Corbion N.V. (CRBN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome to the Corbion Q3 Results 2024 on October 29, 2024. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this call will be recorded. I would now like to hand over to Mr. Alex Sokolowski, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning, and welcome to the Corbion Third Quarter 2024 Conference Call. This morning, we published our Q3 and year-to-date results, and the press release and presentation can be found on our website, www.corbion.com, Investor Relations, Financial Publications. Before we begin, please note that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements based on current expectations and assumptions. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed. Factors beyond our control, including market conditions, economic changes and regulatory actions can impact outcomes. Corbion does not undertake any obligation to update statements made in this call or contained in today's press release and presentation. For more details on our assumptions and estimates, please refer to our annual reports. I'm Alex Sokolowski, Head of IR. And with me on the call today are Olivier Rigaud, Chief Executive Officer; and Peter Kazius, Chief Financial Officer. Now, I would like to hand the call over to Olivier. Olivier?

Thank you, Alex, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Corbion's Q3 and year-to-date results '24. Starting now with the key highlights. I'm pleased to report that our company continues to deliver outstanding results, achieving accelerated organic sales growth of 2.6%, bringing sales for the first 9 months of the year to EUR 973 million. We saw a solid volume/mix growth of 6.1% for the first 9 months, driven by an outstanding Q3 with volume/mix of 11.1%. We reached an adjusted EBITDA of EUR 135.7 million, with Q3 alone contributing EUR 49.6 million. In Functional Ingredients & Solutions, we continue to perform with positive volume/mix growth, particularly driven by a strong demand in our specialty food ingredients, both in natural preservation and in our functional systems, while the softness in some biochemical markets persists. We are pleased to see continued growth in our product market adjacencies like dairy stabilizers, natural antioxidants and natural mold inhibitors. Lactic acid volume through the PLA joint venture have grown both in year-to-date and Q3. The sales of the joint venture grew with 16% organically, driven by volume. Likewise, in our Health & Nutrition segment, we achieved strong double-digit growth, both sales and adjusted EBITDA, primarily driven by the nutrition segment containing our algae fermentation products, Omega-3 DHA. In Q3, we've seen double-digit growth in all our segments: nutrition, biomedical polymers and pharma. On the financial front, I'm pleased to report a free cash flow of EUR 50.8 million, excluding divestment proceeds. This strong cash generation underlines our commitment to financial discipline and operational excellence. Our restructuring plan is right on track, and I'm confident that it will continue to drive efficiency and profitability in the quarters ahead. Now looking forward, today, we upgraded our full year 2024 outlook. Whereas previously, we guided for full year 2024 volume/mix growth of 2% to 6%, we now guide for above 5%. Our previous adjusted EBITDA organic growth guidance was for more than 18%, and we upgrade that to 22% to 25%. Also, we upgrade our free cash flow from above EUR 50 million by around EUR 10 million to more than EUR 60 million at year-end. Our performance this quarter reflects the dedication and execution power of our team, the strength of our strategy and the confidence we have in delivering value to all of our stakeholders. That concludes our prepared remarks, and thank you for the attention. Peter and I will be happy to take your questions. Alex, let's start the Q&A now.

Thank you, Olivier. [Operator Instructions] Our first question this morning comes from Setu Sharda from Barclays.

I have 3 questions. The first is on the food ingredients and solutions volume. The volume step-up was quite impressive and implies around double-digit food ingredients volume growth despite underlying end market was weak. So how sustainable is this growth? And on the flip side, like the pricing was around 5% lower. So is this the function of input cost? Or are you seeing increased competition in this space? And what is the impact on margins due to this price cut? My second question is on Health & Nutrition margins, which have sequentially ticked down despite strong volume growth. What is the delta here? And also, as you mentioned, some contracts are multiyear. Can you quantify how much is the multiyear and what is the percentage of spot, which may be more sensitive to wild fish oil price dynamics? And my third question is around PLA JV. If the margin pressure is sustained, will the JV continue to produce at full capacity? And what happens to the JV's lactic acid demand from Corbion? Any risk of overcapacity there? And a related question, like if you can remind us how much of Functional Ingredients & Solutions lactic acid volume is currently going to JV.

