Welcome to this Wärtsilä Pre-Silent Call Q1 2025. My name is Hanna-Maria Heikkinen. I'm in charge of the investor relations and I'm here with my IR colleagues and with our CFO, Arjen Berends. Today Arjen will start with a couple of key messages and highlights and then we will continue with the Q& A. Please. All right. Thank you, Hanna-Maria, and welcome to this pre-silent call from my side as well. If I start with a few, let's say key messages. First of all, in marine, we expect the positive trends that we see in our key segments to continue. Actually, that was in a way confirmed, you could say, by Clarksons this morning when they published their new outlook where we can clearly see for 2025 that the decline is in the segments, let's say, tankers, bulkers, and other cargo, while in containers, cruise and ferry, LNG, and offshore, actually the expectation is up. Our key segments, and that's also the feedback we got internally from our sales organization, is in the right direction. In general, I would say that a good momentum in the marine market remains. Let's say the average age of the fleet is all time high. The forward load at yards is all time long, which indicates that there is more demand than supply. The tightening regulations, they are not disappearing. Let's say the European carbon tax continues to move forward and let's see now what IMO in April will decide in their next meeting. They are also discussing similar solutions. Outcome to be seen, of course. Also good to know that the utilization of the fleet is good and that of course gives good opportunities for our service business as well as for sales strategy of moving up the service value ladder. It's not all positive, I'd say there are also clearly headwinds to a higher or lower degree. I would say there is still more positive than negative. The lack of yard capacity, we have been talking about that earlier as well. Still an issue, but the situation is improving. Although let's say improving, let's say yard capacity is not something that happens overnight and takes a bit of time. The implication of this is clearly that we can also see that the time from order to delivery gets longer and that you can see also in our order book, it's a longer order book, but we can also actually see it in our cash flow because we earlier get also now down payments because if they contract earlier, also the down payments come earlier. With respect to tariffs in the U.S., there is of course a lot of uncertainty about that, and let's say from the marine perspective we don't expect them to have significant impact as more shipbuilding in marine is actually outside the U.S., and also let's say spare part deliveries, et cetera. We believe we can manage those also outside the U.S. even for U.S. vessels. No major issues expected there on the horizon. Of course, let's say tariffs in general is bad news for global trade and of course global trade links to shipping. I think it's too early to say if that will have an impact short term, long term, or mid term. If we look at energy, order intake is lumpy. I think we have seen that over the past quarters many times. Tariff uncertainty is impacting customer decision making. Slowed it down actually, say we have no cancellations, but let's say it's clearly a slowdown in decision making, in particular for energy storage. Good is of course that the electrification of the world continues, and as mentioned earlier, power demand is expected to triple actually towards 2050. We have a good pipeline for both engine power plants as well as energy storage, and the utilization of the energy installed basis is actually very stable. Also giving good opportunities to our service business there. We see long term demands keeping up actually, driven by of course the gradual change, shift towards renewable energy production, the replacement of coal, and of course also the, in general, let's say, growing demand for electricity. Challenge in the energy market is clearly grid connections, gets increasingly difficult in many places of the world. If you want to have a grid connection, especially for big power demands, let's say it's five years plus. Of course, let's say at the same time, it gives opportunities for us in particular for micro grids where we can clearly, let's say, support and in a way you could say data center is also in a way a micro grid. Impa,ct of tariffs in the U.S. on energy is a difficult thing to predict, let's say, what will actually happen. We of course continuously monitor the situation. As mentioned earlier, the impact on the existing order book we don't see as major and we have not seen any cancellations either of projects in order book or actually projects under negotiations, so to say. Let's say these uncertainties of course put, let's say, or slow things down in particular in energy storage. Negotiation with customers we can clearly see takes more time as customers upfront want to understand how the pain is shared in case tariffs will be implemented on new contracts or if they will be raised along the way. That is of course a discussion that you should not take lightly. Let's say we want to take the time for that and also customers want to have clarity before they sign. When it comes to decarbonization trends in the U.S., we are not so concerned. Renewable energy is still the cheapest form of generating electricity, or the expectation is that there will be record installations