ArcelorMittal Q1 FY2026 Earnings Call

Good afternoon, everyone. This is Daniel Fairclough from the ArcelorMittal Investor Relations team. Thank you for joining this call to discuss ArcelorMittal's performance and progress in the first quarter of 2026. Leading today's call will be our Group CFO, Mr. Genuino Christino. Before we begin, I would like to mention a few housekeeping items. As usual, we will not be going through the presentation that was published on our website this morning. However, I do want to draw your attention to the disclaimers on Slide 20 of that presentation. Following opening remarks from Genuino, we will move directly to the Q&A session. Operator provided instructions. And with that, I will hand the call over to Genuino.

Thanks, Daniel. Welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining today's call. As usual, I will keep my remarks brief and much of what I say will echo the messages from recent quarters. That reflects the consistency of our performance, the clarity of our focus and the discipline with which we continue to execute our strategy. What we are delivering at the bottom of the cycle positions us very well for the near future, particularly as more favorable policy conditions translate into a stronger operating environment with improving margins and returns. Alongside the impact of our growth strategy, this supports the free cash flow outlook and the delivery of consistent capital returns to shareholders. But first, I want to address safety. Our multiyear safety transformation program is now delivering more consistent and improved outcomes across our organization. Leadership expectations are clearly defined, risk management practices are being applied more uniformly and our focus on process safety has expanded across installations. Advanced analytics, including AI, are strengthening these efforts, for example enabling early identification of workers entering hazardous areas and triggering fast alerts and interventions that human monitoring alone would not. Most importantly, the sustained focus on safety is translating to tangible improvements in performance across the group. We provide a more detailed account of this progress in the sustainability report published last week, which I encourage you to review for a fuller picture of how we are advancing our safety objectives. Now I want to focus this quarter on three key points. First and foremost, our results consistently demonstrate clear structural improvements. In the first quarter, we delivered EBITDA of $131 per tonne, up $15 per tonne year-on-year and around 50% higher than our historical average margins. This clearly demonstrates the strengthening of our underlying earnings power over recent years. Importantly, this performance does not yet reflect the significantly stronger price environment seen in recent months, which we expect to be more fully evident in our second quarter results. Underlying free cash flow performance was robust. Excluding the seasonal working capital investment and the strategic growth CapEx, underlying free cash flow was running at an annualized rate of over $2 billion. Again, considering where we are in the cycle, this represents a strong outcome. Consistent and disciplined execution of our strategy is driving improved performance and providing the capacity to continually invest with discipline and focus and materially enhance the future earnings potential of ArcelorMittal. This brings me to my second point: our compelling growth opportunities, which clearly set us apart from our peers. We are allocating capital to the highest return opportunities. This includes projects that are actively enabling the energy transition, expanding our iron ore mining capacity and adding new value-added capabilities. We recently approved an EAF investment in Dunkirk. The decision was enabled by the more supportive policy backdrop, the cost visibility from a competitive long-term energy contract and the support of the French government. Our EAF projects are expected to deliver incrementally high EBITDA to provide an acceptable return on the capital deployed. So we have reflected Dunkirk together with the previously announced EAF projects in Sestao and Gijon into the expected EBITDA impact from strategic projects. This now stands at an incremental $1.8 billion from 2026 onwards. My final point is on the positive outlook, which is underpinned by trade policy. Given the change to trade policy, the steel sector today offers much more defensive characteristics, particularly in Europe, than it did in the past. More effective trade protections are leading to increasingly regionalized market structures, enabling domestic producers to recapture market share from unfairly subsidized imports. The biggest shift is occurring in Europe. We are very pleased with the agreement achieved in the new Tariff Rate Quota tool in Europe. As a result, we can expect this to be in effect from 1st of July 2026. Together with CBAM, this underpins our positive outlook for our European business. We are seeing stronger customer engagement, higher order inquiries and customers shifting more towards domestic supply. This is apparent in the material improvement in steel prices and spreads since the start of the year. As a result, despite the volatility of energy markets caused by the conflict in Iran, we continue to expect our production and shipments to improve across all regions in 2026. And we should see a clear improvement in our EBITDA in all Steel segments next quarter. As I conclude, the message is simple. We are consistently delivering structurally improved results while executing our strategy with discipline. Our high-return growth opportunities differentiate us from our peers as does our track record of capital returns through the consistent application of our policy. That framework has already delivered a 38% reduction in our share count and a doubling of the dividend over the past five years. At the same time, we have advanced the business strategically, enhancing resilience and structurally improving returns on capital, all achieved while maintaining a strong investment-grade balance sheet. With that, Daniel, I believe we can begin the Q&A.

