Alstom SA (ALO) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this conference call to discuss Alstom's preliminary financial information for its first half of fiscal year 2023/'24. This conference call will be hosted by Mr. Bernard Delpit, CFO of the Group. As a reminder, this call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Bernard Delpit. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for joining this call on such short notice. Alstom published this afternoon after our Board review and approval of this press release, preliminary numbers for the first half of fiscal year '23/'24 of Alstom. I wanted to share some top line and context remarks, but mainly focused on free cash flow of this half, which is today's main information. I will then be happy to take your questions. First on orders. During the first half of the year, Alstom recorded EUR 8.5 billion in orders compared to EUR 10.1 billion over the same period last fiscal year. As a reminder, the strong performance last year was in part driven by a landmark contract awarded in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, for nearly EUR 2.5 billion. In the second quarter, we were awarded major contracts, including 40 Coradia Stream trains for Germany with a 30-year maintenance contract for EUR 900 million, [ locals ] for Railpool and Akiem for more than EUR 400 million and coaches in the U.S. for about EUR 300 million. The book-to-bill ratio stands at 1 for the first half of the fiscal year. This marks a slight improvement compared to the first quarter of the year, but the first half performance was impacted by a number of orders shifting from the first half to the second half and a number of deals being won but not yet booked. Our pipeline of projects is strong, in part, thanks to great market dynamics but also Alstom's leadership position in major markets. We expect an acceleration in order intake in the second half of the year, and we confirm the book-to-bill guidance of above 1 for the full year. Turning to sales. Alstom recorded EUR 8.3 billion in sales in the first half of the year. This represents 6.5% organic growth and 2.7% reported growth compared with the same period of last fiscal year. In particular, Rolling Stock and Services was strong. These numbers reflect our focus on execution, and we confirm the guidance of organic sales growth of at least 5% for the full year. Turning to profitability. Adjusted EBIT is 5.2% for the first half of the year. This represents 30 bps improvement compared to 4.9% in the same period of the last fiscal year. Profitability was positively impacted by volumes due to continuous progress on accelerating production as well as delivering synergies. However, the Aventra program in the U.K. has not been completed as projected during the first half. We now expect the program to be fully completed at the beginning of fiscal year '24, '25. The negative impact has been recognized on first half adjusted EBIT, and our guidance for the current fiscal year is unchanged at around 6%. Now with regards to free cash flow, which is why we have anticipated this release, it stands at a negative EUR 1.150 billion for the first half of the year, compared to negative EUR 45 million for the same period last year. The deterioration in free cash flow was largely driven by 3 factors, that we explained in the press release. Number one is increasing inventories. This contributes towards nearly half of the decline in free cash flow compared to the same period last year, with Americas and Europe being most notably impacted. This reflects strong growth of Alstom's backlog but also the accelerated production ramp-up. In the context of tight supply chains, we have managed inventories levels to avoid production disruption and delivery delays. We will work on improvements during the second half of this fiscal year and the reversal of this headwind over the coming quarters and years. Number two, the delay in completing the Aventra program in the U.K. contributes towards 1/3 of the decline compared to the same period last year. We expect this headwind be only recovered in the second half, with full completion of the Aventra program now expected at the beginning of next fiscal year. Number three, orders booked in the first half of the year are lower than expected and have led to a decrease in the level of down payments received compared to the same period last year. We expect a higher level of down payments for the second half of this year compared to the second half last year, thanks to strong order intake. As you understand, these headwinds will partly reverse in the second half of the year, and we are taking new actions in the context of a new cash focus program led by Alstom CEO, Danny Di Perna and myself. These headwinds in H1 will weigh overall on the free cash flow performance for the full year, and we are now guiding for free cash flow for this fiscal year to be in the range of negative EUR 500 million to negative EUR 750 million. I want to end my preliminary remarks by emphasizing a few important points from the press release. First, our book-to-bill, sales and margin guidance for this fiscal year is unchanged. Second, we confirm our midterm targets. Working capital is lumpy by nature, and most of these moves will reverse over the next few quarters. The management team, as previously stated, that a normalization of working capital is underway and see this what is happening in the first half. And last but not least, management's job is to take action, and we are not sitting idle accepting deviations and swings. We see room for improvement and a wide scope for action. Targets are confirmed and ways to achieve them are constant work in progress. Thank you for listening, and I will now take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] First question comes from Akash Gupta of JPMorgan.

