Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our conference call, and yeah, 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. I will mainly refer to the to that into and to the pages.

Starting from the from the first page, we have a brief summary of what has been 2025 for for Buzzi. Overall, a good year, although not as good as the two last one, with some some decline in profitability, but still showing let's say very strong results and and very significant cash flow generation.

As you can see from here, we had a slight improvement in our 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. The overall impact again of the forex and the scope changes was was favorable.

EBITDA margin, we are losing some profitability, which is mainly due to the to the fact that the additions let's say to the perimeter to the scope at least initially for the first years they are coming in coming in with an average profitability which is below the one of the let's call it traditional scope perimeter, and and to the fact that one of the or the strongest country for us, US, 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 the dividend unchanged versus last year, but and we will comment it later, the shareholders remuneration in 2026 is anyway going up significantly thanks to the buyback program program which is which is underway.

As you can see on the following page, let's say page two, the one one of one of the key feature let's say of 2025 was was the the scope changes, which included an asset swap if if you wish, which which occurred in Italy in Italy and its bordering country, in particularly Austria, where we sold let's say the the Fanna plant in the northwest. Fanna Fanna is in is in the Pordenone province for those that are a little more acquainted with the Italian geography.

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

It includes one 1.5, let's say, plant in Austria, which is quite quite strong let's say locally, the Slovenian plant where we have already or we used to have already presence since some year, which is a very strong plant just on the other side of the of the Italian border, and some Italian assets that now includes also the Fanna the Fanna plant. Quite a quite a strong and integrated group in the northeast of Italy.

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

Then through the OPA, the ownership was increased, and later on December and and also something more will follow during this year, we achieved a gradual a gradual improvement in our ownership, which at the end of the year is around 60 66%. Indirectly it's a little less because we we participate to this investment together with with a with a partner in a in a specific entity called Wicemina Holding where we Buzzi has 90% and the partner has has 10%.

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

Italy had a fairly good year, let's say, if we if we do not consider, excluding the scope impact, actually our our volume and and pricing, volume remained basically the same, prices prices slightly slightly better. 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 the to Italy.

Central Europe was kind of mixed, there was a recovery in volume, but prices suffer mainly in Germany. This translated into into a let's say an an offset of of the progress that we achieved in in in the volume in in our cement, let's say, shipments.

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

This was the first year without Ukraine included in the in the scope of consolidation. The remaining countries overall performed well, in particularly Poland and Czech Republic, and we did have also some benefits from the strengthen strengthening of the of the local currencies, both złoty, Czech koruna, and also the ruble in in in Russia.

US was, in a sense, the worst performer also due to the to to the size. Every every time that something, let's say, negative happens to US, in our in our case, the impact on the on the on our figures, on our numbers is inevitably more significant.

What happened in in the US? We had a We had a minor, let's say, decline in volumes, more in in ready-mix actually than than in cement.

Pricing fairly stable, no but no improvements. If we 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 in Texas, and the overall results result was a little negative. The dollar lost some of its its value, affecting affecting the the the translation, €70 million €70 million negative on our on our net sales figure.

Brazil is coming in for the full year for the first time, the comparison of the first two bars refers to the to the last quarter of 2024. The impact is, I would say, overall positive, with the exception of some of some unfavorable variances coming from from the forex, and is bringing in additionally, let's say, €265 million of of turnover.

Same same reasoning more or less for the UAE, which is smaller in terms of turnover, and is also including include has been included starting from from May, about about six, seven months. This brings us to the €4.5 billion approximately level, up to €4.3 billion of of last year that you see in the in in the bar at the at at the right top, not not top, right side of the of the of the slide.

Then if we move to the to the main let's call it operating figure for for the for the for the result, which is the which is the EBITDA, what what you can see from from here is again, fairly simple, if you wish. Volumes, good good trend, a a favorable variance of about €44 €44 million, but a number of let's call it negative items or unfavorable items associated first of all with the with with the pricing environment, which was overall slightly negative besides what happened in the US, but particularly I would say in Germany.

