Heidelberg Materials AG (HEI) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Heidelberg Materials Full Year 2023 Results Conference Call and Live Webcast. I'm [ Alice ] the chorus call operator. [Operator Instructions] This conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to Christoph Beumelburg. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Warm welcome from my side. Welcome to the full year conference call. This time, live from our studio here in Heidelberg headquarters in Heidelberg. You see ourselves for those of you who have dialed in by video webcast. In the room, Dominik; René, and I'll be moderating the session today. Obviously, we are going to present good numbers. So stay tuned for the call and the Q&A. Over to you, Dominik.

Thanks a lot, Chris. Hello, everybody, from Heidelberg. Great that you are joining. I'll dive immediately into our results. You have seen the presentation. So we are firing out of all 7 cylinders: revenues up 4%; RCO, almost up 30% EPS beyond EUR 10 for the first time; ROIC beyond 10% for the first time; free cash flow, clearly above EUR 2 billion; shareholder return near to EUR 1 billion; and CO2 down minus 3%. What do you want more? I think in our anniversary here, this is a very convincing performance driven by continuous portfolio turnover. We are pushing the boundaries there. We continue to grow net and that's our clear target also going forward. This is an important chart, I think we'll have to go later also a little bit into this. The shift in terms of debt payback, in favor of shareholder return and bolt-on growth CapEx, I think that's clearly our target. On the operational results, you have seen the numbers. Top line up, EBITDA up, margin up towards more than 21% in Q4 and also result up, RCO up. So overall, going everything in the right direction for Q4 also. Full year revenue up, EBITDA up, margin up and RCO up first time ever beyond EUR 3 billion. I think that's a convincing, very convincing number. We feel very comfortable with that. So that looks good. If you look to the profit bridge, price over cost [ easing ] in Q4, very positive by EUR 100 million. So overall, that's good. Volumes down, price over cost positive. That's the clear message. For the full year, same picture, very convincing price over cost performance, net volumes down EUR 500 million, EUR 1.2 billion up, net that makes plus EUR 700 million. I think that's also convincing. If you then go into the different areas, North America, you see big jump in results, big jump in margins, obviously also big jump in revenue. So overall, after a difficult 2022, early '23 was not so great. Good catch-up of the North American team that goes absolutely in the right direction. Western and Southern Europe, probably the largest contributor, plus 60% or 59% up in terms of RCO. RCO margin jumping from 8.7% to 13.4% for the full year. All countries are contributing. I think that's very, very convincing and I'm sure some of your questions will also center around WSE. NEECA, Northern and Eastern Europe, equally convincing almost EUR 600 million RCO. RCO reveal -- RCO margin beyond 16%, a good jump overall also very strong. Asia, I would say, still with some upside potential, but EUR 400 million RCO. RCO margin, now at 10.8% Also there improvement so I would say Asia has a little bit upside potential going into '24. And then Africa, most overlooked, EUR 370 million RCO, almost 20% RCO margin, I think that is really nice. That was quickly from my side. We're trying to leave enough time for your questions. René?

