Welcome to Wärtsilä Strategical. I'm Hanna-Maria Heikkinen, and I'm in charge of investor relations. Today, our CEO, Håkan Agnevall, will discuss some of our long-term key opportunities. After Håkan's key messages, there is a possibility to ask questions. As a reminder, we will host a pre-talent call on January 9, together with our CFO, Arjen Berends. Let's leave the questions related to recent trading and detailed financials to that call. If you have a question, please use the raise-your-hand functionality in Teams. In the case you don't have the possibility to use the raise-your-hand functionality, you can also send a question by email to me. Please, Håkan. Thank you, Hanna-Maria, and thank you for joining us. Christmas is coming. Also, I mean, tomorrow we also have another investor event. I think we should advertise that a little bit. We have a dedicated event to our power plant business. Anders and his Energy Team will talk more. Please join if you have the opportunity. You will learn more details about our power plant business, which is really developing in a good way, by the way. I mean, I'll start with a short overview of the business and how I see it. Also, I mean, related to the execution of our strategy. If we start with the demand situation, I think it's holding up. I mean, looking now, you know our guidance. We have guided for a better demand situation, both in marine and energy. I would say it's holding up in a good way. If we look on the marine side, it is a combination of two major factors. One is that our core segment is growing faster than the marine overall. The other element is the decarbonization story that we are benefiting on top, so to say. If I start with the first cruise, clearly, very positive development. Cruises cruising like never before, clearly on levels higher than pre-COVID. Also, you have seen that the big cruise operators, they are starting to place orders for new vessels. That will, by time, of course, if we are successful, filter through to Wärtsilä or order in Texas. Normally, there is a lead time, six tot 12 months, between that the shipyard gets an order. If we are successful as Wärtsilä, we will get an order. The pipe looks very promising. If you look at Clarksons data, I think 20 projects will be placed. The market is up like 40% year on year. If you look, there are forecasts for next year compared to this year. Positive environment. Ferries are developed. I mean, we know average age is 29 years old, so there is a need to do quite a lot of renewal. I think Clarksons is forecasting a 25% uptick to next year. We see a lot of activities. Offshore, a lot of activities. So far, on the new build side, it has been not so active. I think Clarksons is forecasting 14% growth, similar year on year. I think there will be new builds coming through, so to say. Strong growth in core segments. Energy carriers is a little bit slower now. I mean, it has peaked and it's coming down. Lead times at shipyards is fairly long. There is new Chinese capacity coming in, I would say. Let's see how it evolves further. Containers are picking up a little again. There was a peak. It came down, but now it's picking up, driven by the fairly high rates. We all know the geopolitics behind that. Yeah, unfortunately, the geopolitics do not seem to get easier with the latest development. I think that was a quick exposé on the segments. On the decouple story for marine, we do see it continues. I mean, driven primarily by regulations. We know EU ETS, the IMO 2023 rules, etc., etc. Our customers are looking to go green. Green is not black or white. There is not one fuel or not one solution that fits all and fits all applications. It is very much this dialogue continues on what is the best solution for a specific owner, for a specific application. Fossil fuels are going to be there now. I think there was a lot of, especially on the container vessels, methanol is swung back a little bit. On the auxiliary engines, now it is more back to LNG again. In either way we go, I think Wärtsilä is benefiting. On the LNG side, as you know, we keep on also investing in reducing methane slip. I think we have achieved quite a lot the last couple of years, so to say. There is a vital business there. Retrofits, we see it will be one of the major ways forward for our service business. With methane slip reduction, fuel conversions, fuel efficiency, that is also driven by, you could say, the whole decouple sentiment. Carbon capture, we talked about that before. We have a carbon capture system pilot installation this year. We are going to go for broader commercial release next year. Hybrid systems, we still continue to be the market leader combining battery storage with engines on the vessels. We see this developing also. This is also a major retrofit solution, new build and retrofit going forward. That was a quick exposé on marine energy. I think the general narrative on balancing power continues. You will hear more about that tomorrow if you join. I think we do see positive development. The U.S. is very strong. It continues to be very strong. Even the shift of an administration, we see that there is a strong sentiment for renewables in the solar, you could say, in the mid-section of the U.S., all the way from Texas in the south, all the way up in this mid-corridor. It is primarily driven by the need for cheap energy, for affordable energy. It is not primarily driven by IRA or federal subsidies. That is why we also think that there is robustness in this demand side, regardless of new administrations, so to say. Of course, more renewables means more balancing power. We are working, of course, with ERCOT, Texas