Welcome to Arkema's Q1 2024 Results and Outlook Conference Call. For your information, this call is being recorded. It will take place in a listen-only mode, and you will have the opportunity to ask questions after the presentation by pressing star and 1 on your touch-tone telephone. I will now hand you over to Thierry Le Hénaff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Sir, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Arkema's Q1 2024 Results Conference Call. Joining me today, as usual, are Marie-José Donsion, our CFO, and the investor relations team with Béatrice and Peter. As always, to support this conference call, we have posted a set of slides which are available also on our website. I will comment the highlights of the quarter before letting Marie-José go through the financials, and at the end of the presentation, we'll be available to answer your questions. After a challenging macro in 2023, as you know, during which we performed well, the demand environment in Q1 2024 remained globally unchanged in the continuity of Q4 2023, with relatively weak volumes in Europe and the US and some slight improvements in Asia. This materialized in a volume growth of 3% in specialty materials with growth across all three platforms, the intermediates decreasing mechanically with the quotas set in F-gases. In this context, Arkema continued to deliver a robust set of results, slightly lower relative to last year, which was still sustained by the high comparison in the pricing of acrylics and of PVDF. The start of the year is in line with what we expected and consistent with our full-year guidance. Here are some key points I'd like to highlight to you. We delivered an EBITDA of EUR 350 million, close to last year's level despite the negative impact of around EUR 30 million from less favorable market conditions in PVDF and upstream acrylics, a specific and expected gap of Q1. Our performance was, in particular, driven by double-digit EBITDA growth in adhesives that I am pleased to underline. This follows on from the positive momentum of last year for adhesives. The group's results also reflect, we think, good growth in high-performance polymers and downstream coatings where our positioning in high-value applications is paying off. Note that our EBITDA margin increased versus last year at the good level of 15%. Now, looking briefly at the performance of our three Specialty Materials segments, adhesives had a really solid quarter with an EBITDA margin above 15% thanks to the benefits of the successful integration of our acquisitions, notably Ashland, which continues to perform well, as well as good price management and a more favorable product mix in line with our strategy. In advanced materials, our EBITDA was stable year on year despite the headwind from PVDF pricing thanks to the good dynamic of high-performance polymers in Asia driven by volume growth in batteries, sports, automotive, and the contribution of PIAM, which should accelerate from Q2. Performance additives delivered another resilient performance while not at the excellent level of last year. Finally, in coatings, we benefited from good volume growth, notably for Sartomer and Coatex, which only partly offset the lower contribution of upstream acrylics. Beyond the Q1 result, in the first months of this year, we were active on many fronts, including the M&A field. As you saw recently, we were pleased to announce that we agreed to acquire Dow's flexible packaging laminating adhesive business, which will further fuel our medium-term growth for the adhesive segment a couple of years after the Ashland deal. This is really an exciting deal, which should create significant value from a set point for shareholders over time. It is the first-rate business which has been, like other specialty chemical businesses, impacted by the challenging macro and customer destocking in the past two years. But it is really a business we have been following for a long time with superior technologies and high-quality manufacturing assets and with a long history. The revenues amount at $250 million, and we will buy this business for an enterprise value of $150 million, which represents 50/50 the working capital and the book value of the plants and other physical assets. So no goodwill is included in the EV. Since our adhesive businesses for flexible packaging are very complementary, we plan to generate significant synergies estimated at $30 million at the EBITDA level over the next five years, equally split between cost and development. There will be implementation costs, which we estimate around $50 million, and all in all, including this one-off cost to the EV for the sake of the calculation and of the transaction multiple, we estimate the EV EBITDA at maturity, so let's say within 5 years, to reach around 3.5x. We also invested in two exciting startups, Tiamat and Proionic, which will strengthen Arkema's position as a key player in high-end solutions for next-generation batteries. These small steps will participate in our strategy in battery to progressively build an extensive range for this attractive and rapidly growing market. Now, on the organic project front, we started our Pebax capacity in Normandy in France in January, and we are progressing well with a new project which we announced at the Capital Market Day, namely expanding our organic peroxide in China, the new DMDS unit in the U.S., and the decarbonization of acrylics production in France. They are, as you know, in the early construction phase, but