Okay. Hello, everyone. So let's go quickly through the financial highlights. What you see here, as Dominik already mentioned, earnings per share is at EUR 10.40; strong cash flow, EUR 2.2 billion. And important for us, cash conversion is above 50%. So we have guided our midterm target was 45%. We are now at 51%. I guess, it's pretty good. Leverage is below our current corridor was 1.24. ROIC 10%. I think that's for the industry, a pretty good number. And then what you have seen yesterday night, we have announced a new share buyback which is additional EUR 1.2 billion in 3 tranches until end of '26. And then what we have done yesterday, you've seen it as well, we canceled the shares of the third tranche of the share buyback. So that is not all canceled, and we start the new share buyback program in May after the AGM. So if you see the full P&L, in this, I go quickly through the additional ordinary result, you see here, plus 1. So we have plus and minus this year in that number. But overall, that shows as well the financial health of the company, no big additional ordinary effects this year. Last year, we had the Russia impairment and an impairment of some U.S. assets due to the closure of some plants due because -- Mitchell was coming online. So here you have EUR 200 million up versus last year. Financial result last year was minus EUR 65 million. That was extraordinary. And we had -- EUR [ 130 ] million change in the [ contract ] accounting impact there last year, which we didn't have this year. So you see, if you add that back to last year, we are flat on financial results. Income taxes, obviously, we have much higher profits, so income taxes go up. And the net result from discontinued operations last year, again, EUR 40 million one-off due to change in discount rate. And this year, EUR 60 million provision for -- one environmental case for the legacy Hanson business. So that comes down to a net profit of EUR 1.9 billion which is adjusted result EUR 140 million approx last year, I guess, close to EUR 2 billion result is last year. So this is a new chart. You see this. So we wanted to show a little bit the earnings per share development over the last 6 years. If you see CAGR of 15% and not even 1 year has it dipped. So you see it's a very continuously improving our earnings per share number. Firstly, by additional profits. And secondly, as well by reducing the number of shares. I guess this is a remarkable picture over 6 years to have a CAGR of 15% result, without 1 year going down, I guess it's, from my perspective, very convincing. If you then go to the free cash flow on the left, you see strong recovery backlog and cash flow. Two main things here. We have guided change in working capital should have been around flat. But the minus EUR 200 million include roughly EUR 100 million one-off and then EUR 100 million is for me, let's say, flat here. And then for the size of the company, it's very well managed. And then CapEx net is [ EUR 1,042 million ]. This is slightly below our EUR 1.1 billion guidance. And what I clearly want to say is you have seen what Dominik said, CO2 went down 3%. The last 3 years, we only went down 2%. And you see we can manage it with our CapEx target. That was always a fear, how can this cash manage. And yes, we can manage and that tells you the decarbonization transformation is as well possible with, let's say, disciplined CapEx. So this is close to our whole management team who made that happen, and that comes then down to a free cash flow of EUR 2.2 billion. Net debt development, you see it goes EUR 200 million down. And you need to be -- you need to read the footnote a little bit because the bucket on the right is currency/other. It's EUR 610 million. And that is not additional cost or something. This is -- there's EUR 400 million coming out of the acquisitions we have done because we have taken over third-party loans of them and the leasing liabilities. So this is a one-off. It's roughly EUR 400 million. And if you want to see our net M&A number, you need to add to the EUR 437 million plus roughly EUR 400 million, so roughly EUR 850 million net M&A. So the currency/other impact is only EUR 200 million. Just for transparency, I guess, because the EUR 600 million are standing out. Then our leverage, as we said, is continuously going down now at 1.24, and that has as well allowed us, you've seen yesterday the note that we launched a new share buyback program. And then return on invested capital, you see invested capital goes up roughly by EUR 1 billion, due to our good returns. And to be honest, very well-managed tax rate, we come to 10.3%. Let's talk about shareholder return. You see it on the left that what we always said, progressive dividend. Yes, we paid out EUR 2.60 for the year -- in '23 and you see the '23 number is a little bit why is above the EUR 2.60. So we cannot -- we are not going to publish the number now. It needs to be approved by the Supervisory Board in March. But as we said, we're really progressive. So it will be, for sure, higher than EUR 2.60. And then on the right side, you see all the components of, let's say, dividend share buyback in one number. The 3 years maybe close to EUR 1 billion. The data in '23 is just to be lower minority dividends. And then you see in '24, we will do the EUR 400 million share buyback, what we announced yesterday. We will do a progressive dividend. So you can be sure that the number will be hopefully above EUR 1 billion and continuously increasing, which is, I guess, what we always thought. So Dominik, I think now I hand over...

Very nice. Thank you very much, René. I think René made a very important point. For us, this year proves, seeing the decarbonization in our industry for the Global North and the global South, is absolutely combinable with a very stellar financial performance plus a very convincing shareholder return. I think that's exactly what we are striving for. . Look at the sustainability highlights. We came down to 534 kilos with another 3% decline. Our sustainable revenues are up to almost 40% for cement for all products, I think it's around 35%. Launch of the new brand has happened in terms of evoBuild. I'll come back to that in a minute. We have launched the world's first net-zero carbon captured cement, evoZero that will come to the market in 2025, and the order books are filling. GeZero, our first fully decarbonized project in Germany has received the funding of almost EUR 200 million. We are proud to be recognized by CDP now in the top grade A and a stable A minus for water. And we have also applied for 2050 SBTi validation for our CO2 reduction targets. The minus 3% basically are driven by significant reduction in clinker factor. Look at this, minus 140 basis points down from 71.6% to 70.2%, an increase in alternative fuel rate and an increase in sustainable revenues especially in cement, where we also have the reasonable assurance now. I think we're the only company in the sector that is going for that. evoBuild, it's -- there are a couple of ideas around evoBuild. One is to have a global umbrella for the sustainable products. But the second piece, and I think that's a little bit overlooked is rigidity on the right. We have really put very ambitious, very transparent hurdle rates to be a sustainable revenue. So you need to have at least 30% lower CO2 footprint or a 70% recycling content. There are a lot of products with minus 10%, minus 15%, minus 30%, but they don't even make the hurdle rate for that 39%. So I think that is really setting standards in the industry. And also evoZero, that's then the platinum way of doing it, the only one for quite some time in the industry globally that will be able to offer carbon capture net-zero cement. We branded evoZero and as I already indicated, the order book is filling fast. We had already the first communication on the newbuild center in Stockholm that has actually signed up for the product, and there is many more to come. Very exciting journey. When it comes to the outlook, I think North America is flooding away. I think volumes are not going to go through the roof, but overall, the decline in housing and commercial real estate is outbalanced by industrial plant investments and infrastructure. Europe is going to continue to go down a little bit in demand, but it's going to stabilize. That's at least our view on lower levels during 2024. Africa is continuing to be growing well. The currency limitations that we had, especially Egypt and Ghana, which are important markets for us, we are hopeful that in 2024, that will stabilize. And then as I indicated already, personally, I think Asia is up for a recovery that includes Australia, because Australia is also subdued on the housing market, very difficult 2023. Let's see how it will recover in 2024. Overall, for markets like Indonesia, they are just going forward. So the new President is -- has been selected. We should see quite some nice bounce back. And if you roll it up, we want to continue to grow the company. We want to continue to also profitably grow the company by giving you a corridor early in the year of EUR 3 billion to EUR 3.3 billion. ROIC should at least stabilize on the high level that we have reached now. CapEx net is going to stay disciplined on EUR 1.1 billion, and the leverage Rene has already indicated, there is room for share buyback and there is room for further M&A. That's the message we're going to stay between 1.5 and 2. Chris?

