Hello all, and welcome to Outokumpu's Q4 2024 Results Webcast. My name is Linda Häkkilä, and I'm the Head of Investor Relations here at Outokumpu. Today, as our main speakers, we have our CEO, Kati ter Horst, and our CFO, Marc-Simon Schaar. As per usual, we will first start with our presentations, and after that, we are happy to answer your questions. Before we start with the presentation, I would like to remind you about the disclaimer, as we might be making forward-looking statements. But now, without any further comments, I would like to hand over to our CEO. Thank you very much, Linda, and very warmly welcome everyone to our Q4 and full- year 2024 result call, so before I continue to discuss the result in more detail, I would like to say a couple of opening words, so in today's geopolitical situation and with the ongoing tariff discussions, they are creating a lot of uncertainty for companies, industries, and countries. That is, in general, not good for the investment climate, nor for the economic growth in the world. Outokumpu is, of course, a global player in stainless steel production in Europe and North America, and we are in principle clearly an advocate of free trade and fair competition. However, as ASEAN imports have increased significantly, both in North America and in Europe, we do welcome the measures to establish a level playing field, and steel should also be seen as infrastructure-critical industry worth protecting. Furthermore, Outokumpu is in a very key position. Outokumpu is the industry leader in sustainability, and stainless steel is part of the solution for the green transition, for instance, in electrification, transport, and energy. Let's now then move to discuss our result. To summarize the year 2024, our adjusted EBITDA totaled EUR 177 million. The market conditions were difficult in terms of stainless steel deliveries and prices, but we kept our market positions. Number one in Europe with 31% market share, and the clear number two in North America with 24% market share during the year 2024. Then ferrochrome this time actually contributed to 60% of our result and provided further stability. And there was clearly more interest for our low-emission, geopolitically well-located ferrochrome as the only producer in the EU area. Then we are clearly the industry leader in sustainability and safety. We are well on track with the emission reduction target, and our total recordable incident rate of 1.5 is really a world-class performance, and then, despite the weaker profitability, we did maintain the strongest balance sheet in the industry and returned EUR 144 million of capital to our shareholders. Given the current situation, we have continued to work on measures to improve our profitability. During 2024, we reached EUR 101 million EBITDA run rate improvement, bringing the cumulative number to EUR 287 million by the end of the year. We will deliver the targeted EUR 350 million improvement target by the end of this year, including both commercial and cost-saving actions. Our recent structural change that I could give as an example is, for instance, the centralization of the advanced materials production in Germany to Dillenburg, while we were then also at the same time closing the Hockenheim coil service center. This will deliver EUR 50 million savings during this year, and due to the delayed market recovery, we have decided additional short-term cost-saving actions to protect our result and financial position, and I move now to comment on that, so we will deliver EUR 50 million of short-term cost-saving actions that will be coming into our result during 2025. And this includes a range of measures from improvements in procurement, operational efficiency, to cutting discretionary spending and postponing some of the recruitments. We have also decided to limit this year's CapEx to EUR 160 million. We will definitely continue to take care of the needed maintenance, but we are then delaying somewhat some of the more strategic investments. Before we take a more detailed look at Q4 and the full- year 2024 result, I would like to also comment on the market price development. As you can see from the left graph, market prices continued to decline in Europe during Q4, while prices stabilized in the Americas after a continuous decline since the beginning of 2023. At the same time, if you look at the right side of the picture, the LME nickel spot prices decreased then towards the $15,100 level towards the end of the year, and there are two key reasons for the continued price pressure on the market. Firstly, the low demand reflecting weak economic activity, low consumer confidence, and basically no growth in industrial production, neither in Europe nor the Americas. Secondly, low-priced ASEAN imports have been flooding to the North American market and Europe, reaching 25% share in Europe and even 38% share in North America during Q4. Next, I will then like to comment a bit on our full- year and Q4 result in more detail. If we compare 2024 to the previous year, our group deliveries decreased by 6%. There was a difference, however, between Europe and the Americas. The deliveries decreased by 11% in Europe, and they increased by 8% in the Americas, coming from a low level in 2023. European demand was historically low during 2024, even lower than during the COVID year of 2020. Profitability both in Europe and the Americas was negatively impacted by lower realized prices for stainless steel and unfavorable impacts from a tighter scrap