Siltronic AG ($WAF)

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the presentation of Siltronic Q1 2026 Results Conference Call. Please note that this call is being recorded and streamed on Siltronic's website. [Operator Instructions]. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Stephanie Malgara, Senior Manager, Investor Relations at Siltronic. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Cynthia. Welcome, everybody, to our Q1 2026 results presentation. This call will also be webcast live on siltronic.com. A replay of the call will be available on our website shortly after the end of the call. Our CEO, Michael Heckmeier; and our CFO, Claudia Schmitt, will give you an overview of our financials, the current market developments and our guidance. After the presentation, we will be happy to take your questions. Please note that management comments during this call will include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. For a discussion of risk factors, I encourage you to review the safe harbor statement contained in today's press release and presentation. All documents relating to our Q1 2026 reporting are available on our website. I now turn the call over to Michael for his remarks.

Thank you, Stephanie, and a warm welcome also from my side. Given that we released our '25 financials only 6 weeks ago, today's call will be relatively compact while, of course, covering all material developments since then. Let's start with a broad overview of our development in the first 3 months of the year. Claudia will provide a more detailed breakdown in just a moment. As expected, Q1 was a soft start into the year. Sales came in at EUR 307 million, significantly below Q4 '25, which had benefited from delivery shifts. In line with the lower sales level, profitability decreased sequentially. The EBITDA margin was 21.2% compared to 23.3% in Q4. EBIT also decreased to minus EUR 52 million compared to minus EUR 34 million in the previous quarter. CapEx totaled EUR 48 million in the quarter with a continued focus on our 300- millimeter [indiscernible] business. At the same time, cash payments for CapEx significantly exceeded this level. Consequently, the net cash flow remained negative at minus EUR 89 million and net debt increased to EUR 936 million compared to EUR 837 million at year-end 2025. Claudia will now provide a more detailed overview of the financials.

Thank you, Michael. A warm welcome from my side as well. Let's get straight into the details of our Q1 '26 results. As Michael pointed out, Q1 marked a soft start to the year and sales came in as expected at EUR 307 million. The strong quarter-on-quarter decline is less a reflection of a sudden change in underlying demand and more a matter of comparability. Q4 was not a clean baseline as it was notably lifted by delivery pull-ins from Q3 '25 and early '26. This phasing also influenced the quarter's product mix, which weighed on the sequential comparison. Foreign exchange by contrast was not a meaningful factor with the euro-U.S. dollar exchange rate largely stable at EUR 1.17 versus EUR 1.16 in Q4. Turning to the cost side. I would like to highlight the particularly strong contribution from hedging activities in the first quarter. In total, the net FX result and gains from hedging and oil price component in electricity supply contracts amounted to EUR 11.4 million compared with EUR 2.7 million in the prior quarter. These effects were a key factor in largely offsetting costs that are typically recorded only in the first quarter. In line with the lower sales level, EBITDA decreased to EUR 65 million, translating into an EBITDA margin of 21.2% compared with 23.3% in Q4. Correspondingly, EBIT declined to minus EUR 52 million in Q1. Net income amounted to minus EUR 67 million, following minus EUR 53 million in Q4 2025, which had included a write-down of deferred tax assets. Let's turn to the key developments on our balance sheet, which continues to show a solid and healthy structure. By the end of March, total assets amounted to EUR 4.7 billion, slightly below the EUR 4.8 billion reported at year-end 2025. Property, plant and equipment remained largely stable as depreciation exceeding additions was largely offset by the appreciation of the Singapore dollar against the euro. Working capital developed as expected. Inventories and trade receivables increased by roughly EUR 50 million in total. By contrast, cash and securities declined to EUR 448 million from EUR 534 million at year-end, also reflecting planned elevated cash outflows related to previously incurred capital expenditures. As a consequence of these CapEx-related payments, trade payables decreased by EUR 43 million. Prepayments remained almost unchanged as did the equity ratio, which stood at a solid 42%. CapEx in Q1 '26 totaled EUR 48 million. The previously mentioned payments for investments amounted to EUR 110 million year-to-date, exceeding the reported CapEx level by more than EUR 60 million. For the full year, we continue to guide for CapEx in a range between EUR 180 million and EUR 220 million. As previously communicated, cash outflows for CapEx are expected to significantly exceed asset additions also for the full year. Let's take a closer look at our debt situation. As illustrated in the bridge, net financial debt stood at EUR 837 million at year-end 2025. In Q1, operating cash flow was under pressure, reflecting the expected buildup in inventories and trade receivables and amounted to EUR 21 million. This was not sufficient to cover the planned CapEx-related cash payments. As a result, net financial debt increased noticeably to EUR 936 million, driven by temporary timing effects. We, therefore, expect net financial debt to improve over the course of the second half of the year. Let me briefly conclude with a comment on the composition of our financial debt. Unchanged compared with our full year presentation, total debt stood at just under EUR 1.5 billion at the end of the first quarter with roughly EUR 130 million remaining undrawn. The maturity profile illustrates that repayments are well spread over the coming years. For 2026, we anticipate repayments of around EUR 100 million. As already mentioned, we closed Q1 with approximately EUR 450 million in cash and securities. Together with our undrawn revolving credit facility, this provides a solid level of financial flexibility. In addition, our balance sheet includes short-term prepayments of around EUR 33 million with around EUR 15 million scheduled for repayment within this year. With this, I will hand back to Michael.

