Hiab Stock

Welcome to Hiab's Third Quarter 2026 Results Call. Our comparable operating profit grew strongly through executing our strategy. My name is Aki Vesikallio. I'm from Investor Relations. Today's results will be presented by our CEO, Scott Phillips; and CFO, Mikko Puolakka. As a reminder, please pay attention to the disclaimer in the presentation as we will be making forward-looking statements.

Before handing over to Scott and Mikko, let's take a look at the highlights of the quarter. Orders received continued to grow in EMEA, while acquisitions boosted orders received in the Americas. Comparable operating profit increased to EUR 69 million, corresponding to 14.2% of sales, while comparable EBITDA margin was 15.5% in the quarter. Cash flow was again strong at EUR 98 million. We keep our outlook for 2026 unchanged. Also, Environmental Vehicle Solutions acquisition was completed in the beginning of the quarter. Hence, it had a significant impact on many of the key figures in the quarter.

Let's then view today's agenda. First, Scott will present the group level topics. Mikko will go through reporting segments, financials in more detail and then the outlook. After Mikko, Scott will join the stage for key takeaways before the Q&A session. With that, over to you, Scott.

Thank you, Aki. And greetings from my side, everyone. I would like to start today by highlighting some of our recent new product innovations, 3 of which we introduced within the quarter. Sorry about that. I surprised myself with that. So we continue to shape the essential industries with pioneering innovations. And the 3 that I wanted to highlight from the quarter are as follows. First, on the left-hand side of the slide, we introduced our next-generation ProCare agreements.

Now this is designed in order that we can help our fleet owners keep the equipment working by securing better uptime. This will help secure lower total life cycle cost and certainly help our customers to improve value from each and every asset. Then moving to the right, the second new product that I'd like to highlight are a combination of 2 new updates to our MOFFETT [ M8 ] series, primarily focused for the North American market, both of which were designed to increase our weight payload by increasing capacity nearly 20% to 2.5 and 3 metric tons each.

In addition to the increased weight to payload ratio, we also come out with a proprietary technology, which allows for single-site offloading. And this provides both enhanced safety. We have enhanced connectivity and the new models will enable much faster delivery, improve productivity and, of course, lead to lower total cost of ownership.

And then third innovation I'd like to highlight and really proud to say for the first time then with environmental vehicle solutions within the Hiab portfolio. I'd like to highlight a new innovation that was introduced for our [ Leach ] brand series, which is a smaller 3 cubic yard tailgate. Now this tailgate allows for -- it delivers high-density packing of up to 600 kilograms per cubic meter, additionally allowing for a faster cycle time of 17 seconds.

Now the combination of the lighter weight and shorter rear overhang will improve weight distribution and payload capacity on smaller chassis. This will help some of our operators work much more efficiently while enabling a wider access reach for leach within the market. So really excited about all 3 of these innovations.

Now turning your attention to the group financials, starting with orders. As always, our orders received as well as our order book grew significantly within the quarter. Of course, this is largely supported by acquisitions in the Americas, and I'll take you through those details in the following 2 slides. Starting on the left-hand side of the slide, you see where our order book has come from 2 years prior with a slight dip going into last year and of course, boosted this year, as mentioned, from our acquisitions within the Americas.

So within the period, our orders received are EUR 441 million against the comparison period of EUR 351 million. That's a 26% variance, which brings our year-to-date order intake at EUR 1.28 billion versus EUR 1.1 billion for the same period last year. That's 16% overall variance. Now of which -- of the EUR 441 million, EUR 87 million came from our Environmental Vehicle Solutions business as well as EUR 14 million from [ ING ].

So overall, the 2 acquisitions contributed to EUR 101 million of order intake, which had a 30 percentage point positive impact within the quarter. Currencies, however, did not have a significant impact on orders received. However, our organic orders received decreased by 4% within the period. Year-to-date, however, is up 5%.

Now one of the big drivers for the impact for order intake in the period was the fact that we -- versus the comparison period did not book sizable key account orders, and that's especially visible in the Americas as we booked no orders above EUR 10 million within the quarter. And then as mentioned previously, our order book has increased significantly with the inclusion of the Environmental Vehicle Solutions business.

Now turning your attention to the regional perspective on orders received. Orders received grew in EMEA as well as in Asia Pacific. However, the negative organic development in the Americas, it was a reflection of the key account orders situation versus the comparison period, as I mentioned previously. And then diving a bit more into the regional composition, you see that we came from 56% of orders in the prior year comparison period to 46% this year.

And then going clockwise around the doughnut chart, we increased from 38%, of course, to 48% in the Americas, primarily driven by -- or largely all driven by the acquisitions. And then Asia Pacific then decreased as a consequence by 1 percentage point from 7% to 6%. Orders in the period were EUR 201 million for EMEA versus the comparison period of EUR 195 million for a 3% positive variance. Year-to-date, the variance is up 7%, EUR 627 million versus comparison period of EUR 587 million.

In the Americas, order intake increased to EUR 214 million versus EUR 132 million in the prior year for a 62% variance. Year-to-date, order intake in the Americas is EUR 571 million versus EUR 435 million in the same period last year or 31% positive variance. In APAC, we have a good stable situation with a slight increase in orders within the period versus comparison period of EUR 2 million or up 8%. Year-to-date, however, we're slightly negative 3% or EUR 82 million versus EUR 84 million year-to-date.

Now taking a look into the environment, we still see a steady continued market recovery within EMEA against quite a mixed picture, of course. At the same time, through the quarter, we saw a good gradual improvement sequentially in our refuse collection vehicle orders. So that bodes nicely for future prospects.

On the other hand, in terms of the negative side, of course, we still have this elevated uncertainty in terms of overall global growth outlook. We have, of course, the price situation as well as the interest rates that certainly are delaying decision-making and moving those decisions to the right as well as encouraging the sweating of assets as well. So quite a mixed picture in terms of the negative part of the environment, quite stable from Q2 to Q3 in terms of the positive picture here.

Now turning your attention to sales. Happy to report that sales grew organically by 5% within the quarter. And then as you can see, compared to the prior 2 years, we have a nice improvement compared to where we were last year at EUR 346 million. So in the period this year, we're at EUR 481 million or a positive variance of 39%. That brings us year-to-date to a little bit under EUR 1.3 billion versus last year, a little bit less than EUR 1.2 billion or a 9% variance year-to-date. Organically, we've grown 5% within the period, down unfortunately, 2% year-to-date versus 2025. Our share of services in the period was 28% versus 34% last year.

Now this is primarily due to the fact that the percentage of sales in both the acquired businesses are smaller relative to the continuing Hiab business. So quite in line with our expectations there. And then as I mentioned from the order intake period, we give the specific details in terms of our acquired businesses in the Americas. So sales from our Environmental Vehicle Solutions business was EUR 103 million. Sales from our ING cranes were EUR 13 million, which overall EUR 116 million had a 35 percentage point positive impact within the quarter.

Now looking at that on a regional level, much like our order intake, sales within the EMEA region decreased due to the structural change that we made in the business. So going from 51% to 39% in the period this year versus last year. The Americas, however, increased from 40% to 56%. And then that mix change, of course, impacted the percentage of sales in the APAC region from 8% to 5%.

Looking into the numbers, EMEA represented EUR 187 million of sales versus EUR 178 million in the comparison period or a 5% change. And in year-to-date, much the same, EUR 606 million versus EUR 573 million. In the Americas, however, we see the big shift, EUR 268 million versus comparison period of EUR 140 million or a 92% change. And then year-to-date, EUR 584 million versus EUR 508 million or 15% change. In APAC, we had a decrease slightly in the quarter of EUR 3 million, EUR 26 million versus EUR 29 million, which, of course, is reflective of converting order book in prior period. Year-to-date, we're EUR 2 million below last year comparable period or 2 percentage point change.

Our ECO portfolio sales within the quarter represented EUR 161 million of sales versus EUR 140 million or 15%, year-to-date, EUR 518 million versus EUR 473 million. Now as a percentage in the period, it represented 33%. However, excluding our Environmental Vehicle Solutions in the period was 43% versus the prior year period of 40%. So like-for-like business had a 3 percentage point improvement versus prior year period. And then year-to-date, we're at 41% versus 38% in the ECO portfolio percentage of sales. So nicely on track with our targets there.

Now from the top line development, turning your attention to the earnings picture. We had a significant improvement in the comparable operating profit as well as our EBITDA. And then turning your attention first to EBITDA. We, in this year's period, delivered EUR 75 million or 15.5 percentage points versus EUR 40 million or 11.7% in the comparison period for a change of 85%. Then year-to-date, that brings our EBITDA to EUR 189 million versus prior year of EUR 168 million for a 13% positive variance. So 14.9% on a relative basis versus 14.5%.

In terms of our comparable operating profit, as Aki had mentioned earlier, we delivered EUR 69 million or 14.2% of sales versus last year's period of 40% and 11.4% for a 73% change. Year-to-date, that's EUR 181 million versus EUR 166 million or a 9% positive variance. On a relative basis, the same 14.3% versus 14.3% last year. Operative return on capital employed, our last 12 months is at 20.2%.

Now this decrease is mainly due to the higher operative fixed assets stemming from our acquisition that's now represented in our Environmental Vehicle Solutions business. So that's versus the comparison period of 29.8%. Now certainly, our acquisition of the Labrie business that's now Environmental Vehicle Solutions boosted our comparable EBITDA nicely to the 15.5%. And then drilling into or providing a bit of color in terms of the Environmental Vehicle Solutions business, our comparable EBITDA was in the high teens.

Now giving a little bit more detail relative to our Environmental Vehicle Solutions. As we mentioned when we made the announcement, we believe that relative to our investment profile that we seek across the 6 dimensions, there's no doubt that the Environmental Vehicle Solutions represents a perfect fit to our strategy and it certainly supports both our top line as well as bottom line growth ambitions.

Our integration process, I'm happy to report, is progressing nicely according to plan. We have a couple of factors that are balancing our focus area for the integration. On the one hand, we want to make sure that we protect the ongoing business and add to the ability of this high-quality business to continue to deliver, make sure that we support and secure the focus of our distribution network and ensure that the team is able to continue to execute on delivering the significant backlog. At the same time, though, we, of course, have a keen focus on being able to deliver the synergies that have been called out, and I'll talk about that in just a few minutes.

So as I took you through earlier, the financial performance is enhancing our results, both in terms of the top line orders received as well as sales. And of course, with the strong comparable EBITDA, which was in the high teens, as I mentioned on the prior page, overall supports our profitable growth ambitions nicely. Now we think there's significant further upside potential in the business, and we'll take you through some more details about where we see ourselves in terms of the demand cycle. But certainly, we view this as an essential industry with long-term attractive market growth prospects.

As highlighted earlier, we expect the overall market to progress out for the next 5 years in the low single-digit CAGR and certain parts of the business, even slightly higher than that. At the same time, as we pointed out when we made the announcement, I think what we called out at that time was low double-digit levels of synergies that we were seeking. And so far through the first 100-ish days or so of the integration process, we're getting a bit more granular in terms of where we think the run rate will end up in 2029.

So at this point, we're pretty comfortable from a combination of procurement cost synergies as well as sales synergies, both in services and a bit in the equipment side to represent an above EUR 12 million run rate in 2029. Now as always, I'll wrap up on how are we doing relative to our long-term strategy target profile. We added a bit of a different twist here in terms of the arrow so that we do a better job then of indicating whether we're trending positive or negative.

So starting from left to right, in terms of our CAGR, we had a slight increase versus -- sequentially versus what we shared with you in Q2. So our rolling 10-year average has increased 5%. From the comparable operating profit side, our last 12 months has increased slightly to 13.7%. On the other hand, in terms of return on capital employed, our last 12 months return on capital employed has decreased to 20.2%, and we expect that trend to continue for a couple of periods to come. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mikko Puolakka.

Thank you, Scott, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen, also from my side. Before going into the segment numbers, just a reminder that EVS, i.e., formerly Labrie Group numbers have been now included in our Equipment and Service segment financials from 1st of July onwards. Like on the Hiab Group level, the EVS acquisition is clearly visible in the segment financials. As Scott already mentioned, despite the inorganic growth, it's good to note also that there has been a really nice solid improvement, both also in our Equipment and Services segments.

Let me start with the Equipment segment's financial performance. The Equipment segment had a strong improvement across all line items during quarter 3. Order intake was boosted by the EVS acquisition as well as growth in the lifting equipment. Delivery equipment orders declined slightly. As Scott mentioned, there were fewer key account orders in the U.S. versus the comparison period.

The order book increased by EUR 310 million. This is thanks to the EVS acquisition. The organic order book was on last year's level. Sales was EUR 347 million. And here, both lifting and delivery equipment sales grew. And then on top of that came the EVS and IMG inorganic equipment sales growth. The quarter 3 saw a strong improvement in profitability.

Comparable operating profit margin improved from 8.8% to 12.6% for equipment. The underlying organic profitability improvement was boosted by the sales growth, but also combined then with lower fixed costs coming from the EUR 20 million overall cost savings program what we initiated some quarters ago. The EVS equipment contributed also to Equipment segment profitability improvement. If we look at the profitability trends in Equipment segment, so the last 5 quarters have demonstrated a very solid improvement in profitability, improving from now from last year's 8.8% to this quarter's 12.6%.

As the bridge illustrates the sales growth of 50% or in EUR 117 million, that was the biggest contributor for the profitability improvement. This growth was both organic and inorganic, as mentioned earlier. We did not have any notable head or tailwinds from tariffs or price increases during quarter 3. So the gross profit margin was fairly stable during the quarter.

The other contributor to the profitability improvement was also the fact that our fixed costs increased roughly 25%, while sales grew 50%. This fixed cost increase is solely coming from the EVS acquisition, while the organic kind of legacy Hiab costs have been coming down, thanks to the cost savings program.

Let me then have a look on the services profitability. Services organic performance improved, and it was also complemented by the EVS acquisition. Service orders were EUR 130 million, sales EUR 134 million. So these were up by 16% and 15%, respectively. Services grew nicely organically, and this growth was complemented by the EVS services. Like we have seen in the previous quarters, we continue to see really nice growth in the services recurring type of services like spare parts and maintenance-related services.

The installation services revenues were flat year-on-year. The number of connected equipment and maintenance contracts continued to increase, and this is in line with our strategy to reach 90,000 connected equipment and 50,000 maintenance contracts by 2028. The services profitability improved by EUR 6 million to EUR 33 million during the quarter, and this represents a margin of 24.6%.

Services profitability improvement was driven by organic and inorganic sales growth. Services has delivered a steady profitability margin over the past years, as you can see also on the picture on the left-hand side. The 15% sales increase is the main driver for the EUR 6 million or 110 basis points improvement in profitability. The organic gross profit margin improved, thanks to higher sales, and then it was also complemented by EVS services. So very nice development in services.

Let me highlight a couple of financials then on total Hiab level. As Scott already referred, our sales was EUR 481 million. This was growing 39%. The organic growth in constant currencies was 5%. The comparable EBITDA margin increased by 380 basis points to 15.5%. Comparable operating profit was EUR 69 million, i.e., 14.2% of sales. The EBITDA and comparable operating profit improvement is driven by sales increase and as mentioned earlier, also successfully executing the cost reductions actions, thanks to the actions what we have put in place in the previous quarters.

We are proceeding well towards the EUR 20 million full year 2026 cost savings. So the year-to-date September kind of organic Hiab costs were EUR 12 million lower than in 2025. Our quarter 3 comparable operating profit of EUR 69 million includes also now EUR 5 million purchase price amortization or allocation amortization, and this is related to the EVS customer relationships, technologies and brands.

Our items affecting comparability were EUR 15 million during quarter 3. And basically EUR 6 million of this is related to the EVS order book amortization and this amortization will take place during the next 2 years and then it's completed. And the rest of the items affecting comparability, EUR 9 million was related to the cost savings program as well as the EVS integration. Our year-to-date items affecting comparability was EUR 37 million, and our full year estimate is EUR 60 million. Our year-to-date September tax rate was exceptionally high at 30%.

We have treated some of the EVS acquisition-related costs as nontax deductible and resulting then to this higher tax rate. But I would say that our normalized tax rate would be on the level of 24%, 25% as we have communicated earlier. We had a really strong cash flow in quarter 3, representing a 180% cash conversion. Reduction in inventories and accounts receivables were the main contributors to the high cash generation. And I would like to also highlight here that EVS also contributed to the above 100% cash conversion during the quarter.

Let's then have a look on some of our balance sheet metrics. Our gearing increased to 67% at the end of September, and this is solely driven by the EUR 900 million debt what we raised in the beginning of the quarter for the EVS acquisition. Our cash balance was EUR 324 million at the end of September. This 67% gearing is in line with our projections made before the EVS acquisition.

And actually, this is slightly better than originally projected, thanks to the solid cash flow in quarter 3. And also going forward, with the solid organic as well as inorganic cash flow profile, we should see a gradual reduction in gearing in the coming quarters. We repaid the last bond of EUR 150 million during September. And basically, now the rest of the outstanding debt is related to the EVS acquisition as well as the normal IFRS 16 lease liabilities.

We have kept our full year outlook unchanged and expect to deliver a 14.5% -- over 14.5% comparable operating profit margin for the full year. This outlook is based on the following assumptions. Firstly, our year-to-date September comparable operating profit margin was 14.3%. Secondly, certain orders what we have booked during the first half of this year will be delivered in quarter 4. And then as mentioned already earlier, we have progressed well on the EUR 20 million cost savings program. So with that, then I would like to hand over back to Scott.

Thank you, Mikko. So wrapping up, I'd like to leave you with 4 key takeaways. I'd say, firstly, we're excited about the fact that Q3 was our first quarter in 3 years with organic sales growth of 5%, as Mikko pointed out earlier. Number two, I think we're well on track to deliver our strategy and the execution is going quite nicely despite the market uncertainty and turbulence that we've experienced. We estimate that by the end of the year, we'll reach our highest profitability in Hiab's history. So we're quite pleased about that.

And as I mentioned earlier, the integration with Environmental Vehicle Solutions business is progressing quite nicely and according to plan. And to reiterate that we expect to achieve a run rate of synergies above EUR 12 million on the operating profit level basis. So with that, I'd like to invite Aki back on stage.

Thank you, Scott. Mikko back to the stage so that we can get ready for the questions. So operator, please, we are ready.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Panu Laitinmäki from Danske Bank.

I have 3. Firstly, starting from the EBIT contribution of Labrie. You said that on EBITA level, it was high teens. Has it declined from what it was a year ago? And is the PPA higher as -- I remember we discussed in July that it would be consolidated at around 17% margin.

Do you want to take that?

Yes. I would say that the EVS profitability in quarter 4 -- quarter 3 was a bit lower than in the past quarters, but this is actually due to some conscious decisions what we made during the quarter. We took over with TVS acquisition, roughly EUR 87 million of inventories, and we wanted to conduct a full stock take in all EVS manufacturing locations.

Due to this, there has been some production stoppages during the quarter, and this has impacted our volumes during the quarter as well as the profitability. But overall, we see no reason why the EVS profitability would be very different what we have been communicating earlier. During the quarter, as mentioned, we have basically booked EUR 5 million PPA amortization above the comparable operating profit and then EUR 6 million below the comparable operating profit in items affecting comparability. And this EUR 6 million is related to the order book amortization, which takes place during 2 years' time.

And the PPA amortization was in line with what we disclosed in the second quarter interim report.

Yes. My second question was on guidance, which implies that the margin in Q4 will be higher, and you kind of already partly answered to that. I was going to ask whether there is seasonality in Labrie, but you indicated that Q3 was a bit softer due to temporary reasons. So can you give any more color on the Q4 expectations, why it should be clearly better?

Yes, I can start with that, Panu. Q4, as Mikko highlighted earlier, we booked some nice orders earlier in the year that we anticipate to convert within Q4. And due to that conversion, we expect a nice sequential development on the top line that should, with our operating leverage translate nicely from an operating profitability perspective.

And of course, I think you asked a question related to the seasonality in Labrie. I'd say that, yes, there's some seasonality on the order side. I don't think that necessarily translates, however, into the way that the order book as a consequence is executed. So the execution is largely stable. It's more of a consequence of the mix of the units and then the lead times that result as a consequence, which are quite variable.

But -- then overall, you see then the normal Hiab seasonality where, of course, as we've highlighted in all of our prior discussions, we tend to have a 10% to 15% seasonality in Q3, and that's due to the number of working days that hits us both in equipment as well as services. And then of course, we recover some of that in Q4 in terms of working days, and then we have this additional benefit of the backlog.

Is it possible to quantify the maybe negative impacts on Lab in Q3 that you described?

We have not disclosed that. But I would say that it's -- we are talking still a fairly, let's say, visible impact. We are talking about some weeks of production stops and that impacts, of course, the top line. But we have not quantified the exact amount.

Yes. I would just reiterate, as Mikko said earlier, Panu, if you think about on a normal delivery basis, then the EBITDA percentage should be well in line with what we communicated previously.

My final question is on the Americas orders. So it seems that they were down like 15% organically without the acquisition. I understand there is timing of the large orders, but what are you seeing in the market overall? Is the recovery postponed? Are there new headwinds due to interest rates? Or what should we expect going forward?

Yes. We still see a market that's impacted largely by the same factors that we've discussed before. So of course, you still have the uncertainty around where cost levels will settle out. So that still has an impact. I know there's a lot of visibility in terms of the truck OEM production levels. And of course, the mix of the changes in production level as well as sales levels have not necessarily translated into increased volume uptake on our side, a combination of a couple of factors.

One is the timing-wise. And so there's certainly the lag. Two, if you look at the mix, then the increase in production have very little causality, if you will, in terms of volume impact on our side. So in that regard, that stayed quite stable. And I'd say then three, it's largely a combination of the higher interest rates, the impact that, that's had on housing as well as refinancing-driven renovations and remodeling that has created a bit of softness.

You do see, however, some pickup on the rental side of the business and utilization rates, but that's probably largely driven by the proactive management that they're doing in terms of the fleet volumes. So that hasn't necessarily translated into faster decision-making or an uptake in our volume levels as well. And then most importantly would be the fact that versus the comparison period, we didn't realize any larger key account orders within the quarter period. And so those are often hard to call in terms of timing.

The next question comes from Mikael Doepel from Nordea.

A couple of questions. And to start off with or continuing on Panu's question there. I'm just wondering how you think about the outlook there overall. So I mean, we have seen truck orders improve. We are hearing truck OEMs increasing production. So I would assume that, that should start to show in your orders as well at some point in time. So how do you think about that relationship? And also, how do you think about the overall fleet that you see out there in terms of the fleet? Do you see increasing replacement needs? Or how would you think about the dynamics here?

Yes. Yes. It's -- we'll have to stick with our story line that we have in the past in terms of the truck chassis development. Of course, I think the first contextual attribute that's important to note is, of course, compared to '24, the volume levels are still a bit muted in most of the classifications of the truck chassis with the exception overall of the Class 8 chassis. And then within Class 8, you have many types of applications, if you will.

And so the applications that have been most positively impacted are those that are more on the tractor type chassis and different applications as compared to the use cases for our type of product. Having said that, though, then there also is this time lag between the impact of the volume on the truck side versus when we might see that materialize in our demand. And then my apologies, you asked the second part of that question. Mikael, can you repeat the rest of that question?

Yes. Yes, sure. No, I was just asking about how do you view the fleet age, if you think your kind of target...

Yes. So if I think about that both from the continuing of the legacy Hiab business as well as the Environmental Vehicle Solution business, the fleet age is, of course, at a point where we have a high level of confidence that the replacement cycle will have to pick up in both parts of the business. So that bodes well long term. And I think more midterm and long term. No question about that. It's a matter of timing when we start to see a better pickup from the fleet replacement. The economics are still quite attractive for our customers to do that.

All right. Okay. And then just continuing on the EVS and the refuse market overall. So you saw a pickup in orders there. How do you think about the outlook there into the end of the year into 2027? And is there anything in terms of the market dynamics there that you would like to flag?

Yes. I'd say a couple of key factors to note here, and I'll try to be careful as I'm still relatively new here, but a couple of key factors that I can share and highlight. So one, as pointed out earlier, sequentially through the quarter, there was a bit of pickup and there has been a consistent nice level of, let's say, inquiries similar story that we've been talking about from time to time in the legacy Hiab business. So that bodes well always.

Then secondly, then talking about the market dynamics and what we've seen here in the past year, maybe a little over a year. You've got 3 key factors that have influenced the market dynamics, 2 of which created a bit of an unusual inventory situation. On the one hand, you had the supply chain bottlenecks and then the subsequent lengthening of lead times from all refuse collection vehicle OEMs as well as the truck OEM suppliers. And then that created a bit of bottleneck in terms of order backlog.

That order backlog now has been delivered nicely not only by Environmental Vehicle Solutions, but then other competitors within the industry, which then causes a catch-up on the inventory side. Then the second factor that's at play here is there's an impending regulatory change in terms of emissions. So there was an anticipation of pre-buy effect relative to the emissions change that was pending at the beginning of 2027, some of which materialized, some of which hasn't materialized. The net effect of the 2 factors are a bit of inventory buildup that needs to be worked through the system.

So then thinking more longer term, mid- to longer term, there -- we still stand by the fact that within this industry, the structural characteristics are quite attractive. Waste per household is still expected to continue to rise. The trend towards multistream and more recycling versus general waste, we expect to continue to develop over the next 5 years. So the mid- to low single-digit CAGR still seems to be quite relevant. It's consistent with what the competitors are saying as well, all of which are soon to report, as I understand it, in the U.S. market.

So it would be interesting for you to be able to get additional data points there as well. But overall, we expect in the mid- to long term, a nice consistent growth picture, especially given the fact that in the future, as the market gets a bit more certain or we get more stability around the cost and interest rate picture and then a combination of working through the inventory levels that have been built up from these 2, let's say, ordering bubbles, if you will. So relative to the current cycle, you could say '24 was a bit of a peak year. And -- but we see this as just a short-term development once inventory levels get to a more normal level.

And just a follow-up on that. That's very good color. But just a follow-up on the inventory commentary. Do you have any visibility now on where we are? Have the inventories being cleared? I'm just listening to some of the peers actually saying that the markets have kind of the overcapacity has already been absorbed. But would you still see -- I mean, you're still seeing some inventories that needs to be taken down? Or how do you view the market?

Yes. We just see that there's still inventory that's being worked through on the distributor side, and we can only assume that the same is true for our industry peer group as well.

Okay. Okay. That's clear. And then just finally, a couple of housekeeping questions to Mikko. I just wanted to ask on the amortization. First of all, how should we think about that on a kind of quarterly or yearly basis going into 2027, the levels that we should assume for that? And also, if you could repeat what you said on the cost savings. I didn't quite hear that. Sorry about that. And what kind of incremental effect you expect from that in Q4 and also into 2027?

Yes. Thanks for the question. So if we start from the amortization, so like I said, during quarter 3, we had EUR 5 million above the comparable operating profit. And this is related to the longer-term amortization. We are talking here about 10, 15 years, and this EUR 5 million per quarter is related to trademarks, brands, technologies.

Then in items affecting comparability, we reported EUR 6 million per quarter during quarter 3, and this is related to the order book amortization. And here, the amortization period is 2 years. So mid 2028, it would be then fully amortized. And these are the preliminary purchase price allocation calculations. According to the accounting rules, we have a 12 months time to complete it. I don't anticipate that it will dramatically change from these numbers what we have now reported here in quarter 3.

Maybe to add to that. So of course, we have also some PPA related to ING acquisition and other former acquisitions. So in total, it was EUR 12.6 million within the quarter as reported.

And then what comes to the cost savings, so year-to-date September, our kind of organic costs, excluding ING and EBS were EUR 12 million lower than in 2025. And we anticipate that the full year fixed costs -- organic fixed costs will be EUR 20 million lower.

Okay. All right. And just on -- I mean -- but is there a kind of year-over-year effect still from that coming into? Is that a EUR 20 million run rate? Or is it kind of fully in the books kind of in 2026 to EUR 20 million? How should we think about that in '27...

As some of these actions were not implemented from 1st of January 2026 onwards. So we anticipate that the impact for 2027 will be somewhat higher than this EUR 20 million.