Germany and the US were the two countries where where we suffer, actually Germany more than the US, we suffered the most in terms of pricing trend. Variable cost, not so much coming from from energy, fuel or electrical power.

It was more related to raw material and other variable cost, for example, logistic ones. Fixed cost typically labor, maintenance were also going up, difficult to to fully, let's say, control versus the the volume and and and price trend.

Other mixed cost also showing an unfavorable 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 country we basically remain in line with the with the free allowances received, with with a few exceptions.

A minor, let's call it, negative variance versus the previous year. FX overall negative, mainly in the US.

Then scope changes that refer to Okay, on the positive side, Brazil and Emirates. On the negative, the Ukraine.

Rebalancing somehow the negative impact that you see on the on the center of the slide by 61 by €61 million. Overall, the decline is what we mentioned at the beginning, and this is the in brief, let's say, the the explanation, then more explanation can be given of course country by country or region by region where things did not behave, let's say, or or happen in a in a consistent way.

We had of course some regions more affected by cost, some regions more affected by prices, etc. In In the following pages, cash generation and and capital allocation, you can see that practically cash flow, as I was mentioning at the beginning, remained very very close to last year besides besides the EBITDA decline.

CapEx, industrial, slightly lower than than last year. Not not really because of a of our decision to decrease them.

Was was actually somehow related to the to the execution phase, which on more complex projects usually takes longer than than you you might budget or when you're when you let's say translating the design in the engineering phase into implementation and execution usually takes takes longer. Remuneration of the shareholder was quite quite good, I would say.

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

We will see, of course, it depends on the on the liquidity of the shares on 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 maybe even maybe even earlier. We will see.

It's it's well well well advanced and likely to be to be completed in maybe two more two more months. There is also a proposal proposed resolution taken today by the by the board of directors to to cancel the shares that will be in in portfolio, let's say, in treasury at the time of the of the AGM.

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 been bought currently will be will be will be canceled, which is also, I think, overall a positive news for the for the shareholders. Just to give a little more colors on the different geographic areas, we move to page seven.

The US are always, let's say, a very strong contributor to our results, but last year they 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 US.

The trend was slightly negative. We faced difficult volumes part of the year, then in the second part there was a a recovery, but not not full, we were unable, let's say, to close with a with a favorable volume trend, minus 2.2%, I think, very similar to the to the overall market trend.

Ready-mix volume suffered like we were more a little bit more in terms of shipments, deliveries, and also and also pricing. Ready-mix, as as you recall, they are in our case, they're mainly in the Texas area, which was one of the yeah, 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 along the coast from Houston to Corpus Christi, etc.

We have a structure in the US, a cost structure which is, compared to our countries, skewed in a sense of more more significant weight of the of the fixed cost. When you lose also slightly volumes, this has an immediate impact on our on our profitability, which was the main the main case.

Cost not really going down. Volumes going down a bit.

Pricing not not moving or more, let's say, moving unfavorable than than the opposite, and this was the 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 €26 million, not not not a small amount.

Moving to Italy, which is the following page, more favorable situation. Support, as I was mentioning before, mainly from the PNRR programs, public building and infrastructure project, which also are typically enjoy a greater cement intensity versus either residential or residential renovation.

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 was has been able to increase volume by around 6%.

Pricing performance was okay, some improvements, and our our cost, both fuel and power, were definitely under under control. We did not suffer any significant, let's call it, inflation, energy inflation during 2025.

The changes in scope on the EBITDA means 13. 14, let's say, about €14 million of of impact, which is not very different from what we see in the in the EBITDA variance.

Actually we are showing a plus 3.5% like-for-like, the it was fully offset by the good trend or the stable trend in volume and favorable trend in in in pricing. In Central Europe, which means for us basically mostly Germany, plus plus Luxembourg, and and ready-mix operation in the in the Netherlands, quite a different quite a different trend if we look at Germany versus versus Benelux.