You guys have been very quick. So...

We want to respect our audience to leave room for the exciting questions.

That's good. That leaves the room for questions. And as always, we go into the Q&A. Operator, please start.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Elodie Rall with JPMorgan.

Two questions then. First of all, to come back to your guidance you're looking for like-for-like revenue growth for '24. Can you just give us a little bit of color between volume and pricing? Do you expect the growth to be driven by more pricing again this year or both contribute to the volume growth to the like-for-like growth? And my second question is more specifically on pricing in Europe. And whether you've seen any signs of weakness in light of the lower carbon cost and obviously, the lower energy cost. And what you think -- what's the outlook on pricing in Europe, especially if you -- if we think there is a scenario where carbon costs stay as low as they are today for the remainder of the year?

Thanks, Elodie. Let me start and then René will chip in. Maybe on your first question on the guidance with the revenue growth, I think it's a combination of a resilient U.S. market. I think it's clearly that volumes may be more or less flat in the U.S., but clearly, pricing is advancing in all business lines in the U.S. So there is organic growth, especially in the U.S., some organic growth in Asia. There are some organic growth in Africa, less so, I would argue, in Europe at this point. . But clearly, there are also acquisitions that we have done. Don't underestimate, we have -- we have acquired SEFA halfway through 2023, that will go fully into '24. We have acquired in Indonesia, Grobogan that will come fully into 2024. We've acquired Tanga in Tanzania that will come fully into 2024. And we've also built our [ Mitchell ], which has not fired on full cylinders in 2023 as planned and -- but will come as planned fully on stream for the full year of 2024. All that together will already drive some growth beyond the market indications that I just gave you. On pricing, I would say, no broad signs of weaknesses on pricing. Here and there, there are pockets up and there are pockets down, but no broad signs of weakness. Personally, on the outlook, I have -- we have noticed that the CO2 price has come down towards 50. It's now that's up a little bit to 53, 54. Personally, I don't think it's going to stay at that point. But even if you make the calculation, Elodie, on 50 or 55, if you have to buy a certificate, the current market prices are not even there what you need. So I think in that respect, energy costs are still high. Yes, they are coming down, but they are still much higher. René will share that with you maybe in a minute. '23 versus '22. And then going into 2024, we are not yet on the level of precrisis by far. Plus there are grid costs and all of that included. So in that respect, I think we have to all accept that the cost structure of our products, especially on the cement side, have changed and you can make whether it's the 50 or 70 on the CO2 price or whether it's 95 or 75 on the energy costs in Europe, things are a little bit volatile, but they are significantly higher than in the past. And that's why I'm personally convinced that the pricing in Europe is there to stay. And I think if you look at the total building costs, our products are then consumed it's not going to kill anything. It's a low single-digit percentage typically. And in that respect, I'm confident that also on that price level, the construction market will pick up again. René, do you want to add something on that?

[Foreign Language]

Next question comes from Paul Roger. And please limit your questions to two at a time. We have a very full question queue.

I'll tell you, I'll keep it simple, I'll only ask one. And I'll focus on the U.S. I mean, clearly, one of your competitors has recently announced the spin-off. I guess you were probably anticipating this question. But is that something that Heidelberg would ever consider? And if not, why not?

Thank you, Paul. I think that's -- I would argue, it's expected the question. So in that respect, I will start and then maybe René can add. Clear message from our side, a regional split up of Heidelberg Materials, you will clearly not see under my leadership. It's not going to happen. That's off the table. And I tell you why. I have not one data point, at least I've asked about 5 different bankers to give me one example where a company has been regionally split. How to make out of a global champion to regional players, that's the question mark. I have not seen one example where it worked. Good luck to our competition. Hopefully, it works. But for the time being, I have not enough data points and I typically look at data points also when I make my decisions. So in that respect, that's point number one. Secondly, I would argue from what we can see. I don't want talk about personal, if you ask me about Heidelberg Materials. In our case, at least, we would have massive dis-synergies because you would need to double everything. There needs to be a decarbonization team in the U.S. There needs to be a decarbonization team in the rest of the world. There needs to be many -- a regional team on the one side, and regional digital team on the other side. So in that respect, plus you have significant listing costs in the U.S. Now having said that, Paul, I understand the logic of some of the parts. And I understand that the U.S., some of the parts discussion is here to stay for the moment. So outside of the clear answer that a regional split up for us is clearly off the table. All other options to try and tickle out, some of the parts gap between the U.S. and Europe are clearly on the table. So in that respect, I think that's the straightforward answer.