market. What I would also like to note is that without the Finnish political strike impact, our result would have been around EUR 240 million. If we then add the impact of the operational issues that we had during the first half of the year in the Americas, then we would have come to something like EUR 280 million. So EUR 100 million more than we are now reporting. And these issues in the Americas have been solved. Let's then turn to look at the Q4 in isolation. So the key message that we have here for Q4 is that the stainless steel market in Europe turned out to be weaker than we expected, both in terms of volumes and prices. Our deliveries in Europe decreased by 9% and in the Americas by 7% versus Q3. Realized prices were lower in Europe and relatively stable in the Americas. In addition, we had negative raw material impacts, and our costs were higher, mainly due to the prolonged maintenance in Tornio, as we communicated earlier. And then business area ferrochrome continued to perform very well in Q4 through their efficient production and energy optimization. After this, I would like to turn to discuss our sustainability performance. Outokumpu is the clear sustainability leader in our industry, and I'm extremely proud of that. We have by far the best safety performance in the global steel sector, and indeed our total recordable incident frequency rate of 1.5 is a world-class level, also in the broader global process industry. Our high scrap rate at 95% is the key contributor to our low carbon footprint for stainless steel, and we are tracking very well towards our SBTi target, reaching now 32% reduction in our emission intensity by the end of 2024 compared to the 2016 baseline. In line with our smart decarbonization strategy, we will reduce CO2 emissions in ferrochrome production by gradually moving and replacing the fossil coke with biocoke. To support this plan, we have now decided, that was announced earlier, decided to invest in biocarbon production in Germany. And to support ferrochrome further, our chrome mine in Kemi will be carbon neutral by the end of 2025, and we are also experiencing increasing customer demand and interest for our low emission, let's say, emission-minimized Outokumpu Circle Green that we launched already more than a year ago. One note that I would like to also do here and end is that in this geopolitical situation where we are, managing the supply chains has become even more critical. I would like to highlight in that regard that EcoVadis has ranked Outokumpu among the top 1% of companies in the world assessed by the Platinum rating. Now I would like to hand to Marc-Simon Schaar to discuss further our financial strength. Thank you, Kati. Good morning, good afternoon, everyone. Welcome also from my side to our webcast. In times of a weak economic environment, securing the financial strength of a company is paramount. Kati already talked about us addressing our cost and earnings trajectory, and I will now continue with providing you an update on our financial position and liquidity at the end of last year. Let me share with you then the following overview. I must say I'm very pleased that our net debt decreased quarter- on- quarter to a level of EUR 189 million, keeping our net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio at 1.1. Here, please remember that our target is to stay at a leverage ratio of one during normal market conditions, from which we are currently far away. Adjusted for the impact of the political strike in Finland during the first half of the year, the leverage ratio would have even been below 1. Due to swift measures to address the current market environment, we were able to improve our liquidity reserves to a strong level of EUR 1.1 billion. At the same time, our 2024 annual CapEx was at EUR 260 million. As Kati pointed out, we adjusted our CapEx plan for the financial year 2025 to EUR 160 million, which decreases our phase two CapEx target by almost EUR 50 million to a level of EUR 550 million. During times like this, we must carefully manage our spending with a clear focus on smart capital allocation and especially the right timing of those. Let us now have a look at the performance of our business areas, starting with business area Europe. In Europe, we were faced with tough market conditions towards the end of last year, which led to an unsatisfactory result. The deliveries of 287 kilo tons in quarter four were the lowest amount at least since 2015 and 12% less than a year ago. While imports increased year- on- year up to a level of 25% in the fourth quarter compared to a level of only 19% during 2023, we were able to keep our market share relatively stable in Europe despite the political strike impact in Finland earlier in the year. Given the low demand and high import pressure, realized prices decreased quarter- on- quarter. At the same time, we had increased raw material costs due to the impact of higher prices from earlier periods when we had to replenish our supply chain following the political strike. These higher costs negatively impacted our profitability in the fourth quarter. In addition, our fixed costs were higher, driven by the maintenance work, which was concluded in the fourth quarter. Variable costs seasonally increased due to slightly elevated energy prices. Furthermore, we had less gains from net of timing and hedging quarter- on- quarter. Now looking at the market environment, the manufacturing industry remained in contraction with a PMI below 50. For a