Standby 20 Karla, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, we'd like to welcome everyone to GrafTech International Ltd. Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question and answer session. Simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call over to Mike Dillon, Vice President Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to GrafTech International Ltd.'s fourth quarter and full year 2025 Earnings Call. Thank you for joining us. Joining me on the call are Timothy Flanagan, Chief Executive Officer, and Rory O'Donnell, Chief Financial Officer. Tim will begin with opening comments on our 2025 performance and an update on the commercial environment. Rory will then provide more details on our quarterly results and other financial matters. And Tim will close with additional comments on our outlook. We will then open the call to questions. Turning to our next slide. As a reminder, our comments today may include forward-looking statements regarding, among other things, performance, trends, and strategies. These statements are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by forward-looking statements are shown here. We will also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures, and these slides include the relevant non-GAAP reconciliations. You can find these slides in the Investor Relations section of our website at www.graftech.com. A replay of the call will also be available on our website. I'll now turn the call over to Tim.

Good morning. And thank you for joining GrafTech International Ltd.'s fourth quarter earnings call. We are operating in one of the most challenging environments the graphite electrode industry has seen in almost a decade. Marked by global overcapacity, aggressive competitor behavior, geopolitical uncertainty, and steel production trends that remain subdued in many regions. Despite these headwinds, our team continued to deliver for our customers, manage our cost structure aggressively, operate safely, and make meaningful progress on the priorities we laid out at the beginning of 2025. One of our primary objectives for the year was to continue to grow our volumes and market share and improve our geographic mix by shifting more business towards regions with stronger pricing fundamentals, particularly the United States. Our team executed the strategy effectively. On a full-year basis, we increased sales volume by 6%. As we have shared, our commercial strategy includes making deliberate decisions to walk away from volume opportunities that do not meet our margin requirements. This discipline is essential to protecting our long-term value, and we at GrafTech refuse to follow some of our competitors in the race to the bottom. While this meant that our full-year volume finished below our most recent guidance range, it was the right decision for our business and consistent with our commitment to value-focused growth, not volume for volume's sake. As it relates to our geographic mix shift, in the United States, our sales volume grew 48% for the full year, and in the fourth quarter alone, our US volume was up 83% versus the prior year. The shift towards the US, which remains the highest price region globally, helped mitigate some of the pricing pressure we experienced in other markets, as we'll speak to later. Cost management was another key area of focus for 2025, and we delivered meaningful results without compromising our commitment to quality, safety, or the environment. For the full year, we achieved an 11% reduction in our cash cost of goods sold per metric ton. This brings the cumulative reduction since 2023 to 31%, a remarkable achievement over a two-year period. Our ongoing cost management initiatives, including enhanced procurement strategies, energy efficiency improvements, and disciplined production scheduling, have been instrumental in driving these results. In addition, a key element of our strong cost performance in 2025 was the effective management of the impact of tariffs on our cost structure. Overall, our cost management efforts have created a more agile, more efficient manufacturing footprint that positions us well to control our production costs while navigating volatility in demand. These actions, combined with the effective management of our working capital and capital expenditure levels, resulted in full-year cash flow performance and a year-end liquidity position that exceeded our expectations. To that point, including cash on hand of $138 million, we ended 2025 with a liquidity position of $340 million, a level which enables us to maintain stability despite the persistence of industry-wide challenges. Lastly, we delivered on all of these objectives while achieving meaningful improvement in our safety performance. Turning to the next slide and building on this point. As you can see, our total recordable incident rate improved to 0.41 in 2025, representing our best safety performance on record. As we enter 2026, sustaining and building on this momentum must remain a critical focus. Our ultimate goal is zero injuries, and we will continue to work relentlessly towards that standard every single day. Looking back on all that was accomplished in 2025, I want to sincerely thank our entire team around the world for their remarkable efforts, resilience, and commitment during this pivotal time. Turning to the next slide. Let me provide our current thoughts on steel industry trends as context for the rest of our discussion around our performance and outlook. Global steel production outside