Hi, good afternoon and good morning, everybody. Welcome to ArcelorMittal's Third Quarter Analyst and Investor Call. This is Daniel Fairclough from the ArcelorMittal Investor Relations team. I'm joined on this call today by our CFO, Genuino Christino. Before I hand over to Genuino, I would like to mention a few housekeeping items. Firstly, I want to refer everybody to the disclaimers that are on slide two of the results presentation that we published on our website this morning. I'd also like to remind everyone that this call is being recorded, and it's scheduled to last up to 45 minutes. Finally, if you would like to ask a question, then please do press star one on your telephone keypad, and we will answer the questions in the order in which they're received. With that, I would like to hand over the call to Genuino for some opening remarks. Thank you, Daniel, and good afternoon, everybody. I will make some very brief remarks before we move to your questions. I have basically three main points to make. Firstly, on the current market situation. Real demand headwinds are being exacerbated by the destocking through the value chain. The destocking impact on apparent demand is very significant, but we know from experience that it won't last. This give us confidence that the apparent demand conditions will improve once the destocking phase reaches a maturity. My second point is on our response. We are responding effectively by adapting our capacity for quarter four and reducing fixed costs on the impacted tons. At current spot levels, variable costs, and by that, I mean, raw materials and energy on a per ton basis, are expected to decline in Q4. The improvements we have made in recent periods are being tested by this difficult market environment, but results should demonstrate that our business is stronger and more resilient. My final point is on the outlook. Significant cash has been allocated to working capital investment in recent quarters. This is now at peak, we believe, and the expected working capital unwind should support free cash flow in a lower EBITDA environment. Our balance sheet strength and expectation of consistently positive free cash flow underpin the continued execution of our strategy. To grow and develop the business, to be a safer leader in low carbon steel and capture the growth opportunities in faster-growing markets. With that brief opening, we are now ready, Daniel, to take the questions. Great. Thank you, Genuino. We will take, therefore, the first question, please, from Alain at Morgan Stanley. Thanks, Daniel. Sure. Hi, Genuino. Thank you. Two questions from my side. The first one is on the profit bridges for Q4. Besides the price indicators that we can see on our screens, what are the less obvious moving parts that we need to consider if we're thinking about the EBITDA bridges into next quarter? And perhaps an overview by division would be most helpful. That's my first question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Alain. Alain, I think, as I see quarter four right now, we're gonna continue to see, to some extent, some of the same factors that we saw in quarter three. Probably the most important aspect of the quarter will be the destocking that we expect will continue and probably accelerate. As a result, we will continue to see shipments being at the reduced levels that we saw in quarter three. On a divisional basis, we should be slightly lower in Europe and not really much, but slightly lower in Europe. In the other divisions, my expectation is that we're gonna be relatively flat, which I think is a good sign. Prices, we know spot prices have declined during the quarter. It will impact our realized prices in quarter four. More on the positive side, of course, raw materials are also coming down. We saw iron ore prices down. We saw our coking prices quite significantly down during quarter three. In Europe, as we know, energy prices have come down quite significantly from peak levels that we saw in August. That should help profitability, of course, in Q4. Then, of course, we have to see what happens beyond that. It has been very volatile. We have seen, as you know, prices reaching at peak levels. Yes, price is more than EUR 350 per megawatt. During few days recently, we saw prices as low as EUR 7. We'll see. We have a combination of destocking impacting the apparent steel demand. I would also like to say that in Europe, the real demand up to Q3 has actually been okay, has not really been the problem. The problem has really been the destock that really started in Q3, and we expect accelerates in Q4. I will stop here and see if you have any follow-ups. Thank you. That's my first question. The second question is on working capital and capital returns. If we assume that the current spot prices persist, how much do you think you would be able to release in working capital in Q4 and throughout the balance of next year out of the $10 billion that you built? If your free cash flow consisted entirely of working capital release next year, would that give you enough confidence to continue your buyback program after May? Yeah. Along on working capital, I mean, for sure our expectation is to release working capital in quarter four, right? Actually in quarter three, looking only at inventories, we have this stocked as well. The only reason why you still see an investment in Q3 is because the loss in payables was greater than the reduction in inventories, which is natural when you are at this point of the cycle where we are adjusting production, as you know, adjusting also our procurement purchases. We have that initial impact on payables. Moving to quarter four, our expectation is that we will see significant release of working capital. In 2023, I think, you