Torm PLC (TRMD) 2024 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Thank you for standing by.

My name is Pam, and I will be your conference operator today.

At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the TORM 2024 annual report conference call.

All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise.

After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session.

(Operator Instructions)

Thank you.

I would now like to turn the conference over to CEO, Jacob Meldgaard.

You may begin.

Thank you.

And a warm welcome to everyone joining us on the call here today.

As you all know, this morning, we released our annual report for the full year of 2024.

And I dare say that all in all, it was a very satisfactory year for TORM, but also a year that has demonstrated that we operate in a volatile industry influenced by a wide range of external factors that we need to take into consideration.

As usual, I'll start with a few comments on our business and how we're doing.

And then I will provide you with our take on the current market and how we see the development in the quarters to come.

Looking back at the past year, we are pleased to report a very satisfactory performance with TCE earnings climbing to a new all-time high of $1.135 billion supported by the additions made to our fleet during the year.

Freight rates remained at high levels throughout most of the first three quarters, enabling us to achieve fleet-wide rates of $39,626 per day.

However, in the fourth quarter, freight rates decreased and the normal seasonal strengthening of the market did not materialize.

Despite continuous vessel rerouting, volumes on long-haul voyages from east to west were lower and our fleet-wide rates decreased to $25,775 per day, thus adding to the downward trajectory seen from Q2 to Q3.

While the rate levels in the last quarter were lower compared to the strong performance in the first three quarters of the year, we still delivered solid earnings.

For the full year, we achieved a net profit of $612 million and a return on invested capital of 24.3%, demonstrating resilience despite a challenging market environment.

Now, looking into 2025, the ever-changing nature of shipping presents both challenges and opportunities.

Geopolitical developments, trade flow shifts, and oil demand fluctuate require that we continuously adapt our business.

We remain confident in the factors that are within our own control.

These include fleet efficiency, disciplined cost management, prudent capital management, and a well-executed commercial strategy.

However, we acknowledge that geopolitical risk introduce a wide range of potential earnings outcome for the year ahead.

Beyond geopolitics, market condition would be shaped by trade disruptions, regulatory changes, and broader macroeconomic factors such as the global oil demand and economic growth trajectories.

These variables would dictate both freight rates and fleet utilization.

So to stay ahead, we continuously monitor and analyze geopolitical trends, ensuring we remain well-positioned to navigate uncertainties effectively.

Kindly turn to slide 5.

For the past three years, geopolitical factors had driven product tanker rates to a new higher average level.

However, in recent months, as already noted, we have seen a decline in rates as short-term factors such as intensified crude tanker cannibalization has softened the positive impact from geopolitical factors, and the general market uncertainty has increased.

The rates have nevertheless remained at levels which are still strong in historical terms.

Please turn to slide 6.

To conclude on the year 2024, we saw a very strong positive impact on tonne-miles from the Red Sea disruption which led to longer trading distances at the same time as growing oil demand and changes in the refinery landscape increased volume of products being transported.

This positive tonne-mile effect was, however, front-loaded for product tankers, as after the first half of the year, crude tankers cleaning up in order to benefit from lucrative rates from transporting clean products from the east to the west via Cape of Good Hope took up most of the incremental tonne-miles.

For full year 2024, clean product tanker tonne-miles increased by 9% in 2024.

But due to this crude tanker clean-ups, product tankers benefited from only two-thirds of that.

While crude cannibalization declined towards the end of the year, trade volumes on the routes mostly affected by the Red Sea disruption fell to levels that offset the longer trading distances.

So with this, the tonne-mile impact of the Red Sea disruption in fact became non-existent by the start of this year.

Please turn to the next slide to slide 7, and I'll elaborate a bit more on that.

So as the main trade route affected by the Red Sea disruption is from the Middle East to Europe, the outcome of the potential future Red Sea normalization really depends on this route.

Currently, Europe's diesel imports are down by 30%, with especially flows from the Middle East affected.

This has effectively pushed tonne-miles on this trade route down to pre-disruption levels although distances have increased.

At the same time, we believe that such low import levels are not sustainable, especially taking into account the European diesel demand is expected to increase slightly this year supported by increased demand for diesel from the Mediterranean Emission Control Area, ECA, from May of this year.

