DHT Holdings Inc (DHT) 2016 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and welcome to the Q4 2016 DHT Holdings Inc. earnings conference call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Eirik Uboe. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Before we get started with today's call, I would like to make the following remarks. A replay of this conference call will be available at our website at dhtankers.com through February 7, 2017. In addition our earnings press release will be available on our website and on the SEC's EDGAR system as an exhibit to our form 6K.

As a reminder on this conference call we will discuss matters that are forward-looking in nature. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations about future events, including DHT's prospects, dividends, share repurchases and differed repayment. The outlook for the tank and marks in general. Daily charge a higher rate, and thus utilization, forecasts of world economic activity, oil prices and oil trading patterns, anticipated levels of new billing and scrapping and projected driver schedules.

Actual results may differ materially from the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements. We urge you to read our periodic reports available on our website and on the SEC's EDGAR system, including the risk factors in these reports, for more information regarding risks that we face. I'm joined by DHT's co-CEOs, Svein Moxnes Harfjeld and Trygve Munthe. And with that I'll turn it over to Trygve.

Thank you, Erik. Good morning and good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining the fourth quarter 2016 earnings call. Before we go into the quarterly presentation I would like to make the following statement, which we currently ask you to respect.

As we announced in our press release issued on Sunday evening, we received last Friday a non-binding highly conditional proposal from Frontline to acquire all of our outstanding common stock. We respectfully refer you to the Sunday press release and the related 6K that we filed on Monday for further information.

We note that our Board is in the process of evaluating the proposal consistent with its fiduciary duties. We expect the Board's decision will be announced in due course and do not intend to address the offer or answer any questions relating to it today.

So as we normally do, we will go through a short presentation of the highlights for the quarter before we open up your questions. You can find a link to the slide deck on our website, dhtankers.com. If we then turn to the highlights for the quarter, you should note the following.

During the quarter we extended the time charter for the DHT Europe for another 12 months at the rate of $31,250 per day. During the quarter we spent $20.8 million buying back $23 million worth of our convertible bond. And then the month of January has been eventful on the fleet side. On the 11th we delivered the DHT CHRIS to its new owners, who by the way will take the ship out to the world's trading fleet.

On the 16th we took delivery of our DHT TIGER, the sixth and last ship in our Cat Class. And on the 20th as part of our fleet renewal process, we signed contracts with Hyundai Heavy Industries for two larger VLCCs of 319,000 dwt for delivery in July and September of next year. If we enter into our earnings, the VLCCs for the fourth quarter sailed in $34,300 a day as previously announced.

The time charter VLs earned $41,400 a day, bringing the fleet average to $37,100 a day for the quarter. And for the full-year our VLCCs earned an average of $43,400 per day. And then importantly for the first quarter, 2017 we have so far booked 60% of our stock base at the rate of $48,300 a day. What we think is a great start to a year which we expect to be choppy in the freight market.

Let us then move to the income statement. Top line came in at $67 million, driven by competitive stock earnings and solid contributions from the ships and time charter. Operating expenses and G&A were both sharp. So combined we generated an EBITDA of $47 million and net income of $17.8 million, which gives a basic earnings per share of $0.19.

For the quarter we will pay a dividend of $0.08 per share. And so for the full 2016 we will have paid a total of $0.58 in dividends. Quickly on the balance sheet, we enjoy a sound balance sheet. Leverage is moderate for this point of the cycle, with interest-bearing debt to total assets at 50% of book values and 54% on a mark-to-market basis.

We will then turn to our time charter book. We do have a considerable time charter book with six VLCCs and two Aframaxes currently on time charter. Assuming no extensions of the charters that expire during the year, 26% of our available dates are fixed at rates generating a total of $76 million. This equates to 44% of our expected total cash cost.

So in other words, about a quarter of capacity covers almost half the cost. The basic net present value analysis of our time charters against current FFAs and growth-to-time-charter rate assessment suggests a value of around $0.40 per share for our time charter book.

This next slide our cash breakeven you have seen on numerous times before. Now we just want to give you an update on where we stand for the calendar year 2017. The first stacked bar shows you the breakdown of our $172 million expected cash cost for the year. The second bar shows you what rates the ships must sail in in order to generate a total of $172 million.

