Welcome to Wärtsilä Q2 Pre-Salon call and greetings from Reini, Helsinki. My name is Hanna-Maria Heikkinen, and I'm in charge of investor relations. Today, our CFO, Arjen Berends, will start with key messages, and after that, we have time for Q&A. When you have a question, please use the raise your hand functionality in Teams. If you cannot use the raise your hand functionality in Teams, you can also email your question to me. Let's first start with one question per person, and after the first round, we can continue with the follow-up questions. Please, Arjen, time to start. Thank you, Hanna-Maria. Yeah, to give a bit of key messages in the beginning, first of all, I think the positive trend that we have seen also in the first quarter in our key markets, let's say marine and energy, continues in the second quarter. At least so far, it has been going quite according to, let's say, our expectations. In marine, our core segments continue to perform well. Decarbonization continues, and basically all solutions that drive fuel efficiency are still very high in demand because basically they drive two things, let's say better economics for the vessel operation, but at the same time also ticking the box of, let's say, lower CO2 output, so contributing to the decarbonization. Also, service business going well in many areas, so nothing to complain about. Direct impacts from tariffs, of course, tariffs remain a topic of discussion. Also, let's say basically started at the end of, let's say, Q1, still being a thing that we, of course, closely monitor, but on the marine side, yeah, we don't see any major direct impact from tariffs to date. Energy, clearly, let's say the need for electricity grows. Grid stability is more and more, let's say, required. Electrification of the world continues. At the same time, big power units like coal and nuclear are being taken out, so they work in a way contrary. Renewables are still the cheapest form of generating electricity, but they are intermittent, and that also gives a good opportunity for us on the balancing power. On top of that, let's say data centers, as we have said in many earlier occasions, we are working on a pipeline here, still crossing our fingers on booking the first data center order sooner rather than later, but in the works. I would say basically on the thermal side, energy thermal side, most customer segments continue as before despite, let's say, the tariff discussions and uncertainty. If we then look at energy storage, okay, in Q2 we will for the first time report it, that's first of all, as an own dependent, independent segment, restated financials, I'm sure you have seen it, which were published last week. The storage market in general is okay, but if you look at particularly the U.S., yeah, it's a bit, it's actually a bit on a standstill mode at the moment, pending, let's say, all the uncertainty that is related to tariffs and other conditions as well. We continue, of course, our journey on strategy implementation, decarbonization, and moving up the service value ladder, clearly being the, let's say, call it the commercial spear points of that. We will also now, for the first time in Q2, report marine and energy combined. I think we are doing very well in the direction of our financial targets. At this point of time, I have no reason to believe we will not make them. I'm actually very confident we will make them. AMCS, which was part of our portfolio business, you have for sure seen the news. Let's say we have signed the deal to sell it. Closing was expected before the summer, and that is still on track for that. I would say that's in short what I had as three messages. Thank you, Arjen. So Thank you, Arjen. So then we will continue with the questions, and Daniela Costa, please go ahead. Hi, just three quick things, and maybe I'll start by the one that is normally the most boring, but this quarter, given the moves on FX and given you're producing out of Finland, is there anything that I should be thinking about in that in terms of how relevant could that be? No, basically, let's say all the projects that we do, all the commercial projects, they are hedged, both, let's say, from a sales point of view, when we do in foreign currency, first of all, let's say not in euros, of course, but let's say when we do in foreign currency, it's all hedged, both incoming and outgoing on all the projects that we do. For the service part, we typically do bulk hedging based on trends of the past and expectations of the future based on quotation levels. Just delving into the data center part, I think last year you had this, I think it's AVK agreement, which for a couple of quarters you mentioned you had two and then three orders were going. Can you remind us the scope of that and how that's ramping up? Because I know when you mentioned you were hoping for the first data center order, I assume that's U.S. first data center order, you're doing some. To clarify, that's the U.S. Let's say we have indeed three projects running with AVK from Ireland. Now, I don't know by heart the size of these projects. Perhaps somebody can check that meanwhile, but let's say those we have. The first order in the U.S. is still pending. Correct. Yeah, we haven't disclosed the size of this AVK order. It was published on the press release, was published on July 15th, so in the case you want to take a look at that, but the details. Okay, we did not disclose. We were not allowed to give the details then. Just more of a portfolio and longer-term one, there is lots of talk about nuclear. Do you have anything