Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our conference call.

And again, thanks for participating. We do publish a presentation, which I will follow at least in part, if not in full, that is available on our website.

So I will mainly refer to that and to the page. So starting from the first page, we have a brief summary of what has been 2025 for Buzzi.

Overall, a good year, although not as good as the 2 last one, so with some decline in profitability, but still showing, let's say, very strong results and very significant cash flow generation. So as you can see from here, we had a slight improvement in our revenues, in our net sales.

This was already disclosed at the beginning of February with an impact -- positive favorable impact coming from the changes in scope. EBITDA is falling somewhat short of last year, minus 3% approximately, which would be actually minus 6% like-for-like.

So the overall impact again of the Forex and the Scope changes was favorable. EBITDA margin, we are losing some profitability, which is mainly due to the fact that the additions, let's say, to the perimeter to the scope at least initially for the first year, they are coming in with an average profitability, which is below the one of the, let's call it, traditional scope perimeter and to the fact that one of the -- or the strongest country for us, U.S.

declined somewhat. CapEx are, let's say, similar to last year in terms of industrial CapEx, a little bit lower than last year, considering also the equity investment, and we can let's say, enter into that later in the presentation.

Net financial position also with the help of some lower CapEx improved significantly and cash flow generation was very close to last year regardless of the slight decline in profitability. We have -- we propose to the next AGM to keep the dividend unchanged versus last year.

But -- and we will comment later the shareholders' remuneration in 2026 is anyway going up significantly, thanks to the buyback program, which is underway. As you can see on the following page, let's say, Page 2, one of the key feature, let's say, of 2025 was the Scope changes, which included an Asset Swap, if you wish, which occurred in Italy and Italy and its bordering country, in particularly Austria, where we sold, let's say, the Fanna plant in the Northwest, is in the Pordenone province for those that are a little more acquainted with the Italian geography.

And Alpacem is the owner, is part of the Wietersdorfer group. This group, which acquired the Fanna plant is composed basically of 3 parts.

It includes 1.5, let's say, plant in Austria, which is quite strong, let's say, locally. The Slovenian plant where we have already -- we used to have already a presence since some year, which is a very stronger plant just on the other side of the Italian border.

And some Italian assets that now includes also the Fanna plant. So quite a strong and integrated group in the Northeast of Italy.

And then we expanded our presence internationally between starting from March, April until December, it's an ongoing process, if you wish, by acquiring initially over, let's say, a 30% stake in a listed company in the Emirates name Gulf Cement Company, which is a single plant, let's say, entity, but with a quite significant capacity, very powerful in terms of machinery, let's say, and equipment. Then through the OPA, the ownership was increased.

And later on, December and also something more will follow during this year. We achieved a gradual improvement in our ownership, which at the end of the year is around 66% indirectly is a little less because we participate to this investment together with a partner in a specific entity called TC Mena Holdings, where we see as 90% and the partner as 10%.

So the, let's say, economic ownership is a little less than the 66% at the year-end. On the following page, you'll see the bridge, let's call it, of the turnover -- 2025 turnover by regions, so by main regions where we operate.

And Italy had a fairly good year, I would say. If we do not consider -- so excluding the scope impact, actually, our volume and pricing will remain basically the same, prices slightly better.

So this was quite a strong support in Italy coming from the infrastructure project of the so-called resilience plan of the European funds, let's say, allocated to Italy. Central Europe was kind of mixed.

So there was a recovery in volume, but prices suffered mainly in Germany. And this translated into, let's say, an offset of the progress that we achieved in the volume in our cement, let's say, shipments.

Eastern Europe, I would say, good results overall. There was a negative impact -- unfavorable impact coming from the deconsolidation from the sale of the of the Ukrainian assets.

So this was the first year without Ukraine included in the scope of consolidation. But the remaining countries overall performed well, in particularly Poland and Czech Republic.

And we did have also some benefits from the strengthening of the local currencies, both zloty, Czech koruna and also the ruble in Russia. U.S.

was, in a sense, the worst performer also due to the size. So every time that something, let's say, negative happens to U.S.

in our case, impact on our figures on our numbers is inevitably more significant. What happened in U.S., we had a minor, let's say, decline in volumes more in ready-mix actually than in cement.

Pricing fairly stable, but no improvement if you look at the average or there were some improvements in specific geographic areas, but some declines in other ready-mix prices were a bit under pressure, particularly in Texas and the overall result was a little negative. And the dollar lost us some of its value affecting the translation.

So around EUR 70 million or EUR 70 milliojn negative on our net sales figure. Brazil is coming in for the full year for the first time.

So the comparison of the first 2 bars refers to the last quarter of 2024. But the impact is, I would say, overall positive with the exception of some unfavorable variances coming from the Forex.

-- and is bringing in additionally, let's say, EUR 2,065 million of turnover. Same reasoning more or less for the UAE, which is smaller in terms of turnover and is also including -- included -- it's been included starting from May, so about 6, 7 months.

And this brings us to the EUR 4.5 billion approximately level up to EUR 4.3 billion of last year that you see in the bar at the right. Not top, right side of the slide.

And then if we move to the main, let's call it, operating figure for the results, which is the EBITDA. What you can see from here is, again, fairly simple, if you wish.

So volumes good trend. A favorable variance of about EUR 44 million, but a number of, let's call it, negative items or unfavorable items associated, first of all, with the price environment, which was overall slightly negative besides what happened in the U.S., particularly, I would say, in Germany.

So Germany and the U.S. were the 2 countries where we suffer actually Germany, more than U.S., we suffered the most in terms of pricing trend.

Variable cost not so much coming from energy and fuel or electrical power. It was more related to raw material and other variable costs, for example, logistic ones.

