Thank you, operator, and welcome to ZIM's First Quarter 2024 Financial Results Conference Call. Joining me on the call today are Eli Glickman, ZIM's President and CEO; and Xavier Destriau, CFO. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that during the course of this call, we will make forward-looking statements regarding expectations, predictions, projections or future events or results. We believe that our expectations and assumptions are reasonable. We wish to caution you that such statements reflect only the company's current expectations and that actual events or results may differ, including materially. You are kindly referred to consider the risk factors and cautionary language described in the documents the company files with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our 2023 annual report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC in March 2024. We undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to ZIM's CEO, Eli Glickman. Eli?

Thank you, Elana, and welcome, everyone. ZIM began 2024 with positive momentum. We leveraged market conditions and, coupled with the strong execution of the ZIM team globally, we delivered solid Q1 results. Based on current market conditions, our outlook for the remainder of the year has improved, and as such, we now expect a full year '24 financial performance to be better than our '23 results. Our strategic plan to upscale our fleet and operate larger vessels to improve our cost structure is paying off, and we believe that in '24, we will achieve our volume growth expectations, outperforming the market. ZIM's earnings in the first quarter reflect stronger spot rates, which resulted from disruption in the global logistics supply chain. We delivered revenue of $1.56 billion and net income of $92 million. Adjusted EBITDA was $427 million, and adjusted EBIT was $167 million, reflecting adjusted EBITDA margin of 27% and adjusted EBIT margin of 11%. Our total cash position of $2.25 billion at quarter end remains strong. Our Q1 results reflect the dynamic nature of the container shipping industry. Today, tensions in the Red Sea have not eased and continue to distract global trade. We've seen freight rates significantly increase from November '23 lows as overcapacity in the market is being absorbed. As we look forward, we expect freight rates to remain higher for longer than initially anticipated. While we cannot predict when this disruption will end, it does not seem that a solution is in sight. Moreover, in recent weeks, we have seen spot rate increases spreading to additional trades, which are not directly impacted by the Red Sea disruption and which previously did not experience rate increases. This is an indication of increased demand and constraint on equipment added to the supply pressure, which may be the cause of this recent trend. Given this stronger rate environment now impacting more trades, our outlook for the year is more positive. Therefore, we are raising our full year '24 guidance and now expect to generate adjusted EBITDA in the range of $1.15 billion to $1.55 billion and adjusted EBIT between $0 million and $400 million. As per our dividend policy, which provides for a payout of 30% of quarterly net income, our Board of Directors has declared a dividend of $0.23 per share or a total of $28 million on account of Q1 results. While the bare case scenario from a financial perspective has likely been avoided in '24, we would like to remind you that our market is extremely volatile and that until recently, the disruptions which drove rates up were primarily supply-driven. It remains to be seen whether the improved demand we are currently witnessing is sustainable and rather to support freight rates for the remainder of '24. Overall market dynamics still point to supply growth significantly outpacing demand growth with significant deliveries this year and to a lesser extent, next year as well. Our longer-term expectation for the market has not changed. It remains our view that once the Red Sea crisis is resolved, we will likely revert to the supply-demand scenario that began to play out in '23. We maintain a view that the industry will face a more challenging second half of this year, irrespective of the duration of the Red Sea crisis, as more new builds, particularly large capacity vessels are delivered. This will likely adversely affect our results in the third and fourth quarters. We continue to assume that the second half of '24 might be weaker than the first half. Xavier, our CFO, will discuss additional factors driving our '24 guidance in his prepared comments. Before I turn the call over to him, I would like to provide an operational and commercial update