Thank you, Claudia. Let me summarize our current expectations across end markets looking into 2026. Compared to the estimates we presented in mid-March, the overall outlook remains positive with some shifts between different application segments. First, we now expect an even higher growth rate for servers, nearly 44% year-on-year. This growth is clearly driven by the strong AI momentum and continued investments in data center infrastructure. Propelled by this AI-driven demand, we see initial indications that some customers are revisiting their midterm volume commitments to enhance supply security. At this stage, these are early signals rather than a confirmed trend, but they may have implications for inventory levels. Conversely, the outlook for smartphones and PCs has further weakened. The key reason is the ongoing tight supply of memory chips. With memory availability being prioritized for AI-related server applications, unit volumes in other end markets are constrained, which is particularly weighing on smartphones and PCs. We continue to expect growth in the automotive industry, but at a reduced rate compared to last year. Industry is assumed to improve from a low base. Overall, this results in an estimated pre-inventory growth of around 7% of total wafer area consumption in 2026. Let's conclude today's presentation confirming our guidance for the full year 2026. As we mentioned a few weeks ago, we expect the business environment to remain challenging. Headwinds from FX, price pressure outside LTAs and the ongoing weak 200-millimeter business weigh on our performance. Additionally, the closure of the SD line will impact the full financial year for the first time. Geopolitical uncertainties related to developments in the Middle East currently have no direct impact on our business and end markets remain robust. That said, we continue to monitor the situation very closely, and it could affect the broader cost environment, which includes energy prices. We've taken measures to mitigate parts of these risks, including hedging where applicable, but we still anticipate potential uncertainty. In addition, we assume higher freight and logistics costs. 2026 sales are guided in the mid-single-digit percentage range below the prior year level based on a euro-U.S. dollar exchange rate of 1.18. In comparison, without FX effects and without the impact from the SD closure, we expect sales to be around prior year level. Our EBITDA margin guidance is between 20% and 24% -- depreciation is expected to increase significantly in 2026 due to our investments in the 300-millimeter business. We guided between EUR 490 million and EUR 520 million, and therefore, EBIT is expected to be significantly below the previous year. We see CapEx to be between EUR 180 million and EUR 220 million. As cash payments for CapEx are expected to exceed this level, we expect net cash flow to be in the range of the previous year. With this, we conclude our Q1 '26 results presentation, and Claudia and I are happy to take your questions. Thank you very much for your attention. Cynthia, please open the Q&A session.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Daniel Schafei with Citi.

