Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Q3 figures 2026 conference call. I am Shari, the Chorus Call operator. I would like to remind you that all participants will be listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. The presentation will be followed by Q&A session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star and one on your telephone. For operator assistance, please press star and 0. 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, Shari. Welcome from the Nordex team in Hamburg. Thank you for joining the Q3 2026 results management call. As always, we ask you to take notice of our safe harbor statements. 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 José Luis. Thank you very much for the introduction, Anja. As well, on behalf of management board, I would like to welcome you to our third quarter results of 2026. As our presentation title highlights, we remain on track financially and operationally. As announced in our pre-release, this has enabled us to raise our full year 2026 margin guidance. Let me start with a brief overview of the key highlights of the quarter. Moving to the next slide. Overall, I'm pleased to report that the third quarter of 2026 was another solid quarter for Nordex. We have delivered strong revenue growth, an EBITDA margin well above 12%, and a strong free cash flow. Due to these results, we raised our EBITDA margin guidance for the full year to 11.5%-12.5% three weeks ago. Let me summarize the other key highlights. First, project order intake reached 2.8 GW, up 30% year-on-year. Europe accounted for 83%, with Türkiye, Germany, and U.S. as the largest individual markets. Total sales increased by 28% year-on-year to EUR 2.2 billion. Project sales accounted for 89% of the total and grew by 30%, while services, with a share of 11%, grew by 8%. Double-digit profitability continued, and we achieved an EBITDA margin of 12.7%, exceeding the 12% threshold and improving by almost 5% year-on-year. We generated a strong free cash flow of EUR 379 million, with working capital stable at minus 7.8. Net cash, as a consequence, increased to EUR 2 billion compared to EUR 1.6 billion at the end of 2025, and our total cash position stood at EUR 2.3 billion. Overall, it was a solid quarter, but let me now turn to our operational performance on page six, starting with our order intake. As published in our order intake press release on October 12, we saw a good quarter with a further broadening of our regional footprint. We recorded 2.8 GW of order intake, an increase of 30% year-on-year. Order intake for the first nine months reached 7.7 GW. In euros, turbine order intake totaled EUR 2.5 billion, almost 26% higher than last year. Orders were received from 10 different countries compared to nine last year. An average selling price of EUR 0.9 million per megawatt was broadly stable versus EUR 0.93 a year ago. Average selling price are influenced by project and regional mix in any given quarter, but we continue to see stable pricing. Europe remained the main region with 83% of order intake, and Türkiye, Germany, and the U.S. were the strongest single markets. Our focus is on further expanding our footprint in North America and Asia Pacific. While we are not providing specific guidance for 2026, we continue to expect a good order momentum going into the fourth quarter. Let's move to slide seven, where we'll discuss the development of our order book. The combined order book strengthened further and exceeded EUR 19 billion at the end of the third quarter of 2026, reflecting continued positive momentum on both our turbine and our service business. Turbine order book reached EUR 12.2 billion, up 31% year-on-year. Most orders came from Europe with 83%, followed by North America with 16%, while Latin America and rest of the world account 1% each. In the service segment, the order book increased to EUR 7.1 billion, up 28% year-on-year. Our service portfolio continued to grow and now stands at 52.2 GW under contract, representing 14,163 wind turbines. This growth continues to be supported by strong sales activities and growing installed fleet. Overall, the order book development supports planning visibility and shows Nordex is growing more international, and in service reflects the expansion of our installed base over the past years. Let's move to slide eight and have a closer look into the service business. The third quarter of 2026 marks an important milestone for our service business. Service sales increased by 8% and reached EUR 237 million, representing around 11% of total group revenues. EBIT margin further improved to 20.6%, crossing the 20% threshold for the first time versus 19.7% in the previous quarter. This gives us a good basis to achieve EBIT margins of 20% for the full year next year. Operationally, fleet availability remained stable at around 97%, and the average tenure of service contracts stood at 14 years. Let's move to the next slide, giving you some insights into our installation and production figures on page number nine. Installations totaled 2 GW, or 331 turbines across 15 countries, compared to 420 turbines across 16 countries in the third quarter of last year. This is 73% higher than the previous quarter. However, still 22% below Q3 of last year. We continue to see project delays on customer side and also due to the delays in getting transportation permits in Germany. In addition, you will remember some blade-related postponements in Türkiye from our previous communications. The key takeaway is that these delays do not have material financial impact year-to-date. On the production side, turbine output was in line with project