林德集團 (LIN) 2019 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Third Quarter 2019 Linde Earnings Conference Call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your host for today, Mr. Juan Pelaez. Please go ahead.

各位女士、先生，感謝您稍候，歡迎參加林德（Linde）2019 年第三季財報電話會議。(接線員指示) 請注意，今天的會議將被錄音。現在我想把會議交給今天的主持人 Juan Pelaez 先生。請開始。

Thanks, Michelle. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for attending our third quarter earnings call and webcast. Once again, this is Juan Pelaez, Head of Investor Relations. And I am joined this morning by Steve Angel, Chief Executive Officer; and Matt White, Chief Financial Officer.

謝謝你，Michelle。各位早安，感謝各位參加我們第三季財報電話會議與網路直播。我再次自我介紹，我是投資人關係主管 Juan Pelaez。今天早上與我一同出席的還有執行長 Steve Angel，以及財務長 Matt White。

Today's presentation materials are available on our website at linde.com in the Investors section. Please read the forward-looking statement disclosure on Page 2 of the slides and note that it applies to all statements made during this teleconference. The reconciliations of the pro forma numbers are in the appendix of this presentation. Steve and Matt will now give us an update on Linde. We will then be available to answer questions. Let me turn the call over to Steve.

今天的簡報資料可在我們網站 linde.com 的「投資人」專區取得。請閱讀投影片第 2 頁的前瞻性陳述揭露，並注意其適用於本次電話會議期間所作的所有陳述。備考（pro forma）數字的調節表在本簡報的附錄中。接下來 Steve 與 Matt 將為我們更新林德的最新情況。之後我們將開放問答。我把電話交給 Steve。

Thank you, Juan. The team delivered very strong results for the quarter. We saw operating profit and operating profit margins improve both sequentially and year-over-year in every segment. EPS improved substantially year-over-year and sequentially. Cash flow came through nicely as we had expected. Project CapEx grew while base CapEx shrank, which reflects spend against our large project backlog and CapEx efficiencies. ROC percent, the single most important metric in a capital-intensive business, continued to improve. The sale of gas backlog remained strong at $5 billion, which gives us a nice foundation for future growth.

謝謝你，Juan。團隊在本季交出非常強勁的成果。我們看到各事業部的營業利益與營業利益率，不論按季或年增皆有所改善。每股盈餘（EPS）年增與按季皆大幅提升。現金流如我們預期般表現良好。專案資本支出（CapEx）增加，而基礎資本支出下降，反映我們針對大型專案積壓訂單的投入，以及資本支出效率的提升。ROC 百分比（資本報酬率），作為資本密集型業務中最重要的單一指標，持續改善。售氣（sale of gas）積壓訂單仍維持強勁，達 50 億美元，為未來成長奠定良好基礎。

We raised our guidance again, which reflects our positive momentum, the opportunities we see to continue to improve the quality of our business and the resiliency of our business model. And of course, this is against a backdrop of softening worldwide demand.

我們再次上調財測指引，反映我們正向的動能、我們持續提升業務品質的機會，以及我們商業模式的韌性。當然，這是在全球需求轉弱的背景之下。

A few comments on the segments. In the Americas, which represents nearly 40% of our total sales and nearly half of our overall operating profit, we saw good organic sales year-over-year, driven by price, but flat sales sequentially. Strength in food and beverage and health care is offsetting weakness in metals and manufacturing.

關於各事業部的幾點說明。在美洲地區，其占我們總銷售額近 40%，並占整體營業利益近一半，我們看到年增的有機銷售表現良好，主要由價格帶動，但按季銷售持平。食品飲料與醫療保健的強勁表現，正在抵消金屬與製造業的疲弱。

Operating margins continued to improve as we drive efficiencies across the region. In Europe, we saw evidence of better execution as operating margins reached 20.5% despite a weaker macro. The weakness we saw in the quarter continued through September and October.

隨著我們在整個區域推動效率提升，營業利益率持續改善。在歐洲，儘管總體環境較弱，我們看到執行力改善的跡象，營業利益率達到 20.5%。本季所見的疲弱情況延續至 9 月與 10 月。

In APAC, operating margins are climbing nicely, up 450 basis points year-over-year and 70 basis points sequentially as the team continues to do an excellent job delivering on merger efficiencies. Volumes are impacted by a slowing China, Australia and turnarounds in Southeast Asia.

在亞太（APAC），隨著團隊持續出色地落實併購整合效益，營業利益率穩步攀升，年增 450 個基點、按季增加 70 個基點。受中國、澳洲放緩以及東南亞歲修（turnarounds）影響，銷量受到衝擊。

In Linde Engineering, we saw record margins, driven by excellent execution, cost absorption and timing as we're able to close out key projects during the quarter. Though backlogs remained strong, I don't see this level of operating margin as sustainable. This is a business that should trend closer to low double-digit percents through the cycle.

在林德工程（Linde Engineering），我們看到創紀錄的利益率，主要由優異的執行、成本吸收以及時點因素所帶動，因為我們在本季得以結案關鍵專案。雖然積壓訂單仍然強勁，但我不認為這樣的營業利益率水準具有可持續性。這項業務在景氣循環中，應更接近低雙位數百分比的水準。

The global other segment reflects ongoing merger efficiencies, as you would expect. Our focus, successful integration, improve the quality of each and every business, optimize our portfolio around core sale of gas regions and businesses, and then drive network density, facilitate growth synergies and drive operational excellence in everything we do.

全球其他（Global Other）事業部如各位所預期，反映了持續進行的併購整合效益。我們的重點是成功整合、提升每一項業務的品質、圍繞核心售氣區域與業務來優化投資組合，並進一步提升網路密度、促進成長綜效，以及在所有工作中推動卓越營運。

Final comment before I turn it over to Matt. We have a resilient business model, which generates strong cash flow through the economic cycle. In periods of expansion, we invest for growth. And when the macro weakens, we return that cash to shareholders. You add to that the value created by our merger and you can see why we are an investment for all seasons and why I wouldn't trade places with anyone. Matt?

在我把電話交給 Matt 之前，最後補充一點。我們擁有具韌性的商業模式，能在經濟循環中產生強勁現金流。在擴張期，我們投資以促進成長。而當總體環境轉弱時，我們把現金回饋給股東。再加上併購所創造的價值，你就能理解為何我們是適合各種景氣環境的投資標的，也為何我不會想和任何人交換位置。Matt？

Thanks, Steve, and good morning, everyone. Third quarter adjusted pro forma results are shown on Slide 3.

謝謝你，Steve，各位早安。第三季調整後備考（adjusted pro forma）結果列於投影片第 3 頁。

Consistent with prior quarters, these figures have been adjusted to best demonstrate underlying trends and performance of the combined business. You'll find the required reconciliations to U.S. GAAP in the appendix.

與前幾季一致，這些數字已調整，以最佳方式呈現合併後業務的基本趨勢與表現。您可在附錄中找到依規定提供的、與美國通用會計準則（U.S. GAAP）的調節表。

Sales of $7 billion are 1% higher than prior year but 3% below the second quarter of this year. Foreign currency translation continues to be a headwind as the U.S. dollar strengthened across the board. Excluding FX and cost pass-through, underlying sales increased 4% from 2018, but decreased 1% sequentially. Versus prior year, prices rose 2%, and the 2% volume increase was split between organic growth and project contribution. While the more resilient end markets of food, beverage and health care continue to grow, we are seeing declining to negative growth rates across most industrial markets, especially metals and manufacturing.

銷售額 70 億美元，較去年同期高 1%，但較今年第二季低 3%。由於美元全面走強，外幣換算持續構成逆風。若排除匯率（FX）與成本轉嫁（cost pass-through），基本銷售額較 2018 年增加 4%，但按季下降 1%。相較去年同期，價格上升 2%，而 2% 的銷量成長則由有機成長與專案貢獻各占一部分。雖然食品、飲料與醫療保健等較具韌性的終端市場持續成長，但我們看到多數工業市場的成長率下滑至趨近於零甚至轉負，尤其是金屬與製造業。

The slowing industrial activity is primarily driven by North America, China and Australia, which is consistent with our expectations. Versus the second quarter of this year, price increased 1% from broad-based actions, but volume declined 2% from engineering project timing and some seasonality and weaker industrial activity in EMEA.

工業活動放緩主要由北美、中國與澳洲所驅動，這與我們的預期一致。相較今年第二季，因廣泛的定價措施，價格上升 1%；但受工程專案時點、部分季節性因素，以及 EMEA 地區工業活動轉弱影響，銷量下降 2%。

Despite the softening economic conditions, operating profit grew 16% versus prior year and 5% sequentially, or 19% and 6% when excluding currency translation. The combination of price attainment and cost efficiencies across all segments enabling operating margins to expand 270 basis points versus 2018 and 140 basis points versus Q2.

儘管經濟情勢轉弱，營業利益較去年同期成長 16%，按季成長 5%；若排除外幣換算影響，則分別為 19% 與 6%。價格達成與各事業部的成本效率提升相結合，使營業利益率較 2018 年擴張 270 個基點，較第二季擴張 140 個基點。

The company reached 19.8% operating margin this quarter as employees around the world continued to coordinate efforts to improve productivity and operational excellence.

