ArcelorMittal Aktie

Good afternoon, everyone. This is Daniel Fairclough from the ArcelorMittal Investor Relations team. Thank you for joining this call today to discuss our performance and progress in the second quarter and first half of 2026. Leading today's call will be our Group CFO, Mr. Genuino Christino.

Before we begin, I would like to mention a few housekeeping items. As usual, we will not be going through the results presentation, which was published this morning on our website. However, I do want to draw your attention to the disclaimers on Slide 21 of that presentation. And following opening remarks from Genuino, we will be moving directly to the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions]

And with that, I'll hand over the call to Genuino.

Thanks, Daniel. Welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining today's call. As usual, I will keep my remarks brief.

Let me start with safety, which remains our highest priority. ArcelorMittal's safety transformation continues to deliver measurable progress. The frequency rate of lost time injuries in the first 6 months of the year represented was a record low for our company. While we are encouraged by these improvements, we remain firmly focused on driving further progress.

Turning now to the business. I would like to focus on three key points. First, we are seeing positive near-term momentum across the business. The operating environment has improved through the first half of the year, driving improved results and with positive momentum across all segments. There is more improvement to come.

EBITDA for the second quarter improved to $2.1 billion. This represents a margin of $155 per tonne, which is well above our previous through-the-cycle averages. Our European segment delivered EBITDA per tonne of $98, which is a 3-year high and demonstrates the early signs of the improved policy backdrop. Importantly, these results do not yet reflect the benefits of the new TRQ trade tool, which are becoming increasingly evident. Customer engagement is higher, our order book is getting stronger, and prices are bucking the normal seasonal trends.

Reflecting these positive dynamics, we have announced production restarts in Spain, Poland and more recently, France. As we head into August, we have our full suite of blast furnaces in operation. And as a result, we are guiding to third quarter shipments to be stable to higher than the second quarter, which would represent a powerful counterseasonal outcome.

Underlying free cash flow in the first half was strong, annualizing at $2.5 billion, excluding seasonal working capital investments and strategic growth CapEx. This is a strong outcome at this stage of the cycle and provides the foundation for continued investments and returns of capital to shareholders.

This brings me to my second point, our differentiated portfolio of strategic growth projects and the opportunities that we are developing into growth options. The medium- and long-term outlook for our business is supported by a number of powerful megatrends. Steel remains a critical enabler of electrification, renewable energy and data center infrastructure. At the same time, growing investment in infrastructure and defense is supporting steel demand across many of our core markets.

India is expected to remain one of the fastest-growing major steel markets in the world, with demand expected to approximately double over the next decade. ArcelorMittal has the products, people, capabilities and geographical footprint to capture the opportunities these long-term trends create.

For several years now, we have been consistently funding our strategic growth projects. These high-return projects are expected to contribute new incremental EBITDA of $1.8 billion from 2026 onwards, providing a clear pathway to structurally higher earnings and returns through the cycle.

What differentiates ArcelorMittal is not only the quality of our growth opportunities, but also the breadth of future options available to us. We have unique exposure to India, where we have a long-term plan to grow capacity to 40 million tonnes per annum. In Brazil, we are evaluating downstream growth opportunities that leverage our low-cost asset base and long slab position to create higher-value products.

In the U.S., we are advancing studies for potential second EAF at Calvert, building on the successful execution of the first EAF. In Iberia, our extensive resource base and established infrastructure provide further capital-efficient growth optionality. As with our capital allocation decisions, growth investments must compete for capital and ensure that we are on course to deliver increasing returns on capital employed.

My final point is that we have all the elements in place to continue creating shareholders' value. The steel industry continues to evolve. Markets are becoming increasingly regionalized, supported by trade measures that promote domestic production. This aligns strongly with ArcelorMittal's business model of local production to serve local demand.

We believe this regionalization trend should support higher sustainable profitability and returns across the cycle. At the same time, supportive policy momentum, the earnings contribution from our strategic growth projects, the future growth options that we are developing and our exposure to powerful long-term demand trends are key drivers of higher earnings, returns on capital and free cash flow over time.

Achieving our cost of capital is not a goal, but a minimum expectation for our business. We are allocating capital to projects that can generate returns well in excess of our cost of capital. The value we create for shareholders is then amplified via our consistent capital return policy, progressively growing the base dividend as earnings power of the business grows, and consistent share buybacks.

As I conclude, the message is simple. I would like everyone to take away three key points from today's call. First, we are seeing positive momentum across the business. Our results are improving, market conditions are strengthening and the benefits of the recent policy change support the outlook.

Second, we have a differentiated portfolio of strategic growth opportunities, together with future growth options that provides a clear pathway to structurally higher earnings and returns through the cycle. Third, we clearly have the right elements in place to create long-term shareholder value. We are focused on improving returns on capital, value-creating organic growth, maintaining a strong investment-grade balance sheet and delivering strong shareholder returns.

With that, Daniel, I believe we can go to our Q&A.

Great. Thank you, Genuino. So we have a queue of questions in front of us. And the first one, we will take from Alain at Morgan Stanley.

A couple of questions from my side. Firstly, on Europe, can you talk a bit more about your outlook for that division? You've announced the restart of [ Fos-sur-Mer ]. Your order books appear to inflect. How should we expect your pricing dynamic to evolve into Q3 and Q4 after taking into account the lags? And should we expect any incremental ramp-up costs that can hold your margins back for Europe? That's my first question.

Yes. Thank you, Alain. First of all, I think what we are seeing in Europe, it's all very positive, right? If you look at our guidance for quarter 3 in terms of shipments being higher or flat to slightly higher than the second quarter, as you know, that's not the usual trend. That speaks for what we are seeing in terms of the order book. We are booking right now already for quarter 4.

So it's all playing out very, very well, I would say, and that's the reason why we have brought back the furnaces. So we have 3 furnaces that are running. We will be running actually all of our furnaces in Europe from quarter 3 onwards. We are also seeing, which is also not what you would typically expect just before the summer breaks in Europe, right?

So typically, at this point of the year, you would see prices kind of drifting a little bit lower. And that's not what you see, right? Of course, I'm not going to comment on evolution of prices from here, but looking at the indexes right now, they are moving in the right direction, right? So that's very good to see. Imports should be lower as a result of TRQ. I would expect the company to continue to now regain market share from imports, as we talked before.

And when we talked about -- when we think about the margins of the production that we're going to be bringing back, I think the message is the same that we talked about before. As you know, I mean, as we bring back this capacity, we benefit from the fixed cost absorption, right, because we don't really expect to be adding much in terms of fixed costs as we bring back the capacity. But at the same time, you're going to have more carbon costs, right? So you need to balance that. Overall, our expectation is that these [ tonnes ] should be even more profitable than what we have today.

That's very clear. And the second question is around Section 232, which is in two parts. So firstly, the U.S. may roll out an onshoring investment plan for aluminum where companies become eligible to import aluminum at a reduced tariffs if they are building new capacity in the U.S. Are you having similar conversations with policymakers in the U.S. to improve the economics of a potential second EAF at Calvert? That's one.

And then sticking with Section 232, there are talks about Mexico potentially adopting a Section 232-style tariff framework as part of a revamped USMCA. Essentially, this would push Section 232 to the Mexican border. How would the setup impact your Mexican business if it were to happen?

Daniel, do you want to take this one?

Yes. Thanks, Genuino. So yes, thanks, Alain, for the question. I think starting obviously with North America, Section 232, interesting development with aluminum that you noted. Obviously, we've -- in the past couple of quarters, this subject has come up in our results conference calls.

But I think just to take a step back, I think it's clear that ArcelorMittal is very committed to our franchise in the U.S. and North America more broadly. We have a record of innovation. We have our global R&D resources. We have our leading customer service in terms of quality and delivery. So we really have a tremendous amount to offer our customers in the U.S.

So the U.S. policy objective, I think, is very much around encouraging domestic mountain pool capacity. And that's very much aligned with the investments that we have already been making at Calvert. So Genuino talked about the EAFs at Calvert in his opening remarks. EAF, the first EAF, the existing project that continues to ramp up very well. We expect full capacity to be achieved later in this second half of the year.

And to remind everybody, that's a state-of-the-art facility, first of its kind, capable of producing the most demanding exposed automotive grades. And similarly, our new electrical steels project at Calvert, that's going to be producing the most sophisticated non-grain-oriented steel, and that's progressing very much to plan.

The second EAF, it's a very strong project. It would further increase our domestic U.S. [ melt and port ] capacity. It would make Calvert less dependent on imported sources of slab. So it's very consistent with that overall U.S. policy objective of producing steel domestically and having those robust supply chains.

Any potential savings from the policy would, I think, ultimately be determined by the Department of Commerce. So consideration would be given to the resources that are committed, the national security benefits of any commitment and the commercially reasonable time period necessary to complete the project. So none of that, we can answer at this stage.

But I think what I can say at this stage is -- and just referencing the opening remarks in the presentation is that we are moving forward with the detailed engineering for the second EAF. We're incorporating the lessons learned from the first EAF project to optimize this. And as and when we've got any updates, we will share those with you in due course.

And then just on your second question, I think it almost answers itself. I think, first of all, we have a strong business in North America. We're focused on producing locally for local demand. And I think we've long advocated for a greater policy alignment between the countries of the USMCA and very much broadening out the Section 232 border to the whole region and really creating this steel fortress in North America.

So Mexico continues to have relatively high import penetration compared to many of the other markets. So further improvements really are needed. So I think the -- obviously, we can't confirm any of what you talked about in your question, but any move in that direction, we would be encouraging. So we're really advocating for a greater regional alignment, helping to reduce tariff-related costs across the North American business. So let's see what happens, but any progress there would clearly be a positive for our North American business.

Thank you. Thank you.

Great. So I think we'll move to the next question, which we'll take from Ephrem at Citi.

So two questions. Firstly, can you talk about the level of inventories you're seeing in Europe? The messaging from the steel industry was that if TRQ came on, there's a slightly higher level of inventories carried over from last year. Will mean volumes will not pick up immediately, but your guidance for 3Q suggests otherwise with much better seasonal shipments in the third quarter. So is the inventory levels now significantly lower to enable that shipment increase?

And then secondly, both related. Do the extension of free allowances to 2038 by the EU tweak any of your investment or decarbonization plans in Europe? And then given the blast furnaces that you are bringing back on right now, do you have enough carbon allowances for it? Or is it something that you will have to buy from the market?

Okay. Thanks, Ephrem. So let me take your first question, and Daniel will comment on the ETS and the carbon cost. So inventories in Europe, Ephrem, I think what we saw during the quarter was pretty much what we were anticipating and we discussed during our first quarter. Imports were still elevated in the second quarter, right?

And however, when you look at on a half year against half year of last year, you see that it's relatively stable, right? So -- and as we also talked about in quarter 1, we don't really see that inventories are so excessive in Europe, right? And you can see that in our guidance. And perhaps that's because we are also more exposed to South through [ Fos ] and Spain. And as we know, that's the region that is going to be also replacing most of the imports, so a large part of the imports.

But we feel very -- so when we look at our order book and we look how the engagement from customers, it's all developing nicely, I would say. We talked also about how prices are evolving, which typically, when you have high inventories, you would not see that happening, right? So that gives us confidence to provide this guidance, and we feel good about it. Daniel, do you want to talk about carbon?

Yes, sure. So on the topic of ETS, I think, just to take a step back, first of all, I think it's clear that the Commission is now really finally recognizing the challenges facing industry in Europe and really taking concrete actions to support it. So for steel, we've seen the new carbon border. The CBAM has been in place since the 1st of January. The new TRQ trade tool has been in place since the beginning of this month. And these are very important developments which are really reshaping the outlook for the steel industry in Europe.

The ETS review, that's another important component of this. And the current proposals really do, I think, represent a step in the right direction. So it reflects this ongoing recognition and that decarbonization objectives do need to be balanced with industrial competitiveness.

So we see a number of positive elements, including the extension of the free allocation phaseout, the changes to the ETS cap that improve long-term availability of allowances and greater support for industrial decarbonization through things like the decarbonization bank. But our key concern does remain aligning rising carbon costs with the conditions needed for decarbonization at scale. So we're going to continue to engage constructively on a framework that supports both decarbonization and maintains industrial competitiveness.

And then on your last point, just in terms of incremental carbon costs, I think Genuino referenced it in his earlier remarks. I think it's something that we mentioned on the call last quarter as well. So as we increase our production in Europe, you should anticipate that this will increase our carbon cost in Europe. So that's something that you need to be balancing in your projections.

But Genuino was very clear in saying that this will be more than outweighed by the operating leverage, the fixed cost absorption. So those new [ tonnes ] that we're bringing on being incrementally more profitable than what we've just posted today.

Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Ephrem. So with that, we will move to the next question, which we'll take from Reinhardt at Bank of America.

First, I just want to ask about your slab network in the Western Hemisphere. To what extent do you have spare capacity in Brazil? And especially now with the Calvert EAF ramping up, how much capacity do you think you have to be able to divert into Europe if the market maybe needs some extra tonnes?

We are running our facilities in Brazil today at full capacity. The slab business is running. So all the furnaces are running. Of course, we have plenty of optionality to divert volumes where we see the opportunities, right? I mean, of course, the group will always has priority.

As you know, we have high-quality slabs coming not only from the same 3 million tonnes of slabs. We have also Tubarao also producing slabs. So we have something that I think is unique to ArcelorMittal. And we talked about it in the past that we will see finally what happens and the ability of our all the mills in Europe to take their market share of the lower imports.

But ArcelorMittal remain well positioned here to, if necessary, to bring slabs. We have more downstream capacity that we can utilize if we see that opportunity. So yes, so the group is, I would say, in a unique position here to capitalize on its footprint.

That's very clear. And maybe just a question on your order book comments into 3Q. Can you give us a sense of how much of that sort of stable to up or, I guess, seasonal outperformance is due to market share gains? And how much of that would you estimate is just end market activity being better than expected?

Well, clearly, I mean, the demand picture in Europe has not really changed much, right, compared to what we discussed. So the demand in Europe is surpassed. It's stable, right, which is good because in the prior years, as we talked about as well, the real demand in Europe was declining. And this year, our expectation is for the real demand to stabilize, which I would say it's encouraging. It's a good start, right? So the demand picture is not really changing so much. So then it's really -- I mean, it's a function of the reduced level of imports that we are expecting with TRQ. So that's how we are seeing the evolution here.

Great. So I think we'll take the next question now from Tristan at BNP Exane.

Maybe just a quick follow-up on the order book. Would you be able to quantify it in Europe? It's up year-on-year, but by how much? Is it double digit?

Tristan, look, I mean, I think our guidance is quite clear, right? So -- and if you look at our deck, our slides, we have provided the drop in shipments in '25 and '24, Q3 against Q2. You can see that it's mid- to high single digit in terms of drop in shipments quarter-on-quarter, Q3 against Q2. And the guidance is for stable or slightly higher. I think that's quite specific guidance, I would say.

And as I talked about also before, we are now really looking at Q4. So it's -- we are in a good position, in a strong position here. Again, a very good level of engagement from customers. So it's all developing, as I said, quite well.

Okay. No, that's fair. Another question on Europe. Do you think there is a decent probability that the price setting [ tonne ] for HSC in Europe could be a tariff paying imports? Or do you think that there's going to be sufficient domestic capacity, especially in the near term? And also on the supply side, do you see a risk of seeing some idle facilities in Europe getting purchased by foreign slab producer and transform into re-rolling centers? Is that something that you would consider as a risk?

Yes. So maybe I will start, and then we'll add, Tristan. So first part of your question, I think what we are still missing in Europe, to be honest, is this pickup in demand, right? So as we were discussing, so demand is now relatively flat, the real demand. If you look at the World Steel Association, they have a positive forecast for next year. We have all these programs announced in various countries that should support.

We talked a little bit about the megatrends as well, electrification. So I think we remain in the medium to long term, optimistic that demand in Europe should start to move in the right direction as well, right? More recently, we have seen PMIs also moving in positive territory, which is encouraging.

So I think if you get to a scenario where demand improves, -- why not, right? So then it might be that actually, imports -- the import parity will establish the European prices. But that's -- I think that's -- we are still some time. We have to see how the competition, how the other mills also bring capacity, what they can actually do, right?