know, based on what we know today, looking at all the key leading indicators that we have, I think it's a fair assumption that we're gonna also be releasing working capital in 2023. I think it's early days to say to try to quantify how much, but you know very well. Up to now, in the last seven quarters we have invested $10 billion, so that is there. It's money that it's on our balance sheet and if market conditions remain challenging and we are in an environment of lower prices, then I think it's a fair expectation that the company will release a working capital next year. Should provide a good cushion to free cash flow, as we have been saying consistently. Our intention is to keep our capital allocation policy. To the extent that we generate the free cash flow next year, then I think you should expect that the company will just continue applying the policy that so far we see has been very successful. Thank you. Thanks, Alain. We'll move to the next question, please, from Tristan at BNP Paribas. Go ahead, Tristan. Yes. Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. Maybe the first one, I think pushing a bit on the guidance. Last time during COVID, we also had volumes falling significantly and a high level of uncertainty, and at the time, you provided some helpful EBITDA guidance range. Is there maybe a range you could share for Q4? Or maybe if you could tell us if you feel comfortable with current consensus for the full year at $14 billion. Thank you. Yeah, I think, you know, as you know, we don't really provide that quantitative guidance for EBITDA. The circumstances are very different and I don't think we can compare what we have today with what we had back in 2020. I would not be drawn into providing very specific guidance, sorry for that. All right. Fair enough. Second question maybe on the Kazakhstan operations. First, can you give us an update on the situation? I've seen in the release that volumes have picked up. How is the split between profitability between Ukraine, Kazakhstan and South Africa in Q3? How you expect moving that forward? More of a long-term question, given your focus on sustainability and safety, and especially now given the context in the CIS region, how do you view your operation in Kazakhstan? How strategic are they? Is the objective to invest more there or at some point maybe consider other options? Thank you. Yeah, I would say that the Kazakhstan operations did well. We had a good quarter. We have basically, in terms of the order book, in terms of production, the company was able to achieve its goals. We had a good quarter performance from a shipment point of view, profitability point of view, exporting materials from out of Kazakhstan. Ukraine, unfortunately, the situation, even though on the ground nothing has really changed, the assets continue to be safe, our people continue to be safe. As we know, market conditions have deteriorated. We are facing more now blackouts in terms of power availability. We continue to run the operations at a reduced capacity, still running one blast furnace at about 20% of the capacity. South Africa also recovering from some of the labor issues that we faced in quarter two. I would say that stability in Ukraine and improvement in Kazakhstan and in South Africa. Regarding the strategic importance of Kazakhstan, I think, we are investing, we have been investing and we'll continue to invest to bring this facility up to the mark. There are challenges of course, but we believe that with the energy that the team has put on this, the investments behind, we're gonna be able to bring this facility to the levels that it should be. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Tristan. We'll move to the next question, please, from Myles at UBS. Go ahead, Myles. Great. Thank you. Maybe just a couple of things. First of all, on order books, you know, how weak are they? As you look into 2023, you know, what's the best case in terms of the length of this destocking as you look at the market today? Myles, order book is, it's okay, take into account our forecast for the apparent steel consumption, right? Of course, they are not as high as they were before, but in line with our expectations for apparent steel consumption that, as we discussed, is going to be again weak as a result of the destocking. Now, the duration is very hard to say when it ends. In our view, it really started in Q3 already. It's visible in Q3, of course, and especially in Europe. We believe that probably we are going through the worst of the destocking now in quarter four. I think the teams are hopeful that we can start to see some improvement in terms of, at least, closing the gap between the apparent steel consumption and real demand, from quarter one onwards. Again, it's very hard really to be precise on that. Okay, that's helpful. Maybe just on the iron ore side, a couple of things we could clarify. What's the latest with the Liberia expansion? You know, now that iron ore prices have fallen, does that become a more marginal project? Also when we think about Ukraine, I presume there is no temptation to export iron ore while the blast furnaces are down, but I just wanted to double check that that was the case. You know, in Ukraine, starting with your second question. In Ukraine, we have been operating the mines. They were stopped during quarter three for some time. More really to help with the cash flows and this stock, the mines are running again, so we are running at about 30%. This iron ore, what is not being consumed locally, then it's being transferred to our operations in Poland primarily. That has been the case already now for quite some time. In Liberia, you know, as you can imagine, when we run these projects, our long-term assumptions are quite conservative, right? We never really, we'll see what happens, but we don't run our. When we go through the approval process for this project, we have a very conservative assumption. What we are seeing now in the market prices, I don't know, coming down, it doesn't really change the prospects for this project. We continue to see it quite strategic for us. We have invested, as you know, heavily on the infrastructure in the past, so it just makes sense to complete this project as fast as we can. Okay. When is the best case in terms of seeing the new tons ramp up? Well, we are on target with our for the first phase. It's 2024, I believe. You can double-check here for me, but I think it's around Q4 2024. Thank you. Daniel? We'll double-check, Myles. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I was just mixing my papers up there. In the meantime, we'll just move to the next question from Patrick at Bank of America. Please go ahead, Patrick. Thanks, Daniel. Hi, Genuino. Two questions, please. The first is just about the inventory charges that you've taken out of EBITDA. Can you just talk about the thinking there? Well, adjusted EBITDA. Can you just talk about the thinking there? 'Cause then it kind of feels then that we're only ever counting positive margin sales in the EBITDA, right? Because we write down inventory, take it out of adjusted EBITDA, put it in as an exceptional item. And then, you know, when you sell it then for recoverable value in the fourth quarter, it's gonna come through at you know, sort of zero margin or maybe slightly positive margin. So, is that the right way to treat that amount? And then the second question is just on working capital. I think it's a follow-up from Alain's question. You know, we've spoken about the $10 billion build. I mean, is that all excess or, you know, high working capital because prices and volumes were good? I mean, how much of that $10 billion should we expect to reverse in short? Is it the full $10 billion? Or is there a portion that's kind of structural? Thanks. Yeah. Patrick, first one on the inventory write-down. I think what we are trying to do, and this is consistent with what we have done in the past, when the cycle's done, as it is the case now. You know, under IFRS, you have to basically mark your inventories at cost or net realizable values if net realizable value is lower, right? At the end of the quarter when we have these significant changes, we go through all of our inventories and basically even raw materials, we convert that into finished goods, and then we look at the prices that we believe we're gonna be able to sell. To the extent that we believe that we're not gonna be able to recover the cost of inventories, then we write it down. We have these revaluations. That's really what happened this quarter. It doesn't really belong in the operations of quarter three. That's why in giving the size, we are showing it separately so that you guys can have a good sense of the true underlying performance of the business during the quarter. Going forward, you are right. To the extent that we were right with our assumptions in terms of prices, then the tons, when we sell it, they will have zero contribution to our EBITDA going forward. I suppose the point is that if we only did this at the end of the year, right, your EBITDA would be $500 million less. You know, writing it down now and then excluding it from EBITDA and then selling it at zero margin next quarter, it never goes through EBITDA, if that makes sense. Yeah, I mean, I understand what you're saying in terms of write-downs are typically excluded, so yeah. Then just on the working capital, the quantity to expect to reverse. Well, I think a lot of the investments that were made, they were made as a result of the higher prices, selling prices, raw material prices. In terms of volumes, quantities are relatively limited, Patrick. My expectation is, even where prices are, m y expectation is that we should be able to recover the large majority of the $10 billion as we move into 2023 and beyond. Got it. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. We'll move now to Tom at Barclays. Afternoon, guys. Thanks very much for taking our questions. The first one, just as a sort of slight follow-up to Patrick's on the inventory write-downs. I'm slightly surprised that there weren't any taken in, especially the U.S., but to an extent also ACIS in Brazil, given spot prices have been pretty weak in those areas as well. Is that a risk of further write-downs to come in Q4? Or were those just not large enough for you to report as an exceptional item and actually those are included in the EBITDA numbers? That's my first question. Yeah. I think that's a good question. I think it shows, you know, the change because if you look back in previous cycles when we also had to take revalue inventories, you're right. At that point in time, we had also large amounts of revaluation in NAFTA, primarily because of our U.S. business that, as you know, we sold. If you look at the profitability of the businesses in NAFTA in Q3, you see that it's different from what we enjoyed in Europe, in Brazil as well. We have to I hope it's clear that in Europe that's really where you have the very high energy costs. Costs are higher. You don't really have the same issues in some other parts of the world. That's why you really see this being in Europe and not in some other parts of the group. Can we have more? Right now this is our best estimate, right? We would need to record more write-downs only to the extent that selling prices continue to move down. We'll see. For now, this is our best estimate. Right. Okay. There might be some in there, but it's not reported as exceptional, because if I sort of look at ACIS, for