本季公司營業利益率達 19.8%，全球員工持續協同努力，以提升生產力與卓越營運。

Net income increased 24% from prior year or 27% when excluding FX translation. The reason for greater profit leverage is due to lower net interest expense from a combination of excess cash flow and FX impact.

淨利較去年同期增加 24%；若排除匯率換算，則增加 27%。獲利槓桿更高的原因在於淨利息費用下降，這是由於超額現金流與匯率影響的綜合作用。

As stated before, we are recapitalizing the balance sheet to better align with our target single A credit rating, but this will take a little more time as we refine our cash forecasting. Until then, we are actively deploying excess cash and managing the capital structure to deliver value to the shareholders.

如先前所述，我們正在對資產負債表進行再資本化（recapitalizing），以更好地與我們目標的單 A 信用評等對齊，但在我們完善現金預測之際，這還需要多一點時間。在此之前，我們正積極運用超額現金並管理資本結構，以為股東創造價值。

EPS of $1.94 was 26% higher than prior year and 6% higher sequentially. Excluding FX, those figures improved to 29% and 7%, respectively. This result is somewhat higher than anticipated since favorable impact from cost management actions more than offset worse-than-expected FX rates.

每股盈餘（EPS）為 1.94 美元，較去年同期高 26%，按季高 6%。若排除匯率影響，這些數字分別改善至 29% 與 7%。此結果略高於預期，因成本管理措施帶來的正面影響，超過了匯率水準較預期不利的影響。

In addition to delivering strong profit leverage this quarter, a large majority of earnings pulled through to cash as operating cash flow increased 86% sequentially to $1.9 billion. While we would normally expect some seasonal improvement, most of this sequential increase is driven by better working capital management along with higher EBITDA and less merger-related outflows.

除了本季展現強勁的獲利槓桿之外，絕大多數的盈餘也轉化為現金，因為營運現金流較前一季成長86%至19億美元。雖然我們通常會預期有一些季節性改善，但這次的季增主要是由更佳的營運資金管理、較高的EBITDA，以及較少的併購相關現金流出所帶動。

CapEx increased 11% from Q2. But you can see that was driven by project CapEx, which represents customer projects under construction and secured by long-term contracts that lead to incremental growth. The sale of gas backlog associated with project CapEx remains strong at $4.7 billion and will be executed over the next 3 years, although that spend pattern will be somewhat lumpy.

資本支出（CapEx）較第二季增加11%。但你可以看到，這主要是由專案資本支出所驅動；專案資本支出代表正在施工、且由長期合約保障的客戶專案，將帶來增量成長。與專案資本支出相關的氣體積壓訂單（backlog）銷售仍維持強勁，達47億美元，將在未來3年內執行，儘管支出節奏會有些不均勻。

Base CapEx, which represents all other capital spend not associated with our project backlog, such as small growth, cost reduction and maintenance, declined 7% sequentially as we continue to find more opportunities for cash synergies. Rolling this all together results in a return on capital of 11.2% or a 60 basis point sequential increase. This improvement is driven by higher after-tax profit over a capital base that declined due to prudent cash management across the organization.

基礎資本支出（Base CapEx）代表所有與我們專案積壓訂單無關的其他資本支出，例如小型成長、成本降低與維護；隨著我們持續尋找更多現金協同效益的機會，基礎資本支出較前一季下降7%。綜合以上因素，資本報酬率達11.2%，較前一季提高60個基點。此改善主要來自稅後獲利提高，而資本基礎因全組織審慎的現金管理而下降。

We firmly believe that return on capital is one of the most important metrics for this industry in light of the capital intensity and long-term contractual structure. Given this cash and capital trends felt it may be helpful to provide a little more detail, which you can find on Slide 4.

我們堅信，鑑於本產業的資本密集特性與長期合約結構，資本報酬率是最重要的指標之一。考量這些現金與資本趨勢，我們認為提供更多細節可能會有所幫助，你可以在投影片4中找到。

The left side shows operating cash flow trends by quarter. The first 2 quarters were each around $1 billion, but subsequently increased to almost $1.9 billion in the third quarter. As I mentioned earlier, the key drivers include declining merger-related outflows, higher earnings and better working capital performance.

左側顯示按季度的營運現金流趨勢。前兩季各約為10億美元，之後在第三季增加至接近19億美元。如我先前提到的，主要驅動因素包括併購相關現金流出下降、盈餘提高，以及營運資金表現改善。

In addition, the first half tends to be seasonally lower from timing of cash incentives and taxes. The year-to-date figure of $3.9 billion includes $0.7 billion of onetime merger-related outflows. This $0.7 billion primarily relates to taxes and fees, which supported $11 billion of divestiture proceeds, in addition to legal and adviser payments. These merger outflows will be significantly lower in 2020.

此外，上半年通常因現金獎勵與稅款支付時點而呈現季節性偏低。年初至今（year-to-date）的39億美元包含7億美元的一次性併購相關現金流出。這7億美元主要與稅款與費用有關，這些支出支撐了110億美元的資產剝離（divestiture）所得款項，此外也包含法律與顧問費用支付。2020年的這些併購現金流出將顯著降低。

The pie chart in the lower right represents how the year-to-date operating cash flow has been allocated.

右下角的圓餅圖顯示年初至今營運現金流的配置方式。

Overall, it's a balanced approach, with roughly half invested in the business and half returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock repurchases. Of the half invested in the business, it's evenly split between investments in secured growth and base CapEx.

整體而言，這是一個均衡的做法：約一半投資於業務，另一半以股利與股票回購的形式回饋股東。在投資於業務的那一半中，則平均分配於已確保的成長投資與基礎資本支出。

Secured growth represents accretive acquisitions and project CapEx for the backlog. Base CapEx is important to support non-backlog growth, achieve cost reduction targets and maintain high levels of plant safety, reliability and efficiency.

已確保的成長（secured growth）代表具增益性的併購，以及用於積壓訂單的專案資本支出。基礎資本支出對於支援非積壓訂單的成長、達成成本降低目標，以及維持工廠安全、可靠性與效率的高水準至關重要。

Overall, the priority is to invest in high-quality projects, growth projects that meet our investment criteria while continuously generating excess free cash flow to distribute back to shareholders. Please turn to Slide 5 for an update on full year guidance.

總體而言，我們的優先事項是投資於高品質專案、符合投資標準的成長專案，同時持續產生超額自由現金流以回饋股東。請翻到投影片5，了解全年指引的最新情況。

We are raising full year EPS guidance to $7.25 to $7.30, which represents an increase of 17% to 18% from prior year or 21% to 22% when excluding 4% currency headwind. The guidance is above last quarter due to favorable Q3 results and continued confidence and opportunities to improve the cost structure. However, this range also implies that Q4 EPS will be below the $1.94 from Q3. Part of the sequential decline relates to the timing of project completions for the engineering business.

我們上調全年每股盈餘（EPS）指引至7.25至7.30美元，較去年增加17%至18%；若排除4%的匯率逆風，則為增加21%至22%。相較上季，本次指引上調是因第三季結果優於預期，以及我們對改善成本結構的信心與持續機會。然而，這個區間也意味著第四季EPS將低於第三季的1.94美元。部分季減與工程業務專案完工時點有關。

Engineering is a long-cycle business with projects that take several years. So the quarter-to-quarter results can vary, but we fully expect to maintain high levels of execution.

工程業務屬於長週期業務，專案往往需要數年時間。因此，季度間的結果可能會波動，但我們完全有信心維持高水準的執行力。

Another driver of the anticipated Q3 to Q4 decline relates to projections of a weaker macro. Lower manufacturing levels and longer customer outages continue to point to decreasing industrial activity.

另一個預期第三季到第四季下滑的因素，與我們對宏觀環境轉弱的預測有關。較低的製造水準與更長的客戶停機時間，持續顯示工業活動正在下降。

In summary, despite the macroeconomic headwinds, we continue to improve the quality of the business and grow earnings double-digit percent over last year. This is only possible from the collective efforts of all 80,000 employees executing as one team. And while geopolitical forces will likely result in more uncertainty for 2020 and beyond, we maintain a high degree of confidence in our ability to leverage opportunities that not only overcome these challenges, but will also create substantial value for our owners.

總結來說，儘管面臨宏觀經濟逆風，我們仍持續提升業務品質，並使盈餘較去年以雙位數百分比成長。這只有在8萬名員工齊心協力、以一個團隊執行的共同努力下才可能達成。雖然地緣政治力量很可能使2020年及之後的不確定性增加，但我們對於把握機會、既能克服這些挑戰、也能為股東創造可觀價值的能力，仍保持高度信心。

I'd now like to turn the call over to Q&A.

接下來我想把電話會議交給問答環節。

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from the line of Mike Sison with Wells Fargo.

（接線員指示）我們的第一個問題來自Wells Fargo的Mike Sison。

Steve, when you think about the macro environment being weak as it is and your earnings growth pretty strong, how do you frame up the leverage potential if demand gets better, particularly longer term? Given you're doing 17% to 18% growth, how much better can your earnings growth get with a better economic environment?