Great. Thank you, Genuino. We have quite a long list of questions already. We will move to the first, which we'll take from Alan.

A couple of questions from my side. The usual question is probably a good place to start. If you can walk us through the usual profit bridges Q1 versus Q2? And where do you see the greatest delta in prices and volumes? And how are your divisional costs evolving sequentially, including the CO2 cost implications in Europe? That's the first question.

So I will ask Daniel to start with the bridge. Daniel, do you want to kick it off?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Genuino. It's a very simple bridge, which you've already alluded to in your opening remarks. You referenced that we expect all of the Steel segments to improve in the second quarter relative to the first quarter. The drivers behind that improvement are common across the segments: improved volumes and improved prices. That is applicable to Europe, North America, and Brazil.

Perhaps I will add on the point about carbon cost. As you know, we have the new benchmarks from the beginning of the year, ETS 4.2, which means a reduction of free allowances. What is important here, and what you can see in our results, is that with CBAM, which so far appears to be proving effective, prices have moved up significantly since its introduction. You do not yet see that benefit fully reflected in our results. You do see the costs in Europe already, as we accrue the higher CO2 costs, but the benefits of CBAM should come through from quarter 2 onwards.

My second question is: if you're able to give us some qualitative color on European customer behavior, how receptive are they to the new pricing frameworks, both CBAM and the upcoming safeguard? And are you worried about inventory levels in Europe? Or are you seeing any client retrenchment because of the Middle Eastern conflict? Any color you can give us on your customer profile in Europe today would be much appreciated.

I made some comments in my prepared opening remarks. We are seeing more activity and the order book is good. Compared to last year, the order book is stronger. We see customers trying to develop their relationships with domestic suppliers, which is supportive. That is why we feel confident to confirm the guidance discussed at the time of the Q4 results: higher shipments in Europe year-on-year. I would expect our second half to be stronger than the first half, which is unusual, because typically our second half is weaker. Given what we are discussing, I expect shipments in the second half to be stronger. Overall, things are moving in the right direction.

Great. We will move now to take a question from Bastian at Deutsche Bank.

My first one is also a follow-up on your guidance, particularly on steel production in Europe, which was very low in terms of production in Q1. You talked about maintenance, but shipments were down quite a lot as well, which is a bit surprising given the impact from CBAM we've seen as well as some withdrawal from imports. I'm wondering how far we will see a real catch-up in Q2 driving very strong year-on-year growth and whether you would be able to give a bit more detail on that.

You're right. As discussed in Q4, we had maintenance in some of our facilities and very recently restarted one of our furnaces in Poland. We continue to work on furnaces in France and Spain and will bring back capacity as we see demand. The furnace in Poland is already being ramped up. On inventories, imports were elevated in Q4 and came down in Q1, but evidence suggests that imports were elevated at the beginning of Q2 as players sought materials before the new TRQ starts on 1st July. Having said that, we do not believe that inventories are excessively high; they are higher than normal levels but not extreme. Our expectation is that with the new TRQ in place, inventories should normalize relatively quickly.

In terms of what this means for the overall cycle, some expect imports in Q2 to go up before fading in the second half. Is that your view as well? And what is your view on the pricing side? Prices have been very strong already. Do you expect further price dynamics to kick in in Europe in the third quarter, or will it take longer to digest inventories and disruptions?

We saw prices move up during the quarter, accelerating after the Iran conflict, also responding to cost pressures. Imports in Q2 should still be relatively high, as players bring materials in before the new TRQ. We do not expect that to take long for the market to absorb. Regarding prices, while we cannot comment on market prices per se, the indices show prices and spreads evolving positively, driven in part by CBAM. The combination of CBAM and TRQ is powerful for the European market, and with the TRQ coming into effect on 1st July, we expect it to support market dynamics.

A quick question on India, which you didn't mention in your early Q2 indication. We saw decent performance in Q1. Prices also picked up, but there is the energy situation. What is the trajectory for India into Q2?

India is also in a good place. Because of the DRI route, we are more exposed to gas, but we are fully hedged. We don't expect gas-related cost pressure to hit our Indian operations because of our hedging. The price environment has improved, which benefited Q1, and we expect a good second quarter for our Indian operations.

We will move now to take the next question from Reinhardt at Bank of America.

We've spoken a lot about inventories, and it seems like it creates some uncertainty about when domestic demand will kick in. What are you seeing across the European steel industry in terms of capacity mobilization? Outside of actions you've taken, do you think the European industry is ready for the challenge of producing additional volume?

