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.

If we look at the first half, 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, 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 costs.

Cash effects of that around $600 million. What we see in the P&L is about two-thirds 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 the 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, 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 had 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 in 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 the idle fleet has gone down, 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, 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 the capacity is less than what we used to have.

On Gemini, that runs as we thought well. We saw a dip in schedule reliability, but still remained 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.

That's definitely good. On the terminal front, quite a few achievements in the first half as that business is becoming a more and more important pillar of our overall business.

We got to 51% on J.M. 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 or Imetame, where we expect to start operations in 2028, and recently we announced a 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, a lot of work has gone into getting all the necessary approvals. Quite a lot of that you can read 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. 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 an 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.

Despite these significant headwinds, we generated group EBITDA of about $0.8 billion and delivered another strong free cash flow of $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.

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

Starting with our P&L, group revenue increased by 19% compared to the first quarter, reaching $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 $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 $157 million in the not positive quarter one of this year, we generated a positive group EBIT of $176 million in Q2. Group profit also returned to a positive territory and amounted to $83 million.

Turning to the performance of the liner segment, revenue increased to $5.7 billion compared to $4.8 billion in the first quarter. The development was supported by higher transport volumes and a significant recovery in freight rates.

Liner EBITDA reached $773 million in Q2. Following an EBIT loss of $174 million for the liner business in Q1, the segment returned to profitability and generated an EBIT of $153 million in the second quarter.

The recovery was achieved despite significant cost headwinds. On rates and volumes, our average freight rate increased by 11% quarter-on-quarter to $1,475 per TEU.

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 a 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. To the prior-year comparison, volumes were 3.5% higher.

The strongest sequential volume improvement was recorded on the Europe-to-America trade, and that was the trade which was particularly affected by the severe 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, while the average freight rate remained stable year-on-year at $1,406 per TEU despite the significant fluctuations during that period.

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

Unit costs increased to $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 round about $600 million of additional cash costs.

Of this amount, and Rolf indicated that already, $400 million was recognized as expenses in the second quarter, while the remainder is related to build-up of bunker inventories. Bunker and emissions costs increased significantly due to the sharp rise in bunker prices.

Our average bunker consumption price increased from $485 per metric ton, which was in Q1, to $700 per metric ton in Q2. Handling and haulage costs were affected by higher storage expenses and increased hinterland transportation costs related to alternative routing solutions in the Middle East, the land bridge, 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 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 effects of the Middle East disruptions, our underlying unit costs improved both sequentially and year-on-year, and this reflects the impact of our ongoing cost-saving measures.

To the T&I performance, a couple of words turning to our segment here. The business continued its positive momentum in the second quarter, and it 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 $360 million, and EBITDA increased to $102 million in the first half of '26.

This development was supported by the first-time full consolidation of J.M. 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 $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 $849 million. The difference compared to the EBITDA mainly reflects temporary working capital headwinds of over $470 million, and that is primarily related to the strong increase in business activities and the bunker inventory build-up during the second quarter.

Investment spending, CapEx, was modest and stood at close to $300 million, and that was mainly related to newbuild installments, fleet retrofits, including our ongoing conversation of the five vessels to methanol dual-fuel propulsion, and our terminal activities. Interest received, divestments, and other activities generated proceeds of $431 million.

As a result, investing cash flow was positive at $135 million. Overall, we generated a strong free cash flow of round about $1 billion in the first half of the year.

Looking at the financing cash flow, it amounted to $1.9 billion. This includes the dividend payment of round about $600 million as well as debt repayments and some other financing effects.

At the end of June, our cash position amounted to $3.2 billion. 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 and shown by high liquidity and low leverage. Equity amounted to $20.7 billion at the end of June, that's round about an equity ratio of 61%.

Net debt increased from $1.2 billion at year-end '25 to close to $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 $5.9 billion, including $3.2 billion in cash, as said, $2 billion in fixed income investments, and round about $0.7 billion in our undrawn revolving credit facility. Very clearly, this robust financial position provides us with substantial flexibility to fund all strategic priorities and to navigate the continued volatility in the markets which we are all facing.

Having said that, I hand it back to Rolf for the market update and the outlook. Thank you.

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, very decent peak season.

Also, if you look at something on the right-hand side, the inventory-to-sales ratio in the US, you can see that that's definitely not on the high side. 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. 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.

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 in Q2, a good performance in Gemini, very resilient, still delivering 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 significant additional cost, but so far we have been able to cope with that.

The terminal business doing well, continues to grow and becomes increasingly strategically relevant. 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, try to do whatever we can to maximize yield.

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

Hi, thank you very much for taking my questions. The first one, could I please ask you on the port congestion theme?

You mentioned a strong three years in head-haul volume growth. Looking forward, what are the arguments in favor of head-haul demand continuing to outgrow terminal capacity growth for the next two to three years?

Any arguments in particular there? My second one, if I could please ask you on the Bab-el-Mandeb.

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 return to Bab-el-Mandeb could bring a temporary competitive disadvantage versus other carriers and what's your latest view there?

The last one, if you allow me, we understand the ZIM negotiations are still ongoing, but just in a hypothetical scenario that the deal would not go through, could I 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.

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? Thank you.

Let me try and take them one by one. I think first of all, port congestion.

We see the port congestion because demand growth has been stronger than capacity growth over the last two, three years. 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, and I think that that's still going to last for a while because building that type of infrastructure is not that easy. In fairness to the terminal operators, I think everybody has been surprised with the growth on the dominant legs over the last two or three years.

It's not criticism to anyone, but I think the reality is that it will take some time before the infrastructure is adjusted. On Bab-el-Mandeb, 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 a year and a half ago. That means that we would also expect to see a gradual return to Bab-el-Mandeb.

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. 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. That's our planning assumption.

Yes, afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions.

The first one is on the rate developments. 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, answer the third quarter, owing to the delay? How much of those volumes have actually been subject to the EBS surcharge, just to get a sense for the delta in terms of the rate development there from Q2 into Q3?

All our long-term contracts with very few exceptions are subject to normal MFR or BAF, as you called it. That's what you will see in the vast majority of cases.

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. 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.

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? Thank you.

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.

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. 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.

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. Then the last one, just on the market in general.

Clearly, solid demand, particularly head-haul, as you've been pointing out. What kind of growth pace do you expect the market to be at presently?

Sorry. I think when we look at the dominant leg growth, we're looking at about 7% or so 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.

Okay. Thank you.

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

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

Secondly, I believe the port of Hamburg, I think they've flagged some operational issues, and I think some bottlenecks related to rail transportation. 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? Thank you.

I think, generally, we see the market growing. 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 fluctuation from one week to another, and for example, if we have Ferragosto 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.

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. Thank you very much.

Can I please follow up just in terms of unit costs? I think 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 costs to develop? Thank you.

I think

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

Biggest uncertainty there, of course, remains energy-related costs, as that is a big factor. I would say most of the other factors we have under control.

Thank you very much.

Not much from my side. Just to say thank you for joining.

Hope that was informative for you, and hope to see or speak to you again soon. Thank you.

Bye-bye.