So I think it's early days really to talk about this. One thing is for sure, as we bring capacity back and competition does the same, the marginal cost of production in Europe should rise. And that should, of course, support prices in Europe. Daniel, do you want to talk a little bit about the [indiscernible]?

Yes. Yes, sure. So I think it's clear that European policy is there to promote competitiveness of domestic capacity, domestic production. So I think it's clear that the Commission does not want to see capacity close. They want to see capacity remain competitive. They want the industry to continue to support employment, et cetera.

So in your scenario, I think I would -- it would reinforce further actions from the Commission and putting slabs into the TRQ quota tool. So I think that it's probably just a question of time before slabs become part of TRQ, just to make sure that that's not a long-term risk to steel production in Europe.

All right. That's very clear. And if I could just squeeze one quick one on China. I noticed you put China restructuring as a potential upside in the presentation. I don't think that was there before. Does that mean you've seen some positive sign or expect anything in the coming year? Or am I just reading too much out of it?

Unfortunately, yes, Tristan. To be honest, I mean, we know, I mean -- and we have discussed that, right? So we know that it has to happen at some point in time. It's just not possible for us to say when and how. But I think it's clear that eventually will need to happen.

I mean, you still have -- as we know, I mean, half of the industry in China is at least burning cash. It's not something that we see is sustainable. But when and how it happens is difficult to precise. But that, of course, when it does and international prices then would then normalize that, of course, would support the industry, not only in Europe, but across the globe for sure.

Okay. Thank you.

So we'll move now to take the next question from Andrew at UBS.

Yes. So I just wanted to follow up on -- first of all, just on the CapEx projects that aren't included in the $1.8 billion long-term guidance. Curious, what the time scale is in terms of steps to implementation? It sounds like [ Hazira ] is already an approved study as you put in the presentation. So I'm kind of curious where we go from here, construction time line, like how certain is this? And maybe just expand out some of those other projects? And then I have a follow-up on the decarbon Europe.

Yes. Sure, Andrew. Andrew, as you know, we have been investing in a good list of projects now for a couple of years, right? And we are starting to see the benefits, right? Already in 2025, '26, we have $700 million out of the $1.8 billion that we should be capturing this year. We captured already $300 million in H1. So we have another $400 million that we believe we should be captured in H2, and there is more to come.

So -- and then what we are trying to do is to show the old opportunities and unique opportunities that we have when we look at across our portfolio, right? And I think, again, it's quite unique to ArcelorMittal given our presence in these regions that are very attractive from a demand point of view. So you see us looking at more investments in Brazil downstream, which makes a lot of sense for us. We have a low-cost base in Brazil. We have long slabs. The country is short value-added products. So it's just something that makes a lot of sense for us, and we are advancing the engineering work.

The same is true for Calvert, the second EAF. So we are also progressing there with the engineering work. And of course, we have India, where our ambition is very significant, right? And thinking about the CapEx, for sure, we're going to be completing this year, a number of projects. So Iberia is a good example. The expansion of Serra Azul is another example. So we're going to be also completing the EAF in U.S.

So we are creating space within our envelope to add some of these other projects, right? So as and when we complete the engineering work and we feel we have a good solution, then we will take that to our Board. And then we will announce more details, time lines and contributions, et cetera, et cetera. But I think you should take that this company will continue to grow, and that's something that differentiates us as well.

Yes. Okay. That's great. And on the EAF projects, and obviously, you've advanced Dunkirk. I mean, given all the support you've received from the EU around the TRQ and obviously, now the ETS phase out and things like that, I'm curious, how you're seeing those other potential decarb projects that were talked about a few years ago? I mean, is -- what comes next? Is it [ Gen ]? Is it Germany?

And I mean DRI, you've kind of said that doesn't make sense in the next few years in the past. But with all this support, is DRI potentially becoming more viable? And given the supply chain in security, do you need to build DRI capacity in Europe in the future rather than relying on like the merchant HBI market when obviously, it's growing EAF supply in the European market?

Yes. Well, Andrew, to be honest, right now, I mean, it's not really part of our plans, right? I mean, you saw what we are doing in that. We have already within the group DRI capacity, right? And as we know, we still have to see the conditions for DRI in Europe to develop.

I mean, we know where price -- gas prices are. We know what is the availability of hydrogen, what is the price, right? So today, it's very hard to see. We don't see it yet that the conditions for DRI are present. It's challenging. I mean we have one -- the only DRI we operate in Europe in Hamburg, and we know how difficult it is.

And in terms of sequencing, at this point in time, the focus is Dunkirk. And of course, we have done already. So when you think about all the change that we discussed that Daniel talked about the ETS, I think we are in a strong position because we have already done a lot of work on all of these projects, right? So as we learn more from the Commission, the change to the ETS, I think we're going to be in a position to move.

But what is important and the message remains the same that we will invest when it makes economic sense, when we can earn a decent return on our capital. Otherwise, we will -- as I talked about in my opening remarks, there is a competition in this group for capital, right? And we will fund the projects that can deliver the highest returns, and that's what we will continue to do.

So we'll move now to take a question from Boris at Kepler.

I would start with the usual bridge into Q3. If you could share the dynamics you see for Q3, not only for Europe, but the other regions? And yes, that's the first question.

Daniel, do you want to walk them through the bridge?

Yes. Yes, sure. So I think the -- it's a very simple bridge. So Genuino talked about the positive outlook, the positive outlook for the third quarter, the positive outlook for the second half as a whole.

So it's -- yes, so it's a very simple bridge. We expect all steel segments to improve sequentially into the third quarter. The key themes for the group as a whole, being higher steel shipments. We expect higher average selling prices to be reflected in the third quarter as well. But there will be some additional costs. Genuino referred to it in previous remarks, particularly higher carbon costs as our European production increases. So those are the key themes for the third quarter.

I think for the second half as a whole, we obviously would expect that momentum to hopefully continue into the fourth quarter. Normally, fourth quarter is a better quarter from a volume standpoint than the third quarter. And in the previous questions, we've been talking about momentum on pricing and spreads right now, which would obviously come through to results with appropriate lags.

And then the other thing just to highlight, I think, in terms of the outlook. It's not part of your question, but we have reiterated again the prospect of positive free cash flow this year, not just this year, but beyond. And I think that should be quite clear in your modeling. We've got working capital unwind, higher profitability in the second half of the year. And that combination should be quite powerful from a free cash flow perspective.

Very clear. My second question is on Europe. They are two questions in one. Where do you see the potential for margins in Europe? We are now sitting at 98%, as you mentioned. It's quite [ shunned ] from -- in Q1. What kind of potential do you see? And more generally in Europe now that you have a better backdrop, more supported by direct and trade defense. Do you see scope for consolidation? And is it now a place you would look differently in the current setup?

Yes, Boris, so let me take this one. Thank you. Look, in terms of where margins should -- what is the potential for margins, I think it's -- I'm very encouraged when I look at -- if you look at our profitability in Q2, Europe, very close to $100 already, right? And as we talked about, we have not yet seen the benefits of the TRQ. So clearly, there is potential for us to do better. I will not, of course, volunteer a number, but I think we have not yet seen the potential, right, which is very encouraging.

And then to your second point in terms of consolidation in Europe, I think we have always seen the benefits of consolidation. As we know, Europe is more fragmented than some other regions. It could benefit from consolidation.

But ArcelorMittal, as you know, we are already very large. Our focus is on running our assets. So we have a lot of opportunities. We have some of the best assets in Europe. So that's our focus to run our -- earn our cost of capital. That's the focus that we have set for ourselves.

Great. Thanks, Boris. We'll move now to take a question from Bastian at Deutsche Bank.

I have one on the mining business. So I guess you're holding on to the 18 million tonne guidance for Liberia. There's a slide in your pack as well, but it doesn't have the numbers. Can you maybe help us with the shipment number for Liberia for the first half so that we can gauge roughly what you're still expecting in the second half? That's my first question.

Yes. Sure, Bastian. So when you look at the Liberia project, I think we are -- it's progressing well. So we have two of the lines of the concentrator that are running. We are ramping up the second, getting ready to start the third one. We continue to guide for 18 million tonnes, so as per plan. And the production in Liberia is up very significantly already. You can see that year-on-year.

And in the second half, we need to ship about 10 million tonnes to get to this 18 million. So we feel that we can achieve that. We have the port, the rail, the infrastructure, it's all in place. And as we talked about in our MD&A in the earnings release, because of the very heavy rainy season that we experienced, we had some delays in shipments, which we expect to catch up in quarter 3. So all in all, I would expect shipments to see already an improvement in shipments in Q3.

Got you. And then just coming back briefly to, I guess, some of the earlier questions, particularly with regards to the rerolling capacity and the implications of slabs coming in. Slabs are obviously not yet part of the safeguards. Is there a number you have in mind, how much capacity European rerollers could potentially ramp up here? Is there a number you would put out there as to how much of the supply gap could be filled by rerollers until potential safeguards on slabs may potentially be introduced as well?

Yes. Bastian, I -- to be honest, it's not something that we are overly concerned. I think in Europe today, the rerollers, they have been there forever, right? And they have established supply chains they are operating today, right? So they will -- I believe they will continue to operate. So I would not worry so much about that at this point.

Okay. Fair enough. But do you have a number in mind as to how much capacity these guys can ramp up?

No. I'm not going to comment on that, Bastian.

Yes. And I think just to complement, Genuino, or just to reiterate what you just said, I think we really don't see a lot of spare rolling capacity in Europe, and that can be ramped up. I think the earlier question was very different because that was a question about potentially closing primary capacity in Europe and replacing that with imported slabs to then be rerolled. So that would be a very, very different scenario and clearly something that we would expect to be -- the European Commission to not want to see and to take action to prevent that from happening.

And that's why I was referencing slab becoming potentially part of the tariff rate quota tool. But that's not a near-term risk or dynamic. And the near-term opportunity for additional rolling in Europe, we really just don't see that as being fundamental to the near-term supply-demand outlook.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

So I think we'll move now to take our last question, which will be from Cole at Jefferies.

I'd just like to follow up on two of the new slides that you've got in the deck. The first is on your sustainable solutions business. You're talking about $750 million of EBITDA, medium term. I'd just like a little bit more color, what gives you confidence in delivering that number? Because $750 million is more than some smaller steel companies are delivering at the moment. So just some quantification of that? And then following up on that is the comment that you made about using steel on your Slide 19 on -- effectively for the transformation. How do you see steel playing its role?

So thank you, Cole. Thank you for your question on sustainable solutions. It's something that we are very excited about. And I will address this one, and I will ask Daniel to talk about your second question.

So as you can see, I mean, we are making good progress with our sustainable solutions division, right? So we are already running -- the run rate, as you can see, it's already in excess of $500 million. And we are executing projects that will add to profitability of this division, the renewables, the investments that we are making in India. So we are developing another gigawatt of capacity there, renewable, which is very good in terms of returns, IRR. It allows us to have this very stable levels of EBITDA and free cash flow as we are enjoying with the first project that we completed in India.

Second part of the growth story there is our sustainable construction business. So that's panels, profiles that we are developing. We have already a strong base in Europe. We are now expanding the footprint into India, into U.S., in Brazil. We have recently acquired a company producing the same products in Brazil. We are developing greenfields, as you can see in our sustainable section in our earnings release, a greenfield also in U.S. We are starting this business there, something that we have a lot of expertise. So those are the drivers really of the increase in this division in the near term. Daniel, do you want to talk about the second part?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Genuino. And yes, thanks for the question as well, Cole. Because this is obviously a very topical theme, electrification. It's one of the clear megatrends, and it's a megatrend that I think people are getting quite excited about.

But within that excitement, I think the role that steel will play in this is not being recognized. And when we think about the build-out of renewables, the build-out of transmission, it just won't be achieved without steel. So steel is very much fundamental to this theme of electrification.

So we've taken the opportunity to try and put some numbers around it, and this is Page 19 of the slide deck that we published this morning. And it's simply just looking at the projections through 2035 for electricity generation in the various different regions. We've applied some standardized assumptions, external assumptions rather than our own assumptions around the steel intensity of that generation. And once you put it all together, it's a very significant number, almost 300 million tonnes of steel would be required to achieve these electrification goals through 2035 ex China.

So it's an important theme. We have good exposure to it. If you look at our product portfolio, we produce all of the steel that are going to be required to achieve these goals. Think about Magnelis and our other products, which are well suited to solar. Think about heavy plate for wind. Electrical steels, this is going to be -- have a key role to play, and we're producing that -- or going to be producing that in the key regions and then, of course, the overall transmission. So we believe that the demand is going to be interesting. We have the product portfolio to be applied to it. And yes, we just took the opportunity to put some numbers around it.

And then just the one division that wasn't mentioned on the quarter-on-quarter was the Indian JV. Just wondering if you could give any color on that into the third quarter and fourth quarter?

Well, thank you for asking. So as you can see, the performance in Q2 was strong. So we had record level of shipments, run rate at about 8 million tonnes. So our expectation is for the division to continue to do well in quarter 3 and quarter 4. The focus is, of course, other than continue to run the existing operations on our projects. As you know, we are doubling the capacity there. That is also progressing.

Yes. So I think demand is strong. We continue to see a very strong level of demand. Prices have moved up. They have recovered from the low levels that we saw at the beginning of the year. So I think it's all -- we see good developments there. So we should continue to see strong performance in the second half as well.

Great. Thanks, Cole. Genuino, that was our last question. So I'll hand back to you for any closing remarks.

Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, everyone. Before we close, let me briefly reflect on the key message from today's discussion. First, we are seeing positive momentum across the business, with results expected to improve across all segments. Early indicators in Europe are already encouraging, giving us confidence as we enter the second half of 2026, with momentum continuing to build into 2027.

Second, we have a differentiated portfolio of strategic growth opportunities and future growth options. We are well positioned to benefit from some of the most important changes that are reshaping the global steel industry. This, in turn, provides a clear pathway to structurally higher earnings and returns through the cycle.

And finally, we have all the elements in place to continue growing earnings, returns on capital and free cash flow. Structural demand drivers in a more regionalized steel industry creates opportunity. ArcelorMittal's disciplined capital allocation and strategy execution, while maintaining a solid investment-grade balance sheet, provides a strong foundation for future value creation.

With that, I will close today's call. And if you have any follow-up questions, please reach out to Daniel and his team. Thank you again for joining us, and I look forward to speak with you soon. Enjoy the summer, and please stay safe and keep those around you safe as well. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone. This is Daniel Fairclough from the ArcelorMittal Investor Relations team. Thank you for joining this call to discuss ArcelorMittal's performance and progress in the first quarter of 2026. Leading today's call will be our Group CFO, Mr. Genuino Christino.

Before we begin, I would like to mention a few housekeeping items. As usual, we will not be going through the presentation that was published on our website this morning. However, I do want to draw your attention to the disclaimers on Slide 20 of that presentation. Following opening remarks from Genuino, we will move directly to the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions]

And with that, I will hand the call over to Genuino.

Thanks, Daniel. Welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining today's call. As usual, I will keep my remarks brief and much of what I say will echo the messages from recent quarters. That reflects the consistency of our performance, the clarity of our focus and the discipline with which we continue to execute our strategy.

What we are delivering at the bottom of the cycle positions us very well for the near future, particularly as more favorable policy conditions translate into a stronger operating environment with improving margins and returns. Alongside the impact of our growth strategy, this supports the free cash flow outlook and the delivery of consistent capital returns to shareholders. But first, I want to address safety. Our multiyear safety transformation program is now delivering more consistent and improved outcomes across our organization.

Leadership expectations are clearly defined, risk management practices are being applied more uniformly and our focus on process safety has expanded across installations. Advanced analytics, including AI are strengthening these efforts, for example, enabling early identification of workers entering hard areas and triggering past alerts and interventions that human monitoring alone.

Most importantly, the sustained focus on safety is translating to tangible improvements in performance across the group. We provide a more detailed account of this progress in the sustainability report published last week, which I encourage you to review for a fuller picture of how we are advancing our safety objectives.

Now I want to focus this quarter on 3 key points. First and foremost, our results consistently demonstrate clear structural improvements. In the first quarter, we delivered EBITDA of $131 per ton, up $15 per ton year-on-year and around 50% higher than our historical average margins. This clearly demonstrates the strengthening of our underlying earnings power over recent years.

Importantly, this performance does not yet reflect the significantly stronger price environment seen in recent months, which we expect to be more fully evident in our second quarter results. Underlying free cash flow performance was robust. Excluding the seasonal working capital investment and the strategic growth CapEx, underlying free cash flow was running at an annualized rate of over $2 billion.