The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

Unfortunately, part of your presentation, so bear with me if I ask you to repeat some of the stuff. But coming back to the Environmental Vehicle Solutions orders on the third quarter, I wanted to understand better, Scott, you mentioned that it probably has a similar type of order seasonality than your business. But then again, I guess you flagged out a sequential increase in the order intake. So perhaps a bit color on that. And is this kind of a EUR 80 million, EUR 90 million order level something that we should now think about as a run rate where you then grow whatever the market does help in the next coming years?

Yes. The -- thanks for the question, Antti. The seasonality piece is probably in the EVS business, much more related to the composition of the customers, which are largely municipalities, so around budgeting, that -- we're still learning how that will look going forward. But having said that, then on the sales execution side, you shouldn't see really much of a -- as much of an impact on seasonality as you do in the legacy Hiab business because of the difference in perhaps the days that we lose in Q3 compared to Northern Europe, if you will.

Then you asked about the level of orders on a go-forward basis. That's something where -- what I can say is, as stated earlier, we expect over the mid- to longer term. So thinking about from 26% to 30%, low single digits overall. And then as shared previously, we think that the automated side loader piece is an opportunity to grow slightly faster than that. So therefore, we'll stick to that type of guidance relative to expectations moving forward.

All right. And then maybe a question on the country split in Labrie or EVS segment. Could you open up a little bit about the share of sales coming from U.S. versus Canada? And then maybe a follow-up on that. If you look at Labrie's distributor network in the U.S., how do you feel about that? And what type of actions would you imagine to kind of do to maybe expand that or replace some of the distributors that might have been lost in the past years?

You want to take the mix?

Yes, the country mix, I don't have now that in my head. And actually, I don't think we have provided that. But I mean, the main -- of course, the main markets are Canada and U.S., and that's the -- that has been in the past, the stronghold of EVS.

Yes. I would say that as you would assume, the majority of the sales are in the U.S. and -- but still a nice balance between both Canada and the U.S. The market share positions are higher in Canada versus the U.S. also as you might anticipate.

And then on the distributor network.

Yes. On the distributor network, so I guess some of the numbers are -- we have roughly 33 distributors at this point in time. as needed, it would be wonderful to add more as the need materializes. At this time, we don't anticipate any change in mix of distributors. And similarly, we really are focused on doubling down on the existing distributors' ability to maximize the potential within the Labrie or the environmental vehicle brand portfolio. And at this time, no plans to start cross-selling the brand portfolio within Environmental Vehicle Solutions with the existing Hiab dealers, if that's part of the question, something that we'll evaluate over time.

Probably the more near-term opportunity would be examining would it make sense to do so in the inverse where perhaps it would make sense as already happens on a limited basis to have the [ Golfab ] brand, let's say, more accelerate the scale of sales of [ Golfab ] brand through the existing environmental vehicle solutions distribution channel. And then, of course, the big opportunity for us as well is to grow the services business from the existing low double-digit level to up to double that level and getting that business more in line both with industry peer as well as the legacy Hiab business.

Okay. And then the last question for Labrie is that my understanding is that -- I mean, you mentioned that there was a bit of a peak in demand and very helpfully provided some reason why it so. But I would also understand that in certain kind of key provinces in Canada, there has been some regulatory changes on the refuse collection side, which has created a bit of a kind of a tailwind for orders and sales in, let's say, '24, '25, especially on the Ontario segment. Has this been kind of supporting that business in Canada in the past few years?

I have to -- we'll have to come back to you on that. That I can't say that it's had a material impact. And I think I'm pretty safe to say not a material impact, but there could be slight tailwinds in that regard.

Yes. The biggest -- definitely, the biggest driver or contributor has been this COVID-driven supply chain bottlenecks, which have been then kind of the catch-up battle has then opened after the supply chains have been normalized.

That combined with the 2027 emission changes, which I think is more south of the border in the U.S.

Yes. There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers.

Thank you for your questions, and thank you for answers in the presentations. So we will come back with our fourth quarter results on 12th of February 2027. So we published our financial calendar yesterday evening, so you can find out our publication dates for the upcoming year now. Thank you so much, and have a good day.

Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome to Hiab's Second Quarter 2026 Results Call. My name is Aki Vesikallio. I'm from the Investor Relations team. Today's results will be presented by CEO, Scott Phillips; and CFO, Mikko Puolakka. As a reminder, please pay attention to the disclaimer in the presentation as we will be making forward-looking statements.

Before handing over to Scott and Mikko, let's take a look at the highlights of the quarter. Book-to-bill was again positive in all 3 geographical areas and that was the second consecutive quarter. Our sales were at the comparison periods level. However, comparable operating profit increased to EUR 61 million. We also specified our outlook for full year comparable operating profit margin from 13.5% to above 14.5%. A milestone acquisition of Labrie Environmental Group was announced in 1st of June. And just in the beginning of third quarter, the acquisition was completed.

Let's then take a view on today's agenda. First, Scott will present the strategic development and group level topics. Mikko will then go through reporting segments, financials in more detail and the outlook for 2026. After Mikko, Scott will join the stage for a key takeaways before the Q&A session.

With that, over to you, Scott.

Thank you, Aki. And good morning, everyone, from my side. First, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to share with you how we're progressing relative to deploying our strategy and highlight some of our key investments, if you will.

Starting first with some of our own -- our innovations, building on our core portfolio. Pleased to share with you that we continue to introduce pioneering innovations within the on-road load handling solution, a few of which are highlighted on the page. Starting from left to right, I'm proud to announce that we've introduced a new range of MULTILIFT Optima hook range. This gives us a new solution that should allow us to expand our market share in critical geographies, in particular, in the EMEA region, giving us a great solution between the 20 and 25 ton carrying capacity range. So great work by the team from our MULTILIFT organization.

Then second, in the middle of the page, proud to announce that we were awarded both first and second prize in our -- in Germany from the VAK organization, delivering innovative solutions that allow for more sustainability within critical resource, water management and waste management. So at the IFAT event in Germany, our HIAB wspr+ was awarded first prize. And second prize, we also were awarded from our MULTILIFT semi-automated driver support solution, our L2 solution for MULTILIFT demountables. And this is our third award that we've received over the last 3 years. So really proud about that.

And finally, on the page, really pleased to announce that we've rebranded our government business operations in Hiab Defence Logistics, which better characterizes the focus of the business. And concurrent with this and during the Eurosatory event, which I was fortunate enough to attend myself, we introduced 2 new innovations concurrent with the event, starting with our HIAB 1622 ATF Loader Crane. Now this combines a heavy-duty lifting carrying capacity at the same time and a low profile, allowing for a much longer outreach. And this matches nicely with our HIAB JMIC Top Handler, which is designed for handling these type of containers, which are a standard in defense and military logistics. So excellent work in the quarter by the teams all the way around on the innovation front.

Now in addition to the innovations, I'm pleased to announce that we invested in growing in a critical segment for us in line with our strategy, and I'll come back to that in just a few minutes. So pleased to announce that we were able to close the acquisition of Labrie Environmental Group, which is the leading provider of refuse collection vehicles in North America, and this is a major milestone for us in terms of both growth in North America and as I mentioned a few seconds ago, growth in waste and recycling.

Now a bit of highlights about the company itself has an excellent financial profile. If you think about the sales within 2025 of USD 491 million, comparable EBITDA margin of 23% or USD 113 million, comparable operating profit margin of 17% and came into the 2026 with an order book of USD 435 million. 100% of the sales are in North America. And in addition to an excellent lineup of innovative solutions in refuse collection vehicles and a great financial profile, I think perhaps I'm even most proud about the fact that also this organization comes with a fantastic team led by Michael Eastabrook. So a warm welcome to Michael on the Hiab leadership team. He will become our fourth business area President to leading Environmental Vehicle Solutions. And in addition to Michael, he has a terrific team all the way around. So we're really excited about this acquisition.

Now much like Hiab, Labrie competes on a multi-brand strategy with 4 different brands, 3 of which are Equipment, 1 for aftermarket. The Equipment brands are side loaders under the Labrie brand, Wittke for front loaders, Leach for rear loaders and Labrie plus for the aftermarket and service and parts. Now there's a great opportunity that we think the combination of the 2 companies to expand coverage in terms of selling to the installed base. But currently, the business has a revenue profile of approximately 90% Equipment, 10% parts and services. And in terms of the customer profile, the majority of the sales are to municipalities and independent regional customers. Then there's a segment of national accounts as well as rental companies. The solutions serve 2 different applications, one of which is dominant in residential and the other in commercial.

Now a bit of details about the transaction itself. As Aki highlighted on his opening slide, the purchase price was a little bit over USD 1 billion. which represents a multiple of 9.2x. The financial impact will be significant for Hiab, and we expect the deal to be both margin and growth accretive with increased cash generation, and it gives us much more diversification within the critical waste and recycling end markets. And we expect a synergies case, of course, both on the sales side as well as the cost side. In terms of financing, it was 100% cash consideration, facilitated by a EUR 900 million debt facility. And had the acquisition been completed at the end of Q1 2026, then the resulting financing would have resulted in approximately a 70% gearing.

Now we'll provide more detail about this concurrent with our Q3 earnings call. And we still expect our long-term target for gearing to be below 50%, and this should be supported nicely by strong cash generation. And of course, as I said earlier, the closing occurred on July 1. Now in terms of the strategic fit, we've put this into our profile that we shared with all of you back in 2024 in our Capital Markets Day. So in terms of our 6 dimensions and what we seek to be an attractive investment choice, this acquisition, we feel, ticks nicely all 6 of those dimensions. So a great fit within the overall offering and competitive positioning of Hiab.

So now I will switch gears a bit and go into the overall development of the group level financials, starting with order intake, of course. Now our orders received for the quarter were EUR 437 million, and that's up 16% versus the comparison period of EUR 377 million. And from a first half perspective, our order intake is up nicely by double digits, EUR 839 million versus EUR 755 million last year. Organically, in the quarter, orders received were up 13%, and our order book is up nicely by EUR 33 million to EUR 589 million versus EUR 556 million. So that's 6% positive variance year-over-year.

Now as you see in the organic order intake development, currencies had a negative impact of EUR 4 million. But ING was a nice offset to the softness in the U.S. market. And so ING Cranes' orders received amounted to EUR 17 million in the quarter. Additionally, our profile in the quarter, a little bit dissimilar to the first quarter, was supported nicely by a few key account larger orders and one of which we announced earlier in the quarter was EUR 37 million truck mounted forklift order from a U.S. home improvement segment customer. And as Aki mentioned earlier, we had sequentially for the second quarter in a row, positive book-to-bill in all geographies.

Now looking into the details geographically, 50% of the order intake was in EMEA, 44%, so up 2% year-over-year in the Americas. And APAC was then the remaining 6%. Now in terms of the figures, EMEA represented EUR 220 million of order intake versus EUR 188 million the prior comparison period. That's a 17% positive variance. And for the first half, a nice 9% positive variance of EUR 426 million versus EUR 391 million in the previous comparison period. In the Americas, we had a nice increase of EUR 191 million versus EUR 159 million, so a slight recovery in those end markets. So -- and for the first half of the year, 18% positive variance, primarily driven by the second quarter, EUR 357 million versus EUR 303 million. And in APAC, we had 11% negative variance quarter-over-quarter and a negative 7% variance for the first half of the year.

Now characterizing the operating environment, we still continue to see a gradual market recovery continue in EMEA. supported largely by the replacement cycle, not yet so much by the construction segment, but all other segments are nicely steadily recovering. In the second quarter, we did see a positive variance in U.S. market. So we see a modest recovery within the quarter, again, still a quite uncertain environment. And we had a positive book-to-bill in APAC, which is really nice to see. And of course, balancing that out on the negatives, we still see with the gradual recovery and the good results within the figures, we still see a high level of geopolitical and trade tensions that still exist, which is having an impact on customer decision-making.

Now moving into our sales. Sales were roughly at the comparison periods level, however, increased nicely sequentially. So we had no change from a relative perspective in terms of the sales quarter-over-quarter, so EUR 403 million and EUR 402 million the year before. For the first half of the year, we were negative 3%, primarily driven by quarter 1, of course, EUR 786 million versus EUR 814 million. On an organic level, within the quarter, we were negative 3% variance. Our share of Services increased slightly to 30% versus 29%, similarly for the first half of the year.

Now we had a nice impact from ING Cranes of EUR 15 million, which had 4 percentage points positive impact. Currencies hit us negatively by 1 percentage point in Q2. And then as I mentioned earlier, our share of Services increased nicely. So on a last 12 months basis, our rolling 12-month sales level is at a little over EUR 1.5 billion.

Now looking at geographic split of our sales for quarter 2. EMEA represented 54%, which matches, of course, prior periods order intake development versus last year at 50%. In the Americas, similar story with the decline in the order intake in prior periods, our sales are 40% versus 43% in the prior period. And in APAC, we had a slight decline. Numerically speaking, in the quarter, we had a 7% positive variance in EMEA, a negative 7% negative variance in the Americas. and a negative 4% variance in APAC.

For the first half of the year, a relatively similar story. In EMEA, we had a 6% positive variance, EUR 419 million versus EUR 395 million or up 6%. In the Americas, EUR 316 million versus EUR 368 million or a negative 14% variance. And we were up slightly in APAC on rounding, EUR 51 million versus EUR 51 million or up 1%. I'm really pleased to report from an Eco portfolio perspective, boosted primarily through our Lifting Solutions and Services business. We had a 17% positive variance in our Eco portfolio sales in the quarter, EUR 181 million versus EUR 155 million in the prior comparison period. On a percentage basis, that's 45% versus 38%.

And on the first half perspective, a similar variance year-over-year, EUR 357 million versus EUR 297 million or up 45% versus 37%. Now in the Americas, our sales decline came 100% from the U.S., as we've talked about in prior reporting periods, and this is partially offset nicely by our ING acquisition in Brazil.

Now turning your attention to our residual earnings based on the sales results. As you can see over the time series, we've continued to have quite a nice development coming from a base of 12.2% for Q2 of '24, 15% last year. And then as you look into the quarter this year on a comparable operating profit basis, 15.1%. Now this reporting period, we're introducing our comparable EBITDA as well as the comparable EBITDA percentage. As we move into consolidating the earnings of Labrie, then we'll continue to provide this view of our profitability as well.

So looking into the comparable EBITDA for the quarter was EUR 62 million or 15.4% on a comparison basis, and that's up slightly year-over-year, 2%. For the first half of the year, we're negative 10%, 14.6% versus 15.7%. Now looking into the comparable operating profit, a similar variance, if you will, EUR 61 million this year Q2 versus EUR 60 million on relatively the same sales last year or positive variance of 1%. So that's 15.1% versus 15%. And for the first half of the year, we had a negative 11% variance, EUR 112 million versus EUR 126 million or 14.3% versus 15.5%.

Now our increase was primarily driven by 2 of our 3 business areas, Lifting Equipment and our Services business. Now that was driven primarily by the low order intake in the U.S. Delivery Equipment business in 2025, which had negatively impacted sales, which then translated into a negative variance in comparable operating profit. But we see within Delivery Equipment excellent performance across the board, in particular, in our demountables business as well as a nice development by the order intake development in prior periods.

Now consequently, our operating -- our operative return on capital employed decreased. Now this is mainly driven by the lower last 12 months comparable operating profit and items affecting comparability, and Mikko will give you a bit more detail into that later in the presentation.

Now turning your attention as we have done in each of our prior reporting periods, how are we doing relative to some of our longer-term target profile that we shared in our Capital Markets Day in 2024. Relative to our 7% across the cycle CAGR, our rolling 10-year average has now decreased sequentially to 4%. On the comparable operating profit basis, our target at 16%, we're at 13% in the last 12 months, trending positively, of course, in the last 2 quarters. And our return on capital employed target of above 25%, and we're right on that level following Q2's results.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Mikko Puolakka to give you the view on the segments.

Thank you, Scott, and good morning also from my side. Let's first have a look on the Equipment segment's financial performance during quarter 2.

The Equipment segment's order intake was EUR 310 million, really nice 21% growth in quarter 2 and 15% for the last 6 months. The quarter 2 growth was equally big, both in Lifting and Delivery Equipment. Lifting Equipment order growth was supported mainly by the ING Cranes acquisition, while then in Delivery Equipment growth, the -- the growth was supported by the previously mentioned EUR 37 million truck mounted forklift order in the U.S. Equipment grew clearly in EMEA and in Americas, the APAC order intake declined for Equipment.

Thanks to the positive book-to-bill in quarter 2 as well as in quarter 1, the Equipment order book is now EUR 49 million higher than what we had in December. So that sets a good starting point for the second half of this year. Quarter 2 sales for Equipment was EUR 281 million and sales declined slightly. Delivery Equipment sales declined in the U.S., as Scott mentioned earlier. And this is due to the lower order intake, what we saw, especially in the first -- sorry, second half of 2025.

This decline in the Delivery Equipment was mostly offset by the sales growth in Lifting Equipment, mainly coming from the ING acquisition. So these both businesses then balanced each other, resulting to a flattish sales development. Comparable operating profit for Equipment segment was EUR 38 million or 13.6% margin. There was a small decline from the comparison period. And I would say that this decline is mainly attributable to the previously mentioned lower sales in Delivery Equipment in the U.S.

As described earlier and what can be also seen on the right-hand side bridge chart, the slight decline in profitability in the Equipment segment is due to the lower sales in Delivery Equipment. The lower sales impacts also the gross profit margin due to lower production overhead utilization. Part of the lower gross profit margin in Equipment is also due to the mix effect. As you recall from the previous page, the U.S. sales decline was offset by the ING Cranes revenues, which started from 1st of January this year.

ING Cranes has, at the moment, a lower margin compared to the rest of Hiab due to the lower share of Service business compared to the other Hiab businesses. We had a small EUR 1 million negative impact in Equipment segment coming from the currency translation. And I would say that most of the volume impact was actually offset by the lower fixed costs, supported by our cost savings program, which we basically have been working since the beginning of this year.

Services had an all-time high quarter in terms of sales and also in terms of profitability. Sales was EUR 123 million. This is a 4% increase. And if we would eliminate the currency impact, the growth was 5% in consistent currencies. The growth came from recurring Services, spare parts and maintenance, very much in line with our Services growth strategy. The installation services sales was slightly lower versus the comparison period. Services delivered a very strong profitability, EUR 32 million for the quarter. This is a 26.1% margin. Also in Services, as you can see from the chart on the right-hand side, the profitability was very much driven by the top line growth. It's also good to note that the Service sales growth has come now during the last quarters from higher-margin recurring Services rather than the slightly lower margin installation services. So this has had also a positive mix effect on Services gross profit margin, as can be seen on this chart.

There was also a small less than EUR 1 million FX impact in Services during the quarter. And as you can see also from the chart, Services has very well managed the costs. And if we count all those previous bridge elements together, those are resulting to this 26.1% really nice comparable operating profit margin in quarter 2.

Next, let's have a quick look on Hiab's total financials. And a couple of notes about our consolidated quarter 2 financials. Sales were EUR 403 million. In comparable currencies, sales grew 1%. There was a small decline in Equipment sales, and this has been offset by Services growth. Our gross profit margin has been impacted by lower utilization, especially in Delivery Equipment as a result of lower volumes in the U.S.

Like also Scott mentioned, we have now introduced in the slides the comparable EBITDA margin to better illustrate the future profitability of combined Hiab and Labrie without the purchase price amortization or allocation amortization. The comparable operating profit for quarter 2 improved slightly from last year. I would say that the negative impacts coming from FX single-digit million amount and then the lower utilization were basically offset with volume growth mainly coming from Services and then lower fixed costs.

Cost savings program has been progressing according to our plans. And I would say that most of the impacts start to become then visible now in the second half of 2026. We have booked EUR 11 million items affecting comparability during quarter 2. EUR 6 million of this is related to cost savings program, EUR 9 million is related to Labrie transaction costs. And then we have had a positive one-off item, which we also report in items affecting comparability. That was EUR 4 million gain from an asset sale and all these negative and positive elements in the one-off costs are in net EUR 11 million.

Our year-to-date items affecting comparability is EUR 23 million. Out of this, EUR 9 million is related to Labrie and the rest is related to the cost savings program. Going forward, our intention is to report the Labrie order book related purchase price allocation amortization in items affecting comparability as that will be amortized in roughly 2 years' time. The rest of the Labrie purchase price allocation amortization will be then above the comparable operating profit.

Our cash flow was EUR 25 million. This was weaker than in the previous quarters, what you have seen. I would say that the main reasons for lower net cash flow is coming from the net working capital. Net working capital increased in quarter 2. Inventories grew in Lifting Equipment to support volumes in the second half, while then in the other net working capital, the growth is mainly related to growth in accounts receivables in Delivery Equipment due to the timing of invoicing for the deliveries. So basically, those accounts receivables, we anticipate to collect then during quarter 3.

When we look at our balance sheet metrics, the net cash decreased from EUR 219 million in March to EUR 155 million in June. And this is basically due to the EUR 75 million dividend payment, which we made in April. The Labrie acquisition-related debt, EUR 900 million was raised on June 30, and the purchase price was paid on July 1, 2026. So now you will see in Hiab's interim report EUR 1.3 billion cash at the end of June. And then basically on the other side of the balance sheet in the corresponding liabilities, the EUR 900 million debt. The real effect from the Labrie acquisition, for example, on our gearing will be visible when we report the quarter 2 -- quarter 3 interim report in October.

The average interest on our interest-bearing debt was 3.4% at the end of June. We have today decided to specify the outlook for 2026, and this is due to a couple of factors. Firstly, we have now, after 6 months, we have a better visibility for full year 2026. We have 2 quarters behind us now. Our year-to-date comparable operating profit was 14.3% and also the order book has increased to EUR 525 million. Secondly, as mentioned already earlier, impacts from the cost savings program, which has started in early 2026 are gradually becoming more visible in the second half. And then thirdly, the consolidation of Labrie's financials into Hiab's financials from July 1, 2026 onwards. So these are the main reasons for us specifying the outlook.

And based on the specified outlook, we estimate the 2026 comparable operating profit margin to exceed 14.5%. This outlook assumes the consolidation of Labrie from July 1, 2026 onwards. And as mentioned earlier, the Labrie's order book related purchase price amortization will be reported as items affecting comparability, i.e., this is excluded from the comparable operating profit, so below the comparable operating profit line. The outlook of higher than 14.5% comparable operating profit would be Hiab's all-time high full year comparable operating profit margin. So another step towards our long-term targets.

And with those words, I would then hand the presentation back to Scott for the final remarks, please.

Thank you, Mikko. So in summarizing the Q2 2026 earnings report, I'd say, first, really pleased with the first half performance. I think we're on a good level, supported nicely by our double-digit order intake growth in Q2. It was characteristically, it'd quite similar to Q1 with the exception of 3 sizable orders, which provided the variance in Q2 versus Q1. And as mentioned, positive book-to-bill in all 3 regions.

Our increased order book as well as our target cost savings program of EUR 20 million lower fixed cost should support nicely our H2 profitability. And then, of course, Labrie will be consolidated into our results, as Mikko indicated earlier, starting with our October earnings call for Q3 2026.

So with that, I'll invite Aki back to the stage.

Thank you, Scott, and thank you, Mikko. With that, we are ready to take the Q&A, and we can start from the telephone lines.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Mikael Doepel from Nordea.

Congrats on great results. I have a couple of questions on the demand side of things and looking at EMEA, firstly, very strong orders, it was -- quarter. Maybe you could talk a bit about that, which segments were strong? Did you have any defense-related orders in the quarter? And how do you see the pipeline and sales funnels ahead? We can start there.

Yes, sure. So thank you for the question, Mikael. And I'd say the demand overall environment was quite similar in Q2 as compared to Q1. So we saw a nice level of activity in the smaller and midsized order intake or orders, if you will. So continued steady improvement in terms of the activity there, both in terms of the upfront pipeline in terms of leads, lead conversion, but then also translating into one order intake.

Main difference in quarter versus quarter sequentially were we had a few more larger key account orders in Q2 than we did in Q1, one of which was in Defence Logistics for approximately EUR 15 million, split between our Lifting Solutions as well as our Delivery Solutions businesses. In terms of overall percentage-wise, we were roughly 6% in the quarter on orders for defense and on the sales side, about 7%, if you will.

From a sector perspective, I give you exactly the same answer that I did in Q1, where many sectors, good steady improvement. And I'd say overall in Europe, waste and recycling is probably the strongest. Special logistics is going along nicely as well. We still see construction as fairly soft. And of course, in the Americas, we have a nice development in terms of the offset of the ING acquisition for, let's say, the inflationary environment driven softness in the U.S. market.

Okay. That's fair. And just a brief follow-up on the EMEA and looking at Germany specifically, I think you also mentioned replacement demand in your opening remarks there. I think in Germany, specifically, there have been many years of underinvestments there. I'm just wondering what are you seeing in that specific market right now? And what do you expect going forward?

We do see -- we saw some positive momentum in Q2 versus Q1. Early to tell if that's a trend or is it something that's short term. But certainly, much like I would tell you about defense, there's massive policy shift, which should bode well in terms of increased orders, but yet not yet on the investment side. And I'd say, overall, I'd characterize the market similarly where there are green shoots of steady recovery. But I'd say too early to tell if that's a trend yet or not.

Okay. No, that's fair. And then just finally, on the U.S. market, maybe you could talk a bit about the dynamics you see in that particular market. So I mean, looking at the truck orders we've seen there in that particular market since the end of 2025, been quite a strong recovery, right? And I would assume that at some point in time, that should start to flow and show also into your orders and deliveries as well. We haven't seen much of that yet. Just wondering what is your take on that? And how should we think about that development going into the second half of the year, considering your kind of demand and order outlook?

Yes, certainly. So you see, of course, nice recovery of order intake, significant increases in production capacity. And of course, the truck OEMs that are reported have reported quite strong results.

What we do see and now I'm speaking slightly out of school, but it is more skewed towards the largest classification of truck chassis, so let's say, Class 7 and 8, if you will. So that does impact a certain portion of our offering as well. And then as previously communicated, we expect to see anywhere from a 6- to potentially a 12-month lag between what you see reported in the truck OEM side versus when that should start to translate into a positive variance of order intake or a negative variance in order intake on, let's say, our side. But as of yet, we haven't seen quite the same level of recovery in the smaller classification of truck chassis.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Panu Laitinmäki from Danske Bank.

I have one, which is actually kind of twofolded. So on the guidance, how much of the upgrade is due to kind of stand-alone Hiab performing better or kind of related to that one? And how much is due to the Labrie acquisition consolidation?

And then the second part is that could you run through the numbers of Labrie consolidation, like what kind of comparable EBIT margin should we model for the second half? I mean, we know the reported numbers of the business -- but can you remind us on the kind of purchase price allocation and what should we kind of model in that one?

Yes, sure. Thank you, Panu. So in terms of the outlook, as you look at the overall revenue profile to be, certainly, then the -- by far, the majority of the outlook raise would be the continuing Hiab business, of course, just on a percentage allocation basis. And just to restate some of the rationale there, we have -- as we've stated before, we're nicely a short-cycle business. So then as we progress through the year, we start to get better visibility through the quarters ahead.

So now that we're halfway through the year, we have much better visibility. We have a EUR 33 million overall positive variance in the order book. So that supports the case nicely in that's legacy Hiab business. Then we have, in addition to the increased order book and the increased visibility, you have then the results of first half of the year at 14.3%. So then if you think about then the next variable of progressing according to plan relative to our cost savings program.

And with the visibility of that order book, there is an expectation then that we should have at least a slightly positive variance in the second half of the year on the continuing Hiab business. So that's the majority of the rationale. And then, of course, the addition of Labrie and the nice financial profile that they bring to the equation, serving a relatively stable and countercyclical end market segment. Then those -- combination of those variables is what gives us the catalyst to then raise our outlook to the 14.5% comparable operating profit level. In terms of how then Labrie would be consolidated into the results, we'll give those details concurrent with the Q3 report. And then as indicated earlier by Mikko, that should be 23rd of October this year.

And then just to remind you a bit of the financial profile, let's say, through 2025, and we'll share more details to follow with the Q3 report. So we had a revenue in U.S. dollars-wise of EUR 491 million. And then on a comparable operating profit basis was 17% comparable operating profit. And so we should see a relatively similar profile for Labrie that we share with the consolidated results for both Q3 as well as Q4.