so far, they are progressing as expected. As stated in this morning's press release, we know we had a few questions during the roadshows on these two projects. Our Polymer 11 and Nutrien projects are now almost ready to deliver, and we'll start contributing in June, end of June, to be fully operational starting in the second half. We are very excited to finally see these two attractive and sustainability-focused projects delivering. In the same decarbonization vein and as part of our climate plan, we recently signed long-term renewable energy agreements for a number of off-sites in the U.S., including all Bostik sites. This means that by the end of 2024, approximately 40% of the power needed to run our operation in the U.S. will be obtained from renewable sources, marking another step toward our long-term net-zero ambitions. I will now hand it over to Marie-José for a more in-depth look at the financials before we discuss the outlook at the end of the presentation. Thank you, Thierry. So looking at the sales bridge at EUR 2.3 billion, sales are down 7.3% year-on-year driven by a negative 7.2% price effect, which is linked mainly to the price decrease of raw materials as well as a lower PVDF and upstream acrylic prices. Volumes were stable year-on-year, on one hand decreasing in intermediates due to the enforcement of quotas in the U.S. and Europe for F-gases, and on the other hand slightly better, +3% in specialty materials reflecting continued good demand in the automotive and energy markets. Construction seems to have now stabilized after over a year of customer destocking. The scope effect is basically offset by the currency effect. So the scope effect is positive at 1.8%, corresponding mainly to the contribution of the PI Advanced Materials acquisition and to a lesser extent to bolt-ons in adhesives. The currency effect is negatively impacted by 1.7% on Q1 sales as a result of the depreciation of the yuan and the US dollar relative to the euro. Q1 EBITDA came in at EUR 350 million. Looking at the different segments, on one hand, we have Bostik, which achieved a good performance with EBITDA at EUR 105 million of 13% year-on-year. Volumes grew slightly thanks to good demand in structural and packaging adhesives, and we benefited from our dynamic pricing management, operational excellence actions, and synergies linked to Ashland, notably. The EBITDA margin reached a level of 15.4% as a progression compared to the exit point of Q4 last year. Advanced materials EBITDA was stable at EUR 162 million as the adverse impact of PVDF was offset by the contribution of PI Advanced Materials and the solid performance of other businesses in the segment, notably the polymers in Asia. Advanced Materials EBITDA margin improved 140 basis points to 18.5%. The EBITDA of Coating Solutions came in at EUR 75 million reflecting less favorable conditions in the upstream while we enjoyed growth in some high-value-added downstream activities. Finally, Intermediates EBITDA stood at EUR 39 million. Volumes were lower given the impact of quota reductions in refrigerant gases and the low environment for acrylics in Asia. On the positive side, pricing dynamics continued to be positive for the F-gases. Depreciation and amortization stood at EUR 148 million, leading to a recurring EBIT of EUR 202 million and an EBIT margin of 8.6%. The non-recurring items amount to EUR 67 million. They include EUR 38 million for PPA depreciation and amortization and around EUR 29 million for one-off charges, restructuring, and legal expenses, as well as the startup costs for our polyamide 11 platform in Singapore. Financial expenses stand at EUR 18 million with the cost of the newly issued bonds broadly offset by the higher interest of cash investment. So basically, we have today a cost of carry, which is basically neutral. At EUR 36 million, the tax charge represents 22% of EBITDA and reflects the group's results evolution. Consequently, the quarter one adjusted net income stood at EUR 138 million, which corresponds to EUR 1.84 per share. Moving on to cash flow and debt, the Q1 recurring cash flow amounts to a negative EUR 60 million, which includes the usual Q1 working capital seasonality. The working capital ratio on annualized sales stands at 16.1%, broadly unchanged versus last year. Total capital expenditure amounted to a bit short of EUR 100 million in the quarter. As for M&A, we had EUR 21 million outflow corresponding mainly to the acquisition of Arc Building Products in Ireland to be compared with an inflow last year of EUR 30 million linked to the sale of Febex. The net debt at the end of March 2024, therefore, amounts to just over EUR 3 billion. This includes a EUR 1.1 billion of hybrid bonds following the EUR 400 million issuance in March to anticipate the refinancing of the tranche of the same amount with the first call date in September 2024 this year. The net debt to last 12-month EBITDA ratio stands at around 2x. I thank you for your attention, and we'll now hand it over to Thierry for the outlook. Thank you, Marie-José. So going into Q2, the current macroeconomic environment remains mostly in continuity. We have not yet witnessed a clear pickup in volumes, although there are here and there small improvements yet to be confirmed in activity level. So hopefully, things will start to move in the right direction at some point at the end of the quarter or during the second part of the year. For the Q2, we'll continue, as you expect, to focus on our self-help and our main projects. This