GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL) 2026 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us, and welcome to GFL Environmental Inc., second-quarter earnings call. (Operator Instructions)

各位好。感謝各位加入，歡迎參加 GFL Environmental Inc. 第二季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）

I will now hand the conference over to Patrick Dovigi, Founder and CEO. Mr. Dovigi, please go ahead.

我現在把會議交給創辦人兼執行長 Patrick Dovigi。Dovigi 先生，請開始。

Thank you, and good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today's call, and thank you for joining us. This morning, we will be reviewing our results for the second quarter and updating our guidance for the year.

謝謝，各位早安。歡迎各位參加今天的電話會議，並感謝各位撥冗加入。今天上午，我們將回顧第二季的業績，並更新今年的財測指引。

I'm joined this morning by Luke Pelosi, our CFO, who will take us through our forward-looking disclaimer before we get into details.

今天上午與我一同出席的還有我們的財務長 Luke Pelosi；在進入細節之前，他將先帶我們說明前瞻性聲明的免責事項。

Thank you, Patrick. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining. We have filed our earnings press release, which includes important information. The press release is available on our website.

謝謝你，Patrick。各位早安，感謝各位加入。我們已發布財報新聞稿，其中包含重要資訊。該新聞稿可於我們的網站上取得。

During this call, we'll be making some forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable Canadian and US securities laws, including statements regarding events or developments that we believe or anticipate may occur in the future. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those set out in our filings with the Canadian and US securities regulators.

在本次電話會議中，我們將依據適用的加拿大與美國證券法規之定義，作出若干前瞻性陳述，包括關於我們相信或預期未來可能發生之事件或發展的陳述。這些前瞻性陳述受多項風險與不確定性影響，包括我們向加拿大與美國證券監管機構提交之文件中所載者。

Any forward-looking statement is not a guarantee of future performance, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date, and we do not assume any obligation to update these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, and developments or otherwise.

任何前瞻性陳述均不保證未來績效，實際結果可能與前瞻性陳述中明示或暗示者存在重大差異。這些前瞻性陳述僅截至今日有效；無論因新資訊、未來事件與發展或其他原因，我們均不承擔更新此等陳述之任何義務。

This call will include a discussion of certain non-IFRS measures. A reconciliation of these non-IFRS measures can be found in our filings with the Canadian and US securities regulators.

本次電話會議將包含對若干非 IFRS 指標的討論。此等非 IFRS 指標之調節表可於我們向加拿大與美國證券監管機構提交之文件中查閱。

I will now turn the call back over to Patrick.

我現在把電話會議交回給 Patrick。

Thank you, Luke. Our strong start to the year continued through the second quarter, yielding financial results ahead of expectations. Our ongoing exceptional performance in the face of an uncertain broader macroenvironment is a testament to the effectiveness of our growth strategies and the resilience of our business model.

謝謝你，Luke。我們今年強勁的開局延續至第二季，帶來超出預期的財務表現。在更廣泛的總體環境仍不明朗之際，我們持續展現卓越表現，證明了我們成長策略的有效性以及商業模式的韌性。

Moreover, the quality of our first-half results allows us to raise our full-year guidance for the second time this year. Once again, our price growth was ahead of plan. The outperformance from pricing in the first quarter was driven largely by tailwinds from our recent growth investments and the ongoing realization of incremental pricing opportunities within our portfolio, which continued through the second quarter.

此外，上半年業績的品質使我們得以在今年第二度上調全年財測指引。我們的價格成長再次超出原先規劃。第一季定價表現優於預期，主要受惠於近期成長投資帶來的順風，以及我們投資組合中逐步實現的新增定價機會；這些動能延續至第二季。

We now have a high degree of visibility towards ending the year with pricing above 6%. Volume was also better than expected as a rebound in winter-related volume delays and EPR benefits more than offset the impact of lower C&D-related activity and special waste volumes.

我們目前對於年底定價高於 6% 具有高度能見度。量的表現也優於預期：冬季因素造成的量延遲回補，以及 EPR 的效益，已足以抵銷 C&D 相關活動與特殊廢棄物量下降的影響。

Consistent with the first quarter, we believe the impact of broader economic uncertainty continues to be a drag on C&D volumes compared to prior periods, but we remain well-positioned to participate in the upside when these volumes inevitably return.

與第一季一致，我們認為更廣泛的經濟不確定性相較於過往期間仍對 C&D 量形成拖累；但當這些量不可避免地回升時，我們仍具備良好條件參與上行機會。

The significant rise in ongoing volatility in diesel prices have impacted margins due to the inherent lag in the fuel surcharge mechanism. The impact of elevated diesel pricing is seen not only in our direct fuel expense, but also in higher costs passed on to us from our third-party transportation providers.

柴油價格持續波動顯著上升，因燃油附加費機制存在固有的時間落差，已對利潤率造成影響。柴油價格居高不下的影響不僅反映在我們的直接燃油費用上，也體現在第三方運輸供應商轉嫁給我們的更高成本。

Excluding the impact of sudden and significant rise in fuel costs, our operational and SG&A cost intensity as a percentage of revenue trended lower on a year-over-year basis for the sixth-consecutive quarter. The ongoing realization of such operating leverage is a result of the growth and self-help initiatives we outlined at last year's Investor Day and was achieved despite headwinds from M&A and lower higher-margin landfill volumes.

若排除燃油成本突然且大幅上升的影響，我們的營運與 SG&A 成本強度（占營收百分比）已連續第六個季度呈現年對年下降趨勢。此等營運槓桿的持續釋放，源自我們在去年投資人日所概述的成長與自助（self-help）計畫；即便面臨併購（M&A）逆風以及較高毛利的掩埋場量下降，仍得以達成。

The successful execution of our operational strategies more than overcome fuel cost volatility and other headwinds faced in the quarter. The team's relentless focus on pricing discipline, cost efficiencies and the ongoing maturation of our asset base is translating into industry-leading underlying margin expansion.

我們對營運策略的成功執行，足以克服本季燃油成本波動及其他逆風。團隊對定價紀律、成本效率，以及資產基礎持續成熟的專注，正轉化為業界領先的基礎利潤率擴張。

Our Canadian segment realized adjusted EBITDA margins of 34% in the second quarter, the highest adjusted EBITDA margin the segment has ever achieved. Consolidated adjusted EBITDA margins organically increased 35 basis points over the prior year despite a very tough comp.

我們加拿大事業部第二季的調整後 EBITDA 利潤率達 34%，為該事業部有史以來最高的調整後 EBITDA 利潤率。在可比基期非常艱難的情況下，合併調整後 EBITDA 利潤率仍以有機方式較去年增加 35 個基點。

Recall, Q2 2025 was the highest Q2 EBITDA margins in our company's history.

請回想一下，2025 年第二季是本公司歷史上第二季 EBITDA 利潤率最高的一季。

On M&A, we've been actively preparing for the closing of the SECURE acquisition. The final step before we can close the transaction is the Competition Bureau review, which remains on track and is well advanced. Integration planning is progressing well.

在併購方面，我們一直積極為完成 SECURE 收購案的交割做準備。在我們能完成交易之前的最後一步，是競爭局（Competition Bureau）的審查；目前進度仍符合預期且已相當深入。整合規劃進展順利。

And as we've been spending more time with Allen and the whole SECURE team, we grow incrementally optimistic about the opportunistic and opportunities for the combined entity. We remain confident in our ability to close the acquisition by the beginning of the fourth quarter and achieving the pro forma financial framework we previously highlighted.

隨著我們花更多時間與 Allen 以及整個 SECURE 團隊合作，我們對合併後實體所具備的策略彈性與機會愈發樂觀。我們仍有信心在第四季初完成收購，並達成我們先前所強調的備考（pro forma）財務框架。

We closed seven other acquisitions during the quarter, including Frontier and six tuck-ins, two of which are incremental to the base for which we previously updated guidance. Frontier's first-quarter performance under our ownership has gone exceptionally well, and we remain excited about the many growth opportunities available to us in that fast-growing Texas market.

本季我們完成了另外七項收購，包括 Frontier 以及六項補強型（tuck-in）收購，其中兩項是我們先前更新指引時所用基礎之外的新增項目。Frontier 在納入我們旗下後的第一季表現非常出色；我們對於在成長快速的德州市場所擁有的眾多成長機會仍感到振奮。

As we said on the last call, the Q2 acquisitions would temporarily increase leverage 30 basis points before we naturally de-lever back to the mid-3s by the end of the year. Our M&A pipeline remains robust, and we still think we can deploy an incremental $300 million to $500 million before year-end.

如同我們在上次電話會議所說，第二季的收購將使槓桿率暫時上升 30 個基點，之後我們將在年底前自然去槓桿回到 3 倍中段（mid-3s）。我們的併購案源（pipeline）仍然強勁，我們仍認為在年底前可額外投入 3 億至 5 億美元。

With the significant success in the first half, we are raising our full-year outlook for the second time this year. Luke will walk through the details, but we are now expecting to deliver over 15% growth in adjusted EBITDA and nearly 20% growth in adjusted free cash flow over the prior year.

鑑於上半年取得的顯著成果，我們今年第二度上調全年展望。Luke 將說明細節；但我們目前預期，調整後 EBITDA 將較去年成長超過 15%，調整後自由現金流則將較去年成長接近 20%。

Although the guide does not currently include any contribution from SECURE, if we were to close the acquisition in Q4, actual adjusted EBITDA growth could be greater than 20%.

雖然目前的指引尚未納入 SECURE 的任何貢獻，但若我們在第四季完成收購，實際的調整後 EBITDA 成長可能會高於 20%。

I'll now pass the call back to Luke, who will walk through the guidance update and the quarter in more detail, and I'll share some closing comments before we open it up for Q&A.

我現在把電話會議交回給 Luke，他將更詳細說明指引更新與本季表現；在我們開放問答之前，我也會做一些結語。

Thanks, Patrick. Revenue grew 16.3% in the quarter, inclusive of 6.4% organic growth, which was a 180 basis point acceleration over the first quarter. Continued price strength together with higher surcharge revenue tied to fuel cost recovery more than offset the anticipated headwinds from volume and commodity prices.

謝謝你，Patrick。本季營收成長 16.3%，其中包含 6.4% 的有機成長，較第一季加速 180 個基點。持續強勁的定價，加上與燃油成本回收相關的附加費收入增加，已足以抵銷原先預期來自量與商品價格的逆風。

Price growth in the quarter of 6.1% was 20 basis points better than planned, a result driven largely by accelerated realization of previously identified pricing opportunities, including the implementation of incremental fuel surcharges. Regionally, pricing was 6.2% in Canada and 6.1% in the US.

本季定價成長 6.1%，較原計畫高出 20 個基點，主要由先前已辨識之定價機會加速落實所帶動，其中包括實施額外的燃油附加費。就區域而言，加拿大定價為 6.2%，美國為 6.1%。

Our pricing success in the first half, together with our expectations for the second half of the year, now expect to yield a full-year pricing number nearly 50 basis points better than the original guide.

我們上半年在定價上的成功，加上對下半年表現的預期，現在預估全年定價將較原始指引高出近 50 個基點。

Volume in Q2 was almost 100 basis points better than planned with positive transfer station and residential collection volumes offsetting headwinds from landfill and the lapping of transitory MRF processing volume in the prior year.

第二季的量幾乎較原計畫好 100 個基點；轉運站與住宅收運量的正向表現，抵銷了掩埋場量的逆風，以及去年一次性 MRF 處理量所形成的高基期影響。

We attribute the positive transfer station volume primarily to catch up from the Q1 winter weather impacts as broader C&D activity remains muted, with external C&D and special waste landfill tons being down 10% in the quarter.

我們將轉運站量的正向表現主要歸因於第一季冬季天候影響後的回補；由於整體 C&D 活動仍偏疲弱，本季外部 C&D 與特殊廢棄物掩埋場噸數下降 10%。

With the ongoing macroenvironment, we now expect the C&D-related trends to persist for the balance of the year, and our full-year volume outlook is being updated accordingly.

在持續的總體環境影響下，我們目前預期與 C&D 相關的趨勢將在今年剩餘期間延續，因此我們也相應更新了全年處理量展望。

The acceleration of commodity prices at the beginning of the year has continued, and we saw market pricing in the second quarter $12 per ton higher than what we had factored into our Q2 guide. Current market pricing is up another $13 over the Q2 average. And if pricing remains at these levels, Q3 pricing should be approximately 20% better than the prior year.

年初商品價格上漲的加速態勢延續至今，而我們在第二季看到的市場定價比我們納入 Q2 指引的假設高出每噸 12 美元。目前的市場定價又較 Q2 平均水準再高出 13 美元。若價格維持在這些水準，Q3 的定價應可較去年同期改善約 20%。

While our exposure to commodity price fluctuations has been significantly reduced post-transitioning most of our processing activities to relatively fixed fee-for-service contracts, the improvement in market pricing will provide incremental tailwinds to revenue, EBITDA, and margins in the back half of the year.

在我們將大部分處理業務轉為相對固定的按服務收費（fee-for-service）合約後，我們對商品價格波動的曝險已大幅降低；然而，市場定價的改善仍將在下半年為營收、EBITDA 與利潤率帶來額外順風。

As Patrick said, the second quarter saw continued improvement in underlying operating leverage. Cost of sales before depreciation, amortization, and integration costs as a percentage of revenue decreased 80 basis points, excluding the impact of elevated fuel costs. Ongoing efficiency and labor costs, supported by continued improvement in voluntary turnover as well as a 90-basis-point reduction in repair and maintenance cost intensity, more than offset the recent headwind from M&A.

如 Patrick 所說，第二季基礎營運槓桿持續改善。銷貨成本（扣除折舊、攤銷與整合成本）占營收比重下降 80 個基點（不含燃料成本偏高的影響）。持續的效率提升與人力成本改善（受惠於自願離職率持續下降），以及維修與保養成本強度降低 90 個基點，已足以抵消近期併購（M&A）帶來的逆風。

Looking specifically at fuel, as anticipated, our direct cost per unit of diesel in the quarter increased nearly 60% year over year. The second quarter also saw indirect diesel cost impacts as our third-party transportation providers implemented incremental fuel surcharge, which resulted in a $5 million headwind to our Q2 guide. We are now in a position where our surcharges are generating sufficient incremental revenue to offset the higher cost tied to diesel prices, although until diesel prices once again fall, our results will be burdened by the unrecovered costs associated with the initial inflection in diesel prices at the beginning of the year.

