I would like to welcome everybody to the FLSmidth Interim Report presentation. I'm today joined by Roland M. Andersen, our Group Chief Financial Officer. If you look at the pictures, I look actually quite happy in the picture because I'm very pleased today that we can actually start to show and demonstrate some potential what we have for the FLSmidth performance in the coming months and years. That is especially visible in the legacy FLSmidth numbers. Roland looks a little bit more serious, and he knows that we need to still do a bit of a cleanup in the company. We set up a non-core business segment. We need to do performance uplift for the former ThyssenKrupp part of the portfolio. Then, of course, we need to meet our synergy targets based on our commitment already next year. Pay attention to the forward-looking statements and caveats here in the small print. The most important highlight of the quarter is that the mining service order intake grew by more than 50%. Out of that 53%, 46% is from FLSmidth legacy business, difference is then from Mining Technologies. That is very significant growth. Why we are growing so fast is twofold. Our supply chain works extremely well. We haven't had any major issues in our supply chain for spares and wears at all. Customers are happy with our technical support and support at the sites. Closeness to customer support of the operations and supply chain is supporting fast growth in the service business. Our service business line is up and running, and they have great plans for the long-term growth and performance. Regarding adjusted EBITDA. For the quarter, it's 10.1%. From my point of view, it's a decent result, especially given the fact that underlining legacy FLSmidth performance was around 12.1% and TK numbers are diluting that profitability by two percentage points. We have planned for how to improve that performance. That is demonstrating potential, what we have not only for FLSmidth part of the business, but the future of the mining business as a whole. Cement performance continued as we've been forecasting and predicting, and it's nice steady 3% EBITDA margin. We also know that there's more potential in cement. We've been de-risking cement, focusing on the pricing and profitability, and it's now yielding some early results. Positive cash flow from the operations. One of the most significant decisions that we've done over the last couple of weeks was that we established new segment, non-core activities. We will separate that fully from the core mining business and cement business. We focus on exiting all the product lines, all the businesses in that segment. We also committed to higher synergy target of DKK 560 million on a run rate. Reason for that was that we've seen more synergies and more synergy potential from our fixed costs. Has to do with the organization, has to do with the consolidation of the facilities. We also signed our first sustainability-linked loan to support the financing of the company. The order intake in mining was extremely good, driven by the growth in the service. Capital, in my opinion, was still reasonably okay. We've been de-risking a lot the capital business and all the new orders what we get in are with a higher margin and low risk. Also that there's cyclicality between the quarters, timing of the orders, and we announced significant order in the quarter four, which is in public domain. I have no concerns about capital business growth. On the revenue side, again, service is driving the revenue growth, again, that is demonstrating our ability to deliver and how well the supply chain works. Of course, that is then supporting the overall profitability development as well. Mining EBITDA, as I said in the beginning, adjusted 10.1%, and adjustment between reported and adjusted comes from the Russian-related wind-down costs, then TK Mining integration planning costs. It's good to also highlight that when you look at the reported numbers, all the Russian wind-down and exit costs are visible in these numbers. It is tracking down the profitability a bit, but it's all visible here. While we established a new reporting segment, non-core, there has been questions about the business case of the ThyssenKrupp acquisition. The business case is solid, it's based on purchase price, integration cost, exiting NCA, significant annual cost synergies, there's lots of potential in pricing and profitability improvement for remaining mining capital and service business. Our expected payback for the acquisition is around four years. Just reminding you what we actually got from that acquisition. High-pressure grinding of FLSmidth is the new-generation technology. We are absolute market leader in this technology, both for the historical installed base, if I look at the orders over the last four years. I would like to highlight that the most important installations for high-pressure grinding typically are in the hard rock, which means that it's more wearing application. Hard rock application is copper and gold. In those applications, for example, we have 67 installations and the rest of the market is about 