Okay. Thanks, Setu. I will answer the first one on the Functional Ingredients & Solutions, and Peter will take the margin in H&N, and we will come back on the JV later. So first question around the volume in food ingredients. We see, already since a few quarters, a very good recovery. If you remember, we are trailing negative last year, and we came really close to breakeven in Q1 this year, and we upgraded in Q2 and have even a stronger Q3 now. We see this momentum in food continuing. This is quite nicely spread. Obviously, as you know, our major markets for food ingredients are primarily in the U.S. and Latin America. These are the 2 strong regions for us. But we see good signals coming from the market with a good pipeline. So we do not expect this to reverse. If you go to pricing, which was the other underlying questions there, obviously, we've seen relaxation early this year related to input cost that we have to partially give back to the market. We've seen that price impact lowering on the second half of the year. Now as we speak, we are getting into the price round for 2025. What we see, it's always been a bit the same is, of course, with a less differentiated product, plain lactic acid, there is more competition than in more sophisticated derivatives or we have high degree of differentiation. So obviously, the competition is more intense on basic lactic acid that go to more commoditized market. and a lot less in the other segment. So on the, let's say, piece that you mentioned on biochemicals, when we express also to see some softness, we speak primarily about 2 subsegments, one being electronics and the other being agrochemicals. Electronics, we mentioned that already for a while, it's not a huge business for us, but it's a profitable one. We've been down the cycle actually already for almost 1.5 years now. Most of the end players were assuming back to growth in H2 this year, which now they mentioned more '25. We've not seen any recovery yet, except -- and this is very fresh. We start to see some better momentum as from October now in Q4, but it's still very soft. So I would not bank on the fact that, yes, we've turned necessarily the corner in electronics there. So -- but this is the major part I'd like to mention into this biochem business. So if -- just going back to also your question on the JV, on the lactic demand, to also answer that point as we are on this. In the Functional Ingredients & Solutions, we basically there count the sales of the lactic acid to the JV, which is really a longer-term agreement we have with the JV with a price formula. We have pass-through on input cost and energy. So -- and yes, this fluctuates, of course, with the volume, but it has been in the lower EUR 60 million sales per year on the total EUR 1 billion sales of the fish business unit. So it's not a massive amount, as you can see. Of course, as we are ramping up the -- the JVs ramping up sales, this number is going to increase, but we do not expect this to also become, if you make the math, something [ essentially ] above the EUR 100 million mark in terms of business. Now I will hand over to Peter on the H&N margin and the PLA margin.

So Setu, thanks for the questions. I mean, let's first do the Health & Nutrition margin and also your question about the longer-term contracts. So as indicated earlier, we have some longer contracts in the algae part of the business or the nutrition part of the business, think about 2 to 3 years going forward, locked at fixed prices. If you look to the margin profile, then Q3 is indeed mildly lower than Q2. By the way, it's higher than the Q1 element, and it's really driven by mix in our portfolio. And mix in our portfolio is 2 elements. It's customer mix in some of the segments, which is one. And it's also, if you look to the phenomenal growth in Q3 itself, it's driven by algae, which is having a nice margin, but a bit lower than the biomedical part. It's also good to note that in Q3 itself, all the subsegments and the subsegments in this business are nutrition, biomedical polymer and pharma really delivered outstanding double-digit growth from that perspective. If I then go back to PLA and the margin in the joint venture itself, then indeed, volumes are up. Sales is also up. But if you look to the combination of sales, then pricing is indeed lower, also lower than historically. And therefore, the margin in this quarter is 4.5% in terms of EBITDA. With the visibility we currently have, we don't see this going up significantly to the double-digit levels in the coming quarters. And this is really driven by the pricing momentum in the PLA business itself. I hope that answers your question, Setu.

Our next question this morning comes from Wim Hoste of KBC Securities.

I wanted to dig a little bit further into the full year guidance, which was upgraded if you look at the EBITDA comments. But if you look what is implied in the new guidance, it is basically a Q4 that is bumping around a similar level as the Q4 '23 number. So I was wondering what makes you cautious, given that, yes, there was phenomenal growth in Q3 of more than 40% on the EBITDA and then just a flattish kind of Q4 guidance seems cautious. So if you can elaborate on the reasons for that. And then, yes, I just wanted to also dig and maybe that's related into the cost elements going forward for Q4, sugar, freight, things like that. So that would also be interesting. And then a final question would be on the joint venture, if I can come back to the margin pressure. Yes, is that margin pressure that we see in Q3, is that due to previous longer-term contracts that are maturing and cannot be renewed at the old kind of pricing? Or is that just a reflection of increased pricing pressure that you're now starting to see in the market and then that will continue going forward? So if you can elaborate a little bit more, that would also be helpful.