and highlight ZIM's progress in executing strategic objectives thus far in '24. Our transformation is well underway and has begun to produce tangible results. We are very pleased with our progress and are confident that with respect to our fleet and cost structure, ZIM will emerge in a stronger position in '25 and beyond as our transformation continues to yield incremental benefits. The primary pillar of ZIM's transformation is our fleet renewal program executed to enable more efficient and competitive operations. We secured a total of 46 new build container ships, of which 28 are LNG-powered. Today, new build vessels have already been delivered to us, including all 10,000, 15,000 TEU LNG vessels and 9 out of 18 8,000 TEU LNG-powered vessels, which we are deploying on the strategic Asia to U.S. East Coast trade. Our new fleet improves our cost structure and supports long-term profitable growth. Importantly, these new vessels are more modern, fuel-efficient, larger, and better suited to the trends in which we operate. This continues to reduce our cost per TEU as these cost-effective newbuild vessels replace older, less efficient, and more expensive charter capacity. Moving forward, we expect to continue seeing gradual cost per TEU improvement as we meet our volume growth targets. In addition to improving our cost structure and enabling long-term sustainable growth, our fleet renewal program addresses a central objective of our ESG road map: to reduce the environmental impact of our operations and help fight climate change. The benefits of our new fleet from an environmental perspective are worth mentioning again. Next year, once we receive all our new builds and we redeliver existing charter tonnage, over 50% of our operated capacity is expected to be new building. Approximately 40% of our operated capacity is expected to be LNG powered, making ZIM among the lowest carbon intensity carriers in the world. Already today, 30% of our capacity is LNG powered, and we operate the greenest fleet in terms of the use of alternative fuels. Sustainability is a core value for ZIM, and we are pleased to have recently published our 6th annual ESG report, which addresses the increasing demand from our various stakeholders for a more proactive ESG approach. In '23, ZIM achieved a 23% drop in carbon intensity of our operations compared to the prior year. This was driven in part by our new LNG vessels, which replace older vessels and significantly cut our carbon emissions. We also decreased vessel speed and added vessels to routes to comply with emerging regulations. We are proud of the progress we made in '23 and are well on our way to reaching our target of reducing carbon intensity by 30% by '25 versus our '21 baseline. We remain committed to reducing our GHG emissions to net zero by 2050, which is a more ambitious target than the one set by the IMO. We recognize that the implementation of ESG-focused strategies is an ongoing process, and we'll continue to prioritize promoting responsible corporate practices to create long-term sustainable value for all our stakeholders. Operationally, we also remain focused on aligning our fleet size with demand levels and rationalizing our fleet to minimize cash burn. At the beginning of this year, we had a total of 32 vessels up for renewal in '24. Thus far, we have redelivered 11 vessels and anticipate the remainder will be redelivered over the course of the year. Turning next to our network of services, the agile nature of our commercial strategy has continued to serve ZIM well. During the first quarter, we continued to adapt our network to changing customer demand. In Q1, we grew our volume on Transpacific, leveraging our larger capacity vessels and opening new lines to LA and Vancouver. We maintain our unique commercial position on this strategic trade for ZIM as the only carrier to call the U.S. East Coast with LNG fuel vessels. In fact, we operate LNG vessels on two different services in this trade. As we are able to offer shippers a pathway to significantly reduce carbon emissions on this trade, we believe that our differentiated offering enhances our competitive position and supports our volume growth target. We are also pleased to report growing volume in Latin America. We opened several new lines in '23 in this trade and continue to expand our network in Q1. As we have discussed previously, Latin America has been a focal point for us where we see long-term growth and profitability potential. On this note, I will turn the call over to Xavier, our CFO, for a more detailed discussion of our financial results, our revised '24 guidance, as well as additional comments on the market environment. Xavier, please?

