Torm PLC
CSE:TRMD A
If you don’t study any companies, you have the same success buying stocks as you do in a poker game if you bet without looking at your cards.
Utilize notes to systematically review your investment decisions. By reflecting on past outcomes, you can discern effective strategies and identify those that underperformed. This continuous feedback loop enables you to adapt and refine your approach, optimizing for future success.
Each note serves as a learning point, offering insights into your decision-making processes. Over time, you'll accumulate a personalized database of knowledge, enhancing your ability to make informed decisions quickly and effectively.
With a comprehensive record of your investment history at your fingertips, you can compare current opportunities against past experiences. This not only bolsters your confidence but also ensures that each decision is grounded in a well-documented rationale.
Do you really want to delete this note?
This action cannot be undone.
| 52 Week Range |
154.9
277.8
|
| Price Target |
|
We'll email you a reminder when the closing price reaches DKK.
Choose the stock you wish to monitor with a price alert.
This alert will be permanently deleted.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Thank you for dialing in, and welcome to TORM's conference call regarding the results for the second quarter and the first half year of 2019. I would now like to hand the conference over to Morten Agdrup, Head of Corporate Finance and Strategy in TORM. Thank you. Please go ahead.
Thank you. And thank you for dialing in, and welcome to TORM's conference call regarding the results for the second quarter and first half year of 2019. My name is Morten Agdrup, and I'm the Head of Corporate Finance and Strategy in TORM. As usual, we will refer to the slides as we speak. And at the end of the presentation, we will open up for questions. Slide 2, please. Before commencing, I would like to draw your attention to our safe harbor statement. Slide 3, please. With me today is Executive Director, Jacob Meldgaard, and he will be hosting the call. Slide 4, please.
Thank you, Morten, and good afternoon to all. TORM's second quarter 2019 results reflects our strong commercial performance despite the softer market conditions related to short-term factors as well as the benefits we derive from our fully integrated in-house platform and the cost efficiencies that result in our low daily cash per unit levels. We remain excited about the developments that we expect to begin to unfold over the coming months, and I will describe this in much more detail later in the presentation. But first, let me summarize our results.In the second quarter of 2019, we realized a positive EBITDA of $40.6 million and a positive profit before tax of $5.2 million, which is about $0.07 per share. The return on invested capital was positive at 3.9%. In total for the first half of 2019, we realized a profit before tax of $28.7 million, equivalent to $0.38 per share. This is the strongest half year result in the past 3 years. We're really pleased that we are able to generate a profit also in the second quarter of the year, which has been negatively impacted by there was an unusually high and prolonged refinery maintenance period. Our estimated net asset value was $897 million as of end of the quarter. And later in the presentation, I'll take you through a detailed breakdown of this particular metric. Illustrating our continued focus on maintaining a solid balance sheet, the net loan-to-value was 51% at the end of the quarter. Our available liquidity was $367 million, which excludes the $99 million in proceeds, which we will get from 6 recently concluded sale-leaseback agreements.The realized TCE rate was $15,405 per day here in the second quarter. And while second quarter rates were softer than what we experienced in the first quarter due to factors I'll describe shortly, rates were still well above the levels we saw last year. And this does bode well for the balance of the year and beyond.In the second quarter of the year, we've taken several steps to modernize our fleet and prepare for the new IMO 2020 regulation. We purchased 4 2011-built MRs for a total consideration of $83 million. And these vessels are expected to be delivered actually more or less as we speak here later in August. And we are going to be financing this through a $66 million sale-leaseback transaction. We also sold older vessels, 1 '99-built MR, which was sold and delivered during the second quarter, and then 2 additional vessels subsequent to the end of the quarter, which is a 2002-built MR and a 2004-built Handy vessel. A total consideration of $22 million is what we're getting from this, and we will repay an aggregate debt of $13 million in connection with these vessel transactions.Supporting the already strong capital structure we have, we've entered into an additional 2 sale-leaseback agreements here in the second quarter. And here, the total proceeds will be $52 million, and we will be repaying $18 million in debt concurrent with those 2 transactions.Again, our preparation for the IMO 2020 regulation are proceeding as we have planned. We are pursuing a balanced approach with -- at the end, it will result in 34 vessels in our fleet, close to half of what we have, being fitted with scrubbers. Of these, 28 of the scrubbers will be delivered