就燃料而言，如先前預期，本季柴油單位直接成本年增近 60%。第二季也出現間接柴油成本影響，因第三方運輸供應商加收額外燃油附加費，對我們 Q2 指引造成 500 萬美元的逆風。目前我們的附加費所帶來的增量營收已足以抵消柴油價格上升所帶來的較高成本；但在柴油價格再次下跌之前，我們的業績仍將受到年初柴油價格首次轉折上升所產生、尚未回收成本的拖累。

SG&A cost intensity, excluding depreciation expense and other costs, improved 50 basis points over the prior year. As expected, we continue to realize operating leverage on our Corporate segment as we continue to grow revenues off this relatively fixed cost base.

SG&A 成本強度（不含折舊費用及其他成本）較去年改善 50 個基點。如預期，隨著我們在相對固定的成本基礎上持續擴大營收，我們在企業部門持續實現營運槓桿效益。

Adjusted EBITDA margins were 30.4% for the quarter, inclusive of 65-basis-point headwind from M&A. Adjusted EBITDA margins were 34% in our Canadian segment, up 20 basis points over the prior year despite negative impacts from fuel and commodities, which were headwinds in both of our geographic segments.

本季調整後 EBITDA 利潤率為 30.4%，其中包含併購（M&A）帶來的 65 個基點逆風。我們加拿大部門的調整後 EBITDA 利潤率為 34%，較去年增加 20 個基點，儘管燃料與商品價格的負面影響在兩個地理區隔皆構成逆風。

Excluding the impact of these exogenous factors and M&A, underlying consolidated Q2 margins were up 125 basis points from the prior year despite the mix impact of the lower high-margin landfill volumes and the 40-basis-point margin headwind from the recognition of certain rebates in the prior year quarter that we previewed on the Q1 call.

若排除這些外生因素與併購（M&A）的影響，儘管高毛利掩埋場量較低造成組合影響，以及我們在 Q1 電話會議中預告、去年同期認列部分回饋（rebates）所帶來的 40 個基點利潤率逆風，合併口徑的 Q2 基礎利潤率仍較去年提升 125 個基點。

Adjusted free cash flow was $237 million for the quarter, ahead of our guide largely on account of the adjusted EBITDA outperformance as incremental investment in working capital was largely offset by lower-than-planned net CapEx and closure costs, all of which are expected to be timing differences that normalize by year-end.

本季調整後自由現金流為 2.37 億美元，主要因調整後 EBITDA 表現優於預期而高於指引；營運資金的額外投入大多被低於原計畫的淨資本支出（CapEx）與封場成本所抵消，預期這些皆屬時點差異，至年底將回歸正常。

In June, we issued USD750 million of new bonds in preparation for the closing of the SECURE acquisition. The bond offering was significantly oversubscribed and was executed at the tightest interest rate spread ever offered for a bond of this type in our rating category, once again demonstrating the confidence in our credit quality held by the debt markets.

6 月，我們發行 7.5 億美元新債券，以因應 SECURE 收購案交割準備。本次債券發行獲得大幅超額認購，且以我們評等類別中此類債券史上最緊的利差完成定價，再次展現債券市場對我們信用品質的信心。

By taking advantage of underlying interest rate differentials in Canada and the US, we were able to swap the interest payments back to Canadian dollars at a rate of approximately 4.5%, thereby reducing our overall effective borrowing rate.

透過利用加拿大與美國之間的利率差異，我們得以將利息支付交換回加幣，利率約為 4.5%，從而降低我們整體的有效借款利率。

Excluding the translational impact of the FX rate increasing 500 basis points versus our guide and ending the quarter at 1.42, we exited the quarter with net leverage of 3.9 times, 30 basis points higher than the Q1 on account of the second-quarter acquisitions and exactly in line with the guidance we previously provided.

若排除匯率較我們指引上升 500 個基點、並於季末收在 1.42 所造成的換算影響，我們在季末的淨槓桿為 3.9 倍，因第二季收購而較 Q1 高出 30 個基點，且與我們先前提供的指引完全一致。

Q3 leverage will remain consistent with Q2, and the business will then naturally de-lever by year-end. Any rebound of the Canadian dollar against the US dollar will further improve our reported net leverage.

Q3 槓桿將與 Q2 大致一致，之後公司將在年底前自然去槓桿。加幣兌美元若出現反彈，將進一步改善我們揭露的淨槓桿。

Based on the strength of the first half and our positive outlook for the remainder of the year, we are pleased to be able to increase our guidance top to bottom for the second time this year. Assuming the current FX rate, commodity, and diesel prices, we now expect the following amounts for the full year 2026: revenue of $7.52 billion, adjusted EBITDA of $2.29 billion, adjusted free cash flow of $900 million, inclusive of cash interest of $445 million, and a net CapEx spend of $850 million.

基於上半年表現強勁以及對今年剩餘期間的正向展望，我們很高興能在今年第二次自上而下調升指引。在假設目前匯率、商品與柴油價格不變的情況下，我們目前預期 2026 全年如下：營收 75.2 億美元、調整後 EBITDA 22.9 億美元、調整後自由現金流 9 億美元（包含 4.45 億美元現金利息），以及淨資本支出 8.5 億美元。

The new guidance assumes full-year pricing increases to just over 6% and volume decreases to approximately negative 50 basis points, an outlook we think is conservative yet appropriate given the current macro backdrop. Any improvement to C&D activity will be a source of upside to the guide.

新的指引假設全年定價上調略高於 6%，處理量下降約為負 50 個基點；在目前的總體背景下，我們認為此展望保守但適切。任何 C&D 活動的改善都將成為指引上修的來源。

Contribution from M&A increases by $10 million on account of the two incremental tuck-in acquisitions and FX related to M&A. Adjusted EBITDA margin increases 10 basis points over our previous guide to 30.5% despite the significant headwind from elevated diesel prices, which we now assume to continue for the balance of the year.

併購（M&A）貢獻因兩筆新增的補強型收購（tuck-in acquisitions）以及與併購相關的匯率因素而增加 1,000 萬美元。儘管柴油價格偏高帶來顯著逆風（我們目前假設此情況將持續至今年剩餘期間），調整後 EBITDA 利潤率仍較先前指引上調 10 個基點至 30.5%。

Absent the run-up in diesel prices, full-year margin would have been more than 31%, more than a 100-basis-point increase over the prior year despite headwinds from M&A and commodity prices. Any reduction in diesel prices in the second half of the year would be a source of incremental margin expansion.

若非柴油價格大幅上漲，全年利潤率將超過 31%，即便面臨併購（M&A）與商品價格的逆風，仍可較去年提升逾 100 個基點。若下半年柴油價格回落，將成為額外利潤率擴張的來源。

As Patrick mentioned, the updated guidance does not include the contribution from any further M&A in the year. SECURE alone could increase 2026 adjusted EBITDA by another 6%, and we also expect to close other tuck-in acquisitions before the end of the year, which will also be additive.

如 Patrick 所提，更新後的指引未納入今年任何進一步併購（M&A）的貢獻。僅 SECURE 一案就可能使 2026 年調整後 EBITDA 再增加約 6%；我們也預期在年底前完成其他補強型收購，亦將帶來增益。

Specifically, as it relates to the third quarter of 2026, we expect consolidated revenue of approximately $1.99 billion at an adjusted EBITDA margin of 31.2%, 60 basis points ahead of the prior year when excluding the anticipated 100-basis-point drag from fuel and M&A. Q3 adjusted free cash flow is expected to be approximately $235 million, inclusive of $165 million in cash interest and about $200 million in net CapEx.

具體而言，就 2026 年第三季而言，我們預期合併營收約為 19.9 億美元，調整後 EBITDA 利潤率為 31.2%；若排除燃料與併購（M&A）預期帶來的 100 個基點拖累，將較去年同期高出 60 個基點。Q3 調整後自由現金流預期約為 2.35 億美元，其中包含 1.65 億美元現金利息與約 2 億美元淨資本支出。

I will now pass the call back to Patrick, who will provide some closing comments before Q&A.

接下來我把電話交回 Patrick，他會在問答環節前做一些結語。

Thanks, Luke. We believe our consistent financial performance in the face of ongoing macro uncertainty continues to demonstrate the quality of our platform and the effectiveness of our strategic plans.

謝謝，Luke。我們認為，在持續的總體不確定性之下仍能維持一致的財務表現，持續證明了我們平台的品質以及策略規劃的有效性。

2026 is shaping up to be another year of industry-leading growth and the setup for the 2027 growth is even greater. Our business and growth prospects have never been better, and we continue to believe that GFL is uniquely positioned for exceptional value creation for all shareholders over the near term.

2026 年正逐步成為又一個產業領先成長的一年，而 2027 年的成長布局更為強勁。我們的業務與成長前景從未如此出色；我們仍相信，GFL 具備獨特定位，能在短期內為所有股東創造卓越價值。

I will now turn the call over to the operator to open the line for Q&A.

我現在把電話交給接線員，開放問答。

(Operator Instructions) Sabahat Khan, RBC Capital Markets.

（接線員指示）RBC Capital Markets 的 Sabahat Khan。

Great. Thanks, and good morning. You mentioned in the release yesterday that the company has received some unsolicited potential take private offers for GFL and some media outlets had headlines earlier as well. To the extent that you can comment, could you maybe share what you're considering, how you're thinking about potential outcomes here? Thanks.

好的。謝謝，早安。你們在昨天的新聞稿中提到，公司收到了一些未經徵詢的、可能將 GFL 私有化（take private）的提案，部分媒體先前也有相關標題報導。在你們可評論的範圍內，是否能分享你們正在考量什麼，以及你們如何看待這裡可能的結果？謝謝。

Yeah. I mean, I think, we -- when there's a dislocation in share price versus sort of intrinsic value, I think that affords others the opportunity to sort of potentially look at sort of a take-private transaction.

是的。我的意思是，我認為——當股價相對於某種內在價值出現錯位時，我認為這會讓其他人有機會去考慮、可能去研究一筆私有化交易。

I think from where we sit today, I think we feel slightly vindicated that I think all the intrinsic value we believe we've created has attracted others and who have approached us about taking the company private at a materially higher number than the company is currently trading for today.

我認為就我們今天所處的位置而言，我們覺得某種程度上得到了印證：我們相信自己所創造的所有內在價值，已經吸引了其他人，並且他們主動接觸我們，討論以一個實質上高於公司目前交易價格的估值將公司私有化。

So as you know, I'm very sort of well versed in the private equity world. I mean, six private equity recaps before GFL went public and then last year, recapping the Environmental Services business and the GIP business that sort of all mid-teens type multiples.

所以如你所知，我對私募股權領域非常熟悉。我的意思是，GFL 上市前做過六次私募股權再融資（recap），然後去年又對 Environmental Services 業務以及 GIP 業務做了再融資，估值倍數大概都在十幾倍（mid-teens）那一類。

So we know that world very well. I mean, I think it's a testament to the business that's being built. And interestingly enough, two of these parties that approached us were doing a significant amount of work on SECURE and believe SECURE was an exceptional acquisition, which, as you know, the first couple of days after announcing that, we had a lot of explaining to do.

所以我們非常了解那個世界。我的意思是，我認為這是對正在打造的這門生意的一種肯定。而且很有意思的是，接觸我們的其中兩方，對 SECURE 做了大量工作，並且認為 SECURE 是一筆非常出色的收購——如你所知，在我們宣布那筆交易後的頭幾天，我們需要做很多解釋。

But that being said, the Board has formed a special committee. The special committee instructed sort of management to explore the art of the possible.

不過話說回來，董事會已成立了一個特別委員會。特別委員會指示管理層去探索各種可能性。

I'm less focused personally on the sort of price out of the gate. I think, obviously, it's materially higher than where we're trading for today.

就我個人而言，我比較不會把重點放在一開始報出的價格上。我想很明顯，它會實質上高於我們今天的交易價格。

But as most of you know on this call, I'm not a seller. I'm not a seller at $40. I'm not a seller at $50. I'm not a seller at $60. I'm not a seller at $70, and I'd be rolling 100% of my equity into whatever is sort of being proposed. I think there's a lot of opportunity here.

但在座多數人都知道，我不是賣方。我不會在 40 美元賣。我不會在 50 美元賣。我不會在 60 美元賣。我不會在 70 美元賣；而且我會把我 100% 的股權滾入（roll）任何正在被提出的交易之中。我認為這裡有很多機會。

If you look at sort of the growth for '27, you look at the free cash flow growth, you look at the setup that we have, SECURE is putting up numbers, the best in their history. GFL is performing better than ever had. From my perspective, my motivation is to keep going and the parties that have approached us as a condition would like me to roll 100% of my equity into a new transaction.

如果你看 2027 年的成長、看自由現金流的成長、看我們目前的布局，SECURE 正在交出他們史上最好的數字。GFL 的表現也比以往任何時候都更好。從我的角度，我的動機是繼續往前走；而接觸我們的各方也把「我必須把 100% 的股權滾入新交易」作為條件之一。

So what I'm focused on is, listen, there's two paths. One, there's an offer brought to shareholders, which would require sort of a majority of the minority because I would be being treated differently in terms of just I'd be rolling 100% of my stake. And shareholders can have their say in terms of what they want. And if the fast money hedge fund type investors think it's compelling, then they can vote for something like that.

所以我關注的是：聽著，這裡有兩條路。第一，是提出一個給股東的要約；由於我在待遇上會不同——因為我會把 100% 的持股滾入——因此這需要少數股東過半（majority of the minority）的同意。股東可以就他們想要什麼表達意見。如果那些偏短線資金、對沖基金類型的投資人覺得有吸引力，他們就可以投票支持這樣的方案。

If we've had a lot of conversations over the last couple of weeks with our largest holders. They have interesting views and perspectives on what the value is. And I think it's just a moment in time where we were caught up in this weird AI trade and SECURE and some of the arms that have entered the name pre-closing. But that exists today. And the alternative is staying public as well, which, from my perspective, is a great alternative as well. I have no issue staying public as well.

過去幾週我們和最大的持有人進行了很多對話。他們對價值有一些有趣的看法與觀點。我認為這只是某個時間點：我們被捲入這種奇怪的 AI 交易題材，以及 SECURE，還有一些在交割前進入這個標的的資金。但這些情況今天確實存在。另一個選項是繼續維持上市公司身分；從我的角度看，這也是一個很好的替代方案。我也完全不介意繼續上市。

The real question is, would shareholders be happy with the price, which is materially higher than where it's trading at today. And as management and sort of insiders, can we create significantly more value in a shorter amount of time inside a private company? And my biggest focus is on not the next year or two, my focus is on what that looks like in sort of year five, six, and seven.

