Dear ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the webcast of thyssenkrupp. At our customer's request, this conference will be recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. If any participant has difficulty seeing the conference, please press star key followed by zero on your telephone for operator assistance. May I now hand you over to Claus Ehrenbeck, who will lead you through this conference. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you very much, operator. Hello, everybody. This is Claus Ehrenbeck from the Investor Relations team. On behalf of the entire team, I would like to wish you a very warm welcome for our conference call today, which is on Q4 and fiscal year figures 2021 and of course, the outlook for 2021, 2022. Before we start, just two housekeeping remarks. First, all the documents for this call are available on the website of the IR section of thyssenkrupp. A replay of this call will be shortly thereafter available. With that, I would like to hand over to Klaus Keysberg to lead you through the slides. Afterwards, there will be a Q&A session. Thank you, Claus. A warm welcome from my side to our conference call, as you said on TK's Q4 and fiscal year figures. This slide you can see now summarizes our achievements and the key highlights from our performance improvements and transformation progress in the past fiscal year. However, I do not go into depth at this point, but would rather like to take you through it in detail the following course of the presentation. Well, I'm quite happy and pleased to report to you that we significantly improved our key financial indicators and met or even exceeded our targets. Simultaneously, we achieved major milestones in the transformation to a high performance and sustainable group of companies. Our figures on the first slide reflect clearly that we are heading into the right direction through performance and restructuring plans at all our segments and by benefiting from strong post-pandemic economic tailwinds. Thus, we recorded a fiscal year order intake of EUR 39.6 billion, a plus of 41%, strongly pushed by the joint German-Norwegian submarine project of EUR 5.5 billion at Marine Systems. Even without this big ticket, order intake was an impressive 21% higher year-on-year, while sales went up by 18%, totaling EUR 34 billion. Simultaneously, we have been able to generate a positive Adjusted EBIT of EUR 796 million. That is including the loss of materials of Multi Tracks of -EUR 298 million year to date, and compared to last fiscal year, corresponds to an improvement of EUR 2.6 billion year-on-year. The positive overall development of our company is also reflected in the free cash flow before M&A, which was improved substantially year-on-year to -EUR 1.3 billion from -EUR 5.5 billion in former fiscal year 2019/20. It should be noted, of course, that the free cash flow in fiscal year 2019/20 was also burdened by our termination of disproportionate year-end and net working capital measures. Free cash flow in fiscal year 2021 included a negative business cash flow of -EUR 284 million from the Multi Tracks segment, significant restructuring costs and mainly price-driven net working capital buildup of EUR 1.1 billion. Ultimately, stood at the top end of the guidance range we gave to you. Another important factor, of course, is that we decided high investments of EUR 1.6 billion to support the sustainable performance improvement in the years to come. Especially at Steel Europe, they spent almost EUR 200 million more than in the previous year within the strategic concept in order to actively shape the future. Let me emphasize at this point that we will relentlessly continue our efforts to render TK a much better company and to drive performance regardless of the current tailwinds. We are driving the transformation of thyssenkrupp, backed by a very strong balance sheet with a net cash position of EUR 3.6 billion at the end of the fiscal year and with a free liquidity of more than EUR 10 billion. Let us now jointly take a look at the performance in the past fiscal year, specifically starting with our performance and restructuring progress. As mentioned before, the market recovery and measures to improve performance and efficiency resulted in an Adjusted EBIT, which increased year-on-year in every quarter. All segments contributed to this. At Materials Services, higher sales volumes and rising prices resulted in a significant increase of EUR 700 million year-on-year. Industrial Components alongside the upturn in demand, the positive trend was strengthened by cost-cutting measures and actions to improve competitiveness, and thus resulted in a plus of almost EUR 200 million year-on-year. At Automotive Technology, better overall capacity utilization coming from a more profitable order structure, higher productivity at new sites and lower D&A could generate a plus of over EUR 400 million year-on-year. At Marine Systems, Adjusted EBIT was EUR 6 million higher than in the prior year, continuing the positive trend. The order book still includes some old orders with poor margin, but the performance program together with new orders is aiming to an improvement. At Steel Europe, higher net selling prices and increased shipments resulted in a significant rise in earnings. Furthermore, restructuring measures and lower D&A had a positive impact. This in total led to an increase of EUR 900 million year-on-year, but the steel business could not really benefit from the favorable spot market development in fiscal year 2021 due to its long-term contracts, but will catch up in fiscal year 2021-2022. Further points that offset Adjusted EBIT were, of course, temporary restriction on production, especially most recently, the relining of Blast Furnace 1 and rising and very volatile raw material prices. Multi Tracks gained almost EUR 300 million in Adjusted EBIT, while still negative in the fiscal year, improvements were made in almost all businesses. Moreover, we have continued the stringent execution of our headcount reduction and have extended our overall reduction target. I will come to this later more in detail. Let us continue with the portfolio highlights which relate to our clear goal that we want a successful future for all of our businesses. We examine and evaluate the development potential of the individual businesses to find the constellation that creates most value and at the same time offers the best future perspective. To improve the financial performance, we identified the key levers for value creation in every single business and use them to define appropriate measures. This includes, for some business, besides performance levels, also exits, partnerships, and closures, among other things. Our segment, Multi Tracks, that comprises business for which we pursue best owner concepts, made good progress. More than 50% of total sales are, by now 60 months after we announced our major portfolio realignment, signed or with defined exit plans. In July, we signed the sale of mining technologies to Danish competitor FLSmidth. Shortly after, we signed the sale of infrastructure business to FMC Beteiligungs KG, as well as the closing of carbon components to sale to Action Composites GmbH in Austria, both in August. In September, we signed the sale of stainless steel business, AST, to Italian Arvedi Group and closed the heavy plate production in Duisburg. As a result of these closings, that will most