Montana Aerospace AG (AERO) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

A warm welcome from my side. Michael Pistauer speaking. I guide you to through today's presentation and then to the follow-up Q&A. I guess, very solid numbers and some great news for Montana Aerospace. Before really jumping into the numbers, let me start with a very, I would say, unusual slide. It shows a quote from a well-known magazine in aerospace, and they performed a review of the most crucial 100, more than 100 companies in aerospace. And within those peers, we were listed and seen as the leading company concerning sales growth. We're extremely proud on that point, even though it's for us only the first step. We want also to lead, not only in the top ranking concerning sales growth, but also concerning earnings and income, something to follow up in the next years. But we think that it's mostly the logical consequence out of a very clear positioning and the tailwind we have out of it. And this positioning is mostly based on all the different segments on a very clear setup, I would say. In aerospace, we are seeing as mission-critical supplier for Aerostructures, so the skeleton of the planes as I always claim. And here with a setup, which is at least special, if not unique, concerning covering the full vertical integration out of a local-to-local structure, but still on a global scale and very high independent from other suppliers with this vertical integration setup. And most of it built up in so-called best cost manufacturing footprint countries and, therefore, highly competitive. In E-Mobility with this very early concentration on empowering the lightweight structures for the mobility revolution or E-Mobility transition. Building here the battery packs and the surrounding equipment of -- out of lightweight material, which is still, I would say, even if other areas of mobility have volatile times growing steadily. In Energy, we are seen to be a world-leading developer and producer of the copper course for the energy transition within the fields of generation and also transmission and also transporting. And this strategy is not only the basis for the sales growth we have seen in this quarter of this magazine, but also, I would say, the basis for the win of contracts. And in this regard, I would like to flip on this page and see what was the development in the last 2 years since the IPO, concerning the so-called contracted sales. So the basis of -- and I would say, the worst of all the contracts in place for the next periods to come in Aerostructure. So only for this segment. And here you see that, it grew from EUR 3.9 billion to right now around EUR 7.5 billion worth of it, therefore, giving us high confidence also not only in our guidance, but also in the utilization of our capacities, and therefore, also a good, I would say, basis for the guidance of our earnings and EBITDA development for the next years to come. And this is still based on -- I'm sure there will be some questions later on, on a few of build rates by the large OEMs, which is out of our view a bit more conservative, reduced. So therefore, still some room upwards also in the future if the build rates exceed our expectations. One of the major milestones, and this is something to really stress in my point of view is that we have -- there was a statement on last Friday and I talk -- we have concluded, I would say, the refinancing of the Montana Aerospace. Why is it a milestone? Because out of the past, pre-IPO, we had a large part of our financing based on so-called promissory notes. And those promissory notes still had some covenant criteria of other companies of those times group within or embedded and therefore, some dependencies for the Montana Aerospace. With the new financing in place, we not only reduce the balance sheet sum by good amount of around EUR 200 million, therefore, increase equity position in percentage, but also, I would say, the cash and gross debt level. But completely, I would say, wait out of the dependencies of other companies, therefore, can concentrate on Montana Aerospace and the development for the future. So we can claim that's another big, I would say, milestone after the IPO, the growth and ramp up and now, I would say, the refinancing for further growth in the future. Jumping to the numbers for the third quarter, and therefore, I would say, first 9 months of 2023, again, solid. So we see a strong growth in the Aerostructures. Over 2 years, more than 150% in comparison to last year's first 9 months around plus 15%. Please note that we sold some entity at the end of the year. So on a like-to-like basis, the growth would be even higher. Energy already at the, I would say, edge to capacity constraints with again some growth to a volume of over EUR 418 million in total sales for the first 9 months, another 19% growth in comparison to last year and with the clear goal to set up for the future new capacities to grow into the direction, which is empowered by the energy change and the energy transition worldwide. E-Mobility, yes, we see a growth in comparison to the last 2 years. In comparison to last years, there is a decent reduction in sales what was the background of it. You will