Again, considering where we are in the cycle, this represents a strong outcome. Consistent and disciplined execution of our strategy is driving improved performance and providing the capacity to continually invest with discipline and focus and materially enhance the future earnings potential of ArcelorMittal.

This brings me to my second point, our compelling growth opportunities, which clearly set us apart from our peers. We are allocating capital to the highest return opportunities. This includes projects that are actively enabling the energy transition, expanding our iron ore mining capacity and adding new value-added capabilities. We recently approved an EAF investment in [indiscernible]. The decision was enabled by the more supportive policy backdrop, the cost visibility from a competitive long-term energy contract and the support of the French government.

Our EAF projects are expected to deliver incrementally high EBITDA to provide an acceptable return on the capital deployed. So we have reflected Dunker together with the previously announced EAF projects in Sestao and Guyon into the expected EBITDA impact from strategic projects. This now stands at an incremental $1.8 billion from 2026 onwards. My final point is on the positive outlook, which is underpinned by trade policy. Given the change to trade policy, the steel sector today offers much more defensive characteristics, particularly in Europe than it did in the past.

More effective trade protections are leading to increasingly regionalized market structures, enabling domestic producers to recapture market share from unfairly subsidized imports. The biggest shift occurring in Europe. We are very pleased with the agreement achieved in the new tariff rate quota tool in Europe. As a result, we can expect this to be in effect from 1st of July 2026. Together with CBAM, this underpins our positive outlook for our European business. We are seeing stronger customer engagement, higher order inquiries and customers shifting more towards domestic supply. This is apparent in the material improvement in steel prices and spreads since the start of the year.

As a result, despite the volatility of energy markets caused by the conflict in Iran, we continue to expect our production and shipments to improve across all regions in 2026. And we should see a clear improvement in our EBITDA in all steel segments next quarter. As I conclude, the message is simple. We are consistently delivering structurally improved results while executing our strategy with discipline. Our high-return growth opportunity to differentiate us from our peers as does our track record of capital returns through the consistent application of our policy. That framework has already delivered a 38% reduction in our share count and a doubling of the dividend over the past 5 years.

At the same time, we have advanced the business strategically, enhancing resilience and structurally improving returns on capital, all achieved while maintaining a strong investment-grade balance sheet.

With that, Daniel, I believe we can begin the Q&A.

Great. Thank you, Genuino. So we have quite a long question -- list of questions already. So we will move to the first, which we'll take from Alan.

A couple of questions from my side. The usual question is probably a good place to start. If you can walk us through the usual profit bridges Q1 versus Q2? And where do you see the greatest delta in prices and volumes? And how are your divisional costs evolving sequentially, including the CO2 cost implications in Europe? That's the first question.

So I will ask Daniel to start with the bridge. Daniel, do you want to kick it off?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Genuino. And it's a very simple bridge, which you've already alluded to, I think, in your opening remarks, you referenced that we expect all of the steel segments to improve in the second quarter relative to the first quarter. And the drivers behind that improvement are common across the segments. So it's a theme of improved volumes and improved prices. So that's applicable to Europe. It's applicable to North America, and it's applicable to Brazil.

Yes. Perhaps then I will add, Daniel. I mean the point on carbon cost, I mean, as you know, I mean, we have the new benchmarks, right, from beginning of the year, and that's [indiscernible] 4.2. So I'm sure you know what it means in terms of reduction of free allowances, right? But I think what is important here, and we have in our results is that now with CBAM, which so far, based on what we can see, is proving to be very effective, right?

I mean we see that prices since the introduction of CBAM has moved up by this year, just look at the index almost EUR 100, right? And you don't see that yet in our results. You see, of course, the costs in Europe already, right, as we accrue the higher CO2 costs, but you don't see yet the benefits of CBAM, that's I would say. So that should come, of course, from quarter 2 onwards.

And my second question is, if you're able to give us some qualitative color on the European customer behavior, how receptive are they to the new pricing frameworks both CBAM and the upcoming safeguard? And are you worried about inventory levels in Europe? Or are you seeing any client retrenchment because of the Middle Eastern conflict? So any color you can give us on your customer profile in Europe today would be much appreciated.

Yes. Well, I made some comments in my prepared opening remarks, right? We are seeing more activity. The order book is good. So when I compare where we were last year, I would say the order book is stronger. We see customers trying to develop the relationships. So that is all supportive, Alan. That's good. So -- and that's why, I mean, we feel, of course, confident to confirm the guidance that we discussed at the time of Q4 results, higher shipments in Europe year-on-year, right? And I would expect our second half actually to be stronger than the first half, which is, as you know, unusual. Typically, our second half is weaker. But because of everything that we are discussing here, I would expect shipments in the second half to be actually stronger. Yes. So I think it's all moving in the right direction.

So we'll move now to take a question from Bastian at Deutsche Bank.

My first one is also a follow-up actually on maybe your guidance, particularly on the steel production side in Europe specifically, which was, I guess, very low in terms of production in Q1. And you talked about the maintenance, but shipments were down quite a lot as well, which I guess one could say is a little bit surprising given the impact from CBAM we've seen already as well as maybe some withdrawal from imports. So I'm wondering how far we will see a real catch-up in the second quarter driving very strong year-on-year growth and whether you would be able to even give a bit more detail on that, that would be great. That's my first question.

Yes. Sure, Bastian. Yes, you're right. So we are, of course -- and as we discussed in Q4, we had maintenance in some of our facilities, right? And we have just 1 or 2 days ago, restarted one of our furnaces in Poland. And we continue to work on our furnace [indiscernible] in Spain. So we're going to be in a position to bring back the capacity as and when we see the demand, right? So -- and as a result, the furnace in Poland is already -- we are ramping up that as we speak. I mean inventories, and I have not really touched on it, so I should do it now. I mean we know that imports were quite elevated in Q4, right? We saw imports coming down in quarter 1, right?

But evidence suggests that imports, at least at the beginning of quarter 2 elevated. So you still have players to try, of course, to get materials here before the new TIQ starts from 1st of July. Having said that, we don't believe that inventories are too high. I mean, of course, they are higher than, I would say, normal levels, but not so high. So our expectation is that the new TIQ comes into place, this inventory should normalize relatively quickly.

Okay. And in terms of what this means for, I guess, the overall cycle, I guess there are some players in the market, which do expect that imports in the second quarter will basically go up before they fade in the second half. Is this the view you do share as well? And I guess, what is your view maybe particularly also on the pricing side, Prices have been very strong already. But is your view that rely comes third quarter, we will see further price dynamic most likely kicking in, in Europe? Or will it take longer to maybe digest and work through, I guess, inventory overhang, whatever disruptions we could see?

Well, Bastian, I mean, what we are seeing, I mean, we saw prices actually moving up during the quarter, right, actually accelerating from beginning of the Iran war also in response, right, to cost pressures. So I think it's fair to say that imports in quarter 2 should still be high, right, as we discussed because just it's normal, right? So [indiscernible] are trying to get the materials here before the new TIQ. But again, it's not ideal, of course. We're going to need to work through that. But we don't expect that to really be to take the market long to absorb that.

And of course, on prices, as you know, we cannot comment, right? We can -- I can only refer you to what we are seeing. If you look at the index, it's right? I mean we have a nice -- not only prices increasing during the year, but it's spreads, right? So when you look at the spreads also evolving positively, also as a result of introduction of CB at the beginning of the year. I think we need to look at the European market. As we have always been saying, right, it is the combination of the 2 CBA and TRQ that is very, very powerful here, right? And we have one piece, and we're going to have the second piece now from 1st of July.

Okay. Great. Maybe a very quick one on India, which you didn't mention in your early second quarter indication. I guess we have seen decent performance actually in Q1. Prices also picked up, but then there is obviously the energy situation. So I guess, what is the trajectory for India into the second quarter?

Yes. It's also good. You're right. So because of the DRI, we are more exposed to gas in India. But as you know, I mean, we have -- we are fully hedged, Bastian. So we don't expect cost pressure coming from gas in India. So we are fully hedged. And the price environment has also improved, which already benefited Q1, right? And we would expect also a good second quarter for our Indian operations.

So we'll move to take the next question from Reinhardt at Bank of America.

First one, maybe just we've spoken a lot about inventories, and it seems like it's creating a bit of an uncertain picture around when this domestic demand will kind of kick in. What are you seeing across the European steel industry in terms of capacity mobilization -- outside of the actions that you've taken, do you think that the European industry is ready for the challenge of producing that additional volume?

Well, Ryan, I'm not going to talk much about what the competition is doing, right? I think what we have been saying very consistently is that ArcelorMittal is in a good position, right, to take our market share of the reduced imports -- and we can do more, right? So to the extent that others cannot, so then we're going to be in a good position as we talked about, we have a lot of flexibility here. So we have the finances that we can bring back. We have the possibility to bring back flash. We have more downstream capacity. So we're going to be in a good position here to make sure that the market is supplied that we don't have any shortages in the -- as a result of this.

Understood. That's very clear. Just maybe a second question on the Dunkirk EAF investment. You're looking to do any kind of downstream additions there or to get any changes in your product mix maybe out of that capacity as you go through the capital allocation?

So can you repeat the question? I'm not sure that I got it.

Yes, sure. So as you're converting over to EAF, are you looking to add any downstream investment as well, any kind of finishing capacity as part of that project?

No, not really. We're going to be able to, of course -- and that's why the CapEx can be reduced to some extent because we're going to be able to still use some of the equipment there, right? And downstream will, of course, be intact. We're going to be able to -- so basically, what you're changing is the upstream, right? So instead of the blast furnace and the converters, you're going to have the the furnaces and then we're going to just follow the normal process of that plant. So we should be in a position to achieve the same mix, which inc, as you know, it's quite high. We have a very quality high order book there, which we, of course, it's very important for us to protect. And that's exactly the idea here that we should be in a position to produce the same grades as we can today with the blast furnace.

So we'll move now to take a question from Boris at Kepler Cheuvreux.

The first question is about the new capacity restarts at both in France and [indiscernible] in Poland and plus the [indiscernible] capacity in Spain. How much capacity are you bringing back with those furnaces? And the second question would be on North America. Are you still facing the same headwind about the tariffs, Section 232? And can you share with us the expectations you might have for the coming renegotiation of USMCA agreement?

Yes. So we have a couple of questions there. So the first one on the capacity in Europe. So all these furnaces, they are 2-plus million tonnes. So they are relatively large-sized furnaces. As I mentioned before, so we started the program already, and we are getting ready in force and also in Spain, right? And we'll, of course, announce when we are ready to bring these furnaces back up, right? But we're just doing all the work so that we are in a position to restart them when we need them, right?

In North America, Look, I mean, the USMCA, I mean, it's early days. I think we have to wait to see really how it starts, right? It's probably wouldn't be right for me to speculate. The only thing I can say is that we hope that the outcome will be one that that we feel that we can operate as a single block, right? I think for us, for our business, what would be ideal is that we have Mexico, we have Canada, putting the same barriers against the imports that we have similar protection as we have in the United States, right? And then the material then can flow. So that's what I would say. I think we have to wait there, Boris.

Okay. And just the current headwind that we still something like $150 million per quarter due to that.

Yes, there is no change there. The headwinds remain basically the same, Boris.

So we'll move now to take a question from Tristan at BNP Paribas.

Yes. I have 2 questions. The first one is a question on North America and Section 232. We've seen recently that there could be some relief for Mexican, Canadian producer to build new capacity in the U.S. to supply the auto market. Do you believe this could be retroactively applied to your first Calvert EAF? And if not, is that a consideration for the potential second one?

Yes, Tristan. So -- so I just -- I think it's important to be clear, right? So that today, we are not receiving any tariff relief, right? And all imports into the U.S., including from Canada and Mexico continue to pay Section 232, 50% tariffs. I think you know our position on tariffs, which is very consistent. For over 20 years, we have been arguing that the global steel industry has been suffering from overcapacity and continuously pushing for fair trade, whether it is in the U.S., Brazil, Europe, Canada or other parts of the world. So we do fully support the Section 232.

But we also support being able to operate, as I was saying before, as one regional market across North America and that there are no tariffs on steel that is melted and put in Canada and Mexico. And as you know, we have been seriously considering the second year in covered as the U.S. is an attractive market to make steel. So -- and in terms of potential tariff release, as you know, tax has been now published, designed to stimulate additional investments in the U.S., and we are analyzing it. So it's a lot of details has now been published, and we're just going through that.

And the answer is not really a clear yes. We still need to study it. And I just want to also just take the opportunity as a lot has been written on this topic. I would actually like to also take the opportunity to confirm that we are contributing steel to the White House ballroom. So approximately 600 tons have been delivered to date. As you know, we have a track record of both supplying strong high-quality steels to U.S. customers and donating steel to iconic buildings and projects around the world that showcase its strength and flexibility.

Just to give an example, when the Freedom Tower was one of the strongest steel in the world, they came to our facilities. So we are pleased to add the White House to the list of iconic American buildings where our steel will stand strong for years until country. So we just need to wait a bit more. We're going to go through the details, and then we're going to be in a position to update everyone.

Okay. Okay. No, that's clear, but that's a potential thing to consider. And my second question is on the green steel economics in Europe. I was a bit surprised to see that you were only targeting EUR 200 million of EBITDA for your 3 EAF projects. Because if I understood correctly, Cysto in Spain is potentially adding another 1 million tonne of new volumes. Guillon is replacing 1 million tonne and Dirk is replacing 2 million tonnes. So that's close to 4 million tons of EAF steel. And it does not look like there are much of productivity gains or green steel premiums baked into that. So maybe if you could discuss a little bit the high-level assumptions you're making and perhaps the delta is on the cost base and if you expect a big increase there from moving from BF to EF.

Well, Tristan, there are a couple of points there, right? I think it is important to appreciate that we are talking about -- we are just giving you the incremental EBITDA, right? So it's incremental to what we are adding today. So -- and as you know, the idea here is that we're going to be except for Tal, where we are really increasing capacity in Dunkirk, we -- we're going to be replacing one furnace. So we are not really looking to increase capacity. So what you have is really what is incremental.

And then I think it's also important to take into account the amount of the investments, right? And that's why we were so focused as a company to make sure that we have the right conditions, right, so that we can justify this investment. That's why the focus on making sure that we have visibility in terms of [indiscernible], visibility in terms of imports. We have visibility in terms of our energy contract, which we now have for this project, as you know. So I would encourage you also to look at what is the net amount of this CapEx, right? And then in the case of Dunkirk, not only you're going to have the 50% support through the white certificates, but we're going to also be in a position to avoid the reline of the furnace that we're going to be replacing.

So that's why in the end, we feel that we're going to be in a position to earn a return on our investment. And when it comes to the assumptions, we don't want to be too specific about it, Tristan. As you can imagine, this is also commercially sensitive. We have our teams going out and marketing already for the future the contracts, the green steel. I mean, as you know, for some time, at least we believe that this will be limited, right? So -- and I think this is -- it's -- our teams are out there. So we don't want to be talking too much about the assumptions.

So we'll move to take the next question, which I think will be from Ephrem at Citi.

I'm just trying to understand the Page 12 ANS future growth optionality figures. There's 15 million tonnes from Hazera, 8 million tonnes from Andhra, which gives you 23 million. My understanding was that Hazira was after 15, there is an optionality of Phase 2a to 18 and then Phase 2b to 24. And then obviously, the greenfield in Andhra is sort of separate. So is the Phase 2 being delayed? Is that how we should sort of interpret that in favor of pushing ahead with the greenfield in Andhra in order to balance the balance sheet and skill sets?

I think you're right. I mean, of course, we have to phase it, right? And absolutely right. So we have in front of us the 2 options. And it continues to be an option for us, right, to take [indiscernible] further, and that will most likely happen over time as well. But right now, yes, that's the sequencing that we see, right, and which is to start Andra. And yes, and Hazira will remain an option for us as well as after we complete this first phase in Andhra, we can go also for another phase, right? So the 40 million tonnes vision for the Indian operations remain intact.

And then you've said that obviously, your current energy situation is manageable, hedging and support of policies framework for insulates margins. Can you give us a sense of time line for that in terms of how long -- because, I mean, energy prices could remain high for 6 months, 12 months, 2 years. So if they remain for how long would your hedging policies cover it? And at what point do you think you and the industry will have to start thinking about energy surcharges in your steel?

