Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome, and thank you for joining the LANXESS Conference Call. I would like to turn the conference call over to André Simon, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, Alexandra, and good morning to everybody from Cologne, and a warm welcome to our conference call regarding our important specific steps we initiated this morning. I have our CEO, Matthias Zachert, and our CFO, Michael Pontzen, with me. Please take notice of our safe harbor statements. With that, I'm happy to hand over to Matthias for a presentation, and afterwards the Q&A. Matthias, please go ahead. Yes. Thank you, André, and a warm welcome from my side as well. I'm addressing the presentation that has been dispatched this morning. Let's come to the deal we've just announced a few moments ago. It's not often during a professional lifetime when you can create something substantial. With today's announcements, I think we create a joint venture in the polymer industry, which is unique, which is strong, and, as a matter of fact, I've been working on this for more than 10 years, and eventually it comes through. In the presentation on page four, we basically indicate the three takeaways. A global strong polyamide joint venture will be formed between two companies that are extremely complementary to each other. DSM is global. We are global. DSM is stronger in Asia. Combined in the Western Hemisphere, we would be a leader of complementary products and of course, complementary sales forces. I think it will be strongly welcomed by everybody, also by our customers. As far as this joint venture is concerned, we will take a certain share. This depends also on the cash release, cash-in that we will receive on day of closing. It will be at least EUR 1.1 billion. Should it increase, our participation will go lower, but it will definitely, at the level of EUR 1.1, lead to a participation around 40%. We like to be involved in this joint venture because we know that through synergies, implementation in the years to come, and the growth in the e-mobility space and in lightweights, this joint venture is set for success in the future. Therefore, having a good stake in this joint venture offers our company the possibility to benefit from future value creation. The third point I would like to convey, and this is the third key takeaway for our investing community. From four segments we will reduce to three. We basically, with this significant step, keep our foot in the polymer space. As far as the core of our company is concerned, the company will focus going forward on specialty chemicals. It's a pure chemical company that will evolve in the years to come. From four, we will reduce to three segments. We achieve, through this transaction, immediate cash inflow at time of the closing. We anticipate to substantial value upside in the years to come. At the same point in time, we achieved portfolio simplicity. Page number five are the key financial cornerstones. Our business units, high performance materials, which achieves around about EUR 1.5 billion sales, at least as far as last year is concerned. It achieved EBITDA of around EUR 210 million, has been valued at an enterprise value of EUR 2.5 billion, which corresponds to a 12x multiple. Financial compensation, as I indicated, are guaranteed EUR 1.1 billion at time of closure, and these will be guaranteed cash proceeds. It can go up by another EUR 100 million, EUR 200 million according to our analysis. Should this be the case, we will get more cash proceeds at time of the closing, of course, our 40% stake will be reduced respectively. Page number six. We will form this joint venture with an international leading powerhouse in the private equity space, known in the chemical industry for many, many years. Advent is a true professional chemical connoisseur. For that very reason, at very senior level, at the key principals area, we have agreed on teaming up as a powerhouse, Advent and LANXESS, and combining here, making it possible to achieve a combined engineering plastics joint venture, which I think will be a true strong player going forward. Of course, the joint venture will lead to immediate cash-ins, as I've indicated before. As normal in these kind of transactions, of course, the company ourselves has negotiated also clearly exit optionalities. That will come due earliest in year three or at the end of year three. What will happen in our financials will be a deconsolidation of the business unit HPM, which is expected to happen then next year. After closing will be completed, we will basically reduce our company setup to three segments. Page seven gives you the overall analysis on the improved portfolio that we are going to have. We exit the business that has proven to be more volatile in the past. We've seen that in 2020 when sales dropped substantially. Of course, on top of that, the automotive exposure, which in the past was close to 20%, is now being reduced to below 10% going forward. For the joint venture itself, I've indicated that the competitiveness is substantially strengthened. Two strong players team up here and