is our first bullet. We look forward to the initial contribution of some of our key projects, and in addition, we'll benefit from the contribution of PIAM and the continued positive dynamic of adhesives. So all in all, we expect in Q2 an EBITDA slightly above last year's level, which would show a positive trend after the slightly below-trend performance of the Q1. We confirm that our main organic projects should contribute EUR 60 million-EUR 70 million in EBITDA over the full year, mostly in the second half. So on the back of our Q1 results and the current outlook, we confirm our annual guidance and aim to achieve in 2024 an EBITDA of around EUR 1.5 billion-EUR 1.7 billion, depending on the strength of the recovery of the economy. We'll also continue to work towards achieving the medium-term targets we announced at the Capital Market Day with progress in our organic projects, integrating and delivering the synergies of acquisition and furthering our innovation together with our customers to best leverage our unique positioning across our three specialty materials segments. I thank you for your attention. Together with Marie-José, we are now ready to answer the question you may have. 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 answer the question cue and wait for your name to be announced. The first question comes from the line of Matthew Yates of Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hey. Good morning, Thierry, Marie-José. Can I ask a question about the Dow adhesives deal that you've announced? Really, if there's anything more you can say around the historical performance of this business, I guess we can imply that it's expected to do about a 6% margin at the moment, and you note that it has been impacted by the macro and destocking. Is it possible to give more context as to where this has been historically? Because obviously, your synergy target to double or triple profits from the current level is very interesting. Then just as related on the Arkema adhesives business, your margins are up 200 basis points or so year-on-year. Marie-José mentioned a variety of different factors behind that improvement from mix to pricing. Are you able to break that down just a little bit more as to which drivers were more important than others so we can think about the evolution going forward? Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. So as you mentioned, it's quite an interesting deal for Arkema. This Dow flexible packaging and laminating adhesive business is a rare opportunity. It's clear that as many specialty businesses, it has been impacted by destocking. We have seen that also at Arkema for the adhesives and some other polymers where on packaging, specifically, we were surprised by the level of the destocking of the past two years, which has been for a market which normally is quite resilient above what we expected. So clearly, the starting point which you estimated that you could get from our press release is well below what we have for EBITDA margin for Bostik today. But in the long term, without having all the precise numbers, but we know this business, we follow it since a long time. It was really the reference in adhesive or flexible packaging in the old time. It's a business which has delivered good margins. And so with, I would say, normal business conditions, with integration also into a pure adhesive company, we are confident that we will come back rather quickly with some improvement of the macro to solid margin. After that, to go to the following step, it's really come from what you have mentioned, the synergy, which are certainly important because a little bit like for Ashland, these businesses are very technology-driven, intimacy with customers. And you can do a lot by offering a far broader range. And we see that every day with Ashland in industrial adhesives. So you have different elements of value. The first one is to have a decent recovery of the business after these years of destocking. And then you have the layer of synergy, which are split more or less in two. One is cost and the other part, which is more soft synergy but which are not insignificant, which is more benefiting from the complementary ranges with what Arkema has to do. So if you make a math, in fact, since the starting EBITDA multiple is applied to a low EBITDA, you can really decrease over time the EBITDA multiple quite significantly. So it's really a good acquisition, and we appreciated that Dow trusted Arkema to finalize the deal. So it was really a good move for both companies. With regard to the adhesive margin Q1, it's true that it's a rather good Q1 both in terms of increase, +11% on EBITDA, and in terms of margin percentage because 15.4%, it's a good margin for Bostik for Q1. It came mostly from, I would say, first from industrial adhesives, and especially this adhesive for durable goods, which really performed very well, which to a certain extent shows that the macro in electronics, in automotive, in specific application is a bit better. We have a lot of new business introduction also which supported this industrial adhesive and notably durable goods improvement of EBITDA. Beyond that, I would say it's across the three regions. It's a combination, I would say, rather balanced between net pricing, operational excellence, introduction of new businesses with a higher margin. Perfect. Thank you so much, Thierry. You're welcome, Matthew. The next question is from Martin Roediger of Kepler. Please go ahead. Yes. Thanks for taking my two