Good afternoon, this is the Chorus Call conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the Buzzi half year 2026 results conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen only mode, and 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 S.p.A. Mr. Buzzi, you have the floor. Okay, thank you. Welcome, everyone. Good afternoon. The idea as usual, is to go over our presentation that was made available for you. Like the operator said, starting later on some Q&A session on the matter that can be more of interest to you. The results that we released this early afternoon are, I would say, not as good as the previous two years, but still pretty sound, at least, in our opinion. We were able to stabilize the turnover. Basically, remained at the same level as last year, even considering some very challenging conditions in some of our geographies. The cement volumes, if we consider the reported figure, are actually 5% above last year. It is true that they have been influenced quite significantly by some scope changes, but still they are showing a favorable trend. We are instead somewhat lower than last year if you look at our ready-mix volumes, about 4% low. This is also due to the fact that our ready-mix presence, most of our vertical integration is located in the markets or the region that suffer the most in terms of, let's say, demand softness. In terms of EBITDA, we are going down about 8% versus the same period of last year. There is some impact coming from, let's say, scope effect and also currency, which we will describe better later. This obviously a bit disappointing, but it's somehow associated to the trend of two geographies in particular, which perform, let's say, worse than last year, that are usually also showing margins above average or stronger profitability in absolute terms. I mean, the U.S. and Russia. Some other geographies actually perform better than last year or at the same level, or for sometimes much better than last year. We are also somewhat hopeful that in the second part of the year, we can recover, at least in part, the decline that with in the first six months. Moving to the analysis of our turnover, which you find on page two. You can see that in Italy, the performance in terms of sales volume remain somewhat weak. You certainly remember that the first quarter across Europe was characterized by, let's say, wet and cold weather, so was not helpful. Let's say the first three months of the year were not helpful in terms of cement and ready-mix deliveries. Also in the second quarter, for the full six months, we did not see really neither in Italy nor in Germany or Central Europe, a clear recovery. The gap, let's say that somehow was accumulated in the first quarter. Yes, it closed somewhat, but not to the extent that we were all budgeting. This is something that we believe is likely to continue also over the next six months, although maybe to a somewhat minor extent. Unlikely to see really the sign, the difference, let's say, the variance turning favorable or turning positive for the full-year. Going back to the Italian situation, we do have a favorable price effect and also a minor favorable, let's say, scope effect that is associated with asset purchases in the ready-mix business. Similar situation in the Central Europe with the volumes suffering some, price effect positive, favorable, not as much as in Italy, to a lesser extent. Also some benefit coming from the scope changes, again, associated with asset purchasing in the ready-mix, in the vertical integration of our cement business. Eastern Europe is a bit, the impact, it includes, as you know, area that perform in a very different way from one another, because the Eastern Europe countries within the European Union, overall, they did well, okay, let's say, according to expectation. I mean, Poland and Czech Republic. Poland, yes, declining in terms of volumes, but also, or mainly due to the fact that our comparison base was extremely high last year. It's a country where we believe, or it's a market where we believe we can actually close the gap, going forward in the next six months. Czech Republic, stable to slightly positive, and instead, a significant, let's say, drop in Russia, which I was mentioning at the beginning, that is affecting the overall, let's say, contribution turnover of that macro area. The effects impact was particularly favorable in Russia. Russia performed definitely worse than last year, if you look at volume, prices, and profitability. In part, this unfavorable performance was, let's say, partly offset by the strength of the ruble in the first six months. U.S.A., they did well, also, I would say, better than expected in terms of volumes. We are slightly above last year. The first quarter was definitely stronger than the second one. Still, we continue to remain at higher production and delivery level than last year. We suffer some on the pricing side. It's kind of a regional effect. Mainly, I would say, the difficulties in the price level remains mainly in Texas. In other parts, in other states, we had some improvements or, anyway, no declines. On average, we are showing a slight unfavorable variance. In addition to that, the weakness of the dollar was affecting the turnover by about EUR 50 million. A relatively large amount. Going to Brazil, everything okay. So far, so good. I think volumes could have been even better because in the Southeast, in particularly, the rainy season was more, let's say, rainy than usual. Again, the prospects for the second half are probably better in terms of volume for the Southeast region than what we have experienced so far. The pricing level was definitely improving quite significantly, driven by higher capacity utilization, higher demand, but also some rising cost. Certainly, the spread was favorable. We had also the currency impact favorable, which is normally, or normally, not always like so particularly for, let's call it, a currency like the real that can have a lot of volatility. But in this case, the volatility was giving a favorable sign, so improving further our turnover. The UAE represents, let's say, the only significant scope change for the first half. You may remember that last year we had two months, basically May and June. So the first three number volume, -1%, price, +7, and FX, -5%, refer to the comparison between this last May and June, let's say, months. Meanwhile, the 53% is the first four months of turnover. UAE is the most affected directly by the geopolitical, let's say, tensions. So definitely suffer in terms of volume. But, I think, overall, the management of the new acquired company took some, was able to take, let's say, some interesting measure to offset anyway the disadvantages coming from the situation and making sure that our results will perform, let's say, definitely in the right direction. Of course, you may say that it's relatively easy to do better when you start from a low level. But, I think that we have to give merit really to the strategy that was applied and to the results that have been achieved. It's not so evident, I would say. So, I think we can be fairly happy with the results, particularly in the current situation. Moving to the following page, we have the EBITDA