Operator
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Harpag-Leuth Analysts and Investors H1-2026 Results Conference Call and Live Webcast. I'm Surgon, the cross-call operator. Harpag-Leuth is presented by CEO Rolf Haben-Jansen and CFO Mark Threese. I would like to remind you that all participants will be in listen-only mode and the conference being recorded. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. You can register for questions at any time by pressing star and one on your telephone. For operating assistance, please press star and zero. The conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to Rolf Haben Jansen. Please go ahead, sir.
Thank you very much and from outside, a warm welcome and thank you for making the time to join us here today. As always, we'll give you a quick introduction from our end between myself and Mark, and then we'll be happy to take any questions that you may have. I think if we look at the first half, I think we reported an unsatisfactory start to the I think our first quarter was really not good. Second quarter, definitely better. I think good performance on volume, quarter on quarter up quite a bit. Year on year also quite decent. and unit costs also improved, rates came up a bit but admittedly only late into the quarter so the majority of that we will actually only see as from Q3. Of course there was serious disruption in the Middle East which caused quite a lot of costs, cash effects of that around $600 million, what we see in the P&L is about two-thirds of that. Good throughput growth in our terminal business, a number of new investments announced. We continue working on the ZIN transaction where the shareholders have approved that transaction and now we are working through the regulatory approvals and we still expect to wrap that up towards the end of the year. We raised our outlook in July on the back of higher demand but also higher spot rates. But of course, there is a certain amount of uncertainty, even if I think it's fair to say that the outlook right now is significantly better than what it was when we spoke the last time in May, and you see that also reflected in our numbers. In terms of market fundamentals, good growth in the market. On the right-hand side, we also tried to make the point here that the growth on the dominant legs over the last couple of years has been a lot stronger than many people anticipated, which is also, I think, why you see that supply and demand are at the moment actually fairly balanced or even tight. If you look at the last couple of years since 2023, I think we've seen roughly 25% growth on the dominant left, which is something that we have not seen for a very long period of time. That of course means we need a lot more ships. In addition to that, congestion is up, and because of the growth and because of the tightness that there is in many ports like Shanghai and others, we don't expect that to go away any time soon, and of course also that requires additional ships. We see on the back of that that the engines have gone up. They remain also quite strong as we move into Q3, and as such I think we have a fairly optimistic view right now for the second half of the year. If we move on, a few words on the Middle East, we have been able to get the vessels that we wanted to get out of the strait, almost out of the strait, so we're happy with that because that's all about safety for our crews and our ships. We've offered people alternative routings through land ridges, for example. That is working well, even if, of course, it's more expensive and the capacity is less than what we used to have. And on Gemini, that runs SE4 well. We saw a day in schedule reliability, but still remained well above everybody else when we had the bad weather in Europe in the first quarter. But right now we are, as we expected and I think announced in May, again, safely back above the 90% threshold. So that's definitely good. On the terminal front, quite a few achievements in the first half as that business is becoming more and more important pillar of our overall business. We got to 51% on JM Bakshi in India, which means that we consolidate that at the end of the first quarter. We started operations in Damietta, which is very helpful given all the volume that is now coming through the East Met. It's later than planned, but the start has been good. We signed the contract for Aga Cruz or Imeclama, where we expect to start operations in 2028. And recently, we announced signing of a term sheet with Eurogate to acquire 20% of CTH in Hamburg and to up our share in Tanger from 10% to 20%. On the SIM transaction, known to everybody, I think the deal summary is on the left-hand Nothing new to that since we spoke a lot of work has gone into getting all the necessary approvals. Quite a lot of that, you can read quite a lot about that in the press. We however just continue to work diligently with all the regulators in the various countries and based on what we see today, we're still confident that we will close the deal towards the end of this year. And with that, let me hand it over to Mark who will take us in a bit more detail through the numbers.
