Thank you, operator. With this, I would like to welcome to this extra investor call, triggered by our announcement, a little earlier this afternoon. First of all, let me take you through a couple of highlights, and then pass to Hans to go through the Service overview before I conclude with the updated and narrowed outlook for the year. Already, if I could have the first slide with the key highlights. The key highlights for our Q2, revenue of EUR 3.3 billion. That's a revenue decrease of 4% year-on-year, affected negatively, negatively from Service, and offset by higher delivery ASP from the Power Solutions. We have had a Service impacted by adjustments to planned costs. That means the Service EBIT negative net EUR 107 million in Q2, due to approximately EUR 300 million in negative adjustment, and has no cash flow effect. The underlying earnings progressing as expected. The turnaround in Power Solutions is on track, and has improved EBIT margin almost 8 percentage points compared to the second quarter of 2023. The order intake in the quarter was 3.6 GW. The order intake grew 54% year-on-year, driven mainly by onshore projects in Europe and Asia Pacific. We also have seen a strong cash flow. The adjusted free cash flow in the quarter was EUR 500 million. That drives leverage down to 0.7 net interest-bearing debt to EBITDA. And then as a reflection, as all of the above, of course, we have made the announcements, because we are changing the outlook, so the outlook narrows. The turnover is now between EUR 16.5 billion and EUR 17.5 billion, and the EBIT margin is between 4% and 5%. With that, I will hand over to Hans, and also for the next slide and the Service overview. Thank you so much, Henrik. And as you mentioned, we're seeing our profitability being impacted by adjustments to our planned costs. In the quarter, service generated a negative EBIT of EUR 107 million, and this is a consequence of the adjustments that we are doing to our planned costs, which, due to the percentage of completion method of accounting that we're using, affects EBIT in the quarter. This adjustment has had a negative accounting effect of about EUR 300 million on the service EBIT in Q2. I should say, and you pointed to that also, that in the quarter there is no cash flow effect from this adjustment, and disregarding the impact of the adjustments, the earnings would have been flat year-on-year. The revenue in S ervice declined 26%, again, driven by the impact of the adjustment that I mentioned before. And I should also point to the fact that transactional sales increased in the quarter, and we had a currency headwind of about 1%. And all in all, that is, as you can see on the right-hand side, what then takes us to a revenue level of EUR 671 million, and a negative margin of 15.9%. Thank you for that. And then we go to the next slide, and then you'll talk a bit about the output. Thank you so much, Hans. And the, therefore, narrowed outlook for the year, we are that far now in August, so we see the revenue, for the full year sitting in the range of EUR 16.5 billion-EUR 17.5 billion. The previous was EUR 16-EUR 18 billion. The EBIT margin before special items, two changes here. The outlook for service, now sits around EUR 500 million in EBIT. Previously it was between EUR 800-EUR 880 million. And the total outlook for investors is, from an EBIT point, between 4%-5%, versus the previous outlook, 4%-6%. Total investments, no change there, approximately EUR 1.2 billion, for the full year. So I will say in conclusion, we continue to see this deep progress in our solutions, and in this quarter, offset by an adjustment in service. I'll also say here, let me also say that we still look forward to the full pack release on Wednesday. I know we have scheduled a call and set up investor call on Wednesday, where we can also have the full details of the full report. And of course, we look forward to discuss a lot more of the business in details on Wednesday. With that, I would like to turn to the operator, where we can then have a short, and I encourage people to a related Q&A on the service part today, and then we can continue the exchanges over the remaining part of the week. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchtone telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered the queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Questioners on the phone are requested to use only handsets when asking a question. In the interest of time, please limit yourself to two questions only. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. One moment for the first question, please. The first question comes from Claus Almer from Nordea. Please go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, two questions from my side. The first goes to this EUR 300 million adjustment. Is this a, adjustment compared to what you have done in the past, or is it a adjustment compared to what you were otherwise going to recognize as revenue and profit going forward? That would be the first one. So, if I understand you correctly, you're asking where the EUR 300 million comes from, and as- Exactly. It's an effect of the POC accounting. So effectively, the way that it works is that when you adjust your planned costs, then you also need to go in and, of course, adjust exactly what is the expected future cost levels of the contract, right? And so you get to this adjustment by simply realizing that the percentage of completion you have a right to is different than