And fixed cost, typically labor, maintenance were also going up, difficult to fully, let's say, control versus the volume and price trend. Other mixed cost also showing a favorable figure.

CO2, basically not an issue last year because we still remain -- this refers, of course, to the countries under the ETS scheme. And in those countries, we basically remain in line with the free allowances received with a few exceptions and a minor, let's call it, negative variance versus the previous year.

FX overall negative, mainly in the U.S. And then Scope changes that refer to, okay, on the positive side, Brazil and Emirates on the negative to Ukraine, rebalancing somehow the negative impact that you see on the center of the slide by EUR 61 million.

So overall, the decline is what we mentioned at the beginning, and this is the -- in brief, let's say, the explanation and more explanation can be given, of course, country by country or region by region where things did not behave, let's say, or happen in a consistent way. We had, of course, some regions more affected by costs, some regions more affected by prices, et cetera.

In the following pages, the cash generation and capital allocation. You can see that operating cash flow, as I was mentioning at the beginning, remained very, very close to last year besides the EBITDA decline.

CapEx industrial slightly lower than last year, not really because of our decision to decrease them was actually somehow related to the execution phase, which on more complex projects usually takes than you might budget or when you, let's say, translating the design in the engineering phase into implementation and execution usually takes longer. And remuneration of the shareholder was quite good, I would say.

You can see the split between, let's say, dividend and buyback. We have an ongoing program, which started at the end of February, which has been more or less so far 50% completed and we should get to the end.

We will see, of course, it depends on the liquidity of the shares on the daily trading. But normally, with this kind of trend, we should be able to complete it by the end of May or maybe even earlier.

We will see. It's well advanced and likely to be completed in maybe 2 more months.

There is also a proposed resolution taken today by the Board of Directors to cancel the shares that will be in portfolio, let's say, in treasury at the time of the AGM. So we don't know exactly the number.

But anyway, both the shares that were already in treasury at year-end and the ones that are being bought currently will be canceled, which is also, I think, overall a positive news for the shareholders. Just to give you a little more color on the different geographic areas, we move to Page 7.

The U.S. always, let's say, a very strong contributor to our results.

But last year, they were not able to keep up with the same level of profitability that we enjoyed in 2024. Basically, in terms of EBITDA margin, as you can see, we went back to the level of 2023, which is anyway a very good one, both in absolute terms and also in relative terms when you compare to other peers operating in the U.S.

But the trend was slightly negative. We faced difficult volume part of the year.

Then in the second part, there was a recovery, but not full. So we were unable, let's say, to close with a favorable volume trend, minus 2.2%, I think, very similar to the overall market trend.

And ready-mix volumes suffer like we were a little bit more in terms of shipment deliveries and also pricing ready-mix, as you know, as you recall, in our case, they are mainly in the Texas area, which was one of the -- yes, I would say, more difficult in terms of market environment also due to the presence of the significant presence of both incumbent and new importers into the -- along the coast from Houston to Corpus Christi, et cetera. So we have a structure in the U.S., a cost structure which is compared to our countries, skewed in a sense of more significant weight of the fixed cost.

So when you lose also slightly volumes, this has an immediate impact on our profitability, which was the main case. So cost not really going down, volumes going down a bit, pricing not moving or more, let's say, moving unfavorable than the opposite.

And this was the result. On top, we had the negative foreign exchange impact following the devaluation of the dollar, which on the EBITDA -- on the EBITDA means around EUR 26 million, not a small amount.

Moving to Italy, which is the following page, more favorable situation, support, as I was mentioned before, mainly from the PNRR programs. So public building and infrastructure projects, which also are typically enjoying a greater cement intensity versus either new residential or residential renovation.

So there is a decline in cement volume, but this is a direct consequence of the Scope changes that we were commenting at the beginning. Meanwhile, for example, our ready-mix concrete subsidiary has been able to increase volume by around 6%.

Pricing performance was okay, some improvements. And our cost, both fuel and power were definitely under control.

So we did not suffer any significant, let's call it, inflation -- energy inflation during 2025. The changes in scope on EBITDA means 13 million -- EUR 14 million let's say, about EUR 14 million of impact, which is not very different from what you see in the EBITDA variance actually.

We are showing plus 3.5% like-for-like. So it was fully offset by the good trend or the stable trend in volume and favorable trend in pricing.

In Central Europe, which means for us, basically mostly Germany plus Luxembourg and ready-mix operation in the Netherlands, quite a different trend if we look at Germany versus Benelux. Unfortunately, Germany has a much greater weight on the area because the performance of Luxembourg was -- and in the Netherlands was growing, was okay, was improving.

Meanwhile, Germany did improve some. So there was a rebound in the volumes, but there was no rebound.

Actually, there was a decline in prices, which started already on the previous year. Actually, we entered 2025, the exit price, let's say, of 2024 was already lower, and we were unable to recover or to change it significantly or just slightly to 2023 and '25.

And this was the major impact on the -- I mean, the major reason for the EBITDA decline together with a cost situation, cost environment, which was not favorable or quite different from what we experienced in Italy, mainly on the -- we suffer mainly on the energy cost, on the power cost, not so much on the fuel. But yes, on power, this is also somehow related to the -- to an hedging, which was made in advance so to cover the purchases for 2025, which at the end was not, if you wish, successful in a sense that maybe it was a bad timing.

But of course, I mean, the reasoning behind hedging is not to pick the right timing. Just in this year, I mean, in 2026, we will see a totally different trend because the market condition has changed in the meantime.

So the change -- the favorable change in Benelux was able to help somehow the region. But Germany, clearly is waiting significantly on this specific portion of the business.

And the performance in terms of EBITDA certainly was not was poor overall. I mean there are reasons behind it, which explains it, but was overall quite poor.