bridge, so the difference between the EUR 526 million of the first half of last year to the EUR 483 million. Volume impact overall, somewhat negative, as we mentioned at the very beginning. Price impact overall, favorable. Most of the country were able to achieve and improve in their pricing level. Unfortunately, some important ones did not, like we said. Variable cost in part, okay, this is associated to the somewhat lower volumes, lower production level. But actually, we had some significant benefits, for example, in Italy, for the cost of power. We will maybe comment briefly later on the so-called Energy Release factor, which was definitely a big plus for the Italian profitability. Also fuel so far, at least in the first six months, even if there is some cost pressure on the fossil fuel remain more or less at the level of last year. On the fixed cost instead, we had an unfavorable variance. This is mostly related to staff cost, maintenance, also in part to the scope changes clearly, which are adding some staff to the previous, let's say, setup. These were, let's say, more difficult to keep under control. Just to give you an example, in the U.S., the tariff impact on the maintenance cost, on the spare parts, repairs, etc, that we buy and that are subject to tariff itself, that themselves, say, accounted for about EUR 2 million, which is not little if you consider the overall unfavorable variance. On the other unfavorable changes, we have to consider mainly the inventory adjustment, which has been affecting also the cash generated from operation, the working capital, let's say, impact. We basically absorb during the first half, more clinker. Our clinker inventory went down during the first half quite significantly, and this translated into this kind of, let's call it unfavorable impact of about EUR 15 million, out of which the inventory is EUR 12 million. Clearly, this is also something that during the year or over the next six months can go the opposite way if we have, let's say, a different, not necessarily better, but let's say a different management of our clinker inventory. CO2 so far has not represented any cost similar to last year. The reason is associated with the way we account for CO2 rights. We do not consider, let's say, them as a cost until we enter into the so-called deficit. Since the free allowances are usually able to cover in full the first half of our production and also somewhat more going on, the CO2 cost will appear in the second half, probably in the last quarter or between the last quarter. We keep our, say, forecast of about EUR 35 million-EUR 40 million of CO2 cost for the full-year, depending of course, on the production on how the different countries will perform, etc. Different exchange impact on the EBITDA has been EUR 9 million. That's a net between the different countries again. Negative for, particularly for the dollar, positive for the real, positive for the ruble. A net negative result of EUR 9 million. We have the EUR 9 million of scope coming from the UAE, which we were commenting before in terms of, relatively speaking, good performance for this newly acquired entity. If we move to the next page, we have an overview of our, let's call it cash flow statement. What I was mentioning before, cash generated from operation is, how could I say? Not as good as one might expect or somewhat lower. You can see also on the right, comparing to the previous year. It's true that our margins went down, but net cash flow from operations suffer, as I said, mainly from the working capital adjustment. This is where we absorb, let's say, more liquidity cash flow than we did versus last year. The inventory adjustment, let's say, as I said, and also the trade receivables, the trade payables. The combination of these three factor is what mainly drove down the net cash from operation. CapEx are slightly higher than last year. This was expected. Let's say we are in line or maybe even somewhat below our budget for the full-year. Nothing unexpected there. Equity investment, they are small, let's say, of entity either in capital increases, let's say, in joint ventures or subsidiaries. These are all, let's say, related clearly to the industrial footprint of the company. Dividend payments remain even with last year. Also, let's say, just the fact that the dividend per share did not change. Dividend received, they are somewhat greater than last year, but this is mainly a temporary disalignment regarding the from the Mexican joint venture. Over the year, they should more or less match what we received in the previous year. Share buyback was an important item during the period because it was a use of EUR 180 million in the first six months, which then became EUR 200 by July 17th, if I recall correctly, when we officially closed this tranche, which was open in late February. It was expected to run potentially until the end of August, but it was closed somewhat earlier. Right early in the six months of the interim report. Other item of various origin, different origin, for EUR 462 million, which brought the net cash position, bringing the net cash position to EUR 896 million at the end of June, which is obviously very sound and give us a lot of flexibility as usual. Focusing a little bit more on the geographical area, on the main markets. The U.S., as I said at the beginning, is where, also due to the size of the business there, we suffer the most in lower EBITDA, lower and coupled with lower turnover. The increasing volumes there was not sufficient to keep the turnover at the same level, mainly because of the currency impact. You see that on a like for like basis, we are -0.6%. Even, but the weakness of the dollar then impacted quite significantly, about EUR 50 million. On the EBITDA, like for like, -15% with a negative foreign exchange impact of about EUR 13 million. The issue there was, let's say, certainly the negative price level or the unfavorable price level, which we faced during the six months. Second, production costs that remain not very different from the previous year in terms of variable cost, also unit fixed cost. Yes, increasing logistic cost to transfer, let's say, cement across the distribution network, and other fixed costs, same as we mentioned before, partly related to production, partly related to general expenses like labor cost or property taxes, which went up quite significantly. We don't have here, we are not showing, we usually don't show a split between the profitability of the cement business versus the profitability of the ready-mix business in the U.S. Certainly, we can say that the decline in the profitability of the ready-mix business was much more significant than the decline of the profitability in the cement business. The ready-mix business is located mainly in Texas. Texas is the region that suffer the most during the first six months. The ready-mix business typically has a greater volatility versus the result of the cement business, this was clear certainly in the first half, this kind of decline which we faced, particularly in that business. The EBITDA margin went down about 4.5%. This is not a good result, again, it's the outcome coming from the variables and the trend that I just mentioned on the, let's call