Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for joining us today.

As CEO of bpost, I'm pleased to welcome you to our second quarter results presentation. Joining me today are Philippe, our CFO, as well as Alexandra and Antoine from Investor Relations.

The presentation materials were published on our website earlier this morning. We will first take you through the presentation and will then be happy to answer your questions.

As always, we kindly ask you to limit yourself to two questions each to ensure everyone has the opportunity to participate during the call. Philippe will first take you through our Q2 financial performance.

I will then come back to provide an update on the progress of our key strategic and transformation initiatives during the first half of the year, and conclude with our outlook for the remainder of 2026. Philippe, over to you.

Thank you, Chris, and good morning, everyone. As you can see from the highlights on page 3, group operating income for the second quarter amounted to €1 billion 46 million, representing a year-on-year decrease of €46 million or 4%.

Most of this decline was driven by E-Logistics. In addition to the accelerating structural decline in mail volumes, which reached almost 17% during the quarter, parcel volume also contracted by around 9%, reflecting the impact of the five-week strike that took place through April and which we first discussed with you in early May during our Q1 presentation.

At the same time, PaLo delivered solid top-line growth of +6.5% in Europe, helping to offset both the impact of the previously announced customer churn at Radial US and temporary revenue pressure at Staci Americas. At Landmark Global, revenue was slightly lower year-on-year, mainly reflecting the impact of the domestic strike on inbound flows from Asia to Belgium.

Turning to our adjusted EBIT of €29.4 million with respect to the EBIT strike impact, you can see that our estimate now stands at €25.5 million, compared with approximately €15 million when we first communicated on the matter early May, shortly after the end of the strike. Since then, contractual penalties, compensation, and other short-term effects have continued to increase the overall impact.

Excluding this strike impact, the year-on-year decline was limited to around €3 million, which is better than we had anticipated. Indeed, despite the termination of the 679 activities and the accelerated decline in mail volumes weighing on bpost profitability, group's underlying performance remained relatively resilient.

This resilience was supported by continued EBIT growth at PaLo despite ongoing top-line pressure in the US, as well as by the positive contribution from the reorganization and operational measures implemented in Belgium. While these factors were not sufficient to offset the exceptional risk impact, they demonstrate the continued effectiveness of our transformation initiatives and the underlying strength of the business.

The strike impact nevertheless has a material effect on our full-year outlook and takes us below our initial guidance range. Chris will come back to this point in details in a few minutes.

Before turning to the performance of our business unit, let me highlight, as shown on slide 4, that beyond the evolution of EBIT, our adjusted net profit benefited from a €19 million improvement in financial results. This improvement was mainly driven by unfavorable non-cash FX effects last year, as well as higher net income from our treasury investment this year.

These positive effects were partially offset by higher interest expense relating to the bond issued in June '25. With that, let me turn to the performance of our business unit.

I'm now on slide 5, covering bpost segment. Revenue declined by €43 million year-on-year to €493 million.

Domestic mail revenues decreased by €29 million or -10.4%. Mail and Press volume contracted by 16.8% during the quarter, compared to only -11.3% last year and 14.3% in Q1, and in line with the mid-teens volume decline guidance we provided earlier this year.

The accelerated decline mainly reflects lower transactional mail volumes following the introduction of the mandatory B2B invoicing at the beginning of the year, as well as the termination of several advertising contracts. Overall, mail volume decline had a negative revenue impact of around €45 million, partially offset by a positive price and mix effect of €16 million or 6.4%.

Parcel revenues decreased by €10 million or -7.9% year-on-year, reflecting a volume decline of -9.2%, compared to a growth of +9.3% in Q1, alongside with a positive price-mix effect of 1.3%. As discussed during our analyst call in May, parcel volume declined by around 27% in April as a direct result of the strike.

These figures does not include cross-border volume with destination Belgium, which are reported within the Landmark Global that I will comment in a few minutes. Following the end of the strike, we observed a gradual recovery in customer volume, with activity improving week after week.