Then next one, online is Tom Zhang from Barclays.

Yes. Maybe just two for me. The first one, just on shareholder returns. Your guiding to EBIT at least as good as 2023. So it feels like everything could look better than 3 years ago. Any reason you settled on the EUR 1.2 billion, a relatively small increase versus the last tranche. And is there scope to increase that over time in the next few years? And then the second question, just on your leverage target, seems quite a lot of headroom now to get back to 1.5x. I mean, several billion impact. Are you still looking at multibillion deals? Would you rule that out? And has anything changed with how you think about M&A?

Okay. Maybe René, you want to take the shareholder -- the share buyback question on the 1.2 and then I will answer on the leverage target.

Okay. So Obviously, the balance sheet would leave some room as you indicated, we had room. But we said we want to have a continuous, steady increase of shareholder returns. Yes, we don't want to do, okay, this year, we do EUR 2 billion and then next year, we stop it again. This is not what we want, yes. So -- and that's why we said, okay, we do as 3 tranches, each EUR 400 million. And then we said as well, okay, our results went up. We promised a progressive dividend and then we said, okay, we can actually increase our share buyback. Obviously, yes, you're, right. The sky is obviously, always the limit, you can do always more but we want to have a continuously steady increase that you can trust what we are doing that you can -- that you know what's coming, no ups and downs, zero and then EUR 2 billion or something. So that's a steady program, and that's what we have decided for. And we have, let's say, made experience with the first one. Now we go to the second one. And what comes next, you will see when it comes.

Yes. And 20% is not a small -- it's not a super small increase. Now I would argue that's quite fair. On the [ regular churn ], you are right, we are below our corridor of EUR 1.5 billion to EUR 2 billion. And in the combination of what René shared with you, there is a clearly room for the M&A, and there is the [ leveraging ] for M&A. So we always said capital allocation, first, we do our normal CapEx, then we pay our dividends, then we do the decision between share buyback and acquisition. And we basically split the swings into half- into -- if you look at the free cash flow into the share buyback and also then into M&A over 3 years, that's not quite half-half, fair enough. But overall, I think that's a little bit of logic. Now on M&A, I think clearly, it's on the table. It's on the table in general, in only in our portfolio markets. So those markets where we are focused on, that's where we will do our M&A with a clear preference to small then middle, then larger M&A. Larger M&A, as we indicated, only in our core markets. And I think that's very important, guys. Yes, I say it again. And fitting to the financial rigid framework that we have indicated, and then everybody can calculate that a EUR 10 billion acquisition of Heidelberg Materials is not going to happen because it's going to kill our financial framework that we have promised you. So in that respect, don't worry so much. There was a lot of speculation what we do, what we don't do. Look what we have done, measure us by what we have done, and then you see how we execute. And I think the numbers of 2023 are very convincing in that respect. So I think that's the clear message. Yes, we want to grow. Yes, we want to grow our M&A, we use predominantly small and midsized deals, exception larger deals. But if we do larger deals, they need to -- they need to fit their financial rigidity and that's the clear message.

Yes. No, that's fair enough. I guess just on that 20%, all I was referencing is if you look at how your cash flow and earnings have developed has obviously gone up quite a bit more than that. That's what I meant by that -- yes, that makes sense.

Next question comes from Yassine Touahri from On Field.

So a couple of questions. You mentioned in your answer to Paul that your -- all other options are on the table to crystallize the value in your sums above. Can you elaborate a little bit on what options you have there in mind. It's not very clear for me. And the second one would be on your hedging strategy for 2024. Are you already hedged? Some of your power costs and some of your fuel costs and you already have a sense of what your energy bill based on the cement could be in 2024, could be down -- it could be down 5%, 10%. I think some of your competitors gave a number. It would be very helpful if you can at least give us some color on your -- on the energy outlook for 2024?

Yes, Yassine, let me take the first one on the all other options and then René will do the hedging one. I also understanding yes, for competitive reasons, I'm not going to get into too many details here. But it's -- to be clear, it's all the way from increased transparency around our U.S. performance. Maybe in some certain business lines all the way to a listing in the U.S. So I think that's the whole barrier or the whole spectrum we are looking at. And there I would -- we are looking at 5 or 6 different ways in that spectrum. But I ask your understanding that, that's it for the moment. So everything, as I said, is on the table outside of a regional split.