of China was 843 million tons in 2025, up less than 1% compared to the prior year, with a global utilization rate of approximately 67% on a full-year basis in 2025. Looking at some of our key commercial regions using data recently published by the World Steel Association, for North America, steel production was up 1% in 2025 compared to the prior year, driven by 3% year-over-year growth in the United States. Conversely, in the EU, steel output in 2025 decreased 3% compared to 2024, remaining well below historical levels of steel production and utilization for that region. In fact, with 126 million tons of steel production within the EU in 2025, this represented a decline of more than 15% compared to the historical high levels of EU steel production achieved in 2021. Further, we estimate the steel utilization rates within the EU averaged just over 60% in 2025, which is well below the global average. Although the overall steel sector is still experiencing short-term challenges, as we've mentioned previously, there are indicators of a rebound in the steel market that have started to appear. Based on World Steel's most recent short-range outlook for steel demand, globally outside of China, World Steel is projecting 2026 steel demand to grow at 3.5% year-over-year. For the US, where the steel industry has experienced relative stability, World Steel is projecting a 1.8% steel demand growth in 2026. Along with this demand growth, favorable trade policies are expected to further support US steel production. In Europe, where the steel industry has been more challenged, World Steel is projecting a return in steel demand growth in the near term, forecasting demand growth of 3.2% for 2026. This reflects some of the demand drivers we've discussed in the past, including initiatives to increase infrastructure investments and defense spending, representing some of the key steel-intensive industries. In addition, provisions within the carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, implemented at the beginning of 2026, as well as new tariff protection measures that will be effective later this year, are expected to support higher levels of production in this key commercial region for GrafTech. Against this backdrop, we estimate that globally outside of China, demand for graphite electrodes will increase slightly in 2026, with all major regions expected to contribute. That said, it's not the level of electrode demand that's the key factor holding back our industry today. It's the supply side imbalance and ultimately pricing. This supply imbalance is driven by the gross overcapacity that has been built in both China and India, with Indian manufacturers expressing plans to bring additional and unneeded capacity to the market. Combined, they are flooding the markets with cheaply priced exports, which continue to distort the competitive landscape and threaten to destabilize the entire supply chain. In response, pricing behavior of other competitors has become increasingly aggressive and arguably irrational. All of this has translated into realized prices for the graphite electrode industry that have declined significantly over the past few years. For some time, we've been clear that the pricing levels are unsustainably low and not aligned with the indispensable nature of an electrode, let alone the level of investment required to maintain a stable, reliable supply of graphite electrodes for the steel industry. Further, the level of capacity rationalization that has been announced by ex-Chinese electrode producers to date has been inadequate to address the structural overcapacity issues in our industry. As a result, we saw a deterioration of competitor pricing discipline in the fourth quarter and expect that pressure to continue into 2026. This has happened even as steelmakers in the US and Europe announced price increases for finished steel products, reinforcing the disconnect between value creation in the steel industry and the pricing environment for graphite electrodes, a mission-critical consumable. Ultimately, the current market dynamics endanger the long-term viability of the graphite electrode industry. Given these realities, structural change on the supply side is long overdue. A failure to change the current course of the electrode industry will undoubtedly result in an equilibrium that will harm the steel industry for the long term. As the only pure-play graphite electrode producer outside of India and China, we remain committed to actively shifting this dynamic in order to support our customers who rely on us for quality and reliable products. To that end, let me send a clear message to all of our stakeholders. As a leader in the graphite electrode industry, GrafTech has and will continue to act decisively. In light of the prolonged downturn in the market environment, management, with the support of our Board, continues the evaluation of a number of areas, including optimizing our manufacturing footprint, opportunities for trade or policy-making support on a number of fronts, as well as other potential strategic partnerships and sources of capital. The focus of these efforts is to identify opportunities to enhance efficiency, preserve optionality, and position GrafTech for long-term value creation. With that, I'm going to turn the call over to Rory, who will provide some more color on our commercial and financial performance for the fourth quarter. I'll then wrap up our prepared remarks with further comments on our outlook, after which we'll take your questions.