likely take place during the current fiscal year, the expected positive effect on our net cash position and pensions will amount to a high three-digit million EUR in total. Furthermore, the water electrolysis technology supplied by thyssenkrupp Uhde Chlorine Engineers provides a very good basis for us to benefit from the upcoming strong demand for production processes for green hydrogen. To use this upfront advantage, we are examining the option of an IPO to make the real value of this business unit visible and fund further growth. At the same time, we regard a stand-alone solution as beneficial for the steel business because we are convinced that a dedicated steel company has better chances of remaining viable in the long term. Therefore, we are examining whether, and if so, how this can be achieved. In parallel with this, we are continuing to implement the Steel Strategy 2030. We aim at gaining back a position of strength in order to go ahead, also with the green transformation, with a clear roadmap for an emission-free steel production by 2050. In view of the specific market and sector situation at Marine Systems and to give the German and European shipyard industry a stronger international position, we believe that a potential consolidation option would make sense. However, as long as the business stays in our portfolio, it can be managed to make sure that it contributes positively to the group performance. The next slide depicts and summarizes where we stand with the restructuring plans of all businesses. We extended our restructuring initiatives to a total reduction of more than 12,700 FTEs. In the last two fiscal years, we already achieved 2/3 of our previous target of 12,000, which means in absolute terms, 8,000 FTEs with an almost equal split between Germany and the rest of the world. As part of the restructuring, we had a cash out for the entire fiscal year of roughly EUR 250 million and expect a slightly lower number in the current fiscal year. Almost all restructuring provisions are made and sum up to a total of roughly EUR 900 million. Based on these restructuring efforts, we have realized from headcount reduction already sustainable savings in a low to mid three-digit million euro range during the past fiscal year and expect them to climb to a high three-digit million euro number in the midterm. Let me now walk you through each of our business segments and briefly highlight some major developments of the last quarter of fiscal year 2021 in the following, starting with Materials Services. As already shown in the Q3 chart in August, we have revised the format of our presentation, presenting one chart per segment, reflecting the group of companies concept. In addition to the business insights, we have also added some information regarding market trends on the right side. After Materials Services reported an outstandingly strong third quarter, this was continued in Q4. We have seen slightly lower shipments year-on-year due to material shortages, primarily in Europe. However, sales clearly benefited from an increase in material prices, especially for carbon and stainless steel. Simultaneously, Adjusted EBIT continued to be strong with a total of EUR 225 million in Q4, which is an improvement of EUR 276 million year-on-year, driven by favorable price dynamics clearly supporting margins as well as productivity gains achieved inter alia via a continued FTE reduction totaling 2,000 FTEs versus early fiscal year 2019-2020. These developments broadly reflect the overall market picture, where strong demand recovery is likely to drive shipments above pre-pandemic levels during the next fiscal year if supply from producers is available. Industrial Components. Moving on to this business. We have recorded a significant top-line growth, driven strongly by Forged Technologies. In the case of Bearings, growth mainly came from industrial applications in Europe, beyond Germany and the Americas. While the demand for wind energy installations was temporarily lower year-on-year as expected, given the tax incentive driven extraordinary strength of the Chinese market last year. Forged Technologies achieved significant increases in sales performance and strong demand for its components across all regions, mainly driven by market recovery and market share increase, however, with an offset effect from supply chain constraints in Europe. On segment level, Industrial Components Adjusted EBIT has increased by EUR 39 million year-on-year, particularly due to Forged Technologies driven by the top line as well as rigid cost control, increased productivity and tax-related windfall profits. This was partly offset, however, by increased factor costs. The Bearings business achieved significant earnings improvements by economies of scale and productivity increases that compensated for declining prices in the wind energy business in China and increasing factor costs. Looking further out, a positive midterm trend for wind turbines is expected with rising demand for energy and the shift towards larger wind turbines as well as rotor blades as key drivers, for which we offer the right solutions with our products and accompany these trends with long-term investment strategy. For Forged Technologies, market experts such as IHS predict continuous demand recovery and further growth for heavy duty engines and construction machinery, which obviously goes very much in line with the GDP growth. Next up is Automotive Technology, which experienced a significant upswing across all businesses compared to the prior year, supported by strong automotive demand. Automotive Technology recorded higher demand overall in the first half year and stable and good business development in China. The aforementioned bottlenecks in the supply chain became increasingly apparent at the end of the Q3. Particularly the shortage of semiconductors had a negative effect on customer call-offs, in some cases quite spontaneous and hardly plannable due to customers' production interruptions and temporary shutdowns. This also affected the fourth quarter. On the other hand, Automotive Technology won relevant long-term framework contracts in automotive serial business over the course of the fiscal year, which ensures the future capacity utilization of our plants. Simultaneously, Automotive Technology was able to improve their Adjusted EBIT sustainably year-on-year with all businesses reporting an earnings increase that is primarily based on high plant utilization rates at all businesses, particularly for new plants, a more favorable order structure and cost savings related to higher production efficiencies and restructuring. This result has been achieved despite headwinds stemming from the supply bottlenecks and increased factor costs for raw materials, packaging and freight. Taking a look at the overall market environment, IHS expect further growth in the global light vehicle production to 80 million units in calendar year 2022, which is +10% year-on-year. However, still below pre-pandemic levels, particularly due to the ongoing semiconductor shortage that might stabilize into 2022 and then start to get better after summer. However, the situation has to be closely monitored. If we apply IHS forecast to our fiscal year 2021, 2022, the global light vehicle production will be broadly flat year-on-year around 77.5 million units. Over and above, we believe that we are well-positioned with our products to benefit from the major trends of autonomous driving and e-mobility. Steel Europe benefited from the economic upswing that began at the end of summer 2020, and the resulting recovery in the demand of the European flat steel market, particularly driven by the European automotive industry. However, shipments and production in Q4 were below Q3 due to the planned relining of the Blast Furnace 1 and the associated reduced production capacities. Looking at sales, Steel Europe could achieve an increase by 34% year-on-year, mainly driven by higher selling prices and a more optimized product mix. Quarter-on-quarter, we saw first effects from better development on revenues on the one hand. On the other hand, those were partly offset by the lower shipments and higher material costs as well as underutilization due to the planned relining. Consequently, EBIT adjusted increased strongly year-on-year by EUR 232 million, but yet moderately quarter-on-quarter. Additionally, we became more efficient from the structuring process. 