from our joint venture, ME Production in China. We have to date installed 6 scrubbers and expect that a total of 28 out of our currently scheduled scrubber installations will be finalized before end of the year. The remaining 6 will be delivered next year. That consists of 3 newbuildings and then 3 retrofit installations, all expected to be taking place during the first quarter of 2020.Slide 5, please. So now let's look at the product tanker market specifically. Here in the second quarter, our product tanker fleet realized an average TCE earnings which was at $15,405 per day. In the LR segment, TORM achieved LR2 rates of $17,894 per day and LR1 rates were at $14,582 per day. In our largest segment, the MRs, we achieved rates of $15,163 per day. And finally, in the Handysize segment, the achieved rates were $12,882 per day. In general, the product tanker freight rates softened here in the second quarter. As already mentioned, this was primarily due to seasonal refinery maintenance. And this year, it has been not only higher than what we've seen in recent years but it also were prolonged. It lasted simply longer, and this was coupled with several unplanned outages that further reduced capacity.In Asia in particular, maintenance was almost 50% higher than during the same quarter last year, and this obviously limited the East to West cargo movements. And at the same time, naphtha flows from West to East declined, in this case more due to petrochemical refinery maintenance and competition from cheaper LNG available in Asia.Turning to the U.S. There were a series of unplanned outages also there that occurred at several gasoline-producing units, which supported transatlantic and transpacific gasoline flows. The former was interrupted for a period by crude oil contamination in the Druzhba pipeline in Russia that disrupted the work at a number of Eastern and Central European refiners. Towards the end of the quarter, I think as we all know, there was a fire and the subsequent closure in one of the largest refineries on the U.S. East Coast, which again at that time opened up for the transatlantic gasoline trades. In the East, as already mentioned, the heavy refinery maintenance limited the long-haul diesel flows back to the West. This was worsened by a continued market cannibalization from our peers in the crude tanker market, where newbuildings actually transported about 30% of the East to West gas oil volumes during the quarter.So far in here in the third quarter, the closure of the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery continues to support transatlantic gasoline flows while the East-to-West diesel flows have remained low due to a reduction in refinery runs and also unplanned outages, in general, East of Suez. So -- however here, we do see refinery maintenance starting to retreat significantly, which we expect to have a positive effect on trade flows, an effect that we are starting already to see in the Middle East market after a recent return of a number of the export-oriented refiners both in Middle East but also in India. And then as an overlay of this, we expect preparations to IMO 2020 is that it's going to give an additional boost to the trade as bunker suppliers will start building inventories of compliant fuels in the coming months.Slide 6, please. As already mentioned, spring refinery maintenance and outages this year have been heavier than first anticipated. For the first 6 months of 2019, the maintenance and unplanned outages have been 20% approximately higher than in 2018. And also maintenance has been prolonged this year with offline capacity peaking first in May instead of traditional in the March-April period. So the heavy refinery maintenance indicates that refiners are preparing, as one would expect, for the upcoming IMO 2020 regulation. The higher maintenance here in the first 6 months is expected to be offset by lower outages in the second part of the year, supporting the production and transportation of refined oil products.Slide 7, please. When we look over medium to longer term, we continue to expect the structural dislocation between product demand and refinery centers to add ton-miles to product tankers as more refined products will be produced and exported from the Middle East to the rest of the world. Over the coming years, the expansion in the region is expected to be significantly higher than in the previous 3 years and more comparable to the level we experienced back in 2015. Here, you can find 2 facilities such as the new Saudi Aramco refinery in Jazan and KNPC's new refinery, Al Zour, which will come online. We expect that this will reinforce the role of the Middle East as a key clean product exporter. And this will in turn contribute positively to the product tanker ton-mile demand over the coming years. Slide 8, please. Another positive driver on the market obviously remains the IMO 2020 and the corresponding increasing demand for product tankers. We continue to expect that a considerable part of the new compliant fuel will be diesel-based or based on plants containing diesel. We currently expect an incremental diesel demand of about 1.1 million barrels per day from the IMO 2020 implementation, implying an increase of around 5% in the product tanker trade in 2020 based on ton-mile. This increase will obviously depend on the refining industry's ability to shift into very