later see that in EBITDA, there was not an impact. In contrary, EBITDA grew. But in E-Mobility, we do also have set up a large value chain starting with the recycling of scrap, making the necessary aluminum, also billets, which is needed for the extrusion into further value streams. And this recycled material, we also used to sell to third-party customers. But to be fair, in the last 9 months, we have seen that this market more or less was halted or came to complete hold as the demand from third-party customers is extremely low. So a big market in aluminum. And on the other hand, a lot of so-called gray imports wherever out of, I don't know, but Russia, Iran or other countries over Turkey to Europe. And therefore, this business were more or less not existent, which led us to concentrate on our legacy business, which is E-Mobility. And here, we are not only almost compensated in sales the loss of this other recycling business, but as you will see, also even strengthened then later in the EBITDA. Coming to the overview of the P&L and some balance sheet KPIs. Yes, a total growth of 13%. But what is more important is this is reflected in the numbers below is the overproportional growth in EBITDA. And here, we're not yet divert, but I would say, in a good direction of it the EBITDA in comparison to last year's from EUR 55 million to EUR 93.6 million in the first 9 months 2023, which is more than 69% in growth. But in different terms on a quarterly basis, we now are at the level of around 9% EBITDA margin. If you look at the stand-alone basis of Q3 only, already, we are above 10%, and that's more or less what reflects our strategy to grow over proportionately concerning earnings, EBITDA in comparison to sales. CapEx, declining as follows the strategy. Large CapEx projects in Aerostructures are finished. And therefore, it's going back more or less to, I would say, sustainable capital in Aerostructures. And this is pushing positively also, which you see then later on the free cash flow and with a high capacity still installed, there's enough room for the next years to develop. Trade working capital. If you recall the third quarter 2022 presentation, we announced those days that in 2022 with EUR 503.7 million trade working capital, this is the peak, and it's going to decline steadily. As you may remember, we had by purpose throughout the crisis of supply chain and delivery issue worldwide and excess stock in inventory, mostly on raw materials in place to never fall into a shortcut. But now in the last months, the trade working capital is constantly streamlined into the direction of, I would say, a normal base. And this follow -- is something to follow up and will be reflected also not only now with EUR 381 million trade working capital, that's a much lower level, but also to continue in the next quarters to come. As said, total assets, not much change with an addition that we will see in the fourth quarter a reduction of the balance sheet total assets of around good portion over EUR 200 million, which is then reflecting the refinancing and the repayment of the promissory notes, as said before. Looking at the segments, we talked about sales. What was the impact on EBITDA? As announced, E-Mobility, weaker in sales due to the recycling business, which was not existent concentration on the legacy business, which is the E-Mobility and then overcompensation in EBITDA, which we are very proud of from EUR 12.7 million to EUR 23 million or more or less plus 81% growth in comparison to last year. A very solid growth in Aerostructures, which is something to follow up also in the future concerning this growth plan from EUR 36 million to EUR 56 million in this year. In the Energy, again, I would say, from EUR 10 million to EUR 18.7 million growth in comparison to last year, which is more or less reflecting the strong tailwind from the market and the positive need for our products within this energy transition worldwide. Other KPIs. And this is one of the most crucial for us, I would say, always which we concentrate very intensively on is the cash flow, starting with the operating cash flow, which is reflecting, as announced, after Q2, which was positive also. Q3, a positive operating cash flow. Please once again note that Q4 and Q1 -- Q4 2022 and Q1 2023 have to be seen together. As we have, I would say, had some extraordinary actions and measurements last year out of the financing issues, which then had a negative impact in 2023. But seen together, I would say, a positive development over the year and something to follow up also in the next quarters to come. And the same with free cash flow with reduced CapEx spending and higher operating cash flow, a positive development, and we still target a positive free cash flow for the full-year 2023 due to this development. Trade working capital, I would say, it's the -- I would say a large amount. But I would say it's the basis of our independency with the full value chain, which we have, on the other hand, we have to digest a bit longer cycle times concerning the churn of inventory and therefore, also trade working capital. But still here after the peak in 503 in September 2022, a constant reduction, which is also going to be