it, revenue and prices and cost. To jump, let's say, a little bit forward, looking down the road at the next six months, we are, I would say, somewhat more confident that we can recover, not in full versus last year, because this is very unlikely, but to a large extent, let's say, the unfavorable variance of the first six months, particularly in terms of EBITDA margin. Yes, we will remain below because the market situation is such that does not allow for a full recovery, plus you have the foreign exchange impact. We do believe that the second half will be definitely less challenging than the first one. On the Italian situation which follows next, definitely more favorable. We are same level, actually somewhat lower level in terms of turnover, but we improved EBITDA and of course also EBITDA margin. What is the reason? The reason is mainly a cost trend, which was particularly favorable if you looked at the power cost. Power cost enjoy quite a significant decline, coming from the Energy Release program. This Energy Release programs had an impact both on the 2025 and 2026. We are actually including in this 2026 figures, a non-recurring item of about EUR 7.5 million, if I recall correctly, which is the Energy Release accrual for 2025. Plus, we have another, how much is it, the Energy Release for this year, 2026? Around EUR 11 million-EUR 12 million. For the full-year? For the full-year, yeah. For the full-year, we expect another EUR 11 million-EUR 12 million, which is already in part included in the first six months, so more or less half of it, of advantage on the power cost. If you consider basically these benefits on the power cost and you clean it from the first six months EBITDA, you come to a level which is very similar to last year. Not very different. However, it is certainly a good result, which we can confirm also in the following months. The price level was also somewhat better. On one side, yes, lower volumes, but better pricing and lower cost, in particularly power cost. Margin expansion certainly confirm, and with the possibility to confirm it also in the coming month. In Central Europe, a little bit disappointing also here. Main reason is the weak demand conditions with declines both in cement and ready-mix. In some region, also quite significantly, like the Netherlands, ready-mix volumes went down by approximately 8%. We are in a situation where, particularly in Germany, I would say, which is the largest contributor to this region. The expectation for a recovery in demand not been met yet, at least. The pricing trend was yes, somewhat favorable, but only slightly favorable, so unable really to offset the demand decline. Again, on the ready-mix results, which are normally similar to what we said to the U.S., more volatile and more affected when the volumes are going down. We have been suffering in Germany, but also in the Netherlands. That's why the cement margins came somewhat under pressure, and they were impacted by the cost inflation in the region without the possibility really to improve pricing, or only slightly. Also, you certainly recall that in Germany, we were already, let's say, running at a low capacity utilization level, and this trend was not counter-effective, let's say, in the first six months. To regain a certain margin level, we definitely need to have some improvements in the capacity utilization, because pricing can be helpful, but capacity utilization is normally even more helpful. That's why we are currently in a situation which is not satisfactory. On the Eastern Europe, again, a mix with Poland below last year in terms of volumes, but with a very tough comparison base. Looking for equalizing last year in H2. Czech, good expansion of the construction activity and of our volume, stable to slightly improving, let's say, results. Again, Russia, which is part of the region, obviously is kind of different under several features, suffer from quite a significant volume decline, about 9%, and also pricing pressure. The ruble helped somewhat, but not enough to really offset the profitability decline that we experience in Russia. I would say no big worries, actually, good feelings from Poland and Czech Republic also for H2. Russia probably not changing much in H2, could be somewhat better, let's say, the second six months versus the first six. Going to Brazil, which is page 10. Very favorable conditions overall, even in a market which is not being growing very significantly because we are talking about volumes up between 3% and 4%. There is actually a regional difference between the Northeast and the Southeast. I mentioned already before the more difficulties in the Southeast due to weather and also to a different trend of the demand. High capacity utilization anyway, particularly in the Northeast, but also the Southeast is starting to get closer and closer, let's say, to full capacity utilization, which is also giving more possibility to improve prices. Cost went up, mainly cost associated with the minimum transportation, I would call it, tables. Clearly also with the changes in the fuel cost, in the diesel cost. Brazil is almost basically not using any kind of logistics means different from trucks. They don't have distribution by the river or by train. Diesel cost has an immediate impact on the truck logistics, which is basically the only one. Following that, clearly, the delivered price went up. Also the price at the plant went up, and we were able to, let's say, bring the margins to a nice improvement. Because when you compare with last year, or anyway two years ago, you had kind of, let's say, 4% or 5% improvements in the margins, which is quite nice. Also, EBITDA, in this case, the help from the currency was about EUR 2.5 million, but still almost 50% increase in like for like conditions. Prospects for this year remain favorable. Yes, Brazil will go through the presidential election, which is certainly favorable overall, let's say, at least until the presidential election. After the election, we don't know. Of course, it depends partly from the outcome. Anyway, any potential change in trend will not happen right away. We remain pretty confident that the country and also the company subsidiary enter into a positive phase of the cycle, which can last certainly longer than one year. The annual rates are okay. A relatively small addition to the group. Not much to add versus what I was just commenting before. The domestic construction activity continues to be quite strong. Clearly, there is a decline or a slowdown in the residential or touristic projects. Investment in infrastructure and energy projects continue to be pretty strong and will remain so also in the coming years. Also as a consequence of the tension between U.S. and Iran. The price growth was an outcome, let's say, of two variables. One is actually the price of cement itself, but another important one is the mix. The fact that the company has been shifting its commercial focus more on cement, less on export, and less on clinker. More on domestic cement, less on export, less on clinker. This translating into a mix, which is giving, let's say, a more favorable average price level. In addition to that, also, the cement price went up some. Here you see the figures. Of