Thank you, and good morning from Sydney. Presenting with me today is Warrick Ranson, our CFO.

Rob Thompson, our Global President for the Metal Business, is also in the room, and I'm sure we will hear from Rob during the Q&A session. We will follow our normal run-through with me providing an initial overview of the results and market conditions.

Warrick will take us through the numbers in more detail, and then I will return to talk about our strategic position and outlook. That should leave us plenty of time for questions.

I will turn straight to slide 5, which looks at our strategy and strategic priorities. The fundamentals of our strategy have not changed: to repurpose and recycle.

We have, however, updated the left-hand part of this slide to reflect the significant growth in importance of SLS to our overall business. A couple of examples: under customers, we now specifically call out "deepen hyperscale partnerships."

Under the heading of "innovative and agile," we now include the importance of R&D for SLS to capitalize on opportunities from the next generation of technologies. Consistently delivering on this strategy over the last 3 years has underpinned the EBITDA performance shown on the slide.

All divisions, with the exception of ANZ, which has been impacted by factors external to its control, are up significantly on last year. I am very pleased to report a return on invested capital above our cost of capital.

Turning to slide 6, another very good year of safety performance, with our total recordable injury frequency rate at 1.09. These results could not be achieved without the buy-in from our employees, and you can see this in the excellent completion rates of our lead indicator safety metrics.

A couple of other points to note on the slide: firstly, it can be easy to forget the significant contribution we make to reducing greenhouse gases. As the global economy transitions toward net zero, circular solutions such as recycling are becoming increasingly important.

By recycling 5.9 million tons of ferrous, we helped avoid more than 9.5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. That is approximately 1.6 times our combined Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

The final point I'll highlight is that our pay equity gap percentage has fallen to under 2%. 5 years ago, we had a pay equity gap of over 9%, it's very pleasing to see the progress.

Moving briefly onto slide 7, as the detail behind this slide is covered later on. In our metal business, we grew unprocessed scrap by 2 percentage points, which helped lift our shredder utilization by 5 percentage points.

SLS had significant growth across the entire business, including a 91% growth in repurposed units. Warrick is going to cover financial performance in detail, I am only going to make a couple of overall comments on slide 8.

It has been a very good year for Sims. Underlying EBIT is up nearly 170% to $468 million.

This has fed through to our return on invested capital reaching 11.7%, which is comfortably above our cost of capital. I know return on capital has been a focus for our shareholders for a number of years, it is pleasing to see our strategy delivering.

This significant lift in performance has been delivered through positioning SLS as a world leader in data center refresh and decommissioning services, focusing on buying unprocessed scrap and upgrading it to more valuable products through excellent operating capabilities, selling into the best available markets, and managing costs. The next 4 slides look at the state of the markets in which we operate, starting with the memory market on slide 9.

These 2 very simple charts tell the story. Firstly, on the left, you can see the decline in new production of DDR4s.

At the same time, you can see the rapid rise in DDR5 production as manufacturers have switched from DDR4 to higher-margin DDR5 chips in an effort to meet the insatiable appetite for memory driven by AI. This has resulted in 2 very positive implications for SLS.

Firstly, as DDR4 production has declined, the price of new DDR4s has increased significantly, which is clearly shown in the chart on the right. The demand for DDR4s hasn't gone away, the requirement for used DDR4s has also increased dramatically, driving those prices up as well.

Secondly, the enormous amount of installed DDR5s will need to be refreshed over the coming years and also repurposed, either back into data centers or sold into the used market. This provides many years of repurposing opportunities for us, and we are well positioned to capture those opportunities.

While the medium- and long-term implications of massive data center expansions are clearly positive for SLS, we are seeing a short-term variability in the refresh cycles. This is presented on slide 10.

Firstly, on the right-hand side, there is a bar chart showing the annual investment in data centers. Importantly, around 60% of total spend is on compute infrastructure, including servers, chips, networking equipment, and related technology.

Right now, the infrastructure capacity to build these data centers is under significant pressure. There are a few bottlenecks causing delays, with a significant one being the availability of both the electrical connection and then the electricity itself.

This, in turn, has caused variability in when existing data centers are ready to be refreshed, particularly when they also need electrical capacity upgrades. It is important to note that this impacts timing of refresh cycles, not whether the refresh will actually happen.

Moving on to the metal markets and firstly non-ferrous on slide 11. The structural drivers have been strong for 2 years now, and our view is that these drivers will remain.

Just to highlight 2 or 3 of those drivers: AI infrastructure requires copper and aluminum, driving those commodity prices up, which also benefits zorba prices. The electrification of the world continues at pace, requiring conductive materials such as copper and aluminum.

Looking at the chart on the right, you can see the growing gap between US aluminum prices and the LME, largely driven by US tariffs. We are nicely exposed to these higher prices through our US metal businesses.

It is also worth noting that on a number of occasions, due to our marketing expertise, we have sold non-ferrous from ANZ into the US and have been able to absorb the tariff. Turning now to ferrous on slide 12.

The headline captures the market dynamics. In the US, we have tariffs protecting the steel industry and encouraging the reshoring of manufacturing.

This has lifted margins in steel manufacturing and is driving investment in EAFs. Data center construction is also boosting demand for steel.

Both NAM and SAR are well positioned for this market structure and the increased demand for ferrous material. ANZ continues to be impacted by Chinese exports, although there has been an overall modest improvement.

At a very local level, the shuttering of Whyalla has increased domestic demand for ferrous scrap. I'll hand over to Warrick now to take us through the financials.

Good morning, everyone. As Stephen mentioned, global scrap markets for the 2026 financial year reflected a number of dynamics.

While the ongoing shift toward electric arc furnaces fueled steady buying in a number of regions, broader commercial construction activity remained soft outside of data center development. Regional restrictions and stricter trade controls tightened cross-border supply chains; however, elevated Chinese steel exports, despite some production rationalization, continued to dampen Asian and Middle East buying, with demand from Türkiye remaining soft as buyers switched to cheap Chinese and Russian billet late in the year.

At the same time, we saw copper prices surge, driven by a relentless demand for AI-related activities, green energy grids, and EV infrastructure, and hit record highs in the year. Tight primary ore supplies and tariff expectations further amplified bidding for secondary copper.

Similarly, geopolitical conflict in the Middle East created primary aluminum supply crunches, pushing global buyers towards aluminum scrap substitution and boosting values despite regional trade friction. Zorba pricing peaked across May and June as a result, adding significantly to our overall financial performance for the year.

As we noted at the half, with both export and domestic markets exposed to global scrap dynamics, we continue to leverage the arbitrage in our key domestic and international markets and sold volume proactively between the two to maximize margins, again reflecting the significant agility and flexibility embedded within both our inbound and outbound logistic chains. Concurrently, our total repurposed units handled this year was nearly double the prior year's volume.

Prices for new DDR4 memory continue to increase exponentially, with our market reference price finishing the year over 1,000% above the prior year as demand continue to increase against diminished supply, with manufacturing shortfalls and a focus on new generation cards continuing to uplift repurposing and resale activities. Across the business, we continue to deliver disciplined cost efficiency initiatives.

