BZZUY (BZZUY) Q2 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good afternoon. This is the Chorus Call conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the Buzzi Half Year 2026 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Pietro Buzzi, CEO of Buzzi S.p.A. Mr. Buzzi, you have the floor.

Okay. Thank you. Welcome, everyone. Good afternoon. The idea, as usual, is to go over our presentation that was made available for you. And like the operator said, starting later on some Q&A session on the matter that can be more of interest to you. The results that we released this early afternoon are, I would say, not as good as the previous 2 years, but still pretty sound, at least in our opinion. We were able to stabilize the turnover, basically remain at the same level as last year, even considering some very challenging conditions in some of our geographies. The cement volumes, if we consider the reported figure are actually 5% (sic) [ 5.4% ] above last year. It is true that they have been influenced quite significantly by some scope changes, but still, they are showing a favorable trend. We are instead somewhat lower than last year if we look at our ready-mix volumes, about 4% below. And this is also due to the fact that our ready-mix presence, most of our vertical integration is located in the markets of the region that suffer the most in terms of, let's say, demand softness. In terms of EBITDA, we are going down about 8% versus the same period last year. There is some impact coming from, let's say, scope effect and also currency, which we will describe better later. And this is obviously a bit disappointing, but somehow associated to the trend of the geographies of 2 geographies, in particular, which performed, let's say, worse than last year that are usually also showing margins above average or a stronger profitability in absolute terms and in the U.S. and Russia. Some other geographies actually performed better than last year or at the same level or sometimes much better than last year. So we are also somewhat hopeful that in the second part of the year, we can recover at least in part the decline that we [ experienced ] in the first 6 months. Moving to the analysis of our turnover, which you find on Page 2. You can see that in Italy, the performance in terms of sales volume remained somewhat weak. You certainly remember that the first quarter across Europe was characterized by, let's say, wet and cold weather. So it was not helpful. Let's say, the first 3 months of the year were not helpful in terms of sales or delivery, cement and ready-mix deliveries. But also in the second half -- in the second quarter, sorry, so for the full 6 months, we did not see really neither in Italy nor in Germany or Central Europe, a clear recovery. So the gap, let's say, that somehow was accumulated in the first quarter, yes, it closed somewhat, but not to the extent that we were budgeting. So -- and this is something that we believe is likely to continue also over the next 6 months, although maybe to a somewhat minor extent, but unlikely to see really the sign -- the difference, let's say, the variance turning favorable, turning positive for the full year. Instead, going back to the Italian situation, we do have a favorable price effect and also a minor favorable, let's say, scope effect that is associated with asset purchases in the ready-mix business. Similar situation in the Central Europe with the volumes suffering some and price effect positive, favorable, not as much as in Italy, to a lesser extent. And also some benefit coming from the scope changes, again, associated with asset purchasing in the ready-mix in the vertical integration of our cement business. Eastern Europe is a bit, how could I say, the impact -- I mean, it includes, as you know, area that performed in a very different way from one another because the Eastern Europe countries within the European Union overall, they did well, okay, let's say, according to expectation, I mean, Poland and Czech Republic. Poland, yes, declining in terms of volumes, but also -- or mainly due to the fact that our comparison base was extremely high last year. And it's a country where we believe or it's a market where we believe we can actually close the gap going forward in the next 6 months. Czech Republic, stable to slightly positive. And instead, a significant, let's say, drop in Russia, which I was mentioning at the beginning, that is affecting the overall, let's say, contribution turnover of that macro area. The FX impact was particularly favorable in Russia. So Russia performed definitely worse than last year, if you look at volume, prices, and profitability. But in part, this negative unfavorable performance was, let's say, partly offset by the strength of the ruble in the first 6 months. U.S.A., they did well, also, I would say, better than expected in terms of volumes. We are slightly above last year. First quarter was definitely stronger than the second one, but still, we continue to remain at higher production and delivery level than last year. We suffered some on the pricing side. The regional -- it's kind of a regional effect, mainly, I would say, the difficulties in the price level remains mainly in Texas. In other parts, in other states, we had some improvements or anyway no declines. But on average, we are showing a slight unfavorable variance. And in addition to that, the weakness of the dollar was affecting the turnover by about EUR 50 million, so a relatively large amount. Going to Brazil, everything okay. So far so good. I think volumes could have been even better because in the Southeast, in particularly the rainy season was more, let's say, rainy than usual. And so again, the prospects for the second half are probably better in terms of volume for the Southeast region than what we have experienced, let's say, so far. And the pricing level was definitely improving quite significantly, driven by higher capacity utilization, higher demand, but also some rising cost, but certainly, the spread was favorable. And we had also the currency impact favorable, which is normally -- or normally, I mean, not always so, particularly for, let's call it, a currency like the real that has -- can have a lot of volatility. But in this case, the volatility was giving a favorable sign, so improving further our turnover. The UAE represents, let's say, the only significant scope change for the first half. You may remember that last year, we had 2 months, basically May and June. So first 3 numbers, volume, negative 1% price positive 7% and FX negative 5% refer to the comparison between this last May and June, let's say, month. Meanwhile, the 53 is the first 4 months of turnover. Of course, UAE is the most affected directly by the geopolitical, let's say, tensions. So definitely suffering in terms of volume. But I think overall, the management of the new acquired company took some was able to take, let's say, some interesting measure to offset anyway the disadvantages coming from the situation and making sure that our results will perform, let's say, definitely in the right direction. Of course, it's -- you may say that it's relatively easy to do better when you start from a low level. But I think that we have to give merit really to the strategy that was applied and to the results that have been achieved. It's not so evident, I would say. So I think we can be fairly happy with the results, particularly in the current situation. Moving to the following page, we have the EBITDA bridge. So the difference between the EUR 526 million of the first half of last year to the EUR 483 million. Volume impact overall, somewhat negative, as we mentioned at the beginning. Price impact overall favorable. So most of the country were able to achieve and improvement in their pricing level. Unfortunately, some important ones did not, like we said. Variable cost, in part, okay, this is associated to the lower, let's say, somewhat lower volumes, lower production level. But actually, we had some significant benefits, for example, in Italy for the cost of power. We will maybe comment briefly later on the so-called energy release factor, which was definitely a big plus for the Italian