what you thought it would be. This is where it gets a bit technical, Claus. But effectively, as you realize that, you will then go in and also do an adjustment of the revenue levels and the profitability levels that you have achieved. That you will then be doing that, you can argue, at a later stage, so to say. So, that's how it works. Sorry, Hans, yeah, I might be slow, so I really didn't understand that reply. So the EUR 300 million profit, if you hadn't made this announcement today, would that have been a profit going forward? Or would you have had EUR 300 million less profit in the past, or is it a combination? It's a planned cost change we are making, right? So when you think about it like that, we're seeing a higher cost level in the contract in the future. And the way that it then works is that you then go in and rebase your contract to the levels that you expect for that margin level to be at. And as part of that process, of course, when your planned costs go up, you lower the expected profits that you would be seeing on that contract. And as a consequence of that, your, say, profitability level will, of course, be coming down as a consequence of that. At the same time, you then go in and make this adjustment. Okay, so you have not been front-loading profitability, to be clear, which- No. So, so the way, again, it works is you go in and update your, your expected cost on the contract. And as you do that, then you update your planned costs as a consequence of that, of course. Okay, then my second question: If I want to look at Vestas' underlying performance, would you say it would be fair to say, we should add back this EUR 300 million to, 2024? i.e., if I use the mid-range of your guidance, I should add EUR 300 million, i.e., be an EBIT margin above 6%. Is that the right way to do it? Oh, I think there's a multitude of other things that comes into play when you add it all up, and if you're looking at it from the perspective of the Vestas Group. There are lots of dimensions also in what we are gonna be sending out in a few days' time. So perhaps when we're talking to Vestas Group leaders and what you should think about that, perhaps we can take that discussion when you have had a chance to look at that, Claus. But it's too mechanical a calculation to make just like that. Okay, then I'm looking forward to your report. The next question comes from John Kim from DB. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity. Just to clarify and build on Claus's question, the EUR 300 million charge in the period was simply an effect of the accounting policies, i.e., there were no voluntary adjustments on the cost accounting going forward. Do you see the EUR 300 million catch up, or is this an ongoing structural effect we should think about in a high cost or high inflation environment? Thank you. I think it's a bit hard to hear what you're saying, but if I infer a bit from what I could hear, I think you're asking how to think about this from the perspective of what has kind of happened here. And so I said, this is a combination really of the sustained inflation that we're seeing in particular within specific inflation components that we are faced with. And it's also linked to, say, effects we are seeing from the ongoing repair and upgrade campaigns that links in terms of the quality and LPF issues that we've also been talking to. And then finally, also, what we're seeing is that we are also, unfortunately, seeing some of our operational initiatives that, say, would take the efficiency out of the service business not manifesting itself as we would have hoped. And for those reasons, we are expecting that the cost levels of the contracts that we're looking at before they hit end of the line, before they get to the end of completion, that they have increased. And as a consequence of that, we are then updating the numbers, and that's why you get this one-off, that adjustment that we're seeing here, which is part of the continuous cost-planning process that we do as part of our business. Okay, maybe if I phrase it differently, is there a significant amount of impairment in the numbers? Oh, I wouldn't think about it like this. It's, it's continuous cost planning we are doing, and, and where we have been looking at the aforementioned factors, and also have been doing performance reviews in our service business. And as part of those continuous, reviews, we are seeing that we need to make this adjustment, so we think it's, prudent to do that now at this point in time. Okay, helpful. Any color you can give us on that Contract Asset? Thank you. Yeah, of course, there's a linkage to some extent to this, because if you're looking at it from the perspective that you are seeing higher costs than what you would potentially have anticipated, in turn, that drives revenue, and the billing plan stays the same. So from that perspective, of course, there's a linkage in that, when you have that kind of effect, then you will see that there is, say, a build on the Contract Asset. And so there will also be an adjustment to that as part of what we're looking at here. Okay, thanks. ... The next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you. So I think my two questions is, how are you looking at service margins going forward, for next year and so on? And I know you've talked about it being around last quarter, so around 20-21%. So are you still maintaining 20-21, going to 25 over some period? Or, should we be thinking about the new normal