questions. First, on advanced materials, EBITDA was cited as up, which I think was a positive surprise because I thought that low PVDF prices would cause a decrease in earnings. Did you benefit from lower input costs in Q1 which overcompensated the effect from lower selling prices? And the second question is on coating solutions. You say upstream acrylics was down in earnings year-over-year, downstream was up year-over-year. Given the current margin in coating solutions, my question is, are we now at the low cycle conditions in upstream and at peak cycle conditions in downstream? Thanks. Okay. So with regard to Advanced Materials, maybe a remark or a precision, I would say, of the EUR 30 million that we incurred negative compared to last year in EBITDA for acrylics and PVDF, we put the two in the same basket. But in fact, the majority is really acrylics monomer. So PVDF was a contributor but less than the acrylics part. Now, what we had, we had different elements, maybe three. I would say that the polyamide, despite the fact that we had no contribution yet from Singapore, the polyamide compared to last year, behaved well with a combination of better mix, a little bit of softer raw material including nat gas in Europe. But we had a good start of the year or, let's say, solid start of the year for polyamide 11 compared to last year. We had also PIAM starting to contribute even if Q2, as we said, would be better. And the last one, we have this specialty fluorochemicals, fluorogases, which are in HPP, notably the 1233zd where we started to contribute a little bit. So we have a little bit of on the HFO gas, some contribution. So the sum of the three. And all in all, yes, because on Performance Additives, last year, especially the first part of the year, was very strong. So because of that, we are overall, and thank you for your comment, quite pleased by the more than stability of Advanced Materials. With regard to Coating Solutions, so different story, I would say, yes, I believe that in the upstream, we are. Had the low cycle. Well, low cycle is not it's a relative notion. But I would say it's we think that we have reached a sort of low point in the current context. And this low point was, to a certain extent, driven by the differential of raw material between Asia and the rest of the world, namely Europe and the US. So we had to absorb that, which has been the case. But now, this differential is not increasing further. And hopefully, it will start to get reduced a little bit. And the volumes, as you could see in Coating Solutions, start to be a bit better. Let's wait and see. With regard to Sartomer and Coatex, it's clear that when the upstream is lower cycle, we benefit a little bit in the downstream. This is the beauty of having an integration. Also, we have a strong emphasis, especially for Sartomer, of new business development in electronics, in medical, in other One Arkema, I would say, development platform. You remember that we started end of last year rather big expansion of Sartomer in south of China in Guangzhou. We see that also in the numbers. I would not consider it a matter of cycle in the downstream. It's really a matter of structural improvement in the macro, which is slightly better than it was maybe at the same time last year for Sartomer. Thank you. The next question is from Aron Ceccarelli of Berenberg. Please go ahead. Hello. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. My first one is on the ramp-up of your project. Maybe you can update us a little bit on where you are from a technical standpoint? And it looks like you should start seeing some contribution in Q2 already. Is there any color you can provide about earnings contribution from these projects in Q2, please? The second one is on PVDF. We saw some recent industry reports which highlighted a stabilization and improvement in PVDF prices. Today, you mentioned continued pressure because, of course, high comparable base. But I would like to understand a little bit what you see, especially in China, from a competitive landscape. Thank you. Okay. So on the first one, I would say that the technical, let's say, challenges in Polyamide 11 and Nutrien are behind us. So we are now in a technical ramp-up. I would say in terms of contribution, I would say quite incremental and quite limited still in the Q2. This is why we say, "Okay. Let's assume that for the end of the quarter, we'll be at nominal capacities." This means that we will start to ramp up from the start of the second semester, which is completely consistent with the share of their contribution into the EUR 60 million-EUR 70 million of major projects on the full year. So this is all consistent. But I would say we are now there technically, which is good news. So now, it's just a matter of some fine-tuning, let's say, up until June so to make it round, let's say, end of the quarter. But we should really ramp up. Now, also the limitation will not be anymore the technical limitation starting the second semester, but will only be the ramp-up of the demand because we don't ramp up from the first day on this kind of investment. But this is completely normal. They are specialty products. On PVDF, you're right to say that, in fact, the negative is compared to last quarter. Sequentially, now, we have reached a sort of stability. Now, it's really the product mix which is driving the improvement of PVDF. But I would say on the most, let's say, commoditized product, which is more on the big market, coatings and on batteries, we think