Current activities such as moving to a global shared services platform and the operational changes now implemented for our Houston operations will continue to drive cost and performance improvements in the business. Our average metal fixed cost per intake ton fell as we capitalize further on existing infrastructure and improved material flows.

I'll come back and talk further about our cost performance shortly. Our statutory result reflects those targeted restructuring initiatives and a slightly lower number than what we had at the half for the writedown of the UK metal receivable.

We've continued to pursue partial recovery options there where they exist, recouped around $17 million over the last 6 months. Pleasingly, I think we've just about stabilized our statutory-to-underlying position now, and expect to see some consistency in this going forward.

Speaking of underlying and moving to slide 15, I've touched on the principal drivers of most of these already. June was a particularly strong month, surprising us on the upside, and we were able to move additional volume at attractive spreads.

Importantly, that outcome reflected not only favorable market conditions, but also the capability we have built to respond quickly, manage logistics effectively, and place material into the highest-value channel available at the time. While market conditions clearly provided support in a number of areas, the more important point for us is that the business is demonstrating a stronger structural earnings space.

Lower unit costs, better network utilization, greater market optionality, and more disciplined capital allocation leave us better positioned to capture upside in favorable markets while maintaining resilience through commodity cycles. Focusing in on the individual businesses then, and strong performances by both the NAM and SAR businesses absorbed the impact of the continuing market pressures on ANZ.

Global trade reverted to its previous levels as broker tonnage reduced following the winding up of Unimetals in the UK. This year's result effectively represents the cost base of our trading activities to the business.

June itself was an exceptional month for the metal business, surpassing initial expectations from early in the month, as ferrous margins strengthened from favorable market dynamics and non-ferrous volumes and zorba pricing maintained their highs. Similarly, second-hand memory pricing achieved its highest level in the year on a gigabyte basis, albeit on a lower ratio to new prices given the mix.

As Stephen has mentioned, we see some variability in inbound volumes, as data center construction and decommissioning pipelines are consistently challenged by a range of external factors. However, we have deliberately built a flexible operating model, allowing us to adjust cost and activity levels with inbound volumes.

I'll expand on some of the other factors driving these various movements in subsequent slides. Moving to the metal business more specifically and in North America, total intake volumes increased by 240,000 tons over the prior year as we again prioritized unprocessed material, increased shredder utilization, and improved margins.

Intake volumes were also supported by stronger domestic steel demand and higher domestic ferrous prices. Even though we increased the level of domestic shipments in the US, we continue to maintain full optionality over material placement for best value.

While intake levels also added to comparative costs, the team were able to generate a number of offsets through further restructuring and productivity initiatives. Having TCT in Houston is also now giving us the opportunity to better manage spreads in that region and lower the run-rate cost base further.

In ANZ, ferrous margins were again impacted by the subdued international market, which also flowed on to domestic pricing, although we did see some demand benefit from that prolonged outage at Whyalla. Favorable non-ferrous prices provided overall revenue support and helped offset shredder downtime at our St Marys operation in the first quarter.

Notwithstanding elevated consumable input costs, particularly in the areas of fuel and waste disposal, which we felt right across the business, net operating costs continued to be well controlled here, with most of the increase over the prior year related to trading currency losses, which for accounting purposes are classified into operating costs. Non-ferrous and particularly zorba pricing provided our SAR joint venture with a significantly elevated financial performance versus early June expectations.

While ferrous intake reflected a record year following further small-scale acquisitions, the US tariff wall and a surging zorba price ran through to the bottom line, enabling that business to close out the year extremely well. Our global trading platform was also able to keep its costs relatively flat, though saw reduced broker revenue following the cessation of trading activities for Unimetals in the UK early in the year, as I mentioned.

Moving to SLS now, and Stephen's covered several of the drivers here already. As we've noted, the business has experienced significant growth in the number of repurposed units, demonstrating the broader strength of the market, as well as specifically benefiting from the dynamics of memory chip prices, with memory averaging around 30% of hyperscaler spend.

We saw that pick up even further in the second half as the impact of uplifted prices filtered through and repurpose volumes increased, despite the industry's growing pains and planning volatility. Total memory sold on a gigabyte basis fell from prior-year levels as DDR3 volumes reduced, and we repurposed more 16-gigabyte cards in the second half.

Improved unit costs were reflected both volume gains and expansion activities, and the team continues to look at additional opportunities around automation and robotics to support its cost management program. On slide 18, I want to quickly touch on the ongoing strength of the SLS business for us.

While memory pricing has certainly been a primary contributor this year, the business is evolving into much more than that. The structural shift in demand that we are seeing with both hyperscale and enterprise clients in response to this phase of what is effectively the fourth industrial revolution is being matched by both their current need to source an array of components for growth, but also their recognition of the associated circular and economic benefits.

Our deep relationships and proven scalability to respond to this demand in a secure, trusted, and certified manner provides us with confidence about the role that SLS can play in our earnings base going forward. Touching briefly on central and functional costs now, we continue to look for cost-out efforts in this area.

This year, we relocated our corporate office to further reduce costs, as well as began the transition to a new global shared services hub as part of a more extensive shared services model being progressed over the next few years. Following stabilization of the company's SAP platform implementation, project costs fell by nearly $5 million, noting that we continue to incur costs in developing our new yard management software for metal, which we are aiming to commence the rollout of in Q2 this year.

All of these initiatives are expected to contribute to lowering the ongoing cost base and improve consistency of execution. As previously advised, we elected to cease work on the development and commercialization of the plasma-assisted gasification technology that was being undertaken by Sims Resource Renewal during last year.

This further reduced the central cost pool by some $10 to $12 million per year on a full-year basis. Just a heads-up that in this area, commencing in the current financial year, we intend to allocate costs for centrally provided services that are currently unallocated out to the business in order to provide a more comprehensive and focused approach to their management.

This will, of course, result in changes in the comparative performance for the business segments, and will provide additional color across this area as we approach the results for the half in the new year. At a group level, we're once again able to keep total costs relatively flat over the period, limiting the increase to around 5% before variable costs and off that rebased comparative prior year.

Waste management costs continue to be a major contributor to our cost uplift each year, and we are progressing a number of targeted initiatives at extracting the residual metal in this waste and how we reduce volumes to landfill into the future. Variable operating costs increased in line with the increased volume of unprocessed material and higher repurposed units at SLS.

We also experienced higher fuel costs as a result of those Middle East tensions. Labor, of course, remains our largest cost element at around 50% of operating costs, and ongoing labor cost efficiency initiatives continue to provide significant benefits in this area and in line with our previous cost-out commitments.

While we remain focused on all cost opportunities, we maintain the view that our best way to drive further efficiencies in the business is through volume productivity gains and infilling our existing network. We progressed some initial opportunities in this area over the last 6 months in both ANZ and NAM, and expect to progress additional opportunities in this area during FY '27, further improving returns from assets already in the portfolio.

Capital expenditure was significantly higher in the second half as we completed a number of planned initiatives across the business. Redevelopment of the Pinkenba site in Queensland continued, with activities focused on site infrastructure and an extension of the wharf.