Fortunately, Germany has a much greater weight on the area, because the performance of of Luxembourg was, and the Netherlands, was growing, was was okay, was improving. Meanwhile, Germany did improve some, 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 enter 2025, the exit price, let's say, of 2024 was already lower, and we were unable to to to recover or to change it significantly or just slightly to 2020 in '25. This was the the major impact on the I mean the major reason for the EBITDA decline, together with a cost situation, a cost environment which was not favorable or quite different from what we experienced in Italy, mainly on the We suffered 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 in advance, to to to cover the the the purchases for 2025, which at the end was not, if you wish, successful in a sense, maybe it was a was a bad timing, but of course I mean the reasoning behind behind hedging is not to to to pick the right the right timing. Just in this year, in 2026, we will see a totally different trend because because the the market conditions have changed in the meantime.

The change the the favorable change in Benelux was was was able to help somehow the region, but but Germany clearly is is weighing weighing significantly on this on this specific portion of of the business, and the the performance in terms of EBITDA certainly was was not was poor overall. There are reasons behind it which explains it, but but was overall quite quite poor.

In Eastern Europe, on the following page, we are, I think, continue to be on a on a steady steady, let's say, profitability outcome. Of course, these businesses are not as as big and as significant, their contribution, let's say, to the overall profitability of of of the company is is not as significant as Germany or US.

The good news is that there is a there is a positive momentum both in Poland and in Czech Republic, which should also continue in the coming year. Strong cement volume dynamics in Poland was was clearly I mean was was quite meaningful.

Czechia, it's smaller, but also stable. Our ready-mix our ready-mix business in Czechia perform very well.

We lost cement volumes in 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 to feel more, let's say, the pain than in the in the previous year.

Also probably in Russia, the prospects for the next year are also quite difficult or more difficult definitely than in other Eastern European countries. Ukraine is not part of of the of the region anymore, but its contribution was not was not very significant anyway.

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 minor, let's say, contribution, but anyway favorable contribution.

The impact of the the impact of the deconsolidation of Ukraine was, I would say, totally absorbed. Also the negative the negative contribution from Russia was totally absorbed by the strong performance of Poland and Czech Republic.

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

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

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

As a 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 the also the industry trend will go in a certain direction, which is which is possible.

The only the only negative factor, the only negative is is the is the exchange rate trend, but not so not so impactful, not not so dramatic on our on our on on the overall figure, with minus €5 million on net sales and minus €1.5 million on on EBITDA. 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're seeing lately is actually a more stable a more stable real versus the euro since the beginning of 2026.

If the local currency, if the trend in local currency will perform better, which is what we expect, also in euro we should have we should have it should be reflected, also in euro terms in likely absence of negative effects impact in the coming in in the current year. Mexico is not part, as 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 results contributed to the to the mother company.

The Mexican performance was mixed, but overall still still very good. We suffer a bit on the turnover and on the EBITDA in euro terms, but when we when we clean up, let's say, from the from the forex foreign exchange impact, actually both figures were better than than last year.

This is one of the few countries, together together with the Eastern European countries, Poland and Czechia, that is was able to achieve an improvement in in the EBITDA margin, which is already very very high, as you can see. I would say that we cannot 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 the from this country. Some comments on how we we see 2026, also in the light of what has happened so far, and and also recent change in the macroeconomic environment.

We are or we were, let's say, but we still are pretty confident that we can continue to perform fairly well during 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 US and and Brazil, but anyway. By by major, let's say, regions, like we like we we showed before, US, the expectation are for The association is, let's say, forecasting some additional decline in in demand, probably in the range of 2%, 3%, something similar to what happened in the previous year.

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. This is something that clearly is is is not not, let's say, helping the the overall pricing environment because there's in most of of the of the regions of the states some 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 quite high in the in the area.

