Happy New Year, everyone, and welcome to Wärtsilä Q4 2024 Pre-Silent Call. I'm Hanna-Maria Heikkinen, and I'm in charge of investor relations. Today, our CFO, Arjen Berends, will start with a key messages session. After that, there is a possibility to ask questions. If you have a question, please use the raise your hand functionality in Teams. In the case you do not have the possibility to use the raise your hand functionality in Teams, you can also send an email to me. Please, Arjen. Thank you, Hanna-Maria, and Happy New Year to everybody as well on my behalf. Just to put a few comments in advance, the Q4 has developed quite in line with our expectations, actually, and also earlier commentary. The market, I would say, is stable at a good level. In Marine, the positive market trends in our key segments continued on a good level. Cruise lines are seeing continued growth, and they are further investing in new capacity as needed, also to facilitate that growth going forward. Ferry market, we have been talking about that many times before. It's an aging fleet, and that continues to drive demand for fleet replacement. Good activity also in offshore, also container vessels, still good activity. And basically, across all vessel segments, the continued, let's say, tightening of regulations, they drive further demand. We can see that also in Q4, and we expect that to see also going forward because, ships need to be more fuel efficient in the future, driven by regulation. We have been talking a lot about yard capacity, and that is still a headwind, I would say. But we can also clearly see, let's say, a gradual improvement of that headwind. Capacity is being extended, and that works also in our favor. Fact is, though, that, let's say, yard order books are pretty long. Currently, let's say, the yard order books are about 3.7 years. If you go a few years back, that used to be more in the range of two. There is more demand for vessels than there is, let's say, capacity. So let's say the outlook for going forward, if yard capacity extends, I think that will also be good for our business. In energy, of course, there is uncertainty regarding what will Trump do, in particular related to tariffs. The good thing is, and I think it's good to repeat that the renewable energy is still the cheapest form of generating electricity. It's intermittent, so the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. So there is a need for balancing. And balancing, or let's say, backup capacity can, in many, many more cases, not be given by existing grids because interconnections, they can take a long time, can be even up to five to seven years or even longer in certain places. Good demand outlook for, let's say, both storage as well as engine power plant products. So also, of course, driven by, let's say, the need for balancing power, but also the replacement of coal and the ever-growing need for electricity, or electrification of the world, you could say. As communicated previously, Wärtsilä comparable operating margin percentages has typically reached the highest point in the Q4 of each year. We earlier have said that, okay, in 2024, we do not expect to see that seasonality. To comment on that, the closing is ongoing, but at this point of time, I don't see really a material reason to deviate from that statement. That's then also clear. Otherwise, I would say, okay, one notable point is, of course, the divestment of ANCS, which I think has been announced. That's good to keep in mind as well. We will disclose, let's say, details of the financial impact in the connection with the Q4 earnings. That will come in a few weeks. That's it, what I had in mind as an introduction. Thank you, Arjen. So then let's continue with the Q&A. In case you have a question, please use the raise your hand function in Teams, or alternatively, you can also send an email to me. Are there any questions? Erkki Vesola, please go ahead. Yes, hi, Hanna-Maria and Arjen. Yes. Just a brief, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Yes. Just a brief update on the storage strategic review, please. Nothing new then compared to, let's say, earlier commentary. So ongoing, and as I said before, we will come out with news when we are ready, hopefully sooner than later. Definitely in 2025, I would say. Preferably earlier. So do you expect something to happen in the H1 of this year? I will not comment on that, but we are striving for as soon as possible to provide clarity on this. 2025 is more or less a promise. We should not drag it over. That's my clear view and our clear view. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, Erkki. Then I think Daniela Costa raised her hand. Hi, thank you very much. I mean, just a small question regarding back to storage operationally and that topic of Trump and tariffs. And can you flag again who do you use as a supplier for the actual batteries, given all these Chinese companies that are on the list of potential problematic entities? Do you have any Chinese input into what you supply in the U.S.? I will not comment on that. Let's say we are using a diversified supply chain, but the fact of the matter is that, let's say, the majority of batteries are coming from China, not only for us, but I think for all the battery suppliers, even for, let's say, Tesla, I think. So yes, there is a high dependency on China in this respect. But we are trying, let's say, of course, also, and we are working actually, not only trying, on also getting a supply chain in the U.S., but that takes time. That is not overnight. And also just one final one on storage in general, like given the lithium pricing trajectory, have you seen that having any impact in terms of the tendering pace of activity or client thinking on- No, not really. No. There is just a high demand. There are lots of opportunities, and I said it before, we can, of course, take a lot more orders if we want to because there is a lot of demand, but we are not willing to take all orders at any price or any risk, so we are in that sense selective on what we take. We need to be able to get a good margin, and we need to be able to, let's say, deliver, let's say, what we promise, and so far, that works out very well for us. As you have noticed, we have also released, let's say, earlier contingency reservations for execution on storage projects earlier, and that's only due to the fact that we are well in control of the risk, basically, so execution and price are critical in our selection. Thank you. That's it for me. Thanks. Thank you, Daniela. Then next question comes from Sven Weier. Please go ahead, Sven. T hank you, Hanna-Maria. Thanks for doing the call. The first one is also on storage, right? Obviously, on the order intake side, we had a tough Q3, and I think I remember back at the time you were quite hopeful in terms of the pipeline and catching this up. Now we had one big announcement, and that's it. I mean, should we look at this as like an outlier, or should we see it as kind of representative for activity? We have definitely more orders in Q4, but I will not tell you how much more. That's okay, as long as you have more than one. Yeah. And the same question on thermal, I guess there you were also probably hopeful for some year-end activity. I think there was a few things there. Would you make the same comment there? I think we have also a good outlook for Q4 here, in line with our expectations, yes. Then finally, just on the marine side in cruise, I think there were like 24 vessel orders in 2024 as a whole. I mean, would you know how many of these vessels the engine contract has already been placed? No, not out of my sleeve. No, I cannot say. But would you say typically, I mean, the delay on the cruise can be quite long, right? B ut let's say I would expect that at least half, now, this is out of my sleeve. I have no facts on this at all. I would say at least half of the engine should probably be somehow selected. Okay. Thank you, Arjen. I go back in line. Thank you, Sven. Then next question comes from Panu Laitinmäki. Please go ahead, Panu. Thank you. Actually, Sven asked the answer that I was going to ask, but maybe on the divestment that you announced, so the price was not disclosed, so it was a low number then? I will not comment on that. Let's say financial impact will be, let's say, coming out when we do the Q4 earnings release. Okay. And then what is left in portfolio business? How soon could we expect any further deals there? Of course, as commented earlier, we try to do this as fast as possible, but let's say with common sense. So we are not willing to sell it at any price. So we want to get a decent price. That's also why it took more time, let's say, to convert these businesses to a profitable situation because a few years back, they were almost making that, of course, gives better opportunity on a good price in the future. So yes, as soon as possible, but I will not stick a time on it. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Sven. Oh, Michael Dobell, please go ahead. Yes. Thank you and Happy New Year. Thanks. Let's just start with the aftermarket business. So Arjen, you mentioned in the beginning of the introduction that you do see decarbonization or regulation driving that. We have seen, if you start with the marine side, I guess we've seen quite strong growth in orders for quite a few quarters already for the marine aftermarket business. Is it fair to assume that this growth will moderate going forward just due to the fact that the comparables are becoming tougher, or is it still fair to assume double-digit growth into 2025? I look at service in a different way. I believe in growth. And let's say the fact that book-to-bill ratios basically on all the service revenue streams are above one structurally for a long time already, that shows to me that there is growth. Let's say comparing one quarter to, let's say, the previous quarter or the same quarter previous year, I don't think is very useful. But what is very useful to look at is rolling 12-month trend on book-to-bill ratio. As long as it's above one, we are growing. And if you look at our, let's say, roadshow material, there is a good graph on all of this, basically, both on corporate level, let's say the book-to-bill ratios as well as per business. And you can clearly see that all of them are above one. So that's first of all. So taking in more orders than