By the end of the quarter, volumes were broadly back in line with last year. However, this means that we have not returned yet to the underlying growth trajectory we were experiencing before the strike, and particularly in the first quarter.

Turning to price-mix, the positive effect during the quarter was driven by a favorable product and customer mix effect during the strike period, as large customers did not inject their usual volume, as well as a temporary fuel surcharge. These positive effects were partially offset by contractual penalties and commercial claims related to the service quality issue during the strike.

Finally, revenues from other activity, including retail, value-added services, and proximity logistics, declined by €4 million year-on-year. This mainly reflects lower revenue following the termination of the 679 activities at the beginning of the year, as well as lower revenue from Fine Solutions, partially offset by higher revenue at DynaGroup.

Let's move to the P&L of bpost on page 6. Including intersegment revenue from inbound cross-border volume processed through the domestic network, total operating income declined by €44 million or -7.1% year-on-year.

On the cost side, opex, including D&A, decreased by €21 million or -3.9%, mainly driven by two opposing effects. First, we reduced our workforce by approximately 1,500 FTEs and interim staff, representing a decrease of around 6.5%.

This reflects the benefits of the ongoing reorganization of our distribution rounds and retail operations. Second, these savings were partially offset by higher salary costs per FTE, which increased by 2% year-on-year following the March '26 salary indexation.

This impact was slightly mitigated by unpaid absences during strikes. As a result, the adjusted EBIT declined by €23 million year-on-year.

This includes around €24 million of strike impact, which, together with the termination of the 679 contract, more than offset the continued productivity gains delivered throughout our ongoing reorganization initiative. Turning to PaLo on slide 7, as in previous quarters, the performance reflects two contrasting trends.

At PaLo Europe, revenues slightly increased by 3% year-on-year. Across our European businesses and geographies, we delivered a growth of around 6.5%, compared with 4% in Q1 '26, with several activities continuing to grow at high single-digit rates.

This positive momentum was partially offset by the performance of Staci Americas, which is reported under PaLo Europe. Following a contract termination announced in the fourth quarter, year-on-year revenues continue to decline significantly during the first quarter, further impacted by adverse FX effects of around €1.5 million.

At PaLo North America, revenues declined by €9 million. At constant exchange rate, this corresponds to a -3% decrease, driven by three factors.

First, the expected revenue churn from customer contract termination announced last year. Second, low single-digit negative same-store sales, although this is a slight improvement compared to the first quarter of '26.

Third, these effects were partially offset by the contribution from recently signed customers, which generated around €23 million of revenue during the quarter. Let's move to the P&L of PaLo on slide 8.

Against this backdrop, total operating income remained nearly stable year-on-year, while operating expense, including D&A, slightly decreased. The development of our cost base reflects the contrasting trends across PaLo geographies, with continued growth in Europe on one hand and lower activity level in the US on the other hand.

Importantly, despite continued revenue pressure in the US, we have maintained a resilient cost structure. Variable contribution margin remains solid, while additional fixed cost and headcount actions continue to support the profitability.

As a result, adjusted EBIT increased by €2 million to €23 million in the quarter, driven by top-line growth and productivity gains in Europe, and cost measures and real estate optimization in North America helping to mitigate the impact of the continued top-line pressure. Turning now to Landmark Global on slide 9, at Landmark Global, underlying market trends remain unchanged.

However, top-line performance was flat year-on-year, as domestic strike at bpost negatively impacted parcel volume from Asia into Belgium. Volumes were lost to competition during April and remained under pressure in May, while operations progressively returned to normal.

On a more positive note, June delivered a strong recovery, and growth resumed towards end of the quarter. Other European destinations were not impacted by the strike and continued to develop broadly in line with previous quarter.