Yes. Well, specifically in India, we are -- our program goes -- it's a multiyear program, Ephrem, so I think we are in a good place there. So it's a multiyear. And even in Europe for gas, we will also have a multiyear plan program. So I think we are -- as I said, I think we are in a good place.

So we'll move to the next question, which we'll take from Cole at Jefferies.

I'd just like a little bit of color on the metals on iron ore, just the ramp-up on volumes and how you see that into the second quarter? Just any color you can provide? And then I'd also just like to follow up on imports into Europe ahead of the trade barriers. I mean we've seen a lot of logistics disruptions globally. Do you think that there's a possibility that everyone is expecting a lot of imports into Europe, but considering the supply chains, we just don't see them delivered in time or customers potentially pull back on some of those orders just considering they might not meet the delivery dates. Just any thoughts on that?

Yes. So maybe I'll take this one, Daniel, and then maybe you can comment on [indiscernible]. So you're right. So I think what we are seeing, of course, is at this point in time, what we are seeing is more a cost issue, right? We are seeing freight rates going up. And of course, some of the journey is also taking longer because of the conflict. But it's not something that we believe should be delaying the arrival of the materials. So I think that's why as we discussed, we feel that the second quarter should still end up with elevated levels of imports. -- right? And as a final quarter and then from Q3 onwards, the new TRQ comes into play.

And I would say that this window is now closed, right, as we are here almost the beginning of May, the window to imports, they are basically under the existing safeguards regime are getting close to an end. And the fact that we don't have yet the quotas for the new TRQ split by country, I mean, it makes it even a little bit harder for imports, right? So that's what we are seeing.

Dan, you want to talk about the [indiscernible]?

Yes. Sorry, Cole, would you mind just repeating that question?

Just a little bit of color on just a little bit of color on the iron ore production that you're expecting into 2Q and any of the phasing through the year, just so we can think about that in the model?

Yes, sure. So thank you. So we did have obviously a good start to the year in Liberia, another record production shipment quarter. So I think as we -- and that will just continue over the next 3 quarters. So we've signaled in our initial guidance at the beginning of the year that we expect to be at full capacity in the second half and to achieve at least 80 million tonnes of shipments. So yes, I would just be -- that's how we would be factoring it into the model. some further improvement in the second quarter. I expect that we will navigate the rainy season through Q3. We continue to improve on our ability to navigate that. And then I would expect we should finish with a strong fourth quarter performance.

And then maybe just following up on iron ore. You've been very clear that the energy situation is manageable across the rest of the business. But are there any things we should be thinking about in iron ore costs just for diesel, et cetera, on the mining side?

I think the only thing I would call out, Nicole, is freight, right? I think the profitability of mining in Q2 will depend, of course, much more, of course, where prices finally land and freight, right? So oil will have an impact as well. But based on what I see today, I would be more focused on prices and freight.

So we'll move to the next question, which we'll take from Andy at UBS.

I've got a few follow-ups to previous questions. Just on that potential tariff carve-out in North America. My understanding is it's based upon volumes sold just into the auto sector. So if you ship slabs from Mexico into Calvert, would you -- is it your understanding you potentially get some relief on those if they then be sold into auto? That's the first one. I've got a couple of ones to follow.

As I said, I mean, we just got all these details, right? And the teams are busy going through that. So I don't want to anticipate the analysis. If you don't mind, I think we will address that with you next quarter. I'm sure we'll have more color and information to provide on that.

Yes. Okay. No worries. And just a couple of modeling ones. On the Ukraine contribution, I mean, that was obviously a drag in the first quarter. Can you quantify that on EBITDA? And do you see anything changing into 2Q?

Yes, it was -- Q1 was a challenging quarter for Ukraine, right? So energy prices, in particular, really very, very high. So as we discussed before, so Ukraine, they have been managing relatively well, right? So in the whole of 2025, as we discussed, at EBITDA level, they managed to be basically neutral, still free cash negative, of course, because of CapEx. Q1 EBITDA was negative as a result of the high energy costs. Energy has come down, so which is good news. So we do expect to do better in the second quarter, right? But as we know, the situation remains very challenging. But at least on that front, we expect to do better, and that has been really one of the key drivers of the result.

Okay. That's clear. And just finally on Mexico, the operating issues that you had last year, there was a little bit of overspill into 1Q. Like how material was that? I think you -- I think maybe in the fourth quarter, you called out 65 million hit. I mean what was the equivalent number in 1Q? Was it material?

Yes. So the evolution in Mexico is very good, right? We started the balance, which is producing long products -- so we were not yet at full capacity in Q1 in long. So we're going to be at full capacity in quarter 2. So I would expect our production and shipments in North America to continue to improve as we move forward, right?

But it's no longer, of course, the same magnitude that we had in prior quarters. So I think it's a very good evolution. As we discussed at the time of Q4, you see profitability in North America almost doubling, and we should continue to see progress going forward in the second quarter. But production is now up and running, and it's only now the full capacity of this furnace that you should see in quarter 2.

So we'll move now to take a question from Timna through Wells Fargo.

I wanted to actually double-click as the kids say these days on North America just a bit more, if I could. I think we obviously, as you pointed out in the last response, seen a nice benefit. It was the biggest contributor to Q1 over Q4 from rising prices. You have some locked up in annual contracts. Can you talk to us about how auto annual contracts fleshed out a bit or give us high-level color on that? And then also, do you think that you could see the same order of magnitude in the U.S. into Q2 given the pace of price increases? And then also I wanted some more color on how Calvert was ramping up the case.

Yes. So automotive, I mean, as you know, in U.S., our contracts, they are really the negotiations happen throughout the year. It's a little bit more spread out compared to Europe. In Europe, we have a concentration really at the beginning of the year. In U.S., it's more, I would say, more like 30% Q1, 30% from quarter 2 and then the rest is 25% is Q3. And so I think we are doing well.

And as you know, we don't really comment so much on the outcome of these negotiations. But I have to say that they are going in line with our expectations. It's good. The ramp-up at the EIS is progressing. So in quarter 1, we were a little bit running above already 20%, 25%, and we are progressing. We believe that by the end of quarter 2, we should be at much higher levels. And we remain optimistic that we're going to be getting close to ending this ramp-up phase by the end of this year, Timna. And then if I have. Go ahead Timna..

No, I just wanted to ask about if you would be able to quantify the extent of the price increase in Q1 over Q4, if that could be sustained given recent price strength continuing into Q2?

Yes. Look, we're not going to be quantifying that, but I mean, I think you know very well how prices have moved up in the U.S. I mean they continue to rise, and you should see that reflect in our results. [indiscernible] we talked about automotive, the annual contracts and how much is resetting, right? So yes.

Okay. And one further one, if I could, please. We're hearing a bit about switching away from aluminum to steel. In the U.S., of course, it's been a more extreme change in prices between the twp. But even in Europe, to the extent that the BYDs are getting built and have more steel amount in them versus aluminum. So it would be great to get any observations that you're seeing on switching away from aluminum to steel and automotive.

Yes. So when we look at -- I think you're right. I think this is -- to be honest, it has been at least now less of an issue. We continue to be very focused on that, showing the benefits of steel to our customers. I think we have been very successful there, Timna, as you know. So I think we continue to make improvements there. So it's not something that I would highlight to you as a big concern that we have at this point, right? But of course, we remain very focused on R&D, making sure that we have the right grades, we achieve what customers want. So we have successes. And so when we look at the level of intensity, steel intensity on average, we see relatively stability.

So we'll move now to a question from Tom at Barclays.

Just one quick follow-up for me, just on Ukraine, you talked about obviously high energy costs having an impact in Q1. Are you seeing anything from CBAM impacting Ukraine? I guess one of your Ukrainian peers has called out CBAM as being quite a big disruptor for Ukrainian steel going into Europe. I think it's not exempt at the moment. There's been a few articles saying maybe some order cancellations. Yes, are you seeing any kind of impact there?

Yes. I think there was the expectation that Ukraine will be exempted, right? And they are not. And we believe that is right. There shouldn't be exemptions, right? At the same time, prices are increasing in Europe. So if you have the right cost base, of course, then you should be competitive. In our business, of course, we are focused in Ukraine on the domestic market, right, and also selling pig to different parts of the group. There's good demand for pig, which we continue to sell.

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Did you say it shouldn't be or it should be exempt from CBAM?

It shouldn't be an exemption.

Shouldn't. Okay. So you're focusing more on the domestic market. And you would say there was some kind of earnings impact that I guess, persists into Q2 if an exemption doesn't come through. Then just second question, just on sort of buyback thoughts really. I mean I know your capital allocation policy hasn't changed. We haven't seen any buybacks for nearly a year now. If I look at your free cash over the last 12 months, it is positive. And I guess you're talking about earnings ramping up through the rest of the year. Is that sort of back on the cards potentially to restart that buyback program?

Well, I think you're right. So you know our policy, right? And we had, by the way, in Q1, our first quarterly dividend. which was paid. We remain very optimistic that we're going to be free cash flow positive this year. And then the policy will kick in. And based on the visibility that I have today, I see no reason why we would not go above the minimum 50% as we have been doing in the last couple of years. And if I can remind everyone, the policies has been really great. I mean we bought more than 38% of our stock. And I think we are close to restart that.

Okay. Great. And sorry, you just said I'm so optimistic free cash flow positive this year, then the policy will kick in. Does that mean the policy only kicks in once you sort of see the full year numbers in? Or is it more dynamic than that if you have visibility, you could start sooner?

Yes. I mean it is more dynamic.

Great. So we have time for maybe 2, 3 more questions. So the first, we will take from Max at ODDO.

So first question is you published last week a sustainability report where you cut your carbon emissions objective to minus 10% from minus 30% previously by 2030. I think the new objective is very dependent actually on being delivered on time in 2030. So my question is what would be, in your view, a more realistic time line for the 30% reduction? Is it the mid-30s, late 30s, even beyond? And how should we think about the sequencing of the next EAF projects in Europe? Are you waiting for Gon to be delivered and ramped up before potentially launching investments? Or will it come perhaps even later?

You want to start with this one, Daniel?

Yes. Thanks, Genuino. So I think you're right to observe the change to our 2030 target. We well flagged that, I think, in recent reports and communications. What's, I think, important to take away is that, that 2030 target is based on the announced projects. So it's a number that we are confident we can achieve, and that's why we updated it. And in terms of the timing of the next EAF projects, I think if you look at our communications on our messaging, we've also been quite clear that our EAF projects are going to be sequential.

So we don't expect significant overlap on any of our blast furnace to EAF project. So the focus right now is completing [indiscernible]. We've just announced Dunkirk, and that will occupy us for the medium term. And then the intention and time is to obviously communicate on what the project that will then follow will be. So let's really focus on getting a smooth start to Dunkirk at this stage, and then we will update on the next project in due course.

Okay. And just the second and last one is about the German stimulus plan. So expectations in recent weeks have come down actually amid the red tape, other priorities perhaps an infra for the new German government. So what's your latest view on the topic? You were quite vocal previously on it saying that it could increase demand in Europe by around 2% per year over the next 10 years. Is that still your scenario? And when do you expect that to really kick in already next 2026 or it's more of a story of 2027 or even 2028 based on your latest understanding?

Well, I mean, to be honest, I mean, we don't see any significant change there. I mean when we look at the impact of the program. We start actually to see some activity, right? So I don't believe that the overall numbers that we talked about, they will change. I mean we -- at least that's not the intelligence that we have. We will, of course, have to -- we'll keep monitoring that. But I think we are progressing as the progress is happening there.

Great. So we do have time for 2 more questions. So we'll take the first from Dominic at JPMorgan.

Just 2 quick questions. You've spoken and given us a lot of granularity on Europe. And again, just maybe coming back to the U.S. given how tight we see that market at the moment, do you think there's any possibility that you actually run harder through Q2 than normal? So obviously, we often see a summer slowdown. Do you think there is potential that given the state of lead times that you may run harder than normal? And second question, just on -- so any kind of obvious cash flow items we need to be aware of for Q2 modeling for the net debt bridge.

Dominic, so in U.S., I mean, as you know, I mean, we are running our facilities full. I mean cover we have been running at high levels, and that will continue, right? So where you're going to see improvements in terms of production shipments is going to be more really in Mexico and a little bit also in Canada, right? And the focus in U.S. for us right now is to ramp up the as we talked about, that will bring more results, so it should contribute to results. And the second part of the question, can you repeat that for me, please?

But just in terms of modeling for net debt in Q2, are there any...

I would not -- Dominic, I would not focus so much in quarter 2, right? I mean I guess my message is more really when I think about the year as a whole, as you know, we have -- typically, we will have a larger release of working capital in the second half. That should continue to be the case despite all the improvements that we are discussing, we are seeing, right? And we explained that because we built some strategic inventories at end of last year that we're going to be releasing. So despite all the good developments that we are seeing in terms of prices, volumes in the second half, our expectation is that for full year, working capital should not really be consuming a significant amount of cash, which should then support even more the free cash flow generation.

Is that helpful, Dominic? So I think the focus there just to reiterate is normally, the working capital movement in Q2, Q3 is not a major delta in the cash flow bridge, where it is a major delta is normally Q1 and Q4. So normally, we invest in working capital in the first quarter, and this year has been no different. And then normally, we see a nice release of working capital in Q4 and Q2, Q3 normally that's broadly a wash.

Great. So I think we will now move to the last question, which we're going to take from Matt at Goldman Sachs.

I have one question on your Indian operations, perhaps in 2 parts. Genuino, you mentioned costs are largely hedged, that's fine. But given India's reliance on gas imports primarily from the Middle East and some of your peers flagging shortages, could you outline where you're sourcing your gas from today and whether you've received any force majeure on future deliveries? And then just a follow-up, given your use of gas-based DRI and captive power, what measures can you realistically take to manage gas availability or reduce gas intensity across the Indian operations?

So I think we are in a good place there as well. I mean we have different sources of gas. So we are not really dependent only on Middle East. So we are in a good place. So we have not had any force majeure. So we have received all our gas. We have no indication as we speak in end of April, beginning of May, no indication of force majeure. So I think we are -- as we discussed, I think we are in a good place there. So we are not expecting any disruptions because of availability for sure on the price and also on availability, it's not something that we are overly concerned at this point.

Great. So I'll hand back to Genuino for any closing remarks.

Yes. So thank you, everyone. Before we close, let me briefly reflect on the key messages from today's discussion. First, our first quarter performance again demonstrates the structural improvement in the earnings power of ArcelorMittal. Margins are well above historical levels with the further benefits of more favorable policy still to accrue. Underlying free cash is annualizing at over $2 billion.

Second, we have a clear and differentiated growth pipeline. Our strategic investments are supporting our results and materially enhancing our future EBITDA potential. Finally, the positive outlook for our business is underpinned by more supportive trade policy, especially for Europe. More effective trade protections are fostering a more regionalized market structure, providing a robust platform for higher capacity utilization and profitability and higher and more consistent returns on capital employed. Alongside the impact of our growth strategy, this supports the free cash flow outlook for ArcelorMittal and the delivery of consistent capital returns to shareholders.

With that, I will close today's call. And if you have any follow-up questions, please reach out to Daniel and his team. Thank you again for joining us, and I look forward to speaking with you soon. Stay safe and keep those around you safe as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. This is Daniel Fairclough from the ArcelorMittal Investor Relations team. Thank you for joining this call to discuss ArcelorMittal's performance and progress in 2025. Present on today's call, we have our CEO, Aditya Mittal; and our CFO, Genuino Christino.

Before we begin, I'd like to mention a few housekeeping items. As usual, we will not be going through the results presentation that we published this morning on our website However, I do want to draw your attention to the disclaimers on Slide 26 of that presentation. Following opening remarks from Aditya and Genuino, we will move directly to the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions]

And with that, I will hand over the call to Aditya.

Thanks, Daniel. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining today's call. Before I ask Genuino to walk through our financial performance, I want to start by reflecting on the progress we have made against our 2025 priorities.

When I look back at the year, the achievements are clear and everyone at ArcelorMittal should be very proud of what we have delivered. I will focus on 3 key topics. First, on safety. Across the organization, our people are galvanized and fully engaged in improving safety performance. A year ago, we outlined a 3-year safety transformation plan. And in 2025, we have seen real measurable progress. All key safety KPIs have improved, most notably fatality prevention. Custom safety road maps are at the heart of ArcelorMittal's transformation program, designed to strengthen our safety culture, enhance risk management and drive progress towards our goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries.

