Dear ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the conference call of Andritz AG regarding the presentation of the Q1 2019 results. At our customers' request, this conference will be recorded. As a reminder, all participants will be in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. If any participant has difficulties hearing the conference, please press star key followed by zero on your telephone for operator assistance. May I now hand you over to Dr. Wolfgang Leitner, who will lead you through this conference. Please go ahead.
Good morning, everybody. Thank you for joining us for our quarterly update. Yeah, to conclude, overall business development in the first quarter in our view has been reasonably satisfactory and more or less in line with our expectations, I would say. If we move on to or start with page three, I think we can certainly say that we are satisfied with the order intake of more than EUR 1.6 billion. Very positive development we saw or continue to see in Pulp & Paper. Sales, earnings, and also order intake are up, with order intake showing even a strong increase of more than 30%. Both capital and the service business developed favorably in Pulp & Paper, and service sales here already amount to close to 60%, 57%.
Speaking of the service business, overall, the share of service sales for the whole group increased to now approximately 40%, which obviously has always been our goal and should provide a lot of stability in the future. The weak spot, and there clearly was a weak spot, was Metals, which strongly suffered from the weak market environment in the automotive industry and as a consequence, from underutilization, under absorption, predominantly in metals forming, but also indirectly in the metals processing because of the low calls for parts to the tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers to the automotive industry, which in turn are customers of Andritz. To be honest, we expect this slow market environment to continue. Therefore, we are evaluating the requirements, the scale of adjustment of our capacities, of our cost structures to these market conditions.
We are in the process of analyzing that. As soon as we have a clear plan, obviously we will inform immediately. IFRS 16 standard had quite a sizable impact. Our total assets went up by EUR 220 million and EBITDA increased by EUR 12 million. Since depreciation increased by EUR 11 million, the impact on EBITDA level was practically zero. Cash flow was positive. I will come back to that. Net working capital unfortunately continued to increase, but we're still optimistic that we can show some results, some development in the opposite direction in the next several quarters. If we now move on into the details on slide five. To start with the order intake, as said, order intake is up at EUR 1.658 billion, up from EUR 1.533 billion, plus 8%.
Of that, the most part comes from the first-time consolidation, especially Xerium, obviously, but a few other smaller acquisitions also, which contributed combined EUR 158 million to the order intake. If we split this into organic and external, organic was -2%, external +10%. By business area, on the right side, Hydro, very low order intake, EUR 314 million corresponds to -28% of our Q1 2018. It included a large order, but clearly EUR 314 million for a quarter is a very low order intake. We think this will increase somewhat as we proceed towards the end of the year. We also think that the market stays as slow, as low as we have seen it last year. Pulp & Paper continues to thrive. EUR 800 million, sensational order intake, up from EUR 460 million, driven by power boilers, biomass boilers. Continuing very good development.
The weak spot, Metals, EUR 348 million, very low order intake. Also compared to Q1 2018, -26%. Separation continues its positive development step by step. Also here we see an increase in order intake by 9%. Next page, slide six. You see the quarterly order intake. I think I don't need to comment on that. On the right side, order intake by region. Developed market, 60%, emerging, 40%. With Asia, excluding China, having the larger share compared to China, to a larger effect driven by Japan, by burner boilers that we continue to be able to sell into Japan. South America with 11%. Slide seven, sales increased by 15%. Here we see between 4% and 5% organic growth and 11% external. Xerium alone has contributed EUR 109 million combined. First-time consolidation amounts to EUR 132 million.
By business area, very slight decline in Hydro and good growth in the other business areas. Obviously, with the higher order intake in Pulp & Paper, also sales are falling now with +31%. Metals still up and Separation up nicely to EUR 160 million. Quarterly overview on page eight. Does not need any specific comment, I would say. Slide nine. Service sales continue to increase. As I said, on the lower right-hand side, you see that over the last five years, our percentage of service sales of total sales went up from 29%-40%, compound annual growth rate of 7% per year. Slide 10. Order backlog continues to increase from a low of EUR 6.4 billion, we are now at EUR 7.3 billion yearly. As always, Hydro and Pulp & Paper account for the majority, with Metals now also having a sizable order backlog. Slide 11.