Steve，當你想到目前宏觀環境如此疲弱、而你們的盈餘成長相當強勁時，如果需求改善，特別是從較長期來看，你會如何界定（或描述）槓桿潛力？既然你們做到17%到18%的成長，在更好的經濟環境下，你們的盈餘成長還能好到什麼程度？

Well, I think, clearly, there's leverage if -- to the EPS -- if volumes improve above what we're looking at. Going forward into next year, we certainly have a backlog that we've talked about in the past that will be additive to our EPS. We have pricing expectations as well. We have ongoing cost efficiencies. We have the impact of share buybacks, et cetera. So anything that happens on the volume line would be additive to that.

嗯，我認為很明顯地，如果銷量高於我們目前的預期，EPS會有槓桿效應。展望明年，我們確實有先前談過的積壓訂單，將對EPS帶來增量貢獻。我們也有價格（定價）方面的預期。我們有持續的成本效率提升。我們也有股票回購的影響，等等。因此，任何發生在銷量端的改善，都會在此基礎上帶來額外貢獻。

But I think we have to be realistic based on the trends we're seeing, which are not particularly positive around the world. So that's why we frame -- or why I frame my view of going forward because I'm looking at trends that just aren't that positive.

但我認為我們必須根據所看到的趨勢保持務實，而這些趨勢在全球範圍內並不是特別正面。所以這就是為什麼我會這樣界定——或者說我會這樣表述——我對未來的看法，因為我看到的趨勢確實不那麼正向。

Got it. And then just curious on your engineering backlog of $5 billion. How does that over time translate to earnings growth in a given year or given a couple of years?

了解。另外想請教你們50億美元的工程積壓訂單。隨著時間推移，這會如何轉化為某一年或接下來一兩年的盈餘成長？

Well, it is -- it's third-party sales. And so if you kind of assume a certain level of sales that we're seeing now on a quarterly basis and if you assume operating margins again are something closer to what I said in my opening comments, which are kind of low double digits, call it, like 11%, 12%, maybe 13% kind of range through the cycle, that's what we should be able to expect. And the strong backlog just gives us confidence that going forward into the next year, we're going to have that to work against and certainly into part of the following year.

嗯，那是——那是對第三方的銷售。因此，如果你大致假設我們目前每季看到的某個銷售水準，並且假設營業利益率仍接近我在開場評論中提到的水準，也就是大約低雙位數，姑且說在整個景氣循環中約11%、12%，也許13%這樣的區間，那就是我們應該能夠期待的表現。而強勁的積壓訂單只是讓我們對於明年展望更有信心，因為我們將有這些訂單可供執行，並且也會延續到隔年部分期間。

It will come a point where we're going to need to add new projects to sustain that level of profitability going forward.

未來終究會到一個時間點，我們需要新增專案，才能在往後維持那樣的獲利水準。

And I think, Mike, this is Matt. One thing to add, just as a reminder, I mean, this is primarily a negative working capital business. It's highly accretive. It's not capital intensive like the remainder of the industrial gas business. So it is highly complementary from a financial perspective in addition.

我認為，Mike，我是 Matt。補充一點，提醒一下：這主要是一個負營運資金的業務。它的增益性很高。它不像其餘的工業氣體業務那樣資本密集。因此，從財務角度來看，它也具有高度互補性。

And our next question comes from the line of Markus Mayer with Baader-Helvea.

下一個問題來自 Baader-Helvea 的 Markus Mayer。

Markus Mayer, Baader-Helvea. Three questions from my side. First one is on the guidance. Maybe you can help us understand what -- when you look at the guidance raised, what was triggered by the share buyback effect? What was the negative effect from FX? And what effects came from the different organic growth assumption or the different efficiency effects? That would be my first question.

Markus Mayer，Baader-Helvea。我這邊有三個問題。第一個是關於指引。也許你們可以幫助我們理解——當你們上調指引時，哪些部分是由股票回購效應所觸發？外匯（FX）的負面影響是多少？不同的有機成長假設或不同的效率效應又帶來了哪些影響？這是我的第一個問題。

Okay. Markus, this is Matt. I can handle that. I think from a share buyback perspective, I'd say little to no effect. That's not really having any effect. In fact, I would say we were probably a little bit behind on our program in the last quarter. So that's really not having much of an effect.

好的。Markus，我是 Matt。我來回答。從股票回購的角度來看，我會說幾乎沒有影響，或影響很小。那並沒有真正產生任何影響。事實上，我會說我們上季在回購計畫上可能還稍微落後。所以那確實沒有太大影響。

But the offset to that will be slightly better interest. So I would think about interest and buyback really as kind of offsetting each other. As I have favorable interest, I'll be behind in a buyback program. But as I work towards a single A, then I'll probably have a lower share count.

但與之相抵的是利息會稍微更好一些。所以我會把利息與回購視為大致互相抵銷。當我享有較有利的利息時，我可能會在回購計畫上落後一些。但當我朝向單 A 評級邁進時，我的流通股數可能就會更低。

FX definitely had a negative effect. When we looked and gave guidance a quarter ago, I would say the FX got worse by 1% to almost 2% than what we had anticipated. We'll have to see what it means going forward. But that is something that got a little worse as the dollar strengthened pretty much across the board.

外匯確實帶來了負面影響。我們在一季前檢視並給出指引時，我會說外匯情況比我們原先預期的還要差 1% 到接近 2%。未來會如何還要再看。但隨著美元幾乎全面走強，這確實是變得稍微更不利的一項因素。

As far as the growth, I think the easier way to probably think about it is sequentially, as we mentioned, thinking about Q3 to Q4. At this stage, this guidance implies probably about a percent kind of erosion on base volumes. We'll have to see if that occurs or not. Obviously, anything better than that should be upside. But right now, that's our assumption and we'll see what ultimately comes out.

至於成長，我認為比較容易的理解方式可能是按季來看，正如我們提到的，從第三季到第四季。以目前來看，這份指引大概意味著基礎銷量可能會有約 1% 的侵蝕。是否真的會發生還要再看。顯然，任何好於這個假設的表現都會是上行空間。但目前這就是我們的假設，最後結果如何我們再看。

Okay, understood. The second question would be what was the helium effect on your price increases in this quarter?

好的，了解。第二個問題是，本季氦氣對你們的漲價有什麼影響？

The helium, if you look at year-over-year, it was probably about 1/4 of the price effect, the 2%, maybe slightly higher, but something around that vicinity, and sequentially, no effect.

氦氣方面，如果看年對年，大概占了價格效應的四分之一；也就是那 2% 裡面，可能略高一些，但大概在那個範圍；按季來看，沒有影響。

Okay. And then last question would be, how much of this very strong cash flow generation came from the engineering prepayments, as they have recently signed several projects?

好的。最後一個問題是，這次非常強勁的現金流生成，有多少是來自工程業務的預收款，因為他們最近簽了好幾個專案？

Yes, Markus. I think the best way to look at that is when you look at our statement of cash flows, you'll see a line called Contract Assets and Liabilities Net. That essentially represents customer deposits and what the change is of that. So for this quarter, we did have a favorable amount of $68 million, but that's a number that goes up and down. Prior quarter, it was negative just due to lapping from prior years. So I think that's a number we gave out for you to be able to track independently.

是的，Markus。我認為最好的看法是：當你看我們的現金流量表時，你會看到一行叫做「合約資產與負債淨額」（Contract Assets and Liabilities Net）。那基本上代表客戶存款，以及其變動情況。所以本季我們確實有一個有利的金額 6,800 萬美元，但這個數字會上下波動。上一季則是負數，主要是因為與前幾年的基期因素（lapping）有關。所以我想這個數字我們提供出來，讓你可以自行追蹤。

And our next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan.

下一個問題來自 JPMorgan 的 Jeff Zekauskas。

If we look at the pro forma cost of goods sold, year-over-year, it's down about $125 million. So if you annualize that, that's about $500 million. And if you look at your SG&A year-over-year, it's down about a little bit more than $30 million. So if you annualize that, that's $125 million. So is it the case that order of magnitude, your run rate cost reductions are, I don't know, $625 million, something like that? That's their characterization?

如果我們看備考（pro forma）的銷貨成本，年對年下降約 1.25 億美元。如果把它年化，大約是 5 億美元。再看你們的 SG&A（銷售、一般及行政費用）年對年下降約 3,000 多萬美元。年化大約是 1.25 億美元。所以是否可以說，大致量級上，你們的成本削減「運行率」（run rate）大概是 6.25 億美元左右，類似這樣？這樣描述對嗎？

Jeff, this is Matt. I think the challenge on looking solely at pro forma, not pro forma adjusted, is that all of the effects of purchase accounting are going to be in those results. And as you can imagine, we had to step up the inventory as part of purchase accounting, which will have a disproportionate effect on COGS in the beginning, and then that would rapidly decline. So there are lots of different lives of assets that had to be stepped up that are anywhere from month to infinite life.

Jeff，我是 Matt。我認為只看備考、而不是看備考調整後（pro forma adjusted）的挑戰在於：所有購買會計（purchase accounting）的影響都會反映在那些結果裡。而且如你所想，我們在購買會計下必須把存貨做公允價值調升（step up），這會在一開始對銷貨成本（COGS）造成不成比例的影響，之後會快速下降。此外，還有許多不同年限的資產需要調升，年限從幾個月到無限期都有。

So pro forma, as you know, under Article 11 SEC, still has all purchase price accounting effects in it. So that's why we think looking solely at pro forma is going to be a bit tricky because of the purchase price accounting effects. And what I still firmly believe is the numbers that we represented here on a pro forma adjusted best represent. And as we stated in the last call, we fully believe we're on full track now.

