Thank you for holding welcome to Arkema's 2022 full year results presentation. For your information, this call is being recorded. It will take place in a listen-only mode, you will have the opportunity to ask questions after the presentation by pressing star and one on your telephone keypad. I will now hand you over to Thierry Le Hénaff, Chairman and CEO. Sir, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Arkema's full year 2022 results conference call. Joining me today are Marie-José Donsion, our CFO, and the investor relations team. As always, the slides used during this webcast are available on our website. Together with Marie-José, we'll be able to answer your question at the end of the presentation. In 2022, Arkema's teams can be proud of what they achieved. I'd like to highlight some key points. We delivered an all-time high EBITDA of EUR 2.1 billion, fully in line with our guidance, with growth in all three specialty materials segments. An EBIT margin at a high level of 13.5% in a demanding operating environment, marked in particular by the war in Ukraine, supply disruptions, and persistently elevated raw materials and energy costs. I will let Marie-José provide more detail by segment later on. The 20% + growth in sales in this inflationary environment demonstrates our agility and pricing power and enabled us to more than offset lower volumes. We also delivered an excellent recurring cash flow of over EUR 900 million and an EBITDA to cash conversion rate above our long-term target of 40%. A performance which really sets us apart from our competitors. I would really like to thank the teams for this achievement and for the hard work in this challenging context. Our balanced geographic footprint and diversified end market exposure prove once again to be a real asset, as strength in some areas enabled us to offset weakness in others. 2022 was a year of two halves, with a very strong performance in H1, which benefited also from an exceptional tightness in some product lines, essentially acrylics and PVDF. In H2, we were impacted by the slowdown in the European economy, particularly in construction, as well as by significant destocking in Q4. In those different environments, our expertise in material science and the accelerating shift toward higher value added high-performance materials was the underlying structural driver of our success. In fact, specialty materials now make up 91% of our sales, positioning us on track toward our 2024 roadmap. Beyond this excellent financial performance, we continue to strengthen our profile in 2022 with the value creative acquisition of Ashland's Performance Adhesives, which we have successfully integrated into the group, as well as the capital of bolt-ons. We also made good progress in our organic CapEx projects to support our customers' sustainable growth. Sustainability is indeed a key driver of our growth. First of all, through our innovative materials. Innovation is sustainable megatrends, and designing solutions that are essential to addressing the world challenges is key to our success, and we benefited from it in 2022. You can see in the slide a number of examples. Our positioning across three core segments is unique and allows Arkema to benefit from strong synergies in terms of technological know-how, market expertise, or customer intimacy, and to provide a complementary offering. Products launched less than five years ago made up around 15% of our specialty materials sales in 2022, solidifying our ambition to generate EUR 1.5 billion of additional sales coming from our five innovation platform by 2030 versus a 2019 baseline. The past few years have provided us with a wealth of opportunities in areas like batteries, eco-friendly paints, 3D printing, or home efficiency. I met with many of our larger customers last year, and they are really excited by the technological solutions that we can provide that are critical to them to innovate and meet the challenges and expectations generated by new environmental regulations and the circular economy. Sustainability is embedded in the way we work and interact with stakeholders. Our ESG commitment was strengthened in 2022 with a new climate plan on a 1.5-degree trajectory across the whole value chain, and our continuous progress in our CSR performance was again highly recognized by external agencies. For example, we kept our third place in the chemicals category of the DJSI World Index with an improved rating. We also improved our Moody's ESG Solutions score. We were confirmed as part of the CAC 40 ESG Index for the second year running. We are also proud to have been certified as top employer in four key countries for the group and named as a Forbes Best Employer in third place within our sector globally. As a result of our very good financial performance in 2022, the board's confidence in Arkema's growth prospects, a dividend of EUR 3.4 per share will be proposed at the next AGM, up by 13% versus last year, in line with our progressive dividend growth strategy. We feel the magnitude of the increase is appropriate and reasonable. It leaves room for the coming years. I will come back to the outlook at the end of the presentation, and will now hand it over to Marie-José, who will review in more detail our Q4 and full year results. Thank you, Thierry. As already said, 2022 was a record year for Arkema, despite the weaker year-end. Analyzing the sales bridge at EUR 11.6 billion, sales were up 21% year-on-year, with organic growth reaching nearly 14%. The price effect at 21% was the main driver, reflecting our initiatives to transfer to our selling prices the elevated