I'm not going to comment on specific competitors' actions. What we have said consistently is that ArcelorMittal is in a good position to take market share from reduced imports. We have flexibility, the finances to bring capacity back, the ability to restart blast furnaces, and more downstream capacity. We are well positioned to ensure the market is supplied and to avoid shortages.

Just a second question on the Dunkirk EAF investment. Are you looking to add any downstream investment as part of that project to change your product mix?

Can you repeat the question? I'm not sure I got it.

As you're converting to EAF, are you looking to add any downstream finishing capacity as part of that project?

No, not really. We will be able to use existing downstream equipment, which helps reduce the overall CapEx. The change is primarily upstream: replacing the blast furnace and converters with EAFs and ladle furnaces, and then following the normal process of the plant. We should be able to achieve the same product mix. The order book there is high quality, and it is important for us to protect that. The idea is to produce the same grades as we can today with the blast furnace.

We will move now to take a question from Boris at Kepler Cheuvreux.

First question is about the new capacity restarts, both in France and Dabrowa in Poland, and plus EAF capacity in Spain. How much capacity are you bringing back with those new furnaces? And the second question is on North America: are you still facing the same headwind from Section 232? Can you share your expectations for the renegotiation of the USMCA agreement?

On capacity in Europe: these furnaces are 2-plus million tonnes; they are relatively large. As I mentioned, we restarted the furnace in Poland and are preparing in France and Spain. We will announce when we are ready to bring these furnaces back online. Regarding USMCA, it is early days and I won't speculate on the outcome. Ideally, we would like to operate as a single regional market across North America, with Mexico and Canada applying similar protections against imports as the United States. We have to wait to see how the negotiations evolve.

Just to confirm, the current headwind remains something like $150 million per quarter due to tariffs?

Yes, there is no change there. The headwinds remain basically the same.

We will move now to take a question from Tristan at BNP Paribas.

I have two questions. First, on North America and Section 232: we saw that there could be relief for Mexican and Canadian producers to build new capacity in the U.S. to supply the auto market. Do you believe this could be retroactively applied to your first Calvert EAF? And if not, is that a consideration for a potential second one?

Today we are not receiving any tariff relief; imports into the U.S., including from Canada and Mexico, continue to pay Section 232 tariffs. Our position has been consistent: we support fair trade measures because the global steel industry has suffered from overcapacity. We also support operating as a regional market across North America, so that steel melted and put into Canada or Mexico would not face tariffs. We have been seriously considering a second EAF at Calvert because the U.S. is an attractive market. Regarding potential tariff relief or incentives, new details have been published and we are analyzing them. We need to study the specifics. On a separate note, we are contributing steel to the White House Ballroom—approximately 600 tonnes delivered to date—and we are proud to supply steel to iconic buildings and projects around the world.

My second question is on the green steel economics in Europe. I was surprised to see you targeting only $200 million of EBITDA for your three EAF projects. If I understood correctly, Sestao could add another 1 million tonnes, Gijón replaces 1 million tonnes, and Dunkirk replaces 2 million tonnes—close to 4 million tonnes of EAF steel. It does not look like productivity gains or green steel premiums are factored in. Could you discuss the high-level assumptions you're making and whether the delta is on the cost base, and whether you expect a big increase in costs moving from BF to EAF?

A few points: we are speaking about incremental EBITDA relative to today, not the absolute EBITDA of the plants. For Dunkirk we are replacing a furnace rather than increasing capacity, so the figure refers to the incremental impact. The amount of investment is central to the returns, and that is why we focused on ensuring the right conditions—visibility on CBAM, import protections, and a competitive long-term energy contract for Dunkirk. Also consider the net CapEx amount: Dunkirk benefits from 50% support through white certificates and we avoid a reline on the furnace we're replacing, which reduces net costs. We are not disclosing detailed assumptions because they are commercially sensitive; our teams are already marketing future green steel contracts. We expect green premiums to be limited initially, and the teams are engaging with customers commercially.

We will move now to take a question from Ephrem at Citi.

I'm trying to understand the Page 12 AMNS future growth optionality figures: 15 million tonnes from Hazira and 8 million tonnes from Andhra, giving 23. My understanding was Hazira has optionality to 18 and then to 24, and the Greenfield in Andhra is separate. Is Phase 2 being delayed? Should we interpret it as a sequencing decision favoring Andhra to balance the balance sheet and skill sets?

You are right: the projects are phased. We have the option to take Hazira further over time, and it remains an option. The sequencing we currently see is to start Andhra, and Hazira will remain an option for later phases. Our 40 million tonne vision for India remains intact.

