profitability and growth - maersk
TRANSCRIPT
PROFITABILITY AND GROWTH Maersk Line Maersk Group Capital Markets Day, 9 September 2015
LEGAL NOTICE This presentation contains certain forward looking statements (all statements that are not entirely based on historical facts, among others expectations to future financial performance, developments, resources growth and production levels). Those forward looking statements reflect current views on future events and are by their nature subject to significant risks and uncertainties because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that will occur in the future. We consider such forward looking statements reasonable based on the information available to us at this time, but the actual results etc. may differ materially from our expectations because of external factors as well as changes to APMM’s goals and strategy. Thus, no undue reliance should be placed on such statements. Neither APMM, nor any other person, shall assume responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the forward looking statements and do not undertake any obligation to update such statements except as required by law. This Legal Notice shall be governed by Danish Law. Any dispute arising out of or in relation to this Legal Notice which can not be solved amicably shall be decided by the Danish Courts.
page 2
INTRODUCTION
Søren Skou Chief Executive Officer
page 3
1. Key highlights since last Capital Markets Day
2. Our performance
3. Industry analysis and outlook
4. Our response
AGENDA
page 4
01 We have done what we outlined last year
04 We continue to deliver value
02 We continue to deliver on our financial objectives
03 We have build a resilient company in a tough industry
page 5
We have executed what we outlined at Capital Markets Day last year…
COST CUT FURTHER
2M APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED
NORTH / SOUTH SHARE PROTECTED
GROWTH INITIATIVES
Note: 1) At fixed bunker 2) Compared to not implementing 2M 3) North / South definition include Intra America Source: Maersk Line
Unit cost reduced 4.9% from Q2 2014 to q2 2015 1
Implemented according to plan and on track to deliver USD 350m annual savings2
Capacity share of 20% maintained across North / south trades3
Sealand successfully launched
Kotahi contract implemented successfully
page 6
2015 MAERSK LINE INVESTMENTS
…and we have invested in new capacity for the future growth
Source: Maersk Line
27 vessels
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
New building price per TEU index, (100=June 2008)
14k TEU segment
Current new build price are close to historically low
6.5k TEU segment
367K TEU (12% of current capacity)
2017 delivery of first vessels
8.6K USD/TEU Investment
page 7
We continue to deliver on all our medium term objectives
2015 H1 2014 H1 2013 H1
MEDIUM TERM OBJECTIVES
EBIT-margin 5%-points above peer average
Growing with the market
Funded by own free cash flow
Profitability: ROIC above 8.5%
9% points
USD +727m
+9.9%
8% points
USD +762m
+6.2%
Yes Yes
6% points
USD +781m
+12.2%
Yes
2012 H1
3% points
USD -2,348m
-3.8%
Yes
Source: Maersk Line
page 8
Having achieved cost leadership, we are now a much more resilient company
Note: (1)2009 Includes Damco, however not material Source: Maersk Line
Freight rates (USD/FFE) 2,288 2,370 +4%
Bunker prices (USD/Ton) 272 346 +27%
’09 H1 ’15 H1 Delta MARKET
Almost identical market conditions
NOPAT (USDm) -995 1,221 +2,216
ROIC, (%)1 -11.0% 12.2% +23.2pts
’09 H1 ’15 H1 Delta RESULTS
But distinctively different performance
page 9
In a tough industry and a difficult market environment we see opportunities for Maersk Line
PRESENTLY STRONG HEAD WINDS
• Lowest demand since financial crisis
• Historically high level of deliveries
• Rates at historically low level
POOR INDUSTRY FUNDAMENTALS
• Deteriorating and volatile rates...