scheduling and totaled 367 turbines compared to 428 in the third quarter of last year. Blade production increased by 17% to 1,311 blades compared to 1,122 a year ago. I will hand over to Ilya for the financials. Thank you, José Luis, and good afternoon also from my side. As always, I will start with our income statement here on page 12. In the third quarter of 2026, sales increased by 28% year-on-year to EUR 2.2 billion, reflecting higher activity levels in both project and service business. The gross margin stood at 26.7% compared to 28% in the third quarter of 2025. The operating expenses were lower year-on-year, mostly driven by FX effects and some income due to the sale and leaseback of our Rostock blade factory. As a result, EBITDA more than doubled and reached EUR 278 million, with an EBITDA margin of 12.7%, driven by, and it was mentioned by José Luis, good execution in both project and service business. Financial result was minus EUR 17 million, and thus slightly higher than last year on the basis of the higher volumes under the guarantee facility. As mentioned in our Q2 call, we signed a new EUR 2.5 billion multi-currency guarantee facility with a committed tenor through 2031 and commitments from 15 banks. Since then, we have topped up the facility by another EUR 500 million to a total of EUR 3 billion to support the future growth of our order book. On the back of this operating performance, we reported a solid net profit of EUR 147 million for the third quarter, representing an improvement of EUR 95 million when compared to last year. With this, let's move on to page 13, and we see the balance sheet. When having a look at it, the balance sheet total assets increased to EUR 7.6 billion compared to year-end, while the overall structure remains largely unchanged. The third quarter ended with a continued strong gross cash level of approximately EUR 2.3 billion, and the equity ratio continues to improve and reached 21.1% at the end of the third quarter, up from 19% at the year-end. That, of course, backed by the strong net income and the equity growth outpacing the increase in total assets. With that, let's have a closer look on the next page, 14, and how some other balance sheet KPIs have developed. Net cash increased further and totaled EUR 2 billion at the end of the third quarter. The strong operational performance more than offset the normalization of working capital. Equity ratio further increased and now stands at 21.1%, and the working capital now again in total numbers stood at minus EUR 659 million, and remains stable at a ratio of minus 7.8%. That brings me to the cash flow on the following page. We have already qualified that as a solid and robust quarter, and that performance also translates into the cash flow. It stood as a cash flow from operating activities before the net working capital at EUR 379 million compared to the EUR 125 million in the third quarter of last year. After only a small effect from working capital, cash flow from operating activities amounted to EUR 375 million. Cash flow from investing activities was slightly positive, as payments received from the disposal of a blade plant in Rostock outweighed our CapEx investments. As a result, we generated a free cash flow of EUR 379 million in this third quarter, again, compared to EUR 149 million last year. The CapEx spendings amounted to EUR 34 million in the third quarter, in line with last year's spendings. Again, our investment priorities remain unchanged, primarily in the blade and the nacelle production facilities, molds and tooling, as well as installation and transport equipment. With that, I would like to hand it back to José Luis for his next slide. Thank you, Ilya, for the explanations. To conclude, based on our strong performance year to date, we have raised our margin guidance for the full year 2026, as you can see on this page. All other guidance KPIs remain unchanged. With this, handing over to Anja to open for Q&A. Thank you, gentlemen, for leading us through the presentation. Would now like to hand over to Shari to open the Q&A. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touch-tone 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. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question is from Ajay Patel, Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, and thank you for the presentation. I guess I have two questions. One, if I think about the cash on balance sheet and capital allocation, when can we get a little bit more of a steer on what the key drivers are in allocating that capital, what your priorities are, what needs to be retained on balance sheet, maybe as a buffer, and what is actually genuinely available in that figure for either returns or value or further investment? Then the second question is, if you look at the implied margin for the fourth quarter, it's a very healthy 15% margin. I am just thinking, looking to next year, to what degree can you give us any sort of indication with order growth or installation growth into next year? It feels a pretty good setup relative to your 10%-12% margin target. I just wondered if you could any high-level thoughts on that would be helpful. Thank you. You do the first, and we do the second together. Super. Then let me start with that question around capital allocation. Thank you, AJ, for the question. As I have said repeatedly, very fair and a valid question, especially given the recent performance. To your question as when we would get back with an update, I am afraid we are repeating our communication that this would be coming with our full-year results. So end of February, when we have the full-year results and