being more in the early 20s? And secondly, Hans, just a clarification. So EUR 300 million, will you be adjusting the Contract Assets in the balance sheet by that EUR 300 million? Or is this more a provision that some service contracts are probably loss-making for the future, so you've taken those provisions now, so it doesn't change the Contract Assets? I wasn't very clear on your answer to the previous question. Thank you. So first of all, Deepa, thank you for that. And let me on the underlying business, it is performing and will be continue performing around the previous quarters and the levels we have seen there. Nothing really changing, which means it is, it is in the indication of around the 20-20 level. I think also here, we don't change the target for the business. The business is sound, the business is good. In that sense, some of these changes, as Hans is referring to, comes from the macro changes we are seeing in certain areas of the world. So therefore, target is still to invest and keep also developing the business towards EBIT 25. And I think on the Contract Asset, Hans, if you want to comment on that one. So in rough numbers, the Contract Asset will of course be impacted in rough terms by the same amount as what we're looking at here. So I hope that answers the question. Essentially, this is reversing some revenues you already booked because of the POC, and now because of the cost adjustment, you are writing that back. We are adjusting the Contract Asset, as mentioned, down by about the same amount as you're looking at, in the 300 project that we're looking at. That's gonna be the effect on the balance sheet. Got it, got it. So then it pertains to already recognized revenues rather than future, right? Because the assets will only be recognized would only be created because you recognized that revenue ahead of time. It's a very bad line. It's a bit hard to hear what you're saying. Repeat back it. Yeah, sorry. I was just saying aloud that doesn't the fact that you're reversing the Contract Asset means that this pertains to revenues already recognized, which is why this unbilled revenue was even created in the first place? So, if I understand your question correctly, then the Contract Asset will increase less than what it otherwise would have. It's not a reversal in itself, but of course, there is a reduction in it, as a consequence of this. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from Kristian Tornøe from SEB. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. So first of all, I'm still struggling a bit to understand that if planned cost is higher than expected and not fully compensated by inflation indexation, why this will not impact margins going forward? But well, of course, the margins are impacted by this in how it works in the sense that when I have a higher planned cost level than what you had anticipated, I think that's evident. But we still see a business that works well in many ways, and hence, with as per what I said before, we are expecting it to perform to the levels of what we see. Of course, there is an adjustment to the cost levels that we are seeing in the backlog. But let me remind you also that you're looking at a very significant size of the backlog. Just to put that into perspective, it's a multi-billion very large backlog. And hence, when you put what we're looking at into that perspective, it gives you kind of a sense of what we're facing here. But to understand your question correctly, again, it's not that we are seeing a service business that doesn't perform at all. But what we are seeing is that due to these changed cost levels, we are now expecting to see a profitability level that sits around the levels that we mentioned before, which is on par with what we had in dry quarters. Sure. So, maybe the EUR 300 million is a reflection of overstating margins historically. But for how many quarters does this reflect? So, I mean, what's... To again get a sense on what the effect on a quarterly basis in isolation, because I guess this reflects a longer period of adjustment. I see, Kristian. But the way it works is you go in, and then you look at what is the level of cost that you're expecting. And what we are doing now is changing the expected future cost that we are seeing on the entirety of the contract. And on average, it's an 11-year type contract backlog that we are looking at, and hence, even smaller adjustments to the numbers gets to have, let's say, an accumulated effect. And when we're then looking at the combination of factors that we have been facing, sustained inflation rates, upgrade and repair campaigns that have gotten more expensive than what we thought. Operational inefficiencies also. Then when you combine all that, then you get to something like this in totality. All right, understood. Thank you. The next question comes from Vlad Sergievskiy from Barclays. Please go ahead. Yeah, gentlemen, good afternoon. Thanks very much for the opportunity. I mean, it's just a quick question on the wording of the release. If I understand it correctly, you're basically saying there that the impact of this higher cost was partially offset by expected future efficiency achievements and cost out actions. Would you be able to give us an idea how big the charge would have been if you wouldn't have factored in these future initiatives and cost out actions? I don't think that, that's a number that we have been communicating, no. But of course, you're seeing ups and downs in what