course, we were starting from a low level last year, but the improvement is quite significant. The second half, unless really the overall situation worsen significantly, can continue to perform in a similar way. Mexico, our JV, extremely good, I would say, extremely favorable results for the first six months. Good performance in terms of cement volumes. The pricing effect is also somewhat favorable. We are running at a high capacity utilization. Production costs, yes, are increasing, but they've been offset or mostly offset by the price effect. That's why you see that the EBITDA margin continues to be basically at the level of the previous two years. EBITDA overall is reaching EUR 265 million, which is an extremely high value. Here we are talking about 100%, let's say, of the company. Obviously our share of results reflects basically one third of that. Still in terms of, let's say, management effort and involvement, we consider ourselves at 50%, which is actually the case together with our Spanish partners. There are some, how can I say, uncertainties, let's say, going forward. The macroeconomic situation is acceptable, but let's say not really too strong, and the relationship with the U.S. and the signing or not signing, or signing it with condition of the USMCA Treaty is a critical path, let's say, for the development of the country, and also of the cement industry going forward. If a satisfactory treaty will be signed soon, I think the expectation and the forecast will continue to be favorable. Not as much if this goal will not be reached in a short time. So far, I would say very positive performance and very good numbers. Nothing really difficult to do something better. On the outlook, well, I tried already to color it when I was speaking about different geographies. What can we add? We don't see a big changes in the trends from year-end versus what we experience, we face in the first half. We see trends that should be pretty much consistent with the H1 performance. Probably, in general, slightly better than worse. I mentioned already the country where we are more confident to do better, but the overall underlying trend should be pretty similar. U.S., we said, I think the first half was affected by some factors and reason, and customer situation, which were particularly damaging in a sense, and things are looking somewhat better for the second half. Italy, the energy incentive, the power cost incentive are extremely significant, should continue. Residential activity, not great. Infrastructure, slowing down. Overall, I would say a good balance between volume, price, and cost. Central Europe, this is probably the most disappointing situation in terms of demand, because we're still waiting for the support of the federal infrastructure plan in Germany. Will it become visible? Will it not? When? It's a bit of a question mark, but certainly it's very much needed to improve capacity utilization and through that lower production cost in the country. Eastern Europe, no big issues, fortunately. Good support from governmental initiatives in Czech Republic and Poland. Russia, problematic situation, which I'm not sure whether it will adjust, and when. Brazil, we said, hopefully there will be also some efforts or some decision by the central bank to lower interest rates. Which is, in a way, it is the direction, but the absolute level is still very high, and it is affecting certainly the construction activity. There is a low unemployment overall in the country. Demands for residential is supported by the government. The government is also involved into some infrastructure projects. We are seeing a good development for cement demand going forward, as we said. UAE, just said. They are contributing positive results maybe even more in line or more than what we were expecting initially, at least. Particularly considering the critical situation in the Gulf and how much this has affected the traveling, the tourism, etc, in the region. Mexico, yes, very strong performance first half. USMCA developments, we'll see. Can change somewhat the picture, but for the moment, the trends are quite favorable. Here we are in a situation which is not as good as the previous two years, but still quite favorable in our opinion. The weakness of the U.S. dollar, yes, is an important factor, but this may also somehow reduce versus the original forecast. Overall, this take us to a level of profitability which we project in the range of EUR 1.1 billion-EUR 1.2 billion. If we ended up, let's say, at the upper level of the range, it will be, yes, a decline versus last year, but, in my opinion, not so significant or not so negative considering the overall situation that we have been facing, we are facing during 2026. We are certainly shooting or trying to do as much as possible to stay, not only in the interval, possibly at the upper range of the interval. That partly will depend on us, partly not, as usual. Again, not a year with results as excellent or as outstanding as the last two. Still, in our opinion, very sound, very favorable, and giving us, again, a good cash flow generation, a good flexibility to move forward ways to, let's say, look at the cement market and our geographies for CapEx roadmap expansion. We have a picture in front of us that, thanks to this result, we can manage and achieve very well. In the following pages, there are more details, which maybe we can use in the Q&A session if needed. We have turnover by country, EBITDA by country, the full income statement, the cash flow statement, which we commented pretty much already, and the detail of the net cash position between short term and long term. It took almost one hour, so I think it's enough. It's time to give the floor to the listeners and to the ones that are willing to ask some questions. Please, let's go to the Q&A session. 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. First question is from Ben Rada Martin, Goldman Sachs. Yes. Hi, Pietro. Thank you very much for the time this afternoon. I just had three questions, please. My first was on price costs into the second half. It was super valuable to hear some of the moving parts, I guess, in the first half around positive pricing, some of those savings on variable costs. I guess as we look into the second half and maybe more pressure from energy inflation, do you still expect to offset some of these costs, or could we see incrementally a little bit more pressure in terms of price cost than the first half? The second question would just be on the EU ETS. I guess we've seen more details in the last few weeks on the potential changes there. Does that change your decarbonization business cases at all in Europe? Are there any areas that you think are more interesting now with some of those changes around funding and conditional allowances in particular? Then my final question was just around M&A. I know we spent some time at the last results speaking about some of the opportunities. It'd be worth hearing from you how, I guess, you see the opportunities at the moment, any regions in particular where you think there would be good fits for your portfolio. Thank you. Can you repeat the third question? We were not fully able to understand it. The third question was just