WCH.DE FY2026 Q3 Earnings Call Transcript
Date: 2026-10-29
Source: Financial Modeling Prep

Jörg Hoffmann: Thank you, operator. Welcome to the Wacker Chemie AG Conference Call on our Third Quarter 2026 Results. Christian Hartel, our CEO; and Tobias Ohler, our CFO, will take you through the presentation. The press release, our IR presentation and detailed financial tables are available on our website under Investor Relations. Management comments during this call include forward-looking statements involving risks and uncertainties. Please review the safe harbor statement in today's presentation and in our 2025 annual report for information on the relevant risk factors. Chris?
Christian Hartel: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. In the third quarter, demand stayed subdued in many end markets, while geopolitical tensions continued to create volatility in energy, raw material and logistics costs. In this environment, we are moving decisively to strengthen our competitiveness, raise operating performance and sharpen capital allocation. Our results show Wacker is making tangible progress on the factors we control. Group sales increased by 9% year-over-year to EUR 1.47 billion, supported primarily by pricing action and a better volume and product mix. Reported EBITDA was EUR 217 million, including EUR 35 million of special income in polysilicon from the cancellation of a solar contract. Excluding this effect, operating EBITDA rose 63% to EUR 182 million, up from EUR 112 million a year ago. PACE remains central for our improved operating performance. While cost-related savings of more than EUR 60 million in the third quarter, year-to-date savings totaled EUR 145 million. And with this, we are pretty much on track. You will notice that our net debt declined materially in the quarter. There were 2 extraordinary effects in cash flow. We sold down our stake in Siltronic to below 15%, and we changed the funding arrangement for phased retirement obligations. These 2 effects contributed EUR 290 million to net cash flow of EUR 476 million. Tobias will address this later in more detail. Now looking to the segments. In Chemicals, pace, pricing and improved mix strengthened profitability. In Biosolutions, sales in Biopharma and Life Science Chemicals developed well. In polysilicon, semiconductor grade volumes continue to grow, while solar remained weak. In August, the U.S. Section 232 proclamation established a minimum import price program and tariffs on polysilicon derivatives. In its current framework, it does not achieve its objective to revitalize the U.S. polysilicon sector. Specifically, it does not incentivize the use of U.S.-made polysilicon and hence is a disappointment for us. We remain engaged in constructive discussions with the administration. For the time being, we will maintain the previously disclosed 2 scenarios in polysilicon. They are the semi and solar scenario and the semi-only scenario. We will not rush a decision, but we will act once clarity and certainty has been established. At our Capital Markets Day in September, we introduced REFOCUS, the next chapter in our evolution. It's a holistic approach to improve how we operate, compete and create value. Our key message is simple, Wacker has leading businesses, leading technologies and leading market positions. We have invested in our global footprint in technology platforms and in capabilities. REFOCUS is the next step. It is about leveraging our strength, increasing profitability and becoming more selective in where we invest and grow. With REFOCUS, we have taken bold steps to adapt to a more challenging market environment. We have clear strategic priorities for structure and processes, business model and value creation and people and culture. Together, these actions are creating a leaner, faster and more efficient organization. They are the foundation for our structural financial ambitions. We aim to drive GDP plus growth by improving mix and making selective investments in accelerate growth businesses. We aim to raise our structural EBITDA margin to 15%, plus/minus 2 percentage points and aim to get ROCE back as soon as possible to above 10% and our cost of capital. The levers are defined higher EBITDA from selective growth and pace, strict capital discipline that leverages our existing asset base and tighter working capital management. This is how we will lift returns while keeping the balance sheet strong. We have a plan in place. Our business priorities are clear: selected growth in attractive markets, profitability and ROCE. Our ambition is not simply to manage through a difficult cycle. It is to emerge from it as more focused, more profitable and more valuable company. Now turning to the guidance. We confirm our full year EBITDA range of EUR 625 million to EUR 700 million -- EUR 750 million. After good operating performance and special income in the first 9 months, we expect the full year EBITDA to be in the upper half of that range. PACE is on track and delivering visible improvements. We implemented a portfolio management playbook. We protected margins and managed costs, and we improved our resilience and maintained solid financials. The external environment, however, remains difficult. We do not see a broad recovery in our end markets. Competition remains intense and the U.S. trade framework for polysilicon remains unresolved. Despite these persistent headwinds, Wacker enters this new phase from a position of strength. We have leading technology, strong market position and a high-quality asset base built through years of targeted investment. The focus now is execution with urgency and discipline. Through REFOCUS, we are concentrating on the opportunities that are within our control to improve profitability, increase returns and accelerate value creation. We are confident that this will unlock upside in earnings and strengthen Wacker's competitiveness for the long term. With that, let me hand over to Tobias.