In Eastern Europe, on the following page, we are, I think, continue to be on a steady, let's say, profitability outcome. Of course, these businesses are not as big and as significant.

So their contribution, let's say, to the overall profitability of the company is not as significant as Germany or U.S. But the good news is that there is a positive momentum, both in Poland and in Czech Republic, which should also continue in the coming year.

So strong cement volume dynamics in Poland was clearly -- I mean, it was quite meaningful. Czechia, it's smaller, but also stable.

Our ready-mix business in Czechia performed very well. We lost cement volumes in Russia.

That's the only area where I think also after some years of war, let's say, the impression is that the economy is starting to feel more, let's say, the pain than in the previous year. And also probably in Russia, the prospects for the next year are also quite difficult or more difficult than in other Eastern European countries.

Ukraine is not part of the region anymore. So -- but its contribution was not very significant anyway.

So if we exclude Russia, there is a margin expansion. And driven by higher production and also, in this case, lower energy cost, which did not as opposed to Germany that we commented before.

Exchange rates also favorable, if you wish, not a minor, let's say, contribution, but anyway, a favorable contribution. And the impact of the deconsolidation of Ukraine was, I would say, totally absorbed and also the negative contribution from Russia was totally absorbed by the strong performance of Poland and Czech Republic.

Brazil, which is a newcomer, let's say, first year in the group. So let's say that we are on a pro forma comparison here because last year, actually, only the last quarter was included in our figures.

We had a volume trend, which was favorable, 2%, 3% up again compared to the full year 2024. Price trend in local currency also favorable.

This translated into, I would say, significant margin expansion. Our cost also were particularly the energy costs are lower than the previous year.

So -- as a first, let's say, year of full operation in the group, I think we can be fairly happy with the overall performance. There is room to do better in the coming year if the external condition and also the industry trend will go in a certain direction, which is possible.

And the only negative factor, the only negative is the exchange rate trend, but not so impact. I mean, not so dramatic on our -- on the overall figure with minus EUR 5 million on net sales and minus EUR 1.5 million on EBITDA.

And currently, actually, if we look at the -- of course, it's not necessarily a trend that will continue for the entire year 2026. But what we are seeing lately is actually a more stable real versus the euro since the beginning of 2026.

So if the local currency -- if the trend in local currency will perform better, which is what we expect also in euro, we should have -- it should be reflected, I mean, also in euro terms in likely absence of negative FX impact in the coming -- in the current year. Mexico is not part, as you know, of the group is not line by line consolidated, but it remains a very important part in terms of, let's call it, also management involvement, but in particular, in terms of results -- net result contributed to the other company.

The Mexican performance was mixed, but overall, still very good. We [ suf ] a bit on the turnover on the EBITDA in euro terms.

But when we clean up, let's say, from the foreign exchange impact, actually, both figures were better than last year. And this is one of the few countries together with the Eastern European country, Poland and Czechia, that is -- was able to achieve an improvement in the EBITDA margin, which is already very, very high, as you can see.

So I would say that we cannot complain about the Mexican performance. The only complaint is that it cannot be included in the line-by-line consolidation.

But for the rest, very strong performance coming from this country. Some comments on how we see [ 2020 ] also on the light of what has happened so far and also recent change in the macroeconomic environment.

I mean, we are -- we were, let's say, but we still are pretty confident that we can continue to perform fairly well during the year. There are uncertainties.

There are certainly geopolitical tension, potential inflation pressure for how long this difficult, let's say, situation in the Middle East will last and will affect particularly the energy cost, but not only because there are anyway also impacts on the demand in part directly like in the Emirates or indirectly like in Europe or probably less in the U.S. and Brazil.

But anyway. So by major, let's say, regions like we showed before, U.S., the expectation are for -- the association is, let's say, forecasting some additional decline in demand.

probably in the range of 2%, 3%, something similar to what happened in the previous year. But of course, if this happens, it would be already the 3, 4, 5, 6, 4, at least fourth year in a row of decline versus the previous peak which was not historical peak, but anyway, the previous peak of the cycle in 2022.

And this is something that clearly is not, let's say, helping the overall price environment because there's most of the regions of the state, some capacity available. And as I said before, due to our cost structure to lose some volumes almost immediately translates into a margin construction because the fixed costs are quite high in the area.

On the other hand, we have seen also at the beginning of the year, particularly during the month of February, demand quite resilient. So it's true that on one side, you have residential weakening, but there are definitely in the nonresidential portion of the demand or yes, some kind of projects that are going well that require cement and concrete.

Typically, just to mention one, which is, of course, very much on the fashionable the data center construction, but this is actually happening. It's happening and it's relatively intense in terms of cement consumption.

So again, a mixed environment with the nonresidential segment and also the infrastructure probably supportive and maybe even better than what the association has been forecasting for the full year. So we will see.

There are, of course, other factors to be considered in the U.S., which we mentioned in the comments of the press release that are a bit disturbing or potentially disturbing, let's say, the price environment. But okay, a situation or a scenario which is, I would say, moderately optimistic.

I would be optimistic about the outcome for the U.S. in the current year.

Italy should be a year very similar to the previous one as long as we continue to have demand coming from the infrastructure plan, let's say, or the European funds, there are good chances that we can more or less repeat last year results and also Italy is more likely probably than the U.S. to be able to improve somewhat the prices.

There are underlying reason related to the introduction of the CBAM, the scarcity or the less availability of CO2 allowances, which also translate into a higher cost. So there are -- there's probably more room than in the U.S.

on the pricing side to be a favorable variance. Central Europe, we should see some rebound.

We are forecasting some rebound in Germany. The federal infrastructure plan should start -- will start to have some impact also on cement demand.