At Landmark North America, revenue was slightly up year-on-year at constant exchange rate. This reflects on one hand modest volume growth in the context of a macroeconomic slowdown, and on the other hand an unfavorable mix effects driven by a higher proportion of US domestic volumes and lower Canada-to-US volumes.

Overall, Landmark Global operating income decreased by €2 million or 1.6% year-on-year. As shown on slide 10, opex and D&A increased by 3%, primarily reflecting higher transportation costs linked to volume growth, as well as higher corporate and ICT charges.

As a result, despite underlying growth across most of our commercial activities, adjusted EBIT decreased by €6 million to just under €17 million, reflecting a strike impact of around €1.5 million, an unfavorable mix effect both in Europe with higher share of commercial products versus postal volumes, and in North America with higher proportion of US domestic volume and lower US-Canada cross-border flows, and higher intersegment charges. Moving on to Corporate segment on slide 11, adjusted EBIT was slightly lower at -€10 million, primarily reflecting higher marketing and communication and rebranding investment during the quarter.

At the same time, we continue to exercise cost discipline, reducing our workforce by around 2%, while absorbing the annual salary indexation of approximately 2%. Let me now turn to cash flow on slide 12.

Net cash outflow for the quarter amounted to €19 million, compared with an inflow of approximately €480 million in the prior-year period, which benefited from the bond issuance completed in June '25. Excluding this financing effect, free cash flow remained broadly stable year-on-year.

The main drivers were the following: first, cash flow from operating activities before change in working capital, amounting to €107 million, representing a decrease of €27 million year-on-year, mainly reflecting lower EBITDA. Second, changes in working capital and provision resulted in an outflow of €95 million.

Compared with last year, this represents a positive year-on-year variance of €29 million, primarily driven by the timing of terminal dues settlement and movement in suppliers' balances. Third, net cash outflow from investing activities amounted to €30 million and remained broadly stable year-on-year.

Investments continue to focus on parcel lockers and capacity expansion, the renewal of our domestic fleet, and further development of our international e-commerce logistics activities. Together, these elements largely explain the evolution of the free cash flow during the quarter.

Finally, net cash outflow from financing activities totaled €73 million. Excluding the proceeds from last year's bond issuance, the higher outflow mainly reflects the annual coupon payment of €26 million associated with the bond issued in June '25.

Chris, over to you.

Thank you, Philippe. I'm on slide 13 with Strategy and Transformation Highlights.

At bpost, overall, the April strikes created significant operational disruption during the first half of the year. At the same time, execution of our transformation agenda continued, with strong progress across the majority of our transformation initiatives translating into concrete results.

Importantly, these results further validate the strategic direction we have set for the group. Despite the April strikes, the transformation towards a parcel-led operating model remains firmly on track.

Following successful pilots, we're now moving into the scaling phase. September marks an important milestone as we roll out later distribution start times and expand the new dynamic distribution model from 4 to 23 distribution offices.

We are further strengthening our leadership position in out-of-home through Belgium's densest locker network. We're well on track to reach our accelerated year-end target of 3,500 lockers, with only around 100 locations remaining.

At the same time, locker utilization continues to increase strongly, further reinforcing our multichannel proposition for both consumers and businesses. Our retail network transformation progresses further through the introduction of new products, services, and partnerships.

Over the past months, we successfully launched nationwide partnerships with Digi, a telecom operator, and the home security provider Verisure, strengthening the relevance and value proposition of our retail network. Nevertheless, progress has been somewhat slower than initially planned due to the ongoing discussions on the eighth management contract.

Finally, our transport activities continue to gain momentum as a new growth platform. We are steadily expanding the pilot, now serving more than 20 internal and external customers with over 150 volunteer drivers.

This allows us to further validate and refine the operating model under real operating conditions while preparing for future scaling. Turning now to PaLo and Landmark Global on page 14, across our international business, we continue to make progress against our strategic priorities, while each business faces a different set of challenges impacting the pace of progress.

