PostNL N.V.

"

"

" KBC Securities NV, Research Division

" Barclays Bank PLC, Research Division

" ING Groep N.V., Research Division

"

Good morning, and welcome to you all. We have published our Q3 '25 results earlier this morning.

Unfortunately, CEO, Pim Berendsen, cannot join in this meeting due to personal circumstances today. So Linde will do the presentation.

And after that, we will open up for Q&A. With that, Linde, I hand over to you.

Thank you, Inge, and welcome to you all. Let me start with what highlights for this quarter.

Let me start with our Capital Markets Day, which we held on 17th of September. There, we presented our new strategy and transition program, Breakthrough 2028, with the related ambitions.

We launched our new purpose, connected to deliver what drives us all forward. And we launched our new strategic intent, being to grow our business, create sustainable value, lead through innovation, and make impact that matters.

This is based on 4 pillars: Growth, Value, Innovation, And Impact. I will repeat our 2028 ambitions on the next slide, but let me first share the key takeaways for this quarter.

The Q3 results came in as anticipated and landed below last year's results. At Parcels, volumes were up 1%.

And this quarter, again, volume growth from international customers outpaced domestic growth. The Mail volumes declined by almost 5%, mainly due to ongoing regular substitution, but this quarter was supported by the first batch of the election mail and some other one-off names.

The decline in normalized EBIT at Mail led to a year-to-date normalized EBIT of minus EUR 43 million, and this reinforces the urgent need for adjustments in the postal regulation. Good to mention that our cost savings are well executed and bring savings according to plan, both at Parcels and for Mail in the Netherlands.

Furthermore, additional efficiency improvements at Parcels contributed to our performance. And emission-free last-mile delivery increased to 33%, which is 5 percentage points better than last year.

The last thing to mention on this slide is the reiteration of our outlook for 2025. Before moving on to more details on this Q3 performance, let's do a quick recap of our Breakthrough 2028 program.

Our strategy aims at delivering sustainable returns for our shareholders and value for customers, employees, and society as a whole. We truly launched a strategic turning point with our new transformation program, Breakthrough 2028, that drives our financial ambition.

A short summary of the strategic objectives of our 3 business segments, which we will create as of 2026: First, E-commerce, where we will grow from volume to value through a differentiated approach and smart network utilization; secondly, platforms, where we capture international growth through asset-light models; and lastly, our Mail segment, where we want to transform to a future-proof postal service. Driven by the e-commerce market growth and our commercial initiatives, we aim to achieve GDP plus revenue growth, targeting at over EUR 4 billion in 2028 with a step-up in normalized EBIT to over EUR 175 million in 2028.

A disciplined investment approach will drive incremental return on invested capital with an increase in Return On Invested Capital (ROIC) from 3.4% in 2024 towards our ambition of over 12% by 2028. And our approach towards dividends remains the same, in line with business performance, with 70% to 90% payout ratio while holding on to our aim to be properly financed.

That's about a short recap of our Breakthrough 2028 program. Let's now move to the strategic attention points for Mail and Parcels, before I will explain the detailed Q3 financial results.

Let me start with Mail. Early October, a next step towards a viable and future-proof postal service in the Netherlands was proposed by the minister.

The following adjustments for the USO were proposed: D+2 at 90% quality as of 1 July 2026 D+3 at 92% quality as of July 2027 The consultation period closed last Friday. Without doubt, these adjustments are much appreciated.

But at the same time, this proposal is still insufficient to cover the net cost. And therefore, it remains necessary to find a solution, therefore.

And we have to keep in mind that the uncertainty in the timelines of the political process persists. In the coming weeks, we are expecting a decision on our appeal on the rejection of our request for financial contribution for 2025 and 2026, and also a reaction of the minister on our request for withdrawal of the USO designation.

Together, these will determine our next steps towards a sustainable future of postal service on its path to reach the ambition as set out in our Breakthrough 2028 program. We will continue to make every possible effort to maintain reliable service and remain committed to accessible and financially viable postal service.

Then to Parcels. As announced during the Capital Markets Day, that segment will be split in e-commerce and platforms as of 2026.

And we will focus on the respective strategies as announced on the Capital Markets Day. The strategic initiatives already started and are progressing according to plan.

In Q3, we see for Parcels a continuation of the trends as we have seen in the first half of this year. The price/mix effect was positive.