We also progressed new fines and metal recovery plants across ANZ, including at Pinkenba and in Auckland, and expect to see the benefits of this flow through to the ANZ result in the current year following commissioning. We also completed our dredging program at Claremont at the beginning of the year, as well as several other productivity initiatives at that site.

Other growth and productivity projects include extensions to rail capacity and network efficiency, together with small yard infill opportunities in both the east and west United States, as well as in Australia, to ensure we get more out of the network we already own. In February this year, outside of those smaller organic growth opportunities, we acquired the operations of Tri-Coastal Trading in Houston to better position ourselves in that market.

Total group depreciation and amortization, inclusive of leased assets, is currently forecast to be around $260 million in FY '27, consistent with the current year. The group completed the year with net book assets of $2.7 billion at balance date, reflecting a stronger comparative Australian dollar at period end, dividend payments, and removing the Unimetals receivable.

We recorded some $130 million in foreign currency translation differences this year from the stronger dollar, reducing our reported net asset backing in Australian dollar terms. Of note, this includes a $200 million uplift from non-ferrous prices, impacting both our inventory and receivable values.

Despite this increase, we were able to retain overall trade working capital at a comparative level to the prior year. Following stabilization of copper pricing at its higher levels, reduced broker deposits related to our derivative trading activities over what we had reported at the half.

Intangibles uplifted by $64 million, principally because of the favorable infrastructure services contract associated with the TCT acquisition, and this will be amortized over the life of that contract. Post the sale of our Houston properties, we expect gearing levels to revert to being more in line with our target range, and we remain deliberate in focusing our growth activities to where we see efficient through-the-cycle returns while protecting balance sheet flexibility.

Pleasingly, our strong earnings and capital discipline uplifted the group's ROIC to 11.7%, and together with our positive free cash flow performance, the board has determined a final dividend of 20 cents per share, fully franked and payable in October. This brings the total full-year dividend for 2026 to 34 cents per share, but noting that the availability of future franking credits will become limited going forward as our earnings base becomes more US-centric.

A little bit more on our working capital movement and the group's focus. Here we've again isolated some of the movements to show the impact of those higher non-ferrous prices on the business, which continue to be quite significant.

Following a relative stabilization in the copper price since the September run-up, we've been able to reduce the amount of restricted cash sitting in margin deposits at June, which if you recall, was some $95 million at the half. While our total physical year-end metal inventory increased over prior-year levels, we continue to align inventory holdings with scheduled sales, and are focused on our conversion of receivables and the management of payables to match cash movements, keeping our overall working capital levels steady.

All that summarizes into our overall cash movement for the last 12 months. I've talked about most of these already.

We converted over 70% of our EBITDA performance to operating cash, and invested some $488 million back into the business through capital and acquisitions. Funding for the purchase of Tri-Coastal is still expected to be covered by the sale of our Houston properties.

The Maybell property remains under contract as the preferred purchaser completes its due diligence and concludes legal requirements. This is now likely to be a Q2 transaction for us.

In addition, we have recently signed a letter of intent to sell our two other Houston properties, subject to due diligence. They are targeted to close early in Q3.

In October, we made our final FY '25 dividend payment of $25 million, and a further $27 million for the FY '26 interim in March. As previously noted, the board has also determined a final dividend of 20 cents per share fully franked for 2026, in line with our capital management framework.

With that, it's back to you, Stephen.

Thanks, Warrick. The next few slides will look at our strategic position and opportunities in both the SLS and metal businesses.

Turning first to SLS on slide 26. What this slide demonstrates is that the technical infrastructure required for AI is significantly more compute-intensive and expensive.

If you look at the right-hand bottom chart, you can see the growing price for GPUs as they become more and more sophisticated to deal with the increasing demands of AI compute. We resell some GPUs today, but they're not overly sophisticated, and the price is measured in hundreds of dollars.

This is about to change. The complexity of repurposing GPUs that will start coming to the market in the next 12 or so months is an order of magnitude higher than what we do today.

We are well positioned to capture this, and have already commenced R&D to prove we can test and certify these GPUs in a real-world environment. I'll cover this in a bit more detail on slide 27.

The left-hand graphic compares the more traditional infrastructure we have been repurposing for the last few years with what is on the way from AI infrastructure. A couple of points to note here: firstly, the significant expansion in the technical complexity and value of GPUs that I have already mentioned.

Secondly, the density of the racks we will be dealing with. Right now, a rack we repurpose weighs up to 1,000 kilograms.

Soon, these racks will be 5 tons. We have already been sent samples of what is coming from a major customer in order for us to assess the opportunities.

We are well positioned to capture these opportunities. We have strong global and embedded relationships.

We have proven and global-leading technical expertise in the current equipment, and are actively pursuing R&D to ensure we are ready for the next wave. Slide 28 brings this all together to look at the medium-term growth drivers for SLS.

Firstly, with all the talk focusing on the rapid growth in AI infrastructure, it is easy to forget that market commentary indicates high volumes of DDR4 repurposing will last beyond 2028. DDR5 will be the next major memory repurposing opportunity, likely merging over the next 12 to 24 months.

I've already covered off GPUs, advanced processing, and AI infrastructure expansion, but it's worth noting that certification and aftermarket services will be an increasing part of our business as it relates to these activities. We see deeper customer integration as key, driven by our R&D and specialist engineering.

This leads to the final point: where it's becoming increasingly self-evident that the long-term pipeline of recoverable AI infrastructure is very large. Switching businesses now to our metal operations, beginning with North America on slide 29.

The demand for both ferrous and non-ferrous continues to rise. Ferrous is being driven by further commissioning of EAFs.

Our estimate is that another 7 million tons of high-quality ferrous scrap will be required by 2029. The demand for non-ferrous is being driven by many things, including the building of data centers.

The table at the bottom shows that an estimated 11 tons of aluminum and 11 tons of copper are required per megawatt of new data center capacity. This growth plays nicely into our North American businesses, as shown on slide 30.

The left and middle charts show just how important non-ferrous is to our North American businesses, with over half the revenue now coming from non-ferrous, and over a quarter of that coming from NFSR, which helps underpin our investment in shredders and downstream processing and recovery technology. NAM and SAR operate complementary footprints across the United States, but with different network profiles.

SAR has a greater concentration of sites in dense regional markets, while NAM is more weighted towards major metropolitan areas. SAR's network comprises 153 sites and 23 auto shredders, giving it almost twice the number of yards and shredders as NAM.

This density allows SAR to buy more non-ferrous material at source, purchase more unprepared ferrous scrap, and produce more NFSR. This operating mix was an important contributor to its relative performance during the period, particularly the second half.

Turning to ANZ on slide 31. There is no denying that the ferrous business for ANZ has been tough over the last 2 to 3 years with exports from China.

This will be somewhat alleviated over the medium term with planned mill upgrades in Australia, the Glenbrook EAF in New Zealand, and the likely development of one, but maybe two EAFs in Australia. A reasonable scenario presented in the chart shows that surplus scrap available for export could fall to under 1 million tons by 2029.

This will be quite pronounced by state, with some in surplus and others deficit. Our national coverage and superior logistics will be an advantage as this scenario unfolds.