真正的問題是：股東是否會對這個價格感到滿意——它會實質上高於今天的交易價格。以及作為管理層和內部人，我們是否能在私有公司架構下，在更短時間內創造顯著更多的價值？而我最大的關注點不是未來一兩年，我關注的是第五、第六、第七年會是什麼樣子。

How do we -- it's one thing to actually take a business private, and it's another thing to actually realize the value you've created. And I think we just need clarity in terms of how that's going to be realized, whether it's going to stay in perpetual private hands that have created this new marketplace that exists or is the thought to potentially relist the company in five or six years after we've created a whole bunch of incremental value over the next five or six years.

我們要怎麼——把企業私有化是一回事，真正把你創造的價值變現又是另一回事。我認為我們需要釐清的是：這個價值將如何被實現——是會長期由私募資本永久持有，並在這個已經形成的新市場中運作；還是說，想法是可能在未來五或六年、在我們於接下來五或六年創造大量增量價值之後，再把公司重新上市。

So that's what's sort of being discussed. But I do think the Board and management does feel vindicated that some of the smartest and largest institutions in the world that have the biggest pockets of capital believe this company is undervalued and can generate mid-teens to 20% IRRs, even paying a premium to where the stock is trading at today.

所以目前討論的就是這些。但我確實認為，董事會和管理層都覺得得到了印證：世界上一些最聰明、規模最大的機構——擁有最雄厚資本的機構——相信這家公司被低估了；即使以高於今天股價的溢價收購，仍然可以產生十幾到 20% 的 IRR（內部報酬率）。

And from our perspective, these are all the things we've been saying for a long period of time and sort of pounding the table. But from where I sit today, those are the two opportunities. So as I said, the special committee has given us instructions to sort of go explore that, and we'll do that.

從我們的角度，這些都是我們長期以來一直在說、一直強調的事情。但就我今天所處的位置而言，機會就是這兩個。所以如我所說，特別委員會已經給了我們指示去探索，我們也會去做。

My intent is, obviously, the focus is on getting SECURE closed. We'll run these in sort of parallel paths. There is no situation where we -- I saw some notes and we're paying some things on whether you could try and pay a break fee and walk away from SECURE or something. That is not -- these buyers that have approached us are -- they love the SECURE asset as much as they love the GFL business.

我的意圖是——很明顯——重點仍是把 SECURE 的交易完成交割。我們會讓這兩件事以某種並行的方式推進。不存在那種情況——我看到一些報告在猜測，說我們是否可能付分手費然後退出 SECURE 之類的。那不是——這些接觸我們的買方——他們喜歡 SECURE 這項資產的程度，不亞於他們喜歡 GFL 的業務。

So we are -- we'll continue -- my plan is not to sort of make a career of this. We want to get the answers relatively quickly and pick a path. But from my perspective, either path is a good path. And we'll just -- we'll decide what the right path is and whether it makes sense for myself and makes sense to sort of bring it to shareholders in the sort of near to medium term.

所以我們——我們會繼續——我的計畫不是把這件事變成一種長期「職業」。我們希望相對快速地得到答案並選定一條路。但從我的角度，任何一條路都是好路。我們會——決定哪一條才是正確的路，是否對我本人有意義，也是否適合在近期到中期把方案提交給股東。

Great. Thanks. I appreciate all the color. Maybe just switching over to sort of the kind of the outlook here for the back half of the year, maybe a question more for Luke. What incremental growth CapEx are you assuming in your updated guide? And maybe if you can share some color on how we should think about the cadence for the remainder of the year. Thanks.

好的。謝謝。我很感謝你提供的所有細節。也許把話題切換到今年下半年的展望，這個問題可能更適合問 Luke。你們在更新後的指引中，假設了多少額外的成長型資本支出（CapEx）？另外，如果你能分享一些看法，讓我們理解今年剩餘時間的投入節奏，會很有幫助。謝謝。

Yeah. Thanks, Saba. Great question. In Q1, we said we're going to be looking to spend $200 million for the year. I think that number other than a little bit of FX adjustment, I think you got like $5 million higher on that through FX. That's still largely good.

是的。謝謝你，Saba。問得很好。在第一季，我們說今年會以 2 億美元的支出為目標。我認為除了些微的匯率調整之外——透過匯率大概多了 500 萬美元——這個數字基本上仍然成立。

If you look in the quarter, we were a little behind on what we wanted to spend. Some of these projects, the exact cadence is a little bit outside of our control.

如果看本季，我們在支出上比原本想要的節奏稍微落後一些。其中一些專案，確切的推進節奏有一部分不完全在我們的控制之內。

The one thing I'd note is with SECURE, if we get that done in Q4, as you may be aware, SECURE's capital allocation approach has been to deploy excess free cash into sort of growth capital as well. They did some in Q2. They're planning on a big amount in Q3, and there may be some spillover to Q4.

我想補充的一點是，關於 SECURE，如果我們在第四季完成交割，如你可能知道的，SECURE 的資本配置方式一直是把多餘的自由現金流也投入到成長資本上。他們在第二季做了一些。他們計畫在第三季投入一大筆，而第四季可能也會有一些延續（spillover）。

So ultimately, at the end of the year, pro forma for SECURE, we may be something a little bit higher than what standalone GFL is. But I think if you factor in FX, the $200 million gets a little bit higher, and it's going to be in and around that sort of ZIP code, maybe a little less, maybe a little bit more, but that number holds true.

所以最終來看，在年底時，若以 SECURE 的備考口徑計算，我們可能會比單獨的 GFL 略高一些。但我認為如果把匯率（FX）因素納入考量，那 2 億美元會再高一點，整體大概就落在那個區間附近，可能略低、也可能略高，但那個數字大致仍然成立。

Maybe just a quick one, if I can sneak in. The pricing commentary across the sector has been pretty positive. Your commentary this morning is pretty positive, pushing higher even through sort of relative to your initial guide. Is it just the customers are accepting that there is an inflationary environment, fuel is running up, and it's been maybe easier to pass through some pricing. Maybe you can just talk about what's happening in the industry with some of this positive pricing that you're seeing and your peers are seeing? And do you think it could continue into '27 from GFL's perspective?

也許我可以再快速補一個問題。整個產業對定價的評論一直相當正面。你們今天早上的說法也很正面，甚至相對於你們最初的指引還更偏上行。這是否只是因為客戶接受目前是通膨環境、燃料成本在上升，因此價格更容易轉嫁？也請你談談你們看到的、以及同業看到的這些正向定價背後，產業正在發生什麼事？從 GFL 的角度，你認為這種情況能延續到 2027 年嗎？

Yeah. I like the way you frame it at the end, Saba, because it's difficult for me to talk about my peers. But what we have said consistently is that we see an opportunity to continue to price above cost inflation to generate the spread we need to generate return on invested capital. And then in addition to that amount, we have opportunities within our portfolio above and beyond as we just continue to have, I'd call it, mispriced books of business.

是的。Saba，我喜歡你最後那樣的提法，因為我很難去評論同業。但我們一直以來的說法是：我們看到一個機會，可以持續把價格調整到高於成本通膨之上，以產生我們需要的利差，進而創造投入資本報酬率。此外，除了那一塊之外，我們在投資組合內還有更多機會；隨著我們持續推進，我會稱之為仍存在一些「定價不當」的客戶組合（books of business）。

So we continue to demonstrate that in the quarterly results. I think the spread above cost inflation remains true and dear to everyone's pricing strategies, and I don't see that changing.

所以我們在每季的結果中持續證明這一點。我認為「高於成本通膨的利差」仍然是每個人定價策略中非常核心、也非常重要的一環，我不認為這會改變。

So the ultimate headline number may change if you look over a three- to five-year period, but again, focusing on that spread. And as we said, we had identified, I think we said in Investor Day, $40 million to $80 million of incremental price, probably a price greater than that.

因此，如果你用三到五年的期間來看，最終的 headline 數字可能會變動，但重點仍是聚焦在那個利差。而且如我們所說，我們已經辨識出（我記得我們在投資人日提到）4,000 萬到 8,000 萬美元的增量定價，實際上可能還會高於那個水準。

And as we keep doing M&A, that number grows. And a significant component of our outperformance is the effective realization of those opportunities. And at the end of the day, when you think about the three-year outlook that we provided for Investor Day, I think we'll be able to capture a greater amount than what we had put down on the page at that time.

而隨著我們持續進行併購（M&A），那個數字還會增加。我們超越預期表現的一個重要組成，就是有效地把這些機會落實出來。歸根結底，當你回頭看我們在投資人日提供的三年展望，我認為我們能夠捕捉到的金額，會高於當時寫在簡報上的數字。

Tyler Brown, Raymond James.

Tyler Brown，Raymond James。

Good morning, guys. Luke, Just there's quite a bit moving around in the guidance. I mean you've got FX, M&A volumes, commodities. Just in broad strokes, can you kind of bridge the guide -- the new guide versus the old guide? I'm kind of feeling that maybe FX, fuel, M&A, and commodities are all helps, but then second-half volume is a drag. But just any color there would be really helpful.

各位早安。Luke，指引裡有不少變動因素在移動。你們有匯率（FX）、併購（M&A）量、商品價格等。能否用比較概括的方式，幫我們把新指引和舊指引做個橋接（bridge）？我感覺可能是 FX、燃料、M&A 和商品都帶來助益，但下半年量（volume）是拖累。如果能提供一些顏色（補充說明）會很有幫助。

Yeah, Tyler, great question. I appreciate with the magnitude, the upswing, there are sort of moving pieces. So if you think of the top line, pricing is now going to be just above 6%. So that's sort of 50 basis points up from our original guide. Now saying volume is going to be about negative 50 bps.

好的，Tyler，問得很好。我理解在這次上修幅度之下，確實有一些不同的變動項。如果先看營收端（top line），定價現在會略高於 6%。這大概比我們原先指引高了 50 個基點。而量（volume）現在預期大約是負 50 個基點。

So that's about a 75 bps decrease from the original guide that contemplated about 25 bps of positive volume.

這比原先指引低了大約 75 個基點；原先指引是預期約正 25 個基點的量成長。

Surcharge is now at 80 bps positive. So that's about 100 bps over the original guide, and that's just a function of the change in the diesel pricing. Commodity, we're now saying about a 10 bps drag year-over-year, and that's a 20 basis point increase over the original guide. So initially thought about minus 30. Now we're about minus 10.

附加費（surcharge）現在是正 80 個基點。這比原先指引高了大約 100 個基點，主要就是柴油價格變動所致。商品（commodity）方面，我們現在說年對年大約拖累 10 個基點，這比原先指引改善了 20 個基點。原先我們想的是負 30。現在大約是負 10。

Again, recall, our sensitivity, we don't see the upside as much as we used to, but the benefit is we also don't see the downside.

同樣提醒一下，依照我們的敏感度假設，我們不像以前那樣看到那麼多上行空間，但好處是我們也不再看到那麼多下行風險。

And then M&A, obviously, a big one with Frontier and the other, that's now going to be at sort of 770 bps up, so 7.7% coming from M&A. That's about 520 basis points higher than the original guide. And then FX with the meaningful change, that's now considered to be a 40-basis-point drag, so minus 0.4% from FX, which is about 170% higher than the original guide. The original guide contemplated 1.36. And now, we're doing the first half at whatever it was and now assuming the second half at 1.40.

然後併購（M&A）當然是很大的一塊，包含 Frontier 和其他案子，現在大概會帶來 770 個基點的增長，也就是 7.7% 來自 M&A。這比原先指引高了大約 520 個基點。再來是匯率（FX），由於變動幅度明顯，現在被視為 40 個基點的拖累，也就是 FX 造成 -0.4%，這比原先指引高了大約 170%（拖累幅度更大）。原先指引假設是 1.36；現在我們上半年按實際發生的水準，並假設下半年為 1.40。

Yeah, okay. Perfect. Extremely helpful. The other thing that I think should maybe be highlighted here, unless I'm missing it, but the new guidance, I think, calls for margins to be virtually unchanged. But the old margins didn't include a very sizable headwind from fuel and call it, non-leveraging FX revenues. So could one imply that you are actually raising the underlying implied margins fairly substantially? Or am I misreading that?

好，了解。完美。非常有幫助。另外一點我覺得也許應該強調一下，除非我漏看了：新指引看起來是要求利潤率幾乎不變。但舊的利潤率並沒有包含燃料帶來的相當大的逆風，以及可以說是 FX 收入無法槓桿化（non-leveraging）的影響。所以我們是否可以推論，你們其實是相當大幅度地上調了隱含的基礎利潤率？還是我解讀錯了？

No, Tyler, you're absolutely right. I mean if you think about the original guide, we were supposed to go to 30.5%, and that reflected 100 basis points of underlying at that time. And in that, we had our assumptions on fuel, commodity, all the externalities.

沒有，Tyler，你完全說對了。如果你回想原先的指引，我們本來是要到 30.5%，那在當時反映的是 100 個基點的基礎改善。而在那之中，我們已經納入了對燃料、商品以及所有外部因素的假設。

When you look today, as you said, we're maintaining 30.5%, but now inclusive of a 60- to 70-basis-point drag from fuel, a 30- to 40-basis-point drag from M&A. I mean, those two things alone is a 100-basis-point drag above and beyond from where we started the year.

今天來看，如你所說，我們仍維持 30.5%，但現在是包含燃料帶來約 60 到 70 個基點的拖累，以及 M&A 帶來約 30 到 40 個基點的拖累。光是這兩項，相較於年初我們起步時的狀況，就多了約 100 個基點的額外拖累。

Now, there's other moving pieces, obviously. If you think about special waste and C&D landfill volumes, that's net new headwind. I don't want to get into every little piece, but that mix, I mean, if you think about those incremental tons that are missing, that's very high margin flow-through, right?

當然還有其他變動因素。如果你看特殊廢棄物（special waste）和 C&D（建築與拆除）掩埋場量（landfill volumes），那是新的逆風。我不想把每個小項目都逐一拆開，但那個組合（mix）——如果你想想那些少掉的增量噸數（incremental tons），那本來是非常高毛利的流量轉換（flow-through），對吧？

And so if you look at that original 100 basis points underlying, I think you're probably 2x that today, notwithstanding that the headline numbers saying at 30.5%, and that's why I think I'll circle back to Patrick's comment. I mean, I don't think the operation of the business has ever been performing better, and you're seeing that sort of come through in the numbers.

所以如果你看原先那 100 個基點的基礎改善，我認為今天大概是那個的 2 倍，儘管 headline 數字仍顯示在 30.5%。這也是為什麼我想回到 Patrick 的評論。我的意思是，我不認為公司的營運表現曾經比現在更好，而你也正在看到這點在數字上反映出來。

Yeah, exactly. And then just real quickly, Patrick, last one on volume. How does the competitive environment feel? Have you seen any pickup in churn? Is there anything happening on the small hauler side that gives you any pause, or is there any change in behavior there?

