Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Q2 Figures 2026 conference call. I'm Moritz, the conference call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be in a listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a question and answer session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star and one on your telephone. For operator assistance, please press star and zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to Anja Siehler. Please go ahead. Thanks, Moritz. A warm welcome from the Nordex team in Hamburg. Thank you for joining the Q2 2026 Results Management Call. As always, we ask you to take notice of our Safe Harbor statement. With me are our CEO, José Luis Blanco, and our CFO, Ilya Hartmann, who will lead you through the presentation. Afterwards, we will open the floor for your questions. Now, I would like to hand over to you, José Luis. Thank you very much for the introduction Anja, and on behalf of the management board, I would like to welcome you to our second quarter results of 2026. Let me start with a brief overview of the key highlights of the quarter. Overall, I'm pleased to report that the second quarter of 2026 reflects continued positive momentum for Nordex. We deliver revenue growth achieve a double-digit EBITDA margin, generated healthy free cash flow, and maintain a strong financial position. First, order intake reached 3.1 GW, representing growth of 32% year-on-year. Europe continued to be our largest region, accounting for 74% of the project order intake, while Germany and the U.S. were the most important individual markets during the quarter. Second, we continue to deliver a strong revenue growth. Total revenues increased by 16% year-on-year to EUR 2.2 billion. Project revenues accounted to around 90% of total revenue and grew by 18%, reflecting continued progress in project execution. At the same time, our service business continue its positive development, while revenues increased by 8% year-on-year and EBIT margin going to 19.7%. Third, profitability improved further. We achieved an EBITDA margin of 10.3%, exceeding the 10% threshold and improving by 450 basis points compared to last year. Finally, cash generation remained strong. We generated free cash flow of EUR 165 million, while working capital remained stable at -8.3%. In addition, we strengthened our financial flexibility by securing EUR 2.5 billion of bank warranty facilities on improved commercial terms. At the end of the quarter, our net cash position stood at EUR 1.7 billion, underlying the strength of our balance sheet. Overall, the second quarter demonstrates the continued progress we are making across the business. We remain focused on disciplined execution, profitable growth, and delivering on our guidance for the full year 2026. Moving on, turning to our activities in North America, particularly in the U.S. on page five. I am happy to report that we have successfully re-established our presence in the market. Here today, we have secured around 800 MW of orders until the end of June, supported by a diversified customer mix. We keep on working on increasing the pipeline. At the same time, the ramp-up of our Iowa facility is progressing well. Production is underway. The facility is ready to scale with demand and no further CapEx will be required. Combined with our established service footprint and growing regional organization, we believe we are well-positioned to capture future opportunities in the U.S. and Canada. Let me turn now to our operational performance, starting with development of our order intake. As published in our order intake press release on July 9th, we saw a strong uptick in orders driven by major regions. During the second quarter, we recorded 3.1 GW of order intake an increase of 32% year-over-year. The growth was supported by major U.S. orders entering the book. Consequently, order intake for the first six months of the year reached close to five GW. In EUR, turbine order intake totaled almost EUR 3 billion. Orders were received from 10 different countries, and the average selling price of EUR 0.97 million per MW was stable when compared with second quarter of previous year. Although average selling prices are influenced by the specific project and regional mix, in any given quarter, we continue to see stable pricing across our markets. From a regional perspective, Europe remained the main region and accounted for 74% of the order intake. While, and as usual, we are not providing specific guidance for order intake for 2026, we continue to expect a good order momentum for this year. With this, let's move to slide eight, where I will discuss the development of the order book. The combined order book strengthened further and exceeds EUR 18 billion at the end of the second quarter of 2026, reflecting continued positive momentum of both our turbine and service business. Turbine order book reached EUR 11.6 billion, and most of the orders came from Europe followed by North America, rest of the world, and Latin America. In the service segment, the order book increased to EUR 6.8 billion. By the end of the quarter, the service portfolio crossed an important milestone. For the first time, we have over 50 GW under service, representing more than 14,000 wind turbines. Overall, the order book developed to boost planning visibility and reflect the expansion of our installed base over the past years. Let us move to slide number nine and have a closer look into the service business. The second quarter of 2026 continued to show solid progress in the service business. Service sales increased by 8% and reached EUR 223 million, representing 10% of total group revenues. EBIT margin further