Thank you, Tim, and good morning, everyone. Starting with our operations. Our production volume for the fourth quarter was approximately 28,000 metric tons, resulting in a capacity utilization rate of 60% for the quarter. This brought our full-year production level and utilization rate to 112,000 metric tons and 63%, respectively. On the commercial front, our sales volume in the fourth quarter was approximately 27,000 metric tons. This was flat to the prior year and fell short of our original expectations for the quarter. While a portion of the shortfall was attributed to the timing of certain shipments that shifted into 2026, as Tim noted, it also reflected our commercial strategy to not pursue certain volume opportunities that do not meet our margin expectations, particularly in the Middle East and in Europe. In the US, we grew our sales volume in the fourth quarter by 83% year-over-year, reflecting our ongoing success in shifting a significant portion of our volume to this key region. As we have discussed, for the full year, our sales volume within the US grew 48% compared to 2024, which is an impressive result given that steel production in the US was up only 3% in 2025. As a result, shipments to our US customers represented 31% of our full-year sales volume in 2025, compared to 22% in the prior year. Turning to price. Our average selling price for the fourth quarter was approximately $4,000 per metric ton, which represented a 9% decline compared to the prior year, and sequentially a 5% decline compared to the third quarter. The year-over-year decrease was driven by the substantial completion in 2024 of higher-priced long-term agreements, while the sequential decline reflected the competitive pricing dynamics that Tim discussed. Our strategy to shift more of our geographic mix towards the US helped to partially mitigate these impacts. In fact, we estimate that the higher mix of US volume compared to the prior year boosted our weighted average selling price for the fourth quarter by nearly $200 per metric ton, and by approximately $135 per metric ton on a full-year basis. Turning to cost. For the fourth quarter, our cash costs on a per metric ton basis were $4,019, representing a 2% year-over-year decline. While this is higher than our cost per metric ton reported in the first three quarters of the year, as we have noted in prior calls, we will have periodic quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in our cash cost recognition as a result of timing impacts, and this sequential increase was anticipated. For the full year, our cash costs were just over $3,800 per metric ton, an 11% reduction compared to 2024. This exceeded our previous guidance of a 10% year-over-year decline and remarkably resulted in a two-year cumulative decline in our cash COGS per metric ton of 31% compared to 2023. Our continued outperformance in this area reflects the team's extraordinary work in identifying and executing cost reduction opportunities across various components of our variable and fixed spending in order to control production costs at various levels of demand. These include drawing on our extensive experience in research and development to reduce the consumption of specific raw materials, executing procurement initiatives related to broadening our supplier network, helping us to minimize our variable costs even further, and capitalizing on our volume growth to enhance our fixed cost leverage. Further, we are achieving all of this while maintaining our dedication to product quality and reliability, as well as upholding our commitments to environmental responsibility and safety. Overall, we are pleased with this ongoing progress towards achieving our long-term expectation of cash costs being approximately $3,600 to $3,700 per metric ton. Turning to the next slide. Factoring all of this in, for the fourth quarter, we had a net loss of $65 million or $2.5 per share. This compares to a net loss of $49 million or $1.92 per share in the prior year, as the reduction in our costs only partially offset the year-over-year decline in weighted average price. For the fourth quarter, adjusted EBITDA was negative $22 million compared to negative $7 million in the prior year, with the change reflecting the same drivers I just noted. Turning to cash flow. For the fourth quarter, cash used in operating activities was $21 million, while adjusted free cash flow was negative $39 million. As a reminder, our semiannual interest payments of approximately $34 million related to our senior notes occur in the second and fourth quarters of each year. In addition, our CapEx spending for 2025 was heavily weighted toward the fourth quarter, with $18 million of our $39 million full-year spend coming in the fourth quarter. These factors were partially offset by a favorable change in net working capital for the fourth quarter, as was expected. Overall, as Tim noted, on a full-year basis, we performed ahead of our cash flow projections for 2025 and exceeded our year-end liquidity expectations. Turning to the next slide and expanding on this point. We ended the year with total liquidity of $340 million, consisting of $138 million of cash, $102 million of availability under our revolving credit facility, and $100 million of availability under our delayed draw term loan. As a reminder, the uncapped portion of our delayed draw term loan is available to be drawn until July 2026, and our expectation remains to draw on this residual portion. As it relates to our $225 million revolving credit facility, which matures in November 2028, we had no borrowings outstanding as of the end of the year. However, based on a springing financial covenant that considers our recent financial performance, borrowing availability under the revolver remains limited to approximately $115 million less currently outstanding letters of credit, which were approximately $14 million as of the end of the year. Overall, we believe our $340 million liquidity position, along with the absence of substantial debt maturities until December 2029, will support our ability to manage through near-term industry-wide challenges and provide strategic flexibility as we evaluate to ensure the long-term viability of our business. In my closing remarks, I would like to echo Tim's sentiments and extend my gratitude for the outstanding commitment and hard work demonstrated by our team members worldwide and thank our customers and our investors for their continued partnership. I will now turn the call back to Tim.