profitability. And also fuel so far in the first 6 months, even if there is some cost pressure on the fossil fuel remain more or less at the level of last year. On the fixed cost instead, we had an unfavorable variance. This is mostly related to staff cost, maintenance also in part to the scope changes, clearly, which are adding some of the -- some staff to the previous, let's say, setup. And these were, let's say, more difficult to keep under control. Just to give you an example, in the U.S., the tariff impact on the maintenance costs on the spare parts, repairs, et cetera, that we buy and that are subject to tariff itself that themselves, say, accounted for about EUR 2 million, which is not little if you consider the overall unfavorable variance. On the other unfavorable changes, we have to consider mainly the inventory adjustment, which is affecting -- has been affecting also the cash generated from operations, the working capital, let's say, impact. This is -- we basically absorbed during the first half more clinker. So our clinker inventory went down during the first half quite significantly. And this translated into this kind of, let's call it, unfavorable impact of about EUR 15 million, out of which the inventory is EUR 12 million. Clearly, this is also something that during the year or over the next 6 months can go the opposite way if we have a let's say, different -- not necessarily, but let's say a different management of our clinker inventory. CO2 so far has not represented any cost similar to last year. The reason is associated with the way we account for CO2 rights. So we do not consider, let's say, them as a cost until we go -- we enter into the so-called deficit. So since the free allowances are usually able to cover in full the first half of our production and also somewhat more going on, the CO2 cost will appear in the second half probably in the last quarter or between the third and the last quarter, and we keep our, say, forecast of about EUR 35 million to EUR 40 million of CO2 cost for the full year, depending, of course, on the production of how the different countries will perform, et cetera. The foreign exchange impact on the EBITDA has been EUR 9 million. That's a net between the different countries again. So negative for -- particularly for the dollar, positive for the real, positive for the ruble. And yes, I mean, a net result, a negative result of EUR 9 million. And then we have the EUR 9 million of scope coming from the UAE, which we were commenting before in terms of, relatively speaking, good performance for this newly acquired entity. If we move to the next page, we have an overview of our, let's call it, cash flow statement. And again, what I was mentioning before, cash generated from operation is I would say, not as good as one might expect or somewhat lower, as you can see also on the right, comparing to the previous year. It's true that our margins went down, but net cash flow from operations suffer, as I said, mainly from the working capital adjustment. This is where we absorb, let's say, more liquidity cash flow than we did versus last year. So the inventory adjustment, let's say, as I said, also the trade receivable, the trade payables. So the combination of these 3 factors is what mainly drove down the net cash from operations. CapEx are slightly higher than last year. This was expected, let's say, we are in line or maybe even somewhat below our budget for the full year, but we are -- I mean, nothing unexpected there. Equity investment, there are small, let's say, of entity, either capital increases, let's say, in joint ventures or subsidiary. But these are all, let's say, related clearly to the industrial footprint of the company. Dividend payments remain even with last year, also, let's say, due to the fact that the dividend per share did not change. Dividend received, they are somewhat greater than last year, but this is mainly a temporary disalignment regarding the from the Mexican joint venture. So over the year, they should more or less match what we received in the previous year. Share buyback was an important item during the period because it was a use of EUR 180 million in the first 6 months, which was then became EUR 200 million by the July 17, if I recall correctly, when the -- we officially closed this tranche, which was opened in late February. It was expected to run potentially until the end of August, but it was closed somewhat earlier. So right in the 6 months, the interim report. And other item of various origin, different origin for EUR 62 million, which brought the net cash position -- bringing the net cash position to EUR 896 million at the end of June, which is obviously very sound that give us a lot of flexibility as usual. Moving to the -- focusing a little bit more on the geographical area on the main markets. The U.S., as I said at the beginning, is where also due to the size of the business there, we suffer the most in lower EBITDA, lower margin and coupled with lower turnover. So the increase in volumes was not sufficient to keep the turnover at the same level, mainly because of the currency impact. You see that on a like-for-like basis, we are minus 0.6%, so even, but the weakness of the dollar then impacted quite significantly, about EUR 50 million. And on the EBITDA, like-for-like, minus 15% with a negative foreign exchange impact of about EUR 13 million. The issue there was, let's say, certainly the negative, let's say, price level or the unfavorable price level, which we faced during the 6 months. And second, production cost that remain not very, very different from the previous year in terms of variable cost and also unit fixed cost. But yes, increasing logistic cost to transfer, let's say, cement across the distribution network. And other fixed cost, same as we mentioned before, not in part is related to production, part is related to general expenses like and labor cost or property taxes, which went up quite significantly. And we don't have here, we are not showing -- we usually don't show a split between the profitability of the cement business versus the profitability of the ready-mix business in the U.S. But certainly, we can say that the profitability of -- the decline in the profitability of the ready-mix business was much more significant than the decline of the profitability in the cement business. The ready-mix business is located mainly in Texas. Texas is the region that suffered the most during the first 6 months. The ready-mix business typically has a greater volatility versus the result of the cement business. And this was clear certainly in the first half, this kind of decline, which we faced, particularly in that business. The EBITDA margin went down about 4.5%. This is not a good result, but again, is the outcome coming from the variables and the trend that I just mentioned on the, let's call it, revenue and prices and costs jump, let's say, a little bit forward looking down the road in the next 6 months, we are, I would say, somewhat more confident that we can recover not in full versus last year because this is very unlikely, but to a large extent, let's say, the unfavorable variance of the first 6 months, particularly in terms of EBITDA margin. So yes, we will remain below because the market situation is such that it does not allow for a full recovery, plus we have the foreign exchange impact. But we do believe that the second half will be definitely less penalizing than the previous -- than the first one. On the Italian situation, which follows next, definitely more favorable. We are same level, actually somewhat lower level in terms of turnover, but we improved EBITDA and of course, also EBITDA margin. What is the reason? The reason is mainly a cost trend, which was particularly favorable if you look at the power cost. So power cost enjoyed quite a significant decline coming from the energy release program. This energy release programs had an impact both on the 2025 and 2026. So we are actually including in this 2026 figures a nonrecurring item of about EUR 7.5 million, if I recall correctly, which is the energy release accrual for 2025. Plus we have another -- how much is it the energy for this year 2026.