followed up in the future. Net income, unadjusted -- on adjusted level, it would be already different, still slightly negative also in the Q3 2023. On adjusted level, with this, I would say, noncash elements, which we still have in our P&L out of share program, it would have been already slightly positive. And still here, we have a target to show a positive net income by year's end, depending on the FX development, which I come then -- in detail a bit later. So all in all, I would say constant development concerning sales adjusted EBITDA and the results of the period. In the results of the period, there is a huge amount of, I would say, negative financial result. On the one hand, resulting out of the interest of this gross debt we had, a good portion is paid back right now with the refinancing in place. On the other hand, around 1/3 of it is noncash impact out of FX issues, out of the balance sheet. And therefore, with, I would say, new financing in place and stable constant, hopefully, development -- more stable development concerning FX. This positive result is still something to be reached by 2023 and the years afterwards in any case. Past crucial KPIs are the production performance. Why? Because it reflects, I would say, the underlying KPI for the sales and the future -- the usage of our efficiency, production performance grew. And on the other hand, under-proportional was the development of the personnel expenses, which we are quite proud of it because with all the inflationary costs in place, you will see later in the FTE, we reduced FTE and decreased therefore, the efficiency in this under-proportional development of personnel expenses to production performance on net sales is driving then, therefore, our also development of EBITDA. The same like with other operating expenses and income, which was even reduced in absolute terms in comparison to last year, and therefore, reflects, I would say, not only a positive impact for the economies of scale, but definitely a positive impact to the EBITDA and earnings. We talked about trade working capital, reduction of around a quarter in comparison to last year's amount. Still not yet everywhere in shape is what we target at, but on a good development, balance sheet structure solid with the equity ratio of a bit more than 40% to be increased by the fact that the refinancing also will bring reduction of the balance sheet total assets of around 200 -- a bit more than EUR 200 million with a stable equity then on absolute terms really reflect in a higher percentage of equity in comparison to the total assets. This development of operating cash flow, free cash flow and CapEx was not only guided, but is something, I guess, which is our strategic development. We built up in the past years capacity based on high contracted sales and orders for the future. No matter how much and fast this build rates then will develop, we will fill them with less need for CapEx, constantly CapEx, reducing it more depending on the segments on the sustainable capital, higher EBITDA and therefore, free cash flow is a consequence then improving and by year's end, hopefully, the first time for the full year positive. On a quarterly basis, as I said, it was positive. Coming to other KPIs of the balance sheet. Net debt, even so here, it's reflected on this slide as the starting point at the end of the year with all those actions in place which we put in place last year, I would like to compare it to 9 months 2022 numbers, which were those level at a net debt value of EUR 468.8 million. So from this starting point, we reduced net debt by more than EUR 100 million in the last 12 months, a tendency which is also supposed to continue. We talked about equity and also about the number of employees, which in absolute terms were slightly reduced, reflecting the higher efficiency we get out of our, I would say, total numbers with higher sales in place, I guess, a positive development concerning efficiency. These are in, I would say, short slides, the numbers for the first 9 months 2023, we stick to our guidance with over EUR 1.5 billion in total sales for 2023. Adjusted EBITDA of EUR 130 million to EUR 150 million. Positive free cash flow and hopefully, a positive net income, bit depending on the FX development as we have still in the balance sheet, but then in the P&L of the impact out of -- noncash impact out of the FX, but it's -- if it's stable, we should achieve that and a very clear guidance also for 2024 with over EUR 1.7 billion on total sales and EBITDA of around EUR 180 million to EUR 200 million, a high positive free cash flow, positive net income and again a streamlined working capital in comparison to what we have right now in 2024. That's it from my side, and I'm happy to follow up with the Q&A session. Shortly summarize once again, I would say, milestone concerning the financing, which we are extremely happy about it. And in the other terms, besides the recycling of E-Mobility, but in all other areas, a very solid development. And in comparison to, I guess, many peers, a very solid development, which is then also reflected in the contracted sales and the other KPIs. And with this, I would hand over to the moderator for the Q&A session.

