Company: ASTE
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000792987-25-000064
Chunk: 98

Company: ASTEC INDUSTRIES INC
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 8
Chunk 98
---
 Materials Solutions segment increased by $47.6 million, or 26.9%, for the first nine months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, primarily due to higher (i) equipment sales of $29.6 million, (ii) parts and component sale of $15.0 million and (iii) service and installation revenue of $3.0 million.

International sales for the Materials Solutions segment decreased $29.1 million, or 16.1%, for the first nine months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024 primarily due to lower equipment sales of $31.8 million.

Segment Operating Adjusted EBITDA

Segment Operating Adjusted EBITDA is the measure of segment profit or loss used by our CEO, who is the CODM, to evaluate performance and allocate resources to the reportable segments. Segment Operating Adjusted EBITDA is defined as net income or loss before the impact of interest income or expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization and certain other adjustments that are not considered by the CODM in the evaluation of ongoing operating performance. See Note 12, Operations by Industry Segment and Geographic Area, of the Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for a reconciliation of Segment Operating Adjusted EBITDA to total consolidated income before taxes.

Segment Operating Adjusted EBITDA – Three Months Ended:

Three Months Ended September 30,$ Change% Change(in millions, except percentage data)20252024Infrastructure Solutions$23.9 $15.6 $8.3 53.2 %Materials Solutions15.4 14.5 0.9 6.2 %

30

Infrastructure Solutions

Segment Operating Adjusted EBITDA for the Infrastructure Solutions segment was $23.9 million for the third quarter of 2025 compared to $15.6 million for the same period in 2024, an increase of $8.3 million, or 53.2%. The increase in Segment Operating Adjusted EBITDA was primarily driven by the sales impact of net favorable volume and mix coupled with favorable pricing that generated higher gross profit of $16.4 million and lower technology support costs of $1.0 million. These increases were partially offset by (i) manufacturing inefficiencies of $3.0 million, (ii) higher personnel-related costs of $2.5 million, (iii) higher quality-related expenses of