Like our North American businesses, ANZ has a strong non-ferrous operation, and this is shown on slide 32. Nearly 60% of ANZ sales revenue comes from non-ferrous, and around 14% of that comes from NFSR.

This strong non-ferrous position has enabled ANZ to navigate the particularly tough ferrous market conditions it has experienced. ANZ is investing in more advanced metal recovery plants and fine plants to ensure valuable non-ferrous is recovered and not sent to landfill.

ANZ has an extensive national network of collection yards and is growing at-source volumes, which will drive further non-ferrous growth. What this all means for ANZ and North American medium-term growth prospects is covered on slide 33.

The North American market is likely to see further consolidation, benefiting both NAM and SAR. Some of this will be acquisition of mid-tier businesses with shredders and feeder yard networks.

Others will be bolt-on feeder yards to expand our network supplying existing shredders. This will provide more unprocessed at-source material, including non-ferrous.

There is still room for improved downstream processing through our existing operational excellence and further technology. The demand for ferrous scrap is a medium- to long-term tailwind as tariffs and EAF expansion support demand for the foreseeable future.

In ANZ, the commissioning of Glenbrook and potential FID for [Alta?] will provide medium- to long-term support for ferrous scrap demand and prices.

As with North America, there are opportunities for bolt-on acquisitions to support increased processing capability and capacity. Finally, non-ferrous is a near-term, medium-term, and long-term growth driver for ANZ.

My final slide before going to Q&A is slide 34, which is more short-term by focusing on the outlook for FY '27. Starting with SLS: we expect the first half to produce an underlying EBIT between $75 and $90 million.

Fundamentals remain strong, but as we have discussed on a number of slides, variability in decommissioning in the very short term will be a feature of this market. We are not expecting as much high-speed DDR4 volume in the first half of FY '27 as we had in the second half of FY '26.

We expect that the factors supporting a strong non-ferrous contribution will continue in FY '27 for all our metal businesses. We expect the ferrous contribution from our North American metal businesses in FY '27 to be supported by tariffs, EAF growth, and steel demand from data center growth.

We are not expecting a material reduction in Chinese steel exports in FY '27, and this will continue to impact ANZ's ferrous business. Before we open for Q&A, as always, I want to thank our employees for their drive and commitment in delivering on our purpose, and most importantly, doing that safely.

Back to you, operator.

Hi, Stephen. Warrick, thank you very much.

Just on SLS, you mentioned the need to endear yourself with your customers. In my mind, what's happening in your services revenue is probably the key one there.

It's lost a little bit of momentum in the second half relative to where you were in the first half, obviously still growing, but not showing the type of growth that is in your repurposed units would demonstrate. Could you give us a bit of a sense of how you focus the team on that, what you're seeing from a services perspective, whether that is the correct way to think about this business, and the strength of it and depth of its customer relationships?

Sure, Peter. When we with with those services, the predominant service we provide there or the most valuable service is where, we'll take a DDR4 out and and repurpose it back into the business.

We're So that that continued that continued at pace. There's there was no issues with that in the second half versus the first half.

What happened is that the customer can get to choose whether or not it gets repurposed back into them or do they want it to be resold into the into the market. I think, particularly in that second half, a number of customers made a decision, "Well, we we may not need that as as urgently back into the center.

Let's take advantage of some high selling prices and resell it into the market." It's more what was driving the sales.

We're optimizing the sales. It wasn't It wasn't a falloff in the amount of of that sort of core service that we do around taking DD4 DDR4s out of that call center and out of the data center and deciding what to do with it from that point.

Yeah. Maybe just coming to the strategic thrust of the question: are you actually focusing more attention there than ultimately trying to maximize re-commerce revenue?

I guess

what we focus on is maximizing inflow. Inflow comes from strong relationships, embedded relationships, our systems tying in with their systems.

The process that we then do on what we inflow is very, very similar whether it's going to be resold or repurposed back into the data center. If it's repurposed back in the data center, there's more around, I guess, inventory management and logistics to get it back into the data center at the right place.

We focus on inflow. Ultimately, whether it is resold or goes back into the data center is the call of the data center itself.

Cool. Then maybe just a change of focus to SAR.

Could you give us a bit of a sense of how to think about the annualization impact of acquisitions in SAR just rolling into '27?

I might get Rob to have a think about this question as well, but let me give you my initial thoughts, and Rob spends a lot of time with SA Recycling up there in the US. SA Recycling, its acquisitions in FY '27 almost entirely good-quality bolt-ons.

I cannot recall off the top of my head whether they bought another shredder. I think they did, bought another shredder down in Florida.

What that does for SA Recycling is it provides it sort of further infeed into its shredders, which have also got extra capacity in them. What does that mean for the run rate sort of leading out of FY '26 into FY '27?

I think a combination of strong non-ferrous markets, which is really driving zorba and non-ferrous retail and justifying these feeder yards hugely for more unprocessed material in. Broadly speaking, I think that the run rate in the second half is not bad as we go into the first half.

Rob, I'd like to get your views on that as well. Yeah.

The only thing I'd add, after speaking to the principals of SA quite recently in a board meeting, '26, FY '26 was a bit of an reorganization for them. Stephen mentioned they bought further shredding assets in the southeast of the United States.

They did trade off or sell off some of their northern Midwest assets. Largely what they did was bolster their existing footprint with feeder yards and kind of the spoke-and-hub that they are accustomed to.

I guess if I was to summarize, Peter, I think with market conditions and this, it is, as you can probably tell in our whole presentation, whether it be ANZ, NAM, or SA Recycling, non-ferrous is driving those results now, and I don't see that changing over is it 1 year, 2 years, 3 years? I'm not sure.

It's hard to see what would change that dynamic. I feel we're in all three businesses, we're well positioned, and I would expect that to continue into FY '27 at the absolute minimum.

Perfect. Thanks very much, Stephen.

Appreciate it. Thanks, Rob.

Thanks, Peter.

Good morning, Stephen, Warrick. Stephen, just on the SLS guide, is it possible to give us kind of an implied of what your assumptions are just around repurposed units or gigabytes sold, just in the volume piece?

Then

Yeah. Oh, sorry, Lee.

I interrupted. I'll let you finish your question.

No, you go.

You need to dig down into the volume, and I think what we've said throughout the presentation, which has come through quite clearly, is that the data centers are not refreshing or decommissioning to our half-year time tables. There's been a huge amount of proposed data center construction, and there's a lot of indigestion going on, and I think it doesn't matter where you look.

That's been quite broadly reported in media and trade journals and all those types of things. What's happening in the first half we do have some line of sight to with our relationships.

We can see what's going to actually happen, is that we're getting less of the higher-speed DDR4s coming through. Those are the more valuable ones that we had in FY '26.

The reason why that's happening is that they are holding onto those for a bit longer because they still have some value while they're waiting for the refresh to happen, while they're waiting for the electrical connection upgrade or the DDR5s to arrive or whatever. The volume, it's probably not a total volume story.

It's the mix of the volume, and in particular, the speed of the DDR4s that are coming out. It's now another layer of complexity.

I understand that. All DDR4s are not alike now.