Tobias Ohler: Thank you, Chris. Good afternoon, everyone. Third quarter sales increased by 9% year-over-year to EUR 1.5 billion, driven by higher prices, better mix, volumes and FX. EBITDA before special income in polysilicon rose 63% year-over-year to approximately EUR 182 million. This strong improvement reflects pace savings, disciplined pricing and positive volume and mix. PACE contributed more than EUR 60 million in the third quarter. As Chris commented, PACE is on track, and we expect to achieve approximately EUR 200 million in savings this year. Including the special income reported, EBITDA was EUR 217 million. The Other segment was minus EUR 27 million in the third quarter. And for the full year, we expect EBITDA in others of approximately minus EUR 15 million after the refund of CO2-related costs in the fourth quarter. After depreciation of EUR 114 million, EBIT came in at EUR 103 million. Below EBIT, the sale of Siltronic shares in the third quarter only had a limited effect of about minus EUR 1 million in the financial result. 11 years after the IPO, we reduced our stake in Siltronic to below 15%. Instead of using the at equity method, we will now measure the investment at fair value through the other comprehensive income. Future valuation changes will therefore be recognized directly in equity rather than in the P&L. Going forward, only future dividends will be recorded in our P&L. All told, net income reached EUR 87 million, equivalent to earnings per share of EUR 1.68. We are not relying on a market recovery to improve performance as the third quarter figures demonstrate stronger underlying earnings and disciplined cost management. Our balance sheet remains strong. At the end of September, shareholders' equity stood at EUR 4.3 billion, while liquidity remained robust at about EUR 2 billion. Working capital rose 10% from the beginning of the year to approximately EUR 1.6 billion, primarily due to the seasonal increase in trade receivables. Inventories declined as we continue to reduce stocks of solar-grade polysilicon. Pension provisions declined by about EUR 100 million year-to-date to EUR 522 million. This reduction was driven by the capital payout option and by higher discount rates. Overall, we keep our financial position solid with a 49% equity ratio and a strong liquidity base. Now let's turn to the operating segments. Silicones generated third quarter sales of EUR 729 million, supported by pricing, mix and FX. EBITDA rose 35% year-over-year to EUR 116 million, driven by pricing, mix and a strong cost performance. As Chris mentioned, we have implemented a portfolio management playbook. We will direct resources towards markets with strong structural growth demand that align with our strengths. Among those segments, silicones have most accelerated growth portfolio units in the Wacker Group. Here, we are focused on capturing structural growth trends in areas like e-mobility, health care and electronics. These businesses are performing well. Year-to-date, sales are significantly higher than a year ago. With our recent downstream investments, we are now well prepared to capture growth around the world close to customers' end markets. We can drive substantial growth in selective markets, only limited new investments will be needed. Now looking at Silicones full year guidance, we continue to expect mid-single-digit percentage sales growth with price increases to offset cost inflation. The EBITDA margin will be above the prior year level on pace and strong operational performance. At Polymers, third quarter sales reached approximately EUR 381 million. Sales increased year-over-year as we looked to match raw material costs with price increases. EBITDA in the third quarter was EUR 75 million, 58% higher than last year. The increase was mainly driven by a combination of higher prices and lower operating costs due to measures under the PACE cost and efficiency program. In addition, earnings benefited from raw material volatility. While Silicones will see targeted investments to capture structural demand growth opportunities, we are already well invested in Polymers. With unmatched global economies of scale, we focus on strong execution and applying our disciplined pricing playbook to protect margins and maintain reliable customer service in a volatile raw material market environment. Now looking at Polymers for the full year guidance, we continue to expect mid-single-digit percentage sales growth with a dynamic pricing management. The EBITDA margin is expected to be above the prior year level on pace and on strong operational performance. At Biosolutions, third quarter sales reached EUR 100 million. Growth year-over-year was driven by Biopharma and Life Science Chemicals. EBITDA came in at EUR 8 million, supported by higher sales and disciplined