16. We are actually leading globally in terms of installed base and orders, especially in the orders of hard rock applications. New version of the high-pressure grinding is High Pressure Grinding, what we call Pro. It's further improving the throughput capacity, energy savings, and roll life compared to the previous version. The positive thing with this one is that you can do retrofit upgrade to all the existing installations where we are the market leader. In addition, what we got from ThyssenKrupp acquisition is a leadership position in gyratory crushing, both for the ThyssenKrupp technology and legacy FLSmidth technology, also in in-pit crushing and conveying. This also highlights importance that it's not about any single product or any two products. It's important to have full flow sheet capabilities, meaning that you need to have all the products in the portfolio. Also SAG mills, ball mills. Depending on the application, depending on the ore, you need to have full portfolio to optimize the mine process. The ones who are maybe older generation in the audience know the saying what Sears was saying in the U.S., that if we don't have it, you don't need it. Basically, we have everything in the portfolio what any mining company can need for the operations. Cement performance has continued at a good level, the mix between service and capital is at a healthy level. Capital growth, 44%, service growth, 4%, the mix is still 64% for the service. Also the capital order intake is mainly products, not projects. We've done same de-risking exercise for the cement, and it will yield over the coming months and years, then higher profitability and lower risk for the business. This really healthy and good development for cement. EBITDA of 3% is sustainable as we forecasted. Here, if you look at also the healthy development of the increased share of the service in the revenues, which will continue to support our profitability journey. We also expect this to continue, and there's still some more potential in cement. A few words about the non-core activity segment. Three first bullet points are the reason why we established this segment. We felt that the products included in the segment are of not strategic importance for the process flow sheet in the concentrate plant. Those products have no or very limited aftermarket potential. All the product lines included here are loss-making, and there was no viable commercial model to turn those around in the foreseeable future. These are all loss-making businesses that we are exiting. We don't take any new orders here. We are honoring the obligations what we have under the contracts. We are winding down all the businesses as fast as we can. There might be potential buyers for part of the business or part of the IPR, we don't know yet. This is a business that we will exit over the next two or three years. Looking at the backlog, if you are splitting the backlog in mining between NCA and continuing mining segment, there's a backlog of DKK 3.6 billion that will move into non-core segment and non-core organization. That is coming half from FLSmidth, another half from TK Mining acquisition. If you look at the remaining, backlog for the continuing mining segment is extremely healthy. 40% of the backlog is service, and also the backlog level of close to DKK 15 billion is actually significantly higher than last year without the TK acquisition. The backlog is at a good level, and the mix is really good. I hand over to Roland. Thank you for that, Mikko. Having a look at the consolidated financial performance for the quarter. Revenue up by 21% to DKK 5.6 billion. Our gross margin moving forward by 2.5 percentage points to 25.5%. That all ends up in an EBITDA of 5.9% reported. If we adjust for cost of one-off nature integration cost for implementing or integrating TK and also our Russian activity wind down related cost of DKK 70 million, the group as such had an adjusted EBITDA margin of 8%. We move on and have a look at our gross margin, the gross margin is developing quite positively. In nominal terms, it's increasing both on Q3 last year and also quarter-on-quarter, and also the gross margin is moving forward. On the right-hand side, we see that the gross margin improvement stems from both our mining business and our cement business. As Mikko touched upon, I think in mining, the regional organization has done extremely well in pushing the service business in close cooperation with our supply chain on a regional basis that has worked well for us in Q3. On cement, the gross margin pickup is even more significant. It's a blend of the reshaping activities from last year and also continued focus on product mix, our geographical footprint in first half, and a little bit the same medicine we take in cement with de-risking, increase focus on product sales and less complicated projects that starts to sit in the gross margin numbers. Our SG&A ratio hits 18%. We have in Q3 included the TK Mining SG&A cost base. There's a few costs sitting here, obviously, of one-off nature, the integration cost of TK of DKK 45 million. Certain wind down cost