You've said the current energy situation is manageable through hedging and policy support. Can you give a sense of the timeline for your hedging coverage? Energy prices could remain high for 6, 12 or 24 months. How long would your hedging policy cover it? At what point would you and the industry start considering energy surcharges in steel?

Specifically in India, our hedging program is multiyear and we are in a good place. In Europe for gas, we also have a multiyear plan. We are comfortable with the programs in place and do not see an immediate need to change approach.

We will move now to the next question, which we'll take from Cole at Jefferies.

A little color on iron ore: the ramp-up on volumes and how you see that into Q2? And on imports into Europe ahead of the trade barriers: with global logistics disruptions, is there a possibility that expected imports do not arrive in time or that customers pull back orders because delivery dates won't be met?

On imports and logistics: freight rates have increased and some journeys are taking longer due to the conflict, but we don't believe this should prevent arrival of materials. We expect elevated imports in Q2 as suppliers bring material in before the new TRQ. That window is closing as we approach July, and the lack of quota splits by country makes it harder for further imports. Regarding iron ore, Daniel, could you comment?

Yes. We had a good start to the year in Liberia, another record production and shipment quarter. That should continue over the next three quarters. In our initial guidance we signaled that we expect to be at full capacity in the second half and to achieve at least 80 million tonnes of shipments. Expect some further improvement in Q2; we will navigate the rainy season in Q3 and continue to improve our ability to manage it, aiming for a strong fourth quarter performance.

Following up on mining costs: are there any cost impacts we should think about for Q2, such as diesel or other mining costs?

The key thing to watch for mining profitability in Q2 is prices and freight. Oil and diesel will have an impact, but freight is a primary factor to consider.

We will move now to the next question, which we'll take from Andy at UBS.

A few follow-ups. On the potential tariff carve-out in North America: my understanding is it's based on volumes sold into the auto sector. If you ship slabs from Mexico into Calvert, could you potentially get some relief if they are then sold into auto? Also, on Ukraine contribution: that was a drag in Q1. Can you quantify the Q1 EBITDA impact and do you see anything changing into Q2? Finally, on Mexico, there were operating issues last year with some overspill into Q1—how material was that in Q1?

On the tariff details, we've just received the published details and our teams are reviewing them, so I don't want to anticipate the analysis. We will address that next quarter when we have more clarity. On Ukraine, Q1 was challenging: energy prices were very high which led to negative EBITDA in Q1. In 2025 Ukraine managed to be roughly neutral at EBITDA level for the year, though free cash negative due to CapEx. Energy has come down, so we expect to do better in Q2, but the situation remains challenging. On Mexico, the situation has improved: the blast furnace producing long products started and we were not yet at full capacity in Q1. We expect to be at full capacity in Q2 and to see production and shipments improve. The issues from prior quarters are no longer at the same magnitude.

We will move now to take a question from Timna at Wells Fargo.

A few questions on North America. You saw a big contribution in Q1 from rising prices. You have some pricing locked in annual contracts; can you give high-level color on auto annual contracts? Do you think Q2 could see a similar order of magnitude given the pace of price increases? And how is Calvert ramping up?

Auto contracts in the U.S. are negotiated throughout the year rather than concentrated at the start as in Europe: roughly 30% in Q1, 30% in Q2, and about 25% in Q3, with the remainder spread across other periods. We don't comment on the specific outcomes of negotiations, but they are proceeding in line with our expectations. Calvert's EAF ramp is progressing: in Q1 we were already above 20–25% utilization and are progressing. We expect much higher levels by the end of Q2 and remain optimistic that the ramp-up phase will be close to complete by the end of the year. On quantifying the Q1-to-Q2 price impact, we won't give specific numbers, but you should expect to see continued reflection of rising prices in results where contracts reset.

One more: we're hearing a bit about switching from aluminum to steel in automotive, especially in the U.S. Do you see switching away from aluminum to steel, and any observations on that?

We have been focused on steel intensity in vehicles for some time and have had success demonstrating steel's benefits to customers. We continue R&D to ensure we have the grades customers want. Overall, steel intensity appears relatively stable and I would not highlight switching away from aluminum to steel as a major concern at this time.

We will move now to a question from Tom at Barclays.

On Ukraine, are you seeing anything from CBAM impacting Ukraine? One Ukrainian peer called out CBAM as a big disruptor for Ukrainian steel going into Europe, and there have been some reports of order cancellations. Are you seeing any impact? Also, on buybacks: your capital allocation policy hasn't changed but we haven't seen buybacks for nearly a year. With positive free cash and an expected ramp in earnings, could buybacks restart?

