Welcome to FLSmidth Q1 2025 earnings call. We are very pleased about the result that we were able to deliver on Q1. The highlights are that we exceeded expectations with the order execution in service, backlog management, supply chain. The improvements that we've done in that area are now visible in higher-than-expected revenue. Of course, service revenue is driving the profitability. Very pleased with that one. Order intake, both in capital and service, is in line with our expectations. We see areas for growth inside those numbers. We've seen growth in consumables and also pumps and cyclones-related capital orders. Those are two areas that we've seen year-on-year growth. Adjusted EBITDA 15.1%. It means that we are now in the category of a quality company. That is a big milestone for us. We want to become and be the quality company in 2025. It means high-quality order intake for products, high-quality order intake for services, predictable high margin revenues. In cement, we reached an agreement for exclusivity with a potential buyer. We now have a period of exclusivity where we are aiming for closing of the sale of the cement. At the corporate level, we are welcoming two new Presidents: Julian, to be President for mining products for capital business, and Tony Larkson, as Head of the Services, expected to join in the beginning of June. We also ceased non-core activities, so that is now officially closed. That segment does not exist. There is more backlog, which is now part of the mining capital. We are very confident about our performance, and therefore we increase our guidance for the full year. Regarding ESG and sustainability, we are advancing with most of the KPIs well ahead of the plan. Last year, the only area which requires continued attention is safety. Safety mainly inside our own operations, not at the customer's sites. On the left, we are also highlighting areas that are high interest for the customer in the area of sustainability: recycling of mill liners. We launched that in Antofagasta in Chile, caused a flotation sale. We got an order for the largest tower mills, vertical mills in the world, with significant energy savings. We have been looking at tariffs and potential impact for the company. The conclusion is that it does not have any material impact on our operations, nor for the profitability. We have a fairly significant footprint inside the USA, and most of the commercial terms are such that the customer will carry the extra cost of the tariff. This is also one reason we were able to raise guidance for the full year. We do not expect anything material, negative, coming out of the tariffs. Tariff impact on the whole global economy is a different thing. Of course, if the global economy would go into recession, that would impact all the companies around the world. Tariffs as such directly will not have a material impact on FLSmidth. When we are looking at the market, the service market is stable and active. We had a slight softness in the first part of the year in North America. It seems that the North America market in services, OPEX, is back in the business. That softness is gone. Product market continues to be similar to last year. We have not really seen any change in the market. The activity in EPCMs, what we actually referred to in the previous calls, when visiting Chile a couple of weeks back, talking to major EPCMs, everybody is still super busy. Everybody is short of resources to attract, to do the work. That work is still study work, preparation for the projects. We are expecting activity in the actual execution to pick up toward the latter part of 2026. We continue to be a leader in technology, and that is very significant. Even with a smaller capital order intake, we are highlighting the fact that we are getting significant orders there in terms of technical references and cementing our position as a market leader. This is something that we wanted to highlight to you, what we have done with the portfolio. This has had an impact on profitability and also for the volumes. We have given up quite a bit of volume to improve quality of earnings. NCA backlog, non-core backlog, when we started winding down the business, was about DKK 3.5 billion. We had lots of third-party content in projects. On average, 30% of what we sold and delivered was third-party. We have been scaling down basic labor services in all parts of the world. As a result, it has had roughly DKK 3 billion impact on our volumes. As a result, in our estimate, the EBITDA percentage has gone up between 3%-4%. The portfolio choices ensure that we have a high-quality order intake, high-quality revenue, and therefore a very predictable business model. At the same time, we have a full portfolio for mining flow sheet. We have the best and fullest portfolio there. We have not given up any critical elements in the process plant. We have everything what one needs to build a plant. Regarding order intake, we are happy with the order intake. It's at the level of what we expected. We are still estimating service order intake to be stable for the remainder of the year, and typically around DKK 2.6 billion-DKK 2.8 billion. This quarter was right in the middle of that estimate. As I presented about portfolio pruning, with the portfolio what we have and what are the cases in the marketplace, we are happy with the DKK 1 billion order intake. Inside that DKK 1 billion order intake is also increased conversions of the pumps, meaning that site sales selling pumps to existing installations and also winning key orders for technology. To highlight what I mentioned in the previous slide about scope, we announced yesterday Lloyds Iron Ore, which is one of the future flow sheets for mining in iron ore beneficiation. We announced flotation order. There was an opportunity to take 30% more volume by having third-party content in our order. We recommended customers to go direct to third parties rather than passing