Welcome to the Covestro earnings call on the third quarter results. The company is represented by Markus Steilemann, CEO, and Christian Baier, CFO. During the presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. The presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer session. If you have a question, please use the Raise Your Hand f unction or post your question into the Q&A tab. You will find the quarterly statement and earnings call presentation on our investor relations website. I assume you have read the safe harbor statement. With that, I would now like to turn the conference over to Markus. Thank you, Ronald, and, hello, and a very warm welcome to our third quarter call. After saying goodbye to Thomas Toepfer in the last earnings call, I now have the great pleasure to welcome the new CFO of Covestro, Christian Baier, in this round. Christian is an esteemed top manager with a long-standing experience in the capital markets. He had been a member of the management board of METRO AG as Chief Financial Officer since 2016. This had been preceded by various executive positions at the international wholesaler from 2011, before being promoted to the position of CFO. Prior to his career at METRO, Christian had been with Permira, a global investment firm, and with Lehman Brothers. The other members of the board of management of Covestro and I are delighted that Christian will be actively involved in shaping Covestro's transformation to the circular economy and in the implementation and execution of our sustainable future strategy. Christian, a very warm welcome to you in this round. We are happy to have you on board. After this encouraging news, let us now come to the highlights of the last quarter. On the next page, you see the overall economic situation has not improved during the last quarter. Low demand and industry-wide price pressure, as a result of oversupply across many core products, are still ongoing. With that and the normal pass-through mechanism of lower raw material cost, our sales were significantly down year-on-year to EUR 3.6 billion. In line with our guidance, we achieved a third quarter EBITDA of EUR 277 million. Free operating cash flow strongly improved in the third quarter, 2023, and came out at EUR 308 million. This was supported by our ongoing stringent working capital management. As usual, with our Q3 results, we are narrowing our guidance range for the full year 2023. Before ending on the highlights, let me briefly address the ADNOC's situation. On September the eighth, we announced to enter into open-ended discussions with Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. We are pursuing these discussions in good faith, open-minded, and in the interest of our shareholders and all other stakeholders. We remain fully compliant in our communication approach and will only comment on the progress of the negotiations if required by the European Market Abuse Regulation. As that is currently not the case, we will refrain from any additional comments regarding the ADNOC's topic. Let's move to the next page. Despite the still economically challenging times, we keep investing into the growth of our business. In the second quarter, 2022, we presented to you our investment plans for our Solutions and Specialties entities, Elastomers and Coatings and Adhesives. A little more than one year later, and exactly on time and on budget, I have the great pleasure to announce the completion and soon start of operation of both expansions. The first ramp-up was done the early Q3, with the new Elastomer production line in our integrated site in Shanghai. This plant and its products will especially serve renewable energy markets, like wind energy and solar panels, and also heavy-duty applications. In line with our strategy, the business unit, Elastomers, will continue to regionally enlarge its production footprint. In our business entity, Coatings and Adhesives, the investments in two plants for polyester resins and polyurethane dispersions reached a milestone of full mechanical completion. Now, further work is ongoing to get the plant to the ramp-up phase in the first quarter, 2024. This is the first plant that has been constructed in a modular way, in line with our build faster and cheaper program, underlining our cost-leading asset structure. The products coming from these units are supporting the profitable growth of our CA business in a variety of products, catering for the automotive, construction, sports, and leisure, as well as furniture industry. These are two examples how we are profitably growing our solution and specialty business with regional small investments. We remain committed to our approach to produce products in the region, for the region. Let's now turn to the next page. Coming now to the volume development in the third quarter of 2023. Year-on-year, the global sales volume decreased by 3.8%. This was caused by ongoing demand weakness across all regions and limitations in our internal availability. However, the rate of decline is now smaller compared to the previous quarters. As a reminder, first quarter was down by 17% and second quarter by 8% year-on-year. We still expect a positive, low single-digit year-on-year growth in the fourth quarter. Historically, a volume turnaround has always been followed by an improvement in margins, at least with a certain time lag. Auto remains on a growth path, still benefiting from a healthy order book.... After five quarters of declining volumes in furniture, the sector turned around in the third quarter with mid-single-digit growth. Also, electronics developed flattish after four quarters of decline. The weakest sector remains construction. Looking into the different regions, EMLA showed a return to growth path, with increases in three of four industries important to Covestro, after we partially solved the limitation on our internal chlorine supply. As a result of the low comparison base, furniture stands out with significant increase, whereas construction and auto showed a slight increase. Electro was still slightly declining. Sales volumes in North America also increased slightly across the two industries, electro and auto. Furniture showed a flattish development, but construction witnessed an ongoing significant decline. After the positive volume development in Asia Pacific in the second quarter, based on a low comparison basis from the COVID lockdowns last year, growth rates have normalized. Furniture and auto now exhibited slight growth, and electro showed a flattish development. Construction was still affected by significant decline. With this summary of the demand development, I'm now handing over to Christian, who will guide you through the financials. Yeah, a warm welcome to all of you on the call, also from my side. It is a pleasure to engage with you for the first time in my function as CFO of