[Operator Instructions] And the first question comes from Phil Buller from Berenberg.

Congratulations on the results and the remedy of the financial ties issue. I have a few questions, if I may, to start with a kind of near-term one. But on the revenue side of things, it looks like there's quite a lot to do in Q4 to meet the guide. So can you share where the biggest or smallest contributors to that Q4 coming from divisionally, please? That's question one.

I'm happy to do that so. You saw that in Q3 in comparison to Aerostructures -- in the Aerostructures only to Q2, it was more or less a stable sales development. It could have been much bigger to be fair in terms of growth. What restricted us? It was mainly some supply chain issues still with some parts were missing. And those parts have been finally received all the deliveries. But the main deliveries were done then in October. So there is an impact, which is out of, I would say, shift of terms. The same happened, by the way, also in Energy. In this case, we simply were not able to ship everything we produced. So there's also a large impact, which was shifted to the fourth quarter. And yes, you're right, all the other areas, Aerostructures, all segments, also E-Mobility and mainly also Energy, will show the strongest months from October, November and partly also December. And therefore, we still expect to reach this more than EUR 1.5 billion, I would say, around, but more than EUR 1.5 billion in total sales for this year. So talking about guidance, which means then a bit more than EUR 800 million on Aerostructures. I would say slightly less than EUR 200 million in E-Mobility and around EUR 550 million for Energy for the full year.

Got it. And then slightly longer term, there's a reference to a 2027 segment strategy in the documents. I know you don't guide beyond 2024. It's nice to see a 2024 guide. But I was wondering if you could comment on what you see as the most exciting thing to be thinking about between 2024 and 2027? It feels like the revenue growth opportunity is pretty exciting from a build rate in Aerostructures standpoint, but how do you think about margin expansion in that period of 2024 to 2027? Is that something we should be thinking about as well? Or is it more of a revenue story in that period?

It's more the margin level than the revenue. We have -- I have to differentiate between the segments. And if you allow, I'll breakdown, I would say, the strategy on the 3 segments and also give you some guidance in here. So I'll start with the smallest one. In E-Mobility, we always said that we have a full capacity installed of around EUR 220 million. With the weakness of this, I would say, recycling business, this is not yet reached, but somewhere in the next years to reach, but that's it. There's not much more. It's most of the concentration on EBITDA. In Energy, there is this huge market demand. We have a capacity maximum of around EUR 600 million right now installed and reached by plus/minus next year with further capacity, which we usefully think that it should be invested, we need some investments. So here, we guide for the midterm basis based on some decent but still very, I would say, accretive investments on Energy business to EUR 1 billion on total sales already before the end of this decade. And I guess, no discussion about it. This storm still with the project already in place or unfrozen by the utility company, states and whatever, I would say, even though so not everything is in the books yet, most of it is already covered by those, I would say, projects. The Aerostructures, slightly different. Total capacity for Aerostructures is per now, I would say, around EUR 1.3 billion, maybe slightly more up to EUR 1.4 billion, depend a bit on also the exact shapes. So quite some room left to fill those capacities, but be aware that with the contracted sales we have in place and no matter how, I would say, the development of the build rates are, in any case, the build rates rise or grow, the capacities are full by 2025 plus/minus. And this means that from then on, we need some more very, I would say, streamlined capacity increased CapEx. But here, you can have as a guideline around EUR 40 million CapEx for around EUR 200 million on total sales. This is the only -- the housing is there, the infrastructure is there. It's only then for certain machines, which are here or there to unfreeze some gaps there. What you can expect in Aerostructures mostly is the continuous development of EBITDA overproportional in comparison to the sales. Here, we see in those areas where we have a good utilization already of our capacity, we have a good portion, over 20% EBITDA margins and those where still is some room to fill for a ramp-up of new products that are running and started, of course, those margins are much lower. Therefore, the blended numbers are still not yet there. But it's mostly the development of the EBITDA, which is driving the overproportional EBITDA which is driving in the next years to come.

Okay. Understood. That's very helpful. And then just finally on the topic of the balance sheet now that the financial ties have been addressed. How are we thinking now in terms of M&A going forward in 2024? Is that less likely, more likely, I guess? And also, how are you thinking about the potential for a spin off ASTA, please?

I don't know. I'm sure you're familiar with the refinancing structure for us, but I want to maybe start once upfront before I answering this question. What is the impact? We have in the balance sheet as per September 2023 over EUR 300 million on cash on the one hand side and on the other hand, still those promissory notes on the other hand. What happens is we pay them back these promissory notes and therefore, cuts the ties to, I would say, this all sister companies, but -- whatever, and therefore, have our own, I would say, ring-fenced financing structure within. And this also leads to a reduced balance sheet sum. This is the first step first on and also in strengthening our equity. Of course, we have an internal guidance with what we don't want to exceed, which is still to continue net debt by a good cash flow and also reach earn-out -- with a payout ratio. So our intention is to propose as a management then to the shareholders and the Board and everybody a dividend when we have the possibility to and only with, I would say, 1/3 to half of it for strategic investments out of the cash flow. And this is then next year would allow, again, already some smart M&A. We're also in discussion of that, but upfront only is on cash.