in the portfolio that would benefit from if we see an uptake in small nuclear or large nuclear? Is there anything in your portfolio that could see a pickup if that area starts to see more investment? You mean power generation? Yeah. Yeah, we have. On the energy side, yeah. We have done, let's say, backup solutions for nuclear power plants, for example, in Finland. That's, of course, let's say, a solution that could work for others as well. Do you, every time you would build nuclear, if you, I don't, this small nuclear would need a backup power, sort of, is that an opportunity that we should think one-to-one if we see more nuclear, small nuclear announcements, there will be potential for a Wärtsilä engine to the side or not necessarily? At least from the sales side, I've not heard much about the small nuclear and then related backup power. No, I've not heard about it. We have done in the past, let's say, with bigger and smaller engines to be backup power for nuclear power plants. All right, thank you very much. I'll go back to you. Thank you, Daniela. The next question comes from John B. Kim. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. Sorry if I missed this, but can you give us some color on your exposure in balancing power to renewables? How much is coming from the U.S. and what sort of split are you seeing between the different energy types called solar and wind? One follow-on question, please, a bit later. Sorry, I did not get the first part of your question. How much balancing power for? In renewables. If we look at some of your previous investor decks, you're quite bullish as a firm on renewable installations in the next, call it, two to three years. I see that mostly as solar and wind. I'm just trying to get a sense of where it is and how much is solar versus wind. I don't know the exact split out of my head now between how much solar and how much wind, but I would say most of our balancing power is related to solar and wind in whatever combination. Of course, it's very different per region. Let's say solar in Finland, as an example, is not a good idea. It's raining heavily. For example, in Senegal, both solar and wind are very favorable. It depends very much on, let's say, where your projects are and what the local conditions are for solar and wind. I would say balancing power in general is for wind and solar, and the mix can be different per region. We also do balancing power, for example, for hydro. For example, Brazil, we have sold quite a number of installations in the past to Brazil doing the balancing power for hydro. If there is water in the dams, then, okay, they do not run. If there is no water in the dams, which we had, I think it was two years ago, they run flat out, basically. It is both, I would say, the solar and wind, but also hydro. Can you give us a sense within renewables how much US exposure you have right now? I think, okay, I don't know that by heart, perhaps somebody can check in between the. Okay. Okay, thanks. Okay, the next question comes from Max Yates. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, sorry, apologies because my phone cut out. I heard everything you said. I was just wondering, did you make a comment about margins? No. You didn't. Okay. Any sort of color on how you feel this year phases compared to normal years? I know we've had kind of various volatility, but would you view this year as more of a kind of normal shape of margin? Is there anything particularly in the mix when we think about the business in the second quarter that we should be aware of that may cause abnormal seasonality? No, I will not comment on margin as you would have most likely expected. I can say that I'm positive about our margin trajectory. That's all I can say. Okay, understood. Just to try and understand your confidence around sort of looking at data center order, I'd love to understand kind of what are we really waiting for? Is it you've kind of got the specific project, it's lined up, and it's just signing to get it across the line, or are the negotiations kind of really early stage in that and you're still in the tendering stage? I'm just wondering your kind of visibility on this. Also, if you could give us a feel for how big is the opportunity when you look out kind of in the next one or two years? I'm just trying to really gauge, would a good outcome be one project of 200 MW, or actually would a good outcome be you could actually win kind of three or four of these things, and it could be kind of 600-700 MW? How big do you think this opportunity is? I think it's a sizable opportunity, but as I said before, let's first book the first order in the U.S. So far, we have not booked the first order in the U.S. We are working on many projects in the pipeline, and they are all at different stages of, let's say, completion. There are a few that are in a very, yeah, I would say close to conclusion state. Yeah, you cannot force it. As long as you're negotiating on terms and conditions or something else, then let's say the deal is not done, and it needs to be a satisfactory deal also for us. It's not just one way. For sure, we can book an order if we accept everything that is thrown at us, but that's not how we work. Super. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Anders Idborg. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Just firstly on storage, I mean, you flagged previously that maybe you're building up a bit of market coverage, etc., and therefore we should expect margins to be temporarily lower. Could you update us maybe on your plans there and give me what you see, of course, on the intake side, any changes on how you plan around your expansion in storage? No, I think the story is pretty much the same. Of course, we are exploring new territories, and of course, that takes a bit of time. You need to first invest in people and resources and get better coverage basically on the places that you want to be. As said in the beginning, storage in the U.S. is on a standstill, but I would still say that the rest of the world on storage is still moving forward. There we do not see the same hesitation. They are just, let's say, business as usual, I would almost say. Things are moving forward. Okay, and just to run the comment around temporarily sort of lower end of the range in terms of the margin, for how long was that valid? I mean, what's the? No, we have said there is so much uncertainty in the whole, let's say, storage environment, also with increased competition, etc., etc., and the tariffs certainly do not help. We have given this 3%-5% range as our financial targets for the next coming years. That is it. More I will not say. Okay. Then just another one, perhaps just on, as we eagerly await these data center orders, how should we think about your scope of supply here? I know you want to be an equipment supplier just to have our expectations right in terms of, should we also think this will be highly profitable orders, or is it maybe that you need to do some concessions to get those first orders in to get market acceptance? No, we want to get good margins on all the projects that we do. I would not say we should sacrifice margin just to take the order. Why should we? No, no, but should it be the opposite then because this is equipment and not EPC, et cetera? Of course, let's say there is no one size fits all. It's not that, let's say, one engine has a fixed sales price. Let's say we do value-based pricing, so based on the value we can deliver. Of course, keeping in mind what competition can do, we do our pricing. It's not that every project eventually has the same margin. There is lots of fluctuations in margin. Depends on the values, the conditions, etc., you agree. Okay, we'll see them. Okay, thank you, Arjen. Thank you. The next question comes from Antti Kansanen, please go ahead. Yeah, hi guys. A couple of questions for me as well. I think it's mostly on the power plant business in the U.S. and tariffs. The question is first, have you seen any impact on existing orders flowing out of the backlog, timing of it, or any cancellations? The second, not only for data center clients, but overall in the U.S., is the uncertainty around the tariffs creating any kind of a postponement on negotiations? What are the mechanisms that you're trying to kind of take into account the different outcomes of the tariff levels? Will they always kind of fall 100% to the clients, or is there some kind of a surcharge being built in, or how do you manage it? On the first question, the answer is no. Let's say we have no cancellations or delays, let's say, from projects related to tariffs. Of course, tariffs is a thing you need to deal with. In principle, we pass it on to our customers. Not always that works. I can be open and honest about that. Sometimes you need to take a share as well or at least commit to a share of it. Again, it depends very much on, let's say, a project case by case. If you have an energy power plant project and you negotiate that new build contract in combination with a life cycle agreement of X number of years, and of course, again, depending on the number of years, you might be willing to take a little bit more or less of that tariff risk. In principle, we pass it on. Okay, and in principle, you do not see that whatever the tariff level turns out to be, that your business in the U.S. would be a very low margin. I am just trying to think that you have a certain free capacity on manufacturing. Are you willing to kind of fill it up with the U.S. business without knowing what exactly the tariff impacts will be on your own profitability for that business going forward? No, so far we do not see that. Let's say we take orders with good margins. All right, thank you. Thank you, Antti. The next question comes from Andreas. Please go ahead. Hey, it's Andreas of Siddel. Thanks for taking the question. Have you spent much time looking at the various bills in the U.S.? I think the Senate bill on the energy storage side was much more favorable in terms of the tax credits that it provided. I appreciate we don't have the final bill yet, but just if you can comment on that at all or what your customers expect from that bill, as well as do you expect a massive surge in orders once we have a reconciliation bill in the U.S. on the energy storage side? Do you feel there's a lot of projects that are basically ready to go, just waiting for that bill to conclude, and then your order intake in Q3, Q4 could be very large potentially? Thanks. I think this is a very difficult question. Let's say nobody has the crystal ball, but let's say I can only say we have a good pipeline in the U.S. and things are proceeding. Whether or not there is an underlying thinking of, let's say, this bill that you referred to, I do not even know. I think in many cases, let's say our salespeople also don't know. Overall, we can see that the projects continue. That's what we can see and that I can confirm. Thanks. Thank you. The next question comes from Sven Weier. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for taking my question. It's just one on the decarbonization pipeline that you're obviously still quite positive on. I was just wondering if you get a sense from clients how much of these projects going ahead is actually contingent on time or actually making the final decision in October, or clients do not really care what the eventual outcome of the event is going to be. Do you think that's going to move ahead nevertheless, even if it's not going to pass? Let's say typically ship operators and ship owners don't order a vessel conditionally to this IMO MEPC 84, I think in the autumn decision. If they order a vessel now, they have a business case for it. I would say, okay, now I don't have it now checked every contract that we negotiate, but I could hardly believe that's the case. Sounds good. Thank you. Because they have a business case anyhow. Typically, if you take container vessels, let's say typically it's big fleet owners. If there would be something with Chinese-made vessels, they use their Korean-made vessels for the U.S. and use the other ones for Europe, for example. Makes sense. Thank you. Thank you, Sven. We have still plenty of time for follow-up questions. I do not see any questions coming to me by email. Sebastian Koenne, please go ahead. Yeah, you mentioned that the order book, especially for equipment, is being stretched out, so deliveries are being timed at a later stage. Can you give us maybe an update on what areas of the business are particularly affected and if you see a continuing trend of that kind of later deliveries? Thank you. No, let's say it's just a fact how orders come in that, let's say, delivery times are, let's say, longer. If you take shipyard order books, it's 3.8 years currently forward, which is the highest ever, at least to my understanding. Going five, six years back, it was typically, let's say, two-ish years. Now it's longer. Shipyards also want to lock their cost in order for them to lock the cost. Let's say they need to order for Wärtsilä and they need to put a down payment in. In fact, let's say that means that we get the orders earlier with cash down payment in this case, and the cash outflow is later and the order book gets longer. That's clearly, let's say, the trend that we see on the marine side. On the energy side, I would not say it's really a similar trend, but let's say there seems to be more and more urgency to order, I would think. Also given the fact that, for example, big competitors like GE and Siemens are pretty much sold out in the near term for turbines. Yeah, you need to go with an alternative, which is much more flexible, by the way. We can be an alternative. We can deliver engines 18 months from now. It is not for everybody. It is also a little bit in that sense that they first come, first served. Yeah, yeah. Everyone comes to us, then we are also sold out. Yeah, understood. My second question is on the composition of the order book in marine, especially what type of ships are being contracted. If I look at the Clarkson's data, I see, yes, container vessels up over 100% year on year, but then LNG, LPG - 70%, even offshore reefer, rural - 40%, bulk - 80%. There seems to be a shift in the type of vessels that are currently being contracted. Does that in any way impact the mix for you, or do you have certain price targets or covering costs or cost plus or value-based for every engine? How can we think of that shift in contracting impacting your earnings? Thank you. I would say every engine sold is value-based pricing. We do not do cost plus pricing. Of course, with certain, for example, the auxiliary market is typically much more competitive. You can also see the market share there is a lot lower than when you talk about main engines. Again, it depends a bit on how much differentiation or how much value you can offer compared to the competitors. If we can negotiate engine sales and we know or we have agreed with the operator or the owner of a vessel that, okay, there will be a life cycle agreement. Typically when you are in the first order, if it is a series of eight or whatever, you are also in the remaining ones. Let's say, do you want to lose the new build deal then towards MAN or any other competitor for a small difference on the new build price? No, we don't. We always look at, let's say, the end-to-end potential of a deal, including new build as well as, let's say, services. I mean, on that comment, if I see that offshore reefer, rural, contracting goes down, this is where you would be the main engine provider. For container vessels, the orders go up. This is where you would be providing auxiliary engines. There could be a mixed effect going forward. Do not you see that critically at the moment? No, I do not see it that critically because, let's say, margin levels vary a lot between one project to another. Even auxiliaries, main engines, and between main engines and between auxiliary engines also. It depends very much on the case. Let's say, of course, if you sell a single vessel with one single equipment delivery with no aftermarket, let's say, life cycle agreement in view, you need to be much more stringent on the margin on the new build. We are. Let's say if it is about a series of vessels and you know you have a life cycle contract, you typically might give in or you do not want to typically lose it on a small piece of money on the new build sale because the payback on the service is big time. Yeah, understood. Understood. That goes for auxiliary engines and new build engines. Sometimes we have these life cycle, let's say, outlooks on it and sometimes we do not. It makes a hell of a difference between negotiating one contract versus another. Yeah, yeah. Okay. In the mix of life cycle contracts and pure engine deliveries. I'm not concerned. You're not concerned. Yeah. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Mikael Doepel. Please go ahead. Yep. Thank you very much. I had a question on the energy business and particularly on the guidance there. You have talked about a 12-month rolling forward, you see a better market environment, right? I think we should read that as orders probably growing on a year-over-year basis. I think that is what you have said in the past. Now you are going to split energy into two, right? You have the engine-based power plant business and then you have the storage separately. How are you going to, from Q2 onwards, guide? Are you going to guide still for the energy as a whole or are you going to give comments on, I mean, storage is going to be separate 12-month rolling guidance or how are you going to deal with that? Separate guidance. Simple and short. Okay. Okay. That's clear. I mean, based on what you said now here today on storage, it seems as if you still see it overall as growing, I assume. It's moving forward, but like I said, let's say there is one market, which is an important market that is almost standstill, and that's the U.S. Yes, of course. How big is U.S.? You have the lumpiness per quarter that, yeah, makes or breaks it basically as well. It is not so easy to exactly predict it. We always give a guidance and that, I hope, is more clear also for you to use. Okay. That's clear. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from John B. Kim. Daniela, I think, is first. For me, it looks like John B. Kim. Oh, sorry. No, sorry. I was wrong. Yeah. My apologies. John B., please go ahead. Okay. Sorry about that, Daniela. Can we go to a little bit more of a routeline of questions? Can you comment a bit on the price cost you're experiencing and what sort of wage inflation you're seeing across your business lines? Sorry, on the price? Price cost or price up from your component suppliers, your ability to generally pass that through? How should we think about that? Okay. I will not, let's say, comment too much, but let's say we have a very short connection between, let's say, our supply management organization and the, call it the sales organization. We make sure that, let's say, whatever happens on the supply chain, we are not sponging in the middle. That is basically a very big learning, I could even say in the hard way, that we saw in 2022 and 2023. The cost inflation went through the roof and we were stuck with, let's say, certain sales prices. These connections are now very short. We basically do not sponge anymore in the middle. Of course, let's say there is labor inflation that is also considered also in long-term contracts. If we look at life cycle contracts, it is full of indexes also related to labor cost, etc., and material cost as well. I would say basically we are not sponging that. Let's say whatever comes to us, we pass on. Of course, we aim to improve it, which is also happening in certain cases, but I will not make any numbers on that one. Okay. Just a quick follow-up. Given where we are on tariffs and uncertainty, has your approach on inventory levels and locations changed in the last quarter or two? No, we are not changing our location strategy. Let's say we produce in the places that we produce and we are not considering any changes there. No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Daniela Costa. Please go ahead. Thank you. I actually have two quite different ones. First, just on balance sheet and capital allocation, you did that sort of you executed on that buyback that I think was related to performance shares pretty quickly after Q1. You do not have any leverage now. You are not spending, I guess, so much time in strategic review around storage, which probably was a decent amount of your time in the past few years. How should we think about the balance sheet? I mean, what was the thinking on just doing that buyback for share compensation versus doing a bigger buyback? How should we think about the balance sheet? No, I think our capital allocation principles, they are the same. Let's say the dividend one that is part of the financial target, and we have a strong commitment to that, and we have delivered on that one as well. R&D, clearly on a higher level than, let's say, historically. That is likely to continue for some years to go, at least, while we are, let's say, doing all the transformations in technology, etc., to the new fuels. Of course, M&A. We are always on the lookout, and I will not repeat what I said before, but two-stroke MAN or Evlens nowadays, clearly still an interesting piece to look at. Otherwise, there are no plans of capital allocation or share buybacks. What you mentioned before on the peers on the gas turbines, as you said, have very long backlogs. I think historically you used to publish your market shares even of engines versus turbines. I might have missed it, but I think in your website, you only have them until 2023. Can you give us an update about how much engines have perhaps been benefiting from the others being quite tied up? Are we seeing that? If not, why are we not seeing that? No, I cannot. Let's say, first of all, there are no global statistics on it, or at least sometimes they are published, but they are very irregular. It's not a regular returning thing. Let's say the numbers that we published in the past, they were very much, let's say, manual by investigation put together. I cannot give you any clear number on that one right now. Let's say in the engine space, if you think about, let's say, competition in the thermal power side, of course, we fight with turbines. If turbines is not the solution, then wise customers look at flexibility here. If they look at engines, it's basically, let's say, two players. It's MAN and it's us. Sorry, just to press on this, but to make sure I understood, because historically, there was something on energy market shares every quarter in your website. Is that data not possible to do anymore, or you do not want to share it with us? No, we don't have it even. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, Daniela. I have received one question by email. How do you think about the balancing margins given the service intensity is less versus base load, and most of the orders last year were balancing orders? That's a good question. We, of course, look very carefully at our, let's say, running hours of engines because service business correlates with running hours. As you have seen, most likely in one of the service calls that we had in the recent past, actually, the running hours of our engines in energy actually do not decline despite, let's say, the change in mix. It's also related to a lot of things that are happening in the energy market. We have sold base load power plants that are running for balancing right now and the other way around as well. In the mix, we do not see running hours coming down. Average running hours in our installed base is holding up very nicely, actually slightly increasing over the past time. The next question comes from Max Yates. Please go ahead. Thank you. Could I just ask on your thermal energy business? I think we've seen from some of the other kind of turbine players showing us their backlog margins are basically rising quite quickly. I.e., what's going in is a lot more profitable than what's coming out. I'm just wondering, are you seeing similar dynamics where you've been able to price up? Obviously, I don't expect you to give us kind of numbers around those backlog kind of improvements, but is it a fair conclusion that you also would be seeing significantly better profitability on what's going in versus what's coming out? I will not comment on it. Let's say we make good margins on these orders. Of course, let's say based on logic, if you have something where others cannot supply, you can make your own assumptions. Okay. I guess that's clear. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from Sebastian Kuenne. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking my follow-ups. On the MAN two-stroke business, would MAN be interested to sell also the four-stroke business? Is there interest from your side? Is there some competitive issues that you can't buy the two-stroke business? Can you give us a bit more color on your interest here? Yeah. I think that's clearly a yes. We can most likely not buy the combination because, let's say, our four-stroke market share, okay, it's hovering around 45%-50% typically. MAN has also big shares, so competition authorities most likely will not accept it. Two-stroke, we can. Let's say, first of all, Volkswagen needs to be willing to sell, and they need to, let's say, make time available to do that. Of course, you know that Volkswagen has a lot of issues to deal with. Is this high on the priority list or lower on the priority list? That's a bit difficult to grasp. Of course, we are trying to get clarity and keep our eyes and ears open all the time. Two-stroke, we could clearly, let's say, take on. I think also there would be a lot of good synergies with that. Let's say our engineers know engine technology. Our engineers also know two-stroke engine technology because we have been and still do it, let's say, on the service side for WinGD. I think, and of course, MAN has a much bigger market share. What is it? 80%-85%, I would guess today. It would really be a strong add-on. It would definitely, let's say, put us in a very good position also with our customers to help them on their decarbonization journeys. That would be my follow-up. You sold WinGD or that, you also listed 2014, I think. That was mainly because the market share was not strong enough, or what was the main reason to surrender the business? Yeah. I think that's one of the reasons. Let's say in those years, first of all, you had to spend a lot of money on R&D because those were the years where, let's say, two-stroke, four-stroke was first also having an ability to run on LNG. Two-stroke followed later. That was in those years. You need to put a lot of R&D money in. You're actually fighting with an MAN that has 80%+ market share. We had, what is it, 10%+ market share. We made a nice deal with a yard in Asia, for example, on a lower license fee to get our engines in. MAN had the power to undercut it all the time. It is a really uphill battle. We thought, okay, it's much better to team up with a yard group in China that can also then guide, let's say, volume from their yards to WinGD in order to, let's say, check up the volume. That's how we started actually with WinGD becoming part of, okay, we sold it to CSSC Group at that point of time, and then it was renamed. Yeah. Exactly that. It was, let's say, an uphill battle. Very difficult to win. Yeah. Understood. The market share situation is very different. I understand. My other question is on energy storage. You still have a fairly low margin target. My thinking is if you have Western countries' utility clients that are hesitant to have Chinese battery makers and Chinese software on their system, would