Good afternoon. This is the Chorus Call conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the Buzzi SpA full year 2025 results conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Should anyone need assistance during the conference call, they may signal an operator by pressing star and zero on their telephone. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Pietro Buzzi, CEO of Buzzi SpA. Mr. Buzzi, you have the floor. Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our conference call, and again, thanks for participating. We do publish a presentation which I will follow at least in part, if not in full, that is available on our website. I will mainly refer to that and to the page. Starting from the first page, we have a brief summary of what has been 2025 for Buzzi. Overall, a good year, although not as good as the last two, so with some decline in profitability, but still showing, let's say, very strong results and very significant cash flow generation. As you can see from here, we had a slight improvement in our revenues in our net sales. This was already disclosed at the beginning of February with a favorable impact coming from the changes in scope. EBITDA is falling somewhat short of last year, -3% approximately, which would actually be -6%, like for like. The overall impact again of the Forex and the scope changes was favorable. EBITDA margin, we are losing some profitability, which is mainly due to the fact that the additions, let's say, to the perimeter, to the scope, at least initially for the first year, they are coming in with an average profitability, which is below the one of the, let's call it, traditional scope, perimeter, and to the fact that one of the, or the strongest country for us, U.S., declined somewhat. CapEx are, let's say, similar to last year in terms of investor CapEx, a little bit lower than last year, considering also the equity investment, and we can, let's say, enter into that later in the presentation. Net financial position, also with the help of some lower CapEx, improved significantly, and cash flow generation was very close to last year, regardless of the slight decline in profitability. We propose to the next AGM to keep the dividend unchanged versus last year. We will comment later on the shareholders' remuneration in 2026, which is anyway going up significantly, thanks to the buyback program, which is underway. As you can see on the following page, let's say page two, one of the key feature, let's say, of 2025 was the scope changes, which included an asset swap, if you wish, which occurred in Italy and its bordering country, in particular Austria, where we sold, let's say, the Fanna plant in the northwest. Fanna is in the Pordenone province, for those that are a little more acquainted with the Italian geography. Alpacem is the owner, is part of the Wietersdorfer Group. This group, which acquired the Fanna plant, is composed basically of three parts. It includes one and a half, let's say, plant in Austria, which is quite strong, let's say, locally. The Slovenian plant, where we used to have already a presence since some year, which is a very stronger plant just on the other side of the Italian border. Some Italian assets that now includes also the Fanna plant. Quite a strong and integrated group in the northeast of Italy. We expanded our presence internationally, starting from March, April until December. It's an ongoing process, if you wish, by acquiring initially over let's say 30% stake in a listed company in the Emirates named Gulf Cement Company, which is a single plant, let's say, entity, but with a quite significant capacity, very powerful in terms of machinery, let's say, and equipment. Then through the OPA, the ownership was increased. Later on in December and also something more will follow during this year, we achieve a gradual improvement in our ownership, which at the end of the year is around 66%. Indirectly is a little less because we participate to this investment together with a partner in a specific entity called TC MENA Holdings, where we would see as 90% and the partner as 10%. So the, let's say, economic ownership is a little less than the 66% at the end, at year-end. On the following page, you'll see the bridge, let's call it, or the turnover, 2025 turnover by regions, so by main regions where we operate. Italy had a fairly good year, I would say. If we do not consider, excluding the scope impact, actually our volume and pricing, volume remain basically the same, prices slightly better. There was quite a strong support in Italy coming from the infrastructure project of the so-called resilience plan of the European funds, let's say, as allocated to Italy. Central Europe was kind of mixed. There was a recovery in volume, but prices suffer mainly in Germany. This translated into, let's say, an offset of the progress that we achieved in the volume in our cement shipments. Eastern Europe, I would say good results overall. There was a negative impact and favorable impact coming from the deconsolidation from the sale of the Ukrainian assets. This was the first year without Ukraine included in the scope of consolidation. The remaining countries overall perform well, and in particular, Poland and Czech Republic, and we also had some benefits from the strengthening of the local currencies, both zloty and Czech koruna, and also the ruble in Russia. U.S. was in a sense the worst performer also due to the size. Every time that something, let's say, negative happens to U.S. in our case, the impact on our figures, on our numbers is inevitably more significant. What happened in U.S., we had a minor, let's say, decline in volumes, more in ready-mix actually than in cement. Pricing fairly stable, but no improvement if you look at the average, or there were some improvements in specific geographic areas, but some declines in other. Ready-mix prices were a bit under pressure, particularly in Texas, and the overall result was a little negative. The dollar lost us some of its value, affecting the translation. -EUR 70 million on our net sales figure. Brazil is coming in for the full year for the first time. The comparison of the first two bars refers to the last quarter of 2024. The impact is, I would say overall, positive, with the exception of some unfavorable variances coming from the Forex, and is bringing in additionally, let's say EUR 2,065 million of turnover. Same reasoning more or less for the U.A.E., which is smaller in terms of turnover and has been included starting from May, so about six, seven months. This brings us to the EUR 4.5 billion approximately level, up to EUR 4.3 billion of last year that you see in the bar at the right top. Not top, right side of the slide. Then if we move to the main, let's call it operating figure for the results, which is the EBITDA. What you can see from here is again fairly simple, if you wish. Volumes, good trend. A favorable variance of about EUR 44 million. A number of, let's call it, negative items or unfavorable items associated, first of all, with the price environment, which was overall slightly negative besides what happened in the U.S. Particularly, I would say in Germany. Germany and the U.S. were the two countries where we suffer. Actually, Germany more than U.S. They suffer the most in terms of pricing trend. Variable cost not so much coming from energy, some fuel or electrical power. It was more related to raw material and other variable