Thank you, Rory. I'll conclude our prepared remarks with some further comments on our outlook. As we've noted, given the persistent market challenges, we must evaluate and take decisive actions to preserve the long-term sustainability of our business. I want to be clear that while doing so, we remain committed to safety, product quality, delivering on our financial objectives, and ultimately meeting the needs of our customers who rely on us for high-quality, reliable products. To that end, we've established a number of strategic priorities for 2026 that leverage the commercial, operational, and financial progress that we've made over the past couple of years. These include building on our commercial momentum to further grow our volume and market share in 2026. For the year, we expect to grow our sales volume by 5% to 10% year-over-year, including a further shift in our geographic mix towards the United States. Currently, of our anticipated 2026 sales volume, we have approximately 65% committed in our order book, following the completion of customer negotiations that occur in the fourth quarter of each year, which is tracking slightly ahead of where we were at this point last year. Specific to 2026, we'd expect the year-over-year increase in our sales volume of approximately 10%. In addition, we will continue our initiatives to improve our cost structure. As we've noted, our cash cost per metric ton has declined by a cumulative 31% since 2023. While this level of savings is not repeatable, by continuing to enhance the efficiency of our production and other measures to optimize production costs, we anticipate a low single-digit percent year-over-year decline in our cash costs per metric ton in 2026. Further, we'll continue to manage our working capital levels and capital expenditures. For 2026, reflecting our anticipated volume growth, we expect a modest increase in our net working capital levels for the full year, most notably in the first half of the year, reflecting the timing of planned plant maintenance and other timing factors. Lastly, we anticipate our full-year 2026 capital expenditures will be approximately $35 million, which we believe is an adequate level to maintain our assets at current utilization levels. While much of our commentary today has been focused on near-term challenging market dynamics and our response, it's important to not lose sight of the fact that we are in an industry that is mission-critical to electric arc furnace steel production, with structural tailwinds that will support long-term demand growth. According to the most recent full-year data published by the World Steel Association, the EAF method of steelmaking further increased its market share in 2024, accounting for 51% of the steel production outside of China. This is a continuation of the steady share growth that the EAF industry has experienced for a number of years. Driven by decarbonization efforts, we expect this trend to continue. In the US, which produces 80 million tons of steel annually, over 20 million tons of new EAF capacity have either recently come online or are planned for the coming years, with further announcements expected as we move ahead. This will further drive share gains for EAF steel production in this key region. In the EU, while some European steelmakers have announced temporary delays in their EAF transition plans, other projects continue to move forward. And we continue to expect a meaningful mix shift towards EAF steelmaking within the EU in the medium to longer term. Given the expected growth in demand and tariff protections impacting certain foreign graphite electrode producers, The US and The EU remain important strategic regions for GrafTech for the long term. With our strong commercial momentum in these regions and our focus on meeting the evolving needs of our customers, we are well-positioned to capitalize on demand growth. Let me now briefly speak on the topic of trade, which continues to be an evolving landscape. We are continuously assessing a range of potential tariff outcomes and how those scenarios could influence steel industry trends, shape the commercial environment for graphite electrodes, and more broadly, synthetic graphite. Specific to the US, we continue to be encouraged by the steps the administration has taken to create a more level playing field from a trade perspective and to protect critical industries. As it relates to the steel industry, the expanded section 232 tariffs that have been implemented on steel imports into the US continue to have the desired impact of higher domestic steel production, supporting manufacturing initiatives within the United States. With respect to critical minerals, more importantly, synthetic graphite made from petroleum needle coke, steelmakers remain critically reliant on graphite electrodes and need a stable and healthy supply base. As noted, we expect to see growing demand in this market driven by the growth in EAF steelmaking and expect further synthetic graphite demand to result from the building of Western supply chains for battery needs, whether for electric vehicles or energy storage applications. However, the establishment of those Western supply chains remains in early stages as this is an industry that is suffering from overcapacity in China. We believe that the potential for international trade disruption further highlights the strategic importance of strengthening supply chains and that the West reducing its reliance on China for critical minerals such as synthetic graphite and to accelerate the development of its domestic supply chain. With the support of further policymaking, while additional policy measures are needed, we welcome the action of the US Department of Commerce with the preliminary anti-dumping tariffs against graphite active anode material from China, along with recent announcements related to initiatives on the sourcing and pricing of rare earths and other critical minerals. All of this demonstrates a strategic intent on the part of the US government to foster an ex-China supply chain for these key materials. As it relates to GrafTech, given the fluid nature of global trade policy and the heightened attention on critical minerals, we are taking proactive measures that seek to one, minimize the risk for GrafTech, two, capitalize on emerging opportunities, and lastly, promote fair trade in our key markets. All of this is consistent with our approach to optimally position GrafTech and its stakeholders for long-term success. In closing, this is a pivotal time for GrafTech and our broader industry. Near-term demand fundamentals are beginning to improve, and long-term drivers, including decarbonization, the continued shift to EAF steelmaking, and the growing demand for needle coke and synthetic graphite, are firmly in place. However, the supply side remains structurally out of balance, and the pricing environment remains inconsistent with the indispensable nature of graphite electrodes and the level of investment required to maintain a stable, reliable supply of graphite electrodes for the steel industry. As such, we must continue to operate with urgency, adaptability, and a willingness to make difficult decisions. To our stakeholders, we are committed to supporting our customers with dependable high-quality electrodes, protecting the long-term viability of our business by identifying opportunities to enhance efficiencies and preserve optionality, being transparent about the challenges and decisions ahead, and ultimately positioning GrafTech for long-term value creation by capitalizing on the structural trends that are set to shape the future of our industry. Lastly, I want to again thank our entire GrafTech team. Their dedication and resilience give me confidence in our ability to navigate through this period and emerge stronger. That concludes our prepared remarks. With that, we'll now open the call for questions.