not that allow you to ask for premium prices? Would not that narrow down the competition? I can imagine at least that the Western world is very hesitant to have any software from Chinese OEMs directly running in a utility grid. My question, I guess, is do you see any Chinese competitors getting share with utility companies? If not, why is the competition not allowing you to have higher margins? Thank you. That's a good question. Of course, the more fear there is about, let's say, Chinese software and what happens in the background, nobody knows. The more it puts us in a favorable position because, let's say, our GEMS software, which is well known in the market and also considered to be one of the best, is clearly not Chinese-made. In that sense, yes, if that trend happens, I think we will benefit. That is not there today. Okay. Okay. So you do have Chinese competition, and it's probably aggressive on price. I think any capital goods industry nowadays has Chinese competition. We do. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sebastian. The next question comes from Vlad Sergievskiy. Please go ahead. Yes. Thank you very much for taking the question. Can I ask you about how you address the data center pipeline that you have? What do you see as your competitive advantages versus turbines or versus small engine suppliers? Do you compete on lead time? Do you compete on price? Do you compete on something else? I look at the articles that have been published in New York Times and others that look at the lead times for turbines are very long. That is in our favor. We can deliver shorter. I mentioned it earlier. Clearly, let's say, I think the whole flexibility element also plays a role in data centers, even though it is base load, actually. If you do, let's say, 100 MW with a turbine, it is on or off 100 MW. You can do the same with 10 engines. Then you need to think about redundancy because the turbine needs maintenance or might stop one day. You need to invest in more turbines. You need typically, let's say, let's take 100 MW. You need two turbines, one to back it up if the other is under maintenance. You can also do, let's say, 120 MW. Not 200 MW turbines installed, but 120 MW engines installed. You can always have two out of use, either for maintenance or for any other reason. In that sense, it is a much more flexible and cheaper solution also from a, let's say, footprint. There are other things as well, let's say, water consumption, operating in humid conditions, etc., that are an efficiency as well, fuel efficiency that is better with the engines. Thank you, Arjen. Can I follow up on this lead time point that you mentioned? Yes, you're right. Turbine lead times are very long, three, four years in some cases. The lead time on building a power plant of any size would be like five years plus on a sizable power plant. Turbines do not seem yet to be a constraining factor within the whole lead time of building a power plant. The question is how big of an advantage it is that you would be able to deliver in 18 months given the whole lead time of building an entire power plant? That you should ask our customers, but let's say they are clearly high in demand, and we can deliver a power plant very fast, actually. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Vlad. We still have 15 minutes, but I do not see any. One hand, I think. I think it's Vlad. Vlad, do you already now have a follow-up question, or was it all done? It seems like that I do not have any questions by email either. If somebody still has a question, please raise your hand. Sebastian Kuenne, please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you for taking my follow-up. On the cruise ship side, I mean, we do see an improvement in contracting here, but in terms of volumes, this is always very small numbers. I mean, in the context of global contracting, the few cruise ships being ordered, is it even moving the needle for you? Why is there so much content, or why was there historically so much content in cruise ships? I mean, they have six engines, sure, but the container also has four engines, four-stroke engines, so auxiliary. So why is there so much focus on cruise these days? First of all, it's big engines. We have also cruise vessels that have more engines than six. Yeah, it's a big and important market for us. Definitely, let's say, from a, let's say, lifecycle point of view, because typically, let's say, with cruise liners, they are very OEM loyal. It's mission critical, but the same goes for ferries. The same goes for offshore wind farm installation vessels. Cruise in particular, let's say, it's mission critical. They do not want to take any risks, and it's a good business for us. Just that the margins are significantly higher, or is it really the volume of business that is significantly higher? I will not comment on margins. Because historically, the volume was very large in cruise. There was, I think, up to 30% was cruise and ferry at some point for marine. It just seems at odds with the actual order numbers we see these days. It is a very small share of the market. Yeah. Can be, but I will not comment on margin. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Understood. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sebastian. Are there any further questions? It seems like everything is crystal clear. Q2 report will be published on July 18. I hope that you can enjoy summer before that, and I also hope that it is warmer elsewhere in Europe than here in Helsinki. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.