example, I see a similar issue. In any case, maybe just moving on to the U.S. business. I mean, you mentioned earlier, you see volume stable in all areas except Europe into Q4, which is kind of surprising from my side if I look at your slides that say U.S. flat apparent steel consumption down 10% year-on-year for H2. I mean, your Q3 shipments were still okay, you know, up a little bit year-on-year. That, by my very rough math, implies sort of down 15%-20% decline in NAFTA shipments for Q4, which is obviously not what you were saying earlier. I mean, are you taking market share from other mills or? Yeah. No, perhaps just to clarify. When I say relatively stable, I'm saying quarter-on-quarter. Yeah. Quarter on quarter, our expectation is that shipments in NAFTA should be relatively stable. Just keep in mind that we have different businesses in NAFTA. We have our Mexican operations, Canadian operations, right? Our expectation is relatively stable volumes there, as is also the case in Brazil, and also in CIS. Right. If I just say stable NAFTA shipments in Q4, that means it's up 4% year-on-year, and you're saying the U.S. will be down 10% in terms of steel consumption. Is that you taking market share, or are you saying Canada and Mexico is gonna be stronger? How do I fit those two statements together? Yeah, I think that's the case. Our expectation is to do a little bit better in Mexico, Canada, and yeah. I would not suggest that we are taking market share, but I think we will be doing better in some other parts of the business. Okay. Thank you. I'll turn it back. Thanks, Tom. We'll move to the next question from Rochus at Kepler. Yes. Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. A couple from my side. One is on your remarks at the beginning about that there will be maybe early next year a point where apparent steel demand could trend better when the destocking is complete. When we look at the whole year of 2023 and we think about, you know, a reversal of working capital for stock movements against the decline in real demand, I would like to see what your view is on the moving parts on net imports in Europe. We have been seeing structural decrease in exports over the last decade and also kind of, you know, growth in imports over the last 10 years. What is your thinking from where we are now, how net imports are most likely trending in 2023? Yeah. Well, I think that's a good question, Rochus. As you know, we have seen imports rising in Europe, right? Taking more market share from domestic mills. Probably one of the reasons were the selling price premiums in Europe were high as a result of the strong demand that we enjoyed for most of the last two years. More recently, we have seen a decline in imports, which pretty much is the function of the arbitrage that existed for importers. Yeah. They've basically disappeared, right? When you look at Asian prices and you add all the logistic costs to get the materials into Europe, then I think that the incentive for imports are greatly reduced. That is, that's how. What we are seeing right now. We'll see how it evolves. That's the dynamics that we are seeing right now. All right. Linked with that, how should we think about the impact of energy costs? Would that overall lead to somewhat higher prices in Europe? Or shall we assume that, if that persists, next year and beyond, that industry margins will be overall lower? Well, I mean, the Rochus, as you know, the energy crisis, call it's really a European phenomenon right now, right? The whole industry in Europe is exposed to the same dynamics, some mills more than others. That's why you see the industry as a whole responding. If you look at the data in September, you can see that there is a significant reduction in production in Europe. The industry is responding to that. That's probably also an important factor here because I think the market will start to see more the impact of the cuts going forward. That should also help in terms of rebalancing supply to demand, right? I don't really want to speculate because as we were discussing, spot prices for natural gas, at least for some time, were extremely low. When you look at the average prices that we have right now in Q4, prices are of course not yet back to, far from, levels that we had back before the war, but it has come down quite a lot, right? We'll see what happens next year. I think this is not specific to any particular company. It's an industry problem. I would even say it's a European problem, and it's something that we believe that governments in Europe will need to address. I think it's extremely important for the industry, not only for the steel industry, but for the entire industry in Europe. On Genuino, just if I got that right, what you said before, technically, during these times of higher energy costs, when you put steel on inventory, it means the higher energy costs are baked into the at cost valuation in your books in the end of the day? Correct. Correct. Okay. Yeah. The valuation is, it's always done, Rochus, take into account everything, fixed costs, everything. It's the full EBITDA cost. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Rochus. We'll move now to Bastian at Deutsche Bank. Go ahead, Bastian. Yeah. Thanks, Daniel, and good afternoon all. I just only have two quick questions, please. Just, first of all on volumes and also your volume outlook. From what I understand, you take out another blast furnace in Fos in France, and if I understand that correctly, that will happen towards the end of the fourth quarter. That would obviously suggest that you expect Q1 to be potentially flat or worse. If I understood you correctly, you're expecting the stocking to ease in the first quarter. I'm wondering, could you maybe help us to reconcile this? Are there any plans that you may actually bring back capacity at other places? That would be my first question. Yeah. Well, Bastian, I think it's important also to put in perspective, right? Some of the furnaces that we brought down, I think that is a combination here of maintenance that would happen regardless. That's the case of one of our furnaces in Dunkirk that is down for about six weeks. That furnace will be back towards the end of the quarter, right? Then some of the other idling furnaces, it's really as a response to the current very weak European steel demand that we are seeing. We are also doing it to some extent to control and make sure that we don't end up ourselves with more inventories than what we needed. The company, as a company, we will retain a lot of flexibility because we can bring back the furnaces relatively quickly, in case our expectation of better apparent steel consumption or demand next year really materialize. We're gonna be in a position to do that. I think what is important as a message is that we are also, of course, focused on making sure that we retain our market share. I would not like in this call that you guys walk away with the idea that we are taking more pain than the rest of the industry. A lot of focus on making sure that we retain our market share. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for clarifying. My second question is on CO2 certificates. If we look at your shipment volumes, they've obviously been trending weak already. I guess with your production cuts, you will potentially be left with some excess CO2 certificates. Just to confirm, did you hold on to any excess allocations here? Just given the relevance of those also for, I guess, the next couple of years, or have you been possibly selling some into the market as you used to do at some point over the last couple of years? Sam, what we have been doing, and that was also done last year. The business, as we know, everybody's short in Europe, right? Companies have different hedging strategies, different hedging books. We have ours. Last year, what we did was every quarter, depending on the shortage, we were just going out and buying the certificates to cover that shortage. That's exactly what we continue to do this year. On a quarterly basis, we measure, we see what is the shortage. We go and buy. We are not touching on our hedging position. We have been, to some extent, lucky, because as you know, given the volatility with the energy markets and euro prices have come down, we took advantage of that. I think we are achieving this year a relatively good average price for CO2 to cover the shortage of the year. That's it. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Bastian. We'll move now to the next question from Max at ODDO. Go ahead, Max. Good afternoon. I think the question was already partly answered, but some clarification is always helpful. Yes. It seems that you are much more aggressive than your competitors in terms of curtailing capacity. Also big players in Europe have not announced such plans to mothball. Yeah. Isn't there the risk that you decline now much more significantly in the quarters ahead than the competitors? And isn't there the risk, too, that you're late on even on any potential upturn in demand? And related to that, how much time would you need to bring back these idled furnaces back into operation if demand picked up? That would be my third question. Yeah. Max, I mean, as I was saying, the organization is of course focused on matching production to demand, focused on maintaining our market share, right? Then when you look at the production that for September for Europeans, you can see that on average, September was down by about 17%. That's what we are guiding also for quarter four in terms of production cuts. I think the industry overall seems to be, again, I cannot speak for the competition, but looking at that, it suggests that the industry is doing the same. There can be different types of announcements. In our case, given the size of the operation footprint, we have the flexibility to bring down entire furnace and then work on reducing the associated fixed costs. If you don't have that flexibility, then you can run your tools at the lower levels without necessarily bringing it completely down. I think that's probably what is happening, looking at the data that is available. I think we're gonna be in a position to continue to service the market timely and again, very much focusing on our market share. Okay. Just going back to your CapEx guidance, right? It has been significantly trimmed down from $4.2 billion to $3.5 billion. Excluding the effects, that is a $0.5 billion cut. I mean, can you be a bit more specific on the delays you have identified in your presentation? What's the share of these delays in explaining the revised guidance, I mean, the downward adjustment versus some voluntary cuts that you're undertaking due to the more difficult background. Yeah. No, no. Thank you. Thank you, Max. I think that's a very good question. The first message is that we are not changing or slowing down any of our strategic CapEx. Given the, you know, in my opening remarks, I was making the comments on strength of the balance sheet. The change to our CapEx forecast or guidance, it's really linked to mostly timing, really. I mean, you talked about the FX. There is an FX component here that's about $200 million that we have identified. As we know, we have seen significant FX change during the quarter. It's more timing. It's really about ability to mobilize contractors. I think we are gaining speed, and that's why you see our guidance for quarter four. There is an acceleration. We are guiding for about $1.5 billion to be spent in