We've got 32, we've got 16 gigs, and now what's becoming hugely influential is the speed of those DDR4 chips. That's what's influencing the first half.

There's lower speed coming out, still the volume, but lower speed. What I would say about that, though, is that they still need to come out.

Those high-speed DDR4s still need to come out. It's just timing.

There's a massive demand for them in the market. I know the comment that JB Hi-Fi made in their result around the rapid rise in prices for everything IT-related and the impact that that's having, and that's all being driven by the shortage.

The way you need to think about volume is the DDR4s that are coming out in the first half are of lower speed quality than what we've seen, and therefore are not as high value as what we've seen. The high-speed ones still need to come out.

Okay. Then just going on, thinking a little bit longer term in it, is there a different volume outlook across service and resale?

I kind of hear your answer to Peter's question before around how ultimately, a high-price product, people want to reuse, but reuse in their own network. Then it seemed like, at the same time, the higher price drove the resale.

I guess I'm kind of a bit confused. In the longer term, is a higher price, when you get more of the refresh happening, do you think that that is more likely to mean the product is reused in the data center and then you get the service fee, or do you think it's more likely to be sold and therefore you get a service fee and the resale component?

I don't think it's I don't think it's going to be as simple as one or the the other. I think in the in the medium term, the in the medium term, more of the DDR4s will end up in the resale market because the DDR5s will be what's repurposed back into the data centers.

I I think that's probably the the main relationship, and I think the higher price for DDR4s will also encourage that. Over really over the next 12 months, as DDR5s start coming out, I think DDR4s more DDR4s will find them their way into the resale market.

Some, don't get me wrong, some will be repurposed because they can be. That's I think that's how the market dynamic's going to play out.

Okay. Thank you.

Then just a final one, if I can, on the metals business. I guess I'm probably like a few others, trying to think about how we bridge into '27 given the lack of quantitative guidance.

If I look at NAM and SAR in the second half '26, you did $259 million of EBIT, which is obviously very strong given you did, I think, $112 in the first half. There's acquisitions and a few other things, but is it sensible to bridge off that second-half number as the starting point for first half '27?

What else is going on there that we need to think about that would mean that $259 million EBIT for NAM and SAR is not the appropriate starting point as we look into FY '27?

That's a good question. Let me answer it at a high level, and then we've got Rob in the room, and he can maybe go into a little bit more detail on it.

I think the answer to that question is it's all driven by non-ferrous. Within that non-ferrous, zorba has a large impact, because if you think about it, zorba is a byproduct of shredding ferrous.

In a sense, and this is a simplification, it comes at very little marginal cost, because you're not actually buying it. The better-quality shredders you have versus a competitor, it definitely comes at a lower marginal cost.

Our view is that we're not seeing anything that's happening in the second half to date, and we're coming towards the end of August, that would indicate that the non-ferrous market is getting softer. Therefore, it will be about volumes that we put through and what do we have to pay for those volumes.

It's fair to say that NAM and SAR do well out of our sophisticated shredding and downstream in order to be competitive on volumes. Rob, you're there.

What are your thoughts?

Yeah. The only thing I could add, Lee, is that in our slide deck, you see the oncoming, I guess, demand curve we've been talking about for the last 3 or 4 years in the ferrous side.

What SAR and NAM are enjoying right now, and we've invested in our capabilities to get product to market, is I won't call it exactly an insatiable demand for shredded product, we have a very good demand for ferrous, which leads well into the non-ferrous story that we've depicted here today as well. A very good demand curve for aluminum products, for copper products, all of which we liberate from a ferrous intake.

An incredibly good margin uplift there and capacity still that we have in our network. We've invested back into those networks.

SAR and NAM both have capacity to spare as well.

Excellent. Thanks, Rob, and thanks, Stephen, for the color.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Lee.

Yeah. Morning, guys.

I'll probably just going to extend on some of Lee's questions around the volume assumptions rolling into that first half '27 guidance. Your guidance is from an EBIT perspective down, call it, a third, half-on-half.

I just want to understand, should we be thinking about ongoing growth in, say, the input volumes, but it's purely a mix, or should we be assuming both a decline in the input volumes and then also the mix on top of that? Because I know last time you gave us a memory sold guide to align with the EBIT guide.

This time, you haven't given us the memory sold guide, but it sounds like you have some reasonably good visibility into that. I just wondered if you can give us a sense on that memory sold number, we have a comparable.

A couple of points in there. As this market has matured, it's really interesting that gigabyte memory sold is still a nice measure, but then it's the mix within there about speed.

It's not just DDR4s; it's the speed of the DDR4s. I think what you should be thinking beyond the first half, and like I said, we do have quite a lot of visibility into the first half.

We don't have as much visibility into the second half. What we do know is that the volume is going to increase.

In the market as a whole, there's not less coming out from December on. There's more coming out from December on.

Is it going to come out in the second half of '27? Is it going to come out in the first half of '28?

That's not up to us. That's up to the timing of the data center.

More volume will be coming out because more volume is sitting there than has been in there. The second point I'd make is that the mix of that volume should improve as well, because as we're getting more through the refresh cycles, we're getting higher and higher quality DDR4s that are faster and faster, and those are the ones that are worth more.

I'm sitting here feeling pretty comfortable about the medium-term outlook. I just unfortunately can't provide you a half-by-half assessment of exactly when that will come out.

It's not less volume and it's not less quality, is I think the main point. It's more volume, more quality, that I would make.

I understand, I guess, the qualitative comments that you've provided, but the challenge that we're facing is we don't have a baseline. It's all good and fine to talk about growth in different metrics off the baseline, but we don't have the baseline.

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. If there's any further color you can provide around, I guess, how the mix currently stands, so that we can move beyond that, it'd be appreciated.

Yeah. Owen, can I take that question on notice?

Because I'll be really frank, I don't want to blurt out a whole lot of numbers now that we haven't thought through as to how you would interpret those, because there is some complexity going on here. It's a good question.

Let me take that on notice, and Warrick and I will talk to Anna, and we'll see what else we can maybe look at for the market.

For the market. Sure.

Can I just ask, you mentioned comments around that the broader market volume is going to increase in the market as a whole. Can I just ask how you feel SLS is positioned within that market?

Because we're constantly hearing about data center growth coming at pace, and I know you sort of talked about the decommissioning cycle, kind of pausing for a moment or different assets being decommissioned. We do know that the growth in the platform is continuing to grow across multiple different clients and across the US predominantly.

What I want to understand, I guess, is how is SLS positioned within that? Has SLS grown its customer base as quickly as the market has grown during, say, the last 12 months?

Do you feel like you're growing or losing share as a proportion of the total market? I know it's very, very vague, but just keen to get your thoughts.

Yeah. If I look at two to dissect that question: existing customers and potential new customers.

I feel we are growing our share of existing customers. Our relationships are strong.

We have a good idea of what they are producing in total. We know what we're getting, and I feel very comfortable with our existing customer base.

We're actually doing very well in that existing customer base. I feel very comfortable with that, and those customers are big within the market.

We're not talking small big players. They're big customers within that market.