Strong price increases were delivered according to plan. These are largely offset by less favorable mix effects that are more negative than we had anticipated.

And that is mainly explained by the increased client concentration within our domestic volumes. With regard to the targeted yield measures, it is important to emphasize that these will come into effect gradually and confirm the strategic validity of our focus on consumer value, while also resulting in a slight loss in market share as anticipated.

What is also important to mention that to date, we have been able to mitigate the adverse development in mix effect by own actions. Our flexible operational setup proved our agility and enabled additional efficiency improvements in our network and supply chain that contributes to our performance, on top of the ongoing planned cost savings program.

Another focus area is our international expansion, especially in intra-European activities, where we are investing to capture future growth. In Q3, this resulted in the continuation of revenue growth at Spring, with some impact on the performance following our strategic investments.

We are ready for the ramp-up in our operations for the peak season that is about to come. Together with our customers, we are putting all efforts in striking the optimal balance between volume, value and capacity utilization.

Over to our key metrics. Let's start with the financial KPIs.

Revenue in the quarter amounted to EUR 762 million, which is slightly above last year. And we see normalized EBIT at minus EUR 21 million, in line with our expectations.

Looking at free cash flow, we see minus EUR 18 million in this quarter, bringing the year-to-date at EUR 98 million comparable with last year. And normalized comprehensive income that includes, for example, tax effects amounted to EUR 23 million minus.

I will discuss these results of Parcels and Mail in a bit more detail in a bit. Then the nonfinancial highlights for this quarter.

The share of emission-free last mile delivery improved by 5 percentage points to 33%. We have recently started the rollout of over 40 electrical vans in our transport services, so in the first and middle mile.

Looking at NPS, we keep our average #1 position in relevant markets and see an improving NPS for the important ‘I receive journey’. And to evidence our innovative power, we have recently concluded successful experiments to explore how robotics can contribute to future parcel delivery, building on the knowledge and experience about the way we have implemented robotics in our sorting centers.

Then our out-of-home strategy. That is continuing to gain momentum and the utilization rate being defined as the total amount of parcels, both to consumers and returns, during the week as a function of locker capacity is increasing and is now at 50%, while NPS scores for APL services remain high.

Let's move to the financial details of Parcels. Revenue amounted to EUR 581 million, which is EUR 6 million above last year, following volume growth, price increases and mix effects.

Overall, our volumes grew by 1%. Volumes from international customers continued its growth and were up 5% compared to last year and domestic volumes were flat.

Overall, market share was slightly down as anticipated following our yield measures. We do see further client concentration with increasing share of volume from large players, domestic as well as international, but also platforms and marketplaces.

In this quarter, the top 20 accounted for 57% of volume. With that in mind, it's good to see that the total price/mix impact was positive this quarter.

Average price per parcel was up by $0.02, supported by targeted yield measures and regular price increases. Price increases have been implemented according to plan.

But definitely, the mix effects are more negative than anticipated, driven by client concentration, predominantly within our domestic customer base. Furthermore, it is positive that our cross-border activities continued the trend.

We have been seeing for several quarters with revenues at Spring up this quarter, most strongly in our intra-European activities, a promising development as international expansion is one of our strategic initiatives. When looking at costs, it should not be a surprise that in this quarter, we saw a significant organic cost increase.

This is mainly labor related. However, we also see EUR 9 million in cost savings in Q3, and they were delivered according to plan.

To be more specific, they came from ongoing adaptive measures like, for example, rationalization of services because we stopped parcel delivery on Sunday. Next to that, our flexible operational setup proved our agility and made us achieve additional efficiency improvements in our network, so in depots, supply chain and transport, to mitigate the adverse mix effects.

In Spring, revenue growth was more than offset by the mix effects and the planned investments in international expansion. In the quarter, the financial impact from the implementation of U.S.

trade barriers was limited, though we do expect some adverse effects in Q4. This brings us to the Parcels bridge, showing the reconciliation of the normalized EBIT from EUR 6 million in Q3 last year to EUR 4 million in Q3 this year.

The volume growth contributed to our results, though was more than fully offset by the less favorable product customer mix effects, mainly within domestic. Organic cost increases amounted to EUR 70 million, following wage increases according to PostNL and sector collective labor agreements and indexation for delivery partners.