所以備考數字，如你所知，依據 SEC 第 11 條（Article 11），仍然包含所有購買價格會計（purchase price accounting）的影響。這就是為什麼我們認為只看備考會有點棘手，因為有購買價格會計的影響。而我仍然堅信，我們在這裡所呈現的備考調整後數字最具代表性。並且如同我們在上次電話會議所說，我們完全相信目前已經完全走在正軌上。

Obviously, as you can see in the results, we did do a little better than expected on costing. I think timing was a little more favorable than we anticipated. But we are fully in line with the $900 million target that was given and the promise that was given at the $300 million per year. So we feel quite confident on that. And from here on out, everything we're looking for, just overall efficiencies and opportunities as one operating company.

顯然，如你從結果中看到的，我們在成本方面確實比預期好一些。我認為時點上比我們原先預期更有利一些。但我們完全符合先前給出的 9 億美元目標，以及每年 3 億美元的承諾。所以我們對此相當有信心。而從現在開始，我們所尋求的是作為一家營運公司整體的效率提升與機會。

Okay. And then your APAC sales didn't really grow very fast and it turns out that your -- some of your competitors are growing pretty quickly in China and they're growing pretty quickly in the Mideast. Is that something you feel that you need to do anything about? Like do you feel like you're growing at the appropriate rate in those 2 regions?

好的。另外，你們的亞太（APAC）銷售成長其實不算快，而你們的一些競爭對手在中國成長很快、在中東也成長很快。你們覺得這是需要採取任何行動的事情嗎？例如，你們覺得在這兩個地區的成長速度是合適的嗎？

So when you look at APAC, I think we kind of said at the outset that you have -- we have the Australia position that we are addressing. China, certainly slowing growth, some turnarounds during the quarter that had some effect. But Jeff, when you look at where we are today, there's very little contribution from large projects in those numbers. And it so happens, if you go look at the sale of gas backlog, Asia represents nearly $3 billion of that backlog. So we have some very large projects and some large contributions ahead. And I think if you look at the industry, whenever one of us reports that there's a big number, usually, it has something to do with a large project or projects. And as the case is today, we just don't have that contribution. It's just a question of timing. Again, the backlog is ahead of us.

所以當你看亞太時，我想我們一開始就提到，你們——我們在澳洲的布局是我們正在處理的。中國方面，成長確實放緩，本季也有一些歲修（turnarounds）對結果造成了影響。但 Jeff，當你看我們今天所處的位置，這些數字中來自大型專案的貢獻其實很少。而且剛好，如果你去看我們售氣（sale of gas）的在手訂單（backlog），亞洲約占其中將近 30 億美元。所以我們前方有一些非常大型的專案，以及相當可觀的貢獻。我認為如果你看整個產業，每當我們其中一家報出一個很大的數字，通常都與某個大型專案或多個專案有關。而就目前而言，我們只是還沒有那樣的貢獻。這只是時間點的問題。再次強調，在手訂單就在前面。

If I look at the long-term trends of a place like Asia Pacific, clearly, electronics is going to be strong going forward. I've already talked about the backlog. I think as these emerging markets develop, the applications that both legacy companies have brought to the combined company are going to have a positive effect. The pricing equation is something that we look at very carefully and continue to work. Regarding other parts of the world, we look at many things. But then again, it all has to pass the screen of is this a strategic geography? Is this a geography that we think we can build the density? Because our strategy is all about focusing on core geographies that we can build network density.

如果我看像亞太這樣地區的長期趨勢，很明顯，電子產業未來將持續強勁。我已經談過積壓訂單。我認為隨著這些新興市場發展，兩家傳統公司帶入合併後公司的應用將會產生正面影響。定價方程式是我們非常謹慎檢視並持續推進的事項。至於世界其他地區，我們會看很多因素。但話說回來，一切都必須先通過篩選：這是否為策略性地理區域？這是否是我們認為能建立密度的地理區域？因為我們的策略核心，就是聚焦在我們能建立網路密度的核心地理區域。

And then as we look at individual projects, there's a risk versus return assessment that we go through very thoroughly, and it has to pass that screen as well. So that's how I'd answer that question.

接著在我們檢視個別專案時，我們會非常徹底地進行風險與報酬評估，而且也必須通過同樣的篩選。所以我會這樣回答這個問題。

And our next question comes from the line of Martin Roediger with Kepler Cheuvreux.

下一個問題來自 Kepler Cheuvreux 的 Martin Roediger。

Two questions. The first is on -- actually, both are for Matt. The PPA-related amortization charges dropped by 18% sequentially compared to Q2, while the euro has softened 5% only. Moreover, the other intangible assets in your balance sheet have been sequentially stable. Can you explain that massive change in the PPA amortization charges?

兩個問題。第一個是關於——其實兩個都是問 Matt。與 PPA 相關的攤銷費用相較於第二季按季下降了 18%，但歐元僅走弱 5%。此外，你們資產負債表上的其他無形資產按季也保持穩定。你能解釋一下 PPA 攤銷費用為何會出現如此巨大的變化嗎？

And secondly, coming back to the operating cash flow. You mentioned higher EBITDA, better working capital and less merger-related outflows. But I see that you also had some disposal proceeds of $271 million. Are there any other funny items included in that cash flow figure?

第二個問題，回到營運現金流。你提到 EBITDA 較高、營運資金更好，以及較少的併購相關現金流出。但我看到你們也有 2.71 億美元的處分收入。在這個現金流數字中，是否還包含其他不尋常的項目？

So we'll start with PPA. I think it's a bit of a -- consistent with what I'd mentioned to Jeff. So as you can imagine, in purchase price accounting, you are required to assign valuations across a whole spread of different assets that have various lives. So there are a significant portion that is assigned to shorter life inventory. And as those fall off, you have a significant amortization and then they obviously are go through your cost of goods and then they're sold. So any inventory would have fallen off in the first to second quarter and you would have a larger amount of recognition and amortization. As the years go on and you start losing more of the shorter lives, the amortization number will continue to decline. So that is a normal pattern in any type of GAAP purchase price accounted effect that your amortization is at its peak at the beginning and then it rapidly declines on short-lived assets such as inventory, software, things that might be 3-year life, 5-year life vehicles. And then over time, you get into machinery buildings that get to 10, 20 years. So this is a normal pattern of any kind of amortization.

那我們先從 PPA 開始。我想這有點——與我先前對 Jeff 提到的內容一致。如你所知，在收購價格分攤會計（purchase price accounting）中，你必須在一整套不同資產之間分配估值，而這些資產的使用年限各不相同。因此，其中有相當一部分會分配到較短年限的存貨。當這些項目到期消失時，你會看到顯著的攤銷，且它們會進入銷貨成本，然後隨著產品售出而結束。因此，任何存貨相關項目大多會在第一到第二季消失，你就會看到較大的認列與攤銷金額。隨著時間推進、較短年限的項目逐步消失，攤銷數字將持續下降。所以這是任何依 GAAP 進行收購價格分攤所產生影響的正常模式：攤銷在一開始達到高峰，然後在存貨、軟體等短年限資產（可能是 3 年、5 年年限）上快速下降。接著隨時間推移，你會進入機器設備、建築物等 10 年、20 年年限的項目。因此，這是任何攤銷的正常模式。

But again, back to my earlier point, this is why we wanted to focus on adjusted figures because this amortization can create a lot of confusion and it's really noncash. And given our scenario was a merger of equals, there really was no capital component of this merger. So that's why we really are focusing on the adjusted figures.

但回到我先前的重點，這也是為什麼我們希望聚焦在調整後數字，因為這些攤銷可能造成很多混淆，而且它其實是非現金項目。而且在我們的情境下，這是一宗對等合併（merger of equals），這次合併實際上沒有資本成分。所以這就是為什麼我們確實聚焦在調整後數字。

As far as the operating cash flow, just to make sure you understand. Any disposable proceed gains are part of divestitures, which relates to investing cash flow, not operating cash flow. So there would be none of those gains related. In fact, it's the opposite. What happens, the gain is in your P&L. It is completely wiped out in your operating cash flow to make it a 0 effect, and then the full proceeds are put in investing cash flow. That's how GAAP accounting works.

至於營運現金流，我想先確認你理解。任何處分所得的收益都屬於資產剝離（divestitures）的一部分，這會歸在投資活動現金流，而不是營運活動現金流。所以營運現金流裡不會包含這些收益。事實上，情況正好相反。發生的情況是：收益會出現在損益表（P&L）中。在營運現金流中，它會被完全沖回，使其影響為 0，然後全部處分收入會放到投資活動現金流。這就是 GAAP 會計的運作方式。

Our cash flow statements are per GAAP accounting. So hopefully, that answer makes sense.

我們的現金流量表是依 GAAP 會計編製。所以希望這個回答說得通。

And our next question comes from the line of Patrick Fischer with Barclays.

下一個問題來自 Barclays 的 Patrick Fischer。

Just wanted to go back to your Slide 4, Matt, on the cash flow bar charts. I'm trying to understand, current levels of profitability, was your intention to kind of guide us more to what the Q3 looks like going forward that we've taken a step change up? Or did that have some onetime working capital benefits that maybe can't repeat? So maybe at the midpoint for Q4 and then going forward, what's the better bar to think about as cash flow conversion from an earnings level?