It really is, I know I'm going on about this a bit, but it really is the short term, 3 months, 6 months, is just not the way that these people think. Therefore, they'll decommission and refresh however they want to.

I feel we're growing in that. In terms of new customers, we have definitely had some success in gaining new customers.

When you gain a new customer, it's a foot in the door. It's not, bang, you're going to get the same volumes as your existing customers from day one.

When I look at our competitors in the market, I feel we are holding our own at the very least in terms of market expansion, and I could argue growing it.

Can I ask, in terms of the volumes that are coming through, I know you mentioned sort of differentials between high speed, low speed DDR4s, there's a mention of DDR3s in here, and at some point DDR5s are coming through. Are you able to give us a sense of the rough splits around the memory that's currently coming through your sales base more particularly?

Yeah. Right right now, it's virtually all DDR4s.

DDR3s probably came to an end, in through the second half of last of FY '26. Most of it would be.

For all intents and purposes, you should think of it as DDR4s right now. The odd DDR5 is starting to arrive.

Some of it is from our customers who want us to check exactly how we're going to handle DDR5s, that there's some slight technical difficulties, nothing nothing Differences, not difficulties; nothing we can't handle. Then So think for this first half, it should be DDR4s almost almost exclusively, and then DDR5s will start to come in, I would say, sometime in the next 12 months.

Let me make really clear, not at not at the expense of DDR4s. DDR4s will continue to There's a There's a lot of DDR4s installed in that in data centers that need to need to come out.

Sure. The repurposed units numbers are pretty strong in '26.

Of your resale revenues, how much is from DDR4 sales versus sales of other repurposed units? Is it like 90%, 95%?

No, it's not as high as that. Repurposed unit can be anything that comes in and it can be, for example, a cable.

Just to use a simple example. A cable that comes in and resold is considered a repurposed unit.

I do know what that number is. I don't know if we have disclosed it.

You haven't, so that's why I'm asking.

Yeah. It's certainly not 90%, but it's more than 50%.

Let me take questions on notice for you. Let me just double-check that that's not commercially sensitive, and Anna's taking notes.

I'll put that into the list of things that do we need to disclose that, or are our commercial guys saying we're mad to be disclosing that?

Sure. Thanks.

Yeah. Good morning.

Thanks for taking my questions. I just had two.

Firstly, just on the new contracts that you're signing recently, are the revenue share terms similar to your existing kind of longer-term contracts, just want to check if in case there's any slippage there, given obviously it's a really profitable business now relative to how it's been in years gone by. Thanks.

Yeah. Firstly, Brook, we definitely won't disclose revenue share terms on specific contracts, and I think I know what you're talking about.

What I would say is that contracts moving forward will have higher volumes because there's more coming out, but we definitely won't disclose what our revenue share terms are on those contracts.

No, that's fair enough. I guess I wasn't sort of looking for specifics by customer and just the broad trend, is it sort of staying stable in terms of your share versus customers in general, or is it changing at all?

I think as we're rolling contracts, it varies by contract. As we're negotiating revenue share, we trade off volume with that rev share to see because we're looking for total margin.

If your question am I sitting here worried about it? No, I'm not.

I'm very comfortable with the deals we're negotiating at the moment, and the rev share split, and the volume split, and what type of volume we're getting out. Actually, maybe that is a very, very good point that I will make.

I want to talk about GPUs, because the rev share on a GPU will absolutely be lower in percentage terms than the rev share on a DDR4. The GPUs that are going to be coming out over the next 12 months and beyond are extraordinarily valuable, and we will do a lot of testing on them in the real-world situation for them to be either repurposed or resold.

Clearly, we're not going to get a 25%, 30% rev share on those, because the value of them is just extraordinarily higher. The opportunity for absolute margin is very, very strong.

That's really helpful. Maybe just to dig into that slightly more.

If we think about the opportunity for EBIT in SLS, how do you think about GPUs as a new product focus for your business? How could that compare to memory?

I guess if you think about medium term, is there some sort of rough split how you sort of see

it

settling out? Yeah.

Yep,

it's a good question. I see GPUs as a bigger opportunity than DDR4s for a couple of reasons.

Three reasons, actually. One is the complexity of repurposing them is an order of magnitude higher than what we do today.

Therefore, the relationships you have with customers, the R&D work you've put in creates an even bigger moat around it, I see that as very, very important. Secondly, the volume of GPUs that needs to come out is extraordinarily large over the next 1, 2, 3, 4 years.

Thirdly, the value of those GPUs is extremely high as well. Fourthly, and this one, I think we're generally still thinking about it, there may be a bias in these new GPUs for them to be resold.

We'll have to see, because whether or not AI want them back in, are they going to be good enough for the compute, that really fast compute they need, I'm not sure, for massive hyperscalers, but they're certainly going to be good enough for a huge number of potential customers globally. I see GPU's opportunity as larger than the DDR4 opportunity and the DDR5 opportunity.

Okay. Great.

Thanks for all the color. Appreciate it.

Hi, there. Thank you very much.

Stephen, the first one's hopefully very quick. Corporate costs, you had a good decline this year.

Is there further declines that you expect you can deliver over the next couple of years, please?

I will flick that one to Warrick, who's been working hard on this.

I think we continue to chip away there, Scott. I'd hope to see some further reduction.

We do have project costs in there, they will come out in this half. We'll partially come out in this half as we move to implementation of that new metal software.

Yes, you'll continue to see a reduction in that, and we continue to look at opportunities across the board.

Okay. Can I just confirm then, you would expect to see so if you've got a -$114 million of EBITDA, that number should be closer to zero than what it is, as in it will reduce as a loss in '27.

Is that fair?

Correct. That would be our intention.

Great. Then my second question, probably for Rob.

I'd just be interested, now you've got the North American business, obviously, looks a lot healthier, and you've talked about the tailwinds from EAFs and the strength of non-ferrous pricing, I'm just wondering, does this give you a little bit of time now or an opportunity, perhaps, to think about positioning the business for the next 3 to 5 years? Maybe it's taking out some of the cyclicality, maybe it's improving what you think is trough earnings.

How are you thinking on a kind of medium to long term of positioning yourself for both ferrous in the context of EAFs and the opportunity that's come with non-ferrous volumes attached to that, but also the broader opportunities outside of just collection of scrap metal for non-ferrous as well, I would have thought?

Right. Yeah.

I think NAM is definitely in a position now, foundationally, I think, results with the investments we've made, with the efforts we've made to diversify from largely an export-based company from a ferrous perspective to having the supply chain and logistics capabilities that we've invested in. Our diversification, I guess, is grown beyond my expectations in terms of our ability to optimize on a monthly or quarterly cadence.

We'll continue to leverage that. The demand in the US we will not ignore.

The customer's customer is, as Stephen has explained, it's a good environment, good economy. The data center environment is just putting it on hyperdrive for us.

Now that we've stabilized, and I'd say earned the right to kind of grow again, much along the lines of SAR, I think that the right opportunities at the right time for tuck-ins to continue to utilize the deployed capital we already have in the market in North America with our shredding, aluminum capacity with Alumisource and the granulators that we have on site, we'll continue to look for those opportunities and grow in the market.