present them to you together with the new guidance, we will also give the latest on the capital allocation that we have indicated this year to be a minimum of a shareholder return of EUR 50 million. So any news on that end of February. I mean, we will get that done in a bit more detail, but of course, until then, the priorities other than the shareholder returns is the protection of the balance sheet, the de-risking of the operations, meaningful bolt-on investments, and the likes. Beyond that, and that is, again, a very fair question, end of February. Look, so regarding Q4, where we are now is totally focused in executing the high volume that is expected for Q4. We are, as we speak, in the middle of the planning process for the budget for next year. So, I do not feel very comfortable to talk about 2027. I mean, this is a project business. Usually, Q4 is a high-activity quarter, so you cannot take this as an early indicator of next year. Usually, Q1 is low activity, low profitability. In a nutshell, let us focus on delivering the year, which is the important task ahead of us, and we will get back to you early next year about how we see next year. Fair enough. Thank you. The next question is from Constantin Hesse, Jefferies. Please go ahead. Thank you very much for taking my question as well. Maybe a different way to asking the question that just came through. How much operating leverage is there still here, Ilya and José Luis? If I look at volumes going from 8.5 GW potentially towards 9, 10, 11, what kind of a margin potential is there still here? Maybe we start with that one first. I mean, all things being equal, which is a big if, more volume should imply a slightly better margin. But of course, the margin is always a compound of quantities and margin per unit, and that's price minus cost, minus the organization that you need to deliver that volume, and those cost factors might or might not change over time. Today we see stability, but this might or might not be the same for the future. Yeah. Okay. No, fair enough. Looking at the backlog, EUR 12.2 billion for project, how much of that is 2027 already visibility? I would say, I do not have the exact figures because, as I mentioned, middle of the budget process, but it is a reasonable coverage, slightly better than the one we had one year ago. Which was already good. Which was already good. Of course, the question might be better framed in February because we need to calibrate against the guidance that we will give you for the next year, what level of coverage we have for the guided figure that we give you for the next year. But for the internal budget that we are working on, we see a slightly better coverage than one year ago. Okay. Understood. Thanks. Lastly, I know this is a very repetitive question, and it is obviously one that is hard to answer, but Ilya, I know that you are very close to this. Looking at the current conversations with parliamentary members around the grid package, maybe a different way, instead of talking about what you are actually hearing from politicians, which obviously is a bit harder, what sentiment are you getting from your customers, i.e. developers? What are they saying about the potential participation in 15 GW worth of auctions in 2027 and 2028? Yeah, that's an interesting way of asking that question. That's a different angle because there, of course, it depends very much on where your customers' projects are located. Then, of course, those set of regulations do have very different impacts on a specific region, a specific wind regime. So there, of course, you will have not a unanimous view on the new legislation. Of course, everybody's pushing for better terms, which is a natural thing to do. However, I think from our perspective, and that's, I think, then a volume question reverse, I'd say given the possibility that auctions cannot only go down, but also can go up, the developers will have to account for those impacts in their pricing in the future. What we feel confident about still in that draft is that the government has announced and has never changed that announcement to increase the volume in auctions to 15 GW next year and next to next. So all in all, while this might be different view on the ground, from an overall perspective, I would say we're still confident and above all hoping that now the next voting window mid-November gets really used by parliament and government. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from Richard Dawson, Berenberg. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. I've got two, please. Firstly, on the service business, how are you viewing margins now within that service business? You've crossed the 20% threshold. Should we start using the 20.6% margin that you delivered this quarter as maybe a new floor within that segment, and sort of model incremental growth in those margins going forwards? Is there any reason we could maybe see margins deteriorate within service? Secondly, on the project business, just the Q3, obviously some of that upgrade is coming through because some project risks didn't materialize. Could you maybe provide a bit of background and color on exactly what those project risks were? I guess when we look at last year as well, some similar effects there as well with a margin upgrade coming through in the fourth quarter. Is it maybe fair to say that there's quite a big element of conservatism that's baked into your project business, and maybe going forwards that sort of conservatism is maybe reduced? Thank you. Oh, thank you very much for the two questions. Very good one. Service business, we don't see any reason why the profitability will