improved to 19.7%, progress in terms of midterm EBIT margin target of crossing the 20%. Operationally, fleet availability remained stable at around 97%, and the average tenure of service contracts increased to over 14 years. Let me move to the next slide. Giving you some insights into our installation and reductions on page number 10. Installations developed according to plan and totaled 1.2 GW. The reduction year-over-year was primarily driven by project scheduling, with a large share of installations weighted towards H2 of the year. There were also some regional mix effects, some customers delays, and as previously communicated, blade-related performance in Türkiye. While installations in Germany increased year-over-year, this was not sufficient to fully offset these regional mix effects. The key takeaway is that these are primarily timing-related factors. We continue to expect full year installation to grow compared to 2025. On the production side, turbine output increased to 337 units, reflecting project scheduling and delivery requirements. Blade production remained stable at around 1,343 blades. And now I will like to hand over to Ilya to talk about the financials. Thank you, José Luis, and welcome from my side. As always, I will start with our income statement. Some of that has been highlighted by José Luis already. In the second quarter of 2026, sales increased 16% to almost EUR 2.2 billion, reflecting high activity levels in both project and service business. Gross margin continued its positive year-over-year development, improving to 26.9% from 24.8% in the second quarter of 2025. As a result, EBITDA more than doubled and reached EUR 224 million, with an EBITDA margin of 10.3% for the quarter. On the back of this operating performance, we reported a net profit of EUR 111 million for the quarter, representing a substantial improvement of EUR 80 million when compared to last year's quarter. And with that, we're moving on to the balance sheet. Well, in analyzing the balance sheet, the overall structure remains on a very comparative level when looking at year-end 2025. The second quarter ended with a strong cash level again of approximately EUR 2 billion, and the equity ratio continues to improve and reached 20.6% at the end of the second quarter, backed by a further increase in net profit and equity, outpacing the increase in the total assets. And that moves us to the next slide, which are the other balance sheet KPIs and their development. So net cash increased further and totaled EUR 1.7 billion at the end of the quarter, and that is again supported by the operational performance that José Luis explained earlier. Working capital stood at minus EUR 663 million and remained at a stable ratio of -8.3% quarter-on-quarter. Let me now go to the next page and spend a moment on a financing highlight, which is not a regular set of slides, but what we believe in order to comment on, and that is the closing of a so-called multi-currency guarantee facility that we signed in July. So, only a few days ago about EUR 2.5 billion. And it has not only been a significant development for the company, but, um Particularly in two, three aspects that we want to discuss. It is a much larger facility than the previous one, almost doubling the volume of the previous MGF, which is the acronym of EUR 1.3 billion. It has a longer term, almost twice as long than the previous one. That was three years. Now the new one is five years. The interest rates or the costs of those bonds are materially lower than in the previous facility, without getting into details, but the other terms in that MGF are far better than in the last one and arguably close to an investment-grade company facility. It is backed by 15 banks, less than last time with larger tickets. The volume is higher, the banks are a reduced number that is a substantial progress which Nordex has made in the recent years. Especially in strengthening the balance sheet and the overall financial profile of the company, or in other words. It is a token of trust. Back to the usual flow, that is now the cash flow on the next page. On the back of the operational performance, the cash flow from operating activities before net working capital increased to EUR 267 million. With working capital normalizing, the cash flow from operating activities was EUR 214 million, as a result, we generated a positive free cash flow of EUR 165 million in the second quarter of 2026. For the full year, we continue to expect a solid free cash flow generation. CapEx spendings amounted to EUR 46 million in the second quarter. It is 19% above the last year, mainly due to the ramp-up of the new blade facility in Türkiye, which we spoke about a few times in the past calls. Our investment focus remains largely unchanged compared to last year and the years before, with investments primarily in blade, in the cell production facilities, and tooling for installations and transport reflecting the higher volume. With that, I would like to hand it back to José Luis for the next slides. Thank you very much, Ilya. Before turning to our guidance, let me make a few brief comments on the market outlook. Overall, the medium and long-term fundamentals for onshore wind remain attractive. Across our core markets, we continue to see supportive policy frameworks, strong auction activity, and growing demand for secure and cost-competitive renewable energy. One notable development since our full-year results is the publication of the draft Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz and grid package in Germany. While both proposals are still subject to the legislative process and might change, our initial assessment is