Good morning. Thank you very much for taking my question. So I just wanted to come back to your end market expectations, and it's great to see that you have adjusted them, especially for smartphones and PCs. I'm just trying to understand what drove the kind of basically the server demand increase from the 28% in the sense that if I still see that there's some downside to smartphone projections from the kind of decreasing 10% growth, is there still some upside to the server projections in your opinion? So basically, on what grounds have you increased this from 28% to 44%, -- what was driving this? Is there room given that it's a very dynamic target and in general, the end market is increasing quite rapidly. Can we expect some further improvement there?

So thank you, Daniel. I understand your question, why is AI even and server demand even stronger than and such stronger than initially anticipated? And could there be even more further upside. So what we see is, of course, that particularly in the memory segment, the memory chip manufacturers prioritize and they feed more supply into the server area. And that's driven by the continued strong build of hyperscalers and by the CapEx road maps being confirmed or here and there even being upgraded further. So this looks very robust and very strong. Is there further upside? Maybe there could be a small further upside. However, some of those, particularly memory chips are limited by capacity constraints at the chip makers. So it means even though there could be an underlying stronger end market demand from the AI drive, it might be difficult to fulfill this. So therefore, we would say, yes, there could be further smaller upsides this year. But due to the capacity constraints, it could be limited. It could be dampened on the chip level side. As a general remark, we also have to have in mind when we talk about smartphones that the minus 10% is a composition, it's a melange of unit and content. And we see maybe on the unit side, even a bit further dampening, which is compensated by the mix effect as those smartphones that are still being built tend to be more higher level, more advanced smartphones, which also have more silicon content in there. So we always have to have in mind this mixture between unit number effect and the silicon content effect. So what we show with those minus 10% is a composition of both.

Perfect. That's very clear. And just to also follow up, I mean, it's great to see that server end market demand is doing so well. Just historically, I remember that usually the Japanese peers were claiming quite strong market share within that segment. especially on this kind of more advanced wafer capabilities. In your opinion, do you see this gap narrowing from here on? Yes, do you see kind of further share gains from your side in this segment?

I would say there are no tremendous changes. I mean you're referencing a bit to the market share question. We see a pretty stable market share development. So that means there's no slight shift in either direction, but I can reconfirm what we discussed a couple of weeks ago that we are well positioned, that we have a clear strategic focus on leading edge. So that means on advanced logic and on the high-bandwidth memory segments. So here, we are pretty well represented. And then some tiny details here and there could depend, of course, on more customer mix rather than on application mix in the sense of server versus other. It would be more the customer mix and the customer exposure that could create here and there some, let's say, particular differences on a quarterly basis.

The next question comes from Constantin Hesse with Jefferies.

Can you hear me? Yes. Perfect. So the first one is just quickly on pricing because the overall comment is that there's still pricing pressure. But on the previous call, we had already heard that pricing in 300-millimeter legacy has stabilized. So I just wanted to confirm that, that's still the case and that pricing pressure is coming primarily from 200-millimeter. That's the first question.

So thank you, Constantin. We didn't say that the pricing has stabilized. We said we have a few examples of reasonable spot prices in 300-millimeter outside LTAs -- so that's a statement I could reiterate. So in terms of pricing, overall, pretty unchanged. We see a stable situation in the LTA framework, which covers around 2/3 of our business. We see those positive indications, some spots getting more reasonable in 200-millimeter outside LTAs, but we also see an ongoing pressure on 200-millimeter. And that's, of course, the area we also have far less LTAs. So in general, unchanged to what we said 6 weeks ago.