activities related to Russia, DKK 52 million, and we also have some currency headwind in this bucket. Our combined or consolidated group EBITDA margin also develops in a good way. We see an underlying adjusted EBITDA margin of 8%, reported 5.9%. And if you look at the right-hand side, last year in Q3 2021, we had a reported EBITDA margin of 6.1%. Last year, we also have a little bit of acquisition costs related to TK Mining, a little bit of cement reshaping and other of 1%. So Q3 last year creates an adjusted EBITDA margin of 7.5%. Since then, we have increased revenue both in mining and also in cement that has yielded two percentage point. We have increased gross margin, as we just touched upon, in both mining and cement of 2.5%. Now, including TK, as Mikko mentioned, that's diluting our margin of 2% in the quarter for mining. On group level, that dilution is 1.5%, as we put it here. Then we have extra costs in our SG&A bucket, and that leaves us with an adjusted EBITDA margin of 8%. Now, deducting our TK Mining integration cost and also the wind down cost of our Russian activities, we end at a reported EBITDA margin of 5.9%. Our net working capital ratio is flat compared to previous quarter, 9.2%, but improved from last year of 10.4%. Net working capital on the right-hand side here is up by DKK 365 million, of which DKK 296 is acquired from TK. So net working capital are roughly flat on the underlying business and slightly positive actually from the TK acquisition. And that yields us with a positive cash flow for the quarter. CFFO from the group is DKK 476 million. Then we have a small element of investments, and then the acquisition sum of DKK 2.1 billion to the TK Group. And if we look at the free cash flow and adjust it for M&A activities, it was positive DKK 433 million for Q3. And that also means that our capital structure remains well within targets equity ratio of 37%, and our debt leverage ratio is 0.7x by the end of Q3. So out of the gate with all acquisition related cash transfer to TK, a leverage ratio of 0.7x. Then we are saying welcome to our TK colleagues, and we have the first month included in our P&L. September month was the first month of ownership. It's a little bit of a special month. It's a standalone month. It's the last month in TK's financial calendar year. They do 30/09 financial calendar year. If we adjust for that, the EBITDA margin underlying here is more likely -5% to -8% or so as we start out from Q3. A few other key numbers here, cash transfer to TK, DKK 2.1 billion, which is the EV enterprise value that we have also formal disclosed, and net working capital was DKK 296 million, and TK generated DKK 52 million in September, and we welcomed about 2,000 new colleagues in the FLSmidth Group. We have also done the first cut on our purchase price allocation, the acquired balance sheet. This is our preliminary cut on that, and according to the rules, we have up to 12 months to fine-tune this. This is a good estimate on where we think things should be, and there's a bit more detail on that in our Q3 report under Note 9. We are repeating our guidance for 2022, as we set it out on 20th of October 2022, when we also announced that we would break out our non-core activities in a separating operating and also reporting segment. This is a little complicated maybe, but our mining guidance here for the full year for the first nine months includes all our mining activities, and for the last three months of the year, it's our forward-looking continuing mining business only. For the full year, we are guiding for that segment DKK 14.5 billion-DKK 15 billion in revenue, an adjusted EBITDA margin of 10%-10.5%, and an EBITDA margin of around 7.5% in that segment. Cement is not impacted by our non-core move of business. On the 20th of October, we were lifting the top-line guidance a little bit to DKK 6 billion-DKK 6.5 billion for the year and also saying that our EBITDA margin for cement will be in the upper end of the previously guided range of 2%-3%, and we are now guiding around 3% EBITDA margin for the year for our cement business. Our non-core activities will be a segment that is effective from 1st of October, and we expect to turn over about half a billion of revenue in Q4 in that segment, and we also expect to post a loss of around DKK 400 million. This includes a DKK 300 million non-recurring exit cost for various cost of legal and renegotiation, reshaping of the backlog, and so on. If we add all that up for the group, the group will post a revenue of DKK 21 billion-DKK 22 billion. We will report around 6% adjusted EBITDA margin, and our reported EBITDA margin will end up around 4% for the year. With that, I'll give it back to Mikko. We are proud that we were able to design a kind of a MissionZero flow sheet for the mine in Kazakhstan. We used all the competencies in-house regarding how to optimize the mine flow sheet. That order was announced a couple of weeks back in Q4, but that's really We are proud of that order, we are proud of that mine. It has been also a de-risk so that we focus on delivering process technology. We also