that we have reached a sort of stability. We continue to grow in these two markets. On top of that, we have our differentiation on the product mix. There is a difference when you think year-over-year or sequentially. Your comment is right, sequentially. Thank you. Maybe if I can add a final one just on performance additives. We usually don't talk too much about this segment. But I believe last year, the performance has been pretty strong. And it looks like volumes were strong again this quarter. Can you provide some color around that, please? No. It's clear that performance additives, it was nearly our best business last year in terms of progression versus 2022. It was already high. So this year, we continue to be solid, our feeling, but will not be at the same level as last year. And to a certain extent, the Q1 was a little bit in this vein. This means that solid but not as strong as last year. But since this year is the year of ramp-up of HPP, it creates quite a solid performance on the total of Advanced Materials. Okay? Thank you. The next question is from Emmanuel Matot of Oddo BHF. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, Thierry and Marie-José. Three questions from me. First, why haven't you tightened your ABD guidance range for 2024? I'm surprised that without sign of clear rebound in demand currently, you still consider that the top end of the range at EUR 1.7 billion remains a possible scenario. Second, you still indicate that you expect growth to be more focused on the second half of the year. Is it the case for all your four segments and not only for advanced materials? And my last question, startup cost for the Singapore platform amount to EUR 22 million in Q1. Should we expect further cost over the coming quarters? Thank you very much. So with regard to the EBITDA guidance, I think we gave our EBITDA guidance. It was just two months ago. There is still a lack of visibility. And on the economy, you see it also in the communication of different players and the chemical industry. Some start to see some positive signals. Some consider they are not necessarily sustainable. So I think there is still uncertainty around it. So we don't see the value of tightening the EBITDA guidance. I think the good thing that you have to consider is that we confirm it and that the Q1 and our guidance also, we gave a guidance for the Q2. We show a progressive ramp-up, as we explained to you when we published early March, is going in the right direction. But no, I think I'm sure that among you, depending on your sensitivity, some would expect some tightened range. Some others will think that there is no necessity. So I think that's the important point is that we confirm the guidance and that the development of the profitability of the company is going in the right direction with the Q2, which is slightly up compared to Q1, and also which would mean that it will be also including the seasonality significantly up compared to the Q1. With regard to the growth, all segment growth, no, it's not the case because you could see that the adhesive is already growing in the H1. So no, this is the beauty of even if all the segments are focused on the Specialty Materials, the beauty is that they don't have exactly the same economic profile. The adhesives should grow all along the year while, for example, HPP should grow also while for the reason I mentioned before, Performance Additives comparing to a very high base will certainly be a bit lower. Coating Solutions, we have still up until we see more clarity, some challenges. So it's good to have a portfolio which will all contribute to the guidance we have just mentioned before. And more generally, all this growth depends on the strength of the recovery, which you should not exclude. With regard to Singapore, I think it's very consistent with what we say with regard to the ramp-up. This means you should still have a little bit of one-off in the Q2. But it should disappear for the second semester because the plant, as we mentioned, will technically be fully developed at the end of the semester. Thank you very much. The next question is from Jean-Luc Romain of CIC Market Solutions. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Recently, the Rhône Prefecture mandated some changes or maybe some acceleration in adaptation to change of PFAS. Does it entail additional costs for you, or is it already planned for you? You have any one question, or you have several questions? Only one. Oh, okay. No, I think we make some analysis in cooperation with the administration. So we are incurring the cost of this analysis, which are asked by the administration. So we do that. And we fully cooperate in order to implement the analysis they are asking us to do. So we have this cost. Thank you. You're welcome. The next question is from Chetan Udeshi of JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thanks. Morning. I had two questions. First was I just wanted to understand the mechanics of the contribution from projects a bit better because if I'm not mistaken, you're already reporting the startup costs, which are, I think, from memory, EUR 15 million per quarter as one-off cost below the adjusted EBITDA. So when you say EUR 60 million-EUR 70 million contribution in primarily second half, so that will be on top of those startup costs actually coming into the adjusted EBITDA line. So that's actually looking more like more than EUR 100 million contribution run rate. Is that the right understanding, or those startup costs will remain in the other line for some more time? That's the first question. And the second question, just going back to the acquisition that you announced, and I appreciate you see significant synergies potential on this transaction. I'm just curious, if I look at your pre-tax ROCE in your adhesives business over the last five years or so, it's remained between 7%-8% pre-tax, which some would say is below the cost of capital. So how should we think about your ROCE transition in your adhesives business in the coming year, especially in the context of deals like Dow, which may still be returned dilutive for at least a couple of initial years? Thank you. I'm not sure if your question on the second was the ROCE or the EBITDA, but we'll come back to that. Chetan, so on the first one, I think it's very clear. We said EUR 60 million-70 million EBITDA contribution. So what is below the line is not in the EBITDA as you know. But I'm sure you knew the answer to the question. As the startup cost, as we mentioned, will decrease already in Q2 and will disappear in the second semester, just answered before. With regard to the Dow acquisition, so Bostik, as you know, has been built from the start by acquisition. It's only acquisition. Bostik was bought. So clearly, you take more time to take the ROCE above the WACC than for organic. But this is the beauty of Arkema to have a combination of organic business that we have a restructure over time, which have a good, stronger ROCE. But they were in the legacy. And then we make acquisition mostly from the proceeds of the businesses that we have disposed of, which are most of them very high ROCE. And we invest mostly in the adhesive. So the only thing is that when you sell, I've mentioned it to you many times and to all of you, when you sell, you have the capital gain, your one, but you don't keep the benefit in your ROCE calculation for the future reinvestment. That's the mechanics of the accounting. But no, I think for Bostik, we will try to get, as we have mentioned many times, especially when we will make less acquisition above at work and then above work. From this standpoint, the acquisition will be attractive. This is an acquisition for which the challenge is really to increase significantly the profitability. We take the challenge. But if we deliver the challenge, the return on capital employed of this acquisition will be very significant, and it will be attractive after two years on the ROCE. Now, on the EBITDA, by making a simple math, it's clear that the first year, the EBITDA percentage of this acquisition is below the EBITDA percentage of Bostik. So it will be dilutive. But because it's dilutive and low EBITDA, this is why we'll create a lot of value in the long run. So it goes together. But frankly speaking, it's a very nice acquisition. And for Bostik, it's a very good add-on. And Bostik, I think inside Arkema is really a very, very strong platform. We are very proud of what we have built over time for this adhesive platform. Thanks. I think your point on cap gains is completely fair. We tend to always ignore it but understood. Thank you. You're welcome. The next question is from Jaideep Pandya of On Field Research. Please go ahead. Thank you. The first question is on PA11, actually. Thierry, you've been tight on this product for years. And obviously, you've had a mixed improvement strategy. So for a lot of the legacy end markets like oil and gas, for instance, which used to use this product, and unfortunately, you had to say no to them, maybe you haven't. I'm just using that as an example. Now that you have capacity, how quickly can you bring some of those end markets back? Or is your strategy actually to not bring those end markets and actually focus on further mixed enhancement in the Singapore plant? So I'm just trying to understand whether it's going to be more value-oriented or volume-oriented strategy in PA11 as we speak. And how is the dynamic? I know the products are two different ones, but how is the dynamic between 12 and 11 when 12 actually also has more capacity in the next couple of years? That's my first question. The second question is on coatings. Could you tell us what are you seeing sort of from an end market point of view with regards to volume when we look at the more industrial end markets versus the more paint-oriented end markets in terms of volume? And then the last question sorry to come back, but just on PVDF, how do you see the technology evolution within Arkema when we think about the suspension versus the emulsion grade? But also when we think about PVDF in other markets like electronics, for instance, how do you see your penetration given that your product suite in electronics has increased as well with the PI acquisition? Thanks a lot. Okay. So Jaideep, thank you for your question. So on Polymer 11 versus the specialty products, this means it's not like you have a plant. You fill the plant like a commodity plant. This means that, sure, you have to accept at the beginning maybe some volumes, which are lower margin, in order to have a plant which is running smoothly. But the philosophy of the Polymer 11 is really focused on the specialty market, specialty application. And the potential of development is really unlimited. You mentioned oil and gas, but you have textile. You have shoes. You have airbags. You have plenty of application. And you have new ideas coming all the time. What we could not do because it's not possible is in advance of the startup to fill strong density of