cautiously positive. The proposal points to higher auction volumes and provide greater clarity around grid-related topics, which could help reduce uncertainty for developers and investors. Beyond Germany, we continue to see encouraging developments in the U.S., Türkiye, France, Canada, and several other markets supporting a healthy long-term outlook for the industry. With this, based on our performance year to date, I can confirm that we remain on track to reach the guidance we set out in February. We continue to expect 2026 to be a profitable year, assuming no material disruption resulting from geopolitical developments. To reiterate, we expect a top-line growth between 9%-11% year-on-year, with an EBITDA margin in the range of 8%-11%, with midpoint plus as the most likely outcome as of today, expect another good year for free cash flow generation. Now, I'm going to the page number 20, where we talk about the mid-term targets. As you can see on the slide, the H1 of 2026 provides further evidence that we are moving in the right direction. Our EBITDA margin improved to 9.4%, reflecting continued progress across the business. The main building blocks remain unchanged: growing volumes, stronger contribution from our service business, and the ongoing efficiency measures that we are implemented throughout the company. While there is still work to do, the results achieved so far give us confidence that we are on track towards our midterm EBITDA margin target of 10%-12%, that we are building a more profitable and resilient Nordex. With this, handing over to Anja to open the Q&A. Thanks, gentlemen, for leading us through the presentation. I would now like to open the Q&A. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchtone telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered the queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Participants are requested to use only handsets while asking a question. In the interest of time, please limit yourself to two questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question comes from Richard Dawson from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, thank you for taking my questions. There are two from me. First one on the U.S. orders. Now that we've seen a restart in those U.S. orders. Are you able to provide any color on any margin difference between those U.S. orders and the German orders? I'm thinking more broadly about any potential inefficiencies you have in the Iowa facility, just as you're starting to ramp up, but also any cost differences on those U.S. turbine variants compared to the European ones. Secondly, Ilya, maybe one for you and a bit more detailed on the balance sheet. If I look at production levels versus installations for the H1, you're running about a gigawatt ahead on production versus installations, but your inventory figure is broadly flat for the period. Just wondering why there hasn't been a corresponding increase in your inventory on the balance sheet given that outrun in production. Or is that not the right way to look at it? Thank you. Thank you for the question, Richard. The first is quite simple. I think without going into details, ballpark similar profitability as Germany. I go to the question on the revenue recognition and on the inventory part. Yes, fair question. Maybe use the opportunity to say revenue recognition, that's not your question is done again mostly cost-to-cost when we produce our components not so much on the installations. That is why we see that revenue number to that order magnitude. Why not the inventory? Because that production that outpaces also the installations is done mostly, really by and large, under existing contracts that we're getting paid by our customers. This is why you don't see that as an increase in the inventory. Okay. Thank you for the color. The next question comes from Vivek Midha from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you very much, everyone, and good afternoon. My first question is a follow-up on Germany. You've talked about the stable turbine prices despite the weaker auction prices we've seen for the power in those auctions. Is there any reason to think that the future normalization of turbine pricing in Germany could exceed any of the assumptions you made underpinning the midterm normalized margin target you gave us? Do you expect auction pricing to stabilize given the further improvements in volumes in 2027, 2028? Thank you. Well, German pricing so far, we see a stability in the pricing. Future pricing, it's hard to predict. What we can comment is what we see today, and what we see today is stability. Regarding future auctions, it's going to be a new system, and it's a little bit crystal ball reading. All things being equal, if there is no market upside prices should recover in the auctions. Again, this is crystal ball reading. For me, the positive aspect is that it's going to be substantial volume, which is in line what the German government needs. Needs more electricity to help to reduce the price for citizens and industries. This is a good opportunity for having a healthy margin for the market participants. That's our assumption. Understood. Thank you. My second question is just a little follow-up on the notes. It looks like you've had some impairment of trade receivables over the last year and including in the H1 gone up from EUR 55 million- EUR 92 million. Could you just comment as to why that may be the case and if there's been any P&L impact from that? Thank you. Thanks, Vivek, for that question. There is basically nothing out of the ordinary. That's not because of any customers faltering or et cetera. It's just some sanitizing of books but nothing