power system, but also with the MISO and SPP power systems. Balancing, I mean, baseload power, our traditional markets, we follow them closely. Like Brazil, auctions coming, let's see. Like Indonesia, like Southeast Asia in general. There are good opportunities. On the storage side, energy storage, we also see a lot of activities in the market. There is demand, of course, tariffs in the U.S., great questions and uncertainty when they will be introduced, what magnitudes, etc., etc. That creates some uncertainties. In general, we do see continued strong demand. Strategic review continues. Nothing new to report. It is the same sentiment, growing business, but diluted from a good, modern perspective. We want to create, yeah, we want to support our customers and grow the business to create value for our shareholders. How do we do that in the best way? Do we keep owning the business as today? Do we divest, possibly divest? It is the same agenda as we communicated before. We clearly understand we have been doing this now for a year. There has been a lot of activities. I can't go into the details, but the fact that it's taking time does not reflect a low level of activity, rather the contrary, I would say. A lot of activities there. That is energy. Services in general. Service, both in marine and in energy. Service keeps growing. I mean, clearly, the book to bill is higher than one. It continues to be higher than one. We do see positive development going forward. It continues to be bigger than one for all of our disciplines: parts, field service, service, retrofits. We do see a continued positive trend for our service business. Considering the projects and certain agreements, that could be, it's a little bit lumpy. It swings a little bit back and forth. The overall trend is positive. We are very clear on that. Overall financial targets, same message as before. We are on a solid path to reach. I mean, the growth has clearly reached that. Of course, our profitability. We have a clear path to get there. I think that was a short summary. I leave the floor open, please. Thank you, Håkan. Now there is plenty of time for questions. In the case you have a question, please use the raise-your-hand functionality. Alternatively, you can also send an email to me. I can see that Sven Weier, you have raised your hand. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning, Håkan. Good morning, Hanna. Thanks for taking my questions. Thanks for doing the call. Just the first one is on shipping decarbonization. I was just wondering, when you speak to your clients, is there kind of a wait and see for next year, kind of the level of carbon tax that is obviously going to come from IMO? Is it still your top clients only investing in decarbonization and the mass of the clients is having a wait and see for next year? That's the first one. Thank you. Yeah. No, in general, I would say no. I mean, clearly, if you look at if we start with carbon capture, if I start there, there is, of course, a lot of interest of the early adopters. I mean, if we use this classical technology diffusion curve, we have the early adopters, we have the big mass, and we have the laggards. On the early adopter side, there is a lot of interest. However, I think for getting to the broader set of customers, the IMO framework will be very important, how that evolves on carbon capture. On the early adopter side, a lot of activities. If we look at the engine, more engine-related fuel upgrades, etc., etc., I do not see the wait and see. I mean, IMO 2023 with CII index, etc., it does impact, so to say. I do not see a big wait and see on that front, so to say. I think owners are aware that they will need to be, I mean, just using the CII and also Fuel EU Maritime and European ETS, they will have to take action, so to say. Of course, to your point, if IMO were to adopt a broad ETS regime, I think the whole transition will certainly accelerate. I do not see any hesitation in anticipation of MEPC 83 for, you could say, the general engine offering. I think the challenge with the new green fuel is still the fuel availability. Yeah. Thank you, Håkan. I guess we'll get some sort of carbon tax next year. The question is just a little bit, how high is it going to be, right? Is that really incentivizing a shift? The second question, if I may, was just on. Yeah. If I may comment, Sven, I would say that, yeah, we can all discuss what level it will be this year. I mean, please do not forget the long-term perspective of on the assets. Even if it starts at a certain level that is perceived low, how will that develop over the coming five, 10 years? That will also be an important factor for the fleet owners on how to consider that decarbonisation journey. Yeah. Fair. Thank you, Håkan. Second question was just on storage, just regarding the Trump administration. I mean, Fluence had a nice chart in the Q3 slide deck in terms of domestic assembly, manufacturing of the batteries. I was just wondering if you could give us an update where you stand on this. Are you still waiting maybe for what the policy is going to be at the end of the day? No, I think we have a clear sourcing strategy for having, first of all, having multiple sources outside of the U.S. Sourcing from different countries outside of the U.S., and then also having a U.S. sourcing strategy. I think you need to have all of those in place, so to say. We are developing it. Of course, there is a certain time frame for this. As we know, the cell production in the U.S., it is developing. Yeah, time elements vary a bit, so to say. You said, of course, I mean, this seems to have an impact on how the orders are maybe awarded