At PaLo, commercial development has progressed more slowly than initially anticipated, and accelerating top-line growth remains a key priority. At the same time, our commercial pipeline continues to strengthen, particularly at PaLo Europe, and disciplined cost management has helped protect profitability at PaLo North America.

At Landmark Global, our business demonstrates strong resilience, maintaining volumes and defending our key trade lanes despite increasing trade barriers and the temporary disruption caused by the new €3 EU import fee. We're not yet delivering the top-line growth ambition embedded in our plans, hence protecting profitability remains our immediate priority.

To do so, we continue to implement structural cost measures, including workforce reduction and real estate optimization. In parallel, we further execute our mid-market penetration strategy, diversifying our customer portfolio and reducing our dependence on a limited number of large customers.

At PaLo Europe, the commercial transformation is progressing more slowly than initially anticipated. Nevertheless, the commercial action plan introduced by the new BU CEO early this year is beginning to generate encouraging momentum, with increased commercial collaboration and cross-selling across the organization, yielding a sustained strengthening of the commercial pipeline.

In parallel, we are leveraging proven Staci capabilities to accelerate the turnaround of selected legacy sites and customer contracts. Finally, at Landmark Global, we demonstrate a strong resilience despite increasing trade barriers and the temporary market disruption following the introduction of the new €3 EU import fee.

Through targeted commercial actions, we successfully restored China-Belgium volumes following the April strike and largely mitigated the impact of the new €3 EU import fee. We did so by increasing our volume share with leading Asian platforms and marketplaces, further strengthening our position in one of our most important cross-border trade lanes.

As you can see, our Reshape 2029 strategy continues to advance across all pillars. Let me now translate this operational progress into financial performance.

Philippe has just walked you through our Q2 results. Taking a step back and looking at the first half as a whole, three key observations stand out in terms of revenue development.

First, a significant portion of the group's revenue decline of around €100 million is attributable to our US-based 3PL activity at PaLo. Combined, Radial US and Staci Americas saw revenue decline by around €62 million year-on-year or -14%, including a negative foreign exchange impact of approximately -6%.

This decline was only partly offset by the strong performance of our European 3PL businesses, which delivered growth of more than €20 million or slightly above 5%. Second, at Landmark Global, we continue to grow volumes despite a demanding market environment.

Revenue growth was more modest due to product mix effects, but overall activity levels showed resilience. Third, at bpost, the anticipated acceleration in mail volume decline to approximately -15% resulted in a revenue reduction of around €50 million.

Under normal circumstances, part of this impact would have been offset by continued parcel growth. However, the five-week April strike disrupted that trajectory.

Despite a strong first quarter and a gradual recovery in volumes following the strike, during which parcel volume fell by 27% in April, first-half parcel revenue ended slightly below last year, resulting in an overall parcel revenue decline of around €3 million. Turning now to EBIT, at bpost, and adjusting for the February 2025 and April 2026 strike impacts, EBIT declined by €15 million year-on-year, while profitability continued to be affected by the structural decline in mail volumes and the termination of the high-margin 679 contract.

A meaningful part of these headwinds was offset by the benefits delivered through our ongoing reorganization initiatives and efficiency measures. At Landmark Global, EBIT declined by around €10 million, excluding strike effects.

This was despite resilient top-line performance and was mainly driven by an unfavorable business mix evolution both in Europe and in the US. The positive highlight comes from PaLo.

Despite a revenue decline of approximately €40 million or -5%, largely attributable to the US activity, PaLo delivered EBIT growth of around €6 million, together with a margin improvement. While commercial momentum remains below our ambition and there is still work to do, this performance demonstrates that the actions implemented over recent quarters are moving the business in the right direction.

This overview of our first-half performance brings me to the outlook update for 2026. I am on slide 15.

Based on our first-half results and our current view of the business, we are today revising our full-year '26 adjusted EBIT outlook to approximately €140 million. You will recall that earlier this year, we communicated an initial EBIT guidance range of €165 to €195 million, with a midpoint of €180 million.