We are coming from a year where the prices, as we were commenting before, remain fairly weak. So there is -- there should be a possibility also couple being within, let's say, the ETS system similarly to the -- to Italy, there should be a possibility to recover something on the pricing side.

Clearly, this means also additional cost for CO2, but more chances, let's say, to gain something on the price level. Eastern Europe, with the exception of Russia, which is probably entering a much more difficult phase than what we faced in the last 2, 3 years.

We don't see a reason why Poland and Czechia should be worse than the previous year. These are also countries where as opposed to Germany, Italy, we are operating at a very high capacity utilization level.

And so we are definitely optimizing, I would say, our profitability, thanks to the capacity utilization, which is -- we think they have to stay. In Brazil, we mentioned it already, we see a positive trend overall, particularly in the Northeast, which has been growing in terms of volume and prices more than the Southeast.

But if there is an easing of the monetary policy, which today represents significant constraints for the construction investment with interest rates at 15% or 16% the number of projects that are -- that have been on hold so far should start. And clearly, this has even more impact in the Southeast where most of the consumption and the population actually are because this is where the bulk, let's say, the cement consumption of the country is located.

In the Emirates, we will certainly suffer from lower cement consumption until at least -- we will see until something different happens. But that's the country with more direct impact coming from the local, let's say, turmoil or conflicts going on.

But on the other hand, we are -- we have a number of initiatives of projects that are -- that have been put in place last year and will continue this year to improve the profitability. So even with the lower cement volume, we may be able to do something better in terms of EBITDA.

Mexico craze not affecting directly our numbers. But we are seeing -- we're, let's say, more positive versus last year in terms of volume trend and profitability should remain at a very, very high level.

This is for the, let's say, the top line and the volume prices scenario. The risk or the, let's call it, the uncertainties are definitely more related to the cost side, where it is true that many components or many items are -- have been contracted for a certain number of months.

So we have certainly some stability for a good part of the year. But it is clear that on the energy cost, in particular, the current situation is creating an environment of rising cost driven by renewed inflation like we mentioned here.

So there is volatility, but volatility mainly on the high side in a sense of more expensive side. This is difficult to, let's say, assess completely right now.

We ran some number, taking, of course, kind of sensitivity analysis. And there is certainly an impact that we don't know if we will be able to offset with the price improvement or not.

It will mainly depend on the specific situation, demand, pricing demand, let's say, competitive environment, what is the attitude of the competitors, et cetera. So the idea is, of course, to try our best to preserve the margins.

But how much we will be able to do that and how much actually the cost environment will be unfavorable is difficult to assess. In general, we do see a significant risk of rising cost, in particular, the energy component in the coming months.

The FX foreign exchange is very difficult to somehow forecast. Initially, in our budget, we introduced an exchange rate for the dollar, which was definitely weaker than the 2025 average.

Is this going to be true? It's not going to be true.

We don't know. So far, again, not as much as we forecasted, but this could change in the coming months and can certainly move, let's say, the variance from positive to negative if the dollar will weaken more than what we expected or more than what is showing up to now.

So overall, again, reviewing our numbers, reviewing our budget in a quick way, we think that it will be quite difficult or actually as of now impossible to achieve an EBITDA greater than in 2025. So our view right now is to as we wrote, let's say, marginally decline by how much is difficult to tell right now.

But I think the message, which is important to give today is that looking at all the variables, looking at all the available information as of now, it is -- this is the best, let's say, forecast that we can make, and we think that is a correct one, which means that, okay, there our profitability will not improve in 2025. But if it is a marginal decline like we expect, will remain anyway at a very good level.

And we would be happy, of course, to change this view as soon as possible. And -- but this, realistically speaking, is likely to occur if it does occur only after more months of actual results available.

So with, say, 1 quarter or maybe let's call it, 6 months behind us, we will have definitely a clearer view on the full outlook. But I think it's important to give this message today, which has been, I mean, analyzed in a very deep and serious way with, again, running several sensitivity analysis that are giving us this kind of outcome at least at the current stage.

So I think I spoke for almost 1 hour. So probably -- in order not to be tedious and to make the conference a little more interactive, I would let you read the following pages by yourself and open now, let's say, the Q&A session.

Thank you for listening.

I've had 3, please. My first one was on CapEx.

I know in the release, you spoke to an increase planned in 2026 versus '25 and some of the buckets in terms of decarbonization and production. Would you be able to talk to what kind of quantum you expect for 2026 CapEx and then in terms of the medium-term CapEx expectations as well?

And then the second would just be on the guidance assumptions and very much understand how uncertain the backdrop is currently and very helpful to kind of talk through some of those impacts. But if we look at that moderate decline or slight decline in EBITDA expected, is it right to assume that there's limited energy impacts so far in that number?

Or I guess, what kind of pressure do you see embedded within that forecast? And then finally, would just be another quick one on energy.

When would you expect to see, I guess, pressure come through the cost base? Is it more of a second half story at the moment?

Yes. I mean the last 2 questions are, I think, related.

And the answer, yes, is that definitely, we have -- as usual, I mean, we have in front of us about I mean, starting from January more than today because already 3 months past, but usually 5, 6 months of fairly stable energy cost or at least as we budgeted because of, let's call it, hedging policies, which is different from one country to another. So -- but if you look at the mix or the weighted average, in general, we have 40%, 50% more or less of our cost already hedged for electrical power or fuel.

So yes, the trend if it changes, which I think it will change, unfortunately, will be more evident in the second half. By how much, it depends because we have, for example, also countries in Europe, typically Germany and in Europe, the debate about power cost is really significant.

I mean there's a lot of political pressure on power cost being too high to reduce even talking about how to amend the ETS. Tomorrow [indiscernible] will speak about that.