deteriorate. With the visibility we have today, we still see a growing business year-on-year, around about 10%, with minor profitability improvements associated with the growth. This is how we see the service business long term. No different views, and I'm happy to see now trespassing, moving above this 20% threshold. That was always our North Star to get there. Happy to be there. We plan to remain there, and eventually there are long-term potential to slightly improve that. Not big improvements should be expected because you have 55 GW, you lose certain gigawatts in rotation, you bring eight, nine new gigawatts, but the profitability is very much given by the backlog. The new additions don't move substantially the profitability. In the project business, we need to put things in perspective. I think we are coming from huge impacts in COVID, huge impacts associated with the Ukrainian war, so we need to form a view before guiding you for what the company could do in the year. What are the risk and chances to operate a global supply chain where you have a big part of your supply in Asia, in India, and China, and a majority of your delivery in Europe, and now growing in North America? So you need to form a view of what is the right level of contingencies that you put in project executions. I would say that the company every year is executing better. I am happy to report that the last two years, we saw the same pattern, that the risk that we have evaluated beginning of the year didn't materialize in full, and the opportunities overweight the risk that materialize. The pattern is always the same. Beginning of the year, you have less visibility than in Q2, and better visibility in Q3, so around this time in the year. Given how things are going, and given that the majority of the products that have impact in the revenue of the year are already landed in the geographies of destination, so you remove risk associated with logistic, with disruption. Is this called conservatives? I wouldn't say that. I think it's trying to provide for the geopolitical situation we operate. Are we going to change next year our view about risk and chances? I don't think so. I think we are planning very much to plan similarly than what we are doing. That's very clear. Thank you. The next question is from John Kim, Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Congrats on the numbers. A couple, if I may. Wanted to spend some time on kind of the revenue recognition. When we look at your divisions, I'm really focused on projects. Turbines are down, blades are up slightly. Deliveries and installations are down, yet revenue is up quite a bit. Help us unpack that a little bit. I know that you don't always enjoy sales ASP as a measure, but is there a better way to do this? What steer can you give us here? Yeah, I'd say, in breaking that down, going back to what we've been discussing several times, our method remains the same. We're doing this cost-to-cost revenue recognition, which then basically, in our case, is largely geared towards manufacturing. Yes, it's true that in the nacelles, we were down, but blades, the opposite. What you don't see, because we're not putting it as visual, is when we do a large portion of the turbine, which is the tower. So tower production is substantially up, which means in a combination of what we've been producing between nacelles, towers, and blades, it's just a higher activity. Those are all against binding contracts, and that's how we then recognize the revenue. The revenue recognition of the installations, of course, exists, but to a far lesser extent. I think that would be my breakdown. Mm-hmm. Very much, if I may add, we are producing to the contract, and we are getting paid for that, but we need to fulfill our contract obligations. If installations are late because of customer delay or certain other topics, sometimes it's because our responsibility of getting maybe permits for transportation late. This has an impact in late revenue recognition, and eventually LDs. What we can share with you is that there is no substantial LDs for installation. So nutshell, we are fulfilling our contracts. Okay. Switching gears slightly, if we think about 2027, a common theme is quite a bit of cost inflation. Can you talk about underlying pricing, like for like? What sort of price increases do you need to kind of keep your price cost stable if you were to start taking orders in 2027? I think that's a very good question because, yes, we see substantial inflation in the markets where we operate, which affects labor costs and services that we procure. I think so far, we have been able to, through efficiency measures in supply chain, in product improvements, in operational improvements, to deal with that. In a stable pricing environment, although, it's fair to say that ASP is not an indicator. The real indicator is the gross margin on the order intake, which, for competitive reasons, we cannot disclose to you. But despite inflation pressures and despite the pressure of lowering tariffs in Germany, we managed to protect the gross margin on the order intake, supported by efficiency measures and productivity measures, both in product and in supply chain. Okay. Very helpful. Last one, if I may. Remember what it is. On your CapEx, is the nature of your Q4 CapEx different this year versus last year? Because it's quite a big incremental quantum that you need to put in the ground. What is it, and how does that tie into your factory loads or new lines of production? Yeah. For the first part of the question, no, it's not different. It's the usual mix of, especially when it comes to execution around making them, transporting