Secondly, on trade policy. ArcelorMittal has been a vocal advocate for the need to address the market distortions created by excess capacity and unfair trade dynamics. It is encouraging to see the European Commission recognize and address this over the past 12 months. With the new carbon border adjustment mechanism in place, we are now competing on a more level playing field. And the new tariff-rate quota trade measure will significantly limit the amount of steel that can be dumped into the European market. Together, this fundamentally resets the outlook for the European steel industry and creates the conditions for a balanced market structure that will restore profitability and returns on capital to healthy levels.

I want to take this opportunity to reassure our customers that ArcelorMittal is ready and able to meet all their needs for high-quality steel delivered with the best-in-class service they expect from us. And while Europe has perhaps seen the most significant changes in trade policy, we are seeing real efforts in Canada and Brazil to also protect their domestic markets. This should add incremental support to our results in those regions as we move through this year.

Moving to my third topic, growth. ArcelorMittal's growth strategy is clearly differentiated and sets us apart from our peers. In 2025, we began to reap the benefits of several strategic investments made in recent years. Our projects and portfolio optimization helped support our results in 2025, and this growth momentum will continue. Our strategic projects will add an additional $1.6 billion of EBITDA in the near future.

A core pillar of our growth strategy is energy transition. We are expanding our renewables portfolio. We are building electrical steel capacities to support electrification and mobility, and we are expanding our EAF footprint where the economics make sense. We remain laser-focused on competitiveness and allocating capital to where we can achieve the strongest returns. We are consistently generating solid investable cash flow, $1.9 billion in 2025 and $2 billion the year before. This enables us to continue strengthening the business through investment in these high-return opportunities while consistently returning cash to shareholders.

As I conclude, my message is simple. A more supportive trade policy has reshaped the outlook of our business. This is set to amplify the transformational progress we have delivered at ArcelorMittal in recent cycles. We benefit from best-in-class operations and an industry-leading R&D program. Our reputation for quality, innovation and operational excellence sets us apart from our competition, and this is all down to our people. So I would like to sincerely thank our employees and also our key stakeholders for their continued trust, commitment and support.

I will now hand it over to Genuino to talk more about our financial performance.

Thank you, Aditya, and good afternoon, everyone. Let me start by saying that 2025 was another year in which the resilience of our business was clearly demonstrated. We delivered EBITDA of $6.5 billion, which is equivalent to $121 EBITDA per tonne shipped. This is almost double the margin that we achieved at previous cyclical low points and reflect how the earnings power of ArcelorMittal has structurally improved.

The benefits of our optimized asset base and our diversified footprint are now being complemented by the additional EBITDA being generated by our strategic projects. In 2025, these projects contributed $0.7 billion of new EBITDA, driven by a record performance in Liberia, the continued build-out of our renewables capacity in India and the significant strengthening of our U.S. footprint following the full consolidation of Calvert.

Turning to cash flows. In 2025, we generated $1.9 billion of investable cash. This brings the total investable cash flow generated since 2021 to $23.5 billion. Last year, we allocated $1.1 billion towards high-return strategic growth projects, returned $0.7 billion to shareholders and deployed $0.2 billion cash to M&A alongside $1.7 billion of net debt assumed through these transactions. Our results continue to show that ArcelorMittal can deliver value through all phases of the steel cycle. Today, we have proposed a base dividend of $0.60 per share. This marks the doubling of our dividend over the past 5 years and reflects our increasing confidence in the company's outlook. In addition to dividends, our share buyback program has been a major driver of value creation. Our share count has been reduced by 38% over the past 5 years, a pace unmatched by any of our peers, significantly enhancing value per share.

Finally, regarding the positive outlook for 2026, we expect higher steel production and shipments across all our regions this year, supported by operational improvements and strengthened trade protections. We are confident in our ability to continue generating positive free cash flows in 2026 and beyond, and we will remain disciplined in allocating this through our established capital return policy.

With that, Daniel, I believe we can go to our Q&As.

Excellent. Thanks, Genuino. [Operator Instructions] We have a good queue already, and we'll take the first question from Alain at Morgan Stanley.

I've got a couple. I'll take them one at a time. First one is on Europe. So the industry structure is changing, and you have quite a flexibility across your European assets to bring in more tonnes to the market, should they be needed. How quickly can you bring these tonnes online? And what signposts would you look for before making that decision?

That's the first question.

Thank you, Alain. Can you say the last bit? What -- I missed it. What would we have to look for before we bring the capacity online? What was the question?

Indeed. What signposts are you looking for before bringing the new capacity online? And how quickly can you bring this capacity as well?

Fantastic. Thank you, Alain. So yes, look, I think clearly, the biggest change since I last spoke to you guys has been Europe. I won't go through the details of the TRQ and the CBAM program. In terms of your question, we are well positioned at ArcelorMittal because we do have certain idle capacity. We can bring that online quite quickly. It is not subject to reline. It is not subject to bringing back people who have been permanently laid off. So we could meet the deadline that is projected. I think the best -- the latest estimate remains 1st of July for the TRQ to be put in place. Hopefully earlier, but today, the latest estimate is 1st of July, and we'd be able to bring the capacity online in that time frame.

What is the capacity? You may ask as a follow-up. We do have the ramp-up of our Sestao mini mill, which is underway. We have a new electric furnace in Gijon and we do have some spare blast furnace capacity. So it's a combination of the above in terms of idle capacity or available capacity.

In terms of signposts, I think signposts are very clear, right? The signpost has to be customer demand, i.e., requirement in the market. We don't want to bring in capacity just for the sake of bringing back capacity. And related to that and underpinning all of that is earnings a healthy and sustainable return on the capital employed in Europe. So clearly, we remain focused on meeting customer demand, but at the same time, ensuring that these tonnes are profitable and achieve our return thresholds.

And my second question is on the usual profit bridges Q4 into Q1, including the impact of the restart costs in Europe, if you decide to bring in some capacity in Q1? And then more importantly into Q2, where the lagged prices really kick in. So any color on that bridge would be very much appreciated.

I missed the first bit of your question, but perhaps Genuino caught it all. So Genuino...

Yes, I got it.

Okay.

Thanks. I got it, Aditya. Thank you. So let us start with the bridge then as we typically do. And I will start with North America because that's really where we're going to see a big delta quarter-on-quarter. So as you know, we were -- experienced our operational problems in Mexico that has been now largely resolved. So we will see a recovery in volumes in North America in Q1.

As we know, prices have been moved up. So we will also see prices increasing in North America, right? So those are really the big 2 changes that we see in North America. We will be shipping more and prices will be higher. We're not going to have the repetition the operational costs from Mexican operations.

Moving to Europe. In Europe, we will, of course, also see higher shipments, which is, as you know, also to some extent, seasonal. We will also see prices improving to some extent. But I would say that this is really more a second quarter phenomenon for us. Costs will also be moving up as we are seeing what is happening on the marketplace with the raw material basket and CO2 costs, right, following also the implementation of CBAM. Then Brazil should be relatively stable and also our mining division should also be relatively stable. We'll continue to ramp up the Liberia. So -- but we will -- in terms of shipment, it should be relatively stable quarter-on-quarter. So your -- second part of your question was on costs just to bring back this capacity. As Aditya said, it does not really involve. We're bringing more fixed costs. So the cost to restart this capacity will not be something meaningful to your bridge, Alain.

And any hints you can give us on Q2 given that there's a lag effect in both North America and in Europe?

Well, I think that the key point there really is in Q2, as we know, I mean, that's always the strongest quarter from a volume point of view in Europe. So I would expect to continue to see that trend, right? And as we know, we'll see the full impact of the prices that we are seeing in the marketplace right now impacting our Q2 results in Europe and North America. We started to see prices also responding also in Brazil. So that should also improve our realized prices in quarter 2 as well.

So we'll move to the next person in the queue, which is Tristan at BNP Paribas.

I have 2. The first is on Europe decarbonization. As you have now more visibility on the returns you can make in Europe, what are the next steps and the time line around all the decarbonization project you previously announced in each country? And if the structural margin level is now higher in Europe, does that mean also that your previous CapEx maximum of $5 billion could potentially be increased?

Thank you, Tristan. Yes, a really good question. As all of you know, in Europe from 1st of Jan, the carbon border adjustment mechanism was put in place, which creates a level playing field in terms of carbon costs. In terms of decarb, we call it economic decarbonization in ArcelorMittal. We call it economic decarbonization because it has to make economic sense.

What is our plan? We have long talked about we need certain preconditions to economically decarbonize our footprint in Europe or in other parts of the world. So the conditions that we've talked about publicly have been energy. As you saw in France, we signed a new energy contract with EDF. And at the same time, we wanted a level playing field in terms of carbon costs. Those conditions have been premet or those preconditions have been met. There is an economic case to decarbonize our operations. And so at this point in time, we're evaluating to decarbonize our French operations, specifically our Dunkirk facility by setting up an electric arc furnace. It's also in our presentation as future projects.

In terms of what will come next, our idea is to be sequential. Taking on multiple projects at the same time is onerous, both from a people perspective, but also from a capital perspective. And therefore, you should be comfortable with our CapEx guidance of $4.5 billion to $5 billion on a going-forward basis because, yes, we're starting Dunkirk. The intent is to do it sequentially, not overburden the organization, both from a people resource or a capital perspective. And at the same time, as I underlined and highlighted, these are economically attractive decarbonization projects.

That's very clear. And the second question is still on Europe and more on the ETS reform and review. What is your view on the potential extension of the phaseout period for free allowances in Europe, if you are in favor, and what it could change for your business? And how likely do you think as well that the commission will move forward and extend the deadline past 2034?

Yes. Thank you, Tristan. Look, I talked about this in my quote, in the earnings release, that the biggest change that has happened is -- in 2025 is a realization that countries around the world need the steel industry. It's about supply resilience, it's about national security. And we see increasing action to support the domestic steel industry, whether it's through trade or other actions.

I see the same dynamic in Europe, right? That's the fundamental shift that has occurred in 2025. So there is support that's coming through the TRQ, there's support that's coming through the CBAM, but I also see a fundamental rethink that Europe cannot deindustrialize, but needs to retain and support its strategic industries. So I would take the ETS review in that context because that is the new dynamic and the ETS review should reflect that new dynamic.

What is ArcelorMittal's focus area in that new dynamic or in the ETS review, is to highlight that today, energy costs in Europe remain very high relative to the global averages. Gas prices remain very high relative to what is available globally. And at the same time, when you look at what other steel companies around the world or other countries are doing in terms of decarbonizing their steel business, the pace is much slower, right?

The steel industry is not able to adapt at the rate or slash pace that the ETS system is currently designed to do that. And so I do believe that we need to -- that the ETS system needs to adapt to reflect these realities. To the extent that it does not adapt to reflect these realities, at the end of the day, the CBAM is in place, right? We have a carbon border adjustment mechanism. So to the extent that we incur a carbon cost, the same as incurred by imported tonnes, and so there is a level playing field. And so I hope that provides a perspective on our thinking.

That is very clear.

So we'll move to take the next question, which we'll take from Ephrem at Citigroup.

Just 3 non-European questions, for a change. Firstly, on the Page 12 of the presentation, when you say further expansion at Hazira under study. Just to clarify, is that to the 15 million to 24 million tonnes that you've already planned and guided to by end of the decade? Or is it to beyond 24 million tonnes?

Thank you, Ephrem, for the questions. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but let me talk about what's happening in Hazira. So this will provide a broader context and I hope it answers the question. So just starting with the macro, India remains a growth market, right? Demand continues to grow at 6% to 8%. We have an excellent facility with excellent products, excellent quality, excellent people, and we have a very strong platform to grow that.

Today, our current capacity is about 9 million tonnes in Hazira and we are finishing our expansion, which will start up towards the end of the year, but will really be completed in 2027, where we will achieve a targeted capacity or design capacity of 15 million tonnes in the Hazira facility.

We're actively working on an additional greenfield facility. We have not announced what the capacity level would be, but safe to assume it will be about 8 million tonnes on the Eastern Coast of India in Rajayyapeta. So that remains an option. And as we make progress on finalizing environmental clearance, land acquisition, virtual integration in terms of iron ore, we will be updating the market. Fundamentally, the vision is to grow the business and to achieve a design capacity in excess of 40 million tonnes in the long term.

So very quickly, switching to Brazil. There are news reports that CSN is considering selling its steelmaking. I don't want you to comment on M&A specifically, but do you think you're capped out in Brazil from an acquisition perspective, given your high market share already?

So in Brazil, we have an excellent business. As you know, we have 2 facilities, Tubarão and Pecem. Two big picture points on Brazil. We're working with the government to further support the steel industry in terms of trade measures, so there is progress on that front. But simultaneously, we're growing our franchise, right? We just completed the Vega facility, which is automotive galvanizing capacity. In the presentation, you can see that we're evaluating further downstream capability in Tubarão. We have certain mining projects, which have come on stream in Brazil, namely Serra Azul. We have investments in the long business. So we are very comfortable with the business that we have.

We have, like in other parts of the world, an excellent set of assets with excellent people and really are the market leader in terms of product quality, product capability as well as what we offer the market in terms of innovation, design, service, et cetera.

And then finally on Calvert. You're ramping up your furnace #1, and it will be done pretty much in 6 months, I think. Given kind of the challenges of mobilizing another team for the next phase of expansion there, when do you think is a realistic time frame for approving the second EAF?

Yes. Ephrem, it's a great question. I don't expect it to be a medium-term phenomenon. I can't give you a specific time line. I expect this to be in the short term. We have put it in our presentation. We have further organic growth plans, Calvert, Dunkirk as well as what I just spoke about in terms of Brazil.

We're also building up our electrical steel facility in Calvert, as you are aware. So we have completed the EAF, but we have another facility ongoing and we have plans to double our EAF capacity. So that is an update that I can provide. I don't know if Genuino can provide more of an update.

No, I think that's a fair summary, Aditya, and we will have to wait and see when we announce the next steps.

So we'll move now to take a question from Cole at Jefferies.

Just a follow-up on Europe and the impact of the import quotas and how you're thinking about ramping up your capacity. It's very difficult from the outside in to kind of put some shipment numbers to that. If we think that 10 million tonnes of imports are going to be displaced and ramped up in Europe, how do you think about how much Mittal can ramp up to meet those needs? Should we think about it as kind of 3 million to 4 million tonnes kind of keeping your market share?

And when you talked about being able to ramp up initially some idle capacity, do you have an idea in mind, we can ramp up 2 million of that 3 million tonnes and then we'll need to put some more CapEx into that?

Yes, thank you for the question. I'll get Genuino to answer it. But just to maintain our market share, which is our intent, there's not that much significant CapEx that's required, right? We spoke about that earlier. So we do have idle capacity. We can bring it online to achieve the market growth. It's not a market share fight, right? It's to achieve market share growth based on customer demand. Genuino?

Yes. I think you got the numbers right, right? So we are talking about 10 million tonnes of reduction of imports, about 8 million is for flat products, right? We talked about in the previous quarter, our market share against the domestic supply of about 30%. So I think you got the numbers right. And as you know, this is going to happen, we're going to see really the full impact of that in 2027 because as Aditya mentioned, our best guess today is to have the new TRQ from 1st of July. So we are already working on some of these tools, furnaces, be it France or Poland. So I think we're going to be in a good position to meet the demand. And I think that's really important for us to be able to service the customers when they need us, and that is our focus.

So I would not expect to add more CapEx. You have our guidance. So we have provided the guidance of $4.5 billion to $5 billion, right? And it's all included in that. So I would not, at this point, conclude that there is more CapEx to come to be able to bring this extra capacity that we are talking about.

And then maybe just as a follow-up on that, to Alain's question. What's the trigger to start kind of ramping some of your idle capacity or improving operating rate? Do you really need to start seeing the demand and pricing as the trigger to start building some inventories? And Europe for a long time has benefited from having, I would say, quite short supply chains. Do customers need to adapt to longer order books or longer supply chains, which I imagine would be good for Mittal?

Yes. Well, I think, look, this is not really a fight for market share, right? So I think we are -- we want to be ready when we see that demand, right? And so we're not going to be increasing capacity or just for the sake of doing it. I think Aditya mentioned it at the beginning of the call, our focus is on make sure that as we bring back this capacity, that it makes sense also from an economic point of view, that we earn our cost of capital. And I think that is our focus. Aditya, do you want to add to that?