new business just to be ready the first day. In a specialty product, it doesn't work like that. So you need, as we have mentioned many times, for, let's say, the high end of the range of the portfolio, it will take several years to go where we want to go in Singapore. But we have also some good growth on the good businesses, maybe not with superior margins, but solid margins that we will take also in the meantime because Polymer 11, I would say, has three big qualities. It's high performance. It's bio-based, as you know. But the third one that maybe not everybody has in mind is very competitive also. So because of that, I think we are really confident in the coming years to fill the Singapore plant. But also, we don't want to go too quickly because, as you know, it's a big ticket each time. And fortunately, Marseille has lasted 70 years. So if we can fill Singapore, which is not the same size as Marseille but still significant, in five years, it will be really in very good shape. So we really manage the mix and take the time we need. But now, with regard to the dynamic versus Polymer 12, Polymer 11 is not positioned as a competitor of Polymer 12. It's higher performance. It's biosource. So we have our own market. Sometimes, we have some gray area where we play on the two grades. We are in Polymer 12. We are not the leader, but we are a good challenger with some very good products. We try also to position more on specialties and commodity. It's a whole game, which is a marketing game that is very important in the long-chain polymer. But overall, you are right to say that we try to focus on the high end of the range because this is a superior product. On the coatings, I would say it's a growing market. The acrylic value chain, it's a good chain from this standpoint. It has many applications which are far beyond coatings and paints. When we think coating solution, by nature, our mind goes to paint. But in fact, it's far beyond that. Electronics, batteries we'll talk about, but battery later in your third question in super absorbent. And when you say paint, it's industrial paint and paint also for construction, new energy. So it's a big market. And paper also is a market. So you have plenty of end market. And it's growing. It's growing, I would say, at GDP with over time. You can take all history and also what you're looking forward. GDP is a good assumption. Now, you need to have in mind that in Europe and the U.S., our base of volume starting the year, if I look at 2023, is rather low. So we have also some catch-up in this acrylic value chain. So you have a sort of, let's say, catch-up plus the natural growth of coating solution. But basically, if you go to the Capital Markets Day, not only the main presentation but the different deep dive, you will find plenty of elements of answer also, GDP, if I may. Then on the PVDF, what more can I say compared to what I've said already? I think, so first of all, on PVDF, you have plenty of application, far beyond battery. Battery is on top of it. Secondly, with regard to battery, it's clear that you have one product which is better for NMCs. The other one is better for LFP. And I would say, if you look mid-term, the two technologies, LFP and NMC, which share the market. So I don't see where is the issue. And beyond that, emulsion is very strong for other application batteries. And it's very strong for plenty of applications outside of batteries. So we like what we have. We certainly be a player in suspension one day. But for the time being, we have far enough to grow our PVDF plants. And most of the time, we are sold out. So I would say we don't see any specific points there. We work a lot to have an evolution of our range for battery, including PVDF. So we have plenty of ideas. But also, we work outside of PVDF for batteries. As you could see, we have invested recently in liquid ionic, okay, ionic liquid, which is really a very interesting technology, especially for solid-state batteries. And we are the only player, as you know, who is able to provide both PVDF, so fluoropolymers, and acrylics in a battery, which is clearly a very strong advantage to Arkema. We have solution inside the cell. This is what I have just mentioned, but also outside the cell, for example, with Polyamide, with Polyamide 11, etc. So plenty of hopes in this world of PVDF and plenty of hopes in this world of batteries. Great. Thanks. You're welcome. The next question comes from Georgina Fraser of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning, Thierry. Good morning, Marie-José Donsion. I've got two questions. One of them is a little bit of a follow-up to Matt's question right at the beginning. This is maybe more specific to adhesives, but if you could relate it to the whole portfolio as well. Do you think that Q1 is where we will have the greatest price versus cost-benefit throughout 2024? And then the second question is, you've clearly based your guidance on a flat macro picture year-on-year, but with Arkema's own startups contributing to more second-half-weighted momentum. But could you give us an update on how the end markets have been evolving? Is there anything that's surprising you? Thank you. Thank you, Georgina. So on the first question, you need to—I would say the answer to your question would be yes, but it's now becoming incremental because we compare to last year where we had already a good net pricing benefit. So now, I would say it's more incremental. And the topic becomes more from evolution of the mix, from synergy, from