Around EUR 11 million, EUR 12 million.

For the full year...

For the full year.

For the full year, we expect another EUR 11 million, EUR 12 million, which is already in part included in the first 6 months, so more or less half of it of advantage on the power cost. So if you consider basically these benefits on the power cost and you clean it from the first 6 months EBITDA, you come to a level which is very similar to last year, so not very different. But however, it is certainly a good result, which we can confirm also in the following months. And the price level was also somewhat better. So on one side, yes, lower volumes, but better pricing and lower cost, in particularly power cost. So margin expansion certainly confirm and with the possibility to confirm it also in the coming months. In Central Europe, a little bit disappointing also here. Main reason is the weak demand -- weak with demand conditions with declines both in cement and ready-mix in some regions, also quite significantly like the Netherlands, ready-mix volumes went down by approximately 8%. So we are in a situation where particularly in Germany, I would say, which is the largest contributor to this region. The expectation for a recovery in demand has not been met yet, at least. And the pricing trend was, yes, somewhat favorable, but only slightly favorable, so unable really to offset the demand decline. And again, on the ready-mix results, which are normally similar to what we said to the U.S., more volatile and more affected when the volumes are going down. We have been suffering in Germany, but also in the Netherlands. And that's why the cement margins came somewhat under pressure, and they were impacted by the cost inflation in the region without the possibility really to improve pricing only slightly. And also, you certainly recall that in Germany, we are still -- we were already, let's say, running at a low capacity utilization level. And this trend was not counter effect, let's say, in the first 6 months. So to regain a certain margin level, we definitely need to have some improvements in the capacity utilization because pricing can be helpful, but capacity utilization is certainly even more -- is normally even more helpful, and that's why we are currently in a situation which is not satisfactory. On the Eastern Europe, again, a mix with Poland below last year in terms of volumes, but with a very tough comparison base. So looking for equalizing last year in the second half. Czechia, good expansion of the construction activity and of our volume stable to slightly improving, let's say, results. And again, Russia, which is part of the region, but obviously is a kind of different and several features suffer from quite a significant volume decline, about 9% and also pricing pressure. The ruble help somewhat, but not enough to really offset the profitability decline that we experienced in Russia. So I would say no big worries. Actually, good feelings from Poland and Czech Republic also for the second half. Russia, probably not changing much in the second half, but could be somewhat better, let's say, the second 6 months versus the first 6. Going to Brazil, which is Page 10. very favorable conditions overall, even in a market which has not been growing quite very significantly because we are talking about volumes up between 3% and 4%. There's actually a regional difference between the Northeast and the Southeast. I mentioned already before the more difficulties in the Southeast, due to weather and also to a different natural different trend of the demand. So high capacity utilization anyway, particularly in the Northeast, but also the Southeast is starting to get closer and closer, I would say, to full capacity utilization, which is also giving possibilities or more possibility to improve prices. Costs went up, mainly logistics associated with -- costs associated with the minimum transportation that I would call it tables. So there are some -- the transportation costs in Brazil are somehow regulated. And clearly, also with the changes in the fuel cost and the diesel cost Brazil is almost not -- basically not using any kind of logistic means different from trucks. So they don't have distribution in -- by the river or by train. So this, of course, has an immediate impact on the truck logistics, which is basically the only one. And following that, clearly, the price -- the delivery price went up, but also the price at the plant went up and we were able to, let's say, bring the margins to a nice improvement because when you compare with last year or anyway 2 years ago, you had a kind of, let's say, 4%, 5% improvement in the margins, which is quite nice. Also EBITDA, in this case, the help from the currency was about EUR 2.5 million, but still almost 50% increase in like-for-like conditions. So prospects for this year remains -- they remain favorable. Yes, Brazil is going -- will go through the presidential election, which is certainly favorable overall, let's say, at least until the presidential election. After the election, we don't know, of course, it depends partly from the outcome. But anyway, any potential change in trend will not happen right away. So we remain pretty confident that the country and also the company, subsidiary enter into a positive phase of the cycle, which can last certainly longer than 1 year. The annual rates are okay, relatively small addition to the group, not much to add versus what I was just commenting before. The domestic construction activity continues to be quite strong. Clearly, there is a decline or a slowdown in the residential or touristic projects, but investment in infrastructure and energy projects continue to be pretty strong and will remain so also in the coming years, also as a consequence of the tension between U.S. and Iran. The price growth was an outcome, let's say, of 2 variables. One is actually the price of cement itself. But another one, an important one is the mix. So the fact that the company has been shifting its focus on its commercial focus more on cement, less on export and less on clinker. So more on domestic cement, less on export, less on clinker. And this is translating into a mix, which is giving us a more favorable average price level. In addition to that, also the cement price went up some. So here, you see the figures. Of course, we were starting from a low level last year, but the improvement is quite significant. And the second half, unless really the overall situation worsen significantly, can continue to perform in a similar way. Mexico, our JV, extremely good, I would say, extremely favorable results for the first 6 months. Good performance in terms of cement volumes. The pricing effect is also somewhat favorable. We are running at a high capacity utilization. Production