LANXESS Aktiengesellschaft (LXS) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome and thank you for joining the LANXESS conference call. I would now like to turn the conference over to Eva Frerker. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Lucas. Good morning, well, late morning also from our end. For the first time, it's my pleasure to welcome you to our earnings call for full year 2022. As we will be making forward-looking statements, I would like to start out the call by asking you to take notice of our safe harbor statement. With me today are Matthias Zachert, CEO; and Michael Pontzen, CFO at LANXESS. Matthias will start with a brief presentation, and then we are happy to take your questions. I will now hand over to Matthias. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Eva, and a warm welcome from my side to all of you participating to this Q4 call. And I will address the presentation instantly on Page 4, characterizing -- describing here the key strategic and financial headlines highlights. Portfolio-wise, we made strides in the right direction as far as changing our company setup, leaving behind polymers and focusing on chemicals. And we are about to execute this as we speak. If you look at overall yearly profitability, we are one of the few companies that could deliver absolute growth. We increased our EBITDA by around about 14% in a pretty difficult environment. I'm especially proud that we were able to pass on completely raw material inflation and energy cost explosion as well as freight costs. So here we caught clearly up and closed also the gap to 2021 where we were running behind. So this eventually, we could fully achieve despite a more and more difficult economic environment in the second half of last year. Working capital was definitely a drag on the cash flow for the full year, impacting us by nearly EUR 500 million. First signs of improvement clearly visible in Q4 on the operational side with the clear first step on inventory reduction, which will continue, especially in the first half of the running year. As far as dividend is concerned, we looked at overall liquidity at our overall sensitivity analysis and clearly confirm our rating policy, but keeping dividends stable and not posting another increase. So for the time being, we consider that this is exactly the right approach. As far as climate strategy is concerned, we went out in the last year with target on Scope 3. So after we have been very swift in our S1, S2 communication several years ago. And from that point onwards, implemented on a yearly basis. We have now in all transparency and after having collected all details at global level, we've now communicated where we stand on S3 and what our targets are. And I think also here, we can communicate good execution in the meantime. Let's be specific. Let's move to Slide #5. And here, address some of the financial indicators. On the left-hand side, if you look at the P&L KPIs as it relates to sales, EBITDA and EPS, I think P&L wise, this was a successful year in light of the high volatility and all the disruptions we saw on value chains, on the aggression war against the Ukraine on energy scarcity, energy price inflation, and we can go on, go on and go on. So all in all, I think we managed a very turbulent year P&L-wise relatively well. However, there are weak spots. One is the leverage we are -- through the acquisition and net working capital increase, we are in a higher leverage setup. We've seen that in the last 10, 15 years before if you come out of an acquisition phase, you end up with more leverage. And now we are in a divestiture phase and a consolidation phase, so we need to lever down. And with the steps we are taking on the HPM joint venture transaction, we make a big stride in that direction more to come. So this will automatically, from first of April, reduced our gross leverage and our net debt leverage substantially, but of course, more to come in course of the year. Cash flow, you saw first strides in the right direction, especially on inventories in Q4 mitigated by some other cash outs that Michael will address. But all in all, the operational working capital level has to move downward further in course of 2023. Lower CapEx we've guided for. So this is sustainable based on the new setup of portfolio and, of course, reduction in exceptional has been announced last year. This will be a theme for '23, '24. So the 2-week spot leverage and cash flow will be addressed and will be already implemented in course of the next 12 months. With this, I would like to move to the joint venture. I know there are always rumors here and there. 6 months ago, the rumors were no antitrust approval will come, all nonsense. This has been implemented now, green light given everywhere. So there's nothing that holds us back from closing. The carve-out has been 1 closing condition. This has been completed end December last year. Antitrust approvals are worldwide there. We expect closing first of April '23. On that day, we will receive EUR 1.1 billion cash proceeds with little tax implication. And therefore, that will lower gross debt substantially. As far as the 40% are concerned, they will be booked in our balance sheet with EUR 1.4 billion. And also this has been discussed, validated in depth with our auditors so that all the accounting preparations are being done and implementation of that, you will see in the balance sheet going forward. So that is as far as closing is concerned. We are currently in the midst of -- together with Advent as joint venture partner with finalizing also the capital structure. I know there are rumors for the last 2, 3 days. You cannot comment on any rumor because Bloomberg is coming up with many speculations ongoing, if it's not Bloomberg then Reuters. And we use this conference call to give clarity as much as possible. The clarity that I would like to give is when we set up the joint venture, the trading was at different levels, both joint venture partners have agreed to support in a certain way the joint venture on a shareholders' basis. And here, Advent at 60%, we 40%. So both of us will support the joint venture. The fine-tuning of this is being done as we speak. The likelihood is that LANXESS provides a certain amount of money through a financial fixed income loan with market respective interest rates. And therefore, this is something we are contemplating. Maximum amount is going to be EUR 200 million [ periods ]. And the fine-tuning and the communication on this, we will give once the joint venture has closed and therefore, this is yet to be finalized and agreed between the joint venture partners. And once the closing is done, I think we -- the contractual terms will be finalized. And then, of course, we will do respect the communication. I stress again, there's no equity contribution. This is a pure financial fixed income instrument with market respective rates. This is all. At the end of the day, there is some further fine-tuning on closing accounts, et cetera. It might well be that the EUR 1.1 billion that we achieved might also be after the loan has been subtracted in the area of EUR 1 billion because there are other closing conditions that lead to further cash proceeds. So therefore, the final clear communication we will do once all closing conditions are implemented, closing accounts and purchase price have been paid. With this, I would like to move to Page #7 and here the dividend. So as I stressed before, we are living in shakier times. 