Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Ferroglobe's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Joining me today are Marco Levi, our Chief Executive Officer; and Beatriz García-Cos, our Chief Financial Officer. Before we get started with some prepared remarks, I'm going to read a brief statement. Please turn to Slide 2 at this time. Statements made by management during this conference call that are forward-looking are based on current expectations. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements can be found in Ferroglobe's most recent SEC filings and the exhibits to those filings, which are available on our website at ferroglobe.com. In addition, this discussion includes references to EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted gross debt, net debt, and adjusted diluted earnings per share, among other non-IFRS measures. Reconciliation of non-IFRS measures may be found in our most recent SEC filings. Before I turn the call over to Marco Levi, our Chief Executive Officer, I want to announce that we'll be participating in B. Riley's 24th Annual Investor Conference in Los Angeles on May 22 and May 23. We hope to see you there. Marco?

Thank you, Alex, and good morning, good day, and good evening to everyone. Thanks for joining us on the call today. We appreciate your interest in Ferroglobe. Let me start with operations. We have successfully restarted operations in France with all furnaces running efficiently. In addition to France, we are operating all three silicon metal furnaces in one location and another, both benefiting from competitive energy prices in Spain driven by strong renewable energy generation. Last October, we acquired a high-quality port mine in South Carolina to ensure a reliable supply source to support our anticipated increase in production of high-quality silicon metal in the U.S. We are set to begin mining in the third quarter. This strategic purchase will give us a competitive advantage as demand begins to grow. To support our growth plans, we are applying for a permit to expand our silicon metal production in North America. The additional capacity will be a brownfield expansion, requiring a significantly smaller investment compared to a greenfield project, and will be faster to develop. This investment will enable us to seize the significant growth opportunities ahead in solar and EV batteries. We are strategically positioning the Company to leverage major long-term trends in the market. Solar and batteries for electric vehicles are large markets that will drive strong growth for the foreseeable future. As the leading producer of high-quality silicon metal in the West, Ferroglobe is well positioned to benefit from the strong demand. In March, we signed a memorandum of understanding with a U.S.-based advanced battery solution company focused on transforming battery technology in the electric vehicle market. This collaboration will facilitate the industry's shift in battery anodes from graphite to silicon metal, yielding various benefits, including decreased costs, extended ranges, and quicker charging times. For several months, we have been testing Coreshell's nano coatings technology using silicon-rich nodes with very promising results. As a result of this early success and to further our commitment, we made a strategic investment in Coreshell. Enhancing battery performance in EVs is a crucial goal, and we aim to lead in this technological innovation. As for markets, all our businesses have seen improvements from the lows, with demand trends starting to diverge between Europe and the U.S. We are encouraged by the sustained increase in silicon metal prices, particularly in North America. Some recent price increases can be attributed to supply-related factors, but we also see signs of incremental improvement in U.S. demand, while the European market remains stagnant. Price increases in Europe have lagged behind the U.S. market, which has seen improved demand, especially in one location. I am also pleased to announce that on May 10, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted in our favor in the trade case regarding ferrosilicon imports from Russia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Brazil. The commission preliminarily determined that these ferrosilicon imports are causing material injury to the U.S. industry. Some background on this trade action: On May 28, together with other metals and alloys, we filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission, requesting them to investigate the unfairly traded imports of ferrosilicon from those countries. These imports benefit from significant government subsidies, resulting in predatory pricing practices that have forced U.S. ferrosilicon producers to reduce their operations, negatively affecting domestic production and employment. The Department of Commerce will continue its investigation to determine if further action is necessary. We expect a preliminary countervailing duty determination in June, with a termination decision in September. We anticipate a positive outcome. At the same time, we are collaborating with Congress to pass the Bipartisan American Ferrosilicon Production Act, which was introduced last September. If this bill is approved, it would impose a 35% tariff on imports of ferrosilicon from Russia and Belarus. As I mentioned in our previous call related to Q4, we redeemed the remainder of the senior secured notes in February and finished the quarter with the strongest financial position in the Company’s history. For the first time, Ferroglobe is net cash positive. Last quarter, we initiated our first dividend of $0.13 per share, which was paid on March 28. We are declaring our second quarterly dividend of $0.13 per share, payable on June 27. To further develop our capital allocation policy, our Board of Directors has approved a share buyback program, which will be included in the notice of the June Annual General Meeting. Once approved by shareholders, we will begin opportunistic buybacks with an authorization request to repurchase up to $200 million of shares over five years using both discretionary and nondiscretionary methods. While we remain cautious about end-market demand, we are adjusting our guidance to reflect a stronger pricing environment. Accordingly, we are raising the low end of our guidance from $100 million to $130 million while maintaining the high end at $170 million. Next slide, please. Starting with silicon metal, revenue in Q1 was $168 million, flat compared to the fourth quarter. Adjusted EBITDA decreased by $6 million to $16 million, a 28% decline from the prior quarter. This decline was mainly due to lower realized prices, which fell by 6% in the quarter. Our average realized price for silicon metal rose by 2% in Europe but dropped by 12% in the Americas compared to the previous quarter. During the first quarter, index prices increased by approximately 17%. The gap between the index and realized prices was due to the three-month lag in price realization for contracted volumes, and we expect to see benefits in the second quarter from the higher index prices in Q1. Overall, shipments were up 7%, driven by a 30% increase in Europe from the fourth quarter. The outlook for silicon metal is significantly more favorable in North America than in Europe, where demand remains weak with prices affected by imports from China and supply tightening. The U.S. market remains firm, with prices rising into the second quarter. Demand from Asia for our products is solid, as we are shipping traceable high-quality silicon metal to solar sectors in China and Korea. Next slide, please. In our silicon-based alloy segment, adjusted EBITDA for Q1 was $40 million, up from $35 million in the fourth quarter. This increase was primarily due to lower energy costs in France compared to the prior quarter. Overall average realized prices dipped by 5% versus the previous quarter due to weakness in the Americas, which continued to be impacted by imports from Russia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Brazil. Similar to silicon metal, the difference between the index and realized price was due to a two-month lag in price realization for contracted volumes. The U.S. market is showing more strength, with prices increasing, while industrial activity in Europe is subdued. According to the latest April short-range outlook, the World Steel Association halved its EU steel production forecast to 2.9%, while the Americas remained flat at 1.4%. We foresee that Europe may face more challenges, while the U.S. market is expected to benefit from potential antidumping actions and a stronger economic outlook. Next slide, please. Now, moving on to manganese-based alloys, revenue climbed by 10% to $66 million in Q1, driven by rising prices and volumes, both up over the prior quarter. Volumes in North America grew by 426%; however, these numbers come from a low base and are therefore not significant. Prices in Europe have risen by 13% since year-end but have stagnated recently due to weak steel production. The shutdown of South32's GEMCO manganese ore mine in Australia in late March, combined with tight supply, led to a considerable increase in prices. Consequently, the manganese alloy indexes have also risen. Given the weak steel production in Europe, the European indices have not improved as significantly as those in the U.S. We expect demand to improve in the second half of this year. I now hand the call over to Beatriz García-Cos, our Chief Financial Officer, to review the financial results.