Thank you, and again, welcome, everyone. On Slide 7, we present key financial and operational highlights. And as Eli mentioned, our first quarter financial results reflect the improved freight rates that mostly ensued from the Red Sea disruptions. ZIM generated revenue of $1.6 billion in the first quarter of 2024, a 14% increase compared to the first quarter of last year. Our average freight rate per TEU was $1,452, a year-over-year increase of 4% and a 32% increase from the prior quarter. Total revenue from non-containerized cargo, which reflects mostly our car carrier services, totaled $111 million for the quarter compared to $106 million in the first quarter of 2023. While we operated more vessels in the current quarter, revenues are only slightly up due to the longer voyages around the Cape of Good Hope in the current quarter. Our free cash flow in the first quarter totaled $303 million compared to $142 million in the first quarter of 2023. Turning to the balance sheet. Total debt increased by $359 million since the prior year-end, mainly due to the net effect of the incoming larger vessels with longer-term charter durations. Regarding our fleet, we currently operate 147 vessels, of which 16 are car carriers, as compared to 150 vessels as of our Q4 earnings call in mid-March. The slight decrease from March resulted from the delivery of 6 new builds and the scheduled redelivery of 9 vessels. I'd like to remind you that while we may continue to operate a similar number of vessels or even fewer vessels, our operated capacity has grown in 2023 and will continue to grow this year. We are replacing smaller vessels, less cost-effective tonnage with larger, more cost-efficient newbuild tonnage, thereby contributing to lower unit cost per TEU. Moreover, these vessels are also better suited to the trades in which they are being deployed, again enhancing our strategic positioning. As of today's call, 30 of the 46 new build vessels that we have committed to have joined our fleet, including 10 15,000 TEU LNG vessels, 4 12,000 TEU vessels, 9 8,000 TEU LNG vessels, and 7 of the smaller wide beam, 5,500 and 5,300 TEU ships. Excluding the new build capacity, the average remaining duration of our chartered tonnage continues to trend down and is now 19.7 months compared to 24 months in mid-March. We have a total of 21 vessels up for charter renewal in the remainder of 2024, compared to the expected delivery of 16 new builds during this period. Additionally, we have another 37 vessels up for renewal in 2025. As we previously highlighted, this gives us ample flexibility to ensure our fleet size matches the market opportunities. Turning now to additional Q1 financial metrics on Slide 9. Adjusted EBITDA in the first quarter was $427 million compared to $373 million in Q1 2023, reflecting an adjusted EBITDA margin of 27% in both periods. Adjusted EBIT was $167 million, or 11% margin compared to an EBIT loss of $14 million in the same quarter of last year. Net income for the first quarter was $92 million compared to a net loss of $58 million in Q1 2023. We remain committed to returning capital to shareholders, and as such, our Board of Directors declared a dividend to shareholders of $0.23 per share or a total of $28 million, which reflects a payout of 30% of Q1 net income as per our current dividend policy. Turning now to Slide 10. We carried 846,000 TEUs in the first quarter compared to 769,000 TEUs during the same period last year. That is an increase of 10%, slightly ahead of market growth of 9%. As Eli discussed, we grew our volume on the Transpacific in Q1, attributable to our larger capacity vessels and also new lines. Transpacific volume grew 27% year-over-year, and we expect to see continued volume growth during the remainder of 2024 as we continue to upsize our capacity. Significant growth in Latin America volumes of 129% year-over-year was driven by our expanded presence in this trade. We see additional opportunities to participate in the growth of that trade. Next, we present our cash flow bridge. For the quarter, our adjusted EBITDA of $427 million converted into $326 million of cash flow generated from operating activities. Other cash flow of significant items for the quarter is, obviously, $740 million of debt service, mostly related to our lease liability repayments. It is important, however, to remember that the lease liability repayments in Q1 included $235 million, reflecting down payment for 6 LNG vessels that we received during the quarter and