And in the third stacked bar, we adjust for the fixed income time charter and you see that the spot VLCCs need to earn only $18,000 a day in order for DHT to go cash neutral over the year. And with that I will turn it over to you, Svein.

Thank you, Trygve. Following on from previous comments on our cash breakeven levels, we will elaborate a bit further on the attraction of this bond-side protection. On this slide we are putting our robust cash breakeven levels into the context of historical spot markets.

We're illustrating annual averages of VLCC spot markets with the blue bars in a descending order. The green line across the chart represents our spot cash breakeven level of $18,000 per day for 2017. As you will see, our cash breakeven level is very favorable when compared to historical earnings on VLCCs.

In fact no single year has on average over the past 20 years been below our cash breakeven level. The downside protection illustrated on the prior slide does, however, not take away the upside participation that our stock provides. On this chart the Y axis measures US dollar per share and the and the X axis US dollar per days spot rates.

The blue line illustrates estimated free cash flow per share in various market scenarios. We've then made some examples with the blue dots. As you will see a $30,000 a day market would generate some $0.70 of free cash flow per share. The 20 year historical number of $45,000 per day will generate about $1.50 of free cash flow per share.

This exemplifies the significant operational leverage in the DHT stock, offering plenty of upside participation. On this slide we've used asset values from Clarksons Shipping Intelligence Weekly in combination with our fourth quarter balance sheet to estimate the net asset value of our stock.

We have a young fleet with an average age of 6.8 years. You may note that 10 of our VLCCs with the two newbuildings included, are younger than five years of age. To the left, the blue bars combined illustrate the value of our fleet of $11 per share.

The following orange bars represent cash, other assets, and as Trygve addressed earlier in the presentation, the meaningful value of our time charter book. We then deduct debt and other liabilities to show in the area of the two red bars. As such the final green bar indicates a net asset value of about $5.7 per share.

On top of that, and as you heard Trygve say, we have booked 60% of our stock capacity of this quarter at $48,000 per day. So we will obviously build significant M&A during the current quarter.

Our stock offers good trading liquidity. Shown here is the three-month average daily trading volume of our stock compared to a relevant peer group of tanker companies. The liquidity is measured in US million dollars per day. As you will note, DHT is a very liquid stock offering ample opportunities to invest, divest and trade.

At this slide we will discuss our latest effort in renewing our fleet. As stated earlier we expect 2017 to offer compelling opportunities to grow and renew our fleet. We do not think there is any rush in acquiring second-hand tonnage, and as such one should not expect any needed news flows from us in this regard.

We have, however, contracted two VLCC newbuildings in what we deem to be very attractive terms. Although we have not disclosed the price, you should assume that it compares favorably to VSAs. The ships will be delivered early, scheduled for July and September of next year. We have obtained favorable payment terms with three installments of 10% due in the construction phase, and 70% on delivery.

The attractive price includes large deadweight and DHT's typical upgrades. Additionally the newbuildings will of course be tier 3 compliant, as well as include ballast water treatment systems. Further we have the option to include scrubbers to meet the sulfur limitations in fuel that will be implemented from 2020.

We will finance these two newbuildings with cash at hand and 50% bank debt. Importantly we do not intend to issue any stock to finance this project. The newbuildings will have very robust cash breakeven levels, including OpEx, interest, debt amortization and drydockings, we estimate the cash breakeven level to be about $17,600 per day.

The rate required to earn 10% unlevered return will be some 20% below 20-year historical averages. The market needs to be below $22,000 per day on average over 20 years for the project to lose money. We think the combination of price, delivery and specification makes this expansion financially and operationally very compelling for DHT.

The much-anticipated regulatory requirement to treat ballast water has now been ratified. IMO requires that ships need to install ballast water treatment systems during their first drydock after September, 2017. DHT's fleet is well-positioned in this regard. Including the two newbuildings, 12 of our VLCCs have systems included. Our CapEx schedule related to ballast water treatment as such is very light.

As you will see on the graph to the left, we only have one Aframax during second half of 2018, and one Aframax and two VLCCs during 2019, one which will likely be due for retirement. The next time we will need to consider this following these rates is in the second half of 2021.

As you will see in the graph to the right there's a meaningful part to the older VLCC fleet that will be exposed to CapEx-related ballast water treatment systems over the next couple of years. We expect this to support retirement of older ships at somewhat earlier times than what would otherwise be the case. And with that, we open up for questions.