Yassine, let's then come to the -- to your hedging question. So on electricity, we are roughly 50% -- 50%, 60% hedged and the rest stays now on spot. You see the numbers on a daily basis. And here, I guess, the numbers look, let's say, from our perspective, coming down, which is good. So and our energy bill -- [indiscernible] regarding to the demand was EUR 2.7 billion in 2023. And I cannot give you a number per tonne, what I expect, because it's crystal ball, but -- what I can tell you, looking at things right now, our energy bill should be lower than the EUR 2.7 billion what we shared in 2023.

And Yassine and Paul, maybe I add one point to the question for both of you. Let me step back one second and then say, if I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of a potential investor, into having -- building materials or building materials or building materials. I would argue, the question is always, are you running with a pack? Or are you trying to make the difference? And the point is on U.S. or North American heavy building materials, there are now at least 5 or 6 different options. And you're not going to invest into 5 different -- or 5 or 6 different companies. while if you want to invest in the decarbonization and performance leader globally in the market, guess what guys, there's only one left. And I don't -- we feel quite comfortable with that sweet spot. So whenever there is a decision of [ via ] competition, there is also a reflection on our optionalities, and we feel actually quite comfortable with that sweet spot.

Next in line is Cedar Ekblom from Morgan Stanley.

Two for me. Dominik, I just want to confirm, did you say that you are considering a listing in the U.S. as one of the options to unlock the some of the parts discount? I don't know if I heard that correctly? Because in the same vein, you're saying that you are not looking at a split of the business. So just wanted to clarify there. And then the second question is just on M&A, René if I look at that chart that you put up, it shows that you spend cash of around EUR 440 million and then you assumed debt of another sort of EUR 400 million. So your total M&A spend is a little less than EUR 900 million on an EV basis, obviously not on a cash basis. Can you help us understand what revenues you think those acquisitions can generate annualized. The reason I ask is, obviously, the scope impact to revenues for 2023 was only EUR 130 million. But clearly, that's not an annualized run rate. And your M&A spend is quite chunky, right? So I just want to sort of make sure I understand the uplift to revenues we can hope to see in the numbers going forward.

Thanks, Cedar. You heard it right. I think I said we look at all the different options. And I want to be very transparent about the boundaries, I would say so. For me, whether you list in the U.S. or whether you split your business completely and make two different players out of it is a difference. I think there are examples in the industry around that. So in that respect, that's all I said. Again, we look at all options, we can't execute all options. We are looking at upside and downsides for all of those options. But also to be fair, we've not started with this exercise since the discussion around hosting. That's a discussion, Cedar, you know very well, that's been around for 5, 10, 15 years, and it's something we take very serious, but it's also not so easy to execute. In many cases, you can only do it once and then you better make sure that it works. And the value is also lifted. So in that respect, going back to my sweet spot discussion from earlier, there may also be other options to tickle the value uplift that we want and you saw there's a recent share price development. Are we satisfied with that? No. But is it a good midpoint to further jump from? Absolutely. So I think in that respect, let's wait and see. René, the other one?

Yes. Cedar, yes, you're right, especially if you look the Indonesian one and the Tanzania one we did in December, yes, so you don't have, let's say, big revenue impact there. So you're fully right. So if I look what additional revenue you could expect from the M&A activities we have done in '23 and '24. It should be roughly EUR 200 million additional to EUR 200 million to EUR 250 million additional revenue coming.

Okay. So just to confirm -- yes, so if I say EUR 250 million and then I say plus EUR 130 million, right, which is your scope contribution in 2023. We're looking at an EBIT sales multiple of more than 2x on businesses like recycling assets and Indonesian cement facilities, which might be interesting businesses, but I'm just surprised at the size of that multiple. You don't need to comment on that. I mean it's pretty high. Just quickly, Dominik, I want to go back to the listing point. Less than 30% of your revenues and EBITDA are in the North American region. Do you have in mind a threshold that you would need to get to before you would consider that as an option? Or is it too early in the discussion phase to actually talk about that?

Cedar, that's part of that discussion that goes exactly as one of the criteria into all of those options. I think that's certainly one data point that we carefully evaluate, but it's only one of many.

Next line is Brijesh Siya from HSBC.

So I have two questions as well. The first one is North America performance. In Q4, we had a 6% like-for-like sales. But if I look at last year, Q4, I guess you had a weaker performance. So it's not -- it's up year-on-year, but I think most of that is driven by pricing and less so on volumes. So question is slightly two parts. First one is whether -- are you satisfied with the performance where you are right now in Q4? And second part of that is, with the Mitchell plant, you said that is much more to come in 2024. So could you just give us a little more sense about what's the magnitude of savings or you're going to see in 2024. That's the first one. And second one, René, you mentioned that there's EUR 61 million of provision increase because of litigation -- legacy litigation for Hanson. Could you just explain it what it is? And what's sort of the total litigation all about?

Okay, Brijesh, let me take the first one. I think on Q4, our performance in North America overall, we are okay. We checked a little bit of details on volumes and pricing. It can always be better. I think I would argue. There is a little bit of a weakness market-wise in the Pacific Northwest, like towns like Seattle and everything, that has clearly been better in the past. So there are some markets and pockets where we still have upside potential. And then on Mitchell, I ask for your understanding, we cannot comment for competitive reasons on single assets, also antitrust, that's not possible. So in that respect, Mitchell will come -- is already fully on stream and will fully contribute to the P&L in North America. I'm going back to my general remarks where we said in our strategy, we're going to increase on group level by 300 basis points and the North American business by 400 to 500 basis points. And part of that uplift, we always said, is coming also from Mitchell, and they're well on track in that respect.

So regarding the second one, also, this is a legal case ongoing. I cannot give you too much details here. But this is a single environmental case, which we have in the U.S., which is a lot of years back, that is Hanson legacy, and relaunched discontinued operations. So that's a single case. So don't be too worried here and it's a running case, so I cannot give you more details.

Next question comes from Arnaud Lehmann from Bank of America.

My first question is on price over cost, still positive in Q4, but I think it was the smallest gain this year at slightly above EUR 200 million. I believe there's a bit of base effect in there relative because you started to gain margin in Q4 of last year. But is there anything else that you would like to mention, whether it's on the pricing side or the cost side that would imply that this the price of our cost is fading a little bit compared to the previous quarters? And my second question is on Brevik. Firstly, are you still on track for the CCS plant to be operational by year-end? And maybe a point of clarification because you speak about net-zero from Brevik. But if I remember well, the CCS plant is going to capture only half of CO2 emission of the plant. So how do you decide which tonnes are net-zero and which tonnes are not?

So Arnaud, let me take the first one. Price over cost. And obviously, there are 3 factors why the number price of cost is a little bit smaller than the quarters before. First, as you all know, this is a smaller quarter, Q4, regarding absolute numbers. Then number two, in '22, we had already price increases announced in -- put into the market again in Q3, Q4. And then in Q4 in '22, the energy costs came down already. So these 3 in combination are the reasons why the number is not as big as you -- as in the prior quarters.

Okay, Arnaud, and then on Brevik, first of all, yes, chemical completion is going to be done by end of 2024. And then during the first half of 2025, the plan is going to ramp up. Keep in mind, the first asset in the industry so I think any planned ramp-up that takes some time. So it's sort of like you switch on the light bulb and then the light is on. So it will take as planned, always a couple of months at least to get the assets running. We also said commercialization growth only starts during 2025. Now on the net-zero, you're absolutely right. If you look at it from a helicopter perspective, we are capturing half of the CO2 emissions in the plant, but we have leveraged the very accepted 2 methodologies of book and claim and mass balance to ensure that we are able to offer true net-zero carbon capture products. So the way it works, if you look at my tea cup here, there is a yellow tea in there or green tea in this, okay. And let's assume that's the capture of CO2. And what happens now in a certified process by a reputable third-party via book and claim and mass balance, we basically and supported by blockchain. We take this green tea out until the glass is empty and allocate it either to the physical product out of Brevik or to other products outside of Brevik but inside of Europe and only until the glass is empty. And that is secured by blockchain in a very transparent process. And then that -- those products are truly net-zero carbon capture. That's the way the certification also goes. It's been tricky. And I think we are the icebreaker here in the industry. That's clearly a new invention by Heidelberg materials, leveraging, well-accepted methodologies like book and claim and mass balance, and then we'll take it from here.

Next question comes from Gregor Kuglitsch from UBS.

So I want to come back quickly to the M&A spend. So the EUR 900 million EV. Can you just tell us what the earnings or EBITDA or EBIT you expect to have from that? And I'm guessing that's in your guidance for this year. And I suppose if you expect any synergies within that. That would be the first one. And the second one is just sort of a sense a little bit of rhetoric compared to Q3 on sort of larger deal or something like that. There was a whole slide dedicated to it now that kind of isn't and obviously, we've heard some of the industry chats about one particular asset. But I just want to understand what changed, if anything, perhaps nothing has changed. Just give us a sense what would -- what changed between and perhaps November...

Okay. So regarding M&A, Gregor, the exact number, obviously, is included in our guidance. But you know as well as its included in our guidance is -- we have a strong FX headwinds. And so they need to both consider if you want to, let's say, take any conclusion about our guidance. And if you want to do some bases, what is it, I said it to Cedar, EUR 450 million revenue, you can apply a certain margin and then you know what is roughly in our numbers.

On M&A, nothing has changed between now and November. To the best of my knowledge there was a lot of chat in the market, but nothing at least happened on our side. So in that respect, exactly what I answered earlier on the M&A question. Preferences put to smaller and midsized deals is an exception, in larger deals, but larger deals only in the rigid framework that we have applied and promised to the market, and we are not elephant hunters.

The next question comes from Tobias Woerner from Stifel.

Number one, when we look at the CO2 price down now almost 45%, 50%, you have some markets which are in surplus, some which are in deficit. Could you give us a sense what the P&L impact could theoretically be if only from a margin perspective. That's the first question. The second question, we've talked a little about M&A. The other side of acquisitions is divestments. Maybe give us a sense there, whether there could be more to come. You have a number of probably not core. I would say maybe China could be thought of in that context? Maybe you can give us a sense?

Tobias, regarding the CO2 price impact on our P&L, you don't see any impact in our P&L because you're rightly saying some countries are short. Some are long and overall group position is long. So there's no P&L impact for the group right now.

And then Tobias, on the divestments, as we said, portfolio exercises and optimizations are always on the table. With a specific question to China. Clearly, it's off the table. China is difficult trade markets or timing anyway on the Chinese assets is not great. But China is a cash cow. From our perspective, we get the money out. And if you try to sell that asset, you can relate it to somebody, but who should buy this.

Just to come back to René's answer. I mean, at the end of the day, it's also a question of the balance between deficit countries and surplus countries. You say on balance, we're still in surplus. Is that correct?

That is fully correct.

The second last question I have -- so its Yves Bromehead from Soc Gen.

I'll have 2. Maybe coming back to the potential U.S. system. Just can you maybe give us some context in terms of the time frame? Is there a necessity to sort of speed this up, especially in consideration of potential M&A deals that you may wish to do in the U.S. and you might as well be in the race now with some of your peers who are also following a similar strategy? Or is this just a theoretical discussion that we're having on Heidelberg being assisted? My second question is on Mitchell and the ramp-up I believe you actually were buying clinker from some of your competitors towards the year-end. Could you maybe elaborate on how much was the impact on RCO for Q4? And maybe what's the level of utilization rate as well now early into 2024 from Mitchell ?

Okay. Let me take the first one, and then René takes the buying of the clinker. If it's not a theoretical, it's a practical discussion because we typically we're not great in theory. Typically, if you look at things, it becomes practical. However, what we clearly not do, its a race with our competition around this. What -- why should we? And going back to my earlier point, we are very, very comfortable with our sweet spot, and there is no need for us to rush around this question. We take all the time in the world and then we only jump if it's a very convincing case that we can make internally and especially also externally. So absolutely, there is no rush, no speed on this. We take all the time we need in order to make our decisions. That's not only true but that creates, it's true for many others. And what we clearly are not doing is just some short-term action to buy some sort of an asset in the U.S. guys, this is not -- for me, that sorry -- don't get me wrong, but that's not a strategy. That's not how you can run a company midterm, long term, so that's always -- it's a little bit like if the German government offers some tax incentive and then you buy an asset that's 10x too expensive just because you get a tax incentive. For me, sorry, that's clearly not a strategy. So we do this -- there is no rush on our side. We are very comfortable with where we are. I believe we are seeing a value uplift in our share. And as I said, that's clearly not the limit. Otherwise, we wouldn't do a share buyback. The Board clearly believes that there is massive additional opportunity without any crazy exercise, and it's clearly not a short-term rush in that.

So if regarding your Mitchell question, as I'm not sure that we buy clinker for Mitchell, that's definitely not -- should not be the case. The plant is running in Q4.

We didn't really ramp up.

Although, it ramp up, but that was during the year. But Q4, no impact, nothing. And the plant is running at full capacity or producing at full capacity to get the silos as we're going for winter [indiscernible] and everything. So I'm not sure there's no impact for the U.S. in buying clinker for Q4.

Maybe just on the U.S. system, would you keep a dual listing with the German shares as well or not?

No comments.

Now we have 2 more questions. One, from Ross Harvey from Davy.

My first question is I'm hoping you can discuss the evoBuild and the evoZero brands. What are your expectations for them. Particularly in terms of pricing relative to your standard products? And how quickly can those brands ramp up? And secondly, Brevik side, you might just give us an update on your carbon capture experiences with the rest of the projects, which are due to come online in the next number of years?