I have a question on the balance sheet. Given this negative surprise, how do you see the balance sheet at the moment? And what would you say to a question regarding potential rights issue to fix the balance sheet? And so if you can comment on that, that's the question I have.

Thank you, Akash. I will state simply an equity raise is not on the table. Organic deleverage is clearly the priority. Self-help is the name of it. So liquidity is ample, so no rights issue. Thank you.

And maybe a follow-up, if I may. As you said, these are transitory issues. Is it fair to say that the free cash flow in the next financial year could be substantially higher because you recovered some of the lost cash flow in current fiscal year? .

Okay. Thank you for this. I don't want to discuss for the moment next year target. I'd rather discuss the midterm target that is confirmed today. As in my conclusion, I underline that working capital is lumpy. So this would be reversed. How many quarters? We will see. It has to do also with the normalization of working cap, and this was factored in the trajectory. And last, we will take actions. So these are, I think, the 3 takeaways from today. We will update, of course, the 3-year plan as we do every year, and this will be time for new discussions when we'll be there. But talking year-after-year impact of today's deviation is not really on my agenda because we think that we are not just paid to let deviations happen. We are taking actions.

Our next question comes from Yifan Zhang of Goldman Sachs.

I had one question on your free cash flow guidance because if I do a quick math, imply your second half is going to be significantly positive. And assume your inventory level is still going to be relatively high only partially recovered, I think continue to ramp up your backlog, and you will still be partially impacted by your 0 margin backlog. Does this imply that a majority of that cash flow in the second half you expect to be driven by the driven by the down payments from the orders?

Okay. Thank you for your question. I think that we have different ways of approaching the cash flow of the second half, that will be significantly positive. For example, to the second half of last year in terms of cash flow. We've delivered around EUR 250 million positive cash. And there are 3 factors that will lead us to see an improvement from the same period [indiscernible] getting close to the high end of the free cash range in '24. Profit uplift will be one on the back of adjusted EBIT increasing and integration costs reducing as well. Improvement in inventories as we will reverse part of the headwinds of H1, and also higher levels of down payments. But I don't think that higher level of down payments will play a key role in the significant positive cash of second half.

That's very helpful. If I may, can I go to the second question? Because I saw you mentioned you're going to have new actions on this cash focus program. Can you elaborate a bit more on what exactly is this? Is it more like changing people's KPI? Or how are you going to do this program?

Yes. Okay. The first thing is our inventories, because I believe that we have a level of inventories that should be reduced. So it's something that is very detailed, very operational, and we will run site by site an approach to see what is the right level of what we call coverage in terms of raw material, finished goods for the production. So in sometimes, it will be an adjustment of the protection program, sometimes it will be a very quick adjustment of the procurement program. In any case, it will be very detailed, very operational. That's why we have Danny leading this program. But it's not only a question of inventories. It's also a question of managing the contract for working capital, so working with the clients and discussing on what we can do to improve the cash position of certain of the contracts where we have a positive working cap, which means it's a drag on our cash flow. So there are many things. And we are also working on long-term issues, such as the terms and conditions of the contract, such as the data that we are using every day to manage the cash, and the way in terms of management we are switching, moving from an approach where we look backwards to an approach where we look in the front. I mean, rolling forecast approach of cash in order to increase visibility, predictability of cash, which is key. So we have many different things in our program. I think it's rather comprehensive. It started, by the way, in March, and we are just accelerating it.

Our next question comes from Martin Wilkie of Citi.

Yes. This is Martin from Citi. The first question I had was just on the Aventra U.K. contract. You mentioned you had some EBIT hit in the first half. If you could just quantify what that was? Because it does seem this is largely a cash effect and a relatively smaller EBIT effect. And just to understand, is that contract as good as you had previously thought in terms of overall profitability? Is it now onerous, and just why the EBIT loss seems to be quite small relative to the cash impact? That was the first question.