you deliver out, which means that you're growing. You can also see from those graphs that, let's say, there are quite stable lines for spare parts and field services, while let's say the lines for agreements and retrofits typically are more lumpy, but they are clearly high, high above one. For agreements, for example, one thing to clarify, agreements, we book revenue as a percentage of completion methodology. And of course, in an agreement, when you do, let's say, operation maintenance, you also every now and then need to do an overhaul on our costs. So we generate a lot of cost, and then you see typically, let's say, that there is a peak in the revenue recognition. Same with retrofits. Retrofits typically come bulky, so to say. You have some in one quarter, perhaps a little bit more or less in another quarter. So that line is always like that. But let's say the good thing is that it's lumpy because of that reason, because they are typically size-wise big, and they don't come, let's say, linear over the year. But the fact that they are all really high in the, I mean, high over one in the book-to-bill ratio is clearly showing that, let's say, retrofits and agreements are a ramp-up business. And I don't see any reason why that should slow down. Decarbonization is requiring retrofits. You need to get more fuel efficiency out of your engine because of the CII rating, for example, but also to, let's say, not ending up with a standard asset in the near future. I'm positive about this, actually. Very positive. When do you think we can expect the IMO to come out with some new regulation targets? L et's say there is a pending, I think, discussion still in the IMO about, let's say, sanctions on, for example, let's say, CII, etc. At least to my latest knowledge, they have it in mind to be discussed in their March or April meeting, at least early this year. I think it was supposed to be discussed in the last meeting they had in Q4 last year, but that did not conclude anything. T hat's what I know, let's say. So I'm worried in 2025. Is it then, let's say, in the next meeting, which is end of Q1, I think, or later? I cannot involve or, let's say, influence, let's say, will they be successful in their discussions or not? Right, right. Okay. Then just a kind of a similar question on the energy business and the aftermarket there. I think Q3 seemed to be at least a bit slow on a year-over-year basis, but I guess there's some lumpiness in that business as well. How would you describe the overall? I mean, I think you sounded fairly positive on marine. When you talked about the aftermarket, how would you describe the overall aftermarket on the energy side? I would say the same story that I just told for marine on book-to-bill ratios. You find a graph in the roadshow material. It's exactly the same in energy. All book-to-bill ratios are above one, and we see the lumpiness in the agreement and the retrofits. But the fact that they are really high in the number, that's really good. We are growing, and I'm very confident we will grow even further. That's also a driver towards, let's say, our 12% operating margin target, which I'm also confident we will reach. Good. Great. Thank you very much. I'll go back in the line. Thank you. Then I have received a couple of questions by email. Question about tanker segment. Can you please comment on the tanker segment? How were activity levels in Q4 against declining day rates and higher idle rates? To be honest, I don't know that by heart. I know that tanker activity is reasonably stable, but tankers is not a big market for us, at least. T hat's correct. Okay. Then Sven Weier. Please go ahead, Sven. T his time with video. Thank you. Two follow-ups. Just one on the data center side. I was just wondering if you had any kind of success stories already. I mean, we heard obviously that GE has been quite actively booking orders. So I wonder how that's going. And the second question is just following up on service. I just wonder, sorry, it's a technical question, but I was wondering whether your service guys or your engineers tell you that the wear and tear of the methanol and ammonia engines is bigger than on, let's say, HFO and low sulfur? Thank you. I think if I start with the second question, I think it's too early to say. Let's say the whole big boom into the market of methanol and ammonia is still to come. I would say for methanol, at least I have not heard any signals that it would be higher wear and tear. Ammonia, I have not heard either myself, but of course, ammonia is corrosive. So it might be if you have, let's say, longer-term, let's say, running that it is requiring more regular replacement of certain parts that touch the fuel. But I think it's really too early to say. On your question about data centers, yes, we've said earlier as well, and that's also been, let's say, in press releases earlier. We are working with AVK on projects, but those are mainly, let's say, in Europe. Let's say the main data center, you could say, explosion of activity is in the U.S. I think more than 50% of the new investment in data centers is coming from there. Yes, we are working on orders. I'm not aware yet that we have already booked any of the orders. But it sounds like it's not too long until you do. Might be. You only have an order when you have it. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you, Sven. Now, I do not see, oh, Robin Fiedler, please go ahead. Hi, thank you. Just to follow up on the last line of questions. So your recent engines then for the data center community, would that be, what's the thing? Would that be like an on-site baseload power, or would it be more on the backup side, or would this be like an indirect opportunity just from low-throughput in the US? I would say it's baseload. Let's say, okay, there is no, let's say, formal definition in the market of what is, let's say, baseload or balancing power. Let's say typically we have used as a definition, let's say, 3,000 running hours a year, more or less. If it's below, then it's balancing power. If it's above, then it's baseload, but if you think data centers, let's say the data centers is, like I said, it's like an explosion of activity and they typically need, let's say, big megawatts, let's say 50 to, okay, there is talk even about data centers with 400 megawatts, so that's really, really big. It is baseload and why is it baseload? Because they cannot get the electricity from the grid. Let's say there is so much electrification ongoing in the market that grids are over. Now, I lost the English word. Overbelast, we say in Holland, but I don't know the English word. But let's say, oh, there is too much burden on the network, on the grid, so that they cannot, let's say, get connected. And you need to wait five to seven years for, let's say, new connections, basically. Also, if you, let's say, build a renewable power plant, then you want to have backup from the grid. Waiting times are extremely long. So therefore, they need balancing power when you talk about renewable. But let's say for data centers, you need the electricity all the time. So it's not, let's say, intermittent. You need it all the time. So I would say it's more linked to baseload than to balancing power. Is there any regions that you see the biggest opportunities? Like future discussions in ERCOT or? The activity is, of course, let's say, like I mentioned before, let's say 50% of the data center investment is expected to see in the U.S. So that's clearly the hot market. Within the U.S., is it in ERCOT primarily? That I cannot say. I don't have that know-how where we are exactly, let's say, quoting. But just to confirm, the structure itself would be like an on-site engine with like a behind-the-meter structure. Maybe they add grid later, but the primary source of power will be your engines initially, and that's what you guys are initiating. Initially, yes. I think it would be their own power plant, so to say, which later might be converted to a balancing power plant to support the grid in that particular region. But that's initially their own. Just lastly on this point, so is it right that you guys are not capacity constrained relative to, say, a GE who says they're sold out for the next three years? Who are you even competing with at this juncture for the next year or two, let's say? No, we clearly have, let's say, capacity. We can deliver engines within six months to a year, I would say. Our factory in Vaasa is not running at max capacity, so there are still good opportunities there. And we have also, let's say, factories in China. So we are not at least capacity, I don't foresee to be a limiting factor in the near term. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Robin. Then next question comes from Erkki Vesola. Please go ahead, Erkki. Yes, thank you again. You've indicated good demand for thermal in balancing and also in the data center's baseload. My question is, is the demand strong enough to support price increases in thermal, or are the prices more or less stable per megawatt? There is no such thing as a one price for, let's say, a solution that you bring. I would say pricing is always unique. We are not, let's say, price-plussing, if you want to call it. Let's say we have value pricing. So it depends also, let's say, what is your solution and how can you differentiate from the competition. There are many, let's say, reasons why price is different one project to another. For example, if you know that you will have a life cycle agreement at the same time, you don't want to lose the new build pricing order on, let's say, a couple of hundred thousand or even a million. Depends a bit on the size, of course, to your competitor because you will earn it back in no time in the aftermarket part. There are lots of factors that determine, okay, how do we price ourselves? And of course, the more we can differentiate, if we have offering improved efficiency or better water usage for cooling, etc., etc., than our competitors, that's an opportunity to ask better prices. Pricing is unique, and we always, of course, try to get the maximum out of it. But it's also, let's say, a balancing thing between, okay, pricing, general terms and conditions, warranty terms, payment terms, etc. You will not win on all points all the time. So is it impossible to compare, I mean, in comparable terms, to say whether prices per megawatt