Dsm-Firmenich Ag S/Adr

Good afternoon and thank you for joining today's call. I hope by now you will have had time to look through our half-year press release and that you have been able to locate our presentation to investor slides on the website. You will also find here our disclaimers about forward-looking statements, which I encourage you to familiarize yourself with. Now let me hand you over to Dimitri to start with some introductory comments. We will try to limit today's call to about 45 minutes, considering that this is a very busy day for you. Dimitri?

Yes, thank you, Dave. Yes, thank you, Dave. And let me add our thanks to all of you for joining us today for the first ever interim results conference call for DSM-50. Following the completion of the merger in May, we are in our 80th day. We thank you for your interest in our company. And as you can imagine, given that we spoke with you just over a month ago at the release of our preliminary trading update, there is no big news today. What you will see is confirmation that performance of perfumery and beauty and taste, texture and health have both performed well in a volatile macroeconomic environment and that we are accelerating our vitamin transformation plans to address challenges in animal nutrition and health and to a lesser extent, health, nutrition and care. Therefore, rather than our usual rhythm of taking you through some slides in our investor deck, we believe time is probably best spent for you today to moving straight to our Q&A. But just before we do that, we thought it might be useful if Geraldine says a few words about the presentation of our financial statements today. But as you can see, there is a lot to take in. And given that this is the first time we are presenting as DSM Feminic and also our financial results, Geraldine, over to you.

Thank you, Dimitri, and hello, everyone. Indeed, we know it's a busy day for you, so we're trying to be super efficient here. Now, unfortunately, we're not making your lives easy because this press release is a rather complicated one. In fact, we found it also at times a little bit tricky to follow all of the different numbers. So let me first say that the IR team is there to help you, and please don't hesitate to reach out. if you're trying to navigate your way through the presentation. Now, I just want to give a couple of comments to give you the frame within which we prepare these numbers, because it is indeed the first set of reported numbers for DSM Firminich. Now, the first thing is that here we're bringing together two companies. And of course, in order to have something which you can actually analyze in terms of performance, it's easier if you have six months of DSM and six months of Fiuminish together. Now, that's what we have called performer. You will see that on the first page, for example, of the press release. That's the top table. And most of our comments are actually referencing the performer performance. So like for like comparison versus prior, etc. Now, in fact, from an IFRS point of view, given the merger was effective May 8th, the true accounts are actually combining six months of DSM and two months of Firminich. And that is what is the IFRS basis. Now, that becomes particularly relevant when you look at, for instance, cash generation, etc. So that's the difference between IFRS and Performa. Now, there's one extra twist in all of this, and that is the introduction of some new matrices called Core. And what we mean by that is that, in fact, the combination is treated from an IFRS point of view as an acquisition, although it is a merger of equals. But that does mean that we have had to do a purchase price allocation accounting treatment with a step up of assets and liabilities coming from Firminich itself. into the combined balance sheet, for instance. So it does inflate the capital employed. It also, for instance, impacts quite a lot the net profit because of the amortization of these stepped up intangibles. So in order to give you something which is understandable, we've introduced core, which, by the way, was a feedback that we got from you that this was appreciated in the Linder-Praxair deal, for instance, and we've tried to use a similar approach to provide as much transparency as possible. So just wanted to make that as clear as possible. And with that, I think we're actually going to go straight to Q&A. So operator, the floor is back to you.

Yeah, I remember that because as we always do, that the cell set analyst can ask questions through a separate line for which they have registered already through the link, which you can find on the website. And all the other participants are always in the listen only mode. So we do it as we usually do. And I already get a signal from the operator that we are ready to start. So operator, I give you the floor to basically start the Q&A session.