At this time, I would like to remind everyone, in order to ask a question, press star then the number one on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes from Bennett Moore with JPMorgan.

Good morning, Tim and Rory. Thank you for taking my questions.

Good morning. Good morning, Bennett.

You've highlighted, you know, continued aggressive competitor pricing. I'm just wondering if these dynamics have worsened at all, particularly in the US. And if so, is this being driven by imports? Other local players?

Yeah. So I guess with respect to pricing and the commentary about the aggressive nature, I'm sure you can understand that we're not going to provide a ton of specifics around geographies and levels or any specific names or actions. But, I mean, at the end of the day, what we're seeing is across the globe, pressure on pricing and behaviors that, you know, when you take a step back and you think about what role electrodes play in the production of steel and the indispensable nature of electrodes in the production of steel, again, remember, you can't produce 70 million tons of steel in the US or 65 million tons of steel in Europe without an electrode. The level of pricing that people are quoting and behaving within the market doesn't reflect the asset-intensive nature of our business. It doesn't incentivize R&D spending, and it really doesn't reflect or allow for adequate returns to be generated for shareholders. So, that's what we're seeing in the market. And I think that's problematic as we look out into the future.

Thanks for that color. And the import side, sorry. Sorry. Let me go ahead. To finish the second half of your question. And is it being driven by imports? I think it's being driven, you know, across the globe, so it's not specific to a particular region. You know, imports and certainly the amount of material that's coming out of China and India, both at relatively low prices, is certainly problematic across the globe. I think you've seen some trade protections put in place in the US in particular, and now you're seeing actions taking place in Europe as well that will help with that. But it's really just the amount of material that's being dumped into the market. Thanks for that, Tim. And I guess just bringing, you know, those comments together, you've talked about expectations of improving demand, but that being more than offset by excess supply and competitive pricing. You've got 65% of your US book already locked in, which is the highest pricing. I mean, is it reasonable to assume that in 2026, realized pricing is at least going to be another directionally lower year for GrafTech?

Yeah. And again, Bennett, thanks for the question. You know, sticking to our policy of not providing specific price guidance, I think it would be fair to say based on what we disclosed for 2025 and our commentary that we just provided around the state of the market, and to my answer to your previous question, you know, I think it's fair to say that absolute pricing that we're observing thus far, as we head into '26, isn't better than what we're seeing at the '25 level.

Understood. I'll get back in the queue. Thanks so much, and best of luck navigating these waters.

Thanks, Bennett.

Your next question comes from Arun Viswanathan with RBC.

Good morning, Arun. Yeah. Thanks for taking my question. Hope you guys are well. Good morning. Just on the pricing. So, you know, it sounds like you guys are being disciplined in, you know, it sounds like some of the competition is bordering on not being disciplined and maybe even some irrational tactics. So, you know, it seems like there's been some capacity additions as well in India and China. For a very long time, I guess, we've been under the impression that a lot, you know, the quality of those electrodes were subpar. It seems like, you know, there's a lot of customers who are now, you know, okay using those electrodes. So is that the case? And if that is the case, and you are walking away from some badly priced dynamics, how do you win back share from here? So, you know, is it service? And, you know, because it doesn't seem like there's going to be any halt in that, you know, supply addition. And, yeah, maybe you can just also discuss kind of the oncoming supply if you see any there. Thanks.