Thank you, Marco. Please look at Slide 10 to review the income statement. Sales rose 4% in the first quarter to $392 million, compared to $376 million in the previous quarter. In Q1, we experienced increased volumes across all three segments, although lower prices for silicon metal and ferrosilicon slightly offset some of these gains. The percentage of sales attributed to raw materials and energy consumption for production increased from 53% to 66% in Q1, mainly due to reduced energy compensation in France and Seattle. Staff costs decreased by $9 million in the first quarter to $71 million, largely influenced by profit-sharing agreements in Europe. Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was $26 million, down from $60 million in the previous quarter. During this quarter, we generated about $8 million from our 2024 French energy agreement, which also increased our EBITDA by the same amount. It's worth noting that these benefits will be received in early 2025. Net income finance expenses for the quarter fell by 38% to $8 million because of the full redemption of senior secured notes. The full impact of this debt repayment will be realized starting in the second quarter. Next slide, please. Now on Slide 11. Our adjusted EBITDA margins decreased from 60% in the previous quarter to 7% in the first quarter, primarily due to escalating costs that reduced EBITDA by $39 million compared to the fourth quarter. These increased costs stemmed from lower energy compensation in France and CO2 compensation, albeit partly mitigated by decreased raw materials and energy prices in Spain. Silicon metal and silicon-based alloys contributed to lower adjusted EBITDA as their prices fell by 6% and 5%, respectively. Overall, realized margins declined by 2% from the fourth quarter, affecting adjusted EBITDA by approximately $9 million. Total volume rose by 6%, which had a slight $2 million positive effect on EBITDA relative to the prior quarter. The head office and non-core businesses accounted for around $11 million, boosted by improved mine operations in the first quarter and a tax accrual from the fourth quarter. Please turn to Slide 12. During the first quarter, we generated a robust free cash flow of $180 million, driven by a $155 million rebate for French energy and $17 million through working capital, mainly due to a $19 million reduction in inventory that was somewhat offset by accounts payable. Capital expenditures in the first quarter totaled $18 million, down from $26 million in the previous quarter. We utilized this strong cash inflow to repay the remaining $150 million of senior secured notes, setting the stage for our share buyback program pending shareholder approval in June. In March, we distributed a $1.3 dividend per share, which will be paid again on June 27. Next slide, please. Now on Slide 13. We concluded the fourth quarter with a cash balance of $160 million, up from $138 million in the fourth quarter. Our financial standing improved from a net debt of $101 million to a net cash positive status of $79 million, with adjusted gross debt decreasing from $239 million at the end of the fourth quarter to $81 million following the redemption of the remaining $150 million of senior secured notes. At this moment, I will return the call to Marco.