(Operator Instructions)

Will take our first question today from Jon Chappell from Evercore. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, guys. So Trygve, the first thing I want to ask was about cash deployment. It wasn't stated I think in black and white that there's been any change to the distribution policy, whether it's dividend or buybacks.

And you were pretty flexible with it in the fourth quarter buying back the convertibles as well as still doing an $0.08 dividend. Just as we think about going forward giving current events, it seems that the converts are still a very good use of capital. How do you look at those and balance that against dividends as you look to the choppy 2017 that you mentioned?

You are right. We deviated a little bit from past practice in paying out as much as we did in the combination of buybacks and dividends. But I just want to remind everyone that the policy says minimum 60%. So there's really nothing preventing us from doing more.

I think it's a combination of we had a lackluster third quarter with sort of limited dividends. We came with a fourth quarter that was exceeding most expectations and we felt that it was a good time to pay a decent dividend despite having been quite aggressive on the convert buybacks. Going forward, I think we wholeheartedly agree that to buyback your own and convert at a meaningful discount is quite attractive for the Company and its shareholders.

We would like to follow that. But then again we have been paying dividends through the cycles in the past. Without giving any promises, I think that would be a preferred route for the Company going forward as well.

So you mentioned the fourth quarter paying above the 60% because the quarter was much better than expectation. As you think about the mix going forward, is it going to be dependent upon how well you do?

So for instance, if you do say $0.10 in basic EPS which would obviously be less in the fourth quarter, would we expect that to be fully dividend and no buyback? Or as if you were to do significantly more than that and had more capital to deploy, you may be more balanced with the buyback on the dividend?

I think the priority would be to -- we are optimistic in the buybacks. So when there is a good discount I think that would be a priority for us. And if we do that in a sizable way then we should be under normal circumstances less available for dividends. If that makes sense.

Yes, it does. One last question then, and another two-parter and the VLCC order. Was that your relationship with the shipyard given the prior six ships that you were able to get such prompt delivery, or is that kind of industry standard now that the lead time is less than 24 months?

I think in general the shipyards of course are hungry for business. With that being said, there is a limit as to how quickly you can get a ship delivered with lead time on equipment and so forth. We certainly enjoy a very good relationship with Hyundai, and they've been in regular dialog with us about opportunities and we felt that now the price and terms on delivery that we can get was certainly very attractive to DHT.

We would not expect a large flurry of similar orders to be placed, all though of course some ships will likely be ordered. We certainly think that this is also a reflection of the good relationship we have with Hyundai, both in terms of price and delivery.

And that kind of leads to the part two of this question, too. It's pretty well-established that the secondhand market has been beaten up a lot more than the newbuild market has.

A lot of owners are talking about using the secondhand market both because of more attractive terms but also to not add new tonnage to the fleet. Given these terms that you've been able to attain, do you think that balance is shifting now where there may be more incentive to go to newbuilds in a bigger manner and avoid the secondhand market?

For us it's not an either or. We certainly have ambitions in acquiring attractive and good-quality secondhand ships also. But we don't seem to be in a rush to do it. It's likely going to be a mix for us.

We think it makes sense also to renew our fleet, and when it comes to age distribution and newbuilding of course we view more bang for the buck. So economics are quite similar we would say. There are some added attractions to a newbuild, getting our specifications. And we think also there's no rush to have ships in the water this year, as we do expect this to be a bit of a choppy year.

Okay, I understand. Thank you, Svein, thanks, Trygve.

Mike Webber from Wells Fargo, please go ahead.

Good morning, guys, how are you? I wanted to touch on the newbuild order once more, and forgive me if you mentioned this and I just didn't catch it. Have you actually disclosed what the price tag was on those two newbuild orders?

No, we have not disclosed the price tag. But look, we do say is that the price is favorable when compared to resell opportunities in the market. So we deem this to be a are very attractive investment for DHT.

Okay. Maybe just to dig a bit deeper into that. Can you talk a bit about where -- in your prepared remarks you actually gave some metrics around, kind of danced around the return associated with a newbuild order. But can you maybe talk about where that actual return hurdle was to go in and place that order? And how applicable that return hurdle is for other investment decisions that may come down the pipe?

I think we have discussed in the past that a simple metric that we use is you look at the acquisition price, what is the required rate to give you a 10% unlevered return. And we want that rate to be meaningfully below the historic averages.