Great. Thank you.

morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

Just on SLS again, looking at it slightly different way, if we look at the moving parts getting to that guide in the first half, there's volume, there's other factors, and it looks like the memory price that you've referenced previously, if anything, has strengthened into the half. Just trying to figure out what those moving parts are in broad buckets, and then maybe what is a more normalized figure do you think for this business when you then factor in the uplift from Ireland, because, presumably, Ireland is kind of contributing there.

Thanks.

The biggest driver for the first half FY '27 is that the DDR4s that are coming out that we're selling are of a lower speed. Therefore, the discount that they are to the new is a higher discount.

I think the speed of those are 3,300 or 3,600, 3,000-something hundred? 3,200.

Thanks. The DDR4s that we're selling in the first half, the ones that are coming out, they are of lower speed, which is kind of intuitively correct, because if your refresh cycle is being delayed because of various blockages or your new sites are being delayed because of various blockages, you're going to be pulling out the less valuable stuff first, and that will continue to come out.

That's the biggest driver, I think, on first half '27 versus second half 20 20 '26. Nothing else material has changed other than that.

That's why I guess I get some confidence. You talk about what's normalized growing forward.

I think it's very hard to do normalized because we're in a high-growth business. Where I get confidence from that is the high-speed stuff, the DDR5s and the DDR4s, all that's still to come out, and that will come out sometime after December 2026.

Harry, unfortunately, I can't say it's a huge normalized base, because we just need to see those decommissioning schedules. As they get into the higher quality, back into the higher-quality material that they've done in FY '26, as that starts coming out again, prices are still, as you've noted, prices are still very, very strong.

There's been no indication that those prices are falling. There's been no indication that demand for DDR4s are falling.

Haven't given you a specific answer of what's the normalized earnings, but I think normalized earnings in SLS is a very hard concept, because it's what's going to drive the future is higher quality, more sophisticated material coming out.

I guess we're just trying to understand that, because it's a huge swing from that second half to the first half. Whether the second half was overearning, perhaps, and appreciate you're referencing a difference in speed, but maybe you were selling more sort of high speed than is a normal kind of level of sale.

Then also just trying to figure out what the Ireland contribution is in that number. No.

What I would say now is what we're selling now is less than normal in terms of mix, because we're selling more of the low-speed stuff. I'd say it's less, not more.

Ireland is not contributing much at all to the first half, because it was set up and is up and really running more for the high-speed DDR4s that were expected to come out. They will come out.

It's not that they're not coming out. Ireland's not contributing a lot in the first half at all, because the DDR4s that it was going to repurpose, resell haven't come out yet.

Thanks. Just a follow-up on SAR, given that enormous step-up in the second half versus first, is that a sensible run rate going forward, or is there anything else to sort of bear in mind in that number that we need to normalize for?

Thanks.

Volume-wise, I don't think there was anything particularly special in the second half. I think it's the type of volumes that SAR can absolutely do.

It really is price. Let's be really clear, non-ferrous, zorba prices, copper, aluminum are the drivers.

I guess what we're seeing, and again, this is an opinion, because it's kind of like a global opinion, do you see anything driving down the value of non-ferrous? We don't see anything driving down the value of non-ferrous, but I'm sure you and your research teams will have your own view.

I guess what I'm saying is there was nothing special about volume. It's about non-ferrous pricing.

What do you see as non-ferrous pricing over FY '27 is going to be the key as to whether or not they can repeat that result. Frankly, it's the same with NAM, and it's the same with ANZ.

None of them are different. Maybe ANZ is slightly different.

Do you see something happening with China and ferrous that would impact ANZ? NAM's volumes were the volume that NAM did in that second half, very sustainable.

Rob, there was no one-offs that you think that can't repeat itself. It's about the margins that we're making on non-ferrous, zorba, I guess, in particular.

I think we don't see anything driving that down in FY '27. Yeah.

Thanks.

good morning, Stephen and Warrick. Thanks for taking my question.

Most of the questions have been asked. Just again follow up on the SLS.

To give us I guess more conviction your earnings growth from SLS is deferred further rather than disappeared in the near term. To summarize from your answers, it seems like over the next 6 to 12 months, you'll be selling less DDR4 high margin, and your customers are taking more in-house for repurposing because your repurposing units volume continue to grow and the price is strong.

Is that how I should read it from all your answers? Thank you.

There's a few The one thing I would say is that we haven't said that DDR4 high volume will be less in the second half. We've said it will be less in the first half, and we we have line of sight for that.

How quickly it recovers after that, it may well recover in the second half. It may take 2028 before it recovers.

That that that will largely depend No, that will entirely depend on our various customers. Do they secure connections?

Do they secure the DDR5s that they need so that they can refresh and take out DDR4s? I'm not saying we're make make it really clear, we're not saying that's not going to happen in the second half.

Then the the the mix of it, I don't think that's going to particularly change in FY '27. I think what I've said is beyond FY '27, beyond FY '27, I think more of the DDR4s, and this is a view here, this is more of the DDR4s will end up in the resale market because it'll be DDR5s that are getting more repurposed back into the data centers.

Believe me, the the world needs DDR4s in the resale market, because they, all the all the market commentary says that DDR4s are needed right through, to beyond 2028, 2029.

Sure. Basically, are you saying your customers are taking more in-house because your repurposing units are growing, whereas you are selling less.

Resale has higher margin.

Yeah. Okay.

Chen, a lot of our repurposing unit growth was for non-memory parts. There's lots of parts that get repurposed.

Add to that DDR3s as well. Between those two, there was a lot of DDR3s in FY '26.

DDR3s are not going to come out in any significant way from now on. It's DDR4s and DDR5s.

Let me make it really clear. You cannot conclude that therefore our customers are taking more back into the business as opposed to reselling.

Right now, we're not seeing any particular variation between those two from what we've seen historically.

Yeah. That DDR4 sales is more like a timing thing, deferred further into your whatever medium term you mentioned.

Yeah. DDR4s are definitely timing.

100% agree, there's no DDR4s in the world that need to be taken out of data centers. In fact, that installation happened 2 to 3 years ago.

It's not less DDR4s; it's simply the timing of when are they going to come out.

Okay. Got it.

Deferred further. Okay.

Then if I can ask about your North America metal recycling business, because comparing NAM, your FY '26 EBIT versus the market mean consensus, I think it's weaker than expected. Looking at your sales volume seems okay, because the US steel production has been, I guess, strong year over year because of the tariff.

Then now looking at non-ferrous price, copper and zorba, which is secondary aluminum price, they're strong, which reflected in your JV, SAR's EBIT. Everyone asked about it.

It's very strong. That's how the EBIT should be.

Then you continue to implement your turnaround strategy. I'm just trying to understand what happened to the North America metal for the FY '26, and everyone has their own assumption for non-ferrous, but how should we think about it over the next 6 to 12 months, especially your turnaround strategy?

Thank you.

Broadly speaking, if there's one slide in particular that Warrick showed, which showed the contribution from non-ferrous versus ferrous between FY '25 and FY '26, I cannot remember what slide it was, but what it shows is the two big stories in FY '26 were the contribution from non-ferrous and the contribution from SLS were the big growth drivers for the business. How you should think about North America and SAR, relatively speaking, SAR is benefiting more at the moment than North America because it produces more zorba.

