Welcome back to our Analyst and Investor Q&A. I'm very happy to have with me Ola Källenius, our CEO, Harald Wilhelm, CFO, and Markus Schäfer, CTO. Please bear with me. I will take you through the safe harbor wording for a minute before we start. I would like to remind everyone that presentation and Q&A are governed by the safe harbor wording that you find in our published documents. Please note that our presentations and comments contain forward-looking statements that reflect management's current views with respect to future events. Such statements are subject to many risks and uncertainties. If the assumptions underlying any of these statements prove incorrect, then actual results may be materially different from those expressed or implied by such statements. Forward-looking statements speak only to the date on which they are made. Now, just a few practical points. Please ask your questions in English, and as a matter of fairness, please limit it to two questions. Please state your name when I call you, and the name of your institution, and then ask your questions. For representatives of the media, please understand we have the analyst and investor Q&A first. Yours will follow straight after. To the investors and analysts following us online, you're welcome to send us questions to the email address you will see on the screen. We've also shared it this morning. And now, for the participants in the room, please raise your hand if you want to ask a question, and I will call you up. Once it's your turn, please unmute yourself, clicking the speaking button, and once you're finished, please also mute yourself again. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have to ask you to raise your hands, so I see lots of hands here. I will start with you, Tim. Over to you. Yeah, thank you very much. This works. Tech is amazing here, Ola. It's good. I have two questions, please. The first one will probably go to you, Ola. You said it's about distilling the DNA of the brand in many of the things that you're deciding to do. Can you help us distilling the essence of today? You left us with a lot of information. A bit we already knew. You made it sound like a very logical continuation of what we learned in Monaco three years ago, yet the world has totally changed. You're taking our capacity. You're reversing back from the BEV focus towards more ICE focus again. So you're actually changing quite a few things, which is pretty difficult, I assume. I think most of us left Monaco thinking you want to do luxury and you want to do both. What are the two things you can leave us with today? And then secondly, Harald, perhaps more to you. We already had the discussion post-Monaco that we find it very difficult to judge how much you can control internally if you don't give us a reference number for things like fixed costs. Investment numbers we kind of know, right? But that sort of stuff. It's kind of the same today. I think most people would assume your assumption that pricing is stable sounds quite ambitious with everything that's going on in the world, or the more important it is for us to understand the cost side. Can you help us to drill down on that a little bit more? Is there any net number that you want to leave us with that you want to achieve in terms of cost savings? Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Tim. I'll start with asking your question. So whereas the market conditions are indeed different now and the landscape is different, and I would say we all agree that transformation is not a linear thing, and probably in many markets it's going to take longer, what are the two things that you need to take with you? In terms of the product portfolio, we said we wanted to elevate ourselves in the different segments that we operate in: top end, core, and entry. So this product that we're launching now this year, I think, is the first proof point of that. In the entry, narrowing the portfolio to the positions that we think are going to be most successful on a worldwide basis, elevating the substance of the product, but also the appearance of the product, and trying to gain a healthy margin development in that segment. At the same time, we said we want to grow the core. We had, let's say, a gap in the portfolio. The biggest volume position for BEVs in core is clearly the GLC segment and the C-Class segment. That That is about to be filled next year. And we said we wanted to grow organically in core. And then we wanted to put more emphasis on the top end. If you remember the chart in my presentation with the number of models in the next three years, you could clearly see that the highest number of models is in the top end. Not only to defend, I think you said that also had to defend our position, which is strong there, but also try to build it and venture into new things like AMG EA, where we want to kick off an electric chapter also in the performance segment in an authentic, incredible way. So from that point of view, even though the market conditions have shifted significantly, even though China is a different place now than it was maybe three or four years ago, I would say that we're staying the course. And if somebody would be looking at saying, well, you could sell more cars if you do a car that is smaller than this car, yes, we could, but would it really be profitable growth? We don't think so. With the brand that we have, the cost structure that comes together with that brand, honing that, I think we use the diamond as a honing that, we're largely staying the course. One thing has