Thank you, Beatriz. Please proceed to the next slide. On Slide 15, I want to highlight the key takeaways. Our improved capital return policy is now in its second phase as we await shareholder approval for the share buyback. The third phase quarterly dividend was paid in March, and we have declared the second quarterly dividend of $1.3 per share, which is pending for June. We are well-positioned to capitalize on the exciting developments in the silicon-rich EV battery market. Coupled with the strong growth anticipated in the solar market, we are very satisfied with our position as the leading producer of silicon metal in the western region. Additionally, to accommodate the increasing demand, we are in the process of applying for a permit to expand our silicon metal production in the U.S. Operator, we are now ready for questions.

And your first question comes from the line of Martin Englert from Seaport Research Partners.

Could you provide more detail on the potential U.S. brownfield expansion, where it might be planned, what facility, what type of capacity, timing, and the CapEx associated with it?

Yes. At this stage, it is a bit premature to provide more details about that. Of course, the first thing we're going to do to satisfy the demand pickup in the U.S. is to restart our capacity in Selma, which is already set to be restarted with two furnaces. But as mentioned in the previous call, we expect significant growth in the West for silicon metal demand of about 200,000 tons minimum of silicon metal in the next five years. In order to satisfy this additional demand, we will need to be part of the suppliers and have enough capacity to satisfy this demand. This is why we have started the process to apply for a permit in the United States of America. Looking at financing, we already mentioned that we do not intend to go back to being a company with excessive leverage. So we will look at all the options that can finance this expansion with our own cash, with subsidies that are becoming available in the United States, and also by exploiting some of the partnerships that we have already in place in the United States.

So when referencing your partnerships, are you referencing partnerships to the degree that you have JVs or more so some of the recent partnerships that you've been establishing in the battery market?

We have various partnerships in place. It's well-known that we collaborate with a chemical company and operate our plants, and the growth in silicon metal is influencing both our company and Ferroglobe. Additionally, we've announced our partnership with Coreshell. As we've mentioned before, being a leading player in the West has attracted interest from other participants in the supply chain. Therefore, I believe we have more opportunities compared to others.

Well, you mentioned that the costs would be significantly lower for brownfield expansion versus greenfield, which intuitively makes sense. But any framework as to what you think it would cost to build a greenfield facility today in the U.S. or North American market and what that capacity might look like?

Well, let's say a medium silicon metal plant with a capacity of 50 maximum, 60,000 tons of silicon metal greenfield, we estimate that you would require about $400 million or north of this number. When you build a brownfield, you take a big fraction of this cost out for the same capacity. On top, you can build much faster. And this is why we are applying for the permit because then we can execute more rapidly when things materialize in the supply chain of new markets.

Okay. You noted that a big fraction of the cost is taken out. Is that something like 25% of the cost is reduced versus greenfield or 50%?

More than that. More than what was stated.

That's extremely helpful. I wanted to pivot and talk about the raw material energy costs, which increased 29% sequentially at the group level to $257 million. There were some variations in cash costs within the businesses. For silicon metal, cash cost per ton was approximately $28.53, which was about $70 lower per ton, while silicon-based alloys increased by roughly $360 per ton sequentially. The question is, looking ahead at Q2, could you discuss unit cost expectations across the businesses based on your current outlook?