As you can see, the impact from our price increases was EUR 30 million and came in according to plan. Other costs were EUR 11 million better, mainly as a result of the combination of cost savings and additional efficiency improvements in depots, supply chain, and transport, which we managed to deliver to mitigate the negative mix effects.

In other results, I want to highlight that this is mainly applicable to Spring, where we see revenue growth being offset by mix effects. Furthermore, we again invested in international expansion, one of our strategic initiatives, which was approximately EUR 1 million this quarter for the expansion of the intra-European activities in Spring.

Also good to note is that we continue to focus on further growth in Belgium. There, we also invested further.

We invested in our distribution network, also amounting to EUR 1 million this quarter. Moving over to the results of our segment Mail in the Netherlands.

There, the revenue amounted to EUR 289 million, exactly the same as last year. The volume decline of 5% this quarter was mainly related to substitution, a structural trend which you are seeing for a long time now but supported by the first batch of election mail and other one-off mailings.

Furthermore, revenue was supported by 2 stamp price increases in January and in July of this year. Looking at costs, labor costs were up following the CLAs for PostNL and mail deliverers.

However, when looking at sick leave rates, we see a first improvement compared to last year. These cost increases were mitigated by cost savings of EUR 10 million according to plan, coming from further adjustments in our current business model, such as the transition of business mail towards a standard service framework of delivery within 2 days.

Altogether, this resulted in normalized EBIT of minus EUR 23 million and year-to-date minus EUR 43 million, as mentioned earlier, evidencing that the current business model for Mail is not sustainable. That brings me to the bridge of Mail in the Netherlands.

Here, you see the elements of Mail I just discussed. Starting at the top, you see the stamp prices I referred to added EUR 9 million to revenue.

The organic cost increases of EUR 10 million due to wage increases and other inflationary pressures are also visible. And finally, the cost savings of EUR 10 million and a bit lower labor costs related to sick leave were partly offset by lower bilateral results.

Let's move over to the free cash flow. Free cash flow was minus EUR 18 million in this quarter compared to minus EUR 68 million in the same quarter last year and in line with our expectations.

The delta versus last year is mainly explained by the working capital development coming from anticipated phasing effects and a nonrecurring tax settlement for prior years, including interest, which we paid in the third quarter of previous year. This brings us to the next slide, where you find our balance sheet and development of the adjusted net debt position.

Of course, here you see the impact from the impairment in Q2 on our financial position, which in the end is impacting our equity. In the short and long-term debt, you see the EUR 100 million from the Schuldschein placed in June.

So that was already the case in Q2, but obviously, you still see there. Movements in Q3 were limited.

We ended the quarter at an adjusted net debt position of EUR 572 million. Recently, we launched a new bond with face value of EUR 300 million, a term of 5 years, and an annual coupon of 4%, and we tendered on the outstanding 0.625 percentage notes due September 26.

EUR 195 million was accepted for repurchase. Please note that these related recordings and cash flows will materialize in Q4.

We continue to manage our cash flow, balance sheet, and net position carefully following our aim to be properly financed. And as a reminder, we reclassified in Q2 part of cash and cash equivalents to short-term investments and adjusted comparatives.

It has no impact on adjusted net debt or any other key metric. Then over to the split of normalized EBIT over the quarters.

As mentioned before, in 2025, normalized EBIT has to be earned in Q4 even more than in 2024. We are ready for our peak season.

Please keep in mind that the impact of pricing will be larger in Q4 than in the other quarters, which also implies that in Q4, pricing will exceed the impact from organic cost increases. When looking at year-to-date results, overall results came in, in line with expectation.

For the remainder of the year, for Parcels, you should take into account that announced yield measures are expected to come into effect gradually. And for Mail in the Netherlands, we will see the majority of the election mail coming in, in Q4.

In the right graph, you can see the indicative phasing for the savings is not fully divided evenly over the year, with a larger part of savings expected in Q4. Obviously, that is related to timing of some of the underlying measures.

Please note that some of the savings are a bit more tied to the absolute volumes, which also explains why the amount of savings is, as usual, expected to be slightly higher in Q4. Then over to the outlook.

Of course, we have to acknowledge that the external environment remains challenging and volatile. And as said before, the pace of client concentration due to changing consumer behavior is difficult to predict.

We reiterate our outlook for 2025. We expect normalized EBIT to be in line with 2024 performance.

Free cash flow is expected to be negative as, for example, CapEx will be above the level of 2024, including around EUR 15 million cash outflows related to the strategic initiatives. I repeat our intention to pay a dividend over 2025.

We hold on to our aim to be properly financed, taking into consideration the anticipated improvement in the performance going forward and the progress towards a future-proof postal service. And good to add that normalized comprehensive income, which is, of course, the base for the amount of dividend is expected to follow a pattern that is more or less in line with 2023.

In 2024, this includes some incidental positive effects. Well, this concludes my explanation of the Q3 results, and I would now like to hand back to Inge.

Thank you, Linde, for your presentation. We will now open up for Q&A, and I ask you to limit your questions to two questions per person to set.

So, operator, could you please explain the procedure for questions via the lines.

I have two, please. The first one would be on the impact of the trade barriers.

You mentioned that you expect a bit more impact of that in Q4. Can you give some color on this?

Or can, is there some quantification that you can give to this? And the second question would be on Parcels on the price/mix effect.

How I understood it at the beginning of the year was that the impact from the yield measures should gradually step in. Now if we look at the first three quarters, we actually see that the average pricing has actually come down.

You're quite confident in the fourth quarter that you will see the biggest impact from the pricing. Can you maybe elaborate a bit on why the impact here should be the largest?

Is there a big difference compared to last year in terms of surcharges or maybe penalties to your customers if their predicted volumes don't match with the actual volumes? Just why the impact of the pricing should be that much higher in Q4?

And if you can quantify what you're looking at?

Sure. And thanks, Michiel, for your questions.

Let me take them one by one. Starting with trade barriers.

Well, as I mentioned, so this quarter, we had limited impact. Of course, we do see more uncertainty and increasing volatility in the context of the U.S.

trade policy and the responses from the counterparties. Well, it's not a surprise that tariff changes increase volatility and could slow down GDP growth, but could also generate opportunities on the other side, looking, for instance, at our knowledge with regard to customs.

But it's, of course, too soon to tell and to say what is the exact impact for Q4. But what we see is that from a materiality point of view, we do not expect the impact to be material.

It will be limited also in Q4. And to give some context on it, the direct exposure will be less than, is expected to be less than 1% of our revenue.

Then that's on the first question. Then on your second question with regards to pricing for Parcels.

I would not say the pricing, what you mentioned, pricing has come down year-to-date. That's actually not the case.

What we see is that we, that our pricing has passed as we anticipated. What you see overall is that with the yield measures which we are taking, so we say, and we see that, that's gradually coming in.

Obviously, that depends also on when new contracts are being renewed. Not every contract has the same starting date or duration of the contract where we can change that.

But clearly, looking at the fourth quarter, also, of course, depending on volumes, when you see when you have made price increases, that obviously has a larger effect in the Q4 with peak periods. And there, wherever we have been introducing higher prices, yes, that obviously then also will have a higher effect, larger effect in Q4 than we have seen in the past quarters, because we have started with that gradually as of Q2.

So that is why we expect the Q4 price increases for PostNL to be larger than the organic cost increases for the year. I hope that provides an answer to both your questions.

My first question is on the USO. Clearly, you set some scenarios back at the CMD in September, but we have had some more news in October.

So, you're increasing prices by a lot as of 1st of Jan '26 on a year-over-year basis. And you're now implementing D+2 from early Jan '26.

So my question to you is, do we think that this is enough for you to be breakeven in 2026?

Yes, to start with, first of all, on the start day of D+2, that's not the 1st of January 2026, but 1 July 2026. And on your question on the developments of the breakeven point, what we highlighted in during the Capital Markets Day is that we had, we would lead to breakeven as of 2028 because that is the point where we move to D+3.

At that time, the proposal from the minister was the 1st of January 2028 if a certain quality measure was achieved. That was the point of breakeven, so not 2026.

So to respond to your question, we still will not be breakeven in 2026 for the Mail division given the developments, which we've had in the beginning of October because the main change over there was regarding the timing of the move to D+3, which was from 1st of January '28, he moved it more to the front 1 July 2027. And secondly, there were, he proposed reliefs on the quality levels, which were in the earlier proposal 95%.

However, it's good to mention that this are just proposals from the minister and really uncertainty around the time lines and the political process really persists. Well, as you know, we've had the recent elections last week.

So as I said, these are just proposals from the minister and not yet law, so to say.

Okay. And what is the time line for a possible response on the cash compensation?

For the cash compensation, well, as you know, is that this proposal from the minister, it is a solution on the, it is a move or a first step towards a more future-proof situation. However, it does not serve or a solution yet for our net cost compensation.

And as you may know or remember, we are, of course, still in proceedings on our financial contribution for 2025 and 2026. And there, we have appealed.

And yes, we are waiting for the outcome of that. And as I said, on top of that, in the proposal from the minister, we also are looking still for a solution of our net costs in general.

Yes. That is now not in our control, but we are awaiting a response on that from our appeal as well as the next steps from the minister.

Okay. And second question very quickly.

So, once you achieve breakeven first half '27, sorry, 1st July '27 or '28. But then I mean, if we think about more longer term, once you achieve the breakeven, you raised the bar to the breakeven situation, but then we are once again in a situation where we will be, we have cost inflation, let the volume decline.

So on the long-term, let's say, over the next 10 years, once you move to D+3, how can you make sure that the USO is, let's say, forever breakeven at least?

Well, I think that is, of course, ongoing, what we are doing in Mail is trying to get an optimal network to ensure we are, well, let's say, organized as efficient as possible. I mean we don't have a glass ball, but we will make sure that we will do everything, put all our efforts to make it a future-proof situation.

And as I said before, the, let's say, regulation or a solution for net costs is in the end, fundamental for a future viable situation. And that's why these first steps are welcome, but it's not yet enough to cover the full problem.

First question is just a check because I think can you remind us on when the D+3 would kick in? Was it on the 1st of July '27?

Or is it 1st of January '27?

Yes. The proposal from the minister, which was done in the beginning of October was for the 1st of July 2027.

So that is six months earlier than in the previous proposal from the minister.

Yes. And then the quality has moved from 95% to 92%.

That’s correct?

Yes, correct. Yes.

Then your Mail volumes, the minus 5% in Q3, there was a little bit of election in there. But as I remind from the earnings call, it was only a few days and not so much volumes.

Most of it would be in Q4. So, if you exclude, let's say, the slight tailwind from the election in Q3, but what would have been then the underlying mail volume decline in Q3 would have been something like minus 5%, or minus 6% something like that?

5.6%, Marc.

Sorry, I didn't get that.

5.6%, it would have been. So, looking at the impact from election mail, you see that in quarter three, the impact was EUR 2 million of pieces for this quarter and the remainder of it for the fourth quarter.

And why is it only minus 5.6%? Is that just seasonality?

Or is it just quite different from the normal trend of minus 8% to minus 10%?

Yes. I think it's indeed seasonality phasing that is playing part.

Okay. So in Q4, we should just assume the normalized, let's say, minus 8%, minus 10% and then add the support from the election.

Is that correct? Or is there something seasonal there as well?

Yes, more or less, yes, that's correct.

Okay. And a question on the Amazon news last week for the investments in the Netherlands.

Can you share your view on what they're saying because they want to tie their volumes in with what they have when this world wake ups. I know it's sizable client, but the other ones are bigger clients for you.

So if volume shifts from your biggest client to your smaller clients and they also have a bit of a policy to do it themselves for a part. Can you show us your view what will be the impact on your Parcel volumes?

Well, obviously, we are closely monitoring these developments in the market. And well, at this point in time, it's too soon to give some color on the exact implications.

But what we see more and more increasingly is we see online stores expanding and getting more and more, which is also happening now with Amazon or they are testing new services and investing in the e-commerce market. And that's obviously also what we are doing.

We continue to innovate in e-commerce and expanding our delivery preferences and really carefully look at consumer preferences, for instance, what we do with our out-of-home network. And with that, yes, okay, this is, of course, an event and a news which we closely monitor.

And on the other side, it is still volume in the market, and we are just making sure that we continue our strategic intent and moves, which we mentioned during the Capital Markets Day to also reflect on any new or extended customers and platforms. But too soon to tell, too soon to give exact implications for that.

Maybe a bit more detail on Amazon, how big is that client for you at the moment in terms of volumes?

Well, I cannot give their exact color, but it's, as you say, not the largest client.