changed, even though we had the insurance policy built in. We thought some years ago that the progression towards EV on a worldwide basis would go faster. We had said we will be able to serve markets by the end of this decade fully electrically, where market conditions allow. If you don't believe that market conditions will be dominant electric in 2030, 70%, 80%, or more, it would not make economic sense to just cut off your very healthy and profitable ICE business. So a little over a year ago, we made a decision to do a dual track to activate the insurance policy. You saw the new V8 yesterday at AMG. I mean, we never stopped readying the engines and transmission combinations for the next generation, but we're now adding the vehicles to it. So yes, that is a change, but it's a change that does not lead to disruption. It's not like we stopped and it's like, oh my goodness, let's dust off the room, Markus, and start again. It is happening in a flow. It has an impact on our investment profile. But in spite of that, I think what Harald showed, you know, we're managing this in a sensible way. So we're staying the course, but if the world changes, you cannot be so stubborn that you're not willing to adapt. You have to adapt as well. And that's what we're doing on the BEV ICE dual track. On your second question, Tim, well, maybe we give quite a lot of data points. You will understand that we're not giving the pricing objective for June 2025 on a given product. There we said we want to stay disciplined, which means the strategy in terms of value over volumes absolutely still applies. However, I mean, we'll be competitive as well. So where we deem appropriate, it means we can also strike. But this is case by case, market by market, product by product. I think on this one, one cannot give an absolute reference. Definitely, the product momentum to come. We'll use a part of that momentum and the step up of the products also to step up competitiveness of the offering further. But altogether, therefore, I think the assumption to go for a stable pricing moving forward, if you take all of that into account, I think is a fair one. When it comes to absolute references on production cost, on material cost, I think it's a bit difficult. As you know by heart that there's volume mix structure, so giving a number doesn't mean anything. But you see the percentage improvements, which we did, which we want to do moving forward, which I think are very ambitious in a pretty short period of time. You did see in the bridge for 2024 already how much that yields in terms of year-on-year performance, EUR 1 billion industrial performance, underlying even higher, as I said, as you have one time inside. And for fixed cost and investment, actually, you have actual references on the investment side. Clearly, you did see EUR 12.1 billion for cars in R&D and PPE in 2024. So it goes up by EUR 1 billion, then it comes down in 2026, and it will be 10% below 2024 in 2027. And that means 20% below 2029. So I think you have the references here. And on the fixed cost, let me say, and I say it's going to be more than 10%. You cannot retrieve all of the fixed cost from the P&L statement. There's a part is obviously in SG&A, a part is in COGS. But let me say, if you achieve the incremental 10% by 2027, fixed cost will be at the edge of a single- to double-digit billion number, which I think is quite a meaningful guide. Patrick, you were very fast, so you go next. Okay, perfect. Thank you and good morning. Thanks for your presentation. Two questions from my end. First one is regarding the growth you envisage in the top end segment. There seems to be a significant increase in that bridge for 2027. And I'm curious to understand how the split between BEV and ICE would look like for that year within the top end segment, and also how you think about it by region. I just generally think, you know, we have a lot of evidence in the market that BEVs in the top end segment are not an easy sell when it comes to residual values, when it comes to consumers that expect roaring V8 engines, et cetera. So I'm just trying to better understand how much optimism or aggressiveness you've baked into your TAS share growth driven by BEV. And my second question regarding Daimler Truck. You had it on a slide, Harald, but if I look at the authorization, the EUR 5 billion share buybacks you're going to do or plan to do over the next 24 months, you would just max out that 10% authorization without any potential for returning even more in case of a Daimler Truck stake sale. So I'm wondering, does that mean we should think about another spin-off of Daimler Truck shares or a special dividend in case you sell down your Daimler Truck stake, or how would you go about it? Thank you. So I think I'll start with the first one. If I double-click on the chart with all the cars on it, and you could see that there were a lot of positions on the top end, some of which I referred to. So you get a major, major refresh of the S-Class and the equivalent Maybach next year. You get a major refresh of the GLS also next year. So here you have the main vehicles that carry the ICE side of that operation. You saw last night at AMG that maybe we're kind of plugging some holes. So the resurrection of the V8, the brand new flat crank V8, I mean, who is insane enough to do something like this at this day and age? Well, the AMG people are. If you carefully looked at the chart that Michael showed yesterday, you could see that there were other ICE variants also in the AMG portfolio coming. So I would