Let's see what he say. But -- so specifically in Europe, the big countries like Italy and Germany, we don't see a big risk on power cost.

The [ famous ] also energy release has been approved. So there, we should be okay.

On fuel cost is different, of course, also even if our share of so-called waste-derived fuel is increasing gradually, we are still strongly dependent on pet coke. So let's say, a price which is somehow linked or index to the -- to some extent, certainly to the oil price.

So there, easily, you could see an increase of, I don't know, 20% or so. And unfortunately, this is well possible.

It will impact only partially, as I said before, the full year results, let's say, 6 months, but it's well possible. On the CapEx, our trend, I think -- I mean, we are always very kind of ambitious.

We are approving the budget. And then as I was explaining before, some of the biggest projects are actually taking longer to be executed to come to the execution phase.

Engineering is more complex versus the initial -- I mean, at the time of the initial approval. So if you want to take an average of the next 2, 3 years, I would move it to between -- I mean, to be -- except for -- I mean, just the industrial CapEx, then there will be other kind of equity investments or M&A transaction is different.

But I would move it to between 500 and 550 is probably a number that considering the major projects that we have underway, including some expansion projects is likely to be the right one.

So maybe you could talk to us a bit on the price action that you're taking in Europe to start with to offset indeed the increasing inflationary environment. You talked about your hedging strategy.

Are you pushing prices a bit more? Are you seeing the industry pushing prices and where are we at, at the moment in terms of price increases in Europe?

And same question for the U.S. You talked about better demand year-to-date.

So how do you see scope for price increases? I guess April will be the big start in the U.S.

And then I had a clarification on your buyback plan. You did EUR 200 million very recently, I think.

And now you announced another EUR 300 million plan. Is that the correct way to understand it?

You can do another EUR 300 million from here? Okay.

I'll stop here.

Yes. On the buyback, in theory, well, first of all, we have to complete the -- undergo, let's say, EUR 200 million.

And then the idea is to renew, let's say, the authority to ask for a renewal, to ask the AGM a renewal for the authorization to authorize an additional EUR 300 million. This EUR 300 million still will -- I mean it doesn't mean that we will necessarily, let's say.

exercise the authorization. This is a preliminary authorization, which is given by the AGM, and then the Board will have to decide whether to actually start the program or not.

What I think is likely to -- I mean this is unless, again, the market changes completely, but I think we will complete the undergoing EUR 200 million. And then we will have an opportunity or a possibility for another, let's say, EUR 300 million in the 18 months, -- is lasting, let's say, 18 months after the AGM resolution or authorization.

On the price section, well, there are some countries, I would say, in Europe, mainly which are also -- the biggest one Italy and Germany. The winter has been difficult in Europe.

In general, what we saw and what you also will see when we release our, let's say quarterly summary. There's been cold rain.

So particularly January and February was not a good time, let's say, to go for a price increase and March is better. And also the weather has been improving.

And of course, January and February are not big shipment months anyway. So the attempt in Europe to increase prices is driven yes, mainly by the cost trend, which includes an additional cost for CO2 like we mentioned in the beginning, probably an additional cost associated with the CBAM, let's call it, also a decline of allowances because you have the 2 components.

And yes, more, let's say, today than yesterday, of cost pressure on the energy side, mainly fuel, as I said before, than power. The magnitude, I think, it's moderate.

We have to make sure, let's say that we will not be, let's say, losing volume or market share, either against the import or local competitors. But I think there is at least in these 2 important countries in Europe, there is a chance to a price improvement and being able to offset the additional costs like we were commenting before, let's say, on the -- on our policies to at least keep the margins.

In the U.S., very differentiated from area to area. There are -- okay, we don't have the ETS, but we have other issues that are associated with the, first of all, okay, the imports where they are strong.

That continue to be, let's say, have a very competitive approach in terms of pricing. Second, the industry structure has changed quite significantly.

As you know, in particular, I think, the growth, the presence of QUIKRETE as a cement player has changed the picture quite a bit. Also QUIKRETE being major customer of cement from us but also from other competitors.

And the fact that the declining, let's say, capacity utilization is clearly for them, let's say, an opportunity to self-supply cement to their, let's say, mixing operation as much as possible. It has to be obviously, economically feasible.

So if they are too far away from one of their plants, they will continue to buy from another competitor. But if they can, they will obviously buy from themselves.

And this is something that is putting pressure because if you lose volume, you have to look for volumes somewhere else, to look for volume somewhere else maybe -- I mean, pricing is a tool. And this is one of the changes we have to -- which again is very regional, but can have a significant impact.

Another point which we also briefly mentioned in the press release is the product mix. There was an effort 2, 3 years ago, particularly by the European player in the U.S.

to move as quickly as possible to the so-called 1L product. So with a lower clinker content for limestone, which is actually a very good product, but more capacity available and again, players in the market that don't have maybe European parent, like, again, QUIKRETE, their interest in developing or in pushing 1L is much less.

And this is also translating into a competitive pressure, which is different from the past where you compete not only on pricing, et cetera, but you compete also on the kind of product that you're selling. So again, a mixed environment.

Anyway, if the demand stays, I think that maybe not everywhere, but some price improvement we can get also in the U.S. And then we will see how much the cost pressure -- how much cost pressure there will be on the margins.

But it's a complex -- it's a more complex landscape than 2, 3 years ago certainly.

I have 3 questions. Well, the first one is on Germany.

Can you just discuss a little bit more on your expectation for the German market in 2026. You mentioned a gradual recovery supported also by the infra spending plan.

When do you expect the first contribution from it to kick in? The second one is on the capital allocation, very clear on the buyback.