This is Beatriz speaking. Looking at the second half of the year, there is a significant difference from 2023. As you recall, we had a substantial credit on energy of $186 million in our P&L in 2023. For 2024, our estimate, as discussed in the previous quarter, is around $40 million, which could significantly impact EBITDA in terms of costs. Additionally, I believe that indirect CO2 costs will be somewhat higher in the second half of the year compared to the first half, which will create some offset. On the other hand, raw material costs will partially offset the increase in energy prices. This reflects a variety of factors regarding costs in 2024.

Yes, there is another element, if you allow me to add, which is more short-term because Martin was asking about the second quarter. The cost of manganese is going up significantly as a consequence of the Australian shutdown. This doesn't have a big impact on us in the second quarter, but it will start having a significant impact on manganese alloys cost starting in the third quarter. This is why we are reacting to increasing prices of alloys as much as we can to reestablish the delta between manganese ore and final manganese alloy pricing.

So several puts and takes moving through the course of the year, and it seems certainly a year-on-year lower energy credit from the French power agreement. It sounds like there might be some higher raw materials in the back half for manganese and silicate-based alloys, while silicon still has some elevated raw materials, but you're going to see some more favorable essentially credits regarding CO2. So, may I ask, is it correct to think of it as second-half silicon metal and silicon-based alloys unit costs maybe see some release and step down marginally to modestly?

Well, it's difficult to give you a clear picture here. Let me pause for a second. When we look at the European situation, we expect also some pressure from the energy market. As you know, we still buy most of our energy in Spain at market rates, and we expect a rise in energy costs in Spain in the second half of the year. This will primarily impact our operations in Sabon. Looking at the other critical geographic areas for silicon metal, I expect other flat energy costs, similar to the first half.

If I could ask one last question, the silicon metal volumes were quite strong for the quarter, and you noted strength in EMEA as a contributing factor. How do we think about the volume trend now given that environmental contribution as we proceed through the year? Do you have any targeted goalposts for silicon metal volumes for the year? Or at a minimum, what you're seeing with Q2?

Well, clearly, we have restarted our plants in France in the second quarter. And so we expect to sell more higher volumes. The part is the following: I go back to the market dynamics. U.S. demand is pretty strong, I would say, because silicon's demand from our customers is better. Aluminum demand from the aluminum players is better. So in the U.S., we expect to become more and more robust at this stage. In Europe, while we have our productions up and running, we don't see an improvement in demand. On the contrary, the aluminum market seems to be weaker than in previous quarters. So I would be very cautious about volume expectations in Europe.

Marco, I want to ask you a higher-level question. Looking back over the last few years, you've improved operations, improved the commercial side, and fixed the balance sheet. Now obviously, you're in a net cash position. Congratulations to you and the team on that accomplishment. It appears you have a lot more opportunities strategically to do what you want to do. I wondered if you could lay out the priorities for the Company over the next couple of years.

Thank you for the question, Lucas. Your inquiry inspires me. I want to emphasize that most aspects of our business remain unchanged. We are still engaged in commodities, and as a result, our short-term performance is tied to the market dynamics I mentioned earlier. We are very optimistic about the future because we are involved in numerous strategic discussions with various partners for batteries, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, which we believe will significantly increase global silicon consumption. We have never been closer to resolving the swelling problem of silicon metal used in batteries. This confidence underpins our involvement with Coreshell; we have invested in Coreshell, and we believe that its solution will accelerate the widespread adoption of silicon metal in batteries. Regarding solar, new supply chains are emerging in traditional markets like China and Southeast Asia, and we are prepared to take advantage of these opportunities. There is definitely growth ahead for silicon metal. Our focus now is on achieving profitable growth, particularly by assessing the polysilicon market situation, where there is a significant oversupply in China. The Chinese producers are struggling to sell their volumes, leading to a drop in polysilicon prices in China to just over $6 per kilo, down from about $35 a year or a year and a half ago. This creates various dynamics in China. Outside of China, polysilicon prices are still around $21 to $22 per kilo. We will monitor how we progress with the new solar supply chain setups, particularly in the Middle East. Our position is strong because we have the right assets in the appropriate locations, and we are well-integrated with the right quality. My goal, Lucas, is to significantly expand this company by broadening the scope of our silicon metal operations.