Basically, to add what we have provided in our interim report that we have currently modeled that the Labrie-related purchase price allocation amortization would be approximately EUR 23 million for the second half of this year. And out of that, EUR 14 million would be reported in items affecting comparability and the other EUR 9 million, which is related to the kind of long-term amortization like brands, technology and so on, which could be amortized in 15, 20 years even, that would be booked above the comparable operating profit line.

So if you take Labrie's, let's say, last 12 months EBITDA, what we have been communicating at the closing, that has been slightly north of 20%. And then you deduct the roughly EUR 9 million, what Scott indicated earlier, that would convert more or less to that kind of 17% what Labrie has been reporting also historically, but then it was basically impacted by the U.S. GAAP goodwill amortization.

And now this PPA amortization would be more or less replacing that U.S. GAAP goodwill depreciation. Of course, these PPA numbers, I want to emphasize here that these are preliminary numbers and the PPA allocation will be now defined during the second half of this year. And once it's completed, then also these numbers will get more accurate.

So in simple terms, it's like around [ 17% ] EBIT margin where it will be consolidated?

At the moment, with this purchase price allocation amortization assumptions, yes.

The next question comes from Mikael Doepel from Nordea.

Just a brief -- a couple of brief follow-ups here. So firstly, on the Service margins. Now you mentioned -- I mean, they were very strong in the quarter, and you mentioned some of the reasons there. Just wondering how should we think about that going forward into the next quarter and the rest of the year? What is your thinking there?

And also related to profitability, a second question. In terms of the cost savings, the EUR 20 million that you expect, I think you said that you expect incremental benefits of that into the second half. So maybe if you could just quantify a bit what the benefits were in the first half and what the delta is going to be into the second half, please?

Yes, the Service margin. So as I mentioned in the Services segment slides, we have been very much growing in Services in the recurring Services where the margins are somewhat higher than, for example, in the installation services. So depending a bit how the new equipment sales develop and how the installation volumes will develop going forward, one should not necessarily take this quarter 2 as a kind of new normal. Services operating -- comparable operating profit margin is also dependent on this recurring Services versus installation services mix.

And then what comes to cost savings, like I said, the cost savings program is progressing according to our plans. Most of the actions have been -- or a big portion of the actions have been implemented towards the end of quarter 2. So we had now if we look our fixed cost development, and you are not able to see that fully in our kind of external financial statements. But if we look at our fixed cost development, year-to-date June this year versus year-to-date June last year, our fixed costs were roughly EUR 6 million lower as you could see also from those Equipment and Services cost bridges.

Okay. So I mean, and the delta into second half compared to first half, how much should we expect in benefits here?

All in all, what we have said already earlier that for the full year, we anticipate EUR 20 million lower fixed costs compared to 2025.

Okay. And maybe just a brief comment still coming back to my earlier comments or questions around demand. So in APAC, I saw that your orders were down a bit. Just wondering what you're seeing in that market or what you saw in that market in Q2 and what you expect into the third quarter?

Yes. In terms of -- sorry, was that APAC that you asked about, Mikael?

APAC, yes.

Yes, we saw slight softness both in Japan, slightly in Australia. Part of that may have been a shift that we're making that we will share more details about in subsequent reporting in terms of our go-to-market model there. And I'd say a slight negative variance in Korea as well. But overall, we see quite stable demand as characterized, let's say, in each of the last 2 or 3 different quarters. So we do expect for a bounce back in some of those areas that were soft in Q2.

Okay. That's fair. And then just finally, on Labrie, I think you mentioned the synergy opportunities that you see there, both on the sales and on the cost side. Would you care to quantify what you're expecting there in more detail?

Yes. As I mentioned before, I'll tell you what, Mikael, we'll come back to that with our Q3 report and provide a bit more detail there. As for us, it's really a nice scope deal. So we'll be on the conservative side in terms of our expectations around synergies.

Just reiterating, I think, what Mikko shared following our Q1 discussion, we expect somewhere in the low double digits worth of millions of euros of synergies, roughly split between the cost synergies and the sales synergy side.

The next question comes from Tom Skogman from DNB Carnegie.

This is Tom. I would just like to get a bit of an update on more details on the cost savings. You said EUR 20 million full year this year, but it sounds like actual real savings in H1 were very small. And then what kind of rollover effect should we expect for next year from the savings focus on the second half?

Yes. So I can start and take that, and then I'll hand over to Mikko. But as we've -- as previously communicated, what we executed on most of the actions in the first quarter of this year.

So what the expected impact profile would look like, it would be minimal, let's say, in Q2 and then a bit more visible in Q3 and then yet we should be, relatively speaking, at the full run rate level on the EUR 20 million variance that we communicated in Q4. And then, of course, given that we were seeking a EUR 20 million impact within this year, then the annualized impact, of course, would be approximately double that amount.

Now as Mikko talked about earlier, you'll see that when we announced the program in Q3, we hadn't yet had the closing of the ING acquisition. So you will see an offset in the overall fixed cost from the additional cost from the ING business.

And then point number two, Tom, is that as Mikko discussed, I believe, following our Q1 earnings call, we have already provided for an investment in our IM architecture and landscape of approximately EUR 5 million, and that will be another partial offset to the cost savings in the overall fixed cost profile that you see in the consolidated results.

So for 2027, the savings will be more or less EUR 20 million as well, right?

Correct.

And what about other cost items? Could you just open up what you see talking to suppliers. We have had weak demand sometime in the U.S. We have a changing tariff landscape, et cetera. So open up a bit on all levels.

Yes. I think as we've communicated previously, there's always pressure on cost relative to our suppliers. And so we've done nicely working together on implementing design-to-cost opportunities. I think as you think about the Middle East conflict, we haven't yet seen impact to our demand as such, but a bit of pressure likely on the cost side relative to logistics, mostly in the form of fuel surcharges. But overall, of course, as we also have discussed relative to the tariff situation, I think, was the other issue that you raised, we have had a policy where we adjust our surcharges to our customers in the market affected concurrent with the impact that we would see in our offering relative to the import duty changes.

And basically, all other kind of restructuring or pre-acquisition-related costs, those we have reported under the items affecting comparability, EUR 23 million year-to-date June and EUR 11 million during quarter 2.

And then a bit about the U.S. demand. So if I understand you correctly, you see that the big recovery in U.S. truck orders focused really on large -- the Class 7 and 8 trucks. So I wonder just how large share of your sales typically goes to these Class 7 and 8 trucks and how much it goes to smaller trucks?

Yes. So the way -- probably the right way to think about it is that the U.S. market is a, let's say, proportionately a much bigger market for us on the Delivery Solutions side relative to the Lifting Solutions. So more of our Lifting Solutions would go with the larger classification of truck chassis. And then we have a nice split of consumption relative to the various sizes of truck classifications all the way up to the Class 7 and 8. But I'd say proportionate to Europe, it's likely to skew towards the smaller truck chassis rather than the larger ones, just by the nature of the demand as Europe is such a significant market for knuckle boom cranes more so than what the U.S. and certainly APAC is.

But if you put some number on it, is it like 20% of your kind of sales that goes to large trucks in the U.S.? Or what is the number basically?

Well, let's say this way that the Delivery Solutions is a bigger proportion of our overall revenue in the U.S., Tom, versus our Lifting Solutions.

All right. So we cannot get any more, kind of, just number on -- just help to understand when you look at the different truck orders to understand. And what about the lead times from truck to your orders in the smaller products in smaller trucks?

Yes. We're nicely in sync in terms of lead time. We have the capability of meeting at this time any of the lead time outcomes that you see from the truck OEMs. So no issue there.

The next question comes from Panu Laitinmäki from Danske Bank.

I just wanted to ask about the Labrie. As you have closed the acquisition 3 weeks ago, how has the business continued to perform after the kind of Q1 last 12 months figures that you have reported? So has it continued to grow? How have the orders developed order book? So just kind of thinking how we should model it going forward now when it's part of Hiab.

Yes. It's -- thank you for the question, Panu, or the follow-up there, but allow us to come back to you on that in the Q3 report.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers.

Yes, we have some additional ones from the web audience. So firstly, when looking at the stronger order intake, how much would you say is due to a recovery of the market in Europe and in the Americas? And how much is due to higher penetration in unpenetrated markets?

So is it more like unpenetrated markets or market recovery story?

Yes, good question. I think as we probably would say in each of our prior quarters, you have a combination of the market recovery that is according to expectations relative to the replacement. As we've shared in the past, we're roughly 95% of our demand or so is on replacement. Now whether that's our own or competitors, but nevertheless, it's roughly split that way.

And then the balance on either penetrating new opportunities or acquiring additional market share. And of course, it's been primarily led in Europe. And of course, we've enjoyed a nice positive variance in terms of the top line from the ING acquisition.

Exactly. Okay. I think that concludes our Q&A session, and we will report and come back with the next results release on 23rd of October 2026. Have a nice summer, and thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hiab just announced the acquisition of refuse collection vehicle manufacturer, Labrie Environmental Group, based in North America for enterprise value of USD 1,035 million. The acquisition significantly strengthens Hiab's position in the essential industry of waste recycling. Welcome to the joint investor and press conference. My name is Aki Vesikallio. I'm from Investor Relations. Today's presentation will be held by Hiab's President and CEO, Scott Phillips. Our CFO, Mikko Puolakka, will join us for the Q&A session to be held after Scott's presentation. With that, over to you, Scott.

Thank you, Aki. And good morning from my side. Really excited to have the opportunity to share with you this milestone announcement. First, I'd like to start out by saying a huge thank you to all of those within and outside of the business that help make this happen and bring it all together. Secondly, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the 1,200 terrific colleagues that will newly join the Hiab family post closing. So a big warm welcome from my side. So diving into the rationale and to give you some highlights and details around the acquisition.

So first, really excited that we were able to expand our position in a core segment exposure waste and recycling by further being able to serve customers and essential industry needs by adding a significant new product vertical within Hiab, which is the Labrie Environmental Group, who is a leading provider of refuse collection vehicles in North America, serving both Canada and the U.S. Taking you through from left to right on the slide, a bit of highlights from the company itself. Currently, last 12-month sales are USD 491 million, delivering a comparable EBITDA margin of 23% or USD 113 million as well as USD 83 million of comparable operating profit at 17% margin.

Labrie comes into the Hiab family with a significant and strong order backlog of USD 435 million. And as mentioned earlier, 100% of the sales are in North America. So it also aligns quite nicely with our strategy objectives, not only to grow in a critical essential industrial segment, a waste and recycling, but then also helps significantly expand our position in North America.

From a product portfolio overview, Labrie competes with 4 brands, all offering industry-leading solutions, and I'll go into a bit more detail in a few slides. So we have Labrie side loaders that are the fastest-growing subsector within the overall market, Wittke front loaders, Leach rear loaders and providing continual aftermarket and life cycle services for its customers through LabriePlus. So as I mentioned earlier, there is a nice fit and alignment for us in terms of not only the segment, but as well as the customer base that it served. Labrie competes on a differentiated level business strategy, serving a set of premium customers that can be defined in 3 different sectors.

The core of the business is serving municipal and independent regional customers, making up about 60% of the overall market exposure. Then there is an exposure with national accounts as well as rental companies. The applications that are served can be bifurcated or are bifurcated between both residential and commercial applications. And as -- in the company, we think one of the key and attractive capabilities that we have to bring to the equation is, is that there's currently a nice penetration in parts and services, but we think this is one of at least 3 or 4 areas with which Hiab's capability and scale can help enhance further the penetration of parts and service business.

So then moving forward into giving you a bit more insights into the deal logic and why we find this so attractive. First and foremost, I think, as I mentioned, it gives us a much greater expanded opportunity to serve a critical set of customers in an essential industry. And at the same time, enabling us to have an even more stable demand curve cycle on a go-forward basis. Now this is underpinned by the fact that there are good overall structural characteristics that define the growth curves in the past 10 years as well as those we see in the years to follow on the basis of the fact that overall aggregated volume of waste and recycling is growing.

And at the same time, on a per capita basis, that trend continues to grow as well. Now as a consequence, the refuse collection vehicle equipment market is expected to grow in the low to single mid-digit range and as well as supported by an overall case due to differentiation and the fact that the solutions, in particular, on automated side loaders should enable from an increased set of outcomes for safety and productivity, also allow us to compete on a basis to defend a premium price for the offering as well.

And then as I mentioned previously, the fourth element that's critical here is that side loaders, where Labrie has an excellent position and #1 in their sector is the fastest-growing segment of the RCB market, approximately 200 basis points faster than the overall market. And we think on a full potential basis, there's room between 500 and 1,000 basis points of further penetration of this solution in the overall market. Now currently, the overall market picture is such that about 50% or roughly 35% to 40% of the market is side loaders. And then you have the balance of the market between front loader and rear loaders. And then as I mentioned earlier, on an aggregated basis, municipal solid waste generation in the U.S. in particular, has grown year-over-year.

So nicely stable and anticyclical demand patterns, if you will. Now diving a bit into more detail in terms of the tools with which Labrie has to compete with. From a brand perspective, I mentioned that they compete on a multi-brand strategy similar to Hiab. And so in looking through the Labrie brands, automated side loaders designed to enhance radically safety and efficiency. And with the quality and the design capability that Labrie's team has brought to the equation, the level of durability and quality is second to none in the industry.

Now the selected products can be -- are bifurcated between Automizer series as well as Minimax series. And as I mentioned earlier, commanding a #1 position overall in the market in North America and the most significant contribution to the overall top line demand curve. Moving to the right, the Wittke brand is a front-loader brand of solution, primarily targeted for urban industrial as well as commercial collection applications. Two different offerings here. One is on the XPress, the other Starlight brand, currently holding a #3 position.

And then moving to the far right-hand side, the Leach brand, are rear loaders optimized for tight space locations, serving both residential and commercial applications, with 2 different solutions, the 2R-III as well as the Alpha-III commanding a #4 position in the market. And then as I mentioned previously, the services and life cycle business come to the market as part of the LabriePlus offering and supported by a dealer network of approximately 80 dealers and offering a comprehensive set of services and parts support as well as a proprietary set of hydraulic solutions as well as loader arm components.

So a great technological fit as well as a mission fit with the overall Hiab offering. Now in addition to the technological and emission fit, we love how this enhances Hiab's overall footprint within the North American market. And so just to give you a comprehensive overview on a page, if you will, how does this all fit together? Looking from left to right, and you'll know from the Capital Markets Day, I call this color peach that if you think about what we currently bring to the equation, we have an at-scale sales and service network globally and as well as in North America of 3,000 different locations, both our own as well as supported by a comprehensive dealer network, we participate in 100 different countries within our delivery footprint.

And we do compete on a basis of asset-light supply chain model, which served us well both in terms of upside flexibility with regard to capacity, but then also downside risk with regards to our cost curves. Approximately 60% of our sales in the past 12 months have been indirect sales, 40% direct. Now combining that with the Labrie footprint, you see that in terms of Labrie, they have over 80 dealer locations, as I mentioned previously, all located, allowing them to serve the bulk -- the aggregate of their customers within a 4-hour drive, which is critical in this industry. And approximately all but 5% of the sales are through their indirect channels. And then if you look at what the team has accomplished amongst their many accomplishments in the last 5 years, you've got 11 new dealers that have been added since 2021.

And from a manufacturing footprint perspective, we're nicely positioned with 2 locations in Canada, 1 in the U.S. and 1 in Mexico. So a very nice fit to the overall Hiab footprint. Now in addition, as I mentioned previously, the business level strategy is clearly differentiated, which fits within our portfolio perfectly. And that's competing on a basis of differentiated safety productivity as well as quality outcomes. Now at the same time, this enhances our desire not only both to grow and grow above the industry, but at the same time, have more resilient growth into the future as well as higher quality level of earnings.

Overall, Labrie is #3 in the market in North America, #1 in the subsector and automated side loaders. So an opportunity for us to add significant value in a couple of different ways. And I mentioned a few previously, but in addition to the services piece and the overall technology, the opportunity to help fast track and accelerate not only overall product development, but at the same time, to be able to enhance and fast track the digitalization of the fleet, which will be increasingly important now and into the future, we think that this is quite a nice fit.

Similarly or at the same time, with the combined footprint, we have an opportunity now to optimize our local manufacturing and sourcing footprint for both the combined organization, but also each of the individual product lines that are served within the North American market. And we're excited with the potential of synergies on the sales side, combining our GALFAB business together with the Labrie Environmental Group. At the same time, from a synergies perspective, we see clear opportunities for material procurement, and I mentioned previously, sales synergies. And then the fifth element here that -- the fifth attribute that we find a must in terms of our criteria and how we evaluate M&A or acquisition targets, if you will, is that it's an extremely high-quality business that is soon accretive to Hiab earnings and in this case, should be immediately accretive to both Hiab growth as well as earnings.

And at the same time, due to that fact, the sixth attribute that we think makes us a perfect fit in terms of our strategic criteria and evaluating inorganic growth opportunities that we will, over a short period of time, have our balance sheet back within our targets of less than a 50% gearing and should enable us to also stick to our commitments in terms of returning value to our shareholders.

Now as Aki mentioned in his opening, the overall purchase price was USD 1.035 billion on a cash-free, debt-free basis. And in terms of the last 12 months comparable EBITDA, it represents a multiple of 9.2. So in line with our criteria in terms of how we evaluate opportunities such as this in consideration of the current trading multiple of our business. From a financial impact perspective, we see the opportunity to have an enhanced financial profile. And as I mentioned previously as well that we expect this to be soon to be accretive both in terms of margin as well as our growth ambitions. And as this is a high-quality business at the same time, it has very similar characteristics in terms of cash conversion as we have in Hiab.

So again, a really nice fit here. And we do expect synergies both in the form of sales synergies as well as cost synergies. And as we progress through the next 30 to 60 days or so, we will all share additional details around that particular topic. On a financing basis, it's 100% cash consideration, and it will be financed with cash at hand as well as additional debt to a maximum of EUR 900 million. And had the acquisition been completed at the end of Q1 which is the latest financial period that we published, as you all know. The planned financing would have resulted in a pro forma gearing of approximately 70% compared to our target of 50% and a pro forma net debt-to-EBITDA of 2.1x.

Long-term target for gearing, as I mentioned, is still below 50%, and we believe this supports that case quite nicely as we expect continued strong cash generation. Now in terms of timing, we anticipate the closing to be early Q3 of this year. And of course, this transaction is subject to regulatory approval and customary closing conditions. Now how will our portfolio look in aggregate post closing? Going from left to right, you all are familiar with our loader crane offering in the form of 6 different brands, Hiab, ARGOS, EFFER, ING, JONSERED and LOGLIFT. We have, of course, our truck-mounted forklifts, MOFFETT and in addition to MOFFETT, we have PRINCETON. And then in terms of our leading hooklift and skip loader solutions, we compete under 2 brands, MULTILIFT AND GALFAB.

Tail lifts are, generally speaking, been a regional offering, competing across 3 brands, ZEPRO, primarily serving Europe; WALTCO, primarily serving the United Kingdom -- or my apologies, WALTCO serving the U.S. market and DEL serving the United Kingdom market. And then we have our services brand, and we have a brand of solutions under our HiPerform umbrella. And then, of course, we now get the privilege of adding not only the great brands within Labrie Environmental Group, but as I mentioned before, a fantastic team that we inherited and pleased to say that the majority, if not all, of the key management team members, we expect to continue to stay with the business, which we're super excited about.

Now how do the combined businesses look on an overall basis just in terms of the financial profile as well as the market segment exposure profile. I won't take you through all the details on the slide as it's quite comprehensive. But looking at a last 12 months basis on a top line perspective, Hiab is last 12 months at a little over EUR 1.5 billion. On an EBITDA basis, EUR 241 million or 16% margin. And of course, on an EBIT basis, a little under EUR 200 million or 13%.

Now we have a varied sector and segment exposure, which we quite like, primarily serving essential industries as well as defense logistics. And from a geographical perspective, we serve all 3 regions in terms of APAC, EMEA as well as the Americas. And then drawing your attention to the middle slide, on a euro basis, I gave you U.S. dollars previously, on a euro basis, you see that Labrie Environmental Group has EUR 438 million of top line, EUR 101 million at 23% margin on an EBITDA basis, EUR 74 million on an EBIT basis at 17% and with a concentrated focused exposure in waste and recycling. And then similarly, a focused exposure in North America.

Now drawing your attention to the third column, then the combined pro forma financials on a last 12 months basis, a little under EUR 2 billion combined business, 6% CAGR over the last 10 years in terms of growth. EUR 342 million margin 17% on a relative basis and 14% on an EBIT level and nicely positioning the business to increase in line with our strategy, our exposure in waste and recycling as a core essential industry, slightly change in terms of the geographical mix where APAC would reduce slightly, EMEA, of course, reduce slightly and then North America increase in line with our strategy. So we love the 4 attributes that this brings to the overall equation for Hiab to be able to deliver an optimized value for all of its stakeholders.

So one, it increases our scale and as well as our growth profile. Two, it's margin accretive, solid cash generation characteristics, gives us more diversification in end markets critically reducing our cyclicality, adds to our technology and our mission fit perfectly and absolutely strengthens our position in North America. So getting close to wrapping up here. The 6 attributes that I took you through before, just to give you a different visualization, if you will, in terms of what this does as far as delivering on our inorganic growth that I know has been a lot of topic of conversation here, especially in the past 1, 1.5 years. So certainly fits our overall strategic imperative to make choices that enable us to enhance our ability to be 1 or 2 so that we can be differentiated within the subsector and the overall segment and Labrie fits that equation perfectly.

Number two, it allows us to continue to create growth through innovation as this segment is absolutely critically impacted by technology and innovation and capabilities that will significantly drive differentiated outcomes for the industry as well as its end users. So we see that as a perfect fit as well. Three, it allows us to be geared to expand in our leading position in North American market, which is absolutely critical given the scale and size and scope of the -- of that overall market as well as the fact that just 2 years ago, when we introduced our strategy via our Capital Markets Day in May of '24, as we shared with you, we were geographically underexposed in this critical geography. And this helps absolutely solve for our scale and coverage within the market quite nicely.

Then four, it further enhances our ability to leverage a sizable installed base by digitalizing our offering with our connected solutions and with our digital services capability. And we think this will set Labrie Environmental Group offering geared to grow nicely into the future and allow them to accelerate the nice growth path that they've already been on. Now in terms of value creation, we feel strongly convicted around the fact that our operating model that we bring to the equation here and our decentralized operating model, allowing for focused end-to-end businesses with full transparency and accountability are going to further enhance our ability to maximize the value creation potential not only for Hiab, but then our newest platform.

And so we still aim to focus on profitable growth and this will further enhance our ability to create incremental value creation for the Labrie Group. And as wrapping up, last but not least here on this page, we have a combined best-in-class financial profiles that create a nice fit in all of the characteristics that we look for in terms of ideal inorganic opportunities to catalyze growth. We see this ticking those -- all of those key criteria nicely. So concluding here quickly before I welcome my colleagues on the stage with myself. Together with Labrie Environmental Group, this is a clear opportunity for us to accelerate our combined profitable growth strategies by providing the highest quality, most differentiated offering to the set of customers that we proudly serve within the critical waste and recycling and essential industry that makes up the foundation of what it is we do at Hiab as well as the foundation of what we do at Labrie.

So we're excited to add this new product vertical, refuse collection vehicles to our overall portfolio, enhancing our ability to do that. And as I mentioned before, we anticipate the transaction to close early Q3 of this year, subject to regulatory approval and customary closing conditions. So with that, I'll conclude and turn it over to Q&A. And welcome, Mikko and Aki to the stage.

Thank you, Scott. We have received a couple of questions from the chat function. So we can start with these questions before entering into the telephone conference. So firstly, the first question is about if we are worried about buying from a private equity owner at all-time high margins. And do you think that -- is this too expensive deal for Hiab considering the private equity could have had tendency to stress up the figures?

Yes. Well, we obviously like the valuation of what we were able to bring this over the line with. We think that it was certainly after an extensive amount of due diligence, a fair representation. This is an asset along with others within the same segment and sector and geography that we've been looking at for half a decade. And so we feel like we have a pretty good view as to where the fair valuation of this asset is. And as I've talked about with a lot of the audience previously, we always consider these deals in the context of how Hiab is trading overall.

So we feel from that standpoint, good about the valuation piece. And then most importantly, we see a significant upside opportunity for incremental value creation agnostic of industry tailwinds, if you will, within this particular platform given what we bring to the equation and what they already have to bring to the equation. And we do see this as a perfect fit in terms of incremental value creation. So we feel quite okay about where this deal ended up transacting at.

Thanks. And the next question comes from Frans, I assume, from Bastian. So he is saying good morning. And he asked us how comparable are Hiab and Labrie in terms of equipment versus aftermarket mix? What are the specifics for the Labrie aftermarket revenue? Is there any potential to improve that mix?

Yes. We've got a pretty good view on that, and we know where the best-in-class benchmarks are within the North American market. So we know that there is significant upside potential with further services penetration. We think that on a like-for-like basis from our recurring revenue, a quite similar mix to the overall revenue profile. And then we know within the industry that there is a competitive benchmark on the -- that also brings to the overall market a digital enhanced service offering. And so that offers further upside potential. So therefore, there's a realistic opportunity if you look forward in the next 5 to 10 years or so, that we would have a similar type of mix of services to overall revenue profile, somewhere in the range of our recurring revenue and to our overall services percent of sales.

Okay. And the next question, I assume this is for Mikko. So this is coming from Mark Mullen from Nordea. So you have a EUR 150 million bond maturing in September. What is the plan regarding it? And has this announced transaction changed your plans in any way? Secondly, is there any seasonality in the Labrie business, maybe more for Scott. And thirdly, you highlighted Labrie's strong cash flow generation in the presentation, but can you discuss what the cash conversion rates look like as a stand-alone basis and compared to Hiab? Maybe if we start from the bond.

Yes, we have EUR 150 million bond maturing in September, and the plan is to repay that bond. We are planning to finance the Labrie acquisition by raising EUR 900 million of debt. Most of that approximately 5 years term loans. So solid financing with competitive pricing. So...

And Scott, how about the seasonality of the business and the cash conversion profile?

Yes. So I'll start with the latter first. Of course, as I mentioned during the presentation, the cash conversion profile historically has been well in line with the Hiab historical cash conversion. Having said that, much like we saw for our business as well in '22 and '23 with the backlog situation, they've been a little bit off of their cash conversion profile over the past couple of years, but we know exactly what needs to be done. And Michael and the team have a great plan in place in order to solve for that.

So on a long-term basis, we see no issue there. And then the second part was relative to the question around seasonality. And we don't -- we see not so much seasonality characteristics in the Labrie revenue profile. But you also have to appreciate at this point, we'll learn more in the period to come. But at the same time, with the backlog and the nature of their ability to mass customize solutions and the customers' willingness to wait because of the quality and technical differentiation, that's probably smoothed out a little bit of what could be some inherent slight seasonality effects in terms of the top line. But more details to follow on that in future periods.

Okay. Then we have the next question. When was the first time we took a look at this asset, if you can give any insights. Of course, it's really well aligned with our strategy that we published in 2024.

Yes. Yes, it was more than 5 years ago. And probably in some of my team members now, they're virtually kicking me under the table, but likely they've looked at this asset long before that. But I can say myself, it's been on my radar intensively for more than 5 years.

Then we have a slide that is showing that Labrie has had a CAGR of 14% in the last 10 years, but the market has not been growing as fast. So what explains that?

Sure. And it's due to a combination of factors. You have the overall structural characteristics on the increase in aggregate waste and recycling, the emergence of now more recycling, which is in the sweet spot of Labrie's offering and technology. But at the same time, you also have this increasing uptake of automated side loaders as an alternative solution to the front and rear loaders. So the combination of those 3 factors as well as the fantastic support of the Labrie team as well as the personnel within the at-scale dealer group. It's those 4 factors is really the key ingredients that has enabled them to grow this fast.

And finally, looking at Labrie, they seem to be much more capital intensive considering they are a manufacturer of these vehicles. Also, the depreciation and amortization as a percentage of sales is more than 6%, while Hiab has less than 4% of sales. Do you intend to get more into capital-intensive segment because Hiab is, by nature, quite asset-light?