At the same time, three refineries will close down in northern Europe this year while diesel stocks are at below average levels.

We expect that a potential reopening of the Red Sea passage will encourage intrabasin trade and return the volumes lost since the end of 2024.

At the same time, incentives for crude clean-ups would decline.

Even with shorter sailing distances, tonne-miles would stay at around the current levels with any upside to imports would add to products and tonne-miles.

We deem it unlikely that the volumes would not increase as the current levels are unsustainable and any increase in imports needs to be met by the Middle East given refinery capacity closures in the U.S.

Now please turn to the next slide, slide 8.

This brings me to the conclusion that the impact of any potential reversal of the latest geopolitical factors will likely be less pronounced as much of the impact is currently non-existing.

As I just explained, the potential Red Sea normalization could in fact be neutral for product tanker tonne-miles with an upside to this from potential increases in European diesel imports.

Shorter trade distances may be offset by a potential return of currently low trade volumes and lower incentives for crude tanker clean-ups.

Similarly, any potential easing of sanctions against Russia would not hit the product in the market by a full effect, as some of the gained tonne-miles have receded by now.

Due to the uncertainty with regard to the prospects for ceasefire, we do not foresee a quick abolishment of EU sanctions against Russia.

And finally, we also have some new potential geopolitical drivers which could have a positive tonne-mile impact such as a potential tariff war between the U.S. and its closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, leading to potentially new trade redirection towards longer distances.

Now please turn to slide 9.

So let me now also take a look at the tonne-supply side.

As we pointed out earlier, the relatively high product order book should be seen in combination with the fact that the average age of the fleet is the highest in two decades.

With 15% of the fleet being more than 20 years old, this will potentially offset a large part of the fleet growth in the coming years.

Furthermore, we see that as vessels turn towards 20 years of age, their average utilization drops significantly compared to younger vessels.

That would lead to a growing share of the fleet operating at lower utilization.

And in addition, a large share of especially the older feet is sanctioned which is expected to support exits from the market.

This is especially the case for the combined LR2 Aframax A2FX fleet where almost three-quarters of the older fleet are today under U.S. sanctions.

We'll now turn to slide 10.

To sum up on the market, geopolitics are expected to drive the products and market also this year, on top of the demand and supply fundamentals.

Yet the level of uncertainty is even higher and the speed of change has increased significantly with the new U.S. administration's more aggressive approach to geopolitics and trade policy.

I already touched upon potential normalization of the Red Sea situation, potential easing of sanctions against Russia, and the proposed tariffs on oil from Canada and Mexico.

Another element of uncertainty on the market stems from the U.S. administration's proposal to implement a port fee to operators with vessels built or on order in China.

On the other hand, the new U.S. administration's more tough approach towards Iran and Venezuela is expected to benefit the product on the market via the reduced risk of crude cannibalization.

I'm certain that TORM is well-positioned to navigate in this environment of increased uncertainty through our strong capital structure, operational leverage, and integrated platform.

And now here with these comments, I conclude my part of the presentation.

I hand it over to my colleague, Kim, who will walk us through the financials.

Thank you, Jacob.

Now please turn to slide 12 for an overview of the financials.

In the fourth quarter, TCE amounted to $215 million and based on this, we achieved $142 million in EBITDAand $77 million in net profit.

Fleet-wide, we averaged TCE rates of close to $26,000 per day, with LR2 slightly above $34,000 and LR1 at over $22,000 and MR at more than $23,000.

These numbers are in line with the coverage that we published in connection with our Q3 results, covered with the lowest spot rates in the last half of November and the month of December, thus in line with our overall guidance communicated back in November.

For the full-year 2024, we've generated TCE of $1.135 billion, EBITDA of $851 million, and net profit of $612 million.

As you can see on the right side of the table, full-year 2024 rates were close to the elevated levels we saw in 2023.

However, the composition of these rates tells a more nuanced story.

The high annual rates were largely driven by exceptionally strong market conditions in the first half of the year, tight supply demand fundamentals, and favorable trade patterns supported elevated spot rates during this period.

In contrast, Q3 saw some softening reflecting cannibalization by crude carriers that captured a significant part of the additional tonne line demand.

While rates remained healthy, they trended lower compared to the earlier part of the year.

The fourth quarter brought an additional setback with no seasonal upswing and rates declined further.

