We also consider the stock's performance disappointing. Within our company, however, we cannot identify a specific cause for it. Negative news came from other companies in the hydrogen industry. Certain competitors have portrayed the future with an overly optimistic outlook, particularly concerning the timeline. This sentiment was then projected onto us.

That is certainly an aspect we are closely examining. Compared to other companies in the SDax, our trading volume doesn't look too bad. It's true that we have two major shareholders, Thyssenkrupp and Industrie De Nora. We still view this as stabilizing for our business. Additionally, there are synergies. De Nora is an important supplier for us. In Thyssenkrupp's Decarbon Technologies segment, there are applications for green hydrogen that we can offer essentially from one source.

That is not new. We have communicated this from the beginning. We have two strong partners who want to stay on board. Therefore, this structure was chosen, which is not entirely unusual for Germany. Furthermore, the general partner also needs to be relieved of its duties at the annual general meeting, and the management must be accountable to the shareholders.

Arno Pfannschmidt clearly enjoys his work. Working for a startup is a new experience in the career of Thyssenkrupp Nucera's CFO. Strictly speaking, last year's newcomer to the stock market is anything but a startup, as it is a spin-off of Uhde, a company with a 100-year history. However, the hydrogen market, where Nucera is focusing all its growth efforts, is young. The graduated economist started his professional career more than 30 years ago at the traditional conglomerate Thyssenkrupp or its predecessor, Friedrich Krupp. From stainless steel in Italy to elevators in South Korea to marine shipping in Sweden – his resume reflects the entire portfolio of the conglomerate. Since 2014, the 63-year-old has been the CFO of the electrolyzer manufacturer. His current contract runs until 2025.

We sell an attractive product in a rapidly growing market that we aim to conquer. As you can see, with success: We have a contracted volume of three gigawatts. At the moment, we are focusing on the markets in Europe and North America because we can't do everything. We are well represented in the Middle East, and Australia will come later. These are expected to be the largest markets by 2030.

We are closely monitoring China, where a lot is happening, especially in simpler, cheaper technologies. We are closely watching how the overall costs, Capex and Opex (capital and operating expenses), develop over the entire life cycle. China is the benchmark for costs, against which we want to measure ourselves.

We have been operating in the electrolysis market for many decades. China accounts for half of all capacities for chlor-alkali electrolysis. We are successful there with a subsidiary. From the experiences we gained there, we learned that shorter-term business models are more successful. We must adapt to this trend; otherwise, we will not be competitive in the long term. We need to prepare for the relatively low Capex values prevailing in China.

This has historically evolved because our predecessor organization Uhde saw itself more as an engineering firm. We have the components delivered to the construction site and oversee the assembly. This is part of our de-risking strategy. De Nora is the best example. We own the intellectual property rights to the design of the electrolyzer cell, and De Nora exclusively manufactures for us at its facilities. In the entire value chain, we purchase about 120 packages. Certainly, there are components included in those, prompting us to consider whether we should handle their manufacturing internally moving forward.

In manufacturing, there are parts that influence important properties such as lifespan or power consumption. Two-thirds of the operating costs of an electrolyzer are electricity costs. Reducing these costs is one of our main concerns. This has made us successful in chlor-alkali electrolysis.

In theory, yes. But we are aware of that, of course. We won't do anything that harms us in the end. But we are operating in a growth market. We have always said that we want to become a little more independent from De Nora in terms of manufacturing the electrolyzer cell. De Nora is currently our only supplier. We have a contract manufacturing agreement that governs how we work together.

Not everything we buy from De Nora is manufactured by De Nora itself. The company has significant subcontracting. It's possible to consider producing some components ourselves, without reducing De Nora's portion of the pie. There are ways to reach agreements.

With the proceeds from the IPO, we were able to make ourselves financially independent from Thyssenkrupp. In the past, we were fully integrated into the cash management of the group. This means that even the important aval lines for large-scale plant construction came from Thyssenkrupp. Now we have negotiated these lines directly with the banks. After the IPO, we had an oversupply of aval lines and got very good terms, lower than, for example, with Thyssenkrupp.

We don't need the money immediately, even though we have a negative cash flow. We expect to break even in free cash flow in 2025/26. Until then, we have a lot planned, such as capacity expansion, establishing new locations, and expenditures for research and development. Qualifying new suppliers also causes initial losses. The money is primarily invested in short-term assets such as savings accounts and money market funds. Currently, we are getting 3 to 4% interest on them.

We have drawn up a very solid, realistic business plan until 2030. There is enough buffer in there. We work with large ranges. For research and development, we have budgeted between 150 and 250 million euros for the coming years, and the same amount again for investments.

The seals between the two half-shells in the electrolyzer cell are made of these materials. Currently, it is the only material that has the necessary properties. It's important to remember that hydrogen can be explosive. So, there is a valid interest in ensuring that the seal provides absolute closure. At the end of the life cycle of a cell – we're talking about 30 years – the seal is disposed of with controlled methods.

There is still no decision on this in Europe. We also believe that enough persuasion has been done by all affected industries by now. PFAS are also important for fuel cells.

A decision on PFAS is not expected before 2026, as the current consultation phase extends until the end of 2025. Based on the current situation, the application of a PFAS regulation can be expected in 2027/2028. However, it is important that a decision must be made more differentially than originally thought, as a ban would endanger many green technologies.