low volumes in solar. That is the overall picture or story. How can that change? Well, as you pointed out, either there is a solar case and we can produce more solar, which will be positive on the utilization, or there might be a scenario where we need to restructure and then we would reduce the fixed cost, which would also then have a change.
Got it. I didn't hear any response on the energy cost impact. Are you guys okay with the hedging that you have in place, or how is that filtering through in your numbers for Q4, but as we also look into next year, if the electricity prices in Germany remain as high as they are right now, accounting for seasonality?
Tobias, yeah, Chetan, it is that hedging. Well, that energy costs should be lower, but we have our hedging policy in place, as you said, and we are hedged at a very high level, especially for the winter, for Q4. At gas, we are almost 100% hedged. Electricity, more than 80%. Also for the next year, we are hedged roughly, yeah, 75%-80%. Yes, energy costs are high, but if I look at them year-over-year, energy costs in 2026 and 2027 would be similar if I take for the open position just today's market prices. So I think our hedging policy pays off.
Got it. Thank you.
The next question comes from Christian Faitz, Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead.
Yes. Good afternoon. Two questions, please. First of all, coming back to your guidance in Q4 and polysilicon. You are guiding for a high single-digit percent increase in polysilicon for the entire year. Given that run rate per the nine-month level, and Chetan mentioned the 14% growth in Q3, this would mean around 30% sales growth in Q4, if my calculation is correct. Can you elucidate your reasoning for this expected strong Q4 sales performance a bit? Then second and last question, in silicones, how defensible is the improved profitability against the continuing cost inflation? Thanks very much.
Christian, Tobias here. Your second question was on PACE or
On silicones and yes, in that context, PACE. How dependable is that improved profitability in silicones?
I start with your first question, and I think I just noticed in the speech I said double-digit growth, and that was meant to be double-digit growth on the volumes in semiconductor. That is unchanged. But if I look at the overall, and I think that dissolves your question also. If I look at the overall number, our sales in polysilicon will be similar to last year. We do not expect a strong pickup in Q4. That must be a mistake on our side. On silicones, the higher margin, I think it is a good progression. It basically comes from PACE savings and also a strong mix. We have, in contrast to the Polymers, we have also some volume growth, and we are managing also prices against volatile raw materials. And yes, inflation also eats a little bit into that.
I think we made good progress in this year and we expect to continue also in next year. But I would not say the 16% margin is now the new floor. Just bear in mind that we also have effects on the inflation side next year. We will also see a delicate play between our own pricing and raw material and energy costs being volatile. I would not take the 16% as a floor.
Okay, thanks very much, Tobias, and again, congrats on the solid Q3 results.
Thank you, Christian.
The next question comes from Peter Spengler, DZ Bank. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my two questions. First is on 2027. I understand there is no formal guidance for 2027 yet, but what are the broad themes for next year, and what key factors should we keep in mind? The second question is on Section 232. Following your discussions with the U.S. government, what have you learned, and what would need to change for the framework to become effective? Thank you.
Peter, Tobias here on 2027 and some driving factors. First of all, again, 2027, the performance was strong, driven by PACE and by operational performance. We see ourselves, as I said, in the upper half of the range, not at the top. That as a starting point in mind. What are the moving factors on the cost side? As I previously also mentioned, raw materials and energy, you could assume that as broadly at a similar level than this year. Anyhow, any changes coming from new surprises next year, we try to manage with our pricing and compensate for those. On the energy side, we are largely hedged with 80%. From the input cost side, on this front, I think similar level as in 2026. Then we have PACE. PACE is on track.
We have around EUR 200 million in savings in this year, and we have the target to achieve more than EUR 300 million in 2028, so it is the year after 2027. Assume 2027 to make a good progress. Also assume that we said that the PACE savings are gross savings. There will be inflation against us. If you just look at the personnel costs that we have, approximately just as a rough number, EUR 1.5 billion in personnel. If you have a two to three percentage point inflation on that, you get some headwind. You also have one-offs in this year, like the pension restructuring and the polysilicon solar contract cancellation. So EUR 70 million from that will be missing. Then you have the business development.
I think we don't expect wonders on the side of the GDP, but we will continue to benefit from improved mix and volume growth in silicones, in selective focus areas where we have our playbook, as we call it. We should continue on that track. For Polymers, as I said before, with respect to Q3, I think that performance of this year is exceptional and the margin is well above our average.
I would not expect that to continue at that level next year. Biosolutions should continue to fill capacities step by step. Our commercial activities are paying off here, but it will take some time. For polysilicon, I must say, we have the two completely different scenarios depending on what happens on the trade side. I think that is far too early today. In general, if you put everything together, we will present our outlook with the annual results in March next year. But I think the moving parts could give you some idea of where we are most likely heading.
Thank you.
Okay, Peter, and the second question here. As you said, we remain in constructive discussions with the U.S. administration. We do count on the continued commitment of the administration in their target to revitalize the U.S. polysilicon industry. What we need, and that is your question, well, easy. We need a kind of framework that provides an incentive that people buy U.S.-made polysilicon. This framework must then translate into also meaningful demand for the material. As you know, the situation at the moment is there is not much internal demand in the U.S. for poly because most of the capacity for wafering is outside the U.S. It is currently built up in the U.S., but most of it is outside the U.S.
The framework needs to have an incentive that people outside of the U.S. buy the material in the U.S. and then send the cells or the wafers or the modules back. This is, yeah, in essence, what we need. Real demand with a very clear framework to incentivize U.S.-made polysilicon.
Okay. Thank you.
The next question comes from David Symonds, BNP Paribas. Please go ahead.