Yes. I feel that you answered the question very well, Genuino, but there's also an answer in the question, the order book. I think the order book determines when we bring on this capacity. We don't have that much of long lead time in bringing on some of this capacity. Also recognize that we have a lot of slab capacity in Brazil. So we can augment our facilities with slabs from Brazil. So there is flexibility in-built in our operations, and we will examine the order book. And based on that, we will plan our production cycles.

So we will move to take the next question from Reinhardt at Bank of America.

First one, I just want to check on the dividend increase. Quite a substantial increase, I guess, this year-end and over the last 5. It does seem like the buyback pace has slowed very slightly. Should we read this as maybe a mix shift in how you're returning capital to shareholders? Or should we read this as an increase in the absolute level of payback in the dividend?

Yes. Thank you, Reinhardt. I'll get Genuino to answer it specifically or provide more details. But just at a high level, there is no change to our capital allocation framework, right? We think it has really served the company and its stakeholders really well. The framework remains 50% of free cash flow return to shareholders and 50% in terms of growth. We talked a lot about our growth portfolio in our opening remarks. You can see how well that is doing. We have not really used up much of the balance sheet, and yet we're delivering significant earnings enhancement, both in 2025, but also going forward.

In terms of returns to shareholders, if you see, the share buyback program has been very successful. And because of the confidence that we have in the underlying operating business and what we're seeing from a macro perspective, we're very comfortable in increasing the dividend this quarter to $0.60. With that, Genuino, please go ahead.

Yes, I think you touched on the key aspects of it. I think we did well in 2025. So we did more than the minimum according to our policy. And I think that's really the key message for everybody is the policy has been working extremely well. I think we're very pleased with the outcome of the policy based on our interaction with shareholders as well. We have a very good positive feedback. So the intention is to keep that.

2026, we believe will be a better year in terms of profitability. We are very confident that the company will continue to generate good levels of free cash. And as you know, the policy is such that 50% of that as a minimum should flow to shareholders. And we continue to see good value in our stock. So I would think that as we generate free cash, the buyback will continue to be our preferred tool to return cash to shareholders.

Understood. That's very clear. And maybe if I could just ask one more question on your demand forecasts. So 2% next -- this year ex China, but Europe specifically, I mean, we're seeing sort of PMIs turning and construction indicators moving, especially since you last reported. Can you give us a more specific number for the European market by any chance?

Yes. Reinhardt, thank you for the question. We -- this quarter, we provided global guidance. The reason is because bare steel consumption is changing. I guess what am I trying to suggest to you, historically, when we published our ASC numbers, that became a proxy for the change in our shipments in terms of markets. That is no longer the case because trade has become such a big driver that the change in our shipments is much more driven by trade policy. So what we did want to do was provide you with the global outlook, a positive macro outlook. That's what we're seeing.

You spoke about some other factors in Europe. The other factors in Europe that we're seeing on a more medium-term basis is the German infrastructure spend. That's quite significant, as you are aware. You also see a resurgence in defense-based spending, right? Now European countries are moving towards 5% of NATO spend, so that's a positive medium-term dynamic. Globally, in other markets, there are other positive dynamics. So we just wanted to provide with a -- with you with a global perspective and then you can model what you expect how our shipments will do based on the changes in trade policy. So I hope that answers the question.

So we'll move now to take the next question from Bastian at Deutsche Bank.

Just the first one on Europe as well. And I guess, you turned more positive on the market as we all do. Just looking at the market structure, though, Europe is obviously still a much more fragmented market than many other markets you're operating in. And I guess you did your job to a very large extent, but do you still see more scope and need for consolidation in Europe? And would you aim to continue to play a role in this? Or is this something you would leave to the other players? That's my first question.

Yes. Thank you, Bastian. We are very comfortable with our footprint in Europe. As we talked about, we have latent capacity to grow it at minimal capital costs or CapEx. And as you do it, you get economies of scale, you get fixed cost dilution, i.e., fixed cost absorption. The assets that we have are well invested. They're producing high-quality products. We don't really see significant benefits from consolidating at this point in time. If anything changes, obviously, from further consolidation for us in Europe, if anything changes, obviously, we will update you guys.

Got you. Okay. Very clear. Then one more question actually on just the back and forth we've seen on the European stance with regards to Russian material and how it may be treated in the context of the planned TDI. And I guess that also particularly depends on how far semifinished products are in scope or not. So do you have a view on this? And how far Russian semis may or should be tackled by the new tool?

So I can just provide you with information versus a perspective. In terms of slabs, you're right. They are not part of the tariff-rate quota, the TRQ. There has been a position paper that has been published by the European Parliament, I believe, where they are demanding they are demanding that there is no Russian slabs that are brought into the European marketplace. But it is not a position that has yet been adopted by either the council or the commission. Clearly, there is a move in that direction, but time will tell whether that actually gets enacted into policy or not.

So we'll move now to take a question from Matt at Goldman Sachs.

I have a couple of questions just on CapEx and then a follow-on, on Liberia. Just on CapEx, perhaps you can just clarify a couple of things. Just the strategic CapEx spend was a bit of a -- it fell short, I guess, of what you guided for the year by about $300 million, $400 million. So you spent about, I guess, 75% of the CapEx, yet still delivered the full $400 million of strategic EBITDA uplift that you guided through last year. So I guess, can you just sort of talk about what the moving bits are? Has that CapEx been deferred into 2026? Has it been canceled? Because I see '26 as that -- is that EBITDA uplift or that target uplift has been trimmed slightly as well? So yes, if you could just help marry up what's going on there with some of the strategic CapEx spend, please?

Yes, Matt, let me take that one. So you're right. So we came at the end a little bit lower than the low end of our range for CapEx. And really the biggest delta there, Matt, is you may have seen that we have just recently finalized the MDA extension for Liberia, right? And we are providing you with the number there. So this will -- we will have to pay the government $200 million in Q1, and that number will be part of our CapEx because it gets capitalized and amortized throughout the life of the new MDA, which now extends until 2050, right? So that's about $200 million. So if you add that to our CapEx of 2025, then we are there. So no change to the projects or delays. So we continue to move forward, right?

And then when we think about what we're going to be doing in 2026, I think a lot of the CapEx will go into electrical steels in the U.S., in Europe, the renewables, the projects that we announced for renewables in India, right? And then, of course, we will have this $200 million for Liberia that should be paid in quarter 1. So that's how I would describe the moving parts, pieces of our strategic growth CapEx.

Got it. That's clear. Okay. So just a delay in that spend and, obviously, no EBITDA uplift given it's an extension of the mining agreement. Okay. That's clear. Well, look, moving on to Liberia then, just you touched on this agreement allowing you to push the rail up to 30 million tonnes. How should we think about the criteria here that would trigger the decision for you to move beyond 20 million tonnes? And perhaps you could just touch on what are the limitations? Is rail the limitation at 20 million tonnes or is it the mine? Are you oversizing any part of the mine to, I guess, allow you to expand at a lower capital intensity in the future? Could you just touch on kind of how you're thinking about that pathway to 30 million tonnes?

Yes. Thank you, Matt. It's a great question. In terms of capacity, there's minimal infrastructure required for rail. The rail is quite well designed. They can accommodate up to 30 million tonnes. You probably have to buy some rolling stock, but you don't have to set up a whole new rail infrastructure.

In terms of the mine, we want to further explore and develop the mining licenses that we have and examine how we can bring production up to 30 million tonnes at low capital costs that achieve our return on capital. That's fundamentally it, right? We want to make sure after we had made this investment, which is doing really well, and we can see the increase in production in Liberia and more expected in 2026, how we can continue to outperform and deliver these projects, which create higher returns for the company. So that study is underway and as soon as that is complete, we'll update you. It's not in our document in terms of what you can expect in the short term. So you can expect that this will take a little bit of time before it's finalized.

So we'll move now to take a question from Timna at Wells Fargo.

I wanted to follow up with Aditya's comments on the opening remarks about the additional measures in Canada and Brazil. I'm curious about your thoughts. There's also, of course, threats to India and Mexico of your coverage. And given the sharp measures to prohibit trade or restrict trade, I suppose, to the U.S. and EU, is there not even more risk on those regions? And are they doing enough to combat the excess supply that you've alluded to?

Yes, Timna, look, excellent question. The short answer is yes. There is heightened risk in these markets. So I talked about Canada already, so I won't go through it. I addressed Mexico, I believe that they're moving forward, but the pace can be accelerated.

In terms of Brazil, it's a similar conversation. The government is very engaged on ensuring that the steel industry in Brazil continues to thrive. They understand that the steel industry is domestically important, both long and flat. There have been some new measures that have been put in place recently. We expect this to further develop. Let us see the impact of the European trade measure that will be put in place latest by 1st of July and what it does to some of these markets. But I would expect that governments will react. I mean if there is a direct impact, I think everyone is recognizing that, that is very important to support the domestic steel industry for supplier resilience, for national security, for various other reasons. And so I am not overly concerned by that development or by that scenario, I should say.

In terms of India, in India, I think you are solving for 2 things at the same time. It's unique from other markets in the sense that there is significant growth. And when you have growth that clearly supports the development, it supports profitability, as you continue to drive scale advantage, you can do productivity improvement and the 6% to 8% growth level is quite healthy for our market. And so I think the growth vector offsets some of the trade actions in that market because the government remains very focused on inflation. Nevertheless, even with the existing trade policy in place, we can see that the steel industry in India remains profitable. Growth is profitable, and that's where we continue to expand our operations. So Timna, I hope that provided you with a quick perspective.

Yes, I appreciate it. It's not a quick topic, but we'll stay tuned. The other question we had, I just wanted to get your perspective on the substitution risk and opportunity in Europe, in particular. So we have heard that maybe Audi is switching more to steel from aluminum on the margin, but then also perhaps the move up in prices could risk some demand destruction. So I just wanted your thoughts on substitution both ways, if possible, please.

Sure. So we have gone through markets in which there have been significant tariff or trade measures put in place. I mean, I believe we live in one, the United States. And we have not seen that level of demand disruption or significant demand disruption in the downstream industries, right? So I think overall, this is not a phenomena that we are concerned about. However, we do want our customer base to be competitive. I think we always want to grow with our customer base. So that really is the thing that we want to solve towards, how can our customer base continue to grow and flourish. In that, I think there is a lot of activity in the European Union, a recognition that is also very important for European industrialization.

And so if you see in the TRQ, there is a conversation on what has to be done on downstream industries as well, similar to what the U.S. has done. And so I would expect that once this is in place, there will be a conversation on TRQ measures for downstream industries. The downstream industries are not as well organized as steel, so it will take some time, but I do expect that to occur. There's a similar conversation on CBAM for downstream industries. What can be done in terms of CBAM for downstream industries? So I do expect that as these measures are put in place for the steel business, they're also put in place for some of the downstream industries. And there's also support. For example, we're growing our electrical steel franchise. And we do want to see electric vehicles being manufactured in Europe, not just the assembly of the vehicles, but everything, right, the whole gamut of activities. So that is the direction of travel and that is what we remain focused on.

In terms of automotive steels, look, we have a leading franchise. We continue to do very well in demonstrating that steel is a premier product. It has excellent lightweighting capability and is available at a very competitive cost. Through our R&D efforts, through our process capabilities, that journey continues in all the markets in which we operate.

So we'll move now to take a question from Phil at KeyBanc.

Regarding Calvert, just curious where the current operating rates are on the EAF. And then in Mexico, how much incremental volume should we think is coming back after the outages?

Yes, Phil. Look, we are progressing, Phil, with the ramp-up of the EAF. So our expectation is to see a meaningful improvement in quarter 1. And as we discussed, we are hoping to be up and running at capacity towards the end of the second half, right? So it's progressing well. We are in dialogue with our customers for the homologation of the product. So it's progressing well.

In Mexico, really the volumes that we're going to see coming in quarter 1. So as you know, we have 2 business in Mexico, longs and flats. The long business was basically the furnace was not operating in quarter 4 and started end of Jan. So you're going to have 2 months there, and it's a furnace that produces about 1 million tonnes. So you're going to have 2 months of the production and shipments. So that's what you're going to see.

On the flat side, so we were -- we had maintenance for about 1 month in Q4. So you're going to have the full quarter, quarter 1 in operation. So that should add another. So we are talking about 2.8 million tonnes for our flat business at the moment. So then it's going to be 1 month more of capacity, Phil.

And then just as a follow-up, I saw D&A pop pretty good in Q4. I think largely, it was in North America. What should we be modeling just overall for D&A for '26?

For '26 overall or you're asking for overall or for North America?

Overall. I just noticed the change in North America a lot quarter-over-quarter, but...

Yes, yes, yes. So if you read our MDA, you're going to see we are providing a guidance on that, Phil. It should be in the range of $2.9 billion to $3 billion. So some of the new projects, of course, coming online. So there is a depreciation for that, right? And what you see, the data that you see in North America in quarter 4, it's just as we typically do at the end of the year. So -- and as we know, this is all based on estimates and to the extent that we have assets that ended -- get to end of life, we have this correction. So that should not be the run rate for the full year.

So we have time I think, for one more question, which we will take from Max at ODDO.

So the first one is on Ilva. There has been some developments recently, which have forced you to issue a press release. Can you perhaps give us some sense of the next milestones there? And when we will get more clarity on the financial impact? I assume you haven't provisioned any amount at this stage, right?

Max, yes. So look, I mean, you have our response there, right? And you referred to the press release and that's the right place to go. And you're absolutely right. So we have no provisions for that. We don't believe that is the case it has any merit. So there are no provisions in our books.

And in terms of timing, I mean, we will see, but when we speak with our lawyers, it's likely that it may last for a couple of years. So we will, of course, update you as and when there are new developments. But it should be -- it should take some time.

Okay. Second question is on CBAM. Can you perhaps give us a bit of your initial feedback on the first months of implementation? Do you still see some circumvention going through the system? It seems also there was some import front-loading ahead of CBAM at the end of last year. So does it mean that most of the impact from CBAM in terms of pricing is yet to come?

Yes. That's a great question. So I'll address parts of your question. In terms of the front-loading of the CBAM, the CBAM came into effect 1st Jan 2026. However, as per the legislation, it's for a product which is produced before 1st Jan 2026 does not have any CO2 cost, right? So the product may arrive in Jan or Feb, but as long as it was produced in December 2025, there is no CBAM effect. So you don't see it in the January numbers. However, we are seeing it now because import offers are including CBAM costs. And as you can see, in Europe, there has been a change in the spot pricing of steel and that is reflecting -- some of it is reflecting the CBAM effect.

In terms of your question on circumvention that as you know, there is also an activity to further tighten the CBAM. And there are a few topics to address. I spoke about, I think Timna asked a question on downstream. I spoke about the downstream. There is a review on what to do for CBAM for downstream. There is also a fund that is being created to support exports from Europe, right? And how we can support steel companies in Europe so that they can continue to export product globally.

And then the third aspect is circumvention. So there is circumvention legislation, and we need to make sure that there is no resource shuffling and circumvention that occurs. At this point in time, we have not seen that. Clearly, the default values are in place. Certain companies will work through actual values. But fundamentally, so far, we have not seen that.

Okay. Very clear. And just the last one is on the India greenfield. So as the construction is getting nearer, how should we think about this financing? Will it be self-funded or through bank lines as previous phases of the development were done? Or will it be partly funded by equity injections from the shareholders, in which case, are you going to include them in your CapEx guidance?

Yes. Look, a great question. We are focused at ArcelorMittal on minimizing funding costs both at ArcelorMittal and our joint ventures. So we will make sure the capital structure that we put in place, both in India and ArcelorMittal supports that. To the extent that we have further news on that to share with you in terms of CapEx guidance or others, we will obviously update you.

At this point in time, we are focused on achieving groundbreaking, achieving the key milestones and then we will come back and report to you on how we are minimizing overall funding costs.

So that, Aditya, was our last question, so I'll hand back to you for any closing remarks.

Okay. Great. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to join us. I hope the discussions gave you a clear sense of the progress we are making and the confidence we have in the road ahead. As you all heard, the outlook is positive. Policy developments are creating the foundations for a fairer and more balanced market. Our investments, particularly those supporting the energy transition, are delivering tangible returns and positioning us for long-term value creation.