around M&A. Okay. I know we spent some time at the last results speaking about the optionality in M&A in each region. Is this something that you're still looking at closely? Are there any regions in focus? Okay, good. Well, on the power cost, I think that in Europe there is certainly a trend, a need, a pressure coming from the, well, particularly energy-intensive businesses, but in general, to somehow make energy, particularly power, let's say, more available somehow at a lower cost versus what it's been so far, and also when you compare towards other geographies. Certainly, the competitiveness of the European industry is related to a large extent to the cost of power. My impression is that what this supply, how could I say, benefits or some subsidies, in a sense, that were introduced in the first half will continue, because again, there is a lot of pressure on it. For example, in Germany, there is also a similar, let's say, Energy Release program, which we are following, was not yet, let's say, fully achieved in a sense that we cannot yet, let's say, recognize from an accounting standpoint, the benefit because we are working on it. There is a possibility already, I would say, in second half of this year to enter into the program and then to receive this kind of benefits. For Europe, I think I'm fairly confident that we will see a new level of energy cost in the biggest market operators like Italy and Germany, that should stay for some time. On the fuel, it's different because the fuel is clearly more an international market, it's more affected by the fossil fuel trends. There, yeah, there is volatility, there are increases, and the only way we have, or the main way we have to offset is to introduce as much as possible, waste derived fuels, which is also part of the decarbonization roadmap. This is, again, a significant management effort, which has been, I would say, successful, certainly so far, in almost any countries where we operate, our substitution rate has gone up, and we need to continue to go that way, let's say, as much as possible according to our targets that are valid, both for decarbonization but also for cost management. It's one of the few items where few coupled, let's say, roadmap targets with lower cost. On the EU ETS, I think it's a little early to really discuss in detail what has been proposed, by the way, because it's still a proposal, so not necessarily it will remain the same. Yes, in general, I would say it's pretty much what we expected. They are giving some more time, in a sense, which is an easy decision, if you wish, a certain postponement moving forward, decreasing somewhat, the reduction factor of the free allowances, which is good. I mean, a little more time to achieve the targets. Yes, they are also introducing some new or different funding and the possibility, to some extent, to create, let's say, credits outside of Europe and being able to use it in Europe. These are all, I would say, yeah, decisions which we agree with, and they go into the right direction. The full details are not clear, they have to be well-spotted and well-identified, so t he actual availability and possibilities they have to be clear very well. Again, it's a small step, but probably a small step in, let's say, the right direction. I think it will not be the last one. For the time being, this is the available step and say, the new advantages that we can enjoy. On the M&A optionality, I would say yes, with, as usual, some kind of cautious approach. We have seen movements, particularly in U.S., at multiples that are very, very high, difficult, let's say, to justify. At the end, when you see this kind of multiple, you also compare them, at least we compare them, with the possibility to improve significant your industrial footprint, through either vertical integration or also new equipment, modernization of the plants, because, yeah, it's true that your M&A target can increase your size from one day to another. Also by keeping, let's say, your industrial footprint in good shape and, pretty particularly, very cost efficient or as cost efficient as possible, is even more helpful, particularly in times when maybe the cycle turns bad or can give you, let's say, a lot of possibility in terms of managing your overall production network and logistic cost, for example. There are a number of interesting things to do beside the M&A. There are other countries where the multiples are not as crazy, where maybe we can take a closer look at what comes on the market. I would say rational approach, certainly more interest into reinforcing the existing, either through internal or external growth. Yeah, always compare, let's say, internal growth or internal expansion with external, because in some country, as I said, this comparison, in my opinion, is somewhat shifting. Very helpful. Thanks very much. Next question is from Ephrem Ravi, Citigroup. Thank you. There's two questions specifically. On Brazil, there was a very strong performance. The acquisition of the rest of the 50% looks like it was very well timed. Congratulations for that. Do you have plans on growing significantly in Brazil, especially given that there are some of your competitors who are looking to sell assets? Given the outlook for the market and your performance so far, is that one place where you are, in particular, kind of looking to grow? Secondly, in terms of the U.S. outlook, you kind of mentioned the weakness in residential, non-residential demand and offset by data center infrastructure investments. North Texas is supposed to be one of those data center hubs. Are you looking to further grow volumes in the data center aspect? Can you give a sense as to what percent of your sales go into that particular sub-segment of the market there? Thank you. Okay. Yes. Brazil, we are already there, I think since some years, like you said, moving from a JV to a fully owned company. Timing, yes. Partly, I don't know if it was good, of course, the external condition will always play a significant role. The advantage now for the country is the recovery in volumes, the higher capacity utilization, and also the fact that they were starting from a relatively low level, both in volume and prices. However, yes, I think the industry structure is going and will go under some changes, also significant, potentially significant. We are interested in following this kind of development and to find possibility to grow our footprint there. That is certainly one of the country where we think we have the possibility, because sometimes you would like to do something, but you cannot because there are no options on the table. In this case, there are probably options on the table, so it's up to us, let's say, to somehow find the right option or the right solution. Yeah, there's certainly an interest to do that. Texas, yeah, there are some. Data centers are all over. We have seen projects across the country in many different states, many different markets. Yeah, Texas is certainly, due to the size of the economy, the population, the size of the town, is certainly a destination for this kind of projects. It's not that we can always choose whether because like on any construction project, it depends on who is building, the relationship