Okay. Thanks, Wim. And I'll let Peter answer the first 2, and I will maybe comment also on market developments on PLA later.

So, Wim, you're right that if you look year-to-date, our organic growth is 28% to 28.7%. And in the full year, we guided mildly lower. So that means a lower growth rate in Q4. I think a couple of things to note there. One is -- and that is more in the absolute amount is that the absolute sales level in Q4 is normally lower, driven by seasonality. The other one is a bit in phasing as we indicated in Health & Nutrition. So Health & Nutrition, super strong growth in Q3. And we see a bit of phasing impact with Q4 as well. I mean, if you combine the both, really on track with a bit of phasing impact in that one. Then -- and this is a temporary phenomenon, which is impacting Q3 and also a bit in Q4 is that our freight rates went up really in Thailand, Europe in the middle of the year. And then normally in the P&L, it's having a bit of delay impact in Q3 and a bit of Q4. And the other one is really a bit of phasing impact in the cost structure, both in Q4 last year as well as in Q4 this year. So overall, I would say nothing to worry on that perspective. So those were the 2 indeed. I hope that -- yes.

On the JV margin, Wim, so a couple of additions there. So on your first question, is that coming from a long-term contract maturing? The answer is not necessarily. We have a few longer-term agreements that indeed are quite protective right now as we speak. What's happening in terms of basically also geographical mix, we said it last time, but actually, most of the growth is coming today from Asia and particularly China, where prices are lower than in other regions, primarily Europe or the U.S. And what is really pulling demand, and it's a confirmation of what we said in Q2 today, is primarily Asia and mostly China, where there competition is present, but not just on PLA as well in some more traditional polymers, we are fighting against, being polystyrene primarily. So what we've seen, what the joint venture has seen is indeed because of their geographical mix and generating most of the growth from China is overall price erosion. That is impacting their profitability at a time where also we, as Corbion, are passing through increased input costs with some delays. So they are also having their lactic acid price reflecting the higher input costs we've seen over the last month. So that's the second driver, but it's primarily price. Now let me also expand a bit on the outlook. What we see is indeed the volume is getting healthier. And if you look to the momentum we are getting, of course, better, although exposed to China. And we anticipate the same for next year. So when we look to the joint venture forecast for next year, there is further volume increase next year with the same drivers. So still very much loaded into Asia and China. So that means also we do not expect a massive turnaround into the JV margin over the next quarters.

Our next question this morning comes from Fernand de Boer from Degroof Petercam.

It's Fernand from Degroof Petercam. A couple of questions from my side. First, on the pricing in Health & Nutrition, more than up some 8% this quarter, a big step-up versus the previous quarter. Could you elaborate a little bit on what's behind that? That's the first question. And then maybe coming back on the outlook, but not so much for '24 as more for '25. At your Capital Markets Day, you guided for an EBITDA of, I think, EUR 225 million. I think there is still maybe some EUR 12 million stranded costs left for next year. So that would mean EUR 230 million for '25. Are you still comfortable with that one?

Let me pick the both questions, Fernand. So in Health & Nutrition, you're right that if you look to the pricing momentum in terms of percentage over last year, it is an increase. This is a reflection, it's a bit technical, of the price increase we did earlier in the year, which in H1 mainly came into volume/mix because we changed basically our product content with DHA in the middle of last year. So it's more a shift, I would say, from the mix element to the pricing element. So the majority of this 8% is price increase within algae starting already earlier this year. If you look to the pricing during the quarters, it's relatively [ close ]. If you look to 2025, there, we're still confident that we deliver the numbers for the year 2025. I mean we're currently in a more detailed budget process and then provide guidance how we normally do it in Q1 next year. But in terms of the programs we articulated to offset the stranded cost, we are on track.

Maybe one, also, last question. Technically, maybe you up your guidance for free cash flow. But at the same time, and you also up your guidance for your EBITDA growth. So I think that goes hand in hand. But then at the same time, the leverage guidance is actually narrowed to the high end of the range, where you should expect that, that should come down to the low end of the range. Could you explain that?