我想回到你們第 4 張投影片，Matt，關於現金流長條圖。我試著理解，以目前的獲利水準，你的用意是否是想引導我們認為第三季往後看起來會是這樣，也就是我們已經上了一個台階？或者其中是否有一些一次性的營運資金效益，可能無法重複？所以也許以第四季的中位數以及往後來看，從獲利水準轉換成現金流的角度，哪一根長條比較值得作為參考？

Yes, Duffy. I think from my perspective, right now, probably the best way to think about is on a year-to-date basis, we're at 3.9. And within that, are these $700 million of merger-related costs. And as I mentioned in the transcript, that's going to drastically fall off in 2020. It will be quite small. There'll be a little bit of hangover of our final divestitures, which will be pretty minimal. And then there'll just be some ongoing cash restructuring, which should be fairly small to achieve the synergies.

是的，Duffy。以我的角度來看，目前最好的思考方式可能是：以年初至今來看，我們是 3.9。而其中包含 7 億美元的併購相關成本。如我在逐字稿中提到的，這在 2020 年會大幅下降。會變得相當小。會有一點點尾聲，來自我們最後的資產剝離，金額會非常有限。接著就只剩一些持續性的現金重整支出，以達成協同效益，這也應該相當小。

So the way I would think about it is if you take that 3.9 and add back almost all of that 0.7, you could say 0.6, somewhere in that neighborhood, you're looking at mid-4s is where we probably should be on a normal ongoing basis through 3 quarters. I do think the seasonality was a little overly skewed in this first half, partly because of the merger outflows, partly also because of the 2 legacy companies having independent compensation schemes that paid out in the beginning of the quarter. Going forward, we'll have one compensation scheme, so that should also help reduce some of that component.

所以我的思考方式是：如果你拿 3.9 再加回幾乎全部的 0.7，你可以說是 0.6，大概在那個範圍，那麼在正常、持續的狀態下，跑完三個季度我們大概會落在 4 點多的中段。我確實認為季節性在上半年有點過度偏斜，部分原因是併購現金流出，部分原因也是兩家原公司各自獨立的薪酬制度在季度初支付。往後我們會只有一套薪酬制度，因此也應有助於降低那部分的影響。

But I would still think about it, as I've mentioned in earlier calls, just to think about EBITDA kind of an OCF as a relationship, so what is your OCF as a percent of EBITDA. And as you may recall, we've said in prior calls that you look at the 5-year average of the 2 legacy companies and it's high 70s, and that's something we absolutely expect to continue to deliver on.

但我仍會這樣看待，正如我在先前電話會議提過的：把 EBITDA 與營運現金流（OCF）的關係作為思考，也就是 OCF 佔 EBITDA 的百分比。如你可能記得，我們在先前的電話會議中說過，兩家原公司的 5 年平均是在 70% 後段，而這是我們絕對預期會持續交付的。

And when you look at year-to-date, if you adjust for the merger outflows through 3 quarters, we're a little bit ahead of that. We're probably a couple of percent ahead of that number right now. So that's how we think about it. But I still think we should be continuously, on a full year basis, converting at least 3 quarters or more of our EBITDA into operating cash flow. And then obviously, any areas where we can enhance that through working capital management, dividends from nonconsolidated affiliates or other areas above and beyond EBITDA, we're going to continue to work towards that.

而當你看年初至今，如果把三個季度的併購現金流出調整掉，我們其實略高於那個水準。目前大概高出那個數字幾個百分點。所以我們是這樣思考的。但我仍認為，我們應該持續地、以全年為基礎，至少把 EBITDA 的四分之三或更多轉換為營運現金流。然後很明顯地，任何我們能透過營運資金管理、非合併關聯企業的股利，或其他超出 EBITDA 的領域來提升的部分，我們都會持續朝那個方向努力。

Great. And then, Steve, maybe a question for you. Just Latin America, it's a smaller business for you now, but still quite large and you're bigger than most of our companies down there. Peronist back in Argentina, Lula picking a fight out of jail, Morales gone, riots in Chile. When you look at Latin America from an investment standpoint, does it feel riskier? And does it feel like we have the danger of a meaningful leg down? Or is most of that just headline and the underlying business is still just grinding along?

很好。接著，Steve，或許想請教你一個問題。就拉丁美洲而言，現在對你們來說是較小的業務，但仍然相當可觀，而且你們在那邊的規模比我們大多數公司都大。阿根廷的裴隆主義者回來了，魯拉出獄後挑起對抗，莫拉萊斯下台，智利爆發暴動。從投資角度看拉丁美洲，你是否覺得風險更高？你是否覺得我們有出現顯著下行一段的危險？還是說多數只是新聞標題，而底層業務仍只是持續運轉？

I'd say a lot of it's headline. I mean you can't look at Latin America historically and say it's a real stable place. So we've always had to contend with that. Again, 3 quarters of our business still is pretty much Brazil. And if anything, Brazil is taking a turn for the better. You've read about pension reforms, other things they're trying to do to shrink the size of the government. Privatization is -- there's a big push on that. And we have an excellent team on the ground. And of course, I've been watching that -- their performance very closely. And they've been working up the operating margins nicely over the last couple of years. And they're very stable. So despite all the headline news, I'm looking at results that are very stable and have been trending up positively, especially with respect to operating margin quality, which has always been the objective, and I'm just pleased to see it get close where it was.

我會說很多都是新聞標題。我的意思是，你不能回顧拉丁美洲的歷史就說那是一個非常穩定的地方。所以我們一直都必須面對這點。再說，我們的業務仍有四分之三基本上在巴西。而且如果有什麼變化的話，巴西正朝更好的方向轉變。你們也讀到過退休金改革，以及他們試圖縮小政府規模的其他措施。私有化——這方面有很大的推動力。而我們在當地有一支非常出色的團隊。當然，我一直非常密切地關注他們的表現。過去幾年他們把營運利潤率提升得很好。而且他們非常穩定。所以儘管有各種頭條新聞，我看到的結果非常穩定，並且呈現正向上升趨勢，特別是在營運利潤率品質方面——這一直是目標——我很高興看到它接近過去的水準。

And our next question comes from the line of Nicola Tang with Exane.

下一個問題來自Exane的Nicola Tang。

The first would be on the base CapEx and you talked about that being down 7% year-on-year. I think originally, you'd guided to $200 million of CapEx-related synergies. I was wondering what -- if you could update us on where we're tracking on that. And then on the P&L synergies, I think you're pointing to a $75 million run rate by the end of Q4. Can you give us an update on where we are and any early indications on 2020?

第一個問題是關於基礎資本支出（CapEx），你提到年對年下降了7%。我記得你們最初指引是約2億美元的CapEx相關協同效益。想請問你們目前在這方面的進度如何——能否更新一下？另外在損益表（P&L）協同效益方面，我想你們指出到第四季末可達到7,500萬美元的年化運行率。能否更新一下目前的狀況，以及對2020年是否有任何初步跡象？

Well -- so with respect to the base CapEx, you're correct, it's down 7% Q2 to Q3. We had said $200 million, about $200 million of CapEx efficiency as a result of the merger. That would be over a 3-year time frame. And based on what we're seeing and the plans that we have going forward, I feel confident that, that number is certainly achievable. With respect to the cost synergies, certainly, with the operating margin quality improving across the board, you could surmise that the synergies are taking hold. To be very honest, as I look at these numbers, I pay less attention to what's called a synergy cost savings and I'm just looking for improving the quality of our businesses across the board, which means better operating performance, cost productivity programs, efficiency programs, all the things that improve the overall quality of the business. So that really is where I'm focused.

嗯——就基礎CapEx而言，你說得沒錯，從第二季到第三季下降了7%。我們曾說過，因併購帶來的CapEx效率約2億美元、差不多2億美元。那會是在3年的時間範圍內實現。根據我們目前看到的情況以及未來的計畫，我有信心這個數字肯定是可以達成的。至於成本協同效益，當然，隨著整體營運利潤率品質全面改善，你可以推論協同效益正在發揮作用。坦白說，當我看這些數字時，我比較不會去關注所謂的協同節省成本，而是看我們各項業務的品質是否全面提升——也就是更好的營運表現、成本生產力計畫、效率計畫，以及所有能提升整體業務品質的事情。所以那才是我真正聚焦的地方。

But coming back to the basis of your question, I would say the number that we laid out there in the beginning, the $900 million kind of cost synergy over 3 years, that number is still very realistic in my mind.

但回到你問題的核心，我會說我們一開始提出的那個數字——3年內約9億美元的成本協同效益——在我看來仍然非常務實可行。

And our next question comes from the line of John McNulty with BMO Capital Markets.

下一個問題來自BMO Capital Markets的John McNulty。

So I guess the first one would be, with the pricing having been as strong as it's been for the last few quarters, I guess I'd be curious if you feel like you're losing any business at all at this point? Or if it's really just, look, you're catching up on the pricing side to match some of the inflation and it's holding well and you're not seeing much customer migration? So I guess a little color on that would be helpful.