of solar and wind in 2024 and 2025 as well, according to Bloomberg and IEA. Let's say affordability is a key element here. Good to know that lumpiness I mentioned earlier as well will remain. Let's say the size in particular for storage of deals is going up quite substantially and when you have one or two big orders in one quarter or not can make a big difference per quarter. Data centers, final comment from my side, creating clearly let's say interesting opportunities. Lead times, let's say from our competitors, are pretty long. That gives also good opportunities for us and we are working on many, many opportunities here. Still, let's say the big flow or the anticipated big flow hopefully is still to come. We have booked orders in Europe but not yet in the U.S. That's it from my side. Thank you, Arjen. We will continue with the Q& A. In case you have a question, please use the raise your hand functionality in Teams, and in case you cannot use the raise your hand functionality. Please send me an email so I can then take the question from there. We will start with Sebastian Kuenne. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you for taking my question. Arjen. There was a discussion a couple of weeks ago that in Marine you have this new hybrid system where you want to bring back the four-stroke engines into LNG carriers. When I look at the order book at Clarksons for LNG carriers I don't see any bookings for these four-stroke solutions. Can you confirm that and what type of LNG carrier are you aiming for and is there a much larger market to be developed here? Thank you. You. It's a good question and yes, I think we have a very advantageous solution for, let's say, LNG carriers with four-stroke engine and hybrid electric, basically giving extra cargo space, doing fuel savings, of course improving the footprint. There are many advantages. First order still to be sold and that has to do with the fact that, let's say, the order book at yards are already pretty full with respect to LNG carriers and, let's say, you need to get into, let's say, the next one basically and for many, I don't know exactly, but I think there are several LNG carriers in yard order book where equipment orders still need to be placed. Of course, this change means a radical change in the design. It depends very much, let's say, in what stage you enter the negotiation. We are clearly working with end customers on this solution and I'm very hopeful that let's say we will get our space back into this market. The timing is a little bit difficult to say, but looking at, let's say, Clarksons now also they lifted up actually the LNG contracting expectations. Yeah, let's see. I'm very positive about this. It gives so much benefits that it's almost logical that you would go for the solution. I would say, but that's of course from my perspective, easy to say. Yeah, understood. Second question. Similar subject, methanol engines. When we had the call with Håkan, he mentioned that the pendulum is currently swinging back to LNG from methanol. There was a, you know, a big hype that Wärtsilä came out with the first 100% methanol engine. Is this really, is methanol really a viable solution, a commercial solution going forward, or is it more realistic that LNG is the solution of choice and methanol is a nice to have or methanol ready engine is nice to have but it's not really viable economically. What's your view t here? I don't think so. I think let's say all the new fuels will have a place in the journey towards 2050 when let's say the whole maritime industry expect to be carbon neutral. Basically there will not be one fuel. I think there will be many fuels. I think the pendulum now swinging back a little bit has to do with the fact that, okay, you need to also have the fuel available on the routes that that ship sails at the same time. I was just this morning in a contract discussion about let's say new methanol engines again. I don't think methanol will disappear. Momentum wise, let's say it might be now on a lower point, perhaps in one year, it's on a high point again. I think a lot depends on the ecosystem development as well at the same time. You need, let's say, all these new fuels to decarbonize marine. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sebastian. Next question comes from Sven Weier. Please g o ahead Sven. Yeah. H i, good a fternoon. Thanks for the call. The first one is just on your energy statements. I mean, I'm just curious, I mean, do you explicitly repeat the guidance today that you exceed better demand in the next 12 months? Or would you say that the environment has worsened quite a bit since you gave the outlook beginning of February because tariff uncertainties are not that new, I would argue, but just wondering how c onsistent with what you said i s what you said in. February. I'm not, let's say, guiding differently than what we have said before, and certainly I'm not running ahead of the guidance that we will give in April because it's not so far away. Let's say we have good opportunities, and let's say, let's say whenever we make guidance, we always base it on, let's say, the market outlook, the expectations that we see, the projects that we are working on. Of course, due to the lumpiness, it can vary a lot between quarters. That makes it a bit difficult. In general, I think the trend is positive. Good. T hat's good to h ear. Second question, I was just