that through our books. By choice, we took the product order, technology order, and recommended customers to go direct to third party regarding non-core technology. We are very disciplined at the moment when we are taking orders, talking to customers so that we stick with the technology and services in our portfolio. As I said in the beginning, the big success of the quarter was service backlog management and order execution. It shows that we've done improvements there to the previous year where the revenues were slightly behind order intake. Now we can do the catch-up. Very pleased about that improvement over the course of the latter part of last year and the first quarter. That, of course, ensures that we can deliver good results for the quarter and for the year. I said in the beginning that I feel that we are entering into category to become a high-quality company. Adjusted EBITDA of 15.1%, reported 13.7% is a sign of that one. With every quarter continuous, we are pushing up the profitability, improving the quality of the order intake, quality of the revenues. It's finally showing what we are doing. We are very proud of the result. This has been hard work for two or three years. We see the benefit of that one. Therefore, we also increased our guidance for the year. We can't talk too much about the cement sale, but we've entered into an exclusive agreement with a potential buyer, Pacific Avenue Capital Partners, which is a financial sponsor, private equity fund. Criteria for going into an exclusive period with Pacific, our criteria is that the buyer needs to be willing to take full perimeter of cement. Also, we've been assessing about deal certainty. Full perimeter, deal certainty were the key selection criteria for choosing Pacific to be shortlisted for the exclusive period with us. Cement order intake on the low side, slightly disappointing quarter for quarter one for services. We are expecting some recovery in the coming quarters. Revenue very much in line with the expectation. You can see that I'm going through the cement result quite fast because our expectation is that we could conclude the negotiations with Pacific in the coming weeks and months. Adjusted EBITDA margin for cement, 9.5%, and reported 8.6%. Very proud of this one. It shows that same medicine, what we've done for mining, de-risking, focusing on service, pricing, all that is resulting in higher relative profitability as before. Handing over to Roland. Thank you for that, Mikko. Having a look at the consolidated financial performance, as Mikko mentioned, our product portfolio, our pruning of our product portfolio, as well as NCA is now out of the book. Hereafter, our revenue for the group is DKK 4.7 billion. Adjusted EBITDA margin for the group of 13.9% and then reported EBITDA margin of 12.6%. Net profit and loss for the group of DKK 351 million. Gross profit continues up at a long-time high, 34.4%. It's driven by both mining and cement, and both segments had good share, relatively strong share of service revenues in the quarter. Our SG&A cost compared to same quarter last year are flat, and compared to Q4, it's down. It reflects that we continue our simplification and getting our global organization in place. Our administration costs have started to come down, and it's offset so far by strategic investments in the sales side. So S a bit up, A a bit down. The combination will come down in the quarters to come throughout the remainder of the year. We will be at a different lower level as we come into 2026. Group EBITDA continues up, as mentioned by Mikko, 13.9%. On the right-hand side, we do the EBITDA margin bridge, where it is clear that most of this for this quarter is driven by a very healthy gross margin percentage. Our net working capital in line with our expectation, 12%. Payables are somewhat down and offset by work in progress, as is a bit of reductions in trade receivables too. That means our cash flow improves around CFFO minus 12% compared to minus DKK 352 million at the same quarter last year. A free cash flow for the quarter after M&A of minus DKK 120 million. That means that our leverage ratio is flat on Q on Q, 0.4x, well below our capital structure target. As we got off to a good start in mining, a good start to the year in mining, we lift our financial guidance for the mining division from previously 13.5%-14% to now 14.0%-14.5%. The cement guidance remained unchanged. That means that the group's guidance increased on adjusted EBITDA margin from previously 12.5%-13% to now 13%-13.5%. A reported EBITDA margin for the group is lifted also half a percentage point to 11.5%-12.0%. With that, I'll give you back to Mikko just to wrap up before we take Q&A. As a summary, we are very confident about our performance at the start of the year and for the full year. That's why we upgraded our guidance. Supply chain works well now, both for service and capital. We do have alternative sources for supply depending on how the tariff situation will continue. I have full confidence on that one. It will not have any material impact on our profitability. With the portfolio pruning, we have reached the target portfolio, meaning that we have become a product technology company with a 65%-70% share of the service. We are a totally different profile as we were when we started this transformation journey. We have all the key products in our portfolio. We have not given up anything that is significant to the customers. It is evident now that the investment into commercial front end is paying off. We see growth in consumables and pumps, cyclones of ours as well. Both businesses show year-on-year growth. Also, we are very happy that we have chosen Pacific and entered exclusive negotiations about divestment of full cement perimeter. As I said before, criteria for selection was full perimeter and then deal certainty. Those were selection criteria for the party to go exclusive. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any time your question has been addressed and you would like to withdraw your question, please press star, then two. Your first question comes from Christian Hinderaker from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, Mikko. Hi, Roland. Hi, Andreas. Thank you for the presentation. My first one's on the mining service mix. I guess curious whether basic labor contracts are now at zero and how do we think about the percent of service sales or orders more broadly across consumables, capital spares, and refurbishments this quarter. Maybe you can remind us on the typical lead times for those pieces. You flagged in the report hesitancy around capital equipment. I wonder whether that's positive or negative currently for refurbishment and modernization. I'll start there. Looking at the service, we have only one large labor service contract left. In that sense, we might say that there's no materiality, starts to be quite small. You can consider that the portfolio is something what we want to have. Instead of basic labor service, we have professional services, which is high-level services. Looking at the service mix, the highest share is spare parts. Second highest is wear parts or consumables. The remaining maybe 25%-30% maximum is then professional services, upgrades, refurbishments. By far, the largest portion is spare parts and consumables. We do not give out the exact percentages. We have not seen any big hesitation in upgrades and refurbishments. What we see in the activity is exactly as before. We have seen no hesitation to do needed refurbishments or upgrades. It is more about timing of the operations. For most of the customers, it is not a financial decision. It is more an operative decision when it is a good time to do those upgrades. We have seen some customers in South America, for example, upgrading and repairing mills. We have seen those orders actually coming in. You ask about capital spares versus recurring spares. It is not an exact number, but in rough terms, 70% of the spare parts is annually recurring and 20% is not annually recurring. Of course, that 30% will not go to zero maximum every year, but there is a volatility there. Spare parts are 70% annually recurring, 30% is basically capital spares, and there is more variability there. Thank you, Mikko. Very clear. Maybe the second one then, just in terms of the SG&A cost ambitions, there was the good improvement on gross margins, but how do we think about the SG&A progress as we look ahead? Yeah, the way to think of it is that the savings will come in gradually over the year. We did a lot in Q4. We also have done something in Q1. There will be more pruning as we go through the year. It will come in drip-wise. In Q1, we still have a lot of people working here. We've done most of the salary increases as from 1st of January in most of the world. Yet, as you see, administration costs are coming down, sales are slightly up, and the combo will come down slowly but surely throughout the year. We're not going to give you numbers yet. We'll move forward, and then it will come by the end of the year. Thank you, Roland. Maybe just a quick one. Cement gross margin delivery, I think you had an inventory write-down last year in Q1. At the time, it wasn't quantified. Are you able to help us now with that magnitude? No. No, we're not giving that granularity. I think the gross margin, as you see it now, is a relatively clean number. That should be helpful. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Casper Blom from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Pardon me, Casper, your line is now live. Thank you. Your next question comes from Claus Almer from Nordea. Please go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, also a few questions from my side. This first one is, as you also mentioned in the presentation, is this growth you had within pumps and cyclones of 10% year over year. And you also had some comments about the nature of this growth. Could you put some more color to is it mainly successful testing in the mining sites that is triggering some conversion, or is it more the usual customers that are buying more pumps? That would be the first question. It is dominantly conversions because the project activity is quite slow. The share of the project sales, meaning that it's part of the project packets, the pumps and cyclones, is much below the normal level. It's mainly success converting other brands out and replacing those with the Krebs FLSmidth brand. It's dominantly driven by site sales and conversions. Congratulations. We've been discussing this in the past that you could actually offer these pumps at a rather huge discount and still make a good business case out of it. If this growing 10% in the order intake means, I guess, that you are getting a decent price on these pumps and cyclones. Is that a correct assumption? Typically where you see big discounts on pumps, you see as a part of the capital package. If they're part of the big package, sometimes you see discounts there. Typically, if you do site sales, you get full price because reason to change out other pump is never commercial. It is always performance. In that sense, there is no price competition at the site level. You see price competition when you are bidding a large package and then pumps as a part of that package. With the site sales, our product margin for pumps is actually at a really good level because it is a technical sale, performance sale, it is not a price sale. Sounds good. Should we expect this 10%-ish level to continue throughout the year, or is it an easy come from last year? We are pushing for a year-on-year growth, and whether it is 10% or 6% or 7% or 8%, we do not know. I think it is a very promising start for the year. Of course, there's some variability between the quarters, but we are confident that we can grow year on year. We do not give exact percentage of our internal targets. Of course not. Okay. My second question is, I guess, to you, Roland. You did 15.1% EBITDA margin within mining Q1. How should we see this level compared to the 13%-15% 2027 guidance range? Yeah, thank you for that, Claus. First of all, the 15 is an adjusted number. As I'm sure you've seen, half a percentage. I think you should look at it as a good quarter. It's an adjusted number. Our reported number for the quarter is 13. We are pushing towards the long-term range. I'll leave it at that, Claus. That sounds great. Fair enough, Roland. We'll do on this in this quarter. I think that was all for me. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Tul Sangman from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Yes. Thank you for taking my question too from my side. The first one would be your mining peers are more positive on mining equipment demand, strong growth rates here. So my question is, are you losing some market share here, or is this rather due to the changes you made to your portfolio? That would be my first question. I'll come back with another one. Thank you. We're actually not losing any market share. We are rather increasing the market share because we are, as I said, we are focusing on core technology. We do not take third-party content in. Yesterday, we announced a significant order from India for the iron ore flow sheet. The same customer gave us an order for the largest HPGRs in the world, which we flagged before. We are basically dominating the market. Also, that is 18 vertical mills, and now we got the flotation. There is quite a lot of competition for the flotation. It seems that our technology was superior there. We do not think that we are losing any market share. We are rather increasing market share in some of the products, but there is a big impact that with the last order, as an example, we left more than 30% of volume to the table because we did not want to take third-party content in flowing through our books. That was a decision where we are very disciplined about quality of earnings, quality of the order intake. Whenever we can, we always push third-party content out. Of course, it results that the deal that was announced yesterday is 30% smaller than what was on offer. It was our conscious decision to focus on quality of the earnings, technology, and products, not third-party content in signing that agreement. Very, very well understood. Thank you. My second question would be, you had a very strong margin now in mining in Q1. I am just asking myself, compared to this, the guidance range that you listed up just looks like a small raise to me. Is this because you expect the revenue catch-up effect that you had in Q1 to cease over the coming quarters and thereby lose some operating leverage, or are there some other reasons for this? Thank you. I think that there are a few considerations, right? First of all, we had half a percentage point of what we did in Q1 was asset sales. We also had a relatively strong, I think we had 74% revenue from service business, which is not a continued thing. Secondly, it's relatively early in the year and a lot of turmoil in the world and just adjusting upwards. Yeah, there's a lot of uncertainty around certain parts of the world. We found this prudent. This is what we can stand by and what we are confident we can deliver. That was behind the upward adjustment. That's well understood. Thank you so much. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lars Topholm from DNB Carnegie. Please go ahead. Yes. Congratulations with the quarterly results. A couple of questions from me. On the gross margin of 35.1% in mining, how should we think about that looking ahead? Yeah, I think we've indicated 32%, 34%, even up to 35% if the service content is really high. A good average is around 33%, which is sustainable. Depending on the mix, if it's really like now high service mix, it can be pushed above 35%. Underlying, if you start from the product margin in the company, we don't see big changes in product margin in order intake or revenue. If we, of course, manage the under-absorption and all the other line items, I think around 35% is sustainable throughout the year. That was very clear there, Mikko. You have previously commented that in mining to close the margin gap to a metal, you need more top line. Now it seems you are close to spinning off the cement business. How should we think about that top line growth, which I guess has to be inorganic? When will we start to see mining do M&A? Will this be one big or many small acquisitions? What words could you put on that? If I first focus on organic growth potential, which is more incremental. I think, as Roland said earlier, we're still pushing for the SG&A and efficiencies. We can actually become still much more efficient. We are not happy with the SG&A level, what we have at the moment. I think still continued work on SG&A and efficiency will actually close the gap quite well. Of course, it becomes a volume question. We actually then bolt-ons, I think we have authority to do from the board. Then bigger acquisitions, we would need to debate with the board and come up with a strategic direction for that one. Bolt-ons, we still continue to do when those become available. Bigger ones, I think strategic moves, I think, yeah. Maybe I am just twisting and turning your words here, Mikko, but you sound more comfortable in closing most of that gap for metal organically than when we spoke six or twelve months ago. Is that just me or is that correct? I think, Lars, if I can just, our long-term target is 13%-15% reported EBITDA margin, right? What Metso does is a little bit different. That is what we stick to, just for the avoidance of doubt. What we are saying is in order to get potentially better than that as we move forward, we will need to grow. We will grow better than the market in our service business, and we will grow with the market, with the current product portfolio as