them, installing them being the turbines. And it's true that we always are pretty back-end loaded for the CapEx. That is not different from the last years, and the last years we have come down, and we've come in the finish line a bit under the guided CapEx. Could this be, again, more or less, I would say, in the same bandwidth? So nothing different in the mix and nothing different, but the truth is, and you're right, and José has mentioned it's a heavy activity that's going on right now in this fourth quarter. I'm ramping up N175, which compared to previous years, majority of the activity in Q4 was 163. So for that product, you already had the CapEx invested. For 175, you need to increase transportation tooling, installation tooling, and all those things. But nothing to add to what Ilya mentioned. Maybe next year, slightly more, but we will give that info in due time in February. Okay. Thank you. The next question is from Alex Jones, Bank of America. Please go ahead. Great. Thank you. Two, if I may. The first, on this 10%-12% midterm margin range, I think you've said in the past you could temporarily exceed that if the market was favorable. Clearly, you're already at the high end. You've highlighted so far in this presentation quite a few favorable drivers ahead in terms of volume, service, et cetera. What would it take for you to raise or change that guidance? What would you need to see to sort of admit that you might not exceed it just temporarily, but over a sustained period? And then secondly, just on the U.S. market, the clearly sort of tailwinds and headwinds, you've seen some progress on some DOD permitting, but also the Section 232 tariff uncertainty still remains. Could you just talk to what the net effect of that is in terms of the customer sentiment, the order momentum that you're seeing, and any initial reaction on what may or may not change after the election results yesterday? Thank you. Hi. Thank you, Alex. Regarding the midterm, I think we always mentioned that this is across the cycle, at least in the foreseeable future, and it's too early to comment on that. I think first we need to finish the budget, approve the budget in December, and early January, February, figure out how the year is looking like and guide you through the year. With the information we have today, I don't think we will change that much because it's still an over-the-cycle view. Second, today is super early because on top of not having the visibility, the legislation for Germany, which is a very important market for us, is in the legislative process. This might have a substantial influence in what the midterm guidance could be, and we need to form a view as well once the legislation passes. Third, you mentioned, and associated with the second question, is U.S. I think U.S., the Section 232, so far we've been able not to take that risk, and we still saw substantial volume for us in U.S. without that risk. What is holding back more permits is the FAA permit, Federal Aviation Administration permit. Honestly, I'm not sure if this is going to change after the election, because it's a federal agency under the presidency administration. Not sure if this is going to change or not. I wish to give you more clarity, but unfortunately, I don't know. Ilya, support me here, but I don't know we can comment that much. I think you said, I think orders have picked up in the U.S. in the market generally. I think you've seen this, but the bottlenecks are the ones you describe in your question, Alex, and José Luis pointed out to them. I think the question will be, the further along we move in the process and the nearer the deadline of the tax credit sunset approaches, we might see customers just take decisions because the risk of those investigations are there. But then on the other hand, people don't want to risk your tax credit sunset deadline. There's still a bit of time for people to wait, but I guess probably that should change in the foreseeable future. On the effects of the elections, I agree with José Luis. I wouldn't see an immediate impact because nothing changes on the ground in terms of rules and regulation. Sentiment, yes. I think sentiment shifts. You have a lot of also Democratic governors winning state governorship, and always local support helps. There might be push from that side, but I would not say an immediate effect on that. Understood. Thank you. The next question is from Vlad Sergievskiy from Barclays. Please go ahead. Yeah, super. Thank you very much for taking my three questions. I will ask them one by one. First one on turbine production versus installation. If I look at your turbine production data over the past 12 months, it is about 9 GW. Installation over the same period is 6.4. There is more than 2.5 GW delta, which on my numbers is about 400 turbines. Could you help us understand where are those turbines? They probably must be on your balance sheet if you have not delivered them yet. What are the line items on the balance sheet where those 400 could be sitting in? Those turbines have been produced, invoiced, paid, and cashing. You see those turbines in the cash balance of the company. Do you- Yeah? Do you still have delivery liability on them, or you don't have any delivery liability related to those turbines? We do, because the contracts they have is a case-by-case, and without going too much into details because we don't want to maybe share confidential information, but you have, in some cases, production obligations, dates, and installation obligation dates, and liability associated with that. The fact that the production is completed reduces the overall liability of the project, because