對，完全同意。那最後很快一個問題，Patrick，關於量（volume）。你覺得競爭環境如何？你們有看到流失率（churn）上升嗎？在小型清運商（small hauler）那一端，有沒有任何事情讓你們需要更謹慎，或那邊的行為有沒有任何改變？

I mean, we're in a competitive business as always. And I think there's certain markets that have different competitive dynamics. And of course, there's markets where we have to fight and we have to defend our business and defend churn. But there's a lot of other parts of our business that continue to be strong on ticket, continue to get pricing and churn at sort of all-time lows.

我的意思是，我們一如既往是在一個競爭激烈的產業。我認為不同市場有不同的競爭動態。當然也有一些市場我們必須競爭、必須防守我們的業務並控制流失（churn）。但我們業務中還有很多其他部分，在單據（ticket）表現上持續強勁，持續取得定價，而且流失率處於接近歷史低點。

Nothing any different than what we've seen in the last 20 years. So I think we just keep chugging along, again, picking the right markets where we want to operate that allows us to continue deploying the strategy. And I think that's what you continue to see from us and you will continue to see from us. So nothing out of the ordinary from my perspective.

沒有任何不同於我們過去20年所看到的情況。所以我認為我們就繼續穩步前進，再次選擇我們想要營運的正確市場，讓我們能夠持續推進這項策略。我想這就是你們一直從我們這裡看到的，也將會繼續看到的。所以就我個人觀點而言，沒有什麼不尋常的。

Kevin Chiang, CIBC.

Kevin Chiang，CIBC。

Yeah, thanks for taking my question. If I could just dig into the US organic growth in the second quarter. It was up nicely sequentially. And if I just look back outside of the elevated inflation period during the latter innings of the pandemic, I mean, this seems historical or looks historically high.

是的，謝謝讓我提問。如果可以的話，我想深入了解一下美國第二季的內生成長。它在季比上升得相當不錯。而如果我回頭看，在疫情後期通膨高企那段期間之外，這看起來在歷史上屬於偏高的水準。

I get pricing is good across the board, you have surcharges there, but are you hitting an inflection point in the US in terms of some of the initiatives that you laid out at the Investor Day that might be driving maybe more outsized organic growth in the US versus maybe what you see in Canada on a rate of change basis, just given Canada is a more mature market for you?

我理解整體定價表現良好，你們也有附加費（surcharges），但你們是否在美國正迎來一個拐點：也就是你們在投資人日所提出的一些措施開始發揮作用，進而推動美國的內生成長相對更為突出；相較之下，加拿大對你們而言是較成熟的市場，因此在變動率的角度可能不如美國？

Yeah. Thanks for the question, Kevin. It's a great one. I think -- if you think about overall organic growth, starting at price, I mean, the US has consistently been a good pricing market for us and continues to be. And I think I said in the prepared remarks, it was both geographies around that sort of 6% level.

是的。謝謝你的問題，Kevin。這個問題很好。我想——如果你從整體內生成長來看，先從價格開始，美國一直以來對我們都是一個定價良好的市場，現在也仍然如此。而且我在事先準備的發言中也提到，兩個地區大約都在6%那個水準附近。

I think the -- some of our books of business in the US were probably more mature in some of the sort of surcharge initiatives. And so some of that outsized opportunity has been realized more in Canada, although there are net new geographies in the US where that's also been an opportunity.

我認為——我們在美國的一些業務組合，可能在某些附加費措施上已經更成熟。因此，那些較為超額的機會在加拿大被實現得更多；不過，美國也有一些新的地理區域，這同樣是一個機會。

But on balance, I'd say the US pricing is more driven by just strength of underlying core as opposed to the sort of implementation of net new surcharges. I think it really comes down on the volume story. And if you think about what we and some of our industry peers have talked about is this is this idea of intentional shedding post M&A.

但整體而言，我會說美國的定價更多是由核心基本面的強勁所驅動，而不是靠新增附加費的導入。我認為關鍵其實在於量（volume）的故事。如果你想想我們以及一些同業所談到的，就是併購後「有意識地剔除」（intentional shedding）這個概念。

And so if you look for the period that you're looking at, I mean, the levels of revenue acquired in the US were quite significant from 2020 through 2024, 2025. And following that, you do have the intentional shedding. And again, it's unsafe work. It's work that doesn't meet your return hurdle. It is tangential type ancillary revenue service offerings that we're not going to continue to do.

所以如果你看你所關注的那段期間，美國在2020到2024、2025年間所併購進來的營收規模相當可觀。而在那之後，就會出現有意識地剔除。再說一次，那是高風險/不安全的工作。是那些無法達到你報酬門檻的業務。也是一些偏邊緣、附帶性的營收與服務項目，我們不會再繼續做。

And so I think what's really happened is as the quantum of M&A sort of paused starting late '24 into '25, we had more quieter deployment of capital, you've no longer had the subsequent knock-on effect of that sort of shedding. And it's allowing, therefore, the volume metric to reflect just what's actually happening in the underlying business as opposed to being distorted.

因此我認為真正發生的是：當併購的量在2024年末到2025年開始放緩，我們的資本部署也更為平靜，你就不再有那種「剔除」所帶來的後續連鎖影響。因此，量的指標得以反映基礎業務實際發生的狀況，而不再被扭曲。

And I think it's a great data point and testament to the sort of quality of the market selection and the business that we have because once you remove the M&A-related noise, what you're left with is the normal course volume, which is going to be a plus or minus, probably 50 bps type number and doesn't move around very much.

我認為這是一個很好的數據點，也證明了我們在市場選擇與業務品質上的成果；因為一旦把併購相關的雜訊移除，剩下的就是正常的量的走勢，可能就是正負約50個基點左右的數字，波動不會太大。

That's very helpful color. I mean, just a follow-on, just looking at your -- you talked about operating leverage in your prepared remarks. If I look at kind of core cost as a percentage of revenue, you're back down to kind of a low 3% intensity. So maybe what you look like pre the ES spinout. Can you remind us where that can get to? Are you kind of at a level where you've kind of, I'll say, maximize the revenue absorption within that corp cost. So incremental top-line growth requires a little bit more investment in corp, or can you push that below 3%?

這些說明很有幫助。我再追問一下：你在事先準備的發言中提到營運槓桿。如果我看核心公司成本（core cost）占營收的比例，你們已經回到大約3%出頭的低強度水準。也就是ES分拆之前的樣子。你能提醒我們這個比例最終可以降到哪裡嗎？你們是否已經到了一個程度——我姑且說——在公司成本中對營收的吸收已經最大化，因此後續營收增長就需要在公司端投入更多；還是你們可以把它壓到3%以下？

Yeah, it's a great question, Kevin, and an area that we're very excited by because, I mean, again, -- that's a relatively fixed cost component that's derived primarily of sort of people and IT-related costs.

是的，這是個很好的問題，Kevin，也是我們非常興奮的一個領域。因為——再說一次——那是一個相對固定的成本組成，主要來自人員與IT相關成本。

Now, when you think about the last three or four years, there was, as we articulated, a meaningful investment as we did a big large-scale lift and shift to cloud-based sort of systems, and we had dollars going through there that were transitory in nature. You've seen those sort of roll off, and now you're sort of left with a more sort of steady state dollars.

現在，如果你回顧過去三到四年，正如我們所闡述的，我們做了相當可觀的投資，進行大規模的遷移，把系統搬到雲端架構。那部分支出具有一次性/過渡性的特質。你已經看到那些支出逐步退場，現在留下的是更偏向穩態（steady state）的支出水準。

Now, in that unit, if you think about where things like AI is going to bring productivity enhancement, that we anticipate to be an area where that's realizable. But regular way back-end shared services, whether that's HR and payroll, whether that's treasury, whether that's the IT group, efficiencies that should be able to come from sort of more automation and processes should yield the ability of that existing cost structure to take on even larger amounts of revenue.

在那個單元裡，如果你想想像AI將帶來的生產力提升，我們預期那會是可以實現的領域。但即便是一般的後端共享服務，不論是人資與薪資、財務資金管理（treasury）、或IT團隊，透過更多自動化與流程所帶來的效率提升，應該能讓既有的成本結構承接更大規模的營收。

So I don't think we're at a position here today to say exactly where that is going, but I certainly don't think 3% is a floor, and we see a path even pro forma going into next year getting below that level. But certainly, we believe that's going to be, as we've articulated, a meaningful source of operating leverage for the consolidated margin as that cost bucket remains relatively fixed, and we continue to grow revenue and/or EBITDA at materially higher growth rates.

所以我不認為我們今天就能精確地說最終會到哪個水準，但我也不認為3%是下限；我們看到一條路徑，即使以備考（pro forma）口徑看，進入明年也有機會降到那個水準以下。但我們確實相信，正如我們所說，這將會是合併利潤率的重要營運槓桿來源，因為那個成本桶相對固定，而我們會持續讓營收和/或EBITDA以顯著更高的成長率增長。

Tobey Sommer, Truist.

Tobey Sommer，Truist。

Thanks. I wanted to ask a question about prospective M&A over the balance of the year. With the LBO news, is that influencing your conversations with businesses that you expect to be able to acquire over the balance of '26?

謝謝。我想問一個關於今年剩餘期間潛在併購（M&A）的問題。隨著槓桿收購（LBO）的消息，這是否會影響你們與那些你們預期在2026年剩餘期間可收購的企業之間的對話？

No, no impact. I mean, we're running the business normal course. There's no change to sort of strategy or businesses that we're speaking to, and it's irrelevant whether we were -- whether it was private or public, and we just continue marching on as if we're running the business as is in the normal course.

不會，沒有影響。我的意思是，我們照常營運。在策略或我們正在洽談的企業方面沒有任何改變；而且不論我們是私有或上市，這都無關緊要，我們只是繼續前進，就像以正常方式經營這家公司一樣。

Tobey, I'd say just to add, Patrick, the one thing I'd say that's most impacting M&A is, again, just our absolute commitment to sort of the leverage philosophies that we sort of talked about. I mean, unfortunately, when the Canadian dollar depreciates as much as it does, it puts this sort of temporary translational impact on our leverage. And so we're 10 to 15 basis points higher than we otherwise would have been, which factors into the amount of capital you can deploy into M&A.

Tobey，我想補充一下，Patrick：我認為對併購影響最大的是——再次強調——我們對先前談到的槓桿理念（leverage philosophies）的絕對承諾。不幸的是，當加幣貶值幅度這麼大時，會對我們的槓桿比率造成一個暫時性的換算（translational）影響。因此我們的槓桿比率會比原本高出10到15個基點，這會影響你能投入併購的資本量。

So that, I would suggest, is more the sort of balancing act that we're doing. But to Patrick's point, in his initial comments that he made, we're running and going full force, running our business, whatever the sort of capital structure of the business will be, but it's not going to impact how we're thinking about growth.

所以我會說，這才是我們正在做的更主要的平衡取捨。但如Patrick在一開始的評論所說，我們仍然全力以赴地經營業務；不論公司的資本結構最終會是什麼樣子，都不會影響我們對成長的思考方式。

Thanks. If I could ask a follow-up on -- you mentioned the tight spread and attractive rates in your recent fixed income offering. What do you think is contributing to that? And how does that dovetail into the potential IRR of an LBO should that come to pass?

謝謝。我想再追問一下——你提到你們近期固定收益發行的利差很緊、利率也很具吸引力。你認為是什麼因素促成了這點？而如果未來真的發生LBO，這又如何與其潛在的內部報酬率（IRR）相互呼應？

Yeah. I think -- listen, we've done exactly what we said we were going to do for over 13 years in that market, right? So we have a lot of goodwill in the market and always have and have always punched significantly above our weight on that side because we've always done what we said we're going to do, and we've continued to deliver.

是的。我認為——聽著，我們在那個市場已經超過 13 年完全照我們說的去做了，對吧？所以我們在市場上累積了很多善意，而且一直都是；在那一端我們也一直明顯超出自身規模所能預期的表現，因為我們總是說到做到，並且持續交付成果。

Now, the beauty of the transaction we're talking about, there's not any material impact sort of on leverage of what's being proposed.

現在，這筆我們正在談的交易的妙處在於，對所提議的槓桿水準基本上沒有任何重大影響。

So for our debt investors, there's no real risk that this is being treated as a traditional LBO in the sense where you're going to have six-plus turns of leverage and material rating decreases. So I think we are fortunate from that perspective.

因此，對我們的債務投資人而言，幾乎沒有什麼風險會把這件事當作傳統的槓桿收購（LBO）來看待——也就是你會有 6 倍以上的槓桿，並伴隨重大的評級下調。所以我認為從這個角度來看，我們算是很幸運。

But again, you look at the art of the possible. I mean, again, even if we did need more debt capital to affect the transaction, which that's not really being proposed in sort of any material way, that market has supported us with 6 to 6.5 turns of leverage for a long period of time, albeit at slightly higher rates, that's where it sort of stood.

但再說一次，你要看「可能性的藝術」。我的意思是，即便我們確實需要更多債務資本來完成這筆交易——而這其實並沒有以任何實質方式被提出——那個市場長期以來一直支持我們做到 6 到 6.5 倍的槓桿，雖然利率略高一些，但大致就是那樣。

But again, that's not -- I wish sometimes our equity investors would understand the business as well as our debt investors, but this is life, and it takes time to sort of mature and understand. But that's not a market I worry about.

但再說一次，那不是——我有時希望我們的股權投資人能像我們的債務投資人一樣了解這門生意，但人生就是如此，成熟與理解需要時間。不過那不是我擔心的市場。

And again, deep relationships for many, many years of doing the same thing sort of over and over again.

而且再說一次，靠著多年、很多很多年的深厚關係，一次又一次地做同樣的事情。

And Tobey, just to add to that, if you think the spread on that bond that we did was 134 basis points over the underlying treasury. Our investment-grade peers in the industry would be doing fixed income offerings at sort of 70 to 90 basis points over treasury.

Tobey，我補充一下，如果你想想我們那次發行的債券利差是較基準美國公債高 134 個基點。我們產業內的投資級同業做固定收益發行，大概是較公債高 70 到 90 個基點。

So you're looking there, I call it, a 40- to 50-basis-point spread, and that's a pretax impact, right? So you roll that all through, and I've made this comment before, the benefit of becoming an investment-grade company is much less on the debt cost of capital, but rather on the perceived perception related to equity cost of capital.

所以你看那裡，我稱之為大約 40 到 50 個基點的利差，而那是稅前影響，對吧？所以把這些都算進去——我以前也說過——成為投資級公司的好處，較少體現在債務資本成本上，而更多是在市場對股權資本成本的觀感與認知上。

The debt markets are effectively already viewing us basically as an investment-grade credit, and we'll continue to march towards that direction.