I was looking at, let's say, the M&A, can you just update us on your M&A strategy at this stage and the opportunities that you see in the current environment? And the last one is a clarification on the guidance.

I probably missed it. But on which euro-dollar exchange rate is based your current guidance?

Okay. We are at [ 120 ] right now as an average for 2026 versus [ 114 ] -- was [ 113 ] approximately in '25.

So this of course, can be -- as I said before, can be better. If we look at the trend so far is better.

Will it last? I don't know, anyway.

M&A, yes, is the focus. I mean it is a focus in a sense that our idea is to be, of course, continue with a stronger financial discipline and consider only, let's say, targets that are -- can represent a real opportunity, not only on a strategic view, but also on the financial, let's call it soundness of the overall proposal.

I think that today, but also before, it really hasn't changed much. The focus remains countries where we already are.

So the opportunities -- if there are opportunities where we already have a presence, certainly they are -- we give them much more investigation, but much more, let's call it, focus than versus opening totally new country or venture with someone else. I say something that is publicly known publicly available, certainly in Brazil recently there have been movement announcement, CSN is announcing -- more than announcing, I think, it started actually a sales process of its cement division.

And is it -- is this a real opportunity or not for us? Difficult to tell.

I mean, we have to -- but certainly, again, looking at the main strategy, which is reinforced in a disciplined way. The presence where we already are, it could represent, let's say, an opportunity.

It has to be investigated. I mean the process is at the beginning.

So we need to understand a little better. But generally speaking, this kind of, let's call it, opportunities are more interesting than others.

And basically, that's it. In Germany, it's not totally clear how much of the, let's call it, public infrastructure plan will translate into a greater consumption already this year.

We think that something will show -- is starting to show, will start to be available. In terms of quantities, let's say, of cement coming from these kind of projects.

It's difficult to tell, but maybe I don't know. I don't have -- I don't want to spend a clear number without support.

But what we are seeing that, yes, there is a rebound due to the normal, let's call it, cyclicality. The fact that after 2, 3 years of declining consumption, it is rebounding.

There is more, I think, also optimism let's call it, confidence within the country after the change of government. And there is a potential, but more than potential consumption coming from the infrastructure plan.

So what we can do maybe is to look at -- again come back with some figure with you looking at -- because last year, the association was giving some information of some -- was somehow trying to assess the overall impact, but was more on a longer time horizon. So in the next, let's say, 5, 6 years.

Maybe there are more recent, let's say, population assessment of what could be or what will be -- what can be, let's say, the impact already in 2026. But I think certainly, there is some.

So I have 3 questions, please. Firstly, on CO2.

Do you have an idea how much reduction in free CO2 allowance you will get for '26 relative to '25, that's my first question. The second -- yes, go for it.

No, no. Let's take...

So the other one is, I think you're announcing a stable dividend for 2025, even though your net cash position is above EUR 1 billion, it seems very comfortable. So maybe we could have hoped for a little bit of growth in the dividend.

And lastly, on your assets in Russia, we've seen some competitors in different sectors are seeing their assets being seized. Do you think that's a risk for Buzzi as well?

Well, it is a risk. It's probably the largest or the greatest or the biggest risk that we have also in our, if you call, enterprise risk management tool.

The probability, extremely difficult to tell. I think -- because this thing really depends on one person now.

He wakes up on a certain morning, and if you ask me, I don't see it very likely. I believe that we can continue this way, which is not great because, unfortunately, we are not able to manage the way we would like.

But to see really political attack of this kind, in my opinion is unlikely. Anyway, the risk is certainly there.

And it's, I think, yes, the biggest risk we have currently in our system, in our -- the second question, tell me again was...

So the other 2 were how much reduction in free CO2 allowances and why a stable dividend?

Okay. Reduction is about 1 million less for the group, 1 million tons less.

And I think we estimate to be in deficit, certainly in Poland and, I think, in Czechia too. And in Germany, I don't recall if we will be in a deficit also, yes.

Yes. In Italy, probably slightly deficit, but not as important.

And I think we will continue with our internal let's call it, guideline, which is to use the bank or the inventory of free CO2 allowances in the countries where they were coming from. So meaning in Italy, we will continue to use them and in the other country, also the way of somehow hedging the cost by CO2 rights to the extent needed.

But we are also able to secure some already at the beginning of this year when the prices went down. So I think we should have a yes, of course, a cost -- additional cost versus last year, but probably a per ton cost, which is still, let's say, favorable.

On the stable -- the idea behind a stable dividend was quite simple. Our net income is the same of last year.

It is true that our payout is not that great, and there would be room for improvement. I think there is room also in the coming year is basically -- is basically -- and overall, to let's say, examine and to consider the overall shareholder remuneration.

So it is true that on one side, we did not increase the dividend. But we do have the undergoing buyback, which makes the overall -- okay, maybe not for everyone because it depends if you're selling your shares or you're keeping your shares.

But in general, I think the buyback is beneficial to everyone. And also the decision to cancel the share will adjust at least in -- finally, in a definite way the EPS with an improvement there, which should translate sooner or later, providing, let's say, that the markets are also becoming a little less volatile and improvement in the share price.

So we thought that this would be a balanced decision. And also looking at the coming year, where our outlook is not for an improvement.

It seems to us that to keep the dividend, which is, yes, same as last year was a balanced decision.

I would have 3 questions. First, a question on pricing.

I think in Germany and Italy, some of your competitors have announced price increase of 5% to 10% as soon as April. Have you seen price increase later -- in the U.S., I think it was outside of Texas.

You had also price increase of like, I think, between $8 and $12 per ton sent by many of the largest players to ready-mixed concrete producer. Again, have you announced similar price increase?

Then I would have a second question beyond the price development. On your vertical integration strategy in the U.S.