我想第一個問題是，過去幾季定價一直這麼強勁，我很好奇你們此刻是否覺得有流失任何業務？或者其實只是，你們在定價端追上部分通膨，且維持得不錯，並沒有看到太多客戶轉移？所以如果能就這點提供一些補充說明會很有幫助。

Sure. So as you -- kind of as you said, John, really, pricing is very much a granular gain. Meaning, you don't really manage pricing at an extremely high level. You have to manage pricing at a very granular level. And that's also where you get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of improving pricing and the value you receive for your products and services.

當然。所以如你所說，John，定價其實非常講究細緻化的提升。也就是說，你不會在非常高的層級去管理定價。你必須在非常細的層級去管理定價。而那也正是你在改善定價、以及提升你從產品與服務中獲得的價值方面，最能以小博大的地方。

And so we pay very close attention to that. Obviously, each individual business pays close attention to that. I review 20 of them every month. And so I get to hear firsthand in terms of what's going on with respect to pricing and volume broken down by channel, by product, by country. And we go through that with a fine-tooth comb. But as I sit here today, I don't feel like we're losing business that we don't want to lose as a result of pushing price too hard. And again, that's something we track very carefully.

因此我們非常密切地關注這件事。顯然，每個單一業務也都非常密切地關注。我每個月會檢視其中20個。所以我能第一手聽到定價與銷量的狀況，並按通路、按產品、按國家拆解。我們會非常仔細地逐項檢視。但就我今天所看到的，我不覺得我們因為把價格推得太強而流失了我們不想流失的業務。而且這也是我們非常謹慎追蹤的事情。

So I'm pleased with the progress we're making. I look at pricing sequentially. I don't really look at it that much year-over-year. I pay much more attention to sequential price improvement as long as we're moving in the right direction and managing it appropriately at a business level, at a granular level, then I'm happy.

所以我對我們取得的進展感到滿意。我會用環比來看定價。我不太用年對年來看。只要我們在正確方向上前進，並在業務層級、在細緻層級上妥善管理，我會更關注環比的價格改善，那我就滿意。

Great. And then maybe with regard to a longer-term opportunity. I guess, I'd be curious to your thoughts on the opportunity around CO2. I know it looks like some of your peers are at least starting to show some interest there. But curious to your thoughts on the market and the opportunities there for Linde?

很好。接著可能談談一個較長期的機會。我想請教你對CO2相關機會的看法。我知道看起來你們的一些同業至少開始對那方面展現興趣。但我想了解你對市場以及Linde在那方面機會的看法？

Okay. So I assume your question refers more to the cost of carbon and what that means from an environment standpoint. But I'll just answer both pieces of that.

好的。所以我假設你的問題更多是指碳成本，以及從環境角度來看那代表什麼。不過我會把這兩個面向都回答一下。

First of all, we've had a big focus on building out our CO2 infrastructure. We had seen over the years that that's a very important product to have for carbonated products, for food freezing, for other applications. And so that's a focus we've had for several years, and I could look at the growth of our CO2 products in places like the United States, and it's growing very nicely, which would be consistent with our comments about growth in food and beverage. If I think about the price of carbon, that is -- we are seeing more projects today than we have seen in the last several years. And there's a list of things that I'm looking at and a couple of them do pertain to the cost of carbon, CO2 capture. And I think those are going to be opportunities that are going to grow going forward. It really has to be a function of legislation. You've heard about this 45Q, which is an IRS ruling that provides a credit for CO2. The credit grows over time. I think that's certainly a step in the right direction, is creating some interest. But if you look around the world, those are the types of things that we're seeing, then I think it's going to be an opportunity for growth going forward.

首先，我們一直很專注於擴建我們的CO2基礎設施。多年來我們看到，CO2是碳酸飲料、食品冷凍以及其他應用中非常重要的產品。因此這是我們已經聚焦好幾年的方向；我也可以看到我們在美國等地的CO2產品成長得非常好，這也與我們對食品與飲料成長的評論一致。如果我想到碳的價格——也就是——我們今天看到的專案比過去幾年都多。我正在關注的一系列事項中，有幾項確實與碳成本、CO2捕捉有關。我認為這些將會是未來持續成長的機會。這確實必須取決於立法。你們聽過45Q，這是美國國稅局（IRS）的一項裁定，提供CO2的稅收抵免。該抵免會隨時間增加。我認為這肯定是朝正確方向邁出的一步，並正在引發一些興趣。但如果你放眼全球，看到我們正在看到的這類措施，我認為這將會是未來的成長機會。

Our next question comes from the line of Peter Clark with Societe Generale.

我們的下一個問題來自法國興業銀行（Societe Generale）的 Peter Clark。

Just 2 questions. The first one I'll start with is the, obviously, you pointed at the synergy run rate, et cetera. But in Europe, you're talking about better execution being a key part and I see the sequential prices up there again. Just wondering if you're starting to see the benefits of some of the cost cutting, too? Or is that something we really expect going forward? So it's just doing things better that is the main thing at the moment in Europe.

兩個問題。第一個我想先從，顯然你提到了協同效應的年化運行率等等。但在歐洲，你談到更好的執行是關鍵的一部分，而我也看到序列價格又上來了。想請問你們是否也開始看到一些成本削減帶來的效益？還是說那是我們真正要在未來才會期待看到的？所以目前在歐洲主要是把事情做得更好，才是最主要的因素。

And then the second question. I keep reading, when I open up your website, still over 100 countries. I know it's a second order thing, sorting out the density in terms of the number of countries and the exposure there. But just if we should expect anything to happen on that front as we go through 2020?

第二個問題。我每次打開你們的網站都還看到「超過 100 個國家」。我知道這是次要層級的議題，也就是在國家數量與曝險方面去整理密度。但想請問，當我們走過 2020 年時，在這方面是否應該預期會有任何動作？

Okay. Okay. So the first question, I mean, clearly, we've had a focus on improving operating margins across the board, not just EMEA, but everywhere. And again, it's a country-by-country, it's a business-by-business look, it's a product-by-product look. Pricing clearly is a piece of that. We have been taking the appropriate cost actions in Europe. We will continue to do that because, quite frankly, the macro environment is not that favorable today. And so it's something that we need to do.

好的。好的。第一個問題，我的意思是，很明顯我們一直專注於全面提升營業利益率，不只是 EMEA，而是各地都是如此。而且同樣地，這是逐國、逐業務、逐產品來檢視。定價顯然是其中一環。我們在歐洲已採取適當的成本措施。我們也會持續這麼做，因為坦白說，目前的總體環境並不那麼有利。所以這是我們必須做的事情。

And as it relates to people, this is a discussion that we have to have and want to have at a European works council level and also at the local works councils. And so those discussions are sort of ongoing, and they will continue. But we clearly look at Europe as an opportunity to continue to expand operating margins, and that is our intention. Part of that is looking at certain businesses that really don't belong in the portfolio.

至於人員相關，這是我們必須、也希望在歐洲工會理事會層級以及各地工會理事會進行的討論。因此這些討論正在進行中，並且會持續下去。但我們很清楚把歐洲視為持續擴大營業利益率的機會，而這就是我們的意圖。其中一部分是檢視某些其實不應該留在投資組合中的業務。

And if you go back to my earlier comment about optimizing the portfolio, and that gets to your second question. We have gone through that. We just did -- concluded a bottoms-up review that we happen to review with our Board of Directors as well in October. And we have a list of, I'll call it, countries and also businesses that we think we need to take action on. How do we come to that conclusion? We look at the risk of being in some of these businesses and countries. We look at the quality of the business. We look at opportunities to scale it up and build density, and then that really drives our evaluation. But we do have a list that we're working on, as we speak. And then there's another list that we are monitoring, evaluating, watching and may lead to some action later on. But we are clearly -- that's clearly something that we're focused on.

如果回到我先前關於優化投資組合的評論，這也呼應到你的第二個問題。我們已經走過那個流程。我們剛完成——結束了一個由下而上的檢視，而我們也在 10 月與董事會一併檢討過。我們有一份清單，我稱之為一些我們認為需要採取行動的國家以及業務。我們如何得出這個結論？我們會看在某些業務與國家經營的風險。我們會看業務品質。我們會看擴大規模、建立密度的機會，然後這些因素真正驅動我們的評估。但我們確實有一份清單正在著手處理，就在此刻。另外還有一份清單我們正在監控、評估、觀察，之後可能會導致一些行動。但我們很清楚——這確實是我們聚焦的事項。

And our next question comes from the line of David Begleiter with Deutsche Bank.

我們的下一個問題來自德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank）的 David Begleiter。

Steve, just on the U.S. packaged business. Did those volumes get worse in Q3 versus Q2? I think I recall hard goods was negative in Q2, but I'm not sure if gases was negative in Q2.

Steve，關於美國包裝業務。第三季的銷量相較第二季是否更差？我記得第二季硬貨（hard goods）是負成長，但我不確定第二季氣體（gases）是否也是負成長。

Yes, David. So the gas and hard goods both declined low single digits Q2 to Q3. So they both declined low single digits. And they also happened to be down year-over-year, low single digits. And I'll add a little more color to that. We looked at October and hard goods is down about 6% versus September sequentially. And that's all capital equipment or driven largely by capital equipment. So the trend that we have been describing with respect to a weakening macro in the U.S. appears to be taking hold.