2022 was tough, but we managed well. We assume that 2023 is going to be a tough one as well, most likely in the first half. The industry will suffer from what happened in the last 6 months in 2022, i.e., high energy prices, high raw material costs, leading to high product prices and having softer demand now in the end markets. So for that very reason, we assume that '23 is going to be a tough year. And from everything that I've seen from my peers, I conclude that this is being confirmed industry-wise. Nevertheless, 2023 is a year where our gross debt should go down through divestiture proceeds, but also through a visible inflow from net working capital. And in light of this, our financial position holds strong. And thus, we can stick to our dividend policy, but keep it stable as long as we operate in volatile times. So I think this is also a prudent approach that you are used to in our company. Now let's come to Page 8, sustainability. As far as Scope 2 is concerns, reachieved record results last year. For the first time, we reduced our emissions on Scope 1 and Scope 2 below 2 million tons CO2. Please take care or please recall that when we, in 2018, announced our S1, S2 targets, we stood at 3.2 million. So within the last few years, we clearly executed deliberately and reducing S1, S2 below EUR 2 million. I think this is first class. But also on Scope 3, if I look back where we stood in 2018, our emissions were at 23 million tons for Scope 3 and we've now achieved through portfolio changes, but also through sourcing differently, putting new sourcing streams in place. We've mentioned a few here on the slides. To reduce from 23 million tons in '18 to 11 million tons in 2022, this means chopping basically half of it off. And there are not a lot of companies who have done that in a short period of time. And that's pretty much the reason why sustainability rating agencies are giving us best results, a lot of credit for what we are doing if it relates to CDP being ranked on the A-List that relates to Dow Jones sustainability, where we are taking up the #1 position in Europe, #2 worldwide. But also if you go to EcoVadis or MSCI, where we achieved a AA rating, I think all of that gives somewhat proof that we are really executing swiftly and in a focused way. I'm pretty happy about the fact that also SBTi has given us the clear feedback that we are fully compliant with the 1.5 degrees road neck net for COP 21 Paris is concerned, there are not a lot of companies who can say that. So with this, I move to Q4 solely. And hey, that was a bloody tough quarter. 2022, if I look at 2022 was characterized in the first half with an environment where our order books were full. I mean we could not ship as much as customers wanted. The reason behind it was pretty simple. Rebounds being caused by the pandemic because products [indiscernible]. We had disrupted value chains. I mean recall, 12 months ago, we had on telly, harbors being congested and containers not being deloaded. That is just 12 months ago. So we were living in an environment of inflation. That's not over as we know. But the first half of '22 was characterized with customers, ordering as much as possible. They were not ordering 100%. They ordered 120%, 130% of volumes because they knew when they order 100%, they will get 80%. And on top of that, customers fear that later on during the year due to inflation prices would even be higher than on the day when they order their products. So we were living in an environment where customers over-stocked. That has changed. We are now in Q4 and in Q1 experiencing completely different customer behavior, customers destock. Customers are now getting enough products because containers and logistics are no longer disrupted. So this has come to a complete change. On top of that, everybody sees energy prices going down. So people assume product price erosion to come. So right now, we have the opposite trading pattern with customers from ordering more as much as possible. Clearly, Q4, the key theme, destocking, and it continues. So destocking will be a theme also in Q1, and we saw it in Q4. So some businesses were little impacted, like consumer protection. We saw only a volume decline in single digits. But if you look into the group, we posted a volume decline in Q4 of 13%. And in Advanced Industrial Intermediates and inorganic pigments we sort, as you see from the reporting at 22%. This is tough. Despite that, we managed profitability reasonably well being somewhat at par with Q4 last year's level, but it was a tough quarter. And I do expect that Q1, we will continue having trough volume trading due to destocking still being visible. With this, I come to Page #10. So guidance for year '23, we do expect recessionary environment in the first half of the year and then in second half rebounding. The industry definitely has a challenge to address basically the still high costs and high-value inventories in the books. Because what we have in the books has been produced with Q4 raw material prices and with energy prices, which in Q4 were still sky high. Energy prices started to soften in January onwards. So in the balance sheet, in the inventories, we have high-priced inventories. And in Q1, we see soft volume. And of course, whilst customers expect a reduction in product prices, we still have to defend product pricing level in Q1 because we have to mitigate here the high value pricing in our inventories. So that's the challenge that all of us have to work with. And of course, that is what we operationally addressed. Now what we have to deal with in Q1, unfortunately, are force majeures. We have an ugly force majeure on chlorine notably in North Rhine-Westphalia, particularly in Uerdingen. This impacts the benz-chlorides in F&F quite heavily. And here, Q1, we will most likely lose something like EUR 5 million to EUR 10 million because simply, we are not able to produce benz-chlorides. And then we have to see when the force majeure of our supplier will be lifted. In U.S., again, we experienced winter storms impacting some of our big sites. And -- but fortunately, it seems that this should again be dealt with and Q2 will no longer be an issue in our additives business. Now China, I got a lot of questions here over the last 4 to 6 weeks. And China, our hope was that we will see China being present in the order book more and more after Chinese New Year. That's not the case. We don't see really volumes starting to pick up in March. So Q1 will not be quarter of China. I mean at the end of the day, the customers need to buy. They were the ones not going to shopping centers, et cetera until China continued with a 0-COVID strategy. Now the customer is back in the shopping malls, but until the value chain is really stocking up and production is going to be started again, most likely 3 to 6 months are going to pass. And therefore, our view is China ordering will be earliest seen in May, June, but potentially might only be a theme of third quarter onwards. Of course, that would be positive in its entirety for macroeconomic industry perspective, but notably also for the chemical industry because China, when they order, they do not only order for the local markets. It also set pricing, impetus on global pricing. So this will be net-net positive everywhere. As far as LANXESS outlook is concerned, we basically expect full year with the economic scenario I have just explained. We expect full year to be around '22 level, give and take. As far as now cashed or balance sheet targets are concerned, working capital to sales is a ratio we will pursue further. We need to go back into the lower 20s. We have reduced from 28%, 29% at September level to somewhat 25%, but it needs to get lower. We used to be in ranges of 20%. And we had to go further from the 25% into this 20% direction. So working capital optimization reduction will be seen that we will focus on, and therefore, more look at cash than on P&L priorities. CapEx should be lower because, of course, HPM leaves the consolidation perimeter and thus leading to lower maintenance CapEx on an annualized basis and in a more asset lighter portfolio setup. So EUR 400 million [indiscernible]. We are not running the company only on maintenance with this. So this clearly is the CapEx approach. And as far as profitability is concerned, when we give guidance, I mean, this is a process where we go region by region, business by business. The process started 2, 3, 4 weeks ago. And our conclusion at that point in time was EBITDA between EUR 180 million, EUR 220 million should be a good corridor. Today, I would clearly reinforce to all of you for sake of cautiousness and for approach and taking reality trading books into consideration, I would rather be in the lower end of the guidance for model security than on the upper end. I would rather consider that as of today, we will be here in the range of EUR 180 million, EUR 190 million and it would be the right approach if I would be in your shoes, I would take this more into consideration than anything else. With this, ladies and gentlemen, presentation has been delivered. And now I would open up the call for your questions.

