Good morning, and welcome to this presentation of the SSAB year-end report. I am Per Hillström, Head of Investor Relations, and today's presenters are Martin Lindqvist, President and CEO, and CFO Håkan Folin. We can go to the agenda here. Martin will start with a summary of the very eventful year, one must say, and then Håkan comes back with the financials, and at the end, Martin has some closing remarks and the outlook. After that, we will open up for Q&A, but we will come back to that with the instructions. By that, Martin, please start the presentation. Thank you, Per. I will start with this picture. We have looked into this opportunity and evaluated it over the last couple of months, and we have now concluded the discussions because we, from an SSAB perspective, see limited possibilities to integrate this into our strategies and therefore concluded the discussions with Tata Steel. As Per mentioned, 2020 was a very, call it volatile year with a decent start in Q1 and then a very tough second and third quarter. We had to take down production. We had to idle a blast furnace or two blast furnaces. We moved summer stops, and we also took production outages. Looking back at it, I think our flexibility in the system has served us well because when the market started to recover in Q4, or recovered in Q4, we were quite fast to adopt to that and get up production quickly and run it on a stable level, get the blast furnace up and running. During this very volatile year, we have also been able to save fixed costs of more than SEK 1.6 billion compared to the full year of 2019. We also ended the year in Q4 with a, I would say, very decent cash flow and net cash flow of SEK 2.9 billion, and we continue to reduce our net debt. We have also focused a lot, of course, to safeguard the health and safety for our employees and our personnel. We have tried to minimize the impact internally of COVID-19 at our production sites and in critical operations and have so far at least avoided any big outbreaks. These measures will, of course, continue into 2021. We have also managed to continue to improve the safety performance, and we measure that among other things in lost time injury frequency, and we had a very good development in 2019, and that development continued into 2020. We reduced the lost time injury frequency from per million working hours from 4.2- 3.7. Our ambition and target is, of course, to be at zero and be also leading globally in this KPI. We are not there yet, but we are definitely moving in the right direction. We look at Q4, we saw better capacity utilization and higher shipments and, as said, a market recovering from very low levels in Q2 and Q3 into Q4 or during Q4. We started up, as already said, the blast furnace in Raahe, that went well. We had also very good and stable production in Oxelösund, I will come back to Special Steels. We had an EBIT of SEK 557 million, quite a big increase compared to Q4. Of course, for the full year, we made on EBIT level a small loss. You look at the operating profit and loss per division, all divisions and the two daughter companies, Tibnor and Ruukki Construction, performed better than the fourth quarter 2019. I will come back to the divisions and talk about demand and stability. We saw also that the demand over this volatile year for our niche products in automotive, Special Steels, and so on, held up better than the average steel demand over the year. We start then with Special Steels, even here we saw a recovery compared to Q3 volume-wise, and then of course, also a strong recovery compared to Q4 last year. Better capacity utilization, higher volumes. We had no maintenance stop in Q4. All that was moved to Q3, where we had the yearly maintenance stop in Oxelösund, but we also stood still, I think, for seven weeks with a maintenance stop of four weeks, but we took out production due to lower demand. For the full year, shipments decreased from 1.2 million tons to 1.1 million tons, I think what is more important is the EBITDA margin that improved from 11.3% 2019 to 13.2%, which I think is quite okay in a year like this. The division was able to reduce their fixed costs by around SEK 480 million versus 2019. We saw over the year when we were producing very good and stable production performance. Moving over to Europe, where we saw a big effect of the volatility in Q2 and Q3, also a recovery in Q4. The Q4 EBIT was not much to talk about, it at least went from negative to positive. We saw better capacity utilization, higher volumes. We were running during Q4, both blast furnaces in Raahe, we saw lower steel prices sequentially, that had a negative impact. For the full year, automotive decreased with 8%, that is Advanced High-Strength Steel, the total automotive market decreased with 20% roughly in Europe. I think the Advanced High-Strength Steels held up better than the average automotive market. We had 38% of the volumes in SSAB Europe being premium share. We also managed to take market shares on our home markets. Overall, for the full year, we had a loss on EBIT level of SEK 1.1 billion. Group, we saved a bit more than SEK 1.6 billion. SEK 620 million was saved in fixed costs in 2020 compared to 2019, which I think is a good achievement for that division. Moving over to another volatile market during 2020, and what we experienced in Americas, we saw that negative impact of COVID-19 on demand in Q2 and Q3, and then we started to see a recovery in Q4. The volumes in Q4 were actually quite good. We had an EBIT in Q4 of 45 million SEK, the reason was better capacity utilization, and as said, higher volumes. We also had no maintenance in Q4 2020, which we had in Q4 2019. We were also negatively affected in Q4 on lower steel prices and higher scrap costs. At the end, we managed to get just above breakeven on EBIT level for Q4. For the full year, compared to the previous year, we lost a lot on EBIT, and we had significantly lower margins. SSAB Americas managed to reduce fixed cost compared to 2019 with 270 million SEK, and we kept the premium share on a stable level, and we also managed to increase our market share on the North American plate market during 2020. If you look into the daughter companies, Tibnor, they also experienced the volatility that we have seen in Europe. They had a better EBIT in Q4, SEK 48 million compared to minus SEK 39 million last year. That was due to higher volumes, I would also say to a large extent, due to cost savings from the ongoing restructuring program. That program is fully implemented, we will see full year effects of that during 2021. For the full year, EBIT improved from SEK 30 million to SEK 96 million, also here we see the positive effects from the restructuring program that was finalized end of Q2. The only division that didn't experience so much volatility was Ruukki Construction, where we saw a stable construction