costs, for example, logistic ones. Fixed cost, typically labor, maintenance, were also going up. Difficult to fully, let's say, control versus the volume and price trend. Other mixed cost also showing an unfavorable figure. CO2 basically not an issue last year because we still remain. This refers of course to the countries under the ETS scheme. In those countries, we basically remain in line with the free allowances received with a few exceptions. A minor, let's call it negative variance versus the previous year affects overall negative mainly in the U.S. Then, scope changes that refer to. Okay, on the positive side, Brazil and Emirates, on the negative to Ukraine, rebalancing somehow the negative impact that you see on the center of the slide by EUR 61 million. Overall, the decline is what we mentioned at the beginning, and this is, in brief, let's say, the explanation. More explanation can be given, of course, country by country or region by region, where things did not behave, let's say, or happen in a consistent way. We had, of course, some regions more affected by costs, some region more affected by prices, et cetera. In the following pages, cash generation and capital allocation. You can see that operating cash flow, as I was mentioning at the beginning, remained very close to last year besides the EBITDA decline. CapEx industrial slightly lower than last year. Not really because of our decision to decrease them, was actually somehow related to the execution phase, which on a more complex project usually takes longer than you might budget or when you're let's say translating the design in the engineering phase into implementation and execution, usually takes longer. Remuneration of the shareholder was quite good. I would say. You can see the split between, let's say, dividend and buyback. We have an ongoing program, which started at the end of February, which has been more or less so far 50% completed. We should get to the end. We will see, of course. It depends on the liquidity of the shares, on the daily trading. Normally, with this kind of trend, we should be able to complete it by the end of May or maybe even earlier. We will see. I mean, it's well advanced and likely to be completed in maybe two more months. There is also a proposed resolution taken today by the Board of Directors to cancel the shares that will be in portfolio, let's say, in treasury, at the time of the AGM. We don't know exactly the number. Anyway, both the share that were already in treasury at year-end, and the ones that are being bought currently will be canceled, which is also, I think, overall a positive news for the shareholders. Just to give you a little more colors on the different geographic areas, so we move to page seven. The U.S. are always, let's say, a very strong contributor to our results. Last year, they were not able to keep up with the same level of profitability that we enjoyed in 2024. Basically, in terms of EBITDA margin, as you can see, we went back to the level of 2023, which is anyway a very good one, both in absolute terms and also in relative terms when you compare to other peers operating in the U.S. The trend was slightly negative. We faced difficult volume part of the year. In the second part, but not full, so we were unable, let's say, to close with a favorable volume trend, -2.2%, I think, very similar to the overall market trend. Ready-mix volumes suffer, like we were a little bit more in terms of shipment deliveries and also pricing. ready-mix, as you know, as you recall, they are, in our case, they are mainly in the Texas area, which was one of the, yeah, I would say, more difficult in terms of market environment, also due to the significant presence of both incumbent and new importers along the coast from Houston to Corpus Christi, et cetera. So, we have a structure in the U.S., a cost structure, which is compared to our countries, skewed in a sense of more significant weight of the fixed cost. So when you lose also slightly volumes, this has an immediate impact on our profitability, which was the main cause. Costs not really going down, volumes going down a bit, pricing not moving or more, let's say, moving unfavorable than the opposite, and this was the result. On top, we had the negative foreign exchange impact following the devaluation of the dollar, which on the EBITDA means around EUR 26 million, not a small amount. Moving to Italy, which is the following page, more favorable situation, support, as I was mentioning before, mainly from the PNRR programs. Public building infrastructure projects, which also are typically enjoying a greater cement intensity versus either new residential or residential renovation. There is a decline in cement volume, but this is the direct consequence of the scope changes that we were commenting at the beginning. Meanwhile, for example, our ready-mix concrete subsidiary has been able to increase volume by around 6%. Pricing performance was okay, some improvements. Our cost, both fuel and power were definitely under control. We did not suffer any significant, let's call it, energy inflation during 2025. The changes in scope on the EBITDA means EUR 13.14 million, let's say about EUR 14 million of impact, which is not very different from what you see in the EBITDA variance. Actually, we are showing +3.5%, like for like, so it was fully offset by the good trend, or the stable trend in volume and favorable trend in pricing. In Central Europe, which means for us basically mostly Germany plus Luxembourg and ready-mix operation in the Netherlands. Quite a different trend. If we look at Germany versus Benelux. Unfortunately, Germany has a much greater weight on the area because the performance of Luxembourg was, and the Netherlands was growing, was okay, was improving. Meanwhile, Germany did improve some, so there was a rebound in the volumes, but there was no rebound, actually, there was a decline in prices, which started already on the previous year. Actually, we enter 2025, the exit price, let's say, of 2024 was already lower, and we were unable to recover or to change it significantly or just slightly to 2023 and 2025. This was the major impact, I mean, the major reason for the EBITDA decline, together with a cost situation, a cost environment, which was not favorable or quite different from what we experienced in Italy. Mainly we suffer mainly on the energy cost, on the power cost, not so much on the fuel, but yes, on power. This is also somehow related to a hedging which was made in advance, so to cover the purchases for 2025, which at the end was not, if you wish, successful in a sense that maybe it was a bad timing. Of course, I mean, the reasoning behind hedging is not to pick the right timing. Just in this year, I mean, in 2026, we will see a totally different trend because the market condition have changed in the meantime. The favorable change in Benelux was able to help somehow the region. Germany clearly is weighing significantly on this specific portion of the business. The performance in terms of the EBITDA certainly was poor overall. I mean, there are reasons behind it which explain it, but was overall quite poor. In Eastern Europe, on the following page, I think we continued to be on a steady, let's say, profitability outcome. Of course, these businesses are not as big and as significant, so their contribution, let's say, to the overall profitability of the company is not as significant as Germany or