On the other hand, we have seen also the beginning of the year particularly during the month of February, demand quite quite resilient. It's true that on one side you have residential weakening, but there are definitely in the non-residential portion of the demand or yes, some some some kind of project that are that are going that are going well, that that require cement and concrete, typically just to mention one, which is of course very much on the on fashionable, the the data centers construction.

This is actually happening, it's happening and and is relatively intense in terms of cement consumption. Again, a mixed a mixed environment with the with the non-residential segment, and also the infrastructure probably supportive and and maybe maybe even better than than what the association has been forecasting for the for the full year.

We will see. There are, of course, other other factors to be considered in the US, which we mentioned in the in the in the comments of the press release, that are a bit disturbing or potentially disturbing, let's say, the pricing environment.

Okay. A situation or or or a scenario which is which is, I would say, moderately I would be moderately optimistic.

I would be moderately optimistic about the outcome for for for the US in in the in in the coming in in the current year. Italy should be an year very similar to to the previous one as long as we continue to have demand coming from the infrastructure plan, let's say, or the 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 US to be able to improve somewhat the prices. There are underlying reason related to the introduction of the CBAM, the scarcity or the less lower availability of CO2 allowances, which also translate into a higher cost.

There are there is probably more room than than in the US on the pricing side to be to be a favorable variance. Central Europe, we should see some rebound.

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

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

Clearly, this means also additional cost for for CO2, but more chances, let's say, to to gain some some something on the price level. Eastern Europe, with the exception of of Russia, which is probably entering a much more difficult phase than what we faced in the last two, three years, we don't see a reason why Poland and Czechia should be worse than the than the previous year.

These are also countries where, as opposed to Germany, Italy, we are operating at a very high capacity utilization level. We are definitely optimizing, I would say, our our profitability thanks to their capacity utilization, which is, we think, there to stay.

In Brazil, we mentioned it already, we see a positive trend overall, particularly in the northeast, which is has been growing in terms of volume and prices more than the southeast. If there is an easing of the monetary policy, which which today represents significant constraints for the for the construction investment with, interest rates at 15% or 16%, the the a number of projects that are that have been on hold so far should should start, and clearly this as as a as a as even more impact in the southeast, where most of the consumption and and the population actually are, because because this is this is where the bulk, let's say, of the seven consumption of the country is is located.

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

On the other hand, we are we have a number of initiative of projects that are that have been put in place last year, they will continue this year to improve the profitability. Even with with the lower cement volume, we may be able to do something better in terms of of EBITDA.

Mexico, okay, is not affecting directly our our numbers, but we're seeing We're, let's say, more positive versus last year in terms of volume volume trend, and profitability should should remain at very very high level. This this for the, let's say, the top line and and the volume prices scenario.

The risk or or the or the, let's call it, the uncertainties are definitely more related to the to the cost side, where it is true that many components or many item are have been contracted for a certain number of months, we have certainly some some stability for for a good part of the year. It is clear that that on the energy cost in particular, the the current situation is creating a an environment of rising cost, driven by renewed inflation like like we mentioned here.

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

We We ran some number, taking, of course, a kind of sensitivity analysis, and there is certainly there is certainly an an an impact that we don't know if we will be able to offset with with a 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, etc.

The idea is to It 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 of rising cost, in particular the energy component in the in the coming months.

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

Is this going to be true, is not going to be true? We don't know.

Far, again, not as much as we as we forecasted, but this could change in the in the in the coming months, and and can certainly move, let's say, the the the the variance from from from positive to to negative if the dollar will will weaken more than what we expected or or more than what is show what is showing up to now. Overall, again, reviewing our numbers, reviewing our our budget in a 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.

Our our our view right now is to, as we as we as we wrote, let's say, marginally decline, but how much is difficult is difficult to tell right now. I think the message, which is important to give today, is that looking at all all the variables, looking at all the available information as of now, it is 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 very at very good level.