債券市場其實已經基本把我們視為投資級信用，我們也會持續朝那個方向邁進。

Trevor Romeo, William Blair.

Trevor Romeo，William Blair。

Hey, morning, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe I'll have another one on kind of M&A. I think, Patrick, you said that the Frontier integration has gone exceptionally well thus far. So maybe you could update us on how that transition is going? What kind of growth opportunities you've identified thus far for that business?

各位早安。謝謝讓我提問。我可能再問一題關於併購（M&A）。Patrick，我想你提到 Frontier 的整合到目前為止進展得非常順利。所以也許你可以更新一下那個轉換目前進行得如何？到目前為止，你們為那項業務辨識到哪些成長機會？

And then I appreciate the comments about the leverage that Luke just made, but maybe you could talk a little bit about what types of assets might be in your kind of intermediate term pipeline there for M&A? Thanks.

另外我也很感謝 Luke 剛才對槓桿的評論，但也許你可以談談，在你們中期的併購管線裡，可能會有哪些類型的資產？謝謝。

Yeah. So Frontier, that was well in hand. I mean we had a lot of time between sort of signing and closing on that. So I mean, that -- the integration plan for that was well in hand before we hit the ground running day 1, effectively have that business transition over to our platform now. So there's been no -- interestingly enough, they ran a back-office software called Navisoft that we run as well. So the integration was very straightforward.

是的。所以 Frontier，那件事我們掌握得很好。我的意思是，我們在簽約到交割之間有相當長的時間。所以那個整合計畫在我們第一天正式啟動之前就已經準備就緒；實際上現在那項業務已經轉到我們的平台上了。所以沒有——有趣的是，他們使用一套後台軟體叫 Navisoft，我們也在用。因此整合非常直接。

Payroll has been sort of transitioned, health and benefits transitioned. So now looking at that business on our own KPI program.

薪資系統已經完成轉換，健康保險與福利也完成轉換。所以現在我們是用自己的 KPI 管理機制來看那項業務。

And in terms of new opportunities, similar to what we said on the last call, we have a plan to double the size of the business there over the next five years, and that's a combination of organic and inorganic opportunities. There'll be some smaller tuck-in sort of M&A, and then there's some organic opportunities, both on the sort of landfill, recycling, transportation side that we think are highly compelling that is going to sort of bolstering that. So that is sort of well in hand and on plan. No issues, no red flags, all green flags at the moment. So that will continue moving in the same direction.

至於新的機會，跟我們上次電話會議說的一樣，我們有一個計畫，要在未來五年把那邊的業務規模翻倍；這會結合有機與無機的機會。會有一些較小的補強式併購（tuck-in M&A），同時也有一些有機機會，包含我們認為非常有吸引力、能夠強化業務的掩埋場、回收、運輸等面向。所以整體都在掌握中、按計畫進行。沒有問題、沒有紅旗，目前都是綠旗。所以會持續朝同一方向推進。

In terms of what the back half of the year look like from an M&A perspective, again, the big focus really is on tuck-in M&A that tucks into existing markets where we already have operating facilities, transfer stations, landfills, recycling facilities where we can internalize incremental volumes in those streams and leverage the fixed cost base facilities that we have. And that will make up the lion's share of the back half M&A.

就今年下半年從併購角度來看，再說一次，最大的重點其實是補強式併購，把資產併入我們已經有營運設施的既有市場——轉運站、掩埋場、回收設施——讓我們能在這些流向中內部消化新增量，並運用我們既有設施的固定成本基礎。而這將構成下半年併購的最大宗。

At the same time, the M&A team certainly continues to work on other opportunities for sort of ES and GIP. And both of those divisions are putting up sort of record numbers as well organically. I mean, ES had the best -- they had the best June ever recorded sort of in company's history on sort of a multitude of fronts.

同時，併購團隊當然也持續在推進其他機會，像是 ES 和 GIP。而這兩個事業部在有機成長方面也都繳出某種程度的歷史新高數字。我的意思是，ES 創下了——他們創下公司歷史上表現最好的 6 月，在多個面向都是如此。

And the same goes for sort of GIP, had the best June they've ever had. So you have, basically, GFL, the public company, sort of firing on all cylinders. SECURE, again, posting the biggest and best numbers that they've reported in their history. And then our two sort of private businesses where we own the 40% stake and the 30% stake, putting up the best numbers that they've ever put up.

GIP 也是一樣，創下他們史上最好的 6 月。所以基本上，你看到上市公司 GFL 各方面都火力全開。SECURE 也同樣再次繳出他們歷史上最大、最好的數字。然後我們兩個私營業務——我們分別持有 40% 與 30% 股權——也都繳出它們歷來最好的成績。

So listen, we're feeling very good about sort of where we're sitting today. And I think there's definitely more opportunity than there are times. So we're just using our time wisely and finding the stuff that's going to -- and focusing our time on the stuff that's the most accretive to us as shareholders.

所以聽著，我們對目前所處的位置感覺非常好。而且我認為機會絕對比時間還多。所以我們只是更有效率地運用時間，去找那些——把時間聚焦在對我們股東最具增益（accretive）的事情上。

All right. That's great. Thanks, Patrick. And then maybe a quick one for Luke. I think the updated guide, the free cash flow did have, I think, a little bit better conversion than your original guide. So maybe what's driving that?

好的。那很棒。謝謝你，Patrick。然後我可能再快速問 Luke 一題。我想更新後的指引中，自由現金流的轉換率似乎比你們原先的指引好一點。所以是什麼在驅動這個改善？

And then just looking beyond this year, I know you have SECURE that will come on at a higher conversion rate, but maybe would just love your latest thoughts on what kind of organic improvements in cash flow conversion you'd be looking for from here, especially as more of your RNG projects come online. Thanks.

另外再看今年之後，我知道 SECURE 會以較高的轉換率併入，但也很想聽聽你們最新的看法：從現在開始，你們希望看到現金流轉換率有哪些有機改善，特別是隨著更多 RNG 專案上線之後。謝謝。

Yeah, Trevor, great question. Thanks for that. For the current year guide on the free cash flow, obviously, the incremental EBITDA, you have the sort of flow-through of that.

是的，Trevor，問得很好。謝謝。就今年自由現金流的指引而言，顯然是因為 EBITDA 的增量帶來了相應的流入（flow-through）。

With the refinancing or recent financings of our debt, you've effectively taken a portion of interest expense that would have otherwise been associated with the growth and flatten that out. So that's going to roll over into next year. So you're maintaining that $445 million cash interest despite the higher sort of EBITDA.

透過我們的再融資或近期的債務融資，你等於把原本會隨成長而增加的一部分利息費用先行處理並拉平。所以這會延續到明年。因此，即便 EBITDA 較高，你仍能維持 4.45 億美元的現金利息支出。

Working capital, you're getting a bit of a benefit from FX, right, just the way the math works and -- because we're in a net liability position, the higher level of FX, while it's a drag, the leverage, as we spoke about, you're getting a little bit of benefit there. But it's really just leveraging that fixed sort of other items of interest, taxes, et cetera, as we keep sort of growing EBITDA.

營運資金方面，你會從外匯（FX）中得到一點好處，對吧，就數學計算的方式而言——因為我們處於淨負債部位，較高的外匯水準雖然是一種拖累，但如同我們談到的槓桿效應，你在那裡會得到一點點好處。但這其實只是把那類固定的其他項目——利息、稅項等等——加以槓桿化，隨著我們持續成長 EBITDA。

And when you roll that forward into next year, you're absolutely right, pro forma with SECURE, you're going to see this inflection point, bringing that free cash flow conversion of adjusted free cash flow divided by adjusted EBITDA north of 40%.

而當你把這個往明年推進時，你完全說得對，納入 SECURE 的備考（pro forma）後，你會看到這個拐點，使得自由現金流轉換率（調整後自由現金流除以調整後 EBITDA）提升到 40% 以上。

And really, with the incremental free cash flow profile, where the real benefit will come from is, yes, ongoing margin expansion all drops down to the free cash flow conversion line, but it's really being able to leverage a relatively now fixed component of interest as you're able to largely self-finance the growth from your own free cash flow, and therefore, the eventual reduction of interest intensity in the free cash flow walk as we articulated at our Investor Day, is going to provide GFL a tailwind to free cash flow growth and conversion growth idiosyncratically because our other folks are already at that sort of lower leverage level.

而且就增量自由現金流的輪廓而言，真正的好處將來自於：是的，持續的利潤率擴張都會反映到自由現金流轉換率那一行，但更關鍵的是，當你能夠主要用自身的自由現金流為成長自我融資時，就能槓桿化一個如今相對固定的利息組成；因此，正如我們在投資人日所闡述的，隨著自由現金流橋接（walk）中利息強度最終下降，將會為 GFL 的自由現金流成長與轉換率成長帶來順風，這在公司層面具有特定性，因為其他同業大多已經處在那種較低槓桿水準。

So too early to get into the moving pieces of '27. But certainly, there's going to be a meaningful step-up and an inflection point in all of those numbers, but particularly free cash flow.

所以現在談 2027 年的各種變動因素還太早。但可以肯定的是，所有這些數字都會出現顯著的躍升與拐點，尤其是自由現金流。

James Schumm, TD Cowen.

James Schumm，TD Cowen。

Thanks, and good morning, guys. Patrick, you've built the fourth largest solid waste company in North America, and you've done incredibly well financially. You've said that clearly, you're going to roll your stake. But can you just comment on maybe what you want to do in the future, maybe it's 5 or 10 years down the road? So specifically, like how much longer do you want to be the CEO of this company?

謝謝，大家早安。Patrick，你打造了北美第四大固體廢棄物公司，而且在財務上做得非常出色。你也明確表示，你會把你的持股繼續滾入（roll your stake）。但你能否談談你未來可能想做什麼，也許是 5 年或 10 年之後？具體來說，你還想當這家公司的 CEO 多久？

As long as I continue to see opportunity, you're going to see me sort of sitting in the seat or if people tell me that it's time to leave.

只要我持續看到機會，你就會看到我坐在這個位置上；或者如果大家告訴我該離開了。

I mean, started over 20 years ago now. I don't think I have a better opportunity than anything I see to continue compounding my own wealth over sort of a long period of time. And again, from where I sit today, and I keep saying it, maybe I sound like a broken record. If you see the condition of the business that it's in today, the shape we're in, where the free cash flow is going for 2027, the opportunities we have going into 2027 and beyond, if I look at the next sort of 5 to 10 years, there is a real opportunity to double the size of this business again.

我的意思是，這一切是 20 多年前開始的。我不認為有任何比我現在看到的更好的機會，能在長期內持續複利累積我自己的財富。而且再說一次，就我今天所處的位置——我一直在說，可能聽起來像壞掉的唱片。如果你看看公司今天的狀況、我們目前的體質、自由現金流到 2027 年的走向、以及我們在 2027 年及之後的機會；如果我看未來大約 5 到 10 年，確實有機會再把這個業務規模翻倍。

And we have best-in-class operating systems, best-in-class management teams, what I call best-in-class markets. We have -- if you look at our seven regions, all operating in similar sort of margin profiles in both Canada and the US with a significant amount of opportunity. And by no means are we fully optimized in all these markets as well. So there's significant self-help opportunities in these markets to continue making the businesses better.

而且我們有同級最佳的營運系統、同級最佳的管理團隊，以及我所稱的同級最佳市場。我們有——如果你看我們的七個區域，在加拿大與美國都以相近的利潤率輪廓運作，且有大量機會。而且我們在所有這些市場也絕非已完全最佳化。因此，這些市場存在顯著的自助改善（self-help）機會，能持續把業務做得更好。

So where I sit, listen, that's why I keep saying I'm not a seller. So the public markets will move around in terms of what they believe waste companies are valued at or where GFL should be valued at based on things that we've done.

所以就我而言，聽著，這就是我一直說我不是賣方（I'm not a seller）的原因。因此，公開市場會因為他們認為廢棄物公司應該被如何估值，或基於我們所做的事情而認為 GFL 應該被如何估值，而出現波動。

But again, sitting in the seat for over 20 years, creating billions of dollars of value for shareholders, I think we have a very sort of proven track record of a model that works. And again, whether that's publicly or privately, it can be done in both.

但再說一次，我坐在這個位置超過 20 年，為股東創造了數十億美元的價值；我認為我們有非常經過驗證、行之有效的商業模式。而且同樣地，不論是上市或私有化，兩種情境都能做到。

The real question is, privately, can you just do things faster that you couldn't necessarily do in the public markets as quickly? And you're a dynamic management team like ourselves that likes to do things and create value over time. And we've done that, maybe sort of less popular things at times or people perceive to be less popular things at times.

真正的問題是，在私有化的情況下，你是否能更快地做一些在公開市場未必能那麼快做到的事？而我們這樣的動態管理團隊，喜歡做事並隨時間創造價值。我們一直在做這些事，只是有時候做的是不那麼受歡迎的事，或外界有時候認為是不那麼受歡迎的事。

But I go back and I look at -- since being public, I look at -- we did a whole bunch of M&A in 2020 and 2021, increased leverage modestly, which, again, wasn't looked as favorably on.

但我回頭看——自從上市以來，我看——我們在 2020 和 2021 年做了大量併購（M&A），把槓桿小幅提高，而這件事——再說一次——當時並不被那麼正面看待。

But when I go back at those, those are the right decisions to make for the business if you're a long-term shareholder. And you're putting together -- Terrapure together with our ES business in the middle of COVID and bringing up leverage 30 or 40 basis points, which, again, penalized from a bunch of investors at the time. We went out and put those two businesses together and sold that for almost 15 times, right?

但當我回頭看那些決策，如果你是長期股東，那些都是對公司正確的決定。而且你在 COVID 期間把 Terrapure 與我們的 ES 業務整合在一起，並把槓桿提高 30 或 40 個基點，這——再說一次——當時被不少投資人懲罰。我們把那兩個業務整合起來，最後以接近 15 倍的倍數賣掉了，對吧？

So those are the right decisions. I think we know where -- how to create value. We know where to create value, and we do it in a very disciplined fashion that continues to sort of compound.

所以那些都是正確的決定。我認為我們知道——如何創造價值。我們知道在哪裡創造價值，而且我們以非常自律的方式去做，讓價值持續複利累積。

And I think if you look at what's happened to the margin profile, the free cash flow profile of our business, the strategy continues to work. It's worked for 20 years, and it will continue to work for the next 20 years.

而且我認為，如果你看看我們業務的利潤率輪廓、自由現金流輪廓所發生的變化，這個策略持續有效。它已經有效了 20 年，未來 20 年也會繼續有效。

So I'm here for the long run as long as people will have me. And again, I see a clear path to just materially increasing my own personal sort of equity value, and that's what we're focused on.