[Operator Instructions] The first question is coming from Andrew Stott at UBS.

I've got 2 questions. So the first one is on Consumer Protection division. If I go back to the Capital Markets Day, you sort of said profit potential in '23 was for growth. Admittedly, that was mainly for MPP and Saltigo. Is that now still possible considering the chlorine issues you have and considering the comments you're making on Q1? So that's the first question. And the second question, I'm looking at the back of the reporting accounts and I see that the HPM subsegment made roughly EUR 180 million of EBITDA last year. If you exclude an exceptional item, I wondered if you could comment on what that exceptional item was. So my point is I'm trying to get to what I might consider a clean number to work with for the value of the remaining stake.

Thank you, Andrew. Let me address the first question. As far as CP is concerned, full year, my today's view, despite the force majeure, still clearly that we will be above previous year level. Nevertheless, we know that the force majeure will impact Q1 for sure. We now have to understand the technical implication, how long it takes on the supplier side to correct that. Should this be an element impacting us for the entire year, i.e., there's a shortfall for the entire year, of course, we would not simply take the EUR 5 million to EUR 10 million and multiply this by 4. That we would see if we can somewhat find for chlorine other way of sourcing. Transporting chlorine is not easy. It has restrictions. You need to follow certain strict regulations. So nevertheless, this is something we would investigate how we can go for alternative sourcing, but this is something that is operational work in progress. As of today, from everything that we know, our conclusion is that material protection will be better than last year, that liquid purification technology will be at last year's level or slightly above. F&F, we had seen x or higher compared to previous year. Now we have to consider that it might be softer. And as far as Saltigo concerns, I mean, the agro industry is doing well. We would consider that Saltigo would be at or above previous year level. So the message on consumer protection that I conveyed last year, I would confirm today yet, of course, we still have to investigate the force majeure on the chlorine side. Michael, you take HPM?