also payments for the 5 vessels following an early notice for the exercise of purchase options we held on these vessels as we already previously mentioned on our March call. Moving now to our 2024 guidance. As you heard from Eli, our outlook for the remainder of 2024 is stronger than previously assumed. Based on the evolving market and as a result, our financial performance in 2024 is now expected to be better than our 2023 results. We are raising our full year guidance and now expect to generate adjusted EBITDA between $1.15 billion and $1.55 billion in 2024 and adjusted EBIT between $0 million and $400 million. Our improved guidance is driven primarily by the strength we are seeing in spot rates. This, in turn, contributed to higher freight rate assumptions incorporated into our current guidance as compared to the freight rate assumptions we incorporated into the guidance we provided back in March. Before touching on the volume and bunker cost assumptions, I would like to briefly discuss the contract season and how it plays out. It plays into our outlook for the remainder of the year. So, for the year ahead, our spot exposure in the Transpacific trade will remain relatively high as the new annual Transpacific contract, which went into effect on May 1, represents approximately 35% of our expected Transpacific volume. We chose to revisit our commercial approach of roughly 50%, 50% split between spot and contract volume given our expectation that the average spot rate for Transpacific for the next 12 months will likely outperform the prevailing contract rates, which were only slightly better than last year's rates. We believe that our value proposition to customers operating LNG vessels on this trade will help us achieve our volume growth objectives while leveraging the strong spot rate environment. Our volume assumptions for our 2024 guidance remain unchanged, and we expect our volume growth this year to outpace market growth as we continue to upsize our fleet and increase operating capacity. Bunker costs, on the other hand, are slightly higher compared to the underlying assumptions for the guidance we provided in March. Moving to our market discussion with some data points on our commentary so far. Market evolution since November 2023 has demonstrated the volatile nature of our industry. The underlying supply-demand balance for 2024 has been and remains one of significant oversupply, as you can see in the graph on the left. Events external to our industry, namely the security concerns in the Red Sea, have caused most global carriers to redivert the ships around the Cape of Good Hope. This has extended voyage durations to North Europe, the Mediterranean, and to a certain extent to the U.S. East Coast, absorbing significant capacity and bringing the supply-demand balance to a certain equilibrium. Yet, the strength in spot rates of recent weeks extends beyond these trades, which were directly impacted by the Red Sea diversions. As you can see, the improvement in spot rates in Asia to the U.S. East Coast, which we saw from December until mid-January, was when the initial impact of the extended rotations was normalized. But as we mentioned earlier, we now see a second wave of spot rate hikes with the improvement in freight rates also spilling over to additional trades. We show here SCFI rates for regional trades, including Africa, Latin America, and Oceania. This recent, more widespread strength in rates is attributable to indications of equipment constraints, coupled with improved demand. CTS data for Q1 2024 shows a healthy start to the year. As already mentioned, global volume for Q1 2024 is up 9% compared to Q1 last year and tracking similar volume to Q1 in 2022 and Q1 2021. This suggests that the destocking cycle, which started in the second half of 2022, may have ended. However, on the right, you can see the recent increase in the ocean timeliness indicator. The OTI measures the journey of the container from the time it is set to leave a factory to the time it is picked up from its destination port. This increase suggests some stress in the global supply chain. Therefore, it remains to be seen if the current uptick in demand is, in fact, the beginning of a restocking cycle that would translate into a more prolonged and sustainable improvement in demand that could continue to support freight rates. Or whether this increase is simply shifting towards the timing of peak season demand. On this note, we will open the call for questions. Thank you.