Yes. We've -- this actually fits quite perfectly into how we've thought about our supply chain strategy. If it makes sense for us to have some manufacturing because of the level of criticality and complexity of components, both in terms of how that equipment performs relative to its normal duty cycles, but also in terms of securing the aftermarket life cycle services such that we can secure and guaranteed near perfect delivery within the time constraints required to keep our customers up and running. And we've always had that view. And so certainly, one of the key work streams within the overall integration plan will be to take a deep dive look into the overall supply chain setup, but in consideration of the whole combined footprint and then make choices that are in line with our strategy because we still like the way that we're positioned.

And it really isn't a matter so much as we seek to have an asset-light and a more flexible cost structure for ourselves, but it's also even more about leveraging the real expertise and capability of companies whose mission is a little bit more focused on those type of mission-critical components compared to us. And so we'll take the same strategic look and apply the same choice criteria. And then on a go-forward basis, we'll execute on the supply chain strategy where it makes -- in ways that make sense in line with our strategy.

Okay. Great. So let's now take the question from the telephone line. So you have the possibility to post questions in the chat. We will take them after the telephone.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

Congrats on the deal. A couple of questions from my side. I'll take them one by one. And the first one is maybe a follow-up on the revenue trends. And Scott, I guess you mentioned that you expect the deal to be accretive for Hiab's growth as well as margins after the transaction. So maybe a little bit of color on how does the USD 491 million in terms of sales look in historical perspective compared to the past couple of years? How is the business momentum in this business compared to your own? And maybe then on a more structural basis, maybe you can talk a little bit about the competitive landscape especially on the U.S. market regarding market shares, regarding kind of potential to maybe regionally grow the business, take market share on the equipment side aside from the fact that you can bring on the aftermarket?

Yes, sure. So starting with your first one relative to the characteristics of the last 12 months, USD 491 million -- I almost said euro, but U.S. dollar revenue profile. Coming back to the earlier comments I made, Antti, for the most part, you have, of course, the overall industry demand. But on the other hand, you have this subsector trend where automated side loaders have been growing faster than the overall market, which is right in the sweet spot of this particular business. And then what has really underpinned Labrie's performance in this critical market is that combination of designed in quality, manufactured in quality, in particular, of the hydraulic and the lift arm performance, the ability to get up and running and performing faster as compared to the competition in that regard and the recognition then that the subsequent durability and performance is clearly differentiated.

And then as I kind of snuck in as a bit of a throwaway comment earlier, and I'll highlight it a bit more now, the ability to have a rapid configuration within their own design and manufacturing platform that integrate together quite seamlessly. They've been much more successful in being able to at scale, design more customized solutions or purpose fit for the application with which customers have been then willing to wait for -- on a longer lead time basis.

So that's been a key factor. Then on the other hand, I would say that the management, rightfully so in my view, have taken the view that they wanted to be conservative in terms of the capacity ramp-up that growth curve has dictated in the prior 5-year period. And that has helped smooth out the overall backlog of the business and it has allowed them to better perform in terms of supply chain, in terms of the trade-offs of going after top line, but then at the same time, being able to control cost. And I think that absolutely has been a key factor in terms of when you think about the sequential development of their revenue profile, that also had a contributing factor as well.

Then you asked about the competitive landscape. It's a still a fairly concentrated market in North America. You have the top 2 players are in our context, business areas within large at-scale listed companies. You have McNeilus and Heil, if you will, from Oshkosh and Terex, respectively. And then in addition, you have New Way, which as of, I believe, September or I think it was September of last year was announced, recently acquired by Federal Signal, also a listed company within the U.S. with a similar revenue profile as the Labrie Environmental Group in terms of a bit more focus and concentration or, let's say, scale of their revenue profile on automated side loaders versus front loaders and rear loaders and I would say, competing on a slightly different competitive basis with excellent lead times, nice at-scale manufacturing that's fully concentrated in the U.S. and able to compete on extremely competitive pricing.

So in regards of Labrie's ability to outgrow the market going forward and take market share, it's more about kind of the penetration rates on the side loaders continue to grow rather than any substantial potential on, let's say, geographical expansion within North America or things like that.

Yes. And just to add a bit of additional color here and I'll probably get myself in trouble a bit. But also, there are 3 other key characteristics there. One I alluded to during the pitch was the rate of services penetration. They recognize that's a big opportunity for them and one of the reasons that I think they're excited to be part of the Hiab portfolio. Two, there are some key product introductions current and in the future that will allow or enhance this platform's ability to grow in the automated side loader subsector. And then, of course, three, as one of the many areas that has me excited is the fact that they're lagging in the front and rear loaders with a massive opportunity to further or to establish a position within national key accounts because you have quite also a concentrated end market profile for that offering.

So there's real opportunity to grow in that space as well, all of which then can be underpinned by having the full complement of supply chain capability and sourcing capability in North America that allows for flexibility given the today's and in the future demand and trading environment.

Okay. Then the next question is on the production setup and how is this company exposed to the U.S. tariff regime currently, which products does it serve from the U.S. setup and which comes from Mexico and Canada? And are they exempt from the -- especially on the Section 232 side?

Yes. Yes. Overall, taking you through the supply chain setup, you have an at-scale factory in Canada, producing the full build solutions located in Quebec City. That is supported by a smaller manufacturing facility that's manufacturing the critical components I was showing on one of the pages in the presentation around the hydraulic and the lift arm components. Then in the U.S., you have a factory located in Georgia that is primarily focused on automated side loaders and that also is the primary bulk of the solution that are produced in Canada as well. And then you have a facility in Mexico that's primarily focused on front and rear loaders in an excellent facility in the maquiladora across the border.

The tariff exposure is at present for both solutions that come from Canada as well as from Mexico. As you all know, the team has done an excellent job in mitigating the tariff exposure, however they are exposed, and it is captured within the financial pro formas that we shared previously, and they have an excellent view as to the exposure moving forward. But we do have the opportunity to continue to carry on with the 3 different mitigating strategies that they've employed, and we would expect then over time for us to continue to further mitigate any tariff exposures. But that will take just a bit of time as we continue to scale the operation and lift and shift where need be.

All right. And then the very last from me is obviously already looking at the next thing. So how is your capital allocation priorities now for the, let's say, short term next 6 to 12 months, balancing any further M&A opportunities versus dividends versus your gearing target?

Yes. Yes. So we've got the flexibility in our dividend target profile that we should be well in line in terms of adhering to our 30% to 50% dividend policy. Capital -- from a capital allocation perspective, due to the strength of the balance sheet that we come into this transaction with and how we see that balance sheet developing over the next couple of years. We still believe that from an allocation prioritization that we can stick with the same tune that we've been seeing and sharing with all of you in the past. We still have opportunities and one of the many reasons I'm excited about this platform that this gives us an opportunity for further bolt-ons for this new product vertical, and we see a number of opportunities to do so, and we have the balance sheet strength in order to go execute, provided we can meet all of our criteria and characteristics. At the same time, we certainly aim and seek to then in terms of the balance of our available balance sheet to continue to return predictable and attractive dividend profile to our shareholders.

The next question comes from Mikael Doepel from Nordea.

Congratulations on the deal. A couple of questions here as well. So firstly, coming back to the competitive landscape and the market structure. So I think you mentioned, Scott, that #1 and #2 players are roughly the same size as the company you are now acquiring, Labrie. Why are they market shares? Just trying to understand kind of the level of consolidation in the market and also coming back to your kind of comment you just made in terms of doing potential bolt-ons on these new platforms. Just trying to get a better feel for the level of concentration in the market. Let's start there.

Yes. So if you think about the headline numbers, so the revenue piece, I would say Labrie Environmental Group overall is a bit of a distant #3. If I think about the revenue profile of both Heil and McNeilus are, I would say, significantly higher compared to Labrie, which is a positive. And as a consequence, the -- that would be #3 in terms of overall market share. And number 4 would be the New Way platform that's part of Federal Signal. In terms of the automated side loaders, we have a leading market share position that's roughly between 1/3 and about 35% of the overall market, and we see opportunities to further expand that position. And then if you do the math in terms of the overall growth potential within that subsector, we see an opportunity to both in the short as well as the medium term to perform quite nicely in terms of expanding not only market share in automated side loaders, but then offering a nice alternative in the 2 subsectors with which we are -- or Labrie is performing significantly behind the top 2 players within the overall sector.

Okay. And just on kind of that same topic, if you look at the profitability, I mean, looking at where Labrie is currently, would you say there is a significant difference compared to the main competitors or broadly in line? Do you have any insight into that?

Yes. I'd say broadly in line compared to the top 2 and a bit better compared to #4.

Okay. Okay. And just continuing on that topic. So we talked about the historical revenue growth of Labrie right here, which was quite strong. I just wanted to check if there is any kind of acquisition-driven growth also representing that number. And even more importantly, actually on the margin trajectory, if you could talk a bit about how these margins have developed within Labrie in the past, call it, 5 years or so?

Yes. No, excellent question. I would say -- I have to give credit to the current ownership group together with the management team. So if you think from the owner's perspective, looking back a little over 5 years ago, roughly, they recognized quite right away that there was a need to invest in supply chain capability, both in terms of derisking the overall cost curves by scaling up in both the U.S. as well as Mexico. And from my perspective, they did that quite nicely.

Number two, they were successful in bringing in and complementing the incredible technical capabilities and personnel that they had from the core business. and layered over the top of that world-class type leadership talent that has then enabled the business to go through a nice transformation over the past 5 years. And that's translated into the nice top line growth that was the core of this question. But then also then the variable B is it also translated into a better incremental profit pull-through or operating leverage compared to the platform in the 5-year period prior.

So -- and then number three, they made a nice investment not only in terms of the IT piece in terms of creating a unified ERP platform that integrated nicely with the design platform, but then also have continued to invest in new product and technology. So those factors combined have enabled this business to accelerate its trajectory, both in terms of driving top line, but more importantly, the quality of the top line.

The next question comes from Panu Laitinmäki from Danske Bank.

I have 3 questions. Firstly, starting on the current trading and kind of short-term outlook of the acquired company. Can you comment on how the order intake and order book has developed if you look at kind of sequential development of the past quarters and the growth in the past 12 months was pretty substantial. So was there anything kind of unusual in that number?

Nothing unusual in that number that I can report. Now I'm looking for support to my side here, Panu. So nothing unusual. The overall market had certainly been softer in '24 and '25 or '24 somewhat, but certainly '25. And then coming into this year, I'd say it looks -- mirrors very much what you've seen from Hiab overall. And having said that, where this platform had been so nicely positioned is the nature of its backlog and the type of solutions that it provides to its customers, whereby they've been able to smooth out the delivery of the backlog, which is -- even though it looks quite a positive slope in the last couple of years, it could even have been more substantially positive, but they've been able to, I think, intelligently work through the backlog. So yes, from an order intake perspective, you see a bit of softening over the last 12 to 24 months and hasn't quite translated into the top line for this platform in particular.

Okay. Then secondly, on the synergies, maybe both on sales and cost side, do you -- how does the overlap with your existing waste and recycling business look like? Are you selling to the same customers? And where do you think the sales synergies would come from? And then on the cost side, will you quantify this going forward? Or will it remain as just like an ambition to do it in procurement?

Yes. We will absolutely provide additional insight on a go-forward basis. And then the broad headlines, we're, at this point, not trying to be overly aggressive in terms of what we expect in the next 3, 5 years in terms of pro forma EBIT synergies, but we see that there's clear and attractive opportunities on the materials and manufacturing and sourcing piece that should represent anywhere between 50% and, let's say, 60% to 65% of the synergies. In the near term, we see clear sales synergies opportunities from 2 vectors. One, there are channel as well as customer overlap with our existing business in the U.S. with GALFAB. And similarly, we have some overlapping customers with regards to our lifting solutions as well, albeit today a bit subscale, but nevertheless there.

And then the second vector of sales synergies, as I've alluded to, is certainly on the service side as well and will enable this platform to have even more proximity and more density in terms of coverage for its existing customer base. And we've got at scale level of existing capabilities to deploy at this located both here in Europe as well as in North America as the customer profile is quite similar to many of the customers that we have here in Europe. So we understand how to participate in these customer end markets very well.

If we calculate the sales and procurement synergies together, so our initial assessment is that those should be on EBITDA level, a low-double-digit U.S. dollar amount per year. So of course, that synergy assumption then gets more granular as we proceed with the integration planning.

My final question is that can you comment on the deal valuation? Because it looks quite reasonable, which is obviously good, but it also kind of raises the question that how did you manage to acquire the company at this price given the really good financial profile and kind of earlier indications that the valuations in the U.S. might be a bit on the high side?

All right. I'll answer that question. Yes. I'll give you the same answer as to the online question. We arrived at a valuation that we felt was well representative with the quality of this asset, well in line with what we could from a balance sheet perspective, manage and at the same time, still have a line of sight to, in a relatively short period of time, get our gearing ratio and our -- the level of debt that we have on the balance sheet work down fairly quickly. And I think like always in these scenarios, timing is always a factor. And I think that given the timing that we find ourselves in and the way in which we were able to work together with the current owner, I think, allowed both sides to come out with a deal that they were quite happy with, one that we could accommodate relative to the valuation and one that the current owner was quite happy with in terms of their return profile to their LPs or their shareholders.

The next question comes from Tom Skogman from DNB Carnegie.

This is Tom Skogman from DNB Carnegie. Congratulations on the deal. I have a couple of questions. First, with this growth, 14% sales CAGR over the last 10 years is very fast. But I didn't really understand what was the -- what acquisitions have they made? And kind of what is the organic growth number? Do you have the exact number? Or could you elaborate on that you get some kind of a picture?

In the past 5 to 10 years, it's all organic growth, Tom. Otherwise, I would have included that as part of the previous question in my answer. So sorry, I didn't clarify that there weren't any acquisitions.

And I would say that also during the past years, some of the growth is driven also by this kind of post-COVID order book and backlogs supply chain constraints, which are now kind of getting resolved as well.

And then how much is the order book up or down at the end of March?

Overall, the order book, I would say, has been fairly stable and at the moment, corresponds roughly 1 year of sales if we look at the last 12 months revenue profile. So stable order book.

So that means that book-to-bill has been around 1. So it's basically -- that's the situation.

Broadly speaking.

Broadly speaking in the last 12 months, yes.

And then this raises your margin in one strike by 1 percentage point if you -- based on the numbers you show. And you have -- I mean, you have your financial targets. So should this trigger a change to the financial target to raise the margin target from 16% to 17%?

Well, we'll certainly come back and address that topic as we do each quarter, Tom. So if you hold on to that, then as we get more visibility to the next 2 years. And as we work our way through the integration process, as Mikko had alluded to, then we'll certainly address that topic in due course.

And perhaps it's good to note also that those consolidated numbers, what we showed on the slide, they don't yet include the purchase price allocation amortization, which, of course, will be then granularized as we have completed the acquisition and have then the full calculations for the PPA available.

Actually my next question, how should we model the depreciation and the PPAs when you move to IFRS bookkeeping here? Will there be any change in depreciation? And how large have they been?

The depreciation, I would say, in the big picture, the depreciation percentage should not dramatically change. Of course, the PPA allocation, like I said, we have some initial estimates about the PPA and anticipate that it could be potentially around EUR 30 million to EUR 40 million in the first couple of years due to the fact that Labrie has a sizable order book and that will be amortized as a part of the PPA amortization in 2 years' time. After that, the PPA amortization would go down quite significantly.

And how about the goodwill amortization that they report currently?

Yes. So according to the U.S. GAAP, the goodwill can be amortized when Labrie would be part of Hiab, that would be part of the overall Hiab goodwill based on the Labrie acquisition and then it's not amortized.

And so how large will the depreciation, you say just the same percentage, but in millions of euros if you want to do a model?

Are you talking now about amortization or depreciation?

Both, of course, but starting with the depreciation, as you said, just percentage will it remain the same?

Yes. I would say that in the big picture, the depreciation percentage should not dramatically change from the top line. The amortization, of course, from this acquisition is sizable compared to our past amortization, which has been more or less single digit on an annual basis.

Okay. So you mean the same percentage of sales as Hiab currently with the depreciation basically. That's how you define it.

Roughly on that level.

Yes. And I didn't fully understand this -- PPAs, I understand, but the other amortization, how was it that?

Sorry, can you repeat?

The amortizations that are not PPAs, you said they will -- you will not do that or move into IFRS.

So Labrie has had goodwill, which is amortized according to the U.S. GAAP. And that will disappear and that will become part of the overall acquisition goodwill. And according to IFRS, that will not be amortized.

You can find the details in the stock exchange release. So that's why the gap between EBITDA and EBIT is quite big.

Yes. That has been, if I remember correctly, roughly EUR 20 million exactly per annum.

And the interest rate is 4% to 5%, I guess?

If we look at this overall EUR 900 million financing, so the average interest would be approximately 3.6% based on the current Euribor levels.

And then do you have any plans to expand into this segment in Europe as well as this is a new opening and the other products you have tried to have products available both in Europe and in Americas.

Yes. Just to come back to the reground in the strategy. So 4 focus segments, waste and recycling amongst those. So broadly speaking, yes, is the answer to that question, both in Europe as well as other parts of the world.

And could you just help us to understand a bit when you bought the GALFAB company, I mean, that was about transferring technologies from Europe to the U.S. How advanced would you say that American products are in this industry compared to European products?

Yes, certainly lagging behind in some areas, but the uptake, we're certainly seeing in our GALFAB business that's moving along very nicely. And similarly, we're seeing a bit more penetration of -- especially if you think about the MULTILIFT product, we're starting to see a bigger conversion of containers to the hooklift solution, which is enabling, albeit step-by-step slow uptake, but a bigger uptake of that solution as well. So the foundation is laid, if you will, to have a more rapid uptake of a similar type of technology given the application.

So even though you don't have this product, you still have this feeling that you can -- American products can be developed more to catch up against European products in this industry. Is that the way to think?

In this particular industry, I'd say that -- because I took your question to mean if you think about the GALFAB business, there were certain control systems, digitalization as well as duty cycle automation characteristics. There are capabilities we had to share and scale within the GALFAB offering. That's gone very well and according to plan, and we see the benefits of that. Similarly, we've seen the benefits to our operating model and business excellence in terms of turning around significantly the GALFAB platform as well as our commercial excellence. So that's gone along nicely.

And then as I was trying to get to where I thought your question was, you see a bit more convergence of the demand for the similar type of higher technology in the U.S. in the duty cycle and applications on a like-for-like basis than if I think about when I started this role. And so I do see that trend continuing in the future, albeit with purpose-built and fit-for-purpose type solutions that may not necessarily be the same as here. I'd say on an RCV basis and thinking about the automated side loaders, I'd say that's likely to be on a different level and a higher level of differentiation technology than what I at least personally have seen here in Europe. Whereas here, we tend to use a bit more knuckle boom crane applications and in-ground bin storage, if you will, whereas that trend is not quite in the U.S., and I'm not sure that it will be.

[Operator Instructions] the next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

It was mainly the same thing that Tom already asked about the adjusted EBIT kind of comparability with all of the amortization. So do I now understand correctly that the way that we should model is that add the EUR 22 million of goodwill amortization to the announced pro forma adjusted EBIT, so you get EUR 96 million and then take EUR 30 million to EUR 40 million in PPA out of it, so you get around EUR 60 million as a comparable adjusted EBIT number that would be comparable to your reporting?

Roughly speaking, yes.

And how you'll kind of amortize the backlog in a couple of years' time and afterwards, then the PPAs would be perhaps half of the EUR 30 million to EUR 40 million or something else?

Correct.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers.

Thank you for the interest and for the great questions, and thank you for the great answers and presentation, Scott and Mikko.

Yes. Thank you, everyone. Have a safe day.

Thank you.

Welcome to Hiab's First Quarter 2026 Results Call. My name is Aki Vesikallio. I'm from the Investor Relations team. Today's results will be presented by CEO, Scott Phillips; and CFO, Mikko Puolakka. As a reminder, please pay attention to the disclaimer in the presentation as we will be making forward-looking statements.

Before handing over to Scott Phillips, let's take a look at the highlights of the quarter. Book-to-bill was positive in all geographical areas. Our sales were still impacted by low order intake in the U.S. during the previous 3 quarters. However, our comparable operating profit margin increased sequentially to 13.5%, and we continued to deliver strong cash flow. The new operating model announced in January was successfully implemented in the beginning of April. We also specified our outlook for full year comparable operating profit margin from above 13 above 13.5%.

Let's then view today's agenda. First, Scott will present the group level topics. Mike will go through reporting segments, financials in more detail and the outlook. After Mick, Scott will join the stage for key takeaways before the Q&A session.

With that, over to you, Scott.

Greetings, everyone, and a warm welcome to our first earnings report for 2026. I would like to start out sharing 3 developments, highlighting our execution of our profitable growth strategy. So during the third quarter earnings report, as you'll recall, we shared our plans to reduce our cost by EUR 20 million within this year as a result of the increased uncertainty that has led to a more challenging demand environment in the U.S. as well as the overall development of the order backlog.

Consequently, we have announced plans during the quarter to evolve our organizational structure and our model targeting to create 3 positive outcomes. Number one, to evolve to further clarity on our end-to-end accountability through further decentralization by reducing layers of complexity within our overall organizational design. That should help us to attend to a few issues that occasionally come to light in terms of suboptimal customer support. And then third, overall, it will allow us and enable us to reduce our fixed cost in line with our plans, which should create much more improvement in our value creation resiliency.

So core to our strategy is our aim to -- is our aim to lead the sustainability transition from road load handling industry. So I'm really pleased to share the second development here in the execution of our strategy, and that's the fact that we have validation in our science-based targets to achieve our commitment to be net 0 by 2050. The third development I would like to share with Pride is another example of a key outcome-based innovation co-created with our distribution partner, [indiscernible], together with key customers in Spain aiming to optimize productivity for dump over column lift tippers by developing a new [ Dell ] brand lightweight lift gate.

So another great example of our focus on developing new innovations together with our customers and our partners, that's purpose-built to solve our customers' most challenging problems. So let's get into the headline results of our group financials for the quarter. So starting off with our order intake development, I'm pleased to see that our organic order intake increased by 7% in constant currencies versus the comparison period. In actual exchange rates, order intake reached a level of EUR 402 million or EUR 419 million in constant currencies for an 11% positive variance. IND contributed EUR 15 million in the quarter, so in line with our business plan. And all regions contributed a solidly positive book-to-bill, increasing our backlog sequentially.

Now unlike prior periods, we didn't get the advantage of large lumpy orders as we've myself and Miko and Aki have talked about in the past, but rather resulting from a number of increased activities that manifested in smaller order intake or midsized order intake. So no real large orders of note to report within the period. So overall, a good start to the year despite the uncertainty in the macro environment. So let me turn your attention to the regional breakdown of our order intake profile for the quarter.

Now as you can see from the table, we had growth in all regions with the exception of Asia Pacific. Europe, Middle East and Africa increasing from EUR 203 million to EUR 207 million or 2 percentage points. The Americas grew by 15% from EUR 145 million to EUR 166 million. And Asia remained relatively flat at EUR 29 million compared to EUR 30 million in the comparison period. Now Europe continues to show signs of steady demand growth which we do see in all businesses, but most notably our lifting solutions. The growth in the Americas was primarily driven by ING acquisition, but at the same time, we certainly did not see further declines in the U.S.

Overall, the environment remains highly uncertain with ongoing trade tensions in the U.S. and heightened geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. So let's turn our attention to the revenue results for the quarter. Our revenues were down 7% year-over-year due to the EUR 114 million lower order book we started the period with -- now in line with our expectations that revenues were on the level of EUR 383 million. As you can see on the table on the left-hand side, our rolling 12-month revenues are now converging towards our order intake level of prior periods at EUR 1.528 billion. Now our share of services and actual exchange rates increased the percentage point due to the decline in equipment sales.

However, as Mike will explain, we had a nice increase in service sales in constant currencies and ING contributed $13 million in sales or 3% and and currencies overall had a negative impact of 4% on group results. Now geographically, our share of sales were impacted by the positive order intake development in the second half of 2025 in Europe, while the Americas was negatively impacted by the decline in the U.S., but partially offset by ING. Now in addition to the increase in Europe, our Asia Pacific region was also slightly up, improving to EUR 26 million or 7% year-over-year. And I'm pleased to see the development of our Eco portfolio sales as they increased by 23% to EUR 176 million or 46% of sales overall.

Now with our year-over-year decline in sales, our comparable operating profit was negatively impacted, so I'll guide you through the numbers. For the period, we delivered EUR 52 million on sales of EUR 383 million, which is a 22% decline versus the comparison period. But all in all, a good start to the year. On a relative basis, the group was on a level of 13.5% versus 16% last year. Now the factors most impacting comparability were lower sales in the U.S., lower indirect cost affecting gross profit and lower fixed cost affecting operating profit.

Now consequently, our operative return on capital employed declined due to the reduction of profit. items affecting comparability and the ING acquisition. Now Mika will further guide you through the bridge. Now wrapping up on our quarterly check-in for how we are performing versus our long-range targets. Our last 12-month -- our 10-year CAGR is now at 5% versus our long-range targets of 16% comparable operating profit over last 12 months is at 13% and and versus our long-range target of greater than 25%, were in line at 27%, albeit a decline sequentially for the factors that I shared earlier.

So with that, I would like to turn the stage over to Mikko to share with you results for the reporting segments.

Thank you, Scott, and good morning also from my side. Let's start first with the Equipment segment performance in quarter 1. So the equipment orders were EUR 284 million during the quarter. This is a 10% increase year-on-year. But if we exclude the currency impact, the growth would have been 14%. So in constant currencies. Lifting Equipment grew very nicely, growth came mainly from Americas, like elaborated already by Scott, very much driven by the ING Cranes acquisitions. .

The delivery equipment orders were flat year-on-year. I would say that taking into account the market situation in the U.S. And the fact that we did not book any major key account or defense orders during the quarter. I would say that the Equipment segment performed well in terms of orders during quarter 1. Sales were EUR 266 million. This is us 9% year year-on-year. And again, if we exclude the currency impact, the decline would have been minus 6% Lifting equipment actually grew in all 3 geographies, and the decline in sales is coming solely from our delivery equipment, especially in the U.S. market. The U.S. decline is very much due to the past quarters below 1 book-to-bill caused by the volatile tariff environment and the delayed decision-making by the U.S. customers.

Equipment comparable operating profit was EUR 32 million or the margin, 12.1%. And the biggest driver for the lower profitability was the decline in the delivery equipment sales in the U.S. Like I mentioned earlier, equipment profitability was very much impacted by the lower sales as can be seen in the bridge on the right-hand side there. Lower sales up gross profit margin as the gross profit margin includes also fixed production overhead. So the factory overheads. We had a slight positive impact coming from the lower SG&A costs. But I would say that the cost savings from the earlier announced EUR 20 million cost savings program are not yet visible in our quarter 1 results. Then let's have a look on service performance. And I would say that currencies had a significant impact on services orders and sales during quarter 1.

Service orders were EUR 119 million with constant currencies. Actually, service orders would have grown 4%. Sales was EUR 117 million, and again, with constant currencies growth would be plus 5%. So in absolute terms and in constant currency, services, quarter 1 revenues would be EUR 123 million. Really nice development in our recurring services like spare parts and maintenance, those sales grew in quarter 1. However, installation services sales declined. So I would say that the recurring services growth was able to offset really nicely both currency headwinds as well as the decline in the installation services. The number of connected equipment and maintenance contracts also continue to grow in quarter 1.

So really nice performance in executing also the services strategy. Services profitability was stable at EUR 28 million or the margin 23.6%. If we look at the services bridge, on the right-hand side, services sales growth would have been actually EUR 6 million with constant currencies instead of the EUR 1 million decline as we have reported. Recurring services growth, very much offsetting the decline in installation services. And then the negative FX impact, mainly coming from the weaker U.S. dollar offsets the volume growth. Next, let's have a look on Hiab's total financials. The overall higher profitability decline came from equipment volumes as you were able to see from the previous bridges. Lower volumes affected gross profit margin as the gross profit includes fixed production overheads.

Our SG&A costs were stable in constant currencies like mentioned, the cost savings program effects are not yet visible in quarter 1. Those start to be more visible in the second half of this year. Currencies had a notable impact on quarter 1 profitability mostly stemming from the weaker U.S. dollar. We booked EUR 11 million restructuring costs during quarter 1 as items affecting comparability. So this is below the comparable operating profit, these items affecting comparability. They are related to the ongoing EUR 20 million cost savings program, head count reduction, including also the separate life production move from Sweden to Poland. And our quarter 1 tax rate was 26%.