of course, will go for respective synergy and value creation. As far as LANXESS is concerned, at time of the closure through the cash proceeds, we will reduce our indebtedness to round about 2.5, which corresponds to the solid BBB flat investment grade rating that we have always gone for. Page eight shows you the cash proceeds and how we will use that after the closing has happened. We are planning for a share buyback in the amount of EUR 300 million. This is round about the possibility we have according to our AGM vote, and therefore we can execute that without further approvals. On top of that, of course, the remainder will go to deleverage of the balance sheet in order to achieve the 2.5 net debt to EBITDA. Let's come to the company descriptions of DSM and LANXESS, shown on page 10. All in all, a joint venture will be created with round about EUR 3 billion in sales. We should have a profitability of EUR 500+. Of course, substantial synergies will be achieved in the years to come. We will have synergies on the top line, synergies on procurement optimization, on SG&A, of course, worldwide. Therefore a veritable company of size, turnover, and profitability should be feasible. Production sites all in all 20 and nicely covering all regions and thus assure customer proximity. Also this holds true for R&D centers, which in total will sum up to 14. Employees, 4,000 people. All in all, you see that this is the size of the company. Page 11 gives you an indication on where synergies will come from. Of course, this will be detailed in the time, especially after we've done the closure. Of course, first views on potential synergies will surely be also worked upon in the integration going forward. On page 12, you see again the setup on the left-hand side. LANXESS and Advent will on a combined basis purchase the engineering materials business from DSM at an agreed enterprise value of EUR 3.7. Running EBITDA of DSM is around 300. The business has been valued at 12.5x. And from the communication that most of you have seen from DSM, the polyamide business of DSM had achieved margins around 20% and therefore it's a very nice profitable cash generative business. As far as HPM is concerned, our polyamide business, it's slightly closer to the 10%-15% in terms of margins. We achieved last year EUR 210 million EBITDA. The enterprise value between Advent and LANXESS has been agreed to EUR 2.5 billion, and it corresponds to nearly the same multiple that we have agreed for DSM. Let's sum up, and this we show on page 14. We should achieve here a clearly better resilience as before, because automotive exposure is going down substantially. This should lead to a higher resilience like you've seen in Corona times. We had one division that had more volatile EBITDA, and that was engineering materials. Through the deconsolidation going forward from 2023 onwards, the three chemical segments in the specialty space should therefore show higher resilience going forward. Complexity will be reduced from four to three segments. Financial profile as far as leverage is concerned and including the potential IFF acquisition should go down. As far as sustainability is concerned, also here we make strides in the right direction. How will LANXESS look like going forward? Reduce complexity and definitely specialty chem nature will shine through in a clearer way. Because Consumer Protection after the inclusion of IFF should be the largest segment as far as profitability contribution is concerned. From four segments to three, and as far as the size of Consumer Protection is concerned, it will become stronger going forward. Let's shed some light on our past transactions that we've done, and we've highlighted here the acquisitions and divestitures. I think as far as the track record here is concerned, Chemtura acquisition, full synergies, Chemtura, all of that, what you have seen over the last few years were decent acquisitions. We don't shy away from also highlighting our average multiples on divestitures that we did. LANXESS around about 9x on the two steps we took here. The Currenta multiple on the EBITDA was around about 17x, including the super dividends. Organic leather chemicals divestitures at 11x. Now, the business unit HPM at 12x. I've indicated that now all businesses are strong, leading businesses with respective good valuations. I think as far as the LANXESS current trading is concerned, I think it's not fully reflecting the performance of our past transactions and the structural profile of our company going forward. Page 70 shows you how on an illustrative basis our current multiple would be post-closure. This also gives indications that some value uplifts could be achieved going forward once we have convinced the markets that this deal is a good one. Page number 18, I summarize again the transaction. We achieve all goals in one. First, deleveraging substantially the balance sheets going forward. Second, improving our portfolio. Third, creating clear optionalities for future value because of our participation in this joint venture and of course, the future upsides we achieve once we exit this joint venture after synergy implementation has been delivered. Ladies and gentlemen, so far to our presentation, and I now open the floor for your questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will begin the question-and-answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press zero followed by one on their touchtone telephone. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press zero followed by two. If you're using speaker equipment today, please lift the handset before making your selection. Anyone who has a question may press zero followed by one at this time. One moment for the first question. The first question is from Andrew Stott of UBS. Your line is now open. Yeah, good morning, and congratulations on the deal. I had two questions, please. The first one was on the exit of the 40% equity you're gonna have in the JV. What's the earliest date you can actually do that? Is that your choice at that time, or is it an agreed, effectively, an agreed decision by both parties on an exact date? Just around the mechanics of that. Also, I don't think you shared the fixed multiple that you referred to in the presentation. Are you open to doing so? That's the first question. The second one is on the balance sheet. Pro forma, as you said, 2.5. That doesn't include the buyback proposal today, I assume. I'm just wondering why the buyback, given that 2.5 is still quite a high level of leverage. Thank you. Well, Andrew, as far as your first question is concerned, we have customary agreements on the exits, and I can only allude to the fact that we have done transactions of this structures before and have agreed on certain exit mechanisms. It's completely customary that both partners here have an agreement in place. The earliest time where we can exit our process is subject to a few conditions, but it's in our hands. We can call and therefore start the exit process, however earliest, after 36 months. That's also when we consider that synergies will be implemented. You normally have a ramp-up of synergies over a few years, and therefore, everything here is geared to the possibility that we start exiting after year three, and this is fixed. As far as the 2.5 is concerned, your assessment is correct. I would say a 2.5 net debt to EBITDA is nothing of concern. It's fully in line with the BBB flat investment grade rating, so therefore it's indicating a strong balance sheet. The EUR 300 million, is it in, is it out? Your assessment is right. That would add, but does that add significantly to the 2.5? No, it doesn't. Likelihood is, however, that even in the closing, the cash proceeds of EUR 1.1 billion will be increased. It's not guaranteed. The EUR 1.1 billion are locked in, it can move up, and therefore, eventually my assumption is that we will after closing end up at the 2.5 that we have indicated in the presentation. Thank you, Matthias. To just follow up quickly on that first answer you gave. On the exit, is one of the preconditions an absolute level of EBITDA? No, it's not. It's fixed on timing and possibility to basically also exit respectively. I said there are a few conditions that we consider will be achieved in year three. If they are not achieved in year three, then of course, we continue having the optionalities going forward. That is therefore a clear predefined approach for us. I think you see the value creation aspect embedded in the negotiations that we agreed with Advent. They can step in, we can step out. But however, it's a mechanism where from our perspective, value creation over the next three years is possible. Sorry, I'm stealing one more. Apologies. The multiple you're getting for your assets is the same as the pro forma multiple. That was your statement, correct? It was not my statement, and I said that here are certain elements that are linked to confidentiality. I can only allude to the fact that we have negotiated a EUR 2.5 billion enterprise value, an exit mechanism. The second statement I've made, we have made joint ventures in this structure already two times, where after we exited, it became very clear that everything on the exit had been predefined. I think you can make your own conclusion out of this. Thanks very much. You're welcome. The next question is from Andreas Heine of Stifel. Your line is now open. Yeah. Only two. The other part of this engineering materials business, have you decided where you put that and what the future of that business will be? Second, only for clarification, the buyback is what you consider immediately, or is that after you have received the proceeds? I have a follow-up question to your first one. You are alluding to the Urethane business? Yeah, yeah, the engineering materials. You said this will be a three segments left, and my understanding is that HPM does not include this, so that's not part of the joint venture. Yes, I confirm this, Andreas. The urethanes business, which according to good analysts is around EUR 250 million in sales and has a profitability, according to good analysts, between EUR 40 million and EUR 50 million, it's a satellite. It will start to become a satellite 2023 onwards. We will therefore most likely group