As I said, right at the opening, what underpins all of this and what is the foundation of all of this is our people. Across the company, I see a deep commitment to operational excellence, to innovation, to building a safer and more competitive ArcelorMittal. This gives me great confidence that we can continue executing our differentiated strategy to safely grow ArcelorMittal and create value for all our stakeholders. Thank you once again.

With that, I will close today's call, and I look forward to speaking with you again soon.

Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Daniel Fairclough from the ArcelorMittal Investor Relations team. Thank you for joining this call to discuss ArcelorMittal's performance and progress during the third quarter of 2025. Leading today's call will be our Group CFO, Mr. Genuino Christino.

Before we begin, I would like to mention a few housekeeping items. As usual, we will not be going through the results presentation, which was published this morning on our website. However, I do want to draw your attention to the disclaimers on Slide 20 of that presentation. As usual, Genuino will make some opening remarks before we move directly to the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions]

Over to you, Genuino.

Thanks, Daniel, and welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining today's call. As usual, I will keep my remarks brief, beginning with safety, a core value for our company. The company is completing the first year of its 3-year transformation program, supporting ArcelorMittal's journey to be a zero fatality and serious injury company. The first year has focused on building the foundations for improvement across the business, and I'm encouraged by the progress we are making. We are already observing an improvement in the frequency of serious injuries and fatalities compared to last year. But there is more to be done, and there is clear determination across the entire company to implement the bespoke safety road maps that have been developed to drive lasting change.

Now I want to focus this quarter on 3 key points. First and foremost, our results continue to demonstrate structural improvements. Third quarter EBITDA per tonne was $111. This is 25% above our historical average margin. To be achieving such improved margins at what we believe to be the bottom of the cycle demonstrates the positive impact that our asset optimization and growth strategy is having.

Our strategic projects, together with the impacts of recently completed M&A will support structurally higher margins and returns on capital employed through the cycle. We remain on track to capture $0.7 billion structural EBITDA improvement this year, and the expected medium-term impact of $2.1 billion remains unchanged.

My second point is on free cash flow. Our underlying business continues to generate healthy cash flows. Excluding working capital, 9 months free cash flow was approximately $0.5 billion positive. Remember, this is after having invested close to $1 billion in our strategic growth projects. As we head into year-end, I expect that working capital investment will unwind as it normally does. This supports a positive outlook for free cash flow and lower net debt.

And then my final point is on the positive outlook for our business. Relative to where we were 3 months ago, the outlook for our business has clearly improved. We welcome the new trade tool proposed by the European Commission. They will support a more sustainable European steel sector, returning the industry to healthier capacity utilization levels. The proposal must now be transposed into legislation as fast as possible. And together with an effective CBAM, this can provide a solid foundation for our European business to earn its cost of capital as we have been achieving in other regions. With our advanced product offering and strong market franchises, we are well equipped to seize new structural opportunities and translate them into profitable growth.

As a company, ArcelorMittal is actively enabling the energy transition. We are supplying the steel required for new energy and mobility systems and the steel required for infrastructure development. We are investing in high-quality, high-margin electrical steels and building a competitive renewable energy portfolio.

Putting this all together, ArcelorMittal is in a strong position, both operationally and financially. We have a unique diversified asset base across geographies and end markets. We are delivering structurally higher margins, supported by an optimized asset portfolio and execution of our strategic growth projects. We have momentum and our growth will continue.

We will continue to implement our clearly defined capital return policies. It is working well, allowing us over the past 5 years to grow our dividend at a compound rate of 16% as well as repurchase 38% of our equity. ArcelorMittal share now represents a greater proportion of our capacity, a bigger share of our leading franchise businesses, a larger stake in our growth projects and a greater ownership of our unique business in India.

With that, Daniel, let's move to Q&A.

Great. Thank you, Genuino. We have a good queue of questions in front of us. [Operator Instructions] But we will take the first question, please, from Alain at Morgan Stanley.

Genuino, I have two questions. I'll ask them one at a time. So the first one is looking forward to 2026 and before we take into account any impact from CBAM or the new safeguard, what are the unusual or exceptional costs that we need to consider while building our EBITDA bridge into next year? And I'm thinking here more the incurred U.S. tariff costs year-to-date, the stoppages in Mexico, et cetera. That's my first question.

Okay. Sure, Alain. Well, thinking about 2023 in terms of exceptionals. So right now, I cannot really point to you when it comes to tariffs that we are seeing change, right? We will see, of course, in 2026, as we know, we have the USMCA. And I'm sure the negotiations between Canada, U.S., Mexico will continue. But of course, we have to wait and see how -- what comes out of the negotiations, right?

Then clearly, we have the losses in Mexico, and we do expect that they will not reoccur in 2026. And that's really in terms of exceptionals, that's what I see. Of course, when you think about the bridge for 2026, there are many positives that we could potentially talk about, right? One is the contribution from our projects. So we have another about $800 million coming in 2026. We just saw also the first forecast of the World Steel Association in terms of demand for next year. I think we will start to see some of the benefits of the lower interest rates impacting the economies. We are seeing PMIs in Europe recovering. As we know, demand has been just moving sideways in most of our core regions. And I think there is hope that we might see a better picture next year also in terms of demand.

I don't know, Daniel, if I'm missing something, if you want to complement?

So all I was going to do is perhaps just adding the numbers for Mexico. So if you recall back to the Q2 conference call, at Q2 results, we talked about a $40 million impact from costs and operational costs in Q2. In our release today, you will see a number for Mexico of $90 million. And then in Q4, things should improve, but there will still be a cost in Q4 of maybe $60 million, $65 million.

So as Genuino said, that shouldn't recur in 2026. So then when you think about the bridge from 2025 to 2026, that is close to about $200 million there from nonrecurrence of Mexico.

That's very clear. And the second question is in Europe, you currently ship around 30 million tonnes of finished steel. If the safeguards work next year as intended or designed and imports dramatically reduce, how much can you flex your production in the near and medium term after taking into account the restart costs, the purchase of CO2 allowances, et cetera? So in other words, what is your achievable Blue Sky shipments in Europe if we go into that scenario where imports decline dramatically?

Well, the way we see it, I mean, we do expect to be able to supply the market. I mean, as we all know, the expectation looking at the numbers, I mean there is an expectation that imports will come down by about 40% and flat as we saw, right? And it's not a secret that our market, it's about 30%. So we don't see any problems to make sure that we can capture that part of our market share. And you know, I mean, you have that also in our back book. So our capacity in Europe is way in excess of 31 -- 30 million that we are currently producing. So we feel very comfortable here to be in a position to supply the market when these new measures are in place.

Great. So we will move now to the next question, which we're going to take from Tom at Barclays.

Two for me as well. The first one, just the usual one on the kind of moving parts, maybe, please, into Q4 by division? And any color around realized pricing, volumes, that kind of stuff.

Do you want to take it, Daniel?

Yes, sure, Genuino. So when we look at the bridge from the third quarter to the fourth quarter, I think it's pretty simple. I think there are really 3 key building blocks for you to be thinking about. The first, of course, is the normal seasonal improvement in European volumes.

The second factor or the second building block would be higher iron ore shipments. So as Genuino was talking about, we have good momentum in our strategic projects. So we're well on track to achieve the targeted 10 million tonnes of shipments in Liberia. And so that will be a nice increment in the fourth quarter.

And then the third building block would be North America. So we would expect normal seasonality in volumes. So we do have 2 holidays in the fourth quarter. So normally, volumes are seasonally weaker in the NAFTA segment. If you look at pricing and if you just purely on a sort of a 2-month lagged basis, pricing should be lower in the fourth quarter than the third quarter, but that's going to be slightly offset by the improvement in our Mexican operations, which we just talked about in Alain's question.

So those would be the 3 key building blocks: seasonally higher volumes in Europe, higher shipments in mining from the Liberia expansion and seasonally lower volumes and lower lag prices in the North America segment.

Great. And then maybe just following up on North America. I mean, is there anything else that you guys would call out for the print in Q3, which I guess was very strong despite the sort of additional Mexico outages. I know you've added Calvert, but I guess, on the consolidation numbers you've given before, that was maybe sort of $60 million a quarter of incremental EBITDA contribution. So maybe that offsets the hit from Mexico, but U.S. spot pricing has been drifting. There's obviously extra tariff costs. Was there anything on either the cost side, the mix side that you flagged for North America?

Yes, Tom. So first of all, we had a record level of shipments at Calvert. Calvert doing extremely well. So I would suggest that the contribution was a bit higher than what you referred to.

Our Canadian team is also doing a very good job in managing what they can. Costs, there is a very high focus on making sure that we take cost out. So that is also supporting the results in quarter 3. So you have the strong operations in Calvert, you have strong operations in Canada in both of the facilities in the [indiscernible] facility as well. So we have also a good contribution from some of the other business, our HBI DRI plant in Texas also performing well. So I think we have -- except for, of course, the problems in Mexico, we have our franchise business in North America operating quite, quite well.

So we will move now to the next question, which we're going to take from Cole at Jefferies.

I'd just like to ask on the CapEx profile medium term and the envelope that you're thinking about because you do have a number of strategic projects in the pipeline. How should we think about broad buckets for CapEx '25, '26, '27? Any broad-based guidance you can provide?

And then following up on working capital, it's a strong improvement into the fourth quarter coming back, but I imagine as you look into 2026, hopefully, we will benefit from a stronger pricing environment. And I'm just wondering how you're thinking about working capital into 2026. Are you hoping for kind of working capital outflows and stronger pricing and demand environment for 2026?

So in terms of CapEx, what we have been saying is -- and then, of course, we are now -- we're going to be actually just -- we're going to be starting our budget discussions for 2026 and beyond. But what we have been saying is that the range that you have -- that we have been using over the last couple of years between $4.5 billion and $5 billion, including strategic sustaining maintenance, that is a good reference for now. So I would encourage you to keep that as your reference. And then I'm sure in Q4, we will be updating you with more details, but it's a good reference.

In terms of working capital, I hope you're right. I mean I hope that in 2026, we have to deploy working capital because then it means that the business is strong. It's performing well. Prices are moving in the right direction, volumes as well. What we try to encourage is you should think about working capital moving in line with our EBITDA, right? So if you believe that if you have for 2026 high EBITDA numbers, then it would be fair to expect that there will be potential investments in working capital, which is something that we would see as positive.

And then maybe just as a follow-up, have you seen any changes in order books? Or how are you managing your order book for the start of 2026? Are you keeping some availability for higher prices? Or how are you seeing your order book develop into 2026?

Well, as we talked about, the demand has been moving sideways, right? So we -- and our order book remains relatively stable, right? So we have segments doing better than others. The order books are relatively stable across the group. We are not doing anything special to try to anticipate a stronger 2026 other than making sure that we allow the business to keep the working capital that they need so that they can benefit from a stronger 2026 that we hope will materialize. So that's really how we are planning. And yes, that's how we are seeing it so far.

Great. So we're going to move to the next question, which we'll take from Reinhardt at Bank of America.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Go ahead.

I just want to ask on capital allocation. So if the safeguard replacements in Europe come through in their proposed form, how would you think about Europe from a capital allocation point of view? And I don't want to necessarily draw into discussion about sort of decarbonization investment in CBAM. But just from a purely economic perspective, you talk about organic growth. Do you think Europe could be a home for capital in the future if we get this framework?

I think you touched on it. I mean this is an important framework, right? And then what we are talking about is that this framework should allow the industry to be sustainable, to earn its cost of capital. And when you achieve that, then you are in a position to consider then investments. And that's exactly where we are. And so we are encouraged by these new measures.

Of course, still waiting for the implementation. We still need to hear more about CBAM as we all know. And then the last piece of the equation is, of course, energy, energy cost. So I think once we have that framework very clear, then we're going to be in a position to move forward. And as we discussed before, this will happen gradually, right? So you should not expect ArcelorMittal launch a number of simultaneous projects. It will happen gradually. This is going to be a multiyear journey.

Understood. That's very helpful. And could you just remind me, I mean, you mentioned the business in Europe could potentially return to its cost of capital. Could you just remind us what exactly is the installed capital base of the European business?

Well, I don't think this is something that we are very specifically disclosing, Daniel?

No, you're right, Genuino. It's not something that's broken out in our financials.

Okay. No, that's fine. Maybe just one last quick one, Genuino. You mentioned that you've got the capacity to be able to deliver effectively your share of the 10 million tonnes. Can I just see what kind of costs you might need to incur in order to bring that capacity to market? I mean I appreciate it's there, but could you just maybe talk through some of the costs that you need to incur to actually get that utilization up?

Yes. Well, it's a good point. And I would break it down into 2 components or 2 parts, right? First is, so you have the fixed cost part. So in a number of facilities, we're going to be able to leverage the fixed cost that we have, right? So you're just going to be running at a higher capacity. So you benefit on the fixed cost side.

But then in such cases, normally, what you're going to see also, it's an increase in your variable costs, including the CO2 cost, right? If you want to improve your productivity, you might need to charge higher quality materials, pellets, more pellets. So that will be -- you should expect that to have an impact as well. So I would just encourage you to think about the 2 components.

So we'll move now to a question from Timna at Wells Fargo.

I wanted to ask two things. One, just kind of probing a little bit more your efforts to mitigate the tariff costs and specifically how you're approaching the annual contract negotiations with automakers at Dofasco? And then a separate question, just if I missed it, I apologize. I was just wondering if you commented on why not -- why there weren't any buybacks in the quarter.

Yes. So we continue to renew our contracts, our OEM contracts. So we just -- we're basically almost done now for part of first half of next year. So signing even more than a 1-year contract. So I think fundamentally, our customers, so they like the product. They like what they get from Dofasco. So I think there is very good cooperation between us and our customers there.

So we don't expect really here significant change in terms of -- looking at our North America business in terms of volumes going to automotive, of course, other than if we have lower production next year, which we are not talking about, but just because of renegotiations, we are not really expecting significant change in the overall volumes going to automotive.

And in terms of buybacks, there is not really much more I have to say. And as you know, we have a very clear policy, and we believe that is a differential. I mean not all of our competitors will have a very clear policy. And I think we were in a way, lucky. We did a lot of buybacks at the very beginning of the year when the share price was still low. And all I would say is that you should expect that the company will -- on that policy, that 50% of the free cash after paying dividends will be distributed to shareholders.

I would just also add that the policy is working quite well. I mean we talked about 38%. So we did 9 million shares this year already. And we have a very low average price. So we are really creating a lot of value to our shareholders. Daniel, if you want to complement?

Yes. Thanks, Genuino. I think that was very complete. So we will move to the next question, which we will take from Tristan at BNP.

First one is on working capital. Just wanted to see how confident you are on the almost $2 billion of release that you expect in Q4? And what should be driving that? Is there any impact from outages at [indiscernible] or Mexico? And isn't there a risk of reducing inventories a bit too much and missing the recovery in Q1? And if you can discuss that as well. Is that not your base case that notably in Europe, you'll see a bit of a pickup in Q1? And also if you can comment on the CBAM uncertainty. And does that have any impact on your order book in Europe and pushing more buyers towards local producer? That's my first question.

Yes. So we -- the working capital release in Q4 to some extent, it's seasonal, right? I mean, as we know, we have just less working days in December. So that will have an impact on how much receivables we carry at the end of the year, right? And then if you look also, we had a reduction in payables. So as we prepare actually for potentially a stronger 2026, so we start also increasing, and that should also start to normalize.

And you're right. So there are a couple of one-offs such as the fact that we are not able -- we are not producing as standard in Mexico, some accumulation of raw materials that should also start to normalize, right? We have the reline of our Dunkirk blast furnace, which is also then in the process for now. We are normalizing the inventory of slabs.

So yes, we are very confident that you're going to see a significant release of working capital as was also the case last year. So if you go back to 2024, you're going to see something very, very similar. And you're right. So we have a concern here not to squeeze the working capital that is available to the business. And that's why what you're going to really see is more on the receivables side and payable side, not so much in terms of inventories.

Okay. No, that's clear. And just following up then on Europe and with the steel action plan, do you believe that there is a possibility of seeing the new quotas implemented before July next year? And to come back to my earlier question, what kind of environment do you see in Q1? If the quotas are not implemented in January, April, but in July, do you see a risk of import surging? Yes, and if you could comment a little bit on your order books in Europe, if you're starting to see a bit more activity there, that would be helpful.