Due to the industry's natural spot exposure, our earnings per share are closely tied to movements in freight rates, and this dynamic becomes especially evident in a very volatile market environment.

In Q4, we experienced a sharp decline in freight rates which had a direct and material impact on our earnings per share.

Thus, basic earnings per share for Q4 decreased to $0.77 per share compared to $2.18 per share in the same period last year.

This time, our Board of Directors have declared a dividend of $0.60per share.

We believe that our approach ensures that distributions aligned with actual financial performance, maintaining a disciplined, transparent, and sustainable capital allocation strategy.

Slide 13, please.

This slide provides a clear overview of our top line performance for the full-year 2024 compared to 2023 as well as the quarter-by-quarter development throughout the year.

The numbers illustrate how the strong markets in the first half of the year gave way to softer conditions in the last half of the year impacting overall performance.

Fleet-wide rates remained elevated in the first half of the year, hovering above $40,000 a day.

However, as we moved into Q3, rates started to decline and this trend accelerated further in Q4.

This reflects broader market softening due to the positive tonne-mile impact from the Red Sea disruption, diminishing as crude tanker shifted back to dirty trades and the trade volumes on affected routes declined, effectively neutralizing the earlier gains.

While fleetwide rates declined by about 40% from Q1 to Q4, our TCE saw a smaller decline of 35%.

This demonstrates the positive impact of our fleet expansion and operational efficiency.

EBITDA amounted to $142 million in Q4, and as a reminder, everything else being equal, a change in daily freight rates of $10,000 translate into an EBITDA impact of approximately plus/minus $80 million for a quarter based on approximately 8,000 earning days in a quarter.

This illustrates the significant earnings sensitivity to market movements which is a key consideration for our financial outlook.

Please turn to slide 14.

Likewise, on this slide, we provide a breakdown of the quarterly development in net profit and key share related ratios.

The key factor to note is that the total number of shares increased by around $10 million over the year.

The decline in freight rates has translated into a corresponding downward trend in net profit, earnings per share, and dividend per share.

This is a direct consequence of the softer market conditions seen in the latter half of the year.

As in previous quarters, our dividend policy remains unchanged.

We continue to distribute (inaudible) on a quarterly basis while maintaining a prudent financial buffer.

Our threshold liquidity level is determined by two key factors.

First, a fixed liquidity requirement of $1.8 million per vessel; and second, a discretionary element set by the board.

This discretionary component considers our capital structure, future obligations, and broader market trends to ensure a balanced approach to capital allocation.

Consequently, the payout ratio for Q4 is 75%.

Slide 15, please.

As shown on this slide, these values have been on a steady upward trajectory over recent quarters, but saw a decline in the fourth quarter to $3.6 billion with an average broker valuation down 4.6% relative to the end of 2023. on the chart in the middle, we highlight the development of our net interest-bearing debt which now stands at $948 million against $773 million a year ago.

This increase reflects our fee expansion over the past year.

Despite this, our net loans value remains stable at 26.8% in line with the same quarter last year, ensuring a conservative financial foundation as we move forward.

Additionally, in the chart to the right side, we provide an overview of the debt maturity profile.

This year, we have only borrowings of $168 million maturing and committed to our installations of $12 million.

Beyond 2026, our obligations remain relatively modest until our larger loan matures in mid-2029.

Overall, our financial position remains strong, allowing us to manage our commitments while maintaining flexibility for future risks and opportunities.

And now please turn to slide 16.

As already shown on slide 12, based on the quarterly results, the Board of Directors has declared a Q4 2024 dividend of $0.60 per share which corresponds to a payout ratio of 75%.

Also on this slide, we provide a full overview of the key dates.

The ex-dividend date for shares on Nasdaq Copenhagen is set for March 19; while on Nasdaq New York, it will be on March 20.

And record date will be on March 20; and payment date will be on April 2.

And now turn to size 17.

In the annual report that we have published this morning, we are taking a significant step forward in our sustainability reporting, placing transparency at the core to provide stakeholders with a clearer view of our priorities.

With the implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, we are refining how we communicate our corporate responsibilities.

This framework strengthens our ability to report on material impacts, risks, and opportunities across environmental, social, and governance factors.

And I encourage you all to have a look at this.