What has changed since then? The first element is the April strike impact, which we could not anticipate and is now estimated at approximately €25 million.

Mechanically, this brings the midpoint of our guidance range from €180 million to €155 million, and implies a strike-adjusted range of €140 to €170 million. The second element mainly relates to PaLo.

As I have just discussed, commercial development at PaLo is progressing more slowly than initially anticipated. While our first-half performance at group level was broadly in line with our expectations, excluding the strike effects, a meaningful portion of our EBIT plan for the second half relied on new business ramp-ups and commercial initiatives that are now expected to materialize later than initially planned.

We estimate the resulting EBIT shortfall at approximately €20 million, to be mitigated by around €5 million of additional corporate cost-saving initiatives, resulting in a net EBIT impact of around €15 million. If you think about the guidance revision, there is really two distinct steps: first, the mechanical adjustment reflecting the update strike impact, and second, the lower-than-expected contribution from commercial development at PaLo, consistent with the trends we have observed during the first half of the year.

Put differently, our current expectation of around €140 million corresponds broadly to the lower end of our initial guidance range adjusted for the €25 million strike impact. With this, we are now ready to take your questions.

Again, two questions each, please, so that everyone gets the chance to be addressed during the session. Operator, please open the lines.

Yes, hi, and thanks for taking my questions. I have two on the PaLo business, please, one on Europe and one on the US.

First on Europe, as we filter out, of course, the customer loss that you had in the US, your growth improved to 6.5%. Then if I look at the guidance, you mentioned that you expect some slower development of business activities in France.

What do you mean with this exactly? Is that new customer onboardings or new pillars?

If you can elaborate a bit on that, because it's a bit different than what we've seen in the second quarter. Then the second question is on Radial US.

During the Capital Markets Day, you were quite positive on these new customer onboardings, these smaller customers. Now that seems to be trending a bit below your expectations.

Can you tell me a bit what the pushback or what the reasons are for this? Why is it more difficult than you originally expected?

Or is it just a bit of a delay of a phasing that you just see that some contracts are being postponed into 2027? If you just can comment a bit on those topics, please.

You take US?

Yes.

On Europe, indeed, thank you for question first. Indeed, your analysis is perfectly right.

Despite a growth of 6.5% in Europe, we are seeing that in France, particularly, the development is not at the level that we're expecting. That we have a point-of-sale activity, which is not growing, the sector in general is not growing very fast.

We are experiencing some delays in onboarding new customers for new services. It's not that it will not happen.

It's, I would say, a delay in onboarding those customers.

On the US, indeed, when we launched the Fast Track product, we had a very good traction in the initial part of that. If we now take back the analysis, a part of that was actually due to the fact that the tariffs inclined a number of retailers from outside of the US that were importing directly towards consumers, and a couple of fashion brands that started to do local fulfillment.

We could benefit from that momentum that was there at that moment. We estimated, based on that, to some extent, let's say, overexaggerated the growth curve that we could expect going forward.

That rebalanced in terms of tariff later on, which means, actually, that the pipeline was less filled with these kind of opportunities, and therefore, it's developing a bit slower than our expectation that we had at the moment that we made the Capital Markets Day announcement.

Okay. If I can quickly follow up again on Europe, you mentioned some delays on new customer onboardings.

If you look at the growth of existing customers, the 6.5%, can you break this down a bit? What part is maybe Radial Europe fulfillment, and which part is Staci?

Based on your comments, I would expect this growth rate to come down again in the second half of the year. Is that correct?

In fact, when we speaking about operating in Europe, now we operate as one. All the activities we told you, we move from an organization just post-acquisition, where in every countries we had former Staci, former Radial, former Active Ants.

Now, since the beginning of the year, we really operating those country as one, and all the sales force, all the warehouses are operated as one. It's very difficult to make the split, and frankly, for us, it does not make much sense to continue looking what was further Staci customers versus further Radial customers.