First of all, I would like to ask the Q&A participants to press star 1 to register for questions. And the first question comes from Charles Eden with GVS. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. Two for me, please. Following the presentation, you hopefully had the net debt of $1.8 billion. If I adjust for the hybrid period, and then the dividend that you've announced at the end of June, that gets into round numbers of about $3 billion of debt over half a year, so we've adjusted to those factors. Is that right? And is that the way that you'll think about the net debt to EBITDA target of one and a half to two and a half times when you're thinking about shareholder returns, et cetera? And then the second question is just on the core adjusted net profit, and thanks for the explanation, Gerald, But if I look at the difference between adjusted EBITDA pro forma of 929 and then the core adjusted net profit of 236, it's quite a big delta. Now, I know we haven't really got all the meeting parts between that. But I guess what you're saying by core is that it's recurring. So is that the magnitude of tax, depreciation, amortization, etc., that we would expect to in the second half of our numbers and into 24, given that core definition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Chels. I think this one I will take both, Dimitri. So net debt, let me start there. Indeed, we are closing at the half year with 1.8 billion in net debt, excluding the hybrid of 750. Now, you have to be a bit careful because the hybrid, of course, is treated differently than a straight debt when it comes to the rating agencies. Sometimes half is taken in, etc. So What we are looking at in terms of the net debt reference is actually excluding the hybrid. Now, I do want to point out here that we will have in the second half actually a few outflows, in particular the outflow of the buyouts of the minority interest, the shares that weren't tendered. Remember, we had a minority percentage that needs to be bought out. So that will come in the second half. The timing of the dividend of 430 is also in the second half, etc. So here, I think it's probably good that we provide a bit of guidance for once. And we probably will guide here to a year-end net debt of... 3.4, 3.5 billion, maybe something like that, which is kind of around two times pro forma EBITDA. And I'm saying pro forma because, of course, you need to take an annualized 12 months of EBITDA to have something comparable. So that is the number against which we will be applying the policy of one and a half to two and a half times. So hopefully that provides you a bit of clarity there. Now, when it comes to the core EBIT versus the core net profit, maybe core, to be clear, is that we are backing out the amortization of the intangible assets that are carved out from the purchase price allocation on Fiat Minish. So to give you a little bit of a number, the step up because of fair value... The assets and liabilities is actually 10 billion, of which about 8 billion goodwill, 2 billion intangible assets. Now that needs to be amortized. So you are looking at about 250 million of amortization coming from the PPA accounting. So that's the definition of core. Now, to give you for the modeling a bit of input, what you should assume from a financial income expense is on an annual basis, probably about 170, 180 million per year. So on H1, if you normalize a pro forma, you're at about 90 million. And then the delta is actually tax. Now, it does lead to a particularly high rate just now, but that has to do with mix. So, for instance, the vitamin effect that we've been referencing, you know, since June 28, et cetera, falls very much in Switzerland. And that does impact quite a lot the tax calculations. But let me give you as an indication for modeling again, Probably on a pro forma basis, you should think at about 23% as being a reasonable tax rate to put into your models for the foreseeable future. Hopefully that answered your question.