Great. Then, Michael, if I may ask. So I mean, looking at the demand and the inventory situation as of today, how likely would you expect another shipment postponement, meaning another capacity utilization cut or production cut, if you will, given the current situation. Is that something that -- because what I'm trying to figure out here is, look, I think it was -- the bottom had been reached at some point last year. The bottom continues to drag. But as data center demand continues to be strong, leading-edge demand continues to be strong. I'm just wondering, is there still a likelihood that we could see another production cut during 2026 from an overall perspective?

Yes. Thanks, Constantin. I think in general, the short answer would be maybe we don't expect any further cuts or major kind of changes. But let me differentiate a bit by the application segments, also particularly relating to inventory. I think both in memory and logic, in the meantime, we can say we are back to very normal means healthy inventory levels. And we indicated in the calls that some customers even start taking off on discussions to secure even more, let's say, midterm demand. So that's, I think, a good sign and it's a good part of the coin. On the other side, there is still the power segment where we have to reconfirm that inventory levels are still pretty elevated. So that's a bit more difficult segment still. And as you know, that is particularly heavy weighing on 200-millimeter. So overall, I think back to normal, we wouldn't expect further disruptive cuts or changes this year with a little maybe caveat around power, which is still, let's say, far behind inventory depletion compared to the other 2 segments. That's great.

Then the next question would be, look, given the stronger-than-anticipated demand for leading edge, right, which was clearly outlined here by the server demand in your presentation, -- could we potentially see an anticipated or like an earlier-than-expected requirement for further CapEx in Singapore because of that additional demand that is coming through? Or is everything going according to plan?

I mean we're not only providing leading edge out of Singapore. We provide leading edge also out of both our German factories. So it means in terms of overall footprint, we feel pretty well set for the time being. And then, of course, as we always said, we took down the ramp speed of Singapore last year and the year before compared to initial plans. We did speed that up a little bit in the meantime. And then we would consider further ramping Singapore, and that's what we always said according to market demand. So if this is continuing, of course, we would still continue ramping what we have and in parallel, then prepare for more capacity as required. Currently, we feel pretty well set there with the new keys have been low for quite some time in our German footprint and with the capacity we generated already in Singapore. And in that spirit, we would ramp what we have and prepare them for the next one as required.

Thank you, Michael. And the last question, maybe over to Claudia, just on the debt situation. Look, and this is a question that's really based on -- from today's point of view, right? If what we see today continues to be the case, it feels to me that the net debt level is basically peaking as we speak. I just want to make sure that the -- because I think you only have EUR 127 million left or dollars left in that revolving credit facility in Singapore. And I just want to make sure that, that level is enough for any potential disruptions or any potential working capital moves during the different quarters that are still upcoming.

Yes, we are pretty convinced that our liquidity reserve, which includes EUR 450 million in cash that we have right now, plus EUR 130 million out of that revolving credit facility gives us enough flexibility for any unforeseeable in the future. But as we mentioned, we are convinced that the net debt level will decrease over the second half of the year. So there's no -- from our point of view, there's no concern.

The next question comes from Robert Sanders with Deutsche Bank.

Yes, good morning. I have 3 questions, if it's possible. First question would just be on FabNext. Is it fair to say it's roughly 10% of revenue this year? Or could it be much higher? That would be my first question. Second question would be, is when can we expect FabNext to become accretive to EBITDA margin given the sort of relatively limited scale today, but ramping? And the third question would just be, I noted, obviously, in the past, you've explored specialty wafers such as silicon carbide, then you pulled out of that. I think in the past, you've worked on SOI. Given this photonics boom and this data center boom seems to be passing you by to some degree, is there a scenario where you could make SOI wafers without Soitec IP? I think in the past, you've looked at it, GlobalWafers claims they can do that without Soitec IP. So just interested if you're exploring more specialty ways of playing into this data center. Thank you.