in the short term in the U.S. On the other hand, you had a big contract announced last week, I think. You were confident in the Q3 call, right, that you would have a catch-up. Is that order kind of representative of the activity that you see outside of the U.S.? No, there is a lot of activities outside of the U.S. For instance, in Australia, but also in other markets. That is why, I mean, the kind of indication that we gave from Q3 is still valid, so to say. Thank you, Håkan. Thank you, Sven. Our next question comes from Max Yates. Please go ahead, Max. Max, we cannot hear you. You may be muted still. Sorry, we can't hear you, Max. All right. Maybe we should. Yes. Let's continue with Vivek Midha. Max, you can raise your question a little bit later. Thank you very much, everyone. Good morning. Good morning. I had a couple of questions, both on marine, if I may. The first was to follow up on your comments around the merchant segment you mentioned, containers, for example. Clearly, it has been a better year for contracting so far. I just wondered what you think about the sustainability of that demand. Do you see it continuing into 2025, 2026? Rates are high now. How are you thinking about that on a more midterm perspective? Thank you. It's also right to say it's very difficult to forecast. I normally make the comment that Clarksons, I have a lot of respect. They're probably the most credible entity in this arena trying to forecast. The problem is they're always wrong. I'm not saying that we have a better crystal ball than Clarksons. That's why I say I have a lot of respect for them. If you ask me my personal view, I think that, yes, there is new tonnage coming out. I still think if these rates will continue, and we know the kind of geopolitical driving forces behind it, I think there are still opportunities for positive sentiment going forward. Understood. Thank you. My second question is on the decarbonisation opportunity. I appreciate this is still opaque. If we think you mentioned, for example, that fuel availability is still one of the biggest constraints. If we talk to, say, I don't know, utility developers, they're often having challenges with the economics of their projects in developing things like hydrogen and therefore the sort of byproducts of that. I don't know how best to phrase it, but in terms of the economics of developing green fuels and so on, how do you see that developing? Is it a problem really at the end user level that LNG is still much more viable than, say, methanol and so on? Where is that disconnect coming from? Thank you. Yeah. I think it's a little bit chicken and the egg effect. We know there has been some, you could say, setbacks or people pulling out of certain projects for being fuels. I would separate between the carbon-neutral fuels and the zero-carbon fuels. Zero-carbon is hydrogen and ammonia. That will take longer time, hydrogen and ammonia, because clearly it will take longer for the demand side to build up, at least in the marine industry from our perspective. Those projects are a little bit more aspirational, and therefore they are a little bit more risk. The risk-reward balance is different than if you look at the carbon-neutral like methanol, biofuel, etc. I think we will still see the carbon-neutral going ahead, maybe taking a little bit longer time than if you go back one or two years. It is quite hard to predict. It is chicken and egg. How fast will the demand and how will the supply come after? I mean, my perspective is that people that have invested, for instance, in methanol, they are contracting for methanol. I think we will see it is this gradual process when you see, okay, some methanol is coming available. The methanol vessels that are fueled by methanol, they will start running. It is not like a digital shift. This transition will take time, clearly. That is my view. Also coming back, I mean, if we look at what does it mean for that and our business? Yes, of course, it affects the pickup of our carbon-neutral and zero-carbon engines. There is a strong focus on LNG, and we are very well placed in the LNG space. I think we still have a good position. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vivek. Next question comes from Anders Lindberg. Please go ahead. Good morning. Two questions, please, on thermal energy. Maybe a more short-term first. I've been intrigued by these comments around the data center opportunities that you mentioned. I just wondered if you had any update there. Yeah. No, I mean, nothing more significant to report today. I mean, just to recuperate the logic for the broader audience, so to say, I mean, if we go back a couple of years, I mean, okay, basically, the size of the data centers are growing. That means a changed situation on how you would power them. If you go back a couple of years, you were maybe looking at data centers requiring tens of megawatts, 10, 20, 30 megawatts. The general kind of business model was then that the data center developers, they went to a utility, and they asked, "I have a 20-MW load here. Can I have access?" I will buy separately some high-speed generating for backup when the grid is not working. That was, you could say, a conventional business model a couple of years back. Now, since the size of the data centers are growing, I mean, now we talk the data center size is sort of like hundreds of megawatts, 200s of megawatts. When the developers, they go to the utilities, the utility says, "That's an interesting business opportunity for us. But can you please come back in 10 years because we are not ready to bring you on at 200 megawatts?" This is because basically the grid is not strong