proper demand recovery, consumer confidence and industrial production need to improve. This requires a supportive and reliable investment climate with competitive energy prices, lower interest rates, and overall more visibility. Generally, investments are made with a long-term perspective in a stable and predictable investment environment. Therefore, from an industry perspective, the European demand situation in appliances, construction, chemicals, heavy industries, and automotive had not improved yet, but the energy, marine, and mining sectors continued to run better. Additionally, we have seen distributors notably replenish their inventories. So far, the update on business area Europe, and let's move over now to business area Americas. In the fourth quarter, the U.S. manufacturing sector experienced a continued contraction. Overall, while there were signs of improvement in November, the manufacturing sector faced challenges throughout the quarter, including subdued demand, policy uncertainties, and inflationary pressure. In Mexico, the manufacturing sector also continues to face challenges with a PMI below 50. Concerns in the automotive sector, rising insecurity, protectionist policies, and competition from Asia, with currently only minimal tariffs, are contributing factors. At the same time, imports into the North American market rose by 3 percentage points to 38% in the fourth quarter, double the level in 2020. The imports were predominantly coming from Asia, and while imports also increased year- on- year, we were able to keep our market share in North America stable at 24%. In this market environment, distributor inventories stayed on low levels, but given the low demand situation, the inventory days remained on a relatively high level. While the low demand situation was visible in all sectors, oil and gas continued to be on an okay level. As a result of that, and given the typical Q4 seasonality, our stainless steel deliveries decreased in Q4 while we maintained our market share as mentioned before. The negative impact from production and deliveries was offset by lower variable costs and a positive impact from a property tax settlement in the U.S. Going forward, we expect the U.S. market to be supported by increased domestic production and more infrastructure investments to come. But now let's continue with our business area ferrochrome. While the ferrochrome market also remained challenging, I'm very pleased with the business area's improved result in quarter four, certainly benefiting from our unique low-emission European-based product. The main driver for the profitability improvement versus the third quarter was a strong cost performance in both variable and fixed costs. This was partially offset by a negative impact from lower internal deliveries, as we have seen before. Overall, the market outlook for our unique ferrochrome remains positive and is even further supported and accelerated by the CBAM implementation starting in 2026. In these times of political uncertainty, it is important to remember that we are the largest producer of ferrochrome in the Western world. Most of the world's ferrochrome production happens in BRICS countries, and then, furthermore, I would like to highlight our announcement earlier in January that our mineral reserves estimates doubled based on our underground drilling results. The updated total estimated reserves corresponds to a turnover of approximately EUR 15 billion based on January through September 2024 average prices. In this context, I would like to remind that there is sufficient ore availability until 2050 without any major investment needs in our chromite ore mine in Kemi, Finland. Now, my final comments relate to our strong financial position. As mentioned earlier, I'm happy to say that our net debt decreased quarter- on- quarter well below EUR 200 million, supported by active working capital management, which we intensified after we saw the further weakening of the market. We will continue with our active working capital management and smart capital allocation, which is vitally important in the current market environment. The increase in net debt during the last year was mainly driven by the soft earnings, including the unfortunate negative impact of EUR 60 million from the political strike in Finland. Total capital returns to shareholders of EUR 144 million, including both dividend payments and share buybacks, and additional lease liabilities of EUR 34 million for our three new liner vessels. Especially during these times of a challenging market environment, we maintain our strong focus on and take decisive actions to keep Outokumpu's financial condition healthy. With this financial update, I would like to thank you for your attention and hand over back to you, Kati. Thank you, Marc-Simon. So before we go forward, actually, I would like to use the opportunity now a bit to update you also on the latest on the Finnish strike situation. So one thing is that there are several strike warnings in different industries for the month of February, but I would like to confirm that Outokumpu is not on any of these lists. So Outokumpu is not expected to be affected by the strikes if they continue in February. And then the other, I think, important point is that negotiations are continuing between the parties. And of course, as Outokumpu, we are hoping that an agreement could be reached soon. And then I would like to continue to discuss the proposals from the board. With our solid financial position