wondering if you could comment specifically on the cruise segment. I mean obviously U.S. uncertainties, we could also see that in quite a decline of the cruise shipping share prices and the concerns around the U.S. consumer. I mean are you seeing any different behavior from cruise customers or is. No, we don't see that at all actually. No, not yet. It might come over time. As you know, the bookings of cruise is record high. In order to facilitate that, people need more ships and in particular they need new ships because typically customers want to go on the newer ships with the biggest entertainment that they can make photos of and show to their families when they back home. No, we don't see t hat. Final question just on because your comment around U.S. spare parts also caught my interest because we currently obviously hearing U.S. is introducing penalties for Chinese- flagged ships, Chinese made ships. I mean are you preparing yourself for a greater reallocation of how you service those ships that are landing in the U.S. or maybe no longer landing there? No, there is a discussion about and I think the decision would be somewhere this week or there would be more clarity. Let's say some weeks ago, there was a proposal initiated by the Trump administration that for vessels that are either, let's say, Chinese owned or Chinese operated, they would have a port fee of $1 million-$1.5 million per time. Yeah. Will it happen or will it not happen? These things are bad for global trade, so that's not good. At the same time, I can say the majority of the vessels are built by Chinese and they will not swallow it themselves. I think what this will do is make the consumer prices in the U.S. more expensive. Let's see over time how this plays out. Of course, all these tariffs and port fees and whatever the Trump administration is now initiating is bad for global trade. Global trade is the underlying driver for, let's say, shipping. Having said that, let's say this will not change overnight. I think this will be a decade if he wants to change it, because the production is still largely in Asia and the consumers are largely somewhere else. Yes, it's another uncertainty on the horizon. At this point, I'm not too concerned about it. Okay, thank you Arjen. Thank you, Sven. The next question comes from Max Yates. Please g o ahead, Max. We cannot hear you. Max, if you're saying something. Yeah, Max we cannot hear you. It looks like that you are unmuted, but we cannot hear you. Okay, then Tom Skogman, please go ahead. Yes. Hi Arjen and Hanna-Maria, a couple more q uestions. First of all, if tariffs are introduced on power plants, and I guess you don't want to carry the cost burden, but how protected are you if customers want to cancel the order? I think we are, I do not expect, let's say, cancellations of contracts. Seriously not. Let's say from an existing order book point of view, let's say we are well covered and well protected. Typically, let's say our project payment milestones run ahead of the cost. In that sense, I'm not so concerned about that one. I have followed Wärtsilä many years and it was the same situation in the financial crisis, but that time o n the marine side, and then I t hink it just disappeared from the Wärtsilä backlog without getting the m oney. What's the difference? No, actually I remember that very, very well. I was the marine controller at that time and we made a hell of a lot of money on advance payments, actually, because we kept the payment and we did not deliver the e ngine. Is it that the down payments are secure? Is it so no matter what happens basically? T ypically that is, let's say. Of course, let's say it's always a matter of, let's say, how the contract is put together. Of course, typically there is some cost to be settled, but I think we are on the safe side here. Yeah. On the marine side, where you start to have an exceptionally long kind of delivery time in many things, it's very hard to predict the cost level three, four years down the road. How are you protected here? Yeah, that's of course, let's say how we have also because let's say we are not, let's say, having short term contracts with suppliers either. Let's say we make, of course, if you think engines, let's say it's a lot of components that together make an engine. And we of course also make with our suppliers, let's say long term contracts. So we have a pretty good. I cannot recall the time that we have been super seriously off. Okay, the cost inflation that happened with, when Russia invaded Ukraine. I think we were off, but otherwise I'm not so concerned about this either. I think we have a very good picture of where costs are going at least the coming few years. You have not like book these components and paid advance payments. You have an open position or how should you understand? Yes, yes, okay. With some suppliers you need to lock slots and in particular some critical suppliers that there are not, let's say, that many in the world, otherwise they give the slots away to somebody else. There you pay sometimes, let's say, an advance payment to them to lock the slots. In general we are not doing that. We have, of course, constant dialogue every, I would say every quarter there is an alignment with the whole supply chain, in particular critical suppliers, about expected volumes going forward. My final question is a bout this IMO meeting in April. Can you give some more insight into what type of, what is the range in terms of fines that are b eing discussed at the m oment? I guess you have some information. No, I don't have that. Sorry, I cannot help you. I wish I knew. Yeah, me too. All right, thank you. Thank you, Tom. The next question comes from Mikael Doepel. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Good. Good. Yes, sorry, sorry if I ask you to repeat something here because I got on a bit late. Apologies for that. I did hear you talking about the marine business in the beginning when you talked about the service utilization being good. What did you say about the equipment side of the business? I mean, how do you see, you know, ship contracting for your core segments currently going into this. I was referring to, actually, Clarksons, that made an outlook update this morning. Basically, for all the key segments, if you just look at 2025, being containers, cruise and ferry, LNG and offshore, they have all been, let's say, upward corrected. For example, bulkers, tankers and other cargo vessels, which are typically, let's say, two-stroke main engine and not so much of our core markets, they have actually been adjusted down. I would say for our segments, it still looks very good. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank y ou. In terms of your outlook, I mean, I think Sven asked previously about the energy side of the business. You still see a better market despite that you have some uncertainty there among the clients. I assume the same goes for the marine business. You have not seen anything that would kind of derail your outlook for this year, which is basically continued growth in the overall orders in this business? No. At least at this point, I don't see that. No. Okay, that's fair. Just a final question. In terms of the margins outlook for this year, I know you don't give a guidance on margins, so I understand that, but maybe could you just talk around it a bit? I mean, you're probably going to see some sort of revenue growth for the year and then there might be a bit of a mix shift, I guess, perhaps happening this year. Just wondering if you could talk a bit about what are the kind of the pros and cons in terms of further margin progression into 2025 compared to 2024. Are you going to see a shift in the mix between new equipment and services that might go against you in a way? On the other hand, is there a mix within the mix that could support it and I guess some other factors as well. If you could talk a bit about tailwinds and headwinds, if you want to call it in terms ofmargins into this year. T hat's a good question. Mix is always a difficult one to predict. If you look at service, we have four revenue streams. As you might remember from our book to bill ratios, which we publish every quarter, in particular, projects and agreements can fluctuate a lot. That is a different margin. For example, the highest margin in the service is clearly the spare part. How this equation plays out determines a lot on the margin percentage. Having said that, if you purely look at margin improvement, with growth you have better leverage. That goes for service, that goes also for renewable business. We clearly anticipate growing volumes in our factories. That of course helps. Let's say the fact that we last year concluded also the Trieste closure clearly helps. We have in the whole of Wärtsilä. This is something that is always there, I would almost say continuous improvement projects, smaller or bigger, let's say, which are very focused. It's a whole program actually that we have been rolling out now for one and a half year about. It's very much focused on flow optimization. Of course, let's say you want to take waste away, you want to have faster responsiveness to your customers which hopefully results in, let's say, better, let's say, NPS scores and better customer loyalty. There are lots and lots of things ongoing to improve the margin. The mix is always a factor, let's say, also on new build projects, let's say, it's never the same margin. If you take a 31 engine, one Marine customer versus let's say 10 others, it's all different margins. There is no one margin for this. It depends on the circumstances. Do you negotiate a series of vessels or not? You might be willing to, let's say, give a little bit more in to keep the competition out and your installed base up. Is there a lifecycle agreement afterwards that we know that will come makes also different considerations. There is not one margin. That makes it difficult to predict. Like I said when Tom asked the questions about cost, yes, we have a good picture of, let's say, how cost develop. I think we also have a good position when it comes to differentiating ourselves in the market. I think we are clearly recognized as the front runner for many marine solutions, basically being in hybrids or whatever. Of course, let's say more volume gives better leverage. I would say those are the key factors. We cite mix because mix is, it's just, it comes as it comes, so it's very difficult to. Okay, now that's fair. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mikael. The next question comes from Sean McLoughlin. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. I just wanted to build on that previous question, if I may. If I look at y our order book delivery schedule, from going back to the Q4 presentation, there's a big jump, over EUR 5 billion for delivery in 2025. Just again, thinking in terms of mix, I mean, is there any assuming a lot of that is equipment simply because you have much better visibility on equipment. Is it fair to think that you should be more equipment heavy this year versus last year? I suppose the second part of the question, just thinking through the year, should we expect a similar profile, very back end loaded Q1 to Q4 in 2024, or would it be something maybe flatter like 2023? What visibility do you have on that right. Now, let's say if you look at the order book. Typically, let's say the order book consists of, in particular, the long term order book I'm talking about. It's equipment orders, yes, you're right, and it's agreements, and it's service projects, basically because they have to be scheduled well in advance because you need a repair yard or some, say, preparatory work. So the order book in general consists of these three things: newbuild equipment, agreements, both energy, marine, and, let's say, service projects. There is also an element of, you could say, transactional in your order book. The transactional part, okay, it varies a little bit, but I would say in general is max three months forward and even in one month you can have a lot of spare parts in for out you get in the beginning of the or second week of the month a spare part order of a couple of million. Still possible to deliver it out, subject to availability of course. That is how you should read the order book, let's say. Transactional spare parts, field service, three months, ballpark. The rest is equipment projects and agreements. Okay. In terms of the shape of the deliveries through the year. I will not guide you on that one because that is also, let's say, a changing curve, let's say, overall. Let's say suddenly the repair yard is not there or the shipyard is delayed in their work. Let's say the thing shifts. I will not comment on that. It's too much changes all the time. Just one last, if I may just on the energy storage, the deferred decision making. Is this exclusively in the U.S. or is this more b roadly? Mainly U.S. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The next question comes from Johan Eliason. Hello, Arjen. Hi Hanna- Maria. Just a question on the bit longer term picture, maybe the fuel transition. I mean you've announced some ammonia deals last year, is this week offshore, for example. Now I noticed that Alfa Laval a week or two weeks ago announced that they have supplied a fuel system to an ammonia LPG carrier. Obviously we're functioning with ammonia. I don't know who the engine supplier is in this case, but would you say that the competition is picking up now on the ammonia track? I cannot say because I am not aware of any engine maker, four-stroke engine maker that also has 100% ammonia engine available right now, so cannot comment. I think this was some sort of LPG ammonia carrier. I guess i t was sort of a dual fuel type of solutions would be my guess. At least it doesn't ring a bell with me. I can check of course with our marine guys if they know about this vessel, but at least I'm not aware. No. Okay. They were supposed to deliver end of this year. When you deliver the engine, will it always be you who sort o f also supplies the fuel system. Will it sort of work with alternative suppliers? Mostly we supply the fuel system as well. Yes. Okay. Good. And then a completely different story. Storage, divestment, anything you can m ention. I guess it's very difficult to get anyone take a decision right now on this. We can just remind you and you know this very well, but it's not a divestment plan. It's a strategic review. Yes, but no outcome there. I cannot add anything new than let's say what I have said earlier. As also said earlier, hopefully sooner rather than later, we conclude on this one. Okay, that's all I had. Thank you. Thank you, Johan. Next question comes from Antti Kansanen. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. A couple of follow ups from me. First is on the tariff impact on the existing order book and you mentioned that you are not exposed. I just wanted to make sure that this means that if there is any tariff between now and whatever delivery o bligation you have, it would be the c lient who pays the tariff and not Wärtsilä. Am I correct? Yes. This goes. Most of the, m ost of the time there are a few cases where we share, but then our share is very small actually. Okay. Not significant on the total of epsilon. Okay, that's c lear. The second one was on kind of when you talked about a little bit of the same question on the uncertainty and slower decision making and lumpiness. Was that a question only on storage and only on U.S., or was it also the power plant business and also rest of the world? Has this kind of created some. No. I was mainly referring to storage in the U.S. Okay. Okay. What about the power plant business? In MPP, We don't see that. Of course, let's say decision making is always lumpy. As mentioned many times, we, let's say, from first contract discussions to, let's say, final contract signing can be a three years journey. Will it come this quarter or next quarter is always a question mark. Let's say this slowness due to tariffs, that's mainly storage and mainly in U.S. Okay, so what about the power plant business, let's say kind of emerging markets, the auctions that you've been talking about, all of these, has there any been