Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Arkema's conference call. I will now hand over to Thierry Le Hénaff, CEO. Sir, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us on this call at such short notice. I am here together with Bernard Boyer of Strategy and M&A, Marie-José Donsion, our CFO, and Vincent Legros, head of Bostik. Also with us is our IR team. You have seen the set of slides which we have just sent to you, which you can use as a reference for this call. As you know, we have organized this conference call as we announced earlier this morning a project to acquire Ashland Performance Adhesives business. As you can imagine, I am very pleased to announce this transaction as it is a company that we have been looking at for a number of years now and following Ashland's strategic announcement in May. We are very keen to pursue this opportunity. As you know, the adhesive market is still fragmented globally, and there are many small targets available that we acquired or we continue to acquire. Attractive major targets are much harder to come by. This really was a great opportunity. Besides, I must tell you that over the past few years, we have been very selective regarding acquisition despite our significant firepower, and we have walked away from a number of potential targets in different fields as we have stuck to our stringent criteria on strategic fit and value creation. Ashland Performance Adhesives is a high-quality business with leadership positions in industrial adhesive in the U.S. This business enjoys very good margins, has strong growth potential, and a very talented management team. The strategic fit between Ashland Performance Adhesives and Arkema is evident. This is the case at the group level, as this business will contribute to strengthening our specialty materials platform in line with our 2024 ambition to be a pure specialty materials player. It is also the case, obviously, at Bostik's level, as we have many times expressed our strong ambitions to grow our adhesive business over the long term. In my view, for these strategic reasons, we were the natural buyers for this business. The timing for this transaction is also optimal, as it comes in the context of Arkema's current positive dynamic with the recent disposals of Functional Polyolefins and PMMA, the start of a strategic review of fluorogases, and the strong cash flow generation on the back of our excellent results this year. In a nutshell, Ashland Adhesives should generate sales of around $360 million this year with an EBITDA margin in excess of 25%. It boasts first-class technologies and has a diversified end market exposure with a presence in building and construction, transportation, labels and flexible packaging, to name the most important ones. Adhesives business of Ashland is highly complementary with Bostik. From a geographical viewpoint, Ashland has a limited presence outside of the U.S., and the company has technologies that can be easily rolled out in Europe and Asia, where Arkema and Bostik have a stronger foothold. From an application viewpoint, Ashland's product ranges can be found in flexible packaging, hot melt pressure-sensitive adhesives and high-performance industrial adhesives where Bostik already has a presence. Apart from this obvious and significant synergy with Bostik, there are clear synergies with our Coating Solutions segment on 2 levels. Firstly, with the acrylic value chain, which is the backbone of pressure-sensitive adhesives, and secondly, in the formulation of emulsion, which is an area where we can complement and reinforce Ashland's know-how. From a financial viewpoint, the offer is based on a multiple of 15 x EBITDA, taking into account the value of the tax asset. The level of synergy is very high given the potential of cross-selling and geographical expansion. We estimated them at around 12.5% of sales, which is high, as you can see, which comes to around $45 million once fully achieved. Taken into account the full amount of synergies, the multiple will be then reduced to 8.7 x EBITDA in 2026, which is much closer to our own multiple. The first transaction is EPS accretive from day one, and by 2026, according to our forecast, we will gain EUR 1 of earnings per share. This transaction is highly value creative for our shareholders. Following this acquisition, we decided to revise upwards our midterm guidance for Bostik. By 2024, the segment sales should exceed EUR 3 billion, nothing has changed, the EBITDA margin should stand at least at 17%, versus our initial guidance of 16%, positioning Bostik amongst the very best in the sector. As a conclusion, because we wanted to keep this call short and concise and get your question, I will conclude by saying that the acquisition of Ashland Performance Adhesives represents a unique opportunity and constitutes a key milestone in the Group's transformation and for Bostik development in particular. More importantly, this deal is highly value creative for our shareholders, given the excellent strategic fit and strong synergy potential. At the same time, it will increase the Group's earning resilience, thanks to an improved business mix. I would like to thank you for your attention, and I'm ready, together with the rest of the team, to answer your questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. The first question comes from Alex Stewart from Barclays. Go ahead. Hi there. Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. Congratulations. I can see why you've adjusted the purchase price to reflect the lower effective tax rate of these assets now that you can deduct goodwill amortization from pre-tax profit in your tax calculation. Could you tell us what the effective tax rate is for the business and how that compares with Arkema today? That'll help us do a like-for-like comparison on the valuation multiple. Just related to that, could you confirm whether you have taken into account the time value of money on the tax synergies? Have you discounted the benefits over time, or have you just taken them at nominal value? Thanks so much. Okay, Alex, thank you for your question. I will hand it over to Marie-José. Alex, regarding the tax rate, as you know, there is currently a tax reform in the U.S. that will probably move things a little bit in the next year. At present, the tax rate of Ashland Performance Adhesives business is around 24%-25% effective tax rate. Which is actually higher than what we have at group level for Arkema, since you know we are more around, let's say, 20% effective tax rate in our case worldwide. The assumption we've taken to assess the tax synergies on this transaction is based on basically an allocation of value of 85% to the U.S., with an amortization period of goodwill over 15 years, and we've used a WACC of 7.5%. Thank you, Marie-José. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, taking those into account, could you tell us what the effective tax rate would be of the assets when you've acquired them to taking into account the goodwill amortization? As I said, because there is a tax reform coming in the U.S., in fact, the current tax rate is probably not the right assumption to consider in the future. At this present time, the rate we consider for the U.S. is indeed at 24%. Which means that our assumption, Alex, is conservative by definition, because if the tax rate in the U.S. will increase, the benefit will be higher than that, than the one we have taken. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. The next question comes from Martin Roediger, Kepler Cheuvreux. Sir, please go ahead. Yes. Thanks. On the synergies, you mentioned the 12.5% compared to sales of the target company. Compared to other M&A deals in the chemicals, this is rather a high ratio. What makes you really confident to achieve that figure? You mentioned cross-selling opportunities due to the complementary fit. Is your estimate based purely on top-line synergies, or does it include cost synergies? If so, can you elaborate on that, cost synergies? Once the asset is fully integrated, how can you measure in the year 2026 that you have achieved these synergies? That was my first question. The second question is on the financing. Maybe this is a misunderstanding from my side, you mentioned in your press release that you look at this acquisition also with a perspective that you currently do the strategic review of your fluorogas business. In this context, my question is, do you make progress and receive already interest for that asset by strategic or financial investors? As a follow-up, do you consider to sell the whole fluorogas business or just the commodity part? Thanks. Okay. 2 very different question, Martin. On the synergies, we have first 60% top line and 40% cost. The cost is between, let's say, raw material linked synergies and fixed cost, and fixed cost is industrial optimization and G&A. We have 2 advantage in this unique deal. The first one is that Ashland is very strong in the U.S. but has limited presence outside of the U.S., which mean Europe and Asia, where both Bostik and Arkema are, as you know, very strong. Because of this difference, which is significant in market positioning. The geographical synergies are very, very strong, and we can really duplicate very rapidly what we have in the U.S. to the other region. It's one thing which make it unique. The second thing is that we benefit, and I think this is why also we are a natural buyer of the acrylic value chain, because the acrylic is a specific backbone to the pressure-sensitive. This makes the difference between, I would say, high synergy, but in the current range. I'm sure you have in mind something like 8% synergy, which is more typical, and we are around 12%. The differences between the 8 and 12 come from these two features, this geographical complementarities, and the support of the acrylic value chain. This means that the synergy are not only with Bostik, but also with the Coating Solutions platform, which is great, in fact. With regard to fluorogases, I will not, otherwise you would have been informed before. I think the process, as you know, has been launched. What we want to dispose of are not the fluorochemicals, pure specialty, non-emissive. These are the fluorochemicals, emissive business, which is linked to air conditioning, which is a good business, making a lot of cash and money. We are very consistent with what we have said so far to the market. This is what we want to dispose of all. We keep the specialty, which are really linked to the natural market of Arkema, which is linked to the energy, housing efficiency or linked to battery. I