Good morning, everyone. This is Javier Jódar from Siemens Gamesa Investor Relations. Welcome to our second quarter fiscal year 2022 earnings release presentation. Please let me draw your attention to our disclaimer on page two. Our CEO, Jochen Eickholt, and our CFO, Beatriz Puente, will drive this presentation. Please, Jochen, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone. A very warm welcome from my side as well. We now have the pleasure of getting in touch the second time in very few weeks. Still going forward, we would appreciate to have good discussions around our situations. As usual, we've prepared, in my view, a very good and comprehensive little deck to explain our situation. Let me go on to the key points, page number four. The Q2 2022 order intake was EUR 1.2 billion. Our order backlog, in that sense, ended up at EUR 32.8 billion. We had impacts from, in our view, standard volatility in offshore, in the offshore business. We also had an increasing selectivity and longer commercial negotiations in onshore leading to these situations. The ongoing inflation pass-through that is reflected in the ASP trend, which we come back to a little later. Of course we also did, and that is what I referred to last time already, we introduced new risk mitigation measures into the negotiations, which then also had an impact. Perhaps quite remarkable, certainly for us, we had a successful offshore market entry in Poland on the Baltic programs, and this is something we put really a lot of hope into. The Q2 revenue of EUR 2.2 billion and the EBIT margin of -14% were impacted by the ramp-up challenges of the 5.X platform, and a couple of questions around that, and the ongoing and continued supply chain disruptions. Already last time, we dived into that a little. The performance improvement program, which we started with that is focusing on the short-term priorities. Those were immediately launched after my arrival a couple of weeks ago. We later on will also go into the new company plan, which we want to be the response to the situation we're in. It is remarkable, in my view, that we have had a strong service performance with the revenue going up 19%. Of course, the EBIT margin also, in my view, is satisfactory. On the net debt side, we are facing a situation of EUR -1.7 billion, coming along with a working capital of EUR -1.8 billion. The working capital increase has been driven by additional investments also in the inventories. The inventory situation, of course, is determined a little bit by the delay difficulties we have specifically in the onshore business. We continue to have very good access to liquidity, the EUR 3.5 billion, including the EUR 1.1 billion of cash in the balance sheet. That remains to be solid. We've had a successful signing of the asset disposal, as it's mentioned here. The signing as such happened recently. We published that as well. The closing is expected to happen in our this fiscal year, which means, we expect a cash collection of around EUR 580 million during quarter four of this fiscal year, end of September. The fiscal 2022 guidance was placed under review and no longer valid. That was also published and communicated on last time. We continued to assess the already aggravated supply chain environment, and the onshore ramp-up delays also continued to have an impact. The group target for the meantime, and that was in line with also what was said last time, as far as revenue is concerned, is between a decline of -9% and -2%. The EBIT margin target will be in the -4% area. Both figures include the effects of the asset disposal. On the market side, the European programs, together with various additional national initiatives, leads to an increase of the demand prospects, certainly in this decade, and supporting also the mid to long-term outlook. However, we have to say that oftentimes, permitting periods are really inhibiting the quick movement ahead, and that needs to be changed as well. We are in various discussions also with European and national politicians, on these issues. We need to continue to drive also with the help of the associations for a speed up of that market development. Also, very importantly for us, we want to remain the leader in ESG performance in our business space. In this context, it is good to see that the various elements of policy we put into place have been continuing to be acknowledged by various indices, by various media, and we were also typically in a very top rank on various types of scoring and rating agencies. We typically find ourselves in the top percentile for the ESG rating, and we typically are a member, if not the member, listed at the top spot of what is being looked at in these areas. We have to underline, in my view, that sustainability remains at the core of our business policy, and it will help us to reach also the business objectives. We don't see that as an additional burden. We see that as an integral element of our policy to go forward. Coming to the slightly more detailed overview on the commercial activities. The order backlog is a little short of EUR 33 billion. That year-over-year is down 2.7%, so not perhaps too remarkably. The order intake in quarter two was EUR 1.2 billion. You see the comparison versus last year's quarters. Perhaps if you compare these numbers, in my view, they look perhaps slightly worse optically than they truly are, because last year's quarter really was a record quarter if you compare those numbers. That was an outstanding quarter, and we have to see that a comparison against that always is difficult. The order intake so far was impacted by onshore, as we said, onshore selectivity and protracted commercial negotiations. Please remember that, specifically in onshore, also, order intake typically happens to a majority at the end of the quarter, so in this case, in March. In March, exactly the timeframe was when I actually joined Siemens Gamesa, and we looked at various ongoing negotiations and sometimes had to introduce new, different T&Cs, clauses. We also looked at the pricing and became much more selective. There is an impact here. We don't expect that impact to be ongoing and extending to a longer period. Of course, we have to see that has an impact. The offshore business had a volatility. I mean, looking at the size of the projects, typically, such volatility is nothing unusual in our view. Record quarter two in 2021, I referred to. The overall backlog, in our view, is really convincing. It's really good. It's strong, it's stable. We have to see that the order backlog as such really can be seen to be linked with markets where we have strong execution power and also certainly some growth prospects. Going forward, please. Next. The perhaps also remarkable thing here is that the ASP, which sometimes is looked at, is something which clearly showed a positive trend. We have had a result, I think, in the end of the day, which perhaps is even a little bit over the real picture because of the smaller order