Covestro, and I'm looking forward to frequent exchanges with the investor community. But before coming to the topics of today's call, let me also thank you, Markus, and the entire board of management, for the warm welcome and the great support during my first weeks with Covestro. I'm really delighted to be part of the Covestro team. Now, let's talk business. We are on page 6 of the presentation. Sales in Q3 2023 are down by 22.7% year-on-year to EUR 3.6 billion, and as such, are the lowest sales within 2023 so far. What contributed to the fairly low number are three factors, each of them with negative impact. The by far biggest impact of EUR 660 million was coming from 14.3% lower prices. Here, the business entity Performance Materials was strongly suffering with a year-on-year decline of almost 20%, whereas Solutions and Specialties was only affected by around 9% from lower prices. A negative FX effect of -4.6%, or EUR 213 million, was mostly driven by weaker Chinese renminbi, US dollar, Indian rupee, and Japanese yen. The continuing negative volume development of 3.8% contributed also to the decline in sales. Performance Materials volumes declined by 2.4%, and Solutions and Specialties by 3.7%. Let us now look at the EBITDA bridge on the following page. The sequential negative volume effect was still impacting EBITDA, but the pricing delta has turned positive to EUR 69 million. The savings in raw materials and energy costs exceeded the price reductions. Please keep in mind, the raw material price effect is based on the extremely high prices for petrochemicals and energy in Q3 2022. Negative EBITDA effects were coming from FX and other items. Other items were mainly driven by higher provisions for short- and long-term variable compensation. We had reduced the provisions for short-term incentives during Q3 2022, whereas we continued to build provisions for FY 2023. The provisions for our long-term incentive, LTI, have also increased due to the strong relative share price performance. Other items are impacted by lower operational cost and reductions in stock levels. Summing it all up, the EBITDA was coming out at EUR 277 million, slightly below midpoint of the guidance range of EUR 240 million-EUR 340 million. On slide eight, we are breaking down the details for the different segments and are starting with Performance Materials. Year-over-year, the price decline with almost 20% is the main contributor to the sales decline of 26.7%. FX and volume only contributed to minor parts to the drop in sales. Quarter-over-quarter, sales declined significantly in EMLA, slightly in North America, while it increased in APAC. However, the overall development is still negative. Q3 2023 EBITDA of EUR 85 million is 60% above previous year, and the year-over-year increase is mainly driven by a positive pricing delta and burdened by FX and negative volumes. Sequentially, the EBITDA in Q3 2023 has been declining, mainly due to a negative pricing delta, the one-off insurance effect in Q2 2023 for the chlorine incident, and lower inventories. Volume increases could partially compensate the decline. After Performance Materials, we are now looking at the segment Solutions and Specialties. Also in SNS, the year-over-year price decline and demand weakness were a major factor for the sales decline of 17.6%. Similar to Performance Materials, FX also had a negative impact. Sequentially, sales growth was recorded in APAC on the back of higher demand for our engineering plastics resins in auto and electro.... Declining sales were observed in EMLA and North America, resulting in an overall negative trend. The EBITDA in Q3 2023 was lower year-over-year due to lower volumes and FX. However, quarter-over-quarter, the positive trend of an increasing EBITDA is continuing. The sequential increase is founded on a positive pricing delta and lower fixed costs. Declining volumes and higher idle costs due to our strategy to reduce inventories had a negative impact. Finally, the EBITDA margin improved to 13.6%, continuing the upward trend since Q4 2022. The next topic is the free operating cash flow development after nine months of 2023. As you can see from the graph, the free operating cash flow after nine months was at +EUR 159 million, of which EUR 308 million came from the third quarter. The free operating cash flow strongly improved year-over-year due to continuous working capital management, lower income tax payments, and zero bonus payout for fiscal year 2022. Changes in working capital of -EUR 85 million after nine months of 2023 were driven by lower accounts payable due to reduced raw material pricing, higher receivables, and inventory decreases. The 9M 2023 CapEx of EUR 461 million is in line with budget and our full year guidance of EUR 800 million. Income taxes were around EUR 200 million less than in the same period of last year and amounted to EUR 247 million, mainly due to lower earnings. All in all, the nine months free operating cash flow has been seeing a strong development, and we are well on track to achieve our full-year positive free operating cash flow guidance. Let's now turn to the P&L items below EBITDA. I would like to highlight the impairments after 9M in 2023 at -EUR 38 million. This is mostly coming from our decision in Q1 to discontinue the loss-making Maezio product line and the closure of the related site. There were no relevant impairments in Q2 and Q3. Last year, we already adjusted our deferred tax assets in Germany. As a consequence, based on IFRS rules, we must no longer recognize our DTA on tax loss carried forwards in Germany. As our accounting projections expect further losses in Germany in fiscal 2023, the tax rate will continue to be affected by the regional profit mix. Currently, we assume a P&L income tax of between EUR 150 million and EUR 250 million for fiscal 2023. Also important to note is that in contrast to the IFRS rules, based on German tax rules, the tax loss carried forward can be used indefinitely. So we can use the loss carry forwards to lower our tax rate in the future. Income taxes after 9M in 2023 are significantly lower compared to 9M of 2022, due to the reduced earnings situation this year. Overall, our net income is negative at - EUR 11 million. We are now coming to our balance sheet, which continues to be very solid. Versus end of 2022, our net financial debt increased slightly by EUR 66 million. The positive free operating cash flow of EUR 159 million limited the increase to now EUR 2.5 billion. The decrease in the net pension liability of EUR 189 million was driven by an increase in the pension discount rates in the US and Germany, resulting in a EUR 241 million net pension liability. This comprises a pension provision of EUR 340 million and benefit assets of EUR 99 million. Yesterday, we decided to cancel the remaining part of the share buyback program due to the current situation and the limited time remaining until the end of the program on February 28th, 2024. As such, we have executed close to EUR 200 million of the intended EUR 500 million euro program, but we will seek for a renewal of the authorization during the AGM in 2024 to be able to continue share buybacks in the future. Summarizing our net debt position and situation, the total net debt to EBITDA ratio is at 3.0 times, based on a four-quarter rolling EBITDA of EUR 0.9 billion. However, based on our mid-cycle EBITDA, the ratio would only be around one times. Covestro remains committed to a solid investment-grade rating, which was also confirmed by Moody's as Baa2, with stable outlook end of Q2 2023. That finalized the financial review of Q3 2023, and now over to you, Markus, for the industry outlook. Yeah, thanks, Christian. We are now coming on the next page to the outlook for Covestro's core industries, and we're now on page number thirteen of the presentation. The global GDP expectation has been almost flat since our last review and is estimated to be 2.5%. Sadly, this flattish development does not hold true for most of the industries important to Covestro. Only automotive is experiencing a positive volume growth, and this trend is continuing with an improved outlook of 7.9% now. The subcategory of EV or battery electric vehicles is, against this trend, experiencing a slight downgrade of 7.2% points in growth, expecting now 35.3%. This is still above any other growth rate we currently see in our core industries. The outlook for the construction industry has deteriorated further to -2.2%, and residential construction has lost more than four percentage points in growth, down to -4.3%. The reason for this trend are well known: high interest rates and high costs of building materials. Also, the furniture industry is seeing a recently accelerated negative trend, with an expected second year of declining markets between 4% and 5%. Only the demand outlook for electro is seeing a flattish development, as 0.4% can hardly be counted as growth. Here, the appliance sector is, against the trend, seeing an upgrade in its growth projections and is expected to show an increase of almost 8%. Summarizing the data, we can see that the development of most of our industries has significant room for improvement. This underlines our own evaluation of the current market conditions, that a turn to a positive development is currently still not foreseeable near-term. With this, let us now turn to the Covestro outlook for the full year 2023. As explained in the outlook for our core industries, there is no substantial indication of a short-term improved, improvement of the economic environment. We expect the ongoing demand weakness to continue, at least for the remainder of the year. Taking this into consideration, we now expect our EBITDA to come out around EUR 1.1 billion for the full year 2023, and as such, around the lower end of our guidance range of EUR 1.1 billion-EUR 1.6 billion. Looking at 2024, a theoretical EBITDA mark to market estimation, based on September 2023 margins, flat forward in our current preliminary budget assumptions for 2024, would be around EUR 1.4 billion. However, we remain convinced of our mid-cycle EBITDA concept, with a mid-cycle level of EUR 2.8 billion in 2024. We are confident that we can achieve such an EBITDA level under normal economic conditions. One major bridging element would be a high utilization rate of our plants. Within existing capacities and no further investments, we could grow our volumes by more than 20%, and we already started in this direction. Even on today's squeezed product margins, this would translate into additional EBITDA contribution for more than EUR 1 billion. With this, I hand over again to Christian for a review on the guidance for the full set of KPIs. Let us now look at the full set of KPIs. With the ongoing deterioration of the overall price and demand situation, we are now narrowing our guidance for fiscal 2023 around the lower end of the range for all our financial KPIs. As mentioned, we are now expecting the EBITDA to be around EUR 1.1 billion. In line with the EBITDA, the free operating cash flow is expected to come out between EUR 0-200 million. The ROCE above WACC outlook is around -7 percentage points. For our minus six percentage points. For our greenhouse gas emissions, we confirm the guidance range of 4.2-4.8 million tons, given in April. With respect to additional financial expectations, we anticipate our sales to come out between EUR 14-14.5 billion. EBITDA remains as guided, around EUR 900 million, and as such, slightly above our CapEx budget of around EUR 800 million. We are continuing our strict CapEx regime and are well on track, as indicated previously. The expected financial result has slightly improved to -EUR 120 million--EUR 150 million. P&L tax is estimated to be stable at EUR 150 million-EUR 250 million. However, we are raising the cash tax expectations of EUR 300 million-EUR 400 million for fiscal 2023, due to a tax settlement payment for a German tax audit for the fiscal years 2016-2018. This included a EUR 55 million payment in Q3 2023, and a further EUR 35 million in Q4 2023. With a completed summary of the KPIs, I hand back over to Markus. Yeah. Thanks again, Christian. So please allow me, on, page number 16 now, to quickly summarize. Our sales decreased to EUR 3.6 billion, and that was caused by lower prices, unfavorable currency, and lower volumes. Our EBITDA came in at EUR 277 million, in line with the guidance, with positive pricing delta, but burdened by currency and lower volumes. Our free operating cash flow has strongly improved to EUR 308 million, supported by the ongoing strict working capital measures. Our full year 2023 guidance narrowed, with an expected EBITDA of now around EUR 1.1 billion. And last but not least, Covestro continues to invest in profitable growth, despite the challenging environment. And now Christian and myself are happy to answer your questions that remained open. With that, I hand it over to Carsten, who will guide us through the Q&A session. Carsten. Thank you, Markus. We are now beginning the question and answer session. If you have a question, please use the Raise Your Hand function. On your telephone, this is star five, or post your question to the Q&A tab. If you wish to cancel your request, please use the Raise Your Hand function again. When speaking, please ensure that you are unmuted. The first question comes from Christian Faitz from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please use the microphone, Christian. Please unmute your microphone. Yes, good afternoon, everyone. I hope you can hear me. Also, good afternoon, Markus, Christian, and Ronald, and team. Christian, welcome to Covestro. Three questions, if I may. First of all, on page 51 of your extended Q3 presentation, you promote the use of polycarbonates in battery electric vehicles. I understand the polycarbonate need and composite need around the battery, yet I believe one's hopes were rather high for other uses, including glass replacement, for example, in sunroof systems. Where are we on this? Second question would be on electronics end markets. Logitech recently made a bit more favorable comments on demand. Do you also see this in your electronic end markets? Third question, I believe you have a bit more than EUR 1.1 billion of debt maturing over the next two years. Can you walk us through your thought process of how this will be refinanced? Thank you very much. Yeah, Christian, this is Markus speaking. First and foremost, we could hear you loud and clear. I hope the same holds true for you as well. Good to hear you again, and please allow me to elaborate on the first two questions that you have. You are absolutely right with the assessment that polycarbonate and battery-propelled electric vehicles is the material of choice, and that will also, from our perspective, remain so in the future, given the unbeaten combination of product properties that polycarbonate simply has to offer. As I always say, the decathlete of the polymer sector. And the high hopes that we had for users in sunroofs, windscreens, et cetera, have not materialized. There were still a few niche applications and still a few car models who use sunroofs, slash who use this, for other smaller applications, but that markets remain, in total, by volume, rather small. For windscreens, the unresolved problem still is the scratch resistivity. But particularly, if you have wipers, so to say, operating, and from that perspective, currently there's no technical solution that would allow to replace the glass-made windshields by polycarbonate, poly- polycarbonate-based windshield. That is different, as you know, for headlamps, because here you don't have, let's say, the wipers, and that's why scratch resistivity is not such an issue. But once again, maybe there's an ingenious, let's say, talent still to come who once will solve that. For now, sunroofs, windscreens, et cetera, automotive glazing has not materialized to the extent that we once were hoping for. On the, what do we see on the, on the polycarbonate demand for electro electronics? I think we stated it, that we have seen a slight increase on electro electronics, in the third quarter in terms of demand, and that trend seems to continue, in the fourth quarter as well. So from that perspective, it is not directly related, to what Logitech maybe has, has, announced, but at least we see a general trend. But can I now tell you exactly is that, is that in the product range that Logitech is offering only, or is it on a broader range? I would rather say it is on a broader range that we see an increase in that segment. And, one of the examples we brought, which is not directly related to electronics, was in the electro sector, so home appliances. And here you have clearly seen that the refrigerator segment is obviously seeing a very nice, nice growth rate. So long story short, I cannot directly link it back to Logitech, but I can confirm that in electro electronics sector, we see since a couple of quarters, the first time that we see, slightly increased sales on our side. And, for the third question, I would hand over to Christian. Yeah. Thank you, Markus and Christian. Thank you for the welcome. Look forward to our future interactions. With respect to the topic of debt refinancing, we are obviously looking at various products that we are having. At the moment, there is very significant cash that we have out, especially when we look at the bond maturing in the next year. We are talking about interest rates of below 2% in the current markets, where we are a couple of percentage points higher. We will certainly be very flexible to use available funds, but also tap other sources of financing. As just recently, we have tapped the European Investment Bank for a very strong loan facility that we got there. So we remain active in the capital markets in order to really look at what is the best solution at the time at hand with having a very broad spectrum of tools that are always available to us also in the current markets without the significant increases in the interest rates. ... Thank you very much, Markus and Christian. And, the next question comes from a participant with a British telephone number, 07767 705406. Could you please state your name and company name, followed by your question? And please unmute your microphone with star six. Okay, we seemingly lost the person, so maybe if the questioner could please use star five again. Otherwise, we continue with the next one in the line. And the next question then comes from Jaideep Pandya from Onfield Research. Jaideep, please unmute your microphone. Yes, hello. I hope you can hear me. Very well. First question really is around. Yes, hi. My first question is around the EUR 3 billion investment on the MDI project. I know, Markus, you've mentioned about ADNOC, so I won't make you very uncomfortable, but obviously this is a topic which is very strategic for Covestro. So could you just give us some sort of information about how are you tackling this in the light of your discussions with ADNOC, in the sense, you know, is this on the table and being reviewed in totality? Or is this actually off the table because you have taken the project off the table? That's my first question. The second question goes back to, it's sort of tied to the first question. It goes back to your point about EUR 1 billion EBITDA growth, even at current margins, you know, with 20% volume growth. So you know, how do we get then to the EUR 2.8 billion? Would the EUR 800 million really have to come from improvement in spreads? And what sort of spreads improvement that, you know, sort of quantifies, if you can just give us some color with regards to that. And then the final question really is around the competitive landscape. Assume that, you know, your availability improves next year, and you would like to take back some share, presumably in TDI and in MDI, from the chlorine issue that you've had. You know, your key competitor in China is increasing capacity quite aggressively. So could you tell us, like, in a backdrop of low volume growth next year, how do you see the competitive behavior? I mean, are you willing to go a bit aggressive on pricing to get back the share, or are you gonna defend pricing as well? Thanks a lot. Yeah, Jaideep, thank you so much for your questions. Let me start with the first one, and that is totally unrelated to ongoing, open-ended discussions with ADNOC. It is just a general explanation of the rationale to invest in MDI. And maybe one, if you allow minor correction, we're not talking about a EUR 3 billion investment, but the investment costs are rather around EUR 2 billion, depending on where you invest, maybe slightly lower, maybe slightly higher, and also depending on how you invest. That means the way how you construct the plant might also have a significant impact about the total cost of the plant. So long story short, the number is rather around EUR 2 billion and not in the order of magnitude of EUR 3 billion. So having said that, the decision to pause an MDI investment was not driven by financial means. It was driven by the current, let's say, short-term, at least, turbulent market dynamics in the MDI market and also the worries that we already could foresee in the current construction market. We know that mid- to long-term MDI is still in high demand, and it is still the best raw material for insulation panels, for commercial as well... sorry, for commercial and residential buildings. But we also have to very carefully assess when that growth is, as let's say, kicking in. As we currently see, the construction market is under big pressure. The construction market worries us a little bit at current times. And from that perspective, I think it was a wise decision, not to go, for the respective MDI construction at the time when we had it on the table, because it would have just further increased, the price pressure, on MDI and in the MDI markets. So from that perspective, I would say we are currently, once again, assessing when is the right moment in time to invest, and we will let you know as soon as possible when we have taken the decision. If you look at the supply-demand balance, last sentence to this, we see that there is actually, towards the end of the 2020s, beginning of the 2030s, no additional supply capacity, coming. From that perspective, we think that the right moment in time to once again go back to that investment decision is coming soon. With that, in terms of the EUR 1 billion related, well, let's say, with the way to the EUR 2.8 billion, I would actually hand over to Christian. Christian? Yeah. Thank you, Jaideep, for the question. With respect to the 2.8 to the mid-cycle, basically, we are talking EUR 1.1 billion this year. We are talking exactly those roughly above 20% that we were stating. And with the currently depressed margins, this is roughly EUR 50 million, basically, per additional percentage point. And then, your rough calculation at flattish fixed costs of those additional volumes you basically come to a set up of the spread between EUR 0.7 billion or around that number. So your calculation is right in that direction. Yeah, thanks. And, Jaideep, to your next question about, yeah, you called it market share. You, dropped a name, dropped words like price war. I think what is important, that this 20% is an average number and an average global number, and that is important. Why? Because it is not only MDI and TDI, where we try to gain market share back, it is also other products, where we see significant room in, increased asset utilization, also in the solutions and specialty area, not to that same extent, but to a, I would say, still reasonably high extent that would also contribute and help us to get back to higher volumes out of existing assets. Secondly, at least from our perspective, Wanhua has always, been a return-driven competitor who behaved very logical. Thirdly, we believe that there is first signs of growth opportunities, at least from the second half of next year. And we must also not underestimate, that, let's say, if I may say, so the leading dogs in the space are not directly getting into an in-fight, but there is still a smaller dogs, let's say, in the backyard, which also produce at much higher cost than we do. So there's also an opportunity for us to gain market share, whilst at the same time, not getting head-on with one of the largest players in this market. Fourthly, Wanhua has currently its largest asset bases in China, and we know that many customers are looking at us, particularly in Europe, and would love to have more material from us. We have, in Europe, cost competitive assets compared to imports from Asia Pacific, so landed costs. So from that perspective, overall, we believe there is sufficient room to sell out our fully running assets, particularly but not limited to Europe, particularly in the, but not limited to the, MDI as well as TDI space, without entering to a price war. I hope that gives you some flavor. Thanks a lot. The next question comes from Sebastian Bray from Berenberg. Sebastian, please unmute your microphone with star six. Hello, everybody. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Very well, Sebastian. I'm sorry, it's Sebastian Bray. Please apologize. It's no problem at all. I just have two questions, please. The first is on the decision announced yesterday evening to terminate the buyback. I'd just like to understand better the thinking behind this, in particular, what the other options would have been. Is it just simply the case that effectively, an extension of the time period over which stocks could have been bought back past April of next year, wouldn't have been possible and effectively to extend this, the buyback first needs to be canceled and then a new one authorized at the AGM? Or would it have been possible to extend ADNOC? That's my first one. Then the second is, when thinking about the current valuation of the stock and potential for cyclical recovery, how are you thinking about CapEx next year? Because I think in the past, Covestro has indicated that it, we could go lower than we are now at around EUR 800 million. And I imagine that, well, depending on what happens to the stock price, it could be quite interesting to buy back stock again more aggressively, as opposed to investing CapEx now, given group utilization is quite low. But could CapEx next year be EUR 600 million or so, or that's too pessimistic in the sense it would be higher? Thank you. Yeah, thank you for your questions. I'll take the first one, and Markus will take the second one. With respect to the buyback decision, exactly, your point is the correct one. It is the AGM that is allowing those share purchase repurchases, and that permission is basically running out, and therefore, that window is closing now at a point of time where there is only a very, very short window to really execute this. And from our perspective, that was not the proper timing with respect to the rush into that at this very moment. But as stated also yesterday, we are focused on asking the AGM next year for the permission again on the share buyback and therefore being able to have that instrument in our toolbox. Yeah, thanks, Sebastian. I take your second question. On CapEx, if you put things into perspective, the, let's say, old number that we originally planned to spend for 2024 was around EUR 900 million-EUR 1 billion. The current planning is around EUR 800 million. With regards to the comments you made, that now going for a CapEx for growth as we are anyhow in underutilization, may be a bit flavor what it means. If we would now invest into growth, even for the solutions and specialties area, those assets would come on stream only in the next two to three years. Which means, if we would not invest next year, we would run out of opportunities to grow our solutions and specialties. So, from that perspective, I currently sit clearly on the position that EUR 800 million is the right balance between short-term needs, and on the one hand, on the other hand, also, mid- to long-term growth opportunities. Another topic is, we could further trim down the CapEx, but then we would cut into many already in-execution projects, and that is normally the worst, because you have then a lot of sunk costs if we short-term cancel those projects, or at least significantly increased overall investment costs, which is not in line with our philosophy to spend our CapEx, as we stated also in our previous speech here, more wisely and more efficient and effective. So that's why the number, most likely from today's perspective, will be around EUR 800 million for next year, 2024. That's helpful. Thank you for taking my questions, Markus, and nice to get to know you, Christian, on your first call. The next question comes from Geoff Haire from UBS. Please unmute your microphone, Geoff. Hi, this is Geoff Haire. Thanks for the presentation. I just had a quick question about the auto sector. Clearly you've alluded, Markus, to some slowdown, particularly in the EV side, but we are aware that inventories are obviously building, particularly in Europe. I was just wondering, would you be willing to comment about what your thoughts are for the auto sector as we move into 2024? Yeah, Geoff, thanks, and very helpful that you asked that question because it is a bit of a complex picture, I have to admit. Even though we see, let's say, increased growth rates for the automotive industry, it is always worthwhile to look a little bit what is behind it. There is admittedly a high uncertainty. The order backlog is still healthy in the industry. Just talking about the recent microprocessor crisis that we had in 2021, 2022, and extending partially into 2023, so there is still a healthy backlog in the system. On the other hand, there is also replacement need high, given that there are 4 years now with below 2019 levels in terms of absolute car sales. That means we have lost basically 5-6 years of growth. And that's why we believe 2%-3% growth in 2024 for the automotive industry is a conservative approach in that context, that what we could see and foresee for the underlying demand. There might be higher growth rates possible, once again, talking about the backlog, and there might be also a little bit more higher growth rates possible, talking about the replacement needs. But once again, the economy currently is in a big turmoil, and that's why it is still with high uncertainty. But I believe 2%-3% growth should be definitely for next year. If you put... If you want to have a number, then I'm sitting on that conservative number. Okay. Thank you. The next question came in writing from Martin Evans, from HSBC: Okay, let me check. Okay. Why do you continue with this theoretical mid-cycle target for the EUR 2.8 billion for 2024, especially given your own mark-to-market forecast for 2024 is half of that? Given these trading conditions are the new reality and likely, by your own admission, to be difficult in 2024, why do you not abandon, as it is confusing, as it is purely academic? Yeah, thank you for your question, and let me just elaborate a little bit on the mid-cycle. From our perspective, this gives a very strong and good indication of the potential that we do have with the existing and installed capacity at any given point of time when we return to a market normality. And given in our industry, this comeback can be very fast, from our perspective, it's very important to bring this across. And just to remind on how the mid-cycle is being calculated, this is really under normalized market conditions with respect to capacity utilization, with respect to fixed cost, and then the 2.8 also recently updated since the RFM acquisition for the RFM synergies. So for us, it's an important yardstick to be used, and we keep it as pragmatic as possible. Obviously, the environment needs to be there in order to achieve that 2.8 in the mid-cycle. The next question comes from Charlie Webb, from Morgan Stanley. Please unmute your microphone with star six. Charlie, we so far have not been able to hear you. Would you mind to unmute using star six on your telephone? Charlie is out. Okay, I think we just lost Charlie. So Charlie, if your question is still relevant, would you mind to use the raise your hand function again? We then continue with the next question from an unknown British telephone number, which is 07767 075406. Could you please state your name, company name, followed by your question? And please, unmute your microphone with star six. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, can hear you. Yeah, hi, Chetan here from JP Morgan. I had a couple of questions. You know, I think at the beginning of the presentation, you mentioned about volumes improving year-on-year, and I'm just curious, is that just a function of comps, or do you actually see real demand improvement? You know, this goes across all of your markets that you mentioned, which were improving, like furniture or electronics. Because clearly, I think we started to see the volumes come under pressure from second half of last year. So just wanted to understand whether this is real improvement or it's just a base effect which is coming into play here. The second question, and apologies, I don't know if this was actually answered earlier, but, you know, you keep referring to this EUR 2.8 billion mid-cycle EBITDA, which is fine. My question to you is, you know, as you know, discuss potential scenarios with ADNOC, is that your base case that you will use in arriving at some sort of a sensible valuation? Or is that just not related to what you might be talking to ADNOC at the moment? And the last question I had was just on your bonus provisions. The last year, your EBITDA was much higher, but you had, I think from memory, 0 bonus provisions, or maybe much lower. So why are you having or have already recognized EUR 160 million bonus provisions this year, given your profitability is much lower? Thank you. Yeah, Chetan, thank you very much. So I take the first question where you say Q4 volumes year-on-year. That is mainly comps. So because Q3 or Q4 2022 was -13% compared to Q4 2021. So we're really comparing ourself to a very low basis. So that is the main explanation. And we have alluded to where we see the individual industries going and what our own sales, let's say, is saying for the respective segments that we are exposed to. And part of the volume growth that we are seeing in our own business is not directly related to market growth, but rather related to increased availability of our own plants. By the way, maybe giving you some evidence of what we are planning to do next year in terms of selling our assets fully out once the capacity is available again. So that, that is maybe the explanation to your first question, and then I would hand over to Christian for the next. Thank you. With respect to your question, re: the valuation perspective, and here very specifically, without any reference to the ADNOC situation, very theoretically, just from a mid-cycle perspective, this is in normalized market conditions, the infrastructure that we have already existent. And in any M&A situation, for sure there would also be a discounted cash flow perspective taken into account, including basically growth perspectives that would happen. And again, no reference to any conversations on the ADNOC side. With respect to the bonus position, let me just state, with respect to the financial KPIs, you are absolutely right with the statement compared to the prior year development. There is a fourth important component in our short-term incentive program, PSP, around the greenhouse gas emissions, and there is a certain discretion with respect to the decision-making on the payout of that. We are there on solid track to achieve the targets that have been given in the long term, or in the incentive program and the long-term set targets on that. So discretion on that point of time, and there has been provisions made so far during the year, which will be decided on upon concluding the year. Sorry, what was that KPI? You mentioned fourth KPI. What is that fourth KPI? It is the greenhouse gas emissions target, the CO2 reduction that we do have as the fourth KPI, where we are on solid track to achieve the targets at the upper end, given our very strong focus on sustainability and CO2 reduction. And that is basically a KPI that when the other financial KPIs are not fulfilled, is at the decision and discretion of the management team to decide on it, which we will do at the conclusion of the year and with respect to where we are coming out with the results. Can I push a little further on that topic? Isn't your carbon emissions down today just because demand is bad and you can't produce at full capacity, given your, your own production cuts? Or are you saying you are actually doing much more better, even on adjusting for-- even adjusting for that production, issues? Well, let me just jump in here as, let's say I have witnessed and also developed that KPI system. The absolute carbon dioxide reduction, it is an absolute emission reduction, was requested by many shareholders to be included in our short-term incentive scheme. That's why we, in the first place, also put it in. It also perfectly fits our carbon emission reduction targets. Secondly, a slight portion, a slight portion is due to the fact that we have lower production output, but not to the order of magnitude that the production output is going down, simply because of the fact the lower the output is, the less efficient our plants are getting. Which means, if you have, let's say, 20% lower production output, your carbon dioxide footprint and output of the plants is by far not going down by 20%. And that is, I think, very important to know. Thirdly, it is worth to mention that we have significantly also decreased our carbon dioxide footprint by, for example, efficiency and effectiveness measures that we invested into, which are also going into that bonus. So, even though you might make the assumption, "Hey, you're just lowering your production, and by that you are achieving your carbon dioxide targets." No, the carbon dioxide emission reduction targets are achieved by actively investing, by actively improving the energy efficiency, and with that, lowering the carbon dioxide footprint of our assets. It is also not, let's say, pro rata, driven down by lower output. The opposite is true. The lower the output is, the less effective the plants are. So that might give you some, some ideas how this works. That's clear. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The next question comes from a person with a U.S. telephone number, eight-seven-three-seven. Could you please state your name, company name, followed by your question? And please unmute your microphone with star six. Okay, the person disappeared, so let's go to the next one. Hello? Hello? Yes, please. Yes, yes, please. Go ahead. Yes. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, very well. Hi, it's Paul Gleeson from TIG Funds. Christian, nice to meet you, and Markus, I had a question for you. I was curious if you could provide a little bit of details around the utilization rate. So last quarter, you mentioned that there was 20% of excess capacity, and 10% could be easily contracted. It seems like we're still running with 20% excess capacity, so what has been done in the last quarter to contract that excess capacity? Well, I, I love the interpretation that you bring forward about could be easily contracted. I'm not aware that I exactly said that. What I said is that we're aiming to gradually sell out those assets, and that we will do that quarter by quarter. To give you some flavor, those 20%, roughly 20%, are distributed amongst our assets in the commodity segment as well as in the specialty segment. In the commodity segment, a larger share of the unsold capacity is simply because it was technically not available, and that is particularly true for our European commodity assets. That was due to an unforeseen technical failure that already happened last year in our central chlorine productions. We are still repairing those unforeseen technical glitches, and we assume that by end of the year, we'll have the largest share of those technical issues solved, and that then being able to gradually continue to sell out our assets in the commodity segment. Once again, particularly from our European assets, because assets in China, assets in Asia Pacific, and then also, to a larger extent, assets in the United States are already sold out in the commodity sector. Secondly, for the specialty segment, it's a bit more tricky, as here it is about compensating existing applications, very special applications, by newly developed by newly developed applications. It takes a little bit longer. What have we done in the last quarter? First topic is, we have actually continued to work on the technical issues with our commodity segments, and whatever was available has then actively been promoted in the market. And we have seen, let's say, a first gradual improvement against the usual seasonal downtrend from the third quarter to the