I will take this one. So first, Aventra is not one contract, but five contracts with different clients. Aventra is the name of a program of [indiscernible] train that you may have used already in London, that's a great train. But the contract is indeed sort of the kind of legacy contract that we have massively improved, but it's still in a, I would say, difficult situation. So to state simply, this program has already produced 95% of the trains that were planned, but has only be paid at 87%. So -- and the difference applies to a total amount of, let's say, EUR 5 billion. So it's big and it explains why it's a headwind in the first half. We thought at the beginning of the year that it would be quicker to end it, and it didn't happen as planned. And now we expect that the completion of the program will be somewhere at the beginning of next fiscal year, but we hope that we will have -- and we are working towards an improvement in H2 as well. Now the impact in terms of profit is would, I would say, small because it's a high percentage of completion. That's why most of the impact has already been taken in the past, and we will use provisions to monitor also this impact.

And then if I can just have a question on sort of how we got to today, because obviously, you talk about the EUR 87 billion backlog and the ramp-up, but that's obviously -- that's not new. I mean the backlogistics has been building for some time. And I guess also people might wonder, given that you are relatively new to the role, was this something that indicated upon you taking the role? Just how did we get to suddenly recognizing that this very important significant backlog you've been building is now going to be so costly given that, from the outside, it does seem that supply chain and so forth is easier today than it was, say, 12 months ago? So just to understand what's been happening over the past 2 or 3 months.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand it. Could you say it again, shorter maybe?

Yes. So the question is really the backlog that you're building, that you're now seeing is going to require more investment to deliver. That backlog is not suddenly new. And so given the supply chains have been getting easier, why the recognition today that you need such investments to deliver the backlog given the supply chains are easier than they were a few months ago? It seems an odd timing to recognize that it's going to be more challenging to deliver the backlog as opposed to a year or so ago when supply chains were even more complicated than they are today.

So I'll try to put it in my words. I mean, the backlog requires, of course, some investment and also some supply chain management. In the case of what happened, and by the way, it's not something that started in this first half, but it started some quarters ago, the ramp-up of our Rolling Stock business. But what really happened, and that was not planned like that in the first half, is that we planned for even a stronger, a steeper ramp-up than what actually happened. That's where we built inventories, excess inventories, versus what -- which we should have. That's why I say we have to go site by site, program by program, to see if we do not have, and I think we have some kind of other coverage of the production by raw materials, parts, components and other things. So when you look at the total inventories, and here, I'm not talking contract assets. I'm really talking of raw material and things that are in the warehouse, and that will be both on the line in order to manufacture the car. We think we have way too much inventories. So that's what happened. And during the course of the first half, is that it has even deteriorated because we planned for a very steep ramp-up and we only had, between bracket, a high ramp-up. This is why we have the situation in terms of inventories, and this is why I think we have a lot of room for improvement. Does it answer your question?

Yes, it does. Yes.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from William Mackie of Kepler Cheuvreux.

My first question would be, to what extent have you discussed this new situation with the rating agencies? And can you clarify the absolute level of liquidity and available funds going into the second half of the year?

Okay. Of course, we've discussed that just before this call with the credit rating agency, in that case, Moody's. I think we have a very good dialogue, consistent, constructive and transparent with Moody's, and we will continue to do like that. No specific reaction that I'm in a position to share with you today. They are, I think, they're working on the figures that we've just delivered. In terms of liquidity, we have ample liquidity. I mean, it stands at EUR 3.5 billion at the end of September. So this is why we have RCF and we have access to the commercial paper market. So this will be amply sufficient to face second half needs.

The second was, can you spend a little more time talking about the visibility of the orders which you've called out as expected in the second half, perhaps some of the orders which slipped from H1? And then also the flow of expected orders that you anticipate converting in H2.

Yes. What I can tell you indeed that some orders that were expected at the very end of this quarter, we will definitely be in a position to book them in the second half. We also have already announced deals that will be booked in the second half. Just to name them, we have one in Portugal, one in Israel, one in Quebec, we have Metro of Abidjan. So a lot of things in the pipe that will fuel the orders in H2. There are some geographies where it might shift to the right, maybe even on next year. But here, I can tell you that the order of magnitude of what was discussed in May in terms of total opportunities, we are seeing the EUR 220 billion region. So no major change in the dynamics of this market. But again, it's -- I mean, you have to be two to tango. So it's not only up to us to sign a contract. We have to be two to sign to negotiate. We are working on big bids in Germany, in Europe, in the U.S. So yes, the market is dynamic. We don't see any major change. Now the guidance in terms of book-to-bill is above 1. It has not changed. But let's consider that it could be lumpy from one quarter to another quarter. This is how I see the situation.