We made that acquisition to reinforce our presence in Europe in all the geographies where we're present, and we added some, and it's exactly what is happening. Particularly to France, in fact, there are two elements that are penalizing us.

As I said, there were no former activities from Radial or Active Ants. Despite the fact that we want to bring that knowledge on e-commerce into France, which is a competence that Staci did not have, there it's a bit more difficult to penetrate that market of e-com in France so far.

While at the same time, the POSM, which is the core of the business we still having in France, which is really not a growing business, the business as a whole is at best stable, there is limited growth coming from that kind of activity.

It's very clear. Thank you.

Welcome.

Yes, good morning. My first question is on the strike impact, the €25 million negative.

Is this it, or is there any risk of a sort of delayed impact from maybe penalties or loss of market share? Could you elaborate on that?

My second question is on the parcel volume growth. We're back to flattish in May-June.

What have you baked into your guidance? What do you assume for the second half?

Do you expect to return to growth? How much growth?

Thank you.

Okay. On the €25 million, more or less everything that we had to include is included by now.

If we look at the effects that we had was, of course, the direct strike impact during the period itself. Then you had a strong decline on the number of clients, of which for most of them, we could regain their trust, and they are in a normal operating mode again.

Some of them took a bit of time, because we had two effects there. One effect was that some said, "First you have to fully clean up the backlog before we start to reinject with you," and that took some time.

Some other ones had contracted with other players for a certain period of time an agreement for them the last mile, and so it took before that contract ended before they came back. At this point of time, we have fully recovered of that.

Second thing that you mentioned there in terms of penalties, most of the negotiations are in a final state, meaning that legal documents have to be finalized, but I think that the agreements are more or less finalized for most of those penalties, and we don't expect new penalties to come in.

When it comes to parcels growth for the second half, we expect, in line with our initial guidance, a low single-digit growth.

A low single-digit for the second half, not for the full year, but for the second half?

No, for the second half.

Yes, okay. Exactly.

All right. Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

I'm afraid I just want to follow up on the question from my colleague on PaLo. To me, it's not yet quite clear if the slowdown or the delays in commercial development is kind of structural, or is it just kind of a delay and that the volume or the revenues will come later?

For PaLo US, I've got to say from what you said, it seemed more like a structural slowdown, it's not really a delay, but that your initial expectations were just too optimistic, and thus it's not really a delay, but really less revenues to be expected going forward. For PaLo Europe, you said that there's delays in onboarding new customers, and could you maybe elaborate a bit on what is causing these delays?

Is it just kind of a operational delays, is it maybe due to, I don't know, France-specific issues, or is this also some kind of a structural delay that will lead to lower revenues going forward? That's my first question, and I recognize it's kind of a couple of sub-questions in there.

The second question would be on Landmark Global. Could you maybe give us a bit of feeling how H2 might develop for Landmark Global?

I believe for H1, we're significantly below last year, even excluding strike impact. Will you catch up on this a bit on H2, or should we more or less factor in the same delta for H2 on profits we saw in H1?

That's my two questions. Thank you.

Let me start with

thank you for your question, Marc. Let me start with the the second one on Landmark.

In fact, when we we issued a guidance, we issue a guidance of mid-single-digit growth with the impact of the strike and all the adverse impact that we have, as Chris mentioned, in the US with the tariff. We are more targeting a low single-digit percentage growth for the for for the top-line development.

This being said, I think it's important to highlight that in terms of of profitability, we we we still maintaining our guidance. We might be at the low end of the range, but still maintaining the guidance, which is still a very healthy profitability at EBIT level.

It should not be underestimated the resilience of the LGI business when we see all the adverse macroeconomic impact that we are facing. There is the one in the US that started it did not start yesterday, it started a bit at the end of last year as well.