would say the process is developing as planned, but there is no breaking news to announce today to your question. Clearly, you can see the logic, and thank you for the question, of what we are doing and we have been doing since the Market Day, Investor Day. Now it's a year and a half where we have sold the Functional Polyolefins and the PMMA. We have launched the fluorogas disposal, made some small bolt-on acquisition in the middle. Now we have a major acquisition. This is about portfolio evolution, and we are really moving very fast to reach our goal of becoming a 100% specialty material company. Thank you. You're welcome. The next question comes from Chetan Udeshi from JP Morgan. Sir, please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, morning. A few questions from my side. Number one, it seems Ashland mentioned their last 12 months EBITDA of about $82 million versus what you guys are talking about pro forma EBITDA of $95 million. Is that delta entirely because of the different timeframe, or have you adjusted certain items from their numbers to get to 95? That would be first question. The second question was, I'm just curious, why is the margin of this business so high? Is it a function of product mix, et cetera? Can you also help us understand how has this business grown pre-COVID? I'm just trying to understand was it the business where maybe there wasn't any investment in growth, and maybe that explains why the margin is high. Last question was, on financing, can we assume that eventually essentially this deal will be financed using the cash on the balance sheet? In other words, no new debt will be issued? Thank you. Okay. Obviously, now, Jose will answer the last one. I will take the first two ones. I would say the first one is a classical difference between seller and purchaser. There is important allocation of corporate costs. When you look at reported accounts of Ashland, which gives you the EUR 80. When you take out what needs to be taken out, which is not this allocation of cost, which is our view. Pro forma adjustment, which has really been looked in detail many times. Plus a little bit of a time difference. You have also a few EUR million time difference. You come to this EUR 95. We are quite comfortable on the EUR 95, which gives you the multiple we have explained. After that, we take, as Alex mentioned, the tax benefit. With regard to the growth, first of all, everybody which is more or less familiar with the adhesive business knew already that Ashland business was a very good one in terms of quality, management, customer intimacy. It's true that they have excellent technologies which are very difficult to copy, because even ourselves, we have never been able to match them. Where they are in niches, high-value-added applications, superior know-how, plus customer knowledge and intimacy, which has been built over years, as it can happen in certain fields in adhesive. It's really a combination of management focus, long-lasting customer intimacy, and what is superior know-how is innovation on certain fields which are growing regularly above GDP. It's really a combination of all that which gives you this kind of margin. We know that because we are inside Bostik, but also in the rest of Arkema, which is like that, where you have superior margin for exactly the same reasons. For the financing, I will ask Marie-José also. Okay. Regarding finances, you understood correctly. We have liquidity level of basically close to EUR 3 billion. We are paying cash this transaction. The group pro forma debt that we expect end of the year, basically the normative level we have currently is around EUR 1.3 billion net debt prior to this acquisition. We have the enterprise value of this deal that we should be paying in the coming, let's say, 4 to 6 months. Let's say the pro forma net debt to EBITDA ratio should be in the range of, let's say, 1.8x-1.9x EBITDA at the end of this transaction. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Marie-José. The next question comes from Jaideep Pandya from On Field Investment. Madam, please go ahead. Hi, Thierry. First of all, many congratulations on this deal. Just one question from my side. Can you just give us some color on the pressure-sensitive adhesives industry, in terms of how big is this business for Ashland? In the competitive context, what would be their market share versus players like Beiersdorf? When it comes to growth, could you talk about growth around liquid adhesives for this business? Overall growth, do you think that this business is very similar to the top of the pyramid Henkel in terms of growth? Or would you say that actually the growth is somewhere in between the traditional adhesive businesses, which is 3%-4%, and the higher end, which is north of 5%? Thanks a lot. Okay. Thank you, Jaideep Pandya, for your question and your nice comments. Pressure-sensitive adhesives is a strong market, growing at more than 5% a year. You have application in different films, like graphic films, labels, specialties. There is not one pressure-sensitive adhesive. You have different momentum. In terms of technologies, we have different range of technologies with different presence. Solvent borne, waterborne, UV. I would say that Ashland is really a key player in North America and Europe in solventborne