I think as I mentioned in the prepared remarks historic average is just over $45,000 a day for these. On this one, 20% below that. And that's even before you start factoring in the eco, as I mentioned, the fuel efficiency. So we think it's just a very compelling proposition.

Sure. There's a little bit of leeway built into that 10% I guess paradigm you're using there. But is it fair to say that's a similar framework you would use to address other investment decisions? Kind of across the spectrum, both in terms of acquiring and selling assets?

Yes.

Looking back, if I may add as our track record, we acquired 16 leads apiece between the third quarter of 2013 and the second quarter of 2014. Looking at required rates we earned 10% unlevered return on those investments.

They're varying from the best investments somewhere in the high $20,000s until the mid-high $30,000 range. Again they were all -- there was meaningful daylight between the 20-year average and the required rates. So certainly a model that we like.

Actually showed in the deck if you get historic rates all over again, it's a 23% return on equity based on 50% financing. I think also it's quite interesting if you're of the bearish mindset, it needs -- the average rate needs to drop below $22,000 a day before you start losing on this investment.

Definitely sounds interesting. Just wanted to keep dancing around the returns and assets that you're kind of in lieu of the 800-pound gorilla in the room. If I think about assets here, and you guys have always dipped your toe into the newbuild market. But when I think about the asset spectrum as a whole, how close to a bottom maybe even on a percentage basis -- and give me a range maybe -- do you think we actually are?

And then when do you think we could realistically see an inflection point? And I know that's a bit of a crystal ball type question, but it's obviously pertinent given some of the questions you guys are answering now with regard to the Board and different strategic options. So maybe your outlook around that investment -- that asset cycle would be very helpful.

I think last year you had some 25% to 30% dropped in secondhand values. We think most of that drop is taken out. There might be another 5% or 10% more or less.

This will also to a great deal depend on how the stock market actually performs through the year. It is a bit hard to say in exact numbers. I think as a broader statement, we think we are somewhere in where our top price is, but there might be a little margin to be had by waiting a bit, by buying secondhand tonnage.

Based on our negotiations with Hyundai, we don't think there's much downside to that price at least not in the short term. And of course, it's a different proposition because you get delivery 18 months out or more.

And in this case we think that is a pretty close to ideal delivery point the way we see the market playing out. We are I guess afraid that the secondhand value will have a bit further down to go as we think the freight market's going to be choppy over the summer.

That makes sense. Just one more and I'll turn it over. But along those lines, just based on what you guys are seeing right now in the market, when do you think is the earliest point we could realistically see asset value start to move higher? Is it a 2018 handle or do you think it could be later on this year?

It's very hard to say. It really depends on how the freight market operates in detail. Whether it's 6 months ahead of us, 9 months or 12 months, it's very hard to say.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is the second half of this year.

I think one thing to do note in that is that we are active in inspecting quality secondhand ships. And we do take note of the people that are inspecting the same ships as us. These are all other highly respective tanker companies. Some of the sharpest private companies out there.

It's more than just one or two guys, it's typically five, six, seven people having a look. It gives an indication that there is interest now in moving in and investing in some of the ships. Hence there should be limitations also how far down these values can go out.

That's encouraging. All right, I'll stop there and turn it over. Thank you, guys.

We will take our next question from Ben Nolan from Stifel.

Just a couple of questions for you. Number one, obviously you guys were pretty active in the last quarter in buying back the converts. They look to be trading above par.

Is that a trade that you'd really only contemplate below par? Could you maybe just walk me through how exactly where the price point is in terms of where you think that is an attractive use of capital?

It's certainly more compelling with a sizable discount. We haven't bought anything above par and don't expect us to do that in the short term.

And then my second question relates to something you'd mentioned in the prepared remarks with respect to the newbuilds. You said that you have the option to install a scrubber, but it doesn't sound like that it includes a scrubber right now.

Could you maybe just walk me through how you're thinking about that? Obviously at some point if the IMO regulations come into play, it would make sense to have a scrubber on a new vessel, but by having an option does it mean you are sort of not sure that timeframe will play out or how are you thinking about it with respect to how you are ordering vessels?

The regulations are certainly coming into force. For us it allows us a few months to consider the various technologies that are available to us. Some of them have already been priced to us. It's also a question of whether you -- this is getting a bit technical -- whether you're going to run with so-called open or closed-loop systems, which gives you a differential as to whether you still burn low-sulfur fuel in emission control areas, and then operate the scrubber in open sea or a scrubber in both areas.