• …leads to strive for cost efficiency through larger vessels…
• …leads to strong new ordering…
• … leads to continued imbalanced supply/demand
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
• Cost leadership leading to margin gap
• Best and largest network offering
• Strong brand and values
• Improving customer experience
VALUE CREATION
• Pricing competitively while still delivering returns above objectives
• Increase market share
• Continue to create positive free cash flow to fund growth and invest in new IT to provide a better customer experience
Source: Maersk Line
page 10
Søren Skou Chief Executive Officer
• Joined Maersk in 1983 • Various positions
globally • CEO of Maersk Tankers
from 2001-11 • CEO of Maersk Line
since Jan. 2012 • Executive board of
Maersk Group since 2006
Michael Chivers Chief Human Resource Officer
• Joined Maersk in 2012 • Sony Ericsson, 17
years in various positions ending as Head of Global HR
Stephen Schueler Chief Commercial Officer
• Joined Maersk in 2013 • Microsoft, head of sales
& marketing • 20 years in Procter &
Gamble latest as Head of Retail Operations
Vincent Clerc Chief Trade & Marketing Officer
• Joined Maersk in 1997 • Various positions in
USA and Europe • Prior to current position,
Head of Transpacific & Asia Europe service
Jakob Stausholm Chief Strategy & Transformation Officer
• Joined Maersk in 2012 • Shell, 19 years in various
positions in EU, Latin America and Asia
• ISS, 4 years as CFO • Board of directors of
Statoil since 2009
Søren Toft Chief Operating Officer
• Joined Maersk in 1994 • Various positions in
Denmark, Europe and Asia
• Prior to current position, Head of Network Planning
Pierre Danet Chief Financial Officer
• Joined Maersk in 2015 • Procter & Gamble for 19
years in different financial leadership roles
• HP, 4 years most recently as CFO of HP’s Printing & Personal Systems division for EMEA
A COMPETENT LEADERSHIP TEAM Todays speaker Todays speaker Todays speaker
Source: Maersk Line
page 11
OUR PERFORMANCE
Pierre Danet Chief Financial Officer
page 12
01 Improved already strong results
04 We have build a resilient company in a tough industry
02 Adding to an already established track record
03 Driven by strong cost and balance sheet fundamentals
page 13
The continued strong financial performance enables self funding of new investments
Continued strong NOPAT… …and free cash flow allowing for extraordinary delivery of EEEs in Q2
-599
227 498
335 204 439 555
313 454 547 685 655 714 507
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
-1,387 -960
368 223 283 478 768 595
345 382 546 872 769
13
-5,000
-4,000
-3,000
-2,000
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
Free cash flow, (USDm) LTM QTR NOPAT, (USDm) LTM QTR
Delivery of 5 EEEs impacting free cash flow by USD556m
Source: Maersk Line
page 14
-12.7%
4.6%
9.7%
6.5%
4.0%
8.5%
10.9%
6.2%
9.0% 10.8%
13.5% 13.0%
14.3%
10.1%
8.5%
-16%
-12%
-8%
-4%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
For 6 consecutive quarters we have delivered ROIC above medium term target
Source: Maersk Line
ROIC, (%) LTM Quarterly 8.5%
page 15
Volume, (‘000 FFE)
Volumes recovered in Q2 improving utilization
Volumes improved in Q2… …resulting in utilization recovering
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
3,200
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
3,200
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
Notes: Capacity turn = Volume / Nominal capacity adj. for idling and vessels added for slow steaming Source: Maersk Line, Alphaliner
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
Capacity turn, (FFE/TEU) Nominal Capacity, (‘000 TEU)
Avg. Capacity Volume
page 16
We have increased capacity much less than industry
Growing capacity less than industry… …also compared to top 10 carriers1
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Q1 12 Q3 12 Q1 13 Q3 13 Q1 14 Q3 14 Q1 15
Note: 1) Top 10 carriers based on July ‘15 capacity market share Source: Maersk Line, Alphaliner
Index, (Q2 2012 = 100)
ML nominal capacity
Industry volume Industry nominal capacity
51%
46%
43%
31%
25%
22%
21%
16%
15%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Hapag-Lloyd
Evergreen
Hamburg Süd
CMA CGM
MOL
CSCL
Cosco
MSC
Hanjin
Maersk Line
Nominal capacity growth, (Q2 2012 – Q2 2015)
page 17
We are continuously taking out costs
We continue to take out costs… … and are at an all time low on unit cost
Note: Unit cost excluding gain/loss, restructuring, share of profit/loss from associated companies and including VSA income. Unit cost at fixed bunker price calculated based on 400 USD/Ton all years. Source: Maersk Line
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
3,200