There was an expectation that Ukraine might be exempt from CBAM, but they are not, and we believe exemptions are not appropriate. Prices in Europe are increasing; if costs are competitive, producers should remain competitive. In our Ukraine business we focus on the domestic market and selling pig iron to other parts of the group; there is good demand for pig. On buybacks: as you know, we have a clear policy. We paid our first quarterly dividend in Q1. We remain optimistic about being free cash flow positive this year and the policy would then kick in. Based on the visibility today, I see no reason why we would not go above the minimum 50% payout as we have in recent years. The policy has been effective: we've reduced share count by more than 38%, and I think we are close to restarting buybacks.

When you say the policy could kick in, do you mean it waits for full-year confirmation, or is it dynamic and could start earlier if visibility supports it?

It is more dynamic. If we have the visibility, actions can be taken earlier.

We have time for two or three more questions. We will take the first from Max at ODDO.

You published a sustainability report where you adjusted your carbon emissions objective from minus 30% to minus 10% by 2030. That new objective depends on projects being delivered on time. What would be a more realistic timeline for a 30% reduction—mid-2030s, late-2030s, or beyond? And how should we think about sequencing of the next EAF projects in Europe? Are you waiting for Gijón to be delivered and ramped up before launching further investments?

You are right to observe the change to our 2030 target. We flagged this in recent communications. The 2030 target is based on announced projects, so it is a number we are confident we can achieve and that is why we updated it. On the timing of the next EAF projects, our EAF projects will be sequential with limited overlap. The focus now is completing Gijón and Dunkirk. We will communicate on subsequent projects in due course after those are underway and stabilized.

On the German stimulus plan, we do not see a significant change in our view. We are starting to see activity and do not believe the overall numbers we discussed will change materially. We will continue to monitor developments, but the intelligence we have today suggests the program's impact remains as previously described.

We have time for two more questions. The first will be from Dominic at JPMorgan.

Two quick questions. Given how tight the U.S. market is, do you think there's a possibility you would run harder through Q2 than normal, potentially offsetting a usual summer slowdown? And second, are there any obvious cash flow items we should model for Q2 when thinking about the net debt bridge?

In the U.S. we are running our facilities full and Calvert has been running at high levels, which will continue. Improvements in production and shipments will be more visible in Mexico and somewhat in Canada. The key in the U.S. is ramping up the EAF at Calvert, which will contribute to results. Regarding cash flow, I would focus on the year as a whole: we typically invest in working capital in Q1 and see a release in Q4, with Q2 and Q3 broadly a wash. We built some strategic inventories at the end of last year that we expect to release. For the full year, we expect working capital not to consume a significant amount of cash, supporting free cash flow generation.

Is that helpful, Dominic? Normally the working capital movement in Q2 and Q3 is not a major delta in the cash flow bridge; the larger deltas are in Q1 and Q4. We will now take the last question from Matt at Goldman Sachs.

Two-part question on India. Given India's reliance on gas imports from the Middle East and some peers flagging shortages, could you outline where you're sourcing your gas today and whether you've received any force majeure on future deliveries? Second, given your use of gas-based DRI and captive power, what measures can you realistically take to manage gas availability or reduce gas intensity across the Indian operations?

We are in a good place on India. We source gas from different suppliers and are not dependent on a single Middle Eastern source. We have not had any force majeure and have received our gas deliveries. As of late April and early May, we have no indication of force majeure and are not anticipating disruptions to availability. On reducing gas intensity, we have ongoing programs and hedging in place. The hedging and multiyear programs in India make us comfortable on both price and availability at this stage.

I'll hand back to Aditya Mittal for any closing remarks.

Thank you, everyone. Before we close, let me briefly reflect on the key messages from today's discussion. First, our first quarter performance again demonstrates structural improvement in the earnings power of ArcelorMittal. Margins are well above historical levels with further benefits from more favorable policy still to accrue. Underlying free cash is annualizing at over $2 billion. Second, we have a clear and differentiated growth pipeline. Our strategic investments are supporting our results and materially enhancing our future EBITDA potential. Finally, the positive outlook for our business is underpinned by more supportive trade policy, especially for Europe. More effective trade protections are fostering a more regionalized market structure, providing a robust platform for higher capacity utilization, profitability and more consistent returns on capital employed. Alongside the impact of our growth strategy, this supports the free cash flow outlook for ArcelorMittal and the delivery of consistent capital returns to shareholders. With that, I will close today's call. If you have any follow-up questions, please reach out to Daniel and his team. Thank you again for joining us, and I look forward to speaking with you soon. Stay safe and keep those around you safe as well. Thank you.