Aurubis Ag Unsp/Adr

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the analyst call. The conference will be recorded. At this time, all participants have been placed on a listen-only mode. The floor will be open for questions following the presentation. Let me now turn the floor over to LK Brinkman, Head of Investor Relations.

Good afternoon, and welcome to our Q3 2025-26 conference call. We will walk you through the results for the first nine months of our fiscal year. With us on the call are our CEO Toval Farg and CFO Steffen Hochmann. After the presentation, we will be happy to take your questions. If you would like to ask a question during the Q&A session, please use the combination star nine home key separate. Before we start, let me draw your attention to our disclaimer. We will make forward-looking statements today. These are based on current plans and expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ unilaterally. That being said, let me now turn the floor over to Thomas Haag.

Thank you, Eike, and good morning and good afternoon from sunny Hamburg. Before we dive into the details later in the presentation, let me provide you with a high-level overview of the performance in the first nine months. Operating EBT increased significantly by 31% to 374 million euros compared to the previous year, in line with expectations. Operating FETA came in at 570 million euros. The improved performance in the first nine months was supported by markedly higher earnings in Q3 of fiscal year 2025-26, where operating EBT came in at €149 million, a 23% increase versus Q2 of the current fiscal year. Net cash flow was minus €28 million, considerably below last year's €357 million. This is mainly due to the temporary build-up of the intermediate product inventories to supply the phase commissioning of the expanded tankhouse in build-up. As just highlighted, the increase in inventories is a temporary effect, which by the fiscal year end we expect the net cash flow to be above the prior year level of €677 billion. As alluded to in our Q2 analyst call, free cash flow before dividend came in as expected significantly negative at minus €365 million compared to minus €211 million last year. Based on our latest planning, we continue to expect the free cash flow before dividend to break even at a minimum for the full fiscal year 2025-2026. Operating return on capital employed increased to 9.4%, up from 9.1%, reflecting improved earnings performance and partly offset by the temporary inventory buildup. In light of the improved results after nine months and our current planning, from today's perspective, we anticipate operating EBT to come in around the upper end of the forecast range for the 25-26 fiscal year. Let us now have a look at how the market environment developed over the last quarter. Against the backdrop of an exceptionally tight market environment, sulfuric acid was one of the most supportive earnings drivers during the third quarter. As the ongoing Middle East shipping restrictions and the Chinese export ban for sulfuric acid are lifting prices to new highs. European spot copper premiums remained at high levels, supported by healthy demand for refined copper. In recycling markets, spot refining charges for scrap No. 2 stayed above prior year levels, despite a moderate easing during the quarter. By contrast, concentrate markets remain very challenging. Spot TCRCs for copper concentrates declined further and remained under pressure. A smaller demand continues to outpace mine supply. With regard to the price environment of our key metals, copper continued its upward trend during the third quarter. This was supported by robust demand expectations and a constructive market backdrop. Gold and silver remained at historically elevated levels as well, although both metals saw some consolidation compared to the exceptionally strong levels reached earlier this year. The EURUSD exchange rate fluctuated during the quarter, but remained within a relatively narrow trading range. As always, bear in mind that there is no direct one-to-one relationship between spot-five and our reported earnings. As part of our exposure ahead, as part of our exposure ahead, and some effects materialize with the timeline. And now I would like to hand over to Stefan. He will walk you through our performance in the third quarter and the financial results for the first nine months of the fiscal year.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon and a warm welcome from my side as well. Let me start with the key figures for the third quarter. Overall, Q3 marked another step up in profitability. Operating EBT increased to €149 million, up 23% compared to the previous quarter. Apart from achieving a higher meta result, we leveraged the opportunities of the tight sulfuric asset market earlier than we had hinted at in the last conference call. Along with improved recycling RCs, these positive earnings contributions compensated for the drop in concentrated TV RCs. Net cash flow amounted to minus €189 million, compared to plus €169 million in Q2. Cash generation remains a key priority for us. However, in the last quarter, we built inventories to ensure a smooth ramp-up of our strategic projects. In addition, we had some seasonally higher levels of finished goods. Thus, the weaker cash flow should be seen as a temporary effect that should be reversed by the end of the fiscal year 2025-2026. Looking at page 7. Let's switch to the 9-month overview. Group revenues increased by 29% to €17.8 billion, mainly reflecting higher metal prices and solid operating performance across the business. Operating EBT increased by 31% to €374 million. The earnings drivers in the first nine months were largely consistent with those seen in Q3. higher contributions from the metal result, recycling activities, sulfuric acid and copper products, more than compensated for the continued pressure on concentrated TC-RCs. As mentioned for Q3, net cash flow was impacted by temporary inventory effects in the third quarter and therefore amounted to minus 28 million Euro compared to plus 357 million Euro in the prior year. Operating ROSI improved to 9.4% from 9.1% and increased for the third consecutive order, supported by the strong earnings momentum, despite an increase in capital inflows. Coming to our sources of income, you will see that gross margin increased to around 1.7 billion Euro, up by roughly 140 million versus the prior year. The increase was driven not only by higher copper and precious metal prices, but also by a strong operational performance in the first nine months of fiscal year 25-26, as higher production volumes across the group provided an additional uplift. Please bear in mind that the same period last year was impacted by the planned maintenance shutdown in Pierdopp. The metal result increased its contribution from 37% to 43% of cross-margin, benefiting from higher metal prices and the stronger production performance. In contrast, the share of DCRCs and recycling RCs declined from 27% to 21%. As expected, the tight concentrate market weighed on earnings, although recycling charges developed more favorably and partly cushioned the impact. Products and ingredients remained broadly stable at 36% of cross-margin. Healthy demand for copper products and a stronger sulfuric acid contribution helped offset the headwinds from raw-med markets. Overall, this development illustrates the strength of our multi-meta business model. Pressure in one earnings component and be compensated by opportunities in others. In page 9, let's now dive into the multi-metal recycling segment. The segment generated a gross margin of €589 million and a grease of €87 million compared to the prior year. Within the gross margin mix, the metal result increases contribution from 46% to 51%. benefiting primarily from higher prices for gold, silver and copper. The share of