U.S. The good news is that there is a positive momentum both in Poland and in Czech Republic, which should also continue in the coming year. Strong cement volume dynamics in Poland was clearly. I mean, it was quite meaningful. Czechia, it's smaller, but also stable. Our ready-mix business in Czechia perform very well. We lost the cement, the volumes in Russia. That's the only area where I think also after some years of war, let's say, the impression is that the economy is starting to feel more, let's say, the pain than in the previous year. Also probably in Russia, the prospects for the next year are also quite difficult or more difficult definitely than in other Eastern European countries. Ukraine is not part of the region anymore, but its contribution was not very significant anyway. If we exclude Russia, there is a margin expansion driven by higher production and also in this case, lower energy cost, which did not, as opposed to Germany that we commented before. Exchange rates also favorable. If you wish, not a minor, let's say, contribution, but in a way, a favorable contribution. The impact of the consolidation of Ukraine was, I would say, totally absorbed. The negative contribution from Russia was totally absorbed by the strong performance of Poland and Czech Republic. Brazil, which is a newcomer, let's say, first year in the group. Let's say that we are on a pro forma comparison here, because last year, actually, only the last quarter was included in our figures. We had volume trend which was favorable 2%-3% up, again, compared to the full year 2024. Price trend in local currency also favorable. This translating into, I would say, significant margin expansion. Our costs also were particularly energy costs are lower than the previous year. As a first, let's say, year of full operation in the group, I think we can be fairly happy with the overall performance. There is room to do better in the coming year if the external condition and also the industry trend will go in a certain direction, which is possible. The only negative factor is the exchange rate trend, but I mean, not so dramatic on our overall figure with -5% on net sales and -EUR 1.5 million on the EBITDA. Currently, actually, of course, it's not necessarily a trend that it will continue for the entire year 2026. What we're seeing lately is actually a more stable real versus the euro since the beginning of 2026. If the local currency, if the trend in local currency, will perform better, which is what we expect, also in euro, we should have it should be reflected, I mean, also in euro terms, in likely absence of negative effects impact in the coming year, in the current year. Mexico is not part, as you know, of the group. It's not line by line consolidated, but it remains a very important part in terms of, let's call it, also management involvement, but in particular, in terms of results, net result contributed to the mother company. The Mexican performance was mixed, but overall, still very good. We saw a bit on the turnover on the EBITDA in euro terms, but when we clean up, let's say, from the foreign exchange impact, actually both figures were better than last year. This is one of the few countries, together with the Eastern European countries, Poland and Czechia, that was able to achieve an improvement in the EBITDA margin, which is already very high, as you can see. I would say that we cannot complain about the Mexican performance. The only complaint is that it cannot be included in the line-by-line consolidation. For the rest, very strong performance coming from this country. Some comments on how we see 2025, also in the light of what has happened so far and also recent change in the macroeconomic environment. I mean, we are, or we were, let's say, but now we still are pretty confident that we can continue to perform fairly well during the year. There are uncertainties. There are certainly geopolitical tension, potential inflation, pressure for how long this difficult, let's say, situation in the Middle East will last and will affect particularly the energy cost, but not only because there are anyway also impacts on the demand, in part directly, like in the Emirates, or indirectly, like in Europe or probably less in U.S. and Brazil. Anyway. By major, let's say, regions, like we showed before, U.S., the expectations are for. The association is, let's say, forecasting some additional decline in demand, probably in the range of 2%-3%, something similar to what happened in the previous year. Of course, if this happens, it would be already the fourth, fifth, sixth, or at least fourth year in a row of decline versus the previous peak, which was not historical peak, but anyway, the previous peak of the cycle in 2022. This is something that clearly is not, let's say, helping the overall pricing environment because there's in most of the regions of the states, some capacity available. As I said before, due to our cost structure, to lose some volumes almost immediately translates into a margin contraction, because the fixed costs are quite high in the area. On the other hand, we have seen also the beginning of the year, particularly during the months of February, demand quite resilient. It's true then on one side you have residential weakening, but there are definitely in the non-residential portion of the demand, yes, some kind of projects that are going well, that require cement and concrete. Typically, just to mention one, which is, of course, very much on the fashionable, is the data centers construction. This is actually happening. It's happening and it's relatively intense in terms of cement consumption. Again, a mixed environment with a non-residential segment and also the infrastructure probably supportive and maybe even better than what the association has been forecasting for the full year. We will see. There are, of course, other factors to be considered in the U.S., which we mentioned in the comments of the press release, that are a bit disturbing or potentially disturbing, let's say, the price environment. Okay, a situation or a scenario which is, I would say, moderately optimistic. I would be moderately optimistic about the outcome for the U.S. in the current year. Italy should be a year very similar to the previous one. As long as we continue to have demand coming from the infrastructure plan, let's say, or the European funds, there are good chances that we can more or less repeat last year results. Italy is more likely probably than the U.S. to be able to improve somewhat the prices. There are underlying reason related to the introduction of the CBAM, the scarcity or the lesser availability of CO2 allowances, which also translate into a higher cost. There's probably more room than in the U.S. on the pricing side to be a favorable variance. Central Europe, we should see some rebound. We are forecasting some rebound in Germany. The federal infrastructure plan will start to have some impact also on cement demand. We are coming from a year where the prices, as we were commenting before, remain fairly weak. There should be a possibility also coupled with being within, let's say, the ETS system similarly to Italy, to recover something on the pricing side. Clearly, this means also additional cost for CO2, but more chances, let's say to gain some something on the price level. Eastern Europe, with the exception of Russia, which is probably entering a much more difficult phase than what we faced