Yeah, I do. Thanks, Jodie. All right, thanks.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Matthew Yates with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Hey, Asmaeel. A couple of questions, please, on operations. The perfume and taste divisions respectively had sort of a minus 2% organic sales growth in the quarter, and you do say that you had mid-single-digit pricing, so I guess that implies volumes were down about 7% across those two businesses. If that's right, that does feel worse than we've seen from peers, and I appreciate it's been a challenging consumer environment, but Is there any insight into that? Have these Furman-ish businesses been somewhat disrupted by deal closure and that's impacted execution, or is that just quarterly randomness? The second question is just picking up on something that was in the press release this morning. Quote, unquote, you had... even greater confidence in the delivery of our synergy targets. Can you just expand a little bit what you mean by that? Are you saying that you are more confident in delivering the existing synergies, or are we talking about delivering them faster, or are we talking about even potentially upsizing in due course the potential synergy price? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for that question. Let me take these two. Let me paint a bit of color around the perfumery and beauty business and taste, texture and health and give you a bit more color around it. Because at the end of the day, these businesses, not only on the organic growth in the first half, but also I think on the EBITDA step up has been very positive and showed the strength of these businesses. However, you need to sub-segment a little bit the business. Let me start with perfumery and beauty. So there we have seen a positive momentum on the pricing with a positive effect of around every single digit with volumes impacted by lower increase. So remember that we have announced that we will not reopen Pinova and that obviously had an impact on the ingredient part. It would then give you some color on the subsegments. So perfumery, fine fragrance had a very good growth in the first half, whereby consumer fragrance had solid growth. So we're very happy with that growth going forward, where personal care also showed very good growth in the first half. The element which worked negatively for the volume was the ingredients part because of the de-stocking, but also because of the pin-over effect. So if you take that into account, you can basically say that fragrances, perfumery, fine fragrance, consumer fragrance, and personal care would do very well. We then take taste, texture, and health. If we have two sub-segments, we have the taste part and we have the ingredient solutions. It's clear that on the taste part, we've seen a positive momentum on pricing, but also on the volumes. I think good volumes in beverages, soft drinks, juices, fresh bakery, as well as confectionery. And I think that is also what we expect to continue. On the ingredient solutions, we've seen good business in enzymes, cultures, and textures, but a bit weak on yeast, colons, and nutrition. And I think the pricing were okay with only the volumes, which were a bit covered by partly by the stocking, but certainly in the area of yeast, colons, and nutrition. So overall, I think also with the improved performance on taste, texture, and health, where we also deliberately walked away for some of these lower margin business. You've seen them being reflected in the EBITDA. I think you could basically say that perfumery and beauty, as well as taste, texture, and health, had a very strong first half. Then the second one on the press release, you picked up greater confidence that before going into faster and more, be aware that we did our synergy work in the clean teams. Remember, we were, before the 8th of May, we're not allowed to share commercial, sensible and sensitive information. And we were doing our pre-work based on the clean room investigation. Now, within our 80-day, obviously, you build far more evidence because now all the books are open. And I'm very happy to say that what we've seen so far is building that greater confidence. We've also had our key supplier meeting in Barcelona in May. the first or second week of June, where we also could add flash on the bone in terms of where the savings were coming from. And that has predominantly to do with the cost savings. Remember that we, on our 350 million EBITDA, we said half is about cost synergies and the other half is revenue synergies. The cost synergies obviously will come earlier, while the revenue synergies take some time to work through the brief system. It will take a year, one and a half year time for those revenues to come. So also there, we are more confident. But obviously on the cost synergies, we also see some signs that we could bring in cost savings in line with our expectations, but with more confidence because it's more backed up by it. So that's your question. I hope that gave you a bit of color. Thank you, Dimitri.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Denton Udeshu with Dave Morgan. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. The first question, I just wanted to follow up. uh on generalities sorry general dean's uh net debt sort of indication of 3.4 to 3.5 can i confirm that includes the hybrid is that the only question or you have others oh that's like uh the other questions uh the second question was just looking at the phasing of your second half guidance you guys did about 408 million or pro for my beta i think the guidance implies if i take the midpoint the run rate of 460 million per quarter in Q2, sorry, Q3 and Q4. I'm just curious, how do you think about the step up from 4.08 to that quarterly run rate? Do we see that in Q3 or is Q3 more like, you know, similar to Q2 and we see much of the step up in Q4? And the last question I had was actually just thinking about the restructuring cost of How should we think about the cash restructuring cost this year and how much actually flows into next year? Thank you.

Okay, yeah, thanks. So let me give you the first and the third, and then I'll hand over to Dimitri for the middle question. So net debt, here the indication is actually excluding the hybrid, but realize that there are a lot of one-timers related to the deal going on here. So there is an element, of course, of phasing. So what we're seeing here is is taking the current outlook from an operational point of view and then factoring in things like the buyout of minorities. We also have, by the way, but that's not a net debt, it's more of a cash movement, a bond maturing in December, and that will be paid out of the balance sheet. So that's to clarify the net debt. And then from the restructuring costs here, what you will see is that this is a year where what is called under IFRS APMs, so alternative performance measure items, kind of come together. So we have different categories that we've been talking about along the way. We have the integration costs. You remember 250 million that we've indicated. We have all the transaction costs and deal related items. Here you're about in the 270, 280 million. Then there's these accelerated programs that we've put in place on June 28th in order to recover a strong performance. There we indicated 200 million. And then you have sort of Pinover and others about 80 to 100. So when you add up all of that, you're probably in the 750 to 800 million. But, and the question is very good, and that is the phasing over two to three years. So what we will do is period by period, we will provide you With the cash out versus expense, the timing is not the same, whether it's P&L or it's cash. And it's also not the same whether it's pro forma or IFRS. So those are the moving parts. And in here, we're probably looking at a guidance for... This year of about 350, I think, would be the number. But I have to say, I have a slight doubt if it's P&L or cash. So hold that thought. We will provide the insights a bit later.

Yeah, indeed. And then to your question on Q3 and Q4, what do we see? So there are three elements we come into play. One is the destocking to fade away. Two is the input costs, which we see with stabilizing inflation going down. And three is the cost measures which we have initiated. For Q3, we see that some of the cost measures which we've initiated will help Q3. The other two measures will help only in Q4. So the destocking to fade away, we are not very optimistic. That's also what you said earlier end of June. But there will be some normalization towards the end of the year. So that will help you. The input cost we do see going down. But because of our stocks of five plus months, it takes time to run through the stocks before it impacts positively our EBITDA. And we'll see towards the end of the year, we'll see that positive effect. And then obviously also in Q4, we'll see the cost measures in effect. So Q3 will be still relatively weak. Q4, because of the three elements coming together, will be better. So that's how it's been built up throughout the year towards our outlook of 1,890.