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

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

I think I spoke for almost 1 hour, probably 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 and open now, let's say, the the Q&A session. Thank you for listening.

Hi. Good afternoon, Pietro.

Thank you very much for the questions today. I had three, 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? Then the second would just be on the guidance assumptions.

Very much understand how uncertain the backdrop is currently, and very helpful to kind of talk through some of those impacts. 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?

Then finally, 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? Thank you.

Yes. The last two questions are, I think, related.

The answer is yes, is that definitely we have as usual, we have in front of us about starting from January more than today, because already three months have passed, but usually five, six months of fairly stable energy cost, or at least as we budgeted, because of let's call it an hedging policies which is different from one country to another. 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.

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. There's a lot of political pressure on power cost being too high to reduce, even talking about how to amend the ETS.

Tomorrow von der Leyen will speak about that. Let's see what she'll say.

In 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, there we should be okay.

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

There easily you could see an increase of, I don't know, 20% or so. Unfortunately, this is well possible.

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

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 time of the initial approval.

If you want to take an average of the next two, three years, except for just the industrial CapEx, then if there will be other kind of equity investments or M&A transaction is different. I would move it to between €500 million and €550 million.

It's probably a number that considering the major project that we have underway, including some expansion projects, is likely to be the right one.

Excellent. Thank you very much.

Oh, hi. Good afternoon.

Thanks for taking my questions. 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, but are you pushing prices a bit more? Are you seeing the industry pushing prices and where are we at the moment in terms of price increases in Europe?

Same question for the US. You talked about better demand year-to-date.

How do you see a scope for price increases? I guess April will be the big start in the US.

Then I had a clarification on your buyback plan. You did €200 million very recently, I think.

Now you announce another €300 million plan. Is that the correct way to understand it, you can do another €300 million from here?

I'll stop here. Thank you.

On the buyback, in theory, well, first of all, we have to complete the existing, undergoing, let's say, €200 million, and then the idea is to ask the AGM a renewal for the authorization to authorize an additional, let's say, €300 million. This €300 million 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. Unless again the market changes completely, but I think we will complete the undergoing €200 million, and then we will have an opportunity or possibility for another, let's say, €300 million in the 18 months lasting, let's say, 18 months after the AGM resolution or authorization.

On the price action, 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. Particularly January and February was not a good time, let's say, to go for a price increase.

March is better. Also, the weather has been improving.

Of course, January and February are not big shipment months anyway. The attempt in Europe to increase prices is driven yeah, mainly by the cost trend, which includes an additional cost for CO2, like we have mentioned at the beginning, probably an additional cost associated with the CBAM, let's call it, also decline of free allowances, because you have the two components, and yeah, more let's say today than yesterday 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.

I think there is, at least in these two important countries in Europe, there is a chance to have a price improvement and being able, let's say, to offset the additional cost, like we were commenting before, let's say, on our policies to at least keep the margins. In the US, very very differentiated from area to area.

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

As in particular, I think the growth, the presence of Quikrete as a cement player has changed the picture quite a bit, also Quikrete being a major customer of cement from us, but also from other competitors. 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. If they are too far away from one of their plant, they will continue to buy from another competitor.

If they can, they will obviously buy from themselves. This is something that is putting pressure, because if you lose volume, you have to look for volume somewhere else, and to look for volume somewhere else, maybe pricing is a tool, and this is one of the changes we have 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 two, three years ago, particularly by the European player in the US, to move as quickly as possible to the so-called 1L product, with a lower clinker content or limestone, which is actually very good product.

With more capacity available and again, players in the market that don't have a maybe a European parent, like again a Quikrete, their interest in developing or in pushing the 1L is much less. This is also translating into a competitive pressure which is different from the past, where you compete not only maybe on pricing, etc., but you compete also on the kind of product that you're selling.

Again, mixed environment. Anyway, if the demand stays, I think that maybe not everywhere, but some price improvement we can get also in the US.