1,900 FTE have been largely already contractually fixed or addressed. Looking forward, let's say, with the upcoming adjustment of the long-term contracts to the actual market conditions, a significant improvement in the relevant financial ratios will become apparent progressively in the quarters to come. Moving on to Marine Systems. The segment had a very strong fourth quarter with the signing of the contract for the German Norwegian submarine program, the biggest single order of EUR 5.5 billion for six submarines in the company's history. Order backlog also reached a record level and provides great visibility. After performance of preceding quarters, the fourth submarine was delivered to a customer in North Africa, among others. Thus, Marine Systems achieved its sales target. Thanks to an above average fourth quarter, the Adjusted EBIT target for the fiscal year was achieved with an increase of EUR 50 million year-on-year, thus nicely confirming the turnaround profile. The performance program provided a major contribution to this and secured margins in orders, in new orders, as well as support the profitability of order backlog. Looking at the overall market, the Norwegian and German submarine orders could have a lighthouse effect and serve as entry tickets to additional orders from European navies. Last but not least, at Multi Tracks, there has been a significant recovery in almost all businesses. Order intake was up 62% year-on-year, with plant engineering units, chemical plants, mining and cement, as well as AST at the forefront. Sales have been increased by 18% year-over-year, with a significant improvement at AST, cement and mining, and on the offsetting side, lower sales at chemical plants. Adjusted EBIT has significantly improved from previously -EUR 211 million in Q4 2019/20 to a loss of only EUR 63 million over the same time frame in fiscal year 2021, mainly driven by improvements at AST and plant engineering, the latter being driven also by the strong progress that the mining, as well as the cement business are making. Overall, ongoing restructuring programs across all units with an increased total of now 790 measures led to an FTE reduction of roughly 2,000 FTEs. As presented earlier in the Multi Tracks portfolio updates, we made some significant progress regarding our portfolio transformation, and the signed transaction will make a substantial contribution to further improving the group's financial positions. For the outlook on the fiscal year 2021-2022, we believe that an optimistic yet cautious view is appropriate based on the structural improvements in our business, favorable economic forecast, and also considering uncertainties stemming from supply chain constraints, effects from the recent sharp increase in input factor costs, and not least, the ongoing course of the pandemic. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to formulate the forecast for 2021-2022 in ranges. Sales growth is expected to be in the mid-single-digit% range year-on-year, and Adjusted EBIT to significantly improve to a figure between EUR 1.5 billion and EUR 1.8 billion. Performance increase will be essentially driven by the significant earnings improvement at Steel Europe and the significantly reduced loss at Multi Tracks. At Materials Services, we anticipate positive effects from higher volumes in shipments. However, this will be offset by effects from a normalization of our price dynamics. At Steel Europe, we expect a significant increase by at least EUR 1 billion Adjusted EBIT as a result of planned volume and margin increase from renewed contracts and structural improvements. This performance, of course, depends particularly on the further development of the supply chain issues and the ensuing shipment volumes. For Automotive Technology and Industrial Components, we expect that both segments benefit from an ongoing favorable demand conditions as well as structural improvements. However, we'll be impacted by effects from supply chain constraints, cost increases for input factors, and normalization of wind turbine business in China. Finally, for net income, we expect a number of at least EUR 1 billion and for tkVA to be significantly positive. Looking at cash flow, beside a strong growth in earnings, we are expecting a significant increase in free cash flow before M&A to break even. All segments will contribute positively, with the sole exception of Multi Tracks. At the same time, cash out for restructuring will continue and CapEx will remain high, the latter mainly driven by Steel Strategy 2030, aiming at supporting the segment's planned performance step-up going forward. The improvement in free cash flow before M&A will come primarily from the increasing earnings and will also be dependent on changes in net working capital, also impacted by the supply chain issues at our customers and including cash flows from order intake and the payment profile at project businesses. As a result of our progress in transforming TK and enhancing performance in all of our businesses, we can confidently say we are on track, and we will reach the next stage in fiscal year 2021, 2022. Within the Multi Tracks segment, we will build on the success of the previous year and continue streamlining the portfolio. As a result, we expect positive effects on our net cash position and pensions. For thyssenkrupp Uhde Chlorine Engineers, our electrolysis business, we figure out the best option for value crystallization, currently with an IPO as preferred option. The case is strongly supported by the trend of green hydrogen that is driving the growth in the market for industrial-scale water electrolysis. For our steel business, we will continue diligently evaluating a standalone option. Besides that, our path to becoming a climate neutral steel location by 2050 is clearly defined, and we are convinced to reach the interim goal of 30% CO2 reduction until 2030. It should be emphasized that sustainability is not only an utmost importance for the steel business, but a core component for TK's group strategy and, thus, management priority. Here, the MSCI rating that has recently been raised to double A is already an initial reward for our efforts, which we will continue driving forward ambitiously. Furthermore, the largest restructuring program in TK's history will be executed in the same stringent manner as we have done it so far. Through all these efforts, we will break even in free cash flow before M&A in fiscal year 2021, 2022, an important step to sustainable cash generation in the future. Our net income will exceed EUR 1 billion, and we expect notable value creation shown in a significant positive tkVA. Further important step is rewarding the trust of our shareholder. Therefore, we give the resumption of reliable dividend payments high priority. Let me come to another issue before we come to the Q&A. A final note on our own behalf. thyssenkrupp's Capital Market Day 2021 takes place on December 2. On this occasion, our senior management from the business segment will present the strategies and financial targets in detail. Due to the current situation, the event will be conducted virtually. Registration has already been opened. Until then, and now I'm ready to take your questions. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much, Klaus. With that, operator, please take over for the Q&A session. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question for the speaker, please dial zero and one on your telephone keypad now to enter the queue. Once your name has been announced, you can ask a question. Please only ask a maximum of two questions. If you find your question is answered before it is your turn to speak, you can dial zero and two to cancel your question. If you're using speaker equipment today, please lift the handset before making your selection. One moment, please, for the first question. The first question is from Seth Rosenfeld, Exane BNP Paribas. Your line is now open. Good afternoon, and thank you for taking our questions today. If I can start out with hydrogen, please. Can you give us a little bit more color on how you're considering the various options or timeline for potential spin out or IPO of this business? Why is the spring the right time for a transaction? And what do you view as the commercial benefits to the business of thyssenkrupp maintaining a majority stake, once it's listed? Why not sell 100%? We'll start there, please. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for your question. First of all, I mean, we have not decided on any timeline. Of course, this timeline for having an IPO in spring could be a possible one, but we have not take the decision to do so. I think speed is of the essence here. This is very clear. The other question was why are we examining or why are we aiming for an IPO? I think in the previous occasions, we said that we are considering a potential IPO, but also considering, let's say strategic partnerships. Meanwhile, our decision is more that we would prefer an IPO. Why is it so? Because we want to, let's say, maintain speed, and we think it's of importance if the capital market is involved in this business. This brings us speed, this brings us agility, this brings us more focus. Of course, this brings us also, let's say, funds to grow the business. These are the most important issues why we go for this. Of course, with this, we, let's say, generate not only value, but we got also a value indication for this business. Thank you. If I can just ask a follow-up, please, with regard to the underlying hydrogen business. Obviously, over the last year, you've announced several very significant order wins. Can you give us an update on when you'd expect those to translate to tangible revenues or prepayment cash flows? Now I guess with the engineering work more advanced, are you able to provide any color on the scale of revenues expected or margin contribution, perhaps versus other parts of the business? Thank you. Seth, we are not sure whether we got your question fully right. Which business are you now referring to? UCE. Sorry, there was a problem in the line. Okay. Still for hydrogen, please. You ask for potential sales development in UCE and potential order intake. I mean, you know that we announced, let's say, Capital Market Day for UCE is coming up. Of course, here we will provide more, let's say, specific and detailed information. You know something about the size of the business up to now. You know that our sales number you know roughly. The portion of green hydrogen business of course is a part of this. But our, as you said before, our potential order intakes and our order intakes we have so far, we are quite comfortable that we can, let's say, turn this into order intake and to sales quite soon. Our order pipeline is quite good and the dynamic is very high. Please have an understanding that we cannot be so much precise at that point of time. Okay. Thank you very much. The next question is from Jason Fairclough, Bank of America. Your line is now open. Yep. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thanks for the call. Just before I ask a question, I'd like to make a polite request to Dr. Keysberg, if I could, and it's one I've made before. My request is, would you please consider using EBITDA as your key reference figure instead of EBIT? This would be in line with your peers. I'll just leave that with you for your consideration. I'm happy to discuss. My questions for you are actually on a business we don't really talk about that much, which is Materials Services. It's quite a large capital employed, I think EUR 3 billion or EUR 4 billion. I'm guessing several million tons of steel inventory. My two questions. One, how do you think about the returns in this business? Is it worth more than the value of the steel it has in the warehouses? Two, does this stay after steel leaves the business? Yeah. There are several questions. First of all, if you look at the business profile of Materials Services, I think you know this, but I just want to make clear that this Materials Services business is totally independent from the old mill, from the Steel Europe business. Only 10% is purchased by Materials Services. This is independent. A potential spin-off of the Steel Europe business does not have an effect or does not necessarily mean that Materials Services is impacted here. It's a totally standalone business on this. This is the first one. The number you said for the capital employed for Materials Services, I guess you mentioned EUR 4 billion or something. This is too high. This is not the capital employed. It's a lower number. Regarding the returns, you have to look in details because this Materials Services business has, let's say, a materials warehouse business with all kinds of business with carbon steel, with aluminum, with stainless steel and also with raw materials. If you look at pure margin, it might give you not the right indication for this. You have to look at the, let's say, some figures like Return on Capital Employed. If you look at these figures, we are convinced that with our, let's say, capital management, we are benchmark. Yeah. Clearly benchmark on this. Capital management, we think, we have a very good position on this. Yeah, then you asked, I think the last question was whether the value of the business is higher than the capital employed. Well, this has to be considered. I'm quite, let's say convinced that the value of the business would be a good one. Anyway, as you said before, we are driving the business in a higher margin because we want to go into more service business. We want to go more into with a more footprint in the U.S. This will bring margins up. As you said, whether we are happy with the margins so far, with the Return on Capital Employed numbers, we are quite happy with the businesses. Of course, strategic things to improve. Sorry, just to follow up, could you give an indication of either the capital employed or the current number of tons of steel that actually sit in Materials Services? The Materials Services capital employed is EUR 2.6 billion. Yeah. If I just take that and divide by the steel price, and that's the number of tons of steel? Well, no. Ish. You cannot do so because it's not only carbon steel, you know. It's aluminum, it's stainless steel, so you cannot do so. Sorry, it's not that easy. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Welcome. By the way, your EBITDA issue is, I recall that you once asked before, so we are working on this. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for considering it. The next question is from Bastian Synagowitz, Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open. Yeah, thanks and good afternoon. I've got a couple of questions as well, and maybe firstly a follow-up on the Uhde IPO plans as well. Can you just briefly confirm whether your IPO plan includes the electrolyzer business only, or would that also be packaged with the plant engineering part to be able the broader value chain spectrum for hydrogen, i.e., particularly storage and ammonia? That would be my first question. Yeah. Clear answer. IPO does only include the electrolyzer business, not the ammonia business, which is in the rest of the Uhde business. I think you know the structure of the business. We are pushing, of course, the electrolyzer business, the UCE business. But in parallel, we are also, of course, pushing the ammonia business. But it does not necessarily have to be combined into one business. There, as usual, there are, in every kind of business relations, which are on two levels, which are. Supplier basis. Which are on supplier basis. This is what we plan. Clearly the IPO would only consider the electrolyzer business. Okay, understood. That's obviously slightly different, I guess, from some of your peers, such as Siemens, which, I guess basically aim to keep a broader value chain spectrum, basically all together. Is there, like, a strategic reason why you're not basically keeping those two bundled? Do you think the general positioning of ammonia is maybe different versus the hydrogen business, i.e., in hydrogen you just see better market potential relative to your position in ammonia or what is the background here? Well, I think our strategy is, or let's say the strength of the thyssenkrupp Uhde Chlorine Engineers business is clearly this hydrogen business. This is the real selling point. This is a unique selling point. This, I think we have the total strength here. Here we are very successful. The other business, the ammonia business, of course we're doing this. We do not see so much, of course we do see market growth here, but we see more potential value crystallization in concentrating on the special criteria here. Okay, understood. Another question related to the business. You obviously, I guess, have your 5 GW capacity target out there. You talked about that before. You now say you pursue the IPO to also fund growth. Are there already some numbers you could at least give us in terms of what the CapEx would be required to get to the 5 GW from the current 1 GW you have? Sorry, we are not providing this kind of information at that point of time. Sorry for this, but I think you understand. Sure. Okay, no problems. At least to stay on that topic, CapEx. I guess if we look at the budget, you kept it flat versus 2021. I remember when we talked earlier, you suggested, obviously, you aim to cut it a little bit down in 2022, after a bit of catch-up CapEx in 2021. I guess in all fairness, obviously, the markets are extremely strong. I guess we've seen most companies generally revising CapEx budgets upwards. What has led you to keep the CapEx flat, and what are the areas where you're basically spending more at the moment? Is there already something in there, for example, in businesses such as UCE? Does this more go to steel? Why has it been kept flat? I mean, if you say the CapEx volume is kept flat, you are mainly right. If you look at the numbers, it is not a flat number. You know, it is 160% of depreciation, so this is a big number. Of course, the biggest CapEx is going to the steel business. Of course, we see also in the other businesses, not in the Multi Tracks business, but in the other business, we see areas of CapEx, which is partly also higher than depreciation. Because of course, we want to grow the business and we want to enable the business. Why we do this? We do this by intention. This is very clear. This is a very structural effect. Of course, we do this because we can. We clearly said that we want to transform the business into, let's say, higher margin and benchmark profile, and we clearly see that this is necessary to do. Of course, bringing this in line with our target not to burn money, to have, let's say, a break-even cash flow, this is our target. That's the reason why we go for this number here. Okay, perfect. Thank you. The next question is from Carsten Riek, Credit Suisse. Your line is now open. Thank you very much for taking my questions. The first one is on Multi Tracks. 'Cause you simply stated that one of the earnings driver for next year will be at least a marked reduction in EBIT in fiscal year 2021, 2022. Do we talk about closer to break even here already, or are we still far away based on your budget? On this one, on the Multi Tracks as well, 'cause you also said or you put Springs & Stabilizers back on the list for initiating the disposal process here. What will happen if you cannot find the best owner? That is the first kind of question. Yeah. First of all, the EBIT development of the Multi Tracks business is still a loss. It's let's say double-digit number it will be. And this is the first one. The second one, I you know of course the structure of the businesses and what we already signed so far. As I said in previous occasions, we will start with the divestiture process of Springs & Stabilizers and most of the rest of the businesses. I think this is very clear. What if we do not find a potential buyer? You know, of course we want to be successful in divesting the businesses, but as we also showed with cement business, if we are not able to come to a, let's say, to a solution which we can accept, we are not ready to do fire sales. This is still our opinion. At the moment, we are in a heavy restructuring of this business and we are quite optimistic and confident that we can restructure the business. We are not the best owner. We don't consider this, but it, let's say, it's not a question of 6 months, how to divest the business or not divest the business. We will see. Perfect. The second one is on the free cash flow guidance for the next year, which surprised me a little bit, especially given the good EBIT guidance, as it would indicate you expect almost the net working capital build rather than a reduction next year. Why are you more conservative here? Because it looks like also you had a bit of, in the fourth quarter, a very strong positive contribution from payables and receivables of about EUR 0.8 billion. Do you expect actually that this is part of the more, I wouldn't say conservative, but why you actually remain at about break even? I mean, if you look at the structure of the cash flow, then, if you first, let's say, take into consideration that we are, let's say, investing EUR 600 million more than depreciation, this