costs, yes, are increasing, but they have been offset or mostly offset by the price effect. And that's why you see that the margins -- EBITDA margin continues to be at -- basically at the level of the previous 2 years. And EBITDA overall is reaching EUR 265 million, which is an extremely high value. Here, we are talking about 100%, let's say, of the company. So obviously, our share of results reflects basically 1/3 of that. But still in terms of, let's say, management effort and involvement, we are -- we consider ourselves at 50%, which is actually the case together with our Spanish partners. So there are some, let's say, uncertainties, let's say, going forward, the macroeconomic situation is acceptable, but let's say, not really too strong. And the relationship with the U.S. and the signing or not signing or signing a good condition of the U.S. MCA treaty is a critical path, let's say, for the development of the country and also of the cement industry going forward. So if a satisfactory treaty will be signed soon. I think the expectation and the forecast will continue to be favorable, not as much if this is not -- this goal is not -- will not be reached in a short time. But so far, I would say, very positive performance and very good numbers, nothing really difficult to do something better. On the outlook, well, I tried already to cover it when I was speaking about different geographies. So what can we add? We don't see big changes in the trends through year-end versus what we experienced we faced in the first half. So we see trends that should be pretty much consistent with the H1 performance, probably in general, slightly better than worse. I mentioned already the country where we are more confident to do better. But the overall underlying trend should be pretty similar. U.S., we said, I think the first half was affected by some factors and reason and customer situation, which were particularly damaging in a sense. And things are looking somewhat better for the second half. Italy, the energy incentive, the power cost incentive are extremely significant, should continue. And residential activity not great, infrastructure slowing down. But overall, I would say, a good balance between volume, price and cost. Central Europe, this is probably the most disappointing situation in terms of demand because the -- we're still waiting for the support of the federal infrastructure plan in Germany. Will it become visible? Will not when it's a bit of a question mark. But certainly, it's very much needed to improve capacity utilization and through that lower production cost in the country. Eastern Europe, no big issues, fortunately, good support from governmental initiatives in Czech Republic and Poland. Russia, problematic situation, which not sure whether it will adjust and when. Brazil, we said, hopefully, there will be also some effort or some decision by the Central Bank to lower interest rates, which is in a way, it is the direction, but the absolute level is still very high and it is affecting certainly the construction activity. But there is a low unemployment overall in the country. Demand for residential is supported by the government. The government is also involved into some infrastructure projects, and we are seeing a good development for cement demand going forward, as we said. UAE just said, they are contributing positive results in line with -- maybe even more and more in line yes, more than what we were expecting initially, at least, in particularly considering the critical situation in the Gulf and how much this has affected the traveling, the tourism, et cetera, in the region. Mexico, yes, very strong performance first half. USMCA development, we'll see, can change somewhat the picture. But for the moment, the trends are quite favorable. So here we are in a situation which is not as good as the previous 2 years, but still quite favorable in our opinion. And the weakness of the U.S. dollar, yes, is an important factor, but this may also somehow reduce versus the original forecast. And overall, this take us to the -- to a level of profitability, which we project in the range of EUR 1.1 billion, EUR 1.2 billion. If we ended up, let's say, at the upper level of the range, it will be, yes, a decline versus last year. But in my opinion, not so significant or not so negative considering the overall situation that we have been facing and we are facing in the -- during 2026. So we are certainly shooting or trying to do as much as possible to stay in the -- not only in the interval, possibly at the upper range of the interval in part will depend on us, partly not as usual. But again, not a year with results as excellent or as outstanding as the last 2, but still, in our opinion, very sound, very favorable and giving us, again, a good cash flow generation, a good flexibility to move forward ways to, let's say, look at the cement market in our geographies for CapEx road map expansion. I mean, we have a picture in front of us that thanks to this result, we can manage and achieve very well. In the following pages, there are more details, which maybe we can use in the Q&A session, if needed. So we have turnover by country, EBITDA by country, the full income statement, the cash flow statement, which we commented pretty much already and the detail of the net cash position between short term and long term. So yes, took almost 1 hour. So I think it's enough to give, let's say, the floor -- to give the floor to the listeners and to the ones that are willing to ask some questions. So please, let's go to the Q&A session. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] First question is from Ben Rada Martin, Goldman Sachs.

I had 3 questions, please. My first was on price costs into the second half. It was super valuable to hear some of the moving parts, I guess, in the first quarter over the first half around positive pricing, some of those savings on variable costs. I guess as we look into the second half and maybe more pressure from energy inflation, do you still expect to offset some of these costs? Or could we see incrementally a little bit more pressure in terms of price cost than the first half? The second question would just be on the EU ETF. We've seen more details in the last few weeks on potential changes there. Does that change your decarbonization business cases at all in Europe? Are there any areas that you think are more interesting now, some of those changes around funding and conditional allowances in particular? And then my final question was just around M&A. I know we spent some time at the last results speaking about some of the opportunities. It'd be worth hearing from you how I guess you see the opportunities at the moment. Any regions in particular where you think there would be good fit for your portfolio?