market in 2020. Comparable revenue, if we exclude the building system that was divested in Q2 2020, we're on a stable level. We managed to improve the EBIT and the margins, and we had better volumes, compared to Q4 last year in especially roofing. We managed to increase the EBIT from SEK 283 million last year to SEK 314 million. Now when we have divested the building system, the parts that is still left in Ruukki Construction, the product business, is part of SSAB's core business. I foresee further positive development in this division going forward. They are doing a solid job. With that, Håkan, over to some financials. Thank you, Martin. As usual, I will go through some more details on the financials, cash flow, balance sheet, bridges, and also raw material. I will start with an overview, and a bit of a historical comparison. Sales in Q4 this year were roughly on the same level or almost exactly on the same level as in Q4 last year. However, shipments were up significantly, almost by 20% compared to Q4 2019. With the lower sales, EBITDA margin improved quite a lot, and we had more than 8% in EBITDA margin, which was actually the best margin we have had since Q2 2019. That also resulted then in a clear improvement in EBITDA per tonne delivered steel of around SEK 800 per tonne. If we looked at what happened between Q4 last year and Q4 this year, we have an improvement of around SEK 1.7 billion in profitability. However, in this bridge, then you can see we start with a negative development on prices. They decreased in all steel division, but especially in SSAB Europe and in SSAB Americas. That was somewhat compensated by volumes, plus SEK 600 million, and we had better volumes now in Q4 2020 than in Q4 2019 in all steel divisions. As you might remember, Q4 2019 was plagued by de-stocking and very low activity on the market. We also had a big positive impact from variable COGS, SEK 1.5 billion, lower raw material impacting quite a lot. Also the fact that we were running production at a high and at a stable level, that supports also the variable COGS in terms of fuel efficiency, energy consumption, scrapping, and all of that. We did not have large maintenance outages this quarter. We improved fixed cost also in Q4, SEK 200 million or a bit more compared to Q4 last year. This was despite them being on a significantly higher activity level. I think it shows that some of the cost savings we have seen this year have not only been temporary adjustments, but actually cost savings that will stick also for a longer time, not least than what Martin talked about before, the restructuring program in Tibnor. FX, somewhat negative, but not that much, SEK 80 million. Unabsorption, positive by SEK 820 million. We were running production at a significantly higher level this quarter than Q4 last year. We have a quite a big amount negative on other. The largest portion of that is that in Q4 last year, we were receiving some insurance compensation for previous production issues we've had, and those we were not getting the same on this quarter. All in all, an improvement of SEK 1.7 billion. If we move to comparing sequentially and look at Q3 and Q4, we also see a quite big improvement here around SEK 1.5 billion. Slightly lower on prices, that differed between divisions where a positive development in SSAB Americas, a more negative development in SSAB Europe, partly driven by seasonality. Clear improvement on volumes in all steel divisions. We saw much better volumes now in Q4 than in Q3, as Martin described before the volatility during this year. Better on the variable COGS by around SEK 600 million, which again comes from running operations at a more stable level, also from raw material. Here raw material is actually a bit less than half. We had a clearly higher fixed cost in Q4 than in Q3. For those of you that follow us for a while, you know that we usually have that because we have seasonally low cost in the third quarter. That's roughly between three and SEK 350 million. We had a bit higher cost in Q4, driven then by the significantly higher activity level in Q4. FX slightly positive, then unabsorption positive by as much as SEK 1 billion. We did move the planned maintenance outages. We had quite a lot of them in Q3. We had originally planned for both SSAB Americas and SSAB Special Steels and part of SSAB Europe to be in Q4. We moved all SSAB Americas and all SSAB Special Steels and most of SSAB Europe to be in Q3, where we knew that demand would be slow. We were hoping that demand would return in Q4, which it apparently did. We were ready to ramp up production and increase our shipments to customers. All in all, an improvement then with around SEK 1.5 billion sequentially. If we look at the cash flow then, we start with looking at Q4. We had an operating cash flow and a net cash flow at fairly same level, around SEK 2.9 billion. Very strong cash flow in the last quarter of the year. Driven by, of course, a decent EBITDA of SEK 1.4, but also by a quite big change in working capital of SEK 2 billion, especially coming from the inventory side. If we take the full year and we look at net cash flow, we had a net cash flow of SEK 2.2 billion, which I think then given the extremely tough year we've had, it's a quite decent cash flow for the year. In terms of investment, if we add up the maintenance expenditure of SEK 1.6 and the strategic CapEx of SEK 0.6, we ended up at SEK 2.2, which is in the range we guided for between SEK 2 and SEK 2.5. As you remember, originally for the year, we said SEK 3 billion, but then when COVID-19 started hitting, we said we will be a bit more selective and postpone some investments, and we will be between SEK 2 and SEK 2.5. If I move over to the balance sheet. We have a well-balanced maturity profile. We have a quite long duration on our loan portfolio. We have a very high amount of liquid assets and committed credit lines, which we took up during March when COVID-19 started spreading. We took a number of extra measures to make sure that we were on the safe side. We definitely have been on the safe side. We now have 33% of liquid asset and credit lines compared to sales, which is a very high amount. Now that things seem to have calmed down, at least for the time being, we will reduce those in the coming few months. We did that as a precautionary measure. What we are maturing in 2021 is, to a large extent, commercial paper. As we are generating our own cash flow, we will also reduce the amount of outstanding commercial papers. We take a bit longer perspective and look at our net debt development over the years, and we start at the end of 2014, and 2014 was the year where we acquired Ruukki, or merged with Ruukki. At that time, we had a net debt of almost SEK 25 billion and a net gearing of 56%. We have year-over-year, we have gradually reduced net debt. You can see there's a bit