Q4. When you look at the second half of 2022, we are giving as an indication that it's probably a good number for 2023. Of course, we are in early stage of our budget cycle, and we will provide more clarity and guidance on 2023 CapEx as we report results, our Q4 results. I think that is a good reference at the moment. Some of the reduction in strategic CapEx, it's really spread out in some projects. In Brazil, we face some delays in Monlevade and Serra Azul. Again, as I've said, mobilization of contractors primarily and also in our project in India. We don't believe that it should cause delays at this point in time. We are assessing that, but we believe that we should be able to catch up. Okay. That's clear. Thank you. Thanks, Max. We'll move to our last question, actually, which is from Moses at JP Morgan. Go ahead, Moses. Hi. Thank you very much for taking my question. A few from me. I want to start, so with the energy hedges which you've touched on. You mentioned you've reduced gas consumption 30% year-on-year, but could you give us some color on, I guess, the absolute impact of your energy hedges sequentially? What are your plans on energy consumption into Q4 in 2023? To help with that, could you just provide how much of your energy is purchased on spot? Yeah. Moses, that's a good question. I think we were, to some extent, lucky. We were, of course, in this rising market in terms of energy prices. I think we acted fast. We locked a good part of our consumption for quarter one, quarter two, to some extent, also quarter three. If you see our deck, you can see that in H1, we basically managed to keep our costs, and we have been talking about it, our costs relatively stable compared to quarter four of 2021. Of course, we could not keep up as prices continued to rise. You see the $300 million impact in quarter three. Because prices were rising, our ability to continue to hedge as much as we would like for quarter four, they were not there. At some point it became risky because prices were very high. We have not hedged much quarter four. Some, but not much. As a result, we are benefiting from the very low spot prices that we are seeing. My expectation is that the average spot prices that you can see on your screen should basically reflect what we have for quarter four. Quarter one I would expect the same. The environment is such today that it's hard because you have the Commission and the member states in Europe discussing caps. It's unclear really what kind of measures will be in place. It just makes it harder for you to go out and lock in prices, knowing also that the forward prices, they remain higher than spot prices today. Thank you. Given your curtailment, what's been the impact on your fixed and variable costs, and how do you expect that to evolve into Q4? Basically, how much of your fixed costs could become variable into Q4 in 2023? Yeah. I think that's one of the key aspects of idling some of the capacity. You match production to demand. You can also focus on variabilizing your fixed costs as much as possible. We don't have the same schemes that we had back in 2020 at the time of COVID. We do have schemes still available to us in most countries where we operate. The focus is on working with the unions, working with our employees, to have as much of the fixed cost removed for as long as our furnaces are down. It's a significant percentage. I'm not gonna be specific. We believe that we can remove a good part of the fixed cost. On the fixed cost per ton, as we bring down capacity, will be impacted. Fixed cost per ton will increase as we reduce capacity. It's still, economically, it's the right decision. Thanks. Just 'cause you touched on it just then, how are some of your labor agreements progressing in Europe and also in Brazil into 2023? Well, I think this is a challenge that everybody will face. This is, as inflation has been high, I think, a hot topic not only for us, but for everybody in 2023. It's going to be a discussion with the unions, with our employees to find what is the right balance where we attend the needs, but we also make sure that the company remains competitive, remains viable. It's going to be, you know, fine-tuned trying to find that balance. On top of that, as we have discussed at the beginning of the year, our management gainsharing plans that we launch, we continue to track and follow that very closely. We continue to work on productivity. I think the company historically has always done well in working on improving productivity and I expect us to continue to do that to mitigate some of the cost inflations that is happening and everybody will need to face. Are those expectations included in future CapEx assumptions as well? Well, yes. I mean, at this point because we are working on this strategic CapEx now for some time, right? We have a good idea of costs associated with these projects. We also saw efforts bringing down some of these CapEx. There are some offsetting aspects as well. It's not only everything is negative, so there are also some positive effects as well. Brilliant. Thank you very much. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Moses. That was our last question actually, Genuino. I will hand the call back to you. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you everyone for joining our call today. I think we had a good discussion around how we are responding to the market challenge. I hope that you take away one message, and this one message is consistency. Consistency in our focus on safety and industry leadership. Consistency in our free cash flow generation and consistency between how we allocate our capital to growing and developing ArcelorMittal while continuously returning capital to our shareholders. Thank you very much.