EBITA went up from EUR 71.7 million to EUR 82.8 million, +15%, driven by Pulp & Paper. EBITA margin with 5.6% remained unchanged. Metals is the low point. Here, the profitability of Metals is impacted, on the one side by lower margin orders as of order intake already, but also some cost overruns. In the case of Schuler, also quite substantial underutilization of capacities driven by the low order intake, obviously, but also aggravated by suspensions of orders or delayed order execution requested by some of the very large automotive OEMs that have started to reconsider the location of a new line or have come to the conclusion they don't need a new line this year or next year, but only a year after, which obviously has a substantial effect on our sales. On Schuler sales, not of Group sales, not on Schuler sales.
As a consequence, also on profitability. As we said before, we look into adjusting these capacities. We definitely will do something. Scope and timing will be announced as soon as we have a clear plan. Hydro profitability is unchanged and stable, Separation continues its step-by-step improvement of profitability. On slide 12, you see the four business areas. Hydro, as I said, stable at 6.1%. Pulp & Paper up from 7.5% to 8.7%, EUR 34 million to EUR 52 million. Metals down from EUR 10 million to EUR 1.5 million, 2.8% to 0.4%. Separation up from 4.6% to 5.2%. Slide 13. Net working capital up from EUR 160 million to EUR 183 million. You see increase in Hydro and in Metals, decrease in Pulp & Paper and Separation.
Increase in Hydro basically caused by a decrease in POC payables of about EUR 30 million and increase of POC receivables of EUR 13 million by an enlarged Hydro. So much the operating capital. On slide 14, cash flow. See the calculation of the cash flow. Gross cash flow EUR 898 million, then from operating activities, down to EUR 56 million, predominantly driven by income taxes. If you look at depreciation, maybe in detail, EUR 44 million depreciation. Thereof, EUR 9 million from the newly acquired companies and EUR 11 million from this IFRS 16 leasing accounting method. EUR 25 million amortization of intangibles, thereof, EUR 18 million from newly acquired companies, mainly Xerium. We also have a EUR 4.5 million impairment of goodwill in Metals. Slide 15, summary. I think we have covered basically everything.
Maybe net income development, the decrease is caused obviously by increased depreciation and amortization, the lower financial result as a consequence of lower average net liquidity. The issuance of our short-term borrowing or bonds so to say, also low interest rates in several countries where we are and have been cash positive. Increase in capital expenditure, mostly driven by first-time consolidation. To some more detail on the business areas. Hydro, unchanged market conditions, a few larger projects around. Some other large projects continue to be delayed, postponed, reconsidered. We do not expect any substantial change in the environment. We certainly are still reasonably comfortable that we will win one or the other large order also this year, but we do not expect any substantial change in market environment, we continue as planned with our step-by-step capacity adjustments.
No substantial extraordinary costs expected compared to last year. We think that by the end of this year, beginning of next year, we should have achieved a capacity cost structure in Hydro that is fully adjusted to this smaller market size or lower market environment. On slide 18, the numbers. Order intake we have covered. Order backlog declined by 8%. Sales are EUR 338 million, slightly below Q1 2018. EBITDA is slightly up, EBITA practically the same, EBITA margin identical. Order intake by region, developed markets 43%, the emerging markets 57%. Pulp & Paper on slide 19. As I said, very good activity. Also looking forward, we expect continuing good activity. It's, I would say, an unusually high number of large projects in discussion and has been communicated by our customers.
We certainly see slight differences in timing and let's say our assessment also probability of what will go ahead or not this year. There are several large projects that we definitely have to and can take serious. We expect over the next three quarters a sizable activity in this field and hopefully can maintain and grab our market share in these pulp projects. Power boiler continuing very good order intake. At some point, we will reach our capacity, engineering capacity ceilings. Let's see how things develop there. I think nothing negative to say on Pulp & Paper. Page 20 is the numbers. Order intake over EUR 800 million. Excellent order intake. Sales EUR 600 million, also up 30%, and EBITDA margin 11.9%. I keep saying the numbers of Pulp & Paper are sensational, but I still think they are really very good.