it under our reconciliation segments. The likelihoods that we are going to leave this business in the next 12, 24 months. I mean, first of all, we have to complete this big transaction, do the integration, potentially on IFF, so the organization will be busy with this. My assumption is in the next 24 months, we will address the Urethane's business going forward. In terms of a straight divestiture, we have received over the last 12 months, 18 months, several offers from other strategic companies that have flagged this business as a business that could fetch EUR 400 million-EUR 600 million for the EBITDA of 40-50. This is definitely something we will consider going forward. There is no need to hurry. The one thing I would make very crystal clear, first of all, we have to make these transactions work. We need to carve out the businesses worldwide so that we can contribute the HPM business and team up with the DSM business under the leadership of Advent and ourselves. This will be a lot of hard work. Parallel to this, we will integrate with the different business units, our biocides business, create a global champion here. Then in the next 12, 24 months, we will address the Urethane Systems business. Again, with professionalism and accuracy, and therefore, it will be taken step by step. Now, as far as the buyback is concerned, as I indicated before, we will first of all execute the closing. Once the closing is done, proceeds are in the bank accounts, we will start the buyback program. Maybe I can try a last one on these synergies. Going back to what you usually say as good phrases, what are good analysts arguing synergies of the new joint venture might be? Well, my recommendation to you would be, read the good analysts. I've seen a few reports over the last 2-3 months where a lot of speculation happens. I think you know the underlying transactions in the chemical industry. There are average percentage points mentioned. The complementarity of these two businesses is of course very high, so the fit is very, very strong. Therefore, I would say this is something that we really like because of the potential upsides, but I leave it up to you to figure out who the good analysts among yourselves truly are. Okay, thanks. Those were my questions. The next question is from Andres Castanos-Mollor of Berenberg. Your line is now open. Good morning, and congratulations on the deal. I wanted to ask about the cost of this integration and how long will it take to transport the business. Thank you. That will be developed by the teams. As I said, we give currently no headline on synergies, and thus no headline on costs. Everything else will be communicated in due course once the teams have formed, done their work, and then, we might communicate on this. In LANXESS past practices, and I only speak now for LANXESS, we normally had a one-to-one ratio. Of course, here we have to see, first of all, what synergy potential is and then prioritize and decide also then for the OTC costs. All right. Thank you very much. No new guidance for reconciliation and adjustments? Well, as it will be deconsolidated, you're not going to have any implications of one-time costs, et cetera, in the recon segment. I mean, the entire joint venture will be shown once the closing has happened at equity consolidation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, and congratulations again. Thank you for your questions and attendance. Next question, please. The next question is from Oliver Schwarz of Warburg Research. Your line is now open. Yes. Thank you. Congrats on the deal. I've got some minor questions. You just stated that we'll see the result of the joint venture at equity level. Does that basically also mean that we'll see the after-tax results, including all charges, synergies and such? Is that also, let's say, reflected in or will that be reflected in what you might get for the 40%? Because I saw in the presentation on page 6, stated that there's already a fixed multiple for the complete exit agreed upon. I was just wondering whether that was with or without the impact of synergies and the related restructuring costs. That's basically the foundation of my question. Well, the value mechanisms are all based on EBITDA. Therefore multiples, et cetera, as I said before, normally in these kind of joint venture setups, you agree on the multiples in the first place and not later on. All value creation and evaluation mechanisms are tied to the EBITDA. Of course, it should then be rather higher than lower after synergy implementation. Now, this other part of your question is purely the accounting methodology, how it's going to be reflected in the P&L, and Michael will address the at equity accounting mechanism. Good morning, everybody, as well from my side, Oliver. Yeah, with regard to your question, we're pretty much following the approach, which we saw as well in the former joint venture, which we created with Saudi Aramco, with ARLANXEO. As soon as the deal will be closed, which we expect for the first half of next year, the structure and the balance sheet and then the P&L will be in a way that we will only have the one