We are, of course, a bit reluctant to comment about details what is the revenue contribution out of FabNext and whether it's already margin accretive. What I can say is, of course, we have a very smooth ramp in the meantime. We had around mid of last year, all major customers being qualified. So we have the freedom to get volumes in there and kind of preferentially loaded. That's always what we said. You also hear us talking less about ramp costs. So that's a clear indication that we see volumes going up, fixed costs being more reasonably diluted. So that's what I can say around FabNext without giving out any, let's say, competitive relevant information right now. With regards to your second question, -- you're absolutely right. We decided quite some time ago not to venture into silicon carbide. So no change on that one. We also have currently no considerations or even plans to go into any SOI activities. And in terms of those new technology, we still have a small-scale team working on gallium nitride, where we feel there could be a potential opportunity for us. But currently, we don't see the demand and the market model. But in terms of those 3, gallium nitride is the only one which we're covering right now with a small R&D effort.

Got it. Just one quick follow-up. The FabNext is predominantly polished wafers and minority Epi. Can you confirm that?

No, it's actually both. We brought the 300-millimeter epi technology for the first time to Singapore and the ramp of FabNext comprises both Polish and Epi.

The next question comes from Florian Tree with Kepler.

I have a question on, let's call it, the quarterly or sequential improvement coming over the year. So the first question would be, are you -- can you quantify the impact or pull in impact on the Q1 numbers into Q4 last year? And is it fair to assume that we should see sequential improvements here every coming quarter from here? Or is it really a step-up in demand potentially at the end of the year to meet this mid-single-digit decline?

Yes. Thank you, Florian. We do not -- and I think we must not quantify the details of those revenues that have been moved from Q4 last year -- from Q1, sorry, this year into Q4 last year. I think I can just reiterate that we currently communicated our Q1 numbers. We have a very clear full year guidance in place. And if you do some math, of course, you can estimate about the potential increase of revenue in the consecutive quarter. You will easily come to the conclusion that we do not see explosive growth from that calculation, but that it's more a smooth further growth over the year.

The next question comes from Gustav Froberg with Berenberg.

You talked a little bit about the indirect impact from the conflict in the Middle East, rising energy costs, et cetera. Could you maybe give us a bit more color on the evolution of costs on that side or coming from anything that may be an exogenous shock. I note as well your margin guide is obviously kept flat despite sort of you alluding to some potential cost increases. So are you able to save any costs anywhere else? That's my first question.

This is Claudia. Yes, regarding the cost, we see 2 corners right now where we see some cost pressure, I would say, that's in electricity cost, especially in Singapore, where we have an oil price component in our contracts, and we see some increases in freight costs. Regarding the electricity cost, as you know, we have hedging in place in Singapore. We do some hedging using derivatives. And in Germany, a certain share of power procurement is secured up to 2 years in advance. So regarding electricity, we feel quite comfortable with our hedging that is in place. We see some cost increases in freight cost. But on the other side, we also see that the dollar is a bit stronger right now than we anticipated. Right now, it's 1.17 versus 1.18 that we assume in our forecast. So this should, let's say, offset the assumed price increases, which are not too big for this year.

Okay. Super. And then a question on cash flow as well and your sort of balance sheet side of things essentially. Do you feel comfortable with the current rate of cash burn, assuming nothing changes in your operating environment versus sort of Q4 last year, Q1 this year? Or does your plan for the balance sheet and the cash flow side of your financial envelope need to change unless there's a material pickup in H2?

Yes. Please keep in mind that Q4 was impacted by a lot of special effects also regarding the cash flow. And all the developments we saw in Q1 in cash flow were as were expected. So the increase in inventories and trade receivables was expected and also the cash outflow for the CapEx-related trade payables. So this is all included in our guidance for this year and the net cash flow guidance is that we expect the net cash flow in the range of the previous year. So you can assume that there are shifts between quarters and they are planned and they are expected because we do some, let's say, financial management that's very obvious in every company, we do some financial management. But we expect the cash burn situation to improve, especially in the second half of the year. So we feel very comfortable with our guidance and with the development we saw in Q1.

Great. And that assumes no pickup in the underlying business. You still expect better cash flow?