Our cash generation continued on a very good level in total, EUR 75 million in quarter 1. The cash conversion was really high, 186% our inventories decreased slightly. But I would say that the main contribution to our to our cash flow was coming from the net working capital, like accounts receivable decline and the VAT receivables collection. So those were the main contributors to quarter 1 cash flow. Hiab has a very, very strong balance sheet with a net cash of EUR 219 million at the end of March. Our gearing was stable at minus 23%. And thinking the target to keep our gearing below the 50% threshold. This would allow us to raise more than EUR 700 million debt. So a really strong balance sheet to execute the inorganic growth strategy. We paid the EUR 75 million dividend in April 2.

So this is not yet the dividend payment is not yet visible in our quarter 1 numbers. And then on the right-hand side chart, you can see that we have only 1 major debt item. That's the EUR 150 million bond, which is maturing in quarter 3 this year. And today, we have also revised or specified our outlook for for the 2026 based on a very good start for the year. So we estimate that the comparable operating profit margin for this year exceeds 13.5%. This is up from the earlier above 13%, what we announced in February. The key assumptions behind this outlook are more or less unchanged, what we said in February. We expect EMEA to continue to grow. U.S.A. not further declining from the previous quarters.

However, the customer decision-making continues to be still slow and difficult to predict. 2026 has started with EUR 14 million lower order book. Also, the March 26 order book was almost EUR 40 million lower than what we had a year ago. We have factored in the outlook also the EUR 20 million cost savings materializing in 2026. As mentioned, mainly effective from second half onwards. And then our group admin, underlying costs would be more or less on 2025 level, plus then approximately EUR 5 million investments in process systems development, mostly in the second half this year.

So with those words, then I would hand the word back to Scott.

Thank you, Mikko. So just closing with a few key takeaways summarized in the quarter. I'd say, first and foremost, we certainly continue to see a gradual recovery in lifting equipment in Europe, Middle East, Africa, which is great to see. Our delivery equipment market, the U.S. is expected to be in a cyclical trough. Third key takeaway is we are on track to achieve our EUR 20 million lower cost level in 2026 versus the prior year. We continue to nicely execute on our profitable growth strategy. with a keen focus on where we can take advantage of opportunistic growth.

As Mikko mentioned, our strong cash flow and balance sheet position us nicely to catalyze growth in the coming periods. And we're really pleased to see the solid good start to the year in 2026.

So with that, I'll turn it back over to Aki.

Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Mikko. With that, we are ready to start the Q&A session.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

And I'll start with a bit of a long winding 1 on the U.S. demand. I mean, backing out kind of your Americas orders the FX impacts and the acquisition impact, it still looks quite good organic order growth for the quarter. Then again, if we look at kind of the quarter you flag increased geopolitical uncertainty. There was a bit of a back and forth on the Section 232 tariffs and things like that.

So how would you kind of describe the demand environment that you saw on the first first quarter. Did you start to see a gradual recovery in some sense? Or is it kind of the heightened uncertainties adding kind of an extra layer of slower decision-making versus what you kind of saw going into the quarter?

Yes. , and thank you for the questions. Starting that 1 off. In the U.S., I think 1 of the key factors to note is [indiscernible] second half of Q1 last year, impacting both of our at-scale delivery solutions business within the U.S. So we're coming off of, I'd call it, a relatively low comp. So therefore, I'd say that was a driver in terms of the positive variance that you see slightly in the U.S. year-over-year. But on the other hand, I'd say from the combination of still the factors that existed prior to the trade tensions and then subsequent to the trade tensions. And even with the geopolitical unrest, notwithstanding, we are seeing a bit of stability, albeit as Aki characterized and Mekko as well that the decision-making is still on a similar level in terms of customers being cautious.

Having said that, I think it boded quite nicely for us in the quarter that similar to what we saw here in EMEA. The composition of the order profile in the period was more skewed towards small or midsized type orders. So the overall activity level was quite strong. And I'd characterize the sales funnel within the quarter also nicely positive variance compared to last year. Having said that, we still have the same level of uncertainty. We have the added variable of geopolitical unrest. So therefore, we're trying to stay quite balanced in terms of managing expectations that which is why we made the note of where we think we're in a situation where we don't see it imminently getting worse. And so therefore, I think there's a potential to be stable to slightly improving.

And certainly, you see that supported nicely in some of the reports from the truck OEMs. And then as has been noted in some of the analyst reports, there would be a bit of a lag in terms of the impact for our business compared to what you see at the truck OEM. So the factors at least are lining up to be, I think, skewed more positive versus negative.

All right. And then specifically on the changes on the Section 232 tariffs start of April. What's your analysis on -- are there any impacts on your clients in terms of truck prices or costs? And also what's the direct impact to your specifically? .

Yes. The impact of the change in the tariff code certainly has a negative impact from the customer perspective in that the cost level goes up. somewhat. And so we've run through all the analytics and the math and we've revised our our price model vis-a-vis the surcharge as a consequence. So our customers will certainly see that. I don't see it at a level where there would be an imminent negative impact compared to the current demand environment.

But certainly, an additional factor to consider on behalf of our customers in terms of deploying the budgeted capital within the year. And then as we have highlighted in some of the past periods, 1 of the key shows that we did see in the U.S. was a tendency to move away from providing longer-term view of demand and capital allocation and rather going to more shorter demand horizons, if you will, in terms of quarter-by-quarter or biannual, if you will. So we still see that trend continuing. .

And then kind of talking about pricing and surcharges, how much would you say that the U.S. orders in Q1 benefited from pricing in terms of year-over-year basis? .

Yes, the U.S. orders benefited approximately EUR 10 million from the surcharges during quarter 1.

All right. That's very clear. And then just a housekeeping question on the savings program on the EUR 20 million. So would I model it correctly by kind of the full

Run rate impact for Q4. So it's a little bit of a benefit on Q3 and then in a similar fashion first half of next year as well on a year-over-year basis.

Yes. Yes, I'd say that's about right. Yes. Yes. .

All right. The next question comes from Panu Laitinmäki from Danske Bank. .

I would have 2 questions about the guidance. So firstly, what kind of triggers the upgrade I mean, is it that you have now more visibility towards the end of the year? Or was Q1? Or what do you see in the market better than you were expecting? And then the second 1 is kind of what kind of what are you expecting for the U.S. market for the rest of the year in your guidance assumptions? .

Do you

Do you want to take the first part of the -- yes.

So basically, what triggered the specified new outlook is that we had, of course, a solid start for the year, and we have now basically 3 months better visibility for the year. We don't see in customers' behavior at the moment, any change. So that -- those are basically the elements which which basically made us to slightly specify the outlook from the above 13% to above 13.5%. .

Yes. And just adding 1 more to that one, Panu, is also the view that Europe continues on the positive glide path that we've seen -- so better visibility to the order book now as we have an additional 3 months coverage positive variance to the start of the year versus expectation or plan and then the continued good development in Europe that offset, of course, by a more or less stable situation in the U.S.

Okay. Then you had the second part of your question was with regards to the U.S. demand, yes. Yes. So in terms of U.S. demand, just to reiterate the prior comments, we certainly see the similar factors coming into the year that we did for the second half of last year, where you had the environment where there was already a bit of a slower level of decision-making or, let's say, a longer time horizon to deploy capital based on changes in the cost levels and the inability of our customers to know, let's say, upon the time of taking possession of the equipment what their forward-looking cost curves would look like.

So then naturally, you would if you could delay the decision-making until you have better visibility there? We see that continuing within the year. Having said that, we did see a bit of recovery, of course, in the delivery solution business in the U.S. and activity level bodes well as the composition of the order intake was again, rather than being skewed towards a few lumpy key account orders, but rather a number of small to midsized orders. So the key account orders are also still in the pipeline. So overall, we see a situation where we feel a bit more comfortable given that we still have a lack of coverage to the end of the year. which then will further clarify potentially in line with our Q2 earnings report.

But for now, given those 3 factors that I talked about earlier and this U.S. situation that we think is on quite a stable level or we don't see it eminently declining supported by the data that we're seeing with the truck OEMs, a key factor for us to be able to bump up the outlook for the year slightly.

My final question is on the European market. So it continues to recover. But could you kind of tell a bit more looking better for you. And what about construction, which I understood, has been still slow, but do you see any pick up there? .

Yes. For us, the quick answer on the construction side is not yet. But what we do see is we see a pickup on special logistics, a bit of infrastructure a little bit of retail last mile, but significantly, of course, in our waste and recycling segment, somewhat offset by a slight decline in the Defense Logistics as that's a consequence of timing of fulfilling past very large orders that were won in the past and then the fulfillment schedule is starting to wind down a bit.

So overall picture with the exception of construction is all moving somewhat in the positive direction and somewhat steady. We're not seeing big swings period-over-period or sequentially within the quarter, but rather a nice steady improvement.

The next question comes from Michael Doepel from Nordea.

Yes. Thank you. Starting off following up on the EMEA question there. Any specific countries you would like to flag here that are looking particularly strong you are seeing some kind of improvement, maybe some early signs into Q2? Any specifics you could add there?

Yes. If you think about our demand environment in Europe, it very much follows along with the countries that have the highest or the most at-scale GDPs. And those were certainly the countries that had the most positive variance for us within Europe, Middle East, Africa region. So of course, the U.K., France, Germany, Benelux, France, Spain, all were nicely positive.

Okay. No, that's clear. And then also coming back what you mentioned on the event how would we describe the pipe there currently? And also maybe a specification did you book any orders there in Q1 and then the pipeline and potential how you see or

Mikael was your question concerning Middle East or because the line was a bit or part -- on defense, on defense.

Yes, I was asking, did you book any orders related to that segment in Q1 and also how would you describe the pipeline and potential here going forward? .

Yes. Quick answer, yes, we did, albeit I'd say, overall, there was a slight negative variance on the defense orders from the comparison period. Pipeline looks really healthy. And as we've called out in the past, it's challenging to call the timing of converting the orders. But Harmony Frank, the team are doing a great job managing the pipeline, and we feel really good about how we're positioned to convert the pipeline. The question is around the timing. .

The defense orders were roughly 4% of the total order intake in quarter 1. So as we have said earlier, they are a bit lumpier than the kind of typical commercial orders. So from quarter-to-quarter, it might fluctuate a bit. But like Scott said, solid pipeline and something to come most probably later this year. So yes. .

Okay. No, that's fair. And then just finally, on the M&A. I think Mike mentioned the [ 700 million ] firepower here. How would you describe the pipeline? I mean, which regions would you say are most active right now? And what are the key hurdles to get the deals done? .

Yes. So let me start, I'll take that question. Pipeline is quite active as we have consistently called out in the past. Of course, it's always all a matter of timing. Our focus is in line with our focus segments. Similarly, from a geographic perspective, I'd say there's an active pipeline, of course, both in both of our core markets, both within Europe as well as the Americas. And of course, that's a critical area of focus for us.

At the same time, we continue to look for opportunities to help us scale quicker in regions where we're subscale. And so we still like the APAC region and are investing a lot of time and a in understanding the opportunities in that part of the world. And similarly, we still see opportunities in Latin America as well.

Okay. And then just a follow-up. I mean, what would you say are kind of the key hurdles to get the deals done, is that a valuation question more or is something else that's kind of -- what are the kind of keep the kind of Phase I this customer.

Yes, sorry for -- just to give you a bit of context and around the history. So the first key factor was just needing to work our way through the merger and then the demerger process. as we were certainly constrained for good reasons to take actions during those years. So post completion of the demerger, then the key constraint really, it's just been a matter of timing of working the processes.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB. .

Which would be on the U.S. distributor. So Scott, maybe could you talk a little bit about where you are with this kind of a growth strategy, adding the distributor network or expanding the distributor network in the U.S. and expanding geographically? And what type of revenue potential should we think about from these actions in the next, let's say, 12 to 24 months.

I mean if the demand in the U.S. is starting to bottom out, I guess, the fact that you have a wider distributor network today than, let's say, a year ago would add a little bit of a bigger potential for you going forward.

Yes. Thank you very much for the follow-up question, one. I'd love to provide some color on this follow-up. So quite pleased with where we are relative to executing on our growth strategy in North America vis-a-vis activating a hybrid model, whereas in the past, we were almost entirely direct with the exception of our Princeton branded truck [indiscernible] forklifts. So over the past 2 years, we've activated 16 new dealers. Of course, very much back-end loaded towards that time period. So great companies at scale for the first time, it gives us real coverage in all 48 contiguous United States. And so that's a key milestone for us.

And then I'd say, number two, and I couldn't emphasize this 1 enough, that the quality and capability within these dealers is extremely good and proud that the that they've elected to work together with us as rural partners and they're going to certainly help our overall growth strategy as well as to develop the overall Hiab brand in the U.S. Now having said that, we're in the mode of developing and going through the training and activating the dealers. And so that's a bit of a step-by-step process. Hard to exactly characterize the amount of positive variance, certainly within this year, but we expect some positive variance to our order intake development in the U.S. as a consequence, and over the time series, I think about 27, 28 and beyond, then that should steadily pick up. We believe that we'll end up somewhere around $20 to $22 million distributors overall. So we still are in the process also of adding new dealers in areas where either were undercovered and/or we're looking for the capability, be it for a lifting solution or a delivery solution. as some of our dealers are quite specialized and others are more generalists covering the whole portfolio.

Is there any way for me to kind of compare from revenue potential wise a 20 to 22 distributors versus your prior direct model, kind of how much how much does it expand the addressable market or how much kind of the dollar revenue potential would it give you down the road when all are fully activated and selling your equipment?

Difficult.

On the spot. No, probably I can -- but however, as we work -- progress through subsequent periods, and of course, as we certainly have touch points with all of you that cover our business, we certainly would be able to start to give better and better color on just that point. .

There are no more questions at this time, so I hand the conference back to the speakers. .

Thank you for the telephone conference questions. We have, please 1 question from the but this 1 is related to the Germany infrastructure package. Did we see any impact in the quarter? How would you characterize the situation or the stimulus money from the German infrastructure package? Is it visibility better, the same or worse than in the beginning of the year.

Well, certainly, better visibility compared to the beginning of the year. Timing-wise, I'd say, too early yet? BUT we do anticipate having nice opportunities in the future, and we're starting to get visibility in the opportunity funnel. .

Great. How about then the supply chain? Do you see any constraints, especially in the hydraulics or electronics, I think this must be related to the Middle East situation.

Ones, a great question and it gives me an opportunity to put the spotlight for a second on our supply chain teams. I think they've done a great job, both in terms of our factories and in collaboration with our sourcing team. So really pleased to share that no impact. Now that picture, of course, looks a lot like the duck on top of the water. But of course, below the surface. There's a lot of activity behind the scenes, both internal the but also in our partner network vis-a-vis our suppliers as well as the logistic shipping companies.

But overall, no negative impact within the quarter. But a lot of organizational bandwidth that's been redirected to make sure that we secure and stabilize the overall supply chain.

Indeed, and the next 1 here is that do we see any potential considering new trade agreements between Europe and South America or then potentially how about India, there is any potential there? Will this lead to high up new equipment production and service units in the medium term, impacting sales year-on-year growth rate in these regions. Any color you could provide?

Yes, we haven't seen yet any impact at this point as a consequence of the new trade agreements. However, I would say that markets such as India are a great example of those that we are constantly pulsing and checking for what's the right opportunity for us to better participate in the market? Is that an import opportunity? Or is it a produced local opportunity? And certainly, I anticipate that a market such as this will play a key and ever increasing ran role in the future of our business.

And I think we have still some more questions from the telephone line. So let's turn back to the moderator.

The next question comes from Michael Doepel from Nordea.

Just very briefly, a question on your service business. I just could talk a bit about how you the environment there and the dynamics there. I mean, where are we currently in the spare part capture rate? And how do you see the kind of the overall growth here going forward?

Yes. Yes. Thanks for the question, Mikael. In terms of the services business, what I would still say is that the Mikko and his team are progressively working towards better and better partnership, training and development of how to, one, make sure that as a result of having new or current activated connected units, that, that gives us great control in over the installed base, which is the first key factor, and that's why that's 1 of the critical KPIs that we we track relentlessly each period. Then that enables to have the dialogue of converting the management of those assets in the installed base. wrapped around ProCare contracts that we do both for direct as well as through indirect. And we know that we have a significantly different outcome of capture rate and revenue per unit on those units that are captured in ProCare.

And the good news is, is that our Net Promoter Score and feedback from the customers are on a significantly higher level as well. So the team is doing a good job getting better and better control of the overall installed base, but it will take time as given the the top line split between what we sell direct versus indirect. The biggest opportunity for us is to continue to increase the share of capture on the indirect sales side. And so a lot of good progress is being made there overall in terms of the capture rate versus what we shared in 2024. We continue to step by step make good improvements sequentially and throughout each period. The limiting factor so far potentially, and this is a bit of opinion assets quite variable, is then around the utilization rates of the equipment, and we have seen a lot of variability through the period where some periods, some geographies is up and some within the same geographies, maybe down and that might have a bit of a factor through -- if I think about the past 2 years.

Moving forward, our expectation is, is that given the age of the installed base, the replacement rate should continue to increase. And at the same time, the level of service events or the frequency of the service event should get slightly increasing as well, which bodes well for our recurring revenue business. So overall, good progress there. When we come back on our next Capital Markets Day, we'll give a lot more color on how we're progressing relative to the 3 KPIs that we shared in '24 as well as the overall capture rate. And I'd say the last comment I would add is, I think I did share in either Q3 or even in February in the Q4 earnings. Our share of recurring revenue is now on quite a good level at around 75%, 76% level.

The next question comes from Tom Skogman from DNB Carnegie.

Yes. I know you have sensors installing or equipment. Can you open up a bit what you see how customers are using the equipment sequentially year-on-year and between different geographies, what can you read about your customers from this? .

We get quite a lot of data-driven insights off of our connected equipment and really pleased by the fact that we are able to provide condition-based monitoring services, so we can see any number of data points from the amount of how they're being utilized, the time under load, the type of loads, whether it's overload, under load, time and idle even if an operator is not buckle the seat belt and attended to some of the basic requirements around safe operations. So a whole host of variables that we're able to see relative to most of the units that we have connected. And then quite pleased to tell you that at least before the end of the year, you'll start to also see quite a nice uptick in connected units in our tailored business as well.

But what do you see in customer activity like in the U.S. where we have this kind of both kind of uncertain demand situation. Do you see positive signs in how customer equipment is used, for instance.

Sorry, now I understand a little better than what you're getting at there, Tom. So in terms of utilization, we see quite a lot of variability. I'd say, overall, we don't see any real negative or positive trends. but some periods, utilization or activity levels are up. And then in the next period, it might be down. So overall, I'd call it quite stable. And I'd say it's a team at roughly applies here in Europe as well. In some periods, it's trending more positive than in another period, it will trend slightly negative.

All right. And then about your M&A pipeline, do you have any targets you would like to share, how many companies you would like to acquire this year or how much utility would like to add in through an M&A in 1 year or a year period or so? .

Yes. I mean I'll stick to my same answer as before. I think that given we're a business configured of 6 divisions and a number of business units. I would love to get to a steady state where we're able to do a bolt-on at least 1 per year per division per business unit. And similarly, if you think about the than the composition of our business, managing 1 or 2 more transformative or, let's say, business unit or division size acquisitions per year would be a great steady state to get to.

But to go from where we are to that steady state, then it's going to take some time as we now are, what, 9 months or so into being able to now action opportunities that we weren't -- we were constrained in action until we completed the demerger. So we'll also share a lot more color on that as we progress towards the next Capital Markets Day.

And when is the next Capital Markets Day?

We haven't set the date yet, but we will share that as soon as we do. .

But for already this year, you plan to have it Yes.

Sense is it's likely to be in '27 Yes. Yes. .

Not yet decided Yes. Yes. .

And perhaps a bit more on this service sales target. You have EUR 700 million as a target I realize this downturn probably was a bit deeper and longer than you expected. But just on a general level, how do you feel about this because, I mean, that will really demand exception of sales CAGR to reach that. .

Yes, you're exactly right, there is that element. If you think about the -- especially on the nonrecurring revenue piece. There is a significant element there of when does the equipment demand recover relative to the way we modeled the demand curve in Q4 '23 when we established the current strategy period. So a lot will be understood depending upon how the balance of this year and the beginning of 27 plays out, of course. .

But of course, 1 should still -- if we think quarter 1 service development, so sales up by 5% with constant currencies. At the same time, we saw in the installation services. So if the installation services, i.e., new equipment sales, then attached with the installation sales would improve, then that would, of course, have had in this quarter, a nice further addition to service service revenues. Yes. .

And then finally, these new U.S. distributors today wish that you would expand your product portfolio to some certain direction. .

I think at this point, too early to tell. They're still in the mode of getting themselves up and running on understanding the the full scope of the portfolio that they're responsible for how to work within our processes and systems and with the support staff that's available to them. But I am confident that as we look forward, they will certainly, and frequently share insights where they see that we have opportunities to fill gaps within the portfolio. But at this point, I'd say it's too early.

The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

Just a quick follow-up on the U.S. order side. I mean I just wanted to get a reminder like last year, your Americas orders declined by 14% on a euro basis. But I'm sure that there was, I think, contributor on a positive side. So how much the volumes last year decline? Or how much your pricing was up with the surcharges and all of that during '25.

Surcharge impact, if I recall correctly, was something like between EUR 20 million, EUR 30 million for last year. .

A bit less than EUR 30 million, around EUR 25 million Yes. .

Do you have any view kind of how much the volumes are currently the order volumes are below, let's say, what you booked on '24, which was kind of the previous peak.

You mean in the U.S. .

In the U.S., just trying to kind of think about that if there's a recovery on the market, what is kind of the upside in terms of your order intake, given that your prices are quite much higher now than they were a few years back.

Of course, it's good to remember that the surcharges are something which, I mean, they change all the time as tariffs change. So of course, depends on the tariff landscape, whether 1 can use that as a let's say, permanent price increase or we have communicated to the customers that the tariffs, if the tariffs change, then the surcharge will change, correct?

But all in all, last year roughly that EUR 25 million, let's say, impact in the order intake. It's a bit difficult to -- because -- there are so many different products in the U.S. market. There are the lift loader cranes, truck-mounted for Cliffs. So 1 cannot count those together. It's like calculating apples and bananas together. So from that point of view, it's a bit difficult to say the kind of volume impact .

Sure. I mean, it's a simplification, but it seems like the pricing had a mid-single-digit impact and then that would kind of suggest. Correct. 20% down on volume.

That's the right way to think about it. .

Yes. Overall, it's the biggest impact is coming from the customers' overall demand the pricing having a quite small impact. .

There are no more questions at this time, so I hand the conference back to the speakers.

Yes. Let's still take a couple of questions from the iPad. So Firstly, on the services. So do we always nowadays of our service agreement when we sell a new piece of equipment. And what is our hit ratio with service agreements with new equipment sales.

A quick answer to that is that's certainly our expectation that it's 1 of our key strengths. And certainly, if I think about the 50 or 60 customer meetings, I have a year -- that's usually the first topic of the conversation is services and the availability of the services proximity to installed base and the high need to secure uptime as most of our customers are understanding that they're paying a premium on the margin in order to secure the service outcomes that they need to keep them going.

So therefore, it's critical for us to offer the services concurrent with the opportunity to sell a new piece of equipment. The hit rate or, let's say, the attachment rate of the service contract varies depending upon region. So I would kind of come back to Mikko's comment earlier, it's a bit -- it's not a great metric if you just aggregate it all together and and say, here's our percentage of attachment because it's much higher in certain areas depending upon how we're configured with our own organization and the personnel that we have, but it varies I'd say overall, I can say that this 1 of the key opportunities for us to continue to not only drive our services business, but more importantly, a key factor for us to increase our Net Promoter Score customer satisfaction.

So the teams are working quite diligently together and with our partners to ensure that we feel like we have all the tools, processes and capability and training in order to not only offer the services, but then most importantly, to execute successfully in delivering against those service contracts.

Then we have -- 2 more questions this. I think these are quite quick ones. The first 1 is on the M&A any preferences in geographical regions. I think you Scott already mentioned that we like EMEA, Americas, our key regions, but we also seek for opportunities in the APAC region. So that was the answer already. And then the final one, which 1 of you remember the numbers, how large proposal is the U.S. out of our Americas sales.

Of course, we provide on an annual basis, the North American sales, but we don't split U.S. separately. But of course, it's a significant share out of the Americas and also on the North American side.

Yes, I don't remember now the exact percentage, but it's I would say U.S. is the majority of the Americas revenues. .

Exactly.

Yes. Yes. A very high percentage

Yes. And of course, for this year, the rest of the Americas is somewhat higher due to the ING acquisition impact. So the Brazil market is proportionately higher than last year.

Okay. That then concludes our Q&A session for the great questions and for the great answers. We will be back with our second quarter results in 22nd of July. So stay tuned. .

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome to Hiab's Full Year 2025 Results Call. My name is Aki Vesikallio. I'm from Investor Relations. Today's results will be presented by CEO, Scott Phillips; and CFO, Mikko Puolakka.

As a reminder, please pay attention to the disclaimer in the presentation as we will be making forward-looking statements.

Before handing over to Scott and Mikko, let's take a quick look at the highlights of the year. Market environment was characterized by increased trade tensions and uncertainties and our orders received remained at past 2 years level.

Sales declined by 6%, but we increased our comparable operating profit margin and achieved a new record of 13.7%. Also, our Services business had a record year. Strong cash generation continued, and we acquired ING Cranes, significantly expanding our presence in Brazil.

Let's then view today's agenda. First, Scott will present the group level topics and strategic development. Mikko will go through the reporting segments, financials in more detail and the outlook. After Mikko, Scott will join the stage for key takeaways before the Q&A session.

With that, over to you, Scott.

Thank you, Aki. And good morning, everyone, from my side. So starting first with the demand environment. I'd characterize the full year situation as our orders remaining on a similar level to the prior 2 years. As you can see visually on the left-hand side of the slide, the last 3 years were quite on a similar level, and we've talked about the demand environment that's led to that.

Drawing your attention a bit more to the right-hand side of the slide, going into the numbers. First, starting with comparing quarter versus quarter. Orders received for the quarter last year were EUR 375 million -- or in 2025, EUR 375 million versus prior year of EUR 414 million for a 9% change in actual exchange rates, 6% change in constant currencies.

And for the full year, orders received were EUR 1.48 billion versus prior year EUR 1.509 billion or a 2% change in actual exchange rates and essentially flat in constant currencies. As a consequence, our order book has decreased to EUR 534 million ending 2025 versus EUR 648 million in 2024, so a decrease of EUR 114 million or 18%.

So summarizing the overall environment, relatively stable and on a similar level in constant currencies. The decrease was primarily from our delivery equipment orders in the U.S. in 2025, somewhat offset by increases in our lifting equipment in Europe and APAC and other parts of the Americas and an increase overall in our Services business.

So in summary, our overall order book decreased only in Equipment and not in Services business.

So looking in more detail within the regional perspective, starting on the left-hand side of the slide, our orders received for last year for 2025 were 54% in EMEA, 39% in the Americas and 8% in APAC.

On a quarterly basis, looking into the numbers, that translated into EUR 208 million in fourth quarter in EMEA versus EUR 218 million in the comparable period or a 5% decline. However, for the full year, EMEA order intake was EUR 794 million versus 2024, EUR 736 million or an 8% increase.

In the Americas, however, we saw a decline in fourth quarter to EUR 137 million versus prior year of EUR 164 million or a 16% decline, a bit more acute in the U.S., and I'll provide a bit more color on that in a second. For the full year, total order intake was EUR 572 million in the Americas versus prior year EUR 668 million or 14% decline.

In Asia Pacific, we saw a slight decline in the comparison period on a quarterly basis at EUR 30 million versus EUR 32 million in the prior year, a 5% decline. However, for the full year, we saw a 10% increase to EUR 114 million versus EUR 104 million in the comparison period.

Now summarizing the operating environment. We saw a gradual recovery, if you look at it on a full year basis, in both EMEA and APAC. However, in the U.S., we continue to see soft demand, however, on a relatively stable level if you think about the last 3 quarters.