refining charges decreased from 44% to 39%, which is mainly due to the shifted distribution of the cross-margin drivers. On a higher cross-margin basis, refining charges still contributed a higher absolute earnings amount than in the prior year. products and premiums remain stable at 10% and continue to provide an additional earnings contribution. The stronger earnings profile translated into operating EBITDA of €162 million up from €97 million, while operating EBT increased to €87 million from €36 million. Importantly, Operating ROCE improved to 3.8% from a low 0.6%, reflecting the improved earnings performance despite continued growth investments and an elevated capital input. Turning now to the performance of the CSP segment. The segment generated a gross margin of more than 1.1 billion Euro, An increase of around 50 million Euro compared to the prior year. Products and premiums remain the largest earnings contributor with a share of 50%. This is broadly in line with last year highlighting the continued strength of our copper products and sulfuric acid businesses. The meta result increased its contribution from 32 to 38% benefiting from higher copper and precious metal prices. As expected, contribution from treatment and refining charges declined from 19 to 12%. Despite higher production volumes, we were faced with softer TCRC levels that gradually moved over into our contracts, although not to the same extent as the development we showed earlier for the spot Concentrated throughput increased to 1.9 million tonnes, while sulfuric acid sales rose to 1.8 million tonnes. The increase in sulfuric acid earnings reflects both higher volumes and higher prices. The volume increase benefited from the absence of the peel-up-maintenance shell, which was carried out in the prior year, while higher sulfuric acid prices could contribute more meaningfully to earnings in Q3. As a result, for CSP, operating EBITDA increased to 461 million from 436 million, while operating EBT rose to 355 from 342 million. Operating ROC came in at 15.5%, below last year's 17.6%, which was mainly driven by an increase in capital employed of around €200 million. Coming to page 11, let's now take a look at cost development in the group. Total costs edged up by about €60 million, 4% increase to €1.48 billion, largely on account of footprint expansion. The main driver was higher scheduled depreciation and amortization of €37 million, Reflecting our investment activities and the ramp up of strategic projects. The uptick in personnel cost is also in part attributable to our increased footprint and the associated higher average headcount, as well as to general wage inflation. Other operating expenses decreased slightly to 20% of total costs, with the logistics and administrative costs being the largest components. With a share of 9%, energy costs were broadly on par with the prior level, thanks to an effective energy management and hedging. On to the cash flow bridge on page 12. starting with operating EBITDA, which was at 570 million Euro offset by a 525 million Euro increase in networking capital, which reflects the impact of higher metal prices, seasonal effects and the ramp up of our strategic projects. Arubis has a track record of generating reliable cash flows. However, as we regularly highlight, cash flow at any reporting date can be influenced by temporary balance sheet effects. Including tax payments of 73 million euro, net cash flow amounted to minus 28 million euro compared to plus 357 million euro in the prior year. Cash outflow for investing activities totaled 322 million euro and was primarily related to Aurobis Richmond and the New Precious Metals Refinery in Hamburg. As I have mentioned during the Q2 conference call, we expected a significantly negative free cash flow for Q3 of this fiscal year 2025-2026, mainly due to temporary inventory build-up in connection with the phased commissioning of the tankhouse expansion in Pierdorf, as well as normal seasonal So in light of this, the free cash flow of minus €365 million came in as expected. Cash generation remains a key management priority, and we continue to expect net cash flow for the full year to exceed the prior year level. We also remain on track to achieve a free cash flow before dividends, at least at break-even level for the full fiscal year. After P&L and cash flow, Let me briefly touch on our balance sheet and key financial ratios. The equity ratio stood at close to 49%, compared to around 56% in the prior year. While the equity increased by more than €250 million, the mentioned increase in balance sheet in total more than compensated for this effect. For the full year, we expect the KDI to be closer to the level of the previous year. In consequence of the change in the net financial position, our debt coverage increased to 1.0 from 0.6 in the prior year, which is still well below our target of not more than 3. Considering that we are executing one of the largest investment programs in the company's history, a ratio of 1.0 remains very moderate and underlines the continued strength of our balance sheet. Capital expenditure decreased significantly versus last year, reflecting that the strategic capex program is almost behind us. Capital employed increased by around €630 million to €4.8 billion, reflecting both our strategic growth investments and the temporary working cabinet build-up, which we highlighted earlier. Let's now turn to the outlook for the key drivers of our business for the remainder of the current fiscal year 2025-2026. Overall, the raw material markets remain competitive but manageable. Our diversified sourcing setup and long-term supply relationships continue to support stable operations despite challenging market conditions. Concentrate markets are still the most demanding area. We continue to expect concentrate availability to stay tight and TCRCs to remain under pressure as global smelting demand continues to exceed mine supply. In recycling markets, conditions remain broadly stable. While a modest seasonal decline in availability is typical towards summer, we currently see no material change in the overall supply situation and continue to view recycling markets as supportive. Regarding the Euro-US dollar exchange rate, we maintain our previous view despite some fluctuations in the last quarter. and the outlook for sulfuric acid remains highly favorable. Given the Chinese export restrictions and ongoing logistical disruptions, we anticipate the current market environment to prevail. Metal prices continue to provide support, particularly for copper and precious metals, and demand for our copper products remains healthy. Thus, the outlook remains intact, Overall, as we are actively navigating challenges. Based on our performance of the first nine months of the fiscal year, we confirm our full year guidance of 700 million to 800 million operating EBITDA and 425 million to 525 million operating EBT. and expect the EBT to come in at the upper end of the guidance range. For the operating grossing group level, we maintain the communicated level between 10 and 12%. For net cash flow, we expect to be above last year's level, as the previously discussed temporary higher inventory levels should be reversed until fiscal year end. Following our net cash flow guidance, and the projected reversal of inventory build-ups, we also continue to anticipate a free cash flow before dividend, at least at the break-even level, for which we see ourselves being on track. Still, please bear in mind that the usual working capital fluctuations in high metal price environments may affect our free cash flow at the balance sheet date. Having outlined all of this, Let me remind you that all of these guidance figures are built on our current market assumptions, as usual, and do not account for major unforeseen disruptions. And with this, I'd like to hand back over to Tobias.