have been coming up or down year on year? I think that's a difficult one to say. Okay. And then secondly, still coming to the baseload, we discussed this in the strategy call, but could you provide us an update on the Brazil auctions were coming, and then demand picking up in Indonesia otherwise or elsewhere in Southeast Asia? Any update on those? I would say we are working on baseload, let's say, power plants, but I think the majority of the activity is clearly on the balancing power. I would say the baseload market is a rather stable market, you could say, but the balancing power is the area of growth. But we are working in many opportunities in many places. So Indonesia clearly one, but also, let's say, places in Africa and South America. So should we be looking for announcements on these fronts, say, during the H1 of the next year or this year? I cannot commit to announcements. Announcements always depend on, let's say, do we get the acceptance to announce it from customer side as well? We are trying always to get an announcement out if we book an order, but it's not always allowed for the customer. Doesn't want always to have, let's say, a lot of publicity around it. I get that. Thank you. Thank you, Erkki. The next question comes from Michael Dobell. Please go ahead, Michael. Thank you. Just coming back to the data centers, so just trying to understand the dynamics there. So I guess who are you actually selling to? Is it the energy solutions supplier that you sell your potential baseload engines to? And then I'm trying to understand also then when the data center gets the grid connection, I guess they don't need the balancing plant anymore. So I'm just wondering about the dynamics, how they actually work at that point in time, and who kind of is the buyer of the plant? I think you go now in a detail level that I don't know, let's say, to have the exact answer. I would say typically it's the data center operator, let's say the owner of the data center that also owns the power plant. I think that's the case, and how the future will evolve, I think that's too early to say. This whole data center, okay, I don't want to call it a hype, but let's say there's an explosion, basically. It happened after, let's say, springtime last year when ChatGPT, let's say, launched, and everybody got super enthusiastic about, let's say, all the capabilities and possibilities with massive amounts of data. That's driving this, but it's really early, and let's say how data center business will look like, let's say, three years out, I don't think anybody knows this, so difficult to say. But of course, if you have, let's say, a data center that you want to build today, now I'm just speculating. This is not, let's say, fact-based, but let's say my own speculation, basically, you build a data center today, you need immediate power. You cannot get it from the grid. So you install, let's say, X number of engines to provide you the power. The engines are flexible. Let's say data centers are not all the time on constant data power need either, so there is fluctuation. You can manage that with the engines. The future will probably be hydrogen because you want to have data centers green, if I want to put it like that. Either you run the engines on hydrogen or you build a wind and solar plant next to it, and you use the engines for balancing power, still running on hydrogen, but you burn less of this expensive fuel because these fuels will be very expensive in the future. And that I could see as a road, but let's say how it eventually will play out, I think it's really too early to say. I was just thinking, I mean, is there a risk that the data center will just postpone the investments until they get the grid connection because otherwise they buy a power plant now, which they don't have any use for in five years' time? The question is, do they want to wait five to seven years to get a grid? I think the whole data center opportunity might be gone. I don't think they will that long. Okay. That's fair. Another question just on the carbon capture systems. I mean, we've been talking about that previously. Maybe you could give us a bit of an update there. I mean, what's going on in the market? Do you see any progress on the kind of infrastructure side on land, and any update there would be useful. Thank you. Yep. No, okay, it has not really materially changed since we last commented in the quarter. Let's say the carbon capture is clearly, let's say, of high interest to the marine market. We have set and I think we are well on track for that. Let's say we will commercially launch it in 2025, so in this year. That's still very well on track. We are now working with pilot installations to get them, let's say, out and installed. Also, let's say that's typically what you do with new installations. You always have pilot installations to take the first learning and make some adjustments where needed. Structurally, I think there is no issue. And as I said, there is a lot of interest, but yes, carbon will be captured on board the vessel, and the carbon capture needs to be discharged. Now, there are many ports that are working on this. I come from Holland, as you know. I know