of a hiccup there between 2018 and 2019, but that's driven by the implementation of IFRS 16, which impacted by around SEK 2 billion. We lowered net debt again this year, down by close to SEK 2 billion. Now we are at net debt level of around SEK 10 billion or slightly above, SEK 10.3 billion, and we are at the net gearing of 19%. All in all, we have a fairly solid balance sheet position at the moment. In terms of cash needs of the business, cash need we define here as CapEx, interest paid, and taxes paid. They were quite low last year, below SEK 3 billion, and we are expecting them to increase next year to around SEK 5 billion. Partly driven then because we will increase CapEx. We have already restarted the expansion of quench-and-temper capacity in Mobile. We will also start the spending of the Oxelösund conversion. We have already started the work, and we have done quite a lot of work also in 2020, but we will start more of the CapEx spending during 2021, and therefore, overall, we will see a higher CapEx. Interest paid will be roughly stable. Taxes, we say here they will normalize. That obviously depends on the profitability level. For illustration purpose here, we have put in the taxes paid in 2019, but that will develop as we move on. We will have an increased need in terms of cash with around SEK 2 billion next year. On the raw material side, we have seen a rather dramatic development during Q4, especially for iron ore, and as we show on the next slide for scrap. For our own purchase prices, they were 6% higher in SEK and 9% in USD in Q4 versus Q3, not a dramatic development, as you can see on the graph. We saw spot prices for iron ore increase rapidly in the second half of December and also in January, and are now at a very, very high level. This will impact us partly in Q1, especially for the Luleå operations, where we don't have almost no iron ore stockage, but we basically get deliveries on a daily basis. There we will see the impact also in Q1 of this sharp increase the last month or so. Coke and coal, on the other hand, was actually slightly lower, our own purchase prices in Q4 versus Q3. If you go back a year, a year and a half, you can see in the graph that the coke and coal purchases have actually, or prices, sorry, have actually decreased quite a lot. I mentioned that scrap in the U.S., we've seen quite a dramatic development, and this you can see in the graph, where December and January scrap prices increased significantly. Our own purchase prices, on average in Q4, were 14% higher than in Q3. We have seen a further increase than for our January buy. For scrap, we have a shorter turnaround time compared to coke and coal and iron ore. This will impact our cost in Q1. We will also see higher prices, as Martin will come back to shortly. From my side, a few words about our planned major maintenance outages in 2021. All in all, we expect that the cost will be around SEK 1.2 billion, which is higher than what we saw in 2020, where they were SEK 800 million. There are two reasons for this. One is that in 2020, they were unusually low because of the low production levels we had in Q3 especially, we were able to do more of the planned maintenance with our own people. The second reason is that next year in the U.S., we will have the outage in Mobile, where we have the Q&T lines, and then we also always get a slightly higher cost than when we do it in Montpelier, where we don't have the Q&T lines. All in all, around SEK 1.2 billion for the year. With that, back to you, Martin. Thank you, Håkan. As said many times now, 2020 was a very turbulent year and a very volatile year, I wouldn't call it a lost year, but a difficult year. Looking into our strategic targets and the focus areas, you could say that we were not able to perform on the trend line in order to reach the targets we had previously set up for 2022. On the other hand, we saw also that within these areas, the focused areas, and the strategic target areas, it held up better than the overall steel market. I think it's fair to assume that given the volatility and the markets in 2020, we move now our strategic targets, or the ambition to reach the targets, from 2022- 2023. In that aspect, we did not stay on the trend line. We think we have a good possibility, or a very good possibility to reach them 2023, and these targets are unchanged. We will have shipments in SSAB Special Steels of 1.6 million tons. We will continue to grow SSAB Services, and SSAB Services, of course, as everyone else, was affected by the COVID-19 situation in many places, and lower demand, and shutdowns among customers, but still held up surprisingly well, or quite well given the circumstances. We expect them to continue to move positively, and we are aiming for sales of SEK 4.5 billion in 2023. The premium share in SSAB Americas, we will continue to grow that, and we are aiming for 39% in 2023. Also for the premium share in SSAB Europe, from 38% in 2020, which was a slight decrease of one percentage point compared to 2019, but we see the possibilities to reach the target of 46% in 2023. Automotive, as said, held up better for advanced high-strength steels than the general automotive market, or much better. We see possibilities to reach the goal of 800,000 tons in 2023, and premium products 900,000 tons in 2023. The market share at the end of the second half of the year developed positively, but we ended up for the full year at 37%, obviously a bit from the target of 40%-45%, but we see good possibilities to reach the target, and that is an over time target, but to reach that in 2023. Not the last year, the strategic areas held up better than general steel market, but we were not on the trend line, and that's why we then moved the targets from 2022- 2023. We are firmly on track for a more sustainable SSAB. We are moving forward. Håkan talked about Oxelösund, where we are now investing to be completely fossil-free in 2026 and start to deliver steels from Oxelösund in fossil-free steel in 2026. We have the overarching goal to be fossil-free in 2045. We inaugurated or started up the world unique HYBRIT pilot plant in Luleå in August 2020. We were running it during 2020 for performance tests on natural gas. We are now starting to produce sponge iron using hydrogen to take out the oxide of the iron oxide. That will be done during the beginning of this year. We also had a new updated sustainability strategy in 2020. We were actually also approved by the Science Based Targets initiative during 2020 as, what I know at least, one of very few, if not the first steel company globally. When we look into the markets in Q1 and compare to Q4, it looks okay. If we take heavy transport, we see healthy demand, heavy truck production at high level. Maybe still a bit low on rail cars in the U.S. In automotive, we see a strong market. We expect a continued strong market with