Yes. Andrew. Hi, everybody from my side as well. With regards to the reported number on HPM. You're right, operationally, we were at an EBITDA pre of give and take EUR 180 million, and the reported exceptionals in the amount of roughly EUR 20 million was largely related to the carve-out which we're currently -- which we conducted in course of 2022. That was the remaining closing condition on our side to separate the HPM business and into a legal entity structure. And these were the majority which were relating to the exceptional reported.

And just to follow up on HPM. On your comments, Matthias at the beginning, can I just check that you said the following. It is likely we will do a loan to the JV, which will be repayable, I think, in FY '26 and that, that loan will have a maximum value of EUR 200 million.

Well, we said it the loan. So there was the question that it could be equity. This is not the case. There is no intention on our end to step away from the deconsolidation. So that's the message number one. Message number 2, from our side, of course, we are a good shareholder, but we have our restrictions and other priorities. So EUR 200 million is the max, nothing more. And third, it's fixed income instruments. We have not talked about duration. We only talked about the scope or the magnitude and fixed income instruments have a fixed income coupon and I stated a third element, this will be market's pricing, and that's basically it. And all other details, we would communicate once the thing is contractually finalized.

The next question is coming from Georgina Fraser at Goldman Sachs.

So I wanted to ask on your cash flow outlook. I think we've had another fairly kind of disappointing quarter, and it's an area that you know the market is incredibly focused on. So if I take a look at all of your building blocks and the outlook, it implies a cash inflow of up to about EUR 500 million. So I just wanted to ask if you could confirm that run through the various moving parts. And then maybe give an idea of where you expect to end the year on a net debt-to-EBITDA basis if you also include the proceeds and maybe the loan for the engineering materials JV?

Well, Michael will definitely address these questions specifically. I would, however, like to shed some high-level comments on this as well. We know that cash flow is something we are going to improve on it, that crystal clear in my presentation. And if you look into Q4, you'd at least see that on the CapEx side, we executed respectively, lowered CapEx versus Q4 CapEx '21. Second, for the first time, you see inventory reductions. So we walk the talk on what we have communicated in November. Now Q4, what took us by negative surprise was the low volume momentum that was lower than we originally had anticipated. So of course, when you have lower volume, you lower utilization, [ of the ] higher idle costs that you need to absorb. We operated, believe it or not in Q4 with the utilization slightly below 60%. Delivering profitability of EUR 175 million with a utilization below 60%, I could not have imagined a few years ago. So Q4 was really a tough, tough quarter in terms of volume decline. It's a theme in the industry. Most of our peers had a collapse in profitability versus previous year. So we mitigated that basically through a change in portfolio over the last few years. But cash-wise, we definitely suffered as well. So despite reducing inventory by more than EUR 120 million, we took a hit on cash. Then second, in Q4, if you look into the details, you see that we had some cash outflows for legal, technical rulings that date back to 2014, 2015. I think Michael can explain that in further detail. It has to do with the renewable energy legislation in Germany. And therefore, we paid our dues according to a new regulation, and we executed this respectively, which was, by and large, EUR 50 million cash outflow with this, this is dealt with. And therefore, you saw a hit on the Q4 cash flow, respectively. But you can look at this from a negative standpoint. And here, if you only look at the absolute numbers, I fully agree with what you said. If you look at what we had communicated in November, you see we start executing on CapEx. We start executing on working capital. And all other themes that we would like to implement in order to improve cash flow, we will continue going forward into '23. Now net debt-to-EBITDA range. I give you feedback on cash proceeds. So net debt-to-EBITDA will go down. We don't give a guidance here. We simply say that we would like to stay with an investment grade. And we are not giving an absolute cash flow targets in the -- on the financial side for the models. I think this is some work that you can do as analysts. We give indication where we would like to be net working capital-wise in terms of ratios and what our priorities are, but Michael can be more specific at his discretion. Michael?