in the last two, three years, we don't see a reason why Poland and Czechia should be worse than the previous year. These are also countries where, as opposed to Germany, Italy, we are operating at a very high capacity utilization level. We are definitely optimizing, I would say, our profitability thanks to the capacity utilization, which we think there to stay. In Brazil, we mentioned it already. We see a positive trend overall, particularly in the Northeast, which has been growing in terms of volume and prices more than the Southeast. If there is an easing of the monetary policy, which today represents significant constraints for the construction investment with, you know, interest rates at 15% or 16%, a number of projects that have been on hold so far should start. Clearly, this has even more impact in the Southeast where most of the consumption and population actually are, because this is where the bulk, let's say, of the cement consumption of the country is located. In the Emirates, we will certainly suffer from a lower cement consumption until at least we will see until something different happens. That's the country with more direct impact coming from the local, let's say, turmoil or conflicts going on. On the other hand, we have a number of initiatives or projects that have been put in place last year, and we will continue this year to improve the profitability. Even with the lower cement volume, we may be able to do something better in terms of the EBITDA. Mexico clearly is not affecting directly our numbers. We're seeing, let's say, more positive versus last year in terms of volume trend, and profitability should remain at very, very high level. This for the, let's say, the top line and the volume, prices scenario. The risk or, let's call it, the uncertainties are definitely more related to the cost side, where it is true that many components or many items have been contracted for a certain number of months. We have certainly some stability for a good part of the year. It is clear that on the energy cost, in particular, the current situation is creating an environment of rising cost driven by renewed inflation like we mentioned here. There is volatility, but volatility mainly on the high side in a sense of more expensive side. This is difficult to let's say assess completely right now. We ran some numbers taking, of course, a kind of sensitivity analysis. There is certainly an impact that we don't know if we will be able to offset with the price improvement or not. It will mainly depend on the specific situation, demand, pricing, competitive environment, what is the attitude of the competitors, et cetera. The idea is, of course, to try our best to preserve the margins, but how much we will be able to do that and how much actually the cost environment will be unfavorable is difficult to assess. In general, we do see a significant risk of rising cost, in particular the energy component, in the coming months. The effects for exchange are the same, very difficult to somehow forecast. Initially in our budget, we introduced an exchange rate for the dollar, which was definitely weaker than the 2025 average. Is this going to be true? It's not going to be true? We don't know. So far, again, not as much as we forecasted, but this could change in the coming months. It can certainly move, let's say, the variance from positive to negative if the dollar will weaken more than what we expected or more than what is showing up to now. Overall. Again, reviewing our numbers, reviewing our budget in a quick way, we think that it will be quite difficult, or actually as of now, impossible to achieve an EBITDA greater than in 2025. Our view right now is to... As we roll, let's say marginally decline by how much is difficult to tell right now. But I think the message which is important to give today is that, looking at all the variables, looking at all the available information as of now, it is the best, let's say, forecast that we can make. We think that is a correct one, which means that our stability will not improve in 2025, but if it is a marginal decline like we expect, we'll remain anyway at very good level. We would be happy, of course, to change this view as soon as possible. This realistically speaking is likely to occur, if it does occur only after more months of actual results available. With, say, one quarter or maybe let's call it six months behind us, we will have definitely a clearer view on the full outlook. I think it's important to give this message today, which has been, I mean, analyzed in a very deep and serious way with again running several sensitivity analyses that are giving us this kind of outcome, at least at the current stage. I think I spoke for almost one hour, so probably in order not to be tedious and to make the conference a little more interactive, I would let you read the following pages by yourself, and open now, let's say the Q&A session. Thank you for listening. Thank you. This is the Chorus Call conference operator. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touch tone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star and two. Please pick up the receiver when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. First question is from Ben Rada Martin, Goldman Sachs. Hi. Good afternoon, Pietro. Hi. Hello. Thank you very much for the questions today. I just have three, please. My first one was on CapEx. I know in the release you spoke to an increase planned in 2026 versus 2025, and you know, some of the buckets in terms of decarbonization and production. Would you be able to talk to what kind of quantum you expect for 2026 CapEx and then in terms of the medium term CapEx expectations as well? And then the second would just be on the guidance assumptions and you know, very much understand how uncertain the backdrop is currently and very helpful to kind of talk through some of those impacts. If we look at that moderate decline or slight decline in EBITDA expected, is it right to assume that there's limited energy impacts so far in that number or I guess what kind of pressure do you see embedded within that forecast? Finally just another quick one on energy. Yes. When would you expect to see, I guess, pressure come through the cost base? Is it more of a second half story, at the moment? Thank you. Yes. I mean, the last two questions are, I think, related and the answer, yes, is that definitely we have, as usual, I mean, we have in front of us about. I mean, starting from January more than today because already three months have passed, but usually five, six months of fairly stable energy costs or at least as we budgeted because of, let's call it, hedging policies, which is different from one country to another. So it's not. If you look at the mix or the weighted average, in general, we have 40%-50% more or less of our cost already hedged for electrical power or fuel. Yes, the trend. If it changes, which I think it will change unfortunately, will be more evident in the second half. By how much? It depends because, for example, we have also countries in Europe, typically Germany. In Europe, you know, the debate about the power cost is really significant. I mean, there's a lot of political pressure on power cost being too high to reduce even talking about how to amend the ETS. Tomorrow, von der Leyen will speak about that. Let's see what he say. In specifically in Europe, the big countries like Italy and Germany, we don't