and positive long-term outlook, we go to the next slide where the board of directors of Outokumpu proposes a dividend of EUR 0.26 per share for the year 2024 to be paid then in two installments. Let's then move as normal to the outlook and guidance for Q1. Outokumpu stainless steel deliveries in the first quarter are expected to increase by 10%-20% compared to the fourth quarter, including the impact of the one-week strike, while the pressure on realized stainless steel prices is expected to continue during the first quarter. Maintenance costs are forecasted to decrease by approximately EUR 10 million in the first quarter compared to the fourth quarter. The one-week strike in Finland that happened in January is expected to have an approximately EUR 15 million negative impact on the adjusted EBITDA in the first quarter. And then the risk of further strikes causes uncertainty for Outokumpu's earnings development in the first quarter, and the impact of each additional week of strike is expected to be approximately EUR 15 million negative on the adjusted EBITDA. And then with the current raw material prices, some raw material-related inventory and metal derivative losses, they are forecasted to be realized in the first quarter. So our guidance for Q1 stands adjusted EBITDA in the first quarter of 2025 is expected to be higher compared to the fourth quarter, and this guidance includes the impact of the one-week strike. So while we are still in the low point of the cycle, I would also like to say that we do see some first signs of market recovery coming closer by. But in the meanwhile, we will need to continue to focus our profit improvement actions, and we are also developing our future strategy. Then I would like to take up on two topics that we have communicated earlier today, where we said firstly that we have decided not to proceed with a cold rolling capacity expansion in the U.S. at this moment. I would like to clarify that this conclusion was done prior to the current tariff discussions ongoing. In principle, the tariffs under planning would support domestic production in the Americas, and we will, of course, continue to follow the situation. It's important to note that our type of investments are done long-term, so they are not depending on tariffs for one or two years or one term of a president. But in any case, I would like to confirm that we see Americas as an attractive market and will continue to explore growth opportunities there. We have then also today announced that we have finalized the feasibility study on SMR. And although the outcome was very encouraging and energy as such is a strategic topic for us, we do not see energy production as a core business for Outokumpu. And therefore, we are looking for a partner that would be interested in investing in energy production next to our site in Tornio, Finland. And finally, I would like to very, very warmly welcome you to our Capital Markets Day that will be then held on June 11th this summer. And this concludes our today's presentation, and I guess then we are ready for the questions- and- answers. So let's start. If you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key, five on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key, six on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Ioannis Masvoulas from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hello, thank you very much for the presentation. Two questions from my side. The first on the U.S. cold rolling investment that is not going ahead. This was arguably one of the most mature and capital-efficient growth options in your portfolio. And as you indicated, the U.S. market in terms of the underlying fundamentals on the demand side and the supply deficit in the domestic market looked quite attractive, as we've seen on the pricing side as well over the past few years as compared to other regions. Can you elaborate a bit more on the underlying reasons for your decision not to go ahead? Was it mostly a function of higher CapEx than you originally anticipated? And is it fair to say that without tariffs, project economics no longer look compelling? And maybe I'll stop here for the first one. Maybe thank you for your question. Maybe I'll start on that. So I think we have looked at the Americas market, how we see the demand developing and how we see the demand-supply balance developing. And I think one of our key conclusions was that we didn't right at this moment see that there would be enough room for additional expansion in cold rolling capacity. Then at the same time, we have communicated that we have been working on deploying our current assets and doing smaller investments in the Americas and in Mexico. And that has proceeded well. We have said that there would be 80,000 tons of additional capacity. So for now, we have decided rather to do that than do a big investment in a current environment. But like I said, we are keeping the door open and we will continue to see if that moment is right later on, as well as we are looking at other growth options in the Americas and comparing them to each other. Thank you for that. And the second question is on Mexinox. You've got 250,000 tons of cold rolling capacity in Mexico that relies mostly on hot-rolled imports from your Calvert facility in the U.S. In a scenario where we see the U.S. and Mexico erecting 25% tariffs to each other, how can you reposition the supply chain for Mexinox so it can remain a competitive asset in the years to come? I would want to start