Georgina, giving a little bit more glance maybe at firsthand on the Q4 changes in other assets and liabilities. What Matthias said, and you find it as the first bullet on the slide, exceptional cash-out to German EEG, which is the renewable energy law. In the past years, we built accruals in our P&L, why we don't have a P&L effect in the fourth quarter. But the final settlement now was done in the fourth quarter. And that is why you don't find a P&L effect no longer because the accruals were done over the past years, but the cash out, and that is then reflected in that line. The second element, which we highlight here is variable compensation, and that goes kind of in the same direction. Throughout the whole year, we build an accrual for especially or namely our let's say, 13th salary, which we're paying back in the fourth quarter. And that is why you usually find in the fourth quarter a negative cash out of EUR 30 million to EUR 40 million every year. We did not display that last year because we had positive effects last year which were compensating that effect. And the last effect is -- and that is happening from time to time when we are recording IFRS 15 earnings because IFRS 15 earnings usually do not come in line or, let's say, in par in terms of timing with cash and you usually have this cash at a later point in time, and that is the third element on that line. And as each of the elements account for give and take 1/3, you can see that the hit which we were taking in that line was way over exaggerated. As I said, usually, fourth quarter, if you look back the past 3, 4 years, the number is between EUR 30 million and EUR 40 million, give and take. For the outlook for next year or let's say, '23, I think Matthias mentioned the major elements. I can as well only reflect to what we were saying at the Capital Markets Day. We said from working capital, indeed, there should be or could be, and we're targeting an inflow of something between EUR 300 million to EUR 500 million from the number which we were displaying in the first 9 months. We knocked down now working capital by EUR 126 million in Q4 already. But if you dig in a little bit deeper, you recognize that the inventories and receivables come down already to a good element, yes. So we were in a position to knock down inventories. And that was, to some extent, driven by prices and by volumes. And that is what I would like to add for the cash flow statement.

The next questions come from Martin Roediger at Kepler Cheuvreux.

2 questions. One question is on -- for the handout, Page 16. Thanks for this chart. It seems that pricing catch up in 2022 in absolute terms is more pronounced than the pricing gap you suffered in 2021. What makes you confident that customers will not put pressure on you to give back the windfall profits? And the second question, it seems to change your mind on the intended EUR 300 million share buyback program, obviously, due to feedback from investors. Is it right to assume that primarily some European or German investors are against the share buyback? And is it because they want to see a leverage first?

Well, for your questions, Martin. So on pricing, basically, we always said that 2023 would like to kept the delta of previous years. So the lag that we saw on energy is notably in 2021. So we did that. And therefore, 2022 was on pricing, a very good year. So we executed well, and I think this was visible quarter-on-quarter throughout our 3 divisions. Now as far as price, you mentioned windfall profits. What we now have to do, and this is operational orchestration. We have to make sure that in Q1, whilst everybody is seeing energy pricing going down, that we still defend our product prices because our inventories are still priced on the energy prices of Q4 and raw materials of Q4. So this is the challenge that all of us in the industry have. We have to defend our product prices whilst we still have high-priced inventories on our balance sheets. So we need to defend this in Q1. And then, of course, in Q2, we have to see where demand is. And based on this, we will then decide on pricing going forward. But the challenge in Q1 is basically digest the high-priced inventories and defend that through product prices that are still at quite robust levels. Now on share buyback, I will not be country specific. They are definitely differences in the regions. But by and large, all investors clearly give us the feedback preferences for liquidity or net debt reduction, gross debt and net debt reduction. That's the key [indiscernible] theme for 2023. So preference here is net debt reduction and some investors, not only in Germany, basically say your enterprise value is okay. And whatever you reduce in debts will be 1:1 reflected in equity. So the feedback is net debt and gross debt reduction. And this is, of course, what we take into consideration. And for that very reason, the decision on the communication we've done today.

The next question has come from Mubasher Chaudhry at Citi.

Just the one. This comes back to the EUR 200 million loan. I think you said that the EUR 1 billion will be post the EUR 200 million subtracted. Just wanted to confirm whether that's -- if I heard that correctly. And with regards to the [indiscernible] loan of EUR 200 million, I should understand that as being a genuine loan and therefore, there's no percussions on the 40% stake of LANXESS in the JV. So that 40% remains in place? Just want to clarify that.

So I will reiterate what I've said. Before, it's the loan and the loan is the loan, period. Second, it will be maximum EUR 200 million. And this is basically -- it has nothing to do with our 40% stake. And now the final comment is we will get EUR 1.1 billion proceeds on 1st of April. And now we have to see in closing accounts or when you finalize the joint venture. Of course, you have to look at closing accounts. There are certain contractual mechanism like working capital balance. And if you have -- if you deliver more working capital, you get cash, if you deliver less working capital, you get no cash. And therefore, my feedback here is, we will get EUR 1.1 billion at least. It can be more and it will not be less. And then, of course, we have to look at where will we net cash stance after purchase price has been settled. But it starts with EUR 1.1 billion and then it can become more depending on closing mechanisms. And that's the reason why we will only comment on the net cash proceeds once we have finalized the calculations on the closing mechanism and also agreed with [ Edmond ] on the capital support that we give to the joint venture.

The next question is coming from Jaideep Pandya at On Field Research.

Sorry to harp on this, but this EUR 200 million loan, could you just tell us from [indiscernible] the actual contribution, given that you are a shareholder [indiscernible] a loan to the JV? And the second question, which is [indiscernible] a lot of investors these days is, given the low profitability of the joint venture right now, how [indiscernible] that it will cover the interest payments and the restructuring, which potentially the JV needs to capture the synergies, given the strong complementary between the 2 assets. That's my first question. And then the second question, [indiscernible] shift gear [indiscernible] is any update on Tinci, the project that you have or the [indiscernible] lithium project that you have around the [indiscernible].