enough and they do not have the power generation to supply the power. The dynamic shifts and the developers, they start to need to develop their own kind of energy production. This is where we come in because it is a baseload generation. A baseload generation from 20, 30, 40 MW to 200 MW, this is how switchable. It needs to have high uptime and high reliability. That's the kind of simple logic why this is potentially shifting. I've also been very clear that let's look at this. I mean, it looks like an exciting opportunity, but let's see how this evolves, so to say, because it's still early days. We have our agreements. We talked about that before with AVK, which is a developer of powerful data centers. We have two projects with them on island, so to say. These are the projects we have to report so far. Okay. Fine. More generally on thermal, when we look at those margins now, they're on solid double digits, which is quite a bit higher compared to where it was pre-COVID. Even at that time, the volume of equipment was much higher than it is today. I struggle a bit with these big pieces in terms of, okay, service is a bigger piece now. If we go forward, do you see the further margin potential on the services side or on the mixed services versus equipment or on the equipment side as such? We do not give guidance on margin and the margin development. I mean, what has happened? What are the big changes? I think services is clearly one. The other is that we have shifted our focus from EPC to EEQ projects. I mean, today, and we talk about that, I mean, today, our order backlog is 80% is equipment deliveries, 20% is EPC. If you go back a couple of years, I would say that the EPC part was like 40%-50%. There is quite a lot of difference in profitability level in general between the EPC and EEQ contract because in EPC, of course, you run a lot of civilian installations for your books. Of course, risk management is very, very important. Quite frankly, if you go back a couple of years, we did not get this equation right. That is also a big driver for our profitability journey. Anders will talk more about that tomorrow. I think the team, we are getting more and more robust. We have made changes to the leadership. We have made changes to the processes. I mean, the outlook from a business perspective looks good. As you know, we have also streamlined our footprint, closing manufacturing in Italy. We have a good team. We have a good footprint. We have a good market. I think there is a positive sentiment. Services will continue to grow at the same time. Okay. Thank you, Håkan. Thank you, Anders. Next question comes from Antti Kansanen. Please go ahead, Antti. Thank you, Hanna, and hi to Håkan as well. A couple of questions on profitability as well. If we start with the service business, I mean, the moving up the value ladder is the primary driver in your kind of investor material. Could you maybe talk a little bit about how the profitability in these lifetime contracts evolve over lifetime? I mean, you've done kind of adding new clients to the agreement base in the past couple of years. Where are we in terms of you getting paid for the fuel efficiencies and uptime? I mean, are we in a situation where you have gone in and done a little bit of an investment into the installed base, and we still haven't kind of seen the revenue and profitability benefits coming through? Maybe you can talk a little bit about that one. I was only a comment on moving up the service value ladder, specifically on the service business. I want to make one general comment before we go there because, as you know, I think this is a very important part of our growth narrative in services going forward. You could say we talk about different disciplines in service. These are the steps on the service value ladder. We have spare parts and field service. We have the agreements, and we have a broad array of different agreements. We have the retrofits. I commented on that already earlier. We have the performance-based agreements. This is where we have this mechanism for sharing savings, etc. The good thing here is that all of these four disciplines, book to bill, continues to be above one. The key message here, it's a broad growth of our service business. Yes, we have emphasized moving up the service value ladder because that has been a little bit of a new element or revitalized element. I would really like to underline that all of these four disciplines, we are growing. One of the challenges that we have is that some of the retrofit projects, some of the agreements, they are big, and they are a little bit lumpy. Therefore, you can have these swings on queue on queue. I know some of you are picking up, and you get concerned about, will service continue to grow? It's a clear message. Look at the book to bill for all four disciplines, and you will see it's above one. From our perspective, there is a continued underlying positive sentiment. Now zooming down to your question on the service agreements and in particular on the performance-based service agreements. This is still, if you look at, if you take agreements on performance-based, and those two together, performance-based is still a smaller piece, clearly, from a revenue perspective. We continue to develop those. I mean, the latest that we made public was our contract with Royal Caribbean. There will be an order intake for this quarter, but we talked about it last quarter. Yes, the logic there is, you're right about the logic. When you enter those, these could be 10-year contracts. I think now with Royal, it's five to start with. It is long-term contracts. You do a bit of investments from our