say on the ICE side, we're refreshing, renewing, and maybe tidying up the picture a bit. Now, to your question on the BEVs. Yes, we're investing into this AMG EA architecture. I remember when we went to our test track down in Immendingen in the fall, and it was the first, like, wheel drive. I had driven the AMG EA early prototypes up in the north of Sweden on ICE, but it's not the same thing. And I drove this thing and I got, like, holy shit, this, sorry for the expression, this is what performance should feel like. And the guy said even programmed, and we will most likely launch that. They had even programmed what they called a V8 mode. So I turned on the V8 mode, and it sounded like a V8 on the inside, on the outside, and software emulated the gear shifts. Good job there of the team, even if you don't need it, technically speaking, on an electric car. So I was thinking to myself, this is insane performance. It's proprietary technology. So when do we break the psychological barrier of the customer saying, wow, this is so good, I desire this and I want it? That is the attempt that we're going to make. But even the AMG version of this here, 400 kilowatt plus, with those same features and everything, they're going to be a blast to drive. So we will do our utmost to change the perception or maybe create the perception of a valuable performance electric vehicle as well. Is there some uncertainty? Sure, there is some uncertainty, but the technological package will be the real deal, and that is part of the growth and I did not take out my yardstick here to measure exactly on the graph, but I think we were a little bit more cautious on what that absolute number is going to be like in 2027 than we thought some years ago when the market conditions were different, so we were now at 280-ish, and I think it's reasonable to believe that we can climb above the 300 again and then build upon that. With regard to your second question, I think there are two elements to answer. I mean, number one is a more technical. As by corporate law, you know it. I mean, you can only seek a 10% authorization from the AGM. So given the market cap, well, this is maybe slightly above EUR 5 billion, but it is not 10% or is not 8%. It would be different. I mean, if you would have a different view. But I mean, as of today, it is what it is. So therefore, I mean, the authorization is a precondition. And obviously, what we proposed, I mean, to the supervisory board and what got approved needs to be in sync with that authorization. That's why it is an envelope also technically in order of EUR 5 billion supported by cash flow and monetization of the Daimler Truck stake. To your second question, I mean, could we expect something else on the DT stake? No, we checked it carefully from a legal point of view. There is no precedent of a minority spin in corporate law. It would be a pretty complex operation with lots of uncertainty. It would require lots of approvals. It would also constitute probably tax risk or tax burden for many of the investors, which you don't want to see. And frankly, I think we're not in a hurry here. I always said it. It's a great performance evolution of DT over time. There's more potential to come. So careful, market-friendly monetization, I mean, over time. And you know what the liquidity can absorb. I mean, you know that better than me. I think this is the way to go, and that will support, I mean, the cash generation in 2024, 2025, and will use EUR 5 billion of that to buy back shares. I mean, that's what it is. George, over to you. Great. Thank you for taking my questions. George Galliers from Goldman Sachs. The first question I wanted to start with is, what do you think is the benchmark today in China for a premium car player with respect to Level 2 ADAS? Is it point-to-point driving, operating 98% of the time with minimal need for the driver to intervene? Is it lower than that? And how is the CLA going to perform relative to that benchmark? The second question I had was just with respect to the net liquidity. EUR 30 billion plus is a very big number. Why is that required? Some of your global peers are saying they need effectively close to zero. I think in the past, Daimler talked about a number of EUR 10 billion when you were a larger company with trucks. Is this level of liquidity required because there might be M&A you have to pursue from a technology perspective? Is it required because the earnings in China could be red at some point? Is it required because maybe if Europe keeps the 2035 ban on internal combustion engines, we'll go into a period of very low volume in Europe? I think the market really wants to understand why that security blanket is needed. Markus, you want to start? Yeah, I think you're hitting the point. I think one of the great customer benefits that customers enjoy in China right now is assisted driving and especially what we call Level 2++ driving, and this is really an additional help and assistance to the customer. The clear goal we have to be at benchmark levels with this car, with this AI, with the supercomputer in the car, with the sensor set that we have in the car, with the compute algorithm to hit this benchmark level point-to-point driving in very, very dense urban traffic, and the key of the system was developed, especially in busy, busy China streets, so that's exactly what we're targeting. What are we doing in terms of, you know, even topping the competition there is reducing the hardware set there, so we are driving a high-definition map-less. We're not using a high-definition map. And in development with our algorithms, we were able also to delete the LiDAR in the car. So we are able to perform on the same level as benchmark in China with less hardware. Plus, and we should elaborate in another workshop, what we call functional safety. So we have a long, long history of developing ADAS system. 