pressure-sensitive adhesives. Where, I would say on the side of Arkema, we benefit more from know-how in waterborne, so it's very complementary. Again, we have some potential development, thanks to our Sartomer business line on the UV technology. I would say you have really a sum of difference. It's difficult to talk about one market. It's a sum of different market, where, I would say Ashland is more U.S. and solvent borne-oriented, where Bostik and the rest of Arkema is more waterborne and other regions. It's very complementary. The good thing is that it's a niche market, very performance-oriented. I don't know if we would say high end of the pyramid, but it's certainly a high-quality niche, and the market growth well above GDP at above 5%. Just one follow-up on that topic. Basically, are you saying that with your know-how in UV and waterborne, in the future, when I say future, maybe in two years' time or so, you can enter the water and the UV borne adhesives market, which Ashland is not present right now? I think Ashland has already started some development, which are interesting. We have some other routes. It is very good to share them and to see how we can accelerate. Clearly, the idea is where Ashland is more limited in presence, we can really complement with, and this is what we call cross-selling, with Bostik and Arkema coating resin presence. It is very interesting from this standpoint. Very complementary know-how, geographical presence, and technological competencies. Very good from this standpoint. Thanks a lot, and congrats again. Thank you, Jaideep Pandya. The next question comes from Geoff Haire from UBS. Sir, please go ahead. Yeah. Good morning, and congratulations. Good morning. on the deal. Just two questions from me. First of all, could you just sort of comment on what the organic growth of the business has been over the last five years and also how EBITDA margins have trended over that time? The second question is, how many years do you think it will take the ROIC of the acquisition to get back to the group's cost of capital of, I think you said, 7.5%? For the first question, I think we should be there for 2024 emissions. This is too much the cost of capital. In terms of growth, Vincent, if I'm right, they have delivered some things like 3%, 4%. Four. 4%. 4% on their past growth. We believe that if not double, we can nearly double this growth with this, what I explained to JD, which are this geographical and technology synergy. This is the idea. We will extend the growth that they have had in the past of 4%, and we will nearly double it with this cross-selling synergy that we see from the geographical standpoint and the complementary know-how. This is very exciting from this standpoint. You think organic growth for the business will be 6%-8%? Could be, yeah. Exactly. Yes. Exactly. Okay. The next question comes from Thomas Wrigglesworth, Morgan Stanley. No, please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks very much for the questions. Just two from me, please. First one's on capital investment and one-off cost. I wondered if you could just talk a little bit about the phasing of any additional CapEx as you integrate the business and also just in terms of quantity around one-off costs. The second question, just on a little bit on the digital footprint of this business and how that will compare to Arkema's current digital footprint in the Adhesive Solutions division and where you see that going over the five-year integration. Thanks. I would say with regard to one-off cost, we assume EUR 15 million one-off integration cost, typical administrative cost, information system, et cetera, on the business. With regard to CapEx, we have planned for, on the period of three, four years, EUR 45 million CapEx to implement the synergy because as you have understood, the nature of the synergy are mostly geographical. Because of that, we need to make sure to extend the capacities in the regions where they are more limited. All in all, it's what we have put in our model. With regard to the digital footprint, frankly speaking, it's too early to answer. We have really focused on I don't know if one of the team want to answer instead of me, but we think there will be interesting, certainly complementarities, but it's too early at that point. Thanks very much. You're welcome. The next question comes from Andreas Heine from. Sir, please. Yes. Good morning. Good morning. Andreas Heine from Stifel. First, just clarification. Did I get that right? The closing should be at beginning of next year, so four to six months, it would mean one. The second is, the acquisition lifts your margin to new level. Does it mean that for further build on acquisitions, you will be more, let's say, selective, that future acquisitions also meet this higher target? Target is 17%, but the acquisition you made is more in the region of north of 30% after synergies? That's the second question. The last one is, the segment different to what you have published by now is Industrial, Assembly, and Construction Consumer. Will you share more broader split on your adhesives business in the future? Marie-José will answer the last one. With regard the second question, can you repeat it? The line was not very good. Sorry. The acquisitions in the future probably have not always