It's a pleasure to communicate its numbers. Employees obviously have gone up substantially to a large extent due to Xerium, which we have not had and have not consolidated in Q1 2018. Coming from the high point to the low point, on page 21, Metals. Very slow market. Automotive industry is, I would say, in turmoil. I've been at Schuler at our Supervisory Board meeting on Tuesday this week. Talked to also some IG Metall union representatives, and they are very concerned about the situation of this industry in Baden-Württemberg, in Bayern. Whether that's a temporary thing driven by or aggravated by these new fuel consumption measurement rules, WLTP, I think it's called. Whether it's something more longer term remains to be seen. We see the same effect in China as you have read. Certainly, China car production and consumption has gone down substantially the last year.
Not so much for the foreign joint ventures, but for the rest, which obviously is also not reassuring. What we see in China is that our smaller customers that we deliver forming presses, for example, from our subsidiary Yadon in China. They lack orders. Their workshops are definitely running substantially below capacity. It's clearly a very slow market, and it's unclear whether this will improve in the second half of this year or whether that will continue. In metals processing, project activity is still reasonable, although also reduced. There are certain projects, but the number is definitely substantially below last year, but we still think we have a good chance to achieve, in metals processing, a reasonably good order intake. As a consequence, obviously, competition and competitive pricing has not improved. Page 22, numbers. We've covered order intake. We've covered sales.
EBITDA margin is 3.3%, down from 4.8%, and EBITA margin is close to zero, unfortunately. On page 23, Separation. Overall, reasonably good development, reasonably strong market. Industrial markets, feed and bio mass, and also municipal markets. We continue on our path towards some growth and better profitability. On page 24, you see order intake, EUR 189 million, up 10%. Sales up 19%, EUR 260 million and EBITDA margin 7.3%, EBITA margin 5.2% up from 4.6%. As you may remember, Separation clearly has, how should I say, an irregular quarterly development. Their first quarter is always quite low, and their fourth quarter is always quite high. We certainly are confident that if you compare it to pro rata and would multiply it by four, the results of Q1, that the results should be better by year-end. Coming to the outlook. Basically, prospects unchanged, somewhat reduced, I would say.
We continue to expect, on slide 26, a significant increase in sales compared to 2018 due to the high order backlog and also the first-time consolidation of the companies we have acquired in 2018. The operative profitability, that is the EBITA margin, excluding or before extraordinary costs, should now reach only the level of 2018. Before, we had hoped that it could improve somewhat. That means this EBITA margin of about 6.9%, because we are somewhat more pessimistic on metals forming. We had plans to improve performance there quite substantially. This turned out to be, or to have been too optimistic, too ambitious in light of the market conditions. We also would currently not want to bet on continuing extraordinary high profitability of Pulp & Paper, so that may be very slightly lower compared to last year. Let's see how that looks by year-end. So much.
My summary, my presentation, and Michael and I myself look forward to your questions.
Thank you. We will now begin our question and answer session. If you have a question for our speaker, please press 01 on your telephone keypad now to enter the queue. Once your name has been announced, you can ask the question. If you find your question is answered before it is your turn to speak, you can dial 02 to cancel your question. If you are using speaker equipment today, please lift the handset before making your selection. One moment, please, for the first question. We've received the first question. It is from Jörg-André Finke of HSBC. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Yes, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one relates to your full-year guidance in terms of the margin outlook, and as you also mentioned, the pending or potential restructuring at Schuler. To which extent did you bake one-off restructuring costs in that guidance already?
As I said, we are working on a plan. We have not included anything for Schuler in the Q1.
Okay, the outlook for the full year does also not reflect restructuring costs yet?
The outlook is the operating EBITA margin before extraordinary costs for restructuring.
Understood. Thank you. Then maybe In the last full year call you commented quite in detail on working capital management and some measures you are implementing. Maybe you can give us a follow-up on that, how that has developed, whether we should expect more improvements coming throughout the year.
We definitely plan to show improvements absent any special developments with regard to large projects, which may have temporary impact on this net working capital. As I said in the presentation, yes, the operating net working capital has increased another EUR 20 million. Compared to end of last year, which obviously is not what we are going for. We have clear programs in place that we work with our suppliers, for example. We work, first of all, on payment terms with our customers, but that will have only a midterm effect. We work with our suppliers to find ways to create win-win situations where we pay our suppliers somewhat later without having them to bear any substantial or negative implications. From these projects and programs, we expect an improvement in the EUR mid-double digits, maybe higher double-digit millions of net working capital.