one of the milestone, which is ex works, you have done. You have done on time, and you have been paid for that. You still have the liability associated with the installation of those turbines if, because of our reason, we are delay versus our contractual obligations. Super. That's very clear. If I can now ask my second question on your margin. In the second quarter, it actually was Q3 was the second quarter in a row when your provisioning was really high compared to history. A net increase in provisions was about 4% this quarter, which is lower than about 6% last quarter, but still well above historical. These provisions are, of course, mechanically deducting from your earnings today, so your underlying earnings are higher. Perhaps later on, if you don't need those provisions, you could release them and make profits further down the road. My question is, what has changed in the past two quarters in either risk profile on the contracts that you take or the way you treat those risks internally so that this incremental provisioning has had a very big step up and sustained this step up in both Q2 and Q3? Well, I'll take that together. You're probably going to talk about then using them or not using them in the future, because only reality in the future will tell whether we need them or not. Yes, very good question. Thank you, Vlad. I mean, both quarters arguably in sales, given what we've been doing, have not been of the highest. Nonetheless, we've been selling a lot of turbines. Order intake was high, and we're booking all of those provisions in the moment when we're doing the order intake. So, those standard warranty provisions under the contracts are the increases of those quarters. So, there is nothing changed in the mechanics or in the quality assessment or the technology assessment of those provisions. It is a business as usual, if you will, driven by a lot of order intake momentum. The level of 4% is a reasonable level. I mean, the hope and execution, always we hope to be better and have those. But I think from a track record and what we've been seeing, and you've mentioned those years of COVID, Ukraine, it's not quality, it's not only always technology, but it's your supply chains and then what gets into that. I think we believe that's a reasonable number to which we have increased it, but we have not changed the method of how we do the provisions now for many, many quarters. Super. That's very clear. My last question is on the cash position and potentially what part of it is available to be allocated further down the road. Could you help us understand the rising gap between your trade payables and trade receivables? Trade receivables at the end of Q3 were about five days of your revenue, and trade payables were at about 130 days of cost of raw materials. Could you talk about the reasons for such a big difference between payment terms you get from your customers and payment terms you offer to your suppliers? Well, that's management. I think we try to We are a project business company, so money should be cheaper for an infrastructure company than for a project company. We try to get the best payment conditions we can reasonably get. And the same, we want to work with our suppliers. I mean, the company is growing, is gaining market share, and we are becoming more attractive for vendors which are willing to support our working capital efforts. Super. Thank you very much for the answers. As a reminder, for questions, please press star and one. The next question is from Sean McLoughlin, HSBC. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. I had a question on service. I just wanted to maybe unpack the 200 basis points of margin improvements that we've seen over the past year. Is this simply scaling the business, meaning you are getting that much more productivity out of every engineer? Is it about pricing of contracts and underlying? You are effectively increasing more for every megawatt that you add to the backlog. Or is it really down to performance in the field? Just to understand those three dynamics and what further improvements are left in each point. Thank you. I think there is a little bit of everything, Sean. I think there is a little bit of, I mean, you do not renew contracts that you do not want to renew, and this is good because maybe some contracts were dragging profitability. So, it is a compound of mix of product types, a compound of geographies, and it is fair to say that the new orders, if you sell more in Germany, or if you sell more in Türkiye, or if you sell more in Eastern Europe, the profitability in those geographies is better than the average. So, it is a mix. It is not renewing contracts that you do not want to renew, that were dragging profitability, and it is a scale effect. That is clear. Thank you. Just also coming back to the point you make on delays. I mean, clearly, delays in Q2, sorry, in Q3, have not stopped profitability. I mean, where are we on the clear-up? I mean, are you still seeing in Q4 delays on the customer side, delays on permits? And are the Turkey issues now fully behind us? I would say the Turkey issue is behind us, yes. I think, and this is one of the reasons, when we talked to you before about risk and chances, we were provided in the guidance certain risk associated with this blade availability in Türkiye. Luckily, we managed to release that because we were able to negotiate with the government and with the customers, so we have a solution. That is still delaying the installation, will not impact profitability and subsequently LDs. The other in Germany is in a massive ramp-up as a sector, and when you are in this massive