Thank you very much, Steffen. I would like now to turn to our strategic projects and start with Complex Recycling Hamburg, where we have reached an important milestone during this quarter. After first production in May, We officially commissioned the plant and celebrated its inauguration in July. The project was delivered as planned, demonstrating our disciplined approach to project execution. Since startup, the ramp-up has progressed well and we exceeded our internal targets for the first nine months of operation. This success reflects the excellent preparation and collaboration of the teams on site. We have already reached the targeted feed mix of internal and external raw materials. This is encouraging from both a technical and a commercial perspective. Looking ahead, we will steadily increase throughput and we expect the plant to contribute to the group's earnings through TCRCs and metal results incurred from complex raw materials. Overall, CRH is proving to be a success as it strengthens our smarter network by unlocking the unique opportunities it offers. Let me now walk you through the recent developments in the U.S. We consider Arubus Richmond a key pillar of our growth strategy and step by step we are moving ahead, technically and commercially. That being said, during the last quarters we already indicated that ramping up the Greenfields Malta is taking longer than originally anticipated anticipated as we experienced technical challenges during ramp-up. Accordingly, we corrected the expected FEDA contribution from Richmond for the fiscal year 2025-2026 to a level below break-even. The longer ramp-up of key equipment is causing commissioning of both phases to overlap, leading to an overall longer ramp-up period. From today's perspective, ramp-up for Phase I will be completed in FY26-27 and Randbach for Phase 2 in FY27-28 respectively. Furthermore, given the overall heterogeneous and dynamic nature of the recycling market, raw material qualities and quantities have naturally shifted from the original plan as well which impacts the technical side to some extent too. Against the background of the technical and commercial issues, Arubus Richmond's mid-term earning profiles shift out by one year. We are actively addressing both angles, the technical as well as the commercial wrap-up. In light of the longer time needed, we expect that in the current fiscal year, Arubus Richmond will contribute to the Group's earnings to a similar degree as last year. This is baked in today's reiterated guidance for fiscal year 2025-2026, where we see ourselves at the upper end of the €425-525 million corridor for the Group. For the outer years, positive effects starting from higher metal prices and approved commercial team terms support the earnings outlook, while the outlook by the forecast also reflects the updated assumptions on ramp-up timing, the feed mix and metal contents. After full technical and commercial ramp-up, as of today, we expect the medium-term annual FATA contribution from Richmond to the Abubis Group to be in a healthy territory. Not exactly at the previous target level, still in the triple-digit million euro region. As I stated in the beginning, we are convinced that Aruba's Richmond creates a foundation for us to further grow in the US and we are managing the technical and commercial complexities of the business. Finally, I would also like to briefly update you on the tankhouse expansion in Cullop, another important cornerstone within our strategic investment program. This project is designed to remove a bottleneck in our production network and increase annual cathode production by 120,000 tons. Construction work and installation of the main equipment have been completed. The gradual commissioning process is now underway and we expect operations to commence in autumn 2026. Once fully ramped up, the expansion will increase cathode production and contributes to our gross margin through higher products and premiums, while also optimizing logistics costs. With this project, we add another building block to our smaller network, increasing resilience and seizing opportunities. Coming to a close, let me summarize the key takeaways from today's presentation. For the first nine months, Arubis delivered an operating EBT of 374 million euros, which is 31% above the prior year level. Operating EBT in the third quarter is at 149 million euros and is supported by an improved metal result, increased revenues from processing recycling materials, as well as from sulfuric acid and copper products. Our cash flow in the third quarter was temporarily impacted by an inventory build-up, largely in connection with the strategic projects which we expect to reverse until fiscal year end. Thus, we maintain our target to achieve a free cash flow before dividend break-even, at the minimum for the fiscal year 2025-2026. On the back of our improved performance, the group operating return on capital employed increased while still being dampened by the temporary inventory spike. With respect to our strategic quality pipeline, we continue to make progress. CIH was officially inaugurated, the tankhouse expansion in Pilup is close to commissioning, and in Richmond we are addressing the extended ramp-up and shifted earnings profile. For the remainder of the fiscal year, we expect that higher metal prices Earnings from recycling raw materials as well as higher contributions from the copper product and sulfuric acid business will mitigate the effects from the challenging concentrate markets. Therefore, we confirm our guidance for the fiscal year 2025-26 and expect operating EBT to come in around the upper end of the forecast range of 425 to 525 million euros. And with this, I would like to hand back over to Erika Blinkmann.