Yes, Jaideep, the line is not very clear, but I think I've understood your questions. So I will take them one by one. So EUR 200 million, I said this is the maximum. So we can take this as assumption, but again, contracts are not finalized, but there would not be more than EUR 200 million at max in the contract. And this is something that we contribute on our end. Of course, we only do that because the joint venture partner does that as well. So there is a support in the way we can support the joint venture because we clearly acknowledge that at the outset of the joint venture, we had assumed a better trading for the industry for the joint venture and the trading. Of course, in second half 2022 definitely was softer than originally planned. So for an interim period of time, we would like to give support to the joint venture. That's basically it. Now second question. This joint venture starts with -- despite the current economic downturn and down cycle, our assumption is that the trough in the markets we have seen in Q3 and Q4, whilst Q1 already starts to improve. And therefore, our view is the joint venture doesn't start with now low profitability. The businesses that we reported in summer last year, where it's without synergies at levels of around about 2 -- sorry, EUR 500 million EBITDA. There are substantial synergies that will be delivered. So if this is in place, our view clearly is the joint venture will be able to pay its dues. And of course, once the industry is rebounding, not only paying its interest, but also generating enough cash in order to lower leverage. By and large, the portfolio of this joint venture should be a cash machine. We have only one point or one part of the value chain, which is upstream. That's the [ Kaplan ] polymerization that we contribute into the joint venture. That, to some extent, the backbone to the compounding, which is worldwide. So it gives an integrated value chain and the [ Kapolaktan ] production, please take into consideration there was one competitor who takes on [ capro ] upstream. So our [indiscernible] plants in Europe is world scale, 30 to 40-kilo tons. So this is the monster plant here in Europe at very competitive input costs and even more competitive now that the industry landscape is consolidating further. This is clearly considered as an add-on for our automotive OEMs. They like the integrated value chain. And therefore, on your second question, once the markets somewhat improve, come back to normal trading, I think the joint venture will be a real strong cash machine. Now as far as lithium is concerned, I mean we made a clear feedback in November that this is something for end of Q2, beginning of Q3 because studies are running and there is no change in time line. So now Jaideep, you need to simply wait as we are waiting. Operational work needs time, and they are doing the studies and studies will be finalized end of Q2, beginning of Q3. And once we are end of Q2, beginning of Q3, I think it's appropriate to raise the question again before that makes no sense.

Any word on Tinci?

Well, on Tinci, we are meeting. And the plan is that we will meet them again in Shanghai in the second quarter and then we will see. But if there had been a contract or anything close to it, we would communicate. As there's no communication, we are still in the discussions with them.

The next question comes from Andreas Heine at Stifel.

Yes. Three questions. Sorry for coming again back to the joint venture and the calculation. So the EUR 1.5 billion showing up in the balance sheet, my understanding that is the equity value. So whatever the enterprise value is minus that, and then you have the equity value, 40% is your part, and that is EUR 1.4 billion. And adding to this, the loan of EUR 200 million, I would think to show up as a financial asset on top of that, so that we will actually see the EUR 1.4 billion plus EUR 200 million in the balance sheet. Whether that's true, I'd like to confirm, as my first question. The second is, can you give an update on the IFF consolidation. You said you are behind basically the former [indiscernible] was behind in increasing prices? Is there any progress you can report on? And the last one is on net working capital. So Q4 was a very weak one, which means that receive rates were very low and inventories were very low. If you assume that the second half will show a pickup in the economy, and then usually, you would assume that receivables go up and the requirement of inventories as well. So if you plan for some net working capital decline or inflow, then it has to be your management in improving the whole net working capital, yes, management within the firm. Is that the right reading? Or do you plan for, let's say, lower raw material prices helping on its own for the net working capital at year-end 2023?

Thank you, Andreas. Michael will take questions 1 and 3. I will start with IFF and give also a comment on number three, net working capital. So IFF, yes, I mean IFF is -- we saw with IFF also volume contraction and destocking and not in all industries, but we saw that also here and industries where in most of the end industries of microbial control, there was a balance sheet cleaning at the year-end as well. That was definitely not as pronounced as we've seen in other industries, but it happened there, too. As far as pricing is concerned, the journey on pricing is still a catch-up and not a decline. So that will be the theme for IFF. Now on your third question. You're totally right on ratios, net working capital to sales and your analysis on second half next -- second half this year is valid. However, if there is a rebound in markets, there will also be a rebound in top line. And therefore, the ratios are then nominal-wise, increasing, the relative ratio can still be in line. The second answer to your net working capital to sales question is running the business for more cash instead of profitability will still be a theme for 2023. We stated in November that we will work on leverage and working capital in order to improve cash flow and lower indebtedness that will be, of course, the consequence. If the consequence is to have some more idle costs, for instance, in order to sweat out inventories, be it. Then of course, we will take a hit on profitability but deliver on cash inflow. And therefore, the ratios we've communicated will be management decision in light of the priorities that I've just mentioned. Michael, why don't you take the first one and potentially drill further on the third one?