I think that a lot of your competitors are vertically integrated. And you can see -- I understand from your comment that the lack of vertical integration, for example, versus QUIKRETE has been an issue.

Is it something that you could consider addressing in the next 5 to 10 years with potentially more acquisition in aggregate of ready mix? And the last question would be on Russia.

Could you give us the amount of cash which is currently in Russia when we're looking at your net debt position?

Okay. Russia, I will check it and let you know quickly.

In the U.S. as well, we are not totally, let's call -- let's say, without it, in some area, actually, our vertical integration in Texas and San Antonio, Houston, Austin, et cetera is quite significant.

We don't have a presence in the aggregates. I mean, this is true.

We have some aggregate production, but not -- never, never considered a business in itself and always somehow related to our ready mix activity. So as a way to supply our own ready mix activity.

This will become more significant in the coming years. I would say yes.

I think initially, at least more oriented towards ready-mix than aggregates because is the most important in terms of keeping your production levels steady, again, not losing customers or avoid losing customers. So it can be seen more, I would say, as a defensive move than strategy, devoted to additional vertical integration in a market which is -- has been shrinking, let's say, in a way or another in a market that's changed like we mentioned before and also changed in terms of big ready-mix producers that are importing cement for their own supply.

The number -- I mean, the risk of losing customers and not being able to replace it with another customer, particularly in the ready-mix environment is great. So it can certainly make sense to add the vertical integration, as I said, more as a defensive move than something else.

But it is a defensive move that will allow you to keep your volumes and also to keep your -- again, to keep your margins. On the pricing environment, I think, we moved that, but not by the same percentages there.

I think the percentages are mentioned, where the price increase announced. Not the price increase that are expected to be realized.

I suspect that the message, I think, of the larger -- of some of the large cement players in the U.S. would be that a low single-digit price increase being expected which I suspect means like maybe half for the price increase...

Yes, probably this is, again, not everywhere, but probably this is the most likely outcome, usually. You have protection, you have anyway, as I said, many players that are behaving maybe not exactly as the big ones that are particularly in this moment where the output is not going up.

So clearly, looking very much to their capacity utilization than versus just even if economically speaking, it could make more sense sometimes to lower your production and increase prices in the long run. This is not necessarily a good move because if you lose a customer and you're not able to recover it in the long run, this will translate into lower profitability, too.

So yes.

And another question was, have you sent a price increase letter for April in the U.S., Germany and Italy?

In the -- so-called price increase letter is more a technique of -- more common in the U.S. than in Italy or Germany.

In Italy and also in Germany is more case-by-case, customer-by- customer, let's call it, discussion or any way proposition. So...

If we look at -- if you look at your own vertical integration into concrete in Germany and Italy, are you increasing prices in April substantially to offset the higher fuel costs that you're expecting and the CO2 alone?

Is not yet the higher fuel cost. It was more, let's call it, decision taken already at the beginning of the year.

And yes, we have price improvement in place, which I don't think will be the magnitude that you were mentioning, right. Like I mean, for the reason that you were mentioning.

But yes, we think it's likely to stick also because again, more recently, people are feeling pressure also on other cost factors. So it's more -- it's easier, let's say, to accept also an increase of the cement price if there is a general inflation rebound.

And maybe following on this situation. I think like the importer in Europe, especially in Italy, they will probably have to pay a CBAM cost, but it's a bit unclear they don't know.

I think what kind of cost they will have to pay because the benchmark is not public. What do you feel?

Do you feel that the independent importer are being a little bit careful because they might have EUR 10, EUR 15 extra cost, but they are not yet increasing prices?

No, I think they've been already increasing in general. It is like you're saying, it's not totally clear what will be the -- it depends actually on their CO2 content.

And yes, each importer can have a different impact according to the kind of product that is bringing in. But yes, I think everyone is considering just maybe as a conservative move to make sure that they are not losing, let's say, versus the previous price.

So that they will be able somehow to offset the additional CO2 cost associated with the CBAM scheme.

And on the pricing as well, I think, on one side, you've got the imports that are making it difficult to increase prices. But at the same time, I guess, the cost of importing is probably increasing a lot with the oil price making shipping more expensive?

Is it something that could be helpful for you to either increase prices or get back the market share that you lost versus especially the big bag imports?

Yes, yes. It is a chance.

The -- anything that makes the import more expensive will allow, let's say, or will help, let's say, domestic supply to be more and more competitive, certainly. Yes, it is a chance.

On the other side, on Texas, you've got a new cement plant. I think it's the first time there is a cement plant in Texas for many, many years in West Texas.

It looks like it's 10% of the Texas capacity, so it's a lot. And the -- it looks like they're going to -- it looks like the cement plant could be -- I guess, do you see a risk for your market share in West Texas?

I think where there is a lot of oil well cement. Do you see a risk as well in your market share in the Dallas Fort Worth area where I guess that if they want to ramp up, they will have to sell to Dallas and Fort Worth.

Is there a risk for sure?

Of course, there will be more competition, particularly on the oil well. On the other hand, it is true that GCC was already preparing, let's say, the commissioning of the plant by importing cement from Mexico in the area.

So it's not totally new. I mean, of course, they have more capacity locally, so they are more competitive, and they can be more aggressive, but they were anyway preparing the commissioning already before.

And on the oil well, yes, at the end, the oil well is really a matter of what is the oil price. So if the oil price stays or goes up, I think, yes, okay.

There can be more comments. I think this kind of customer is a little different.

I mean, being really special products with a very strong significant quality requirements, consistency must be difficult -- it's much more difficult for a customer of oil well to change supplier versus the normal ready-mix customers. So there must be -- okay, there is a huge pricing difference they will consider it, but then they have to test it.