25 years, we are working on that in-house, especially when it comes to functional safety, which is a key requirement from our point of view there to put you in a safe space there. I think also we are going to define a benchmark when it comes to functional safety. Third point is cooperative steering. Typically, when you interfere in the system in China and start to move the steering wheel, then you kick out the system. And we have a long tradition that you can do both at the same time. This gives you even additional feel of safety and security and that you are in control if you want to be. So I think we're adding additional flavor here, defining really, really top when it comes to assisted driving, especially in China, but also in the U.S. and Europe. As you know, it's not allowed yet, but you will drive this car this afternoon even here in Germany in Sindelfingen. So you will get the experience in Sindelfingen. So we are able to scale the system also globally if legally and regulatorily allowed. And George, your question on the NIL. I agree with you. EUR 30 billion is a very comfortable number. But is there any hidden agenda behind the EUR 30 billion in terms of retaining them? Clearly, no. How to illustrate that? I mean, if we would see the risk of China basically turning into red, I think I wouldn't stand here and talk about the objective to retain BBAC in double-digit territory. If we would see the risk of volume collapsing globally as a function of market, ICE, whatever, I think we would not stand here and give a margin target for 2027 as we did, and if we would have any material M&A in mind, I think we would not stand here and say that we intend to generate free cash flow from the organic business and then use a DT stake to do the EUR 5 billion share buyback. It would be just totally inconsistent. Wouldn't it be? Yes, it is a very healthy balance sheet. I think it's good to have it. But I think there is at the same time a very generous return policy to shareholders as demonstrated when I think earlier today with my little math in terms of total shareholder return of 100% or the EUR 100-EUR 200 example, and I think with the EUR 5 billion and the DVO for EUR 30, you see the commitment to continue in that direction. José. Thank you very much. José from JP Morgan, thank you for the presentation. A couple of questions. I was very impressed with the China margin. So I would love to hear a little bit more around the material cost and the fixed cost initiatives in the region to sustain the margin in the double-digit level. Is there also maybe tactically an option to maybe take down some of the capacity in the region? I think you mentioned on the slides optionality. So how do we think about that maybe in 2025 and 2026? And then second, on the sale of the Daimler Truck stake, do you have any KPIs, any margins you would like to see, any elements you would like to see from Daimler Truck to maybe judge a little bit better the timing of the sale? Thank you. Yeah, thanks, José. Maybe very quickly on the DT stake, I think we said everything which has to be said on the subject matter. So we intend, we would consider monetization in the doses in the way I described it before and do that in a market-friendly manner. But I think any other indication, I think when no, let's see as we go along. We have two years as part of the SBB program, as obviously that is going hand in hand. So nothing to be added, I think, in this respect. On the China margin, when first, I mean, let me say, yeah, 15% is a good departure point, but it's a competitive environment. You saw all of the initiatives to protect that moving forward. But I would say if we're able to retain the BBAC at a healthy margin level in this super competitive environment with having the right products in the market, adjusting the cost base down, grabbing into the opportunities also for more local sourcing, this is the fitness check, which then I think makes, I mean, BBAC super robust and maybe is even an opportunity, I mean, to take some of that opportunities over to rest of world. And I would also say maybe I'm talking about BBAC 15% here today, 2024. This is BBAC result only. I think you all know by heart that we're doing supply business, which has a decent margin, and there are other profit pools on top of it. So the entirety, I think, is good and demonstrated in a super competitive environment, 2024, that it is resilient and we will make it even more resilient moving forward. Jointly with a partner, jointly with BAIC, absolutely determined. Also, I think pretty clear is that they have a joint interest with us to make BBAC successful in the future in terms of its products, but also in terms of its bottom line. But maybe also to add partnerships. I mean, we were proving with our four-cylinder engine to have a local development of components there with local specification, with local partners could take us to cost levels that we have not seen before. So follow the source was the typical approach in the past. Actually, in the present, but doing more localization with local partners there. This is the key focus right now of the R&D and procurement team in China and elaborating on further partnerships also when it comes to