As I said, It's not a zero marginal cost, but zorba comes at a very low marginal cost. As the price rises, it tends to fall straight to the bottom line from an EBITDA and EBIT perspective.

NAM is proportionally doing just as well out of non-ferrous as SA Recycling. It's just SA Recycling produces more of it on the zorba side.

Then the second thing I'd add, because it's got roughly twice the number of feeder yards that we have in NAM, they also do very well out of non-ferrous retail. Non-ferrous retail is just plumbers bringing in copper guttering, an electrician dropping off some copper cabling that they picked up, and then we process that into high-quality non-ferrous product.

I wouldn't be thinking that SA Recycling has got something that NAM doesn't. What SA Recycling has is twice as many shredders and twice as many yards providing this non-ferrous product.

Right. Thanks, Stephen.

Comparing your JV operated SAR with your NAM, basically, from your answers, there's not much difference, but you believe they have more high margin like a zorba, non-ferrous metals, which give them higher margins. Is that a conclusion?

That is correct. They shred more, therefore produce more zorba, and zorba has a very low short-run marginal cost, and so that is impacted them in a positive way.

It's impacted NAM in exactly the same positive way, just less volume.

Right. You are benefiting from a higher US domestic steel production, which we've seen year to date because of tariff, as well as strong Ali price and copper price in US.

Yes.

Yes.

All right. Thank you, Stephen.

I will pass it on.

That's great. Thanks.

Oh, sorry. You go.

No. Sorry to interrupt.

Sure.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions.

I was just wondering if you could give us a bit of a timeline around some of the other hardware components you're talking about in SLS, particularly the GPUs, and the market opportunity there, just in terms of any significant milestones we should expect in terms of kind of testing whether they can be resold, any contracts, and when they'll hit the financials as well.

Yeah. We have some of them in our HQ facility right now, some of these high-quality ones, and we're working on them at the moment, testing them in a real-world environment.

That's a very important step. We've already developed three or four tests and have proven that, based on those tests, we can certify these things to a certain level.

I'd say around about 12 months from now, there's going to be another step-up in the quality and sophistication of what's coming out. It really is, for me, it's starting now, and it will ramp up in the next 12 months or so.

What I would say is we are very well positioned to be sitting in that market testing and certifying GPUs. That's what this market is going to be about.

GPUs are not like DIMMs. If a DIMM fails, it's not the end of the world, and the testing that you do on DIMMs is relatively simple.

DDR5s, neither of those things. They are more fragile.

The tests are more complicated. That's why they're worth more, and that's why you need to have the skill to do it.

I do believe we're really well positioned. It's starting from now, ramping up over a 12-month period, is the way I'm seeing it.

Right. Thanks.

Do you see anyone in the market doing this already? I know on the memory side, you kind of talked to hyperscalers being the number one competitor there and what they do in-house.

Is that the same on this side, or is there anyone you would point to?

This is new, and we've recently written quite a good white paper on some of this stuff as well. I'm not going to say there's no one else out there doing it, because it's hard to know what people are doing behind closed doors.

I do believe that we are at the forefront of it, because we've been, particularly with one of our customers, we've been working on this for a while. That customer has a particularly strong focus on sustainability and making sure that stuff's not going to landfill.

We've been working on it for a while, and I feel we're in a good position. We're never going to have a world monopoly on it.

That would be lovely, but highly unlikely. This takes it to another level of sophistication versus DDR4s and DDR5s.

Great. Thank you.

Thanks.

Hi, Stephen. Hi, team.

Just a couple of questions from me. Just with SAR, Stephen, you mentioned that, assuming non-ferrous prices stay where they are, that earnings base is sustainable into '27.

I guess just with all the investments SAR has made over the last little while, are you able to sort of give us a bridge on what sort of volume uplift we should expect from those acquisitions, or any sort of lead would be helpful to try to frame that into '27.

The volume uplift won't be huge, Ramoun. It's not about volume.

I think it's about shoring up their market position, making sure that they preserve what they've got and they are preserving their margins. I wouldn't be assuming a huge volume uplift relative to the size of SA Recycling, which it's got huge volumes now.

Don't assume a material volume uplift. It's really around shoring up their market position.

That's probably the best way to say it.

Great. On SLS, it sounds like the second half '26 was a bit of an anomaly in terms of customers just trying to look to monetize the higher DDR4 prices.

Am I wrong in thinking that using second half as any kind of baseline for SLS is probably the wrong approach to forecasting this business going forward?

I I think over the medium term, FY '26 is perfectly fine. I don't I don't think if I don't think the second half of FY '26 was an an anomaly.

I think the anomaly is is what's happening right now is the absolute crunch that's happening with everybody wanting to build data centers, everybody looking for electrical connections, everybody looking for land. I think that's that's the anomaly that's hit everybody.

I And the reason why I'm comfortable saying that is there is a there is a hell of a lot more DDR4s sitting out in in data center land than what's been repurposed to date. I I I guess what my my argument here, Ramoun, would be 6 months I think 6 months is a blink of an eye relative to relative to this market, is what how quickly it changes.

Once once those bottlenecks are opened up, which they'll have to be, the the material will flow just as strongly, probably more strongly than the second half of FY '26, because there's just simply more out there.

No, take your point. How much visibility does SLS or Sims have with regard to that, Stephen?

Can you see into the June half of next year yet, or is that just based on the scheduled timelines of your customers, or not yet?

We have a pretty good line of sight for the first half, which is what we've got to have a reasonable basis before we can put things out. We have a reasonable line of sight for the first half.

There's some initial forecasts come from our customers for the second half, but they come heavily caveated. No, it won't be until we get into the second half that they really firm up when the material is actually going to come out in that period.

Okay. There's no sort of lead you can provide us in terms of an assumed seasonality in that business this year?

No, the seasonality, it'll be commissioning seasonality, which is just entirely based on when they get hold of electrical connections, when they get hold of land, when the construction happens. If they've got a data center they're refreshing, obviously, if they're refreshing it with DDR5s and HBM and high-power GPUs, it's going to need more electricity, they're getting the electrical connection sorted out.

Once that's sorted, then, bang, all the DDR4s that are sitting in there will come out ready for the new DDR5s and HBM and GPUs to go in. That doesn't have a seasonality to it.

That just has when's the electrical connection approved and put in place. Those are what causes the variability between reporting periods.

Got it. Okay.

Just one final one on ANZ. Do you think that division's now stabilized in terms of the step-down given what's going on with Chinese steel exports being partly offset by some of the additions like Glenbrook?

I do. I do, on the assumption that non-ferrous stays where it is, and we're confident of that.

I hope these are not famous last words, but it's hard to see the ferrous market getting much worse for the impact that China's having on it. Yes, in that sense, I feel that this is the bottom earnings for ANZ.

Okay. All right.

I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, everybody, for the questions.

Some very good questions there. We will see all of you over the next couple of days, and I look forward to catching up.

Thanks very much for dialing in.