We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Your first question today comes from the line of Omar Nokta from Jefferies.

Just 3 questions for me, and maybe the first one, just wanted to ask, clearly, the market's taken off. And it seems much more broad stroke than what we saw earlier this year as you were just highlighting, Xavier. And on Slide 14, we've got multiple geographies that are now seeing higher rates. And it's not just Asia, Europe and a little bit of the Transpacific like we saw at the beginning of the year. How would you characterize what's really behind this? Is this a supply-driven dynamic or demand? You mentioned just now that it's due to a shortage in equipment. I guess from your perspective in your lens, what has caused this equipment shortage to take place? And is it a sudden occurrence? Or is it something that's been gradually building up since the beginning of the year?

We see both supply-side effects and demand-side effects. As for the supply side, as a result of the Red Sea crisis and tension passing through the Cape of Good Hope Africa, many more vessels are required to keep our weekly service. This affects the supply side; in order to keep the service because we spend more time on the way, we need more containers. As a result, there is a shortage in the container industry. We have seen full capacity, and we planned in advance and are ready to serve this high effect of the supply side. On top of that, there is the demand side. We see in the last few weeks, earlier than we expected, high demand from the U.S. This demand is not just from the U.S. or the services from Asia to the U.S. only or Asia to the Mediterranean, but we see it from Asia to West Coast Africa, Asia to India, Asia to Oceania. We see it in Asia to South America and from Asia to the West Coast of Central America, Mexico, and West Coast of South America. So, this is significant. In the past, regarding the U.S. market, we see an interesting case. We see unemployment at a very low historical level. While inflation is high, historically, low unemployment and high inflation have not correlated well, but here, we see both low unemployment and inflation likely due to more companies trying to attract employees by paying higher salaries. As a result, consumers in the U.S. have more money to spend. We really don't know if this early demand is due to early season demand or low inventory. After COVID, inventory levels in the U.S. were high, and companies reduced orders. As of today, we understand that inventories in the U.S. are on the low side, which is driving high demand. The real question remains if this demand is going to stay with us until after the holiday season or if this is just a seasonal spike.

No, no. I guess that addresses your question, Omar. But clearly, the vessel shortage triggered equipment shortages. Now, as Eli mentioned, we also see the uptick in demand in the U.S., which is providing further support in the rate environment.

Makes sense. And maybe as a second question, a follow-up perhaps to that dynamic is, given the shortage in vessel capacity, we've seen a big jump in appetite on the part of other ocean carriers to secure ships on charter. I mean, ZIM's been focused on returning ships back to their owners. You highlighted the 21 that remain for this year and 37 that roll off in '25. What's your plan with those? Has your thought changed at all about returning all of them, or do you look to retain some given the change in market dynamics?

Okay. I would say, first, unlike other shipping lines, we had already anticipated a significant increase in our operated tonnage through 2024 by simply taking delivery of all the new builds that we ordered back in '21 and '22. Reminding that our operating capacity is expected to increase by more than double digits compared to the end of 2023. If we look at what our capacity will be by the end of 2024 and compare it with what it was at the end of 2023 by just taking all the 46 ships that we ordered, we would de facto increase our operating tonnage significantly. By and large, our long-term view or mid-term view has not changed. So, we are redelivering the vessels that come up for renewal in order to make room for the 16 ships that we are awaiting between now and the end of the year. On a case-by-case basis, we will reassess at every occasion whether we might want to keep or renew some of the ships. But generally, the objective and strategy remain unchanged.

Got it. And final one for me, you discussed this a bit in the cash bridge in your slides, the $235 million of upfront payments that you made during the quarter. If I recall, there's maybe $340 million in total for those seaspan leases due this year. Is that roughly the math? And how much should we expect will be spent in the next quarter or over the next three quarters?

Yes, you have the numbers more or less right with some clarification. For the full 2024, from 1st of January up until 31st of December, the expectation is or is going to be an overall total payment of $339 million for the delivery of all those new buildings. In the first quarter, so looking at the cash flow statement in Q1, we incurred $10 million of down payment as we took delivery of 2 15,000 TEU ships and 4 8,000 TEU ships. So that's $106 million. And then we paid $130 million as we exercised the right to acquire the option that we had on 5 large capacity vessels, which we acquired in Q1. So, the $235 million this quarter is the combination of both $106 million down payment and $129 million of exercising the option on the 5 vessels.

Okay. Got it. So, the remaining $233 million is, I would assume, just evenly split for the rest of the year.

Your next question comes from the line of Muneeba Kayani from Bank of America.

So firstly, I just wanted to understand your EBITDA guidance and the phasing of it. As we've heard from some of the other liners that 2Q EBITDA could be better than the first quarter. So firstly, is that your expectation given what you've seen so far in the second quarter? If that's the case, I guess that would imply you're resuming fairly low profitability in the third quarter and fourth quarter. Can you please help us understand how you thought about the phasing this year?