Then we will see how much cost pressure there will be on the margins. It's a more complex landscape than two, three years ago, certainly.

Okay. Thanks very much.

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for taking my questions.

I have three questions. 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, but 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? The last one is a clarification on the guidance.

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

Thank you.

We are at 1.20 right now as an average for 2026 versus 1.14. How was it?

1.13.

1.13 approximately.

In '25.

in 2025. 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 a focus.

It's a focus in a sense that our idea is to, of course, continue with a strong financial discipline and consider only, let's say, targets that 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, this really hasn't changed much, the focus remains countries where we already are.

The opportunities, if there are opportunities where we already have a presence, certainly we give them much more investigation, but much more, let's call it, focus than versus opening a totally new country or venture or someone else. I say something that is publicly known, publicly available.

Certainly in Brazil, recently, there's been movements, announcement. CSN is announcing more than announcing, I think he started actually a sales process of its cement division.

Is it this a real opportunity or not for us? Difficult to tell.

Certainly, again, looking at the main strategy, which is reinforce in a disciplined way the presence where we already are, it could represent, let's say, an opportunity. It has to be investigated.

The process is at the beginning. We need to understand a little better.

Generally speaking, this kind of, let's call it, opportunities are more interesting than others. Basically, that's it.

In Germany, is not totally clear how much of the let's call it publicly infrastructure plan will translate into a greater consumption already this year. We think that something will starting to show.

Will start to be available. In terms of quantities, let's say, of cement coming from this kind of projects, difficult to tell, but maybe I don't know.

I don't want to spend, let's say, a clear number without support. What we're seeing that yes, there is a rebound due to the normal, let's call it, cyclicality, the fact that after two, three years of declining consumption, it is rebounding.

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

What we can do maybe is to come back with some figure with you looking at the Because last year, the association was giving some information, or was somehow trying to assess the overall impact, but was more on a longer time horizon, in the next, let's say, five, six years. Maybe there are more recent, let's say, assessments of can be, let's say, the impact already in 2026.

I think certainly there is some.

Very clear. Grazie mille,

Pietro e Lorenzo. Prego.

Thank you very much. Hello, Pietro, and Giovanni.

I have three questions, please. Firstly, on CO2, do you have an idea how much reduction in free CO2 allowances you will get for '26 relative to '25?

That's my first question.

The second

Yep, go for it.

No, no, let's take the three.

Okay. The other one is, I think you're announcing a stable dividend for 2025, even though your net cash position is above €1 billion and seems very comfortable.

Maybe we could have hoped for a little bit of growth in the dividend. Lastly, on your assets in Russia, we've seen some competitors in different sectors seeing their assets being seized.

Do you think that's a risk for Buzzi as well? Thank you.

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

The probability, it's really difficult to tell. I think because this thing really depends on one person, how he wakes up in a certain morning.

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.

To see really a 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, let's say.

The second question, tell me again, was

The other two were, how much reduction in free CO2 allowances? Why a stable dividend?

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

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

Yeah. Yeah.

In Italy, probably slightly slightly deficit, but not not as as important. I think we will continue with our internal, let's call it, guideline, which is to use the the banked or the inventory of of free CO2 allowances in the countries where they were they're coming from.

Meaning in Italy, we will continue to use them. In other country, also as a way of somehow, hedging hedging the cost, buy CO2 rights to to the extent needed.

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

On the stable dividend, the idea behind a stable dividend was quite simple. Our our net income is 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.

It's basically a it's basically a an overall to to to to, let's say, examine and to consider the overall shareholder remuneration. It is true that on one side we did not increase the dividend, but we do have the undergoing buyback, which makes the the overall Maybe Okay, maybe not for everyone, because it depends if you're selling your share shares or you're keeping your shares, but in general, I think the buyback is is is beneficial to to everyone.