Our approach to sustainability includes clear measurable targets across safety, diversity, and carbon intensity reduction.

Starting with safety, our key performance indicator is long-term accident frequency which tracks accidents per 1 million exposure hours.

In 2024 we achieved an LTAF of 0.42 and although this number is very sensitive to single accidents, we will continue working towards further improvements.

On gender diversity and leadership, we are committed to increase women in leadership positions to 35% by 2030.

Lastly, on carbon intensity reduction, we are well on track.

By the end of 2024, we reached our 40% reduction target, thus already now meeting the IMO 2030 target.

Looking ahead, we remain committed to our next ambitious 2030 goal of a 45% reduction and ultimately to achieve net zero CO2 emissions from our fleet by 2050.

Sustainability remains a core part of our long term strategy, and we will continue taking decisive actions in these areas.

We have set new ESG targets for 2024, reinforcing our commitment to reducing CO2 emissions, enhancing staff safety, and improving gender diversity and leadership.

These actions demonstrate our dedication to making a changeable impact while creating long-term value for stakeholders.

And now please turn to slide 18 for the outlook.

We forecast TCE earnings of $650 million to $950 million against the 2024 actuals of $1.135 million and EBITDA of $350 million to $650 million against the 2024 actuals of $851 million.

This reflects expectations of lower freight rates year-on-year based on current spot and forward market trends.

Based on our rates and coverage as of March 2025, we had fixed a total of 84% of our earning days at $26,612 per day in the first quarter across the field.

Likewise, for the full 2025, we have fixed a total of 27% of our earning days at $28,916 per day for the full year across the fleet.

And with this, I conclude my remarks and hand back to the operator.

Thank you.

We will now begin the question-and-answer session.

(Operator Instructions)

Jon Chappell, Evercore.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Jacob, we've seen your strategy over the last three years with the elevated market, with the fleet replenishment, selling of the older vessels, even the dividend policy.

As we enter this year, I guess, we're well into this year at this point with a lot more uncertainty, a lower starting point.

How does that strategy change, if at all, as it relates to both operations and fleet evolution as well as capital structure and capital return?

Thanks for that question, Jon.

So I will answer a little more detail, but I think the short end of it is that there's no change.

So if I just take it one by one on operation.

As I alluded to also in my prepared remarks, we do see the geopolitics and the associated change obviously still front and center as it has been over the last three years.

I think the difference is really the speed with which we at least perceive that we can potentially have these changes coming to us.

And what you need on an operational platform in that scenario of, I would say, from the outside that the playbook is changed and redefined is to have agility and it is to be prepared for all scenarios.

And there, I really think that the value of an integrated company is in that scenario as we deem it the very best you can have.

Because we will be able to redefine, say, our operational optimal way of setting it up with a very short notice.

So that's number one.

I don't expect us to change anything there.

Then on fleet.

It's not been part of the present day, but you should see that it's more of the same.

I think the testament to that is that we did, after the end of the year and we have announced as a subsequent event, we have sold, again, three older vintage vessels, the three MRs built in 2005, in a marketplace where the dynamic clearly has been that the liquidity in the market has been relatively lower because of the uncertainties.

But we have been able to stick to our strategy around maintaining a fleet where the average age is in line and at a par with the global product tanker fleet.

But where we can utilize them all the way up to, you can say, of course, it depends a little on the specific of the vessel, but in this case, up until the year of 20s.

And again, that fleet strategy will not change.

We are going to look at that.

We have not experienced that we cannot execute on that particular strategy.

And you can say, of course, if it is the other way, if it would be inbound, we should have vessels coming to our feet, we are also ready for that when and if the right circumstances are there.

And then on our strategy on our financials, again, really no change.

I think we've demonstrated also here with the way that we pay out for this quarter $0.60. I think Kim and I and the rest of management, we all feel very comfortable with our capital structure, with the leverage.

And we're still maintaining strategically the same (inaudible) around the use of excess capital to be paid out.

Obviously, there may be circumstances where you would argue that it gets so compelling to buy back shares, but it's not really been the

(inaudible).

And I think it would have to be a real special circumstance if we were to look at that as a tool in the toolbox.

So for now, I would argue you should expect more of the same.

Great.

I appreciate that answer.

My second one relates a little bit more to the market.