by saying that there are no tariffs that Mexico would have or has imposed now on the U.S. Our view is that the negotiations in the background are continuing. Mexico has kept themselves, I think, quite calm in this situation, and I find it from a starting point difficult to imagine looking at how tight Mexico and the U.S. are together in some of the very complex supply chains, for instance, for the automobile industry, but for many other appliances as well, that this would be in the interest of Mexico. But then, you know, should something happen, we will estimate and look at it, but we have, of course, opportunities also to supply from Tornio or some other sources, but we don't really see this now as a really, you know, like a scenario that we would believe in. Let's put it like that without speculating more on it. Okay, thanks very much. I'll go back to the queue. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Tristan Gresser from BNP Paribas Exane. Please go ahead. Yes, hi there. Thank you for taking my questions. Just to follow up on Mexico, can you tell us how much volume you're shipping from Calvert to Mexico and how much then stays in Mexico and how much do you ship back to the U.S.? It depends, of course, how full we run in Mexico to start with. If we say that Mexico has a cold rolling capacity of about 250,000 tons, then we would be shipping for that kind of cold rolling taking place in Mexico about 280,000 tons of hot-rolled material, right? Yes. Yes. But then what comes back to the U.S. also depends on the year, but it's a relatively small amount. We talk about 10-20,000 tons. And if America's market is doing really well, it could be more. But it's a minor volume of what we cold roll in Mexico. Okay, that's clear. So the vast majority of your production in Mexico stays in Mexico? Yes, and depending on Mexican demand and the market situation, how much we bring there. All right, that's clear. And just coming back to your options, if Mexico were to retaliate, can you remind us what happened in 2018? And And at the time, you had the tariffs of Section 232, but did Mexico retaliate? And exactly how did you adjust your production? What really changed at the time for you in the region? Yeah. Well, Tristan, if I can take that question in a way, yes, at the beginning, there were certain measures being put in place, but then, I mean, we have this melt- and- pour provision in place as well from the Americas and therefore not being affected. Basically, the reserves were sold quite quickly. Yes. That was the point. Okay. And then, my thank you for that. Then, when we look at the U.S. market in general, you mentioned the import pressure, but you also said that you're pulling this investment in the U.S. And I think you also warn of potential demand destruction from the tariffs. I just wanted to make clear, are those tariffs a positive for your business in the Americas? And if 50% of the import volumes that used to come in the U.S. were not paying the tariffs or not paying it, it should be a positive. So do you expect to see higher base prices like in 2018, or would you see the situation a bit differently from last time around? Let me comment like this. I'm not commenting on pricing forward-looking, but let me comment like this that yes, overall, we do see the tariffs put to protect the American stainless steel market or steel market as positive for Outokumpu being a local producer. That is, I think, valid. All right. And then if we look at the margin progression in the U.S., would you expect to hit the EUR 170 million target this year? And can we already see maybe a return in Q1 and Q2 of the margins of last year levels? Is that fair? Yeah, I don't want to speculate on that now. We have to remember that we come from low levels of demand and pricing as well. And I think we need to see also in the U.S. market the industrial production investments picking up to support the demand. But I think the tariffs could support local production and also will bring some inflation and price increase pressure to the market. So that's how I would comment it. Yeah, and particularly the Mexican market to recover here. It's not so much about the U.S., but the Mexican market. Okay. So in terms of margin pressure, should you see any more squeeze into Q1 with the lags effect, or it's more stable-ish kind of development on the margin side? I think we said that there is still some price pressure, but we, like I also said, well, I could say that we see also our order books looking more positive, whether that is now replenishing of stocks that starts to happen, and when we really see the real demand coming in, it's a bit difficult to say, but there are some positive signs. All right. And maybe just that’s clear. And just the last question. So, on Europe, would you expect to be a bit positive in Europe? And kind of the same question as to the U.S.. It looks like there would be some pressure on prices, but to have a more definite and precise vision on costs is always a bit tricky. So, curious to hear your thought if you think the division can turn a bit positive as soon as Q1. Maybe I can take that while we are not guiding specifically on a level. The only comment I really would like to make is that we see a notable improvement in European profitability going forward into Q1. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. you. Thanks a lot. The next question comes from Anssi Raussi from SEB. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you for the presentation. And I have a few questions left. But first, if I start with your Q1 guidance or your guiding somewhat, I would say exceptional volume growth for Q1 compared to the seasonality in the recent years. So have you seen a clear uptick in an underlying demand, or is it something else like inventory buildup in the U.S. or just extended maintenance breaks in comparison period? Or do you see something, let's say, extraordinary here? I would comment, no, nothing extraordinary. I think it's seasonality-wise, we're coming from low levels, first of all. Seasonality-wise, it's a stronger quarter, and I think there is an impact of replenishing of stocks from a low level starting to happen, and then hopefully going forward, we will see also the kind of real demand coming through, so that's a bit difficult still to estimate, but like I said, some positive signs, at least if you look at our order book. Yeah. Okay, got it. And then about your decision to cancel this capacity investment for now. So you say here that these new tariffs could have an impact on your analysis, but when do you plan to reassess this investment? And also, I think you mentioned that this decision to cancel this investment plan allows you to direct your capital into other areas. So what areas you're seeing which would have a better return on capital? Yeah, let's answer like that, that America's market continues to be interesting. So we are also looking at other opportunities, but also wider in the group. And I would like to come back on that more in detail then during our Capital Markets Day in June. Okay. And lastly, one simple question about your working capital in, let's say, Q1 and the first half of 2025. So do you think that your current inventory levels are, let's say, normal or maybe some excess inventory still, or how do you see the situation? And of course, I'm thinking your cash flows here. Yeah. For the fourth quarter, I would say that we had been preparing somewhat for a potential strike in Finland over there. Therefore, I would say that Q4 levels still had a level of improvement there. However, on the other side, as Kati also mentioned, we do see some more activity, so in the first quarter, we expect working capital to pick up again in line with the, yeah, sales activities which we have. Okay, thank you so much. That's all from me. Thank you. The next question comes from Bastian Synagowitz from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. I've got a couple, and I'll start off with volumes. So just looking at the 10%-20% volume guidance, that's obviously a lot. Can you maybe give us a little bit of color on whether you're feeling more comfortable about the volume uplift in the first quarter in either the U.S. or Americas, or is this very, very similar what you're seeing? That would be my first question. I would say relatively seen, Bastian, we see it similar in both business areas. Okay, understood. And then just if we extrapolate that to the commercial side, I guess 10%-20% volume uplift, that's a lot. And I guess on the other side, when we look at prices, particularly into the late last year, there's been obviously a lot of pressure, but it would be generally hard to imagine that there is a 10%-20% uplift in volumes without at least some positive traction on the pricing as well. Do you start to see or feel more positive about the pricing side as well? Are there any actual tangible improvements you would already see in the first quarter at this point? We have given our pricing guidance saying that the prices are still under pressure in Q1 in the guidance, and we are not giving a guidance on prices basically and not on longer. I can't really comment on that. I think the only comment I gave earlier is that we see order books looking more positive. I think you need to then draw the conclusions from that. Okay, all right, but I mean, we can put it the other way around. I guess if there's a 20% uplift in volumes, if you can't capture it via pricing, I guess there would be a commercial issue, so I guess from that, I would infer that there probably should have been a little bit of pricing power moving back to the mill side in Europe. Let's say so that we come on from low levels, and deals, of course, are made also a bit earlier, so it's a bit difficult one to comment without going into pricing discussion, honestly. Yeah. And maybe to give a bit more color, Bastian, here as well, we talked about the order book. We talked about then also a bit more outlook into the future. As Kati said, that is what you need to take into consideration. But also this is driven by replenishment. We don't see a significant increase in the underlying end user demand here, right? Just to put things a bit into perspective. Understood. Okay, great. And then just following up briefly on the cost situation in Europe, I guess you mentioned that there has been a bit of a headwind here from the replenishment of inventory and input factors probably after the strike, which has impacted in Q4. So I'm not quite clear. Is this a temporary headwind and more of technical nature and that will unwind into Q1 or the quarters ahead? So will be more of a tailwind from here, or is the current level you've been running at more or less what you're seeing in the first quarter as well? Very clearly one. Otherwise. Yeah, yeah. Very clearly one time in nature and then also for the first quarter and going forward, tailwind. Understood. Great. And then maybe coming back on tariffs here. So you've been discussing