Thank you all, and good afternoon, thank you for joining us today for our results call. Well, following an unsatisfactory start of the year, as we talked about it, our operational and financial performance improved clearly in the second quarter. As you can see here, this recovery was supported by higher freight rates and stronger transport volumes in our liner shipping business, and that is particularly due to the robust export out of Asia and the improved demand from the United States. At the same time, our terminal infrastructure business maintains its growth path, with throughput increasing to 3.6 billion a million TU in the second quarter. However, the conflict in the Middle East caused severe operational disruptions and substantial additional costs. And despite these significant headwinds, we generated a group EBITDA of about 0.8 billion U.S. dollars and delivered another strong free cash flow of 0.6 billion U.S. dollars in the second quarter. Overall, the clear improvement in Q2 demonstrates the resilience of our business and provides a solid basis for the remainder of the year. and Rolf already mentioned it, that we are more and more getting positive for the second half. With that, let me walk you through now through the individual components a little bit in more detail. And starting with our P&R, group revenue increased by 19% compared to the first quarter, reaching 5.8 billion U.S. dollars in Q2. This improvement was primarily driven by better market conditions in the liner business as Group EBITDA increased by 68% quarter-on-quarter to $829 million, while the EBITDA margin recovered from 10% in Q1 to 14.2% in Q2. This improvement was even more pronounced at the EBIT level following a loss of 157 million in the not-positive quarter. One of this year we generated a positive group EBIT of 176 million U.S. in Q2. And group profit also returned to a positive territory and amounted to 83 million U.S. Turning to the performance of the liner segment, revenue increased to 5.7 billion US dollars compared to 4.8 billion US dollars in the first quarter, and the development was supported by higher transport volumes and the significant recovery in freight rates. Liner EBITDA reached 773 million U.S. in Q2. Following an EBIT loss of 174 million for the Liner business in Q1, the segment returned to profitability and generated an EBITDA of 153 million U.S. dollars in the second quarter. year, the recovery was achieved despite significant cost headwinds. On rates and volumes, our average freight rate increased by 11 percent quarter on quarter to US$1,475 per EU, and compared to the prior year quarter, the average freight rate was around 9 percent higher. The improvement was supported by stronger exports out of Asia and the recovery in demand from the United States, as said. Transport volumes increased by almost 9% compared to the first quarter, which goes to 3.5 million TUs, and to the prior year, a comparison, volumes were 3.5% higher. The strongest sequential volume improvement was recorded on the Europe-to-America trade, and that was a trade which was particularly affected by the sea of weather conditions and softer demand in the first quarter. For the first half of 26, transport volumes increased by 1.5% to 6.7 million to use, But the average freight rate remains stable year-on-year at $1,406 per TU, despite the significant fluctuations during that period. Jumping now to the unit cost side, so let's have a look on the cost development. Unit cost increased to $1,443 per TU in that second quarter, representing an increase in of 2% compared to Q1 and 7% compared to prior year quarter. This increase was driven by the conflict in Middle East, which resulted in around about $600 million of additional cash costs of this amount, and Rolf indicated that already $400 million was recognized as expenses in the second quarter, but the remainder is related needed to build up of bunker inventories. Bunker and emissions cost increased significantly due to the sharp rise in bunker prices. Our average bunker consumption price increased from 485 US dollars per metric ton, which was in Q1, to 700 US dollars per metric ton in Q2. Handling and haulage costs were affected by higher storage expenses and increased interland transportation costs related to alternative routing solutions in the Middle East, the land bridge, and fuel surcharges. We also incurred higher insurance and time charter costs very much related to that crisis In response to the sharp increase in energy cost, we implemented emergency surcharges. Together with our regular fuel recovery mechanism, these measures have mitigated the additional cost burden. Importantly, when adjusting for higher bunker prices at the direct effect of the Middle East disruptions, Our underlying unit cost improved both sequentially and year-on-year, and this reflects the impact of our ongoing cost-saving measures. So to the TNI performance, a couple of words turning to our segment here. The business continued its positive momentum in the second quarter, and it further reinforced the strategic importance to our group. Throughput increased to 3.6 million TU in Q2, and for the first half throughput reached 7 million TUs. Revenue starts by almost 50% to 360 million US dollars, and that is now increased to 102 million US dollars in the first half of 26. This development was supported by the first-time full consolidation of J.M. Bakshi's container terminal business and strong throughput growth in India and Latin America. At the same time, operational challenges at TU European hubs, continued cost pressure, and the ramp-up of new terminals weighed on profitability of this segment. Nevertheless, the segment generated a solid EBIT of $39 million in the first half of 2016. Jumping over to our cash flow, operating cash flow for the first half of 2016 amounted to $849 million. The difference compared to the EBITDA mainly reflects a temporary working capital headwind of over 417 million U.S. dollars, and that is primarily related to the strong increase in business activities and the bunker inventory buildup during the second quarter. Investment spending, so CAPEX, was modest and stood at close to 300 million U.S. dollars. That was mainly related to new-built installments, fleet retrofits, including our ongoing consultation of the five vessels to methanol, dual fuel propulsion, and our terminal activities. Interest received, divestment, and other activities generated proceeds of $431 million. As a result, investing cash flow was positive at $135 million. Overall, we generated a strong free cash flow of around about $1 billion in the first half of the year. Looking at the financing cash flow, it amounted to $1.9 billion. This includes the dividend payment of around about $600 million, as well as debt repayments and some other financing effects. At the end of June, our cash position amounted to 3.2 billion U.S. dollars. So, a couple of words to conclude and a brief overview on our balance sheet figures. We continue to have a robust balance sheet that's clear by and shown by high liquidity and low leverage. Equity amounted to 20.7 billion U.S. dollars at the end of June. That's around about an equity ratio of 61%. Net debt increased from US$1.2 billion at the end of 2025 to close to US$2 billion. This development mainly reflects the dividend payment in Q2 and the temporary negative working capital effect asset. Our liquidity reserve amounted to 5.9 billion U.S. dollars, including 3.2 U.S. dollars in cash assets, 2 billion U.S. dollars in fixed income investments, and around about 0.7 billion U.S. dollars in our undrawn revolving credit facilities. And very clearly, this robust financial position provides us with substantial flexibility to fund all strategic priorities and to navigate the continued volatility in the market which we are facing and which we are all facing. And having said that, I hand it back to Rolf for the market update and the outlook.