Hi. Thank you very much for taking the questions. Two, please, from me. The first one, if I think about EUR 60 million cost savings in the third quarter against a 170 FTE reduction, I suggest that maybe three-quarters of the savings are not headcount related. Can you talk about how much of these are structural versus temporary? Is there anything in there, like budget reductions for 2026 that is expected to reverse into 2027? Then if I can come back to polysilicon and Chetan's question. It does look a little bit strange that energy costs are highly hedged. Sales are up 14% year-on-year, and yet your run rate seems to have halved for underlying EBITDA.
Is there anything else you can tell us, maybe the split between semi sales and solar sales, or the loadings of different plants that could help us to understand the bridge there and what's happened in that business? Thank you.
David, Tobias here. On the PACE question. As you mentioned, we have EUR 60 million in savings from PACE in the third quarter, year-over-year. I think it's important to understand, in the first half, we had EUR 85 million year-over-year, that those 60 now add to the 85. So we had EUR 145 million year-over-year. The target, and I have a good visibility on that, I can tell you, is to have around EUR 200 million, at the end of the fourth quarter for the full year 2026 against prior year. So we are running on track. All the savings are structural. So there's nothing temporary. It wouldn't be counted in our PACE cost and efficiency program. It is mainly in this year coming from non-personnel, so your calculation on the headcounts are decent.
They are hinting that our savings are lower on the personnel side this year, but they will kick in next year. As we said at the Capital Markets Day, we have an agreement with the workers council to reduce headcount over the three years. There are 1,600 positions in Germany. We have a program in place. These will leave the company now also step by step. The majority of the personnel-related savings will kick in next year. All is structural, all is gross. It is a very consistent program that we execute and deliver on. Okay, David, on the second question, on the detailed comparison Q3 this year and last year. I do not know if you should go into too many details. What I can tell you is the volumes for semiconductor increased, and the volumes for the solar decreased.
If you compare quarter- by- quarter, the sales and the, let us say, production rate is not always one-to-one. I think the key message is we sold less solar material and more semi material.
Thanks very much. Just maybe to follow up on that second point. Because I know that you are working down inventories, is there an impact from underproducing basically this year because you are working down those inventories?
Yeah, absolutely.
Compared to previous EBITDA?
Yes, absolutely. Our inventory management is a drag on the P&L. As you said, we are running highly underutilized, and we are successful in reducing inventory despite a very challenging demand environment for solar. So we reduced inventories against the prior year, as I said at the second quarter call, by 20%. Now we are at 25%. So we made, even in that very challenging quarter Q3, progress on our inventory reduction, and that is a drag on profitability.
Could I ask you whether you think you would be roughly at the EUR 20 million run rate we were seeing before if you had not been reducing inventory and had been producing at the level of demand?
I would stick to the run rate that we communicated at the CMD. It is a very unsatisfying performance because we are running mostly on semiconductor as a portfolio, and we have a structure set up for semiconductor and solar. As Christian said, there are two alternatives to that, and we will see what is the outcome.
Great. Thanks very much.
The next question comes from Sebastian Bray, Berenberg. Please go ahead.
Hello. Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. I have two, please. The first is on dividend policy. Wacker has usually adhered fairly strictly to 50% of nominal EPS, but clearly there are some one-off effects, both in terms of EBITDA and the gain on the Siltronic stake, that make this perhaps less viable. Is the company going to adhere to 50% payout as a percentage of nominal EPS, or likely to anchor around a lower number as it comes to determine the dividend for this year? My second question is on what would constitute an acceptable outcome for the current discussions around Section 232.
If the U.S. government were to put something in the room, which is to say, "Okay, we are structuring the legislation to incentivize wafering capacity, so we will give you three years to find some customers domestically in the U.S. and then go back to the old system." Is that enough to effectively keep the plant running and then shut it, or are you looking for something more permanent? Thank you.
Okay. Sebastian, Christian here. Your first question on the dividend for 2027. As you pointed out, we have a very clear dividend policy in place. The dividend has not been discussed yet, and ultimately, it depends on the overall full-year performance. Also, typically, this is discussed in the springtime, so this is really not the time to talk about the dividend now. Your second question on the Section 232 acceptable outcome. Same answer as I did before. What we need is a workable framework that leads to a demand, to real demand for material in the U.S., and not in whenever time, but within the next month. This is something that we would need. We do not want to engage in speculation now, as we are also in discussions with the administration.
That is helpful. Just to clarify on timing, is December 4th a hard deadline, or is this an issue that could still be kicking around into 2027?
Well, December 4th is not by us. It is the date where the administration said that Section 232 will kick in place, will run. There is not much more I can say to that. Of course, we hope that by this timing, we have clarity on it. Our decisive point is having clarity to take a decision. That is what we need.
That is helpful. Thank you.
The next and last question is a follow-up question from Chetan Udeshi, JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Hi, Chris, and sorry to come back to U.S. Section 232. I was actually reading comments from your competitor in the U.S., Corning, who actually is saying that they are seeing strengthening orders for themselves in the U.S. after Section 232. I am just wondering, why would a U.S. administration listen to Wacker when one of your top competitors is actually saying it is actually good for them?
Well, I think, Chetan, I also read these comments, and I think the distinct difference between Wacker and Corning is that Corning is operating a full solar supply chain. What we already see today is because of the discussion on these minimum import prices, that specifically module prices in the U.S. are going up. This is probably what Corning is referring to. They did not specifically mention polysilicon on that. That would be my take, but more details, you can only get from Corning.
Got it. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Jörg Hoffmann, Head of Investor Relations, for closing remarks.
Thank you, operator. Thank you all for attending this conference call and showing interest in Wacker Chemie. As always, please contact the investor relations team if you have further questions. Goodbye.
Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now over. Thank you for choosing Chorus Call, and thank you for participating in the conference. You may now disconnect your lines. Goodbye.