It's a top 5 client, I believe.

No, no, no. No.

Okay. Okay.

And then my last question, if I may. You mentioned that there will be more positive impact from price in Q4.

You have taken some additional efficiency measures. Is it correct that the efficiency measures, the extra, if I take the flow chart, the now from the original plan and then the bridge to the EUR 11 million, which is showing there as other cost as a positive then the EUR 2 million is then from the efficiency improvements?

Is that the additional ones you mentioned? Is that the correct one?

Well, of course, it consists of pluses and minus. So that's not the, you cannot simply subtract the 11% from the 9% because there are, of course, pluses and minus in there.

But what we see is that we have been or are able to put additional efficiency measures in our depots, transport. And there, we see that to counter our mix effects.

And that is also something which we will obviously continue for our fourth quarter, which will come on top of the ongoing adaptive measures.

Because if I compare the mix effect and the price effect, basically, they are a bit similar to what we've seen in Q2. Yes, shift yet feeding through while it was supposed to yield higher price and a better price/mix on balance, and that's not showing.

So I'm just curious how you see that for Q4 because if it only, if the mix effect becomes bigger and the price becomes a little bit bigger, then you still have only a very mild positive price/mix effect, then you should have quite some additional efficiency improvements in Q4 to make your outlook. That's a bit where I'm puzzled.

Yes.

No. Well, yes.

Maybe to explain is, as said, so our price increases and yield measures, they are, we are delivering them according to plan. So that is basically what we have, let's say, in control.

Looking at the mix effect, where you see that's really depending on consumer behavior, that effect, that mix effect is bigger than we, more negative than we anticipated and to counter that and mitigate that. And obviously, also inherently in yield measures is also part of moving to efficient operations.

There, we see the counter effect where we can control or can mitigate that negative mix effect. So yes, correct, the mix effect we anticipated is more.

So larger clients getting faster big, so to say, than we had anticipated. And to counter that, we are ensuring that we put additional efficiency measures in place to mitigate that.

And to your point on the yield measures coming in, that's really gradually. It's not that from one day to the other, it all hits in.

That takes a bit of time. And clearly, also this quarter is, let's say, a mild quarter in the sense that not a lot is happening.

So that also is, therefore, the effect of yield measures is gradually coming in and then also, of course, more heavily as such in Q4.

I have a couple of questions. And I'm afraid the first one is a bit of a long one because I think it's important to understand the right context.

Last year, around this time last year, you warned us for the fact that Black Friday and Cyber Monday were so close to Sinterklaas . I think you've learned a lot from last year or you got to mention it, but I'm sure that this year it plays as well because Black Friday is on the 28th of November.

Cyber Monday is on the 1st of December. Sinterklaas is on the 5th of December.

With the improving consumer confidence data we've seen in recent months, this could really be a challenge. How are you dealing with it?

Do you see any prebuying that as we saw last year that people try to avoid Black Friday and Cyber Monday and that sort of thing. So my key question is, how do you manage it?

And are you seeing prebuying already? For example, what can you share with us in relation to the volumes in Parcels you've seen in October?

Well, of course, on October, I cannot comment. That's too soon to tell.

But on your question with the, let's say, the density of those Black Friday and Sinterklaas , et cetera. Well, I think that's not something new.

We have been, we have had this for more years where we experienced this type of density in the holiday or in the peak season, sorry. And so, what you see is that overall, those peaks get more peaky, so to say.

So that is not just something for PostNL but is a general market trend. And we are in very close contact with our customers to ensure that we really optimize knowing that these days will be in the way these days will be; that we optimize volume, value and capacity utilization for this peak period, and also take into account, of course, our experiences, which we've had previous year to ensure that we streamline that peak period as good as we can.

And clearly, we are very well on time with preparing for that and are really in close contact because with our customers because it's not just PostNL who needs to have that optimal utilization in the peak period, but it's actually for the whole ecosystem. So, all players in the ecosystem benefit from that.

And that's why we are in close contact with them and also clearly communicate also to consumers around this. So yes, I can't say anything different that we are fully prepared for it and ready to have this organized in the most optimal way.

Have you seen any prebuying activity? Anything noteworthy that the trend was different at the end of the third quarter, for example?

No, no, I haven't seen that. No.

My second question is around international volumes. If I look at the first quarter of this year, then we saw plus 15%, second quarter, plus 10% year-on-year.

Now we see plus 5% I can interpret it in 2 different ways. One is that indeed, the value over volume strategy is beginning to show.

But I've also heard that new parties have come to the market like Cainiao and Dragonfly, which are especially aiming cheap Chinese volumes as long as well, they are a party in the market. One of your competitors even described them as gold diggers.

What is happening there? What is it exactly?

Are you indeed more cautious taking on more volume from China? Or is it the competitive environment that is changing?

Well, I would say, first of all, it's good to note that I think comparing by heart versus the growth of previous year, we already had a higher base. So, the first 2 quarters are not your starting point is different.

Secondly, yes, our volume value strategy is clearly something which is what we aim for, and that is also for both domestic and international playing out there. So yes, that is, I think, the combination.

Okay. And then connected to that, there have been talks about implementing handling fees on Chinese Parcels.

France was the first to announce that they were considering imposing a EUR 2 per item handling fee. And I recently read something that the Dutch are intending to do the same thing, if the French do it as of the 1st of January.

Any news there? And how could it impact your business because [Schiphol] is one of the main hubs?

Yes. Well, let me start.

It's too early to provide you with a concrete statement on the impact. But in general, PostNL is supportive of a level playing field in the different European countries.

However, well, as you already mentioned, the 1st of January, such a potential additional tax would really result for us in an operational challenge. It's not feasible to implement this well, we are talking about already the busiest period in the year, and it's a very short time frame to implement such a system.

And it also can be, of course, disruptive, I should say. So, like with the U.S.

trade barriers, where also international postal traffic to the U.S. was on hold for a bit.

So that's why we are in conversations with the government on that as well. And so, we would really plea, if it's being implemented for a careful implementation, so to involve all parties and with equal timing for all the EU countries and not to diversify between the different European countries.

So that being said, too soon to give a statement on that, and we are actively in conversation to align on the best approach to make this work.

And then my final question, that's an easy one, sorry for making your life so hard, nothing personal. But on the APMs, I understood that you're currently at around 1,250 APMs, APLs, you call.

Yes, that's correct.

You were at around 1,100 at year-end last year. When I look back in the annual report, the intention was to increase that number by 500 to 600 a year.

I can't imagine that during the peak period, all of a sudden, you're placing 400, 500 or so of the APLs. You have better things to do, I guess.

What is the time path going forward? Because at the Capital Markets Day, also you highlighted the importance of APLs just the background of efficiency and that sort of things.

Why am I not seeing a stronger pickup? The DHL, for example, is north of 2,000 already.

It will be more and more difficult to find the right locations at the longer you wait.

Yes. Well, we indeed clearly have our ambition towards over 3,000 in 2028.

And what we see is that it's also about the size of the lockers which you place. So, amount of lockers is one thing, but size, how many of these lockers are in one APL is we are placing bigger sizes than initially planned.

And yes, we are progressing on that. And clearly, you have to deal as well with all the governmental regulations with that, and we are clearly on top of it to deliver towards our ambition for the long term.

And as said, we see positive developments in the utilization of the lockers which we place and as said, which are bigger lockers than we initially placed. So yes, that is basically where we stand.

So basically, what you're saying is there will be a catch-up in the years ahead.

Yes. Yes.

Yes, that's correct. A quick one.

You issued a press release on the 5th of September that is asking the minister to withdraw the obligation of the USO. That's 2 days away that the 2 months are done.

Should we expect some news flow in the next few days? Or can you help me with the timelines?

Well, indeed, correct, we asked for within 2 months. But obviously, that is not in our control.

So yes, I would say expecting it this month, but depending obviously on the time lines on the side of the government, and that is not something we can control.

So could be any 6 months basically or without a date that's how.

Yes, exactly, exactly. they don't confirm by then and then you get the answer.

That's not how it works.

And on the appeal of the cost compensation, is there.

It's the same. It's also depending on there.

So yes, you are just basically depending on their side and also on the legal system. So yes.

Yes, I thought it was more like a court case thing that at some point, you need an outcome or is it not the case?

No, no, we haven't received any guidance on when we can expect it. No, not at this point in time.

Well, then we conclude our Q3 '25 results for now. Thank you all for participating and speak to you soon.

Thank you all.