any progress, any slowness, anything you would like to update? No, actually that's quite well moving along the lines that we expected to see. No major changes from earlier statements? No. Okay. The last one was regarding kind of the mix and the margin outlook for this year. I guess you mentioned that if we look at your order book and look at how much you expect to deliver this year and look at what the year over year growth is. Basically, spare parts is the business that is underrepresented o n that in the order book. Yeah. If the g rowth. Sorry to add field service as well. The transactional. The transactional business, especially parts, is clearly of the highest margin for you Guys. That's clear. Yeah. If I would assume that the growth that you have on the order book side is higher than I, what, what I expect the demand on the parts side or the transactional part to be this year, then there would be a negative mix impact. Am I right? That's the biggest difference. The part versus everything else is the biggest difference. Right? Yeah. Of course it's also good to remember that, let's say, we can still book new build orders as well with delivery this year. I would say that goes up to the—it varies a little bit by product, but up to the summertime you can still book with delivery this year, and even you can book it after the summer. If it's, for example, percentage of completion contract and you're pretty far in production by the year end, then of course you take a big piece as well. I would say on an average basis, let's say June, July, we should have it more or less covered. What is the year-over-year improvement from Trieste to now in 2025, because you did not have a lot of costs last year? Is it just a better setup, more efficient setup? What is the benefit now in 20 25? Yeah, it's of course, let's say all the overheads that you had from a manufacturing unit in Trieste are definitely, let's say, gone. Let's say the more load you have in the factory in STH, typically when you run production, the more load you have in the factory, the more efficient it gets. That of course helps. Both elements actually. Is there a certain kind of a cost euro number that you would say that there's less, less overheads? No, I will not comment on that. Okay, that's all from me. Thank you. Thank you Antti. Thank you, Anthony. Anders Idborg. Please go ahead. I think somebody else was first. Yeah, just one follow up on the working capital. If you could just update again like EUR 800 million negative. Now you'll be talking about normalized, maybe more around zero or slightly positive. The timing of that, I know it's difficult but anything new to say. No, I think I mentioned earlier as well that, okay, let's say the level we concluded last year with, what was it, 777 out of my head, working capital negative, that that's an extraordinary level. I also mentioned that I don't expect that to hold during this year. I do expect though that this year we will not go to positive working capital. I think the working capital level stays negative but I don't think it will stay as negative as they ended last year. That's all I want to say about, let's say, working capital. Okay, that's fair. And just maybe to, you know, this has been, we talked about this. But just in terms of the drop through rate for equipment, I mean I imagine in some factory, I mean you are running pretty full, pretty long lead times, etc. So have we come to the point where the incremental drop through is actually a bit lower just because you need to, you know, add extra shifts, etc. Or should we think about a normal drop through for engines essentially. T hat's a difficult question because let's say I mentioned before we are running ballpark at let's say 75% of technical capacity. If I take STH in Vaasa, our factory there as an example. The unfortunate thing is that let's say factory load never comes linear. You always have let's say ups and downs depending on, let's say when do you need to deliver which engine to which customer. Often, let's say the bottleneck in the factory is the testing capacity. It depends very much on, let's say, what kind of engines do you need. Of course, the more different fuels you have in the mix of production, so to say, the more the testbeds become a bottleneck because not all testbeds have all the fuels, because certain fuels are in ramp up and not all the testbeds are facilitated fully for that. Yeah, there are many factors. That means that also, let's say from workload point of view, some months you might work in, let's say, multiple shifts where other months you do just two shifts. That varies and typically the shifts are mostly fluctuating, I would say, in the testing facility and the test beds because that's the bottleneck typically. Yes, drop through is difficult. To answer your question, I would say we are still on a reasonably normal level. I would say. Okay, fair enough. I appreciate the extra color. Thanks. Thank you. Sebastian Kuenne, your follow up questions. Yeah, thank you for taking my follow ups. I have another question on the LNG uptake or let's say alternative fuel uptake. If I look at the fleet currently, there's literally no like alternative fuel vessels out there. In the backlog, it's now a third of the backlog is alternative fuel multi fuel engines. I wonder what holds or what makes the customer switch to Wärtsilä. If the main engine comes from a two-stroke or two-stroke