Also the decision to to cancel the share will will adjust, at least in a in a in a finally in a definite way, the the 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, an improvement in the share price. We thought that this would be a balance a balanced decision, and also looking at at the coming year where our outlook is not for an improvement, it seems to us that to keep the dividend, which is which is yeah, same as last year, was was a balanced decision.

Thank you very much.

Yes, good afternoon. Thank you very much for taking my question.

I would have three questions. First 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 sent similar price increase letter?

In the US, I think it was outside of Texas, you had also price increase of, I think, between $8 and $12 per ton sent by many of the largest players to ready-mix 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 US. I think that a lot of your competitors are vertically integrated, and I understand from your comments 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 aggregates or ready-mix? The last question would be on Russia.

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

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

In the US, well, we are not totally, let's say, without it. In some area, actually, our vertical integration in Texas, in San Antonio, Houston, Austin, etc., is quite significant.

We don't have a presence in the aggregates. This is true, or we have some aggregates production, but 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 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. It can be seen more, I would say, as a defensive move than a strategy devoted to additional vertical integration.

In a market which has been shrinking, let's say, in a way or another, in a market that change, like we mentioned before, and also change in terms of big ready-mix producer that are importing cement for their own supply, the risk of losing customer and not being able to replace it with another customer, particularly in a ready-mix environment, is greater. It can certainly make sense to add vertical integration, as I said, more as a defensive move than something else.

Is a defensive move that will allow you to keep your volumes and also, at the end, to keep your margins. On the pricing environment, no, I think we moved up, but not by the same percentage that

I think the percentage I'm mentioning were the price increase announced, not the price increase that are expected to be realized. I suspect that the message, I think, of some of the large cement players in the US would be that a low-single-digit price increase being expected, which I suspect means maybe half of the price increase would stick.

Yeah. 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. 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.

Yeah.

The question was, have you sent a price increase letter for April in the US, Germany, and Italy?

The so-called price increase letter is more common in the US than in Italy or Germany. In Italy and also in Germany, is more a case-by-case, a customer-by-customer, let's call it, discussion or anyway proposition.

So

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 cost that you're expecting and the CO2 allowance?

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

We have a price improvement in place, which I don't think will be the magnitude that you are mentioning, for the reason that you are mentioning. Yes, we think it's likely to stick, also because again, more recently, people are feeling pressure also on other cost factors.

It's easier, let's say, to accept also an increase of the cement price if there is a general inflation rebound.

Maybe a following on this situation, I think the importer in Europe, especially in Italy, they will probably have to pay a CBAM cost. 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 the independent importer are being a little bit careful, because they might have €10, €15 extra cost,

or

they're not yet increasing prices?

No, I think they've been already increasing in general. It is like you're saying, is not totally clear.

It depends actually on their CO2 content, and yeah, each importer can have a different impact according to the kind of product that is bringing in. I think everyone is considering just maybe as a conservative move to make sure that they're not losing, let's say, versus the previous price, or that they will be able somehow to offset the additional CO2 cost associated with the CBAM scheme.

On the pricing in Texas as well, I think on one side, you've got the imports that are making it difficult to increase prices. 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?

Yeah. It is a chance.

Anything that makes the import more expensive will allow, let's say, or will help, let's say, domestic supply to be more competitive. Certainly, yeah, it is a chance.

On the other side, on Texas, we'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, it's a lot.

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 West Coast? Yeah.

Yeah.

Of course, there would 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.

It's not totally new. Of course, they have more capacity locally, they are more competitive, and they can be more aggressive.

They were anyway preparing the commissioning already before. On the oil well, yeah, at the end, the oil well is really a matter of what is the oil price.

If the oil price stays or goes up, I think, yeah, okay, there can be more. I think this kind of customer is a little different, being really special products with very significant quality requirements, a consistency.

It's much more difficult for a customer, oil well, to change supplier versus the normal ready-mix customer. If there is a huge price difference, they will consider it, but then they have to test it, and then they have to go to the quality department.