I mean they have to go through their quality department is quite complex. So -- and again, the demand is driven purely from the cost -- from the price -- oil price.

Okay. Is it fair to assume that in the U.S.

in your forecast, you've assumed maybe a bit of a price increase in land, but no price increase in Texas at this stage?

Correct.

Maybe on Russia, on Russia, you don't have the number on even approximately the amount of cash that you have in Russia?

EUR 150 million.

A few questions, if I may, as -- so the first one is on you made a comment on a very significant margin expansion. Clearly, volume were up, let's say, low single-digit prices, let's say, not slightly up.

So the game changer not to stay in this, let's call it, new level, very good level. So you -- it was the work you did on the cost side.

And the real mission of the market is I don't know, to be structurally above 30%. So just to understand that clearly, I understood your comment on we need, let's say, more, how can I say, disciplined competitive landscape and for the CSN deal could help on this.

So just your thoughts on this because clearly, the margin expansion, especially in the second half was very, very good operationally.

Yes, yes. It was driven, yes, by -- well volumes were good, let's say.

So capacity utilization is some plant is really pro capacity, which is giving the best operating leverage. So this is always -- the energy -- power cost, in particular, we save some.

We are also becoming in a sense, indirectly, but let's say, producer of renewable energy. We have now an investment into a renewable energy company, which is allowing us to enjoy, let's say, better -- lower, let's say, power cost.

And pricing, not a great change. I mean you don't see such a significant improvement.

But there are some improvements in prices. Also again, because the market is quite brilliant, let's say.

And yes, CSN could be an opportunity besides -- I mean, whoever buys it, will buy anyway, we'll have to invest a significant amount of money because -- okay, relatively speaking can be cheap or expensive. It depends on how much we want to take.

But in absolute term, is any way sizable company. So -- and yes, CSN has been certainly more aggressive, let's say, than other competitors on prices, particularly in the Southeast region.

So we hope that this could translate into a more disciplined competitive environment that is certainly a chance, let's say.

Comment on pricing strategy discussion client by client in some countries. So is there at least with some clients in some countries, some kind of indexing with, let's say, CO2 price and so on?

Because we saw the decline in CO2 price recently. So just to understand if there is or not.

No, there's not. It would be too dangerous in our -- I mean someone definitely did it in the past, but it's very dangerous.

I think in our opinion, will not be the right commercial marketing strategy.

Okay. Because there are different opinions on that.

And on the CapEx side, the question is, first of all, you mentioned this run rate for the next 2, 3 years with EUR 500 million, EUR 550 million per year CapEx. Does this include the, let's say, U.S.

expansion project you had in mind?

Yes. Yes.

Correct.

And which is...

I mean, which will start, but we'll start at a slow pace, let's say. But it will start, yes.

Okay. Okay.

And secondly, in theory, we should have, let's say, a second round of grants, let's say, in Europe also for, let's say, some innovative carbon capture projects. Is it something that you're still monitoring?

Do you believe that maybe you can take, I don't know, a decision on developing at least one single project for this technology? Or let's say, the approach is to be extremely, let's say, conservative and maybe waiting a little bit for technology getting more mature?

Monitoring, yes. Lorenzo, you want to add something?

No, I mean, again, monitoring for sure and -- but let's say, at the same time, we need probably more clarity on the regulation and also on the criteria that will be, let's say, considered by the commission when it comes to the evaluation of the project.

Let's see if there is -- what happens on the ETS side, I say tomorrow, but not tomorrow, I mean the so-called revised ETS by June, I know it's, if I recall correctly, let's see what happens there. Because still, we believe that the cost benefit of a carbon capture project is unjustifiable, let's say, today.

So what you are focused much -- is -- and also to -- okay, if you build a totally new plant, but again, cost benefit very difficult to justify, it can make sense. I mean you build a totally new plant.

You introduce also the carbon capture installation. But to add the carbon capture installation to an existing plant, which dates to maybe the 70s or the 80s, they are not bad, but let's say there's plenty of room for improvement in energy consumption and also fuel consumption before carbon capture installation.

So we are a little bit shifting our focus on projects in countries like Poland or Deuna. Deuna, where we put on all the carbon capture projects to something that will reduce, let's say, maybe CO2 emission by 20%, 25% and modernize the plant.

So being ready to possibly at a later time, which I think it will be inevitable because the deadline that are set today are realistic at a later time to introduce a carbon capture on a plant, which has already been optimized, instead of doing it on a plant, which is again 30 -- 40 years old.

And maybe if I may add, with a return -- I mean, return on investment definitely much more interesting than a single installation, carbon capture installation with, let's say, a business plan, which is at the moment and with the current situation is not really flying.

It's a better way to lower CO2 emissions for sure.

Okay. Okay.

Just if I may, sorry, you mentioned that the financial, let's say, income was not pretty high this year. Can you help us to quantify, sorry, the FX gain component in that number?

Yes. Well, one item, which is included into that figure is also the bad will of the UAE acquisition, which is EUR 44 million positive.

If you look at the fewer net interest expense and net interest income in this case, we have EUR 60 million and last year, it was EUR 55 million -- EUR 60 million, yes. Last year it was EUR 55 million.

So it is EUR 5 million up. This is the cash portion.

The noncash portion, the 2 big items are [ 75 ] of ForEx, so nonmonetary. And -- well, I don't know if it nonmonetary, the bad will because we paid anyway.

So -- but we paid less than the equity -- book equity. And so we have [ 44 ] positive that we are also inside the same line item.

Okay. Good.

Thanks, everyone, for listening. I don't know how many are still listening.

But anyway, I hope it was somehow helpful. And we stay in touch, of course, with our Investor Relations team and looking forward to meet you personally in the coming months.

Thank you.