been margin accretive from the outset at a much lower level. When you go now to 17%, I think that quite a number of acquisitions or targets you are looking at considerably lower margin and would be even within this synergies diluted. Does it mean that in the future you will look for a different profile of acquisitions in the adhesives? Okay. With regard to the date of the closing, we expect four to six months for the closing. Obviously, the earliest is better for all of us. We start now really tomorrow and really a big priority to try to speed it up as possible, but take four to six months. In terms of acquisition for the adhesives, each acquisition is of a different nature. You can have hard synergy, you can have more top-line synergy. Depending on which kind of synergy, you can start with acquisition with lower margin, but where the synergy are very high. I would say more and more with Bostik, if it is your question, we focus on the acquisition with margin already above 15%. Okay. This has been the recent experience with Den Braven, with LIP, with Fixatti, with Prochimir. We were among the strong. This one is rather unique, and with EBITDA margin above 25%. I would say, if you look recently, most of our acquisition has been at least at 15%, and we should continue in this direction. Not really any change. Don't forget that a significant part of the increase of EBITDA on the Bostik will not come from acquisition, will come from the continuous improvement by the team of the current business, which is direct value creation. Marie-José, is the last one. Regarding segmentation, as you know, we publish today around four segments. The three segments which constitute our specialty portfolio are the Adhesive Solutions, the materials, and the Coating Solutions. Basically, on the Adhesive Solutions, the split in terms of business was roughly 50/50 between construction consumer on one hand, and industrial assembly on the other hand. The impact of this transaction of Ashland basically increased the share of industrial and assembly adhesives, let's say, by five to six points in the split of the business itself. It gives also a bit more momentum to North America versus the heavyweights we traditionally had in Europe for the adhesive segment. We normally give some color when we comment the performance of Bostik around those elements. Both between construction consumer and industrial assembly adhesives in one hand, and from a geographic standpoint on the other hand. We don't plan today to further segment, let's say, the business into different poles. Really, the next segmentation objective for us is once we are finished basically with the fluorogases portfolio reshuffling. Probably at that point in time, the intermediates, we need to revisit, but this would, for me, be the trigger in the future for, let's say, a change in segmentation for Arkema. Thanks, Eva. You're welcome. The next question comes from Georgina Iwamoto from Goldman Sachs. Madam, please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I've just got one last. I'm just wondering about the raised margin target, so 17% for the adhesives business by 2024. Do you think that's a bit conservative given the potential that you have to roll out the Ashland business' advanced technologies across Europe and Asia? I'm also wondering what could be the impact on profitability in other segments. For example, you could roll out new capacities in the pressure-sensitive adhesives in Asia and start to integrate the Coating Solutions business or the acrylic assets that you have there. Is that something that you see potential for in the future? Okay. First of all, I would say mechanically, if you make the math, you gain 1.5 points. 1.2. You gain 1.2 points, and you know, Georgina, that our current level is 14%, okay, which is our target for this year. End of 2021, we will be at 14%. Pro forma plus 1.2 is 15.2%. We say that after 2022, 2023, 2024, so three years, we get from 15.2%-17%. I would not say it's a stretch, but it's a quite ambitious target. No. I think it's very consistent. I would not say we have a margin for maneuver or we're conservative. I think we are realistic. It's quite a demanding target, but I think it's completely achievable. I would not say we should target something above, because if you make the math, it's really very consistent with what we say, our business plan, et cetera, consistent with what we have said so far. I think 17% is really what we have in mind, which will position us at a very, very good level. I mean, 17%, we started Bostik at 10%, and if you look at the adhesive business, including company like Sika, the one which are at 17%, there are not so many. With a level of capital intensity which is around 3%, which make in terms of EBIT something which is very high. I think it's a very good, let's say, target. After that, you mentioned the other business. I would say by definition of the it depends where you put the synergy, but by definition of the synergy, we have allocated all the synergy to Bostik, which means after that in the real life, it may be slightly different. I would say we count also what we will do in the coating. You will get some benefit on the acrylic monomer, which will be limited, which will participate to the synergy. It's really compared to the whole synergy, it's a limited number. It adds to the synergy, it's a limited number. Consider that to make the story short. Already strong target for Bostik. Very nice and realistic. With regard to Coating Solutions, it will be an addition. Most of the addition will be in the Bostik P&L, some of them, not so material compared to the total, which we have been announced of EUR 45 million in the Coating Solutions. At the end of the ring, in the same group. It shows you, which is certainly an element of your question, that between the different platforms of Arkema, those three legs that we have, Coating Solutions, Adhesive Solutions, and also high performance polymers, they are very close to each other. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Thierry, and congratulations. It must feel like a great result after a busy summer. Okay. Thank you, Georgina. The next question comes from Jean-Luc Romain from CIC Market Solutions. Sir, please go ahead. Good morning. Congratulations for your acquisition. I was wondering with the EUR 95 million EBITDA you give for 95 and the multiple of 15 x, we arrive to EUR 1.4 million. Should the difference between EUR 1.65 and EUR 1.4, is that how you value the tax advantage? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you for asking the question because we thought it was clear in the press release, but then I think it's clear for everyone. Yes, the difference is there. This is what Marie-José has re-emphasized answering one of the question before. Okay. That's about EUR 200 million of tax advantage. Thank you. It's a lot and conservative, as I mentioned. Yeah. This is based on 24%. Good. Correct. Yeah. Thank you. Confirmed. Good. Thank you. You're welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you that if you wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. We have a new question from Laurent Favre from Exane BNP Paribas. Sir, please go ahead. Yes, good morning all. Thank you, and congrats. My two questions, Thierry. Number one is on the M&A pipeline side. You've mentioned that the balance sheet would be at a comfortable level of gearing. Should we assume that you're now closing the acquisition side in terms of bolt-on acquisitions? The second question is around net pricing for, I guess, this new type of asset, Adhesive Solutions. We spent a lot of time talking about raw materials and pricing for Bostik back in July or August. Given that they are more focused in terms of raw material purchasing and that their customer base might be a bit more sophisticated, more industrial, bigger companies, should we be assuming that the raw material squeeze may be bigger for them in the short term and you may require a bit of time to work through that net pricing in 2022, during 2022? Okay. With regard to the M&A pipeline, tell me if I answer your question. This one is obviously a major one by the side, by the value creation, and we want to try to speed up the time between signature and closing, and then the execution of the deal as much as possible. I would say in terms of major, for us, this is really our focus, and we'll be busy for a certain time on it. Beyond that, we continue to make small bolt-on, which is, as you know, our capacity. Okay. They can be really very value creative. Even the ratio resources spent on the side is high. All the small ones which we have been doing in the past few years has really created a lot of value. We continue. The pipeline is very big, but we'll continue to be selective. I would say every year you can continue to count between, let's say three, four small bolt-on every year. From time to time, as I mentioned, a major one, which is the one we are making today. I don't know if I answered your question, but this is a profile of what we'll be doing. Sure. Yeah. That answers the question perfectly. Thank you. Okay. Now, your question on the pricing raw mat was specifically on Adhesives. Well, I'm assuming you won't comment on Adhesives specifically, but on this type of asset. Yeah. Clearly, the more specialty you are, it may be a paradox for you, but you see that with our acrylic value chain, which has reacted very quickly on the raw material, while for Bostik, it takes more time. It is true that the more specialty and downstream you are, the more it takes time to pass the full impact of raw material, and it works in the same direction. On the other side, when the raw material are tight, you have normally strong volumes, which helps. This is why this kind of business are quite resilient, and this is what happening to Ashland, and this is what is happening to Bostik. To answer your question, I would say in terms of EBITDA profitability between margin and volumes, you see really a strong resilience and robustness. In terms of margin percentage squeeze, you can have temporarily two quarters where you suffer more, but overall, it's not longer than that. Okay. You have pricing power, but you are, let's say, more progressive in the way you develop your pricing on pure specialty than on businesses we are a little bit more upstream. Okay. At the end, I would say you talk about two quarters, not more than that. We are quite confident for this business for 2022, but also for the rest of Bostik. Whatever the raw material scenario is, you can see it on the sticker. I remember when we talk about 14% margin for Bostik on this year, there were some doubts which were expressed, we try to answer. In fact, raw material wave has been significantly higher, and we still confirm the 14% for the year. Excellent. Thank you, Thierry. You're welcome. The next question comes from Andrew Noël from ChemicalESG. Sir, please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. It's just a short one. Obviously, you're buying a company with a much higher multiple than where Arkema is trading. Do you feel like the company and management has moved on from the sort of phase of risk when a few years ago when we saw Elliott around and the possibility of others coming forward like that? Not really. I'm not sure I catch your question, but clearly- I suppose what I'm saying is because maybe some might see some value destruction, in terms of buying a company much higher. I guess it shows a comfort level that you've moved on from a few years ago when Elliott was around, if that makes it any clearer. First of all, I will tell you how many times we don't comment rumors. We have never commented. Secondly, on the acquisition, if you look at the history, we have made, what, Bernard, how many acquisitions in the start? 30. We have made 30 acquisitions in the start, and you have all kind of multiple profile, whatever. What is very important is the value creation. We have been, in terms of value creation, you can see the creation of the share price over the years are very strong. I don't think it's a change in strategy at all. I think when we bought Sartomer, we paid significantly more, or Bostik, we paid significantly more in multiples than when we bought the assets of Dow in acrylics in the U.S. It depends really the times. At the end, value creation is great. We continue to focus on, I would say, on value creation. Now, as we say, stock synergy, which is what counts, we said that net on the benefit of tax, we would have paid 8.7x in 2026, which is not so far from our current multiple. Don't forget, Alexis Noël, that our strategy, we strongly believe that our multiple should be higher. It will be helped further by portfolio transformation. It's not a sort of static game or static vision. You need to look in dynamic. We believe that with the portfolio transformation, and fortunately, we can start to see that today, the share price will benefit and the value creation will benefit, we get this value. At the same time, it's not enough. We want to take down the multiple, this is what we do because we announced for 2026 a multiple getting down at 8.7x. I think it's very consistent, and I would not say that our strategy has changed so much. I think we want to be a pure player on specialty, and we are ready to buy some high-quality asset at high price, because we believe that it's worth doing it for the transformation of the portfolio. Maybe last point, you know that we have sold recently our Functional Polyolefins business and our PMMA business. I think we benefit also from this environment at higher multiples. You see it for the acquisition, you see it for the disposals. Thanks very much. Just to follow on, if I might. Do you think the fluorogases, the emissive side, I know it's a complicated setup there and probably a complex solution there, but do you think that will move the needle finally? I know you've been frustrated about the multiples for many years. First of all, you say it's complex. Okay, it's your words, but I think it's completely manageable. We have proven that with other disposal which were more complicated, it's not an issue so much for us. Again, yes, I think that it's not let's say one component of portfolio transformation is many component, is a sum of different component, which at the end takes the company where we want to take it and where we believe will benefit from this appreciation from this market. I think PMMA at disposal was one step. Fluoroelastomer when we'll do it will be another step. Acquisition of Ashland is another one. The whole Ashland is. The bolt-ons we are making with Bostik are also another one. That not only external moves are on disposal, is also what we do organically. For example, I think that all this capacity addition in PVDF for battery are really value-accretive, and specialty business will take the profile of the company up, and the same for this project of polyamide 11, bio-based polyamide in Singapore. It's a sum of element at the end. It will be even dangerous to believe that one movement will change the company. No, I think we have started the transformation of the company nearly 20 years ago. Let's say 15. Okay. More than 15 years ago. I think what you have, I think which is good with Arkema, is that at the same time, we are able to deliver the short term, but to deliver a journey which is supported by a long-term vision. I think it's unique with Arkema. Thanks very much for the answer. You're welcome. Don't have any further question. Okay. No more question, Mr. Le Hénaff. Okay. Thank you very much for participating with this short notice. As we told you, we are very excited and to get this opportunity to welcome this very talented team for a very good business, and I think it will be a bright move for Arkema again. Thank you very much, and looking forward to see you in presence. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.