see a big risk on power cost. The famous also Energy Release has been approved. There we should be okay. On fuel cost is different. Fuel, of course, also, even if our share of so-called waste-derived fuel is increasing gradually, we are still strongly dependent on petcoke. Let's say a price which is somehow linked or indexed to some extent, certainly to the oil price. There easily you could see an increase of, I don't know, 20% or so. And unfortunately, this is well possible. It will impact only partially, as I said before, the full year results, let's say, six months, but it is well possible. On the CapEx, more on our trend, I think, but I mean, we are always very kind of ambitious. We are approving the budget. As I was explaining before, some of the biggest projects are actually taking longer to be executed to come to the execution phase. Engineering is more complex versus the initial. I mean, the time of the initial approval. If you wanna take an average of the next two, three years, I would move it to between- I mean, except for just the investor CapEx, then if there would be other kind of equity investments or M&A transaction is different, but I would move it to between EUR 500 million and EUR 550 million. It is probably a number that, considering the major project that we have underway, including some expansion projects, is likely to be the right one. Excellent. Thank you very much. The next question is from Elodie Rall, JPMorgan. Oh, hi. Hello. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe you could talk to us a bit on the price action that you're taking in Europe to start with, to offset indeed the increasing inflationary environment. You talked about your hedging strategy, but are you pushing prices a bit more? Are you seeing the industry pushing prices and where are we at the moment in terms of price increases in Europe? Same question for the U.S. You talked about better demand year- to- date. How do you see scope for price increases? I guess April will be the big start in the U.S. I had clarification on your buyback plan. You did EUR 200 million very recently, I think, and now you announce another EUR 300 million plan. Is that the correct way to understand it? You can do another EUR 300 million from here. Okay, and I'll stop here. Thank you. Yeah. On the buyback, in theory. Well, first of all, we have to complete the, you know, [undergoing] EUR 200 million. Then the idea is to renew, let's say, the authority. To ask for a renewal. To ask the AGM a renewal for the authorization. So to authorize an additional, let's say, EUR 300 million. This EUR 300 million still will. I mean. It doesn't mean that we will necessarily, let's say, exercise the authorization. So this is a preliminary authorization, which is given by the AGM, and then the board will have to decide whether to actually start the program or not. What I think is likely to. I mean, this is unless, again, the market changes completely. I think we will complete the ongoing EUR 200 million and then we will have an opportunity or a possibility for another, let's say, EUR 300 million in the 18 months, this lasting, let's say 18 months, after the AGM resolution or authorization. On the price section, well, there are some countries, I would say in Europe mainly, which are also the biggest one, Italy and Germany. The winter has been difficult in Europe. In general, what we saw and what you also will see when we release our quarterly summary, there's been cold rain. Particularly January and February was not a good time, let's say, to go for a price increase. In March is better. Also the weather has been improving. Of course January and February are not big shipment month anyway. The attempt in Europe to increase prices is driven, yeah, mainly by the cost trend, which includes an additional cost for CO2, like we mentioned in the beginning, probably an additional cost associated with the CBAM, let's call it, also decline of free allowances because you have the two components. More, let's say today than yesterday, a cost pressure on the energy side, mainly fuel, as I said before, than power. The magnitude, I think it's moderate. We have to make sure, let's say, that we will not be, let's say, losing volume or market share either against the imports or local competitors. I think there is, at least in these two important countries, in Europe, there is a chance to have a price improvement and being able, let's say, to offset the additional costs like we were commenting before, let's say, on our policies to at least keep the margins. In the U.S., very differentiated from area to area. We don't have the ETS, but we have other issues that are associated with, first of all, the imports where they are strong that continue to be, let's say, have a very competitive approach in terms of pricing. Second, the industry structure has changed quite significantly. As you know, in particular, I think the growth and the presence of QUIKRETE as a cement player has changed the picture quite a bit. Also QUIKRETE being a major customer of cement from us, but also from other competitors. The fact that the declining capacity utilization is clearly for them it's an opportunity to self-supply cement to their let's say mixing operation as much as possible. It has to be obviously economically feasible. If they are too far away from one of their plant they will continue to buy from another competitor. If they can they will obviously buy from themselves. This is something that is putting pressure because if you lose volume you have to look for volume somewhere else. To look for volume somewhere else maybe I mean pricing is a tool. This is one of the changes we have to to... Which again is very regional, but can have a significant impact. Another point which we also briefly mentioned in the press release is the product mix. There was an effort two or three years ago, particularly by the European player in the U.S., to move as quickly as possible to the so-called 1L product. With a lower clinker content or limestone, which is actually a very good product. More capacity available, and again players in the market that don't have a maybe a European parent like again QUIKRETE, their interest in developing or in pushing the 1L is much less. This is also translating into a competitive pressure, which is different from the past where you compete not only maybe on pricing, et cetera, but you compete also on the kind of product that you're selling. Mixed environment. Anyway, if the demand stays, I think that maybe not everywhere, but some price improvement we can get also in the U.S. Then we will see how much cost pressure there will be on the margins. It's a more complex landscape than two, three years ago, certainly. Okay, thanks very much. Next question is from Emanuele Gallazzi, EQUITA. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for taking my questions. I have three questions. Well, the first one is on Germany. Can you just discuss a little bit more on your expectation for the German market in 2026? You mentioned a gradual recovery supported also by the infra spending plan. When do you expect the first contribution from it to kick in? The second one is on the capital allocation, very clear on the buyback. I was looking at, let's say, the M&A. Can you just update us on your M&A strategy at this stage and the opportunities that you see in the current environment? The last one is a clarification on the guidance. I probably missed it, but on which euro-dollar exchange rate is based your current guidance? Thank you. Okay. We are at 1.20 right now as an average for 2026 versus 1.14. How was 1.13. 