components. Henning. Yeah, thank you very much. First one, perhaps for Harald to come back to the pricing. I appreciate you don't want to give us price points for 2026, but I just wanted to check with you if you agree that, well, I think you gave a very reasonable guide overall, right, for 2025. Would you agree that within that pricing is perhaps the most volatile or uncertain assumption? And indeed, whether it's stable or not stable could make the difference between the eight and the six. Would you agree with that? And I think in previous calls, you've gone through the elements of pricing, list price, discounts, dealer compensation, residual values, if you could touch on that and how you see that, the stability element. And the second question is also a little bit geared to the 2027 and maybe to bring in Markus again. On the slide, you had the 30% XEV penetration. If we assume the increment comes from BEVs is double of what it is today, how do we think about that in terms of margin parity? Because if you double the EVs, you go to 20% EV alone while you have the 10% margin ambition, does that necessitate getting close to parity? Is that an assumption that's baked in? Thank you. Yeah, on the pricing, I think it's fair to say, as you do, that probably is one of the most volatile assumptions in any outlook at this juncture. We have a determination to be disciplined in this respect, but we are not the only one in town, right? So it also depends obviously what's happening in other places by other people. So we do consider some volatility in any outlook, obviously, but considering either a massive step up or a massive step down, where do you put the line? But the backbone is disciplined approach and product, product, product, product is at the end. I think the product makes the pricing and nothing else. On the margin side or basically we're bringing the cost of the EV down by more than 15%. We do not assume price premium on the EV over the ICE. That means that we can narrow the gap, but I say it also loud and clear. Any statement that you can close the gap, we find that a difficult statement and we don't want to promise things you cannot do. So all of the effort is on getting the right product out and getting the cost down by more than 15%, the variable cost of the product. Thereby, the margin gap will narrow and the higher for longer ICE obviously builds a nice bridge to absorb that moving forward. Stephen. Stephen, yeah. [crosstalk] Thank you. Of the technology. Thank you very much. Could I ask about the CLA again? First of all, maybe a simpler one. You're saying the public introduction of the vehicle will be in a month's time. Are you going to open the order book at that time as well? And when will the first customer deliveries start for this vehicle? And if you could give maybe by geography as well. And secondly, you mentioned about that you understand that BEVs cannot command a premium to the ICE vehicles. When this vehicle was first introduced to us, I think we saw this in May 2022. I think the thinking afterwards was that it would have a, with all the technologies would command a premium. Now, you've mentioned the 15% reduction in BEV costs that are coming in with this, but that would have probably been baked in already into some of your thinking. So could you describe some of the other steps you've taken to bring the cost of this vehicle down in order to reach the sort of the new realities of how you can price this in today's market? Thank you. I start with the timing. We will have what we call the; we're following our normal procedure here. We'll have what we call the world premiere in about four weeks' time, which will be at the big event in Europe, invite the world to look at the car. Then we take the camouflage off. We show all the details of the technology. We have teased a lot of the things today. Then usually some weeks after that, we have what we call a sales release. So that happens later in the spring on the way towards early summer. Then you can actually go in and order. We start in Europe first. The production of this vehicle starts in our plant here in Rastatt. Then we kick off production in the fall in China. You usually have this gap four, five, six months roughly historically. And we also start production in the summer then, late summer for the United States, but then we have the shipping. So China and the United States then come in the fall and it's kind of then the rest of the world. So that's how it's going to unfold. On the margin side, let's not confuse things, please. So let me clarify. So when you say we do not assume price premium of an EV over an ICE product, it means this EV product should have roughly similar pricing than the respective main combustion ICE sibling of that product, right? When we say the margin gap between or the margin improvement with a 15% cost down we're doing, we're comparing with predecessor product. So which means if you compare, we don't have predecessor CLAs, but let me take a GLA. So a future GLA electric to be compared with an EQA today will have a definitely better margin thanks to the cost work we're talking about. So please let's separate the two. And maybe one thing to mention, I think Markus actually mentioned it. Markus and his team, they've done a sensational job on the combustion one. So on the combustion side, our powertrain, I would say by our standards, cost-wise is very competitive. Super competitive. Okay, Anthony, over to you. Yes, thank you. Three questions on my side. The first is on CO2 compliance. So thanks for