second quarter versus the second quarter. So there is slight improvements clearly to be seen. And from my own assessment, looking at the current trading update, I see that this trend is continuing in the fourth quarter. And on the specialty segment, we're looking with full steam and full forces to for newer applications to then produce materials and load the assets in the specialty segment. So it is a tough cookie. We are chewing it. We're making first progress, so the gradual improvement is clearly observable, and that is exactly also what we will continue to do because our aim is to sell out our assets and make sure that we fully load them. So, I believe you mentioned in the past that you believe like you're the lowest cost producer out there. So, why can't you just take market prices? Or am I or is this suggesting that market prices are actually under your cost curve? No, we can do that, but once again, the assets needs to be available. So and that is exactly what we're saying. It is not just commodities that we are selling. Over 50% of our portfolio is specialty business, and there it is exactly not about the price, it is about new applications. So let me give you an example, a very simple one. If you have glues that go into a windscreen of a BMW 5 Series, and you have glues that go into the packaging of a Mars bar, those are not comparable chemistries. And if now the sales of the BMW 5, BMW 5 Series is down, you cannot just sell that glue somewhere else. What you have to do is, you have to look for new applications that then will continue to fill the assets, even though the sales of cars is still down. That is the thing that takes more time. On TDI, it is simply an availability, let's say, commodity. It's still an availability issue. When the TDI asset is back on stream and fully back on stream, we will, as quickly as possible, sell into the markets. And I do not want to comment, let's say, on our pricing tactics in that context, but the clear appetite is to sell out the asset as quickly as possible once it is back on stream and available. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We have a follow-up question from Geoff Haire from UBS. Please go ahead with your question, Geoff, and please unmute your microphone. Yeah, hi. Markus, I just wanted to get some assurance from you. You obviously said that you'll look to fully utilize your asset base next year. Can you give us assurances that that won't result in you just lowering the price to fill the asset base? Well, I think one thing is important, we're looking to optimize our absolute margin structures. It's not about filling the assets just for the sake of filling the assets. Secondly, it is important that, and we had an earlier question around that, that we're not competing in the markets against the lowest or one of the lowest cost producers, but we're competing against the high cost curve, the producers that are sitting on the high end of the cost curve. The current situation that we were not in the market due to technical unavailability of our plants has maybe kept some high-cost producers in the market, and that is exactly where our opportunity is. So we will still enjoy good margins and still be able to sell out, and I'm convinced about that. Having now had the chance to look for more than a decade into those markets, there is opportunities out there. Okay, thanks. Thank you. We have a follow-up question from Jaideep Pandya from Onfield Research. Jaideep, please go ahead with your question, and please unmute your microphone. Yes, thank you so much. It's a question just around... Apologies for asking this, but just around the ADNOC's situation. I mean, what has been the feedback from your customer and your employee base, given obviously on the, on the financial markets, at least I have recognized that quite a few of investors right now are sort of sitting on the sidelines because Covestro is a bit of a difficult one to judge, given the uncertainty of the outcome. So what has been the response from the customer base and the employee base, and, and is there some kind of a timeframe? 'Cause, obviously,ADNOC's involved in another company, in Europe, and there it's been, you know, quite a few months now, and there has been nothing that has come out yet. Is there a particular timeframe with regards to the board, where you will dedicate, let's say, 6, maybe 9 months to this negotiation, and if it leads to nowhere, you will sort of call it a day? Or is this, you know, very hard to comment on? Thanks a lot. Well, thanks, Jaideep. You said it in your last sentence. It's very hard to comment on, but let me please allow me to give you some flavor. With regards to feedback from customers, I am actually not aware of any comment by any customers. I have seen a few, but I mean, besides the fact that they have read the press and just made comments like, "Oh, you must have a lot of work on your desk," you know, which I didn't comment on, but there were no, let's say, other comments. With regard to the employees, and I think that is totally normal, there is for sure some uncertainties here and there, a lot of questions that we get, which is very, very normal in such a situation. And therefore, they are focusing, and that's what we always tell them, to stay safe, to operate safe, to make sure that they really take care about their business. And from that perspective, I think right now we have limited nervousness, and we also do not see other, let's say, indicators going in the wrong direction, let's say, higher fluctuations than usual or something like this. So from that perspective, on the customer front, it is absolutely quiet. On the employees front, beyond the limited nervousness, which I consider to be normal, there is nothing going on. With regards to the timeframe that you addressed, there is no regulatory, let's say, timeframe, so we don't have anything that is maybe comparable to the UK or so, unless specific things are not happening. For example, if there would be, let's say, a real public offer, binding public offer, then yes, there is a few timelines that would then start to tick. But, let's say, and, just pursuing, let's say, a open-ended discussion, does not have any limitations on the timeframe. Thanks a lot. You're very welcome. So with that, there are no further questions at this time, so handing back to Ronald. ... Our activities, and with that, I would like to wish you goodbye. Okay, so I just got a message. I wasn't clear on the microphone. So again, thank you for participating, thank you for all your questions. If you have follow-up questions, don't hesitate to contact our IR department. And, yeah, with that, I would like to say goodbye, and we might see each other over the next months with our regular IR activities or then perhaps latest with the next call in February of next year. Okay, see you then. Bye-bye.