是的，David。所以氣體和硬貨在第二季到第三季都下滑了低個位數百分比。兩者都下滑了低個位數。而且它們的年對年也同樣是低個位數下滑。我再補充一些細節。我們看了 10 月，硬貨相較 9 月的序列變動下滑約 6%。那全部是資本設備，或主要由資本設備所驅動。因此，我們一直描述的美國總體環境轉弱的趨勢，似乎正在成形。

Very good. And just on the list of countries and businesses you need to take action on. What percent of sales or EBIT does that comprise? I assume it's pretty small, maybe sub-5% or in that range?

很好。另外關於你提到需要採取行動的國家與業務清單。那大約占銷售額或 EBIT 的百分之多少？我猜應該很小，可能低於 5% 或在那個範圍？

I'd say you're correct. It's in about the 5%, maybe a little less range, and there's a lot of small countries. And again, some businesses are part of that as well that make up that number.

我會說你說得沒錯。大約在 5% 左右，可能略低一些，而且其中有很多是小國家。同樣地，也有一些業務也包含在內，構成了那個數字。

And our next question comes from the line of Laurence Alexander with Jefferies.

我們的下一個問題來自 Jefferies 的 Laurence Alexander。

This is Adam Bubes on for Laurence Alexander today. I was wondering, how do you think about the risk of carbon capture and sequestration projects compared to traditional syngas?

今天由 Adam Bubes 代 Laurence Alexander 提問。我想請教，你如何看待碳捕集與封存（CCS）專案相較於傳統合成氣（syngas）的風險？

How do I think about the risk? If you look at in terms of, let's say, let's start with conventional production of hydrogen through steam methane reforming, CO2 is a byproduct of that. When we structure our contracts with our customers who want that hydrogen, if there is a cost of CO2 that is passed through contractually to the customer. So I don't see that, particularly as a risk for us. Now having said that, we do look at means and technologies to reduce the CO2 emissions. And there are technologies that exist that we will be implementing that will allow us to do that.

我如何看待風險？如果從例如傳統以蒸汽甲烷重整（SMR）生產氫氣來看，CO2 是其副產品。當我們與需要氫氣的客戶簽訂合約時，若有 CO2 成本，會依合約條款轉嫁給客戶。所以我不認為這對我們而言特別構成風險。不過話說回來，我們確實在評估降低 CO2 排放的方法與技術。而且確實有一些技術存在，我們將會導入，讓我們能做到這一點。

In terms of the opportunity aspect of that, we are seeing examples where people are asking us to look at CO2 capture products. And that provides an additional opportunity for us. So that's the opportunity side of it.

就機會面而言，我們看到一些案例是客戶要求我們評估 CO2 捕集產品。這為我們帶來額外的機會。這就是機會的一面。

With respect to syngas, clearly, syngas has a certain composition of hydrogen and CO. Syngas opportunities are more driven by the chemical industry downstream chemical products. And there are some CO2 emissions as part of that process, but there's an opportunity to bring the CO2 back into the feed and produce more CO and emit less emissions. So that is a technology that we have and something that we're looking to deploy more and more.

至於合成氣（syngas），很明顯合成氣具有一定的氫氣與一氧化碳（CO）組成。合成氣的機會更多是由化工產業下游化學產品所驅動。該流程中會有部分 CO2 排放，但也有機會把 CO2 回收再導入原料端，產生更多 CO 並減少排放。因此這是一項我們具備的技術，也是我們希望越來越多部署的方向。

Okay. Great. That's very helpful. And then my last question, I believe the goal in engineering is to start to shift the business toward more over-the-fence projects versus third-party sales. I was wondering, could you give us some color on progress here and how might we think about the split developing over the next several quarters?

好的。很好。非常有幫助。最後一個問題，我相信工程業務的目標是開始把業務重心轉向更多「圍籬內」（over-the-fence）的專案，而不是第三方銷售。我想請你談談目前的進展，以及未來幾個季度我們應該如何看待這個組合占比的變化？

Yes. Well I think about what I -- what we have said is that we want to do all the good third-party projects that are out there. And it so happens that Linde Engineering has a very strong track record of executing very complex projects. And that is the reason why we were as successful as we were with a project like ExxonMobil, where ExxonMobil had confidence in Linde Engineering's capabilities to execute a project like that. So we want to do all the good third-party business that's out there, and there certainly are some opportunities that are in front of us today we want to capitalize on. By the same token, we want to do all the good sale of gas projects that we can find. And we truly believe that between our product line capability, Linde legacy's product line capability, we have a full complement of every plant product line that we could ever want. And we want to utilize the engineering and technology skills when the engineering brings to be more competitive in over-the-fence projects, more traditional over-the-fence projects and also look at opportunities to kind of broaden our sale of gas footprint as the opportunities arise.

是的。嗯，我想我們所說的是，我們希望承接市面上所有優質的第三方專案。而剛好 Linde Engineering 在執行非常複雜的專案方面有非常強的實績。這也是為什麼我們在像 ExxonMobil 這樣的專案上能如此成功，因為 ExxonMobil 對 Linde Engineering 執行此類專案的能力有信心。所以我們希望承接所有優質的第三方業務，當然目前也有一些擺在我們面前的機會，我們想要加以把握。同樣地，我們也希望承接所有能找到的優質售氣（sale of gas）專案。我們確實相信，結合我們的產品線能力以及 Linde 既有傳承的產品線能力，我們擁有我們所需要的、完整齊備的各類工廠/裝置產品線。而且我們希望運用工程與技術能力——工程所帶來的能力——讓我們在跨圍牆（over-the-fence）專案、更傳統的跨圍牆專案上更具競爭力，同時也在機會出現時，尋求擴大我們售氣版圖的機會。

So I think probably something on the order of 50-50 is a good place to be with respect to third-party sales and sale of gas. Again, it will be kind of a function of the opportunities in front of us. But everybody understands in the company that the sale of gas is the sweet spot of the industry. It's where we want to focus. And we're making good progress with that objective.

所以我想，就第三方銷售與售氣而言，大概 50/50 的比例是個不錯的位置。同樣地，這會在某種程度上取決於我們眼前的機會。但公司裡每個人都明白，售氣是這個產業的甜蜜點。這是我們想要聚焦的地方。而我們在這個目標上正取得良好進展。

And our next question comes from the line of Kevin McCarthy with Vertical Research Partners.

下一個問題來自 Vertical Research Partners 的 Kevin McCarthy。

On Slide #7, regarding the Americas. I think you referenced some turnarounds on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Was that significant? And how do you look at the Q4 volume opportunity overall Relative to the 3Q level? Steve, I think you commented on hard goods a little bit. But just more broadly, what does your crystal ball say for the Americas in Q4?

在第 7 張投影片，關於美洲地區。我想你提到美國墨西哥灣沿岸有一些歲修/停工（turnarounds）。那影響大嗎？以及你如何看待第四季整體的量（volume）機會，相對於第三季的水準？Steve，我想你稍微評論了一下硬貨（hard goods）。但更廣泛地說，你對美洲第四季的預測如何？

Well, we saw some turnarounds in Q3 on the Gulf Coast and some of that continued into October as well. So it just so happened there were quite a few grouped together. They're all now pretty much out of turnaround. So they're all running and refining capacity utilization is quite high, and the 3:2:1 crack spreads are favorable. So they want to run at this point. I think, generally speaking, though, whenever you have weakening demand, a weakening macro, what we tend to see are more shutdowns. And you can call them planned, unplanned, I don't really know how you want to characterize it, but we tend to see more companies start to take shutdowns and that's demand related, for sure. Sometimes it's pricing related, their pricing. So I think that's just kind of something you should expect when you're in a really a weaker environment overall globally.

嗯，我們在第三季於墨西哥灣沿岸看到一些歲修/停工，其中一部分也延續到 10 月。所以剛好有不少集中在一起。它們現在基本上都已經結束歲修。因此目前都在運轉，煉油產能利用率相當高，而 3:2:1 裂解價差（crack spreads）也很有利。所以他們此刻想要提高運轉。不過一般來說，只要需求轉弱、總體環境轉弱，我們通常會看到更多停工。你可以稱之為計畫性或非計畫性，我不太確定你想怎麼定義，但我們往往會看到更多公司開始停工，而這肯定與需求有關。有時也與定價有關，指的是他們的定價。所以我想，當全球整體處於較疲弱的環境時，這就是你應該預期會發生的情況。

And I would like to be able to say we're in all these turnarounds in Q3. They're all back up and running. Therefore, that's additive going forward. But I know there's going to be another list of turnarounds. I'll call them unplanned shutdowns for maintenance, whatever, that we're going to probably see going towards the end of this year and perhaps into Q1 as well.

我也希望我能說，我們第三季遇到的這些歲修/停工現在都已恢復運轉。它們都已經重新開工。因此未來會帶來增量。但我知道還會有另一份歲修清單。我會把它們稱為非計畫性的維修停機之類的，我們很可能在今年年底前後、甚至可能延續到第一季也會看到。

Understood. And then I had a similar question regarding APAC on Slide 8. There, again, you referenced turnarounds but also a prior year sale of equipment as contributing factors to the minus 1% that you reported year-over-year for volume. Again, how do you see APAC trending in the fourth quarter?