Erika Blinkmann Thanks, Thorwald and Stefan. Before we open the line for your questions, I would like to provide you with an overview of the next events. Our annual report for fiscal year 2025-2026 will be released on December 2nd and followed by the Q1 publication on February 4th and the AGM on February 11th. That being said, I'll now hand over to the operator for the first question.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press star, nine, and pound key on your telephone keypad. If you would like to revoke your question, press star, three, and pound key. You can also use the dial-in function in the webcast and raise your hand if you would like to ask a question. We already have a few questions submitted. The first question goes to Deutsche Bank from Bastian Senagowicz. The floor is yours, Bastian.

Thanks for taking my questions. I've got a couple, and we'll take them one by one if that's okay, and maybe starting off on guidance here. So I guess if we take the upper end of your guidance, it implies a flat pre-tax of around 150 million in the fourth quarter. Ag Unsp & Adr Ag Unsp & Adr Ag Unsp Ag Unsp® Ag Unsp® Ag Unsp®

With this call, we stayed within the guidance range, but we added a language that we see ourselves at the upper end of the range. We did not say the upper half. We said the upper end of the range. So what we are trying to say here is that we look into a good fourth quarter. We look into a quarter four that should be in the similar ballpark. Sq3, but still for the full year within the range at the upper end. So if we look at the drivers here, obviously sulfuric acid helping a lot, helped quite nicely in Q3, but yeah, there's an upside in Q4 versus Q3. On the metal, for the time being, I would assume it can be similar. Q4, SQ3 on a good level, similar. Same for products on a similar level, but a good level. RCs, similar on a good level. And then I think there's two things. One is TCRCs, where we have seen a gradual more difficult situation during the quarter. So we make our assumptions here on the fact that Q4 TCRC impact should be visible versus Q3. And then finally, what you always see at least at our end in the seasonality of cost in the last quarter of a fiscal year, we would expect that costs are a bit more pronounced, a bit more expelled. But once again, we are trying to send a constructive message here on Q4 and we are quite happy with how the year is evolving.

Okay, great. Very clear. Thank you, Stefan. Then maybe moving on to the situation in Richmond, and if you basically cut your expectations for the project, as most people just turned a bit more positive, given the policy backdrop, I guess there's metal prices, and it's also pretty decent scrap RC levels over in here. So some of the factors which you highlighted as to why you're cutting the target here sound a bit more temporary in nature. which are really the drivers for you to impair the outlook structurally. And is there also any early indication on where you expect the FEDA number for the project contribution to go next year? Maybe also just adding to that, has your DNA scale changed with the delay?