Sorry, excuse me for my greed. One last follow-up. The perception of Alstom by many is a large backlog with high predictability of the future business. The ramp-up in Rolling Stock was seen probably 12 months ago and has been discussed, technical challenges across various platforms are not new. Perhaps the payment terms in the U.K. could be new. But ultimately, at the start of the year, Alstom was happy with the guidance of approximately EUR 300 million of positive free cash flow described as significant. And today, that number has been reduced by a range of between EUR 800 million and EUR 1 billion. So just one more time, can you explain why such a significant shift around the expectations internally given the pace and predictability of the business? It will be a surprise for some people.

I fully understand that, Will. So I can only reiterate what I said maybe in different words. First, the increase in the inventories was definitely not budgeted. And I can understand why, because we have already have a high level of inventories in terms of days of sales. So the increase, I would say, is more a question of execution rather than anything else. The Aventra thing was also not planned to happen like that. I mean that's clearly also a question of not us, I think, in that case. It's a question of the acceptance by the customers and the payment and the way it works. So that was not planned at that. And yes, indeed, down payments were not exactly the one that we expected. Book-to-bill still at 1, but not exactly where we expected. And I can see the difference with last year where the orders totaled EUR 10 billion, so it was a high level last year. We also planned a high level of down payments and because a high-level orders, it didn't completely materialize. But again, it's a question of timing. So yes, I do agree. The ramp-up is prepared for long. It's not something that is an easy in terms of execution. But let's consider that the very strong organic growth, and you can witness today, I mean, the 6.5%, which is some almost 10% in terms of volumes for Rolling Stone -- Rolling Stock, sorry, is very steep. So yes, indeed, we plan to have a higher program in terms of production, but it's already very, very steep and very challenging. So yes, we have some execution issues to fix, but that's life of industrial. So this is the only thing I can share with you, Will, but I think it's clear in my mind.

Our next question comes from James Moore of Redburn.

I've got 3, if I could. Could we talk about the negative surprise. So I think in April, we might have thought about maybe minus EUR 200 million of first half free cash, and we're about EUR 1 billion worth. And it's coming from 3 topics: inventory, Aventra, down payment. If I was to do a pie chart of the EUR 1 billion negative surprise, would you say it was 60% inventory, 30% Aventra, 10% down payment? I'm just trying to scale the delta really. And inventory to sales was 22.6 at the end of the year. I wondered if you could quantify just how much that's ballooned. That's my first question. Would you like to go one at a time?

May I answer directly to this one, because this is an easy one? Because we've tried to quantify the share of those 3 factors in the deterioration of the free cash versus last year. And I think versus what you expected more or less. I will put aside FX and financial expenses that were also a driver of negative free cash this year, but I will focus on the 3 I mentioned that I explained in the press release. So inventories roughly 50%. Okay, a bit more than that. The Aventra stuff is almost 1/3 of the deterioration. And the rest is on down payments.

Very clear. And the second one is, you're a new CFO with a lot of experience. It's quite a first introduction around free cash. You mentioned the medium-term targets and your predecessor had talked about, in the longer term, hitting an equilibrium working capital, excluding provision to sales ratio, around maybe minus 5%, 6%, 7%. Given everything that you see at this early stage, do you personally also share that longer-term -- I know it's lumpy half-to-half, I just mean longer term, given the terms of trade in the industry, that longer-term potential is broadly sensible from what you see today?

I think I need more time just to give an educated view on that. But I would say that it makes sense. When I look at Alstom pre-Bombardier situation in terms of working capital, I'm not aware that is with what we call normative working capital because, by definition, it's not normal, it's really lumpy. So -- and by definition, long term is longer than the midterm targets. So this is something that we can discuss. But let's say that 6% is something that it works for me. It works for me, yes.

Very interesting. And just the last one on profit. Why do you maintain the EBIT guidance given the softer first half? And is it essentially phasing?

Yes. Because the Aventra situation is kind of one-off. You know how accounting works, we take the hit at completion. So it's a very high percentage of completion, but the hit is taken now. And it takes into account how we see the end of the program. So that's why it's something that has weighed on H1 EBIT and will not weigh on the second half. And second, in terms of volumes, we'll see sales continuing growth and the reduction in some categories of cost, integration cost, of nonoperational costs will continue. That's why we see that. And maybe a third reason that what has been called 0 margin sales where we keep the number for the full year around EUR 1.7 billion has been quite front-loaded in H1. So these are the 3 reasons why the first half in the region of 5.2% because, again, preliminary figures, but 5.2%, I think it's the right one. It's maybe a bit below what you expected. But I mean, I'm confident that the second half will be beyond 6%.