acquisition, and from coming growth from the macro and from our major projects we have mentioned, the one we should contribute to 60-70. Okay? So I would not like this year the topic of net pricing. I would make more this year the topic of volume with different levels, including our own projects, including the dynamics of the different end market and also the synergies coming from acquisition. For example, with Ashland, we had no time to mention it today, but we see a lot of possibility. I was there recently. It's very, very encouraging how much business we can create beyond organic momentum. On the 2024, we don't say we assume a flat macro. We say that we have a range come back. In In fact, we come back to the question on the guidance range. We have two assumptions and everything in the middle. So you have the one which say no improvement, which is lower end of the guidance at EUR 1.5 billion EBITDA for the year. And you have the one which assumes a strong recovery, which goes to EUR 1.7 billion. And then you have the middle ground, which is basically the consensus of today. So beyond that, where we see some I would not talk about surprises. There is no particular surprises at this stage. We don't see signals of rebound that we would interpret like something more than incremental and obviously long-lasting. So let's wait and see. There are some incremental signals which are more positive but difficult to interpret them. So we stay in this mood for the time being. If it is better, it's better. Everybody will be happy. Now, with regard to the end market, batteries, maybe which refer to the question on PVDF, start of the year was okay in China, was quite okay sports. Sports, we suffered in the second part of last year. We have applications like our Pebax for sports. It's improving. Automotive, better than what we thought. But also, this is an area where we have a lot of new business. And you have automotive, and you have the new automotive, the clean mobility, which is doing well. Energy market, I will not surprise you, are doing well. Construction is still challenging, I would say. Let's say, if we are optimistic, we say stabilizing at a low level. But it raises the question there. So you have some different elements. But overall, we stay in a continuity of what we have seen with some incremental signal which still remain to be confirmed. Thank you very much, Thierry. You're welcome. The last question is from Alex Stewart of Barclays. Please go ahead. Hello. Good morning. Thank you for the interesting discussion. Just building on something that Georgina said, I think I'm right in calculating your volumes are approximately 10% lower than they were in 2019 if I add up all of the volume numbers you give us. Do you think it's realistic to assume that all of the volume you've lost over the last four years will come back? Or do you think that there's a portion in there related to some construction markets that were a little bit peak and so you may not get back to the 2019 level? I'm interested just qualitatively what your views are on that. Then the second one, we talk a lot about the EUR 60 million-EUR 70 million contribution from your new projects in fiscal 2024. But clearly, that will lap multiple years. Could you maybe give us an idea of what the annualized contribution from those projects would be if we take a sort of maybe Q3 or Q4 of this year but over the course of a full 12 months rather than the half year that you're expecting it to contribute? It would be very interesting. Thank you. Thank you, Alex, for your question. In fact, the two questions refer to a certain extent to the Capital Markets Day. On the volume, so first of all, we'll not get everything back this year. It's not possible. Our assumption that we took in the Capital Markets Day organic growth, that we would recoup maybe 7% out of the 10%. At least, it was in our model when we say for our plan, 2024 to 2028, we have this organic growth. And we say we would recoup not the whole 10% because the world has changed. And maybe some markets, some volume, we are ready to give up because we are continuously improving our product mix. But let's say 7 out of the 10. But it will take a couple of years to be back to get back this 7%. On the new project contribution, again, I think from memory, it was in the Capital Markets Day. We say that latest in 2028, this project which contributes EUR 60 million-70 million would contribute full speed EUR 250 million of EBITDA, 250. But this 250 is not if it was your question, the annualized of the Q3 or Q4, not at all because the ramp-up will take years. We were mentioning before to Jaideep's question, the ramp-up of the Polyamide 11, this will take several years to be at the speed we expect. It's around EUR 100 million of EBITDA for this project. It will take years to go there. So what you could do, Alex, I think this is the best, is to take a sort of zero point at the start of this year. You put 250 in 2028, and you take a straight line. It will more or less be there. Then you have the EBITDA contribution year- after- year. Thank you very much. You're welcome. This was the last question. Back to you for closing remarks you may have, Mr. Le Hénaff. Okay. I would like to thank you very much for your question. Hopefully, we were able to answer all of them. I wish you, on behalf of the team, a good end of the day. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes this conference call. Arkema thanks you for your participation. You may now disconnect.