Yes, -- of course, we assume a pickup in the underlying business because our sales guidance says that we expect not Q1 times 4, but a bit higher. So the rest of the year should improve in coming from sales. So with that also, we will also see an improvement in our operating cash flow.

The next question comes from Martin Jungfleisch with BNP Paribas.

I just have 2 quick follow-ups. The first one is really on pricing, right? Can you just talk about what part of your 300-millimeter contracts would potentially be eligible for price hikes over the next 12 months when the situation would allow for that? So is that kind of all contracts out of the long-term agreements, which has been, I guess, like 20% or something like that? And then when these contracts, 300-millimeter contracts expire today, are these renewed at flat pricing? Or is there already some leverage on your end to lift prices in these kind of contracts?

So I mean, as we -- and thank you, Martin, for the question. As we said, no major LTAs are expiring in the course of this year. Whenever something expires, of course, it's our freedom to conclude a new one or not to include a new one. And we would only do so if, of course, pricing and other conditions are favorable for us. Currently, a very small portion is eligible for renewable from that perspective is not a huge topic. And what we indicated in the speech today is that we see now customers talking about maybe more midterm volume demand. So I think we could come to a situation where this overall LTA framework can continue to be very robust and be very beneficial for us. And I think I can say that's a statement for the overall wafer space. We feel this symbiosis between customer and wafer manufacturers is working pretty well and robustly.

Okay. So when you would sign new LTAs, you would only do so at a higher pricing than previous contracts. Is that the right assumption?

It depends on the segment. In some areas, there are new LTAs up for potential discussions. So we currently don't see any major price discussions in new LTAs.

Okay. And then the other question is also a follow-up mainly on capacities, right? So just is it possible for you to grow 300-millimeter wafer volumes, so output by like mid- to high single digit this and next year, which is kind of I guess, market demand without you adding any capacity? So can you basically cater to market demand this next year without adding any capacity?

I mean we continuously add still CapEx to Singapore. We said it very clearly. And that means also still some machines coming in, which, of course, will have incremental benefits for capacity. Overall, we don't feel capacity is a constraint for us as we're coming from, on the one side, low Ts in the Germany footprint, as you know. And as we did build the building and the infrastructure and the gas supply and everything in Singapore already, and have a first wave of cleanroom machines installed there, which gives us room to further ramp according to market demand. So for the time being, we feel pretty well set. And then, of course, we will, as always stated, continue to ramp according to the real market demand.

Okay. Great. That's helpful. And then just one final question maybe on those costs. In the release, you noted these hedging gains of around EUR 11 million. Were they already offsetting costs incurred in the quarter? Or are these, I guess, higher costs coming in the coming quarters and you have a gain upfront?

Yes, regarding the hedging gains, I tried to convey that in the speech. Q1 is always burdened by expenses that are more pronounced in that quarter or that only occur at the beginning of the year. So they are only recorded at the beginning of the year, for example, let's say, labor accruals or expenses related to property. And those hedging gains and the FX result we recorded in Q1 more or less offset those expenses. Can we expect further hedging gains in the upcoming quarters? I don't know. But what I know is that those, let's say, extraordinary Q1 expenses, they won't occur in the upcoming quarters.

The next question comes from Veysel Taze with Bankhaus.

A few questions. The first one would be around the first Q performance. What was the underlying growth in Q1 when we really take a year-over-year comparison, take into consideration the FX headwinds, the small diameter shortfall and then the volumes which were pulled from Q1 to Q4 last year. Did you see an underlying growth in Q1?

I think both Q1 this year, as Claudia already explained, particularly in the cost side and particularly Q4 last year on the top line side were, I think, very special quarters. So to compare them on a like-to-like basis is very difficult and would require us to strip and detail a lot of effects and to become super transparent. So I'm a bit reluctant to comment here, but we see that the underlying volume picture is a healthy one in Q1 this year, and we see that it's exactly according to plan and guidance.

Clear. And then the second one on the utilizations, alluding a little bit to the previous question for my colleague. What we see right now is on the industry level for the 300-millimeter, the utilizations are probably hitting low 90s, high 80s. I was wondering -- and that's typically in the industry an area where customers want to discuss long-term or midterm volumes, want to make sure that they get the volumes, and that's always a good momentum for price increases going forward. I was just wondering if your 300-millimeter utilizations at this stage are substantially different than the industry utilizations, like the low 90s or around 90%?

We have indeed, in the meantime, decent 300-millimeter loading, but we also have a way to further grow capacity very short term, as I explained. So from that perspective, yes, 300-millimeter loading is becoming attractive and coming to a level where -- and that's what I said in the call, where first customers now are looking into midterm volume demand patterns. And that's, as you say, it's a very good indication. It's a good, let's say, atmospherical change, which we also anticipate. On the pricing side, I wouldn't go beyond the statement which we made 6 weeks ago. We have those first few examples of more reasonable spot prices again in 300-millimeter that was very, very different some quarters ago. So we have those sentiments. We have those indications. We don't see a major trend change already, but the atmosphere in those conversations now is a different one. That's definitely what I can say.

Great. And then on the memory market, I mean, I understand that customers are -- the memory vendors are prioritizing shipments to the higher ASP area in the AI server market or server market in general. But PC and smartphone, taking into account that the second half of the year is the much stronger volume part of the year. And at the end, consumers will ask for those products, smartphone and PC, and we are seeing higher semiconductor content DRAM, et cetera. And let's say now this demand will be particularly on the memory side, will be served from Chinese memory vendors for maybe not the very high end, but mid-range and phones and PCs. If the volumes comes more from Chinese vendors, does that change your shipments or your volumes because now those smartphone and PC vendors are getting their volumes from Chinese vendors.

So for us, in the first glance, we are, let's say, to quite some extent, agnostic because we serve all major customers. And as you know, of course, we also do business in China. So I think there could be indeed 2 effects. There could be if there's really PC and smartphone demand picking up and manifesting from end consumer side, of course, then the prices will be paid and the memory chips might be more competitive again compared to the server demand. So that could indeed happen. For us, we are agnostic to details of those, let's say, customer mix effects. As I said, we also, I think, very well positioned in advanced technologies. So every effect that would drive high-end PC or high-end smartphone, we would also clearly be a benefit as we are focusing, of course, on those advanced technologies, namely leading edge and high-bandwidth memory.

Can I squeeze one more on the 200-millimeter and particularly on the auto and the power part of the business? I mean I understand inventories at auto chip vendors are still at high level. They are burning down inventories, but still it's too high. But I was wondering in 200-millimeter, particularly I always historically thought you are strong in the power part of this. And we see a lot of demand also from AI data centers for low-end power products for servers, et cetera. And I was wondering why are you not seeing this demand in your 200-millimeter market? And related to that also, it gets obvious that the Chinese 200-millimeter wafer producers are in the main market and competitive products. Is that also related a little bit to the potential ASP pressure you're feeling? I would not say market share loss, but ASP pressure that the issue in the 200-millimeter is rather from the ASP side.

So I think you're absolutely right. couple -- in the last 2 quarters or so, also the power chip manufacturers again got more positive and we're highlighting particularly also their business opportunities in powering data centers. And we also anticipate that. So we have still between that, those statements and those businesses picking up. And our the wafer side of things, there is on the one side, the usual 6 months delay and in addition, the elevated inventories. So therefore, we -- and the wafer industry doesn't see it yet is maybe a good statement. And then in addition, you're right, we always said that the Chinese wafer manufacturers let's say, the technology capability and so on are stronger, the lower the diameter of the wafers. And of course, in 200-millimeter, they are more present and more advanced and far more advanced than in 300, and that could be another effect. So what I want to say is it's the normal demand supply cycle here we see, which is still hanging on in power inventories. And there could be an underlying, let's say, China effect as well. So for us, 200-millimeter is, of course, already with the 300-millimeter growth already a small segment in the meantime, but we still see that the demand is picking up once the manifestation of the demand from the power and AI side is driving through the power chip manufacturers to the wafer industry, then we should also see demand to pick up again.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Harry Blaiklock with UBS.

The first is just on one of your peers reported yesterday and were kind of unexpectedly quite positive on their wafer segment. And some of the commentary that they were giving was that customers are kind of rushing for inventory, wafer inventory. And then there are some customers asking for kind of longer and potentially higher volumes in LTAs. You've kind of mentioned about customers trying to secure medium-term demand. So I wonder whether -- I know you obviously can't comment on anything to do with your peers, but those conversations with customers around LTAs, lengthening them and medium-term demand, wondering whether you are also experiencing something similar or whether you can comment on that at all?

Yes. Thank you, Harry. And we're always a bit reluctant to comment on, as you highlighted already on individual competitor statements. But I can confirm, and I think I did already that we also feel this more positive tonality in atmosphere in conversations with customers about the volume scenarios and so on. So we are not so vocal about it as we really would love to see it more in our books also, not only in, let's say, atmospheric and tonality indications. But definitely, we see a change in atmosphere there. And then maybe more general remark, if you compare, let's say, Japanese players with us, you have to always have in mind in terms of operational development, the FX difference. And of course, we, as wafer manufacturers have different customer portfolios and some product portfolio differences as well. So if we take all this together, I think we'll be pretty much in line with the sentiment from other players we're also anticipating.

Got it. And then I just wanted to clarify on your pricing comment. I know like over the past year, you've been saying that pricing pressure is more severe in 8-inch and 12-inch has been stable in LTAs and maybe down a little bit in spot market. I know you're saying that it's in 12-inch, it's now more reasonable. And I just wanted to know kind of what does that mean in terms of -- is that just the price declines that have stabilized? Or you seeing any price increases coming through outside of LTA?

Yes. I'm a bit reluctant to go into more details here, but your general statement is correct and unchangedly correct. Price pressure is indeed more pronounced in 200-millimeter as we discussed earlier in the call. That's maybe not a surprise. In 300, we came out of a phase where the non-LTA part was also under certain price pressure. And now we have, in the meantime, some first examples where that is easing and looking more reasonable. So again, I wouldn't declare a trend change or a significant uptick yet, but we have those first examples where we can look a bit more positively on outside 300-millimeter LTA pricing.

Okay. Perfect. And maybe one last quick one. I know you say that you don't have any major LTAs coming up negotiation this year. But next year, are you able to comment on that?

.So you're right, nothing major is expiring this year. Our big LTAs that have all been concluded in conjunction with the FabNext. -- they are, let's say, very long-term LTAs. We have some of them running until 2030. We have 80% of our capacity in Singapore covered with these long-term LTAs -- and then, of course, we look at LTAs as a sort of portfolio. We always said we want to have around 2/3 of the business in those LTAs. And in that context, of course, there could LTAs be expiring next year, while we also even last year concluded new LTAs. So it's a kind of rolling ongoing thing. And let me reiterate, if conditions are not good, nobody will force us to do new LTAs. So it's really up to our discretion that even we experienced in very soft market conditions, there's always a segment or a technology where new LTAs are concluded. So we have to look at this as a kind of portfolio as a rolling thing. And again, the big ones are rock solid in 2030 and with historic volume shifts, which we reported some of those volumes even have been added to the end of the contract, which, in fact, would prolong some of those initial time frames.

There are no further questions. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Stephanie Malgara.

This concludes our Q&A session. Thank you for joining us today. We'll release our H1 2026 figures on the 30 July. On this slide, you can also see our next IR event. Thank you, and have a good day.

This concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.