low sulfur fuel oil production, also known as VLSFO.Similarly, crude tankers are expected to gain from the IMO 2020 due to increased refinery runs and the need to store excess high sulfur fuel. I'm quite convinced that these demand effects of the IMO 2020 sulfur regulation, combined with our own strategic steps ahead of the implementation date here on the 1st of January, will prove beneficial for TORM for a number of years to come.Slide 9, please. So let's look more elaborately on the demand effects of IMO 2020. Stricter sulfur rules means that the shipping industry would need to use additional marine gas oil, which is a type of fuel that belongs to the family of diesel. While the demand for marine gas oil or more generally diesel will increase in all world regions, flexibility to increase diesel production is much higher in regions that are already net exporters of diesel today. As an example, considerable volume of new refining capacity comes online in the Middle East and Asia. Russia is producing more diesel as part of its refinery upgrading program and the complex U.S. Gulf refiners are expected to process more high sulfur fuel oil that becomes cheaper after 2020, and they will use it to produce extra diesel. At the same time, the main importing regions, the ones that produce too little diesel, do not see any new refineries coming online in the next 2 years. So therefore, their ability to respond to increased demand due to IMO 2020 is limited to the changes they can make in their refinery utilization and product yields. This suggests that on top of the trade growth we are seeing today, even more diesel will be flowing from export regions to import regions due to IMO 2020. And the majority of the incremental 5% trade growth that I mentioned will stem from long-haul trade and intra-Asian medium-haul trade. But on top of that, we also expect to see more of the short-haul regional trade for redistribution of compliant fuels.Slide 10, please. As already mentioned, our scrubber installation program is well underway. We currently have 6 scrubber-fitted vessels in operations, including 4 newbuildings that were delivered with scrubbers installed. With respect to the remaining vessels in our fleet that will be using compliant fuels, we have begun to implement our IMO 2020 plan. This includes a time line for changing bunkers onboard each individual vessel. Bunker planning and replenishment of bunkers will be a gradual process and be timed around individual vessel voyages during the fourth quarter. We expect that other owners will follow a similar approach, gradually increasing demand for compliant fuels starting towards the end of the third quarter and accelerating into and during the fourth quarter.Ahead of this increasing demand, we expect global ports to begin stocking up on compliant fuels, continuing to build inventories through the end of the year. This has sparked demand for product tankers to transport their compliant fuels to bunker suppliers and may be the catalyst that many market participants and observers are waiting for. We believe it is forthcoming in the marketplace. Slide 11, please. Now we turn to the supply side factors of the market. And here, the product tanker order book to fleet ratio stands at about 7.4%. This is a historically low level. We estimate that the product tanker fleet will be growing by about 4.3% this year. But lower deliveries over the coming 2 years will result in an average fleet growth of about 3.2% per year over the period 2019 through 2021. This is down to around half from an average of about 5.8% during the previous 3 years. It's also important, I think, to mention here that the actual fleet growth in 2019 might come in at a somewhat lower level as the number of vessels will be removed temporarily from the market in relation to the scrubber retrofitting and tank cleaning. This could potentially remove about 0.5% -- 0.4%, 0.5% of the fleet capacity. The slowing fleet growth rate is a key point to the fundamental positive element that we expect for the product tanker industry as a whole. Slide 12, please. To conclude my remarks on the product tanker market, TORM has a generally positive outlook. And for the 2019 through 2021 period, product tanker ton-mile demand is estimated to grow at a compound annual rate of around 5% compared to an estimated net growth in tonnage supply of around 3%. So the product tanker market is impacted by the key economic indicators, such as the underlying oil demand and the general state of the economy. And here, we have clearly seen some weakness recently. But the segment-specific factors I've discussed are expected to impact the market positively going forward and to be a more significant contributor to the market development than the underlying world economy. In particular, IMO 2020 is an exciting development for the market and that would certainly bring about both expected and unexpected outcomes.Slide 13, please. In TORM's largest segment, the MR, we've continued to obtain very competitive freight rates. And I'm pleased that our results are at the top of our peer group again this quarter. In fact, if we look back to 2015, we have since then outperformed the peer group in average 17 out of 18 times. And this translates into additional earning power of more than $110 million over the period. In the -- if we look at second quarter of '19 alone, it's an outperformance of $8 million. In general, it's very satisfactory that our operational platform delivered a competitive TCE earnings and that we are well positioned to take advantage of the already mentioned promising supply-demand fundamentals.Slide 14, please. Before I review the OpEx and admin expense, I'd like to remind you of TORM's operating model. We have a fully integrated commercial and technical platform, including all support functions, such as an internal sale and purchase team, which we believe is a significant competitive advantage for TORM. Importantly, it also provides a transparent cost structure for all our shareholders, and it eliminates related party transaction. Naturally, we are focused on maintaining efficient operations and providing a high quality of service to our customers. Despite this credo, we've seen gradual decreases of 15% in our OpEx per day over the last 5 years. OpEx was approximately $6,500 per day for the first 6 months of 2019, which you can see is competitive in light of our fleet composition. We also remain disciplined with respect to SG&A, although this can be expected to fluctuate a bit based on the size of a fleet. We believe that our profit before tax break-even rate of $14,500 per day achieved in the first half of 2019 reflects the efficiency of the One TORM platform and is highly competitive as compared to other owners in our segment.Slide 15, please. With our spot-based profile, TORM has significant leverage to increases in the underlying product tanker rates. As of end of the second quarter '19, every $1,000 increase in the average daily TCE rate achieved translate to an increase in EBITDA of around $11.9 million in 2019. The corresponding figure increased to $28.9 million in 2020 and to $30.1 million for 2021. We have a positive long-term view, as already mentioned, on the market. And we believe that we are well positioned to generate significant cash flows. As of the 12th of August, here, we have covered 60% of our third quarter earning days at an average TCE rate of $13,636 per day, and 31% of the total earning days for the rest of 2019 were covered at $13,738 per day.Slide 16, please. As of June 30, 2019, we had available liquidity of $367 million, excluding the proceeds from the 6 sale and leaseback transactions. Cash totaled $106.4 million and we had undrawn credit facilities of $260 million. Including the $99 million from the 6 sale and leaseback transactions, the pro forma available liquidity was at $466 million. Our total CapEx commitments were $304 million, of which we expect to pay around $223 million this year. The remainder will fall due in 2020. The large majority of our commitments relates to our remaining 6 high-specification newbuildings that all include scrubber installation. But we will also pay about $32.5 million in 2019 and 2020 for retrofit scrubber installations on vessels that are always underwater. And we will be paying $74 million for the 4 already mentioned secondhand vessels that we acquired during this month. With our again strong liquidity profile, the CapEx commitments are fully funded and very manageable. Slide 17, please. Finally, here, I want to sum up our financial position in terms of key metrics such as the net asset value, loan-to-value. Vessel values have increased by approximately 5% during the second quarter, and the value of TORM's vessels were USD 1.736 billion as of 30th of June 2019, including newbuildings and the recently purchased secondhand vessels. The outstanding gross debt amounted to $720 million as of 30th of June and none our debt facilities mature in 2019 or 2020. Finally, we have outstanding committed CapEx of $271.4 million related to our newbuilding program and the purchase of our 4 secondhand vessels in addition to cash of $106.4 million. This in total gives us a net loan-to-value of 51% at the end of the quarter, which we consider as a relatively conservative level. The net asset value is estimated at $897 million as at end of the quarter. This corresponds to $12.1 per share or equivalent to DKK 79.8. Just before we commenced this call, our share was trading at DKK 50 or $7.40 per share, obviously a considerable discount to the net asset value. In short, we have a balance sheet that still provides us with strategic and financial flexibility.Slide 18, please. With that, I'll let the operator open up for questions, please.
[Operator Instructions] Your first question from the telephone lines comes from Jon Chappell of Evercore.
So you laid out a -- if you read the product tanker market review in your presentation and listen to your commentary, it seems like it was kind of the worst of all worlds. And you were still able to remain profitable during a very difficult period. And then you highlighted how you expect things to improve in the second half of the year, which arguably should put you in a stronger position. But when you think about kind of the risks, let's call them, in the near to medium term, where do you think the optimistic view that we all share can go wrong? And when do you start to get worried if you haven't seen a significant and consistent uplift in the product tanker market? Is it by the end of the third quarter, well into the fourth quarter? Or do you even need to see the beginning of 2020 before you start to get concerned that maybe IMO 2020 isn't having a favorable impact on the market?