providing the kind of indication of the impact on the cars business. On the vans business, could you just remind us what would be the impact? I just noted it would be higher. And then could you also break down a little bit how that splits between potential mixed dilution and also any kind of costs that you would pay out to your pooling partner? And then lastly, on this kind of topic, if we were to get some relief on the regulation front from the EU maybe in a couple of weeks, how would that impact your estimate for this compliance cost in 2025? Then my second question is on China. Just wondering how, considering what we're seeing, the very high levels of price discounting in that market, how you're balancing value and volume. Are you targeting a specific market share or defending a market share in China? And then the last question is on investments. Could you maybe talk us a bit about ICE investments for the year to come? Again, considering that the lifetime basically of the ICE has likely been extended with what we've seen in the market over the last couple of months and years. Thank you. Maybe quickly, I get started on the CO2 and you pick up on the regulatory and maybe the partner framework. And I mentioned that, I mean, the number on the car side is a low three-digit number in the walk from 2024 to 2025. Maybe let me do it in the following way. It's a very low three-digit number which sits in there. And the absolute number which sits in the van business year over year is maybe a bit less than double of that amount which sits on the car side for the reasons Ola explained before, given the higher CO2 footprint obviously of a van vehicle compared to a passenger car vehicle. I hope that explains, I mean, number one on the car side, but number two, that actually also the walk on the margin from 2024 to 2025, a quite significant chunk of the margin deterioration or dilution still holding at a nice 10%-12%, however, is coming from that CO2 impact in 2025. On the regulatory side, at the kickoff dialogue, the so-called strategic automotive industry dialogue at the end of January, pretty much every single industry representative at that meeting, and certainly the auto industry association that I happen to lead this year, as well as the supplier association, said loud and clear, five or six years ago when the targets were set, certain assumptions were made. It's very clear that in terms of natural demand in the market, proliferation of charging infrastructure, et cetera, some of those assumptions have not come to fruition, so it is wholly reasonable from a regulatory point of view to review this and think about some relief, especially in the context of what's going on in the global economy. So you have two other strong economic regions, North America, United States, North America and China, that are not taking money away from the auto industry, actually doing the other thing around. They are putting money into the auto industry. Is it the most rational thing for Europe right now to rigidly stick to that or have some flexibility and pragmatism in mind? That's what we're advocating for. Whether or not the EU Commission will decide to change 2025, that is unknown. So I don't think it would be serious to put a number to it. We have just said it is a sensible thing to do. If they do do it though, the way we have structured our agreements is we can flex. So indeed, if they create relief, we would have some relief and we'll see what happens. Maybe on the market share for every single car, you look at your relative market share, you look at your relative pricing. It should come as no surprise that we have done the same calculation for this car in China. So we have a hypothesis. But you said it, Harald, we're not alone in the market and the market is a dynamic place. You have to be able to calibrate that in your mind as you get closer to market introduction. But of course, we have a hypothesis. We're not going to name individual volume targets on individual vehicles here. We never have. But that is in place and it's a balanced approach. Value over volume is our general philosophy, but it's not no volume. So it is also volume in a market that we have discussed is highly competitive. The investment profile, I think we touched base on that one. Clearly, what you saw on product portfolio and on component evolution serves an ICE portfolio very well far into the '30s. The investments needed for that on vehicle side, on component side, on software side are embedded in the investment plan we laid out here today. How can it work? However, then with an investment coming down, you heard the streamlining of the drivetrain components on the ICE side and I think largely accomplished as they meet Euro 7 targets. So you need to be there anyhow. So the investments are largely behind us. We can really leverage that well into the future. Many other components, not ICE related, but EV and ICE, MB.OS I think is the most prominent example, obviously can be leveraged. So what's left, so to say, on a pure ICE platform is not nothing, but obviously is a much lower effort which is needed to get the competitive products into the, well, the '30s. And all of that is embedded in the investment plan. Okay, I see some red flashes on the screen. So I think we're running out of time for everyone in the room. Thank you so much for asking your questions. Of course, thank you to you also for answering all of the questions and for everyone joining us online. We will now take a quick break and take a few minutes until the media Q&A will continue.