recovery in production and underlying structural growth within advanced high-strength steels. Construction machinery, also decent with production levels recovering in main markets. Material handling, the mining sector continues on a good level. We see a strong demand from that segment. Energy overall, quite okay. Low activity in oil and gas, good activity within wind power and transmission. Construction, stable underlying demand, but of course, as we always see during the first quarter, a seasonal slowdown, and especially now in the Nordics, where we have for the first time in a number of years, a real winter with snow and cold temperatures. The important swing factors, service centers. We saw that the inventories in the service centers or in the supply chain were on low levels end of Q4. We expect to see restocking in both Europe and U.S. Overall, with the brasklapp in Swedish of the effects of a stronger second wave or third wave of COVID-19, we see a quite decent outlook for Q1. If we put this in SSAB terms, we see that for Q1, demand for steel is expected to be good, driven by both underlying demand and by customers and steel service centers restocking. As said, still uncertainty as how COVID-19 will affect demand midterm. We expect global demand for high-strength steels, and especially quench-and-temper, to be good. When we look at prices, we expect prices to increase in Special Steels and in SSAB Europe and SSAB Americas to increase significantly. We will see, as Håkan mentioned, also higher costs for raw material in Q4. If we look at the volume outlook, we expect better volumes in Special Steels in Europe and slightly lower volumes in Americas due to two reasons. Very good volumes in Q4, then we entered into Q1 with a slightly lower slab balance. Overall, decent volumes, decent prices, decent demand, what we can see right now at least. If we sum it up, I think we internally, or the organization, showed good flexibility to manage a very volatile 2020 with almost non-existing demand or production in Q2 and then a recovery in Q4. We saw a strong cash flow in Q4 and for the full year. We continued to reduce the net debt, and you should expect us to continue to reduce net debt and generate positive cash flow. We managed to reduce fixed cost with more than SEK 1.6 billion. All divisions contributed. We had a successful, I would say, ramp-up of production in Q4 when the market recovered, and we were able also to start the blast furnace in a very good way in end of Q3. We expect good demand into Q1, and as said in the beginning, we have concluded the discussions with Tata Steel, and we remain firm of the target of the first in fossil-free steel, and that will be delivered in large volumes from Oxelösund beginning of 2026. With that, Per, I guess we open up for questions and comments and hopefully also some good advice. Yes. Thank you, Martin and Håkan. We will be ready now to start the Q&A session. I would just like to remind all people here that it's perfectly fine to ask several questions, but please state them one at a time. It will make things easier here for everyone. Please, operator, present the instructions. Thank you.If you wish to ask an audio question, you may do so by pressing zero one on your telephone keypad. If you wish to withdraw your question, you may do so by pressing zero two to cancel. Once again, please press zero one on your telephone keypad if you wish to ask an audio question. Our first question comes from Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Good morning, gentlemen. I have two questions. I'll start with the first one, which is around capital allocation. Your earnings are inflecting quite strongly. You have called off the IJmuiden acquisition, which signals good discipline, you've also not paid a dividend in spite of the reduction in net debt. Your balance sheet is likely to be in a much better place if spot prices persist. How do you plan to balance balance sheet strength versus cash returns versus M&A going forward? That's my first question. We have a clear dividend policy, and even though we were making some money, not a lot of money, but some money in Q4, overall for the full year, we were negative. We had a negative result. The proposal from the board of zero in dividend for the AGM is in line with our financial targets. That's what we are planning. The only thing we are planning for is to continue to generate positive cash flow, and then the dividend is up to every AGM or EGM. Okay, thank you. That's the first question. Second question is, if we may go back to slide 16, the waterfall chart, and if we roll that into Q1, other than prices, costs, and volumes, which we can have our own assumptions there, are there any other moving parts that we should be thinking about in that waterfall chart into Q1? Of course, currency is one moving part that is hard to predict as always, and then you have where this pandemic will move in Q1. I don't know, Håkan, if you want to? No, not really. We typically have between Q3 and Q4, we have it in SSAB Europe, for example, a worse mix because we sell less color-coated than galvanized material, but we don't have that same between Q4 and Q1. No, I think you mentioned obviously, how we run production, and then we guided on the shipments and the raw material cost. Any comments on absorption, for instance? Which was a big item in Q4. We can say is that production in Q4 was running actually really well, and I think that's one reason. If we look at, and of course we do, we look at your estimates, and we can see that we came out slightly better, and that was especially for Europe. I would say that in Europe, Q4 production was running really well, and it was actually running fairly well in Special Steel and really well in America. Unabsorption was quite low when production was running well in Q4. We have no plans or intention to change that for Q1, of course, but we don't know the outcome as of yet for sure. Thank you. We will not have, by definition, a better absorption in Q1. No. We were running almost as we could. In all fairness, we have also, over the last couple of years, done quite a lot of changes in the production organization. One should expect better and better production stability, and that's what we are seeing. We have done structural changes. A couple of years back, we had some problems with production stability, and that taught us a lot, and we have done a lot of structural changes in order to mitigate that or try to mitigate that. Very clear. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Seth Rosenfeld from Exane. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for taking our questions, and congrats on a very strong end to the year. I have a question with regards to the Tata deal more broadly and what it means for the strategy going forward. You already touched on earlier in your prepared remarks some of the reasons why you chose to walk away from Tata. It might seem like some of those concerns might have been known before even starting due diligence. I just wonder if there's any general conclusion we can draw here with regards to how you might consider M&A going forward. For example, is there a general conclusion that SSAB has decided that buying more blast furnaces is inherently unattractive for decarbonization or incompatible with the strategy for decarbonization? Going forward, are you able to say if SSAB would look at other acquisitions on the blast furnace side? Ultimately, is this a unique case for Tata in IJmuiden? I'll start there. I think overall, we are onto something unique with fossil-free steel and the HYBRIT project, and also what we are doing now in Oxelösund. I believe that will be one of the future niche products. When we talk to customers and see the big interest, I'm getting more and more convinced. Of course, we should always look into possibilities and look into them and form our own opinion and draw conclusions from that in big and small. We are always investing. Håkan mentioned what we are investing in Oxelösund. We are investing a lot in Mobile to increase the Q&T capacity. We are investing in Borlänge to increase the volumes of advanced high-strength martensitic cold-rolled steels. We are investing in Hämeenlinna to get up capacity and capability within galvanize. We should always take a look and form ourselves an educated view on different things when it's possible. I think that's part of our responsibility. Keep to the strategy and see if does it fit it in or not, and then draw our conclusions. That's what I can say about it. We have a clear strategy. We have a clear path where we want to move, and we are investing and evaluating opportunities according to that. Okay, thank you. If I can ask a more specific question with regards to the U.S. plate market. Can you give us a bit more color on current supply-demand conditions? Are you seeing any inflection in energy demand, or alternatively, with the new Biden administration, is there increased concern about structural demand from pipeline sector, for example? Obviously, we've seen a huge surge in plate prices at a time when our understanding is that demand is not phenomenal, but perhaps piggybacking on strength in hot rolled coil. Do you think that the plate price strength can continue if hot rolled coil begins to inflect over the coming months? In terms of demand, you mentioned the energy segments, for sure, oil and pipe will most likely, and we've seen it with the Keystone Project, not be that supported by the new Administration. Another part of the energy segment, which is really important for us is the wind tower, which also then generates transmission tower, that segment will most likely, on the other hand, be boosted by the new Administration. We think that will not be negative, at least, is our assumption as of now. In terms of plate versus strip prices, that's obviously a difficult question to ask. We see a strong fundamental right now for plate, and we also see a very unusual situation where strip prices are clearly higher than plate. That doesn't happen very often on the U.S. market. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Viktor Trollsten from DNB. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, Martin and Håkan. This is Viktor. I hope you can hear me. We can hear you, Viktor. Hi, brilliant. Just in terms of volumes, which was obviously very impressive in the quarter, and you're thinking about the picture you showed on the order intake in Europe during the last report, I think it was, which was easy to get excited about in terms of volumes for Q4. Your guidance was a bit more conservative, but somewhat better volumes, and now shipments was actually up 20%. Could you just tell us a bit if anything changed during the quarter and what was driving that good development versus your guidance? We were not extremely explicit when it comes to volumes, but the recovery came in Q4, and it was slightly stronger than expected, and the order intake kept up. In society, we saw a lot of negative effects from COVID, but in the steel consumption market, we did not see that, and we were a bit insecure how that would play out in Q4. From a steel perspective, it turned out slightly better than expected. In the society, the opposite, but from a steel consumption perspective, better than feared. Okay. Then, as Håkan said, we also managed to ramp up production according to that increased demand in a decent way in Q4. It is always a bit tricky to start up a blast furnace when you have idled it, and they are typically not built to be idle, and that was successfully done by SSAB Europe. As said, production was running well, and we were still on short-term work and so on in different parts of the organization. We were also both lucky and did a lot of work to keep our mills running and avoid big outbreaks of COVID-19. We didn't really know how that would hit production and so on, because it is very hard or demanding, at least, to keep distance when you have a big spread of COVID-19 in the society. Okay. That's clear. Just relating to that chart, I think you were at around 350,000 tons by September. Can you tell us where you are for the moment? No, we have had decent order intake during Q4 and in the beginning of Q1. Okay. Relating to that question, I think it sounds like order books in Europe are basically now full until mid Q2. Could you tell us a bit about your lead times in Europe and America now? When the market recovers, you need to be a bit, call it tactical as well. When prices are moving up, typically you see de-stocking as well, and then you need to try to figure out how much you should fill up your order book or not. If you take Americas, we have not yet opened up Q2 orders. Okay. The order book as it looks right now is reflected then in what we say in the guidance, volume-wise and price-wise. That is based on what we see in order intake and the order book, as we typically always do. Yeah. Just in terms of price guidance, because at least I had expected a quite different guidance last quarter in terms of prices, for example, Europe, as prices started to increase so fast. You guided quite conservatively for Q4 due to timing effects. Just how to think now into Q1, what prices will come through? I think looking at average prices for Q4 versus Q3, prices are up basically 25%. Is that the range we should look at? No. Significantly mean? As you mentioned, we have a lag effect from spot prices until they are seen in our P&L. What we guide for, and maybe we're not very specific, but the guidance we give in Europe and Americas is significantly higher prices. We also say that raw material costs will be higher in Q1 compared to Q4. Yeah. Okay. Just finally from me, in terms of the SSAB Special Steels, the 