intake as such. Statistically speaking, you could say that perhaps we have a slight overemphasis of the higher ASP projects which we got to sign in the last quarter. A more realistic picture with a higher order intake would probably lead to a slightly lower order intake figure in the ASP. Still, the trend is overall positive. We would be in a range of probably EUR 0.8 million per megawatt price. That is still in line with our actually positive expectation on this development. It is, if you compare it to some of our competitors, it is in that range which we would expect. There are competitors which typically are lower. There are competitors which typically are slightly higher. They have a different regional mix. They have a different product mix. All that is taken into consideration there. For us, this development is clearly positive and showing that also on the sales side, we are able to react to the disruptions on the supply side. Next, please. On the offshore side, we continue to be the leading player in our view. We have had, as I was speaking about, not really the order intake in quarter two. However, the order backlog and the pipeline and remain to be convincing. And again, the entry to the Polish market for us is a big achievement, which we are very happy about. Next, please. 53% of the group backlog come from service, and this is really the positive message. If you look at the overall profitability structure of our business on the service side, you will probably find that this is something extremely positive. We continue to believe that we are one of the leading players really in the service field, also when it comes to the discussion of installed fleet. We have right now 83 GW under maintenance, and we have a high retention rate for the existing contracts. We have a sound commercial performance. All the parameters look positive, and this is what makes us also very positive going towards the future. With that, perhaps, Beatriz, we come to some more financial numbers. Thank you, Jochen. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. I will cover the key financial performance of the quarter, also the first half, but no changes versus the announced preliminary results. As we explained, those has been severely impacted by three main reasons. The first one and with the largest impact has been on the additional ramp-up challenges in our 5.X platform, challenges that we explained has been more complex than we originally anticipated. Second, the higher-than-expected cost inflation, not only raw materials, but also significant increases on the key direct material cost for us and also transport and electricity. Third, the ongoing, and I will say aggravated as well, supply chain disruption with bottlenecks in key components for our turbines and also causing further delays on the projects and also extra costs. This has been compounded by, of course, the situation that we are facing with the geopolitical tensions and also the persistence of the pandemic and a new lockdown in China at the end of the quarter. As a result of all that, you know, our WTG manufacturing activity and project execution has, you know, been impacted on leading to a lower revenue in that segment and additional costs. Despite this challenging environment, our service performance has been and remain strong. The consequence of all this reflected in our P&L is a 7% decline in group revenues in the quarter to roughly EUR 2.2 billion, and a 13% decline during the first half of the year to roughly EUR 4 billion. EBIT losses amounted to EUR -304 million in Q2 and EUR -614 million in the first half. We'll get more detailed information in the presentation. Other key KPIs for us in the P&L are integration and restructuring costs amounted to negative - 24 in the quarter, mainly related to IT and digitization activities that are core for us. We expect that integration and restructuring cost will increase during the second half of the year. The positive financial income of circa EUR 15 million is mainly due to higher interest rates that are affecting the present value of the provisions that we have on the balance sheet. Tax expense in the quarter continues to be impacted by the losses that we have registered in the period. Those losses are accrued in the countries where we consider that the company shouldn't capitalize at this stage the deferred tax assets, therefore the impact. As a result of all this, reported net income in the period amounted to a EUR -377 million, and for the half year, EUR -780 million. If we move to page 13 and give you more color on kind of the revenue performance, I will focus on the WTG segment decline of 13% in the quarter to EUR 1.7 billion and a 19% down during the first half of the year. The decline on the WTG onshore manufacture activity has been partially compensated by the positive contribution from project scope and also a bit of impact on the currency, leading to revenues of EUR 931 million in Q2, down 19%, and to a revenue of EUR 1.9 billion in the first six months, down 15% on the period. In the case of WTG offshore activity, the decline has been compensated by product mix with the increasing contribution of our platform, SG 11 200, to the revenue line. Also, of course, that means, you know, higher price and, of course, because of higher size of the blades and nacelles. It also has been positively impacted by the execution of the last phases of some important projects for us. On the contrary, our service, you know, revenue performance has remained, as we have explained, quite strong, with revenues of EUR 550 million in the quarter, an increase of 19%, and for the six months period, roughly EUR 944 million, an increase of 14% growth. Very important, both in line to achieve roughly what we foresee high single-digit% growth for the year. Moving to slide 14, you know, and explaining the performance on the EBIT and providing you the impact on the backlog, as we also said on the preliminary results. EBIT margin pre PPA and integration and restructuring cost of -14% in Q2, which means for the six months, -15%. As I explained before, this has been really impacted, or certainly impacted by the additional cost on the 5.X, the cost inflation pressure, and also the additional cost generated by the impact of the aggravated situation that we are seeing on the supply chain. Also for us, you know, has impacted the revenues and also because we are having lower volumes, we are having higher cost because of the idle capacity that we are suffering in some of the manufacturing activities. Regarding, you know, the EBIT performance also includes a negative impact coming from the valuation of the backlog, mainly onshore. That because of the higher cost that I have explained, and this impact has been roughly EUR 248 million for the second quarter. which means that for the whole six months, our EBIT has been impacted by EUR 537 million because mainly related to these deviations in the onshore contracts. These impacts, these numbers of