所以只要大家願意讓我繼續做，我就會長期在這裡。而且再說一次，我看到一條清晰的路徑，可以實質提升我個人持有股權的價值，這就是我們專注的方向。

Great. And as you contemplate -- you guys kind of contemplate these two options, private or public. Maybe you touched on this, but what do you think is driving the discount in your stock today? And how can you address it? So is it free cash flow conversion or some of the things that you laid out was that you're just going to create value.

很好。當你們在思考——你們算是在思考這兩個選項：私有或公開。也許你剛剛有提到，但你認為是什麼在驅動你們今天股價的折價？你們要如何處理？所以是自由現金流轉換率，或是你所列出的某些事情——你們只是會持續創造價值。

And over time, the market is going to realize that value? Or are you sitting there evaluating, okay, well, if we stay public, if we do X and Y, we can get a more appropriate valuation to our stock?

然後隨著時間，市場會意識到那個價值？或者你們是否正在評估：好，如果我們維持上市，如果我們做 X 和 Y，我們就能讓股價獲得更合理的估值？

Yeah. I mean, listen, there's been -- I mean, we've been public for almost six years now, right? And if you look at the math and sort of the dislocation in share price, there was two things.

是的。我的意思是，聽著——我們上市快六年了，對吧？如果你看數學關係以及股價的錯位（dislocation），有兩件事。

In 2022, levered growth became a very bad thing, and we were operating with higher leverage than all of our peers. And that was something that sort of had to be rectified, even though when you think about using an extra half a turn of leverage, again, I cite the example of the ES business.

在 2022 年，帶槓桿的成長（levered growth）變成一件很糟的事，而我們的槓桿水準高於所有同業。這是必須被修正的事情；即便你想想，多用半圈槓桿——我再次引用 ES 業務的例子。

When we put ES together with Terrapure, buying that from a Canadian private equity firm at sort of 8 or 9 times at the time and increasing leverage. I think at the time, it was like 30 or 40 basis points and certain investors sort of throwing tomatoes at us saying, why would you do such a thing?

當我們把 ES 與 Terrapure 整合時，我們當時以大約 8 或 9 倍從一家加拿大私募股權公司手上買下來，並提高槓桿。我記得當時大概是 30 或 40 個基點，某些投資人就像對我們丟番茄一樣，說你們為什麼要做這種事？

Now, that created almost $4 billion of equity value for us as shareholders when we recap that business. So again, you're not always going to be popular by doing the things you need to do to sort of create value. The easiest thing to do is sit here and do nothing and just keep compounding and growing at the sort of normal growth algorithm.

而現在，當我們對那個業務進行再資本化（recap）時，這為我們作為股東創造了將近 40 億美元的股權價值。所以再說一次，你做那些為了創造價值所必須做的事時，不可能永遠都受歡迎。最容易的做法就是坐在這裡什麼都不做，然後就按照一般的成長算法（growth algorithm）持續複利與成長。

But that's not our DNA. That's not what we've done. That's not how we built this business. We would have never built the fourth-largest environmental services business in North America if we just sat around figuring out all the reasons why not to do things.

但那不是我們的DNA。那不是我們做過的事。那也不是我們打造這門生意的方式。如果我們只是坐在那裡找出所有不去做事情的理由，我們絕不可能建立起北美第四大的環境服務業務。

We generally find the reasons to do things that will work with the overall sort of strategy. So when you sit here today and look at the opportunities, I think this is a unique -- has been a unique period in time where you had the industry sell off around this AI trade. And then you had us, our discount widening to the peer group, where we've always been sort of plus or minus a turn less or a turn more than the sort of peer group depending what was happening in the macro thematic theme.

我們通常會去找那些符合整體策略、而且行得通的理由來做事。所以當你今天坐在這裡看這些機會時，我認為這是一個獨特的——一直以來都很獨特的時期：你看到產業因為這波AI交易而出現拋售。接著你又看到我們相對同業的折價擴大；而我們過去一直大致是在同業估值倍數的上下浮動一個turn（倍數），取決於宏觀主題在發生什麼。

And in this environment, what happened is you basically industry traded down 2 to 2.5 turns because waste has been out of favor. And then you had us trade down 2.5 to 3 turns because we're out of favor. Maybe it was a secure transaction, maybe it was just our lack of sort of industry inclusion, but there was a sort of broader sell-off where nobody liked waste, and that sort of -- that creates the opportunity for other people to come in that have significant pockets of capital, and it doesn't happen often, right?

而在這個環境裡，發生的事情基本上是：因為廢棄物產業不受青睞，整個產業的交易倍數下修了2到2.5個turn。然後我們又下修了2.5到3個turn，因為我們也不受青睞。也許是某筆保密交易，也許只是我們在產業納入度上相對不足，但確實出現了一波更廣泛的拋售——沒有人喜歡廢棄物；而這種情況——會為其他擁有雄厚資本的人創造進場機會，而且這並不常見，對吧？

So again, it happened in '22. It's happened -- so it's happened twice since we've been public. I always say math is math. We'll continue running the business, build the best business we can build. You'll continue seeing the margin expansion, continue to see us compound free cash flow, continue on the growth trajectory. And then eventually, math is math, the computers, you can't discount the math, right? And eventually, we get there.

所以再說一次，這在'22發生過。也發生過——也就是說，自從我們上市以來已經發生兩次了。我總是說，數學就是數學。我們會持續經營這門生意，打造我們能打造的最佳企業。你會持續看到利潤率擴張、持續看到我們複利式地累積自由現金流、持續走在成長軌道上。然後最終，數學就是數學，電腦——你無法忽視數學、也無法對數學打折，對吧？最後，我們會走到那一步。

But in the meantime, you have this dislocation in share price versus what the intrinsic value is versus what other people can generate with these assets and returns they can generate creates this opportunities for other.

但在此期間，股價相對於內在價值出現這種錯位；相對於其他人能用這些資產創造的價值與可取得的報酬，這種落差就為其他人創造了機會。

And again, from my perspective, I feel completely vindicated when the smartest investors in the world with the biggest pockets of capital, the largest financial institutions in the world come back and say, this doesn't make sense. This is the sort of opportunity that we have. And again, from my perspective, these are all the things we've been saying as a Board and as shareholders and management is why it makes sense.

而且再說一次，從我的角度來看，當全世界最聰明的投資人、資本最雄厚的人、全球最大的金融機構回過頭來說「這不合理」時，我感到完全被證明是對的。這就是我們所看到的機會。同樣地，從我的角度，這些正是我們作為董事會、作為股東與管理團隊一直在說「為什麼這件事合理」的所有原因。

So listen, again, I'm focused on the upfront, but I'm also focused on what the path looks like in the future. If it leans towards, hey, we're going to re-IPO this, then we have a decision to make or I have a decision to make about whether that makes sense or not because I'm not sure how happy my public shareholders will be if I go out and take equity at sort of $50 a share and go that to $100 a share and then try and -- and then we're going to have to re-IPO that and they miss that big sort of lift for the big guys that have supported us. And we've had a lot of feedback from some of them.

所以你看，再說一次，我關注的是前端（當下），但我也關注未來的路徑會長什麼樣。如果走向是「嘿，我們要再度IPO」，那我們就得做決定——或者我得做決定——看這是否合理，因為我不確定如果我以大約每股50美元的價格把股權拿走、把它做到每股100美元，然後——接著我們又必須再IPO，而原本支持我們的公開市場股東錯過了那個由大資金方享受的巨大上漲，他們會有多開心。我們也從其中一些人那裡收到很多回饋。

And a lot of them, stay the course and be patient. That being said, you have others sort of banging on the door that see this opportunity. So we're weighing both of them. We're doing the work. But what's for certain is the business is worth significantly more than its trading for today.

其中很多人的回饋是：照既定路線走、保持耐心。但話說回來，也有其他人一直敲門，看到這個機會。所以我們在權衡兩者。我們正在做功課。但可以確定的是，這門生意的價值顯著高於它今天的交易價格。

So that's what we all know and that's what the conclusion is, and we'll just keep driving forward.

所以這是我們都知道的事，也是結論；我們會繼續向前推進。

And Jim, I'd just add to Patrick's comment that you mentioned free cash flow conversion, that when we first went public in 2020, there was a lot of focus on our EBITDA adjustments. They said, well -- and to be fair, it was complicated. It was a fast-growing business.

Jim，我再補充一下Patrick剛才的評論：你提到自由現金流轉換率，當我們在2020年剛上市時，市場非常關注我們的EBITDA調整項。他們說，嗯——公平地說，那確實很複雜。那是一家高速成長的企業。

The structure we went public with was complicated. That at the time was when people said, oh, you're getting this complexity discount because of EBITDA adjustments. In time, that subsided and just we grew into it as we said we did, like, hey, this is going to pass and no one ever has really sort of talked about that very much. Then '22, '23 comes along, all of a sudden with leverage, right? Folks are talking about leverage. And as Patrick just alluded to, that was a point in time.

我們上市時採用的架構很複雜。當時有人說，喔，你們因為EBITDA調整而被打了「複雜性折價」。隨著時間推移，那個問題淡化了，我們也如同我們所說的那樣逐步消化、成長進去；就像我們說的：嘿，這會過去的，而後來也沒有人真的再怎麼談這件事。接著'22、'23來了，突然之間因為槓桿（leverage），對吧？大家開始談槓桿。而如Patrick剛才暗示的，那是某個時間點的議題。

Today, yes, I get it with this quarter with translation impact step up, but largely folks aren't sort of talking about that sort of anymore. So free cash flow conversion, I guess you highlighted it because that's an area folks talk to.

今天，是的，我理解這一季有匯率換算影響的階梯式上升（step up），但整體而言，大家已經不太再談那個了。所以自由現金流轉換率——我想你特別點出來，是因為那是大家會拿來討論的領域。

Okay. The free cash flow conversion is a little bit sort of lower than our industry peers. It is going to grow at a rate faster than our industry peers, full stop, right? And the math, as Patrick said, the math is math. It's very clear to see. It is going to go up from here.

好的。自由現金流轉換率確實比我們的同業略低一些。但它的成長速度會比同業更快，句點，對吧？而且如Patrick所說，數學就是數學。這非常清楚、一眼就看得出來。它會從這裡開始往上走。

And I -- why I give that context and background is I've never heard your initial comment, why is the stock trading discount. I never heard people say it's because of our market selection, it's because of our business, because of any of those sort of fundamentals. It really seems to be about sort of transitory inflection point in the math.

我——我之所以提供這些脈絡與背景，是因為我從未聽過你一開始提到的那種說法：為什麼股價在折價交易。我從沒聽過有人說是因為我們的市場選擇、因為我們的業務、或任何這類基本面因素。看起來真的比較像是數學上的某個短期轉折點。

Free cash flow conversion, if that's the remaining sort of item, that is going to improve at a rate far greater than the industry average. And so you'll see that in the 2027 guide and then in '28 and beyond.

自由現金流轉換率，如果那是剩下的那個項目，它將以遠高於產業平均的速度改善。所以你會在2027年的指引中看到，然後在'28以及之後也會看到。

So I think that is a source of the confidence that Patrick has in that it's going to work because you don't need to believe a lot to see the improvement in that one remaining metric.

所以我認為，這就是Patrick有信心它會奏效的來源之一，因為你不需要相信太多，就能看到那個最後剩下的指標會改善。

Bryan Burgmeier, Citigroup.

Bryan Burgmeier，花旗集團。

Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Just a couple of quick ones for me. First, you announced an update on a couple of RNG projects during the quarter. I assume those are kind of part of the 7 million MMBtus that were under negotiation during the 2025 Investor Day. Just curious if you can add any kind of details around the timing of those projects?

早安。謝謝讓我提問。我這邊只有幾個很快的問題。首先，你們在本季更新了幾個RNG專案的進展公告。我猜那些應該是你們在2025年投資人日提到、當時仍在談判中的700萬MMBtu的一部分。想請問你們能否補充一些關於這些專案時程的細節？

Yeah. Thanks for the question, Bryan. Yes, those absolutely were included as part of our remaining sort of sites to come online. The expectation for all this was supposed to be late '27. I think with the pace at which things are moving, if there was some slippage into 2028, that wouldn't sort of surprise me.

可以。謝謝你的問題，Bryan。是的，那些絕對包含在我們剩餘將上線的場址之中。原本對這一切的預期是應該在'27年末。我想以目前事情推進的速度來看，如果有一些延後到2028，也不會讓我太意外。

I think initially, Investor Day contemplated having that RNG price, which we called as now saying around $125 million in hand by 2028. I think it's probably more a run rate level by the end of 2028 as opposed to having it on January 1. But yeah, those two projects with one of our existing partners that we have a great deal of confidence in is all part of the plan.

我記得一開始投資人日的規劃，是希望到2028年時，RNG價格（我們當時稱之為、現在說大約）能帶來約1.25億美元的現金到手（in hand）。我認為更可能是在2028年底達到那個run rate水準，而不是在1月1日就已經達成。不過，是的，那兩個專案與我們現有的一位合作夥伴一起推進，我們對他非常有信心，這都在計畫之內。

Got it. Thanks for the detail. And then last one, and I'll go ahead and turn it over. Yes, I know the SECURE acquisition hasn't even closed yet, but maybe just from like a high level, do you think about SECURE maybe opening the door for a little more bolt-on M&A going forward. You've talked about organic kind of growth investments.

了解。謝謝你提供的細節。然後最後一個問題，我就把時間交出去。是的，我知道 SECURE 的收購甚至還沒完成交割，但也許從較高層次來看，你們是否認為 SECURE 可能會為未來更多的補強式併購（bolt-on M&A）打開大門。你們也談到過有機成長方面的投資。

Just curious about the inorganic side as well.

也想請教一下非有機成長（inorganic）這一端。

Yeah, nothing material, nothing sort of outside the norm in sort of Western Canada. I think there's the ability to -- with the continued investment that you're seeing in Western Canada, both from the federal government level and the provincial levels and just sort of the broader financial community that's creating incremental opportunity from some organic -- incremental organic opportunities that we'll assess -- any way we would assess sort of an M&A transaction or any sort of organic opportunity from sort of return on invested capital perspective.

是的，沒有什麼重大的、也沒有什麼偏離常態的事情，基本上都在加拿大西部的常規範圍內。我認為，隨著你看到加拿大西部持續的投資——不論是聯邦政府層級、省政府層級，或更廣泛的金融社群——都在創造額外的機會，帶來一些有機面的增量機會；我們會評估——就像我們評估任何併購交易或任何有機機會一樣——從投入資本報酬率（return on invested capital）的角度來看。

But there'll be a lot of sort of incremental opportunity as you see in the financial results that they put out. That business is firing on all cylinders, putting up sort of best-in-class numbers as well as the sort of biggest and best numbers that they put up in their sort of the company's history.