Understood. And then ASTA?

ASTA, yes, we've prepared everything for potential IPO. But the general investment environment is not as solid accepting right now new IPOs and even so they are midsized. So let's see how it is. We have a clear plan, however, in case not how to follow our plan, also with the help of, I would say, financing of some customers who need also these capacities. So we will follow this plan, in this case, or in that case. If it's then ending up in the IPO, let's see next year.

And the next question comes from Virginia Montorsi from Bank of America.

I just had a quick one, maybe a very boring one on the debt financing structure. When you talk about the combination of the new syndicated loan and the cash usage were up to EUR 200 million for the repayment of the existing debt, can you elaborate a little bit more on the cash usage? Is it already cash you already had before? Is it something related to the repayment of the promissory notes? Just can you walk us through the process of how this exactly works?

Yes. Virginia, upfront, it's not boring. Yes, hopefully, at least not for me because this question was, I would say, taking a lot of my attention for the last 9 months or even longer. Yes, we paid back around EUR 450 million of promissory notes and I would say, gross debt, which we have in the balance sheet. And therefore, we have right now EUR 310 million by the end of September cash in our hands with the new financing plus the EUR 300 million we get out of the financing, let's say, assume with EUR 600 million, so minus EUR 450 million is still EUR 150 million plus/minus cash is still EUR 100 million to EUR 150 million cash is still at our balance sheet. But it's more or less swapped against the promissory notes by part and part against the cash. Does this answer your question or shall I try to elaborate once again?

I know this is very clear.

And then additionally, maybe only to add Virginia, we have above this, I would say, EUR 300 million in cash out of this new financing also a revolving credit facility of up to EUR 150 million, so it should be sufficient for the next years to come to develop.

And the next question comes from Aymeric Poulain from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Two, if I may. The first is free cash flow. Do you have a guidance for this year? And looking at next year's EBITDA projection, should we assume effectively our free cash flow growing in line with the incremental EBITDA in 2024? That's the first question. And second question is on the aerospace performance. It's obviously been very volatile on a quarter-to-quarter basis. And airline -- aircraft makers are also very much trying now to help a bit more the Aerostructure sector. We saw Boeing putting some extra cash into Spirit, for example. Do you expect some negotiation -- pricing negotiation to take place this quarter? And if so, what kind of pricing benefit should we assume for aerospace this quarter and in the coming year?

Aymeric, thank you. I will try to answer them in order you placed them the question. Free cash flow for this year, a positive one. There's a positive development on certain, as I said, trade working capital is steadily reduced. CapEx is mostly done for this year. So therefore, a positive is high EBITDA for the fourth quarter to positive also development on the operating and also on the free cash flow. And therefore, it should work out to have a positive -- slightly positive, I would say, free cash flow by the full year 2023. This is for the guidance 2023. For 2024, slightly over-proportional development of the free cash flow in comparison to EBITDA growth. I tell you why. Again, here in comparison to the growth of EBITDA reduction of the trade working capital. We do have a very good structure of the trade working capital already back again in Energy and E-Mobility. Aerostructures, I would say, is longer cycles. We achieved a major issues here, also concerning our, I would say, internal lead times with the suppliers, with the customers and the impacts have been shown by 2024. And therefore, this should also reflect in the positive free cash flow out of it. Therefore, slightly overproportionate development on free cash flow in comparison to over EBITDA growth in 2024. You're right. There are heavy negotiations, but for different reasons with, I would say, in aerospace, in general. You named Spirit, I guess, it was kind of a call for urgency, which Spirit placed and it was well heard by Boeing, I would say, also by Airbus, but mostly by Boeing. Of course, such an impact is positive for us because it relieves a lot of stress in negotiation also for us with Spirit or Boeing and whatever. But however, we have seen, I would say, a more stable partner than many others. And therefore, we are mostly supported by getting very attractive packages because they see that other peers only with the help of the large aerospace companies solving their issues concerning deliveries. And with us, it's going more smoothly. Therefore, the mostly accretive will come concerning receiving good orders out of, I would say, the sales development. Yes, there are some negotiations. I guess, most negotiations were done already last year, concerning, I would say, the escalation costs and the adoption of contracts in case of, for instance, high increased cost of labor or whatever energy we had, for instance, last year, and they're still in place. So I would say the results are already, of course, showing then the impact quarter-by-quarter right now. New contracts on price terms is not in the focus for us. For us, it's mostly concerning delivery and really ramping up this many, many contracts we have and therefore, supporting heavily our customers with not falling short to their customers or to -- which they announced like Boeing and the Airbus.