about the situation probably more from a U.S. angle. Is there any major exposure you do have from shipping stainless steel into the U.S. from the European sides as well, either Sweden or Finland or Germany? So maybe you can update us what is the actual volume exposure you do have? I'm thinking particularly about things like Section 232, for example. Maybe you could help us there. Yeah. So the exposure from a tonnage point of view, I could comment it like that, that it's between 1%-2% of our European sales, depending on the year. So it's small. It's very small. There are some products that are under tariffs currently, some not, kind of more alloys. And then I think the ruling now that came on under Section 232 is that when you have the exemptions, they are valid until they last. And then depending on the product category, it could be that there's 12 months to go or five months to go or something like that. So we will need to look at that. But it's small. That impact is small on Outokumpu. I think the other side of the story is that when there are specialty products that are not made in the U.S. and there's need for those products, then customers will pay the tariffs. Okay, perfect. Thanks so much. I'll jump back into the queue. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Krishan Agarwal from Citi. Please go ahead. Krishan, sorry, it's very, very difficult to hear you, if at all. Is it better now? Yeah, somewhat better. Thank you. Yeah, okay. So two questions from my side. First, on the ferrochrome, you mentioned that there was a favorable impact from the electricity cost in the Q4. Do you mind giving us a perspective if those gains on the cost base are sustainable or going ahead into the Q1 or for 2025? And also, what are the pricing trends you are seeing to the ferrochrome, which probably would be applicable for the Q1 earnings? So maybe I comment in general and then Maxime, you can add if you want to. So maybe it's good to know that we have, of course, energy hedging at certain prices, and then we are using also energy on the spot market. And that volatility of energy prices is quite volatile in Finland also because of the wind energy coming in, and especially in the wintertime. So ferrochrome in the production with the three different furnaces we have has an excellent opportunity to balance and decide when they produce full and when a bit lower level. So that is what ferrochrome continues to do. And therefore, I think the type of energy cost we have now, we expect us to be able to achieve that also now going forward. So I think that's a good thing. I think then looking at the ferrochrome market as such, I think I would like to make the note that we have started really clearly to create our own ferrochrome market. One, because of the geopolitical location we have, the only ferrochrome producer in the EU area, and some worries about some other producers and their capability going forward, or then are they the right sources to source from? Could be one question. Then we have, of course, the lowest emission ferrochrome that is also valued, and CBAM coming in in 2026 will support that further. Our pricing is a bit different than the overall ferrochrome pricing. I see that longer term positive going forward. Yeah, maybe from my side to add here, energy optimization is an ongoing topic, as Kati said, due to the volatility over here, and provides us with an advantage here on that side. And then on the pricing side, we don't give any forward guidance on pricing, but we see our overall ferrochrome business and financial performance solid and stable. Understood. Thanks a lot for the color. The second question is more on the announcement around the nuclear SMR expansion. I mean, I sort of reckon that it's early days because you're in the pre-feasibility stage. Is there any kind of color you would have in terms of what kind of timelines you are looking at this particular expansion? And then in terms of how much of the proportion you could probably get from nuclear as part of your overall requirement? And then more importantly, are there going to be any kind of subsidies from the government on this capacity expansion? Krishan, just to kind of clarify, we are not doing the investment ourselves. So we have done the feasibility study for SMR looking at the site that, or let's say the land that we have now next to our Tornio site. The feasibility study outcome was very encouraging. But as a new CEO also, I have made the strategic kind of choice that we will not invest in energy production, although energy is a very strategic topic for us. And therefore, what we have said in the press release or investor release is that we are looking for someone else to invest in that. And at the same time, we are having broader options to develop the ecosystem around the Tornio site. But we are not planning to invest ourselves in energy production. Understand. So if I can push you a little bit on that, if you're looking for someone, what is the value proposition you are going to bring on the table? Is it the firm demand from your side or some kind of land availability or something like that? I would say that we have the land availability indeed. It could be used for that purpose. We have done a feasibility study. That's a good start for someone to look at it. We are the biggest electricity buyer in Finland. Those are the elements. Yeah, okay. Understand. Very clear. Thanks a lot. The next question comes from Maxime Kogge from ODDO BHF. Please go