但你會看到很多增量機會，正如他們公布的財務結果所呈現的那樣。那個業務目前火力全開，不僅交出同業最佳（best-in-class）的數字，也創下公司歷史上最大、最好的表現。

So again, feeling really bullish about it in terms of the timing on the SECURE assets, again, as we said, targeting sort of October 1, plus or minus 30 days on that. But I think from where we sit today, we put in our final information request to the Competition Bureau in the last couple of days, and we'll just continue working that course. But we continue to see no issues in terms of any regulatory sort of hurdles there from -- at least from the seat that we sit in today.

所以再說一次，我們對此非常看多；就 SECURE 資產的時點而言，如同我們說的，目標是 10 月 1 日，前後加減 30 天。但以我們今天所處的位置來看，我們在過去幾天已向競爭局（Competition Bureau）提交了最後一份資訊補充要求，接下來就會持續推進流程。不過至少以我們目前的觀察，對於任何監管層面的障礙，我們仍然看不到問題。

So everything is on track and moving in the direction that we all thought it would.

所以一切都按計畫進行，並朝著我們原先預期的方向推進。

Konark Gupta, Scotia Capital.

Konark Gupta，Scotia Capital。

Thanks and good morning, guys. My first question is to follow up on the prior discussion about the go private discussions you might be having. In light of those discussions, are you expecting to do some rationing on any of the usual initiatives like buybacks or dividend growth or even like M&A, including the SECURE deal?

謝謝，早安，各位。我第一個問題是延續前面關於你們可能正在進行的私有化（go private）討論。在這些討論的背景下，你們是否預期會對一些常見的資本配置措施做出限制，例如庫藏股回購、股利成長，甚至是併購（M&A），包括 SECURE 這筆交易？

No. Business as usual, no change.

不會。一切照常，沒有改變。

Okay. Thanks, Pat. And then just on the ES and GIP minorities. Luke, if you can share your thoughts and outlook for '26 in terms of EBITDA and leverage ratio? Thanks.

好的。謝謝，Pat。接著想問 ES 和 GIP 的少數股權（minorities）。Luke，如果可以的話，請分享你對 2026 年在 EBITDA 與槓桿比率（leverage ratio）方面的看法與展望？謝謝。

Yeah, Konark. Thanks for the question. We've said previously, I mean, if you look at ES expectation that sort of $600 million with some M&A, maybe $625 million of EBITDA and we'll probably be in and around sort of 5.5 turns of leverage.

好的，Konark。謝謝你的問題。我們之前說過，如果你看 ES 的預期，大概是 6 億美元左右；若再加上一些併購，可能到 6.25 億美元的 EBITDA，而槓桿大概會在 5.5 倍左右。

On the GIP business, roughly $360 million to $380 million of EBITDA, and there'll be a sort of 4.5 turns leverage.

至於 GIP 業務，EBITDA 大約是 3.6 億到 3.8 億美元，槓桿大概是 4.5 倍左右。

In terms of the ES call option -- someone had emailed the question in, that initial valuation of that done in December 2025 was so close to the ES recapitalization. We just used the equity value at the recap at that time.

關於 ES 的買權（call option）——有人用電子郵件提問——因為 2025 年 12 月做的初始估值與 ES 的再資本化（recapitalization）時間非常接近，所以我們當時就直接使用再資本化時的股權價值（equity value）。

As a result, you're now just going to have that call option, the sort of time decay value being amortized every sort of quarter until you sort of revalue the equity as a whole. And we're going to do that sort of annually. As Patrick said, the direction of travel of both of those businesses has never been better.

因此，現在你會看到該買權的時間價值衰減（time decay value）會在每一季被攤銷，直到你重新評價整體股權價值為止。而我們會每年做一次這樣的重估。如 Patrick 所說，這兩個業務的發展趨勢從未像現在這麼好。

And with some accretive strategic bolt-on M&A, there's some equity value creation coming out of those as well. So we would anticipate sort of revisiting both of the marks at year-end.

再加上一些具增益性的策略性補強式併購（accretive strategic bolt-on M&A），也會帶來股權價值的創造。所以我們預期會在年底重新檢視這兩個估值標記（marks）。

Stephanie Moore, Jefferies.

Stephanie Moore，Jefferies。

Great, and thank you. Just one for me. I think you called out that underlying margin is running maybe 2 times your original expectations. So we'd love to get a little bit more color there on what's running better than you originally expected. Is it labor? I think we all see pricing is quite strong, but we'd love to get just a little bit more color there and then kind of your expectations on underlying margin expansion for the remainder of the year? Thanks.

很好，謝謝。我這邊只有一個問題。我想你提到，基礎利潤率（underlying margin）目前的表現可能是你們原先預期的 2 倍。所以我們很想更了解一下，究竟是哪些地方比你們原先預期的更好。是人力（labor）嗎？我想大家都看到定價（pricing）相當強勁，但希望你能再多提供一些細節，並談談你們對今年剩餘期間基礎利潤率擴張（underlying margin expansion）的預期？謝謝。

Yeah, great question, Stephanie. I'd say where we take a great deal of comfort is the fact that it's not any one thing, but it's all of the things that we've been talking about. You start at the top line, obviously, pricing 20 bps better or 50 bps better than guide for the year, 20 bps for the quarter. That all flows through down to bottom line.

是的，這是個很好的問題，Stephanie。我會說，讓我們非常安心的是，這不是單一因素，而是我們一直在談的所有因素共同作用。從營收端開始，顯然定價比全年指引好 20 個基點或 50 個基點；就本季而言好 20 個基點。這些都會一路傳導到獲利端。

So that's the sort of starting point. Obviously, volume and the nature of the volume is a headwind versus the original plan because those landfill tons that are missing, although C&D is a small component of our business, it is sort of accretive. So that's a sort of headwind.

所以這是起點。當然，量（volume）以及量的結構，相對於原始計畫是逆風，因為少掉的那些掩埋場噸數（landfill tons），雖然 C&D（建築與拆除廢棄物）在我們業務中占比不大，但它是具增益性的（accretive）。所以這是一個逆風。

When you look at the cost of sales bucket as a whole, the efficiency we continue to see across the major cost categories, whether that's transportation, whether it's labor is a function of both the optimization and densification of the business that we've done as well as the self-help initiatives that we sort of outlined. And it's all of those sort of pieces coming together when modeling for that, there's a pro forma of the way it's supposed to look, and you want to obviously bake in a degree of conservatism in that. And I think what we're very pleasantly surprised with is the rate at which we're actually being able to realize that.

當你看整體銷貨成本（cost of sales）這個項目時，我們在主要成本類別上持續看到效率提升，不論是運輸（transportation）或人力（labor），這同時來自於我們對業務所做的最佳化與密度提升（optimization and densification），以及我們先前概述的自助改善措施（self-help initiatives）。而當你在建模時，這些要素全部加總起來，會有一個它應該呈現的備考（pro forma）樣貌，你也會希望在其中納入一定程度的保守性。我想讓我們非常驚喜的是，我們實際能夠實現這些成果的速度。

As a part of it is that synergy capture from post-M&A, right? And as we've said, the business has initially come in at mid-20s. And then as you do rerouting, as you do integration, you get that up to an accretive margin. And it's all of that sort of coming through. And so we are very optimistic about our ability to hit the targets and exceed that we had previously sort of set out.

其中一部分也來自併購後的協同效益擷取（synergy capture），對吧？而如我們所說，這些業務一開始的利潤率大約落在 20% 中段（mid-20s）。接著當你做路線重整（rerouting）、做整合（integration），就能把利潤率提升到具增益性的水準。這些都正在反映出來。因此，我們對於達成並超越先前設定的目標非常樂觀。

And the prior caller had asked next year, when you think about RNG as being another meaningful incremental sort of margin tailwind, you're really not even sort of getting that sort of benefit yet, and when we put that all together, together with the SECURE business, we were incrementally optimistic as to what the ultimate sort of margin profile of the business can be because of the effectiveness we're seeing in these sort of self-help initiatives that we had laid out.

而前一位提問者問到明年；當你把 RNG（可再生天然氣）視為另一個重要的增量利潤率順風（margin tailwind）時，你其實還沒有真正開始享受到那個效益；當我們把這些因素全部加總，再加上 SECURE 的業務，我們對公司最終可能達到的利潤率輪廓（margin profile）變得更為樂觀，因為我們看到先前提出的這些自助改善措施的成效非常顯著。

Chris Murray, ATB Cormark Capital Markets.

Chris Murray，ATB Cormark Capital Markets。

Maybe turning back to that margin question and just maybe extending it into the 2027 or longer timeframe. You sort of talked about the fact that I think it was a number of things, but you did talk about labor, you did talk about maintenance. Is this the best that it's going to get now we're just sort of moving into a being able to leverage the organization.

也許回到利潤率的問題，並把時間拉長到 2027 年或更久。你提到我想是多個因素，但你確實談到人力，也談到維修保養（maintenance）。那麼現在是否已經是最好能達到的水準，接下來只是進入能夠槓桿化組織（leverage the organization）的階段？

You talked about densification, you talked about different things. But is there any additional opportunities on the self-help? Or are we kind of running to the end of those opportunities and now it's going to be just scale and leverage that you'll be able to drive margins off of?

你談到密度提升（densification），也談到其他不同的事情。但在自助改善（self-help）方面還有任何額外機會嗎？還是說我們差不多已經跑到這些機會的尾端，接下來就會主要靠規模（scale）與營運槓桿（leverage）來推動利潤率？

Well, Chris, I think it's the opposite. I think we're just really getting started with the self-help. And Patrick sort of alluded to this.

嗯，Chris，我認為情況正好相反。我認為我們在自助改善（self-help）方面其實才剛剛開始。Patrick 也多少提到了這一點。

You got to remember, I mean, I think in that Investor Day presentation, we put five items. right? There's a team of people here working on 50 items or more at any given time, all of which could sort of be incremental and above. And then I think it's just the quantum of the items. I mean, I don't have the list in front of me, but I think like the procurement fleet-related bucket in that self-help was $30 million to $50 million.

你得記得，我是說，我想在那次投資人日（Investor Day）的簡報裡，我們列了五個項目，對吧？但這裡有一個團隊在任何時間點都在推進 50 個以上的項目，其中每一項都可能帶來額外的增量效益，甚至超出預期。而且我認為關鍵也在於這些項目的量級。我現在手邊沒有清單，但我記得像是自助改善裡的採購、車隊相關那一籃子，規模大概是 3,000 萬到 5,000 萬美元。

Like early days, just looking at SECURE, we're seeing sort of meaningful incremental procurement opportunities for them, just leveraging our existing plan, not to mention what we might be able to do when we go to market with now that broader sort of spend as a result of the size and scale.

像是在很早期階段、光是看 SECURE，我們就看到相當有意義的增量採購機會，只要運用我們既有的方案即可，更不用說當我們因規模與體量擴大、帶著更廣泛的支出（spend）去市場上談時，可能還能做到更多。

So I think the earliness of the maturation of this profile gives us a lot of optimism as to how much more incremental benefit there can be. And then you think about AI and/or sort of technology-related things that would be net new to the industry, we're just scratching the surface of that. So we take a great deal of comfort that we see a lot of runway pulling on the levers that the industry has already demonstrated to be highly effective and tried and true. And then as this sort of age of sort of technological enhancements is playing out so rapidly, undoubtedly, there's going to be meaningful incremental opportunity coming from that as well.

所以我認為，這個組合（profile）仍處於成熟早期，讓我們對於還能帶來多少額外增量效益感到非常樂觀。再加上你去想 AI 和／或一些科技相關、對產業而言屬於全新（net new）的事情，我們也才剛開始觸及表面。因此我們非常有信心，因為我們看到在拉動那些已被產業證明高度有效、且行之有年的槓桿上，仍有很長的跑道可走。而且在這個科技強化快速演進的時代，毫無疑問也會帶來同樣顯著的增量機會。

So I would say we feel very well advanced and in hand in achieving the self-help that we set out. But I think the next time we come and do an Investor Day, we're going to have a whole host of incremental opportunities that will continue to be tailwind to outsized margin expansion above and beyond the normal course industry algorithm.

所以我會說，我們在達成當初設定的自助改善目標上，進度非常超前、而且掌握在手。但我認為下一次我們再舉辦投資人日的時候，我們會有一整套額外的增量機會，持續成為推動因素（tailwind），讓利潤率擴張幅度超出產業在正常情況下的既有演算法（algorithm）。

Shlomo Rosenbaum, Stifel.

Shlomo Rosenbaum，Stifel。

Hi, thank you. I actually want to expand a little bit on the last question and the comment that you made, Luke, about some of the incremental opportunities that are out there with AI and some of the technology. It seems like there's a playbook that you guys are implementing that others have already implemented that gives you kind of some runway.

嗨，謝謝。我其實想延伸一下上一個問題，以及 Luke 你提到的、關於 AI 與一些科技所帶來的增量機會。看起來你們正在執行一套其他人已經做過的作戰手冊（playbook），這讓你們有一些跑道（runway）。

But some of the other ones that are in the industry have already pulled those levers are talking more about some of the dynamic routing that they could do with AI that they're working on, some of the dynamic pricing by customer. I was wondering if you could just kind of drill down, give us a little bit of insight as to, is that something that you guys are working on concurrently right now as well with what you're seeing?

但產業裡其他一些已經把那些槓桿都拉過的公司，現在更多在談他們用 AI 能做的動態路線規劃（dynamic routing），以及按客戶做動態定價（dynamic pricing），他們也正在推進。我想請你們再深入一點，給我們一些洞見：這是不是你們現在也在同步進行的事情？

And are there other examples that we should be thinking about? Or is this a matter of like, hey, we have so much in front of us with the levers that others have pulled, we're primarily focused on those levers?

還有沒有其他例子是我們應該納入思考的？或者這其實是：你們眼前還有很多別人已經拉過的槓桿可做，所以主要先聚焦在那些槓桿上？

Yeah, it's a great question, Shlomo. What I'd say is, and you articulate, we have a lot of opportunity low-hanging fruit right in front of us before having to sort of reinvent the wheel. And as you're seeing quarter after quarter, those are the opportunities we are sort of executing on and capturing.

是的，這是個很好的問題，Shlomo。我會說，你的描述很到位：在我們必須去「重新發明輪子」之前，眼前就有很多低垂的果實（low-hanging fruit）的機會。而且你也看到我們一季接一季地在執行並把這些機會轉化為成果。

Now, obviously, we are very invested and engaged in AI-related technologies as well. But I do think we have a unique advantage where we're allowing some others to experiment and find some of those benefits, and we don't necessarily need to be the early adopter as we have so many other opportunities in our sort of pipeline.