2D target now for 2023, can you tell us a bit about how that ramp up will look like? Just to get a feeling for how volumes could turn out for 2021, 2022 maybe. When we look at the underlying demand and see what we can also produce in our mills in Oxelösund, in Raahe, Borlänge, and Mobile, we think it works quite well together. Of course, we have prolonged it for a year because we were not, as I tried to say, maybe it's not the right word, but we were not on the trend line for that growth in 2020. Having said that, Special Steels volumes kept up fairly well compared to the general steel market, and we also managed to increase the margins or the EBITDA margin in a very difficult year, 2020. You need to remember that we were standing still this summer, including maintenance, for seven weeks, or even a bit more than seven weeks, and the maintenance took maybe four weeks. Production-wise, we have the possibility to reach the target of 1.6, and market-wise, we see good possibilities also to reach that by 2023. Okay. Yeah. We have many in the queue here. Sorry, Viktor, but we need to move on to the next. Of course. Thank you. I'll get back. Thanks a lot. Our next question comes from Alan Spence from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Thanks, and good morning. I've got a couple questions, I'll do them one at a time. The first one is around Q1 volumes. Can you give us a bit of a sense of where you think your utilization rates might be for your three steel making divisions? I think we will be running at decent utilization rates in Q1. We have the order book for that. Care to put a number to decent? No, decent is good levels. Okay. A bit of a longer term question, the impacts from COVID, do you think it kind of structurally changes the outlook for any of your end markets, either in a positive or a negative way? Yes, I think it could change it in both ways, positive and negative. I think we will see some changes. We see some changes in the pattern from customers, how they buy and how they decide to buy, and we are focusing a lot on, call it IT-based tools for meeting customers. We have learned a lot this year. We have been restricted in traveling and so on. We also see a huge interest, call it midterm or a bit longer term, for fossil-free steel and a very big interest for what we are doing in Oxelösund. I think, as I think I said before, I think that is also going to be a new, call it a premium product or a niche product for SSAB. I think if that is only or partly or not at all related to COVID-19. Of course, COVID-19 will mean changes for a lot of things, of course. Okay. My last one is just a simple one. Can you just confirm that the idling costs did not spill into Q4? Sorry, I didn't understand. The idling cost did not impact Q4? No. We had no production idling Q4. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Alan. Next question comes from Gustaf Schwerin from Handelsbanken. Please go ahead. Yes. Hello. Thanks for taking my questions. I have two. Firstly, just a follow-up on the previous question on M&A strategy going forward. In the past, you've talked about not going over odd volumes, but then of course, this discussion and your interest indicates differently. Just to be very clear, do you want to grow a lot through acquisitions, or should we outrule something of this magnitude in the future? We have a clear strategy, and we will always look at the possibilities when they present themselves. We have a clear target where we want to go with this company, and we think we have the possibility to lead the development of fossil-free steel, and that's where we are going to invest, and that's where we are investing. We will look at possibilities to broaden our product portfolio in that area, and that is asked by customers that want us to have broader possibilities to deliver fossil-free steel in the future. As said, we are investing in our own facility in order to live up to that. If we would see an opportunity to further increase the speed of this target to lead this development, we will definitely take a look. Great. Secondly, we're getting some signs of production disruptions in the car industry now on the semiconductor shortage. Are you seeing any of this so far, or is it more of a Q2 issue? Not yet, we don't. We see on the market that it's happening, and we are aware that it might impact us. It has not done that yet, but if it continues, then it will, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Anssi Kiviniemi from SEB. Please go ahead. Hi, it's Anssi from SEB. Thanks for taking my questions. On Q1 guidance, we are looking at prices going up even significantly. You also highlight the raw materials being up. Looking at the spread or margins, taking these two factors into account, should we still expect margins to go significantly up, or how should we read your comments there? You should not expect any margin contraction in Q1. No, the margins should go up. Not significantly. Okay Not margins, no. Margins should go up in Q1. Okay. That's very clear. Thanks for that. Second, on cost savings, now SEK 1.6 billion benefits from fixed costs in 2020, how much of this we should expect to come back in 2021? In Q4, there was a fixed cost decrease of roughly SEK 200 million compared to previous years. Is this a good assumption, or should we expect the fixed cost to clearly increase in the coming quarters? I think we have done some structural changes, not least in the cost program in Tibnor, but also in the other divisions. Some of what we did was temporary, but some what we did was structural. You should not expect the majority of the 1.6 to remain there, given that a lot was temporary, but you should not either expect everything to flow back. I think your assumption on Q4 is not a bad assumption at least, maybe not all that level, but there will be definitely some of the cost savings that will stick in 2021 as well. Okay. That's all from me. Thank you. Thanks, Anssi. Thank you. Our next question comes from Christian Kopfer from Nordea. Please go ahead. Thanks, operator. Good morning, everyone. Just two short follow-ups from me then. Firstly, just a little bit curious why you took away the order book, please. I think it was very transparent to see, and I'm just a little bit curious what the negatives that you see with showing it continue. We could have shown that. The order intake has been, as said, quite good. That's why we give the guidance we give. I think we only had it last time, and that was more to illustrate how the big volatility in order intake we had, and that we were seeing an improvement in order intake. It was more a one-timer last time than it was that we took it away this time. Yeah, I think it increases the transparency. If you don't see any negatives with having it in, you could add it back, I guess. We can think about that. Yes, we think about that. Okay. Thanks. A question on HYBRIT, if you can say something how its developmentIf you already answered it, sorry, I missed the first half of the If you can say something how it has developed with the, I think you're using natural gas. What we did, Christian, when we started up the production, we did the performance tests with natural gas together with the suppliers, because we wanted to have the equipment up and running. When we now move over to hydrogen, we want to do that without anyone else looking into how we do it and what we do. We started up according to plan, maybe a month late because we had, due to COVID, problems to get in people that came from abroad to erect. We were a month delayed or so. Now we are on plan and following the targets or the plans we have. We are right now in discussions in the HYBRIT consortium, the final discussions of where to put the demonstration plant, which is, call it more of a full-scale production plant. We are aiming to have the first batches of fossil-free steel using hydrogen to reduce the oxide of the iron ore during the beginning of this year. We will also be able to start to work together with customers and look into prototypes with them, and that work is also ongoing according to plan, and creating a lot of interest among the customers we are discussing and working with. Sounds good. How relevant do you think the pilot plant will be when it comes to how much it will cost to produce the hydrogen, sorry, the carbon-free steel? I think it will be very relevant, and this is a world unique plant, Christian, that is now ramping up. I think it will be very relevant. We will learn a lot how to run it. This is a completely new technique, and to go from an idea to big industrial scale is a lot of uncertainties and a lot of risks. I think this is a very good way of scaling up. I think it will be very important for us. Do you think you will have some very good cost analysis by there already by the end of this year? Yes. Will you take into 2021? No, I think we will have very good ideas or very good knowledge about the costs during this year. Yes. Yep. Thank you very much. Cheers. Our next question comes from Bastian Synagowitz from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning, gentlemen. I just had two quick questions left. I just want to get back for a moment to your statements around the Tata transaction, please. Could you maybe just explain in a bit more detail why you stepped away from Tata and what you were looking for, which the assets were not able to offer? Because on a higher level, the location obviously does have access to wind power and is basically next to what will probably be continental Europe's hydrogen valley. Hence it seemed pretty well located also in the decarbonization context, but it seems like that was not the conclusion you came back with. That is my first question. I mean, IJmuiden is a fantastic facility in many aspects, but we couldn't really fit it in to our strategy. Was some uncertainties and some cost-related issues, but IJmuiden is a fantastic facility with a broad product program, good cost efficiency, and so on. It was more us looking into it and see some challenges to fit it into our overall plan, and that's why we took this decision. These, when you say cost related, was this also just the sheer size of the transaction, which ultimately scared you away or? No, it was more cost related to making that in line with our plans. Okay. Understood. Okay, thank you. My second question was probably one for Håkan. When we look at the working capital development, not just last year, also over the last couple of years, I think you did a very good job. You cut working capital again, and also in the first quarter, in last quarter, you kept it tight, obviously, despite volumes being very strong and prices picking up already towards the end of last year. Could you maybe give us any color in terms of the needs for any working capital rebuild you would expect in 2021? Do you think you'll just be able to run along with this level, also in the current environment? I can start to answer that question. I think we, during 2020 in the volatile markets we saw, we did not end up, when we measure net operating working capital over sales on the levels where we wanted to be. I wouldn't say that we were releasing a lot of working capital and that will hit us back in the future. We still have possibilities to become more effective, and that of course differs between divisions. We typically tie up more working capital in SSAB Special Steels and less so if you take SSAB Americas as an example. In all divisions, there are possibilities, and we had planned for running a very, or Håkan had planned for running together with the divisions, a very structured program in 2020. Given the problems or the effects of the pandemic and everything else we had to change, we had to move that focus and those actions and those projects into hopefully 2021, but we were not doing those actions in 2020. I would say that we still have, as I see it, room for improvement. It will, of course, differ between different quarters, but overall, we have room for improvement. That's my clear view. Okay. Thanks, Martin. Thank you. Our next question comes from Hartman from Capa Support. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, good morning, and thanks for taking the question. I have one on the scrap market outlook. I think your reference to the strong surge in scrap prices, how do you see the market this year? Are you expecting any particular tightness or the difficulties to source material? I'm also referring to that in context with some discussions at the moment about China's future scrap source policy, as there are obviously some political discussions ongoing to limit the growth in the local crude steel production. The second question is on your expectation regarding coking coal pricing. I think what we're seeing in the market today is an unprecedented differential between pricing in China versus the rest of the world for obvious reasons. Would you expect that the equilibrium is moving sooner or later to the lower end, so to the seaborne market, or would you rather see upward pressure for coal prices from here? Maybe, yeah, last question is on what you said about the order books. I guess you referred to them also tactical considerations. What I'm interested in is how you think high level about the steel market in 2021 in terms of direction of steel pricing and the potential inflection point in the coming quarters. Thank you very much. If I start with the first one on the scrap then, in the U.S., you asked if we expect to have difficult resources. We have not had that previously, and we don't expect that in 2021 either. Yes, there is this change in Chinese import of scrap. As of yet, we have not seen that flow happening, and I think that will take a while. What we did see was, of course, the spike in prices in December and in January. It now seems to have stabilized a bit for February. One should remember, we usually have this seasonal effect as well, that scrap is higher in the winter month when it is a bit more difficult to collect, and then it typically lowers a bit when we get into springtime. That was on the U.S. scrap market, coking coal. You can also say that what you typically see when the US dollar is weak compared to the currency in Turkey, as one good example, then you see a lot of scrap export, especially to Turkey. It's also a bit dependent on fluctuations in currencies. The second question, if I remember correctly, was on coking coal and our expectations there. As I showed on the graph, we have seen quite a big decrease in coking coal, and we see coking coal prices now significantly lower than iron ore, which is not usual. You have this a bit unusual situation with China not wanting to import coal from Australia. I would say it's very hard for us to give a good long-term prediction. Both on coking coal and iron ore, things have developed different than most people that are much more expert than we are, prices have developed quite differently than they have assumed. It's hard for us to have a good long-term view on coking coal. Your last question was on our general view on the steel market for 2021, if I remember correctly. That's a very good question. I would call it the million-dollar question. The visibility we have is within Q1. What we see in the order book and in the order intake, then it will be dependent on so many factors. I would say that when you asked me one year ago, I couldn't foresee the effects at all of the pandemic. I have a hard time understanding where this will take us this year as well. Given the order book, given the order intake, we have a pretty good view of the first quarter. What we see the first half could be quite okay. Beyond that, we don't have the visibility at all. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Due to the current time, can I please ask all participants to limit their questions to one question per participant? Please limit your question to one question per participant. Our next question comes from Tom Zhang from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Morning, gents. Okay. If I just one question very quickly just to clarify on slide 25, SSAB Services, the target still has SEK 3 billion organic, SEK 1.5 acquisitions. Does that mean you're still looking to acquire SEK 1.5 billion in SSAB Services sales, or is that just an old slide that hasn't been updated? It's not an old slide. It's an updated slide with a new year. We see further possibilities. We bought Abraservice. That turned out, I would say very well, even during a difficult year of 2020. We are constantly looking at possibilities within services because the service and aftermarket within special steel is also very important. No, this is not an old slide. Okay. Our next question comes from Kevin Heller from Handelsbanken. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I have a question relating the opportunities you're looking in concerning M&A. Does that include thyssenkrupp, or can you rule that possibility out given the timeframe the management has set itself for a decision? As said many times now, we have a clear game plan for SSAB, and we are focusing on the areas where we are focusing, and that's my answer to that question. We prioritize fossil-free steel making and all the possibilities we see for a company like SSAB. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Patrick Mann from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good day, gents. I just wanted to ask a quick follow-up on slide 20. On the tax assumption for 2021, I'm just trying to understand your 2019 level that you've used. Is that the absolute level of tax or your kind of tax charge as a percentage of profit? No, we used the absolute level of taxes, of cash tax that we had in 2019. It's for illustrative purposes. If we have an even much stronger result, then we might pay more in taxes. If we don't have a stronger result, then we'll pay less. It's for illustrative purposes, and it's absolute level. Understood. I think Bastian asked the question around working capital. You guys have had two years of working capital release, and I understand you said you didn't push it through your structural reductions in 2020. More explicitly, should we expect a build or a release or broadly stable in 2021? As said, we see possibilities over time to become more efficient when it comes to net operating working capital. We have set up targets where we would like to be, and we are not there yet. As said, a year ago, we were planning to run a program in that area during 2020. Given the development, we postponed it, and we'll hopefully be able to run it during 2021. We see possibilities when it comes to net operating working capital over sales, and we work with continuous improvements, getting better and better every day. It's inventories, it's raw material stocks, it's a lot. We have done a lot over the years, but we are not ready. Over time, you should expect us to become more effective in that area. It will differ between quarters and maybe between years, but there is still room for improvements. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Nick from NOS. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. I have two questions about the talks with Tata Steel. I will ask the first one first, and maybe there's time for the second one. First question is, was the Dutch government in any way involved in these talks? If not, could the government have done anything to make this deal more attractive to you? No, we discussed with Tata, and we discussed internally and looked at figures and comparing those to our plans, and so that's what we were doing. Then we formed ourself an opinion and took a decision. It's as simple as that. There was no involvement of the government? I was not speaking to the government, no. No. Maybe if there's time for the second one, do you think that there's a future for Tata Steel IJmuiden? Apparently, there were a lot of investments needed to get it ready for the future. You could say it's too dirty right now. Is there any other company out there you think that, in a sensible way, would say yes to a takeover of Tata Steel IJmuiden? I don't know that because that's not my business. I think Tata Steel IJmuiden is a fantastic site, very good cost position, very broad product program. Probably the best integrated strip facility in Europe. Thank you. Thank you. I will now hand back to the speakers for any other remarks. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for all the questions. We can conclude today's conference. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you all listeners. We wish you a nice day.