with the specific customer. Is there a bidding process? Do they select the cement or ready-mix supply? Yeah, we are there. We have a large, significant market share in the state. We can certainly participate. If we look at the previous, in the first six months, actually, almost 10% of our volumes in the country went to this kind of project, which is a lot. It was probably one of the main reason of the market growing, not really even forecasted correctly by the American Cement Association. Now the changes to the American Cement Association changed a bit. Its forecast, they came out just lately with their summer forecast, which is showing an improvement in volume versus the previous forecast. It's certainly driven to a large extent by this kind of hubs or big percentage. We'll try to do our best in supplying them. Thank you. Next question is from Isaac Ocio, On Field Investment Research. Hi. Thank you for t aking my questions. I have a few on the U.S. On U.S. pricing, are you planning any increases later this summer or in the second half? With GCC bringing around a million ton of new capacity, would you prioritize maintaining pricing, even if it means giving back a bit of a market share? Have you already seen more competition from GCC in West Texas, from in San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth? Regarding the Section 301 tariffs, what was your view on the impact of the 12.5% tariff, and was it lower than what the industry was hoping for? What would be your view then on the likely outcome of an anti-dumping investigation on Vietnam imports? What do you think the timing could be? Maybe on U.S. volumes, how were your volumes in July? Has it improved versus the second quarter, given the Texas weather disruptions are behind us? Maybe if I can ask the last one on capital expenditure. If the Texas plant upgrade goes ahead, i s around EUR 500 million CapEx for the year still a reasonable assumption, or could it increase to maybe EUR 700 million if you choose to go through with the CapEx on the Texas upgrade? Thanks. Okay. There are price increases in U.S. Again, particularly in the Midwest area, there is an attempt, or more than an attempt to go up. It's quite scattered, let's say, the pricing situation. There are definitely area like South Texas with the imports in Houston that continues to actually somewhat increase or putting pressure on the prices. We have also in Dallas, it's not a new player, but in a sense it's a new player because when Quikrete took over, let's say, the Midlothian plant, it's another potential point of self-supply versus maybe buying from other competitors. Which again, is somehow translating into some conflict, let's say, between producer. Yeah, I think by year-end, probably if we look at the average price for the U.S., we can move from a slightly negative sign to a slightly positive. It will be quite differentiated between states and regions. GCC, yes, of course, it's not really a new player because in part, they were anyway bringing cement from Mexico to prepare for the commissioning of a new line. I think most of the competition in this case is on oil well cement, not so much on the gray cement, which is kind of a niche, but profitable one. Also very volatile in terms of demand because it's strictly related to the number of active, let's say, oil wells. Yeah, there, we need to defend ourself. I think we can, because our, let's call it, quality and service is pretty good, but it will be certainly more challenging. On the following question was? On the Section 301 tariffs? Yeah, exactly. Here, I let Giovanni intervene because he's more knowledgeable than me on this subject. Sure. As we've been discussing throughout these six months, we haven't really planned around that. We were just waiting for the outcome. The outcome came end of July, substantially nothing has really changed. For most countries, the tariff increase was just 2.5%, 3%. When you convert it to dollar per ton, it's basically nothing, not really impactful. It's not going to help us, but we weren't really forecasting or budgeting the year around that either. What was somehow unexpected was the additional tariff on Canada. The last one. It's not clear yet if the Canadian tariff, the 60% one, is going to be somehow replaced by Section 301 or not. Exactly. Of course, if the significant increase on Canadian tariffs can have an impact on the northeast market, in a sense favorable, if you wish, for the domestic producer. That has to be seen if it actually will remain like this, because the trading between Northeast and the Great Lakes area has always been pretty significant as a kind of a necessity for the country. July volumes, yes, U.S. is slightly up versus last year, so I would say okay. Texas plans, well, we have approved the first phase, which is the execution. The implementation is not so quick. I think we are budgeting about EUR 70 million this year, let's say, coming from this first phase, which is the new grinding capacity, the new finish grinding, let's say, department mill, together with a number of other related jobs, which it's not worth mentioning, describing in detail, but they are a necessity for not only the new grinding mill, but to prepare the plant for the potential, let's say, or likely future installation of the line. We need to do a lot of changes in the, let's call it, the landscape or the structure of the building, the location of the building, the electrical substation. A number of items that are coming together. We are starting, but the impact on this year will be relatively minor. I think if we end up at EUR 550 million, EUR 560 million, for the entire group, I think this is the likely number. Okay. Thank you very much. Next question is from Alessandro Tortora, Mediobanca. Hi, Mr. Pietro. Hi. I have four question, if I may. The first one is just a follow-up on what you said before. You said this year maybe we'll end at, let's say, EUR 550 million or something in terms of CapEx now. Yes. If we take into account that we have the ADR phase of this CapEx time in the U.S. in the coming years, which kind of level of CapEx do you see? Maybe still, let's say, close to this EUR 500 m illion level? Just understand the trend going forward, because this is just the start of this CapEx plan in the U.S. Thanks. If we move on with the new line, but I think it will take another two years, let's say, before really deciding. We need to finish the finish mill. We need to finish the terminal, let's say, in Beaumont, which has to do with the new line, but not necessarily, but anyway, is undergoing. We will, I think, 99% start also inside the San Antonio plant, the railway terminal. Finish mill and the railway terminal, plus the new terminal, it's called import terminal, which is not or can be import not necessarily for cement, also for other materials in Beaumont. Once we have this, let's call it, new Texas set up running and also looking at the trend of the demand expectation, etc, we can decide on the new line. I think for the next two years, I think we will be in that range. Can go up one year to EUR 600 million? Yes, it can. Probably not beyond that level. If we really start the new line, it will become more significant. The second question is