Now why is that? The first -- the main reason, of course, are the trade tensions that elevated the level of uncertainty in the demand environment, in particular in the U.S. that led to our customers being quite cautious and especially shows up in our results as we are a short-cycle business in both our Equipment and Services.

Now looking into our sales for the full year. As you see on the left-hand side of the slide, we had a decline sequentially from 2024 to EUR 1.556 billion or 6% decline in actual exchange rates, 4% decline in constant currencies. Looking into the quarter, our sales was EUR 396 million versus EUR 412 million or a 4% decline in actual exchange rates, relatively flat in terms of constant currencies.

And our share of services in the quarter was 29%, the same level that it was the prior year. However, for the full year, our services as a percent of sales was 30%, so up 2 percentage points versus the comparison period.

Now in summarizing the overall revenue environment, clearly, our sales in the second half were lower than the first half by 9%. Currencies had an impact on the results by 2 percentage points in the negative direction on a full year basis. And as I mentioned earlier, our share of services sales increased from 28% to 30%.

Now looking more deeply on a regional basis in terms of the sales environment for 2025. EMEA represented 50% of our overall sales; the Americas, 44%; APAC, 7%. And on a quarterly basis, EMEA was EUR 212 million, up 3% in the comparison -- versus comparison period. In the Americas, however, we were down 14% versus comparison period at EUR 154 million. And in APAC, we were up slightly or by 8%, EUR 30 million versus EUR 28 million in the comparison period. And really pleased to report that our Eco portfolio sales as a percentage and in absolute terms increased nicely year-over-year to EUR 135 million or 34% of sales.

And then on a full year basis, on a -- looking at -- starting with the EMEA region. Full year sales were down slightly 2%, EUR 785 million versus EUR 804 million. In the Americas, we were down 10% in revenue, EUR 662 million versus EUR 735 million and in APAC, EUR 110 million versus EUR 108 million or up 1%. Eco portfolio sales for the full year in absolute terms, up to EUR 572 million versus EUR 476 million or 20% positive variance. And on a percentage basis, increased from 29% to 37%.

So summarizing the regional environment. Our Americas sales decline came wholly from the U.S., somewhat offset by growth in other regions or other markets within the region. In EMEA, our sales declined slightly in the full year, but grew towards the end of the year. We started to convert the uptick in the order intake from the first half of the year as we moved into the end of the year last year. Our Asia Pacific sales increased nicely. And then as I mentioned earlier, our Eco portfolio sales increased in our circular solutions, decreased somewhat in our climate solutions.

Now looking into how our sales translated into profitability. As you can see on the visual on the left-hand side of the slide, the slope continues to be nicely positive in the prior 3-year period of time. And that's, of course, despite the fact that we have a lower sales level year-over-year from '24 to '25.

Looking at it into more detail, starting with the quarterly view, our comparable operating profit was EUR 47 million versus the comparison period of EUR 41 million. Mikko will go into more details in terms of what that variance means, but it's a 15% positive variance quarter-over-quarter.

On a full year basis, our comparable operating profit was EUR 213 million versus 2024 EUR 217 million, so a 2% negative variance. But in relative terms, we had a nice 50 basis points improvement from '25 to '24 to 13.7% versus 13.2%, which translated nicely into an improvement in our return on capital employed, looking at it on a last 12-month basis at 30.8% versus 28.2% in the prior year.

So our full year profitability in quarter 4 was burdened significantly by lower U.S. equipment sales. However, it was somewhat offset by looking at it on a total basis, a nice 100 basis points improvement in our gross profit margin. So a nice example of executing on our strategy.

At the same time, as we had communicated previously, we were targeting lower SG&A costs, so that somewhat offset the decline in the top line, all of which translated nicely into improving our return on capital employed, largely driven by a nice reduction in our net working capital that we continue to execute.

Now speaking of how the strategy is developing, I thought I'd transition a bit into how are we doing relative to what we talked about in our Capital Markets Day in 2024. I'll start first with the next step in our evolution of our operating model.

As we've stated earlier, we are quite adamant about driving radical transparency and accountability and operating our business such that we have decision-making and ability to act on behalf of our customers at the point that's closest to impact to our customers.

So the next step in our operating model to drive further transparency, accountability and empowerment is a change that we're making into our organizational structure at the Hiab leadership team level. So we're streamlining our business from 6 to 5 global functions, which we show here.

And similarly, we will then evolve our business operations, organizational design to 3 business areas is what we're proposing, all of which should be effective as of April 1st, pending the outcome of our labor negotiations. And if we're able to move forward on executing this plan, then the way that the organization will look will be organized into 3 business areas, 2 equipment business areas, Lifting Solutions and Delivery Solutions, one led by Magdalena Wojtowicz, our Delivery Solutions led by Hermanni Lyyski. And then Michael Bruninx will continue to lead our Services business as a business area.

Now we're doing this, as I mentioned earlier, as a logical next step, both to simplify our organizational design and enable us to more effectively add additional business units, divisions in the future.

At the same time, it's key to our success in order to shrink the levels of organization from our colleagues within Hiab that impact our customer outcomes on a day-to-day basis, with those that are located in our product management, sales support, R&D organizations to bring those constituents closer together so that we can act and react more effectively on behalf of our customers, either addressing day-to-day problems and opportunities or allowing seamless communication, being able to understand more deeply our customers' applications and translating those insights into the next-generation solutions.

By aligning our sales end-to-end with our business areas, we think that will significantly drive further accountability to the overall result in terms of customer experience, financial outcomes and our own employee experience.

And as I mentioned earlier, we think this organizational design will allow us to be much more agile and adapt to changes in our business in the future. So we think this is a key enabler to continue to drive the successful execution of our strategy and ensure long-term success.

Now just to give you a bit of color on the cost savings program that we announced previously with our Q3 results. As previously communicated, we target approximately EUR 20 million of cost savings within the year, coming primarily from 2 vectors. On the one hand, the most significant piece of the cost savings that we are targeting will be personnel-related costs. Unfortunately, as a consequence, that could result in as many as 480 roles reduction globally. And then at the same time, we have a number of nonpersonnel-related activities that we plan to undertake, that will also deliver cost savings according to our plan.

All told, we estimate that our planned one-off cost would be approximately EUR 30 million. This will be reflected in items affecting comparability and of course, certainly subject to change as we complete the negotiation and the planning process and move into implementation.

Concurrent with this action is a next step in executing on our supply chain strategy. So we announced that we would plan to change our -- the ZEPRO tail lift assembly. The change would involve reducing and closing the operation in Bispgarden, Sweden, transferring the work to our facility in Stargard, Poland.

And the rationale here is pretty straightforward. We hope that we can improve efficiency, better leverage the facility that we have in Stargard, help ensure and secure competitiveness of the brand by reducing our bill of material cost, which should be a key enabler to driving future growth within this important brand within our overall Hiab portfolio.

So we think these are necessary actions, both in terms of executing the strategy as well as reacting to the declining order book, as we previously communicated the rationale, to continue to reinforce and build our credibility on delivering a good track record of results and continue to focus on value creation despite the level of -- despite the top line development.

Now looking further into a few additional insights on how our strategy execution is going. I'll start first with on the left-hand side. Really proud to announce that we've recently signed 2 new dealers in the U.S. in line with our strategy we communicated in '24.

So recently, we announced that we had closed and signed agreements with MGX, a subsidiary of Manitowoc as well as Custom Truck One Source. Now this brings us up to 16 new dealers that we've signed since we first announced this piece of the strategy in terms of growth in North America. And this brings us quite close to having now full coverage in the U.S., especially for our Hiab loader crane business, and we're inching closer in getting full coverage as well in our critical delivery solution businesses as well.

So really pleased with this development, proud of the work that the team has done on behalf of achieving this critical objective in our strategy, both in the U.S. as well as here in Europe.

The second piece that I'd like -- I'm very proud to report is that we now have achieved a critical milestone. We're over 25,000 service contracts. As you'll recall, in 2024, we communicated we were targeting to be above 50,000 by the end of 2028. So we're nicely on track. And this is a critical element for us in order to ensure that we can continue to drive improvements in terms of our capture rates. And that's critical to our parts and other recurring revenue business within our Services business area to be.

At the same time, we also talked about another key data point. We were targeting to be above 90,000 units connected by the end of 2028, and we're now on a level of 56,000 units connected. So well on track on those 2 critical elements of the service growth strategy.

And then finally, on this particular slide, I'll end on highlighting that we did complete a strategic acquisition of ING in Brazil. This is critical to our growth in the Americas strategy as well as giving us increased coverage and penetration in one of our key segments that we called out as part of the strategy as well, and that was our Construction segment.

So the combination of ING and ARGOS, we think, positions us quite nicely as complementary portfolios and will enable and catalyze significant growth in that part of the world. So a big warm welcome to all of our new colleagues from ING to Hiab.

Now just closing and recapping on our strategy. Proud of the work that the team is doing in terms of executing on the strategy. We remain keenly focused on our step-by-step approach to ensure that we are in leading niche attractive end market segments that are quite nicely aligned to essential industries that we learned about during the time of COVID.

We seek to be #1 or 2 in each of those exposures in order that we can set the tone in terms of technological superiority and deliver through that and backed up with a second to none service offering, then we know that's critical to delivering the best customer experience in the industry.

We talked about how we intended to grow faster than the market. There were 3 critical pieces to the strategy. One was we had 4 targeted segments that we seek to grow in, and we're progressing nicely in 2 or arguably 3 out of the 4 segments. We've yet to see the tailwind coming through in construction, but we continue to take steps in order to expand our share into the Construction segment.

We talked about growing in North America, in particular, through increasing our coverage geographically. And so as I mentioned earlier, we're now up to 16 new dealers that we've onboarded towards that end. And of course, critical to our success as well as our customers' success is growing our Services business.

Now at the same time, we also talked about how we would improve profitability, which you see coming through in the results of improved profitability versus declining top line. And so we've talked quite a lot about improving our efficiency through higher business excellence and ensuring that we continue to execute through our decentralized operating model for the reasons that I gave earlier.

And then finally, it's important to note that all of which is designed to help enable that we have sustainable industry-leading value creation across the business cycles. And the team is progressing quite nicely according to that plan.

Now what does that look like in terms of the numbers? We are behind in terms of our progress on delivering 7% across the cycle as we're at 5.5% now after the latest quarter. We're right on schedule or slightly ahead even in terms of delivering 16% at 13.7% in the last 12 months. Similarly, we remain nicely ahead of schedule in terms of our return on capital employed as we remain above 25% as we have at last 12 months of 30.8%.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Mikko.

Thank you, Scott, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen, also from my side. Let's first have a look on the Equipment segment's performance in quarter 4. Equipment segment's financial performance was quite uneven between the lifting and delivery equipment in quarter 4. Order intake totaled EUR 258 million. This was minus 13% year-on-year. But if we clean the currency impact, so 10% down in constant currencies.

Delivery equipment orders declined, especially in Americas, while then the lifting equipment orders were actually flat year-on-year. So actually quite nice development there, very much also supported by the European market area.

On a full year basis, the orders decline came solely from Americas. We start in equipment business the year 2022 -- 2026 with EUR 140 million lower order book. And to compensate this, we plan to reduce cost by EUR 20 million this year, as Scott described earlier.

Equipment sales was EUR 280 million in quarter 4. This is a decline of 5% from previous year or again, minus 2% in constant currencies if we clean the -- especially the U.S. dollar weakening.

In quarter 4 and on a full year basis, the Equipment segment comparable operating profit was negatively impacted by the lower sales, especially in the short-cycle delivery equipment and as mentioned earlier, especially in the U.S. market.

Sales in the U.S. was EUR 25 million lower in quarter 4 than in the comparison period. And this had roughly a EUR 10 million negative impact in the Equipment segment profitability in quarter 4.

We had some nonrecurring costs in the operative results, EUR 3 million in quarter 4 and EUR 10 million for full year. And without this, the comparable operating profit would be 13.4% in quarter 4 and 13.8% for full year.

Equipment segment's profitability, as I mentioned earlier, was negatively impacted by the lower sales in the U.S., and this was partially offset by fixed cost reductions based on that cost savings program which we announced 1 year ago.

Lower volumes impacted also the gross profit margin as certain factory overheads do not scale 100% with the volumes. We had a EUR 1 million negative impact from FX translation effects mainly due to weaker U.S. dollar, also as mentioned earlier.

And then we had a positive impact coming from basically 2 elements. Firstly, in quarter 4 2024, we had EUR 15 million costs, mainly related to the restructuring of our Italian operations. And then secondly, our SG&A costs were lower in the Equipment segment due to the cost savings program, which has been -- which has started in 2024.

So on like-to-like basis, without the previously mentioned nonrecurring costs in quarter 4 2025, the comparable operating profit was 13.4%, so on the same level as in 2024 despite a 5% decline in sales.

Then on Services. So Services continued to grow, very much supported by growing the number of connected equipment and service contracts, like Scott highlighted earlier. The weaker U.S. dollar had a significant impact on our Services top line. In constant currencies, Services quarter 4 orders would have been EUR 122 million, so up by 4%. And on full year basis, the orders would have been in constant currencies EUR 479 million, up by 7%.

We have seen good growth in recurring services like spare parts and maintenance services, while then the installation services declined due to the lower new equipment sales, as you have been -- have seen in the previous pages.

Services quarter 4 profitability was impacted by low installation services volumes and a EUR 1 million booking, kind of nonrecurring booking to cover the deficit in our self-funded healthcare system in the U.S.

On a full year basis, there has been a good development in services profitability, mainly supported by the recurring services growth. And on full year basis, Services delivered a record high EUR 109 million comparable operating profit, and this is 23.2% margin. So nice progress in Services.

When we look at the Services profitability bridge, sales in constant currencies contributed positively to profitability. So kind of service volumes were developing well. As mentioned earlier, the recurring services had a positive impact on the growth, while installation services declined.

Lower installation services had also a negative impact on gross profit margin because, for example, rents for the installation workshops are fixed. FX translation had a negative impact on Services profitability and as mentioned earlier, stemming very much from the weaker U.S. dollar.

And as mentioned earlier, we booked EUR 1 million to cover the U.S. healthcare deficit program. And here, basically in the picture, it's illustrated in the other bar on the right side of the bridge. So without this EUR 1 million, Services profitability would have been 22% in quarter 4.

Next, let's have a look on Hiab's total financials. So Hiab's quarter 4 comparable operating profit improved EUR 6 million from the comparison period despite the 4% decline in sales. Main contribution came from not having similar kind of EUR 15 million nonrecurring costs, which they were in quarter 4 2024. Here, those nonrecurring costs are pictured in the other bar on the right-hand side of the bridge.

We have had a negative gross profit impact coming from the lower sales in the U.S., as mentioned earlier. And luckily, this has been partially also offset by growing revenues in EMEA and APAC, as also illustrated earlier.

Our quarter 4 operating profit included EUR 5 million items affecting comparability, and these are mainly related to the planning of the EUR 20 million restructuring program for this year.

The tax rate for the full year was developing favorably. It was 25% versus 27% in 2024. And our net profit was EUR 33 million for quarter 4 and then EUR 151 million for full year.

Our cash generation continued on a good level also in quarter 4, amounting to EUR 56 million. EBITA contributed EUR 53 million to cash flow. And then we released EUR 27 million from inventory in quarter 4, while on the other hand, the accounts receivables increased from quarter 3 due to higher invoicing in the latter part of the year. Full year cash flow from operations was EUR 308 million. So really strong performance from the whole organization.

Hiab has a very, very strong balance sheet to support the strategic priorities like organic and inorganic growth. Our net cash declined from quarter 3. Here, basically, the main driver is the EUR 100 million additional dividend, which was paid in October 2025. ING acquisition did not impact the net cash position as the transaction was closed in January 2026.

On the debt side, we have basically one major bond, EUR 150 million, that's maturing in November 2026. And basically, the rest of our interest-bearing liabilities are mostly IFRS 16 lease liabilities.

Hiab's Board of Directors is proposing a 50% dividend payout for the Annual General Meeting in March according basically to the maximum of our dividend policy. This dividend proposal would be EUR 1.17 per B share and the total dividend payout would be EUR 75 million. Dividend payment date would be April 2, 2026.

We have provided an outlook for 2026, and this outlook is basically based on few key assumptions. And let me elaborate some of those. As Scott indicated earlier, there has been gradual recovery in EMEA and in APAC. However, the U.S. demand is still uncertain. That has remained stable during the last 3 quarters.

Trade tensions are still expected to cause uncertainty around customers' investment decisions. Our last 12 months rolling order intake has been on EUR 1.5 billion level, and we start the year 2026 with EUR 114 million lower order book compared to 2025.

Our outlook incorporates the planned earlier mentioned EUR 20 million cost savings for 2026. This would be visible mainly in the reporting segments and then mostly visible in the second half of 2026.

For group administration also from -- for the outlook purposes, full year 2025 is a good base level for modeling. In addition, we are doing certain system development to simplify our processes and further improve our cost efficiency. And this will increase the group administration cost level by roughly EUR 5 million in 2026, mainly skewed towards the second half.

So based on these assumptions, we estimate that the 2026 comparable operating profit margin exceeds 13%. And as in previous years, this is the floor level.

And then, I would like to hand the presentation back to Scott for the summary and final remarks.

Thank you, Mikko. All right. Managed to get this to go the right direction one more time. So thank you very much, Mikko, again, and I'd like to leave you with 5 key takeaways.

One, thinking through the demand environment, we have seen a gradual recovery if we look at broadly the full year 2025 in both EMEA and APAC, especially positively impacting our lifting equipment business. However, we do see a continued tough environment in the U.S. for our delivery equipment. And as I mentioned earlier, we've seen it quite stable in the prior 3 quarters. So we'd like to think that, that's at a trough level.

Number two, despite the decline in sales, we reached a record high comparable operating profit margin. So a nice example of the impact that we're creating through executing on the strategy.

Similarly, key takeaway number three is that we're targeting to lower our cost level by approximately EUR 20 million in 2026 compared to 2025, which Mikko just elaborated.

Number four, we continue to execute on the strategy, as I've mentioned a few times previously, with a focus on both growth opportunities, but at the same time how we increase our relative value creation potential and all of which should lead to our aim to continue to have an extremely strong balance sheet with excellent cash flow.

So with that, I think I'll turn it over to you, Aki.

Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Mikko. With that, operator, we are ready for the Q&A session.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

It's Antti from SEB. A couple of questions from me. I'll start with the comments on the U.S. demand, which you are talking about an uncertain environment, but at the same time, not expecting any incremental weakness anymore. So could you maybe open up a little bit on those comments in a sense that have you seen something start of, let's say, '26 in the first couple of months that would indicate that your own business has stabilized? Is this more comment on what you are looking at the leading indicators and the overall macroenvironment on -- especially on the U.S. delivery side?

Yes. How about I start with that. Thank you, Antti. In terms of the U.S. side, to elaborate more broadly, we really see that the same factors that have led to the demand environment, especially that we saw in the latter part of Q1 last year and then, of course, through Q2, 3 and 4 should continue into 2026. So we aren't at this point seeing any variables that would lead us to believe that the environment gets more, let's say, unstable or an imminent additional risk. So we feel like we have pretty good visibility in terms of the risk.

The environment, at least at this point, continues to be quite similar as it was in '25 and also somewhat similar to the prior year period as well in terms of we still see more robust demand from our larger key account customers. So a good portion of the business is still driven by bigger, more lumpy key account orders, which accounts for a bit of the negative variance if you think about Q4 '25 versus Q4 of '24.

So on the other hand, we still see pretty significant pressure on our small and medium-sized customers who are, to the extent possible, delaying decision-making with the environment at hand that it's hard to understand the level of cost out into the future that they'll actually experience relative to the environment that they'll experience when they take possession of the equipment. So we do still continue to see with small and medium-sized customers softer demand through delayed decision-making.

Yes. Just maybe a reminder on how the start of '25, let's say, Q1, Q2 and especially on the smaller clients in the U.S. Is this kind of a tough comparison if we think about the run rate that you're now entering this year versus what it was 1 year ago?

Yes. I'll answer it this way, and hopefully, I hit the point you're getting to, Antti. If you think about the Q4 '24, we had a rather large key account order that hit our order intake in Q4 that we didn't match in the comparison period in '25 and Q4. We had a couple of nice sized key account orders in '25, but not at the magnitude that we had in '24, which accounted for primarily the variance, especially in the U.S. market that you're mentioning.

Now if you think about the beginning of '25, the demand environment from the U.S. did give early indications that it might uptick if -- as we examine more closely the development sequentially throughout the year of order intake and particularly in the U.S. But of course, once the trade tensions manifested themselves, then, of course, we've seen a pretty consistent level of demand as a consequence from that point forward. And we still see that carrying forward into '26 at this point.

All right. And then a couple of more, let's say, housekeeping related profitability questions. First is on the service profitability and understand the EUR 1 million negative impact that you point out. But the margin trend is still a little bit different than what we saw on second and third quarter on the top line, that's not really that much different. So is there something more in play? Just trying to get my estimates right for this year. Is that kind of the '24, '25 margin level a bit too challenging for current environment? Or how should we think about that?

Yes. Thanks for the question. So basically, quarter 4 service profitability without this EUR 1 million, U.S. healthcare deficit coverage was 22%. And this is lower than, for example, as you indicated, lower than quarter 1, 2 or 3. And here, basically, the other underlying reason is the lower installation volumes what we have had in Services throughout 2025. And this is due to the fact that the Equipment order book has declined and the equipment volumes have been lower. So there has been less installation volumes during quarter 4.

There are certain kind of fixed costs like rents for the installation workshops, and this has lowered the services profitability. That's basically the -- those are the underlying reasons.

So the installation volumes that impact service profitability dropped in Q4 versus the previous 2 quarters?

Yes. And also compared to quarter 4 2024.

Okay. And then the last one was on something that you said on the group admin side, I mean, EUR 11 million for the quarter, if I remember now, a bit higher than what it has been. Is this a number that then you will further increase by, what was it, EUR 5 million annually going into this year?

There are certain fluctuations, quarterly fluctuations in the group admin costs. So that should not necessarily be used as a run rate. But if you think the full year 2025 and what I indicated in the outlook that on top of that we anticipate to have roughly EUR 5 million related to the systems development, which is then expected to generate cost savings in the later -- kind of in the later years once the system landscape has been simplified.

The next question comes from Panu Laitinmaki from Danske Bank.

I have a few. I will start with the U.S. market outlook, going back to the previous discussion. What do you think is the underlying reason causing the uncertainty? Is it that your product prices have increased and the customers are kind of -- they need to digest that? Or is it just the uncertainty around like what happens with the tariffs next?

Yes, thanks for the question. Just to clarify a bit, we still see the hangover from a couple of years prior where we still have a bit of the inflationary environment that we inherited from the COVID situation, followed by the increase in interest rates. Then, of course, the new variable that entered the equation last year was then the changing trade environment as a result of changes in tariff regime. So where we see a slight difference that I hadn't articulated earlier is we do see that more acutely impacting our, let's say, retail last mile type customers.

So broadly speaking, we see it impacting still similarly in our building construction supplies, waste and recycling, construction logistics. But where we do see a difference here is in our retail last mile customers, if you're looking for a bit of what changed kind of sequentially through the year in 2025 and certainly more so in the second half of the year. Now that both impacted the top line and as Mikko articulated earlier, also created a situation where we weren't quite able to keep up with cost out relative to the change in the top line. So we had a bit of trapped or under-absorbed costs that we'll attend to throughout this year, if you will, as part of our cost savings.

But that mainly are the underlying factors there. So you still have the inflationary environment, the additional variable trade tensions, where we do see a bit of change in behavior who, based on the changes in demand was most impacted were the retail last mile customers.

Okay. Then on the market outlook in Europe, could you talk about like what are you seeing there? And how are the different segments performing, especially interested on defense and construction?

Yes. Yes, we certainly saw in Europe a nice or, let's say, a steady pickup in our Logistics segment, which shows up in part of our lifting solutions. We still see a relatively stable construction environment. So we're yet to see real evidence of, let's say, a sustained uptick in the demand curve, but we have seen some green shoots there where we've perhaps -- well, we picked up our sales. Whether it's an issue of gaining market share or not, we're not sure. I'd say more broadly, in some geographies we're up, some down. So on balance, we're saying we're relatively stable in terms of the overall market shares in that segment.

At the same time, of course, we're seeing a pickup in defense logistics. However, it's important to note that, that's one area of our business where you'll tend to see a large spread in from taking the order or having order received versus the revenue recognition. Often, those contracts are multiyear contracts to be delivered over a longer time series. So then the time between order received and rev rec might be long-ish. So there'll be a bit of a spread between our order intake development versus seeing that in revenue side, keep that in mind, and some of which will be dependent upon our partners in the transaction and how they choose to fulfill the orders that they have to the various military organizations that they provide those solutions to.

And then in terms of services, similar story more broadly speaking, we continue to see a nice steady uptick in both order intake as well as services, primarily -- or in revenue rather, and then primarily driven by the execution of the strategy, as I had mentioned earlier in the presentation. We see the nice uptick in our ProCare contract coverage. It's working nicely for both our dealers as well as executing in terms of the direct sales. And we have more to come there.

Similarly, we see a nice uptick in connected units that are turned on, and now we're able to engage more meaningfully with our customers on an ongoing basis relative to how the installed base is performing. But then at the same time, it also gives us a unique opportunity to engage with them in terms of the actual cost and productivity and safety outcomes that they're experiencing. And that's translating into better services revenue uptake as well.

All right. Then my final question is on the guidance, or actually 2 things around the guidance. First one is that can you comment if the more than 13% margin is a guidance for each of the quarters this year? So will it be higher than 13% every quarter? And then more importantly, what are the kind of swing factors in the guidance? You said that it's a floor, and I get that it's quite early in the year, so it's probably conservative. But what are the kind of positives that could drive margin higher than the floor level? And any comments around those?

Yes. Thanks for the excellent question. As I mentioned in the kind of background of the outlook, we have incorporated the EUR 20 million cost savings in that outlook. And based on the labor union or labor works council negotiations, we anticipate that the new organization could come into force in quarter 2. So that means that mostly those savings would be visible in the second half of 2026. So from that point of view, I would say that one can't say that it's every quarter above 13%. This is a full year outlook, and we aim at being above that 13%.

The next question comes from Andreas Koski from BNP Paribas.

A number of questions from me as well. So if I can start with the backlog development. You now have a backlog that is 18% lower compared to 1 year ago. And I wonder how will this impact sales in 2026 compared to 2025, i.e., is there a lower absolute amount from the backlog that will be delivered in '26 compared to what we saw in '25?

Yes. I'd say that -- Andreas, thanks for the question. So I'd say the right way to think about the backlog and then how we are thinking about the sales realization in '26 is as follows. So on the one hand, if I come back to the prior question from Panu, the lower order book by EUR 114 million means that we have been that much less visibility to our revenue curve into '26. So that's an influencing factor in terms of where we set the floor. Having said that, we've set the floor 100 basis points higher than we did in each of the prior 2 years.

On the other hand, then what I would say is the right way to think about the revenue recognition for '26 is a bit more a factor of looking at the trailing last 12 months order intake. And then as we've indicated, we're at or about the EUR 1.5 billion range. So that's for us the right starting point of how we think about the potential for this year and then how it relates into setting the outlook for '26. But at this point, we don't give the outlook relative to the top line development, primarily because we have -- we're a short-cycle business, so we have this 4 to 5 months' worth of visibility into our revenue curve with where our order book stands, which is quite at a normal level now.

Understood. And is it fair to say that, it sounds like you expect the recovery to continue in EMEA and APAC, and you are now saying that the U.S. market is at trough. So in total, it sounds like you expect total orders to move upwards from the stable level that we have now seen for a number of years? Is that the correct reading of what you're saying?

Well, what we're saying is that we are -- if you look at the trends throughout '25, we see a nice recovery in EMEA and APAC. But of course, if you think back to Q4, for example, so Q4 compared to the comparison period, we had a negative variance, whereas we had positive variance for the entire year. So there is still a bit of variability, which is also part of why we're at this point not providing guidance on order intake or revenue for the year. And at the same time, we see that if the environment in the U.S. continues as it was in '25, then we would expect for the demand environment to look similar to what it did in '25 at this point.