Thank you. And we will take our next question from Fernand D'Ivoire with Degraaf Peter Kan. Please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. I have one question on this purchase allocation. Why don't you also correct the goodwill of the potentials from the past, which were on the old DSM, and make the adjustment like that, like you do for ribbonies? That's the first question, and the line was a little bit bad, so maybe to come back on this organic volume growth in the second quarter, and then going into Q3, when would you see some improvement over there?

Okay, so let me take the PPA question. You know, it's a subject that we actually discussed at length, and there was no unanimous preference whether we should correct for all of goodwill and actually make it before any kind of amortization of acquisition-related issues. intangibles or just the merger. And we decided to remain very transparent and to provide some consistency across the accounting to only do it for the merger-related big number, which, of course, comes from the step-up on the Firminich accounts. So it was a choice, and it seemed to be the most transparent run to provide consistency. So that was from the PPA. And then, Dimitri?

Yeah, let me... Speak close to the mic. I hope you hear me well now. Just to repeat, what we expect is that the volumes towards the end of the year will pick up a bit because then the destocking would be fading away, but more towards the end of the year than earlier. So that is something for Q4. The other two elements I mentioned were the input costs, which were going down, but it needs to run through our stocks and therefore will help in Q4 towards the end of the year. And obviously the cost elements on the initiation of the cost elements will already help us a little bit in Q3 and obviously also in Q4. So we still expect a relatively weak Q3 and these three elements coming together will help Q4 a bit going forward. nicely in line with our outlook, which we've given between 1800 and 1900.

One follow-up. The core adjusted profit, that is the base for the dividend payment.

Yeah, thank you for that question. I was expecting it, yes. In fact, maybe let me take the opportunity of this question on dividends. So the dividend policy, as stated in the offering circular as well, is a policy of distributing 40% to 60% as a payout ratio. Now, it's a ratio of the core, So, you know, backing out this amortization, otherwise, that would be a significant drop. Also, I think it's fair to say that in the period of both transition and integration, we are as a company investing a lot into setting up DSM Feminish. for a prosperous future. But in the transition time, it is actually costing us these one-time costs. Now, bearing that in mind, it is very likely that the payout ratio will be quite a bit higher at first, and then will normalize towards the 60%. So In that spirit, you know, the payout ratio is the policy, but we may depart from it with a view most probably, you know, to be confirmed by the board, of course, at some stage of ensuring a stable dividend at first. Thank you very much. Thank you.

We'll take our next question. Good afternoon. I just had two, please. Since you announced the 400 million vitamins impact, we have seen further declines in vitamin E prices. Does that mean that impact could be a little bit bigger or did you already assume that it would get worse from where we were at the time? And the second question is on perfumery and beauty. You had guided for around 40 million of seasonal impact on EBITDA. We didn't see that materialize. It was only around 20 million decline in EBITDA from 2020. the last quarter, despite the volume decline at the firm and its underlying business, does that mean that that 40 million was not the usual seasonal effect? Or could you give us a bit more color on that, please? Dimitri?

Yeah, let me respond on vitamin E. It's good to know that all our analysts following our vitamin prices, be aware these is most probably feed info with our contract prices, but it gives an indication. In our trading update last month in June, we did say that the total exposure to vitamins was about 15%, which is around 2.2 billion, of which vitamin E was one of the few vitamins where we're still making a little bit of money. I think the overall performance of vitamins, not only from these amphetamines, but around the globe in the value chain. It's relatively low. The vitamin E was one that was still a little bit of profit. We also included in our outlook that part of that decline was included in the 1800 to 1900. So part is included. We need to see how vitamin E is evolving throughout the year, but we assumed part of the decline being part of our outlook. That's also why we gave a range between 1800 and 1900. And then on perfumery and beauty, um, I don't have the numbers here, but I do saw a sequential quarter. I saw a decline, and I think that was what we mentioned in terms of seasonality. So I don't know what the numbers you are looking at, but if you look at Q1 to Q2, you saw a lower Q2, although compared to prior year, it was a step up in EBITDA. So it is in line with what we said at that time. But if you want to have more clarification, then I think we can take it offline. But it's in line with what we initially said.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Artem Taburov with Redburn. Please go ahead. Artem, your line is open. Please check your mute function on your phone. All right. We'll take our next question from Nicola Tang with BNP Barabbas. Please go ahead. Hi, everyone. Thanks for the questions.