MAN engine and the auxiliary engines would also be offered by MAN, what makes the customer switch over to Wärtsilä? Are your engines more efficient? Would not MAN say, okay, I make you a nice deal. If you take our two-stroke, I give you three of the auxiliary engines, four-stroke engines, what makes the customer switch? The second question is on data centers e nergy side, you seem to be in discussions for providing four-stroke engines as power plants for data centers in the U.S. Could you give us an update what the current discussions are and how far progressed, you know, progressed you are in the discussions there. Thank you very much. On your first question, I think it's good to remind that let's say MAN, the two-stroke main engine, is a licensed business. It's the yard that, let's say, builds basically the engine because it's too big to lift. You cannot build it in a factory and then lift it into the ship. The biggest engines, they are, what is it, 11 meters high and 20 meters long. It's just too heavy to lift. The yard basically, let's say, builds the engine in the vessel as part of the vessel construction and pays a license fee to, mention the four-stroke part of MAN. Sorry, just to add to that, MAN two-stroke is located in Denmark and the four-stroke part of MAN is located in Germany, and the four-stroke part is in general, some exceptions. I will come back to that. In general, it is a traded business like we do. Let's say we sell engines from our factory and MAN does the same four-stroke engines from the factory to the yard. Basically, there are some exceptions because MAN has also four-stroke licenses in, I think, China and Korea. They are very old engine types, so they are not meeting, let's say, regulatory requirements as, let's say, today is required in many places of the world and they get more stringent. The license engines I would anyhow rule out as auxiliary engines definitely for, let's say, international sailing ships. Perhaps for, let's say, coastal ships in China, that might be fine, but not for international going vessels. It is more a matter of okay, how differentiating can we be in our auxiliary engines versus MAN and what we do more and more, and you can see that in our agreement coverage as well, is that we negotiate already at the start of new build projects also with the potential future owner, even though that is one year out, because the vessel still needs to be built, that can we go for a lifecycle agreement. Through that, our intent is of course to prove to the operator owner that the best total cost of ownership for that operator or owner is going with Wärtsilä engines. Making the owner say to the yard, yes, I want your ship, but I want Wärtsilä engines because that is the best total cost of ownership. It has, let's say, a differentiating technology that, let's say, suits me better than the MAN version. That's typically how we work in contracting. Now I forgot your energy question. It was about data centers. Sorry, data centers. Now, like I said in the introduction, we are working on opportunities and the opportunity list is growing. We have contracts in Europe that we have said already earlier. We are still pending the first contract in the U.S. Data center market is typically the hot thing in Europe and the U.S., but for the U.S. we are still waiting for the first quarter. Hopefully we get it soon. As I said, this is lumpy business. It can shift from one quarter to another and sometimes even two quarters. Let's see, I am very positive about us getting an order, but timing is always difficult. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have received a couple of questions by email. Can you comment on price versus cost increases in marine equipment given how tight yard capacities are? No, I cannot say anything about. That specific thing. LSA yards are not stupid. Of course. Let's say if there is more demand than supply, and that goes basically for any smart company, the prices go up. That's how it works. As long as the yard capacity is short, prices for ships will be hard. What are you seeing in the tanker segment? You asked me something that I don't have. Let's say a good picture of, let's say, tanker segment per se is not the same when, okay, tanker and tanker, there are many tankers, LNG carriers. I'm sure this is probably not what they are referring to, but oil tankers is not typically a market for us. Let's say we're very, very little in there. It's basically, let's say, two-stroke engines. These are big vessels, go slower across the oceans. Auxiliary engines don't run a lot. It's not a core market for us. Like I said, Clarksons expects decline there. That's great. Then, t hose were the questions by Nick. I think the cruise outlook we have already discussed. Any further questions from the live audience here? We have still 40 minutes time left. It seems like that there are no further questions. Thank you Arjen. Thank you. Thank you for all of the good questions. Tomorrow we are hosting a site visit in the Kampen, Netherlands in our logistics center. There will be a couple of slides we will show there. My colleague Nora will publish the slides tomorrow. I think it's 2:00 P.M. Finnish time. Thursday. Yes, on Thursday. Sorry, sorry. Yeah, traveling tomorrow. Yes, I'm traveling tomorrow. Busy days. The Q and A report will be published on April 25th. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Thank you.