Andreas yes, your assumption is totally right. So there are 2 lines which are affected. Obviously, the investment in equity assets. And here, you will see the residual from the EUR 2.5 billion enterprise value minus the at least EUR 1.1 billion in cash, which is then around EUR 1.4 billion. And if we grant the loan, it will be a financial effort, which will be then totally separated from this equity line. With regards to net working capital, there is not truly much to add. Of course, there's always a certain seasonality to it within our overall, let's say, development in the net working capital. But hey, at the end of the day, we have to knock it down and there is a good amount of management behind it. That is clear.

Sorry, Michael, to add again on this joint venture to be absolutely clear. I know that the EUR 1.1 billion plus the EUR 1.4 billion is exactly the enterprise value you were mentioning when you announced the deal. But my understanding is what you show in the balance sheet has to be an equity value. So it is the enterprise value minus the debt and then your 40%. Is that right? So what you see is the equity value, what you should then -- yes, receive and [ yourself to stake ] Is that fair?

That's fair. And then in future, you will have then the deviation of the equity of the joint venture being reflected in our equity consolidation and the impact in the P&L you find in our financial results.

The next question comes from Samuel Weber.

Yes. Hello, can you hear me?

Loud and clear.

First of all, I was quite impressed to see how your gross margins were holding up despite this huge inflation. So is this quite a good kind of strength. I would be wondering if we -- gas prices in the future will definitely be higher than in the past in Germany, and if we consider like a future price for term LNG to be like something like a Henry Hub plus transportation costs, so how would that influence the long-term competitiveness of your Advanced Intermediates segment? That would be my question. Thank you.

What we have to look at in Europe is where is the new normal on energy prices. And this is something that you can make certain arithmetic calculations on that like we have done. If you assume that entire Europe will be priced on LNG, then the gas price in Europe should be somewhere in the area of EUR 35 to EUR 45 per unit. I think the precise calculation would be in the high 30s, but therefore, let's give the range of EUR 35 to EUR 45. If you look at the futures now for [ 26, 27, 28 ], we see that gas prices, TTF forward for Europe are already going in that direction. We are now in the 40s, and we used to be in the 150s, 3, 4, 5, 6 months ago. So the gas pricing somewhat stabilizes. However, if you look at Norway or Netherlands gas to pipes, definitely, the pricing is lower. So there is also a rationale why futures can even obtain lower pricing than the 40s we currently see. With this set of assumptions, of course, we have to go through our assets, through our P&L, and we have done that. When we look at the current future pricing, i.e., TTF being at around about EUR 40, EUR 45 and assuming that the gas price will dominate the electricity pricing and 100% of the energy prices in Germany, which is not the case because EEG or renewable energies are on the rise. Then -- but if we take the most conservative assumption, we will have to go through our portfolio. And then it pretty much boils down to the assessment we have provided in May last year when we flagged that there are 3 plants out of 53 that are more gas intensive, energy intensive and they might have more [indiscernible] and lower profitability going into the future. And for these 3 respective [ plans ], we now need to analyze also, of course, what customers are thinking and if they have access to second and third supply sources. And that might, in the next 12, 18 months be a decision factor for can they be competitive or not. But if you look at the majority of our sites, the majority of our sites in Advanced Industrial Intermediates is competitive. But the 2, 3 sites that in North Rhine-Westphalia are under pressure on the ones we have on our monitor.

The next question is coming from Markus Mayer at Baader-Helvea.

Two questions from my side. First, a small question on the [indiscernible] in Q1, mainly to [indiscernible]? And second, you recently invested heavily in the U.S. [indiscernible] potential subsidize [ inductor ] power prices change your investment for growth in Europe. That is my second question.

Markus, can you maybe repeat your questions, please. We had a difficulty understanding.

Yes. First question was on the magnitude of the [indiscernible] [ effect ] in Q1. I understood that this is basically [indiscernible] mainly. And the second question was on your investment policy in the past, we invested quite a lot in the U.S. And my question is will potentially subsidize industrial power prices change your investment focus in Europe.

So the question on [indiscernible] Michael will take the investment policy. What was the question? Where do we invest?

Basically my question was...

From a regional perspective, right?

Exactly from a region perspective, if winter storms subsidized industrial power price in Europe and in particular in Germany, this is coming would change your investment focus.