side in equipment and people in the beginning. You have setups where you share upsides on fuel consumptions or reaching certain uptime reliability targets. These are the fundamental mechanisms. I can say that when we look at the execution of those, I mean, you could say the basis for executing in a good way, both for customers and for ourselves, is, of course, big data and extracting data and using that data together with, I would say, industry-leading service team. That's the secret sauce we need to get together, so to say. So far, I mean, these contracts, they're certainly developing value for our customers in terms of fuel saving, uptime, reliability. They're also delivering values for us in terms of revenues and profitability. Yeah. I'm just kind of trying to get my finger on the fact that, I mean, it is the biggest profitability driver for you. If we look at your service business, you are moving a bit from kind of transactional parts-based business, which tends to be a very high-profitable business, to more agreements. Obviously, the number of service projects or the share of service projects is growing. That is not necessarily margin enhancing within the services. Should we just think about the overall sales mix, that that is the primary driver for margins, that the overall level of services is growing and not specifically the agreements, even if you talk about kind of the moving up the value ladder on the primary driver? I mean, I think a more robust way to look at it because it's to look at overall. Because yes, you have, I mean, one of the challenges we have is the mix. And sometimes one of these four disciplines, they are in one quarter, they go up. Next quarter, something else goes up. Then you see the margin swings. You are clearly trying to analyze it. We will not split that up. Sorry, but we will not for competitive reasons. I would suggest take the overall approach and look at the growth. I think if you look at the overall profitability, it is in a good level. We will continue to protect. Okay. The last one from me is the new build profitability in a sense that fundamentally, how do you look at it? Is the level of, let's say, EBIT margin or whatever P&L metric important to you, or is it more about being stable, being cash positive, avoiding risks, and ensuring kind of the installed-based growth? Do you look and do you incentivize kind of new build profitability individually in your organization, or is it just a function of the lifetime earnings? No. I mean, we incentivize the people working on new build on new build side. However, what we also do, because we look at the new build and service business from a holistic perspective, I think you could say that, and as you know, lastly, we have been organized in many different ways through the years. I think one of the changes that we made a couple of years back, because we used to have one big service division, it was a separate P&L, and then you have the two new build divisions. As you remember, we changed. Now the Energy has both new build and service. Marine has both new build and service. They have the holistic responsibility for the business and improving the profitability and reach our growth targets. They have the freedom how they optimize the business. There is not a general rule. It depends which type of customer, which type of segment. Sometimes you might go a little bit lower on the new build to secure a service business, and you look at it holistically. Sometimes you go higher on the new build because the service potential is less. There is not a general rule. The general rule, we look at the business holistically. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Antti. Next question comes from Sven Weier. Please go ahead, Sven. Yeah. Thank you, Hanna, for the follow-ups. Just on battery storage again, the strategic review. I was just wondering, Håkan, I mean, this has been going on for a while, as you said. What's the client feedback? I mean, do you get the feedback from the organization that the uncertainty is somehow impacting the ability to win orders, or are clients pretty indifferent whether this business belongs to Wärtsilä or not? What's the feedback you have for us? I would say in general, it's not a showstopper or concerns. Of course, some customers, they come back, and they are concerned about the strategic review. So it's a mix. I wouldn't say it has had a major impact, but some customers are concerned. Okay. The other question I had is just if we assume that you keep the business, do you feel the need you need to develop the business further, let's say, also into other storage technologies outside of batteries? Also, within batteries, are you pretty agnostic to the underlying battery technology? Because at some point, lithium-ion might run into some limitations. That is the second one. Thank you. Part of our strategy, and I would like to underline that, throughout this strategic review, we keep on investing into the business, developing new technologies. I mean, we put the Quantum 3 on the market, etc. We clearly continue to develop and invest in the business. Now, as part of that, for instance, you talk to getting more and more cell agnostic. I think that is clearly a way that we are going, so to say. That is, of course, to have more flexibility concerning geopolitical trade barriers and geopolitical dynamics. It is also to make sure that we can have a competitive supply chain, so to say. That is certainly part of our strategy. Now, when it comes to the focus of the business, I think we would stay focused on, in front of the meters, the utility-scale storage. This is where we focus. There are ample growth