Can you repeat the third question because we were not fully able to understand it.

The third question was just around M&A. I know we spent some time at the last results speaking about the optionality within M&A in each regions. Is this something that you're still looking at closely? And are there any regions in focus?

Okay. Okay. Well, on the power cost, well, I think that in Europe, there is certainly a trend, a need pressure coming from the -- particularly energy-intensive businesses, but in general, to somehow make energy, particularly power, let's say, more available in somehow at a lower cost versus what has been so far and also when you compare towards other geographies. Certainly, the competitiveness of the European industry is related to a large extent to the cost of power. So my impression is that this, I'm just happy to say, benefit or some subsidies in a sense that were introduced in the first half will continue because, again, there is a lot of pressure on it. And for example, in Germany, there is also a similar, let's say, energy release program, which we are following is not yet, let's say, fully achieved in a sense that we cannot yet say, recognize from an accounting standpoint, the benefit because we are working on it. But there is a possibility already, I would say, in the second half of this year to enter into the program and then to receive this kind of benefit. So for Europe, I think I'm fairly confident that we will see a new level of energy cost in the biggest market operate like Italy and Germany that should stay for some time. On the fuel, it is different because the fuel is clearly more an international market is more affected by the fossil fuel trends. So there, yes, there is volatility, there are increases and -- the only way we have or the main way we have to offset is to introduce as much as possible waste-derived fuels, which is also part of the decarbonization road map. So this is, again, a significant management effort, which has been, I would say, successful certainly so far in almost any countries where we operate, our substitution rate has gone up. And we need to continue to go that way, let's say, as much as possible according to our targets that are valid, both for decarbonization, but also for cost management, one of the few items where to couple, let's say, road map targets with lower cost. On the UETS, I think it's a little early to really discuss in detail what has been proposed by the way, because it's still a proposal. So not necessarily, it will remain the same. Yes, in general, I would say it's pretty much what we expected. They are giving some more time in a sense, which is an easy decision, if you wish, postpone certain postponement moving forward, decreasing somewhat the reduction factor of the free allowances. So there will be -- which is good. I mean, a little more time to achieve the target. And then, yes, they are also introducing some new or different funding and the possibility to some extent to use -- to create, let's say, credits outside of Europe and being able to use it in Europe. And these are all, I would say, yes, decision which we agree with, and they go into the right direction. The full details are not clear, and they have to be well studied, well identified. So the actual availability and possibilities they have to be clear very well. But again, it's a small step, but probably a small step, let's say, in the right direction. I think it will not be the last one. But for the time being, this is the available step and say, the new advantages that we can enjoy. On the M&A optionality, I would say, yes, with, as usual, some kind of cautious approach. We have seen movements, particularly in the U.S. at multiples that are very, very high, difficult, let's say, to justify. So at the end, when you see this kind of multiple, you also compare them at least we compare them with the possibility to improve significantly your industrial footprint through either vertical integration or also new equipment modernization of the plants because, yes, it's true that your M&A target can increase your size from one day to another. But also by keeping, let's say, your industrial footprint in good shape and particularly very cost efficient or as cost efficient as possible is even more helpful in times -- particularly in times when maybe the cycle turns bad or can give you, let's say, a lot of possibility in terms of managing your overall production network and logistic cost, for example. So there are a number of interesting things to do besides the M&A. There are other countries where the multiples are not as crazy where maybe there we can take a closer look at what comes on the market. So I would say, rational approach certainly more interest into reinforcing the existing either through internal or external growth. And yes, always compare, let's say, internal growth, internal expansion with external because some countries, as I said, this comparison, in my opinion, is somewhat shifting.

Next question is from Ephrem Ravi, Citigroup.

So two questions specifically. On Brazil, there was a very strong performance. The acquisition of the rest of the 50% was -- it looks like it was very well timed. Congratulations for that. But do you have plans on growing significantly in Brazil, especially given that there are some of your competitors who are looking to sell assets? Is there -- given the outlook for the market and your performance so far, is that one place where you are, in particular, kind of looking to grow? And secondly, in terms of the U.S. outlook. You kind of mentioned the weakness in residential and nonresidential demand and offset by data center infrastructure investments, North Texas is supposed to be one of those data center hubs is -- are you looking to further grow volumes in the data center aspect? And can you give a sense as to what percentage of your sales go into that particular subsegment of the market there?

Okay. Yes, Brazil, we are already there. I think in some years, like you said, moving from a JV to a fully owned company. Timing, yes, partly, I don't know if it was good. But of course, the external conditions will always play a significant role. The advantage now for the country is the recovery in volumes. The higher capacity utilization and also the fact that they were starting from a relatively low level, both in volume and prices. So -- but however, yes, I think the industry structure is going and will go under some changes, also significant, potentially significant. So yes, we are interested in following this kind of development. And yes, to find possibility to grow our footprint there. There is certainly one of the countries where we think we have, yes, the possibility because sometimes you would like to do something, but you cannot because there are no options on the table. In this case, there are probably options on the table. So it's up to us, let's say, to, yes, somehow find the right option or the right solution. But yes, there is certainly an interest to do that. Texas, yes, there are data centers are all over. We have seen, let's say, projects across the country many different states, many different market. Yes, Texas is certainly due to the size of the economy and the population, the size of the town is certainly destination for this kind of projects. It's not that we can always choose whether -- because like on any, let's say, construction project, it depends on who is building the relationship with customers, with that specific customer, is there a building process? How do they select the cement or ready-mix supply? But yes, I mean, we are there. We have a large significant, let's say, market share in the state. So we can certainly participate. If we look at the previous -- I mean in the first six months, actually almost 10% of our volumes in the country went into this kind of project, which is a lot. And so, it was probably one of the main reasons of the market growing, not really even forecasted correctly by the American Cement Association. Now they changed -- the American Cement Association changed a bit its forecast. They came out just lately with their summer forecast, which is showing an improvement in volume versus the previous forecast and it's certainly driven to a large extent by this kind of hubs or, let's say, yes, big data center. So we try. We'll try to do our best in supplying them. Yes.