Okay. Thanks. That's good questions. And I guess you kind of gave -- with your two questions, you gave at the answer to number one because obviously, the one worry would be that the IMO 2020 is just something that we have made up as a combined industry to sort of be positive about the future, and that is not -- and that it would not play out the way that we expect it. That would be a significant risk. So if I take that risk -- then the other risk would be that I think the geopolitical environment, and there is quite a lot of things going around there, would have a negative effect on consumers, on decision-makers in general and that you would have an abrupt halt to the -- albeit this slower growth but still growth in the world economy, but that you would simply see a recession worldwide due to geopolitical factors. And those would be the 2 things that you could see as scenarios which would be negative and which would change our outlook. And if I take the second one, I'm -- basically, I have not much more control than anybody else, obviously. The geopolitical environment seems to be changing by each week. So I don't think we should try to get into that too much. I -- my personal instinct is that there is a little more reluctant to just believe that this is just going to go away today than what was the case 6 months ago. And we see commentary now from people who are much closer to this. And that's why I'm wary that maybe the trade dialogue between U.S. and China would potentially continue all the way up to and including election next year. So I guess that my instinct is that this is something that is still evolving. And I don't think that it is negative in a direct fashion for the product tanker market because trade flows between U.S. and China are very marginal. And they would probably just be taken out by other refiners or trade patterns in this -- between the same areas. So it is much more the secondary effect of the global economy and decision-makers and consumers would have a break on -- a hard stop to their current spending. Now the IMO 2020, we are -- I guess we are more close to whether that is going to play out the way that we expect or not. And there, I'm still, I would say, even more convinced today than 6 months ago. I think that actually the refinery maintenance that we have seen, if we take it refiner-by-refiner during the first and the second quarter here into the third quarter, there has been longer refinery outages. It has been, in general, more refiners taking out capacity at this short point in time in order to prepare for the IMO 2020. And everything else being equal, this will be terrific that they're going to come back onstream, they're going to be producing and we are going to be transporting part of this value or sort of part of those volumes and creating value for the product tanker market in general because you have additional demand coming in the coming period. And that is how it has been playing out. And clearly, freight rates have softened during that period. We can see that in our numbers. We follow it weekly. You follow it, and it's very clear that, that's the way it's played out. But it's not even down to where we were 12 months ago. It's stronger rates, and I expect that this is the bottoming of the market. The exact timing, I'm not so nervous about because the thesis itself is intact. So to your second question about when would you start to worry, obviously, at some point you would need to see that it happens. But whether it is accurately called that it's going to be in September or October, November, I'm not fuzzy around that. We are patient. I've been in this industry 29 years, so I have time to wait to a couple of months more.
Okay, very thoughtful answer. Two follow-ups then on that theme, kind of thinking about the way that TORM's positioned for the optimistic outlook. The transaction, the secondhand MRs and the structuring of that to the sale and leasebacks, and I think that makes sense as an efficient way to add leverage to the market without straining the balance sheet. But then the 2 sale and leasebacks after of existing vessels, I mean, we've kind of become -- the sale and leaseback structure has seemed to have been more like a defensive structure of late during the down period in the market. But given your current liquidity situation and your view on the market kind of the near to medium term, can you just explain why you chose to do the sale and leaseback route on some existing vessels? And should we expect to see more of those in the future? Or was that somewhat of a one-off transaction?
Yes. Thanks for that. So I think it's good to, as you point to, it's -- in our presentation, there are 2 bullets. There's one with the 4 vessels that we have bought secondhand and there's 1 for the 2 existing vessels. And for the vessels we bought, it was a strategic choice to choose one particular lender who has a big capacity and where we buy -- having entered now into 1 deal with 4 vessels, we feel that we strategically have opened up potentially if we at some stage would have the ambition to, I would say, extend our presence even further that we've now established a relationship with somebody who can write big tickets in an environment where lending in general is constrained. So that was the strategic thinking around that, that it's sort of fitted well. The strategic thinking around the 2 other vessels, our existing vessels that are already in our structure and where we have a traditional bank debt associated with it, here, what we saw was that we could actually lower our costs. On one of these transactions, we could lower our costs by transferring it from bank debt into a lease structure. This is with Japanese counterparts, where we simply see that they are more competitive. And that was -- so this was a cost issue that we actually don't use it as a defensive tool the way you describe it but rather as something where we say, "Okay, if you are there to transact this type of structure on those terms, then we are lowering our cost and we will do that."