ahead. Yeah, good afternoon. So my first question is on imports. So in light of the ongoing review of the safeguard mechanism in Europe, which is set to expire at the end of March, have you already seen lower import pressure in Europe as some distributors are reported to have already considerably reduced imports? And conversely, in the U.S., have you seen higher imports recently, given that some people, some distributors and clients are set to rush to import stuff before the tariffs kick in in March? Yes, Maxime, thank you. On the imports in Europe, as we were reporting earlier, we have seen actually an increase in imports in here, and yet we don't see any meaningful impact difference in the first quarter. However, I think it's also important to note that meanwhile, with this very low pricing environment, the pricing differential between these both continents became much smaller. That is probably as much as I want to say about that and not so much speculating way going forward, but there might be some analysts out there who have a forward-looking view on imports, and then on the higher imports in the North American market, of course, they have also increased substantially, and well, I mean, we discussed now quite a lot around tariffs, and I think as a matter of fact, we do not know yet what the tariffs really will be. There are so much uncertainties around how they will be calculated, on what they will be calculated, what's in, what's out, and so forth. We need more clarity around that one before we can make any qualified statement around that one. Okay, fair enough. And the second one is, can you give us a high-level implications for you of the truce in Ukraine, both directly and indirectly, if Russia were able to return to commodity export markets? So I think in the past you had sourced nickel, coal, natural gas too probably from Russia. Is it possible to give any potential financial impact of a normalization in these costs going forward? Yeah, I don't think that. Well, I think one thing I would say, I don't think we would go back to sourcing anything from Russia. That's not our plan. I think that's one, and then, of course, we are hoping that if the war would be over, that the rebuilding of Ukraine would also provide some opportunities for us to support that and would be in general good for Europe, for sure. But I don't think there's not really a way to kind of estimate the financial impact of that to Outokumpu. Yeah, but net, it will be a positive element, as you said, definitely from an economic point of view as well, besides certainly a human point of view. Sure. Okay. And just the last one is on the convertible bond you still have and which is maturing this year. I think your plan was to settle it in shares, but you're still short of owning all the shares that you would need to do that. So is there any plan to do another share buyback program in the coming months, or are you going to tackle the situation otherwise? No, there are no plans yet. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. The next question comes from Ioannis Masvoulas from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hello, yes. Just a couple of follow-ups. First, on SMRs, I appreciate that you're not looking to invest directly and you're looking for a partner. But can you give us an idea on what proportion of your power consumption in Finland you expect to be sourced from SMRs, assuming this project comes into fruition? To be honest, we are not assuming anything right now being sourced by SMR. So we see it more as an opportunity based on the feasibility study for someone to look at that would be interested in that. So I see it more as a kind of element in the whole scope of Finland. There are a lot of data center type of projects that are being looked at, some other investments being looked at. So basically, Finland does need going forward more capacity. And I think there are a lot of discussions going on how that would be built and how that would be financed. The Tornio area where we are has a lot of industry around it. There will be the Aurora connection on electricity networks with Sweden. I think there's a lot of interest to that area. We are basically inviting interested parties to look at that with this site. The feasibility study we've done would be interesting for someone. I believe that investments in that part of Finland could be attractive. We are not calculating on anything coming from that now in our case at the moment. Correct. Okay, thanks very much. The next question comes from Anssi Raussi from SEB. Please go ahead. Yes, one more from me. It's about your annual contracts. So there have been some rumors that some end users of steel would like to negotiate lower volumes in their contracts or even outsource their procurement. So have you seen any changes in your dynamics with your end-use customers in your annual contracts? No, Anssi. We haven't seen anything like that. Still the same setup and also in terms of volumes, no change to what has been communicated earlier. Okay, thanks. And I guess nothing major regarding the pricing in these contracts? No. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, it seems that we have come to the end of the Q&A session. Thank you for being so active. Thank you for your very, very good questions. And thank you for being with us today. Yes, I look very much forward to seeing you in our next interim call or then indeed in our Capital Markets Day on June 11th. So talk to you next time and have a nice day.