Next question is from Yassine Touahri, On Field Investment Research.

I have a few on the U.S. So on U.S. pricing, are you planning any increases later this summer or in the second half? And with GCC bringing around 1 million tonnes of new capacity, would you prioritize maintaining pricing even if it means giving back a bit of a market share? And have you already seen more competition from GCC in West Texas, I mean, San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth? And then regarding the Section 301 tariffs, what was your view on the impact of the 12.5% tariff? Was it lower than what the industry was hoping for? And what would be your view then on the likely outcome of an antidumping investigation on Vietnam imports? What do you think the timing could be? And maybe on U.S. volumes, how are your volumes in July? Has it improved in the second -- versus the second quarter given the Texas weather disruptions are behind us? Maybe if I can ask the last one on capital expenditure. If the Texas plant upgrade goes ahead, is around EUR 500 million CapEx for the year, still a reasonable assumption? Or could it increase to maybe EUR 700 million if you have to go through with the CapEx on the upgrade?

Okay. There are price increases in U.S. Again, particularly in the Midwest area, there is, let's say, an attempt or more than an attempt to go up. So it's quite scattered, let's say, the pricing situation is not -- there are definitely areas like South Texas really with the imports in Houston that continues to actually somewhat increase or putting pressure on the prices. We have also in Dallas, it's not a new player, but in a sense, it's a new player because when QUIKRETE took over, let's say, the Midlothian plant, it's another potential point of self-supply versus maybe buying from other competitors. So which again, is somehow translating into some conflict, let's say, between producer. But yes, I think by year-end, probably if we look at the average price for the U.S., we can move from a slightly negative sign to slightly positive. But it will be quite differentiated between states and regions. As if you see, yes, of course, it's a new -- it's not really a new player because in part, they were anyway bringing cement from Mexico to prepare for the commissioning of the new line. I think most of the competition in this case is on oil well cement, not so much on the gray cement, which is kind of an issue but a profitable one and -- but also very volatile in terms of demand because it's strictly related to the number of active, let's say, oil wells. And yes, there we need to defend ourselves. I think we can because our, let's call it, quality and service is pretty good, but it will be certainly more challenging. On the -- the following question was...

On the Section 301, tariffs?

Yes, exactly. Yes, I'll let Giovanni intervene because he has more knowledge than me on this subject.

Sure. As we've been discussing throughout the 6 months, we haven't really planned around that. We were just waiting for the outcome. The outcome came end of July and substantially nothing has really changed. For most countries, the tariff increase was just 2.5%. And when you convert it to like dollar per ton, it's basically nothing, so not really impactful. So it's not going to help us, but we weren't really forecasting or boost in the year around that either.

What was somehow unexpected was additional tariff on the Canada the last one, the very last one.

It's unclear yet if the Canadian tariff, the 50% is going to be somehow replaced by Section 301 or not.

Exactly. But of course, a significant increase on Canadian tariffs can have an impact on the Northeast market in a sense, favorable, if you wish, for the domestic producer. But -- is it I mean to be seen, if it actually will remain like this because the trading between Northeast and the Great Lakes area has always been pretty significant as a kind of a necessity for the country. July volumes, U.S. slightly up versus last year. So I would say, okay. And there's plans. Well, we have approved the first phase, which is the execution implementation is not so quick. I think we are budgeting about EUR 70 million this year coming from -- $30 million, let's say, coming from the first phase, which is the new grinding capacity when you finish grinding, let's say department mill together with a number of other related jobs which I cannot -- well, it's not worth mention in describing in detail that they are in a specialty for not only the new grinding mill, but to prepare the plant for the potential, let's say, or likely future installation of the line. We need to do a lot of changes in the, call it, the landscape or the structure of the building, the location of the building, the electrical substation. I mean a number of items that are coming together. But -- so we are starting but the impact on this year will be relatively minor. So I think if we end up at EUR 550 million, EUR 560 million, all -- I mean, for the entire group, I think this is the likely number.

Next question is from Alessandro Tortora, Mediobanca.

I have 4 questions, okay, if I may. The first one is just a follow-up on what you said before. So you said this year, maybe we land at, let's say, EUR 550 million or something in terms of CapEx. Now, if we take into account that we have the ABL phase of this CapEx plan in the U.S. in the coming years, which kind of level of CapEx do you see maybe still, let's say, close to this, let's say, EUR 0.5 billion level. So just to understand the trend going forward because this is just, let's say, the start from this CapEx plan in the U.S.?

If we move on with the new line, but I think it will take another 2 years, let's say, before really designing. We need to finish the finish mill, we need to finish the okay, terminal, let's say, in Beaumont, which has to do with the new line, but not necessarily, but anyway, it's undergoing. And when we are -- and we will, I think, -- 99% start also inside the San Antonio plant, the railway terminal. So finish mill and railway terminal plus the new terminal in -- it's called import terminal, which is not or can be not necessarily for cement, also for other materials in Beaumont. And once we have this, let's call it, new Texas set up and running and also looking at the trend of the demand expectations, et cetera, we can decide on the new line. So I think for the next 2 years, I think we will be in that range. It can go up 1 year to EUR 600 million? Yes, it can, but probably not beyond that level. And if we really start then the second -- the new line, it will become more significant.