So these are just things we want to fully assess and evaluate before we decide. But we certainly think it makes sense to include this equipment so chances are it will happen one way or another.

Roughly with respect to a newbuilding and the prices you are seeing for those types of things. How much incremental does installing a scrubber cost to the base level of an order roughly?

We have a price for an open loop system of $2.4 million.

That does it for me. I will turn it over. Thanks, guys.

We will take our next question from Magnus Fyhr from Seaport Global.

Just a follow-up question on the new orders. I guess one of the key selling points for the tanker market going forward is that we really don't have a lot of deliveries past 2018. We have pretty heavy delivery scheduled in 2017, 2018.

I guess it makes sense in a micro economic way to order ships. But from a macro perspective, it seems nothing changes in the shipping industry, more people will order ships going forward. At what level would you be concerned with other companies starting to put orders in for 2019 delivery?

I think it is a bit different this time. Capital is a lot more difficult to come by now than it was last time there was some big order wave going on. If you look at 18 months from summer 2013 till the end of 2014, some 70 VLCCs were ordered.

By our count about half of those were ordered based on raising equity and debt to finance that. Quite frankly we don't think that is available today. You are looking at a much smaller group of owners that are in a position to place orders now we think. It's also a statement in the shipping market things don't get overbuilt when things are cheap. That happens when it's expensive. It's not at the moment.

You sort of answered the question before on newbuildings versus secondhand values. What is the liquidity on the VLCC side? Is that more of a driver that you think the values may decline going forward or how is the liquidity in the five-year market for both, for VLCCs?

Liquidity in the five-year-old markets, say for quality shipbuilding in Korea and Japan typically is very thin, so very few ships available. But that is not the key factor for us.

There is a price that you can get them after three or four, and we think that is again moving into attractive areas. We do think it makes sense to get ships delivered to the specifications we wanted. As you all know, the western oil majors are our largest customers. These are types of ships they would certainly like in their services.

One last question. You fixed another ship four months on a little bit over $30,000 a day. With things going on in the market now and people are concerned for 2017, what is the liquidity in the time charter market?

It's also rather thin. So broker estimates today are in the high $20,000s range. If you look at today's market it is lower than that. There are a few opportunities to do time charters in general. People should not expect that it's possible to put other ships and cover at the rate that we did for the entire fleet.

That's it for me. Thank you.

We will take our next question from Noah Parquette from JPMorgan.

I wanted to touch on the financing. You guys say you are going to finance the two vessels with cash on hand and new bank debt of 50%. Have you had discussions yet there? How comfortable are you with obtaining financing in lieu of your statement that financing starts a bit?

We've had preliminary meetings with one of our closest banks and they were very enthusiastic about the project. We are highly confident that we can do 50% with an attractive repayment profile on that competitive pricing. We are very confident that will be put in place in a relatively short time.

Then on the contracts themselves. The delivery dates that you got are those earliest that were available? Was there a lot of availability during that time range? Terms of the price, I know you can't disclose it, but did you get a sense that the shipyards are operating with thin margins and there's not much room to look lower?

This was the earliest delivery that was available. And we do get a sense that the three large Korean yards that had some births available for the second half of 2018, that it's not possible to kill the market from this. We would expect a few more orders to be placed and then suddenly the second half 2018, at least in Korea, will be done.

We'll take our next question from Fotis Giannakoulis from Morgan Stanley.

I want to ask about how do you view the trade during the last few weeks, we've been surprised with how strong the market has been versus prior expectations. If you think that this strong rate are attributed to the anticipated OPEC cap. And whether you have seen any changes in the trade the last few days after some of the OPEC producers are preparing to reduce production.

It could well be that the start to the first quarter is a reflection of people wanting to ship out as much oil as possible before the cap can be implemented. Another component there is that the majority of these cuts are coming from the Middle East. We have seen quite a lot of activity in sourcing barrels from the Atlantic, and particular in West Africa.

So there is some (inaudible) also, of course this always makes it very tough to call the market on the exact dollar and what is going to do. Right now the stock market is probably in the mid-30s. We don't expect it in the short term to go up. It's maybe a sideways scenario. But as Trygve said earlier, overall the year we expect it to be a bit choppy. You will have periods with good rates and periods with lots of good rates.