Yes. Thanks very much, Ross. Important question. First of all, the idea behind -- both of these brands is that we clearly want to set a standard in the industry for carbon-reduced products, evoBuild and net-zero carbon catch-up products, evoZero. That's the first -- because if you go to norms and standards right now around the world, there is nothing in there. It's all second guessing and we want to be very -- we want to set a very transparent standard around those two dimensions. On evoBuild, clearly, the target is to get a margin uplift with a sustainably improved products. So with a lower carbon footprint, we want to see a margin uplift in that respect. On evoZero, that's a completely different discussion. It's a completely new product. So it's not about margin uplift or surplus. It's a complete different product. It has characteristics that nobody else will be able to offer globally. So that is a unique product that we will price at a independent price point that has nothing to do with the traditional cement product. And that's what evoZero is all about. That's why we have launched this, let's say, 12, 18 months before the commercialization starts because you need to get it into the exciting projects. And as I said, there is ample demand for this and the market will then finally decide whether a unique price points will sit. Okay. The other CCS project, I think, of course, Brevik, GeZero -- Geseke, we have received the funding that project is still depending on the framework here in Germany with a carbon management strategy that is due out in the next couple of weeks. To get the legislative environment set up for that. Then we have a well advanced project in Edmonton, that's well on its way, and we've shared some of the details and then you heard about the Bulgarian project. That's one. Then you have heard about Padeswood. That's the one in the U.K. And then you also heard about Mitchell. Those are the ones that contribute more or less to the 10 million cumulative tonnes that we want to capture on for 2030. And for now, there is no red flag in that respect. But while we are going to heavily on the experience that comes out of Brevik because on the experience curve, that obviously gives us a significant advantage over anybody else to climb up the experience growth and execute those projects in a convincing business case.

Just a follow up. I'd tried follow up, just one short one.

Yes.

Yes, I was just wondering just in terms of those measures that you are adopting in Europe at Brevik on the book and claim and that balance, will you be able to do those with the other carbon capture projects. And I'm thinking in particular around the Edmonton one in Canada, will that be for sale in the U.S., for example?

Definitely, target.

Luis Prieto. He will be the last from Kepler.

A couple of them. The first one, its a follow-up on price over cost. In 2023, it was the clear driver of earnings that we have seen. Your new guidance points to up to 9% growth in RCO, if I'm not mistaken, which I believe is partly explained by perimeter. But is the rest essentially more price over cost like last year? Or do you expect a bit of volume kicking in. And the second question is regarding your ROIC expectation of 10% and coming back to that, RCO target of up to 9% growth. When you say around 10%, which would be in line or even down from this year's, why would that be if you're growing your RCO or am I missing something?

Thanks, Luis. I'll take the first one. René takes the second one. I think on price over cost, you're right. Clear target is to keep a positive price over cost, but it will be a different driver. It's more coming from less [ source ] from increased -- globally increased pricing. As we said, we are still very confident on significant price advancement in the U.S. But in other parts of the world, we have to see. I think there are markets that -- wherever things work very well. Others is more a little bit of an inflation hedge only. So pricing I think the magnitude of price increases that you saw 2022, 2023 will probably not be on the table. However, there'll be no price over cost, in both dimensions. Even if the price doesn't work as much as the costs will also move differently. We've talked already about the [ arrival ] costs, and we also continue to work significantly on the fixed cost. You saw our announcement a couple -- we expect that we are -- that we closed one of our clinker plants in Germany. Volumes are significantly down. Our decarbonization again needs less clinker. So you should expect that we continue to drive our fixed cost base down in order to keep price over cost positive. And that's total price of cost because there are two definitions price over arrival cost and then there's price over total cost. Now I gave you the full picture in terms of both arrival cost development and fixed cost development.

Luis regarding your ROIC question, yes, it's a little bit -- how should I -- vague around 10%. It can be 9.9%, 10%, 10.4%. But it's not only the RCO, which we said it's going to increase. It is various tax rate, you have to consider. And in the U.K. and in the U.S. we are coming into, let's say, tax payment territory. Yes. So that has an impact. And then to forecast the balance sheet regarding FX movements there are CTAs that would be brief for me to forecast the balance sheet for the end of the year regarding FX movements, which has an impact on your equity. So -- that's why we are here with the 10%, I guess, on -- from my perspective, on a very high level, a solid 10%. It's not a bad thing.

I think, Luis, from my side, I think it's important that we prove that we can sustainably be around 10% or above. I think go back 25 years in the industry we had to perform from 10%-plus ROIC level. I've been around now for whatever 17 years, I haven't seen it. So I think let's wait and see if the business can sustainably perform around that level or a little bit above. I think the sky is always the limit, but I think we are clearly moving in the right direction. And again, to what René said earlier, guys, it's very important for us to consistently execute. We are not the guys up down, up down, up down. For me, the capital market wants consistency. And you want trust in terms of delivery. You want trust in terms of do they do what they have told us to do. No surprises. That's what René and I, are really trying to manage. That's why the share buyback is really managed in a way, consistency, consistency, consistency. So you can make your calculations. So you know what you get. And then we will also see the overdue valuation uplift in the multiple. So in that respect, that's our journey, and we are happy to welcome everybody or anybody who wants to join that journey.

Thanks so much, thanks René. I think this concludes our call. We are now hopping on a plane to get to London to see -- some of you from the sell side this evening. We're also hosting a breakfast to meet our investors tomorrow morning for those of you who are willing to come, please give us a shout, and we gladly include you in this breakfast meeting. Other than that, we are on the road a couple of times in the U.S., in Europe in the next couple of days and weeks, and we hope to see you all there. Thanks.

Thanks, guys. Bye-bye.

Thank you. See you later.