Despite that, they have been able to develop new lanes to come directly to Canada and also developing some other new lanes destination Europe. Indeed, it's a bit slower, but I would say intrinsically, I think we we could qualify what Landmark Global is as very resilient, being able to adjust to macroeconomic circumstance and adjust to customer needs.

I'm I'm a bit more positive than what I'm hearing from your question, Marc, on Landmark Global. When it comes to to to PaLo, if I start with the US, it's a question might be a question of terminology of words.

When you speak about delay, yes, there is delay in onboarding new customers, but or is it a permanent loss? No, it's the fact that it takes more time to attract those mid-sized customers.

When we launched that Fast Track product, it really rocketed in in the first quarter, and now it's really plateauing. We have to recognize it.

What also what leads us also to revisit the our service offering: is it the right one? We believe yes, but it's more difficult to attract those customers.

Also, not to be underestimated, the same-store sales impact. In the past, we had a development our our of our best customers that were in the positive territories.

Of course, it's come because you are serving them well, and they stay with you, but you also benefit from their inherent growth of their business, while since several quarters now, we see that the same-store sales is really in the negative territories. As I mentioned, slightly let's to make to be very simple, we experienced a -5% in the first quarter, we experienced a -4% in the second one.

It's a small improvement, but it's still in the negative territories, and that affects us in terms of of top-line quite significantly. When it comes to to France, I I would say I will repeat what I said to Frank.

It's more like we are trying to bring new type of services on the French market, what takes more time than expected. Our presence there were merely no mostly known for the POSM.

We're bringing new customers. When you bring a new type of service offering based on new competencies, it takes some time, a bit more time.

You need to convince some existing customers also to to to give us those e-commerce type of businesses, but it doesn't come overnight. We are still very confident that we prevail, but it's taking it's really a question of delay, I would say, on that one.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, all, and thanks for taking my questions. I'm afraid it's on PaLo as well.

Chris, it's more like a clarification question I have. In your final remarks on the outlook for the current year, for the second half year of PaLo, I got the impression that when you referred to delays in commercial, in new contracts and that sort of things, does that relate to contracts that have already been signed and have not kicked in yet?

Or is it reflecting the fact that you hope to sign on and to onboard new clients somewhere in the course of the second half year? That was a little bit unclear, perhaps you could clarify that.

The second question I have is you also referred to the fact that you've made a lot of progress in getting back volumes, especially from the Chinese platforms. That is, of course, helping Landmark and with the favorable position of Liège and Brussels as European hubs.

I guess that should offer a little bit of help. Is there a crossover in the direction of PaLo as well?

The Chinese, some of them have advocated local warehousing, local fulfillment. Is that something you expect to be able to benefit from?

Those were my questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Henk. On the first one, in terms of delays, the way how we have brought it into our outlook is that we looked at a pipeline and the conversion rate, which is a fairly healthy conversion rate that we have seen over the last time.

It's not all signed contracts, but a applied conversion rate that we have on a fairly healthy portfolio in terms of different stages that we see within that pipeline. That's always the way how we've done it.

There's a mix of some things might be signed, some things might be in negotiation, but on each of those different steps within our pipeline, we apply a conversion rate towards the final contract and, of course, a risk mitigation, because typically, people announce more volume than they really do in practice later on. That's also an effect that we see, we correct for these effects.

That's the way how it was built up. It's a mix of the two, on which we applied conversion rates on the different stages in the pipeline that we are developing.

If you look at the volume that we see happening, there, I think that, indeed, of course, we benefit from the fact that Liège Airport is a very important hub for the Chinese volumes coming in. The €3 impact, as you have probably seen in the press, was written in the press that there was a serious decline in the volumes coming in.

We could benefit from that situation and, by commercial action, capture a disproportionate share of the part that was still coming in. Meanwhile, indeed, we are in conversation with a couple of people, but it's too early to make any announcement on that, that are looking for opportunities for closer to delivery market fulfillment opportunities.

As many of them have announced warehouses, some are actually opening warehouses almost as we speak. In that discussion, of course, PaLo is in the discussion of multiple parties over there as well.