I want to ask also about the late discussion about the changes of the new administration and the euros that they might be implementing regarding the import tax. How do you view this is going to affect the crude tanker market and the flow and the potential increase in the differential between WPI and spread and also the impact on US crude exports and how about what would be the consequences for the tanker trade?

That's a lot of new political considerations. We think it is a little early to speculate in what is potential future legislation will lead to in terms of consequences for our market. Of course restrictions on free trade is not really welcome from a shipping perspective. But it is really hard to assess much beyond that it this point.

Robert Silvera from R.E. Silvera Marine Surveyors.

I want to congratulate you on I think a very well done quarter. You reduced the shares. You used a lot of the available funds to reduce the preferred. How far do you want to go on that?

I heard that you will not go below par. I don't know exactly how much you intend to do. I guess my basic question is really you have a certain debt to asset ratio right now. Do you feel comfortable with that on a ongoing basis or do you intend to continue to reduce that debt asset ratio?

As we said we are quite comfortable with the balance sheet as we have it today. The balance sheet is one thing. What it implies in terms of cash breakeven, if you have followed our company for a while you would discover that this is really a key metrics for us.

We will continue to try to manage the business so that we at all times have a very sharp and competitive cash breakeven. I think that is more important to us than the actual leverage as a percentage. Under convertible bond we think of this at this point as a debt and the potential that we factor.

From both of those perspectives it means to the shareholders that we continue to chip away and buying back. It expires in the second half of 2019. So there's a fair amount of time to work on this. We will be opportunistic as we said earlier.

Yes. I as a shareholder are very pleased with the fact that you're reducing the potential of additional shares and all that you are planning is all done without issuing additional shares. I think you have done a wonderful job of managing the business.

And again as shareholders I hope you stay independent. Because what has apparently been offered is paper. And not paper that is backed in my mind as substantially run as you guys have done.

Thank you very much. We appreciate that you like our capital allocation.

Yes. Very much so. I like idea that you have reduce debt to the extent that you have and taken free cash to apply it appropriately when you feel towards the preferred buybacks. I think that is very wise and I hope you do continue. Thank you very much.

(Operator Instructions)

We will take our next question from James Jang from Maxim Group.

Most of my questions have been answered. On the two Aframaxes, have you had any inquiries on extending these charters?

The charters will expire in the second quarter of this year. Certainly it is our ambition to either extend them with existing clients or to find a new charter with another client.

This is a ongoing process. It is a bit early to execute. It should be a first-quarter event for us.

Spiro Dounis from UBS Securities.

Just had a quick one here. I joined a bit late, so if you discussed it I apologize. On funding the cash portion of the newbuilds. You have $109 million now in cash balance that includes $49 million that went to the Tiger when it was delivered.

Also have a dividend payment to make which brings you down to more or less $50 million. I think you have $60 million coming due in the next year. As we think about the sources of cash how much are you pulling away from share buybacks and dividends to fund those down payments? I guess how much is coming from the revolver?

We envision leaving the revolver alone and that we can comfortably pay the equity portion on the newbuilds based on cash at hand and future cash flow. Keep in mind that sale of the Chris certainly generated free cash. In the quarter as we speak we're generating a fair amount of cash.

So could we see additional vessel sales, or you do not think it's necessary at this point?

The vessel sales were not really to fund newbuilds. We think the price we can obtain for a 15-year old, 16-year old ship at this point made sense. It is more think of it as a continuous fleet renewal rather than selling to buy new ones.

I know you're not taking questions here on recent events. I totally respect that. I just want to confirm three things that you mentioned in the prepared comments.

One, I believe you said you believe you're undervalued from an NAV perspective. Two, you're pretty content with your trading liquidity, and then finally, it sounds like you are comfortable with your balance sheet and your ability to fund growth. Are those three fair comments you made?

We gave an opinion on where NAV is. Then we stated that the trading liquidity in the Company is very good and certainly up there with our peers, our bigger peers. And that our balance sheet is certainly healthy. Yes.

(Operator Instructions)

There are no further questions at this time over the telephone.

Okay, with that we will say thank you to all for participating at our conference call and staying tuned to DHT. Thank you very much for your continued support. Have a good day.

That will conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation, ladies and gentlemen. You may now disconnect.