Thanks, Arun. And as always, you packed a lot into a single question. So hopefully, I can hit all the high points there. You know, let me start with supply. Right? And we've talked about the overcapacity that exists in the market. You know, I don't think we've seen any incremental supply come on into the market here in 2025. But you've heard the announcements made by some producers that they intend to bring on additional capacity here over the next couple of years, which again, we provided commentary and our thoughts on in terms of the need for that in the market. So not additional supply in '25, but certainly some announcements that aren't otherwise favorable. You know, I think if you think about the overall pricing dynamics and where we're focusing our energies, we've stated that we will continue to focus our attention on moving volumes into the US market and to a lesser extent, the European market. This has been a commercial strategy we've talked about for the better part of a year and a half now, and we've had a lot of success. Again, we've seen tremendous growth in the US, and we'll continue to do that. We fully expect as we head into '26 to grow our volumes. We're guiding to a 5% to 10% increase in our volumes year-over-year. But that's being done with discipline. Again, we're not chasing volume for volume's sake, and certainly, as we stated around the Q4 results, we have walked away and will continue to walk away from volumes that don't meet our objectives from a margin perspective. Where that pressure is the greatest on us is certainly those regions outside of the US and Europe. And, you know, if you think about Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America, those are regions where we have to be much more selective. To your point of how do we win market share, you know, this really comes down to the value proposition we've talked about a lot here over the last two years. And what the team continues to try to do in terms of improving our value proposition. You know, again, as the pure-play electrode player outside India and China, we focus a lot of time in R&D, bringing new products. We spend a lot of money and effort on our customer technical service teams and architect and really look to partner with our customers and add value to their furnaces and their steelmaking processes. We think that along with the quality electrodes we produce, certainly will continue to allow us to gain market share in those regions that value that. Regions where they're buying just purely on price, those are going to be the regions, again, we have to be much more selective and maybe don't have as much opportunity to grow our share.

Okay. I appreciate that. And just as a follow-up. So, you know, you're also in the unique position where you have the integration into needle coke. And so, you know, theoretically, if the market is oversupplied, what is your ability to shift away from the graphite electrode market? And repurpose your needle coke capacity into, you know, the EV battery side or, you know, ESS batteries. You know, there's definitely very robust growth on that side, and is that something that you can pivot towards? And I know you talked about it in the past, but is there a little heightened focus there? And any timeline or any milestones that we can think about that you're pursuing? Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks for that. And I would start by saying that there's a heightened focus on every element of our business. Both our core business of producing and selling graphite electrodes, but also, you know, how we can become a more significant player in, you know, the establishment of supply chains outside of China for anode material, whether, again, like you stated, going into energy storage applications or into EVs. I think we're well-positioned to do that with Seadrift. We've spent a lot of time in the past talking about our technical capabilities and our ongoing work with those looking to develop anode plants both in the US and Europe. And I think if you look at the trade landscape that continues to develop in Washington right now in particular, you've got an anode case that is rounding third and heading home in terms of finalization against the Chinese. I think those hearings are here later in February and will be finalized in the month of March. Again, I think that's very constructive for the battery makers who are looking to establish and put plants in the US. And I think more broadly, if you think about synthetic graphite and what the government's doing around price floors or pricing mechanisms, some recent announcements around the vault and stockpiles. You know, all of this is, I think, a good parallel to what we can do on the synthetic graphite front. You know, again, I think we're well-positioned. We're just in the early innings of the development of some of these markets and some of this demand here in the US.

Okay. And then just lastly, given that you are in the early innings there, we do have, you know, we've seen some price declines, and I know you're calling for a volume uplift. But understanding that it's still a relatively low utilization rate globally at 67%, you know, how much liquidity do you guys have to wade through this downturn, you know, from here? And then, you know, if conditions get worse, you know, what are some of the plans? And then similarly, are you in a position to actually pursue that development from a financial standpoint? Or is it, you know, is that going to depend on a stronger recovery?

Yes. Let me start with the last part of your question. I think we've been consistent all along as we've talked about our aspirations and the role that we can play in the establishment of the Western supply chains. Right? This is not an area where GrafTech is going to be able to make, you know, multibillion-dollar investments on a standalone basis. Right? But we think that we possess a unique set of skill sets and assets and capabilities as a leader in synthetic graphite that allows us to partner with those that are out raising capital and building plants. And, again, that can be in a number of areas within their own value chain, whether it's raw material supply out of Seadrift, providing graphitization capacity or expertise, or also just some of our own, you know, technological advancements that our R&D team has been working on. So it'll likely come in the form of a partnership or a series of partnerships as we think about how that develops for us going forward. You asked about liquidity and what we're feeling or thinking about there. I mean, at the end of the day, we have $140 million of liquidity as of December 31. But I think more importantly is kind of our comments around, you know, as a company, over the last two years, we've acted decisively. Right? We've taken a lot of steps to preserve our liquidity, to enhance our liquidity. Right? You think back to the beginning of '24, we idled some capacity. We streamlined our overhead structure. We readjusted our commercial structure. We've aggressively cut costs and managed our balance sheet. So all of those things are things that we'll continue to do and just need to reiterate to shareholders and stakeholders at large that we'll continue to take the actions necessary for as long as this downturn exists. And, you know, that's the message here for today.

