Investors' interest there is currently focused primarily on automation technology. It has been under pressure for some time. We have really taken all levers into our own hands there, from the sales model to the processes with digitalisation content. In principle, change is a good thing. But change also means, of course, that we have not yet reached our goal. There are still considerable uncertainties in the automation technology market.

We do not expect that, and we have not been sitting idly by hoping that things will improve on their own. Our costs for adjustment measures are considerable. But full implementation takes time, and there will still be expenses in the current fiscal year. If you factor these out, Digital Industries was significantly better than it currently appears. The important thing is that we feel very well positioned for the future at Digital Industries.

I don't want to blame trade tensions alone for this. But it is obvious that they are not helpful. We must continue to strengthen local value chains and increasingly compete with competitors in China.

Not to my knowledge. Local competitors are taking market share away from other international suppliers more than from us.

Our forecast is cautious. Currency translation alone is currently causing headwinds of around minus four percentage points in revenue growth and between 70 and 80 euro cents in earnings per share. If we ultimately perform better in the current fiscal year, I will of course be very happy. All in all, we are facing a very complicated overall situation with many influencing factors when it comes to forecasts.

You have to be careful with your assessment. The basis for comparison in the previous year was low, so I wouldn't overinterpret the positive development, even if the trend continues in the right direction. But it is not yet clear how this trend will continue. It's not just us saying this; most of our competitors see it similarly.

The company operates partly in a different market. If I compare their information on a geographical basis, we are not far apart.

The results are converted into our group currency, the euro, and a strong euro has a negative impact on us. In addition, there is considerable political uncertainty in this area. We will see the greatest currency impacts in the first half of the fiscal year, so the forecast effects will mainly be felt there.

It would be incorrect to say that the handover is early. My contract runs until December 14, 2026, which is common knowledge. It is therefore naturally important to consider how the succession in the finance department will be handled in order to ensure transparency and continuity. It is important to me that we can actively shape the handover to ensure the best possible transition to my successor.

It is my firm belief that any change of responsibilities should be accompanied by a reasonable overlap and a well-structured handover.

That's right. You know – and this is not a criticism – simply due to the circumstances, before my appointment as CFO, I flew to Berlin for a supervisory board meeting without ever having participated in a management board or supervisory board meeting in a decision making role before. Today, we are much better able to prepare for such succession processes in a forward looking manner. This also includes the handover to Ms. Bienert.

I am proud that we are filling the position internally. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Siemens Supervisory Board, and in particular its Chairman Jim Hagemann Snabe, for having prepared this process over a longer period of time. This is, incidentally, also the case with other executive board appointments, and is governance of the highest order.

Absolutely not. The strategic classification of businesses has to do with the target visions for how this company should develop. There is no difference of opinion between Roland and me on this. Individual aspects may be assessed differently. After all, a CEO is more of a shaper, and a CFO more of a „law enforcement officer.“ At some point, a decision has to be made. The Executive Board did so, and the Supervisory Board unanimously agreed.

There would have been no reason not to address the issue three months earlier or later. Fundamentally, however, our position with Healthineers is completely different now than it was at the time of the IPO in 2018.

At that time, medical technology had one of the highest valuations in the Siemens portfolio, with a very stable growth path and high profitability of around 18%. The rest of Siemens did not even achieve a double-digit margin at that time. Today, the situation is different. With Siemens' core business, we are approaching 20% in some areas, and the growth rate in the digital core may even reach double digits at some point.

It would indeed have been desirable for us to equip hospitals as Healthineers customers in conjunction with Siemens building technology and other products. Incidentally, this would also have been desirable for hospital operators, who should actually be interested in greater efficiency for cost management purposes. However, this has not happened across the board. The reasons range from regulation to fragmentation of the healthcare system.

In Siemens' core business, intelligent data usage, for example via artificial intelligence, acts as an additional growth accelerator. It scales according to global rules. If we apply AI to our automation technology product Simatic, for example, we can do so in China as well as in India or the US – everywhere according to the same pattern, because it is a privately regulated environment.

In the medtech world, far fewer products are manufactured, and fragmented regulations worldwide tend to increase the pressure for smaller market structures. Geopolitics is currently an additional factor.

It is important to keep in mind that Siemens has evolved significantly in recent years toward digital businesses, which are inherently much more resilient. Stability can also be achieved by adapting even better to market changes in a timely manner.

Of course, it will never be 100% successful. But when you look at how others are doing it, I think: if they can do it, we must be able to do it at least as well. Switching to a subscription model for many software products, for example, gives us significantly more resilience. So I don't believe that stability can be equated with diversification.

And for good reason. In the past, diversification was considered low risk. That has changed with the almost ubiquitous market access triggered by globalisation. In addition, the differences in financing potential are no longer as great as they used to be. Furthermore, diversified companies do not have as good market access as specialists, so-called pure plays. On top of that, the platform economy is ruthless: the winner takes the lion's share. Ultimately, investors say: if there is a diversification task, then we are the ones who can do it best, namely as the capital market. That has to be respected.

There are not many attractive alternatives. A non-cash dividend would involve a great deal of tax uncertainty. Selling a large block of shares puts a lot of pressure on the share price and is expensive to implement. Selling off the shares over 15 years is not a solution either. The volume involved would be too large for that.

In fact, this is the clearest and most elegant way forward. Healthineers already belongs to our shareholders, indirectly via our balance sheet. The Transformation Act makes it possible to give our shareholders Healthineers shares directly. Of course, all aspects of such a structure must be examined and clarified in detail.

We have spoken to almost all lawyers who understand the subject matter. We are also informed on the tax side. Nevertheless, this is a case that has never been seen before in Germany in this form. That is why we must treat the authorities' decision-making processes with respect and give the matter the time it needs.

If the direct spin-off does not work out, there are various alternative, albeit more complex and possibly more lengthy, structuring options for achieving the desired goal.

Investors are naturally concerned that we might do something that would trigger high tax payments for them. Anyone who has shares booked in their name and then receives a tax assessment must either sell some of the securities or contribute liquidity from another source in order to keep the shares. Investors, including small investors, don't like that. I understand that.

We don't have complete control over that. The custodian banks and tax offices are responsible. My experience in this regard has been very positive so far. But when you try to speed up regulation, you often end up shooting yourself in the foot. Given the materiality of the issue, a month or two doesn't matter.

It will be high. Very high.

Yes, but there's really no point in speculating at this stage. In any case, the magnitude of the book profit would mean we don't need to worry about whether it's a good idea or not – if we were just to focus on this aspect.

Of course, what applies to everyone also applies to the Mobility division: you have to generate a return on the capital invested. In this respect, the level of profitability is not what we want at first glance. But Mobility requires little capital and delivers very consistent cash flows. Mobility is an essential part of our synergistic core portfolio.

But from an annual or even longer-term perspective, it is quite clear: over the last twelve years, Mobility has generated 9.9 billion euros in cash flow from a good 10 billion euros in profits. The money generated in the income statement reliably ends up in our coffers. Incidentally, I don't see railway technology as small-batch production, but as a systems business that is increasingly based on platforms. That's a difference.

I don't want to disagree with that in principle. But our modular European Vectron locomotive, for example, is in high demand with over 2,800 units sold, featuring a digitally optimised life cycle concept from development to long-term operation and service. And this small-series business, which is not so small after all, is linked to the highly attractive automation and signalling business. There is enormous productivity potential here for railway operators. For example, increasing throughput in the use of a subway is essentially a matter of intelligent data management. From Siemens' perspective, the use of globally scalable artificial intelligence plays a much greater role here than in medical technology.