Then the second question is on, let's say, the situation in Russia. Clearly, I know that you don't have full disclosure about the underlying performance. But considering the huge drop into the EBITDA we saw in the first half, can you give us a sense of what is happening there? Is it cost? Is it, let's say, this decline in prices now you mentioned the press release. So just to have an idea of -- because Russia, let's say, held up pretty well, decent in the past year. So now we have this collapse in the metrics.

It's true. We came all together, I think was a general consequence of the -- general impact from the long period of war, where at the beginning, there were some, let's call it, excitement and more production growth and now less and less when you had the interest rates rising to 15%, 16%. And there is also certainly some competitive situation, which is making things worse. There was a change of ownership in one of our competitors, not too far in a sense, not too far in terms of Russian geography, but let's say, somehow competing on the civil market in Russia. As you know I mean as opposed to Brazil, you haul cement by train, so it can go very far. So -- and this new ownership is clearly targeting increasing market share, which we are not willing to give up and is affecting the prices. So the volume trend is something general and more and more related to the macroeconomic environment. The pricing trend is kind of specific and could have been better in a normal situation, which is not right now due to competitive price pressure.

Understood. Then, let's say, the third question is on -- you mentioned for capital allocation, you discussed briefly the M&A opportunities. But recently, you canceled that your treasury shares after, let's say, a good buyback. Is it something that -- this kind of measure, is it something that we should consider as a one-off? Or can become a sort of a regular capital allocation to buying back and then canceling?

I think the two -- I mean, we decided to cancel because we did not see, let's say, in the foreseeable future a clear use of the shares. We thought that it would be more meaningful. We make more sense to go with the cancellation. However, doesn't mean that we are not open, let's say, to a transaction or a M&A opportunity that could also involve our equity in a sense that more or something really compelling comes about, and there is a sense -- it makes sense, the financial and strategic sense to use the shares, we could always do it. I mean simply instead of using shares that are already in your pocket, you issue new ones. But to keep those shares in portfolio for probably a long time. It didn't appear to us like a good decision. We thought that it was preferable to cancel. And as I said, remain, however, open to interesting combination if they come about. Will this happen again? I don't know. It depends pretty much on the, I would say, on the CapEx plans, certainly, are a more tangible and more significant for the reason that we just mentioned, decarbonization, U.S. modernization, et cetera. So probably there will be -- and also results a little less good. So I mean, still a very strong financial position, results but maybe not as good as the previous 2 years. So we don't have to rush. I mean, we will check. I think that if we go -- if we open a new buyback program, then yes, probably we are more likely to cancel the share than the opposite, yes.

Okay. Okay. And the last question is on Germany. Considering the Germany was, let's say, a country not performing, let's say, can we say, to your expectation. Do you see or at least do you have any evidence from your, let's say, commercial sales force that we may have some positive impact in the coming quarters. So even, let's say, in Q1 next year from these long-waited infra program. And on the pricing side, do you see the possibility now you mentioned before U.S., but do you see the possibility to increase a little bit pricing this year or considering the current demand level, maybe we should think about, I don't know, next year to try to raise again some - a bit prices there?

Yes, I think the pricing in the U.S., it's mostly related to the market situation. And again, the regional where volumes were more affected or you have wider range of supply like area like Houston, Texas, you need some, let's say, stronger recovery in the demand, I think, to be able to go up. But we're not -- I mean, we're not entering, let's say, a price war or something similar. We're simply kind of unable to apply certain increases. In Germany, it's a little different. But Germany as opposed to Italy, right now, it's a little more difficulty in price increases also due to the low capacity utilization, which is true also for Italy. But also to the highly fragmented industry structure, which in many regions. I mean, it's clearly or can clearly damage the price level. That's also the vertical integration, let's say, of the producer is not as significant as we have in Italy. And you have, again, a number of customers in ready-mix that can correctly, I mean, can play a game on prices by addressing or asking, let's say, offers from different producers, which is the way to do. And again, is absolutely correct. But in a situation where the capacity utilization is underutilized sometimes foreseeing it or not forcing, but inviting, let's say, producers to try to sell more by offering discounts, et cetera. So we hope -- yes, we do hope and we are pretty confident that what you were mentioning. So the greater demand coming from the same infrastructure plan should -- shall change, let's say, the picture a bit. When? We don't know. There are the ceilings, the sensation is that, yes, something is already moving that in the right direction. It's certainly needed because the economy -- the strength of the economy is not very high. You can see also in terms of the industrial footprint suffering, et cetera. So without some help from the development of projects, it's difficult to imagine a significant recovery of the volumes, which is so very much needed to stabilize the price and maybe also being able to increase them a bit.

Next question is from Julian Radlinger, UBS.

So two quick ones. A lot of them have already been asked. So the first one is, so looking at the guidance range, I think a lot of the moving parts here are quite clear. You've been relatively open about all the variables. But could you just specify what are the assumptions, especially the big ones like price volume, that kind of thing to get you to the top or the bottom end of that EBITDA range exactly? What are the big differences?

Well, I think, it will be mainly the volumes. On the pricing, what we have at U.K. and the U.S., maybe, as I said, there could be a second half or slightly more favorable for the -- if not a widespread, let's say, increase, yes, some improvements in the area. But for the rest, it will be volumes. So a trend in volumes, particularly in Europe, somewhat, let's say, better than what we -- than the first half, which was I would say, overall. And we assume a cost trend, which is like -- and for some area for power and also fuel, still relatively favorable. So kind of no significant disadvantage on the variable cost. So if we can go up with the volumes immediately, particularly in the area where the fixed costs are -- represent a significant portion, let's say, of our production cost. And clearly, there are differences between, I don't know, Brazil versus U.S. or Germany, where the weight of fixed cost is much greater. There to really achieve, let's say, your target, you need to possibly sell more. This is what will make the difference together with the pricing level, which will remain anyway favorable because it was already, I mean, overall, it was already favorable in the first half, and can be slightly more favorable in the second half in countries like the U.S. where we had a negative variance.

Yes. Okay. Perfect. And then second question, can I ask about your hedges? You've spoken about it before, I think. But what's your hedging level for H2? And how does that compare to H1? I think I recall in the original guidance, one of the reasons for your assumption about an EBITDA decline was that in the second half of the year, you're a little bit less hedged than in the first half of the year. So what your hedging level for H2? And also, have you bought forward any power or gas for 2027?

Yes, yes. It's kind of rolling. So we are -- on average, I think we are around 50% to 60%, maybe on fuel a little bit more, on electrical, power little bit less. There are some areas or some plants where you actually cannot because there are some plants, particularly in the U.S., where the energy supply is regulated and you take -- I mean, you cannot -- you cannot buy from someone else and then you take the price that they're setting. So there's really basically no hedging possibility. But in general, I think we keep kind of rolling. Sometimes, there could be months or quarters where the hedging will increase because we see maybe the pricing can be more attractive, particularly on the power cost. But yes, you can consider basically, yes.

Is that then -- so based on what you're saying, I would think that you are a bit hedged for 2027 already at this point, but it will probably be at higher levels now. And -- yes. Okay. Perfect.

Correct.

Next question is from Allison Sun, Bank of America.

Just one question from my side. So I know you guys are pushing hard for your U.S. plants convert to natural gas for Net Zero goal. I wonder how the progress there? And are you expecting to benefit from the recent, I mean, the natural price gas price coming down in the second half. Do you expect any like margin improvement on this front?

No, we don't have anything that forecasts really any margin improvement coming from that. The program is absolutely going on. We will have, if not all, 95%, let's say, of the plants being able to use gas or to switch basically from 1 day to another from either petcoke or call to gas. So this is something, yes, which has been -- the main driver originally has been the decarbonization, but it could also become something interesting from an economic standpoint. Already some plants like Maryneal in Texas, we mostly use already gas because it's more advantageous. In others, it's still not yet, let's say, more advantageous. But with the rise of the oil and fossil fuels might well become. So -- but to answer your question, there is no specific bonus, let's say, included in the forecast.

Next question is from Cedar Ekblom, Morgan Stanley.

I've just got a question on cash generation. It was weak in the half. You have flagged the increase in CapEx, which I think is understandable. However, that doesn't talk to what is quite a meaningful decline, EUR 100 billion year-over-year in the operating cash flow line. Could you give us a little bit more color on what's going on there? Is this a working capital build and how to think about cash generation in the second half?

Yes, it is mainly working capital. I mean on the changes in working capital, last year, we absorbed basically plus EUR 100 million, which last year was much less because we had EUR 50 million approximately. So -- and this is coming from the trade receivables and trade payables. Although, if we look at the, let's say, days outstanding, it's not that we had been cashing, let's say, money in a worse way. The terms of the receivables have not changed. In part, it's seasonal. But it's true that also last year was seasonal and same, let's call it, period of the year. On the trade payables, there were some specific reasons. For example, in the UAE, we had some -- all the payments due to suppliers, which were you say, overdue, and we wanted to clear. So they are certainly -- this made quite a different than is a one-off in a sense that is not recurring. But yes, I would give the main reason is really the working capital changes. So inventory trade receivable and trade payable.

Okay. And why did you have such a shift in your payment terms like why were you paying people later and now paying them more quickly like what's going on there?

No, this came with the acquisition. I mean, it was a situation included in the books of the company before us.

Okay. Understood. And in cash in the second half, do we assume that your receivables and payables days stay the same as they were at the end of the first half? Or do we get a nice working capital inflow? Or how do we think about that?

No, I think we should reverse, let's say, trend. So this we don't see a reason why we should not achieve cash generated from operation in terms of ratio to net sales, which is similar to what we had last year. So we can lose maybe okay, 1 percentage point or maximum 2 percentage points, but not as much as it happened in the first half.

[Operator Instructions] We have one more question from Davide Longo, Indépendance AM.

Maybe one question concerning the CapEx plan in the CO2 capture in Germany? Are there any updates? How is it going that you presented the project to the authorities to try and get the subsidies? I think the window closes in September, but any more color would be very much appreciated.

Okay. No. Basically, the decarbonization project, which we started for the plant is on hold at the moment. So that we don't -- we are not able to, as we say, to the risk, let's say, completely both the, let's call it, technology, but also even more important, the logistics and the storage. So at the moment, we cannot proceed. We are -- a number of other projects which are not carbon capture. So in on, for example, we are planning -- completed the same modernization of the plant which is, we think, a better idea because if tomorrow, we will be able to get back to the carbon capture. We will apply the carbon capture to equipment, let's say, a production facility, which is already modernized. So let's say, best available technology, traditional, let's say, technology versus attaching carbon capture equipment to something that was built in the '70s, which is okay. I mean it's still working. It's a good plant. But we make a big difference in our opinion to do that. So to apply, let's say, carbon capture to a modern plant versus an older one, assuming that all the, let's say, surrounding conditions are there.

[Operator Instructions] Mr. Buzzi, there are no more questions registered at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Probably there are no more listeners, but that are still there, thank you for listening, and have a nice summer vacation, if not all of you have to enjoy the summer holidays. So thank you so much for listening, and so on.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect your telephones.