當然，我們也非常投入並積極參與 AI 相關技術。但我確實認為我們有一個獨特優勢：我們可以讓其他人先去試驗、先找出其中一些效益；而我們因為管線裡還有很多其他機會，不一定需要成為最早採用者（early adopter）。

Certainly, we're using AI in multiple facets of our business. But I'd say it is more in the early stages, and therefore, the financial benefits of that are not yet really flowing through in your margin.

我們確實在業務的多個面向使用 AI。但我會說目前仍偏早期階段，因此其財務效益還沒有真正反映到你們看到的利潤率裡。

But from HR and recruiting, to pricing, to FP&A broader analysis, preventative maintenance, we have AI installations in all of these various sort of things, I'd say it's just sort of early days and where I take great comfort is if you extrapolate what the margin and cost savings implications of some of those applications could be, they're very large numbers.

不過從人資與招募、到定價、到 FP&A 的更廣泛分析、預防性維護（preventative maintenance），我們在這些不同領域都有 AI 的導入。我會說現在只是早期；而我非常有信心的是，如果你把其中一些應用對利潤率與成本節省的影響做外推（extrapolate），那會是非常大的數字。

And so going back to the prior caller's comment, we're focusing on the sort of nuts and bolts of the self-help that we had articulated at Investor Day currently, while we are tangentially laying the groundwork for what will eventually be a much larger full-scale implementation of some of those AI automation initiatives.

所以回到前一位提問者的評論：我們目前聚焦在投資人日所闡述的自助改善的基本功（nuts and bolts），同時也在旁邊鋪陳基礎，為未來更大規模、全方位導入這些 AI 自動化計畫做準備。

Okay. And just as a follow-up, one of the themes we're just seeing in the earnings for solid waste is really higher pricing, and it seems like the first three companies have all talked about that. And then just the volumes just not being where people thought they were going to be for various reasons. And I don't know, Patrick, maybe you could talk a little bit. Is that just, hey, the macro we thought was going to get better.

好的。再追問一下，我們在固體廢棄物（solid waste）這一塊的財報裡看到的一個主題是定價更高，而且看起來前三家公司都提到了這點。另外就是量（volumes）沒有達到大家原先預期的水準，原因各不相同。我不確定，Patrick，也許你可以談一下。這是不是只是：我們原本以為總體環境（macro）會變好。

There's the Iran war that just kind of upset things and it's going on longer. Is there anything else going on? Just what's your take on what's going on with volumes?

但伊朗戰爭（Iran war）打亂了情勢，而且拖得更久。還有沒有其他因素？你怎麼看目前量的狀況？

I mean, nothing specific. Like we said in the bad market, volumes down 1%, good market volumes plus 1% like that's the range. I mean, again, C&D, special waste volumes are soft. They get higher interest rates for longer. You're looking at homebuilders and other ones, like just things are slower. And I mean, we've been calling that out for the last sort of 12 to 18 months that we saw that perpetually getting slower.

我是說，沒有什麼特別的。就像我們說的：市場差的時候，量下滑 1%；市場好的時候，量成長 1%——大概就是這個區間。再說一次，C&D（建築與拆除）以及特殊廢棄物（special waste）的量偏疲弱。利率在高檔維持更久。你看房屋建商和其他相關領域，就是各方面都慢下來。而且我們在過去大概 12 到 18 個月一直在提醒：我們看到它持續變慢。

And I think on the C&D project, not necessarily felt at the same time because generally, those projects still have to finish and that volume sort of last to go and then last to come back as well. But there's nothing structurally any sort of issues in the market. And at the end of the day, we are pricing at the appropriate levels for the level of cost inflation that exists in the market. No one is charging egregious numbers or egregious pricing.

我認為在 C&D 專案上，感受不一定是同一時間點，因為通常那些專案還是得完工，而那部分的量往往是最後才下去、也最後才回來。但市場結構上沒有任何問題。而且歸根結底，我們的定價是在市場現有成本通膨水準下的合理水平。沒有人在收取離譜的金額或離譜的價格。

It's just like we know what our internal cost inflation are, we know what headline price needs to be to sort of maintain that spread. And that's what you're seeing. And I think the industry -- that's the beauty of this industry is it's very disciplined and everyone is focused on the returns on invested capital, look at it in similar ways. And I think that's how people are pricing and the market is supporting that.

就是我們知道自身的內部成本通膨是多少，也知道為了維持那個價差（spread），名目價格（headline price）需要到什麼水準。你們看到的就是這個。我認為這個產業的優點就在於：它非常自律（disciplined），而且大家都聚焦在投入資本報酬率（returns on invested capital），看法也很一致。所以大家就是這樣在定價，而市場也支持這樣的定價。

And again, when you look at the average check size of our bills, on sort of a residential home, your average check size is sort of $25 to $40 a month. And if you're a commercial customer, average check size is $250 a month, whether that customer is taking 5% price, 4% price or 6% price, it's not a material amount in the grand scheme of things on a monthly basis. So I just -- I don't see any disruption coming from that side of the business either.

再者，當你看我們帳單的平均帳單金額（average check size），以住宅用戶來說，每月平均大概 25 到 40 美元。若是商業客戶，平均每月大概 250 美元；不管那個客戶承受的是 5% 漲價、4% 漲價或 6% 漲價，以每月的角度看，在整體上都不是什麼重大的金額。所以我——我也不認為業務端會因此出現任何擾動。

Adam Bubes, Goldman Sachs.

Adam Bubes，Goldman Sachs。

Hi, good morning. On the volume front, just a follow-up there. Are you able to parse out the performance this quarter between EPR-related volumes and underlying core volume growth? And then within the core volume growth, I think you did mention residential outperforming your expectations. So just any more color on volume performance by collection lines of business would be great.

嗨，早安。關於量的部分，我想再追問一下。你們能否拆解本季表現中，EPR 相關量與底層核心量成長各自的貢獻？另外在核心量成長裡，我記得你們提到住宅端優於你們的預期。所以若能再多補充一些，按各收運業務線的量表現，會很有幫助。

Yeah. Great questions. It's Luke here. So volume of 100 basis points better than planned, sort of negative 0.7% versus sort of negative 1.5% in and around there. It was supposed to be negative on a tough EPR comp, right? Last year's EPR ramped, we had some transitional volumes that we were sort of falling over. And then C&D softness obviously sort of persists and continues. As I said, the C&D and special waste tons were down sort of 10%, 11% year over year.

好的。問題很棒。我是 Luke。所以量比原先規劃好 100 個基點，大概是負 0.7% 對比原先大概負 1.5% 左右。在一個很艱難的 EPR 比較基期下，本來就預期會是負的，對吧？去年 EPR 拉升，我們有一些過渡性的量在今年被消化掉。然後 C&D（建築與拆除）疲弱顯然仍在延續。如我所說，C&D 與特殊廢棄物的噸數年減大概 10%、11%。

And if you look at it in terms of actual dollars, volume was minus $11 million, right? And if you look at that, landfill was about $9 million of those dollars and MRF processing, which really relates to sort of transitional contract I signed was about sort of $2 million on that. So it's really suggesting all else is flat, right? Now there's puts and takes in that.

如果用實際金額來看，量的影響是減少 1,100 萬美元，對吧？而在這裡面，掩埋場大概占了 900 萬美元；MRF（物料回收設施）處理則大概占了 200 萬美元，主要與我簽的一個過渡性合約有關。所以這其實表示其他部分大致持平，對吧？當然其中也有一些此消彼長。

IC&I collection was sort of slightly down as residential collection was sort of slightly up, sort of offsetting it. But it's really that sort of C&D ending up at the landfill as well as some of that lapping sort of EPR, that was really the majority of it.

IC&I（工業、商業與機構）收運略為下滑，而住宅收運略為上升，兩者大致互相抵銷。但主要還是 C&D 最終進到掩埋場的量，以及部分 EPR 的比較基期效應，這兩項占了大多數。

Within Canada, the positive volumes of Canada, some of that residential growth is EPR driven. So again, I think in terms of dollars, the Canadian segment was plus 0.5% up on volume growth, so positive volume growth. And in there was EPR. I think EPR had a smaller contribution of sort of $5 million to $7 million of that growth was EPR related and sort of EPR tangential really related to the collection contract side of EPR. But those are sort of the moving pieces.

在加拿大方面，加拿大的正向量裡，有一部分住宅成長是由 EPR 驅動的。所以再說一次，以金額來看，加拿大分部在量成長上是增加 0.5%，也就是正的量成長。其中包含 EPR。我想 EPR 的貢獻較小，大概有 500 萬到 700 萬美元的成長與 EPR 相關，或是與 EPR 間接相關，主要是與 EPR 的收運合約端有關。以上就是幾個變動因素。

If you peel it all back, you really have the normal course business sort of being flat with some headwinds coming from those two items.

如果把這些都剝除掉，你會看到正常經常性業務基本上是持平，只是受到那兩個項目的逆風影響。

Very helpful. And then it might be too early to talk 2027, but just conceptually, can you help us think about growth CapEx next year and the trajectory on the EPR and landfill gas side?

非常有幫助。接著可能談 2027 還太早，但就概念上，你能否協助我們思考明年的成長性資本支出（growth CapEx），以及 EPR 與掩埋場氣體（landfill gas）這一塊的走勢？

Yeah. So I think a little early for the '27 guide. Just conceptually, what we had said is GFL's growth CapEx is going to step down materially again next year, and that's going to be more in the sort of $75 million or $100 million, I think is what we had said sort of half of this year's number.

好的。我想現在談 2027 的指引還稍早。但就概念上，我們先前說過，GFL 的成長性資本支出明年會再明顯下台階，金額大概會落在 7,500 萬到 1 億美元左右；我記得我們說過大概是今年的一半。

Now, what I'd just sort of reserve comment for is SECURE's model has been to deploy excess capital into organic growth opportunities in their book of business. So we'll have to evaluate that in totality. But growth CapEx is going to come meaningfully down, as we said, '25 was the peak. '26 is sort of going to be half '25.

不過我想先保留的是，SECURE 的模式一向是把多餘資本投入其業務組合中的有機成長機會。所以我們需要整體評估。但如我們所說，成長性資本支出會顯著下降；2025 是高峰，2026 大概會是 2025 的一半。

Yes, there'll be some R&D dollars required in '26. Some of that manifests in the investment line as opposed to CapEx just by virtue of us actually making contributions into joint ventures. You will have some of that, but we'll have to get later in the year before we articulate.

是的，2026 會需要一些研發（R&D）支出。其中一部分會反映在投資項目而不是 CapEx，原因是我們會實際對合資企業進行出資。會有這樣的情況，但我們要到今年稍晚才能更清楚地說明。

What I would just say is even inclusive of growth CapEx, the overall sort of free cash flow number is going to inflect meaningfully going into '27.

我想補充的是，即使把成長性資本支出也算進去，整體自由現金流的數字在走向 2027 時會出現相當明顯的拐點。

Jake Kooyman, Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo 的 Jake Kooyman。

Hi. Thank you very much taking the questions. I'm on for Jerry this morning. So corporate costs were roughly $62 million in the quarter, which is roughly $250 million annualized. And you pointed to intensity going below 3% pro forma next year. So on the roughly $9 billion of pro forma revenue, that implies corporate costs under $270 million, essentially flat to today while absorbing SECURE's head office and 2,000 employees. So does that mean you're essentially assuming SECURE's corporate functions are substantially eliminated, or is that saving already inside the pro forma framework you published? Any comments on that would be helpful.

嗨。非常感謝讓我提問。我今天早上代替 Jerry 上線。所以本季公司層級成本大約是 6,200 萬美元，年化大約 2.5 億美元。你們提到明年按備考（pro forma）口徑，費用強度會降到 3% 以下。以大約 90 億美元的備考營收來看，這意味著公司成本低於 2.7 億美元，基本上與目前持平，但同時要吸收 SECURE 的總部以及 2,000 名員工。所以這是否表示你們基本假設 SECURE 的公司職能會被大幅裁撤？還是說這些節省已經包含在你們發布的備考架構裡？若能評論一下會很有幫助。

Thanks for the question. I haven't looked at the math in that degree of rigor. What I would just say conceptually is our corporate costs really represent the centralized head office functions that support all of our business and geographies.

謝謝你的問題。我沒有把你提到的數學推算到那麼嚴謹的程度。但概念上我想說的是，我們的公司成本主要代表支援我們所有業務與各地區的集中式總部職能。

So when we do acquisitions, something like SECURE, the field level support for those acquisitions is actually burdened within our segments, right?

所以當我們做像 SECURE 這樣的併購時，對這些併購案的前線層級支援，其實是歸在我們各分部裡承擔的，對吧？

So if you think about our reported US and Canada segment, there's a meaningful amount of overhead costs in those buckets that doesn't actually sit in the sort of corporate offices. So SECURE will be similar. The vast majority of those sort of SECURE support costs are actually just going to be in the field as opposed to certainly in the corporate.

所以如果你看我們揭露的美國與加拿大分部，這些項目裡其實包含相當多的間接費用，但並不在所謂的公司總部裡。SECURE 也會類似。絕大多數 SECURE 的支援成本其實會在前線，而不是在公司總部。

I think the math suggesting -- I mean, Kevin just asked directionally, there's going to be more M&A into next year that you have to factor in as well. But I would think about your corporate cost bucket ex sort of step changes from sort of a large acquisition or something is going to grow at a low- to mid-single-digit number, while our top line is growing at a mid- to high-single-digit number. And that is the basis on which you're going to get operating leverage. I'm not prepared to sort of commit to the actual dollars of corporate cost in '27 where we sit today.

我想你這個推算所暗示的——我是說，Kevin 剛才也在方向上提到，明年還會有更多併購（M&A），你也得把這點納入考量。但我會這樣看：在不考慮大型併購等造成的階梯式變動下，我們的公司成本項目大概會以低到中個位數成長，而我們的營收則以中到高個位數成長。這就是你會看到營運槓桿的基礎。至於 2027 年公司成本的實際金額、以我們今天的位置來看，我還不準備做出承諾。

There are no further questions. We have reached the end of the Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Mr. Dovigi for closing remarks.

目前沒有其他問題。問答環節到此結束。我現在把電話交回給 Dovigi 先生做結語。

Thank you, everyone, and we look forward to speaking with everyone after we report our Q3 results.

謝謝各位，我們期待在公布第三季（Q3）業績後再與大家交流。

This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.

今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位參與。各位現在可以掛線。