You mentioned the crude cannibalization, so to speak, and that kind of reversing entering this year.

Kind of a two-parter.

Where do we sit today on crude encroaching on traditional product trades, maybe relative to the peak of the second half of last year?

And then I guess, bigger picture, is it just becoming more easier?

I guess we're always under the impression, it was difficult for a cruise ship to get into the product trade, several voyages, process of slowly cleaning up via the cargo.

Has it just become easier that you can go back and forth between crude and product and we should look for that impact and volatility going forward?

I'll do it in reverse order, if it's okay.

You've been around -- maybe I've not been around maybe as long as you have.

I've only been in the product tanker business 15 years.

But I think what we are raised with in shipping is that crude tankers, they carry crude, and as you point to, it really -- it is possible to carry clean, but it's not really what you want to do, not as a ship owner with the risk associated and also not as the customer because you sort of have the risk of contamination of your cargo and it will be devalued on arrival.

All these operational hindrances leading to that we have actually not, over the last 30 years, been able to observe that you had existing vessels in crued that cleaned up.

You will see, first voyage, after you come out of the yard as a newbuild, yes.

And maybe even more than one voyage, but it's really been a change of (inaudible) to see that this go in and out of the trade, as you point to.

And now I'll come to -- our reflection is that it is actually the circumstances around the Red Sea and the impact that you, in a way, have a new trade between Middle East and Europe with diesel that only came about in 2022 in bigger volumes because until then, most of the needs of Europe was served by Russian diesel.

So that's the first component.

Well, then you look further away and then you take diesel, as we all know, you take it then from (inaudible) with U.S. into Europe.

And then your second option would be to then replenish the balance from the Middle East.

So that was the first thing that happened in 2022 and continued into 2024.

But then, of course, at the beginning of 2024, 70% of product decided that it was not a safe option to transit through (inaudible) Strait and to go to that route.

That meant that certainly, the LR2 market that was servicing this diesel in '22, '23 and 24 for the first time, they became, you can say, at par with a Suezmax or a VLCC on the particular routing that you did.

Because before, a VLCC would have to go Cape of Good Hope and

(inaudible).

But the LR2 would do the, you can say, the Suez Canal and save 12 days, so it was on a (inaudible) basis.

It was significantly cheaper to do the transportation on an LR2 than a

(inaudible).

But what happened is obviously that the freight rate in the first half of '24 per tonne for an LR2 to carry diesel became so high that it was relevant for the traders to think, well, this product, diesel in itself is less risky around contamination than, for instance, gasoline or jet fuel.

So it was product specific and it was the trade lane specific (inaudible) of that the small vessels and the big vessels would travel the same distance.

And you would therefore call for, you can say, that size matters and that scale of the business was there.

So this is -- I don't think any of us could have played out, let's say ,10 years ago that we had the discussion will crude tanker cannibalize.

Well, you would need to see something akin to this before you could imagine it, i.e., a product that is less risky in high volumes going between, how can I say, ports that are well developed.

And that's exactly what you have. (inaudible) refiners come on stream being relatively modern.

You have the receiving infrastructure in Europe being some of the largest ports, so you could substitute.

And then what you have left is actually only the operational thing about the clean-up.

So, to my point here or your question is that it is something that can occur when you have, but I don't think it's something that I would put into my forward thinking.

Of course, in the circumstance I just described and something like that, yes.

But in general, this is not going to be it.

Right now, we see that 3% of CPP on water is on VS and Suezmaxes.

At the peak in September last year, it was 8%.

And we think that this, let's say, 3% is more what we would calculate as being a normalized level.

Great.

That was all very helpful.

I appreciate it, Jacob.

Thank you.

Omar Nokta, Jefferies.

Thank you.

Hey guys.

Good afternoon.

Just a couple for me.

Obviously, you've given a wide guidance range for the year, it makes sense, beginning or early in the year, and the spot market.

And you outlined all the geopolitics and bit of the uncertainty.

But just maybe in terms of, say, seasonality, wanted to get your sense of how you're thinking about that now.

Any kind of ideas or how you think seasonality is going to play out here, not perhaps throughout all of '25, but maybe in the first half?

Is there anything that you could see at the moment, that suggests there's a shift in how seasonality is going to be given, obviously, there's a lot of uncertainty and geopolitics is probably factoring into the seasonality also.