We still think that we should see some first small effect in Q2 and then a larger effect in Q3 and Q4.
Very clear. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The next question is from Sebastian Wolf of Commerzbank. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Good morning, everybody. Two ARRIFA questions. The first one would be on Metals and here, particularly on Schuler. I would be interested in some more commentary on what you regard as a quite substantial underutilization. Maybe you can just help us with understanding what the volume impact is, i.e., how much of the revenue gap you currently see to what your capacity would imply. Along those lines, could you also indicate and provide a rough order volume that you think is realistic for 2019 in the metal forming business, i.e., at Schuler. I suggest from the commentary you made that it's not only a German problem, so to speak, i.e., with the plans for Schuler in Germany, but also that Yadon, you specifically mentioned, has some issues in terms of capacity versus really the current demand side.
Could you just give us an idea where you would see the greatest necessity to do something about the footprint? Then also related to Metals, one question on the lower margin orders that you had in the quarter one. Can you give us an idea what the size volume was behind these very orders and also comment on the order backlog and how much of really low margin projects you still would see sitting in the backlog for the rest of the year? Thank you.
Okay. Starting with capacity or under utilization at Schuler. The problem is to 90%, 95% in Germany. It's not only that, it's also, I would say, aggravated by the fact that we obviously, with slower markets, prices become more competitive. We have gone into these purely domestic local suppliers in Asia with press lines at lower prices, which requires us, obviously, to mitigate that by manufacturing in low-cost countries, especially China, but also in Brazil, for example. All that has a negative capacity utilization impact on Germany. Schuler's problems are 90% in Germany, and there we need to adjust capacity. As I said, we are currently analyzing it. It will be sizable, certainly. That will not be only an adjustment to the current market condition, but also enabling us to produce at lower costs, closer to the market in the future.
The order intake should be for Metals, and in the Schuler part within Metals, we still hope that we see some higher order intake in the next three quarters compared to the Q1. Whether that will be the case and how much, obviously, is too early to say. Yadon sees a slower market, but still has a reasonably good market, good order intake in Q1. They are impacted by what I described, these smaller parts manufacturers in China that deliver their parts to companies that produce a huge range of products, which typically are exported to a large extent, among that, obviously, to the U.S. That has already come down due to the existing customs tariffs, and there is clearly concern.
There is hope that the declarations of both U.S. and China, that they will come to a mutually acceptable solution by the end of May, I think it was beginning of March. This beginning of June should be the next 90-day period, yeah. Nobody has guarantees, and everybody's waiting. That's speaking of China and Yadon. The low margin orders, nothing dramatic. On the Schuler side, it's this first-time orders to domestic Asian car OEMs, automotive OEMs, where we had hopes to improve margins or reduce the cost as we execute the orders, has not always been successful. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And some other in Metals processing, also some smaller issues with a few EUR millions here and there. Nothing dramatic, nothing that has come up as a big problem looking forward.
Okay. That's helpful. If I just may ask one follow-up on the order intake development. Would it be fair assumption that of the rather low orders that we did see in the first quarter in Metals of the EUR 350, that about EUR 150 or so was from Metals processing, i.e. only about EUR 200 million for the Metals forming part? Would that make sense?
A little bit more for forming.
Okay. Run rate wise, we're talking definitely below one EUR billion of total volume for the full year. Call it EUR 900 or whatever. Yeah.
A little bit more. Yes. A little bit above 900. Yeah.
Okay.
Four times Q1 calculation. Yeah.
Yeah. All right. If I may just really as the last question, ask on the EBITA impact from Xerium, because you split out the numbers for the order intake and sales contribution from that M&A deal. Can you also give us a rough sense what Xerium might have added to EBITA at Pulp & Paper in quarter one?
The EBITA of Xerium was in approximately EUR 16 million or between 14% and 16%.
Okay. That sounds good.
It's on. Xerium is up.
Okay. That must be more or less purely organic, right? I think the integration has just started and, obviously there's more to come in terms of what you did expect initially when making the deal in terms of sales, revenue synergies and also some cost synergies I think that you quantified at about EUR 15 million.
Yeah. Cost synergies are on the way. Yes.