Yes. I will begin. Xavier will follow. First, we are very positive. As we said, '24 results are going to be better than '23 results as we see the forecast of today. With regard to your question for the quarter, we tried to keep not to go to quarterly results, but we are speaking about guidance for the year, not for the quarters. You can deduce and come to the conclusion that we believe that the first half is going to be stronger than the second half. This is because we are trying to be cautious as we don't know yet when the Red Sea crisis is going to end. To be conservative, we don't know what to expect in advance with the supply-side effect. We are trying to be conservative for the second half of the year while hoping for strong results.

I will just indeed add that forecasting is very difficult as there are many events that drive the current uptick in the market, which are potentially due to geopolitical events beyond our control. What we can say at this stage is that, as Eli just said, the beginning of the year is much better than what we initially anticipated. However, if we consider the fundamental supply-demand dynamics, we are still in a situation where the threat of overcapacity is still around. A lot of new build tonnage is expected to be delivered towards the second half of the year, and vessel sizes are designed to cater specifically to the strong East-West trade. This supply risk exists, and we need to be cautious about whether the current demand will be enough to absorb that extra capacity. Therefore, we feel that it is likely that the second half of 2024 might be a bit weaker than the first.

I totally understand that. And given what you've seen so far in 2Q and the spot rates we've seen, and looking at your working capital and trade receivables, is it fair to assume that 2Q could be higher than 1Q?

It could.

And just then, if I may ask another question on lease payments. Can you remind us what could be the cash outflows for that and just other CapEx this year and next year, please?

In terms of lease payments, we are and we always said, indeed, that 2024 is going to be a challenging year for us, mostly because we continue to pay the charters that we secured during periods that were more expensive than what could be secured today. For 2024, and just like 2023, this will be quite heavy on that front. However, as we redeliver those more expensive ships and bring in the new builds we ordered, for which we have a clear view, the expenses will become more reasonable. So that will bring down per service cost over time. As for vessel CapEx, we don't anticipate any in 2024 unless you consider down payments as related to CapEx. It is shown in the cash flow statement as prepayment of rentals. So, we have a $230 million cash payment in 2024 related to the delivery of those new ships. What may change is our need to invest a bit more in equipment. We just talked about equipment shortages, and we want to ensure we are fully equipped to meet our customers' expectations, so we might invest a bit on that front.

And if I may ask a third question on dividends, please. How do you think about the quarterly dividend for 1Q? I understand the payout ratio, but I think if I remember correctly, it was subject to Board review. What has made the Board comfortable with paying the dividend, given your comments around the threat of oversupply in the industry?

Look, I mean, on this front, you're right: we have a dividend policy, which we intend to adhere to unless there are good reasons for us to deviate from that policy. The Board, looking at this question, felt confident that by adhering to the dividend policy, we were not putting the company at risk regarding our outlook. From a corporate law perspective, in Israel, we have to meet and satisfy several criteria and tests that we did satisfy. As a result, the Board felt comfortable agreeing to this dividend distribution.

Your next question comes from the line of Sathish Sivakumar from Citigroup.

I've got 3 questions here. First on the box shortages or equipment shortages. If you could just clarify which trade lines you are seeing this? Is it mainly on the backhaul or on the main trades? Any color on that would be helpful. Last year in Q3, you took an impairment on your lease liabilities based on the rates being depressed for longer. Given the recent rebound in rates, how does that impairment provision work? Would you see that being unwinded or is it done for now? Lastly, in your Q1 results, have you had any contract rates coming in, or is it all 35% contracted starting only in May? How should we think about the exit rates on your freight rates versus March and what you are seeing in April and May?