了解。接著我對第 8 張投影片的亞太（APAC）也有類似問題。你同樣提到歲修/停工，以及前一年設備銷售，作為你所報告的年增率量下滑 1% 的因素。同樣地，你如何看待亞太在第四季的走勢？

Kevin, this is Matt. I could maybe handle that one. So you saw in the APAC of the minus 1% volume on a year-over-year, and pretty much all of that was due to either the combination of the turnaround and the prior year sale of equipment. We do have a business in India that sells equipment so there'll be some lumpy ups and downs on that.

Kevin，我是 Matt。這題我或許可以回答。所以你看到亞太年對年量下滑 1%，而幾乎全部都是由歲修/停工與前一年設備銷售的組合所造成。我們在印度有一個銷售設備的業務，所以那部分會有一些不規則的起伏。

So ex those items, volumes were relatively flat year-over-year. And as you can imagine, it's a combination of some of the factors we talked about with China, Australia and some puts and takes with some positive contribution from our project backlog. But I think going forward, some of those turnarounds are complete, and we expect things to be better in the fourth quarter. We are pretty confident in the customers we have. They run hard. They are the low-cost producers. So we feel good about that. But we just had a little blip here in the third quarter that we're through.

因此，扣除那些項目後，量年對年大致持平。如你所想，這是我們談到的中國、澳洲等因素的綜合影響，並且在我們的專案積壓（project backlog）帶來一些正面貢獻的同時，也有一些此消彼長。但我認為往前看，其中一些歲修已經完成，我們預期第四季情況會更好。我們對現有客戶相當有信心。他們高負荷運轉。他們是低成本生產者。所以我們對此感覺良好。只是第三季出現了一個小波動，而我們已經度過了。

And our next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne with Bank of America.

下一個問題來自美國銀行（Bank of America）的 Steve Byrne。

This is Matthew DeYoe on for Steve. If I look at the cadence of earnings in EMEA in 2018, you started 1Q with EBIT on a pro forma basis of $387 million and that declined to $308 million by 3Q '18. This year, the cadence of earnings is much more consistent. Just wondering why that is and what happened last year on a pro forma basis that's not recurring this year.

我是 Matthew DeYoe，代 Steve 提問。如果我看 2018 年 EMEA 的獲利節奏，你們在第一季以擬制（pro forma）基礎的 EBIT 為 3.87 億美元，到 2018 年第三季降至 3.08 億美元。今年獲利節奏則一致得多。想請問原因是什麼？以及去年以擬制基礎來看發生了什麼、而今年沒有重複出現？

Well, I think if you look at last year, and I didn't pay a lot of attention to last year because I didn't really get -- we didn't really integrate the company until March 1 this year. But we had some higher power cost last year that we did not do a good job recovering in the end market. That is behind us, and now we're on a much more favorable trend.

嗯，我想如果你看去年——而我其實沒有太關注去年，因為我們直到今年 3 月 1 日才真正完成整合——但去年我們有一些較高的電力成本，而我們在終端市場的轉嫁/回收做得不夠好。那已經過去了，現在我們的趨勢有利得多。

Okay. And if I could ask about the launch of the pediatric nitrous oxide business and how that product is going, what regions it's being rolled out in? I think it's about a $600 million market. Just kind of wondering how much you think market share-wise, you could capture there.

好的。另外我想問一下兒科一氧化二氮（笑氣，nitrous oxide）業務的推出，以及該產品目前進展如何、在哪些地區推廣？我想那大概是一個 6 億美元的市場。想了解你認為在市占率方面，你們大概能拿下多少。

Well, it is a business that we're rolling out. I'm not going to put a big dollar figure on that certainly for 2020. I think it's something that we have interest in. Clearly, we have freedom to practice, which is very important. We've passed all the regulatory approvals from the FDA, et cetera. So we're in a good position. It is a market that we're not in. So obviously, everything is upside. I'm not expecting big numbers in 2020, but we do have hopes this can grow into something significant.

嗯，這是一項我們正在推廣的業務。我不會為 2020 年特別給出很大的金額數字。我認為這是我們有興趣的方向。很明顯，我們擁有實施自由（freedom to practice），這非常重要。我們也已通過 FDA 等所有監管核准。所以我們處於有利位置。這是一個我們原本未涉足的市場。因此顯然一切都是上行空間。我不預期 2020 年會有很大的數字，但我們確實希望它能成長為一項重要的業務。

Our last question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citigroup.

我們最後一個問題來自花旗集團（Citigroup）的 P.J. Juvekar。

So Steve, you had talked about opportunities to raise prices in Linde's legacy business in Europe and Asia, and I believe that should have been on top of market pricing. So where do we stand on that relative to your expectations, say, at the beginning of this year?

Steve，你先前談到在林德（Linde）於歐洲與亞洲的傳統業務中有調漲價格的機會，而且我相信那應該是在市場定價之上。那麼，相較於你們在今年年初的預期，目前進展如何？

Well, I think we still have some opportunities to continue to work through. I think we've made some very good progress this year. I mean, first step is to be able to calculate what your pricing is and to be able to do a variance analysis. So you separate out pricing and then you have to -- and then start looking at the reports and then start to take appropriate actions.

我認為我們仍有一些機會可以持續推進。我覺得今年我們已經取得了非常好的進展。我的意思是，第一步是能夠計算出你們的定價，並且能夠做差異分析。所以你把定價因素拆分出來，接著你必須——然後開始看報表，並開始採取適當的行動。

So I think a lot of those building blocks have been put in place. As I look around the world, clearly, we have very strong pricing in the Americas. I'm looking at areas that were up 6%, 7%, some areas are lower. I can look across Europe and see that packaged and merchant combined is up around 4% or so. So some progress has been made there if I just look at those pure product lines.

所以我認為許多這些基礎建設的要素都已經到位。放眼全球，很明顯我們在美洲的定價非常強勁。我看到有些區域上漲 6%、7%，有些區域較低。我也可以看歐洲，包裝氣體與商用（merchant）合計大約上漲 4% 左右。所以如果只看這些純產品線，那裡已經取得了一些進展。

And then I look at Asia, we have a situation currently today in China where the year-over-year comparison is unfavorable because pricing was very high in the prior year period, and that's something that we're working on. But overall, I think we clearly have some opportunity to do more, and that would be my expectation rolling into 2020 as well.

再看亞洲，目前在中國的情況是，由於去年同期的定價非常高，導致年對年比較不利，而這也是我們正在處理的事情。但整體而言，我認為我們顯然還有進一步作為的空間，而這也會是我在邁入 2020 年時的預期。

And you just mentioned China and you said here that Chinese volumes are down. How much are they down? And what trend have you seen this year? The front -- is the trend improving or flat? Or what's going on there?

你剛提到中國，並且說中國的銷量下滑。下滑了多少？今年你看到什麼樣的趨勢？近期——趨勢是在改善還是持平？或是那邊到底發生了什麼？

Well, I would say that if I look at Q3, it looks pretty flat to me. And if you want to kind of step back and look at what's going on in China, generally speaking, Matt talked about the trends Q3 to Q4. It just so happens, Golden Week was the first week of October. And no pun intended, the Golden Week was very weak. And again, that's the type of thing you expect when the overall economy is not very strong.

嗯，我會說如果看第三季（Q3），對我來說看起來相當持平。如果你想稍微退一步看中國發生了什麼，一般來說，Matt 談到了從 Q3 到 Q4 的趨勢。剛好黃金週是在十月的第一週。而且不是雙關語，黃金週非常疲弱。同樣地，當整體經濟不夠強勁時，這就是你會預期看到的情況。

IP and GDP have been trending down over time. Automotive has not returned anywhere near its levels. The steel PMI index has been in the mid-40s. The only thing keeping that going is infrastructure spend. Chemicals are probably -- is probably one of the more stable parts of the market that's got in the low 50s from a PMI standpoint. And we do look forward to a wave of relocations that we think will be coming as a result of environmental issues and cleanup, driven by Beijing. Electronics is probably a bright spot because the Chinese government is focusing so heavily on that.

工業生產（IP）與 GDP 隨時間推移一直呈下降趨勢。汽車產業遠未回到先前的水準。鋼鐵 PMI 指數一直在 40 多的中段。唯一支撐它的是基礎建設支出。化工可能——從 PMI 的角度來看，可能是市場中較為穩定的部分之一，落在 50 出頭的低檔。我們也期待一波我們認為將會出現的遷移潮，這是因環境議題與整治清理所致，由北京推動。電子產業可能是一個亮點，因為中國政府在這方面投入了非常多的重點。

But clearly, China has been on a weakening trend. And again, we're not starting up large projects, as we speak, that can move that number fairly significantly. That will come later on.

但很明顯，中國一直處於走弱的趨勢。而且同樣地，就目前而言，我們並沒有啟動大型專案，能夠相當顯著地拉動那個數字。那會在之後才會出現。

And this does conclude our Q&A portion, and I would like to turn the conference back over to Juan Pelaez for any closing remarks.

以上結束我們的問答（Q&A）部分，我想把電話會議交回給 Juan Pelaez，請他做任何結語。

Michelle, thank you. And thanks, everyone, for participating in today's call. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. Have a great day.

Michelle，謝謝你。也謝謝各位參與今天的電話會議。如果你有任何進一步的問題，歡迎直接與我聯繫。祝各位有美好的一天。

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.

各位女士、先生，今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位參與。您現在可以掛線。