Firstly, just a few more moving parts on the cash flow side. Geraldine, thanks for the help there. I think working capital trended up a bit in H1 year on year. And I know you're saying it's not necessarily reflective of pro forma, but maybe you could give us a bit of a steer of, I guess, your ambitions around working capital sales and a kind of midterm view for the combined business. And perhaps also clarify in terms of pro forma sort of capex hotels as well. And then the second question with Penova, I'm sorry if I missed it earlier because the line was a bit unclear from Dimitri, but I think in the June call you mentioned that Penova would be a headwind on top line, but less so on the bottom line. So I'm wondering if you can help us quantifying these. top line impact in Q2 and what it might be in H2 for putting room beauty on Canova. Thank you.

Yeah. Hi, Nicole. Happy to do all three, actually. So from a working capital point of view, I'm afraid, indeed, the performance is not great and is reflected in the cash generation so far. So you probably saw in the report on a performer basis, we closed at about 33% as a operating working capital to sales ratio versus 29 in prior. Now, this is really driven by inventory. I have to say a lot to do with legacy DSM and the fact that the volumes were soft. So when you look at that, I mean, to give you a bit of an idea, the DDI, so days of inventory are up at 162 versus 149 in prior. So that's one of the main drivers, which really matches the situation that we're seeing on vitamins. Now, another maybe number that is very useful, that is the cash conversion. So on a pro forma basis, we closed for the six months at a 31 percent cash conversion, which, as you can see, is really on the low side. And here the target will be to move that up into the 40 to 50 percent as a first stage. So it's a combination of the cash conversion and probably cash. from a working capital reverting to as a first step back to where we were a year ago, which is 29% of sales as OWC to sales ratio. So a big effort. Now we've talked about shutdowns. We've talked about a number of steps commercially to make that happen. And that will continue to be a great area of focus going forward. Now, from a CapEx point of view, and here again, let me give you a couple of numbers. For H1, we were at 348 million of CapEx, now performer. you can probably assume a max of 850 for this year, including Beauvais. So as you remember, Beauvais, we had indicated potentially comes a little bit on top, but with this 850 max for this year, it would be included. And that brings you at about 6.5% of sales. Now, if we take the blended legacy DSM, legacy firming niche numbers, normally the company should trend a bit lower than that. But we are seeing the timing of things like Bovair, Canola Pro, and some investments on the legacy Fiuminish side as well coming a little bit at the same time. And maybe from a modeling point of view, given we're in one of those calls and it's normal for the first time, if you look at your depreciation, amortization modeling, you probably should be thinking here at about 230 to 240 million per quarter of depreciation amortization. So that's from a CapEx point of view. And then Pinover, you picked it up correctly.

So the impact is very much top line related.

Now in Q2, while the fire took place in April, there was of course inventory still at hand. So the impact of the NOVA in the quarter is not too significant, but it's still there. However, you will see it more in the second half. Now, we're probably looking at a top line impact in the second half of 50 to 60 million in terms of headwind, with a more limited impact on the bottom line, as Spinova was clearly more dilutive than accretive from a margins point of view.

Thanks. And if I could just, we can follow up on the Penova point.

I think you talked about kind of workarounds going forward. So should we think of this, you know, 50-60-60 in the second half as kind of like lost revenue or does it come back at some point?

For now, my understanding is that it's more lost revenue because the site is closed, etc. But we will bring back some more information depending on how it evolves. Here, the work is really about looking at how to supply the customers using alternative sites. But at present, and I'm checking with Dimitri here, I believe it's lost revenue.

It is predominantly lost revenue for two cases. I think Geraldine was already alluding to it. It's not very helping our EBITDA quality and the business going forward. And there is opportunities to also produce at other sites. So that's also the reason why we tried to close Pinova. But obviously that has approval procedures to it. So that will take a while before that is coming back. So for this year, I think you can regard it as lost.

All right, very helpful. Thank you.

Operator, I think we're done. Do you still have people in the waiting line or not?

There are no further questions at this time.

