Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the TORM First Six Months and Second Quarter 2024 Results Call. Please note that today’s call is being recorded. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I will now turn the call over to Jacob Meldgaard, CEO. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, and thank you everybody for joining us on this call today. This morning, we released our Company announcement with the results for the second quarter of the year, and I’m pleased to report that again this quarter TORM has achieved a strong financial performance. Our time charter equivalent earnings increased to $326 million and EBITDA improved to $251 million as freight rates remained firm throughout most of the quarter. Again, we had witnessed a continuation of the market dynamics that we’ve seen in the previous quarters, i.e. geopolitical tension stemming from both the Ukraine and Russian conflict and the escalating confrontations in the Middle East that leads to rerouting of vessels, longer voyages and higher ton-mile demand. This, of course, adds to an already tight supply demand balance in the product tanker market. We remain optimistic about the prospects for the coming years as we believe that the supportive fundamentals for the positive rate environment is likely to stay intact. Thus, we expect longer ton-mile, higher utilization rates in the years to come and at the same time, manageable newbuilding deliveries. Consequently and in-line with what you have seen in previous quarters, in early July, we entered into an agreement to acquire additional secondhand vessels. This time, eight MR vessels to be delivered during the second half of this year for a total consideration of $340 million. The vessels have all been built at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard in 2014, 2015, and six of the vessels have been fitted with scrubbers. And, then as you would expect us to do when our vessels reach a certain age, we have divested one 2006-built MR tanker for delivery in the third quarter 2024 for a cash consideration of $23.3 million. Thus, adding it all together, we are both expanding and replenishing…

Thank you, Jacob. Now, please turn to Slide 12, for the financial highlights. In the second quarter of the year, our time charter equivalent earnings increased to $326 million, and based on this, we achieved $251 million in EBITDA and $194 million in net profits. When we adjust for the unrealized gains on derivatives in Q2 2023, the operating result up around 30% year-on-year driven by both the firm freight rate environment and increased relative share of LR2s in our fleet. TORM achieved fleet wide TCE rates of more than $42,000 per day with LR2s close to $52,000 per day, LR1s at more than $42,000, and MRs at more than $38,000. It should be noted that [spot] (ph) rates were at a relative high-level in the first part of the quarter, followed by some retreating towards the end of the quarter as season disrupting started. Our fleet had a total of 7,749 earning days, i.e, a little higher than the 7,451 days we had in the same quarter last year. However, as previously mentioned, with LR2s accounting for relatively higher part of the total compared to last year, we believe these are strong numbers and add together, they reflect a very satisfactory performance enabling us to realize TCE rates per day that have increased by $5,700 compared to Q2 2023. Further, the results that we have produced translate into a return on invested capital of 29.5%, thus underscoring the positive environment in which we are operating. And, as highlighted previously, you should expect us to maintain a stable and conservative financial leverage also in periods where we are increasing our operational leverage as we are using our shares as part of the consideration in connection with acquisitions of business. Again, this quarter our business is generating significant profit and cash…

Thank you. We will now open the line for your questions. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Jon Chappell with Evercore. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Jacob, I hate to start with a big macro one. Seasonality makes complete sense. We’ve seen it many years. I think your chart that explained the crude and product was very interesting. But, there is a little bit more, I think, macro uncertainty today. We’ve seen some softer numbers out of China. I think there’s more concern about the consumer in general, IEA estimates for growth coming down. Your third quarter bookings have been good so far, but do you think that some of the weakness in August could be more than just seasonality, and a little bit more cyclical headwinds, as we think about how we come out of the summer, and into the stronger winter?

Yes. Thanks, Jon. Yes, certainly. That could be a scenario. However, if I look back, then it was exactly the same last year. We were experiencing, if you plot, in your data points, if you plot July, August, September last year, we saw exactly the same erosion in rates. So, yes, it could be that it’s not seasonality and it’s something more fundamental. I don’t think that there’s something that really points to that at this stage but, clearly that would be a risk for our market. But, that’s not, that’s the risk that we are having all the time. When I look at it, sort of, if I take it a step a notch up, and I think that the oil consumption globally and, sort of, what we thought would be a potential risk, let’s say, a couple of years or three or four years ago, which would be a transformation of the underlying economies away aggressively away from fossil fuels. I think that has, that’s not what I’m looking at right now. So, there will be seasonality and there will be bumps, but sort of in the broad view, I don’t think this is a sign of this. And then looking back, as I say to ‘23 numbers, it was exactly the same price mechanism in month.