Yeah, let me start on the structure. Firstly, like we said in the presentation, firmly believe that this is the right investment and that this will significantly contribute to Avuva's earnings in the future. The main reason is the technical fanbub where we experienced some difficulties which you can say is on the one hand normal when you have a greenfield expansion, on the other hand we had to adapt our technical capabilities also to the feed mix which is Ag Unsp & Adr Ag Unsp We don't expect that we have the same amount of technical issues in Phase 2, but we ramped that up because, you know, we will learn from Phase 1. The commercial terms, you know, like we said, we are establishing ourselves at the market. We don't see this as a major issue going forward. We have established relationships with the raw material, with the recycling suppliers in the West because we had this relationship before, so there's long-term We are currently well supplied in the plant and we continue to play a role in that market and we are positive on the overall outlook of the recycling market for the future. Also in the West because copper demand is rising and as you know they cannot fulfill all their copper demand by internal sources, not by concentrates and recycling materials and we also think there will be some benefits in the next months by the further tightening of the US government of the export of recycling materials to other parts of the world. So, in summary, again, the main cause for what we mentioned for the delay is technical issues in the ramp-up of Phase 1. Maybe Stefan to the outlook?

Yeah. Bastian, you asked about Let's say an indication for an EBITDA for next year. I mean, we all know that today is probably not the point in time where we really want to die for next year. But still, to get into the topic you alluded to, Torev said in his speech that the earnings profile for Richmond shifts out by one year. We did start. This fiscal year with an ambition to achieve EBITDA break-even for this fiscal year, we stated today that this is not the case anymore. But if you apply this rule of thumb of shifting out by one year, we roughly can say that obviously we definitely want to achieve an EBITDA break-even next year.

Okay. Okay. Great. That's helpful. And the DNA schedule, I guess, has not changed versus the original guidance?

Right, it has not, sorry, we will mute it here. It has not changed, that's correct. Got you.

Okay, and sorry to come back just on the structural shift. So, from what I understood, you basically maybe walked back a little bit the 170 million EBITDA contribution target which you had given earlier. And I guess you wouldn't have done that if you would still expect 160 or maybe 150 or whatever. So it seems like we may come in below that number. Did I understand that correctly? And again, from everything you talked about earlier, these sound all like very temporary basically headwinds, which I guess you say yourself you'll be fixing over time. So if you walk back to 170, what are the lasting headwinds relative to what you were aiming for before?

I think it's correct that today we are saying that we see the EBITDA contribution from Richmond to the Europis Group in healthy territory, but not exactly at the previous target level. You just alluded to the figure. But it's still in a triple-digit million-euro region. With that, we are not saying that it Ag Unsp® Ag Unsp® will always be some premise changes so that's why as of today we will not shoot exactly for a new figure but what we're trying to say is it's below this lower end of what is a triple digit figure and what has been before so Let's say a double-digit million euro gap between what we had initially said. What we mentioned here is based on a view of, let's say, the next two to three to four years that we are basing ourselves on. It would not make sense to look out further into the future. Ag Unsp-Adr Ag Unsp-Adr Ag Unsp-Adr Ag Unsp-Adr because obviously it's absolutely right that we focus here on Richmond. But to frame it a bit, we also want to make the point that with all the strategic initiatives that the company has launched in the last years, we are confident to stay within the envelope of an EBITDA improvement in the midterm for August Group of €260 million. So even though we talked today about a certain piece of setback on Richmond, I think it's important to make the point that we are very comfortable as of today with the mid-term 260 EBITDA for the group.

Okay, great, very clear, thank you. Then just maybe coming back again to the bigger picture here and the implications for the project, so maybe taking the midpoint of what may be the new target contribution for EBITDA and then also considering, I guess, the latest or the last disclosed budget and cost inflation, maybe also the higher start-up costs, it becomes technically quite difficult for the project to still hit the 15% ROSI target which we have on group level. Ag Unsp & Adr Unless something materially changes, the logical conclusion would be that building another recycling smelter in the US may no longer make sense. What are your thoughts here and how does this impact your ambition to do another growth project in the US at all? It would be great to have your thoughts on that side.

Outlook on the US market and the evaluation of difference Ag Unsp & Adr Ag Unsp view on the U.S. markets, it remains unchanged. We continue to explore opportunities to go further in the U.S. by rebuilding the Richmond business, and we see the U.S. as an effective growth region. And these strategic alternatives, as we said before, consider different alternatives which also could potentially include another recycling starting capacity.

Okay, just again, from taking the parameters on the existing projects where you have visibility, again, you're not hitting your 15% return target, and I guess just then the logic that, again, also the recycling smelter, you would only do if you would get government support?

To break the budget and capital density? You know, we take a more long-term view, and there could be also synergies between different facilities and other strategic aspects. So we see not only the mid-term view of our return on capital, but also the long-term and strategic view. And under this consideration, it could definitely make sense.