1.13 approximately. In 2025. In 2025. This of course can be, as I said before, better if you look at the trend so far, it's better than last time. I don't know. Anyway, M&A, yes, is a focus. I mean, it's a focus in a sense that our idea is to, of course, continue with a stronger financial discipline and consider only let's say targets that can represent a real opportunity, not only on a strategic view, but also on the financial, let's call it, soundness of the overall proposal. I think that today, but also before, it really hasn't changed much. The focus remains on countries where we already are. If there are opportunities where we already have a presence, certainly they are. We give them much more investigation, but much more, let's call it focus than versus opening a totally new country or whether to venture with someone else. I say something that is publicly known, publicly available, certainly in Brazil recently, there have been movements, announcements. CSN is announcing. More than announcing, I think it actually started a sales process of its cement division. Is this a real opportunity or not for us? Difficult to tell. I mean, we have to. Certainly, again, looking at the main strategy, which is reinforce in a disciplined way the presence we already are, it could represent, let's say an opportunity. It has to be investigated. I mean, the process is at the beginning, so we need to understand a little better. Generally speaking, this kind of, let's call it, opportunities are more interesting than others. Basically, that's it. In Germany, it is not totally clear how much of the, let's call it public infrastructure plan will translate into a greater consumption already this year. We think that something will start to be available in terms of quantities, let's say, of cement coming from this kind of projects. It's difficult to tell, but maybe I don't know. I don't want to give the clear number without support. What we are seeing is that there is a rebound due to the normal, let's call it, cyclicality. The fact that after two, three years of declining consumption, it is rebounding. There is more. I think also optimism. Let's call it confidence within the country after the change of government. There is a potential, but more than potential, consumption coming from the infrastructure plan. What we can do maybe is to come back with some figure with you looking at. Because last year, the association was giving some information or some. It was somehow trying to assess the overall impact, but was more on a longer time horizon. In the next, let's say, five, six year, maybe there are more recent, let's say, calculation assessments of what could be or what will be or can be, let's say, the impact already in 2026. I think certainly there is some. Very clear. [Non-English content]. Okay. Next question is from Arnaud Lehmann, Bank of America. Thank you very much. Hello, Pietro and Giovanni. I have three questions, please. Firstly, on CO2, do you have an idea how much reduction in free CO2 allowances you will get for 2026 relative to 2025? Yes. That's my first question. Yes. Yep, go for it. No, no. Let's take. Okay. The other one is, I think you're announcing a stable dividend for 2025, even though your net cash position is above EUR 1 billion and seems very comfortable. Maybe we could have hoped for a little bit of growth in the dividend. Lastly, on your assets in Russia, we've seen some competitors in different sectors seeing their assets being seized. Do you think that's a risk for Buzzi as well? Thank you. Well, it is a risk. It's probably the largest or the greatest, the biggest risk that we have also in our enterprise risk management tool, if you call it that. The probability is extremely difficult to tell. I think because this thing really depends on one person how he wakes up in a certain morning. I mean, if you ask me, I don't see it very likely. I believe that we can continue this way, which is not great because unfortunately we are not able to manage the way we would like, but to see really a political attack of this kind, in my opinion, is unlikely. Anyway, the risk is certainly there, and it's, I think, yes, the biggest risk we have currently in our system, let's say. The second question, tell me again was... The other two were how much reduction in free CO2 allowances? Oh, yes. Why a stable dividend? Okay. Reduction is about 1 million less for the group, 1 million ton less. I think we estimate to be in deficit, certainly in Poland, I think in Czechia too. In Germany, I don't recall if we will be in a deficit, also. In Italy, probably slightly deficit, but not as important. I think we will continue with our internal, let's call it guideline, which is to use the bank or the inventory of free CO2 allowances in the countries where they were coming from. Meaning, in Italy, we will continue to use them and in the other country. It's a way of somehow, you know, hedging the cost by CO2 rights to the extent needed. We are also able to secure some already at the beginning of this year when the prices went down. I think we should have a yes, of course, additional cost also last year, but probably a per ton cost, which is still, let's say favorable. On the stable dividend, the idea behind the stable dividend was quite simple. Our net income is the same of last year. It is true that our payout is not that great, and there would be room for improvement. I think there is room also in the coming year. It is basically an overall to let's say examine and to consider the overall shareholder remuneration. It is true that on one side we did not increase the dividend, but we do have the ongoing buyback, which makes the overall. Maybe, okay, maybe not for everyone because it depends if you're selling your shares or you're keeping your shares. In general, I think the buyback is beneficial to everyone. The decision to cancel the share will adjust at least finally in a definite way the EPS with an improvement there, which should translate sooner or later, providing let's say that the markets are also becoming a little less volatile, an improvement in the share price. We thought that this would be a balanced decision. Looking at the coming year where our outlook is not for an improvement, it seems to us that to keep the dividend, which is the same as last year, was a balanced decision. Thank you very much. Next question is from Yassine Touahri, On Field Investment Research. Okay. Yes, good afternoon. Thank you very much for taking my question. I would have three questions. First question on pricing. I think in Germany and Italy, some of your competitors have announced price increases of 5%-10% as soon as April. Have you seen similar price increases later? In the U.S., I think it was outside of Texas, you had also price increases of like, I think between $8-$12 per ton, passed on by many of the largest players to ready-mix concrete producers. But again, have you announced similar price increases? I would have a second question beyond the price development on your vertical integration strategy in the U.S. I think that a lot of your competitor are vertically integrated, and you can see, I understand from your comment that, the lack of vertical integration, for example, versus QUIKRETE has been an issue. Is it