Okay. That makes sense. Final one, dividends. So I mean you've had a pretty clear strategy and it seems maybe you've taken a step away from it this quarter. I mean if we look at a pretty difficult market, not as bad as last year obviously, but the best first half in 3 years, $0.42 in earnings across the 6-month period, the formula should have resulted in some dividend. And I know you explained it a little bit in the presentation. But it seems like with the return of profitability, with the optimistic view, with the spare liquidity and with the stock trading at a massive discount to your estimated NAV, can you just explain a little bit more the step away from the dividend policy?
Yes. Absolutely. So that's a good point. And as we have pointed, too, we have a distribution policy where we semiannually evaluate to repaying out 25% to 50% of net profit in the company. And we have clearly said that strategically that is our goal to do that. However, we also have in the same paragraph, but obviously -- is that we all, at any given time, look at what is the best interest of the company in terms of strategic implementation of sort of our financing of our activities. And here, we had a discussion with our Board actually yesterday, where we sort of said we can -- obviously, we can follow through on the 25% to 50% at this given time. However, as we see it, we still have some opportunities right now in the coming, let's say, in the coming period where this cash will be better served to stay inside of the company, whether it could be monetization of the fleet, it could be further scrubber installations, where we simply see still a compelling potential investment for all stakeholders. And it's probably -- given that the magnitude of the dividend here, let's say, approximately, let's call it, $10 million. Then obviously, that would account to that you could add another handful of vessels with scrubbers potentially. So we're creating that optionality for us without again constraining our current strong financial position. So that's the thinking. [indiscernible]
We do have one further question, and that's from the line of Espen Landmark of Fearnley.
I'm looking at Page 20 in your slide deck, which is kind of laying out the bunker market in '17 and '20. And the 1.1 million of diesel next year is probably a consensus view by now. And then there's a similar amount of this VLSFOs and then additional blends. So I guess my first question is, some of these new projects -- products, will they move on clean tankers potentially before being blended or all of that is going to be mainly a crude trade?
Yes. Thanks for that. So as you point to, in the case where the blend consists of gas oil, there you will have it. And so if the components are also diesel-based going into the new compliant fuels, then it will be cleaned for our tankers that will be distributing it. So it depends on how the blending formula is on the side of the producer. But the components will be transported on clean petroleum vessels.
Okay. And then I think some shipowners now are opening a bit up in terms of how their bunker consumption split will be next year. So a bit curious to hear for you between the HFO and the scrub ships, the diesel and the LSFO, I mean, how much are you planning on each of those? And have you taken any actions to secure volumes and price ahead of this already?
Okay. So in the tramp business, I would argue that we can, of course, have ambitions around what we expect. But we really don't know the exact trade pattern that our fleet will have. But based on the experience we have of our historical trade pattern and an overlay with dialogue that we have with the bunker suppliers, we expect that something 80% to 90% of the compliant fuels, so to say, would be VLSFO. And then the balance would be that we end up in ports or areas where we cannot get sufficient of the VLSFO and where we will then be using distillates or other fuel types. I think it's more suitable for, let's say, container vessels with a very regular trade pattern. There, I think, if I were -- if I think myself into the management of there, I would be structurally looking at getting supply contracts in place, whereas for tramp companies, I think it is not the most logical thing to do.
All right. And I guess finally you mentioned the naphtha trade coming a bit under pressure in the second quarter, competition from the LPG side. I guess the amount of U.S. LPGs, they're not looking to slow anytime soon. And I guess with all this light shale oil in the market as well, the amount of naphtha coming out of refineries in the East is probably not going to slow down either, potentially putting a lid on margins similar to what we have seen last couple of months. I guess the question is now for you, how important is the naphtha trade?
So I agree, one, with sort of your general statement that what we've experienced, let's say, over the last quarter does seem to be not an outlier, but it could be that, that is something that is here to stay, that you have more competition from LPG into the petrochemical industry. And also that locally in Asia, for instance, some of the refineries coming onstream in China would be supplying more of the local need. The -- for us, I think it's less than 10% of the naphtha trade. If you take ton-mile for larger vessels, then it's less than 10% of the current naphtha that is originally, for instance, in the Western Hemisphere. When you look at the ton-mile, I think it's about 7%. So we're going to say there is a risk overall for -- not for TORM specifically but for larger -- for the larger segment in the product tanker space that some of this part of West-to-East naphtha could come under pressure. And it's about 7% on a global basis is our estimate.
There are no further questions, sir. Please continue.
So this concludes the earnings call of the second quarter and half year results. Thank you for dialing in.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our conference for today. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect.