PSTNY (PSTNY) Q3 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the PostNL trading update Q3 2026 results call. At this moment, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. I would like to hand the conference over to Ms. Inge Laudy, Manager Investor Relations. Please go ahead, madam.

Thank you, operator, and welcome to you all. We have published our Q3 trading update this morning. With me in the room today are Linde Jansen, our CFO, and also Pim Berendsen, CEO. Linde will guide you through a short presentation. Then both Pim and Linde will take your questions. Please go ahead, Linde.

Thank you, Inge. Let's start with the highlights of the third quarter of 2026. I will then give you more color on the main volume and revenue developments per segment. Please note that, like in quarter one, this is a trading update, so we will explain on strategic progress and the drivers behind volume and revenue. No EBIT or free cash flow will be disclosed. Overall, our revenue came in at EUR 768 million, compared to EUR 762 million in the previous quarter last year. So a slight increase despite the challenging market conditions. Although we will not quantify normalised EBIT and free cash flow for this quarter, I can mention that normalised EBIT developed in line with our expectations and followed the usual seasonal pattern. For free cash flow, we see a favorable development that is supported by our proactive working capital management. Our disciplined strategy execution supports this performance and free cash flow development in challenging market conditions. With that, we confirm our outlook for 2026 and the free cash flow to come in at zero for the full year, at around zero for the full year. On execution, we successfully implemented the standard mail delivery framework of within two business days, or how we say it, D+2. Our other main strategic initiatives are progressing according to plan. We continue to deliver on our cost savings plans and are agile in adapting capacity to the volume developments. These measures continue to support our performance. Let me now take you through the progress in our businesses and the external development that affect us. In the quarter, we again made tangible progress on our strategy while external challenges continued. The geopolitical uncertainty is still there. Furthermore, in July, the new customs regulations for import outside the EU came into force, and that impacts the e-commerce. Large Asian web shops are adjusting their commercial propositions and logistics processes. This is resulting in shifts in market positions and a strong decline in market volumes. We also see new low-cost entrants in the e-commerce chain. For the e-commerce segment, we continue to execute our volume-to-value strategy. We are sharpening our customer segmentation and differentiating our propositions with a disciplined approach to volume steering. Our targeted yield measures continue to gain traction, as demonstrated by the increase in the average price per parcel. We also see an improving trend in domestic volume development quarter-over-quarter. We will look at these drivers in more detail when I will discuss the segment figures. At Platforms, our strategy remains to accelerate international growth through the asset-light models of Spring and MyParcel, which we see materializing in strong growth in our European e-commerce activities. We continue to make progress on the priorities we set out earlier this year, focusing on that what we can control. Let me now turn to mail on slide five and our commitment to securing a sustainable postal service. As we explained before, a long-term viable postal service requires a delivery framework of within three business days, as well as compensation for the net USO costs in the transitional years. The D+3 framework also means no delivery on Saturday. Clear and timely political decisions to amend the Postal Act remain crucial. As these decisions have been delayed again, this has a direct consequence for the implementation timetable of D+3. A transition of this scale requires one year of careful preparation. We are therefore forced to postpone the implementation to 2028. As a consequence, we have filed our application for net cost compensation for 2027, an amount of EUR 80 million. This brings the total amount requested for 2025 to 2027 to EUR 148 million. These are requests for compensation with legal proceedings for 2025 and 2026 still in progress. The legal proceedings concerning the withdrawal of our current USO designation also continues. Our commitment remains unchanged, securing a sustainable postal service. To achieve that, the necessary regulatory changes and compensation for the transitional years remain essential. Let's move to slide six. This slide provides an overview of the key reported figures per segment. As mentioned in the beginning, volume and revenue are the metrics that we disclose and explain in this trading update. In short, for the group as a total, we saw a slight increase in revenue in a challenging market environment. Let's have a closer look per segment, and I will start with e-commerce. At e-commerce, we see the transition from volume to value gaining traction. Domestic volumes are stabilizing, and average