ramp-up, everybody needs to adapt, including the authorities, and transportation permits is a bottleneck for the whole industry. So far, we managed to compensate these delays within the buffers that we had in our schedules to deliver the projects with delay, but without entering into substantial LD territory or liquidated damage territory. Point number one. Point number two, as well, there is customer delays in building their balance of plant and so on. What is our view for Q4? I would say similar to Q3. We don't expect any substantial change in Q4 in that regard. But of course, it's a very important quarter ahead of us in production and in installation as well. So, we plan a high level of installations in Q4. Let's see. I mean, there are two months to go, and let's see if we can achieve our ambitions for the quarter or not. If we achieve our ambitions for the quarter, no substantial LDs should be paid or booked. If we delay in the next two months, it might affect a little bit, but we are comfortable with the guidance, with the midterm of the guidance. Let's put it that way. Thank you so much. The next question is from Sebastian Growe, BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Yeah, good afternoon. Hi, José Luis, Julia, and Anja. Thanks for taking my question. I was only able to join the call a bit later, so I hope my question hasn't been asked yet. First is on Germany, and while I understand that it's not easy to gauge how the country might play out next year, I was wondering if you could share with us how customers are reading the planned regulatory changes and just give us a bit of insight to probably what you're discussing with your customers at this point. How should we think about potential consolidation among developers, and potentially the change in negotiation power of parts, at least of the customer base? Lastly, and leaving Germany aside, on the order funnel, more generally speaking, with the interest rate environment changing to the worse, could you just give us your high-level thoughts of what you're seeing, what you see book-to-bill getting more under pressure, or do you still see that the overall pipeline remains pretty well filled here as at excluding Germany, that is? Thank you. Julia. Yep. Hi, Sebastian. Yes, actually a similar question has been asked when you now ask about the view of our customers on the German legislation process, so I'll keep that short in the second go. You get mixed reactions because, and I repeat myself, from our perspective, that is not so critical because we look at the total market volume, and there's so many more permits than auction volume in the market. Even if, as announced, the market volume in auctions increases, there's still so many more permits. So for us, that's a different part of the equation. For the customers, it depends really where they sit, where their project sits, where their wind regime sits, but also, that goes to your second question about potential consolidation. I don't want to speculate, but of course, the more you have to stretch your development assets and the more creativity and/or muscle you have to add, there might be something that people had already expected for years, that there might be a certain consolidation. I don't think we've seen too much of that in so far, but of course, the new law is not yet the law. I would say, again, for some developers, that new law might be very difficult, but also the auctions already were giving winners and losers. That's the nature of an oversubscribed auction, and consolidation too early to say. With that, José Luis, maybe you want to talk about the rest. Yeah, I think the funnel is robust. It's true that substantial increase in capital costs year-on-year, but it's true as well that in the markets where we operate, we see an increased view that wind onshore provides a lot of value to the electrical system and is, for new additions, the most competitive or among two. I mean, it looks like maybe solar in some cases is struggling because of the cannibalization, but it might solve that on a daily basis, but doesn't solve the seasonality topic of producing electricity in winter and in fall and in early spring. As a sector, I think there is a common understanding that wind onshore is a very competitive new addition. If you have something that is very competitive, even the cost increases, regardless if it's capital or inflation or whatever, the market should be theoretically capable to absorb that without losing the tag of still being the most competitive new addition to the electrical systems in the markets where we operate. Well, maybe not in south of U.S., but in majority of the European markets and north of U.S. and so on. I think that's the feedback we get from our customers. So, it's important that the capital costs increase, but they are not over-concerned about that. I don't know if you have a different view. I don't know. I don't know if Julia wants to add to this, but otherwise, I just thank you for that. Thank you. The next question is from William Mackie, Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thanks for the time. I wanted to zoom out a bit and think about the next three to five years with regard to product development. When we look at your portfolio, it's predominantly around 4 to 7 MW class turbines. But if we think about the next three to five years, where do you envisage the largest reductions in customer cost of energy coming from? Do you think it's going to be around larger turbines and rotors or refining the existing platforms? My question is in the context of the fact that I think in the last six months, we've seen four or five product launches, a couple from yourself and your Danish competitor, but also from Chinese competitors. So, it's set in a view of thinking about where the next round of innovation is going to go. Ross, thank you very much for the question, really. Next three to five years, I mean, we launched N175, if I'm not wrong, like four years ago, five years ago. It's still not the best-selling product of the company. The best-selling product of the company is still the 163 that was launched eight, nine years ago. What I think we will see is N175 gaining internal market share in the product portfolio. 