And the next question comes from Beltran Palazuelo.

Congratulations for executing on what you previously said. I have five questions, if I may. First of all, it's on the E-Mobility strong margin of the third quarter. Maybe if you could give us a little bit more of color? And I have four questions more, I don't know if you want them me to say them now or shall we go one by one?

We're happy to have a follow-up then later on this, no problem. However, you want. It's your choice.

Okay. And then on the, let's say, seen exactly on your guidance on 2024, it's good to see more or less, let's say, every EUR 200 million more of revenue, you get around EUR 50 million more of EBITDA. So exactly hearing where your full capacity is. It looks like at least EUR 300 million more in, let's say, on revenue. So more or less, without more CapEx, what would be, let's say, your EBITDA, let's say, if you reach full capacity in 2025? That would be my second question. Then if you could give us a little bit more color in the cost of debt. I don't think you gave, let's say, your spread over or whatever? Then I think you talked about M&A. Clearly, when your balance sheet is under 2x ending 2023. So exactly what type of assets would you like? And then another question, in the past, you used your shares as, let's say, an M&A payment. At what level of, let's say, valuation of shares would that option be on the table again? And my last, let's say, question is around competitors, not only in Spirit, if you could give, let's say, a little color on how are your competitors, let's say -- how do you see the competitive landscape?

Beltran, thank you. I hope I got all the questions because I made some notes and I'm not writing as fast, but I'll try. First of all, concerning, I would say, the development of the margins in E-Mobility. Yes, we have seen a very strong quarter in the third quarter. We had weaker quarters, first and second. What was the impact out of -- in the third quarter? It's mostly that we have, I would say, we call it claim and change management and also this escalation costs, which are then invoiced on an unregular basis. So it's more or less something you have to, I would say, spread on the total year at the end this impact of around EUR 10 million, which happened in the third quarter for the rest of the year. This happens if, for instance, customers want contracts faster than they ordered or more than what they ordered or changes -- made changes or if some escalation issues, which are not instantly invoiced, but, I would say, on an unregular basis invoiced and they were -- they impacted heavily, I would say, this September. On the other hand, also negatively, I would say, because costs were higher and not everything invoiced immediately in the first and the second. So please take around EUR 10 million out of E-Mobility EBITDA read it on, I would say, full year, which is a good basis, I guess, for evaluation. Concerning the -- I would say, the spread on the EUR 200 million more on 2024, which gives around EUR 50 million more EBITDA. So the full EBITDA capacity would be around, I would say, EUR 300 million -- above EUR 300 million -- around, I would say, EUR 300 million. And this is for the full business as it is. Of course, a bit of what we don't know is the development of the market. So I would say around this level. This is, I would say, quite some good portion, which means around, I would say, 20% on Aerostructures, bit above. Around, I would say, 13% to 15% -- 12% to 15% in E-Mobility. And between 8% to 9% in Energy. This is what to be reached without additional CapEx and growth out of it. But of course, we want also to expand it by smart CapEx on that point. Cost of debt, good question. Of course, the syndicated loan or the term loan is in absolute terms on the euro amount, not a cheap one. I guess we didn't announce it yet, but that's in the range of -- it's much lower, I would say, than the other one, which we announced in the U.S. or something else. In any case, we guide for -- without FX issues out of the balance sheet for the cost of capital finance result of around, I would say, EUR 30 million by 2024. On the basis of the present interest rates, of course, they change a bit, it would be adapted either downwards or upwards. I personally think that we have seen, hopefully, the peak of the interest rates and therefore, should be at the level of around EUR 30 million by 2024 for the financial result out of interest. M&A on the 2x net debt to EBITDA, yes, what type of asset would we look at? We look at -- so not only would, but we do something which is very clear fitting to our, I would say, to competence. I repeat once again what I already announced against the last times. So it's more in the direction of material, I would say. So strengthening our, I would say, footprint even there -- even so we are already very, very strong in these areas. And there is, I would say, some targets we look at and discuss. But as said, without stressing our net debt to EBITDA and only with our own cash flow, therefore, valuation must be very accretive for us from the first day on. The last question, I would say, the share M&A payment. I will not answer if you allow. So I will concentrate on the last question, which was how do I see the competitive landscape? You have definitely to distinguish between the segments. E-mobility is extremely fragmented market. So here, the market is -- in the moment, the industry itself, aluminum market is horrible to say. We do have very strong customer relations and some expertise. Others are not so easily coping with. And therefore, it's okay, but still, I would say, it's very competitive in E-Mobility. The good part is that we have good long-term relationships and contracts, which is helping us to come through, I would say, certain uncertainties of the market. Energy, different. It's almost oligopolistic market in what we are acting here. There are very few companies able to build on good quality, not even the highest, but even a good quality this copper course for generators, transformers and transmission by this so-called -- not round, but flat and with the necessary insulation. So therefore, the competitive landscape is extremely easy, I would say, to the name because it's not even a handful. We know them very well. And here, we have a very strong market position, but you have to work constantly on it. So I would say here, a very good basis. Aerostructures. Here, our prognosis was always that there is a shift from this, I would say, Aerostructures. We talk about Aerostructures in case of, I would say, the frame and wing Aerostructures, mainly electronics or whatever that we always announced that there will be a constant shift to best cost manufacturing footprint countries, more vertically integrated, more independent from other suppliers, companies away a bit from this, I would say, previous companies which are only placed in Germany, France, U.K., you name it, in these high-cost countries. And this is continuing. So for instance, like also Turkish suppliers are pushing into this market more and more. One -- the other time Indian popping out again. Of course, trying, I would say, large guys in this field also tried their strategy to align concerning this development and find some other places also to produce. But for us, it's not the question of, I guess, our competition -- competitive advantages are so high. But in the moment, we are in a good situation that we can be extremely selective concerning the contracts. That's what we want to continue at least for the next years to come. For the M&A, please note only it's all I want to say, if we do an M&A, only out of free cash flow, not with stock.

[Operator Instructions] And we do have a follow-up question from Phil Buller from Berenberg.

I just wanted to follow up on aerospace and the outlook there. I appreciate that we are talking about taking a more conservative view on build rates than the OEMs. But just to try and understand a bit better where we are today and where we could be going in the future for your own Aerostructures business? So I was hoping if you could comment on which of the platforms on your Slide 4 are the most important ones today from a current revenue standpoint? And what rates you are currently delivering on those ones, on average, let's say, for the last quarter? And from there, we can take an external view on potentially what a Blue Sky could look like, I guess, if indeed the OEM rates are realistic on those particular platforms, please?

Fair enough. The -- even so I have to address that the build rates or the delivery rates of Airbus and Boeing, we feel, of course, in the orders, the pull rates from them and their suppliers much earlier. And also we internally, by the way, have to distinguish between what is fuselage and win because they build usually at different paces upfront to the delivery later. So it's completely different. The main infrastructure of airplane is mostly the first part, which is delivered. And this is going along mostly half a year earlier than maybe some parts like the slabs or the flats did no deliver to the airplane manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing. However, the strongest one within this order backlog are the single aisle planes 320 and 737 plus/minus pretty much at equal terms. So they are the strongest, not by the sales per unit, so the shipset value, but mostly because of the mere number of planes to be expected, which go along, I would say, for next year with around, I would say, 5% to 10% reduced assumption those 2 in comparison to what is announced from the -- from Airbus and Boeing, the strongest one concerning sales. So shipset value are the large planes like 777 or A350. Here, we, of course, happily read messages like from the Dubai Airshow, where so many 777 are allegedly ordered, which helps, of course, restrengthening of those large planes where the content we deliver is almost double what we have in A320 or 737. And -- but in general, for the midterm, we are much more conservative, for instance, like what is announced on these large planes. I would say around 25% less than what is announced for the next year to 2025 from the OEMs. And for the midterm on the single-aisle planes, here, we would wish to see the 75 or 65, we don't have it in our plans. So we have something like in '25, for instance, let me recall it, 61 or 62, something like this for the A320, for instance. We would be happy to deliver more. We are ready to, but let's see how it really develops.