A quick follow-up on Coreshell. Sorry if I missed it, but what is approximately the investment or the terms of the investment? What percentage of the Company would you maybe own today or eventually own, and also I'm not familiar with their specific technology. Could you quickly comment on why you think this is the right direction to go in the battery market?

Yes. Thank you, Lucas. The first investment is a few million dollars, but we have the right to further invest in the next round of capital raise for the Company. The beauty of this opportunity at this stage is that all our tests look extremely promising, and this has been made on sales samples, reproducing the same tests that Coreshell has made, and they're all based on our silicon production in Europe. The key is to go through the charging and discharging cycles. Essentially, the process of the battery doesn't change. This means that you can charge and recharge these batteries faster while guaranteeing a longer tenure. The beauty of this opportunity is that at the beginning of next year, together with Coreshell, we will send our technology to the automotive industry with 60 lithium batteries. This is a leapfrog move because we don't need to go through a battery cell manufacturer or battery manufacturer. We will have a pilot plant that produces more quantities of batteries that represent our technology, which based on our assessments with Coreshell, doesn't require any change in terms of the layout of the factories. We'll have the opportunity to be validated directly by the automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). I consider this a breakthrough; of course, it has to be validated. You know that a new solution in batteries takes time. So we are talking about significant growth, if successful, in a time range of three years from now. At this stage, everything is working well, and we are aggressively making progress on this development line.

This is helpful. Beatriz, a quick one for you. In terms of working capital, anything major to be aware of for the balance of the year? I know it can be lumpy. So if you could maybe flag anything that might stand out from a working capital perspective, I would appreciate that. And then with the updated guidance range, what's been holding back increasing the high end of the guidance? Obviously, good to see the low end of the guidance come in here. But I would appreciate your comments as to why not the whole range shifted but just the low end.

Maybe I'll start on the second part of the question, Lucas, if you don't mind, on the guidance. The reality is that there are a number of factors and opposite elements we are seeing at the moment. As I mentioned, let's start with Europe where demand is very weak. Prices have been stabilizing in the first quarter and are trending downward now in the second quarter, and I mainly refer to silicon metal and ferrosilicon. In the U.S., we have the opposite trend where demand is increasing for silicon metal, prior to enforcing, and aluminum is rather balanced. Ferrosilicon is reinforcing on pricing, as I mentioned previously during my speech. Then you have another element, which is manganese alloy. As I previously stated, manganese prices are skyrocketing, and this poses significant challenges for us because we sell in Europe where steel demand, as I mentioned, is reduced due to expectations. Therefore, while demand is strong in the U.S., the ore price is going up in Europe, where demand is not there. We have increased the bottom of our guidance because we see slightly better pricing and because we trust in our capabilities to reduce costs—Beatriz mentioned the cost program. However, there are also many challenges, particularly in Europe. This is why, at the end, we increased the bottom of our guidance, and this is where we feel comfortable.

We are seeing developments in our working capital situation. As you recall, the impact from the end of Q4 last year and our preparations for our plants in Q1 in France are still ongoing. In Q1, we've released some working capital as you've noticed, but we faced challenges with certain taxes which we are currently addressing. Our working capital increased last quarter due to ramp-up operations. We are ramping up projects, but encountered issues at one of our plants in southern France. Ultimately, this allowed us to release EUR 20 million, although it was constrained by decisions made in South Africa and France. Looking forward for the rest of the year, as we continue our plans in France, the U.S., and Spain, we should anticipate a balanced picture for working capital with some minor consumption going forward, which will also be influenced by manganese prices. Additionally, fluctuations in prices will directly affect our working capital pricing.

And your next question comes from the line of John Rolfe from Crest Rock Capital.

Most of my questions have been answered. I did have one. I noticed in the most recent 20-F, Marco, that the number of shares that you and Mr. Madrid own increased substantially from the prior 20-F. I was just wondering, is that due to grants, open market purchases, or some combination of both?

Well, if you ask Marco, it's both. Sorry, Mr. Madrid is also here; it is due to both.

There are currently no further questions. I will hand the call back for closing remarks.

Thank you. In a nutshell, I have to say that we are excited about our prospects in the solar and lithium-ion battery markets and are well-positioned to take advantage of the improving fundamentals that we expect in our core markets. I want to thank all of you for your participation, and we look forward to hearing from you on the next call. Have a great day.

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.