is a big ticket. We still have restructuring expenses, as I said before, less than EUR 250 million, but still a three-digit number in this direction. Of course, yeah, we are also planning with working capital uplift of, let's say, a low- to mid-three-digit number. This is coming from, let's say, of course, from the growth we see in the materials business. This is very clear that we are going to have this effect here. If you count this together, you see what kind of structural effects we see in the cash flow here. That's the reason why we guide it at this number here, at a break even or slightly better. Perfect. That's very clear. Thank you very much. Yeah. The next question is from Rochus Brauneiser. Your line is now open. Yeah. Afternoon, guys. Thanks very much for taking the questions. I've got two as well. I'll take them one at a time. First, just on the sort of steel standalone option. I know you're still sort of looking. Klaus, when you were talking about the Uhde business, you spoke quite a lot about speed. Just wondering if you could talk a little bit about the timing of such a steel standalone option. I mean, clearly, there have been some news reports out recently looking at sort of 2023. Just curious on your thoughts. Is it a case of getting it out as quickly as possible, trying to catch this, you know, sort of strong spot spreads? Or you looking to reap the cash flow from the steel business that's probably likely in the next year as contracts reset? Yeah, of course. If you spin off a big company like Steel Europe, of course, this is a heavy task. This is a heavy task, and there are some effects which you have to take into account. First of all, this is very clear. We take our time because we have to. This is, if you look at other spinoffs, it's not a new, say, spinoff. It's a bigger one. If you look at other spinoffs, our timeframe as we now are planning it, is quite normal. It's not so slow. It is quite normal to do so. What are the drivers for this? I mean, clear. If you look at the spinoff of the steel business, I get very often the question, is this the right time now, or if it is in two years the right time? Because at the moment we are, let's say, in a better phase of the cycle of the steel businesses. Yes, we are. In principle, we are in a good cycle moment at the moment, but at the end of the day, you have to demonstrate that during the cycle, the steel business have to be in a position to, let's say, fulfill the KPIs which are needed for this. This is the first one. The other one, of course, is if you look at the transformation of the steel business to carbon neutral production, this is of course an issue. We also, let's say, include into the business plan this transformation. Of course, the more clarity we have here, the better it is. This is not the case that we are waiting so long until we get 100% clarity. This will not be the case. I think we are in a quite good position. At the moment we are doing a feasibility study, under what circumstances and how we can separate the business, also with regards to the green transformation. We think we will have a quite good picture, in the next calendar year. As I said a little early this morning, we will come to some kind of communication about this. Not necessarily a decision, but a communication about this in spring next year. This is what we are seeing. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's very clear. Is that clear enough for you? It's very, very clear. Thank you. If I can sort of just follow on just on that decarbonization CapEx, you gave a number of EUR 7 billion out to 2045. Could you first just confirm that doesn't include any sort of government or EU aid, so that's a gross number. Do you have any expectations over what aid could look like? Perhaps if you can give some color on how much of that CapEx comes over the next three years. Clearly the bulk of it should be coming through these DRI and remelting units that come from 2025 onwards. Is there anything significant near term that we should be baking in? Thanks. I don't know whether I've got all of your questions right, but the first question was EUR 7 billion in investment in decarbonization starting from 2025. Is this what you're saying or? Is that a gross number? Does that include any government support? No. No. It does not. It does not. I mean, you know, there are some rules. Transforming 1 million tons into, let's say, into green production needs EUR 1 billion in CapEx. This was an old one. The terms are now getting better, because of scaling effects and things like this. At the end, when you said EUR 7 billion or something like this is more or less till 2050, this is more or less a number we can. We also see, let's say it this way, it's pretty insecure still, but this may be the amount in this direction, yeah. This is a number which where there are not included any subsidies at the moment. So you know that we are. Do you have any sort of color on what subsidies could look like, any indication? Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we, of course, we are planning to invest in a first direct reduction equipment, and it will be. It should start at 2025. We have an application outstanding, and it is about. Our estimation is that a fair number would be 50% of CapEx. Okay. Support. This is not given. Just this is a fair estimation what market participants should estimate on this. This is of course something, you know, if you do this kind of businesses, you also have to look at the OpEx. I think this is very clear. With the OpEx, this is still very uncertain. This is, the question is the availability of hydrogen, the price of hydrogen, is there a bridge technology of using gas into the Direct Reduction equipment. This is something we have our ideas here, but it's very much dependent on, let's say, regulatory effects also. Next year. We are talking about Carbon Contracts for Difference and things like this, which are supporting also the OpEx. I think you heard about all this issue, but at this point of time, the most advanced, let's say, knowledge we have is regarding the CapEx. The OpEx is still quite open and needs political decisions. Just very finally, can we expect most of that sort of EUR 7 billion only really come from 2025? The next three years, sort of, before the DRI melting units and the re-melters, that isn't any significant amount of CapEx that's going in. I mean, if we are planning to build up a Direct Reduction equipment in 2025, it will start in the coming years. This is clear. It's not in 2025, it will be earlier. It will start at 2023, so at least. Oh, sorry. To clarify, 2025 is when the first plant should be up and running. Yeah. When you start building it? Okay. Understood. Running. Got it. Thank you very much. I'll turn it back. Okay. The next question from Alain Gabriel, Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open. Yes. Thank you. Two questions from my side. The first one is around the CapEx, just to follow up. Should we think about the EUR 1.6 billion as a sustainable CapEx level going forward, including decarbonization through 2023? Or will the number go up even more beyond next year? That's the first question. Difficult to say. If you exclude decarbonization, definitely the 1.6 is not a number we will maintain for a long time. This is an, let's say, extraordinary high number, which mainly is valid for steel, but also for other companies. I think normal kind of CapEx level. What is normal? You never know, but you should consider 120%, 130% or something like this if so, but it depends very much on the situation. Coming in with the transformation CapEx, of course, this will increase the number of CapEx if you do this in addition. We do not consider it to be higher than the actual amount during the next... Okay. Thank you. That's very clear. My second question is on the hydrogen business. I presume that the ownership structure with De Nora is 66%-34%. However, can you elaborate a bit more on how are the economics shared between the two parties, and what is the commercial relationship between the JV and De Nora itself? Just trying to better understand where the capital risk and the margins lie within the ownership structure. Thank you. De Nora owns 34% of UCE. You know this, yeah? We know we own the rest. De Nora has the IPs on coating of the anodes and cathodes, and they are working as a toll producer. How we recommend They are a supplier. They are a toll manufacturer. They are a toll manufacturer of the anodes and the cathodes. Yeah. Cells. The cells. Our issue is that we are, let's say, we have the IP of the design of the cells, and De Nora is building under our IP, and we are then at the end of the day assemble this. This equipment. Equipment to this, let's say, capacity then. Does it. Okay. Thank you. When we say we manufacture, we mean we order, we give this order to subcontractors. Yes. That we really can concentrate on the engineering. Yes. at the moment. Yes. On the margins, where are the margins in that whole relationship structure? Are they more on the Syncreon side? Are they more on the De Nora side? I appreciate you cannot quantify, but at least qualitatively, how should you think about the margins given that De Nora takes on most of the capital risk? Yeah. Of course, we are not providing any margins, but I think we are quite happy with the business model as it is so far, so. Okay. Thank you. The next question is from Luke Nelson, JP Morgan. Your line is now open. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Just one from me on pensions. Can you just confirm what the movement in headline pensions will be post the sale of the Multi Tracks businesses that have been signed for sale over this coming financial year? And then within that, can you just articulate what your expectations are for pension cash out in your free cash flow waterfall that you provide? And then maybe some sensitivity about what pension cash out would be in the next financial year post the removal of these Multi Tracks businesses and potentially with Steel Europe. First of all, pension dedicated to Steel Europe is roughly EUR 4 billion. It's a bit lower, roughly EUR 4 billion. To Multi Tracks some, I have to, let's say, make a guess. Roughly EUR 1 billion, a bit below EUR 1 billion. So far, the signings we did so far is that we, let's say, got a solution for the pension which means that we are not, let's say, that we don't have to keep the pensions. So far, it is the case, yeah. This is, of course, our utmost goal, not to keep pensions. This is very clear. The cash out for the pensions in the next fiscal year is. Yeah. It's always about EUR 500 million or so, yeah. It is, yeah. It's a bit less than EUR 500 million, I guess. It's the 400-something, yeah? This was the case in. Yeah. Yeah. in 2021. That's true. If you're now asking what kind of numbers are going out, I think you can make your calculation by your own and just having the ratios we just gave you. Okay. Does that make sense? Okay, yeah. Thank you. The next question is from Christian Georges, Société Générale. Your line is now open. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry to go back to the hydrogen, but in the IPO you're considering, 60%, you know, with 34% of De Nora. I mean, is it you who would be passing on some of the stake, or is it De Nora, or who exactly is reducing their stake in the company? Well, this is something we at the end of the day, this is not decided at the moment. We are just examining on this, but it could be a possible solution that both parties would, let's say, would give shares to the market, let's say it this way. There has been no decision at the moment. Okay. No, no, I understand. Just to be clear, I remember you mentioning that a part of the IPO, for instance, that you were considering was also that you were keen to retain some of your key employees in the business and you had to be able to motivate them. The proceeds you would get from the sale, are they all to be reinvested in the business or could you use them to reduce pensions? Could you find them alternative usage? Well, I think we use this to finance this kind of business here. This is at least what we think we are going to do with this. But of course, in having said that, of course this leaves more potential for the remaining business. I mean, this is clear. The intention is to leave the money in the business. Of course. Like the idea of raising to 5 GW of capacity to some extent, the finance will help that. Yes. Okay. My last point on this business is, and I know it's gonna be a tricky one for you to answer, but we've got values flying around, you know, EUR 5 billion on Bloomberg and so on. Obviously, you can't tell us much about the business itself, and I assume there are some projections which are being made available privately. First of all, is EUR 5 billion something which you would consider ridiculous? And B, how can we find a way of giving a value, you know, on your business? What should we look at? Sorry for not giving you an answer on this. We cannot comment on any valuation of this business here. I have to tell you, look at the outstanding material, the available material here, but we cannot give you an indication what kind of business is likely to be or is valid. Sorry for this. Well. Cannot comment. I appreciate that. You know, between now and the spring, chances are there's gonna be a lot of value flying around on, you know, major newspapers, magazines and so on. I mean, at some point, would you be able to give some kind of indication of a range, you know, before we come to the summer? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. The timing would be the spring, as I suspect, or like late winter? We have not taken any decision on this, but. Okay. This could be a possible window to do so, but, as I said before, we will see. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. You've tried hard. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from Krishan Agarwal from Citigroup. Your line is now open. Hi. My question is already answered. Thanks a lot. Okay. We will go on to the next question. It is from Andrew Jones, UBS. Your line is now open. Hello there. I just have a couple of questions. First of all, on hydrogen. Can you just give us an idea conceptually, like where you see the value in the business? I mean, I know you can't comment on the valuation, but in terms of the build out to, say, 5 GW. I saw that ITM Power built a 1 GW factory for, you know, not very much, I think. I forget the CapEx figure, but it was pretty low. So, you know, I mean, I guess the capacity that you have isn't where the value lies. Maybe it's in the IP, but I think it's, it seems like this is a relatively well-understood technology from what I can see, as it's obviously been used for many decades. You know, I'm just trying to get an idea, not to comment on the valuation, but where you see the sort of competitive edge for this business and what stops you know other new entrants with a decent-sized balance sheet coming into the space, given the attractive outlook for growth. That's the first question. Just secondly, on the steel business, obviously you're looking for a decent uplift and I guess that's on annual contracts and so forth. Could you give us any sort of steer as to how you're thinking about pricing for next year and you know around those contracts, maybe a share of your volumes that you're potentially looking to lock in in the near term for 2022? You know, an idea if there's maybe some of the assumptions behind your guidance for the steel business? Thank you. Okay. Let me just try to come to the first question. What is our competitive advantage here? If you look at the history of the business, you know that we with the Uhde Chlorine Engineers, it was, they have, let's say, clearly the capability, because they already did this production of chlor-alkali electrolyzers. 50% of the worldwide installed capacity of chloralkali electrolyzers are built by thyssenkrupp Uhde Chlorine Engineers. This is the first thing, because turning this, let's say, capacity into or the production of this into water electrolyzers is nothing. It's technically very easy to do. It is very clear that we have the total supply chain not in our hand, but let's say we are able and we. In place. It's in place. We have the total supply chain in place already for installing one gigawatt capacity, and we are the only one who really did this in this kind of environment. This is the biggest, I think, advantage and selling point we have. Ready for industrial scale. Yes, of course. Yeah. Which is a big advantage. You will barely find someone who did this. Well, proved that they are able to handle the supply chain to do so. Does it answer your question? Not really. It's more that, you know, if I look at, you know, Nel or ITM Power or these guys, I mean, they're building out capacity and they're, you know, entering a similar market. Okay, with a different technology. You know, it doesn't seem as though getting into that market is that difficult from what, you know, these guys seem to be talking about. I'm just a bit. I mean, if you have like large numbers of, say, Chinese competition or others, I mean, you know, how confident are you in maintaining market share as that market, you know, explodes potentially over the next sort of decade? Well, we have very strong IP in this business. Mm-hmm. Based on this IP, we were able to develop our current market position. Mm-hmm. We can also prove that our alkaline water electrolysis operates very efficiently. We are operating them with a speed of 12 kiloamps current density, which is unique in the industry. We can give customers very competitive cost of ownership, which is proven by our existing technology, but which is surely true for the alkaline water electrolysis, meaning for the traditional and for the new one. There must also be a reason why at quite early stage we have gotten nominated for some industrial scale projects. Mm-hmm. We talked about NEOM already, that we are involved in NEOM and we are involved in others. Not every project we are allowed to announce for confidentiality reasons. We believe there is good proof that there's a lot of value in this. Is there just a follow-up to that? Is there a risk that, you know, I mean, I don't know how much of the IP, you know, is on the De Nora side. It seems like on the anodes and cathodes side, it's, I mean, is there a risk that, you know, they could potentially use some of this technology with another partner at some stage? I mean, how much of a risk is there around, you know, the De Nora potentially branching out in another direction? Andrew, probably the best is we discuss this in such details more in a bilateral session or so that we come back to you and take some time to. Mm-hmm. Sure. To go more deeper into the issues that you're raising and what I want to discuss. Mm-hmm. Sure. Okay. Just on the steel business, and the assumptions for, you know, behind your forecast for the next year. Yeah. If you look at the actual market conditions, I think you know them, of course, all. Spot price development went up last calendar year or last fiscal year, and is still high. We saw a bit of a reduction the last couple of weeks, but now coming to a phase where we see at the moment flat price development. Raw material prices, after a peak in the middle of last calendar year or of this calendar year, went down very much. Iron ore, coking coal not, but iron ore. If you calculate a spread coming out of these ratios here. Because of our long-term contracts, we think that we will be able to maintain a quite high level of spread also in the next fiscal year. Yeah. Because with these contracts, we can lock in the sales, the revenues here. We see a quite high number of spread here also for the current fiscal year. Mm-hmm. What we at the moment see is, of course, also if you look at the range we guided you. The question is the problems with the semiconductor and supply chain issues, yeah, how much does this influence, let's say, our volumes in steel business. Mm-hmm. also in the Automotive Technology business? How much is it influencing this? Our estimation to this is that we at the moment see the worst situation. At the moment, it is the worst situation, and we do not think that it's going to be worse in the future. We will have to deal with this issue through the next calendar year, but it's going to improve during the year. This is what we see here. Therefore, let's say the EBIT number for the steel business is more a function of volumes than a function of the spread. This is. Mm. How we look at it. Okay. Could you just remind us what proportion of your or, you know, what sort of volumes are up for potentially repricing, going into calendar year 2022? I mean, in terms of sort of millions of tons. First of all, spot price or spot dependency is 10% or something like this. If you talk about the first of January, I think we are talking about. Did we provide these numbers? No, we did not. I just gave you. It's a large portion of our yearly volume. It is a large portion. You would expect to fix those prices for a year, right? Sorry? Would you expect to be booking those at fixed prices for, you know, the remainder of the year or, you know, is there a risk that given the volatility in recent times, there may be some sort of quarterly, you know, repricing or something like that? Is it your expectation that these contracts remain fixed? I mean, we have I think fixed conditions with our partners. We have customers, especially if you look at the tinplate business which go for 12 months. The automotive business goes sometimes for six months, sometimes for 12 months. This is more or less how it works. six-12 months is. Mm-hmm. The majority. We have also having cases also three months, but it's more six-12 months. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no further questions, then, well, we think we can conclude the call. We would like to thank you very much for your participation. As always, for any follow-up question you might have, the Investor Relations team is of course happy to be in contact with you. Thank you very much and enjoy the rest of the day. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance. This conference has been concluded. You may disconnect.