where a customer basically is not able to meet its obligations, his or her obligations. Understood. Thank you. The next question comes from John Kim from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon. Two from my side, if I may. If we think about the Q2 print, you had quite a bit of production contribution to the revenue not so much on the deliveries. Are you expecting this to normalize in the H2 of the year? Or is the cadence of this year off versus, quote-unquote, "normal" given the Türkey situation and perhaps German permitting connection delays? I think we'll catch up in the H2. At least that is what our planning says. Going forward with more geographies and more diversification and recovering the delays in Türkey, we will go to more normalized levels in the future. Definitely in the H2, we'll catch up. If we think about the things that need to be true to deliver very strong deliveries in H2, where are you on your factory loads? How should we think about that in terms of cost to fulfill or OPEX? I would say that from that aspect, the year is not that different than the previous year. Very much in the H2 to do 60%-65% of the activity of the year. We are well-prepared. I would say it's not a new ramp-ups that we need to do. This is very much repeating the year that we did last year from the production side. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from Constantin Hesse from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Thank you very much for taking my questions. A couple of questions from my side. The first one, I'd like to focus a little bit on Germany, because clearly this Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz announcement is absolutely massive assuming that the grid package is balanced enough between government and developers. I just want to understand, what have your conversations with developers been with regards to this grid package? I've heard with regards to the latest draft. I heard the government just achieved an agreement a couple of hours ago. I haven't seen any new drafts yet, but I'm just curious to see what the announcement was because if this grid package is balanced and the developers are happy with it, I'm looking at this forecast that you have on page 18. It's very conservative what Germany could actually go to, right? I think this forecast has Germany declining installations-wise again in 2030, and if this goes through, we could see growth into the early 2030s with further order intake growth, i.e. Nordex could even be installing low teens gigawatt numbers in a couple of years to three years' time. I'm wondering, what have your discussions been, and what's your opinion on this current grid package, please? Well, thank you very much, Constantin for the question. I think our view on and to the association and to the government is you need to build a ton of renewables. You need to build a lot of grid in order to reduce the dependency and reduce the price for consumers and the industry. That's the equation. You can take different approaches, but delaying the deployment of wind onshore because the grid is slightly delayed is not very advisable. Second, if you are outpacing a little bit the deployment of wind onshore versus the deployment of grid, this is a temporary thing. At the end, both investment needs to be done in both sectors, and it's going to be materially impossible to synchronize the pace of those investments. Assuming that's the way forward, then you could question if there is certain curtailments, who should pay for that? In our humble opinion, from a country point of view the more you de-risk investment decisions for investors, the better for consumers. If you ask every investor to put a risk premium into what the curtailment is going to cost, at the end, it's going to be a higher price in the auction and a higher price for consumers. We cannot comment much on the draft because it's just from the oven. At least there is a cap, and it's better to have a cap than having uncapped figures to price that risk. If the cap is 20%, it's a different thing pricing 100% of the risk or 20% of the risk. We wish to see a lower number there. As our customers as well. At least there is a number. llya, I don't know. [José Luis]I don't think I would be under the danger of repeating what you said. I think Constantin mentioned in his question, the government has announced informally in the past month that it wants to have an additional 12 GW on top of the already, we probably agree, very high German volume connected to be in 2030 or before, and it has now put that into the draft. Not knowing what finally the government decided on that one, but I guess they would approve this, meaning that we have auctions in 2027 of 15 GW, in 2028 of 15 GW, and in 2029 of at least 12 GW. That is the acceleration that [José Luis]was mentioning. When it comes to curtailments and who pays what, let's wait what the final outcome is but I have two points. One José Luis made, which is the certainty that the government appears to acknowledge that there needs to be a certain number and that goes especially, I guess to the financing sector to make projects banking. The other comment I would have not knowing what happens in the future but the auctions have worked from a system perspective. They have done price discovery. Maybe it's not even final. There is a price discovery, and that is what the system wanted, and it based on a certain set of rules. Now if you change those rules, your price discovery will continue, but it might lead to a different pricing point or what José Luis was indicating auction bids might go up again. If the system wants to pay the cost that way, that's a political