It's quite complex. Again, the demand is driven purely from the oil price.

Is it fair to assume that in the US, in your forecast, you've assumed maybe a bit of a price increase inland, but no price increase in Texas at this stage?

Correct. Yes.

Thank you so much. That's very clear.

You're welcome.

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

€150 million.

€150 million.

Thank you very much. That's very helpful.

Grazie. Good afternoon.

Good evening, Mr. Pietro.

Three questions, okay, may faster, hopefully. The first one is on Brazil.

You made a comment on a very significant margin expansion. Clearly, no, volume went up, let's say, no, low single digit.

Prices, let's say, no, slightly up. The game changer not to stay in these, let's call it, new level, no, very good level for you, it was the work you did on the cost side, and the real ambition of the Brazilian market is, I don't know, to be factually above 30%?

Just to understand, clearly, I understood your comment on we need, let's say, a more how can I say, no, disciplined competitive landscape, no, and the CSN deal could help on this. Just to have your thought on this, because clearly the margin expansion, especially in the second half, was very very good on Brazil.

Thanks.

Yeah. It was driven, yes, by two Well, volumes were good, let's say.

Capacity utilization is Some plant is really approaching full capacity, which is giving, as of course, operating leverage. This is always very important.

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

Pricing, not a great change, or you don't see such a significant improvement, but there are some improvement in prices also. Again, because the market is quite brilliant, let's say.

Yes, CSN could be an opportunity besides whoever buys it will buy anyway, will have to invest a significant amount of money because okay, relatively speaking, can be cheap or expensive, it depends on how much you want to pay, but in absolute terms is anyway a sizable company. Yes, CSN has been certainly more aggressive, let's say, than another competitor on prices, particularly in the southeast region.

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

Just a quick

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

Because clearly, no, we saw the decline in CO2 price recently. Just to understand if there is or not.

No, there's not. It would be too dangerous in Europe.

Someone, I think, did it in the past, but is very very dangerous. In our opinion, would not be the right commercial marketing strategy.

Okay. Thanks, because there are different opinions, okay, on that.

On the CapEx side, the question is, first of all, now you mentioned this run rate for the next two, three years with €500 million, €550 million per year CapEx. Does this include the let's say US expansion project you had in mind?

Yes. Correct.

Yeah. Which will start, but will start at a slow pace, let's say.

It will start, yes.

Okay. 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 a technology getting more mature?

Thanks.

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

No, again, monitoring for sure, 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 this project.

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

What we're focusing on is Okay, if you build a totally new plant, but again, cost-benefit very difficult to justify, it can make sense. You build a totally new plant, and you introduce also the carbon capture installation.

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 improvements in energy consumption and also fuel consumption before carbon capture installation. We are a little bit shifting our focus on projects in countries also like, I don't know, Poland or Duna, same Duna where we put on hold the carbon capture projects, to something that will reduce, let's say, maybe CO2 emission by 20%, 25% and modernize the plant.

Being ready to possibly at a later time, which I think it would be inevitable because the deadline that are set today are unrealistic, 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.

Maybe if I may add, with a return on investment definitely much more interesting than a single installation, a carbon capture installation with our business plan which is at the moment, and current situation is not really flying.

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

Thanks, Mr. Pietro.

Just the final, 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. One item which is included into that figure is also the badwill of the UAE acquisition, which is €44 million positive.

If you look at the pure net interest income, in this case, we have 60 million, and last year was 55, 60. Yes, last year was 55, it is 5 million up.

This is the cash portion. The non-cash portion, the two big items are, yes, the 75 of forex, non-monetary, and Well, I don't know if you say non-monetary the badwill, because we paid anyway, but we paid less than the equity, book equity, and so we have 44 positive badwill also inside the same line item.

Okay. Grazie mille.

Prego. Ciao.

Good. Thanks everyone for listening.

I don't know 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.