Yeah, maybe switching to market first. I think we have a constructive or positive market outlook for the remainder of 26. I think we continue to see robust demand growth. I think when demand started picking up in the course of the second quarter, lots of people thought that it might be short-lived, but even up to today, I think we still see very robust volume, so very decent peak season, and also if you look at something like on the right-hand side, the inventory-to-sales ratio in the U.S., you can see that that's definitely not on the high side, and I believe we commented on that already in November, that we said at some point in time, in the course of 26, this is very likely going to I think that's a little bit what we see right now. So, all in all, positive outlook, and on the back of that, that's also why we adjusted our earnings outlook in the month of July, and I would say that we're still very comfortable with that, so not that much to add to that. That brings us to the wrap-up and priorities for this year before we get to your questions. Challenges start to the year. Volumes and financial performance definitely better than Q2. a good performance in Gemini very resilient still delivering schedule lead industry eating schedule reliability consistently mainly continues to be difficult but we have adjusted our operations to deal with that and as such yes that causes significant additional cost but so far we have been able to go The terminal business is doing well, continues to grow and becomes increasingly strategically relevant and our priorities for the remainder of the year are continuing to focus on improving our cost position, of course assuring that we get all the regulatory approvals for ZIM and of course try to do whatever we can to maximize yield. And that wraps it up from our end and with that we happily hand it back over to the operator for Q&A.
Operator
Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and 1 on the telephone. You will hear a tone to confirm that you have entered the queue. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue you may press star and 2. Anyone with the question may press star and go at this time. And the first question comes from Christian Medelko from UBS. Please go ahead.
Hi, thank you very much for taking my questions. The first one, could I please ask you on the port congestion theme? You mentioned a strong three years in headholds, volume growth. looking forward what are the arguments in favor of headhold demand continuing to outgrow terminal capacity growth for the next two to three years any any arguments in particular there my second one if I could please ask you on the what the bubble month that I think there's there's more and more of your of your peers that are going through through there or planning to go So could you help us visualize a bit to what extent delaying the return to Babel-Mandeb could bring a temporary competitive disadvantage versus other carriers? And what's your latest view there? And the last one, if you allow me, we understand you're still – the ZIM negotiations are still ongoing, but just in a hypothetical scenario that the deal would not go through, could I ask you what is the plan B in terms of capacity going forward? I think your order book is a relatively low percentage of your active fleet today. So are you ready to accept a shrinking market share or should we consider a meaningful step up in capex and leases over the next few years in a hypothetical scenario that the Zim deal does not go through?
Let me try and take them one by one. I think, first of all, port congestion. We see the course congestion because the growth or demand growth has been stronger than capacity growth over the last two, three years. So it's not something about what we see going forward, but it's in essence what has already happened over the last few years. And now some of the infrastructure needs to be expanded to cope with the volumes that we already have today. That's why we see that congestion. I think that that's still going to last for a while because building that type of infrastructure is not that easy. and in fairness to the terminal operators, I think everybody's been surprised with the roles on the dominant legs over the last two or three years. So it's no criticism to anyone, but I think the reality is that it will take some time before the infrastructure is adjusted. On Baba Mandap, well, I think our view is probably not so different from others. The situation today is definitely different and better than it was a year or a year and a half ago. so that means that we would also expect to see a gradual return to Baba Mandat that will still take some time as we have always said because we're not going to bring everything back in one go but we will do that step by step to avoid also overload on the terminals especially in Europe so I don't see also why that would potentially be a competitive disadvantage in terms of Jim we're working through that and our plan is to to close that until the end of this year and that's what that's currently the the plan and we are also actually pretty positive that in the end we will it will be able to get that done so so that's our planning assumption the next question comes from last handle from Nordia please go it this afternoon thank you for taking my questions the first one is on the rate development.