on, let's say, the situation in Russia. Clearly, I know that you don't have full disclosure about the underlying performance there, but considering the huge drop into the EBITDA we saw in this first half, can you give us a sense of what is happening there? Is it cost? Is it these declining prices now you mentioned previously? Just to have an idea. In the end, Russia, let's say, held up pretty well, decently in the past years, now we had this collapse into the metrics. It's true. It came all together, I think was a general consequence of the general impact from the long period of war, where at the beginning there were some, let's call it excitement and more production more than now, less and less. You had the interest rates rising to 15%-16%. There is also certainly some competitive situation which is making things worse. There was a change of ownership in one of our competitors not too far in a sense, not too far in terms of Russian geography, but let's say to somehow competing on a similar market in Russia. As you know, as opposed to Brazil, you move cement by train, so you go very far. This new ownership is clearly targeting an increase in market share, which we are not willing to give up, and it's affecting the prices. I think the volume trend is something general, more and more related to the macroeconomic environment. The pricing trend is kind of specific. It could have been better in a normal situation, which is not right now due to competitive pressure. Understood. Let's say the third question is on, you mentioned before capital allocation, you discussed briefly the many opportunities. Recently, you canceled your treasury shares after, let's say, a good buyback. This kind of measure, is it something that we should consider as a one-off, or can become a sort of regular capital allocation to buying back and then canceling? I think we decided to cancel because we did not see, let's say, in the foreseeable future, a clear use of the shares. We thought that it would be more meaningful, it would make more sense to go with the cancellation. However, it doesn't mean that we are not open, let's say, to a transaction or let's call it an M&A opportunity that could also involve our equity, in a sense that if tomorrow something really compelling comes about, and there is a sense, it makes sense, a financial and strategic sense to use the shares, we could always do it. Simply instead of using shares that are already in your pocket, you issue new ones. To keep those shares in portfolio for probably a long time, it didn't appear to us like a good decision. We thought that it was preferable to cancel and, as I said, remain, however, open to interesting combination if they come about. Will this happen again? I don't know. It depends pretty much on the, I would say, on the CapEx plans, certainly. CapEx plans are more tangible and more significant, for the reasons that we just mentioned, decarbonization, U.S. modernization, etc. Also results a little less good. Still a very strong financial position results, but maybe not as good, yeah, not as good as the previous two years. We don't have to rush. We will check. I think that if we open a new buyback program, probably we are more likely to cancel the share than the opposite. Okay, thanks. The last question is on Germany. Considering Germany was, let's say, a country not performing, how can we say now, low expectation? Do you see, or at least do you have any evidence from your, let's say, commercial, your sales force that we may have some positive impact in the coming quarters? Even, let's say, in Q1 next year from this long awaited infra program. On the pricing side, do you see the possibility now you mentioned before U.S., but do you see the possibility to increase a little bit pricing this year? Considering that the current demand level, maybe we should think about, I don't know, next year to try to raise again a little bit prices there. Yes. I think the pricing in U.S. is mostly related to the market situation. Very regional, where volumes were more affected, or you had a wider range of supply, like area like Houston, Southern Texas, you need some, let's say, stronger recovery in the demand, I think, to be able to go up. We're not entering, let's say, a price war or something similar. We're simply kind of unable to apply certain increases. In Germany, it's a little different. Germany, as opposed to Italy, right now is a little more difficulty in price increases also due to first of all, due to the low capacitization, which is true also for Italy, but also to a highly fragmented industry structure, which in many regions can clearly damage the price level. The vertical integration, let's say, of the producer, is not as significant as we have in Italy. You have, again, a number of customers in ready mix that can correctly play a game on prices by addressing or asking, let's say, offers from different producers. Which is the way to do, and again, is absolutely correct. In a situation where the capacitization is underutilized, it's sometimes forcing, let's say, or not forcing, but inviting, let's say, producers to try to sell more by offering discounts, etc. We do hope, and we are pretty confident that what you were mentioning. The greater demand coming from the famous infrastructure plan shall change, let's say, the picture a bit. When? We don't know. The sensation is that, yes, something is already moving, let's say, in the right direction. It's certainly needed because the strength of the economy is not very high. You can see also in terms of the industrial footprint suffering, etc. Without some help from the governmental projects, it's difficult to imagine a significant recovery of the volumes, which is certainly very much needed to stabilize the price and maybe also being able to increase them a bit. Next question is from Julian Radlinger, UBS. Yeah. Hi, guys. Thanks so much for taking the time. Hello. Hey. Two quick ones. A lot of them have already been asked. The first one is, looking at the guidance range, I think a lot of the moving parts here are quite clear. You've been relatively open about all the variables. Could you just specify what are the assumptions, especially, the big ones like price, volume, that kind of thing, to get you to the top or the bottom end of that EBITDA range exactly? What are the big differences? I think it will be mainly the volumes. On the pricing, what we have achieved, okay, in the U.S., maybe, as I said, there could be a second half that is likely more favorable, if not widespread, let's say, increase. Yes, some improvements in the area. For the rest, it will be volumes. A trend in volumes, particularly in Europe, somewhat, let's say, better than the first half, which was, I would say, overall. We assume a cost trend, which is, like for some area for power and also fuel, still relatively favorable. Kind of no significant disadvantage on the available cost. If we can go up with the volumes immediately, particularly in the area where the fixed costs represent a significant portion, let's say, of our production cost. Clearly, there are differences between, I don't know, Brazil versus U.S. or Germany, where the weight of the fixed cost is much greater. There, to really achieve, let's