we have now in our products business. On top of that, we will do bolt-on acquisitions and potentially larger acquisitions if we can get them. That will bring us potentially further than our current long-term targets in 2026. That is very clear, Roland, thanks. A final question. Now you have, of course, highlighted you are beginning to look like a quality company. If I may be cruel here, quality companies have positive cash flows. Can you comment a bit on the bridge to a positive cash flow, but maybe more interestingly comment on what the cash flow looks like in mining isolated? I mean, you are doing EBITDA of 559 before special items. If I add back, let's say, $50 million of your total, $68 million in depreciation, that's an EBITDA of $609 million. I assume most of the working capital change applies to mining. Then you are in round numbers at $180 million. That's before tax and before CapEx, which basically means there's no cash flow lift. Is that rough calculation approximately correct? And what moving parts play in when you look a little bit ahead where I assume you have an ambition of making a positive free cash flow? No questions. No, no, that's not at all cruel, Lars. You're absolutely right. That's what needs to come. The way we look at cash flow, Q1 is never a great cash quarter. This was better this year and considerably better than last year. This is the quarter with the bonuses relatively seasonally low and also tax payments and yada ya. What we're saying this year, we expect CFFO to be better than last year of DKK 640 million, but no more than DKK 1 billion. We can all run our numbers on the directional CapEx, 2%-3% of revenue we are giving. We're also saying that our provisions, especially other provisions, need to come to half over the next two to three years. When that happens, and that will come in lumps, our free cash flow will be positive, and it has to be positive. We agree with that. That's the type of guidance we give on that for now. Can you put a word on the working capital rate relative to sales in mining standalone? Yeah, most of our balance sheet is mining, and that includes the working capital. Most of it is mining. That also means if you want to, we'll give later guidance if and when cement will leave the company, we'll give an update on the ratios and so on. That means you can assume that the current level of working capital will stay, albeit with a lower revenue in mining, of course. I think that's what you are asking for. On your margin journey and on that growth journey, should the working capital change in mining increase? The net working capital, if that stays in nominal terms and revenue becomes pure mining revenue, then our ratio will be higher. It will not have a negative cash flow impact. It will be a mathematical change in the ratio, and the ratio will be more in line with peers. That I understand. But then if you look two, three years ahead, will it then stay at the current ratio in mining, or will that ratio increase? Expectedly, that will be increasing slightly as we become more of a service company. Okay, though. That's very clear. Great quarter, guys. Really well done. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Klaus Kell from New Credits. Please go ahead. Yes, hello. Two questions from my side as well. First of all, just getting back to these margins in mining, and I guess, yeah, we are all pretty impressed. So I can ask perhaps in a slightly different way. Have you had perfect execution in mining in this quarter, or yeah, how should we think about that? That would be my first question. I would say very good execution, but far from perfect. So I think we still have room to improve. I would not call it perfect, but I think improvement compared to the past. If I look at the margins above our gross profit, so that order intake margin for capital and service, they are stable year on year. Also, the revenue product margin, top line margin is stable. Most of the swing between the kind of 35% what we saw now and then maybe 33%, even down to 32% is with a mix. The underlying top line margins are rather stable. Of course, we are managing then the other line items between product cost and gross profit the best we can. We have full attention. They are quite stable at the moment. There are no big movements in top line profitability, meaning product margin. Okay, okay. Also a question related to this pump and cyclone business. Could you talk a little bit about what kind of size this business has? Yeah, we can't see that in your numbers. Talk a little bit about your global market share and what kind of runway you potentially could have in this business. We are not disclosing separate product areas, but what we are saying on PCV, which is sort of one area for us, is that we have a market share of around 10%, and that is set to grow. That is our ambition. Yeah, okay, but you have a market share of around 10%. Okay, what is the market size? That is a longer discussion, right? You have a major market player, which is Weir, and then you have Metso in there as well, and you have a tail end of players in that market. We're not going to, on this call, give you the specific numbers you're asking for. That is not disclosable. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough. Last question about this business. Could you just mention whether this margin in this business is above or below your margins for the mining business? So it's the highest. If you look at the businesses all combined, it's the highest margin business what we have. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next question comes from David Farrell from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Morning, everyone. Congratulations on the results. A couple of questions from me. Firstly, in terms of the mining service revenue growth, you specifically call out effective management of the order book there as driving that. Is that inferring that you've accelerated some service revenue into the first quarter from the second quarter, and therefore that kind of service product mix will swing back quite sharply in the second quarter? We actually have not done any acceleration, but if you look at last year, we were a little bit falling behind. In the steady market, we have a slightly higher order intake than revenue, meaning that we slightly fell behind. I think now we are more on top of kind of order execution, meaning that this will be more steady going forward. There was no acceleration. We just fell a little bit behind last year if you look at every quarter order intake and then revenue. It is a bit of kind of catch-up, but there is nothing unusual there. We are letting everything flow through the books and deliveries as they go through. We have not done any extra acceleration, just better management of backlog and then supply chain. Thanks for that clarification. My second question relates to the cement disposal. Excellent news there. I think people may be a bit concerned given the macroeconomic backdrop that that might be kicked down the road. Can you give a bit more detail as to when you moved into exclusivity conversations and whether or not Pacific Avenue have got their financing in place for a transaction? Thanks. The information we give here is what we are going to limit ourselves to give you that information. We are disclosing the party's name to send the signal that the process is moving forward. That is what we are going to leave it at. It is a delicate moment of that process. Whether there will be a transaction or not, we will have to see. That was the intention with that statement. We cannot give you the details in that level of detail that you're asking for. Okay, thanks. I thought it was worth a try. Fair enough. Thank you. Your next question comes from Casper Blom from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Thank you. Sorry for being silent earlier. I had some technical difficulties. A couple of questions also. Roland, just wanted to follow up on your comment regarding provisions. You mentioned that other provisions were to roughly half over the next couple of years. Is it still also fair to assume that you'll be spending your restructuring provisions this year? Yeah, theoretically, restructuring provisions should come close to zero. It never will, but most of that will be spent this year. Yes. The other provisions that we talk about is a bit more unpredictable for us because it's a bucket of stuff from the past that we are solving as we move forward. Some of that may come soon. Some of it may take some more time. We'll do it once and be ready to solve it, and then we will pay it out or release it, right? That's how that works. That's why it's so hard for us to say whether it'll be one year, it'll be five years, so on. For the planning purpose, you need to assume that we will cut that in half over three years. Okay, that's super clear. A second question, maybe a little bit speculative, but your current headquarters in Valby and the potential sale of that, is there any update on potential timing of that? No, but we're running the process. Currently, bidders are showing interest, and then we'll see where we go with that. It is in process, and we are set to move from here to the new location beginnin g of the new year. Okay, but is it then also the target to have sold it when you're moving? Yeah, yeah, we're not going to give it away, but the intention is that we will sell it and then move. That's the intention. Okay, very clear. Just a final one. You mentioned that you would probably get back with more details on the, I would say, targets for mining when you close the sale of cement. Should we expect sort of a separate announcement in connection with also selling cement, or will it be more sort of an update that you give us on the following quarter, or just any kind of flavor as to what to expect in terms of communication on that? I would like to come back to that in a bit more structure, but I hope if and when we sell the business, we will announce it. New targets, long-term targets will only come later on, but directional guidance on working capital and CapEx spend and so on will come soon thereafter. Okay, that is super. Thanks a lot. Thank you. We have a follow-up question from Tul Sangman from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you once again for taking my follow-up question. Just one very quick clarification. I understood in a way that the 15.1% margin in mining was supported by 50 basis points coming from an asset sale. Could you just clarify this? And then one question, why did you not adjust for this? Thank you. Yeah, in the P&L, we have a line called other income, and that's when we do bits and pieces. There's been a few smaller asset sales that add up to about half a percentage point, 50 basis points. Yes, that's right for the quarter. But you did not adjust for this downward. It should be basically, if we would adjust for this, we would have been at 14.6% basically. That's right, yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. This concludes our question and ends the session. I would now like to turn the conference back over to the company for any closing remarks. Thanks very much for the questions. If I summarize the quarter, it has been a good quarter for us. As we discussed earlier, we are moving into the territory of becoming a quality company, high-quality order intake, high-quality revenues. Our SG&A is going down, and we are pushing for the efficiency. We are happy with the portfolio that we have. We have a leading technology for all of the key flow sheets in mining, copper, gold, iron ore. Now we are building in India. Very pleased with the quarter. We have a high level of confidence for full year despite the geopolitics and uncertainty. For that reason, we increased the guidance. Thanks very much for your time, and look forward to talking to you soon again.