Okay. Thanks.

Next question comes from Abe Landa with Bank of America.

Maybe first one. You kind of alluded to this when talking about the US environment. Obviously, there had been some significant Indian tariffs kind of through the fourth quarter, and obviously, it's somewhat changed. I guess, what was the impact of Indian tariffs on the US contracting overall process and kind of how do you expect the newly signed Indian trade deal to kind of impact the US market specifically?

Yeah. I mean, if you think about the way that the US market tends to contract, you know, they go out in the third and fourth quarter and contract a sizable amount of their full-year volume for the next year. We are largely through that at this point in time. So while we think that the repealing of the 50% tariff against the Indians down to 18% is probably a step too far, you know, we're comfortable with the position that we're in heading into 2026 with respect to our US customers. Again, fully anticipate overall volume growth for the business in '26 and fully anticipate continuing to grow our US business. And again, if you think about the strength of the US steel market as it exists today and the operating levels where they're at, quality carries the day, and service carries the day, and we think that's what differentiates GrafTech from some of the competitors in the marketplace and think that ultimately that's why customers will choose us going forward. We'll continue to enhance that value proposition and are confident that we'll continue to be able to grow that market share as we look out to the future.

That's helpful commentary. And then maybe shifting regions to Europe, you kind of mentioned that volumes overall for the full year didn't hit your expectations, and partially on aggressive pricing in Europe. I know there's been a number of capacity movements there, and obviously, you have two of your three main plants there. So I guess can you just kind of maybe discuss a little bit within your kind of supply and demand environment and how that relates to what you're seeing in terms of pricing within Europe and early into '26?

I mean, Europe still is and will remain a key market for us. If you just think about the amount of steel made via EAFs in Europe, while overall steel production was down in Europe year-over-year and is down 15% from the high in 2021, Europe is still a big steel-producing area. And given the proximity to our two plants in France and Spain, it remains a key area for us. So, you know, I think the Europeans are finally starting to take some action on the trade front and the protectionism, if you want to call it that, with both CBAM and some of the announced tariff actions last quarter. But it's still a challenged market from an overall demand standpoint because of power prices and just the overall level of competition. So, again, it's a lower-priced market for us. It's a market that we focus our energies on. Again, the European buyers are also value buyers. We're not just price buyers, so I think the value proposition that I just spoke to again differentiates us in the market. And, again, we think we're confident in our position in Europe, and we'll continue to push to grow volumes in Europe as well. I don't know if the pricing in Europe is any more aggressive than it is elsewhere in the world, but there certainly is some pressure there.

Another question on you kind of alluded to China overcapacity kind of impacting or their exports kind of impacting the rest of the world. Obviously, always kind of tough to kind of get a good read on what's going on within China, but just maybe talk about what's going on with the supply picture of graphite electrodes coming out of China, what it looks like today, any future capacity they're looking to add? What you're seeing in the export front from China?

Yeah. Sure. And I think when you talk about China, you really have to talk about two elements of China and their export behavior. One is the headline, which is Chinese steel exports hitting over 120 million tons this year and flooding the world with steel, which just puts pressure on a lot of our customers around the globe. So that's one element of it. And you see a lot of trade action being taken in certain geographies to protect domestic steel, both in the US and EU. Again, very important regions for us. On the electrode side, you know, the Chinese continue to export at increasing levels on an annual basis. So I'd say they're over 300,000 tonnes of UHP or 300,000 tons of total exports in, you know, somewhere in the two to two fifty range of UHP exports here over the past year. And they probably represent, you know, maybe a third of the non-Chinese market right now in terms of total demand. You know, whether or not there's additional capacity coming online in China or not is kind of irrelevant given the size of that overall market, which is well overbuilt for what their domestic EAF needs are. Right? If you think about China, it produces probably 90 million tons via the EAF, and they have probably 800,000 tons of electrode capacity. Most of that is idled or not exportable given its location or the quality, but there's a tremendous amount of volume there that sits in the market. So maybe that's a little bit of color in terms of where the Chinese are at. How much capacity more do they have to export? You know, it's hard to say, but certainly, we feel the pressure of the Chinese exports globally right now.