Okay. And, if we tie that together, with now the fleet reaching 96 vessels, which is I think by anyone’s estimation, certainly critical mass gives you some optionality and flexibility with the fleet. If I go back and look at, 7% ton-mile benefit from Russia, 6% from Red Sea, certainly seems like these issues have probably more duration than anyone would have anticipated when they first began. But given, that great impact, given now 96 vessels, given maybe some of the macro concerns, is there a desire or maybe are you looking at a little bit more balance in the fleet? Because it does feel like the contract market has been far more steady and substantially more elevated than the weakness in the spot market we’ve seen recently.

No. Clearly, the markets, I would say, not reflecting that there is this bump, speed bump, you could say currently. I think we are going to take it really opportunistically. Currently, we are of the expectation that this is a seasonality and that they will come back. I think that’s the time to actually make those calls rather than in the current environment.

Okay. Makes sense. Thank you, Jacob.

Thanks. Thank you. Thanks for those questions, Jon.

Our next question comes from the line of Omar Nokta with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hi, Jacob, and Kim. Good afternoon. Obviously, nice earnings as usual and wanted to maybe piggyback a little bit on Jon’s first question. Obviously we’re in a very strong market. Things have clearly cooled off a bit. They remain elevated definitely from a historical perspective. And, I guess there’s been some talk of refinery run cuts in Asia, and just wanted to get a sense from you if do you feel like the spot market or the charter markets as they are today are reflecting that already? And then do you see risk, are you seeing signs that refinery run cuts will be coming into the Western Hemisphere as well?

So, when we look at it, then actually, I think we’re starting to see that activity with our clients in Asia is actually coming back from the lows that we saw maybe a couple of weeks ago. It is on the back of the China demand have been slow as you pointed to, slower VLCC movements and also that product, how do I say, flow internally in China has been relatively slow. Of course, leading to that you’re not calling on more crude into your facility. But it may actually lead to being a beneficiary that the product tanker market will have is that China is still running at a rate that is higher than what their local consumption would be, and that you could see that there will be additional export quotas likely to be provided. So, let’s see. It’s a political decision, but I think it’s stacking up against that we will see more exports out of the region rather than less exports out of the region in the coming months.

Okay. So, it sounds like, effectively, then the markets has been reflecting this for some time. A couple questions just to follow-up a bit more on, TORM specifically. This is perhaps an easy one to add. I think you probably have answered in the past, but just wanted an update. You mentioned that the 68 scrubbers that are installed on your fleet of the 85 planned. I guess, is the plan still to move forward with those remaining installations, and would you do those, I guess, as part of your ordinary dry dock of those ships?

Yes. So, our plan is currently intact, and it will be, as you say also done in the ordinary course of the business. That’s a mix of some of the acquisitions we’ve done over the last couple of years where it makes still financial sense. Of course, we will do it case by case until we look at what we deem to be the net present value of making the investment. The time is actually not so relevant because we’re doing it during the ordinary course. But, of course, installation itself is costly, and we do take it case-by-case and look at whether the installation makes sense. For now, our plan is to go ahead.

Okay. Great. And then just a final one just regarding the dividend. I think this one, it’s 87% of earnings this last $80. I guess just in terms of the policy, how should we think about it in terms of it being formulaic? And I know you get this question a lot, but is the dividend quarterly, is it so formulaic in regards to basically paying out excess cash that’s above a reserve, or has it become a bit more discretionary, by the board?

Yes. It’s always been up to the board, for its discretion in at the end of the day. But the way we sort of think about it is, as you’re saying and I think we should all think about like whatever we earn or we generate of liquidity from end of the quarter or start of the quarter to end of the quarter, that is basically what we sort of have the ability or anticipate to pay out those dividends or distribute out. So, it’s the same thinking, but of course, if the board teams together management that we should have another calibration of the defined dividend we could do that. But in the outset, it’s the same way we are thinking. We just take the net cash generation per quarter, then we that’s the offset for us that we will distribute that. We have not changed it per se over the quarters the last many quarters.

Okay. Well, very good. Thank you for that, color. I’ll turn it over.

Our next question comes from the line of Clement Mullins with Value Investors Edge. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to follow-up on Omar’s question on Chinese demand. I mean, diesel demand has been fairly weak year-to-date as some tracks shift to LNG. And on the other hand, as EV adoption in the region increases, that could also weigh on gasoline demand. Could you provide some commentary on when do you expect gasoline and diesel demand in the region to plateau? And secondly, do you believe China’s infrastructure is able to support continued LNG and EV adoption?