choice. What we're saying is you will ultimately at least have bear in mind that auctions can go both ways. From that perspective, I would say from an OEM perspective, we're fine with it. From a system perspective p oliticians need to make their decisions. Understood. Thanks. Second question, if I may, just quickly. Obviously, the H2 is going to be pretty significant in terms of activity. Just understanding your exposure here, the markets that you're in fair to say that you're all set up in terms of the local infrastructure, cranes, everything. Is there any exposure that could add to this execution risk? Or from today's perspective, you're really well-placed from local infrastructure requirements to get everything built in time? I would say we are properly staffed. If I can point a risk is maybe transportation permits in Germany due to the high activity in the market. Other than that, we are well set. Even in Germany, I think we are discussing with the different government agencies and so on to overcome as an industry this potential bottleneck. Understood. Thanks, guys. Thank you. The next question comes from Sebastian Growe from BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Hey, everybody. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one would be around services. The order momentum has been stronger than what I would have expected with the ratio compared to the project segment orders running at a very high level compared to historical standards. What is the root cause for this strong service order intake? Can you talk us through the terms of the contract renewals in particular and how these might fit then also to your target to cross the 20% margin level in the not too distant future? Secondly, on the U.S., you had pointed to the 800 MW + of orders in the backlog. Can you give us an indication with regard to the size of your remaining pipeline? While you've been pointing to market share mostly on prior calls in the U.S., what absolute volume are you targeting in that market? If I may, very briefly, chip in one more as a clarification to an earlier question that was asked that was more around pricing. I think we know that normally there is a delta on pricing, which might be better typically in the U.S., but you probably then kind of have to pay for it at the expense of less favorable working capital terms. If you could just walk us through also the working capital on the side of the U.S. business, that would take a while. Thank you. Thank you, Sebastian. Services, I would say the main rationality behind that is the higher volume from Germany, where most of the contracts have long-term duration. The way we count the backlog is very much the expected revenue for those service contracts. If the service contract that we landed in the last quarter, the average tenor is higher than the cumulative one. That is why that is increasing. That is the reason. Regarding U.S., we need to be cautious here because we have a certain healthy pipeline to achieve, and if not even exceed, what we think could be volumes that we did in the past. I do not feel confident to guide you on order intaking in general and less even to do specific into a market. We are investing there because we are optimistic about the market, and we are optimistic that we have products and things and solutions to harvest a decent market share in that market. Our ambition before that was previously communicated was why not 20%? We stick to that. Why not 20% or even more maybe. Regarding pricing, working capital, and conditions of the U.S. deals, without going into much detail, but those are not that different than the ones in Germany. That is good quality deals. Yeah, sounds great. They are. Sorry. Sorry. For the 20% that you just mentioned, I also asked around the 20% margin for service. There's kind of a new flight level in a way, right? Is there anything. Oh, okay. Is there anything you would like to include? Sorry. No worries. The service business is profitability improvement is a slow-moving piece because you do slightly marginal improvements, and you do 10% growth year-over-year, and this is what drives profitability improvement. We are reasonably convinced that we will hit that 20%, but it's a slow-moving journey. Understood. Thank you. The next question comes from Alex Jones from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Great, thank you very much for taking my questions. Just following up on that U.S. order pipeline comment, could you talk about the extent to which the July 4, 2026 tax credit deadline was an important driver for the orders to come through in Q2 specifically, so per your discussions with customers and whether there are any other catalysts, tariff discussions or otherwise that would catalyze more orders coming through from that healthy pipeline that you highlighted. The second question, just on the installation back-end loaded nature of this year. You highlighted customer delays being temporary as one factor driving that. Could you talk about the confidence in the temporary nature of those, and whether you've started to see those delays ease in July already? Thank you. Regarding U.S., I don't think there is any specific milestone that trigger those orders. The pipeline, one way or the other, some of them is relying on certain federal permits others don't. I think what we see now is a substantial volume was safe harbor under covering legislation, and we plan to take a share of that safe harbor volume. Some with the preservation agreements, others don't. We are optimistic given the momentum that we see in the market, that we will get our share into that market. The volume that was safe harbor, nobody knows