I mean, a lot of volatility, as you mentioned also in your opening remarks. Can you indicate perhaps what kind of share of your BCO or contract volumes that are subject to, I would call, normal buff regulation here, which typically steps in until the third quarter, all the way into the delay, and to what extent, I mean, how much of those volumes have actually been subject to the EPS surcharge, just to get a sense for, you know, the delta in terms of the rate development from Q2 into Q3.
I mean, on all our long-term contracts, with very few exceptions, are subject to normal MFR or BUFF, as you call it, yeah. So, that's what you will see in the vast majority of cases. In some cases, we have customer formulas, but all of those contracts have a bunker clause, and that means that in most cases, we will see those adjustments as from the 1st of July.
Okay. And then on the return to Suez, what kind of cost savings will that provide? Clearly, of course, there are some bunkers, I know that. On the other hand, you have to pay the fee to get through Suez. And I don't know if you can relate that to what kind of price impact you think that will have if it's only Gemini, at least for starting, and then CMA-CGM is also there. But now, but the rest seems to be hesitating a bit, turning at least full on back to SERS.
I think, no, the pure cost savings on the trip are not so significant because, as you rightfully point out, you save bunker, but you have to pay the Suez fee. I still expect that the overall return to Suez will be gradual, probably from now until the end of the year. And that's in a way also good because if the market continues to grow, then we will actually need a bit of additional capacity to move all of that cargo as today the situation is really tight. And yes, we're going to get a fair number of new ships into the industry in 2027. But right now, there are no indications that the growth in 27 will be much lower than what we see right now. And as such, a fair number of those ships is actually also needed to carry the cargo, and that's of course where, at some stage, returning to Suez will also help to turn the ships a bit quicker, so we can improve asset terms a bit.
Okay, and then the last one, just on the market in general, solid demand, particularly as you've been pointing out. I mean, what kind of growth pace do you expect the market to be at sort of presently?
When we look at the dominant black growth, we're looking at about 7% or so the first half of this year. Last year was about 6%. I don't see a lot of indications that that's going to be much different if we try to look at the next 12 to 18 months and to have visibility much beyond that is always very difficult.
Operator
Thank you. As a reminder, if you wish to register for question, please press star and run on your telephone. The next question comes from Christian Medericu from UBS. Please go ahead.
Thank you very much for allowing to add that, Paul. Just on, could you tell us on bookings on Asia, Europe, what you're seeing recently? There are some reports of some sequential weakening in bookings. I don't know if you're seeing that at And secondly, I believe the port of Hamburg, I think they flagged some operational issues and I think some points related to rail, some bottlenecks related to rail transportation. And just conceptually, when we think about your volume growth into Q3 and Q4, does that really move the needle for you? Does it represent a bit of a constraint in terms of volume growth in your ocean business or not really?
I think generally we see the market growing, yeah, so from that perspective there is certainly enough demand out there. I don't see a real slowdown of bookings. Sometimes you have a little bit of fluctuation from one week to another, and for example if we have in Italy you will typically not see a lot of bookings there. Underlying demand, as far as I can see, is still very strong. When we look at the inland, that is definitely an issue. We have low water. We have some other operational issues that you were also referring to. That means that in most cases, things need to then move by truck because there is no other alternative where capacity is somewhat scarce. So that does put some limitation on especially some of the export volume. but it is not something that will have a material impact on our overall volumes when looking at Q3 and Q4.
Understood. Thank you very much. And can I please follow up? Just in terms of unit cost, I think excluding the Middle East, the performance was good in Q2. I don't know if in terms of looking for Q3, Q4, any moving parts you can tell us and how you would expect the unit cost to develop. Thank you.
I think I agree with you. I think our unit cost development was good into Q2 and we just need to make sure that we stay on that track. A bigger uncertainty there, of course, remains the energy related cost. That is a big factor. I would say most of the other factors we have are under control.
Operator
There are no more questions at this time. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Rolf. Haben Jansen for any closing remarks?
Yeah, not much for my thought. Just to say thank you for joining. Hope that was informative for you and hope to see or speak to you again soon.
Operator
Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now over and domain analysis connected to clients. Goodbye.