opportunities. We have had a very focused geographical strategy. I think we will keep that, but there might be some fine-tuning of the geographical scope, so to say. We do not have any ambitions to go behind the meters, so to say. It is focusing on the core business, I would say. You're saying batteries basically are not mechanical? No. I think these are completely different technical disciplines, which we do not have the competence. Also, when we evaluate, because as you know, there is a pretty vast array of different energy storage technologies, I mean, pumped water, different type of thermal storage, etc., etc. I mean, in the battery storage, it is a competitive technology in terms of energy efficiency and also in terms of cost per kilowatt-hour, so to say. If I may, can I just follow up on what you said earlier on container shipping? Because we all know that the geopolitical tensions have taken out more than 10% of container capacity, longer trading routes. I mean, let's paint a scenario. We get some de-escalation. Middle East ships can travel through the Suez Canal again, obviously with the corresponding impact on the container fleet. I mean, how important is it these days, the container on services and on new builds? Do you think this has been a positive driver in the last 12 months for the business, or would you not really feel a change into the other direction? I mean, containers, and I think you have at the end of our normal quarterly material, I think containers is probably if you look at it as a share of our service business, I'm looking at Hanna-Maria here, but it's probably 20%, 25%, maybe 20%. She will check it so we have the right numbers. It is an important part. Of course, cruise is normally bigger, and the other segments, they're also big. I mean, our service business, and certainly not our new build business, is not dependent on containers, so to say, rather the opposite. Have we had a positive kind of support for our business because of the unfortunate crisis and the change of logistics change, etc., as you mentioned? Yes, it has contributed in a positive way. It is not as if this would go away, so to say, in my view, it will not have a significant impact on our service or new build business. Thank you, Håkan. Any other questions? I don't see any hands raised. Mikael Doepel, please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you very much. I just had one question really on the carbon capture system. You mentioned you're going to do a bit more of a commercialization next year on this one. Just wondering, how do you see this infrastructure situation now around this business? We talked about this before in terms of the infrastructure at the ports and all of that. Maybe you could just give a bit more color of how are things developing there and when can we expect this to become, get a meaningful boost, you could say, and develop in a bigger way going forward? I would say I'll take a step back and then certainly zoom in on your question. Carbon capture, I mean, first of all, what is it for us? You could say it's an extension of our scrubber business. We scrub out not only the sulfur, but also the carbon. Of course, we can aggregate this and store it in a tank on the vessel. This is what we do in this value chain. The rest of the value chain in terms of, okay, how do you aggregate that at port? What do you do with the carbon that you have captured? Do you pump it back into a well, so to say, or do you use it as a raw material for producing something, I mean, green fuels or something else, a carbon neutral fuel? You could say that we are doing our piece of the equation, and of course, we are talking about it. The whole ecosystem that needs to evolve around what do we do with the carbon and how do we actually physically, how do we deal with it, there is still a lot of development. I would say that, and there are tests, pilots, but there is not, if you are looking for a commercially operatable solution, and as far as I know, there are very few, if any. This is an area that is evolving. Here, I think we will also see some cross synergies with land-based carbon capture. It is an evolving space. You could say we are very early. What we have said, as you might remember, for us, we consider this as a EUR 10 billion business opportunity for us during the coming 10 years. That is the time frame. Even if we go for a commercial launch next year, I do not expect a boom of this because the infrastructure needs to evolve, and the whole commercial equation around carbon capture needs to evolve. Also, the IMO, as you probably know, there is a discussion in IMO, how should carbon capture be regarded from a regulatory perspective. There are still quite a few pieces of the equation that need to come in place. Okay. No, that's fair. Maybe just if you could expand a bit also on the competitive environment in this space. I think you previously said that you've been kind of a frontrunner here. How is the competition evolving? Do you see new players coming in here? How would you describe the overall situation in the market and your kind of positioning right now? I think we are still one of the pioneers and the frontrunners. I think there are definitely competition. It's there. I'm not sure that there are even more players coming in right now, but there is competition. At the end of the day, how do you create the competitive edge in this business? I think one important part is this, how much can you capture versus how much energy do you need to put in? Because there will be an energy penalty taken out of CO2. That erodes you. That will be important for your competitiveness. The second one is that you can service and support your customer on the services of this equipment. I think in both of these areas, we think we are, or let's see, but we think we will be leading. Okay. That's fair. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Josh Miller. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning. Just a couple of questions, if I could. I see on the balance sheet, it looks like you guys are going to be net cash at the end of the year. Could you maybe run us through your sort of plans and priorities for using that cash? Would you prefer to hold a net cash position given that at some point you're going to see working capital unwind, or is there potential for incremental returns to investors? Yeah, just how you're thinking about that, please. I mean, we are running currently at a negative working capital situation. That is very positive. I mean, a EUR 6 billion plus company running on negative working capital. We have also been, although we are proud of this, clear that we do not think it is a sustainable situation. I mean, structurally, we think that we have managed with good work to decrease the normal level of working capital from where we were, let us say, five years back. Certainly, it is going to be a positive need that we continue. It will normalize. Coming to the capital situation, the strength of the balance sheet. Yes, we have a strong balance sheet. When we have been talking about our M&A agenda, we have continuously said we are looking more at bolt-on acquisition and acquiring certain competencies. We are not looking for these big strategic moves into new types of businesses. That still holds. We are well-funded for R&D. As you know, we have increased our R&D a bit. I mean, we are currently running an R&D rate of 4% of net sales. I think we are well-funded on that. We will see how the balance sheet and how the cash flow evolves. Of course, at a certain stage, there could be considerations of giving money back to the shareholders. That is premature to talk about. We have a strong balance sheet, which gives us a lot of freedom, and let's see how we evolve going forward. It is also, of course, tied to the strategic review, what could happen there. We have a strong position. Let's put it like that. Great. Thank you very much. Maybe just a second if I could. You touched on the lag in the cruise segment. I think you said six, 12 months earlier in the call. I wonder if you could give any more detail around lags in some of the other ship segments, for example, container ships, where we've seen very strong contracting this year through 2024. I guess on the back of that, as a result, is there any reason when you look through to 2025 within your marine OE business that that will not be a very strong year of equipment ordering for your business? I would say the lag is about the same independent of segments. I would still say it's six to 12 months. I won't comment on potential ordering taking specific segments. I would just say that, I mean, you're seeing our demand prospects, and they look better coming 12 months, etc. I think that's an indication of how we see them up. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Josh. Coming back to the earlier question related to our service exposure in container vessels, actually, on our roadshow material, we called this slide number 89. You can see that 26% out of our service order intake year-to-date in marine is related to the merchant segment, and that merchant segment is including the container vessels, but it is also including bulk carriers, cargo, and roro vessels, as well as tankers. Thank you, Hanna-Maria, for filling in. Magnitude-wise, I was okay. Excellent. Thank you. My pleasure. Tommy Ryle has raised his hand. Please go ahead, Tommy. Hi, Tommy. It's Tommy from BNP. Thanks for taking my questions. Coming back to the profitability question or discussion, I would like to hear a comment. If you are making money with the equipment and if there is a meaningful difference within marine or energy equipment, now I'm talking about the thermal equipment rather than the storage equipment, which we can see from your numbers. That would be helpful. Yeah. I mean, these are very valid questions, but we will not go into the details of profitability of a new build and of service business. I know that there are quite a few questions about that, but we still do not give out the numbers there or the indications. One thing I can say, though, and that is that, and you have observed it, we have improved the profitability both of our new build and the service business. That is driven on one hand by operational improvements. We talked about some of them, ceasing manufacturing in Trieste, but also many of the operational improvements, the rebalance of the risk profile in energy. Of course, we have the second element, which is, of course, the decarbonization. We are bringing new technology to the market, which gives us opportunities for price realization. Just as a follow-up, it sounds and it would be nice if you could confirm that you are not making losses in the equipment in either side of the business. We will not go down that road. Sorry, Tom. Thank you. Okay. Second question. I mean, this is a strategy call. Do you have any thoughts about sort of a short mid-term 2025 strategy? What's on top of the agenda? I know storage, of course, but M&A, we talked about bolt-ons and so on. How does 2025 look like from a strategic point? Anything urgent? Any changes you predict? Is the demand picture kind of changing? Is there risks? What elements do you need to further improve your profitability from a strategic point of view? Thank you. I think for