that in Rotterdam, they are working on it. Let's say they are also discussing pipelines towards, let's say, old oil and offshore fields in the North Sea to store the storage deep down there. And I know that there are also other ports that activities are ongoing. So I think this will ramp up. But of course, it starts, first of all, that there need to be technology providers like Wärtsilä that say, "Hey, we have an installation that can capture carbon on the marine industry." If that is, let's say, something that works and, let's say, a good suggestion, let's say, for many operators, I would say, to use, the question is, will it always fit into their existing vessel? Because it's like scrubbers. You need to fit it into existing vessels, much easier with new build, then I think the scaling will also happen quite fast. Okay. Well, that's fair. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from John B. Kim. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. Could we speak a bit about costs? I'm just wondering how your costs are trending, if there's any anomalies or odd comparisons we should think about, and just a quick follow-up there on what you're seeing on wage inflation and perhaps difficulties in hiring high-quality skilled labor. Thanks. Of course, cost is always an area of, let's say, focus, and we are doing in a company like Wärtsilä, we are all the time doing optimizations all over the world, big and small, big one, of course, which is very much, let's say, has been very much in the focus is, of course, our Trieste case, but equally so, we are doing many smaller efforts in many places, so we are all the time, we call it continuous improvement in Wärtsilä. It's really a lot about, let's say, flow optimization, footprint optimization. We are, of course, also looking at, do we need to be in all the places that we need to be or currently are and other places where we should be where we are not today, so it also works the other way. Salary inflation, yes, I think as all companies, let's say, we also face salary inflation. We are, of course, not willing to absorb debt. So let's say many of the things will also be reflected, many of the increases will also be reflected in our pricing to customers. Is it difficult to get, let's say, the right level of talent into the house? I would say it's a challenge, but it's not an impossible challenge. But it's not easy. It's not easy. But let's say what is very much, let's say, in our favor is our purpose statement, basically, the decarbonization of both energy and marine that is really, let's say, appealing to many people joining Wärtsilä. We want to be part of a company that makes a difference, actually, in the decarbonization journey and helping the planet to become a better place. Just a quick follow-up. Before we talked about yard constraints, are there any pinch points in terms of production or factory or supply chain for you right now? We should be cognizant of. No, not really. Like I said earlier, let's say we are not at max capacity. Let's say of our factories currently around, what is it, 70% or so of technical capacity. So we can clearly, let's say, handle more. And then we have also, let's say, the joint ventures in China. Supply chain, I don't see any major issues either. I think the supply chain can also still, let's say, ramp up. So no, I don't see immediately concerns there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Vivek Midha. Please go ahead. Thanks very much, everyone, and good afternoon. My question was just on working capital following up from some of the comments in the last few quarters. You've commented that you do expect the current very strong levels of working capital to normalize over the next one to two years or over the nearer term. So firstly, for Q4, should we see any movement or expect to see any movement in that direction? And if you have any more comments as to the speed or cadence of that change, then very interested to hear it. Thank you. I will only comment that the Q4, let's say, we have a good cash flow. And I'll leave it there. And I still believe that, let's say, the current levels will not hold in a couple of years. I think it will somehow, let's say, tick up again. As you know, let's say we have negative working capital. I don't think that's the long-term sustainable situation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vivek. The next question comes from Sven Weier. Please go ahead, Sven. T hanks for taking the follow-up. It's one on navy. I guess I haven't been asking that for the last two years, but it's a segment that used to be like, I think, EUR 300 million, so it was relatively big at the top. And now we're obviously three years into this war. And I think we've seen some activity also in ordering new vessels and more to come, I guess, from the U.S. So are you seeing anything in the pipeline there, at least in terms of more activity in navy, or is it still a bit of a long shot? I think we have clearly, let's say, seen an uptick in the navy activity since the war started, and also, let's say, under the push of, let's say, statements from Trump that Europe needs to, let's say, tick up on their, let's say, 2% of GDP to be