line from the at equity consolidation. We're looking on a regular basis into the development of the overall share in the joint venture, and that will then be reflected on only that one line, with regards to the equity valuation. Very clear. Thank you. My second question is basically on the permits from the antitrust authorities. You already stated that you're not yet done with the full carve-out of the business. I guess DSM is a bit further down the road already. Do you envisage any stumbling blocks regarding the permits for or respective required permits from antitrust authorities, or is that likely to go rather smoothly from your point of view? Well, of course, we have to do the compulsory registration with all antitrust authorities. We've made internal but also through external lawyers the assessment and come to the conclusion that this deal should, with high likelihood, go through. Of course, we have to go through filing by filing. As you've seen in the overview that we have presented, we are very complementary. As a matter of fact, we will become an even better supplier to the automotive and E&E industry going forward because we are complementary in the offering, and this should be rather a benefit than a hurdle. Therefore, our assessment is that this should go through. Of course, we have to go for the respective filing country by country, wherever it is needed. Thank you very much. That's all from my side. Wonderful. Next question, please. The next question is from Martin Roediger of Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is now open. Thank you. In concrete relation also to the deal. Most of my questions have been answered already, but two left. One is on your calculation on the enterprise value. You mentioned that you say it's EUR 3.7 billion, but DSM in their press release mentioned EUR 3.85 billion. Maybe you can help me where the difference is coming from. The second question is on the future headquarters of this combined joint or this combined company. Can you tell me where the future headquarters will be? Thanks. Well, the future headquarters that will still be figured out also as far as the best fit from a legal, tax and financial standpoint is concerned. Of course, there are certain ideas, but where the final HoldCo company will be is yet to be decided. I know at least that in the past we decided for certain HoldCo structures in certain jurisdictions, and I allude back to our past joint venture that we were setting up. Where the future HoldCo is going to be will be decided by the joint venture partners. Now, as far as enterprise value calculation is concerned, I can only give you the purchase price that we have agreed to. If there's a delta between 3.7 and 3.85, you might raise this question in the calculation of DSM. Thank you. The next question is from Jaideep Pandya of On Field Investment Research. Your line is now open. Thanks a lot. The first question is on any tax leakage from the deal. If 1.1 is sort of, you know, you expect to have net or is there any tax leakage or any sort of banker fees, and therefore we should expect slightly lower than 1.1. Then the second question really is basically around, you know, the new LANXESS now and really well done and congratulations on the deal. But from my point of view, new LANXESS is more American than German, if I may say so, with like more assets in the US than Europe. You know, when you look at new LANXESS with regards to the energy exposure based on the industrial footprint, how do you see it? Like, you know, given that natural gas these days is a very hot topic. Does the exit from HPM reduce significantly the exposure to Europe in terms of industrial assets? Thanks a lot. Yes. As far as the first question is concerned, on the EUR 1.1 billion, this is what we are going to get. There is no subtraction of banker fees, et cetera. Of course, we have our own bankers in this transaction that will lead to exceptionals, but this has nothing to do with the EUR 1.1 billion we get. As far as tax implications of that is concerned, Michael will provide color to it. Jaideep, thank you for your question. You know that the structures depend on whether the certain jurisdiction attributes are being taken or different structures. You know that we as a group, we have a tax rate of give and take in the 28%, but you should clearly not expect that tax rate. If you recall the Currenta deal and Currenta transaction, we ended up with a tax rate for overall structure of around 17%. At this point in time, we expect, and that is what we're currently reviewing, an even lower tax rate. With regards to the expected proceeds of EUR 1.1 billion, you should rather a tax implication of give and take maybe 10%. The second question, of course, HPM has about 50% of its sales in Europe. Of course, the asset base is stronger in Europe. Your assessment that the new LANXESS will proportionally be better positioned in the respective big chemical regions is correct. Therefore, the exposure production-wise in Europe is being reduced. We have the entire value chain to caprolactam, which is in Belgium. Therefore, the big caprolactam site is going