Okay. Understood. And then on the 16 new dealers that you have signed since the beginning of 2024, are most of them at full speed now? And do you see that you are performing better than the market because of these new dealer agreements?

Yes. Excellent question. And I would say, broadly speaking, not yet. Many of the dealers that we've onboarded have been into the latter half of '24 and then throughout '25. So we're, let's say, sequencing the onboarding of the dealers, which, of course, is quite a nice and involved process in terms of getting them up to speed on our offering, getting the systems behind the support and then at the same time, getting everyone in both the dealers as well as on our side up and mobilized in order to help ensure and secure that our dealers are able to deliver on behalf of today's and tomorrow's customers. So we're at varying stages of mobilizing the dealers. So I would say, broadly speaking, no, all 16 dealers aren't at full speed yet, but some of which are and we're over time getting all of the dealers up to speed. And then we would anticipate to continue to add additional dealers as we progress through '26.

Understood. And then quickly on the balance sheet. Is the Board considering any more extraordinary dividends in the years to come? Or is the priority now to do acquisitions and grow organically?

Well, I'd say that we have a full mandate to leverage the balance sheet to catalyze growth, both organically and inorganically and continue to explore ways in which we would successfully deliver value creation back to our shareholders.

The next question comes from Tom Skogman from DNB Carnegie. [Audio Gap] [Operator Instructions]

The next question comes from Mikael Doepel from Nordea.

This is Mikael Doepel from Nordea. So a couple of questions from my side. First of all, how big part of your total revenues or orders was the defense business in 2025?

Yes. On an order basis, our defense for full year '25 is approximately 7%, so a little bit up from 24%.

Okay. That's very clear. And then secondly, if you look at 2026, I mean, I understand that you have your cost [indiscernible]. But if you look at the underlying trends in costs, how do you see that developing in terms of material costs, in terms of labor costs? And also, are you still adjusting pricing upward [ or downwards ]? Just a bit on the price-cost equation?

Yes. So in terms of material cost, there -- we still have in our execution plans specific actions that are both process related as well as design related that we think on balance are going to provide favorable variance in terms of our bill of material cost. Labor cost, of course, we have the statutory increases that we assume will come. We don't yet have visibility in terms of what the magnitude of that impact will be, which we're taking into consideration relative to our cost savings program.

And then in terms of our pricing environment, as always, we -- there are certain products that we surely are seeking additional pricing for, which we've already announced, both in terms of equipment as well as the services side of the business. And there may be a number of SKUs where we go into this year with flat pricing. It all depends on the market list pricing, which is the nature of the environment in which we compete in.

Okay. No, that is clear. And then just related to pricing, just a brief follow-up. So do you see -- I mean, in terms of tariffs, would you say that you are still fully able to compensate on that? Or is that having -- or do you expect that to have some sort of impact on your margin in 2026?

Yes. Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. And of course, there are always -- there's always variance around timing, Mikael. But broadly speaking, so far, yes.

All in all, as discussed earlier, basically, our principle has been to treat the tariff as a cost element. So we pass that cost to our customers. We don't put the profit margin on the tariff. And basically, in last year the tariffs had roughly EUR 20 million impact kind of tailwind to our order intake and then roughly EUR 15 million in sales.

Related to pricing we have also one question from the webcast. So our customers pushing back more on pricing compared to prior periods now?

I'd say, as always, our customers are seeking for the best possible price. So -- and we have great customers, so we have tough negotiators. But I wouldn't say that it's a different level of environment as compared to what we're normally seeing. So it's our obligation to offer the best possible price.

The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

Maybe you already answered on the previous one, but I was just wanting to ask how much of that kind of 0% organic order growth in '25 was pricing? I mean you said that tariffs had a EUR 20 million impact, but how about price increases otherwise?

Yes. In -- I would say that in our Equipment business globally without the tariffs and in Europe and in Americas, I would say that the pricing has been fairly flat in 2025 compared to 2024. In Services we have done certain low single-digit price increases, mainly to reflect, for example, topics like labor inflation. And then as mentioned earlier, we have implemented in the U.S. since the inflection of the tariffs then the tariff surcharge. But it's not in the price list, but it's a separate kind of cost item in the customer invoice.

And this is kind of positive or neutral versus kind of cost increases that you have accrued?

I would say neutral. Yes.

Okay. And then, I mean, I understand that there's no sales guidance, but I'll try anyways, because you mentioned that kind of the 12-month rolling order intake, a good starting point, around EUR 1.5 billion, that's also the Q4 run rate we are right now. Then you'll add EUR 50 million plus from the Brazilian acquisition and then you are kind of seeing European market recovering, U.S. market not coming down. So if I then add that scenario, that would be a growing top line and maybe together with the savings also growing earnings. Is there something that I'm misunderstanding here or being too optimistic?

So one topic to consider is that we had still in -- if you look at the run rate for the revenues, we had more than EUR 400 million revenues in the first and second quarter of 2025. And that was still coming from the -- a bit higher kind of order intake run rate from 2024 and the backlog as well. So perhaps looking the kind of second half -- well, like I said, the rolling 12 months is the indicator what we are using for kind of sizing our costs and planning the operational activities.

Sure. And then the ING acquisition, is there anything you want to point out on how much margin dilutive that would be on the Equipment business, if anything? Or is there some kind of cost saving synergies that would already impact this year's numbers?

There is a certain PPA impact. I would say that on an EBITA level, it would be fairly stable as an Equipment business. But then on an EBIT level, there is a certain PPA element, which we will then open as we proceed in 2026 reporting.

The next question comes from Tom Skogman from DNB Carnegie.

I would just like to start by asking, do you have expectations for larger defense orders in '26? I guess these are projects that are discussed for a long time. What do you know?

Yes, I'll start there and please chip in, Mikko, if I miss something here. But the backlog is pretty robust and exactly as you described, Tom, we've pretty fairly well known and understood. As we have discussed maybe since late '24, however, we have seen a number of, let's say, shorter cycle opportunities that have popped up. And that's maybe one of the key differences that we've seen in the demand environment with defense logistics.

So whilst we have a view today in terms of what the value of the backlog is and what each individual opportunity is, it could easily be so that there are new opportunities that present themselves throughout the year that we didn't foresee as we speak right now. So that's probably the one change. In terms of the expectation of how we'll convert that this year, extremely hard to call as those orders are frustrating at best to dial in as part of a forecast. I'll put it that way.

But overall, I would say that the funnel looks good for the defense business.

Yes.

But the timing is...

Timing is really difficult to call. Yes.

Okay. And then on your Service business, how large share of sales in 2025 related to installation of new equipment?

Yes, you can think of it this way. Our nonrecurring revenue for 2025 was around 24%, 25%, which is linked to our new equipment sales. Installation specifically slightly down probably from the last time that I think we had this conversation, so between 10% and 15%.

Okay. And then what about the utilization rates of your equipment? I didn't see any slide on that when you have your sensors. Is it still the situation in the U.S. that equipment is used a lot, but they don't order?

Yes. We've seen a lot of change in variability in the utilization. Some periods have been up, some down, also changes as it relates to equipment in Europe versus equipment in the Americas. So on balance, fairly stable as it related to the prior year period. But to your point, Tom, it's -- we're still in this environment where our customers are sweating the assets. That's no question about that.

And then when you get new distributors, is it so that they start by building up an inventory? Or do you need to ship kind of things just to display to them? Or how does it usually work now when you get this kind of larger new distribution contracts?

It depends on the nature of the equipment. Some equipment is advantageous for the distributors to have inventory of other equipment. It's not necessary based on our lead times. So it all depends on the focus of the particular dealer. Not so insightful if I make a broad statement of some dealers will build up a bit of inventory because they're going to focus more on longer cycle business or longer lead time businesses versus others that will have, let's say, relatively short-cycle equipment.

Having said that, an example where that's a bit counterintuitive is the tail lifts would be a great example where we have distributors in Europe that do maintain a level of inventory because of the need for less than 1 day fulfillment, both in terms of the tail lift as well as the parts that are associated with the tail lift. So it all depends.

Yes. But the U.S. distributors do not really have inventories of cranes for it?

Correct.

And then the EUR 10 million cost saving, how is it split between OpEx and SG&A cost?

Part of the -- Part of these cost savings come -- we have not specified how much comes to the SG&A cost. Part of that will be visible also above gross profit. But overall EUR 20 million savings in '26 versus the 2025 cost level. Yes.

Yes. And just a bit more color. If you think about it compared to '25, then we anticipate a bit more shift towards the below gross profit level cost savings. But at this point, too early to say as we need to complete the labor negotiations process first. Then we can provide a bit more color on that as we progress through the year, Tom.

And then finally, with the current FX rates and especially the dollar rate, how big impact do you expect it to have on EBIT after all hedges and everything basically?

Well, I would say that if we would take, say, 10% weakening of the U.S. dollar from the, let's say, average second half of U.S.-euro rate, that would -- that 10% would mean roughly EUR 8 million decline in comparable operating profit.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers.

Okay. Thank you for the good questions and for the presentation and answer for Mikko and Scott. We will be back on 24th of April with our first quarter results, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Okay. I think clock is now 1:00 here in Helsinki, so I can welcome you to Hiab's pre-silent call ahead of our fourth quarter results. Still some people joining, so I'm letting them in.

So we will start having a presentation by Mikko Puolakka, recapping the third quarter results and any notable releases during the fourth quarter. After that one, we will have a Q&A session. [Operator Instructions]. Just to note that this call is recorded and will be then later available on Hiab's website.

So with that, over to you, Mikko.

Thank you, Aki, and happy New Year also from my side. So a quick recap on our quarter 3 results, then a couple of words about the releases and the developments, what we have seen during quarter 4, and then, like Aki said, questions-and-answers section.

About quarter 3. So our order intake was EUR 351 million. That was down by 3% year-on-year. And based on the first 9 months performance, our order intake was more or less flat compared to the previous year. So this was now the 3rd -- 12th consecutive quarter in a row when our order intake has been fairly flat. Our last 12 months order intake has been roughly on the level of EUR 1.5 billion. And primarily the order, kind of, intake headwind we have seen, the Americas region, especially in the U.S. area. While in Europe, we have seen some improvement in the overall market and also in a couple of seg end markets like defense logistics and the wind segment orders what we have announced also earlier in 2025.

When we look geographically, the first 9 months EMEA has been up by 13%. Americas down by 14%, very much driven by the tariff-related uncertainties, especially smaller customers withholding their investment decisions, while some kind of bigger home improvement customers have been still quite nicely placing orders. On a positive side, there has been a positive momentum in defense logistics. We have a very good pipeline in that area, of course, the deals typically -- kind of, the revenue we recognized from the defense logistics orders, typically, over multiple years. And then the energy segment, like mentioned already earlier.

All in all, there is a robust replacement demand both in EMEA, but also in Americas, like I said, in the U.S., especially the larger kind of home improvement customers have been renewing their fleet. But on the kind of minus side, trade tensions in the U.S., those have increased the customers' uncertainty, and that's why we have seen, especially in the smaller customers in the U.S., quite cautious ordering activity.

Our sales decreased in quarter 3 due to the lower order book. Sales were basically on the same level what we had the order intake in quarter 3. Currencies, in currencies, we had, in quarter 3, roughly 2 percentage points negative impact. And if we look at the year-to-date 9 months sales, that's down by 6%, primarily coming from the U.S. market, that lower order intake, especially in the early part of the year.

Americas' sales was down by 9% during the first 9 months. EMEA was down by 4%. APAC sales grew slightly in quarter 3, but year-to-date, September, more or less flat on year-on-year basis. We have had a good development in the Eco portfolio sales, especially in the circular solutions and climate solutions. So year-to-date, 38% of the total sales.

If we look at our comparable operating profit, so especially in quarter 3, our comparable operating profit was negatively impacted by the lower U.S. equipment sales. That impact was approximately EUR 20 million in our comparable operating profit. Gross profit margin decreased by 80 basis points, also very much coming from the U.S., kind of, lower utilization. SG&A costs, we have been able to reduce year-on-year, but that's not necessarily enough to compensate quite sizable decline in the U.S. equipment sales. And that's why we have also announced in connection of quarter 3, the EUR 20 million cost savings program in order to protect the profitability in 2026 if this kind of market activity would continue in the coming quarters.

Key takeaways from quarter 3. So overall, the market uncertainty has continued. Overall, we have not seen any dramatic changes compared to the previous quarters. So gradual improvement in EMEA, while in Americas, especially in the U.S., the customers' decisions have been impacted by the tariff situation. Despite the market situation, we have been able to improve our comparable operating profit if we look at the rolling 12 months performance. And as mentioned, we have started the planning for the EUR 20 million cost savings program. And this would be EUR 20 million lower costs compared to the 2025 level.

Nothing has been changed in our strategy. So even despite the current tariff situation in the U.S., we see that the U.S. market is able to offer us good growth opportunities in the future by addressing those white spaces, what we have, for example, in the Central and Western part of the U.S. Also services and the focus on 4 key growth segments have still been intact in our strategy. So overall, no changes in our strategy.

Despite the lower top line, our cash flow has been very strong in the first 9 months, and our balance sheet is also very strong, offering, for example, in quarter 3, if we would look the quarter 3 balance sheet, that would offer us roughly EUR 800 million M&A firepower. And with that kind of EUR 800 million additional debt, we would be still below the 50% year-end target.

A couple of releases from quarter 4. So we announced in the first week of January, the acquisition of ING Cranes. ING has been founded in 2010. Last -- 2024 revenues, EUR 50 million. We had already, before the ING acquisition, a business in Brazil, Argos, which we acquired back in 2017. Argos has been mainly focusing on light and medium loader cranes, while ING brings into our portfolio the heavier loader cranes in the Brazilian market. So actually quite nice complementary acquisition for our Brazilian business, plus then offering also sales channels for the Southern American markets.

We also announced the proposals by the Nomination Board for the Board of Directors. So the current Board members would continue except for Ilkka Herlin, who has informed that he is not available for reelection in the AGM, which is to be held on 24th of March. And the other releases -- press releases, what we have announced, during quarter 4, you can find in our website.

And as a last topic, our outlook for 2025 is unchanged. So what we have said already earlier this year, we are aiming at reaching higher than 13.5% comparable operating profit. And as we are now at the end of the year, I would like to remind you also about our dividend policy, which is 30% to 50% of the net income.

Thank you, Mikko. We can jump to this consensus already now and then take the Q&A. So we -- at the change of the year, we also changed the provider of our consensus services. So we now work with Modular Finance. So all of the analysts will be -- sell-side analysts will be reached out by Modular Finance to collect in the numbers. The consensus is now available on Hiab's website, hiabgroup.com.

But with that, we jump to Q&A. And Antti Kansanen was first with his hand. Please, Antti, go ahead.

Yes. A couple of questions, and I'll start with the earnings side of things. If we think about Q4 versus Q4 last year, I think there was a couple of recurring type of cost elements on the fourth quarter last year. So how much of those that you don't expect to repeat this year? Just a reminder. And maybe then also reflecting on the EUR 20 million that you are flagging on the lower U.S. sales impact on Q3, will that impact be different on Q4 in terms of realized savings or higher volumes on the U.S. production on the fourth quarter?

Thank you, Antti. So if I remember correctly, we had, last year, in quarter 4, approximately EUR 15 million nonrecurring items. We have also announced when we communicated this EUR 20 million cost savings program that for the full transparency, we will report these as items affecting comparability, so below the comparable operating profit. However, as the program is still on the planning phase, we do not anticipate, let's say, significant amount of one-off items in quarter 4, some but not in a significant manner. Once the program implementation starts in the first half of this year based on the planning, then we should start to see the nonrecurring items.

What comes to the U.S.? Our quarter 3, like you mentioned, was impacted by the lower volumes. We got a fairly sizable home improvement customer order in quarter 2. And basically, that order, we have started to deliver now in quarter 4. So that will support the U.S. market profitability to some extent at least. So the expectation is that, that kind of volume impact would contribute to the equipment and total higher top line in quarter 4.

Okay. And then on the order side, don't have it in front of me, don't remember if you disclosed the U.S. orders from Q4 last year. But overall, just if you think about kind of the run rate that we saw in the U.S., especially on the equipment side in the past 2 quarters versus Q4 last year, what's kind of the delta?

We have not -- if I remember correctly, in quarter 4, we have not announced any sizable orders in the U.S. So the comparison period as such was quite high.

Yes. And is there any seasonality that if we just like think about that the demand is similar as it has been, let's say, Q3? Is Q4 typically higher and lower in any type of calendar impacts or anything like that?

Overall, quarter 3 for us is the lowest, typically due to the holiday season, and then quarter 4 is higher than quarter 3. And if I think the U.S. market in general, like I mentioned also earlier that there are kind of bigger customers, are kind of quite okay from the investment side, while the smaller customers are more considerate. However, with the bigger customers, the order timing might sometimes fluctuate so that they don't necessarily place orders in every quarter.

Thank you, Antti. And next in line, we have Mikael Doepel.

Yes. So a couple of questions. Just firstly, coming back to the cost takeout. So just to be clear here, so what you're saying is that it's still in the planning phase and it's going to be implemented in the first half of this year, but you still expect the full EUR 20 million to flow through on the P&L next year? And related to that, how big will the one-off cost be at the end of the day?

Yes, it's still in the planning phase. Of course, we need to have the works council negotiations before we can start to do the implementation. This EUR 20 million is the 2026 impact. So if you would compare at the end of 2026, our cost base, that would be EUR 20 million -- fixed cost base, that would be EUR 20 million lower compared to 2025.

And on the one-off costs...

One-off costs. We would come to the one-off costs most probably somewhere around the full year results announcement, in February.

Okay. Yes, right. And this EUR 20 million, is this purely just layoffs? Or are you doing something else as well to get those costs down?

It's anticipated that it comes from various sources, personnel costs surplus, also other non-personnel-related costs.

Okay. Good. Then just secondly, on this aftermarket or the service business. So despite the fact that the markets have been fairly muted overall, I think you have been able to grow the business in quite a good way in the last couple of quarters. How should we think about this business going forward into Q4 into next year? What are kind of the levers for you to keep that business growing? And are you seeing any headwinds within this aftermarket business currently?

Overall, like you said, despite the equipment volumes decline, we have been able to grow the services business. In our case, in 2025, the services growth has been very much coming from the recurring services, so spare parts, maintenance-related services. And this is actually very much according to our strategy because in our strategy, we have been focusing on the connected fleet, increasing through that basically the spare parts capture rate from the, let's say, current 47% towards 52% by 2028. And then basically, whenever we sell new equipment, we try to combine with that also the maintenance contract. And through the maintenance contract, then we can ensure that we or our partners, like dealers, get then the maintenance work and the spare parts sales when the customer requires the servicing.

So basically, we have not, let's say, made any kind of new inventions as such, but we are just prudently executing those strategic initiatives, which we have been, let's say, identifying already, some years backwards. And these are now starting to bear the fruit, and you can see that in our service development.

What comes to the U.S. market? We have seen that equipment utilization in the U.S. has been on a good level despite kind of new equipment orders declining, so indicating that customers are actively using the equipment and for that purposes, they need to buy spare parts. In the U.S., we have seen to some extent that customers are perhaps not holding as large spare parts inventories and what they kind of in a pre-tariff situation would hold in the spirit of not tying up capital in the inventories.

Okay. And then just finally, a question on your guidance. So you tend to guide an adjusted EBIT margin for the year. Is this the way forward as well? Or are you considering some other measures, perhaps sales growth or something else also for this year? Any changes planned for the guidance essentially the question?

At the moment, no changes planned. So we have considered that for us the most important is the profitable growth. And of course, we want to make sure that the profitability is on that kind of trajectory that it brings us to the 16% comparable operating profit margin by 2028.

Next in line is Tom Skogman.

I'd just like to talk a bit about the dynamics of the U.S. market. So I mean, now we have had a time with tariffs on your products and also on trucks. I've heard at least some rumors that in the truck industry that some seem to have difficulties to push through the tariffs and are backing off a bit, not to kill demand too much. Have you heard anything about this? And are you 100% confident your kind of price hikes are sticking basically?

Yes, I can't talk about the others. But in our case, we have sticked with the principle that tariff is an extra cost for us, which we move to the customers. So we are also very transparent with the so-called tariff surcharge in our invoicing, not kind of hiding it in the price list, but showing as a separate line item in the invoice.

Of course, we are doing also actively measures to mitigate as much as possible the tariff impacts, localizing the supply chain. We already assembly more than 50% of our U.S. revenues in the U.S. market. So continuously looking ways at how can we reduce the tariff cost, and that is also something what we continuously also reflect in the customer invoicing. So not kind of just sitting and waiting because most probably these tariffs are here to stay at least in some extent or in some form and shape.

And in our industry, many of the OEMs have a similar type of assembly setup that we have. So global supply chains with local assembly, so no clear big differences between the players.

And there seems to be discipline that all stick to kind of adding tariffs to prices. You don't see this? [ You were inside the market. ]

Yes. This is what our competitors have been doing as well. And in the U.S., the most -- let's say, most of the competition is coming from European companies.

We have seen lately that the Trump administration is quite active when it comes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, trying to boost private consumption and construction, making it easier for the consumer. But do you see any positive signs in some segment of the market or some geography in the U.S.? Or is it still just negativity everywhere, basically?

At least so far, until today, we have not seen any kind of notable changes in customers' behavior in the U.S. market, in none of the kind of end markets where we operate.

And then the opposite in Germany, we have seen good construction data in December. Do you see any -- the recovery is continuing, I guess, but do you see that it's accelerating or...

I would say that the recovery, what we started to see in the latter part of 2024, has continued in those main markets like Germany, here in Europe. I can't say that we would have seen a kind of acceleration in the recovery, but solid development in that improvement part. Still, it's good to remember that -- or note that also our European volumes, if we would look the unit volumes, those are not necessarily in all markets even yet on 2019 level. So there is a kind of a replacement need coming -- piling up, but at least so far, we have not seen any kind of accelerated replacement activities.

Overall, good tendering activity has continued like we saw already in quarter 3, but still it takes quite a while for the customers to make the kind of final investment decisions also in Europe.

And then I'd like to not discuss the Q4 margin yet, but if you go to H1, I mean, you had very good margins in H1 in '25. And help us to -- or remind us about the cost savings you had last year when you had the biggest incremental help. I mean, how is it then you roll over to Q1 and Q2 in 2026, then apparently, these savings for this year, this EUR 20 million will not really help now in H1. It's rather an H2 thing now. And -- but you had savings, if I remember right, immediately from the beginning of last year, right?

Yes. Some kind of quick wins we had already from the beginning of 2025. But I would say that let's say, majority of the previous EUR 20 million cost savings kind of a run rate we started to reach somewhere in the middle of 2025. And also in this new program, which we announced now in quarter 3, I would say that it will not have, let's say, significant impact in the -- at least not in the first quarter and possibly also not yet in the very early part of the second quarter.

As a reminder, so in the first half last year, the U.S. business were still much less impacted by the slow decision-making as we had volumes stemming from the latter part of '24 and January '25.

So do you -- I mean, is it wise just to expect that margins go down in the first 6 months then given you have lower order books and these savings are not really helping now the new savings in H1 and you had big savings from the beginning of last year? It sounds like that. I mean it's just good that we don't expect too high margins in H1, if that's the case at the moment, that it's more of a...

Yes, let's come back to the 2026 margins when we provide the full year outlook. But yes, overall, like I said, the first half of last year, i.e., 2025 was still quite normal for the U.S. market, while we were then negatively impacted in quarter 3 and to a certain extent, in quarter 4, even though we started to book some of the revenues from those U.S. orders, which we received in quarter 2. But overall, as the U.S. order intake has been lower this year compared to last year, that will at least impact us to a certain extent in the first half of next year, before the cost savings start to kick in.

Then finally, are you in active acquisition discussions for more companies at the moment given your strong balance sheet and earlier communication?

We have discussions with potential target companies.

[ Edward ], you next in headline.

Sorry about that. Just an understanding on the EUR 20 million savings. Is this a structural saving? Or if the market turned in the U.S., as one hopes it does and gets back to a normalized market conditions, how much of that EUR 20 million would you actually see having to go back in? And then just on the other question, do you actually see then a sort of margin mix dilution as the equipment part picks up, going back to your comment about the overall usage and extension of either rental and lease contracts and over usage of equipment as it is, that you actually see the new kit being bought and the service side drops? That's one.

And then the other question was just on pricing in the U.S. If you looked at your pricing for '26 versus your pricing that you were thinking about for the second half of '25, is there a major delta difference between that thinking?

Thanks for the questions. First on the savings, we aim at doing as much as possible structural savings. So those should be fairly sticky, i.e., not kind of traveling type of savings, which might go up when the business picks up. So as much as possible, structural savings. Then what comes to the mix when the business improves? Yes, the equipment growth -- equipment business growth might have a slightly negative impact on the mix as services is now a bigger portion of the business due to the equipment sales decline. But it's good to remember that before the U.S. market decline also, our equipment business was doing a very solid double-digit comparable operating profit.

So yes, equipment growth can have a slightly negative adverse impact on the mix. But on the other hand, with the equipment volumes, we can get good leverage on our SG&A costs.

And then what comes to the pricing in the U.S.? I would say that the kind of underlying pricing in the U.S. has been fairly stable. But then, of course, due to this tariff surcharge, I would say that our pricing kind of invoicing to customers has been, say, 10-plus percent higher since, I would say, 1st of March compared to the beginning of 2025.

Okay. And then just a last question. If you just look at the overall inventory between both from yourselves and from competitors actually in the distribution network, how is that looking running into '26?

In our case, our kind of inventories have declined in 2025 due to the top line declining. And if we think our dealers, they don't typically hold sizable inventories. They kind of -- when they get an order from the customer, then they place an order for our equipment, so they don't -- except for some kind of high runner, very standardized products. Otherwise, they don't typically hold sizable inventories.

I don't see any hands up or any questions in the chat, but if we have any questions from the telephone lines, now is your chance.

So I don't hear any questions from the telephone lines, but [ Edward ] has a follow-up. So please go ahead.

Sorry, I'll take an opportunity then. You talked earlier about discussions with clients in the U.S. that not much really has changed. But if you take the commentary from the larger clients at least, I mean what is their planning for '26? I mean, okay, we had the whole tariff friction through '25, but at some point, companies just say, "Okay, we just have to swallow it to a certain extent. We've had it so far. There's a degree of known dynamics within it. We've got to get on with the business." So what are they actually talking to you, the larger clients, at least who probably have the financial flexibility to make decisions?

Yes. The larger clients, they have done, for example, market consolidation. So they have been buying competitors. And what they have been doing in '25 and most probably they would possibly do also in '26 is this kind of fleet renewals. They might have thousands of our equipment in use. And basically, every year, they may have to replace hundreds of those. So basically, they have -- like you said, they have stronger balance sheets. They have established relationships with leasing companies, and they are looking perhaps things in a bit longer time horizon than perhaps smaller players who might kind of have a bit more constrained balance sheet.

Thank you. I don't see any further hands up, so it's time to conclude today's call. So we will go into the silent period on 22nd of January, and the results will be published on 12th of February.

So stay tuned and have a nice, let's say, winter so far, and let's get back to the topics on 12th of February. So thank you, and bye-bye.

Thank you.

Welcome to Hiab's Third Quarter 2025 Results Call. My name is Aki Vesikallio. I'm from the Investor Relations. Today's results will be presented by CEO, Scott Philips; and CFO, Mikko Puolakka. And as a reminder, please pay attention to the disclaimer in the presentation as we will be making forward-looking statements. Hiab's Q3 profitability was affected by lower sales in the U.S. Our orders decreased slightly. Comparable operating profit margin decreased to 11.4% due to lower sales in the U.S., which was caused by elevated market uncertainty due to increased trade tensions. However, our services business continued to grow. Sale of MacGregor was closed on 31st of July, and the business is now separated from the company. Let's then view today's agenda. First, Scott will present the group level topics. Mikko will go through reporting segments, financials in more detail and the outlook. After Mikko, Scott will join the stage for key takeaways before the Q&A session.

With that, over to you, Scott.

Thank you, Aki. And greetings, everyone, from my side. I will start with a few highlights looking towards executing on our strategy of profitable growth for the future. First, I'm pleased to share with you that we announced a partnership with Forterra to further develop automated solutions for our lOad Handling Systems business. So really exciting development there.