Our next question comes from Vladimir Sergievskiy of Barclays.

Three questions. I'll ask with the balance sheet. I assume that you have over EUR 1 billion of short-term borrowings at the end of September. Are you happy with this funding structure, which presumably get more expensive after this announcement today? And perhaps a broader question, do you think a business like that with lumpy contracts, a lumpy cash flow profile and volatile cash flow profile should be carrying as much debt as it carries today?

Okay. I will take this one, Vlad. So yes, indeed, we have outstanding commercial paper, roughly above EUR 1.3 billion as we speak. And I think from a cost perspective, of course, it's not as cheap as it was in the past, but it's the, cost-wise, the better way to -- the better mean to cover our short-term needs. So I would put it that way. And of course, it will -- I mean the question of how much we will have to borrow in the next quarters is the same question of how much free cash flow we'll generate in H2. So again, we see a very significant cash generation in H2 that will allow us to reduce the short-term borrowing. But yes, indeed, it's not as cheap as it used to be.

If I can ask a little bit of a housekeeping question and see if you are willing to disclose it. Obviously, working capital is driven on one side by assets, on the other side by liabilities. Would you be willing to disclose what was the magnitude of the move on contract assets, which I understand will be receivables in this first half.

Okay. I'm sorry for that, but the financial statements, you have to wait on the 15th of November. It's not because I don't want to discuss it, but I don't have the information. We have anticipated this release, we don't have the financial statement. So I will be happy to discuss it on the 15th of November.

Perfect. That's clear. And maybe last quick one, just to clarify on the inventory situation. Obviously, you, in the writing in the press release, and that's fair that there's been a very strong growth in the first half, and you're confirming the outlook for the full year. Then my question is, were you, let's say, conservative with giving originally the growth target to the market for the full year of about 5%, given that ramp-up according to you is going significantly below what you have expected?

I hope we are conservative. We'll see. The organic growth in first quarter was 7.4%. That's 6.5% that I think it has to do with execution in Q2. So I hope we can stay at this level which is, by the way, above the guidance. And we commit on the guidance. We're not coming to say where we are, but I think that we have room to keep this level.

Our next question comes from Alexander Virgo of Bank of America.

I wondered if you could maybe just quantify the actual hit to the EBIT margin from Aventra just as we've sort of danced around it and may as well just give us the best estimate of number for that? And then second question was just a bit of a broader one, I guess, really, and picks up a little bit from some of the earlier questions on visibility and confidence in the guidance. I guess it's a short time that you've been in the business, but how can we have confidence in your comments about these moves reversing over the next few quarters given it doesn't appear like you've had an awful lot of visibility on what you've just announced, which are obviously some pretty significant moves? So I guess that's the broader question. And if I could sneak one final one in. There's been a couple of articles over the last couple of days about the Amtrak contract, and I'm assuming that is not reflected or part of any of what you've reported today.

On the Aventra, I would limit myself to say it's a double-digit impact on our -- so it's a high percentage of [indiscernible] contracts. So that's why it is limited by nature. Our confidence in the guidance, and how I would phrase it differently, is how much can we be in the reversal of the impact? Here, it's interesting because I compare with what I experienced in other industries. I mean we order and we manufacture only car that has been ordered and sometimes partly paid by the clients, okay? So at this time, all the raw material parts, components that we bring on the line will be used. The question of timing is a good one. But I think that ultimately, that will be consumed. I don't see any risk. So the question is how fast will we be. And as I said, part of the action plan is to speed up the consumption of those inventories by just reducing the cash out for ordering new parts. That's what we're going to do. Now on Amtrak, yes, you've read as I did the report from the vendor inspection of Amtrak. We do not agree on the critics on quality, and we will discuss it with them. We acknowledge that homologation in this contract is a critical path as it's the first time we have an homologation of a very high-speed train in the U.S. It's a lengthy process, and we are collaborating with the regulation body in the U.S. on that. And we must discuss rhythm of production and deliveries in order to proactively manage the situation. We have already produced a lot of frames, and this has to be dealt from a working capital point of view.

Our next question comes from Jonathan Davies of HSBC.

You mentioned about looking and sort of revising some of the contracts or terms and conditions. And I was just wondering if you could elaborate on that. Is that -- are there any other sort of contracts or how many contracts have you had to go and sort of look at in terms of adjusting terms and conditions? Because I thought this process was over. That's my sort of first question. And then secondly, maybe could you also comment on any sort of potential anticipated impact from the changes to the HS2 contract on the business?

I'm not sure I got the second one, but I will answer to the first one. I've not said that in the long term we are looking for a revision of the TNCs. No. I am saying that in the long term, we have to work at the stage of tender and bid to improve TNCs. This is different. I mean, of course, we can always discuss with clients for an existing contract when we believe that the situation is not sustainable. But what I referred to in the cash program topic is how we can improve in the long term new TNCs, because we have seen some deterioration in some geographies of the TNCs and we think we have to improve that because it is not sustainable. So again, read my lips, I'm talking of new TNCs for the new contract. Okay? Could you please say again -- ask again the second question? I didn't get it.

Sure. So the second question was just about whether there is a foreseeable impact from the cancellation of the HS2, High Speed 2, extension on the business and how you plan to deal with the sort of publicized gap in Rolling Stock production in the U.K.

Yes. Thank you. Yes, I get that. So yes, we've heard what has been decided by the government today. We have a contract. You know that we are partnering with another manufacturer. This decision, I think, will have an impact on the scope of our own contract. We are protected because it's going to be a big change, a material change in this contract. We will discuss it. It's very -- it's too early to talk about that. But yes, it's disappointing, but it is what it is.

Our next question comes from Tom Swift of Morgan Stanley.

I guess just a question from the credit side. Can you just talk about, I guess, during the period what peak commercial paper usage was? Because when I look on the Bank of France earlier on at the month, it was closer to EUR 1.5 billion. And then following on from that, given that CP usage was low at the start of the year, where do you expect commercial paper to actually get to towards the end of the year?

Okay. Frankly, I think -- I don't set any targets for that. It will depend on free cash generation on different months. It was EUR 1.5 billion, now it's more EUR 1.4 billion. The only thing that I can say here, it's a normal way to fund the working cap swings. So we can go up to EUR 2.5 billion. This is the backup that we have from the banks. So if I have to use it fully, I will do because it's, from a cost perspective and from a flexibility perspective, that's a very good instrument to fund our short-term needs.

Understood. And can you talk about the terms of the CP by any chance, please?

I think that the vast majority of the outstanding CP as of today has a maturity in 2024. Maybe the last question. I don't know if you have a lot of people in the line. Last one.

Our next question comes from Jonathan Brandeis of BNP Paribas.

We lost him, I think.

Our last question comes from Akash Gupta of JPMorgan.

Yes. Thanks for the follow-up. I had a question on these 2 projects. Like, can you tell us a bit more about technology risk? Again, clearly, there has been some disappointment on the cash flow side. And I wanted to know if there is any technology issue that you may have in the card? And how do you feel about from a technical standpoint, like what's your level of confidence in finishing these 2 projects?

Finishing, it has not really started from a manufacturing point of view. Frankly, it's -- sorry, I'm not familiar with the specific technological challenges of HS2. But we are familiar with this kind of high-speed trains. We are partnering with someone who is also a specialist. We have a lot of that, not only in France but also in Italy, something that is very close to the technology that we'll be using in HS2. So I don't think it's a challenge, frankly. As of today, I don't see that as a challenge. I mean the decision of the U.K. government is something we have to deal with in the short term. But technological wise, I don't see that as a problem.

Sorry, my question was not for HS2, but for this Aventra train program, like have you seen any incremental technology issue, which is why we are seeing the delay? Any comment on that?

More generally -- sorry, I thought it was on the HS2 project, but more generally, well, as we are dealing with many, many projects with different technologies, sometimes innovation, for sure, we have some engineering issues that we are fixing every day, by the way, every day. So nothing specific to spot here. Maybe I will try to be more educated when we'll talk again on the 15th of November. I think that's it. Thank you very much for your time. Again, sorry for this short notice meeting, but I think it was an important announcement. And talk to you in the next days and on the 15th of November, the later. Thank you very much. Bye.

Thank you. That concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect.