Thank you very much. And from our side, a warm welcome, and thank you for making the time to join us here today.

As always, we'll give you a quick introduction from our end between myself and Mark, and then we'll be happy to take any questions that you may have. I think if we look at the first half, I think we reported an unsatisfactory start to the year.

I think our first quarter was really not good. Second quarter, definitely better.

I think good performance on volume quarter-on-quarter, up quite a bit year-on-year, also quite decent. Unit costs also improved.

Rates came up a bit but admittedly only late into the quarter. So the majority of that we will actually only see as from Q3.

Of course, there was serious disruption in the Middle East, which caused quite a lot of cost cash effect of that around $600 million. What we see in the P&L is about 2/3 of that.

Good throughput growth in our Terminal business, a number of new investments announced. We continued working on the ZIM transaction, where the shareholders have approved that transaction.

And now we are working through the regulatory approvals, and we still expect to wrap that up towards the end of the year. We raised our outlook in July on the back of higher demand, but also higher spot rates but of course, there is a certain amount of uncertainty, even if I think it's fair to say that the outlook right now is significantly better than what it was when we spoke last time in May, and you see that also reflected in our numbers.

In terms of market fundamentals, good growth in the market. On the right-hand side, we also try to make the point here that the growth on the dominant legs over the last couple of years has been a lot stronger than many people anticipated.

And which is also, I think, why you see that supply and demand are at the moment actually fairly balanced or even tight. If you look at the last couple of years, since 2023, I think we've seen roughly 25% growth on the dominant legs which is something that we have not seen for a very long period of time.

That, of course, means we need a lot more ships. In addition to that, congestion is up and because of the growth and because of the tightness that there is many ports like Shanghai and others, we don't expect that to go away anytime soon.

And of course, also that requires additional ships. We see on the back of that they initially have gone up.

They remain also quite strong as we move into Q3. And as such, I think we have a fairly optimistic view right now for the second half of the year.

If we move on, a few words on the Middle East. We have been able to get the vessels that we wanted to get out of the Strait of Hormuz out of the Strait.

So we're happy with that because that's all about safety for our crews and our ships. We've offered people alternative routings, through land bridges, for example, that is working well even if, of course, it's more expensive and capacity is less than what we used to have.

And on Gemini, that runs as before well. We saw a dip in schedule reliability, but still remain well above everybody else, when we had the bad weather in Europe in the first quarter.

But right now, we are, as we expected, and I think announced in May, again, safely back above the 90% threshold. So that's definitely good.

On the terminal front, quite a few achievements in the first half as that business is becoming more and more important pillar of our overall business. We got to 51% on JM Baxi in India, which means that we consolidate that as of the end of the first quarter.

We started operations in Damietta, which is very helpful given all the volume that is now coming through the East Med, it's later than planned, but the start has been good. We signed the contract for Aracruz Imatame where we expect to start operation in 2028.

And recently, we announced signing of a term sheet with Eurogate to acquire 20% of CTH in Hamburg and to up our share in Tanger from 10% to 20%. On the ZIM transaction, known to everybody.

I think the deal summary is on the left-hand side, nothing new to that since we spoke, lot of work has gone into getting all the necessary approvals. Quite a lot of that, you can read quite a lot about that in the press.

We, however, just continue to work diligently with all the regulators in the various countries and based on what we see today, we're still confident that we will close the deal towards the end of this year. And with that, let me hand it over to Mark, who will take us in a bit more detail through the numbers.

Thank you, Rolf, and good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today for our results call.

Following unsatisfactory start of the year, as we talked about it, our operational and financial performance improved clearly in the second quarter. As you can see here, this recovery was supported by higher freight rates and stronger transport volumes in our Liner Shipping business, and that is particularly due to the robust export out of Asia, and the improved demand from the United States.

At the same time, our Terminals and Infrastructure business maintained its growth path with throughput increasing to 3.6 million TEU in the second quarter. However, the conflict in the Middle East caused severe operational disruptions and substantial additional costs.

And despite these significant headwinds, we generated a group EBITDA of about USD 0.8 billion and delivered another strong free cash flow of USD 0.6 billion in the second quarter. Overall, the clear improvement in Q2 demonstrates the resilience of our business and provides a solid basis for the remainder of the year.

And Rolf already mentioned it that we are more and more getting positive for the second half. With that, let me walk you through now through the internal components a little bit in more detail.

And starting with our P&L. Group revenue increased by 19% compared to the first quarter reaching USD 5.8 billion in Q2.

This improvement was primarily driven by better market conditions in the Liner business, as said, Group EBITDA increased by 68% quarter-on-quarter to USD 829 million, while the EBITDA margin recovered from 10% in Q1 to 14.2% in Q2. This improvement was even more pronounced at the EBIT level following a loss of USD 157 million in the not-positive quarter 1 of this year, we generated a positive group EBIT of USD 176 million in Q2.

And group profit also returned to a positive territory and amounted to USD 83 million. Turning to the performance of the Liner segment.

Revenue increased to USD 5.7 billion compared to USD 4.8 billion in the first quarter and the development was supported by higher transport volumes and the significant recovery in freight rates. Liner EBITDA reached USD 773 million in Q2, following an EBIT loss of USD 174 million for the Liner business in Q1, the second -- the segment returned to profitability and generated an EBITDA (sic) [ EBIT ] of USD 153 million in the second quarter as the recovery was achieved despite significant cost headwinds.

On rates and volumes, our average freight rate increased by 11% quarter-on-quarter to USD 1,475 per TEU. And compared to the prior year quarter, the average freight rate was around 9% higher.

The improvement was supported by stronger exports out of Asia and the recovery in demand from the United States as said. Transport volumes increased by almost 9% compared to the first quarter, reached close to 3.5 million TEUs and to the prior year comparison, volume was 3.5% higher.

The strongest sequential volume improvement was recorded on the European American trade, and that was the trade which was particularly affected by the weather conditions and softer demand in the first quarter. For the first half of '26, transport volumes increased by 1.5% to 6.7 million TEUs, but the average freight rate remained stable year-on-year at 1,406 USD per TEU despite the significant fluctuations during that period.

Jumping now to the unit cost side. So let's have a look on the cost development.

Unit cost increased to USD 1,443 per TEU in the second quarter, representing an increase of 2% compared to Q1 and 7% compared to prior year quarter. This increase was driven by the conflict in Middle East, which resulted in around about USD 600 million of additional cash costs of this amount.

And as indicated that already USD 400 million was recognized as expenses in the second quarter while the remainder is related to buildup of bunker inventories. Bunker and emissions costs increased significantly due to the sharp rise in bunker prices.

Our average bunker consumption price increased from USD 485 million per metric ton to -- which was in Q1 to USD 700 per metric ton in Q2. Hannigan haulage costs were affected by higher storage expenses and increased interland transportation costs related to alternative routing solutions in the Middle East, the Landbridge and fuel surcharges.

We also incurred higher insurance and time charter costs very much related to that crisis there. In response to the sharp increase in energy costs, we implemented an emergency surcharge.

Our implemented emergency surcharges together with our regular fuel recovery mechanism, these measures have mitigated the additional cost burden. Importantly, when adjusting for higher bunker prices and the direct effect of the Middle East disruptions, our underlying unit cost improved both sequentially and year-on-year.

And this reflects the impact of our ongoing cost saving measures. So to the T&I performance, a couple of words.

Turning to our segment here. The business continued its positive in the second quarter and it's further reinforced the strategic importance to our group.

Throughput increased to 3.6 million TEU in Q2 and for the first half, throughput reached 7 million TEUs. Revenue surged by almost 50% to USD 360 million and EBITDA increased to USD 102 million in the first half of '26.

This development was supported by the first time full consolidation of JM Baxi's container terminal business and strong throughput growth in India and Latin America. At the same time, operational challenges at key European hubs, continued cost pressure and the ramp-up of new terminals weighed on profitability of this segment.

Nevertheless, the segment generated a solid EBIT of USD 39 million in the first half of '26. Jumping over to our cash flow.

Operating cash flow for the first half of '26 amounted to USD 849 million. The difference compared to the EBITDA mainly reflects a temporary working capital headwind of over USD 470 million and that is primarily related to the strong increase in business activities and the bunker inventory built up during the second quarter.

Investment spending. So CapEx was modest and stood at close to USD 300 million and that was mainly related to newbuild installments, fleet retrofits, including our ongoing conversion of the 5 vessels to methanol dual fuel propulsion and our terminal activities.

Interest received, divestments and other activities generated proceeds of USD 431 million. As a result, investing cash flow was positive at USD 135 million.

Overall, we generated a strong free cash flow of around about USD 1 billion in the first half of the year. Looking at the financing cash flow, it amounted to USD 1.9 billion.

This includes the dividend payment of around about USD 600 million, as well as debt repayments and some other financing effects. At the end of June, our cash position amounted to USD 3.2 billion.

So a couple of words to conclude and a brief overview on our balance sheet figures. We continue to have a robust balance sheet.

That's clear by -- and shown by high liquidity and low leverage. Equity amounted to USD 20.7 billion at the end of June.

That's around about an equity ratio of 61%. And net debt increased to -- from USD 1.2 billion at year-end '25 to close to USD 2 billion.

This development mainly reflects the dividend payment in Q2 and the temporary negative working capital effect as said. Our liquidity reserve amounted to USD 5.9 billion, including USD 3.2 billion in cash assets, USD 2 billion in fixed income investments and around about USD 0.7 billion in our undrawn revolving credit facility.

And very clear, this robust financial position provides us with substantial flexibility to fund all strategic priorities and to navigate the continued volatility in the market, which we are facing and which we are all facing. And having said that, I hand it back to Rolf for the market update and the outlook.

Yes. Maybe switching to market first.

I think we have a constructive or positive market outlook for the remainder of '26. I think we continue to see robust demand growth.

I think when demand started picking up in the course of the second quarter, lots of people thought that, that might be short-lived. But even up to today, I think we still see very robust volume.

So very decent peak season. And also, if you look at something like on the right-hand side, the inventory to sales ratio in the U.S., you can see that that's definitely not on the high side.

And I believe we commented on that already in November that we said at some point in time in the course of '26, this is very likely going to come. I think that's a little bit what we see right now.

So all in all, positive outlook. And on the back of that, that's also why we adjusted our earnings outlook in the month of July.

And I would say that we're still very comfortable with that. So not that much to add to that.

That brings us to the wrap-up and priorities for this year before we get to your questions. Challenging start to the year.

Volumes and financial performance, definitely better than Q2. A good performance in Gemini, very resilient, still delivering schedule -- industry-leading schedule reliability consistently.

Middle East continues to be difficult, but we have adjusted our operations to deal with that. And as such, yes, that causes a significant additional cost.

But so far, we have been able to cope with that. The terminal business is doing well, continues to grow and becomes increasingly strategically relevant and our priorities for the remainder of the year are continuing to focus on improving our cost position, of course, assuring that we get all the regulatory approvals for ZIM and of course, trying to do whatever we can to maximize yield.

And that wraps it up from our end. And with that, we happily hand it back over to the operator for Q&A.

The first one, could I please ask on the port congestion theme. You mentioned a strong 3 years in headhaul volume growth.

Looking forward, what are the arguments in favor of headhaul demand continuing to outgrow terminal capacity growth for the next 2 to 3 years? Any arguments in particular there?

My second one, if I could please ask you on the Bab-al-Mandab. I think there's more and more of your peers that are going through there or planning to go could you help us visualize a bit to what extent delaying the returns to Bab-al-Mandab could bring a temporary competitive disadvantage versus other carriers?

And what's your latest view there? And the last one, if you allow me, we understand you're still -- the ZIM negotiations are still ongoing.

But just in a hypothetical scenario that the deal would not go through, could ask you what is the plan B in terms of capacity going forward? I think your order book is relatively low percentage of your active fleet today.

So are you ready to accept shrinking market share? Or should we consider a meaningful step-up in CapEx and leases over the next few years in a hypothetical scenario that the ZIM deal does not go through?

Let me try and take them one by one. I think first of all, port congestion, we see the port congestion because the growth or demand growth has been stronger than capacity growth over the last 2, 3 years.

So it's not something about what we see going forward, but it's, in essence, what has already happened over the last few years. And now some of the infrastructure needs to be expanded to cope with the volumes that we already have today.

That's why we see that congestion. I think that that's still going to last for a while because building that type of infrastructure is not that easy.

And in fairness to the terminal operators, I think everybody has been surprised with the growth on the dominant legs over the last 2 or 3 years. So it's not -- it's no criticism to anyone, but I think the reality is that it will take some time before the infrastructure is adjusted.

On Bab-al-Mandab, well, I think our view is probably not so different from others. The situation today is definitely different and better than it was a year or 1.5 years ago.

So that means that we would also expect to see a gradual return to Bab-al-Mandab. That will still take some time, as we have always said because we're not going to bring everything back in one go, but we will do that step by step to avoid also overload on the terminals, especially in Europe.

So I don't see also why that would potentially be a competitive disadvantage. In terms of ZIM, we're working through that, and our plan is to close that until the end of this year.

And that's currently the plan. And we are also actually pretty positive that in the end, we will be able to get that done.

So that's our planning assumption.

The first one is on the rate development. I mean, a lot of volatility, as you mentioned also in your opening remarks.

Can you indicate perhaps what kind of share of your BCO or contract volumes that are subject to, I would call, normal BAF regulation here, which typically steps in until the third quarter owing to the delay? And to what extent, I mean, how much of those volumes have actually been subject to the EPS surcharge?

Just to get a sense for the delta in terms of the rate development from Q2 to Q3.

I mean on all our long-term contracts with very few exceptions are subject to normal MFR or BAF as you call it. So that's what you will see in the vast majority of cases.

In some cases, we have customer formulas, but all of those contracts have a bunker clause, and that means that in most cases, we will see those adjustments as from the 1st of July.

Okay. And then on the return to Suez, what kind of cost savings will that provide?

Clearly, of course, there are some bunkers, I know that. On the other hand, you have to pay the fee to get through Suez.

And I don't know if you can relate that to what kind of price impact you think that will have if it's only Gemini at least for starting and then CMA CGM is also there right now, but the rest seems to be hesitating a bit turning at least full on back to Suez.

I think the pure cost savings on the trip are not so significant because as you rightfully point out, you save bunker, but you have to pay the Suez fee. I still expect that the overall return to Suez will be gradual probably from now until the end of the year.

And that's in a way also good because if the market continues to grow, then we will actually need a bit of additional capacity to move all of that cargo as today, the situation is really tight. And yes, we're going to get a fair number of new ships into the industry in 2027.

But right now, there are no indications that the growth in '27 will be much lower than what we see right now. And as such, a fair number of those ships is actually also needed to carry the cargo.

And that's, of course, where at some stage, returning to Suez will also help to turn the ships a bit quicker, so we can improve asset turns a bit.

Okay. And then the last one, just on the markets in general.

Clearly, solid demand, particularly headhaul, as you've been pointing out, I mean, what kind of growth pace do you expect the market to be presently?

I think when we look at the dominant legs growth, we are looking at about 7% or so in the first half of this year. Last year was about 6%.

I don't see a lot of indications that that's going to be much different if we try to look at the next 12 to 18 months and to have visibility much beyond that is always very difficult.

Thank you very much for allowing to add that couple. Just on -- could you tell us some bookings on Asia, Europe, what you're seeing recently?

There are some reports of some sequential weakening in bookings. I don't know if you're seeing that at all.

And secondly, I believe the Port of Hamburg, I mean they flagged some operational issues, and I think some points related to rail, some bottlenecks related to rail transportation. And just conceptually, when we think about your volume growth into Q3 and Q4, does that really move the needle for you?

Does it represent a bit of a constraint in terms of volume growth in your ocean business or not really? Any color you could offer us there?

I think generally, we see the market growing, yes. So from that perspective, there is certainly enough demand out there.

I don't see a real slowdown of bookings. Sometimes you have a little bit of fluctuation from one week to another.

And for example, if we have [ Port of Augusta ] in Italy, you will typically not see a lot of bookings there. Underlying demand, as far as I can see, is still very strong.

When we look at the inland, that is definitely an issue. We have low water.

We have some other operational issues that you were also referring to. That means that in most cases, things need to then move by truck because there is no other alternative where capacity is somewhat scarce.

So that does put some limitation on especially some of the export volume, but it is not something that will have a material impact on our overall volumes when looking at Q3 and Q4.

Understood. And can I please follow up just in terms of unit cost, I think the -- excluding the Middle East, the performance was good in Q2.

I don't know if in terms of looking forward, Q3, Q4, any moving parts you can tell us and how you would expect the unit cost to develop?

I think I agree with you. I think our cost -- unit cost development was good into Q2, and we just need to make sure that we stay on that track.

The biggest uncertainty there, of course, remains energy-related cost as that is a big factor. I would say most of the other factors we have undercontrol.

Not much from my side, just to say thank you for joining. Hope that was informative for you, and hope to see, we'll speak to you again soon.

Thank you. Bye-bye.