precisely, but there are different reports out there pointing into sustainable volume. That's as far as we can go. I think regarding installations, if you look at it year-on-year, certain geographies didn't contribute, like Nordex or Spain. Little less installations in North America, although this we expected to dramatically change one year from now. The delay in Türkey due to availability of plates. That was partially compensated by more installations in Germany year-on-year, but not sufficiently. It's true that even with those increased installations, we were expecting to do more, but customers were not ready with the sites. As a proof of fact, we are not booking liquidated damages for late delivery. It means that we are ready to deliver, but either sites are not ready or projects are not ready. We expect this situation to change in the H2, and our assumptions is that we are going to be ready when the projects are ready. Okay, thanks. Just to follow up on that U.S. point, do you have an expectation for when Section 232 tariffs might become clear? I know some people expect that in the next week. Is that in line with your views? Thank you. I think we have no specific date on that. So no, I think that's the larger question that you have. I can only say it is when you see those orders, apparently or obviously not hindering too many customers from moving ahead. It's a very important determination, but customers have just decided to go ahead. Understood. Thank you. The next question comes from Vlad Sergievskiy from Barclays. Please go ahead. Thank you very much for the opportunity. My first one is on margin. Very strong double-digit margin this quarter. Interesting that it seemed to have some mechanical headwinds, such as elevated provisioning this quarter or a receivable write-down as well. Would it be fair to assume that those headwinds masked your true margin potential this quarter, which otherwise would have been substantially higher? Assuming normalization of provisioning, for example, your EBITDA margin could have been in teens or mid-teens? That's the first question. I take the first one, and then you whatever comes next. Thanks for the question. It's a good one. Maybe two lines of response. One to the provision themselves and then to the assumption, which I think we need José Luis for as well when it comes to the total margin. The provisions have been a bit above, and well. Slightly, I would argue above what we kind of grade you for as up to 4%. That is nothing out of the ordinary. It's more mechanical because we've been selling a lot of stuff in the past quarters, as we know. The revenues for this H1 are just not a 50% reflection of full year. The percentage of, I think 46, 47 of additions is a bit above that. That we clearly think will normalize around that 4% number for the full year. There's nothing out of the ordinary in those provisions. When it comes to what you're pointing to what margins could be, I think a larger role, and then maybe I'm already anticipating too much is that it will depend on how the execution in the second year goes. More back to our contingency conversation of last year. There's a risk profile of execution the H2 of the year, which has given its volume a lot of potential, but also certain risks. I don't think that from the provision we can read too much into anything called as underlying margin. Very good. Thank you for that. If I can quickly follow up on this provisioning point. You're also suggesting that there was some revisions to cost estimates which drove those provisions up. Were those revisions related to Nordex specific matters, certain specific projects or regions? All those cost revisions are driven by more general inflation across the board that you are seeing? No. The order of magnitude there is not that substantial. It is here and there. Some adjustments updates. Yes, we do see some inflation in certain components but nothing we would give the order of magnitude. I would say every quarter you have more visibility about the year. We started the year with the Ukraine War and a lot of spikes in certain commodities. It's true that we have suffered cost increases in certain commodities, every year there are risk and chances. The way we look forward and the way we see the year. We think that the chances can compensate the risk, and this is the reason why we are guiding to midpoint plus. Because despite the cost increases, I think we managed to deal with those with other productivity and efficiency measures. That's great. Final quick one from me. There will be IFRS 18 accounting change from 2027, which, among other things, will require some project-related financing costs to be reclassified into operating profit line. Have you already done any preliminary assessment of potential impact of this accounting change on Nordex? If you've done that, what would be the preliminary conclusions, please? Thank you very much. Thank you. That's a very good question, it's going to be with us next year. We're going to have an interesting and detailed conversation when we're going into next year. Yes, still early to assess. Of course, most of it will influence then the EBIT line. Look, let's have that conversation once we get there, I dare to say that the effect is not. You have to probably trust me, it's not that substantial. Given what those costs are, they're there but also they're going down as we have talked in the presentation. The order of magnitude of that is not that significant. We will have that as a detailed technical conversation beginning of next year. Wonderful. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Ajay Patel from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Afternoon. Thank you very much for taking my question. I guess mine is on looking at the margin for this quarter at 10%, thinking about the H2 of the year where you have a higher revenue. I'm just trying to wonder how did you perform versus the contingencies you put in Q2, and what contingencies do you have for the H2 of the year? Because with assuming some operational leverage, why aren't we thinking about a situation where we're talking midpoint plus plus, for example? Just trying to understand the underlying assumptions, or is it just a case of there's a lot to execute on and you'd want to get through it before you were more visible? I think you name it. Last part of your question is our view. Let's take a little bit more comfort into how high level of execution going. Still the world has a lot of geopolitical issues not fully settled. We just need more comfort. Okay. If I just take second question, just more on capital allocation, right? Sizable amount of cash sitting on the balance sheets. I know that you're committed to returning or increased returns to shareholders maybe going into next year. What do you think about that cash position? It's building quite nicely as we go through the years. What are the allocations are you thinking? Is there any update that you can give us on this side? Thanks for the question. That is always a very valid question, especially when a company has a cycle like ours. I think the short answer is, I don't know if you like it or not. There is no update. We'll come with that when we get in front of you with our full year results, when the final tally is in, when we've seen all the things that José Luis mentioned that still need to evolve. To deal with that question hypothetically is too early, and I would say undue. We will update this once the full year results are in and we're doing the call, and until then, our position of the order of magnitude that we gave with the full year call and whether that's going to be buyback or dividends is just the same. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Sean McLoughlin from HSBC. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thank you for the time. Just looking at the order intake, another strong quarter. You're trending ahead in H1 of what was a historically high demand year last year. Maybe just to gauge your degree of confidence on that demand strength through the H2, and any markets you'd want to highlight where you see incrementally positive or negative demand potential in the H2. Thank you. Thank you very much for the question, Sean. I think we are very much going with the market other than U.S., that we are so pleased to announce that we're entering into the market. For the H2 is business as usual and going with the market. With the market share we have in the markets we operate, that should be a good proxy. Would you be comfortable with the total volume of order intake, at least at last year's level? We don't guide order intake, but we expect to be another good year. Super. Thank you. The next question comes from William Mackie from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the questions. My first question would be about the U.S. again. Great success in making your presence in the U.S. market clear, and I hear your comments about further opportunity to build on the 800 MW backlog. I wanted to ask about cost recovery. Your plants in Iowa are staffed and building, but there's presumably no throughput there yet. Can you share what level of throughput is needed in the U.S. to get to at least a break-even level rather than a cost level for the group as a whole? Perhaps some thoughts about what your initial plans are on the ramp-up volumes and throughput in the U.S. over the next 12 - 18 months. The plants have been operating for one year at a low activity level to meet the project demand. When we mentioned before similar margins than in Germany, it's including the cost associated to have the local activities in U.S. for U.S. If you sell, I don't know, 200, even 100 units a year, you recover your costs. That's not the killer of the business. I think the cost is quite reasonable to do the local activities in the U.S. We are planning to double the output in the months ahead and to go to nominal capacity beginning of next year. Super. Okay. Thank you. My second question would reflect back on the questions about capacity, your group's capacity, when you want to think or frame it at the moment. Clearly, there's opportunity or optionality to the upside in terms of volume and the wins that you could have in share and in absolute market volume. On the supply side, in your own organization, I think you've talked up to about 11 GW of throughput or installation volume. Theoretically, how do you see the setup today in terms of the capacity without significant CapEx? Where would the constraints be? Would it be primarily blades, or do you see other elements of the supply chain that could constrain your ability to grow over a three or four-year period? I think we run the company with substantial overcapacity in nacelle assembly, because geopolitics and Net Zero Industry Act, you need to assess the situation before putting all eggs into the same basket. As well, geopolitical situation, China, U.S. You need to have optionality. Optionality costs you money, but de-risk your delivery. From a nacelle perspective, we have substantial overcapacity in blades as well. Although I will say slightly less in blades than in nacelles. Blades will be the less overcapacity, although we have overcapacity as well in blades. Great. Thank you. Very clear. The next question comes from Klaus Ringel from ODDO BHF. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. It would be on the MGF facility that you highlighted in presentation. Question here is if you could quantify an impact on your financial results looking ahead from that? Yep. Thanks, Klaus. Very fair question. That's one we didn't directly address in the presentation. Maybe two remarks. The second one is, I guess, geared to your question directly. First remark is, as I said in the presentation now in any like for like scenario, that new MGF now reduces the financial cost, the interest costs per bond unit, so to speak, substantially. As much as in the final stage, 60%, 65% from its peak range under the old MGF. A substantial reduction. Now, of course, that depends also on the volume you utilize. In order to maybe calibrate what you would want to model, basically what we would We would for 2026, and 2027 will be a moving target because let's see what the volume does. Of course, we're also generating more interest revenue, the more cash we have. For this year, if you stick with and plug in a total number of 60 +, EUR 60 million-EUR 70 million of total interest costs, then you're on the safe side. Rather, probably 60 -. Maybe that's the best calibration I have for you today. Okay. Thank you very much. As a reminder, anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star one. We do have a follow-up question from John Kim from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Hi. Sorry for the pause. I am wondering if we think about service revenue growth, you have had very strong order intake, you have had very strong base effect. When will we see substantial acceleration in the revenue lines and for the division? Then a follow-up, please. We need to differentiate two things. One is the order intake, which is X number of megawatts multiplied by X number of years. The contribution per year is related with the number of megawatts, not with the number of years. The number of years gives you the backlog, not the growth on the order intake. From that point of view, I think we will see in the 10s, 10% revenue growth year-over-year, despite the order backlog growth way faster because you increase your tenor of the contracts. Okay, got it. Thank you. I don't know if I explained, but you have 50 GW under service, and then you contract 8 GW, and then you are going to have 58 the year after, and another 8 GW, 64. That's the range of growth that you should expect from this business. Despite these 8 GW, might have 20 years of life. It's revenue over 20 years, not growth in the year number one. No, I get that. One follow-up question, unrelated. I think you had spoken to the platform development earlier. If you think beyond this year or the existing backlog, when should we think about a new platform? I think you've spoken before that you would look at competition but not necessarily lead the charge here. I'm just wondering if you'd comment on that dynamic as well, whether you see other OEMs. We stick with the same strategy, prepare the ingredients in order to cook the meal if needed, but we are not going to start cooking the meal if it's not needed. It means that we will, in this case, we'll be followers. Okay. All right. Thank you. We do have one more follow-up question from Vlad Sergievskiy from Barclays. Please go ahead. Yes, gentlemen. Thanks very much. Last question from me is on cost. You reported costs of raw materials and other supplies down about 1% in the H1 of 2026. That's at least what your disclosure suggests. At the same time, your revenue was up 14%, which suggests the physical volume of work recognized in the P&L is probably up double digits. Which means average raw material cost allocated to a turbine should have been down to 10% or potentially more than that. This is of course, some impressive cost cutting and cost efficiencies, given that we're seeing more inflationary backdrop right now. Can you give us some idea how this cost cut has been achieved? I don't think you can draw conclusions from that point of view because the way we do accounting and the way we report is not based on cost of goods sold. As a consequence, it depends a lot of your in-house activities. If you produce or you procure, you have more or less personal costs, more or less supplies. The cost base is going down in certain part numbers, it's going up in other part numbers in services it's going up. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a precise answer to your question. Thank you for providing color. Ladies and gentlemen, this was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to José Luis Blanco for any closing remarks. Thank you very much, all, and let me close with a few key takeaways from the second quarter. First, we continue to deliver on profitability with further margin improvement and solid order intake, including important successes in the U.S. This gives us confidence in our trajectory for the remaining of the year and provides good visibility for the coming quarters. Second, we further strengthen our financial position. We remain focused on generating positive free cash flow while the signing of the new EUR 2.5 billion warranty facility increases our financial flexibility and provides additional capacity to support further growth. Third, based on our performance in the H1 of the year and the visibility we have today, we are confirming our guidance for 2026. Overall, our results demonstrate continued progress. Profitability and financial strength are improving. Execution remains solid. Together, these achievements support our path towards our midterm EBITDA margin target of 10%-12%. Thank you very much. Wish you a wonderful rest of the day and holiday season if you manage to enjoy it.