And then maybe last question. And thank you for taking the time. Maybe being a little bit more direct. But are you having conversations regarding Project Vault or any kind of related government-type support programs, and maybe can you quantify that opportunity within the synthetic graphite?

Sure. Yeah. You know, I'm not going to comment on any of the nature of discussions we're having. I think we've spoken in the past about, you know, like any other company, government advocacy, whether at the state or federal level, is something that we engage in, and we're not going to provide specifics around what departments and whom we're speaking to. But I can say that, you know, we continue to advocate for the benefit of GrafTech in the broader industry, and it really focuses around a number of areas. Trade and promoting, you know, fair trade and the importance of ensuring that, you know, domestic markets are strong. You know, I think we've spent time educating various constituencies about the role synthetic graphite as a critical mineral plays both in the steel industry and in the indispensable nature of a graphite electrode. That's not a linkage that everybody gets on the surface. So we've spent some time explaining that to folks. As well as, you know, synthetic graphite in the form of anode powder and the role that can be played there. So we'll continue to talk about who we are and what we do and our strengths, you know, relative to the market and what the needs are, but I certainly think that this is an area we'll continue to spend time on.

Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from Kirk Ludtke with Imperial Capital.

Hello, Tim. Rory, Mike. Thank you for the call. You mentioned a couple of times that you thought quality and service carry the day. Are you able to price your products at a premium, or is it more that you win ties?

Yeah. I think it depends on the market. I mean, all right? We think that our value proposition is superior in a number of cases. And, you know, there are competitors that we would put on the same tier as us from a quality standpoint, and you price competitively against those, and you hope that your service and offerings are what breaks ties. There's still a quality and market differential between the tier two and tier three producers, both Indians and the Chinese. But, again, it depends on the end market ultimately that you're selling into. Certain markets are price buyers and only price buyers, and those markets are head-to-head. And those aren't the markets that we want to focus our energies on.

Got it. What percentage of the demand out there? I know this is probably a tough question to answer, but what percentage of the demand out there do you think is sensitive to quality and service?

Well, I mean, at the end of the day, 100% of the demand is sensitive to quality. Right? No steelmaker wants an electrode breaking in their furnace for it. It costs them money at the end of the day. The question is how much are they willing to pay for the incremental quality? And that's a tough question to answer. But, again, that is the underpinning of our commercial strategy and why we focused on the markets we're focusing on. And willing to walk away from those folks that just demonstrate pure price buying in other regions.

Got it. Thank you. On this $12 billion critical material fund, is that enough to move pricing in any of your end markets?

Yeah. I mean, I think it's hard to say or maybe it's too early to say in terms of exactly how all these roll out. I mean, I think in the totality of whether it's the vault, whether it's the initiatives that the Department of War is rolling out, whether it's the initiatives from the Department of Energy, whether it's what you see from some of the larger banks rolling out infrastructure and critical mineral funds, you know, all of those things in totality and a conscious effort towards the establishment of supply chains and creating a constructive environment, all of those will have a positive uplift. Which one has the bigger weighting or which one drives more of that across the board, it's tough to say. But, you know, I think we're happy to see, you know, from a market participant perspective, that, a, that people are recognizing synthetic graphite as a critical mineral, b, that the government is taking action and decisive action and moving swiftly and not getting bogged down with bureaucracy and decision-making and really working towards establishing supply chains and supporting the domestic infrastructure.

Thank you. And then lastly, we talked a lot about capacity additions. Do you have any expectation that your competitors might reduce capacity?

You know, other than what you hear publicly and that's the same thing that we hear. So in terms of expectations, you know, I'm not sure that there's anything that is pending in the market as we speak. But I think broadly speaking, and part of our commentary was aimed at this, in a market that isn't rewarding producers for producing a product that is essential and allowing for investment in an asset-intensive industry and allowing for returns to shareholders. At some point in time, that logjam or that capacity surplus has got to come offline. People will start to make decisions based on that.

Got it. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

There are no further questions at this time. I'll now turn the call back to Tim Flanagan for closing remarks.

Thank you, Carly. And I'd like to thank everyone on this call for your interest in GrafTech, and we look forward to speaking with you next quarter. Have a wonderful day.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.