spent on defense industry or military industry. I think both these factors are really, let's say, seen in the navy activity, but of course, as you know, navy activity typically takes a long time, let's say, from a first discussion about, let's say, a frigate, for example, to, let's say, final concluding a contract that can be five, six, seven years even sometimes, so it can take a while, but let's say clearly on the quoting side, we see a lot of activity, and also in the sales side, we see the trend is up. The trend is not down. That's clear. I don't think, Annemarie, you know more because you have recently looked into it, I know. I don't think we are at 300 million EUR levels yet on navy activity at the moment. I think it's a little bit lower than that. I do not recall. Okay. We can check that. I think it's around 100 when I look at your really quarterly releases and add them up. So it still seems a bit subdued. Hasn't really shown in the orders maybe yet, but. Okay. I was more thinking order intake, but okay. Let's check it. Let's not speculate. So it's an even longer decision cycle than on full scale. The trend is clearly up. That's what I hear all the time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sven. The next question comes from Robin Fiedler. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks. Just going back to the balancing power business and this time looking more on U.S. low growth and the need for more balancing power plants to help support the grid. Can you help me understand how your customers are thinking about new investment for new plants relative to what still remains a pretty subdued forward power price? What do they need to see to actually initiate new plant builds? Just maybe help me understand that dynamic. I'm not sure if I totally follow your question, but let me try to. Let me just add a bit more context then, so obviously, the cost of new gas plants has gone up a lot, right, in the last year or two, so in order for but we haven't seen the power price on the forward curve go up to justify or potentially justify the return, right, and so but everyone's aware that this load growth is imminent or coming, right, and so just wondering how your customers are thinking about that dynamic and are people just waiting to see actually the power price itself go up significantly to then justify or are people starting to preemptively think about these investments? I think the honest or at least my belief is that the honest answer is that they need the balancing power. If you build a wind farm today or a solar plant today, they are intermittent. You need to have a balancing power or a backup power, let's say, in case there is no wind and no sun, let's say, for two weeks or sometimes even longer or not enough at least. If you want to, let's say, get your, let's say, wind farm that you just implemented connected to the grid, it takes five to seven years. That's not going to work for you. So whether you like it or not, you need balancing power. And I don't think that the equation of, let's say, consumer pricing is the real thing at the moment. I think it's more about, let's say, how do I make sure that I don't have a blackout because I have a commitment to deliver an X number of energy to my customers, so being, let's say, the end customers then. So at least to my knowledge, I don't. I think that's the main reasoning. So in addition to. At the same time, in many grids, let's say, coal is being switched off. So, it only pushes more and more that and renewable is the cheapest form of generating electricity. Everybody wants to chip in on it. So you make your calculation basically on the system rather than on just this only single balancing power plant. I mean, I guess what you're describing has been sort of present in the market for at least a couple of years, and we haven't seen a big wave of balancing power in the U.S., at least. So I guess in part could be this higher investment spend versus the power price or maybe batteries are taking up the marginal piece of that kind of. Batteries do, let's say, also provide balancing power, but that is balancing power for, let's say, a number of hours, max a day. But if you want to go beyond that, you need to install so massive amount of batteries. It will not work. It will not economically work either. Do you think this year could be the year that we finally see some uptick in balancing power orders in the U.S. for this? I definitely agree. Great support. I definitely agree. Let's say many of the opportunities that we are working on in the U.S. are balancing power, not baseload. Okay. All right. Thank you. So coming back to the question about navy orders. So on our Q3 report, we said that navy orders are roughly 9% out of the marine orders year to date, which is based on my math, roughly EUR 245 million. I had also 215 on my calculator. This percentage is always published on the appendix on the presentation, so you can always check that from there. Okay. So then, thank you, Robin. Then the next question is coming from Vivek Midha. Please go ahead. Sorry, I forgot to raise or lower my hand. No worries. No worries. Then Robin Fiedler, I can still see your thumb up. Do you still have follow-up questions, or does somebody else have a question? John Bikim. John B. Kim, yes. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks. Just wondering if we could speak a little bit about portfolio business, the pace of activity and relative focus, just the cadence called over the next year or so. So from what I remember of the story, the non-core assets go in, you right-size them or optimize them, and you look to sell them. Just wondering in that dynamic kind of fix and then sell, are we heading to a period where we should see more activity? L et's say, like I said before, of course, the businesses that are still in there, which is basically water and waste, marine electrical systems, and gas solutions. W e want to go as fast as possible. But as I said before, not at any price. Let's say we want to, let's say, get a good price. And that's basically the main driver. But I hope rather sooner than later, we also, let's say, you could basically say dissolve this portfolio business and focus on our core activities. But let's say as an activity, so let's say if we look at these businesses, I think there is good activity in all these businesses. So I think that supports also, let's say, our journey of improving the profitability, actually turning them around in earlier time and further improving the profitability going forward. That hopefully gives also a better price when we aim to sell. Gotcha. So is it fair to kind of read through that we could see a bit more profitability out of PB in the medium to short term? I hope that, let's say, this journey that we have entered into, let's say, if you go a year or two back, these businesses were basically all loss-making. That's not the situation today anymore. So let's say we are on the right track, and hopefully that track continues. At least that's what we aim for. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We have not received any questions by email. If somebody still has a question, we have still 15 minutes time left. Anders Roslund, please go ahead. Yes. Hello. Sorry. I have a question about yard contracting. Clarksons talked about 2,200, but it's already surpassed that level. Is it 2,500 or what is it? We are on a higher level than expected for this year. Do you have any? And what do they expect, something lower for next year? What is your idea here? No, let's say that's a difficult question. Let's say I think Clarkson has more insight in yard activity than Wärtsilä has. We are, of course, also using Clarkson data for many of our analytics because it's the most renowned agency that gives, let's say, an overall marine picture in many different dimensions. Of course, when we do, let's say, our guidance forward, let's say, we look at Clarkson, we talk to our own salespeople. Of course, we have our business intelligence department also that does also look at other sources than just Clarkson. And then we try to make the best, let's say, estimation of, let's say, what we believe will happen for us. And that's basically our guidance that we also provide to you and the market. If you ask me the question, okay, what will be, let's say, the vessel contracting be in 2025? I think Clarkson says 1,948 vessels. I have it here in front. Will it be that number? Will it be higher or lower? I do remember now, if I remember it right, I think I do, that in the beginning of this year, they also thought a way lower number for this year. And it turned out to be much higher. The fact that also yard capacity is being expanded makes me a little bit more positive. The fact that, let's say, the yard order books is 3.7 years, meaning that there is more demand for new vessels than there is supply also makes me positive. So if there is capacity available, I think it will be higher. Excellent. It might take, but I am not having that many sources of input as probably Clarkson has. Just follow logic. Yes. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you, Anders. I do not see any hand. Oh, Michael Dobell, please go ahead. Just sorry, just a final one from my side, and then I'm done. But on the margin still, I mean, Arjen, you commented something in the beginning. You talked about Q4. Just wanted to clarify. I didn't really catch you exactly what you said, but if I understood it correctly, you said that you have said it's not going to be the highest in Q4 as it usually is. But did you also say it could still be close to it? Maybe you could give a bit more color on what you wanted to say about the Q4 margin. Thanks. I will stay with the statement. What I said is that I don't see any material reason to deviate from that statement. And that's what I will stay with today, and for the rest, you need to wait until 5th of February. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. It seems like there are no more questions. So thank you for all of the good questions. Thank you, Arjen, for good. Thank you very much. Good answers. And then our financial statements release will be published on February 5th. So then we can discuss the figures in more detail level. See you in a few weeks. Thank you very much. Enjoy the winter. Thank you. Yes. Bye. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.