Yes. Well, in terms of timing of implementation, so when we discuss internally, I think there is still hope that we might actually see it earlier. And I think that's quite important, and that's really the efforts in terms of making sure that the parliament and the council, they understand the urgency of having these measures implemented as soon as possible.

So even though it's challenging, I think there is still hope that we may see this implemented earlier. But of course, we have to wait and see. One thing is for sure, though, I mean, of course, we don't even don't yet know for sure all the details of CBAM. But CBAM for sure is effective already from 1st of Jan, right? And then we will see what are the final terms. But that alone should already at least bring the -- make the imports less competitive.

And then in terms of order book, I think we discussed, I mean, order books are at -- they are not higher than normal. I think it's just as we are seeing demand for now at least kind of moving sideways, demand -- the order book is relatively stable.

Great. So we'll move now to take a question from Max at ODDO.

So my first question is on Mexico. So this is an asset where you have had a number of issues over the recent past. So there was this illegal blockade last year. There was the outage on the EAF earlier this year, and now there's this problem on the DRI plant. So how confident are you basically that the asset can return to a normalized productivity and performance and that on a recurring basis from next year?

Yes. That's a fair question. And then, of course, we are not pleased. Some of the problems that we are facing this year, they are still a result of the legal blockade that happened last year. And what we are doing right now is really reviewing all of our SOPs. So we have our engineers, we have our CTO group going through all the procedures, making sure that we avoid repetition of some of these issues. So I'm very confident that with the support of the group, CTO and local team also very engaged, we're not going to have a repetition of some of these operational issues in Mexico.

Okay. And then a second question is on the import pressure in Brazil and India, which seems to be quite high at the moment, and it's reflected in very low prices. So it seems that the authorities there are not really willing to tackle the situation at this stage. So how are you confident that this will be the case? And would you be ready to scale back your investments in Brazil if that's not the case, given that I think one of your competitor has done such a move and Brazil is still the biggest region where you invest at the moment if we leave aside Liberia.

Yes. Look, I mean, mid- to long term, we continue to be bullish on Brazil. We will continue to invest. You're right that we have seen imports rising in Brazil. And there is also a very close dialogue with the government showing what the governments are doing around the globe, right? And what is encouraging is we have a number of antidumping measures that should start to have an impact, we believe by end of this year or beginning of next year. So we have antidumping against China on [indiscernible], which, of course, are products that we are selling domestically. So that should have a positive impact.

I think the system, the way it is designed today, it also allows for -- if we see surges in other products that we can also then look to add them to the quota systems that we have in place today. We have seen a reduction of imports already in quarter 3 compared to quarter 2. So we'll see, but I think the fact that we have the antidumping is important, showing that the government is also concerned. Local mills, as we know, announced price increase as well beginning of the quarter, we'll see how it plays out.

And India, I would say that demand continues to be extremely good, strong, rising, strong economic performance. You're right that prices are low, that the, I would say, -- there is also the impact of the new capacity that normally takes a while to be absorbed. So we are going through that process right now. But I think we can also be optimistic for the near term.

Okay. And just perhaps the last one is on Ukraine. It seems that the challenges there have gone bigger in recent months in terms of railways, in terms of electricity costs. So is there a point where you will consider shutting down production entirely? Or are you still committed to maintaining production as it is for the time being?

Yes. The situation in Ukraine, you're right. So we are running today at basically at capacity that is available to us. So we are running 2 furnaces. So the trend is EBITDA positive. We are not yet free cash flow neutral as we discussed before, right? And the key issue for us remains the high energy costs.

So again, here, we are trying to engage in discussions with the government to show the importance to bring that to levels that are -- that will allow the industry to be sustainable even in this very challenging conditions of the war. We'll see. But for now, the plan is to continue to produce. We have the mining operations that are also close to capacity. So we are able to sell the iron ore to our own mills either in Europe or to third parties outside. So yes, I think it's -- for now, we are managing through a very challenging situation.

So we'll move now to take the next question, which is going to be from Bastian at Deutsche Bank.

My first one is on Europe, and can I please come back on the situation here in the context of the policy plans? So when you look at the European capacity landscape, do you believe that the current capacity, which is in operation, would be enough to pick up the additional market share, which the domestic industry would likely absorb from the imports? Or would this 10 million tonnes, which you referred to in the chart require [ idle ] capacity to restart? And then maybe just as a quick add-on to that, are you generally more positive on the volume or the price leverage for your business from the policy, which has been laid out? Those are my first questions.

Yes. Well, I think in terms of -- as we know, I mean, and that was also made very clear by Europe, by the commission. As we know, the capacity utilization in Europe today is low. And that's the whole idea behind some of these trade actions to allow the industry to regain a level that is more sustainable, right?

And I think, Bastian, it will depend on where you are in Europe, right? So there can be cases where you're going to need to bring some idle capacity. And then, of course, costs are going to be also higher because you're not going to have the benefit of the fixed cost, right? So it's difficult to be very precise on that.

And for us, I think it's -- I guess what is important here is really to make sure that the industry can run at a decent level of capacity utilization, right? I think that's the whole idea because then, you can earn your cost of capital, you can optimize your fixed cost base, your cost base, et cetera, et cetera. So that's how we are seeing it.

Okay. And just in terms of the leverage for your own business, when you look at the gives and takes, are you more positive on the price effect? Or are you more positive on the volume impact on your earnings contribution?

Well, I want to be drawn on that. I think for us, as I said, what is important is that we can run our facilities at a higher capacity utilization, right? And that should be then, if you have less imports, which as we know today, the cost or the price of imports is so low, right?

Daniel, do you want to add anything to this question?

Yes. So I think like you're saying, it's very difficult to isolate the sort of contribution of the fixed cost absorption, the sort of operating leverage or the impact of just higher industry utilization on spreads. But I think I'm sure you've analyzed this in the past that, Bastian, there's a good correlation between spreads and utilization. So there should be 2 factors, and those 2 factors should contribute to what Genuino is talking about, our business in Europe, the industry in Europe being in a position to covers cost of capital. And that's ultimately the objective here.

Okay. Sounds good. And my next question is on North America. And I guess one of your Canadian peers here is heavily loss-making. Could you maybe give us a bit of color on how Dofasco is actually performing on a single entity basis? And are you still making money there?

Yes, absolutely. Dofasco is one of the best facilities in the world. And so it's still very much profitable.

Okay. Great. And then very last question, just on your expansion strategy in Hazira. Is that on track? And just, I guess, given what you discussed earlier in terms of the capacity, which has been brought on already this year. Do you think the market is ready for the ramp-up next year as you're planning it?

Yes. I think, first of all, our projects are ongoing and going well. So we're going to be, as we discussed, commissioning some of the finishing lines still later this year, beginning of next year. And then during 2026, we're going to be completing the upstream, including coke batteries. And a lot of the new capacity has just come down. So I think we're going to be in a good position to ramp up our own capacity. So allowing some time so the market can absorb that. So I think in terms of timing, it looks good, Bastian.

Great. So we still have a few more questions to take, Genuino. So the first of those we will take from Dominic at JPMorgan.

Just a couple of quick questions on, again, sort of real-time indicators of demand. You obviously have a seasonal slowdown in the North American market. But are you seeing any visible signs of kind of new pockets of weakness in the U.S., particularly given the government shutdown?

And then my second question relates to Europe and the auto segment. Do you have any insight you can share with regards to how you're approaching contracts moving into January?

Yes. So starting with the U.S., you're right. So I think overall, we all know the numbers, right? So the demand moving sideways. But I would say that when I look at our business, Calvert is running absolutely full. We had record levels of production shipments, right? So the 2 segments where we are very much focused, the energy, automotive doing relatively well.

And then when it comes to Canada and Mexico, I think that's where we also see some potential because, of course, the demand domestically, let's forget tariffs for a moment, also significantly impacted, right, with all the uncertainties created by the change in the relationship between the various governments within North America. So I think we see potential for stabilization there that should also support the shipments domestically in Canada and Mexico.

Coming to the auto contracts, I mean, it's going to be just how it is. So I think we have a lot to offer to the automakers. In some cases, in North America, as we know, the negotiations will happen gradually during the year. And in Europe, there has weight to the beginning of the year. So this process is ongoing. And I expect that it will be -- as always is, we have an agreement that is -- that should be a win-win for both companies.

Is there any sense that the price tension that we've seen over the last 2 years could alleviate this time around?

Yes. As you know, I mean, we don't comment on -- specifically on prices, as you can imagine. So these negotiations, first of all, they are specific. And so we don't comment on prices. I would just -- of course, the spot price is always a reference, right, starting point. You see prices moving higher in Europe already. They are also coming up again in North America. We talked about prices in Brazil also, higher prices being announced. So I think the environment is, in that sense, it is positive.

So we will move now to Andy at UBS.

So just to go back to the European question about the CO2. Can you just remind us what your emissions are likely to finish at in 2025 if we assume the normal seasonal uptick in 4Q and how that compares to your free allocation levels this year?

And going into 2026 with the reduction of the free allocations, and I guess at some of your sites, you produced less in recent years, so you may lose some free allocation because of lower production. Can you give us an idea by how much you expect your free allocation to change next year? And maybe as a follow-on to that, are there any assets which are kind of emitting less the reallocation where the uplift in production would have minimal cost on the CO2 side. Just to give us an idea for how much you could ramp production easily.

Andy, I mean this is -- I mean, there are many, many moving parts, right, when it comes to [ DTS ] system, it is complex. I would just say that as we know, in Europe, most players, if not all players, they are short, right? So they don't meet the benchmarks.

I would say a good rule of thumb, it's about -- you're paying CO2 costs for about 20% of your production, right? That's the ballpark to give you an idea. I think when we look at our -- and it's always based on an average, you have your how. So it's highly technical.

So we don't really expect going forward in 2026 that we're going to be losing free emissions meaningfully because of levels of operation, right? But as we know, there are reductions, gradual reductions that will happen with the implementation of CBAM. You need to take that into account. And there are also revisions to the benchmarks, right? So that's the situation.

But you don't have a number of credits reduction that you expect for next year?

Well, I mean, we all know what's going to happen in terms of reductions. There is a 2% reduction in the [ DTS ] system, the 3 allowances, right? And then we have to see what happens now with the benchmarks. So it's too early to talk about it.

I would just add that what is important here also is now with CBAM, right, and to the extent that CBAM is effective, then at least you are at par with imports. So they will be paying the same costs, right? I think I would encourage you also to see to the extent that costs increase in Europe, but you have at least the same cost being applied to imports, at least there is a level playing field in that regard, right, which is, I guess, what the whole industry in Europe has been advocating.

Okay. That's clear. And just a second question on Canada. There was a recent document about medium and light -- medium and heavy vehicles, a proclamation on the auto industry from the White House, which have a paragraph in it talking about potential carve-outs for auto-grade steel from Canada where the tariff would drop by -- from 50% to 25%, conditional on some conditions around like investments in the U.S. and things like that.

I was wondering how you interpreted that because it seems slightly unclear to me. But if you've got an asset in the U.S. that you're clearly investing in, do you see potential to use that recent proclamation to reduce the tariff from Dofasco into the U.S.?

My understanding is that the negotiations at this point in time, as we all know, they are suspended, right? And we are hoping that they will resume the negotiations. And then we'll see finally what comes out of these discussions. I don't have anything else really to add.

So two questions left. So we're going to take the first of those from Phil at KeyBanc.

Regarding North America, how is the Calvert EAF ramp going? And is that part of your incremental 2026 strategic EBITDA growth bridge as you look into next year as that comes up to the levels you expect?

Yes. Well, we are ramping up. So our expectation now -- latest expectation is to end the year with a run rate between 40% and 50%. So it's progressing. We started also the qualification process. And you're right. So when you look at our bridge, that is on Slide 10 and the 800 million, then you're going to have contribution from Calvert in 2 buckets.

One is, of course, we're going to be consolidating Calvert for the full year. And as you know, we started the consolidation in end of quarter 2. So you're going to have an extra contribution from Calvert consolidation, which is in our M&A bucket. And you're going to have the contribution from the EAF. Especially in this environment, right, when we are -- when Calvert is also paying for tariffs on the slabs. So that is also part of the 600 million that you see from projects. So Calvert next year, it's in the 2 buckets there.

And as a follow-up, you mentioned in your remarks in your analyst deck that Canada is beginning to address some of the unfairly traded steel or some level of reciprocity for the U.S. tariffs. What have they done specifically? And do you think they're doing enough?

Well, as we know, we have a very large level of imports into Canada, right? So of course, they reduce the quotas for non-FTA countries. That's a good step, but it doesn't really address the problem. So we believe that Canada should be put in place a much stronger trade protection to make sure that the industry can again also regain market share vis-a-vis imports. As we know, a lot of the imports also come from the U.S., right? And there, we are hopeful, again, as we said, that Canada, U.S., Mexico, and maybe as part of the USMCA negotiations, they will also come to an agreement. And that would be very, very good, right, if you have the whole USMCA with similar rules, similar protection. So that would be extremely positive. And you would expect if you have a common trade block that the rules would be similar.

So we'll take our final question, and we'll take that from Boris at Kepler Cheuvreux.

Two questions and one technical precision. The first is on Europe. I think you're quite close with politics in talks about those trade barriers to be implemented. What is your take on the fact that those proposals of the European Commission will be adopted in the current state they have been proposed or whether there could be some dilution? That would be my first question.

Then on China, there is a lot of talks about the anti-involution measures. Do you see any chance that China might be moving towards a cut in production as some headlines were referring earlier this year?

And lastly, just to confirm what you said earlier on the market share in Europe, is it 30% or 20% to 30%?

Okay. So Boris, I will take your first question, and then I will comment on China. Well, I mean the dilution risk, I mean there is a process, right? So the proposal is now going through the parliament, it's going through the council. I think there is a desire expressed by a number of governments by the commission to have an accelerated approval process. And that is only possible if we don't have a significant change. So I think that's our request that we have these measures in place as soon as possible.

And then on the market, that's -- I mean, that's -- I'm just giving you a reference.

Okay. Daniel, do you want to talk about China?

Yes, yes. So it's obviously a question that we receive on most of our calls around the theme of China excess capacity, when will they address it, when will they take measures to structurally reform the industry to balance domestic capacity with domestic demand and in an effort to restore the industry to health, to reasonable levels of profitability, reasonable margins, et cetera, et cetera.

So to your question, there have, of course, been lots of headlines and suggestions that steel could be one of the beneficiaries of the anti-involution theme in China this year. But the reality is that we really haven't seen any changes in the impact that China is having in external markets. So they continue to have weak prices, very weak margins. Generally, there's a substantial proportion of the industry operating with -- on a loss-making basis. And they continue to export at extremely elevated levels, run rates of 120 million tonne, 130 million tonnes annualized. So those negative domestic dynamics are then being translated into other regions through those exports.

So I guess my answer to your question is until we really see strong evidence of change, and that would be through improved prices, improved margins, improved profitability and most importantly, through reduced exports, then nothing is really changing. And that just puts even more emphasis on the requirement for governments to take appropriate actions to ring-fence those domestic industries from these negative impacts of excess capacity in China.

So Genuino, he was just talking about the progress, the strong progress that we're making in Europe. We talked earlier about what's happening in Brazil. But it's clear that, that's the best way to deal with this issue is by putting appropriate protections in place.

Great. So I think that's our last question, Genuino. So I'll hand back to you for any closing remarks.

Thank you, everyone. Before we close, let me briefly reiterate the key messages from the start of the call. First, our results continue to demonstrate structural improvements. The fact that we are posting such improved results at what we believe to be the bottom of the cycle bodes well for when conditions normalize.

Secondly, our underlying business continues to generate healthy cash flows. Looking behind seasonal working capital movements shows that we continue to generate good underlying free cash flow, and this is after having invested close to $1 billion in our strategic growth projects. These projects are delivering structurally high EBITDA, and this will continue in 2026.

Finally, the outlook for our business has clearly improved over the past 3 months. The newly proposed trade tool, combined with an effective CBAM provides the foundation for our new business to earn its cost of capital. Together with the actions being taken in other regions like Brazil and Canada, this continues to point towards a more regionalized and better protected steel industry in which ArcelorMittal can thrive.

With that, I will close today's call. And if you need anything further, please do reach out to Daniel and his team. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Stay safe and keep those around you safe as well. Thank you very much.