cost management. Biosolutions has substantial upside, but operates well below its potential. We established a cutting-edge biotechnology platform, but filling capacities has taken longer than expected. Targeted actions are required to unlock future potential. We have shifted our focus to commercial excellence. We implemented a strategy to deepen relationships with customers to fill our CDMO platform. We are following a strict milestone process to rebuild growth and our efforts are already beginning to pay off. Now looking to the full year guidance for Biosolutions, we continue to expect EBITDA to be around EUR 30 million. At Polysilicon third quarter sales were approximately EUR 225 million. Double-digit higher semiconductor grade volumes offset lower solar volumes. Reported EBITDA of EUR 44 million includes EUR 35 million in special income from the solar contract cancellation. Excluding this amount, operating performance was like the preceding quarter. Strong semiconductor demand and cost savings supported the result, but profitability remained impacted by lower solar pricing, higher energy costs and solar inventory destocking. Now looking to the full year guidance for polysilicon. We continue to expect high single-digit percentage sales growth and an EBITDA of close to the prior year level, including special income. Earnings will be clearly supported by double-digit percentage sales volume growth in semi and PACE-related savings, both helped to offset the substantially higher energy costs this year. Now let me turn to the net financial debt and cash flow. The first 9 months gross cash flow increased to EUR 569 million, reflecting the significant improvement in earnings as well as a liquidity effect of EUR 120 million from a change in the funding arrangements for the phased retirement obligation. Working capital reduced gross cash flow by EUR 71 million, primarily due to the seasonal increase in trade receivables. At the same time, lower inventory levels released EUR 73 million in cash. This highlights our continued focus on inventory management. Cash flow from investing activities before securities amounted to EUR 119 million. Proceeds from the sale of Siltronic shares contributed EUR 355 million of cash, offsetting capital expenditures of EUR 244 million during the period. For the full year 2026, we expect CapEx of approximately EUR 300 million. At the end of September, net financial debt stood at EUR 261 million. We now expect it to decline to around EUR 200 million by year-end. Let me close by placing these figures in the capital allocation framework of REFOCUS. REFOCUS also changes how we prioritize capital allocation. Over recent years, we have invested in our global footprint and capabilities. That investment phase is now behind us. Those assets provide a strong foundation for future growth. Going forward, our priority is to leverage existing assets and expertise to drive commercial success. We will keep CapEx below depreciation and in the range of EUR 300 million to EUR 400 million. Despite lower investments, we will be able to accelerate growth by focusing resources on the most attractive opportunities. We will maintain solid financials with a financial leverage target of around 1x EBITDA, preserving flexibility for selective growth and shareholder returns, while maintaining financial resilience. In summary, our priorities are clear: deliver PACE, improve capital efficiency, convert our installed capacity into profitable growth and allocated resources only where Wacker can create differentiated and sustainable value. That concludes my part, and we are now ready for your questions.
Christian Hartel: Operator, we're ready to begin with the Q&A.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Anil Shenoy, Barclays.
Anil Shenoy: Just 2, please. The first one is on EU protection. So earlier this month, the Critical Chemical Alliance, they included silicones as one of the -- in the preliminary list of critical molecules where the EU is considering more targeted trade protection and support for critical production sites. So I was wondering how meaningful could that potentially be for Wacker's European silicon operations, particularly given the Chinese overcapacity in the upstream silicones. So some color on this EU protection would be really helpful. And the second question is on polymers and construction market. So polymers seems to have had a particularly strong quarter in Q3. And even the order book you said is higher Y-o-Y. So given that roughly 2/3 of the business is exposed to construction, that is including paints and coatings, are you seeing any sort of like genuine improvement in underlying construction volumes or order activity perhaps? And if so, is it broad-based geographically or any -- or is it concentrated in any particular market?
Christian Hartel: Okay. Anil, this is Christian. I'll take your first question on the EU Critical Chemical alliance. Yes. This is something that has been started by the EU Commission recently. We're also taking part of it, obviously, together with the Chemical Association. Let me put it this way. I think the idea is good. It's a comprehensive framework. It's a lot of chemicals being in there. Let's see how it will eventually work out. And I think I made a lot of comments in the past also regarding EU politics, always great ideas. But when it comes to implementation and to real effects, it's a different story. And therefore, I would say it's too early to say. It might have an impact, but I would not expect that to be quick.
Tobias Ohler: Anil, Tobias here, on your polymers question, I think it's fair to ask a question about the Q3 margin, which is exceptionally strong. Q3, we had sales of EUR 381 million and an EBITDA of EUR 75 million. I think if I look at the drivers, the key elements are up PACE and a disciplined pricing management, while the raw material volatility and the timing also supported earnings. Look at it this way, as input costs decline, our selling prices are also expected to adjust, although not necessarily always at the same time and one for one. And for that reason, our margin in this quarter is really well above average and does not reflect -- to me, it does not reflect a sustainable margin to deliver as we are operating in a pretty short value chain. And I think it should not be extrapolated. And it does not come from a construction market uptick. So we don't have any clear signals on that. We are moving mainly on similar volumes as last year. And our performance mainly comes, as I said before, from PACE, from our own operational performance and from our price management in a super volatile environment.
Operator: Our next question comes from Chetan Udeshi, JPMorgan.
Chetan Udeshi: I was just wondering if you can help us with some guidance on how you are thinking about Q4 across your key divisions. If I just take your -- if I take the top end of the guidance that you are guiding to, it comes to about EUR 150 million of EBITDA in Q4 roughly. I mean, are you comfortable with that? And maybe if you can just help us in terms of how should we think about the sequential decline because of seasonality, perhaps energy costs, how is that feeding into your business? Anything that you can share will be quite helpful. In polysilicon, I was just wondering you're doing a run rate of EUR 9 million EBITDA in Q3, which is not very different than what the underlying run rate was in Q2. I'm just wondering why is the semi strength not showing up more in your numbers because your sales were up actually year-on-year by 14% in Q3. So clearly, that semi strength is visible in your sales, but then somehow the EBITDA is virtually zero. So I don't know why is there such a big mismatch between the 2 numbers, notwithstanding some catch-up for the German power subsidy, et cetera. But it just feels like semi is already running full cylinders and yet the EBITDA in this business is virtually zero. So how can that change in the future?
Tobias Ohler: Chetan, Tobias, I get to start with your first question on Q4 and the '26 outlook. So the chemicals order backlog is good. It's above prior year, and we expect typical seasonality also from the order pattern of individual months. So August was a bit slower, September better again and October looks good. So from a mere operational business performance, we would be even running towards the upper end of our guidance range. But please bear in mind that we have EUR 70 million of special income from the one-offs. One was in the second quarter from the adjustment in our pension system and the other same magnitude was in polysilicon this quarter. And there will be one effect towards the year-end as with our strong performance, operational performance beyond expectations, our strong target achievement will lead to additional bonus accruals that will have a dampening effect. And those dampening effects will keep us more in the range, in the upper half of the range, so not allowing us to go towards the top so much for the outlook for '26. So it's a normal seasonal pattern. And I think the year overall is much stronger than we expected basically on the 2 factors, PACE and operational performance.
Christian Hartel: Okay. And Chetan, on your second question on the polysilicon, yes, rightly said from you, I mean, the semi business is developing well. We have double-digit growth also this year. What is dragging the whole division, obviously, is the development we see in solar. And last year, we were also able to sell more solar material than we are selling this year. And this is the reason why Q2 or Q3 is pretty much in line to the run rate of Q2. And that's the reason why we don't see the strength of the semi business. And it's the underutilization. It is the underutilization that we have with the 3 plants delivering low volumes in solar. And that's the overall picture of story. And how can that change? Well, as you pointed out, either there is a solar case and we can produce more solar, which will be positive on the utilization or there might be a scenario where we need to restructure and then we would reduce the fixed cost, which would also then have a change.
Chetan Udeshi: Got it. And I didn't hear any response on the energy cost impact. Are you guys okay with the hedging that you have in place? Or how is that filtering through in your numbers for Q4, but as we also look into next year if the electricity prices in Germany remain as high as they are right now accounting for seasonality?
Tobias Ohler: Tobias, it is that hedging that energy costs should be lower, but we have our hedging policy in place, as you said, and we are hedged at a very high level, especially for the winter for Q4 at gas, we are almost 100% hedged, electricity more than 80%. And also for the next year, we are hedged roughly -- yes, 75% to 80%. And yes, energy costs are high. But if I look at the year-over-year energy costs in '26 and '27 would be similar if I take for the open position, just today's market prices. So I think our hedging policy pays off.
Operator: The next question comes from Christian Faitz, Kepler Cheuvreux.
Christian Faitz: Two questions, please. First of all, coming back to your guidance in Q4 and polysilicon. You're guiding for a high single-digit percent increase in polysilicon for the entire year. Given that run rate for the 9-month level, and Chetan mentioned the 14% growth in Q3, this would mean around 30% sales growth in Q4, if my calculation is correct. Can you elucidate your reasoning for this expected strong Q4 sales performance a bit? And then second and last question, in silicones, how defensible is the improved profitability against the continuing cost inflation?
Tobias Ohler: So Christian, Tobias here. Your second question was on PACE or?
Christian Faitz: On silicones and yes, in that context, PACE, how dependable is that improved profitability in silicones?
Christian Hartel: Okay. I'll start with your first question. And I think I just noticed in the speech, I said double-digit growth, and that was meant to be double-digit growth on the volumes in semiconductor. That is unchanged. But if I look at the overall -- and I think that dissolves your question also, if I look at the overall number, our sales in polysilicon will be similar to last year. So we don't expect a strong pickup in Q4. That must be a mistake on our side. On silicones, the higher margin, I think it's a good progression. It basically comes from pay savings and also a strong mix. So we have to make -- in contrast to the polymers, we have some -- also some volume growth, and we are managing also prices against volatile raw materials. And yes, inflation also eats a little bit into that. But I think we made good progress in this year, and we expect to continue also in next year. But I would not say the 16% margin is now the new floor. So just bear in mind that we also have effects on the inflation side next year. We will also see, I mean, a delicate play between our own pricing and raw material and energy costs being volatile. So I wouldn't take the 16% as a floor.
Operator: The next question comes from Peter Spengler, DZ Bank.
Peter Spengler: First is on the -- on 2027. I understand there is no formal guidance for 2027 yet, but what are the broad themes for next year? And what key factors should we keep in mind? And the second question is on Section 232. Following your discussions with the U.S. government, what have you learned? And what would need to change for the framework to become effective?
Tobias Ohler: Peter, Tobias here on '27 and some driving factors. I mean, first of all, again, '27, the performance was strong, driven by PACE and by operational performance. And we see ourselves in the -- as I said, in the upper half of the range, not at the top. So that is a starting point in mind. So what are the moving factors on the cost side. As I previously also mentioned, raw materials and energy, I mean, you could assume that as broadly at a similar level than this year. And anyhow, any changes coming from new surprises next year, we try to manage with our pricing and compensate for those. And on the energy side, we are largely hedged with 80%. So I mean, from the input cost side on this front, I think similar level as in '26. Then we have PACE. Pace is on track. We have around EUR 200 million in savings in this year. And we have the target to achieve more than EUR 300 million in 2028. So it's the year after '27, so assume '27 to make a good progress. But also assume, as we said that the savings are gross savings. So there will be inflation against us. And if you just look at the personnel costs that we have approximately just as a rough number, EUR 1.5 billion in personnel. And if you have a 2 to 3 percentage point inflation on that, I mean, you get some headwind. You also have one-offs in this year like the pension restructuring and the polysilicon solar contract cancellation. So EUR 70 million from that will be missing. And yes, then you have the business development. I think we don't expect wonders on the side of the GDP, but we will continue, yes, to benefit from improved mix and volume growth in silicones in selected focus areas where we have our playbook, as we call it. So we should continue on that track. For polymers, as I said before, with respect to Q3, I think that performance in this year is exceptional and the margin is well above our average. And so I would not expect that to continue at that level next year. Biosolutions should continue to fill capacities step by step. Our commercial activities are paying off here, but it will take some time. And for polysilicon, I must say we have 2 completely different scenarios depending on what happens on the trade side. So I think that's far too early today. And in general, if you put everything together, we will present our outlook with the annual results in March next year. But I think the moving parts could give you some idea of where we are most likely heading.
Christian Hartel: Okay, Peter. And the second question, Christian here. As you said, I mean, we remain in constructive discussions with the U.S. administration. And well, we do count on the continued commitment of the administration to -- in their target to revitalize the U.S. polysilicon industry. And what we need, and that's your question, well, easily, we need a kind of framework that provides an incentive that people buy U.S.-made polysilicon. And this framework must then translate into also meaningful demand for the material. And as you know, the situation at the moment is there is not much internal demand in the U.S. for poly because most of the capacity for vaping is outside the U.S. It's currently built up in the U.S., but most of it is outside the U.S. So the framework needs to have an incentive that people outside of the U.S. buy the material in the U.S. and then send the cells or the wafers or the modules back. And this is, yes, in essence, what we need, real demand with a very clear framework to incentivize U.S. made polysilicon.
Operator: The next question comes from David [indiscernible] Symonds, BNP Paribas.
David Symonds: Two, please, from me. The first one, if I think about EUR 60 million cost savings in the third quarter against a 170 FTE reduction, I suggest that maybe 3/4 of the savings are not headcount related. Can you talk about how much of these are structural versus temporary? Is there anything in there budget reductions for 2026 that is expected to reverse into 2027? And then if I can come back to polysilicon and Chetan's question. It does look a little bit strange that energy costs are highly hedged. Sales are up 14% year-on-year and yet your run rate seems to have halved for sort of underlying EBITDA. Is there anything else you can tell us maybe the split between semi sales and solar sales or the loadings of different plants that could help us to understand the bridge there and what's happened in that business?
Tobias Ohler: David, Tobias here. On the PACE question, as you mentioned, we have EUR 60 million in savings from PACE in the third quarter year-over-year. And I think it's important to understand in the first half, we had EUR 85 million year-over-year that those EUR 60 million now add to the EUR 85 million. So we are at EUR 145 million year-over-year. And the target, and I have a good visibility on that, I can tell you, is to have around EUR 200 million at the end of the fourth quarter for the full year '27 -- '26 against prior year. So we are running on track. And all the savings are structural. So there's nothing temporary. It wouldn't be counted in our PACE cost and efficiency program. It is mainly in this year coming from non-personnel. So your calculation on the headcount, I mean, are decent. So they are hinting that our savings are lower on the personnel side this year, but they will kick in next year. So as we said at the Capital Markets Day, we have an agreement with the Workers Council to reduce headcount over the 3 years. There are 1,600 positions in Germany. We have a program in place. These will leave the company now also step by step and the majority of the personnel-related savings will kick in next year. So all is structural, all is gross -- and it's a very consistent program that we execute and deliver on.
Christian Hartel: Okay. David, on your -- on the second question on the -- well, on the detailed comparison Q3 this year and last year, I don't know if we should go into too many details. What I can tell you is the volumes for semiconductor increased and the volumes for the solar decreased. And if you compare quarter-by-quarter, the sales and the, let's say, production rate is not always 1:1. But I think the key message is we sold less solar material and more semi material.
David Symonds: So just maybe to follow up on that second point. Is there -- because I know that you're working down inventories. Is there an impact from underproducing basically this year because you're working down those inventory versus EBITDA?
Christian Hartel: Yes, absolutely. Yes. I mean, absolutely, our inventory management is a drag on the P&L. As you said, we are running highly underutilized, and we were successful in reducing inventory despite a very challenging demand environment for solar. So we reduced inventories against prior year, as I said at the second quarter call by 20%. Now we are at 25%. So we made even in that very challenging quarter, Q3 progress on our inventory reduction. And that is a drag on profitability.
David Symonds: Could I ask you whether you think you'd be roughly at the EUR 20 million run rate we were seeing before if you've not been reducing inventory and have been producing at the level of demand?
Tobias Ohler: I would stick to the run rate that we communicated at the CMD. So it is a very unsatisfying performance because we are running mostly on semiconductor as a portfolio, and we have a structural setup for semiconductor and solar. And as Christian said, there's 2 alternatives to that, and we will see what's the outcome.
Operator: The next question comes from Sebastian Bray, Berenberg.
Sebastian Bray: I have 2, please. The first is on dividend policy. Wacker has usually adhered fairly strictly to 50% of nominal EPS. But clearly, there's some one-off effects, both in terms of EBITDA and the gain on the Siltronic stake that make this perhaps less viable. Is the company going to adhere to 50% payout as a percentage of nominal EPS or likely to anchor around a lower number as it comes to determine the dividend for this year? My second question is on what would constitute an acceptable outcome for the current discussions around Section 232. If the U.S. government were to put something in the room, which is to say, okay, we're structuring the legislation to incentivize wafering capacity. So we'll give you 3 years to find some customers domestically in the U.S. and then go back to the old system. Is that enough to effectively keep the plant running and then shut it? Or are you looking for something more permanent?
Christian Hartel: Okay. Sebastian, Christian here. Your first question on the dividend, 2027. As you pointed out, we have a very clear dividend policy in place. The dividend has not been discussed yet. And ultimately, I mean, it depends on the overall full year performance. And also typically, this is discussed in the spring time. So this is really not the time to talk about the dividend now. Your second question on the Section 2 acceptable outcome. Same question, the same answer as I did before. What we need is a workable framework that leads to a demand, to real demand for material in the U.S. and not in whenever time, but within the next month. And this is something what we would need. And yes, we don't want to engage in speculation now as we are also in discussions with the administration.
Sebastian Bray: That's helpful. Just to clarify on timing. Is the 4th of December a hard deadline? Or is this an issue that could still be kicking around 2027?
Christian Hartel: Well, I mean, the -- December the 4th is not by us. It's the date where the administration said the Section 232 will come -- will kick in place, will run. There's not much more I can say to that. Of course, we hope that by this timing, we have a clarity on it. But our decisive point is having clarity to take a decision. That's what we need.
Operator: The next and last question is a follow-up question from Chetan Udeshi, JPMorgan.
Chetan Udeshi: Chris, I'm sorry to come back to U.S. Section 232. I was actually reading comments from your competitor in the U.S., Corning, who actually is saying that they are seeing strengthening orders for themselves in the U.S. after Section 232. So I'm just wondering why would a U.S. administration listen to Wacker when one of your top competitor is actually saying it's actually good for them.
Christian Hartel: Well, I think, Chetan, I also read these comments. And I think the distinct difference between Wacker and Corning is that Corning is operating a full solar supply chain. And what we already see today is because of the discussion on these minimum import prices that specifically module prices in the U.S. are going up. And this is probably what Corning is referring to. They didn't specifically mention polysilicon on that. But that would be my take. But more details, you can only get from Corning.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Joerg Hoffmann, Head of Investor Relations, for closing remarks.
Jörg Hoffmann: Thank you, operator. Thank you all for attending this conference call and showing interest in Wacker Chemie. As always, please contact the Investor Relations team if you have further questions. Goodbye.