Okay. Thanks for those questions. I think I’ll start with Chinese demand for products. Well, of course, there is, as you point to a number of factors that is impacting how is the Chinese infrastructure sort of developing both on EVs adaption of that and also on consumption of diesel and gasoline on the other side of the equation. We see that Chinese demand is going down, but that is obviously not necessarily bad for product tanker flows. So, we are more concerned not so much about the internal distribution of energy sources in the Chinese ecosystem, but rather what is the impact on trade flows in or out of the refineries. And there, everything has been equal. We don’t see that there is a threat from the EV adoption nor from how the sort of infrastructure issues that may or may not be there to build that further, that that is having a negative impact on the product tanker market as such.

That’s very helpful. Thank you for taking my questions and congratulations for the quarter.

Thanks a lot. Thanks for dialing in and for the question.

Our next question comes from the line of Peter Hagen with ABG. Please go ahead.

Hello and good morning or good afternoon, I’m one should say. Two questions from my side. In terms of the TCE market these days, would you consider doing something longer on current levels? On current levels, I’m reading is, well, just shy of 30,000 for MRs for three years or a little bit more than 40,000 per day for LR2s. Are those levels attractive, you think, for three year chartering activities now?

Yes. I think you are right on, we did do that, Peter, during the quarter restart. And LR2 took three years with one of our clients in the low mid-40,000. So, yes, we would look at that as they all depend on the trade and our clients. That is a market that we are constantly evaluating and that we also did this call. Yes.

Okay. Understood. And in terms of the volumes done, would you sort of consider doing a larger share of your fleet to lock in those rates? Or are you happy to break spot still?

We’re happy either way. So obviously, we are believers in that the market will offer good rewards, good risk return when you are stuck. And also from part of it, we will also happily engage with our clients. So, I don’t think it is an either or also given the number of assets that we’ve got that I think we can play, both sides, Peter, on that. But the current levels are, in our opinion attractive enough to also engage in. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. And a second question for myself. In terms of your presentation in Slide 8, you’re here showing, well approximately 8 million deadweight tonne, if I read it correctly, of crude tankers or LR2s and crude tankers moving into the product tanker fleet. Is this to be understood as your expectation for the full year? Or does this imply that you have some sort of reduction from what we now hear or what given the LCCs are doing, clean trade – product tanker trade.

Thank you, Peter. No. That’s a good observation. Good question. So, this is the here now, this is what we see, the portion of crude tankers that have migrated and you can say, in force, cannibalized on the product tanker trade. So, this is not, our estimation of where we will end, the year. We do expect that, a significant ratio of these vessels will go back into this trade once you see a seasonal pickup also in the VLCC and in the Suezmax trades. So, this is here now what we can identify as vessels that are carrying key petroleum products as we speak.

And just as a quick follow-up on that, speaking for myself, I was pretty surprised when I heard about all those VLCCs in particular trading clean. And to some extent, it makes me somewhat worry about the product trade, of course, because the crude tanker fleet is larger. And if all of them are capable of coming out and cannibalizing your market, I would think about that as a threat. But to what extent, have you been surprised to see the migrations coming into your part of the market over the past couple of months?

Yes. So for us, it is not surprising if the VE market is offering, let’s say, pick your number $25,000 today for a VE, and that you can, in a way, take LR2 are trading at 50 and that you can then, optimize your earning on the VE2 let’s say, 40. That makes sense, it’s my view. But if the market for LR2 is 30 and I’m getting 25 on VE, you’re not going to do LR2 cents because it’s simply not economically feasible. So there was a window where the VEs were where you could say the gap between what we were making and what are the two going made that incentive. I don’t think it is incentive even today to do it because you are alternative from going after the VE market is not attractive right now. So, I think what it demonstrates is that crude and product is not two separate markets. And obviously, if you have no VE market, VEs will try to cannibalize on CPPs if those rates are. So, I think that’s just a -- I think it’s more that there is a -- you cannot have a differential, let’s say of three times LR2 to a VE because then it will be attracted to do two LR2 cents on a VE and you get a higher TCE. Does that make sense? So, you can say that the limit to how high and LR2 rate can go on its own over time. That doesn’t make sense. Because you’re saying that it was VE is trading at 50. Well, then LR2 could I’m saying a little tongue and cheek, but then they could be dollar. Without making it improvise since so long.

Yes. Thank you. Fully understood and agreed to. I was more speaking to the technical complications of actually cleaning up those, those tankers. I thought it was close to impossible to see those ever trading, or be accepted by the cargo owners to actually trade the fleet. But fully agreed and understood, in terms of economic incentives. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. That’s good question. Thank you.

We have no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Jacob Meldgaard for closing remarks.

Okay. Thank you very much for dialing into the second quarter 2024. Have a great day.

This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.