to, of course, enter into the joint venture like everything else. All patents, all products, all customers. The entire business is being moved into this joint venture. If you then look at the new LANXESS, of course, the proportional setup is more reaching a stronger focus to Europe and the United States, compared to the old LANXESS, which was, of course, heavily focused on Europe. Just finally, any update on the IFF deal, please? No, this is a deal on DSM and HPM, and so I think we focus all questions on this transaction. All right. Thanks a lot, and congrats. The next question is from Chetan Udeshi of JP Morgan. Your line is now open. Yeah. Hi. Thanks. Morning. You know, two questions, Matthias. First is, how should we think about the portfolio now of LANXESS versus transaction? Do you think you've got the right recipe to maybe show the full potential of the business going forward, or should we expect further ongoing, you know, portfolio changes, M&A, in the future? I guess my question is, you know, is the setup from your perspective now strong enough for LANXESS to demonstrate the upside in the future from the portfolio as it stands? Second question was, can you help us understand how like how is the cash conversion of the business, the engineering materials business versus the group? Is it same, is it better, is it lower? So that we can also understand the implications on the cash side of things. Thank you. Well, on your first question, I think the strength of the LANXESS portfolio was already pretty visible in 2020, where we shouldered the global tough corona pandemic recession in an extremely solid way. At that point in time in 2020, the biggest business volatility came from the automotive industry and the HPM business. It basically dropped by 50-60 percentage points and rebounded strongly then in the year after, 2021. Let's face it, our HPM business, a strong business, has shown in the past higher volatility. The second element here in the margin, when you look into the margin 2021 and also 2022, this business, of course, breathes with raw material. In the polyamide business, you are backward integrated into the benzene/cyclohexane value chain, which currently is experiencing high inflationary environments. We are strong enough to pass that on, but that leads to margin dilution. Also an increase in working capital. If you look at cash conversion, HPM business in 2021 absorbed a lot of cash because working capital was built up. It currently has built up working capital respectively. And therefore, if you lend that out, HPM is a nice cash conversion machine like the other businesses as well. And of course, we will now have, going forward, from our point of view, no longer the strong increases in working capital in the years to come because prices from our point of view have reached with Q1 and Q2 peak momentum. Again, clear statement. As far as strength of the portfolio is concerned, we have clearly given proof that the portfolio is more resilient for many years. We have established that, and shown it in 2020, and we will show that also going forward. Of course, with a higher specialty nature, that should also be visible in the cash conversion. That's clear. Thank you. The next question is from Peter Spengler of DZ Bank. Your line is now open. Yeah. Good morning to Cologne, and congratulations on the deal. I have two small questions left. Martin asked where the new company will have its headquarters. You said it's still an ongoing process. Do you already know who will head the new company and in what form? The second question is, do I understand it correctly, the 40% stake plus the cash of EUR 1.1 billion is a transaction to avoid a merger of equals and receive an immediate cash payment? Or is it different? Is it correct? The company, first of all, what we have decided will be starting with basically the shareholder assembly. Circa 60% goes to Advent, 40% to us. Between the companies, we've not agreed now on the management board, on the executive board, but first of all, the shareholders have been discussed. The chemical partner of Advent, Ronald Ayles, he is a veteran in the industry, very known worldwide in the chemical industry, will most likely be the chair from the Advent side. Most likely, I will be the chair from the LANXESS side. Together, we will decide for the best management team out of DSM and LANXESS. We will look at the profiles, we will look at the people in the respective businesses and decide for the top team, for the A team going forward. That's as far as your first question is concerned. Michael will take the second one. Morning, Peter. With regard to your second question and the question with regards to merger of equals. For us, it was very important, as well, to achieve the three goals which we wanted to achieve with the transaction. First, to create the global player with regards to the polyamide business. Second, to finally get the proceeds, yeah, to deleverage the company. Third, to have the opportunity to still be participating in that company to, as well, benefit from the upside potential which we see in the business. These three goals were perfectly now achieved with the given transaction structure. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. The next question is from Andreas Heine of Stifel. Your line is now open again. Hi. It's only a small housekeeping question. As it is now decided that you make this joint venture, is that then immediately transferred to the disposal group? We'll be starting basically backward from the first of January of this year, seeing this as to be divested, so only shown in the asset and liability side and not anymore in the P&L. That's the only question I have. Andreas, I will immediately take it up. As said earlier, it will pretty much follow the way we accounted for ARLANXEO. You are right. From now on, HPM will be accounted as discontinued operation until the closing of the transaction. From the closing date, it will be accounted at equity. Is that as of today or backward from the first of January? As of today. As of today. Good. Thanks. The next question is from Oliver Schwarz of Warburg Research. Your line is now open. I also have a small technical follow-up question. Judging from what you said and from the presentation, this seems to be, let's say, a two-step project. Firstly, you create the joint venture with Advent, and then the joint venture is going to acquire DSM's activities. Stated in the respective press release and the presentation, let's say, the price for the acquisition will be paid by Advent via equity and via debt. So basically, you're out of the equation when it comes to acquiring DSM's assets, when it comes to payments to DSM. I take it that the 40% stake in the joint venture you initially have might be watered down via the transaction to, let's say, a lower number because you don't participate in the payment to DSM for its assets. Would that be a fair assumption? Mm-hmm, I'm sorry, I'm lost. Okay. Can you be specific on your question, short and precise so that everybody understands? Okay. Okay. I'll try a different approach. First step, you and Advent create a joint venture. You basically get 40% stake in the joint venture. That would be the first step. Is that agreed? No. We will do this transaction for closing. It's a triangular deal. The setup, the target setup, of the transaction once it's closed and, of course, we need to close the DSM acquisition, and we need to close the Advent's acquisition of the HPM. The target is that everything will be contributed in the target structure leading to 60/40 and the respective cash in for LANXESS of EUR 1.1 billion. Okay. There is no dilution whatsoever. We communicated to you the target structure that according to today's valuation and mechanism will be achieved. The percentage of 40 can go down if we receive higher cash proceeds. That's basically it. We will not pay. We will contribute our business. Okay. Understood. Thank you very much for the clarification. You are most welcome. Are there any further questions? Yes. The next question is from Martin Roediger of Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is now open again. Sorry, just one clarification question. On slide 12, where you show the EBITDA of the DSM activities of around EUR 300 million. Officially, DSM talks about EUR 334 million EBITDA, and this is adjusted. My question is either this EBITDA figure you use here in this slide is a reported figure, so including special items? Or do you also take over some costs from the headquarters or the reconciliation line at DSM, and this is also baked here in this EUR 300 million figure? Well, in negotiations, you normally go through the quality of earnings. Sometimes there are some normalizations upward, sometimes there are some normalizations downwards. The 310 that we have communicated is the agreed EBITDA on the basis of which the pricing was determined. Thanks. You're welcome. The next question i s from Andrew Stott of UBS. Your line is now open. Yes. Sorry, I might have missed this. Did you state at any stage what the pro forma leverage of the JV will be financially? I think we have not communicated this. Therefore, there's nothing new that we would say. Of course, what can be confirmed, and that was prerequisite for DSM, but also for ourselves, that Advent has committed facilities and the debt financing in place. This is contractually agreed. That's the communication I can make today that the packages have been confirmed. Thanks. You're welcome, Andrew. There are no further questions at this time. I'll hand back to our presenters for closing remarks. Well, I thank you for your early participation. I would also like to thank my team and my partner for making this happen. I think, from all the transactions I've done over the last years, this is one of the most powerful ones. I'm very happy that we create here something that is there to last, to create value. Eventually you also see that we clearly execute our path of transforming our company, LANXESS, into a specialty group going forward. We are excited about this. With this, we wish you a very nice week, and stay tuned. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the LANXESS conference call. Thank you for joining, and have a pleasant day. Goodbye.