course, this revaluation of the backlog has heavily impacted the profitability of the WTG division with a negative margin in the period of 25% and for the six-month period, -27%. Coming back to the strong performance in the service segment, this is seen and of course in a very strong, you know, margin in the period, EBIT margin, PPA and integration cost close to 21%. Moving to page 15 and giving you more color on the situation on the balance sheet. As Jochen has said, of course, for us, you know, cash generation continues to be a priority, financial discipline as well and of course, the strength of the balance sheet. Net debt position stood at EUR -1.7 billion as of the end of March. An increase of EUR 1.5 billion. That's mainly related to increase on working capital of EUR 735 million that is impacting our cash flow in the period. The increase in working capital, as you see in the chart, is heavily impacted by inventories. For us, it's mainly related to the early production on the factories, the delays in project execution, that of course, we are sitting on that inventory and to a lesser extent, safety stocks. Operational performance, of course, has significant impact on our operating cash flow of roughly EUR 334 million. We continue to invest in the future of the company, the CapEx of roughly EUR 321 million, with mainly focus on offshore, as we explain on developing additional, you know, features on our key platforms, with roughly 65 of that CapEx deployed in offshore. As already announced, we completed the signing of the disposal of our Southern European development assets during April. We expect to reach financial closing of the transaction during Q4 of this year. The asset disposal will have a positive impact in our accounts of, as we disclose, roughly foreseen revenues contribution of EUR 580 million, and with less, a bit less contribution on EBIT and cash for the period. Regarding liquidity, the company has extended the maturity of the EUR 2 billion credit line that we have one more year. Now it's due by 2027. We have used in the period roughly EUR 1.9 billion. At the end of March, we have available liquidity of EUR 3.5 billion, out of which cash represent EUR 1.1 billion. With this, let me pass on to Jochen to give a brief overview on the outlook and conclusion to the presentation, and then I, of course, happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thanks, Beatriz. Yeah, in the past, the primary driver for growth in renewables was decarbonization in the end of the day. During the last weeks and months, actually, we saw that also the view on energy security, the security of energy supply, becomes an equally important driver for this development. The need to develop a secure energy supply free from geopolitical tensions is resulting in increased commitments to renewables in the key markets. The REPowerEU plan for more affordable, secure, and sustainable energy goes in this direction. It demands a set of annual installations of around 33 GW, leading to 480 GW by 2030. The EU has also acknowledged that such a target requires a simpler permitting process and improved connection infrastructure. In my view, it also does require that we implement the instruments to fight inflation. Because oftentimes, also on our customer side, it's not so easy to cope with inflation due to then the related contracts around, PPAs. We've also seen national governments reexamining their commitments. Two good examples here are certainly the U.K. and also Germany. We have to see that also here, the permitting process as such so far is not really up to speed, if you wish, in accordance with the needs of what the political direction, sort of indicates. As we see, the annual installations will grow by 54% in the second half of this decade, reaching then 33 GW by 2030. Offshore is expected to more than double in this period. The IEA's net zero line by 2050 anticipates an even higher growth. It would require current wind installations to be multiplied by more than a factor of four by 2030 to achieve that net zero emission level by 2050. You see that really the demands, which we foresee for the future, are really substantially increasing. As indicated earlier, the first half performance and the second half uncertainty have left our guidance invalid for this fiscal year 2022. These uncertainties are many, and there's a variety of them. They include the ramp-up of the 5.X platform. They include the tensions, of course. They include supply chain disruptions and also inflation. All this could further impact the valuation of the order backlog. We right now are rather strict, but rather clear on our path and our policy to reassess the targets and forecast for the fiscal 2022. At present, we would like to confirm what we said also the last time. We expect the targets to be met, which means the revenue decrease between -9% and -2% and an EBIT margin of -4%, including both the positive impact of the asset disposals agreed in April. We expect to close in Q4 2022. If we now look at what led to this situation, the root causes we detected so far are around the delays in the 5.X program, as we spoke about also in the past. For instance, around not fully adhering to the milestone concepts we've put in place, and that sometimes, or more than sometimes actually, results into delayed product availability, quality problems, and also then, as a consequence, unplanned costs. We continue to have a very high business complexity. In my view, we have a too broad portfolio, with too much variance in there. There is too limited standardization and modularization. We continue to have high production costs, partially also driven by low utilization of then existing capacities. Low utilization also sometimes coming from delays in our portfolio, for instance, around the 5.X. There is a little bit of a vicious circle here as well. The effects of the global supply chain disruptions continue to be there. We are right now in the phase of negotiations for the material pricing for the 2023 period. We see that pricing is not going down. It's going slightly up instead. Of course, we have then also on our side additional complexities around IT systems and tools and their transformation. We, for instance, did change CAD systems or the development environments, and that, of course, then led to additional delays. However, I'm very positive, and I'm positive because we saw solid foundations. I saw solid foundations which are available. As indicated before, we've extremely strong market prospects, and I believe that is a general trend which will not cease. We so far have seen that price increases and risk sharing with customers in a very partnership approach is possible and is perceived in a not too negative way. Therefore, the trend for ongoing activities in this direction is there, clearly visible on our side. Probably, it will also perhaps even reach our business in general because many of our competitors also, I mean, in my view, do not report too positive situations. We have a competitive product portfolio in both onshore and offshore. 