Okay. Regarding equipment constraints or shortages, we clearly see the pressure rising in Asia for us to get the equipment on time to bring the cargo to the U.S. So, for us, it's really the Asia to U.S. trade that is affected. This involves many origins in Asia to destinations elsewhere. For example, we have a shortage of equipment availability in Ningbo, where we need to ensure timely positioning of the equipment. I mentioned earlier that we are prepared for that, but may need to adjust due to increasing operating tonnage. The more we operate, the more we need additional equipment. Therefore, we see some pressure in equipment availability. Regarding the impairment, that is on the asset side, not the lease liability side. The rationale for the impairment involves looking at our long-term forecast, which is not just for one quarter or even one year but 4 to 5 years ahead to assess our cash generation potential. We use a discounting rate which is the average cost of capital and compare it to the book value of our assets. We did that last year in Q3 which led to a large impairment amount. Now we evaluate whether there are impairment indicators each quarter, which helps us determine if indicators warrant revisiting that impairment analysis. Up to now, we have not decided to adjust it based on the recent market changes. We still view the long-term forecast as relatively unchanged, but if there is a significant improvement in the future, we will review our assumptions. Lastly, we anticipate that for the next contract season, which begins on May 1, 35% of our expected transpacific volume will come from contract cargo while the remaining 65% will come from spot. Contract rates that we secured with our customers are not meaningfully different from what they were during the previous season.

Okay. Got it. And just maybe one more if I could. In terms of costs, obviously, you do have a higher proportion of LNG now with the additional voyage land. Does it put you at a disadvantage compared to traditional bunker liners?

I would say quite the opposite. Today, we feel the benefit of switching and gradually transitioning more towards LNG bunkering, which is cheaper for us to run than engines on traditional diesel fuel. All of our LNG vessels are dual fuel; we could choose to run them on LSFO if we wanted, but we prefer not to because they are intended to achieve an ESG objective of decarbonization. Even beyond that, from an operational cost perspective, it is cheaper to run the ships on LNG than LSFO.

Our next question comes from the line of Marco Limite from Barclays.

My first question is on leverage. You stated you have 2.8x net debt to EBITDA as of Q1. Just wondering what your level of comfort around leverage is and if there are covenants going forward that we should keep in mind.

First, there are no financial covenants related to EBITDA in any of our financing facilities. We only have one financial covenant in a small container facility, which is a minimum cash balance of $250 million. So we do not have any leverage or coverage-type covenants obligations vis-à-vis any of our financial counterparts.

Okay. And if I could add one more. Just wondering, as you have just said, you expect spot rates to be throughout the year a bit stronger compared to the contract rate on the Transpacific on average. Just wondering whether that higher percentage of spot rates versus contract is already in the guidance, and therefore, you have been cautious in the second half just because you are anticipating the possibility of a steep correction in spot rates.

Look, I mean, I will let you be the judge of whether we are conservative or not. But to answer your question, when we provided our guidance, we took into consideration where we ended up concerning the contract discussions that we had. We are willing to take a larger exposure to the spot market, which means assuming some risk, but we think it's the right risk for us to take, rather than locking in at lower rates for a large volume of cargo. We remain cautious of the fact that the current spot rates might not continue throughout the year, and we've considered that in our guidance, anticipating a likely scenario where rates trend downwards later in the year.

And this concludes our question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call back over to Eli Glickman for closing remarks.

We are pleased to report progress in 2024, both by advancing ZIM transformation through fleet renewal and capitalizing on stronger-than-anticipated market conditions to deliver a profit in the first quarter. Our cost structure continues to improve in tandem with the delivery of our highly competitive fuel-efficient newbuild tonnage, which includes 28 LNG-powered vessels. As we transform our fleet profile and maintain our robust network backed by exceptional customer service, we are on track to drive long-term sustainable growth. In light of improved market conditions, we've increased our full-year '24 guidance. While volatility remains and market conditions are constantly evolving, we are confident in our exceptional team and our strategic positioning as an agile container shipping player. We look forward to continuing to capitalize on positive near-term market dynamics and further implement our differentiated strategy to best serve our customers and generate meaningful value for our shareholders. Thank you very much to all of you.

This concludes the conference call.