And if I may add, I think you were also referring to subsidies, right? We have made the point that for Richmond, we basically did not enjoy large-scale subsidy programs that in the meantime have evolved. So if we were going on with something, let's say one of our key considerations would obviously be to become eligible to attractive humanist government support, and that could perhaps bridge a certain gap.

Okay, great. Thanks so much for taking my question.

Thank you. The next question goes to Bank of America, Jason Faircloth. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, folks. Thanks so much for the presentation. I'm afraid I'm going to jump on the Richmond train as well, if that's okay. But I'll try and keep my questions kind of short. Just in terms of the capital employed, and maybe this is one for Stefan, what is the capital employed today for Richmond and what will it be by the time the facility is fully ramped up? Hello?

Thank you. Jason, we understood very clearly your question and I just look at a colleague to give me the figure. So, if you have further questions, then go ahead with your further ones and we'll get to you obviously in very few minutes.

Okay. So, second question then. So, your new guided earnings, triple digit millions, I think previously you and I talked about, you know, 2400 euros per ton of blister didn't feel like it was a credible one. If I pick a number and let's call it 120 million euros still 1700 euros per ton of blister feels To me quite aggressive versus other recycling operations So I'm interested to to understand why you still think this facility can be so much more profitable than other recycling operations

Yeah, Jason, I remember very well the exchange we had on that, accompanied by a very nice brioche in your office. I remember that well. Yeah, I mean, if you look at the U.S. recycling market and the U.S. market versus other regions of the world, you definitely see a gap or, let's say, The uptick on the margin on RSCs in the US and this is still the case. Actually, when we updated our business case, we were quite happy with the commercial terms we are seeing. What has changed as a part of the update and Tarek has alluded to that is rather the mix But it's not the commercial terms. So in a nutshell, commercial terms that we're seeing are quite favorable and different than in other regions of the world. Second piece to your question is that with the setup of Richmond, we are basically targeting especially Those pieces of the value chain that are quite interesting and that's why as of today Richmond is not going all the way to the anode and the cathode because that part of the value chain that Richmond is addressing is the more profitable one and obviously metal result and metal price development is really supporting the case here.

Okay, so if we think about the D rating of the profitability...

Sorry, go ahead. Sorry, your question on Kaplan and Floyd for Richmond is around 800 to 850 million.

Okay, thank you. In terms of the D rating of the profitability, is it higher operating costs or are we actually just going to end up with lower blister production?

Both.

Both, okay. And I guess, lastly, to come back to this tariff question, where are you...

Sorry, Jay, I need to be more precise. It's full pieces, so to say it's higher cost, and it's on the revenue side, it's lower revenues, but it's not lower quantities, but it's lower revenues because of unfavorable mix.

And so should I read into that that there's less pressures than you thought there might be?

No, that relates to, you know, we need to show a certain piece of flexibility on the input mix. So we need to deviate a bit from the core feed we initially had in mind. And with, let's say, alternative feed, There is, from a margin perspective, a less favorable mix than in the initial business case.

Okay. So last one. I don't know where you guys are with thinking about tariffs. You know, if we get tariffs in the U.S., do you need to think about building a copper refinery? Can you build a 60 or 70,000 ton copper refinery? Is that too small?

Yes, of course, we can build that. We haven't specified the tonnage, but it would be at least that range what you said.

Okay. And in terms of as it stands today, you're shipping blister copper out of the U.S., and of course the blister copper is full of good stuff. Let's say concerns around that from the US administration that they're losing critical minerals to Europe.

Jason, the blister we are producing, they have all, you know, all the valuable metals in it, as you know, like gold, silver and also precious metals. And in order to unlock the value from the blister and to capture the synergy potential, that we also, you know, we ship this to Europe and use the capabilities there, but we also have the possibility to ship back to the U.S., the finished product. So this is how the value chain we envision to work in the future.

Okay, thanks. I'll let somebody else have a turn, but appreciate the thoughts, folks.

Thank you very much. Just a quick reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star, nine and pound key on your telephone keypad. You could also use the dial-in function in the webcast and raise your hand. The next question goes to Adana Okoku from Morgan Stanley. Your line's open.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. I think we've touched a lot on But I just have one follow up on that mix point. Can you just give a bit more detail on what exactly has changed on the mix from your initial assumptions? And is there anything, especially maybe with regards to policy, that could change or increase your flexibility on the mix that you thought you might have had?

You know, the effects cannot be isolated, you know, as all the aspects are interconnected and the market remains dynamic, so we do what we have today. We have entered the market now on a broader scale. We have built clearer view on the raw material qualities and which of them fit best in the current operational phase of our plant. And the other raw material streams are mostly Ag Unsp'Adr Ag Unsp'Adr It's a complex subject. The raw material is complex. We have, like Stefan has said, we have some, you know, some minor deviations in our assumptions or compared to our assumptions in the theme mix. It is, you know, for us the most profitable, of course, if we have more complex materials which have higher precious metal content. And here we are seeing some deviations, which is a little bit unfavorable, but nothing to be concerned about.