something that you would consider addressing in the next, five to 10 years, with potentially more acquisition in aggregates or ready-mix? The last question would be on Russia. Could you give us, the amount of cash, which is currently, in Russia when we are looking at, so your net debt position? Okay. Yeah, Russia, which we'll check it and then let you know quickly. The vertical integration in the U.S., well, we are not totally, let's say without it. I mean, in some area actually our vertical integration in Texas, in San Antonio, Houston, Austin especially, is quite significant. We don't have a presence in the aggregates. I mean, this is true. We have some aggregates production but never considered a business in itself, and always somehow related to our ready-mix activity. As a way to supply our own ready-mix activity. It's become more significant in the coming years. I would say yes. I think initially at least they're more oriented towards ready-mix than aggregates because it is the most important in terms of keeping your production levels steady again and not losing customers or avoid losing customers. It can be seen more, I would say, as a defensive move than a strategy devoted to additional vertical integration in a market which has been shrinking, let's say one way or another, in a market that change like we mentioned before, and also change in terms of big ready-mix producers that are importing cement for their own supply. The number. I mean, the risk of losing customer and not being able to replace it with another customer, particularly in a ready-mix environment is greater. It can certainly make sense to have the vertical integration, as I said, more as a defensive move than something else. It is a defensive move that will allow you to keep your volumes and also to keep your margins at the end. On the pricing environment, no, I think we moved that but not by the same percentage. I think the percentage I mentioned were the price increase announced. Yes. Not the price increase. Oh, okay. That are expected to be realized. I suspect that the message I think of some of the large cement players in the U.S. would be that a low single-digit price increase being expected, which I suspect means like maybe half of the price increase. Yeah. Probably this is, again, not everywhere, but probably this is the most likely outcome usually. You have protection, you have anyway, as I said, many players that are behaving maybe not exactly as the big ones that are particularly in this moment to where the output is not going up so clearly, looking very much to their capacity utilization, then versus just even if economically speaking it could make more sense sometimes to lower your production and increase prices in the longer run, this is not necessarily a good move because if you lose a customer and you're not able to recover it in the long run, this will translate into lower profitability too. Yeah. The question was have you sent a price increase letter for April in the U.S., Germany and Italy? In the so-called price increase letter is more a technique of, or more common in the U.S. than in Italy or Germany. In Italy and also in Germany is more a case by case to customer by customer, let's call it, discussion or any way, proposition. If you look at your own vertical integration into concrete in Germany and Italy, are you increasing prices in April substantially to offset the higher fuel cost that you're expecting and the CO2 allowance? It's not yet the higher fuel cost. It was more, l et's call it a decision taken already at the beginning of the year. Yeah, we have a price improvement in place, which I don't think would be the magnitude that you are mentioning, like, I mean, for the reason that you are mentioning. Yes, we think it's likely to stick also because, again, more recently, people are feeling pressure also on other cost factors. It's more. It's easier, let's say, to accept also an increase of the cement price if there is a general inflation rebound. Maybe following on this situation, I think like the importer in Europe, especially in Italy, they will probably have to pay a CBAM cost. Yes. It's a bit unclear. They don't know, I think, what kind of cost they will have to pay because the benchmark is not public. What do you feel? Do you feel the independent importer are being a little bit careful because they might have a EUR 10-EUR 15 extra cost- Yes. They are not yet increasing prices? No, I think they've been already increasing in general. It's like you're saying. It's not totally clear what will be the. It depends actually on their CO2 content. Each importer can have a different impact according to the kind of product that they're bringing in. I think everyone is considering just maybe as a conservative move to make sure that they are not losing, let's say versus the previous price so that they will be able somehow to offset the additional CO2 cost associated with the CBAM scheme. On the pricing in Texas as well, I think on one side you've got the imports that are making it difficult to increase prices. At the same time, I guess the cost of importing is probably increasing a lot with the oil price making shipping more expensive. Yeah. Is it something that could be helpful, for you to either increase prices or get back the market share that you lost versus, especially the big bag imports? Yeah. It is a chance. Anything that makes the imports more expensive will allow, let's say, or will help, let's say, domestic supply to be more competitive. Certainly, it is a chance. On the other side, in Texas, we've got a new cement plant. I think it's the first time there is a cement plant in Texas for many, many years in West Texas. Yes. It looks like it's 10% of the Texas capacity, so it's a lot. Their target- Yeah. I guess, do you see a risk for your market share in West Texas, I think where there is a lot of oilfield cement? Yeah. Yeah. Do you see a risk as well in your market share in the Dallas, Fort Worth area, where I guess if they want to ramp up, they will have to sell to Dallas and Fort Worth? Yes. Is there a risk for you? Of course, there will be more competition, particularly on the oil well. On the other hand, it is true that GCC was already preparing, let's say, the commissioning of the plant by importing cement from Mexico in the area. It's not totally new. I mean, of course, they have more capacity locally, so they are more competitive, and they can be more aggressive. They were anyway preparing the commissioning already before. On the oil well, yeah, at the end, the oil well is really a matter of what is the oil price. If the oil price stays or goes up, I think, yeah, okay, there can be more demand. I think this kind of customer is a little different. I mean, being really special products with a very strong significant quality requirement. It's difficult. It's much more difficult for a customer of oil wells to change supplier versus the normal ready-mix customer. There must be okay, if there is a huge pricing difference, they will consider it, but then they have to test it. I mean, they have to go through their quality department. It's quite complex. Again, the demand is driven purely from the cost, from the price, oil price. Is it fair to assume that, in the U.S., in your forecast, you've assumed maybe a bit of a price increase, inland, but no price increase in Texas at this stage? Correct. Yes. Thank you so much. Take care. You're welcome. Oh, maybe on Russia. On Russia, you don't have the number on the- Yes. approximately, the amount of cash that's in Russia. EUR 150 million. Two? EUR 150 million. EUR 150 million. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. Next question is from Alessandro Tortora, Mediobanca. Okay. [Non-English content]. Good Good afternoon, good evening, Mr. Pietro. Yes. Three questions, okay? If I may, faster, hopefully. The first one is on Brazil. Now, you made a comment on a very significant margin expansion. Clearly, you know, volume were up, let's say, you know, low single digit. Price is, let's say, now slightly up. The game changer now to stay in this, let's call it new level, now very good level for you, it was the work you did on the cost side, and the real ambition about the Brazil market is, I don't know, to be actually above 30%. Just understand that clearly I understood your comment on we need, let's say, a more, how can I say, you know, disciplined competitive landscape, you know, and therefore, the CSN deal could help on this. Just your thought on this, because clearly the margin expansion, especially in the second half was very good in Brazil. Thanks. Yeah, yeah. It was driven, yes, by two. Well, volumes were good, let's say. Capacity utilization, some plant is really approaching full capacity, which is giving the best, of course, operating leverage. This is always very important. The energy, the power cost, in particular, we save some. Also, we are also becoming, in a sense, indirectly, but let's say, a producer of renewable energy. We are now an investment into a renewable energy company, which is allowing us to enjoy, let's say, better lower power cost. In pricing, not a great change. Or, I mean, you don't see such a significant improvement, but there are some improvement in prices also. Again, because the market is quite brilliant, let's say. Yes, CSN could be an opportunity besides. I mean, whoever buys it will buy anyway, will have to invest a significant amount of money because, okay, relatively speaking, can be cheap or expensive. It depends on how much you want to pay. In absolute term is anyway a sizable company. Yes, CSN has been certainly more aggressive, let's say, than other competitor on prices, particularly in the southeast region. We hope that this could translate into a more disciplined competitive environment. There is certainly a chance, let's say. Comment on pricing strategy discussion claimed by clients in some countries. Yes. Is there at least with some clients or in some countries some kind of indexing with, let's say, you know, CO2 price and so on? Because, clearly, you know, we saw the declines in CO2 price recently. No. Just to understand if there is or not. No, there's not. It would be too dangerous. I mean, someone, I think, did it in the past, but it's very. Mm. It’s very dangerous. I think no, it’s not. In our opinion, it would not be the right commercial marketing strategy. Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay, thanks. Because different opinions on that. Yeah. Yeah. On the CapEx side, the question is, first of all, now you mentioned this run rate for the next two, three years with the EUR 500 million-EUR 550 million per year CapEx. Yes. Does this include the, let's say, U.S. expansion project you had in mind? Yes. Yes. Yes? Correct. All right. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Which will- Please [inaudible] Mr. Pietro. I mean, which will start, but will start at a slow pace, let's say. But it will start, yes. Okay. Secondly, in theory, we should have, let's say, a second round of grants, let's say, in Europe also for, let's say, some innovative carbon capture projects. Is it something that you're still monitoring? Do you believe that maybe you can take, I don't know, a decision on developing at least one single project for this technology? Or, let's say, the approach is to be extremely, let's say, conservative and maybe waiting a little bit for a technology getting more mature. Thanks. Monitoring, yes. Lorenzo, you want to add something? No, I mean, again, monitoring for sure and, but, let's say at the same time, we need probably more clarity on the, you know, on the regulation and also on the criteria that will be, let's say, considered by the commission when it comes to, you know, the evaluation of these projects. Now let's see what happens on ETS's side. I say tomorrow, but not tomorrow. I mean, the so-called revised ETS by July. No, it's due, if I recall correctly. Let's see what happens there because still we believe that the cost benefit of a carbon capture project is unjustifiable, let's say, today. What we are focused on is. Okay, if you build a totally new plant, but again, cost benefit very difficult to justify. It can make sense. I mean, you build a totally new plant, you introduce also the carbon capture installation. To add the carbon capture installation to an existing plant, which dates to maybe the 1970s or the 1980s, they are not bad, but let's say, they have plenty of room for improvements in energy consumption and also fuel consumption before carbon capture installation. We are a little bit shifting our focus on projects in countries also like, I don't know, Poland or Deuna. Same Deuna where we put on all the carbon capture projects to something that will reduce, let's say, maybe CO2 emission by 25% and modernize the plant. Being ready to possibly at a later time, which I think it would be inevitable because the deadline that are set today are unrealistic. At a later time to introduce the carbon capture on a plant which is already being optimized instead of doing it on a plant, which is again, 30, 40 years old. Maybe if I may add, with a return, I mean, return on investment, that will be much more interesting than Oh, yeah. a single installation, carbon capture installation with let's say a business plan which is at the moment and with I mean current situation is not really flying. Well, it's a better way to lower CO2 emissions, for sure. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Pietro Buzzi. Just if I may. Sorry. You mentioned that the financial, let's say income was not pretty high this year. Can you help us to quantify, sorry, the FX gain component in that number? Yes. Well, Sorry. Yeah. One item which is included into that figure is also the badwill of the U.A.E. acquisition, which is EUR 44 million positive. So if you look at the pure net interest expense and the net interest income in this case, we have EUR 50 million. Last year was EUR 55 million-EUR 60 million. Yes, last year was EUR 55 million, so it is EUR 5 million up. This is the cash portion. The non-cash portion, the two big items are, yes, EUR 75 million of Forex, so non-monetary and non. Well, I don't know if it's non-monetary, the badwill, because we paid anyway. We paid less than the book equity and we have EUR 44 million positive badwill also inside the same line item. Okay. [Non-English content] [Non-English content]. [Non-English content]. For any further questions, please press star and one on your telephone. Mr. Buzzi, there are no more questions registered at this time. Okay, good. Thanks everyone for listening. I don't know how many are still listening. Anyway, I hope it was somehow helpful. We stay in touch, of course, with our investor relations team, and looking forward to meet you personally in the coming months. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect your telephones.