Understood. And just as a follow-up to that. In terms of the CapEx spend, if rates were to -- I just want to make sure there's not a risk if we are above rates 50...

No. Our CapEx in Aerostructures extremely little risk, here and there in machine, but it's like, okay, there is a branding machine or some small prices, but this is not costly issues like in the hundreds, thousands, if there are some capacity constraints. The only question mark we have in the next year's plan in Energy, how much we can -- in case of no IPO, we talked about it, Phil, for instance, finance through, for instance, suppliers. And here, of course, we would like to, of course, a bit spread the investments, but this is the only issue. There are various factors now.

And the next question comes from Olfa Taamallah from ODDO BHF.

So just to follow up on the Aerostructures division. Wondering if you can comment if the supply chain situation in relation notably to ASCO? And what would be your view on the company performance going forward? I guess that at some point you have spoke about certification on some programs. So wondering to what extent you may reduce dependence on external suppliers?

Olfa, a very, I would say, critical question, absolutely right. This is still an issue. We are and were in the absolute positive situation due to our -- a long value chain in our, I would say, classical business, we are mostly not dependent on any suppliers. And therefore, we never felt really the supply chain issues. We don't feel them at all. Only where we feel it, you're right at ASCO, here, it's sometimes even severe. I would say the total amount of what we still have to suffer this year out of the supply chain issues, out of different issues, I'll come to that one shortly is still till now at the amount of around roughly EUR 10 million EBITDA impact. What happens in here is that suppliers don't deliver, don't deliver at all. I think it's sourced out of the past. We have to certify different suppliers or us. It takes time and capacities. Capacities which are not only from us to be shown, but mostly also from our certification agencies or the OEMs or the Tier 1s, which we delivered to and they have constraints concerning the capacity. So it's extremely slow progressing much, much slower than any time announced from them and also assumed from our side. Other suppliers don't even have the possibility to, for instance, to really support. I named some which is also France, which simply didn't fail -- they said the trucks are on their way. They don't come, then you ask him to say, sorry, we didn't even sent the trucks because we didn't even produce them. In the meantime, one of those is taken over by some funding in France. You can guess who it is. And this makes it extremely, I would say, annoying at ASCO. And as said, the impact is about still in the amount of around double digit -- almost double-digit amount of EBITDA till now. Why? Because the full staff is in place, the parts are not coming. They can't do it as efficient as possible. So extra cost on it. Then later on, the parts are coming, you're late. We have to work extra shifts, extra hours, which are costly. Super fast transportation sent to the customers, not to bring them in any shortcut -- shortfall of, I would say, performance. And these are the extra costs. So it's -- and then some suppliers, for instance, in quarter, they are Chapter 11 which doesn't help either. They only makes screws. But if some screws are missing, it's easy for us to build them. But if you're not certified for it from the customer, then you are not support, and then it's not allowed to, and then makes it really annoying. And this topic is still lasting. Even so months by months, it's reduced one by one, but is everything solved already? Not yet.

Maybe a follow-up on that. When do you expect some kind of normalization or at least some improvement?

I would say mid-2024. I would say I would align with the statements of what Airbus had in this direction. And as we are dependent also from some of those certification that's, I would say, mid of '24. But that's something we cope with. It's only ASCO. And over here -- also here, less than what was last year or the quarters before, but still something in place.

[Operator Instructions] And the next question comes from [indiscernible] from Bellevue Asset Management.

Just a quick follow-up actually on what you said on ASCO. So this would mean basically that the EBITDA in absolute terms of ASCO would more or less double from 1 year to the other once the EBITDA is normalized more or less?

Yes Even more because we have -- even more. On a net sales basis, it would double. And with the increase of ramp-up, I would say build rates will be even more. It's not EBITDA, but that could be much higher right now. It could basically -- but yes -- here, we see the first time how it really is concerning the supply chain issues. And I tell you, it's a lot of hassle.

So there are no further questions at this time, and I hand back to Michael Pistauer for closing comments.

Thank you because I don't have any more answers. Thank you for listening. Thank you for joining. Thank you for being active in this earnings call. It's great to discuss with you, and I'm happy to present, hopefully, a positive development also with the fourth quarter, which we are pretty positive about. And at least we will try our best to overachieve what is announced, and hear you and see you soon.