goes into it, and the net effect of what we're looking at is what brings us into the EUR 300 million that we are taking here. And of course, also, as we highlight our say efficiencies and our say challenges on those initiatives that we have been working on, they come through with a net negative also as a consequence of this. So of course, this is something that net does not work in our favor. I think that's what we are saying. Of course, in a business- Understood. In a business like this one, you're constantly working with improvements, and you're working with the office to say that managing improvements, so to say, and if those improvements does not come through as you would have hoped, then you have a net negative consequence of that, and that's what we have been seeing now as part of this. Got it. Thanks very much for the color. And the next question comes from William Mackie from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Yes, good afternoon. Thank you for the time and the two questions. The first question would be around why now? What catalyzed this event as you went into the quarter end? Is it an annual review, or was there something else? I mean, a number of the issues relating to inflation, for example, have been with us now for many quarters and could have been reviewed at the end of last year. So the first question is why now? Yeah. So, what we do here is part of our continuous cost planning, and as I said, it's a multitude of different things that really come together in a way that brings it to the level we're looking at now. I think I've mentioned them already, the factors, and unfortunately, we are seeing now, at this point in time, that they all do not really work in our favor. As I pointed to before, it's a fairly sizable backlog that we're having, and that also means it's a fairly sizable cost backlog that we're having. And when you combine the effects of what we're seeing, and this is something we continuously do, then we get to the conclusion that this is something we have to adjust at this point in time. So it's really just part of a review we go through. Of course, you don't do it every minute, but it is, say, a continuous work that we do in the company. And again, as I'd like to point to, the underlying businesses perform well in many ways, but you have seen the combination of these factors where we are seeing now that we need to make certain adjustments to that. And that is what we are now doing. Thank you, thank you. And the second question, if you'll excuse my simple mathematics, but basically, at the midpoint of your revised guidance, you've lowered the midpoint, well, less than EUR 100 million, implied in what you're saying, but you're, you know, guiding to a EUR 300 million impact on service profits for the year. Should we take away from that, or what should we take away from that? Do you see the Power Solutions business performing ahead of expectation? Is there any other message you could give beneath the service commentary? I think, first of all, thanks, but I will keep quite a lot of the details. You know why we've done this. When you change your outlook, you come out with it in a different timing, which we have done today. But your assumption is right. We couldn't lower the outlook to that and narrow the outlook in that range if Power Solutions was not performing better. And we see that in general term. We will do the comparisons when we sit with the full report. But you're right, we are, we're 8 percentage points, almost 8 percentage points better in Power Solutions quarter-on-quarter, from the 2023 year comparison, and we are generally seeing improvements in that also for the year, for the second half of the year. Thank you. Look forward to speaking Wednesday. The next question comes from Vivek Midha, from Citi. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, everyone. Good afternoon. So my, my question is a follow-up regarding the drivers of the update. You've cited both cost inflation and the impact of increased repairs and upgrades. Is there any way you can quantify the relative importance of the cost inflation and then the repair activity? Have you made any changes to your views on expected loss production factor, failure rates, and so on? Thank you. Thanks for the question. I think, you're touching on the two factors here. Both of them, for us, in our books, becomes more sticky. We can see that the inflation, and especially also the gap in between the CPI and the wage inflation- ... has become something we see and experience become more sticky. Number two is, as you've seen also in the previous quarters, we're trending in the right direction on LPF. We're still having an LPF that is touching around 3%. And of course, that triggers, as we also said, a lot of the upgrade and repairs, but it also creates a task backlog we have to deal with for the general service business. And that is predominantly where we are seeing this, in Americas and in Europe or EMEA, as Hans was mentioning. So that's where we are, and that's what we are doing right now. But besides that, there's nothing that we've seen in there that significantly changes. We can just see that the two points there are sticky. And then, as we said, as a third one, when you start looking deep in the details, there are also a couple of operational inefficiencies in our own operations here, but that is to a lesser extent. Understood. As a very quick follow-up, with those, say, differences in the Americas and Europe, are you seeing this more on legacy turbine platforms or newer turbine platforms? Is there any color you can give around that? Thank you. I don't think there is a separate split. We have seen it both in terms of legacy and newer platforms. We are also seeing, of course, in maturity to end of contracts. So we have been through most of it in that sense. And so I think here, when you talk about that, it is much more about how do you get people, components, and other things in and around. On the upgrade and repair, it is what it is, and it's what it has been for now some time, and that doesn't sit in and around, particularly one turbine or one platform. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Dan Togo Jensen from Carnegie Bank. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Carnegie here. Just to understand and to be clear, is there any impact on this, on the revenue line, or is this just a cost issue for this year? So the percentage of completion is, so to say, where you expect it to be. It's just become a bit more expensive to deliver on the revenue? That's the first question. So technically speaking, again, the way that it works then is that the revenues will be impacted by this. So to the tune of EUR 300 million, that is what we have done. Also, when you look at the revenues on the slide that I presented before, 761, they are impacted by EUR 300 million from this. So, so you have this effect that revenues are impacted by this. It's, it's basically a mathematical calculation you do as a consequence of the fact that you are, when you say percentage of completion, is at a different place than where it was before you made the adjustment. So, so that's, that's what you're doing, and that's how it works, and that's why you see an impact on the revenue line of about EUR 300 million. Understood. Then just also, again, to be clear, the EUR 300 million, does that cater only for what you have, so to say, guided for this year? Or does it cater for potential, so to say, lower margin for the whole backlog? So it's not just an issue for this year, it caters for future, so to say, revenues as well. So this is for the backlog. That's, that's by definition how it works, right? When you go in and do the adjustment for the planned cost, then it impacts the backlog, that, that we're looking at, because this is exactly how, how this has been technically calculated. But then you get to, to see that this impacts the remaining part of the life, of the backlog. So that's how you should think about it. Technically, we should see, what you can call normal service margin, going forward in future years? As we were referring to before, we are expecting to see a service margin, as you also said earlier on, and I think that is around the level we have seen in the last few quarters. And in many ways, the service business is performing well, and there are many good things to say about it. And then maybe, sorry, can you elaborate just a little bit on this underlying lift you're actually doing to the Power Solutions part? Is that because some of these lower margin orders are now, you know, out of the order or the backlog, and it's, so to say, not being delivered on in second half? I think you've seen, you've seen us announcing orders also after 30th of June and, and other thing. Could we, could we say most of that to, to Wednesday? You can see in here it's working, it's working well in, in Power Solutions, and we have had to, to issue this, today. So I think it's better that we take, some of those, more related other, areas of business, save them for Wednesday. Okay, thank you. The next question comes from Akash Gupta from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for your time. I only have one follow-up left. So if I look at last few years, a higher share of your service orders are coming, with risk, where you basically share risk and reward with customers. The question I have today is that, can you say, on record, that, say, your turbine performance in these performance-related contract is not the reason behind, this, service adjustment to profitability in second quarter? Thank you. No, we can say that for your record. No, that's not part of, and that's not specifically related to this issue. So the three points we are pointing to here, Akash, are the three reasons for it. Thank you. Could we maybe have one last question or last person on questions, operator? Yes, sure. Then the last question today comes from Klaus Kehl from Nykredit. Please go ahead. Yeah, hello. Just another follow-up questions to, yeah, to this service change. If we kind of look through all the technical issues, and we look through this percentage of completion, wouldn't it be fair to say that this is kind of a provision? And if you have done it correctly, then you won't see any changes to your profitability in the service business going forward, let's say in 2025, 2026, and 2027, and in other words, it's a one-off. Or am I missing the point? Of course, by definition, when you do a planned cost update, then you cater for what you think is now the cost level you're at, and that is your best estimate at the point in time you're at. Of course, you then adjust the margin levels that you're expecting to see on the backlog. But as we have been talking to now around in different shapes and forms, what we're looking at here now reflects on that this is how we see the business performing. And as you also hinted to, Henrik, by saying that, we're expecting to see these-