price per parcel is up around 7%. The revenue amounted to EUR 478 million, compared to EUR 466 million last year, with overall volumes up 2.4%, which includes the transfer of the D+1 letterbox parcels. Excluding these letterbox parcels, we report an overall volume decline of 7.1%. This overall volume impact can be split in domestic and international. Starting with domestic volumes, we see the good news that domestic volumes were broadly flat compared to last year and are showing an improving trend quarter-over-quarter. This reflects market developments and a limited loss in market share as anticipated following our targeted yield measures. Looking at the international volumes, mainly from Asian web shops, they were down almost 32%, predominantly explained by the new customs regulations that came into force in July. Higher prices due to targeted yield measures and fuel surcharge, which amounted to around EUR 5 million, resulted in an EUR 80 million step-up in revenue compared to last year. In line with our expectation, the mix effect is negative, and that is almost fully explained by the D+1 letterbox parcels that are now being delivered in our e-commerce infrastructure instead of via mail. At the same time, a mix effect between domestic and international was positive due to lower Asian volumes. That together brings our revenue to EUR 478 million in this quarter. Let's move to platforms on slide eight. Revenue was down to EUR 173 million compared to EUR 188 million in the same quarter last year, with volumes down 13.1%. This 13% volume decline has two angles. On the one hand, we see our European volumes up again, growing by over 40%. This is in line with our strategy to expand our intra-European businesses. On the other hand, as already explained at the e-commerce segment, volumes from Asian web shops showed a sharp decline, falling almost 50% in the quarter due to the customs regulation introduced in July. For price mix effect, also at platforms, prices increased and were supported by a small favorable mix effect. The other revenue showed a slight decline. Then the last segment, mail, on slide nine. Revenue was broadly in line with last year, mainly explained by the impact from volume development and tariff increases. Adjusted for election mail, the volume decline was 3%, bringing the year-to-date structural decline to -6.3%. This was more than offset by a positive price mix effect, mainly driven by pricing coming from higher stamp prices as well as higher tariffs for our business mail. Stamp prices were up almost 7% as of January 1st of this year. Finally, good to note that we recently announced that we have been granted the largest lot in the government mail tender effective January 1, 2027. With that, we secure over 200 million items annually at improved commercial terms. Let me now turn to our outlook for the full year 2026, which, as said before, we confirm today. For normalised EBIT, we continue to expect between EUR 40 million and EUR 70 million. For free cash flow, we now expect to come in at around zero. Our proactive working capital management supports this favorable development. Let me take you briefly through some of the assumptions underlying that outlook, which we published in February of this year. Being a revenue growth of between 5%-7%, and we continue to invest in our strategic focus areas, with CapEx expected to be around EUR 125 million. Lease payments remain unchanged at around EUR 100 million. Organic cost increases remain high at around EUR 140 million, with price increases to expect to be more than offset these cost increases. At the same time, we maintain a strong focus on cost control and further efficiency improvements. The current impact of the customs regulations introduced on July 1st does not change our outlook for 2026. However, the scope and timing of these regulations could further evolve over time and potentially affect future performance. It also brings opportunities, as we are well-positioned to benefit from a recovery as the market adjusts to the new reality. Furthermore, our outlook excludes the risk that prolonged geopolitical uncertainty may increase inflationary pressure and affect consumer spending. We confirm our full year outlook with a favorable free cash flow development, supported by our continuous focus on working capital. Let me conclude this presentation on slide 11. I repeat that we will continue our focus on disciplined execution in a challenging environment. We have shown that we can adapt our operations to volume developments, and we are ready for the upcoming peak season. In e-commerce, our volume-to-value strategy is delivering higher yields, and we see an improving trend in domestic volume development. At platforms, we see strong growth in European e-commerce while adapting to the impact of the customs regulations. For mail, we have successfully implemented D+2 and quality is improving. This is an important first step. Political decisions remain necessary to enable the transition towards a future-proof and financially viable postal service. Against this background, we remain confident in delivering our full year 2026 outlook with a favorable free cash flow development. Thank you very much, and now I am handing over to Inge.

Thank you, Linde, for the explanation. We now take your questions. Operator, can you please explain the procedure and open the lines, please?

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. We will take our first question, and your question comes from the line of Michiel Declercq from KBC Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Yes. Hi, and thank you for taking my questions. I have two, please. The first one would be on the political delays and the shift to D+3 as from 2028. Now you apply for a compensation of EUR 80 million. If I compare that a bit to 2026, which was EUR 38 million, I believe, that's a step up of more than EUR 40 million. You will not be able to implement these measures or these cost-saving measures yet, so I would assume there is a big increase in your cost base next year. I'm just wondering how you will be planning to offset this, the additional EUR 40+ million. That would be the first question. The second one would be a bit on the outlook. You reiterated the normalised EBIT outlook, and you say that you remain on track. Now, if I look a bit at the volume impact from the new EU regulations, it seems to be quite a big impact on the volumes. I'm just wondering what is offsetting here the volume pressures or where are the positive pockets of offsetting the international decline? Especially also given that in November there will be an additional charge. Also in your guidance, you mentioned that, okay, in the future, there might be an impact depending on the scope and the timing. Can you be a bit more concrete on what is assumed here? Or how do you expect this situation to evolve in the coming quarters?

Yes. Thank you, Michiel. Let me start with your first question on D+3. It's indeed correct. Last week, we submitted the net cost compensation of EUR 80 million. Let me start by explaining a bit on the amount. You are comparing it with 2025/2026. To start with, the reason that it is higher than the 2025 and 2026 amounts is first of all because underlying, of course, we see the continued USO mail volumes decline. So your cost base, and we have to fix cost base with our people is then allocated to even further lower volumes. Realizing that our USO volumes decline even faster than the other volumes. That gets exponentially. Secondly, what you do in a net cost compensation, it's a very decent methodology, what you do to calculate that net cost compensation. It's a counterfactual calculation. In that calculation, it is key that we assumed that otherwise we would have, or we could have implemented D+3 in the year 2027, which is now not the case. Therefore, you assume those costs to be the net costs for not having a solution for the postal law delays. As also mentioned during our Capital Markets Day, left or right, we will try to get that compensation. Either via the adjustments of the law, either via requesting this net cost compensation. Those are the factors for that net cost compensation. On your second question on the outlook. As you say, we indeed see the impact from the Asian volumes. However, there are a few things to note. As you have also seen in our half year results where we showed and disclosed our normalised EBIT, we are on track for our cost savings and also adapting our, let's say, capacity and cost related to that, to the volume development. We are very agile and disciplined in doing that, and that is also what we have continued in this quarter. In addition, of course, Q4 is, as you know, our key quarter which is an important part of our overall performance. With the developments which we see quarter-over-quarter in domestic, which is the vast majority of our volumes in e-commerce, we see a very positive trend. That also contributes to that outlook reconfirmation. It is a combination of the different factors underlying it. Of course, it is not just e-commerce, it are all the different segments with our European e-commerce growth at platforms. All is contributing that in combination with a very agile cost adaption in our operation to adapt to the volume fluctuations. Obviously, good to remind, a very positive development on free cash flow.

Okay, clear. Thank you very much for that.

Thank you. We will take our next question. Your question comes from Marco Limite from Barclays. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I have got a few. The first one is on the D+3 in 2028. If I look at the CMD slide back in 2025, the plan has always been to switch to D+3 by 2028. The question is, what has changed now versus your previous expectations? What do you need in order to switch to D+3? What are we waiting for in terms of approvals? That will be the first question. Second question is on your guidance, where you are still guiding for revenues up 5%-7% over a year. But in the first three quarters, revenues are sort of flattish. Just wondering whether there is anything we are missing there or that bit of guidance does not apply anymore. A third question on the mail volume decline in Q3, which was only 3%, much below the historical run rate of, let us say, 8%-10%. What is driving that? Is there any one-off in Q3 mail volumes? If I can sneak a fourth one, I apologize for the many questions, but also on fuel. Any comment there? Do you think that you have been able to fully pass through the higher fuel costs during Q3? Or there is any profitability headwind from higher fuel? Thank you.

Yes. Let me start with your first question on D+3. It is correct indeed that in our Capital Markets Day, we already assumed D+3 to be implemented in 2028. After that, our Capital Markets Day developments came in on the postal law towards implementation of D+2 for July 1st this year, and with the intention to have the D+3 for July 1st, 2027. However, to really implement it for the July 1st, 2027, the D+3 framework, the postal law really needs to be changed. The government has not yet taken the decisions and the steps to have that on time to really implement that per July 1st, 2027. Also, as explained during the presentation, given the size of this transition, we need a year to prepare this change. As we still do not have that certainty from the government and the changes have not been adjusted specifically on the Saturday delivery, we cannot implement it per July 1st, 2027 and are forced to postpone it to 2028. But maybe Pim, you want to add?

Yeah, maybe one addition, because let's say based on also the question of Michiel and from yourself, Marco, we really need to make a clear distinction between what is our breakthrough plan and what is net cost. Net cost is actually a counterfactual comparison, where you compare what is your actual cost related to the distribution, what would have been your network set up if you were not stuck with this obligation, and the cost difference between those two, where you also include positive elements, is called the net cost. That has nothing to do with actual developments of the cost base from 2026 to 2027, where it is really about the comparison, how would the network look like without the obligation of the universal service as it stands? Then only based on what your customers would demand you to do, how would you then set up the network? That is your counterfactual, and you compare the actual cost to that counterfactual and that drives the net cost. So in this 2027 net cost request, the actual is a D+2 network. The counterfactual is that if not having this obligation, we would already have a D+3 model for 2027, given the fact that we have made the change to D+2 already this year. That drives the delta of net cost from 2026 to 2027.

Okay. Thanks, Pim. Then moving to your second question on your outlook in relation to the revenues. Indeed, today we reconfirm our outlook on normalised EBIT. As we mentioned during our outlook release in February, the elements you mentioned like revenue, CapEx, et cetera, are pointers underlying this guidance. The official guidance is for normalised EBIT and free cash flow. But good to note that, of course, as also mentioned to Michiel, we see the positive development quarter-over-quarter, and we also see that we have our main quarter to come, so the fourth quarter, with our development on yield measures. As you have also seen, supported by our increase in average price per parcel, which is expected to further increase in the Q4 also given, you can think of peak charges, et cetera. That together, combined with our agile adaptation to the volume expectations and volume volatility as we face following these customs regulations, and rightfully so, as you say, also with the further November 1 handling fee to come. But that bundling together and our disciplined execution on our strategy makes us comfortable to land in our outlook. Then on your third question relating to the mail decline of 3.6% in the quarter. Let me start by saying that overall, the Q3 in general is relatively to the other quarters, a very light quarter in light of volumes. And what we see is that if you adjust for elections, the year-to-date volume decline is -6.3%. So what impacts the relatively moderate decline in this quarter is driven by phasing effects, mainly in the direct mail area compared to phasing with last year. And maybe good to remind you also for going forward for Q4, of course, last year in Q4, we had a relatively good volume development given the specific mailings which we had back then. You can think of the elections of the specific supported package from the government, pension mailings, et cetera, which were happening in Q4 last year. So overall for the yearly volumes, we expect that to be in line with our known trend in volume decline or familiar trend in volume decline. And then your last question on fuel charges. Well, I can confirm we are able to fully transfer the fuel charges onto our customers in the e-commerce and platform segments. I can confirm that.

Thank you. If I may, just one quick follow-up.

Yeah.

So when you say that you need one year of preparation to move to D+3 from, let's say, January 2028. We are very close already to, let's say, January 2027. So if you need approval and then a year of preparation, are we confident that we can implement D+3 by January 2028, or there are risk of further delays? Thank you.

From our side, we are fully prepared to implement this change. As you have also successfully seen with our implementation of D+2 which we fully implemented both in e-commerce and in mail, together with the fact that also there we are already meeting the statutory quality levels almost straight from the start. So that is, I think, a very impressive result. And with that same discipline and change management capability which we have built, we are confident to have that ready in a year time.

Thank you.

We will take our next question. The question comes from Marc Zwartsenburg from ING. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Coming back to the impact from the delay in D+3, can you perhaps give a bit of a quantitative indication what the impact is on 2027? Because I think at the Capital Markets Day, you gave this range what the savings will be from D+3. I guess half of that or something like that is then no longer coming in 2027, but maybe you can give us a bit of a number on that. Maybe linked to that, you also mentioned that the management contract and the USO, that you are still granted the volumes, well, the main part of the volumes, but also part of the volumes, maybe not. Does that have an extra negative impact on the picture that we had from the Capital Markets Day? Will that mean that you have less volumes and therefore need to cut more cost or will have less EBIT from that change?

Yeah. Thank you, Marc.

Should we take them one by one? Otherwise, it gets a bit complicated.

Yeah, I will take these two and then for you to raise follow-up questions that maybe land at Linde's desk or at mine again. Let's see. Let's be clear. The Capital Markets Day breakthrough financials did not assume implementation of D+3 in 2027, to be clear. It did assume from the get-go implementation of D+3 in 2028. That's not to say that without the obligation, the 2027 network would not look differently. There are two different things. What have we assumed in terms of capital markets guidance, and what is your net cost methodology saying about the cost of the obligation that we have? There are two distinct things. This delay of implementation of D+3 not from July 2027 towards January 2028 does not impact our breakthrough financials at all. That's one. I think on the government contract, we did assume that tender is going to have various lots, and we did not assume that we would win all of them. This win in terms of volumes is exactly as we anticipated it would be against conditions that are definitely not worse than what we assumed. Also, this is not a negative development in comparison to your Capital Markets Day financial assumptions.

Okay. That's very clear. Thanks, Pim, for that. Then on the yields per parcel, that improved from +5%, if I am correct, for Q2 to +6% in Q3. At the same time, you see that the international parcels parcel decline doubled. I would say there is a positive mix effect from those flows falling out. If I would adjust for that, maybe there is no underlying yield improvement anymore. Can you maybe give a bit more color on how I should look at that?

The element that you are missing there, Marc, is that the letterbox parcels-

Are a mix effect.

are also transferred from mail to parcels, bringing a negative mix effect. The underlying development of the price per parcel is still very much positive and improving quarter-after-quarter, and that's why we're confident that we're strategically, commercially on the right path from that volume-to-value strategy.

Okay, so the +6% is including the letterbox parcels. Okay. Yeah. That would explain it. Then the domestic parcel volumes, they improved from a -3% to around flattish. Is that correct what I'm saying?

Yes.

You said that the improving trend is continuing. Did you see then a better exit rate in September? Do you see that going on also in Q4? You sound quite confident on that part of the volumes also going into Q4. Can you maybe give a bit more?

Yes. We can confirm that.

The exit rate in September, can you give an indication where we should work from? Because the summer months are-

I can't give exact numbers, but we see that positive trend, and that's what we can confirm.

Okay. Then maybe on the Asian volumes, on the back of the new regulation, they accelerated downwards. Maybe there's more to comment. There's a regulation. What are your expectations there going forward? Should we assume a further deterioration of that trend of -32%, or what are the expectations there?

Well, of course, that's difficult to assess. We wish we would have a glass ball. That would make our lives much easier, as you can imagine. But, yes, we will see the new November 1 handling fee still to come. I would say it's fair to assume that the Asian volume development will be lower than the previous year in Q4. However, the exact pattern, we also don't know. What we see in reality with what is happening at those Asian platforms is that they are all trying to adapt their business models to this new reality. You actually see that in different flavors. You see platforms, on the one hand, trying to, let's say, swallow those fees on a larger basket size, that they try to bundle that more. You also see platforms shifting their focus to the a bit more higher-end products and moving away from the, let's say, real cheap products, as those fees have a relatively high proportion on those cheap products. We also see platforms fully, I would say, reshaping their business models by rethinking or reassessing their commercial propositions and logistic processes towards really moving from B2C to B2B, with warehouses in Europe. So you really see different ways of adapting to those fees which are being levied to them. That, of course, takes time. It's not that it's solved tomorrow, but obviously, we are very closely monitoring these developments and also see that as an opportunity, given the strength we have on our end with all these different models and where we can support them in those transitions. We expect it to recover, but the timing thereof is uncertain. But we are there to take on the business as soon as they have reinvented themselves, so to say.

Okay, thank you. Then maybe a last one on the free cash flow. Guidance now at around zero, at the high end of the range, so very good, Linde. It's mainly explained by net working capital.

Yes, that's correct.

Is what I understood. Is that just a structural thing that you improved your collection, or is there also a bit of one-off in there, that it's a bit of a phasing from Q4 to Q1? Can you maybe give a bit of color there so we have a bit of a feel for where we should start from for 2027?

Sure. No, this is a really structural cash flow improvement. So really by our real active management on working capital, and as such, no incidentals or something like that.

Okay. Well, that's very good. Thank you very much. No further questions.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone. We will take our next question. The question comes from Henk Slotboom from the IDEA!. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. First of all, on slide seven, I am a bit confused with the price increase. The average price per parcel is up 7%. That is what the header says. If I look at the price movement in the flowchart underneath it is EUR 80 million, of which EUR 5 million is a fuel surcharge. I guess if I take that out, then if I put it into perspective of the 466 million parcels last year, then it is around 3%. So I seem to be missing something here. There is a disconnect in my view with the picture underneath it. Connected to it, you were referring to the mix effect, Linde?

Yes.

I respect that. If I were to do a very simple calculation, then last year's average revenue per parcel was EUR 4.24. If I were to add 7% and make a calculation what the average revenue per parcel is for the letterbox parcels, I arrive at a figure of around EUR 1.80-EUR 1.90. These are to door parcels. It is not that they are delivered in APMs or whatever. Is my calculation correct? Or again, what am I missing here? At the same time, and that is also with reference to the mix effect, if my calculations are correct, you lost around 7 million international parcels. Instead, you get 8 million letterbox parcels. How can the mix effect be so negative? Because the international parcels decline that should have had a positive effect. And net, there is a EUR 13 million negative effect, and it says mainly because of the transfer of letterbox parcels. It is a long first question, but maybe you can shed some light on it.