inflation in raw materials, energy, and transportation costs. Volumes were 8% lower, impacted in the second half by the slowdown and destocking in Europe, especially in the construction market, where we had experienced robust growth since mid-2020. U.S. demand was resilient over the year, also impacted in Q4 by some destocking in construction, while activity in China was weak due to the COVID situation. There is a small 1% perimeter effect attributable to the acquisitions we made in Specialty Materials, Ashland Performance Adhesives offsetting the divestment of PMMA in May 2021. Currencies had a positive impact of 6.5% on sales, mainly due to the stronger U.S. dollar and Chinese yuan against the euro. EBITDA grew 22% to EUR 2.1 billion in line with our guidance. North America actually delivered a strong growth, which reflects our good positioning in the region. Regarding the phasing of the year, first nine months benefited from some extraordinary profits, estimated at around EUR 400 million. They were linked to a very tight supply chains in Specialty Materials. I would say around 2/3 came from PVDF and 1/3 from acrylics. In this context, the group EBITDA margin reached 18.3%. In Q4, EBITDA amounted to EUR 291 million in the context of a very high comparison base in the prior year. Looking at the profitability of the different segments, I'll start with Bostik, who achieved an EBITDA of EUR 366 million, up by 16% year-on-year, supported by the integration of Ashland Adhesives, which performed well throughout the year. Our price management, as well as a better product mix, more than offset the 8% drop in volume. The EBITDA margin resisted well at a 12.6% given the nearly 2 percentage point negative impact linked to the mechanical dilution of price increases. In Q4, destocking accelerated in Europe. We managed to maintain neutral net pricing. Q4 EBITDA rose by 9% to EUR 75 million. Advanced Materials EBITDA is up 40% year-on-year to EUR 941 million, with an EBITDA margin reaching 21.7%. High Performance Polymers had an excellent year, of course, benefiting from a better product mix on the backs of a solid demand for batteries and other premium solutions. Q4 EBITDA came in at EUR 148 million, lower than last year's high level due to the drop in volumes and to moderating tightness in PVDF. EBITA of Coating Solutions grew 13% to EUR 593 million, the EBITDA margin reached 18.2%. Volumes declined by mainly because of the slowdown and destocking in Europe, especially in decorative paints. In a context of much higher input costs, our pricing in the downstream as well as the upstream was supportive. In Q4, EBITDA for the segment dropped to EUR 63 million, affected especially by weak volumes. Finally, EBITDA was stable year-on-year in Intermediates at EUR 306 million, despite the negative perimeter impact from the divestment of PMMA. This performance was supported by the good momentum of refrigerant gases, especially in the U.S. EBITDA in Q4 was down strongly to EUR 24 million, given much less favorable conditions for acrylics in Asia and in a context of low seasonality in refrigerant gases. With depreciation and amortization at EUR 550 million in 2022, recurring EBIT is up 32% versus last year at close to EUR 1.6 billion. EBIT margin improved by 110 basis points, standing at 13.5%. Financial result stands at -EUR 61 million, close to last year. Due to higher interest rates, we foresee a slight increase of the cost of debt in 2023 from the debt that is swapped into U.S. dollar in our portfolio. The recurring tax rate came to 21% of recurring EBIT, and we expect the 2023 rates to remain at this level. All in all, adjusted net income increased by 30% year-on-year at close to EUR 1.2 billion, which corresponds to EUR 15.75 per share. Moving on to cash flow now. Recurring cash flow amounted to EUR 933 million in 2022, up a strong 24% from last year. The growth in cash flow is broadly in line with the evolution of our operating results. We had a working capital outflow, as you know, in H1, which was partly reversed in H2, thanks to our strict management of inventories and receivables in the context of slowing activity levels. The working capital ratio on annualized sales is unchanged versus last year at 12.6% and still stands at quite a low level relative to the 14% that we consider more as our normative level. Capital expenditure totaled EUR 707 million during the year, which reflects lower exceptional CapEx of EUR 123 million as we are finalizing the construction of the Polyamide 11 plant in Singapore. In 2023, recurring capital expenditure should come to around 6% of group sales, and we should have a limited EUR 30 million of exceptional capital expenditure linked to the Nutrien project in the U.S., which spills over slightly from 2022. Free cash flow amounts to EUR 784 million, and the EBITDA to cash conversion rate stands at 44% in line with our 40% long-term target. Net debt at the end of 2022 stands at EUR 2.4 billion, including the EUR 700 million of hybrid bonds. The net debt to last 12 months EBITDA ratios stands at 1.1 x. I thank you for all your attention and will now then hand it over to Thierry for the outlook. Thank you, Marie-José. The dynamics at the beginning of 2023 are quite similar to what we experienced in Q4 of 2022, with weak demand in Europe and China, as well as the continued destocking. Clearly, in this type of environment, we will focus on managing fixed cost and working capital in order to generate strong cash flow once again this year. We expect 2023 to offer a different profile relative to 2022 with stronger start to the year and a greater weighting for H2. All the more as the comparison base is elevated as we benefited last year from, as you know, from atypical tightness in a number of our pro-declines, as Marie-José said. Taking these elements into consideration, we expect EBITDA in H1 2023 to be clearly below last year's very high level, as I think already recognized in the current consensus for Q1. Having said that, we see several positive drivers developing. We expect volume to improve progressively, hopefully during the spring, driven by China's reopening and the stabilization of Europe after many months of significant destocking. In addition, we'll benefit from our new key projects focused on decarbonization and sustainability. Mainly our bio-based and recyclable PA11 unit in Singapore, our eco-friendly project with Nutrien in the U.S., expansion of our exceptional Pebax material in France, PVDF expansion in France and China, and Sartomer in China also. We expect an EBITDA contribution of EUR 50 million-EUR 70 million in 2023 from those new projects, essentially positioned in the second half of the year, given the wrap-ups. Together with the board, I visited the Singapore unit in January, and really I was very impressed by the quality of the construction and also by the team's work. We also expect adhesive to improve, driven by Ashland Performance Adhesives and our ongoing synergy program, which confirm the strong growth potential of this combination. All in all, at this stage, we aim to achieve in 2023 an EBITDA of around EUR 1.5 billion-EUR 1.6 billion. When you look at the last three years, we delivered an average EBITDA of around EUR 1.7 billion. This guidance takes into account the economic slowdown we are seeing, and it means that we will be above the pre-COVID levels of around EUR 1.4 billion. We also aim to keep an elevated cash conversion ratio, which is part of the DNA of the company, as you know, over 40% this year. Besides, we are entering 2023 with a robust balance sheet that Marie-José underlines, with a net debt to EBITDA ratio at 1.1, which places us in a good position to carry out our projects, including further targeted M&A should opportunities arise. This financial flexibility is a valuable asset as we continue to deliver our 2024 roadmap. We are of course thinking beyond 2024, and we will hold a Capital Markets Day on September 27th. I think the last one was in March 2020. When we will unveil new financial targets and our vision for the future of Arkema with our unique positioning around our three specialty materials platforms, adhesives, Advanced Materials and Coating Solutions. Led by innovation, sustainability driven manufacturing and strong societal commitment. I thank you very much for your attention and we are now together with Marie-José, ready to answer your questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question over the phone, please press star one on your telephone keypad. If you wish to withdraw your question, please press star two. Again, please press star one on your telephone to enter the question queue and wait for your name to be announced. Our first question comes from the line of Martin Rüdiger with Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Hello, good morning. I have actually three questions. First is a financial question for Marie-José. You touched a bit on that, the financial result was rather poor in Q4, and you mentioned with that high interest rates also swap effects. Can you elaborate on the latter? The other two questions are for Thierry. Yesterday, Arkema published a press release on its position on the European proposal to restrict PFAS. You don't do any business in PFAS in your portfolio, but there are products linked to it, i.e. fluoropolymers. If the proposal becomes law, what does that mean for Arkema economy-wise? A follow-up to that question, assuming the same law is established in other regions outside Europe, what will be the financial impact for Arkema? Thank you. Hello, Martin. I'll start maybe with the first question, if I may, Thierry. Yeah, sure Marie-Jose. As you know, dollar has been kind of volatile in 2022. We had a strengthening of the dollar across the year. In particular, there is an increase in the differential of interest between Europe and U.S. For the acquisition of Ashland, we actually swapped a portion of our debt into dollar. Therefore, we faced some increased interest rates on the dollar part of this debt. That generated an additional financial cost, let's say in the Q4 in particular. I would foresee basically that we have a slight increase in our financial interest, going forward into next year, since I don't anticipate right now, closing the gap, let's say, between the interest rates in Europe and U.S. yet. Okay. Thank you, Marie-José. With the question on the account. It's really an early process. It's part of the REACH regulation. With a proposal made by five member states. But it's really the first phase of a long multi-step process until 2025. As we say in our release, it would be a mistake to try to speculate what it would be at the end or if it could go to other country. We all know that each region of the world are completely different. I think we met Chinese people recently. They are doing exactly the opposite. I mean, I don't want to speculate. I mean, the comment that I can give is that this, and we are very surprised. This law is really embracing 10,000 different substances. They are all different in profile, in application, in ecotoxic profile. I think, you're talking about PVDF and Arkema, but I mean, it concerns between other suppliers of fluoropolymers as a whole and the fluorogases as a whole, many actors, and the same for the customer, which would be, I mean, this means tomorrow you cannot make battery, if you can imagine. There are plenty of critical applications. The only thing that we can say which was very clear in our press release is that we don't understand why fluoropolymer without fluorosurfactant, and it will be the case completely 100% for Arkema. It's already mostly the case for Arkema and nearly the full case end of 2024. Why this product are not exempted from the proposed restrictions. We'll give the data which are necessary to let's say to answer this inquiry. Our fluoropolymer are considered not to pose any risk so on the human health, they have a favorable toxicologic profile. It was important for us to say that to the politics in Europe to say that to the administration and to say that to our customer, because we are long-term committed to our products. They are wonderful products polymer which bring a lot by their performance with their unique properties, and we will answer the question. Part of the process, it's a process as we have seen in, on other products, and we will certainly bring our knowledge, which is important in this polymer. You will see it from, other, plenty of other companies and customers which are concerned by this very, very large, it was quite surprising, proposal to restrict, PFAS. This is what I can say, so far. Thank you. The next question is from Matthew Yates with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, Thierry, Marie-José. Morning. Couple of questions. Firstly, can we dig into the additives bit of the materials division in a bit more detail? I think you were calling out that was one of the weaker areas in Q4. Just if you can talk about the different product segments that that's impacting and maybe a view on how Q1 has started. I wanted to ask a little bit about the dividend, as you say, quite a nice increase of 13% there. If I recall correctly, you've talked about a 40% payout ratio in the future as the company matures. At the same time, you're still saying you're open to acquisitions. The accelerating shift to high value materials may mean more CapEx opportunities in due course. The dividend proposal you've given today, is that still consistent with that midterm 40% payout ratio? Is that where we're heading, or is that one of the things that maybe you're reviewing as part of the financial targets after the summer? Okay. Thank you very much for these two questions, different in nature. With regard to performance additives, actually it was so Q4, as you understood, was significantly impacted by destocking. I would say in this destocking world and low volume world, I would say performance additive was in relative terms compared to the rest of the portfolio, was relatively okay. It was impacted by the general economy, destocking at the end of the year, which went beyond construction. You know, performance additive is pretty much represented pretty far less represented in construction than other segments. Overall, it's, I would say it suffers less than the rest of the portfolio. I think it will be the same on Q1. You have the overall picture, and we did not detail every segment precisely, but I would say that in this relative performance, Performance Adhesives resisted more, certainly because they are less impacted by this destocking that we have seen in construction. With regard to the payout ratio, in fact, your question is valid, but you know that we have this atypical first semester in our performance of 2022. So the ratio that you have in mind is the one you calculate on the 2022 performance, which is fair. In fact, if you put it on a more normalized performance of Arkema, you see that you get far closer to the 42%, so as to the 40% payout ratio. I would say the 40% payout ratio is still valid. This include what you mentioned on the CapEx, right. It's true that the payback, and you have a slide on it, of the organic CapEx is quite good. We should not be too shy, still being careful on being reasonable in terms of CapEx, and you know that we are. We should not be shy if we have on megatrend some very good long-term project like we have, for example, for the Polyamide 11 in Singapore. This takes that into account, and this 40% payout ratio is still our midterm goal. Thank you, Thierry. You're welcome. The next question is from Georgina Fraser with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi. Hi, Thierry. Hi, Marie Jose. I've got two questions today. The first one is on your guidance for 2023. I think that we previously talked about building blocks going into 2023 of about a EUR 400 million normalization from that exceptional first semester you just mentioned, Thierry, a + EUR 70 million from your capacity additions in the second half. With that said, would you agree that your guidance, EUR 1.5 billion-EUR 1.6 billion, assume the very conservative macro backdrop? My second question is related to your 2024 targets. They imply an EBITDA of about EUR 1.7 billion or higher, and I believe that your targets also promised that the portfolio would be 100% pure specialties by 2024. Can you confirm that you're on track to have completed the strategic review of Intermediates by 2024 and that your targets for Specialty Materials alone will generate that EUR 1.7 billion in EBITDA for 2024? Thanks. Okay. Thank you, thank you, Georgina. With regard to the normalization, first of all, this concerns more two segments, which are Advanced Materials and Coating Solutions, okay, in our portfolio. That if you make the math, you don't take into account what we have just been discussing, Marie-José and myself today in the presentation, which is the destocking that we are seeing at the beginning of the year and the general economic environment. I don't know what is your forecast, the forecasts are quite, I would say overall for the general economy, at least the first semester or up into the spring, says that it should be a rather weak environment. If you make the math including this element of environment which are beyond this capacity addition and the EUR 400 million, you come to our guidance, which we believe, honestly speaking, is a fair guidance as we always do. There is no specific, any specific leeway. This is our guidance, EUR 1.5 billion-EUR 1.6 billion in a uncertain environment. I think it's a fair guidance, and I would not certainly not say it's conservative or optimistic. It's a fair guidance. I cannot say more. With regard to I would say the target of 2024, yes, it's assumed what we say at the Capital Markets Day. This is still the intention. This is why we have launched, as you know, this process on fluorogas, which started a month ago. We are still at the early stage. This means that specialties, which is at the end the company should generate EUR 1.7 billion EBITDA. Have in mind that if you look back at the Capital Markets Day, we are offsetting more or less what we sell by acquisition. So far, compared to the 2024 target, we are still apart to deliver on the selling side, but also on the acquisition side. Let's say we sell fluorogas, the EBITDA has to be compensated by the same amount of in terms of EBITDA coming more or less by acquisition. Which means that when you look at the debt of Arkema so far, it's a lower debt that what we had in the plan for 2024, the reason being that we have spent less also in acquisition. 2024 is not today, we are still actions initiatives to deliver. We have done a lot already, fortunately, we are still in terms of M&A, which is your question, still to deliver on the disposal. We made the PMMA, we have still this fluorogas and a part of the acrylics in Asia. On the other side, we have done less so far than what we say in terms of acquisition. Hopefully, it answer your question, Georgina. Yeah, that was very clear. Thank you, Thierry. You're welcome. The next question is from Charlie Webb with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Morning, everyone. Yeah, just a couple more from me. Just on the demand side, you know, you talked about destocking kind of continuing into Q1. Just, you know, can you provide a little bit more color? What end markets, you know, what regions you're seeing that? And maybe, you know, are you seeing any incremental signs of things improving, perhaps in China, post-Chinese New Year? Are you seeing, you know, some green shoots in terms of a restock or a recovery in demand? So that's kind of first question. Just second question on the Ashland Adhesives business. Given the environment you see and some of the destocking you see, across construction markets, Europe and the U.S., does it change at all in terms of the timeline for your kind of revenue synergy delivery? You know, positive or negative? Just wondering, you know, does the environment we find ourselves in today, you know, make that more difficult, less difficult, the same, when you think about the synergies from that acquisition? Thank you. Okay. I will start with the second one, and then I will go back to the previous one. On Ashland, before answering more difficult, less difficult, I would say certainly more relevant because Ashland Adhesive is really as adhesive, rather resilient. On top of that, Ashland Adhesive is, really as a minority, very minority part in construction. It's more, you know, it's pressure-sensitive adhesive for most of it. It's taps, labels, packaging. It's less impacted by... It's mostly a U.S. sales base. Okay. For these two reasons, I would say Ashland is more resilient than by far than the rest of the group. One says that it shows that the general economy is weaker than it was last year or the year before. Everybody recognizes that, whatever your business is, and Ashland will suffer a little bit from that, but less than the rest of the group. In terms of ramp up of the sales of Ashland, because of this general climate in, from what we see in the first part of 2023, will be a bit late in terms of development, but we'll catch up as soon as the economy is recovering. I've absolutely no doubt that Ashland is a great acquisition and will deliver. Semester by semester or year by year, you can have some, you can be a little bit in advance or a bit late, but overall, on the, on the three, five years, we'll deliver what we, what we promise on Ashland, no doubt about about that. Now, on your first question, which to a certain extent, was answered, when I answer for Ashland, partially at least, U.S. is a most resilient part in the world. Europe is suffering. China is suffering. When I discuss with the teams, in terms of end market, you mentioned it yourself, it's more construction than the rest of the end market. You have some market like automotive, which is quite okay. You have also what is related to oil and gas is quite okay. Aeronautics, but we're very small for Arkema is certainly growing. You have some niches which are going okay. I would say overall, it's the environment is weaker at the beginning of the year, and, but it's mostly, construction Europe, I would say, is the largest weakness. When we discuss with the team, and this is why we mentioned that we expect recovery starting from the spring, progressive recovery, it will accelerate more in the second half. When we discuss with the teams, they share this feeling. Do we see it in the orders from the customer yet? The answer is for most of it, no. It's still early and we are still end of Feb, so we'll see. We maintain this statement, starting from the spring, but you don't see too much so far in the order book from the customer, but we don't have long order books inside Arkema anyway. Okay. No, that's really helpful. Thank you very much. The next question is from Laurent Favre with BNP. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, all. I've got, I guess one question, but it's a three-part question on adhesives. The number one, can you talk about pricing in areas of the business where you would expect pricing to be resilient, even if raw material prices are, I guess collapsing, maybe that's the right word. The second question, Thierry, you mentioned opportunities on the M&A side. I was wondering if you could say anything about the pipeline. The third question, when you announced the Ashland acquisition, you mentioned a, I think, 17% margin target for adhesives. Yes. What does it translate into now, given the new environment for cost? What kind of margin do you think that 2024 target actually is achievable for adhesives? Thank you. Thank you, Laurent, for your question. In fact, with regard to adhesive, the raw material has not really started to go down. Because of that, the pricing is resilient for most of it, I would say. In fact, it's a paradox of today, but maybe it's good news. The raw material, maybe with the exception of China, but, you know, our adhesives market share in China is quite low. It's not a topic. I would say raw material have not decreased significantly. I think we have good good pricing, and there is an overall inflation which are going beyond the raw material with energy, with salaries, et cetera. It's important to at least maintain our pricing in adhesive. It's not increasing in some pockets. This is what we do because we have done quite a good job last year, but there are still some pockets where we are a bit late, and we need to finalize our job in adhesives. With regard to M&A, we have a pipeline of which I cannot comment, as you can imagine, but which is quite okay. As I mentioned a few times, I think with regard to M&A, it's important that the base of results are restated and that the multiple are also restated. We continue to push, but we prefer to take our time, at least for the first part of the year. it remained, we are still as committed as we were to continue this fragmented world of adhesives to make acquisition, don't expect too much in the, in the first semester. With regard to the margin target of Bostik, we consider that, let's assume that the raw material environment is staying exactly the same as today. I would say the math that we have done in terms of dilution of margin target, which is your question, compared to when we announced the 17%, is about 2.5%. This year is about 1.7%, and we had 0.8% from the previous year. It's 2.5%. The 17% correspond to 14.5%. At a certain point, we'll come back to raw material as they were before. The 17% is still valid. If in 2024 we have, let's say, raw material environment, which is between the one we had in 2021 and the one of today, we would have to adjust the 17%, but it's mechanical. There's nothing to see within interesting performance of adhesives. You could see it with all this does downstream chemical business, they have been affected the same way. If you look at the competitors or in industry which are close to the adhesives. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. The next question is from Chetan Udeshi with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks. A couple of questions from my side. First one was to clarify, Thierry, you said Q1 will be close to consensus. I'm just wondering what consensus are you referring to? Because on Bloomberg, I see EUR 357. You think that is the right base, or you have slightly different consensus than that? Just wanted to confirm. The second question was a bit more technical. I was just looking at the reported EBIT in fourth quarter, and it was just EUR 18 million. There's always some delta between reported and adjusted EBIT, but it was much higher than usual at almost EUR 128 million in Q4. I was just curious what was included in those EUR 128 million adjustments in Q4 besides the usual PPA. Thank you. Marie-José will answer the second one, Chetan. On the first one, the consensus is 325. This is a Bloomberg one. I check with which one? Visible for an internal consensus. Okay. You have, so the one we see i s 325. When we publish, it's the same. I mean, it's the same method. Exactly. Okay? Marie-José, yeah. For the non-recurring in the P&L, we have actually completed the purchase price allocation of the Ashland and the Permoseal acquisitions in the Q4. There was actually a substantial catch-up for the amortization of that PPA. Classically, we had a EUR 20 million, I think, per quarter type of impact on PPA amortization. Ashland amortization of PPA is adding up something like EUR 50 million per year. This is basically what's happened in Q4. It's just a one-off catch-up of the purchase price allocation of Ashland that took place. Obviously in a cumulative basis, next year you would have two additional amounts of depreciation of PPA as well, falling in this category. Other than that, frankly, on the non-recurring, it's a pretty much, you know, a stable thing. We review, classically, you know, depreciation of assets or our provisions levels, and we have some start-up costs coming from the Singapore plant. That's about it. Can I confirm the start-up costs are actually classified as non-recurring costs? That's correct. How much was, how much were they cost in 2022? Can I just confirm the number? You have it. Basically, we assume roughly at this moment, because obviously the ramp-up of the plant has been very progressive across the year. Let's say per quarter, I would estimate around EUR 15 million. This is also probably an estimation you should have for the year Q1. Understood. Thank you very much. The plant should have, you know, as Marie-José mentioned, it's started by, you have different steps, so now at the end of the Q1, the startup will be fully completed. Now we will be in a ramp-up of a commercial phase, which will come gradually. And it has been, it's not a financial question, but it's important for you to know that we are very satisfied with what we see in terms of quality of products, and quality of construction. It will be really a very interesting asset for the coming years for Arkema. Thank you. You're welcome. The next question is from Jean-Baptiste Rolland with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I noted that you referred in your materials division to the share of products which are less than five years old. I think you mentioned above 15%. I was interested if you could comment what extent you look at this metric or what you infer from it for this division, but also for your other divisions. I'm purely interested in maybe the evolution that you've seen, if you have any targets for this kind of product and how generally you see Arkema's position. Thank you. The way I look at it, I think it's important to monitor it, especially for our R&D and marketing teams. This is why we wanted to communicate it with you, because sometimes we have question. At my level, I put more emphasis on the, and it comes to the EUR 1.5 billion of new sales on this five growth platform. Up until 2030 is correlated, but there are different KPI. I look more as a new business development onto a structural, all new platforms supported by megatrends, the margin which is related and how much EBITDA it brings to the bottom line. I would say it's more internal KPI, which allow us to make sure that we have a renewal of our portfolio. This five years old can means completely disruptive new products or renewal, ongoing renewal of the range. This is why I'm more, I think it's a KPI that we follow, but for me it's not the best KPI. The best KPI is we have defined a certain number of growth platform, most of them being supported by megatrends. You have the first one which are communicated externally on which you have EUR 1.5 billion of new business up until 2030 versus 2019. We have other platform which are complementary, more traditional. This for me is the largest KPI that we are following internally and which we follow business unit by business unit and market by end market. Part of the Capital Markets Day, by the way, will take the opportunity to communicate with a little bit more granularity on this number because we have some questions, EUR 1.5 billion, where we are on the trajectory, what is behind. We don't want to disclose competitive information, but I think Capital Markets Day can be an opportunity to give you a little bit more granularity on this topic. Thank you very much. You're welcome. The next question is from Jaideep Pandy a with On Field Investment Research. Please go ahead. Thanks. The first question I have is on PVDF. It's a two-part question. In the short term, we've seen a very sharp drop in R-142b prices in China. Do you think that there could be scope for some margin expansion in the short run because of this? The more fundamental question is really how do we see, how do you see the product development in terms of more capacity, more projects, especially in the U.S.? Or are you going to take a bit of a back step because of there is potentially a risk of overcapacity in China? That's my first question. The second question really is around a few of the projects that are in a ramp-up phase this year, where I guess the guidance for EBITDA is between EUR 50 million-EUR 70 million. You know, when we actually see progressive ramp-up of this in 2024, what sort of EBITDA contribution should we expect from these projects? Thanks a lot. Okay. with regard, the very sharp drop for R-142b, I assume you mean in China? Yes. I would say when, in fact you have different factor which would be influenced 2023, with 2022, it relates also to your question on your second question. You have the fact that PVDF in 2022 was really positively impacted by an exceptional, it's more first semester, is at least nine months, and we recognize that. I mean, we are very transparent, as you know, as a management. So we say don't take that for granted. It will remain a quite a good product line, but not at the level of 2022. Part of what is happening is a combination of pricing normalization, R-142b drop, but it's eaten by the pricing normalization, so I would not make a case with it. Certainly it attenuate, unfortunately the pricing, and it's also an engine of this pricing. This pricing normalization is also coming from capacities which were late to come, which came, and which is part of the full story. On top of that, we have our capacity, new capacity coming on the, on PVDF. I would say all in all, this is basically what we say on PVDF, we stay with line, but we'll not continue with the kind of profitability we got in 2022. It will be more normalized and this include all the parameters that you have been mentioning. If you take the full contribution of the new project in 2023, taking it to 2024, what I can say is that our project brings EUR 50 million-EUR 70 million, as you mentioned in 2023. At full maturity, which is I would say after five years in average, it will be between EUR 180 million and EUR 200 million. To go to 2024 you take a straight line between EUR 50 million-EUR 70 million in 2023 and EUR 100 million-EUR 200 million five years so it's 2028. You take a straight line, you have the 2024 number. Just if I can ask a follow-up question on PVDF. Would you say that your quality and the grades that you're serving into the LFP or the NMC market is at par with the, you know, competition that you have? There's obviously a theory that one of your key competitor, you know, is suggesting you are more in LFP and they're in NMC. Would you say that your portfolio is like for like, and therefore there is no reason for us to assume divergence in performance? You know me, it's true for PVDF or other products. I'm not the one who will try to play this game of comparing competitors between each other. I mean, everybody is very proud of what they are doing, so I will tell you the contrary. I think, it's clear that PVDF is a broad range. You have different applications in the battery between the, what is the cathode technology, what is that separator, et cetera, et cetera, and it will continue to evolve for years. Our competitors have some advantage. We have other advantage. All in all, I think we are very well-positioned. I think there is room for everybody. I think the game will continue to evolve. I don't enter this kind of question for me. It's minor, it's minor topic. I think everyone has his strengths and weaknesses, including the one you mentioned. We know what we want to do. Our strategy has not changed since a few worlds. We are, you have the current generation of battery, but then you have the solid. In the middle, you have semi-solid. You have the cathode will continue to evolve. You have evolution of the legislation. PVDF is one product. You have other product which will come into the story. I will certainly not disclose all our competitive advantage in this discussion. No, I don't enter the discussion. I can just tell you that we are confident in where we are, what we know. Also to come back to your question on the, on U.S., yeah, sure. I mean, we are a leader of PVDF in the U.S., we'll be a strong player. I would say each region, the competition is really region by region for most of it. I see the Chinese dynamics, which is weighing on the pricing currently is one. You have the European dynamic, you have the U.S. dynamics. I mean, in this new world, is especially for the battery which is quite strategic for each of the continent, I would say the local supply is absolutely key. I don't think there are long-term too much influence between what is happening in one region versus the other regions. Okay? Thanks a lot for the transparency. The last question is from Emmanuel Matot with ODDO. Please go ahead. Hello, Thierry. Hello, Marie-José. Still have two questions for you. First, how do you intend to develop your fixed cost structure in 2023 in the context of still low visibility and high inflation? Second, where are you in the process of reducing your exposure to acrylics in Asia? Thank you. With regard to the first one, you have different elements. Clearly in this kind of environment, we are strict on our discretionary cost, but we are not a company which will suddenly wake up and say, "We need to launch a big plan," because we work more in continuity. On the other side, Arkema is a company which has this advantage to work on different long time horizon. At the same time, we are very strict in our cost spendings, but we invest in certain areas. We continue to increase our costs. For example, for battery, we mentioned that with Jaideep, we'll invest a lot. For example, for Polyamide 11, in terms of R&D and marketing, we invest a lot. We have and we are a little bit schizophrenic, this means that on one side, we are very strict on cost where we believe the value is limited. The other side, we spend more money on different areas which are very promising in terms of growth for Arkema. Beyond that, we have the inflation, which is hitting more than usual this year. It was also the case last year. For me, we have a tendency to discuss our pricing versus raw material, now versus raw material and energy. It's important that our pricing takes into account the fact that the inflation on fixed cost is higher than it was in the past. It's part also for to overall pricing policy. You need to value the amount of cost you put in the process. If you want to be reassured, I mean, yes, we are strict on cost. It's not... The second question was? Acrylics on Asia. Oh, yeah. Acrylics on Asia. As you know, we put more emphasis. It's different nature, on the fluorogases was really a straight sale. On acrylics on Asia is more partnership on capacity reservation. I would say, to be frank with you, the Covid period has not been helpful for that because you need to be present in China to discuss this kind of partnership. I mean, it's really now after three years that we will be able again to come to China. Give us a little bit of time. Will do, for sure. Thank you. Okay. Any other question? No other questions from the caller, sir. Thank you very much for your question. Always interesting and looking forward to seeing you in presence. If you have any further question, don't hesitate to challenge Beatrice and Peter this afternoon. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes this conference call. Arkema thanks you for your participation. You may now disconnect.