Okay. Sounds good. Great. Thank you.
Thank you. The next question is from Sven Weier of UBS. Line is now open. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe we can take them also one by one. The first one is also coming back to Schuler. We've been seeing a bit of an underperformance of Schuler relative to the other auto CapEx suppliers for some time, and I guess it's probably been the same again in Q1. Do you see that really that this metals forming part in automotive is underperforming, or is it Schuler, or is metals forming just structurally something where you see under investment of the car makers? What's your strategic take on that? That would be the first one.
I'm not sure I understood the question. Metals forming is Schuler in Andritz. All the metals-
Yeah, that's what I mean. When you look at the Schuler order intake, basically since you acquired the company, right? If I compare that with other companies in the sector that do other things like paint shops or whatever, right? You see quite a bit of an underperformance of Schuler. I was just wondering, do you think it's really the metals forming part of a car plant where there is relatively less investment in the last couple of years? Is it Schuler that is underperforming its sector? What's your take on that?
That's a good question. Not so easy to answer. Number one, when we acquired Schuler, it has been the year of highest sales ever and highest profitability ever. When we positioned the purchase price at that point, at that time, we said it appears to be a low price, it's 4.2 or I think 4.2 times EBITDA at PP 9. We certainly have that in mind that this was the absolutely peak year. Historical peak year, Schuler. We had expected this to go down rather soon. As it turned out, it kept up for a few years. For five years, I would say, nearly. Four or five years.
If you could say Schuler performed better than we expected at the time of acquisition, that may have been the reason that the investment in press lines of the automotive producers, have been early in the cycle, have been before others followed. Having said that, it's not everything is good that Schuler has been doing. Clearly the dependence on the business with the Central European, or you can say German premium car manufacturers, has been a problem, has created a lot of overload, but it has prevented decisive actions toward developing products for the medium market. We have succeeded in selling the first lines last year, but at low margins, very low margins. We still need to work on reducing the costs. Part of that is a shift of manufacturing into lower cost countries.
That has a consequence that the capacity utilization in Germany is under pressure, not only because of the market, but also because of this need to reduce manufacturing costs.
Because as you said, you don't see a medium term big improvement either, right? It doesn't seem just a purely cyclical issue that was aggravated maybe by WLTP and China. If you say there's not really a big medium term improvement, then it really seems like a small structural issue.
It definitely is a structural issue. I think we still see some, I sort of hope for some larger projects to be ordered and to be obtained by Schuler this year. Clearly our position is not that we just need a few more orders, then everything is in order and we don't need anything. We clearly need to adjust the structure and make sure we're more competitive and bring them closer to the markets of the future.
Okay. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Second one is on your pulp statement, you already said you see a lot of activity over the next three quarters. Two questions on that. First of all, do you see that because Valmet has just upgraded their pulp outlook, and they see a greater likelihood of something happening near term. The first question would be, would you see an equal distribution between the next three quarters or really backend loaded? The other question was also, you always talk about just greenfields where I guess there is a lot of activity, but do you also see substantial investments more on the brownfield side?
We think there will be decisions to be made in Q2 and Q3. Obviously, something will probably remain for Q4, it is not that we think everything will be decided in Q4. That's certainly not.
Talking about the Q3 should be the peak of these decisions. Greenfield, brownfield, the question is the definition. When we say if a completely new pulp line with 2 million tons capacity is built in an existing location, you can argue whether it's greenfield or brownfield. From our standpoint, as long as there's enough space in this location, a new line, for us, that's the most attractive project because a lot of infrastructure is available. That makes the project somewhat simpler, provided there is enough space. If it's a very narrow space, then it could complicate things. Part of these projects are these type of green, brownfields or completely new lines with a large capacity added to an existing location. Two of them would be clearly greenfield ones. There are also some large expansions under discussion.
The decisions you expect in the next 2 quarters, is that mostly South America then, or?
Yes.
Just finally, I was a bit surprised by your big change of tone on the pulp and paper margin guidance because there obviously we have some accretion also from Xerium or quite substantial accretion. On the other hand, I would not expect that this is also reflecting a tougher pricing environment given how good the pulp CapEx environment is. It's probably more that last year was so exceptional and I think you also had some provisional releases. Is it really nothing to do with the pricing, I guess?