say, your target, you need to possibly sell more. This is what will make the difference together with the pricing level, which will remain anyway favorable because it was already Overall, it was already favorable in the first half, and can be slightly more favorable in the second half in countries like the U.S., where we had a negative variance. Okay, perfect. Second question, can I ask about your hedges? You've spoken about it before, I think. What's your hedging level for H2, and how does that compare to H1? I think I recall in the original guidance, one of the reasons for your assumption about an EBITDA decline was that in the second half of the year, you're a little bit less hedged than in the first half of the year. What's your hedging level for H2? Also, have you bought forward any power or gas yet for 2027? It's kind of rolling. We are, on average, I think we are around 50%, 50%-60%, maybe on fuel, a little bit more, on electrical power, a little bit less. There are some areas, some plants where you actually cannot, because there are some plants, particularly in the U.S., where the energy supply is regulated, and you cannot buy from someone else, and you take the price that they're setting. There's really basically no hedging possibility. In general, I think we keep kind of rolling. Sometimes there could be months or quarters, where the hedging will increase because we see maybe the pricing becoming more attractive, particularly on the power cost. You can consider basically, yes. Based on what you're saying, I would think that you are a bit hedged for 2027 already at this point. Correct. It'll probably be at higher levels now than. Yeah. Okay, perfect. Correct. All right. Okay. Thank you so much. Yeah, you're welcome. Next question is from Allison Sun, Bank of America. Hi. Good afternoon. Just one question from my side. Hi. I know you guys are pushing hard for your U.S. plants convert to natural gas for net zero goal. I wonder how's the progress there, and are you expecting to benefit from the recent, the natural gas price coming down, in the second half. Do you expect any margin improvements on this front? Thank you. No, we don't have the thing that forecast really any margin improvement coming from that. The program is absolutely going on. We will have, if not all, 95%, let's say, of the plants, being able to use gas or to switch basically from one day to another from either petcoke or coal to gas. This is something, yeah. The main driver originally, yes, has been the decarbonization, it could also become something interesting from economic standpoint. Already in some plants like in Texas, we mostly use already gas because it's more advantageous. In others, it's still not yet, let's say, more advantageous. With the rise of the oil and the fossil fuels, it might well become. To answer your question, there is no specific bonus, let's say, included in the forecast. Okay, thank you. Next question is from Cedar Ekblom, Morgan Stanley. Thanks very much. I've just got a question on cash generation. It was weak in the half. You have flagged the increase in CapEx, which I think is understandable. However, that doesn't talk to what is quite a meaningful decline, EUR 100 billion year-over-year, in the operating cash flow line. Could you give us a little bit more color on what's going on there? Is this a working capital build? How to think about cash generation in the second half. Thank you. Yes, it is mainly working capital. On the changes in working capital, we lost, we absorbed basically more than EUR 100 million, which, last year was much less because we had EUR 50 million approximately. This is coming from the trade receivables and trade payables, although if we look at the days outstanding, it's not that we have been cashing money in a worse way. The terms of the receivables have not changed. In part, it's seasonal, but it's true that also last year was seasonal, same period of the year. On the trade payables, there was some specific reason. For example, in the UAE, we had some old payments due to suppliers, which were overdue and we wanted to clear. There certainly this made quite a difference, and is a one-off in a sense that it's not recurring. The main reason is really the working capital changes. Inventories, trade receivables, and trade payables. Okay. Why did you have such a shift in your payment terms? Why were you paying people later and now paying them more quickly? What's going on there? No, this came with the acquisition. It was a situation included in the books of the company before us. Okay. Understood. Then cash in the second half, do we assume that your receivables and payables days stay the same as they were at the end of the first half, or do we get a nice working capital inflow? How do we think about that? No, I think we should revert, let's say, a trend. We don't see a reason why we should not achieve a cash generated from operation in terms of ratio to net sales, which is similar to what we had last year. We can lose maybe 1 percentage point or maximum 2 percentage points, but not as much as it happened in the first half. Okay. That's very helpful, thank you. Yeah. For any further questions, please press star and one on your telephone. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone. We have one more question from Davide Longo, Indépendance AM. Good morning, thanks for the time. Maybe one question concerning the CapEx plan in the CO2 capture in Germany. Are there any updates? How is it going? Have you presented the project to the authorities to try and get the subsidies? I think the window closes in September, any more color would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Okay. Basically, the decarbonization project which we started for the Deuna plant is on hold at the moment. We were not able to, as we say, to derisk, let's say, completely, both the, let's call it, technology, also, even more important, the logistic and the storage. At the moment, we cannot proceed. We are a number of other projects which are not carbon capture. In Deuna, for example, we are planning a complete modernization of the plant, which is, we think, a better idea, because if tomorrow we will be able to get back to the carbon capture, we will apply the carbon capture to an equipment, let's say, a production facility, which is already modernized. Let's say, best available technology, traditional technology, versus attaching carbon capture equipment to something that was built in the 1970s, which is okay. I mean, it's still working. It's a good plant, it will make a big difference, in our opinion, to do that. To apply carbon capture to a modern plant versus an older one, assuming that all the surrounding conditions are there. Clear. Thank you very much. You're welcome. For any further questions, please press star and one on your telephone. Mr. Buzzi, there are no more questions registered at this time. Okay. Thank you. Probably there are no more listeners, but to the ones that are still there, thank you for listening and have a nice summer. Have a nice vacation, if some or all of you still have to enjoy the summer holidays. Thank you so much for listening and so long. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect your telephone.