established a consortium to look at how to reduce CO2 emissions in cement together with the universities in Denmark, Germany, Norway, and a few other places. Regarding our KPIs, we are doing well regarding Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and safety is improving, not yet at the target level, but compared to year-on-year. We are happy with the target, but not happy with the achievement regarding women managers. We are putting more focus going forward of our diversity, and that is not a development that we are proud of. All in all, doing well regarding sustainability and developing a MissionZero flow sheet for the mines. I would like to welcome you all to the Capital Markets Day in January 18th in Copenhagen, hopefully you can all join to that event. We go to the Q&A. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your touch-tone phone. You may withdraw your question at any time by pressing star two. Again, to ask a question, that is star one. We'll take our first question from Magnus Kruber with UBS. Please go ahead. Hi, Mikko, Roland, Magnus here from UBS. A couple of questions from me. I thought I wanted to turn to the TK Mining margin. Roland already gave us a sort of a good update on the, should I say, underlying margin in the quarter. I think you said negative 5 to 8 or something like that. That's still quite a bit below the nine-month average of low single-digit negative on EBIT that we talked about a couple of months ago. Is the sort of the underlying profitability deteriorating here? If that's the case, what's the reason for that? Thank you for that, Magnus. As I said, now we are voluntary this transparency guide. It's only one month. It's a little bit of a month with a number of different postings. I think the way we look at TK, we have acquired a part of that business that is healthy and that we will grow. As Mikko talked about, the service business and the number of the products, including the HPGR. There's a part of this business that is significantly loss-making. That part we will move to our non-core activities pocket as from 1st of October. We will accelerate, as a third thing, accelerate our synergy checkout as we have communicated as well. The big chunks here lies in the mix between service and then the loss-making NCA business. In terms of one month only, it's not reflective of any underlying run rate. Okay, got it. Even if I calculate sort of what's implied on the profitability on the core TK business, it still looks like it's sort of low single-digit loss-making for the balance of the year. Is that right, or do I read too much into those guidance numbers? Yes, that is absolutely right. Okay. Got it. Perfect. I think also you mentioned in your report that you sort of focus a bit more on the products and services and so on in the mining business and stepping away from projects. How sort of was the underlying growth rate in the business in the quarter, and can you also comment on, with stepping away from this business, how much sort of would orders have been last year if you didn't sort of take businesses that were a bit more risky? Yes, to see sort of what kind of drag we have on orders into next year from that report. If I look at the continuing mining business, we just got a significant order for Kazakhstan, which is kind of full flow sheet of products, everything what we have. It meant that we are delivering process technology to that particular site, but we don't do any civils or any of the extras. In reality, we might lose bit of empty revenues depending on the site, 10%-20% of the extras, but those extras are high risk and typically loss-making end of the day. I don't believe that we really lose business too much based on the approach, because we still deliver full flow sheet, we give the process guarantee for the performance, but we are just pushing out everything what is not related to our core technology. In that sense, I don't feel that we've lost any orders as a result. We made couple of conscious decisions this year not to take few orders, and that was the overall risk assessment of the customer and the case as a whole. Again, if we assess that there's a potential that that case would become loss-making, then we don't take it. If I look at the market share development, We haven't lost any markets. We rather have gained markets in many of the product areas. We are working better with the EPCM's, which is typically most of the capital projects. You have two interfaces. You have a customer and then EPCM, which is doing the project management. We work better with them because we don't step into each other's toes. They are doing their bit, and we are supplying process technologies. I don't think we've lost any business. Area where we have not taken volume is the non-core products. Even before closing of the TK deal, we're very selective and made lots of no-bid decisions for the ports, ship loaders, unloaders, because that's just a loss-making business, whatever orders you take in. We actually stopped taking those orders to a large extent already a year ago. It has not been visible because the market