149 remains stable because this is going to be long lead time permits in several geographies, in France, in many geographies. It's a residual product that will remain hopefully for the next three to five years. 163 will lose internal market share. It will gain the 175. The 193 slowly will take out. I don't expect, honestly, products in the field in substantial amounts, any product different from the ones that we have publicly announced today. That's my view. I might be wrong. But in the next five years, I don't think Nordex is going to install products different than 149, 163, 175, 193 in the different drivetrains configurations. That's my view. I might be wrong, and maybe some competitor launch a different thing, and we need to accelerate, but this is how we see it today. All right. Thank you. That's very- This is going to be the same in U.S. U.S. is going to move from 149 last year, 163 this year. No 175 sold in the U.S., but this might change. We will see a product shift within the product portfolio. My second question relates to the outlook for pricing. You describe pricing as stable. Obviously, mix has a small impact on the absolute number, but you are targeting growth in APAC as well as North America. Particularly maybe when we go to APAC, your presence is there against Chinese manufacturers. I guess the question is, how do you sustain the pricing and the longer term positioning of returns when you are moving into markets where there is potentially more competition? When you move into that competition with Asian players, what is it that makes your success? Is it bankability, service capability, or in many cases in the U.S., obviously, it is market access restrictions. I wonder whether you can continue to win on measures beyond price in APAC specifically. Yeah. APAC, for the moment, and maybe we should have clarified better. Sorry for the confusion. When we talk about APAC, we are talking about Australia and New Zealand. There are Chinese competition there, yes, there are. But the prices and the margins are not that different than the average geographies. So far, that is how we see the market in that region. The rest, we haven't decided yet if we expand in other countries in that region. For the moment, it is Australia and New Zealand, and there we see average margins. Let's put it that way. Thank you very much. We have a follow-up question from John Kim, Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. All right. Thanks for the opportunity. Wondering if you could give us a bit of color on what you see in German installation dynamics. I think the last time we spoke, you were speaking of truck permits were an issue. Are there any levers, measures being thrown by the German government to kind of unlock deliverability here? How should we think about delivery cadence next year versus this year? Again, kind of specific to Germany. Thank you. Yeah. I think we are increasing quarter on quarter, the units we transport to site and the units we install in Germany, and this trend is expected to continue for next year. As this is an industry topic, of course, we are cooperating with our competitors and with the government and with our customers through the association to tackle this industry bottleneck. The government has been cooperative in understanding the challenge. We are exploring with the government different ways to go to sites using waterways. That was requested as well by the government to try to minimize impact for citizens in highways. Working with the sector and with the government to try to get the job done. Okay. Thanks. An unrelated follow-up. Can you just update us on Spain as a market, particularly from a repower opportunity? Any movement here? I would say delay. I mean, there are good opportunities, but we don't see yet a big boom of repowering there for the time being. I think the legislation gave more time for projects that won in previous auctions to be built. Not in previous auctions that got grid access. More time was given, and this had a knock-on effect in customers delaying their procurement decisions because they have more time to build the projects. Okay. Helpful. Thank you. Thank you. That was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to José Luis for any closing remarks. Well, thank you all, and let me close with, as always, a few key takeaways from this third quarter. First, we continue to deliver consistent margin improvement with an EBITDA margin of 12.7% and order intake expanding into new markets such as New Zealand and back to the U.S. with bigger volumes. This gives us confidence in our trajectory towards the end of the year. Second, strong free cash flow generation continues with a free cash flow of EUR 379 million in the third quarter. This sets the tone for another strong fourth quarter cash flow. Third, we have raised our guidance for 2026, and with this, we are within reach to deliver the upper end of our mid-term target and hopefully a good platform for further growth next year. With this, again, thank you very much and wish you a great rest of the day. Thank you very much.