Next, we launched a new 3.5 ton truck-mounted forklift for the EU, which will enable our MOFFETT forklift -- our MOFFETT branded solutions to be the clear industry leader in this size class of delivery solutions. And I would also like to highlight that we announced the launch of the smartest cable hoist solution in the U.S. market under our GALFAB brand. So really proud of the work the teams have done on both sides of the Atlantic there. And finally, we are pleased to announce the revised long-range climate targets, aiming to be net zero by 2050.

Now getting into the financials for the quarter. I'll start first with order intake. Our orders received in the quarter declined by 3% to EUR 351 million versus last year comparison period of EUR 361 million. And then as a consequence, as you see on the left-hand side of the slide, we've gone from EUR 900 million order book to roughly EUR 636 million at this time last year and now stabilizing out around EUR 557 million following this quarter.

Now for the period year-to-date, our order intake is up 1 percentage point to EUR 1.1 billion versus last year. And as you think about the last 12 months order intake, we're somewhere around the EUR 1.5 billion level, which has been the case for approximately the last 2 years. Now the decrease in orders received was driven primarily by the delayed customer decision-making in the U.S. Of course, that was partially offset by Defense Logistics, and we won a nice Wind segment order that we announced previously in the quarter.

Currencies had a 2 percentage point negative impact on orders received in Q3, which we had highlighted would be the case with last quarter's results call.

Now looking further into the geographic distribution of the order intake. Our EMEA market was represented 56% of the orders for the quarter or EUR 195 million versus last year at EUR 155 million. So that's up 26%. Year-to-date, we're at EUR 587 million versus EUR 518 million last year. That's a change of 13% year-over-year, year-to-date. In the Americas, however, a bit different picture. In the quarter, we were EUR 132 million versus last year at EUR 185 million. So that's a 29% reduction. Therefore, year-to-date, we're down 14% versus last year at EUR 435 million versus EUR 504 million the prior year.

And in APAC, we were up nicely in the quarter by 11% from EUR 24 million versus EUR 22 million last year. Year-to-date, we're at EUR 84 million versus last year's year-to-date figure of EUR 72 million or up 16%. In terms of the operating environment, we do continue to have positive momentum in our Defense Logistics and Energy segment opportunities. So that's good.

We have also a big robust replacement demand that's driving the majority of our business. Of course, on the negative side, we still have the uncertainty of the trade tensions. And this, of course, has impacted the demand curve, in particular, in the Americas and in particular, drilling further in the U.S. market, which, of course, means our U.S. customers have remained quite cautious.

Then moving into the sales development. Sales in the quarter were down 11%, so EUR 346 million versus last year's comparison period of EUR 388 million. And year-to-date, we're at EUR 1.16 billion, which is 6% below last year's level at this time, which is EUR 1.235 billion. And then on an organic basis or in constant currencies, we're down 8% in the quarter versus last year and 5% year-to-date.

Of course, our services percent of sales grew in the quarter to 34% versus last year's comparison period at 29% year-to-date. Services represent 30% of sales versus last year's year-to-date figure of 28%. So sales have leveled out at the -- approximately the level that we would expect given our prior 11, 12 quarters' worth of order intake adjusted for the seasonality effect. But of course, the big story was the negative impact that we had in the U.S. market, which I'll cover in the next slide.

So looking into the geographic distribution of the sales. EMEA represented 51% of our sales in the quarter, down slightly from last year, 5%. Year-to-date, EMEA is at EUR 573 million versus last year at this time at EUR 599 million. So that's a 4% decline. In the Americas, however, is where we had the biggest decline. Americas in the quarter was EUR 140 million versus EUR 177 million last year, a 21% drop year-to-date. We're at 9% down versus last year, EUR 508 million versus EUR 556 million.

And in APAC, much like the order intake, we were up slightly EUR 29 million in sales versus last year's Q3 of EUR 24 million in sales, representing an 18% positive variance. Then year-to-date in APAC, we're down 1% or EUR 1 million, EUR 79 million versus last year at EUR 80 million. Our ECO Portfolio sales continues on a positive development. We're at EUR 140 million in the quarter of ECO portfolio sales versus last year comparison period of EUR 114 million, so that's up 23% year-to-date, EUR 437 million versus last year, year-to-date at EUR 354 million, up 23%.

So as indicated earlier, our sales decline was most prominent in the Americas. EMEA sales declined slightly, of course, linked quite closely to the order intake development in the region. APAC sales increased slightly, which, of course, is also linked to the order intake development in APAC. And on the positive note, our ECO portfolio sales increased, in particular, in our circular solutions from our service business as well as our Climate Solutions and our Lifting Solutions equipment business.

Then looking into the profitability. For the quarter, our comparable operating profit was EUR 40 million versus last year, EUR 52 million. That's a 24% drop on the EUR 42 million drop in sales quarter-over-quarter. That puts our year-to-date comparable operating profit at EUR 166 million versus last year's EUR 176 million, representing a 6% drop. which, of course, all occurred within the quarter. On a percentage basis, our comparable operating profit percentage was 11.4% versus 13.4% last year. And year-to-date, we're at 14.3%, which is on the same level as last year due to our good performance in the first half of this year.

We were primarily impacted by the EUR 20 million negative impact from our lower sales in the U.S. as I highlighted on previous slides. Our gross profit margin also decreased slightly by 80 basis points, primarily due to the change in the revenue curve, which we weren't able to fully offset with cost out in line with sales development or the revenue development. However, our SG&A costs were lower in the quarter by approximately EUR 5 million. EUR 1 million lower in sales and marketing, EUR 4 million lower in administrative costs, so well in line with our EUR 20 million cost reduction program that we announced last year.

And then as a consequence, our operative return on capital employed improved driven by the nice development of managing the working capital within the team, especially as it relates to the days sales outstanding. So really strong execution in that regard. Then as we've done each of the past few quarters, we want to highlight where we are relative to our long-term targets. So just to remind you, our long-term target was to was to be on a level of 7% CAGR over the cycle, 16% comparable operating profit and above 25% return on capital employed.

Our progress as of through Q3 of this year, our rolling 10-year average is down slightly to 6%. Our long-term -- last 12 months comparable operating profit is at 13.1%. This compares to 12.7% where we were at this time last year. And our last 12 months return on capital employed is at 29.8%.

So with that, I'll hand it over to Mikko.

Good morning also from my side. Let's first have a look on the Equipment segment's performance in the third quarter. Equipment segment had a slightly positive book-to-bill in quarter 3 with EUR 239 million order intake. Gifting equipment quarter 3 orders were actually flat, while the delivery equipment orders declined. This delivery equipment orders decline came from the U.S., as mentioned already earlier by Scott, and this is very much caused by the trade tensions driven slowness in our customers' investment decisions.

Equipment sales was EUR 230 million. This is a 17% decline from prior year. Lifting equipment sales was flat year-on-year. So the decline came solely from the delivery equipment and in particular, from the U.S. market. The Equipment comparable operating profit declined to EUR 20 million, which represents an 8.8% margin. This decline in margin is solely again, attributable to the delivery equipment sales decline and very much attributable to the U.S. market.

You can see clearly in the bridge on the right-hand side there, what kind of impact the EUR 46 million decline in Delivery Equipment volumes had in our profitability in quarter 3. The gross profit margin was negatively impacted by lower volumes. So all in all, the Equipment as well as the whole Hiab quarter 3 profitability was impacted by the lower delivery equipment sales in the U.S.

Services grew nicely in quarter 3. We continue to increase the number of connected units, and there has been also really good intake for maintenance contracts as well. The growth both in orders and sales came from recurring services like spare parts and maintenance. Services grew even in Americas as there is an installed base, which needs to be up and running every day. Services profitability was on a good level, 23.5%, especially thanks to the higher sales as well as commercial and sourcing actions.

When we look at the services profitability bridge, profitability improved by EUR 5 million in quarter 3. The main drivers for better profitability were EUR 4 million higher sales as well as the previously mentioned commercial and sourcing actions, which improved the gross profit margin in services. Also, the services fixed costs were slightly lower compared to the previous year.

The foreign exchange or the translation impact had roughly 3% units negative impact in Services quarter 3 orders, sales as well as profitability. Let's have a look then at the total Hiab financials, and I'll focus here more on the right-hand side, the profitability bridge. The comparable operating profit declined EUR 12 million from the comparison period. Here, the EUR 42 million decline in sales is the main factor behind the lower profitability.

As described earlier in the call, lower sales impacted also our gross profit margin, as mentioned by Scott earlier, it was 0.8% units lower. It's good to remember that some of the costs above the gross profit margin like factory overheads, those are not fully scalable within a few quarters. So when we have lower revenues like we had in quarter 3 that has a slight negative impact on the gross profit margin.

We got some tailwind from the lower SG&A, which were roughly EUR 5 million lower than last year and then EUR 8 million year-to-date September. The currencies, as you can see from the picture, had a minor roughly EUR 1 million negative impact on our profitability in quarter 3. On a positive note, our cash conversion, i.e., the cash flow versus comparable operating profit was 173% for third quarter.

Net working capital decline was the biggest contributor to the over 100% cash conversion and the net working capital declined mainly in accounts receivables. The reported cash flow still includes July cash flow from MacGregor, but as can be seen on the chart, the contribution to the overall cash flow was relatively small. When we look at our balance sheet, McGregor has now fully been removed from Hiab's balance sheet at the end of July 2025. Hiab is now EUR 308 million net cash position, and this converts to a minus 32% gearing at the end of September.

As you have noted, we have also paid an additional dividend of roughly EUR 100 million in October. This is not yet visible in this September balance sheet numbers. If the dividend payment would have taken place in September, our gearing would have been minus 21% in September. Still a very, very strong balance sheet.

On the right-hand side, you can see that we have a couple of outstanding interest-bearing debts, one EUR 25 million maturing this year and another bond EUR 150 million in September '26..

About our outlook, we reiterate our outlook for 2025. Our estimation is that the comparable operating profit margin for 2025 is above 13.5%. And please note that this is the floor for our profitability. This outlook is based on the year-to-date September comparable operating profit margin of 14.3%, as well as the order book that we have in hand at the moment and then also the current situation related to ongoing trade tensions.

And then I would like to hand the presentation back to Scott for the quarter 3 summary.

Thank you, Mikko. All right. Summarizing the quarter, a few key takeaways. Market uncertainty has continued to negatively impact our business. And keep in mind, we're a relatively short-cycled business. So we see these impacts in a relatively short period of time. But despite the market situation, we have been able to improve on our last 12 months comparable operating profit margin, so strong execution on delivering what we've committed to deliver.

However, as a consequence in the uncertainty level that continues to be the case, we will start planning for a program which would target approximately EUR 20 million lower cost level in 2026, compared to current levels to give ourselves a bit more resilience and flexibility in dealing with the ongoing levels of uncertainty. However, we continue to execute on our strategy and focus on activating growth opportunities where they exist. And I would reiterate that we have an incredibly strong balance sheet, generating strong cash flow and that continues year-to-date, and that will continue to be our primary focus, moving forward.

So I think we're well-positioned to deal with the levels of uncertainties that we face in the future and I feel really positive about our ability to deal with the changes in the demand curve, whether they would be up or down.

So with that, I'll hand back over to Aki.

Thank you, Scott, and thank you, Mikko. Now we are ready for the Q&A. Operator?

[Operator Instructions]

The next question comes from Panu Laitinmaki from Danske Bank.

I would have 3. Firstly, starting on the margins. I was a bit surprised to see such a big change in Q3 given that sales has been declining for 2 years already. So basically, the question is that what caused this? Is this mainly under absorption of fixed costs? Or is there an element that the lost U.S. sales had like really good gross margin compared to the rest of the business?

Do you want to take it?

I can take that. Yes. As we mentioned, basically, this profitability decline is fully attributable to the U.S. market and -- this is stemming actually from the fact that we started to see already in the beginning of the year, basically from February onwards, weaker order intake caused by these trade tensions. And as we have a fairly short lead time from the order to the delivery, we started to see that sales weakness already now in quarter 3. And this is stemming very much from the delivery equipment, truck-mounted forklifts, tail lifts in the U.S. market.

This is the reason for the lower margins. As you can see, yes, our SG&A costs went down, but those are not enough to volume impact, which is then in addition to the U.S. market decline then also connected with the low seasonal volumes.

Yes. Just to add a bit more color there. I think just to reiterate for you, Panu, it was a combination, as you pointed out, of sales decline which primarily happen in the U.S., but also it was more impactful than we would have anticipated from a mix perspective. So both of the 2 businesses that were primarily impacted there, normally have margins that are quite accretive to the overall higher margins.

Okay. Then secondly, on Q4, so what are you seeing in the -- during the rest of this year in terms of orders, like -- are the trends similar? Or should we expect sequential worsening? And also maybe if you can comment on the margins. So should we expect that the seasonality Q3 was maybe the lowest point of the year and how should we think about Q4 as in the comparison period, you had this restructuring costs last year?

Yes. As you point out, we certainly tend to have a seasonality impact in Q3, which we've called out previously, anywhere in the 10% to 15% range, which we did see that materialize overall primarily due to the lower working days, both in Europe as well as in the U.S. So similarly, we would expect to see Q4 top line to be -- from a sales perspective, more in line with our trailing last month order intake and similarly follow the pattern of seasonality, whether it's negative or positive. So we expect Q4 to be quite in line with what you typically see in Q4.

Okay. And then thirdly, could you talk about Europe? So we saw pretty good orders in there. What is driving this? You mentioned defense and the wind order, but is this like an overall market recovery or some single orders? And do you have any kind of improvement in the Construction segment yet?

Sure. I'd say 4 points that I'd highlight here. One, as we alluded to in the presentation material, primarily the demand is replacement cycle driven, which should follow along the lines of pattern that we would expect to see given the life cycle of our products. Two, we certainly are seeing an uptick in activity on the quote side on the lead generation side. We have seen a mixed picture in terms of lead conversion throughout the period, which has been interesting.

Then the third point I'd highlight, as I alluded to earlier in the discussion, the Defense Logistics was a positive within the quarter. But then if you add the Defense Logistics from Q2, Q3, we were roughly flattish with an increasing pipeline of opportunity. And then the last point, we have seen a number of lumpy large key account deals. And in this case, in our Wind Energy segment that converted. So that was primarily the drivers for the increased level of order intake in Europe.

The next question comes from Andreas Koski from BNP Pariba Exane.

So firstly, I want to try to get your thoughts about 2026. When I listen to truck manufacturers, it sounds like the truck market is not going to improve at least substantially in 2026 or 2025. And now you are planning for restructuring program aiming to lower your cost base by EUR 20 million. So should I read that as a signal that you share the truck manufacturer's view that 2026 is most likely not going to be much stronger than 2025?

Yes, I can start this one. Yes. Thanks for the question, Andreas. The way we think about 2026 is twofold. One is that we will adjust our cost base on the basis of what our trailing order intake levels are. And on that basis as well as the change in the mix that we've seen now reflected in the sales result, it's obvious that we need to adjust the cost base just to make sure that we're covered relative to the changes we've seen both in terms of the trailing order intake as well as then how that's affected from a mix perspective.

And then in terms of the top line development for next year, we haven't typically provided forward-looking comments on the top line development. But of course, we want to plan for a scenario that would allow us flexibility to deliver if the demand curve were to pick up. And similarly, we want to manage our cost base so that we're well covered in the event that the demand curve goes in the negative direction.

Understood. And then I understand that the tariffs might have impacted the demand for your products, but did it in any meaningful way also impact your your cost levels and in combination with that, what kind of price increases did you see in this quarter? And what should we expect for the coming quarters?

Yes, sure. I can start with this one and Mikko, you can pick up if I miss a point here. Yes. Thanks for the question, Andreas. So what our policy has been our practice, so year-to-date relative to the tariff responses that we're trying to implement surcharges that we transparently share with our customers. So that we could stay neutral from a cost perspective, and that still remains our view today.

So I would -- I couldn't say that we got either a positive or a negative impact relative to the tariffs. And if we did, it'd be just a matter of timing. I think Mikko alluded to in his presentation, though, the impact relative to order intake and to the sales level and perhaps maybe you can reiterate the impacts there.

Yes. In our quarter 3 order intake, we had less than EUR 10 million kind of let's say, price increase effect coming from the tariff surcharges in sales due to the lead times, one could say that the impact was almost plus/minus 0. And the main impact there, I would say, from tariffs is on the demand side. So it's -- like Scott said, we are basically moving the tariff cost to the customer prices.

I might be mistaken, but if I remember correctly, when we discussed on the pre-close call, we talked about price increases of 10% to 20%, but maybe I'm mistaken there, but was that on the case?

Depending on the product category, the surcharges have been around 10% to 20% depending on the product category. These changes all the time because there are also changes in the tariff regulations and what kind of components are included in the tariffs. We are also doing actively measures how to mitigate the tariffs changing our supply chain so that we could make this as, let's say, bearable to our customers as possible.

The next question comes from Antti Kansanen from SEB.

It's Antti from SEB. I will start with the same topic on the U.S. orders and sales going forward, kind of reflecting back to the price increases and the tariff surcharges. I mean, I get to a number that on a volume basis, your orders contracted quite a lot on the third quarter compared to what they were on the first half of the year. So I just wanted to better understand that is -- will the volume impact on profitability be much more severe going into Q4 and perhaps Q1 next year as it seems that the volumes that you are getting into your factories are still on a decline.

Yes. If I take this one, you can complement. So overall, you may remember that in quarter 2, we received a key account order Order in the Home Improvement area. Basically, if one calculates the kind of lead times from the order to the delivery, we would start basically the delivery of that order, let's say, in the beginning of quarter 4. So that would then support the top line development in the U.S. in the quarter 4. That would allow them better loading for our factories, both in Europe as well as in U.S., which are supplying that kind of product during quarter 4, and that should also then improve the U.S. profitability in quarter 4.

Okay. And then the second one was on clarification on the previous questions on the difference between the communicated surcharges, 10% to 20%, and they achieved kind of the price impact, which I calculate to be around 8% of the U.S. orders. I'm not exactly sure if I calculate it correctly, but is the delta kind of something that you have given up on pricing in order to secure volumes? Or is there something -- some other dynamic in play here?

Now these are basically this 10% to 20%, these are the surcharges. And then, of course, our, let's say, order intake, it cannot be kind of just simply be calculated from our kind of year-on-year order intake development development. So basically, like Scott mentioned, if there is a tariff of EUR 100 that EUR 100 million is reflected in the tariff surcharge to our customer invoicing or in the order intake.

Okay. And then on the development outside of Americas, I guess, mainly in Europe where you are flagging Defense Logistics and Energy Wind orders. Is there something regarding delivery times that we should be taking into account? Are there kind of a bigger deals or, let's say, frame contracts in the Q3 orders that would have a longer delivery times? Or should we just assume that it's a normal kind of a backlog to sales rotation?

Yes, I can start this here and Mikko please jump in if this isn't reflecting an accurate picture. But we reflected in Q3 Antti, relative to the wind order is a consequence of a frame agreement that will be reflected as order intake over a number of quarters. So it's not a case where the entirety of the order was reflected in one quarter, and then it will be delivered sequentially from there over a period of time, but rather the order intake will also be reflected a bit more in line with the revenue recognition.

All right. Makes sense. And then the last one for me is the EUR 20 million cost savings program to be implemented next year. Will there be a one-off cost booked on Q4? And will that be included in the adjusted EBIT that you are guiding for? Or will that be a one-off?

In case based on the initiative planning in case there would be one-off cost. We would report those in items affecting comparability -- so separately below the comparable operating profit depends on the planning and then we would be also opening how much that kind of cost we would have in quarter 4 or in 2026.

The next question comes from Tom Skogman from DNB Carnegie.

This is Tom from DNB Carnegie. Did I understand correctly does that if you book an EU item, it is kind of above EBIT adjusted, like last year?

So if we book for this EUR 20 million cost savings program, one-off costs, those would be reported as items affecting comparability below the comparable operating profit. So not included in the comparable operating profit.

Why will it be different from last year?

This is very much related to the, of course, weakness in the U.S. market. But the EUR 20 million program would be company-wide. Previous programs have been more related to the kind of general optimization of the business, also in line with the order book. But this EUR 20 million is of course, in the first place, very much driven by the trade tensions.

Okay. And then I wonder about -- I mean this is perhaps more kind of a general big picture discussion. So last year, Americas was 45% of sales, and you have painted a picture where the Americas is quite an immature market. You have a lot of kind of white spots in distribution in the U.S. But still, I mean, it's been almost half of your business. So -- and I just remember 10, 15 years ago, Spain was the world's largest market. And that market basically never got back to all levels. It was so overheated. So could there be like just a risk that it will take many, many years before the U.S. market is back to where it has been in the last couple of years? Or do you really feel confident that it's just normal fast breaking, fast accelerating in the U.S. market? Or are there some kind of risk elements there that suggest that it could be that it takes many years to go back to all record levels?

Yes. I'll start with this one. And thanks, Tom. I take this in pieces. So you mentioned our characterization of the U.S. market. And the way that we characterize it is threefold, if you will. So on the one hand, we were quite mature in our penetration of delivery solutions as it relates to serving primarily the building construction supply market. Two, we've had -- continue to have and did have quite a strong position also in delivery solutions relative to retail and last mile. So those were fairly mature markets, a long ways to go, especially on the retail last mile given the market share position relative to the #1 competitor that we face on a daily basis. Then the way we characterize it is we're underpenetrated both in our knuckle boom loader cranes as well as our hook lift and mountable solutions, primarily in waste and recycling, perhaps somewhat in terms of Defense Logistics that the market was definitely underpenetrated relative to knuckle boom loader cranes in the Construction segment as well. the way in which we wanted to attend to this is, is that we have a lot of geographic white spots because we weren't structurally set up similar to how we are structured in a European country, let alone Europe as a continent. And that was a weakness on our part.

So the way that we've been attending to it and we continue to execute on the strategy is, is that we're turning on at scale distribution channel partners to cover the geographic white spots with a focus on shoring up those areas that we both were underpenetrated because of just lack of scale of sales and service excellence to support those products, but then also the geographic lack of coverage that we had as well. So that continues to be ongoing.

Now in terms of the comparison relative to Spain, I'd say there's 2 things to keep in mind. Of course, let me start with the really obvious one is that just mirror scale, it's an order of 10x magnitude difference in terms of the GDP of comparing the U.S. versus Spain. But then more importantly, probably is the fact that the growth in Spain was primarily driven by one segment that was Construction. So at one time, it was one of the world's, if not the world's largest construction applied knuckle boom crane markets. And of course, that's the segment that had most been impacted following the global financial crisis.

And to your point, hasn't quite recovered or hasn't recovered at all relative to the pre-global financial crisis levels. But definitely 2 different comparison cases and thinking through Spain versus the U.S. because the basket of of segments that we serve relative to our full portfolio, completely different opportunity set, if you will, in the U.S. versus, well, any country in Europe, but especially if you think about a country like Spain. Having said that, we've got a lot of opportunity to grow in Spain as we are underpenetrated there.

So what do you think then will be kind of -- what are you looking for in the U.S. is a trigger for customers to start ordering more again. What will be the trigger I mean the interest rate is quite high on the housing and the ABI index is not that strong. For instance, or just that you have this tariff situation with the loads of parts imported from Mexico that is just kind of cooling the entire market and we get the solution to that, then this will be normal again. What are you looking for?

Yes. Yes. I'll sound like a broken record here, Tom, but I think it's still a factor of I can bifurcate it into 2 parts, right? One on the one hand, you're right, we need to see the macroeconomic costs come down a bit for our U.S. customers that we've talked about a lot, especially last year and a little bit in the first half of this year. in terms of overall inflation as well as the general level of interest expense.

But I think then moving to the second piece now, of course, it's a matter of getting some stability in terms of being able to plan the business in the future on what your general cost level is going to be, I think that's a key factor as well. And then I would then add one more point to this scenario is that, once you see the level of stability achieved that no doubt will happen, it's just a matter of when. Then you'll start to see a pickup, I believe, from the stimulus bill that was enacted earlier in the year that I think is characterized as the one big beautiful bill. At the same time, we know that with the aging of our equipment in the installed base, there will be a robust replacement cycle coming as well.

Okay. And then finally, on the Defense side, I mean, it's just easy to say that it's a promising market generally. But I would like to understand a bit more. I mean we have seen orders from, for instance, the U.S. army and orders from Rheinmetall or bundle -- to Rheinmetall. But -- is it so that we should kind of perhaps also expect that just kind of national defense forces in different countries will be kind of major customers? Or will it be more like kind of defense companies that will order from you or how will it be?

Yes, I can start here as well. Yes. Thanks for the question again, Tom. In Defense, we have a 40-plus year history of serving not only the U.S. Department of Defense, but then also the majority, if not all, of NATO countries as well as NATO partner countries, which will continue to do moving forward. And you're right, each of the defense organizations have made commitments to increasing spend unfortunately, due to the geopolitical changes that we've seen materialize over the last 3, 4, 5 years. And we expect that to continue moving forward.

The challenge that we have is being able to forecast and model that business because the majority, if not all of these opportunities are typically larger tender opportunities that have quite a lot of variability in terms of time of opportunity to decision in terms of who that deal is going to be awarded to. And it's worked on both sides of the equation for us, if you think through the last year.

On the one hand, we've seen more faster-moving emergent opportunities. And then on the other hand, we've also seen delays of opportunities that we knew were there prior to this period of increased geopolitical uncertainty that have pushed to the right. So difficult to model on our side in terms of the timing, both of booking the order as well as then how that will materialize and the change in revenue recognition.

There are no more questions at this time. So I hand the conference back to the speakers.

Yes. We will have a couple of questions from from the iPad, from the webcast audience. So first question is about the service order trends. Is there any lagging impact from that? So what is the profitability trend in the services going forward?

Yes.

So on the Services side, the only real lag would be the nonrecurring revenue that we have. And if you think about the mix within the quarter, we were approximately 74%, 75% recurring revenue. So that's been on a nice trend relative to the overall Service, both order intake as well as revenue. Within the nonrecurring, of course, you have installations that are a factor of the equipment lead times. And so that tends to be the piece that lags behind. But otherwise, the rest of the services order intake, will follow and link quite nicely to the revenue recognition.

Yes. Thanks. And then we have a couple of questions. I'll try to combine them. It's both are related to the tariffs. So we went through quite a lot of the parts of the question already but there was also a question, do we see permanent impact that could be caused by the tariffs. For example, could we lose some of the U.S. customers because of these tariffs permanently? And do we have any estimates how long the situation would last?

Yes. So I'll start with the easy part first, the last part of that question. Hard to tell, right, how long this will last. One thing that's certain is, is that I myself have lived in 9 countries, and I've had a long career of this type of work and serving 100 to 200 different countries and most countries have some form of tariffs. So we can count on that. There will continue to be some form of tariff.

I think really, the core of the issue and the question is then how long will this level of uncertainty last? And that's hard to call at this point. So our job is to be as resilient in our overall cost as well as our ability to deliver and execute as we possibly can. So we need to be prepared that this level of uncertainty may continue indefinitely.

And could you please then still repeat what were the mitigating measures that we do? And do we individually negotiate with U.S. to get lower tariffs?

Yes. So far, no, we haven't directly negotiated with the U.S. government on the tariffs. That one, we haven't had the opportunity to, and I'm not aware that any individual company has. But what we do, however, is that the way we sell our equipment is a function of market list price, and we sell on value. So therefore, from the tariff perspective, relative to our price positioning, this is more mechanical, if you will. So the contribution of the equipment that is under subject to a tariff, then we transparently share that information with our customers. We link that then to a surcharge that is simply a mathematical calculation and we try to work on other mitigating factors on the market list price to see if we can make this more attractive for our customers or not.

But to reiterate, the biggest impact at this point from the change in the trade policies has been on the demand cycle because all businesses have a need to be able to forecast the forward-looking cost in order to then be able to take risk on deploying capital in order to catalyze or to run their business or to grow their business.

Supply also to reduce the, let's say, tariff base as an example yes. And then it's good to remember that a significant part of our U.S. sales are assembled in the U.S., but of course, the ultimate tariff depends on where the components are coming from.

Thank you, Mikko. Thank you, Scott. And that concludes our third quarter earnings call. So we published our financial calendar for next year yesterday. So we will be back in February 2026. Thank you for watching.

Thank you.

Thank you.