has been good, but we stopped that a long time ago already. I think maybe just to add a little granularity on numbers, I understand the question. If you look at the backlog that we are now moving to NCA, that's DKK 3.6 billion loss-making. We're saying we're going to run that off over two to three years. That's an average annual revenue of DKK 1.2 billion to DKK 1.5 billion. Maybe that gives a little bit of direction on what we forward-looking will not do. That is absolutely exactly as we want it because it's empty revenue and, in certain instances, loss-making revenue that, as we said in the beginning, is not strategically important for us. It's not boosting our service and aftermarket business. It has significant execution risks assigned to it, and it has been loss-making. That's the level of reduced MC revenue, if you will. Perfect. No, that's very clear. Thank you so much for that. We will take our next question from Vladimir Sergievskii with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Gentlemen, good morning. Thank you for taking my three questions. I assume all of them are to Roland, please. First, you recognized about DKK 1.8 billion of goodwill in relation to TK deal, and the total price paid was DKK 2.1. That means that identifiable net assets, excluding cash and TK Mining, were less than DKK 300 million, and tangible net assets actually close to zero in my calculation. Given that, how do you plan to pay back TK Mining deal in four years, given that according to your own assessment, there are hardly any identifiable net assets? Are you planning more than 100% return on those assets, or I'm missing something here? Thank you for that question. We were actually trying to answer that one on one of the slides that Mikko brought, right? The way we see it, we have a cash payment for the business, then we will have cash layout to take out the synergies, and then there will be some cash that has to be paid in the loss-making part of the non-core business. The benefits that we get from this business is the synergy take out, and it's a service business and installed base that we can grow significantly, and also a few healthy products that will complement our full flow sheet offering in total. That is basically making up the value of why we did it. In cash terms, we estimate that the payback of this acquisition will be less than four years once it's fully synergized. That's how we look at it. There's a bit more accounting technical on how you put value on different assets and so on. I think that is the crunch of why we did it. Understood. Thank you for that. If I can ask on provisions in TK. Based on your disclosure, there are DKK 600 million of provisions sitting in there, which is somewhat high compared to about DKK 200 million provisions that Thyssen itself recently disclosed as related to their mining business. Basically two questions here. First, have you used this purchase price allocation accounting to basically increase TK Mining provisions without impacting the P&L, if that's what happened? Also, second related to that, are those provisions somehow linked to this DKK 1.3 billion loss that you expect cumulatively in non-core? Those two provisions are on top of this DKK 1.3 loss? These provisions, when you do the PPA, you do a proper valuation of both your assets and your liabilities. This first cut on the PPA includes provisions that we need on the projects as they look today, and also estimated warranty provisions for a normal payout on warranties. That's what it includes. It does not include future losses. Understood. That's clear. Final one from me on financing, actually. Obviously, you have an ambitious turnaround strategy ahead of you. Fingers crossed it is successful. The question I have is how are you going to fund those costs related to this turnaround? Because on my numbers, you are likely to have cash flow headwinds from integration costs, losses in non-core, provision utilization, as you mentioned, and likely working capital headwinds as you downsize the project business. You already have close to half of your credit facilities utilized. Where the funding is coming from, and what's the current cost of this funding? Maybe you will be able to share the interest cost on your RCF right now. That's the final one from me. Thank you very much. Thank you for that, Vlad. As you can see, we have a leverage ratio of 0.7x out of the gate, which is not huge in any shape or form and well within our capital margin targets or leverage targets. That's one thing. Second thing, we're actually converting almost 480 million DKK of EBITDA to cash in our current operations. To the extent we will continue that next year, converting 300, 400, 500 million DKK of cash every quarter, that will significantly fund the journey. Then leverage expectedly will go up along the way, but not in any dramatic fashion, and we expect to stay within our leverage targets. That's great. Thank you for that. Any color on the interest costs right now for you or interest rates you're getting on the RCF included? We're not disclosing those. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen, and good luck. Thank you. Thanks. We will take our next question from Nicholas Housden with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. My first one related to some of the earlier conversations about being more selective on the mining equipment orders that you're taking. Can you give us any sense of how much higher the average margin of the equipment orders is that you're taking now compared to, say, the average order of the equipment orders that are in the backlog, please? We're seeing some percentage points improvement in order intake margin. The bigger thing is that we are not losing the margin in execution. The issue in the past has been that even with a decent order intake margin, we've been losing revenue profitability with the cost overruns and with the risk. Basically, the quality of the order intake and order intake margin is much better. It's up a bit. We are improving there. At the same time, we believe that we can actually execute on that margin. That has been the bigger issue than order intake margin if I look back two years. Okay, thanks. That's very clear. Looking at cash flows, that looks like a very strong number, in the third quarter. That's almost unusual, I guess, given what we've been seeing from some of the peer groups so far this reporting season, where cash flow has been weak because of working capital build and then currency and inflation effects on top of that. I guess, what would be quite helpful is if you could maybe give us some thoughts on how we should be modeling this going forward. Just in terms of the balance between building net working capital so that you can actually deliver on the large order backlog that you've got. Then the extent to which backlog conversion and rising margins and payment collection will be offsetting this. Thanks. Yeah. Just briefly on our cash flow. As some of you will recall, we received a lot of prepayments on a few large orders Q4 last year. Those prepayments we've actually spent in H1. That's one thing. A second thing is, as you say, other players in the industry, we have built off inventories during the first half to safeguard or secure our ability to deliver regionally to the customers, especially in our service business, but also in the capital products. That we succeeded with. That is actually one of the benefits you see in Q3 with the huge order intake or that we have seen. That is because we have built that up. That is now being steered a bit more firmly. We don't expect the inventories to increase so significant anymore. Prepayments have been, to a certain extent, spent, we are now starting to clear work in progress and so on. Expectedly, our working capital will not deteriorate as we saw it in H1. Moving forward, you would expect a working capital level of 10%-11% of revenue. That's for the next year or so moving forward. If we get an even higher share of service, you would expect working capital go a notch higher because receivables and inventory is a more significant part of the service business than it has been of the capital business. For the next three, four, five quarters, 10%-11% of revenue, plus, minus. On the longer run, if we build up the service business more significantly than we have to do as a ratio of revenue, it could go slightly higher. Okay, thanks. That's very helpful. Just finally, you have the slide on the High Pressure Grinding Rolls, quite a few of your rivals are talking about this as being quite an attractive market to be in as well. I guess, two just quick ones on the back of that. Firstly, how quickly do you see this market growing? Secondly, what share of your service orders or revenues are related to this business? Thanks. We see steady, continued growth in that market. As I said, there's not going to be a revolution in the mining market, I think that's not going to happen. It has been around for kind of 15-20 years, it has been used in certain applications. There are also applications that is less suitable. That's why I was talking about full flow sheet of capabilities, having everything what you possibly need to have. Regarding the service share, we don't give out the numbers for individual product lines. Service share of this one is very high. I mentioned that it's especially high in hard rock applications. That's why I was talking about copper and gold. Of course, the harder the rock, the more wearing it is for the rolls and for the piece of equipment, the higher the aftermarket. That's why we are proud that we are kind of dominating that part of the market. We try to give maybe some more color on the product line than in the Capital Markets Day. At this point, we are aligning ThyssenKrupp reporting with our product line reporting. It's very aftermarket-driven product, especially in hard rock. We believe that our kind of leading position in the market in terms of install base and new units sold, I think we can leverage that one. Great. Thanks very much. Once again, as a reminder, to ask a question, that is star and one on your touchtone phone. Again, that's star and one. We'll go next to Claus Almer with