But just any sense of how you think the market's going to be shifting here in the coming months?

I think we will have to -- I think that currently, we are more observant about the items that I described around geopolitics.

I mean, another key that I think will impact our marketing directly is of course the OpEx plus.

We've not mentioned this.

Some of these things will be a higher prioritization for us to try and understand what takes place rather than the seasonality because over the long term, there is seasonality, but in the last year, it's actually differed.

And I don't have a particular view on how it will play out for this year to be, honestly, Omar.

That's fair.

I appreciate it, at least, given some of that context.

And I guess maybe, I know it's still fresh and it's early days, but the U.S. proposal of taxing Chinese tonnage.

Just want to get a sense from you or say, for TORM, has that affected anything and how you're doing business, whether how you think about allocating vessels into the U.S. market or holding onto ships that are Chinese built or contemplating new buildings?

Has there been any shift or thought of changes as a result of that?

Well, that's a good question.

I mean, if we looked a little up above in the product tanker market, our count is that about 26% of the total product tanker fleet is Chinese built and around 70%, maybe even a little higher, are the newbuilds.

And if you read the material, the proposals that have come out which we'll be hearing here end of the month, it is both -- you can actually, I would say, get a fee based on both your percentage on the (inaudible) and on your order book.

And if we take it at a tonne level, we are at 41% after the latest sale of vessels.

Chinese ratio is 41% and we have zero newbuild.

But we also, of course, (inaudible) zero China build.

So if we take it for us, it would really be that currently, the U.S. trade is approximately 20% of our overall trade and it would really be a question of whether the costs associated with the potential fee on our vessels given our ratio would make sense for us or whether we would redirect our vessels currently.

We don't have any plans, but I think coming back to my point a little before, that I think an integrated platform like ourselves where actually we have, I would say, the highest degree of flexibility about where we maneuver our fees, I'm comfortable in saying that I think that this will be something that I would rather be without.

I think it's going to be costly for the refiners and for that industry.

But how it will all play out whether you will have lower U.S. volumes because it will simply not make sense for the U.S. refiners to, I would say, crack their oil and have refined products which is not competitive in the global market because all landed costs for the product plus insurance plus rate will be non-competitive compared to others and that others will then raise.

I think that dynamic is yet to be seen. and we will, basically, just again be a receiver of that and maneuver in it.

Right.

Thank you, Jacob.

I appreciate the comments.

I'll pass it back.

Bendik Nyttingness, Clarksons Securities.

Thank you.

I have a quick one on growth or (inaudible) you going forward.

It seems to be quite a slip in activity in the fourth quarter compared to the last two years for you guys and for the market in general when it comes to some deals.

But how do you view this going forward?

Should we expect fair trade to be the main theme for the next few months or do you expect any larger type of transactions?

Thank you, Ben.

Jacob here.

Looking forward, I think it's going to be depending on the circumstances.

But I think looking a little back and thinking through your good point around that the liquidity in the market, the secondary market on sale and purchase in the fourth quarter was significantly lower than what we had then experienced for let's say a number of years.

And I think the fact is that when prices recalibrate no now, a step change down, to healthy rates in a historical sense and good rates for coming like ourselves, but lower than what they were, I think the market and potential buyers and sellers simply need to be comfortable that you have found a new level.

And then transactions, in my opinion, will start to creep up.

I think a testament to that is that we have sold here, very recently, three vessels of vintage 2005.

So I think that liquidity comes back when both the earning potential and prices, they recalibrate from where they were.

Are we then at that point now?

Let's just argue that that is the case, then I think we will see that there will be more meeting of mind between buyers and sellers and that you will have an optic in volume on transactions.

But time will tell.

But I think this quite explains.

And I think our markets on S&P behaves pretty much like we all understand real estate markets.

When there's a shock to, let's say, the price of houses or apartments, I mean those markets tend to also come to a grind because people need to evaluate, okay, what is then the next clearance price.

And I think it's very much the same here.

Thank you, Jacob.

That makes total sense.

There are no more questions.

I will now turn the conference back over to CEO, Jacob Meldgaard, for closing remarks.

Thanks to all of you for listening in to the presentation of the end report 2024 for TORM.

Thank you.