Okay, then we can conclude. Gildine, a question from my end. I think you said on the DNA, the figures you mentioned were per half year, huh?

Oh, you're right. I said per quarter, but it's a mistake. So the half year, indeed, that would make more. No? Well, now you make me confused. I think it's a quarter. The half-year H1 was 470. So per quarter, it's about 230 to 240 per quarter. Yeah, okay.

No, that's good.

Then let's go with it. Then we have it.

Okay, Dimitri, a few words from you. Yes.

Yes, thank you indeed. Before we end today's call, there are two important things left for me to do. One is obviously to invite Geraldine to take the stage one more final time at this beautiful company to say a few words. And secondly, I would like to introduce to you Geraldine's successor as CFO of DSM Feminist, Rolf Schmeitz. And although you didn't see him, he's been sitting patiently on the call today. So let's move to Rolf first. But first to position him a little bit, Geraldine and I have had a great privilege of working very closely with Rolf over many, many, many years. And together, I think we have accomplished a great deal to move the company to the point where we are. And Rolf is really... all up and running to enter into his new role as Bit of Fish September. And obviously, we wish him all the success in the world. And there's also a bit of a personal wish for me as well, because if he's successful, then I think we are all successful going forward. And I know, Ralph, that we have gained a fantastic CFO in you as Bit of Fish September. And maybe you just want to come on screen and say a few words.

Well, hello, everyone, and happy to be introduced this first time on screen. And like Dimitri said in the background for many years, obviously my previous role at the company as group controller, first for DSM and later for the combined company that we represent today. Big thank you to Dimitri and Geraldine, of course, for all those years and getting the opportunity. And obviously also want to take the moment to once more wish Geraldine well and all the best for the future going forward. Now to the other audience that I can't see, but I'm keen to meet and work with going forward, our investor community. We will have the opportunity for that later in the year. So we are scheduling. some teaching sessions on perfumery and beauty and taste, texture and health business later in the year, November, in both Geneva and the US. And that will be a great moment. And we're scheduling also a roadshow around that. So really look forward to that. And also early 24. We are planning a capital markets day. I think that's provisionally penciled in for June. So that will give us ample opportunity to get to know each other well as well. But For now, keen to work with Dimitri going forward and the whole executive committee in the company and to live up to the potential that this beautiful DSM feminist journey has ahead of us. So really look forward to that. With that, back to you, Dimitri. Thank you.

Thanks, Rolf. And indeed, that's a nice bridge. Geraldine, the last time, please. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you. And yeah, basically, I have to say it's a really happy moment for me to have you, Ralph, take over. We've worked 10 years together. And indeed, you don't know on the call, but Ralph was always there and including today. So it's not difficult for me to rotate out because I know the company is going to be in very, very good hands today. with my two colleagues here on the screen. So that feels great. It also feels great that after 10 years, I can look back with a big smile at I think a lot of great achievements. Of course, the last one is the one that's been taking a lot of our time today, which is the merger and the exciting future of DSM Firminic going forward. Now, I was lucky that when I joined DSM, I knew a lot of you already. And I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your trust and for the great conversations we've had over the years and the great dialogues. It helped us, by the way, a lot. And I know that this is the culture that will continue, which is full transparency and dialogue going forward. um and you know to the extent possible uh not to bring any surprises along the way so i thank you and uh and maybe you know i will see you again uh we will see how the future pans out but i really will not leave without another thank you and that is to the ir team i have to say it's the best ir team i have worked with and now i'm getting a little bit emotional i'm sorry about that and yeah And, you know, when you work for 10 years so closely and you have the pleasure of working with someone like Dave, with Mark that you know well, with Joanna, with Anna. it makes it a very special journey. So I just wanted to say thank you for that.

And sorry for the emotion. Over to you, Dimitri.

I never apologize for your emotions, Geraldine, because that's who you are and that's where you stand out, I think.

I echo...

the appreciation for all of us for what you've done for the company, but also personally for me. And you're a unique personality with passion, competence, and a fantastic warmth and charm in building it together. We will miss you during the calls. And I think I'm speaking on behalf of all the investors that we

we will miss that quite a bit.

So Rolf and I had a high standard to live up to. And with that, I think it's time to close the call. A unique call, because the first call as DSM Femini, but also a unique call because this last call with Geraldine. And with that, thank you.

Let's go back to the operator. Ready to close the call. Thank you.

Thank you. And this will conclude today's program. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at any time.