Yes, very, very valid. Michael will take the winter storms. I will more look at the sun parts and come to your second question. If we look at the United States, I mean, there are -- if you look by and large, into the macroeconomic institutions, let's see what the United States has done over the last several years. In '20, was it 2018 or 2019, the tax reform, which was massive under the previous administration was put in place, making the tax base, one of the most competitive one for businesses and industrial players. So the tax -- taxation for corporates in the United States is first class. With the IRA or the Inflationary Reduction Act, I mean, this was just passed in August last year, and there is still a drafting that needs to be done and interpretation that needs to be done. But I mean, this is still fresh. But here, a second element comes into play that investments are being supported and tax credits are given. So if you look into something that all of us know, discounted cash flow calculation and you have a low tax rate and investments are being subsidized or supported, any discounted cash flow calculation looks mouthwatering. Now if we look into the United States, over the last 5 years, we've enlarged our asset footprint from something like 10, 11, 12 percentage points to more than 26 percentage points. So it has substantially increased. And that's the reason we -- why we are looking at our project in the United States. We clearly prioritize organic investments in the United States. I will myself be next week in the United States, also informing myself on the Inflationary Reduction Act, I will meet politicians in order to strengthen our connections and relationships in the United States. We are -- we clearly see that the United States is the place to be in terms of production and investing. So should we have the choice to invest between Europe and North America today, we will decide if all things being equal, on other perspectives like customers and markets, we would definitely decide for the United States because this is from the economic setup from the market size, technology friendliness, et cetera, tax regime and pragmatic administration, the preferred place to be. So that's on your second question, and now Michael, you will address winter storms.

Yes, Markus, the effect from the winter storms is in the same ballpark, like the effects which we're highlighting for the chlorine force majeure of our suppliers, so around EUR 5 million to EUR 10 million.

[Operator Instructions] The next question is coming from Chetan Udeshi at JPMorgan.

Two quick ones. First is, thanks for flagging some of these one-offs on cash flow line. I was just looking at the cash flow in detail. It seems there were cash tax refunds, both in 2022 and '21. So can you maybe help us understand how you think about the cash taxes in 2023 because we've seen with some other companies some sort of a catch-up in '23 in terms of taxes phasing? And the second question, I was just curious in terms of what you see for order book. I think materials you referred to China, not showing any improvement yet. But what about Europe and U.S., is that similar pattern that you see in terms of your order book looking into Q2, given that we are almost in the middle of March now. So any color on what you see for Q2 will be useful just from an order intake perspective.

Yes. On cash flow, Michael, will make a call. And on your second question, we make comments on Q4. We give color on Q1. And on Q2, we will make comments when we report Q1. Michael?

Chetan, you're absolutely right. We saw some refunds from the down payments, which we did in previous years in '21 and '22. And if you look into the balance sheet, you will still find some receivables, which we have from income taxes. So you should, for '23 not apply the P&L tax rate, which we guide now down 1% from 28% to 27% but at an even lower number. It's hard to really judge and guide now a tax outflow. But clearly, you should -- that number should be lower than the P&L tax rate, which you will find. But there will be an outflow due in '23 in total.

The next question is coming from Rikin Patel at BNP Paribas Exane.

Just one left, again, just going back to some of the components around the guidance. Just on the CapEx number of EUR 400 million, how is that going to be phased throughout the year? Because I suppose last year, that was quite back-end loaded. So just curious how we should be modeling that this year.

Thank you for your question, Rikin, and I will immediately take it up. Yes, you will see the usual phasing as well in '23. That's the plan. You usually see that in the fourth quarter. We spent around 40% of our overall CapEx budget. That is due to the fact that the majority of our, let's say, a good number of our maintenance turnaround is happening in the fourth quarter. And that is why usually our earnings number is lower in the fourth quarter on an absolute basis compared to the other quarters. So to cut a long story short, you should expect as well as back-end loading in '23.

We have a return question from Jaideep Pandya at On Field Research.

I apologize for asking this again, but I just wanted to understand the -- just for your putting off EUR 200 million and [indiscernible] Is this to support the business through a low point in the cycle and to maybe even to quicken the restructuring needed or if [indiscernible] from the debtors for the equity shareholders to put more capital for more confidence. Just want to understand the motive behind that.

So the motive is very simple. We think this is a temporary situation where the shareholders need to help. If we would consider that this would be a long time structural difficulty and most likely the financial instruments would be different. But our clear assumption here is this is a temporary difficulty where the economy and the industry has gone downwards. And we know that businesses go down, but they also go up. So for the current downturn, we support. But once the business has implemented synergies and markets are rebounding, then we assume that we can basically lifts and reduce the financial support again. And that's, therefore, the answer to your question.

And thereby, we have really used a lot of your time. Thank you. Matthias, maybe some closing remarks.

Well, thank you very much to everybody, and thank you for dialing in. Michael and I and with the IR team would be on road show. So looking forward to seeing you. Stay healthy and positive until then and take good care. Bye-bye from Cologne, bye-bye from LANXESS.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the LANXESS conference call. Thank you for joining, and have a pleasant day. Goodbye.