Nordea. Please go ahead, your line is open. Thank you. I will first start off with a clarification question. Did you say, Roland or was it Mikko, that the margins checking in today is at two percentage point higher than this underlying 12% you delivered in Q3? That would be the first. I was talking more the top line margin for the product margin, basically order intake margin rather than EBITA margin. Top line margin is improving a bit on capital side, a lot in service side. The quality of the order intake is better. What I meant that basically if we get the order intake at the as sold margin, we are expecting that as executed margin will be same. The issue in the past has been that because of the high risk exposure, we've been losing too much of that margin between order intake and execution. Capital order intake margin is much better quality than before. Meaning that then it will turn better into EBIT and then revenue as well. More down that road, could you talk about the pricing power in general between service and capital orders? What do you see both in cement and mining? We've been able to, if I start from mining, we've been able to improve in service order intake, top line product margin a fair bit, and that has been on back of the good supply chain. If the availability and service level is good to the customers, they will accept higher prices. We've been able to do inflation plus increases to service. On the capital side, it has also been inflation plus, but with a less margin. On the capital, the quality of the order intake is better. In cement, we've been improving both in capital and service also the order intake margin, and that is partially now coming through in cement result that both in service and capital, it has been above inflation. Okay. My second question goes to this non-core segment. I'm just trying to figure out how much profitability will improve once exited or divested. I know you said accumulated the value is DKK 1.2 billion. That is one-off cost, but I guess it's also provisions for future losses. What is actually the underlying EBIT improvement per year? That's a good question, Claus. This is a very volatile business. If you look at, for instance, Q4. In Q4, DKK 500 million of revenue and DKK 400 million of losses, where of DKK 300 is of one-off nature. That indicates a 20% loss. That's a good guideline for the whole thing. Underlying loss of 15%, 20%, 25%, and then we will have a one-off cost of winding the whole thing down. Sure. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. That was all for me. We'll take a follow-up from Magnus Kruber with UBS. Please go ahead, your line is open. Hi. Thank you so much for taking the follow-up. Actually, it was on the same topic there. Could you expand a little bit on what the margin is on the non-core legacy FLSmidth mining business? Is it comparable to the 20% that you just mentioned? I think there the issue is that they are also. If I look at the order intake margins for that part of the business, it's a bit like a made-up number because there's so much risk in that business that if I look back the order intake margin, then as executed margin, they are kind of miles apart. Reliability of that number is not there. If I look at the order intake margin, maybe it has been somewhat in line with rest of the capital business. In my opinion, it's a bit of a immaterial number because of the risk in that part of the business. It's not reliable comparison. Okay. Realized it's sure negative as well, I guess. In that non-core segment, everything is more or less a loss-making if we consolidate the numbers by product lines. Okay. Got it. I want to check if you could say anything about the invoicing patterns in TK through the third quarter. Was it all back-end loaded or fairly even in the quarter, or how did the orders and invoicing develop year-over-year in sort of full Q3, if you do have that for the TK assets? Yeah. I think the invoicing in TK happened relatively even. Now we've only had them for one month. The order intake was about the same level as revenue. We actually generated positive cash flow from operations. Collections were relatively better than we had expected. Invoicing on the service business is going on a regular basis. On the projects business or the NCA part of the business, it's driven by milestones. I think this is not for a lot of use for you, but more than half of their business is now service. That's a regular invoicing, but the other stuff is more milestone driven. Perfect. You just answered my final one, thank you so much for that. There are no further questions at this time. I'll turn the call back over to the speakers for any closing remarks. Thank you for your time and interest for FLSmidth. I think Roland, it's fair to say that we are proud of the quarter. I think there are signs that demonstrate the future potential of the company, but we still have a lot of work to do to restructure the company and uplift the performance. Thank you for being with us on this journey, but we just press on as presented earlier. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you