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
Unit cost at fixed bunker price, (USD/FFE)
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3,000
3,200
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
Unit cost, (USD/FFE)
CAGR -5.1% CAGR -8.7%
page 18
Continued focus on SG&A capturing scale benefits
Declining SG&A trend… …significant improvement per FFE
2,000
2,050
2,100
2,150
2,200
2,250
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
200
220
240
260
280
300
Q112
Q212
Q312
Q412
Q113
Q213
Q313
Q413
Q114
Q214
Q314
Q414
Q115
Q215
Note: 1) Selling, general & administrative expenses Source: Maersk Line
CAGR -5.5%
CAGR -2.3%
Quarter based LTM SG&A unit cost, (USD/FFE) Quarter based LTM SG&A cost, (USDm)
page 19
Keeping the balance sheet fit despite growing volumes
Decline in invested capital since Q2 2012
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
Q1 12 Q2 12 Q3 12 Q4 12 Q1 13 Q2 13 Q3 13 Q4 13 Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 14 Q1 15 Q2 15
Invested capital, (USDm)
Invested capital per FFE, (USD/FFE)
Invested capital Invested capital per FFE (rha)
CAGR -0.1%
Note: Volumes are annualized. Invested capital ultimo period. Source: Maersk Line
CAGR -4,0%
page 20
Key financial disclosures
Financial Performance Q2 2015 Q2 2014 Change %-change
Revenue (USDm) 6,263 6,902 -638 -9.2%
Total cost (USDm) 5,756 6,355 599 -9.4%
NOPAT (USDm) 507 547 -39 -7.2%
Underlying result1 499 542 -43 -8.0%
Volume (‘000 FFE) 2,484 2,396 88 3.7%
Average freight rate (USD/FFE) 2,261 2,634 -373 -14.1%
Unit cost at floating bunker prices (USD/FFE) 2,246 2,585 -338 -13.1%
Unit cost at fixed bunker prices2 (USD/FFE) 2,305 2,423 -118 -4.9%
Invested capital3 (USDm) 20,340 20,176 164 0,8%
ROIC (%) 10.1% 10.8% n.a. -0.7%
Note: 1. Underlying result is equal to the result of continuing business excluding net impact from divestments and impairments 2. Unit cost at fixed bunker price of 400 USD/ton and including VSA income, 3. Invested capital avg. of period Source: Maersk Line
page 21
Jakob Stausholm Chief Strategy & Transformation Officer
INDUSTRY ANALYSIS & OUTLOOK
page 22
01 Adverse business environment leads to deflationary freight rate development
02 Fragmented industry where scale matters
03 Competitive results
page 23
Industry demand growth at its lowest since the financial crisis
-20%
-16%
-12%
-8%
-4%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
Q1 01 Q4 01 Q3 02 Q2 03 Q1 04 Q4 04 Q3 05 Q2 06 Q1 07 Q4 07 Q3 08 Q2 09 Q1 10 Q4 10 Q3 11 Q2 12 Q1 13 Q4 13 Q3 14 Q2 15E
Note: LTM based on last 4 quarters Source: Maersk Line
Demand growth, (%) LTM Quarterly y/y growth
CAGR 9.5% CAGR 3.2% CAGR 3.7%
page 24
5%
7%
-1%
-6%
-2%
2%
-4%
4%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2013 2014 Q1 15 Q2 15 2015E 2016-17E
-25-20-15-10
-505
2013 2014 2015 2016-17
Recent drop in European import from Far East expected to bounce back from Russia and re-stocking improvements
2015 drop in European imports from Far East… … due to Russia and EU retail inventories
Container demand growth y/y, (%)1
Russian container import from Far East, growth (%)1
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
2013 2014 2015 2016-17
EU retail inventory investments, growth (%)
Note: 1) Westbound container demand on trades E1 and E2 Source: CTS, European Commission and Maersk internal calculations
Actuals Forecast Actuals Forecast
EU inventories expected to normalize in 2016
page 25
3.7%
3.2%
9.5%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
2-4%
3-5%
Container demand is likely to recover as GDP-multiplier expected to normalize from historically low 2015 level Global GDP growth, (%) GDP
Multiplier
Source: Focus Economics, IMF and Maersk internal calculations
3.0
1.9
1.5
0.9-1.4
1.2-1.7
2.5%
1.6%
3.1%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
2016E-2017E
2015E
2012-2014
2008-2011
2001-2007
2.4-2.7%
2.4-3.2%
Global Container demand, (%) Actual Forecast
Impacted by e.g. • Russia • Europe de-stocking • Port congestion US
West Coast
High pre-crisis GDP-multiplier, driven by massive offshoring to e.g. China, and containerization
page 26
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
E
20
16
-1
7E
Supply has outgrown demand past 9 years except for 2010 and trend expected to continue Y/Y Growth, (%) Y/Y Demand Growth Y/Y Supply Growth
Forecast
Note: Capacity growth compares standing container vessel capacity beginning of year to end of year, while demand growth compares total amount of containers in two consecutive years. Capacity forecast assumes no additional slow steaming, as the low oil price gives less incentive to slow down vessel speed. Also, idling is assumed to remain broadly unchanged. Forecast demand growth is for illustration purpose shown as midpoint for the expected interval. Source: Alphaliner, Maersk Line
Excess capacity primarily absorbed by slow steaming
Less incentive for further slow
steaming
page 27
Rates will continue to be under pressure from supply/demand imbalance
2,300
2,500
2,700
2,900
3,100
3,300
3,500
3,700
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 H1 15
Notes: Bunker price fixed at 2012 level of 662 USD/FFE. Comparison of freight rate with 2004, 2008 and 2010 based on yearly freight rate average. Source: Maersk Line
Maersk Line’s average freight rate has declined 1.9% p.a. since 2004
Since CAGR (%)
2004 -1.9
2008 -3.9
2010 -4.3
2012 -2.2
2014 – H1 15 -5.2
CAGR -1.9%
Maersk Line freight rate – fixed bunker, (USD/FFE)
Vicious circle
page 28
Significant orders placed in the first half of 2015 with increasing ordering of largest vessels
12%
7%
18%
37% 36%
24%
37%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
12H1 12H2 13H1 13H2 14H1 14H2 15H1
Note: LTM based on half years. 1) Orders placed as percent of fleet based on capacity in given years, 2) >10,000 orders share of >10,000 TEU fleet, 3) <10,000 orders share of <10,000 TEU fleet Source: Maersk Line, Alphaliner
Orders placed, (TEU ‘000)1
>10,000 TEU <9999 TEU LTM orders share of fleet, (%)
LTM Order share of >10,000 fleet2
page 29
Current order book is large, and will worsen supply/demand imbalance
Competition order to grow capacity at faster pace
Open orders firmly exceed demand growth expectations
5.4%
5.8%
6.4%
15.4%
15.5%
20.7%
23.9%
24.7%
39.3%
39.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Hapag-Lloyd
Hanjin
Hamburg Süd
CSCL
Maersk Line
CMA CGM
MOL
MSC
COSCO
Evergreen
Current order book share of carrier fleet for top 10 carriers3, (%)
9%
11%
14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
H112
H212
H113
H213
H114
H214
at 5% demand growth
at 4% demand growth
at 3% demand growth
Industry order book share of fleet1, (%)
Current order book (H1 15)
Note: 1) Fleet at given period ultimo, 2) Expected duration of an order book is 2.5 years with 1,1% expected scrapings per year based on historical period 2000 onwards; 3) Capacity and order book as of ultimo July Source: Maersk Line, Alphaliner
Needed order book size of current fleet to address demand growth forecast range2
page 30
Our tonnage plan is robust and value creating even in adverse market conditions
Source: Maersk Line
Even in adverse market scenarios, newly ordered vessels create value… … with recent orders we can now plan ahead
We need capacity to grow
We order vessels where no alternative
2M enable us to utilize major vessels
Small investments compared to network size
page 31
As the largest carrier we have delivered sustainable EBIT margin gap
Gap to peers above target… …also when peers have improved results
4.6% -2.1%
-1.3% 0.7% 1.1%
1.9% 2.1%
5.1% 5.3%
6.0% 7.0%
7.9% 9.1%
10.8%
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Peer group AvgMOL
Hyundai MM.CSCL
APLK Line
NYKZIM
Hapag LloydHanjin
OOCLCOSCO
CMA CGMMaersk Line
Note: Peer group includes CMA CGM, APL, Hapag Lloyd, Hanjin, ZIM, Hyundai MM, K Line, CSAV, OOCL, NYK, MOL, COSCO, CSCL. Peer average is TEU-weighted. EBIT margins are adjusted for gains/losses on sale of assets, restructuring charges, income/loss from associates. Maersk Line’ EBIT margin is also adjusted for depreciations to match industry standards (25 years). Source: Alphaliner, Company reports, Maersk Line
2%
5%
8% 9% 9% 9%
6%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
12H1 12H2 13H1 13H2 14H1 14H2 15H1
5% Target
H1 2015 Core EBIT margin, (%) Core EBIT margin gap, (% pts.)
page 32
We are on average operating in an unhealthy industry, but large carriers can earn a decent profit
On average an unhealthy industry… …however large carriers can earn profits
Source: Maersk Line
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
12
Q1
12
Q2
12
Q3
12
Q4
13
Q1
13
Q2
13
Q3
13
Q4
14
Q1
14
Q2
14
Q3
14
Q4
15
Q1
15
Q2
EBIT Margin, (%) Industry EBIT-Margin Trend
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
12
Q1
12
Q2
12
Q3
12
Q4
13
Q1
13
Q2
13
Q3
13
Q4
14
Q1
14
Q2
14
Q3
14
Q4
15
Q1
15
Q2
Best in class
EBIT Margin, (%) Best in Class Best in Class average
page 33
Maersk Line
APL
CSCL
CMA
Hanjin COSCO
Hapaq Lloyd
Hyundai MOL
NYK
K Line
OOCL
ZIM
Evergreen
Yang Ming
Wan Hai
SITC
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Average capacity 2012-2015H1, (‘000 TEU)
CSCL+COSCO1
Scale is a lever of profitability
Regional focus Global scale leaders
Average EBIT-margin 2012-2015H1, (%)
Note: 1) Post-merger scenario based on weighted EBIT-margin and combined volume Source: Maersk Line, Company Reports, Alphaliner
?
page 34
13.2%
15.9%
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
'15
E'1
6E
'17
E4.7%
14.0%
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
'15
E
'16
E
'17
E
2.7%
9.0%
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
'15
E
'16
E
'17
E
The three largest carriers have historically grown very differently
Capacity market share (%)
Note: Forecast based on current order book Source: Maersk Line, Alphaliner
MLB MSC CMA CGM
TEU CAGR 1995-04
20.8% 2005-14
9.3% 2015-17
4.4% 1995-04
26.4% 2005-14
14.0% 2015-17
7.9% 1995-04
27.3% 2005-14
13.9% 2015-17
7.0%
Growth strategy Organic + M&A (‘big’) Pure organic Organic + M&A (multiple smaller)
Maersk Line MSC CMA CGM
PONL acquisition
page 35
A deflationary mindset continue to be key while defending market leader position
Forward looking statements 2003-2013 2013 2014 2015E 2016E
Industry demand (CAGR growth, %)
7% 4% 4% 2-4% 3-5%
Industry nominal capacity (CAGR growth, %)
10% 6% 6% 9% ~5%
Cost (Maersk Line)
Deflationary mindset: Continue to drive cost reductions
Market share (Maersk Line)
Growing at least with the market to defend our market leading position
Investments (Maersk Line) CFFI (Net), USD bn
2.3 1.6 2.0
Notes: Nominal capacity growth is expected deliveries less expected scrappings. Investments from 2003-2013 are an avg. for the period and includes Damco, Maersk Container Industry and Container Inland Services from 2003-08, while APM Terminals is excluded. The P&O Nedlloyd acquisition in 2005 is included. Investments include committed investments, approved but not committed investments and non-approved investments. Source: Maersk Line, Alphaliner.
Avg. 2.5 p.a.
Adjusted since 2014 capital markets day We expect to invest on average USD ~3 bn p.a. (vessels, containers, retrofits and other investments) until 2020
page 36
OUR RESPONSE
Søren Skou Chief Executive Officer
page 37
Our short term response to current tough market conditions
+30 blanked sailings August-October 2015 (vs. 15 same period 2014)
2M network reductions as already communicated
Additional 2-4 larger string reductions planned in Q4 2015 to adjust capacity to demand
page 38
Source: Maersk Line
We will continue to drive cost out and have plenty of opportunities
We have a toolbox for cost cutting Tonnage plan impact on slot cost Example: Asia – North Europe
Network rationalization
Speed equalization & Slow steaming
Improve utilization
SG&A 2M Improve procurement
Inland optimization
Deployment of larger vessels
Retrofits 82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Slot cost index 2014 = 100, (USD/TEU)
CAGR -3.1%
page 39
Having cost leadership has enabled us to grow both volume and margins
8,073 8,452 8,803 9,418
-3.1%
2.3%
7.4%
11.6%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Maersk Line
Volume, (FFE ‘000) ROIC Volume ROIC, (%)
CAGR 5.3%
page 40
…and with returns consistently above objectives, growth create value
-12.7%
4.6%
9.7% 6.5%
4.0% 8.5%
10.9% 6.2%
9.0% 10.8% 13.5% 13.0% 14.3%
10.1%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Q1
12
Q2
12
Q3
12
Q4
12
Q1
13
Q2
13
Q3
13
Q4
13
Q1
14
Q2
14
Q3
14
Q4
14
Q1
15
Q2
15
Note: 1) LTM ROIC based on quarterly figures Source: Maersk Line
ROIC ROIC, (%)
8.5%
8.5% ROIC LTM ROIC1
We have room to invest for growth and still deliver returns
above the lower band target
page 41
Maersk Line’s new objectives
Note: 1) Performance rank based on EBIT margin Source: Maersk Line
Top quartile performer1
EBIT-margin 5%-points above peer average
Growing at least with the market to defend our market leading position
Funded by own cash flow
Average returns of 8.5-12.0% (ROIC)
Revised objective
page 42
We have a toolbox for growth with various paths
Source: Maersk Line
E-W Grow based on cost leadership and best network proposition
N-S Protect strong position, grow with market
INTRA Grow MCC, Seago, and Sealand
REEFER Pursue conversion projects
page 43
01 We have done what we outlined last year
04 We continue to deliver value
02 We continue to deliver on our financial objectives
03 We have build a resilient company in a tough industry
page 44
Thank you
page 45