Yes. If I would have to bet on 1 upside, then I probably would see, compared to our guidance, I would see it on the pulp side.
Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. I go back in line.
Thank you. The next question is from Daniel Lion of Erste Group. The line is open. Please go ahead.
Yeah, good morning.
Hi
Good morning. Can you hear me?
Yes.
Yeah. Very good. Thank you. I would like to follow up on the automotive and Schuler side. What do you see in terms of dynamics, in the last month or also entering the second quarter? Is there any changes? Is it getting weaker or is it rather stable on a low level? Just a little bit color on that.
I would say stable.
Stable on a low level. Okay. Understand. Also following up on the margin question raised by Sven in the last question. Do you mean really that Pulp & Paper would decrease in profitability despite the consolidation of Xerium? Is it without Xerium?
Yes. Sorry, go ahead.
That's basically the question. How to understand the announcement that it would go lower year-on-year. So I can only actually from the outside now expect it's excluding the Xerium consolidation. Otherwise, it will be difficult to understand.
We still continue to expect a very good profitability in Pulp & Paper. That comment we have made in this guidance is that it's purely driven by the fact that we had last year some really sizable one-time effects. Release of provisions because we have met all the performance guarantees and so on. We did not want to commit to a continuing extremely high profitability as we have shown last year. As you know, it's also substantially above our net. It was just basically to make you aware that. We will do our best. We see the market very good. We continue to see the volume very good. We think the prices are reasonably good. We do not want to create the impression that the Pulp & Paper is not going to be a 10% EBITDA business forever.
Of course, sure. On the other end, when we're comparing the provisions released last year and the expected addition of Xerium this year, which would be some, let's say, mid-double-digit EUR million amount. Is this somehow comparable in size or is the restructuring releases last year, is it lower than this mid-double-digit EUR million amount? Just to put it in relation, just to know what we're talking about, actually, and to understand how you guide.
It is always a question of the weight on the total sales. I take notice that you are skeptical on this guidance. Let's see how Q2 and Q3 develop, whether we maintain it or not. Again, I just don't want to give the impression that we think we can continue long-term on this high level. I'm not saying it will be substantially lower. What we said is what we said. There might be a slight decline in relative profitability in the Pulp & Paper. If we're more confident as we go into the next two quarters, we certainly can re-discuss it in our next phone call.
Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Then one last one, regarding IFRS 16, you mentioned EUR 12 million EBITDA impact. Does this relate to Q1 only? Do we really have a mid-double digits EBITDA impact from IFRS 16 on EBITDA?
For the full year, it will be approximately EUR 40 million-EUR 45 million. It's not times four.
Okay. Sure. Perfect. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you. The next question we've received is from Antti Susi of Danske Bank. Please go ahead, your line is now open.
Yes. Hi. I'm a new guy here. I believe I haven't asked before, but I'm looking at the Pulp & Paper margin comments, and I would like to understand what is driving this. Is this because you see already a project overrun you have taken in, or is it that when the pulp market is now coming in strongly, you see a negative margin impact from the change in your business mix because of strong pulp, please? Thank you.
Very politely, neither nor. It's exclusively that we had some sizable one-time effects last year. Yes, I agree that Xerium should add some over proportional profitability. As I've said before, may be a little bit cautious on this guidance. The guidance is as it is. We don't see any cost overruns yet, and we don't see any negative developments on the Pulp & Paper market. We just do not expect the same level of one-time releases this year as we had last year.
Okay. Then if I may continue. If I look at the Q1, which you have reported this morning. If I remove Xerium, which you give the sales impact, and in the call you also gave the EBITDA impact. If I exclude Xerium, I can see that the margin was down already slightly in Q1. What caused that margin decline, please?
Very good question. Very good analysis. We had a few, not dramatic, but a few million EUR of cost overruns on, actually, on the paper import side.
Okay. Understood. Okay. That's all. Thank you.
Thank you. As there are no further questions, I will hand back to you, Mr. Leitner, for some closing remarks.
Thank you very much for your questions. We will take your concerns, especially with regard to Pulp & Paper, serious and see what we can do as we move on into the next quarters. Look forward to talking to you mid-year. Thanks, everybody.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance. This call has been concluded. You may disconnect.