5.X, whilst it's sometimes referred to as a bit, as our difficulty right now, I believe is probably going to be the most successful product in onshore we've ever had. First and foremost, we've got highly talented people. We've got a committed organization. We've got extremely qualified engineers. We've got people who were part of the founding circles of the industry in total, if you wish. That makes me extremely positive that we can also master these challenges. We've set up a couple of short-term activities to tackle the issues, mostly around the 5.X activities and procurement. We've set a cross-functional task force implementation up by actually making sure that we have really our best people in those task forces, and it's really cross-functional in all under all circumstances. Commercially, we have to see, and we spoke about that in the part on the order intake. We're you know applying much more discipline here. We apply much more the concept of selectivity. Not each and every project is too attractive. A project has to have a certain attractivity profile, if you wish. There are clear hurdles implemented under which we see a project as being attractive for us. We have reinforced as a consequence also the product approval process. We've under all circumstances implemented an extremely close alignment between procurement and sales when it comes to the effects of the supply chain. Of course, going forward, we would like to make sure that this focus and dedication is further implemented across the organization. We look at further optimization measures. We will, however, be slightly more rigorous when it comes to the already defined company processes, because as you said, higher on this chart, if you wish, that not everything was adhered to. We want to have really a priority-driven organization, because otherwise the situation is too complex to handle. Next. If we look at the overall situation, we are also looking at an intensified partnership across the value chain, so that includes customers, that includes suppliers. On the supplier side, we would like to achieve a goal for rather long-term supply agreements. We have implemented the financial hedging of key commodities. We will intensify the collaboration in product development. We will intensify our efforts to product standardization, and in this, we also want to include the supplier early. Of course, in some cases, we also have agreements with Siemens Energy to join forces. On the customer side, we also strive for strategic agreements rather. We want to make sure that raw material price developments have to be seen as something which is indexed on either side of the value chain. It has to be seen also on the side of the customer that this is something without it is difficult for us to have a sustainable business approach. Oftentimes we do have back-to-back commercial agreements. The overall approach is to make sure that the profit pool is going to be enlarged. Right now, this is a little bit of a difficulty, and we continue to drive that, and so far, we've also found open ears for these discussions, for instance, at the side of our customers. Of course, more midterm-oriented, we want to make a structured approach towards improvement of our business. In the past, and as it was communicated, we ran the so-called LEAP program. We've had significant progress on productivity measures, and some key actions also were implemented, a little bit more relating to the challenges from the past. Going forward, we wanted to have something new. Instead, we are going for the program Mistral. We want to have a program which allows us to answer the most recent industry challenges. Of course, we will continue to focus on the short-term challenges, but then also key levers are identified for the margin improvement midterm. We will also here look at further transformational measures which we want to explore, like the review of our portfolio or like the technology harmonization, for instance, around blades, drivetrain, electrical systems. That means we these days also internally will launch the Mistral program. We will put people and health and safety into the top of our priorities. But then again, we will focus on the solid top-line development, typically measured in volume and market share, if you wish. I want to have a very clear view on competitive and high-quality products. We want to have operational excellence being driven across the value chain. We will also look at an optimization of our cost structure. Of course, under the circumstances also mentioned by Beatriz, cash flow is one of the top priorities. Going forward then, we will have a much more modularized and much more harmonized technology offering across the entirety of the portfolio. I want to make sure that this modular approach also covers the so far sometimes different approaches between onshore and offshore in a joint manner. We will strive for harmonizing those approaches as well. With that, we're through the presentation, but of course, happy to answer the upcoming questions. Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Q&A session starts now. If you wish to ask a question, please press zero-one on your telephone keypad. We kindly request that you limit your questions to one per turn. Please be informed that in order to assure audio quality, we recommend that all questions will be asked from landlines. The first question comes from Vivek Midha from Citi. Please go ahead. Thanks very much, everyone. Good morning. Could I just ask on the transformational measures that you mentioned as part of the Mistral program. Could you give us some color on what, you know, some of the ones which are under consideration, some of the areas which might be considered non-core? Just to be crystal clear, since it's been asked on these calls before, does this include anything around the whole onshore business? Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much for the question. If I understand it correctly, then the answer on our side is that onshore remains to be part of our core business. Please remember that the majority of the service revenue is generated by the installed fleet coming from onshore. We would see a substantially different picture without onshore. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Akash Gupta from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, good morning, everybody, and thanks for your time. My question is on 5.X and product development as well as production ramp up. Originally this product was launched in 2019, and you were supposed to ramp up production in 2021, but then we had design issue and then supply chain issues. Because of that, we had these delays. Every time you have delay, you need to add more project into as so-called onerous projects. If you can update us on where do we stand now in the development as well as production ramp up phase. Do you see that there could be additional downside risk in terms of further delays that could add to onerous provisions that you have already made? Thank you. First of all, I'm very happy to be able to say that we are making progress. The majority of the focus right now is around the ramp up of manufacturing. The ramp up of manufacturing is for the most part happening in Spain and in Portugal. It's in Ágreda and Vagos. In both places we are making progress in ramping up manufacturing more from a serial manufacturing perspective. That is rather positive and going the right direction. However, it continues to be difficult because of the delays you mentioned. These delays you mentioned sometimes come from what we call engineering change notices. Something like a late change to, for instance, the bill of material is introduced, then leading to a different new approval process for that very component, then leading to a new ordering process, and that's then hitting the supply chain in its current status. These things continue to be complicated and difficult. We are making progress. I hope to be out of the woods in that sense, really by the end of this year. It continues to be difficult though because of so many details to be considered, and most of them happen in conjunction. Not any one of these difficulties as such is too complex, but it's the overall number, the sheer number of the difficulties which make us which hit our organization really. When it comes to onerous projects, it is in our view so that we have had so far considered buffers really for the majority of the risks. Additional effects I would rather see to be insignificant versus what we have seen so far. A full exclusion of any further risk is not really possible at this point in time. Thank you. The next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you. My question is on offshore wind. One of your large customers recently reported that their U.K project Hornsea Two was facing a slight delay in ramp up, and one of the issues identified was some issue with some inverter modules. Just wanted to check is on the offshore side, is everything okay? Are there any provisions or anything we need to be looking out for, whether that's in the U.K or the ramp up in Taiwan? Thank you very much for the question. With Hornsea, our view is that there are kind of standard situations. Of course, every now and then there are discussions with the customer. We are in full alignment and try to rectify everything. From our perspective, there is no further extraordinary discussion going on and needed either. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Mark Freshney from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you for taking my questions. Just firstly, on the pass-through provisions, I mean, to try and drill down into those, as I understand it, you can index contracts, but the indexation can't deal with all costs. There are then other pass-through provisions such as, you know, cost plus. And I understand that those are more critical. Can you talk about use of those kinds of latter provisions? Secondly, just on the balance sheet, clearly we've seen the sale of the Southern European onshore pipeline. Can you talk about potential other measures to reduce the level of net debt, and what you can do to extract cash from the business? Thank you. Thanks. First of all, on the pass-through, there's a bundle of measures we actually do try to apply in each and every contract. We look at the indexation wherever that is possible, rightfully so. You say that also on some of the commodities this is for various reasons, not fully possible. There we typically have, you know, cost adders, if you wish to be considered on our side, and those are then also in full alignment and full transparency with the customer. There are other mechanisms where we then would like to have further elements of risk sharing and these measures include, for instance, a different flow of the cash, a different cash flow profile in the project, in the course of a project. On occasions and at times, we also agree on extension of time and extension of cost under those circumstances. There is a whole bundle of things we typically do apply as a standard in each and every project. However, the result of that obviously is then the result of the negotiation, so on net everything is standardized with each and every contract. We are very rigorous in applying these and from our perspective, therefore we don't want to become the masters of speculation on the commodity pricing, but we feel that we are really on the safe side going forward. For the balance sheet question, Beatriz. Yes. Thank you, Mark, for your question. What can we do? Of course, first priority for the company, and that's the purpose of the plan, is enhanced profitability. That's our top priority for many things. For, of course, making this business sustainable in the future and also for reducing, you know, the leverage of the company and generating cash. Of course, analyzing, you know, the future CapEx investment of the company, not only, you know, this year, but the years to come. What we can afford, what we should invest in the growing business. Discussions with the clients and ongoing, you know, as Jochen said, you know, we want to really make, you know, a partnership with our clients and of course, if we want to invest in the future, also our clients need to also help us on that, you know, front. We have forecasts to have a smaller contribution from asset disposal, not, of course, of the magnitude of the one that we have announced. Last but not least, of course, anything, you know, all the alternatives will be analyzed in due course because our priority continues to be to strengthen the balance sheet. In this regard, you know, in that front. Thank you. The next question comes from Sean McLoughlin from HSBC. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. You mentioned an ASP of EUR 0.8 per watt as a realistic figure. Is this covering your higher material costs, or do you need to continue raising prices? That's my first question. Well, that's a good question. Thank you very much for that one. If you look at the overall profitability, and perhaps I could even say the profitability in our sector, so including our competitors, then probably there's a further element of price increase helpful and perhaps even necessary. Of course we will continue to work on all fronts. We will try to work on all fronts in order to make us in the future a really sustainable business. I would assume that further price increases have to be seen, looking at also the situation of general inflation across the globe. Thank you. Thank you. I suppose related to that question, just thinking about the tension between selectivity and market share, in onshore. I mean, is there a level of market share that you're willing to sacrifice to hold a higher price? How are you thinking about that? We've already indicated with our behavior that we actually put action behind those words. Yes, we do at times also sacrifice market share in that sense. We are not going for each and every project any longer. We apply really rigorously our concepts of selectivity with those defined hurdles. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Katie Self from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. I've got two if I could. The first one is around whether you just help us think about the liquidity profile. So it's like you've drawn down around EUR 1.9 billion of the available lines and are maintaining around EUR 1 billion in cash. Is that the approach that we should expect to continue to see in the future, i.e. sort of keeping around that EUR 1 billion of gross cash on hand, but using up the lines to manage any further variations? My second question is, again, you know, I'd just like to push a little bit around these warranty provisions and impairments. As you laid out quite clearly, you've taken around EUR 537 million at this stage. I noticed that quite interesting comment around 80% of the backlog being exposed to sort of healthy markets, you know, strong and above market growth, markets. That leaves about 20% elsewhere. That's about EUR 6.6 billion of the backlog. Is there an indication there that this EUR 6.6 billion is at risk of further impairments? Or how much of that is covered by those impairments that you've taken already? Thank you. Thank you, Kate. Regarding your question, and also I will follow up on the question that you asked us also on the preliminary results. For us, of course, we foresee to withdraw further down, you know, the syndicate loan that we have. That's a reality because as we said, you know, seasonality of the business and of course, the challenges that we are facing in the short term. Answering your question, yes, we foresee to use that, you know, further down. Also we foresee to have the Q3, you know, leverage higher than the one that we have. Also coming back to reduce the leverage with the contribution of the disposal of the southern pipeline, you know, that we did, you know, coming on Q4. Regarding the second question and you doing the math on our backlog, I would suggest maybe doing that in you know because when we said you know that we have a very strong you know backlog for the years to come, that's a reality. We cannot ignore that as of today, and that's the reason of this EUR 537 million impact on the first half of the year. Because all the reasons that we explained in the previous calls and the challenges that we have on the 5.X and the projects that we have from the past, we have very low contingencies that is impacting us significantly on cost. What we can tell you is that we foresee, depending of course, on the execution of the projects in the coming months, that we'll have roughly EUR 2 billion of onerous projects in execution by 2023. That's, you know, the exposure, open exposure that we have. What we can also confirm is, as Jochen was explaining, for the new projects that has been approved, a significant contingencies has been added to that, not only because we have reinforced, as we explained, what we can index to, mainly tower steel, of course, you know, copper, a bit of transportation, and the rest as you also others, you know. As I ask about, you know, we have included other costs, we continue to work hand-in-hand commercially, you know, with procurement. All those projects that are now in our backlog, but of course will be in execution by 2024 onwards, are more protected. That's, you know, the priority for this company, to enhance the health of our backlog. Thank you for the detail. That's incredibly helpful color. On that EUR 2 billion, that's obviously quite a big number. Can you help us at all with understanding the phasing of how we may see that in the coming, you know, months or quarters, and how does that link to a cash out? Thank you. It will be highly dependent on that, and that's the reason, you know, we put the outlook on review on our, you know, kind of, year-end numbers. What we foresee to have, you know, in the coming months to provide, you know, more color on that. Because as we said, you know, that will of course depend on how we will end up, you know, the year. Some of that, you know, additional cost might come, you know, through orders contract. That's a reality. If we end up, you know, with a higher cost estimate because of the reasons that we said, you know, maybe, you know, higher disruption in the supply chain to higher cost, that estimate that is coming. Allow us to give you more color in the coming quarter release. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Lucas Ferhani from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. My question was on the 5.X ramp-up. You said during the call that you expected to be out of the woods this year. Just wanted to understand better what you meant. Do you mean you can kind of execute the contracts by the end of this year, or in terms of just extra costs, you just think we are at the end? Can you provide just a timeline when you expect those, let's say, problematic contracts to be executed, if not by the end of this year? Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Out of the woods for me means that we really, in the sense of quality and quantity, meet our targets X works. That means that we come to the originally assumed capacity profiles we have foreseen for the manufacturing sites. Of course, then the execution of customer projects may extend also in the next year and whatever the plan is, we continue to sell that turbine. 5.X is going to be sold for quite some time. I was referring to really the desired profiles in capacity and quality X works. That is the thing we are working on right now. Okay, thank you. Just another one on price, I mean, higher prices or indexation. Can you talk a bit about kind of within the backlog, the proportion, let's say, of contracts that have indeed indexation or prices? Is it the majority or is it still a small part? I'm talking just about the orders you've signed recently. Do you still sign some orders where you don't have kind of necessarily prices or indexation in there? Is it kind of one of all the other rather than kind of both? Thank you. As we explained, of course, for us, you know, we started like mid 2021, of course, because of the challenges that we face, yeah, internal and external, to reinforce, as we said, you know, kind of the policies, to make sure that we have indexation clauses on the topics or the components I have said. We cannot index the rest. You know, what we are trying to do, is of course, you know, with procurement, as we said, so analyze further indexation clauses that, you know, will provide our clients the comfort that they also can finance, the projects. Make sure that we have also back-to-back, with some of the key components, that also we have indexation clauses within our, you know, procurement, and also like our contracts. Because you can index on both ways, you know, on the supply chain and of course with your clients. What we can tell you is that, as we said, you know, from May onwards, all our, you know, kind of projects that has been signed are more protected. You will never have a 100% coverage. The industry doesn't allow you to do that. For us, you know, we are reinforcing that, you know, we make sure that we mitigate reduced this posture that we have on that open risk that the industry has. That's why it's so important also, as we said, not only indexation, but price increases are needed. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Mike Clemens from Downing Fund Management. Please go ahead. Good morning. I'd like to ask a question about your ESG efforts and just follow up on the slides in the presentation. Clearly Siemens Gamesa is doing a very good job in many areas, especially on the environmental side. However, we noticed that some of the main ESG rating agencies have flagged the company at risk of potentially violating one of the principles of the UN Global Compact due to your activities in the Western Sahara. Obviously this is something that concerns us as investors, and I'm sure many other investors. Can you please just talk about how you are looking to address these concerns, perhaps in the context of your wider ESG program? Thank you. Well, as you perhaps know, Western Sahara is a very specific case. We are constantly monitoring all the efforts around that. We are recognizing and acknowledging all the, let's say, UN-driven positions there as well. We so far are rather careful, and we need to make sure that we are fully compliant and in line with all the requirements, and we will continue to monitor the situation, to make sure that we are handling it in a most adequate way. It's of course not so easy for us to distinguish between different conflict parties in that case, and therefore, we'd rather like to follow on the guidance of, for instance, institutions like the United Nations. Thank you. The next question comes from Vivek Midha from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks very much, everyone, for taking my follow-up. It's just a follow-up on the comments around indexation and hedging. Could you maybe give us a bit of color in offshore around the risks that you're seeing there? You highlighted permanent magnet inflation in the last call. What sort of protections do you have there? Is it particularly different to what you're seeing about on onshore? And do you see cost inflation putting any projects at risk, whether in Europe or the U.S.? Thank you. Well, thank you very much. First of all, as I said, the material pricing as such we see as something which continues to be a concern for us. That's one. For the projects in execution, also in offshore, we continue to have discussions with our customers on how to solve these issues. Those discussions are not ended yet and will continue. That is clearly one of our priorities. When it comes to the projects in acquisition, we clearly incorporate the more rigorous standards I was referring to also for offshore. On that side, my view is that we will be protected in the future. The overall development of the supply chain, however, when it comes to permanent magnets, for instance, these things were extraordinary because there were massive, really massive price increases. We have to see that we can really, you know, get these things in the end of the day incorporated into the overall set of agreements we want to apply. In the end, I do not see a different situation for onshore and for offshore either. We treat those business units in our sense equally. In the end of the day, we would like to be protected, and we need to make sure that our business becomes sustainable. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Akash Gupta from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi. I have two follow-ups, if I may. The first one is on medium-term margin guidance. I mean, there was, there is no mention of 8%-10% margin targets. Is it fair to say that is under review as well? Secondly, on the supply chain, you have exposure to both China and India, and as we saw with your Danish peer who is now revisiting their sourcing and global footprint, do you see that you may also need to reduce your exposure to these two countries given the local demand is not going in your favor? Thank you. First of all, the 8%-10% for the time horizon, which was mentioned before, like, 25, that is under review as well. From today's perspective, I find it difficult to commit to such a figure if we look at the current difficulties we have right now. Going forward, we of course need to apply our kind of risk assessment, if you wish, to all the different regions, and then we will come at that point in time when it will be, you know, relevant for us. In other words, when we have to do some decision-making around projects, then we will come to decisions. We are extremely careful in order to make sure that the business we take on board really is something which in the future is going to add to a good, profitable, sustainable backlog. Thank you. Regarding your question regarding, you know, China and India per se, we don't have such a thing, you know, as exposure on China. Of course, it's impacting us on different, you know, ways. You know, one, of course, the lockdown of China has increased and we have done sourcing, you know, of China coming, you know, to the U.S., so it's impacting us and that's the reason of extra provisions on some of the trades there. In the case of India, we reduced this posture last year and we reduced the capacity and, of course, in our case, you know, we have reassessed already, you know, the India footprint, you know, and activity for other reasons last year. We don't foresee impairments as such, for that, you know, kind of operations. Thank you. Perhaps one little add on. For the long term, I do not see really a reason with those prospects we mentioned. I do not see really a reason why we should not be an 8% company. Thank you. The next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you for my follow-up question as well. I just wanted to come back to your chart on Mistral and the 5.X. I think in that you're saying a timeline of FY 2022, 2023. Just wanted to see if and you also said you expect to be out of the woods by the end of this year, perhaps in the volume and quality ramp up. What are the milestones we should look out for apart from not having any additional onerous provisions that this is on track? Will you communicate any KPIs to us? How could we gauge that this is going as per track? Of course, we have the obligation and the definite wish to communicate as openly and as clearly as possible. Looking at KPIs and more detailed information, I don't know really how to answer this. Of course, you too could take my position or you could take the position of our managers. We look at KPIs and indication there, but perhaps that would be slightly over the top. We will continue to communicate clearly on the situation with