strategic execution for 2025 and beyond, I should say, because I think the key word is consistency. We have set the strategy. We are executing. We see it's giving results. The demand side is holding up, as we have indicated in our guidance. What are the risks? What are the drivers? Continues to be the same service business. I really underline, and I think we will talk more also about that in the future, book to bill bigger than one in all the service disciplines. Service is still certainly a growth driver. Profitability on the marine side in general, helped by the decarb and the growth of the core segments. On the energy side, balancing, improved profitability. Of course, storage, let's see where we land, so to say. I would say that we will continue the divestments of our portfolio businesses. It's also taking some time, as you know, but I do see that we are improving profitability. You see it as well. Kind of positioning these types of businesses for divestments. That's why I say consistency. Now, what are the risks? What are the potential challenges? I think one, and I know it's very broad, is geopolitics because, as we all know, it might disrupt supply chains. It might disrupt the global shipping industry. How will interest rates and inflation play out, etc., etc.? Potential tariffs absolutely could have an impact. Not so much if we talk about U.S. tariffs, not about on the development of the renewables. I think that will still go ahead. Of course, if there were import duties, we produce our engines in Finland. We could be affected by tariffs. Our competition would be, I would say. Still, it is something to absorb. Those are clearly risks. Of course, tariffs impact global trade. That is certainly a topic of uncertainty these days. I think a general observation, the speed of the green transition is a risk and opportunity element for that. I think the faster it goes, the more focused there will be, the more growth opportunities we will have. On the other side, if we now, and I think in certain areas, we do see a questioning of the green transition. I think the good thing for us is that if you look at our offering when it comes to gas, our fundamental offering still holds true and is strong. I would argue that, especially if you look on the energy side, the transition to more renewables, it will continue, definitely. You might discuss on the speed from one year to the other, but it will continue. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Akash Gupta. Please go ahead, Akash. Thank you, Hanna-Maria. Hi, Håkan. Good to speak to you. I had a question, and I think you referenced this in your last answer, and that was on manufacturing footprint in energy business in the U.S. on the thermal side. I mean, as you rightly pointed out, that your competitors are also non-U.S. companies, and therefore, it's everybody's problem. I mean, when we look at the whole energy landscape, you have gas turbine guys that have U.S. production. You have some backup generator guys like Cummins that has U.S. production. All of those guys have seen quite big uptake in their book to bill in the last couple of years in the U.S. We have seen some, not the same sort of commercial activity on your side. Given this is more of a strategic call, I wanted to ask, I mean, U.S. energy market is going to be quite active in the medium to long term because of the data centers. Are you looking at some sort of adding some factories in the U.S. so that in future, you can better provide more local content and also position the portfolio for any impact that might come from tariffs? Any commentary on how do you see about the manufacturing footprint developing in the medium term, and what does it mean for CapEx of the business? Thank you. I mean, this is a tool in the toolbox that we could use if we find that the business case is there. Now, I mean, you're clearly right that we consider our major competitor in the U.S. market, certainly, is our gas turbine competitors. Some of them have manufacturing in the U.S. However, you will have to ask them, but I think all industrial companies these days, we have a global supply chain. I think they will be affected as well on the tariff side, but you will have to ask them. We would certainly be affected. Could we localize? Yes, we could localize. I think this is still a topic that we follow very closely because, as you know, there is a lot of uncertainties around which tariffs, on what categories, how high will they be, etc., etc. Let's see how it evolves. I mean, just to follow up to that, do you see? Sorry, and another comment on the because you're right, many of our gas turbine competitors, they have very long lead times, which actually benefit. It's because they have been taking some, I mean, I'm generalizing, but I would argue that one of the major drivers is that they have been selling some really big gas turbines in certain markets on the globe. This is not a segment we are in. If you look at what we have been selling in the balancing space, I think we have a fairly interesting market, so yeah. Yeah. Just to follow up to my earlier question, given the uncertainty on the tariff side, when you are engaging with your customers for new order, how you are talking about it, who will be at the risk, let's say, if tariff gets hit in the middle of execution? This is something that needs to be negotiated. I mean, we would normally not take the risk of tariffs. We can't predict them. Thank you. Thank you, Akash. Thank you for all of the good questions. I'm afraid that now we are running out of time, but I would like to remind you that tomorrow at 11:00 A.M. Finnish time, 9:00 A.M. Central. Central.