Yeah, and a lot of numbers. No, just kidding. Let me start with your last point on the mix effect. Looking at the mix effect, there are different elements to that. As we have mentioned indeed at the beginning of the year as well, the key mix effect which you see is the mix effect coming from those letterbox parcels. Those letterbox parcels obviously have a lower yield as such, relatively negative to that extent. We also have, like we have seen in the trends, in the previous quarter/years, I would say, continued effect from, I would call it larger customers, with lower priced shipments. There are also other negative mix effects. But the primary one is coming from the letterbox parcels, which is partly offset, though still a couple of million coming from the fact that the Asian volumes are lower and therefore, helping with a positive mix effect. The positive mix effect which you see is not then taking into account those letterbox parcels. It is a combination of the two. And then on your- yeah?

Sorry. No, go ahead. Sorry.

Your question on the price. Maybe it is good to check your calculations. What we see from an average price per parcel, the increase which we see, it is a combination of the price increases, which we see, the tariff increases, including, as you say, the fuel charges. That being, on the other side, the effect of the offset by the mix effect, as you see on the slide. Not sure how your exact calculations are happening on your side, but maybe good to take that separately.

Well, perhaps it is good to take that after the call, but I separate mix effects from price effects because that is what you do as well. Let us take-

Mix effects, let us say the different streams have different price points per stream. So we separate price and tariff increases with mix effects. You have mix effects within domestic, you have mix effects within international, and you have mix effects between the streams, between domestic and international. If we talk mix effects, it is a mix effect within domestic that is predominantly driven by the letterbox transfer to parcels. If we talk mix within international, it is the composition of the type of customers that we serve that could have mix effects. A mix between the streams is the relative split between volume being domestic or international. If you look at those three elements, then the price tariff increases is significantly up compared to your last year's average price per item. Then the mix within domestic is negative, as Linde said, because of the transfer of letterbox parcels, and the mix between the streams is slightly positive. Those three together get you the increase in average price per item.

Okay. Well, I will do my calculations again, and if necessary, I will reach out to Inge. The next question I have is, a lot has been said about D+3. There is also this EUR 75 million savings program. Given the fact where we are right now in terms of postal regulation and that sort of things, and the uncertainty you are facing and the probability that the transfer to D+3 will be delayed, does that in any way affect the timing of the EUR 75 million additional cost savings you referred to in the first half of your results presentation?

Thanks, Henk. Well, it is good to be clear that the EUR 75 million additional savings which we announced in a half year relates to our cost price per parcel plan on e-commerce. So it is really aimed at the e-commerce side, and also the savings are predominantly within e-commerce, and also related head office areas like procurement, IT, et cetera. So that is not interfering or in that sense connected as such to the D+3 mail area.

Okay, perfect. That is clear. Then the final question. Linde, you said that the changing behavior of the Asian web shops might be an opportunity, but I see several things happening from the side of the Chinese, for example, local warehousing, local fulfillments, but we also see the rise of parties like GOFO. What I understood is that GOFO Amsterdam is doing already around 100,000 parcels per day. The Chinese are not known for being generous payers if we talk about tariffs and that sort of things. Do you really think that the change in the business model of the Chinese online platforms will, at the end of the day, bring better tariffs on the last mile? Or that we are going to see the GOFOs, the JoyExpress type of players being more prominently active on the European markets?

Of course, those market entrants are not new to us. We have seen them already earlier in the year as well. What is key for us is that connection between the customs regulation development, and those players are reinforcing or are helping each other. Or not helping each other, because of course, there gets more and more cost focus on that. On the other side, also don't underestimate our area that we are also re-looking or redefining, for instance, our out-of-home strategy, in combination with our volume-to-value change, to ensure that if they go further down, that's not necessarily our trajectory and we focus on our strength and really go for the areas where we can continue our volume-to-value strategy, which is obviously also in that area of, for instance, our out-of-home proposition, where later today we will give more color on how that proposition will look like. So yes, we are monitoring that closely, and we are holding to our volume-to-value strategy.

Okay. Thank you.

There seems to be no further questions. I will hand back to Inge Laudy for closing remarks.

Thank you all for participating in this Q3 analyst call. A short reminder for our out-of-home deep dive that will start at 2:30 P.M. You can register for the audio webcast on the PostNL website at the investor section. A Q&A session there is available via the chat functionality. I hope to see you all back later today. Thank you.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.