Okay, thank you. And then maybe just on sulfuric acid, we've touched on the quarter over quarter improvement. Is there any way you can help us to And just especially on the contracts, should we still assume that this is 85% contracted or have you perhaps shifted slightly more to spot pricing? And then also on this, thinking about the step up into Q1 as well, is it fair to assume that's similar to the quarter over quarter step up we're seeing this quarter or how can we compare these?

Well, as we have said, you know, for this fiscal year, the majority, around 85% of our contracts for sulfuric acid, the sales for sulfuric acid have already been contracted, so we only enjoy a minor part of our exposure to spot pricing, even though we benefit from it, but it's a minor part. In the next fiscal year, there's also a certain part contracted already. But there we will enjoy a larger portion of our contracts where we are negotiating right now in the coming months to be not at spot rate but at, of course, higher prices than we have contracted for this year.

Okay, thank you. And anything, any color on the quarter over quarter developments?

Yeah, I can give you a bit of color here. I would think that the sulfuric acid piece in Q4 will contribute, if we look Q4 over Q3, I can see an upside of a small double digit figure out of sulfuric acids Q4 over Q3. That's I think what we can say. And perhaps to give one more data point or for the full year, for this fiscal year, the full fiscal year, it could be in the ballpark of 180 million out of sulfuric acid.

That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

Next question goes to Maxim Kober from Odo. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon gentlemen, so my first question is a follow-up on the growth project envelope so reaffirmingly you reaffirmed the target to reach 260 million euros and that despite the lowering of the target for for Richmond but that that implies that other projects are running ahead of expectation can you perhaps shed some light there on which projects are outperforming versus your expectations I guess CRH is a big building block but Is there any other project that is performing better?

You're right. We talk about 11 strategic projects. The total contribution for the sum of them is the €260 million, which we confirm as well today. Enrichment is one of them, obviously the most prominent one, but one of them. So what are other projects and where are they on the contribution? I would refrain from now giving figures on all the 11, but I would love to do it a bit more qualitatively. The ones that I would like to highlight in terms of upside contribution potential is CRH, so Complex Recycling Hamburg, that is a very successful project. The project just has started. Another one I would like to highlight is also what Tarlf mentioned in his speech. It's a tankhouse expansion in Pilhok, where obviously the upside is on getting out a significant amount of cathodes. Ag Unsp & Adr Ag Unsp that are also now delivering up to their plans and also delivering pieces of contribution that help delivering the 260 million figure.

Okay, that's helpful. And the second question is on concentrated CRC. So you've hinted at some structural changes going on there. So we've seen actually Antofagasta agreeing on an index-based system for its H2 contracts with the smelters. Let's see what the negotiations around the new yearly benchmark is. The result is expected somewhere in October. But do you see a risk that the whole market price switches to an index-based pricing system for these services? and that would make obviously more difficult for you to impose yearly or multi-yearly contracts, which has been your way of operating up to now.

Maxime, as we always said, you know, a long-term portfolio and capability to treat more complex materials when it comes to corn trades enables us to get better terms than the spot prices that are indicated on the market. However, We cannot escape the fact that the availability, like you said, on concentrate is tight and that puts pressure on our terms. From today's perspective, we need to assume that the negative TCR environment will play a role in our negotiations for concentrate supplies in the calendar year 27. At the same time, however, the miners are also looking to secure sulfuric acid supply. As we said, where the markets care, both markets are someone intertwined and those might be the subject of our talks with the mine suppliers. Mine supply and refined copper production are connected as well. And so this all plays into a role. So while we expect that the The negative TCR trend on spot prices will continue for a while, so we don't expect their short-term recovery. Like we always said, we are not linked to these spot prices when we do long-term contracts, and with the additional negotiation subject of sulfuric assets, we think we have a good basis here to come to, let's say, good agreements for Abubis in the in relation to the current market environment.

Okay, that's helpful. And just following up on that, you mentioned that the two subjects in the sulfuric acid antiserces are intent-wise, but I would have thought that sulfuric acid was only needed for folicling operations by the miners, so it's not necessarily the same miners that need sulfuric acid and those that tend to use the concentrate. Could you share us the share of sulfuric acid within your mix that is sold to the miners? Or is that somehow a secret?

Maxime, we don't give these concrete numbers, but you're right, it's a smaller part of our business, of our total sales of sulfuric acid, the share of As you know, the mines, they do both, you know, they leach, they do the leaching process and they also produce concentrates.

Okay, I stop it here, thank you.

Before moving on to the last question that's submitted, just a quick reminder, star, nine and pound key on your telephone keypad for asking a question. You can also use the dial-in function in the webcast and raise your hand. The question goes to Kepler Chevro Boris Bordo. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Just a very quick follow-up on Richemonde to check that I understand quickly. So your first assumption was on certain quality of mix. So now my understanding would be that you are missing in this mix maybe some precious metal contents that would explain the double-digit structural decrease in your EBTA mid-term contribution. Yeah, that's the first question. Just to check.

Yeah right Boris, on the one hand it's the content of certain metals, but also it's the T's, it's the RC's and other terms in the condition. So it's not only that,

Okay, and do you think you might find a solution if the United States government further increases the, reframe the capacity to export recycling materials that you would keep better, better kind of materials for the domestic market that would improve your metrics going forward? Or is it unlikely?

Yes, this would be conceptually positive for us because it increases consequently, of course, the availability of all sorts of recycling materials and also of more complex materials. So this would be positive for us, yes.

Yeah. And maybe a word on free cash flow. So you're guiding for free cash flow before the payment being at least break-even this year. despite the minus 365 year-to-date figure. So that means a strong reversal in Q4 for networking capital I guess, but I was wondering Looking at your capex number, it's 373 year-to-date. It seems to be behind the intended number of 670. Do you stick to that guidance, or what could be the right number to look at in capex? Yeah, that would be it.

Yeah, well spotted, Boris. So, on the capex side, or let's say the cash capex, it's not likely that we will, let's say, spend that much in Q4 that would remain to, let's say, the old target. So, let's say there, as of today, we think that cash capex could be probably below 600 million, so this will also obviously then support free cash flow generation. And then generally on, let's say, the general improvement on working ourselves down from seasonally high stock levels. So we have a clear plan how to reduce working capital and deliver on the three year target. So it's about destocking of inventory. It's about selling our copper products into the market. For example, copper products, you know, in the summer, in the summer period, there's less of a production here due to German summer and Belgian summer vacation schedules. We have more on stock. That's kind of a usual thing. So it's about now selling those highly attractive copper products to the markets, being it on the rotten shape side, being it on the capital side. Second point is a clear targeted decrease of intermediates. So let's say we have a clear plan as we speak. Our working capital is going in the right direction. And this coupled with what you spotted well on, let's say, the cash capex, all that together makes us confident. Ag Unsp® Ag Unsp® From a gross margin perspective, TCRC for both businesses was, let's say, 21%. And as we talk about TCRCs, so then we focus on the CSP segment. And there on page 10, we saw that the TCRCs for the primary side, this is where the pressure is, were, let's say, only 12%. I cannot confirm that it will never be zero.

Yeah, but it should never go below zero. I mean, we see negative spot rates on the market. Is there a possibility that one day your contracts might include negative commercial terms or do you have a sort of a flaw?

If the spot level is super negative and I mean, we will always differentiate ourselves, emancipate ourselves visibly from, let's say, a more spot market level. But if a spot market level is very depressed, we can also not rule out that it would be zero or a bit below zero. But it will always be significantly better than a spot market level.

Very, very helpful. Thank you very much.

So, that was the last submitted question. We do still have some time, so I will repeat the key combination in case anyone has a follow-up question. If you would like to ask a question, please press star, nine, and pound key on your telephone keypad. You could also use the dial-in function in the webcast and raise your hand if you would like to ask a question by phone. I repeat, star, nine, and pound key on your keypad. We have Bastian from Deutsche Bank back on the line. Please go ahead.

Yeah, hi. Thanks for taking my follow-up question. Just a very quick one on CapEx. As Stephanie mentioned, CapEx will now be around 600 or actually below, so does that mean that the 70 million will be moved to next year's budget? So next year will be more like 620 or so, or is this a cut elsewhere which is sustainable?

Bastian, you can rely on our ambition that we want to build the curve of bringing capex down. So we are not guiding today, but our ambition is that next year should not be above this year. Okay, gotcha. Thank you.

Last question from Maxime. Otto, you are on the line.

Yeah, if I can stay on the subject of sulfuric acid, because I think you said that you will finish the year with about €200 million of 180 of sulfuric acid contribution. But if we look at the post-prices in Europe, multiply that by your sulfuric acid production, yeah, we had close to $800 million of revenues there. And my understanding is that there are very limited associated costs. Is that a credible figure somehow, if prices stay where they are now? Or is there anything we should be aware of to apply some kind of discount to these prices?

As you said before, the vast majority of our Exposure this year has been already fixed or covered by long term contracts, which were fixed before the sharp increase of the price for sulfuric acid. And secondly, also when we go into negotiations for the remainder of the part and also for next year, you know, we are, I want to say almost also interested in long term relationship with our customers. We're trying to take not too much advantage of the current spot by situation.

Okay, that's helpful.

Oh, thank you everyone for your questions on participation. And with that, I hand over to your host.

The IR team will of course be happy to answer any further questions you may have. I would now like to close today's conference call and thank you for your attention. Enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you and goodbye.