Okay. Sorry, perhaps I can squeeze in a follow-up, Chris.

When I look at earlier reports by, for example, PostNL and CTT, I sense an increased activity in the field of opening warehouses and fulfillment centers elsewhere as well. Do you see increased competition in that?

You already referred to the Chinese that are coming. Is it something that is of any concern to you, or is the power of the Active Ants and Radials and that sort of things, is it so strong that you say, "Okay, well, we'll manage that, it won't affect us"?

I would say overall market growth is good for PaLo Europe, depending, of course, on the different markets. We don't have the same strength of position in each of the markets, but typically, if a market grows, it's beneficial for us, because it means that our conversion rates in our pipeline are better at that moment of time.

As long as you hear that there is more activity coming to the European market, it's typically a positive signal for the, let's say, quality and the healthiness of our pipeline.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning, thanks for taking my questions. I've got a couple.

The first one is on the de minimis. How do you assess the risk from new European regulation, especially in your Landmark business?

You were mentioning that June was actually quite good. Do we think that that was a sort of front-loading of volumes?

How do you think that the Landmark business will adjust or react to the de minimis? Do we think the second half is going to be challenging?

Then my second question is on the new management contract on retail activities. If you could please remind us when does that expire, what is the risk around this contract, what is the revenue that needs to be renegotiated?

Thank you.

Yeah. On the de minimis, June was pre the €3 import fee, the European import fee, and so it was a very strong month, which showed that we could rebound from the strike.

For us, that was more a sign that we could strongly rebound from the strike. What we see now, as I just already mentioned and it was already in a number of publications, there was a hefty reduction of the import volumes in the first weeks after the €3 import.

You see that the Chinese platforms not have yet fully adapted to that reality, meaning that neither local fulfillment has been completely delivered to them, neither they could compensate by commercial actions the impact of that €3. That being said, the position of Landmark Global was very strong during the month of July as far as we can see.

That means that we actually are quite optimistic that, relatively speaking to that market, that we actually are fairly competitive going forward, but it's not yet played out fully what the end game is of this €3. The €3 rebounds after the 40%, which typically seen that volumes gradually will come back, not fully, and some of that will go to local fulfillment, and so how that balances out is a little bit difficult to have a real view on that.

Second thing, of course, that we should not forget is there's a handling fee coming in later this year, and so that as well could have a second effect on that volume in that market, and that's an element, of course, that we will watch carefully and where, as well, our commercial teams are preparing well to ensure that we don't have negative effects on the side of Landmark. Can you go on the government contract?

On the management contract, it will end at the end of this year. The management contract in the past, which is, when I say in the past, the current one, generates €150 million of revenue.

The government has expressed its willingness to reduce that amount by €50 million. It's public.

It's public information. They said for to reach their budget, they want to reduce it, and we are in negotiation with the government to see how we could implement that, because for us, it's quite obvious that the reduction in the top-line will not lead to a loss of €50 million of EBIT.

We will not absorb that reduction of top-line by maintaining the same services. We are discussing with the government to see how, under which modalities, we want to reshape the portfolio of services to reflect the fact that the top-line will move from €150 to €100 million.

Thank you. On this, there is no risk that the whole of the €150 million disappears, you can confirm that we should be quite relaxed that we only get a €50 million reduction, right?

There is no further risk on it, it's more a negotiation on the services and cost base.

It's a statement in the government agreement, and that was also made public at the moment that this government started to operate. It's seldom that you see big changes towards a delicate government agreement, because then you would question all the elements in a very large government agreement, it's indeed a very low risk that that would change going forward.

It's not something, as it is a political decision, it's not something that can be fully excluded, but it would be strange that something which is written in hard text in a government agreement, that would drastically change during the course of that government.

During the discussion that we have, we are speaking about how to implement this €50 million reduction, it's not a question of could be go to zero.

Thank you very much.