the 5.X. But we hope that this is sufficiently indicative. Too many further KPIs and technical analysis and discussions and charts and discussions around why things now as a, in a sort of, how should I say, chain reaction then turn out to be difficult and others less difficult that perhaps would be slightly over the top. Right. I think as investors, we've not had any. It's only the onerous provisions that's the indication of how bad things are. There hasn't been generally any communication on what were the original timelines, what's going on. We would really appreciate if there's some information you can give so we can also get a better sense for how things are going. Yeah, we'll do so. Of course, I think it's important that we focus on the short-term plan that as we highlighted, those are the measures that will give you, of course, you know, update on how those are ongoing. In the end, as we said, you know, it's making sure that of course, you know, the ramp-up volumes are there. That of course we continue to mitigate the cost inflation. That's the reason as well, you know, of the onerous projects. Per se, you know, kind of, that metric it gives you a color. As I said, we are sitting on those EUR 2 billion of onerous contract. What is important for us is that we enhance the health of the future projects, and of course, that we tackle the challenges that we have on the short term. That's the reason, as you said, you know, we'll keep providing, you know, kind of for you information, for you to have the comfort that we are able to tackle those challenges. That's the important thing for us and for the future growth of the company. We accept and appreciate your wish for further clarity here, and we will look into this. To take only one more question and then we'll pass to Jochen Eickholt to close the call. Thank you. The last question comes from William Mackie from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Hello, good morning. Thanks for the time. Just two quick follow-ups and then a question, if I might. The guidance, just on a quick follow-up. It's under review, but then you refer to the -9% on revenue and the -4% on EBIT. At what point are you communicating? Are you actually saying that is a floor? And when will you come back with the guidance? When do you think the conditions are right to reset that? That's follow-up one. Sorry about that. Follow-up two was, I don't know if you'll give any more detail regarding how you changed the project selection process or the criteria for project selection. The real question comes down to a follow-on from project selection and your comment about willingness to forgo or give up market share. You know, I guess the question is on, related to onshore, and it's married between a sort of thinking about forward loadings across your factories and actual capacity in the near term. For how long will you give up market share before you have to curtail capacity? On a broader issue, really the big question is against the, you know, improving outlook. You know, the doubling of volumes potentially between now and 2030 is where is the capacity utilization in your business or in the industry? How much capacity investment would be required to reach those 2030 targets from the supply side? You know, how can you envisage the right financial signals, i.e. the investment returns you need to invest in that capacity if it is required? Thank you. Very long. Much. Well, certainly quite a, in my view, quite a number of very good questions. First of all, on the guidance, we want to be coming up with our guidance again after the earnings release of Q3. That would be, as we foresee it, end of July, beginning of August. We had quite a number of, as I said, additional criteria to be implemented for our project selection. That means that we also have introduced stricter requirements regarding risk contingencies, regarding the risk coverage in general, which is not only commercial mitigation, but also technical mitigation. We also had let's say, additional hurdle requirements, if you wish. There is a limit under which we typically accept a project. These things, however, cannot be really standardized. We need to look at the entirety of the picture. We need to have a holistic approach. This is what we apply now. However, we are more strict than in the past. The next question was giving up market share. As I said, right now, market share is not necessarily the prime target. The prime target is to make us a sustainable company because we're starting off with a belief, and the belief is only as a sustainable player in our industry we can be the long-term strong partner for our customers as well as for the suppliers. Therefore, without sustainability also on, let's say, the profitability side of our business, it will be very difficult in the future. It is in the interest of many participants in this market to make sure that also players like us are in that situation. Going forward, indeed, there is this question around who would finance or who would invest in such a growth with all the needed elements if the business as such is not sustainable, and that's a very valid question. That is what we're currently working on. This is what we're discussing with our partners. This is where we also have, for instance, started discussions with our customers, for instance, on different payment profiles, on different payment schemes, and where we then need to assess in detail with the related customers how to handle such situations. It is clear that we cannot continue to invest endlessly under the given circumstances. Thank you very much. With this we are going to conclude the call. Jochen, do you want to conclude? Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much for all of you for your attention, for the very good questions. We take all of them very seriously and we'll, you know, where applicable, come back to those points, in the future. We were trying to share the picture on our Q2, which ended end of March. We have shared the figures, we've shared the figures in detail. We've explained how we view the market. We also have provided a little bit of an update, I shall say, on the view on how we see our guidance picture. We were, in my view, in the end, also with the help of your questions, perhaps even more clear than in the past. Please understand that this is a difficult picture and we come back to this after our Q3. Going forward, we are actually very positive around the way of how we set up our company activities. It will be structured around the new company program. The company program is called Mistral. It will be different. It will be a also different approach internally versus LEAP. Mistral also is going to be a program with which we will communicate on a more or less regular basis. With that, thank you very much for all of your attention. We hoped to answered your questions as good as possible, and we look forward to the future dialogue which is going to come. Thank you very much. Thank you.