Yes. No, I can explain that. So we indeed narrowed the guidance where we currently are, whilst increasing the free cash flow guidance and indeed the EBITDA. I think the key element of that one is also the share buyback, which we did of EUR 20 million. This is having a [ 0.15 ] in the overall one. So we were quite confident we stayed within the range with all the different indicators. But that is, I think, the key one if you compare it with the original guidance, which we had earlier this year. If you currently see where we are, I mean, then we reduced the bandwidth from that perspective.

But the share buyback you already knew at the half year figures.

Yes. And we did not narrow the guidance at that moment in time. That's correct.

Okay. But it's not that because of ForEx movements that, at the end of the day, the net debt will be higher?

No. If you look to it, there is no significant ForEx impact. Free cash flow is perfectly on track on what we thought. And so the answer is no from that perspective. Also, if you look to ForEx and the majority in terms of net debt is U.S. dollar-related. The U.S. dollar is relatively stable. I mean, in Q3, we saw a bit up and down or down and up, it depends a bit how you look. But there is no significant impact in that one.

Our next question comes from Sebastian Bray from Berenberg.

I'll start with the PLA joint venture, please. Can you remind me of the net debt of this JV? Because from memory, there was something like EUR 100 million associated with it. And if the EBITDA run rate currently is something like EUR 2 million on a quarterly basis, is there any risk of this running into problems with covenants? I'm not entirely sure if that net debt figure is correct, but I just want to have a think about this leverage position. That's my first question.

I thought I'd wait for the second, but I will take this one, Sebastian. So there's no risk in terms of covenant with the joint venture itself. If you look to the financing situation of the PLA joint venture, then you're right that the joint venture is 50-50 financed by both parents. That means both TotalEnergies as well as Corbion. And there is indeed around EUR 60 million of loan on our balance sheet as well as an equity stake of around EUR 30 million. So the numbers are indeed correct. You're right that if you look to the joint venture itself with the EBITDA level currently, then there is no risk in terms of this element.

Is the joint venture covering its interest charges? Or is it burning for cash at the current level of profitability?

No. So if you -- we still envision to get the interest basically out of the joint venture.

That's helpful. Can I ask a more philosophical question about PLA? Are you in this business because you want to be? Or are you in this business because you feel you have to be as it's a large offtake from the Thai plant, the 125-kiloton lactic acid facility brought online a few quarters ago?

I think it's indeed a very philosophical question, Sebastian. If I may, on the -- if you look again to how the market of lactic acid is being split before the PLA market crackdown, lactic to PLA came to roughly 40% of the lactic acid market potential. It has reduced a bit in between, but all indicators shows that midterm, this is getting back up. So for us, I think at that time when we developed PLA as another derivative, that was the aim to find as many outlets and how we would play in there. It is indeed a very nice plant filler for the Thai capacity. As you know, you make really your profit running at max cap utilization. And we see ultimately this as a very nice addition to what is the largest lactic plant in the world. If you think once we have the all capacity fully occupied and the JV is really, I think, the best way for us to constantly max out the throughput of that plant. Now what we made clear in the last capital market update is that, yes, we will not build any further lactic acid capacity to accommodate the PLA market. This is not what we are in. But I think this JV on the site with an [ over-defense ] supply is the right thing for this large lactic acid site. But this is where we would, for the time being, really stop.

That's helpful. And my last one is on the algae business. How are the efforts to enter the human nutrition market again going in this business? And the reason that I ask is my suspicion is there's not a lot more volume left to grow with existing capacity for '25. And that means the earnings growth is a function of 2 things, assuming constant raw materials in that year. One is mix and the second is price. My feeling is that the company probably doesn't have that much more scope to push prices in the year, and that leaves mix as the swing factor. From memory, Corbion tried once and failed to establish itself in human nutrition. Why would this time be different for algae?

So if you look at our approach in human nutrition, as we discussed before, we are well ahead in the journey of this investment of EUR 50 million, EUR 5-0 million, where a big part of this investment in a Brazilian plant is to upgrade the mix to be able to supply the human nutrition market as it requires different purification and type of Omega-3. So we are really well ahead basically because we've had already pilot productions to reference the product across the market globally. And we kicked that off already early this summer -- last summer, and getting approval. But basically, it's about really getting that additional capability and capacity in the plant that we've built with this investment, which we aim to complete early 2025. Now back to, indeed, I cannot -- I don't know what happened in the past in human nutrition, but what having run myself the JV between Naturex and Aker BioMarine on Omega-3 in the past, the Omega-3 market in human is primarily a U.S. market. This is where the big size of the price is. And we don't go directly to the end user. You have to go through the people that basically are the key players to supply the vitamin shops, the GNCs, the Holland & Barretts of this world. So we've built relationship with all these players so far. So we are really confident that we're going to get some breakthrough in '25. So that's what we are working on.

Okay. Our next question this morning comes from Robert Jan Vos from ABN AMRO, ODDO BHF.

I have a couple of questions left. First on the PLA joint venture, if I'm not mistaken, you reported the lowest quarterly EBITDA margin for the JV this quarter since at least 2019. I would assume that you're probably not in this business for an EBITDA margin of 4.5%. And that also does not seem to be a short-term issue considering your outlook. So my question is what could be the strategic implications for the JV of this current and also to continue sluggish performance? That's my first question.

Yes. Robert Jan, if I can take this one, basically, when we look at it and you know obviously, I think there is high visibility on the joint venture performance. Don't get me wrong, but we are primarily in the Corbion numbers do sell lactic acid to the JV, and this is what is being consolidated in our number, and this is where we want to make sure we get the volume at the right price for us because it's a very interesting deal we have, which is an over-defense supply. Now back to the more strategic questions, it's a bit premature to answer as '25 is the last year of Advance 2025, the strategic period. We are planning to get into a new strategic review next year. So for sure, we're going to come back to the market by the end of next year with whatever we're going to come back with at that time. And obviously, part of the exercise is to review the entire portfolio.

Okay. That's very clear. Then my second question, maybe a bit of clarification on the guidance that you provided at the CMD. Fernand already alluded to this. But in this presentation, you provided an EBITDA guidance in the range of EUR 217 million to EUR 236 million, midpoint being EUR 226 million. I always understood that the costs related to the disposed emulsifier business would have been fully absorbed. So isn't it so that this guidance range does not change in the new setting? Maybe, Peter, you can answer this question because I was not aware that -- yes, go ahead, sorry.

So happy to answer this one, Robert Jan. So yes, you're absolutely right from that perspective. So what we guided to was at that moment in the call, this 15% to 20% range, then you come to this number. And the plan is to fully offset these stranded costs by the actions we also discussed basically earlier in the call. So from that perspective, the result of Q3 is not impacting anything for the outlook 2025.

So the midpoint of that range is still EUR 226 million and you just confirm that you still think that it is feasible to achieve that in 2025.

Correct, correct.

Okay. That is also very clear. And maybe also a question -- a clarification question. In the paragraph on Health & Nutrition, you guide for lower growth in Q4. I assume -- high single digits you mentioned. I assume that, that is meant for the whole division? Or was this comment just for the nutrition segment within the division?

This comment is meant for the whole division, Health & Nutrition, because normally, we don't guide on specific elements within Health & Nutrition. So read this as for the whole Health & Nutrition part of the portfolio.

Okay. Our next question this morning comes from Karel Zoete from Kepler Cheuvreux.

I have 2 questions. The first one is on the progress with the fixed cost savings program. Can you update us where we stand? I think early June, there have been some progress there. What's happened since? The second question is on the volume leverage within the Functional Ingredients & Solutions business, has very strong volume growth, still margins stable-ish quarter-on-quarter. You mentioned you took some costs in there as well. So if you can speak a bit about volume leverage. And maybe then a final question is, you highlight that the new factory in Thailand is performing well. When it comes to the benefits of this to the bottom line, is this more a 2025 impact? Or are we starting to see somewhat of an effect already?

Let me pick them. Thanks for the questions, Karel. So in terms of -- let me start with fixed cost. That's progressing well. As we indicated in H1, we reduced already 130 FTEs during the course of H1, and we then plan to do a sequential one during the course of Q3, which we also did. And one of the other exercises, which we indicated was the mothballing of Peoria. So well on track from that perspective. If you look on Thailand, then you're right, as we always indicated that the new factory and the impact in terms of the bottom line improvement really anticipated to be in 2025. And the one on volume leverage, it depends always a bit when you look quarter-over-quarter, year-over-year. So in terms of -- if you look to the absolute sales levels Q2, Q3, they are around at the same level from that perspective. So then quarter-over-quarter, there's kind of a minimal volume leverage. And you're also right that as we indicated in H2 that sugar prices are on the downward journey, meaning Q3 being lower than Q2 with an offset of these freight rates. And these freight rates, we also see a bit in Q4 and then it should normally or fully kind of normalize later or the quarter after that. So that gives a bit of the dynamic overall of the margin development.

If I may, can I ask one follow-up question? You already mentioned the -- you had a stranded cost and the projects there being on track. Can you go over some of the major projects that should support the P&L next year where you already made clear plans or see initial progress?

Yes, Karel, I can take this one. Basically, we have big projects around the product portfolio rationalization. So basically, we look at the -- as usual, the tail. SKU simplification is another, that goes closely together. So we are reviewing also all that and the benefit associated to that. We are also having a very deep approach to procurement. And we've been working also with external support on new digital tools, on e-tendering amongst others that we kicked off in Q4 for the '25 procurement round. That's another big initiative. And last but not least, we are looking at pricing as well, also in terms of indeed how differentiated can we go by product line portfolio/BUs. So that's another one. And obviously, we are constantly looking at all the other fixed cost elements and primarily personnel costs as we go, making sure that we reallocate resources instead of adding. So these are really the 5 major blocks that we are after. But in total, we are tracking with the transformation office, 52 initiatives on that program to compensate for the stranded cost. So we've appointed a transformation leader that is part of the executive committee reporting directly to me to track that on a biweekly basis. So this is how we run the program.

Okay. Our next question is from Reg Watson from ING.

Just to come back to Setu's question on the split of contracts in algae. I may have missed the answer or may have got lost in the sort of melee of several questions. But what was the split again, please, between spot 2-year and 3-year in terms of algae volume sales? That's my first sort of follow-up on Setu's. And then I've got some of my own.

So if I can take this one again, we don't give the exact number, but you can see that we have a good 2/3 of business that is contracted longer term on our aquaculture business. The rest is more standard practice, yearly contracts.

Okay. So you're not going to tell us what the mix is, so we can't actually forecast when these contracts are going to roll off.

I think that would be competitively [ insensible ] if we would disclose more our contract position, which we're not keen to do.

Right. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. And then on to the gypsum-free lactic acid plant. Obviously, it's still in ramp-up at the moment. Can you give us any indication of what sort of utilization rates you're running at, how that's going versus plan? And then the third question, when you expect to be at full capacity?

So we've been running this, again, without going into too many technicals, we've been ramping up by sequence, from 20% to 40-ish-percent capacity occupation. So we've been at that level. We've been also looking to optimization which is part of our process, which we are doing currently right now. So our aim then is, again, to ramp up really fully next year. Obviously, the sooner the better, I have to say. Now if I see the level of reliability that is important for us, is getting to, as you know, in this type of plants at 70%, 80% capacity occupation in theory, what we're going to aim for to make sure that we ramp up in a reliable way. So that's the plan for next year.

Okay. That's really helpful. And then just finally to circle back on Fernand's question about cash flow and EBITDA guidance going up, but leverage guidance going down. You knew at the half year, Peter, that the share buyback, the special dividend and the increased ordinary dividend were all going to have this impact on your debt levels. You didn't know at the half year that you were going to have a blowout Q3. So why did you decide not to adjust the guidance at the first half, but you have decided to adjust the guidance now?

No. I mean if you look overall, then we indeed did not adjust it during the half year one because the reality is we were spot on in this guidance, which we are also now. We tightened it, given where we currently are because it makes no sense to have a much wider range following all the other updates we did.

Okay. And that's it for questions today. Olivier, did you want to make some closing remarks?

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone, I mean, to join this call. And basically, we will revert back to you early next year for the full year results. So thank you really for joining us today. Wish you, I mean, a good end of the year and speak early next year to all of you. Thank you.

Operator, you may end the call. Thank you.

Thank you. This concludes the Corbion Q3 results 2024 on October 29, 2024. Thank you for listening. You may now disconnect.