Good morning and welcome, everyone. We are ready to start today's event here. My name is Rasmus Køjborg , and on behalf of Hans Christian Andersen Capital, I have the pleasure of welcoming CFO Martin Badsted from Norden, who will take us to the Q1 2025 report that was published this morning. First of all, a warm welcome to you, Martin. Before I hand over, also a warm welcome to all of those of you who signed up for today's presentation. As usual, you can ask questions in the chat, so you're welcome to do that. You can do it either in English, and you can do it in Danish if you prefer that. I'll do the translation then. Should you want to see the presentation again, we'll record it and publish it on different platforms afterwards. With that, I'll leave the floor to you, Martin.
Thank you very much, and to all of you listening in, welcome to this presentation, our Q1 results for 2025. Let's jump right in. As some of you may have seen from our recently published report, we generated a group net profit of $33 million in the quarter, corresponding to a return on invested capital of 11%. That earnings was actually, to a large extent, driven by good coverage in what we actually consider quite challenging spot markets. You will have seen that late last week we upgraded our full-year guidance estimate from an original interval from $20-$100 million.
Now we expect $50-$130 million US dollars, mainly on the back of vessel sales and good operational performance. We do see improved operational performance compared to last year, especially driven by margin recovery in the Dry Operator segment as part of the FST business unit.
The updated net asset value for Norden is EUR 372 per share by the end of Q1, and we have actually spent a considerable amount of time and effort in realizing part of this NAV during the last four months. The board has again decided to return capital to shareholders, so we are complying with our own internal dividend policy of distributing at least 50% of net profit. Now we distribute EUR 17 million in a combination of dividend of EUR 2 per share of $10 million and another share buyback program running until August of $7 million.
Before diving into the different business units, let me just point out that we have actually added information in this Q1 report compared to previously. We have had the request from several analysts and investors that they would like to understand better what is going on in the FST business.
We have actually provided additional segment information, so you can actually see margins and earnings for the Dry Operator, Tanker Operator, Projects & P arceling, and Logistics segments. I hope that will add to the transparency and understanding of that part of the business. In FST, we generated an EBITDA of $3.3 million in Q1, a considerable improvement from a rather weak Q1 2024. That was, as I said before, driven by Dry Operator margin improvement and in Projects & P arceling , again, steady profit and actually good growth in their activity levels, whereas the Tanker Operator had lower earnings as a result of a lower market, which was as expected.
Also, in Logistics, we actually see good operational improvements. You will see from the graph at the top of the right-hand side, the overall FST margin developing quite positively in the last 12 months.
Asset Management continues to do very well with an increase in underlying contribution margin. When you look at the EBITDA, it actually decreased compared to the same period of last year, but that was mainly actually because last year was affected by a considerable amount of gains from sale of vessels. When you take that out, it's actually still also a solid underlying performance.
At the end of Q1, we still had 81 purchase options, and just over half of those can be declared within the next two years at strike prices that are 15% below current broker values. Even though we, as we have announced again and again, we are declaring purchase options and selling vessels, we actually also built the portfolio in the deferred end by entering into new lease agreements with purchase options.
We still have the same number of purchase options as we did by year-end 2024. Overall, we think that we are quite well positioned in what we deem to be quite weak markets so far this year. Spot rates are down actually in both tanker and dry segments, but overall, it was a quarter marked by mainly political developments and uncertainty.
First of all, there was the, it says USTR, it means the U.S. Trade Representative proposal to actually put on substantial port fees calling U.S. ports, targeting Chinese-built and Chinese-operated vessels. There was a hearing period, and a new proposal that has been issued has significantly watered down the original proposal.
As it stands right now, we think that the port fee regulation, if it is implemented as it looks right now, would be something that our flexible business model can handle with limited costs. Overall, I think the entire world was affected by the talk of U.S. tariffs. Not that our trade lanes are actually impacted a lot because we do not actually trade a lot into the U.S., but the uncertainty created by tariffs and the potential effect on the global growth, we think, is negative in the short term for actually both dry cargo markets and tanker markets.
We are well equipped to capture opportunities in weak markets. We have a strong balance sheet with low bank debt, and we have positioned ourselves with fairly high cover in the near term, but fairly large exposure to a potential structural strong market in the coming years.
You will see from the graph at the bottom right and also in the last bullet that we actually currently for the short term have more open tanker days than dry cargo days for 2025. Dry cargo days is actually mainly a short in expectation of continued weak spot markets. This brings me to a short review of our business model. Some of you may have seen this slide before.
We believe that there is a lot of power in the way that our business model is structured because we are so flexible that we can handle many different things in the markets that we operate in. Depending on our market view, we can have high exposure or low exposure. It can be dry cargo or tanker. It can be short term or long term, and it can be asset heavy or not.
By working with all these different ways of positioning our portfolio, we believe that over time we will generate best-in-class returns on invested capital. That is also indicated by the graph at the bottom, where we are best in class on ROIC, but certainly also quite high on volatility in ROIC. It does not come without a certain element of risk, of course. As I said previously, we did upgrade our full-year guidance at the end of last week. Now we expect $50-$130 million.
A substantial part of this upgrade was newly agreed vessel transactions, but actually also underlying good operations. This expectation is based on continued improvement in margins in FST compared to 2024 and based on asset management having quite a high coverage in both dry cargo and tankers at profitable levels for the remainder of the year.
That brings me to the key summary. What we think is a solid Q1 with net earnings of $33 million and ROIC of 11%. As I said, we are well positioned for weaker markets in the short term while maintaining deferred exposure in markets that we believe will be attractive long term. A business model that can cope with a lot of the stress that is seen in the underlying fundamentals and with good upside from a big portfolio of purchase options, which we believe will deliver best-in-class returns to shareholders over time, and also indicated by the fact that the current share price indicates large upside to the updated NAV as of the end of Q1. That was actually my presentation. I think we will open up for questions now.
Perfect. Thank you very much, Martin. Yes, let's jump into some of the questions that came through. There was one sort of on a, that's more on an overall basis. What is your view on future fuels? Do we have a sustainable strategy? I guess it's on the, yeah, what will be sort of the standard on engines going forward and the fuels that will be used for these vessels.
Yeah. The way we think about sustainability and green fuels needs to be adapted to the way our business model works. We work with, even though we operate 400 ships, we only own a very small part of them. There is a limit to what we can actually do in terms of engines and mechanics and stuff like that. Fuel types is quite important to us. We believe that the biofuel is an option that has been a little bit underappreciated in recent years. We think that it is a good way to actually reduce emissions, and it is a solution that can be scaled quite quickly, and it can be used in all the existing ships that are currently underwater.
You saw last year that, or the year before, I think it was, we invested in a biofuel company called MASH Makes, and this was with the exact intention of actually being able to do voyages with biofuel in the future. The IMO just came out with a new regulation, which is sort of only halfway ratified, which actually does mean that biofuel can be a very attractive element in emissions reductions going forward. I think this is our key focus in terms of securing biofuels for future voyages.
Very good. Thank you. There was also a question on the USTR port fees. You came across it, Martin, during your presentation, as it has been watered down. It seems like the effect will be limited with what we're looking into. If the initial proposal were to go through, would that have some kind of impact for you?
Yeah. The original proposal, which also added big penalties for vessels calling U.S. ports in case the operator had a certain share of Chinese vessels in its fleet or a certain share of new buildings from China in its new building program, stuff like that can be very, very tricky to sort of avoid. That would mean that even though we came with a non-Chinese-built ship into U.S. ports, that could be quite expensive. The way that it is phrased now, they focus on either Chinese operators or Chinese-built vessels. We are not a Chinese operator, so we can focus on the Chinese-built vessels. I think that can be avoided. There are not so many import port calls into the U.S. I think an operator like us can find non-Chinese-built ships to actually make those port calls.
I think that is once again actually a strength of the business model that we can accommodate this at what I think will be limited costs.
Very good. There is also a question related to a segment called Project Cargo or Break Bulk. It might not be as well known as the other segments you're operating in, but there's a question. You have gradually increased your exposure to Project Cargo. Currently, the contribution in earnings is small compared to your dry and product tanker. The Project Cargo market is much more opaque for outsiders looking in. Can you give us a bit of insight on how big the market is and hence the potential for Norden? Is it possible in the future we see Project Cargo as a major earning contributor to Norden, or will it always be a small add-on?
That is a good question. I do not actually think that we have good market data about how big the market is. Just for the viewers here, the Project Cargoes are typically, let's say, it could be big machines or it could be steel coils or stuff that are processed goods, but do not really fit well into a container. There is the parceling bit, which is really where you use the different cargo holds on the ship to transport various types of commodities, as opposed to our normal Dry Operator business, where it is typically one commodity in the entire ship. We are definitely very pleased with our performance in Projects & Parceling. We think they make a good margin and a fairly steady margin and have, as I said, also been able to grow the business.
It is something that we would like to actually focus on and grow because it gives us, I think we can call it high-quality earnings that are quite stable. That is definitely a key focus area of ours going forward.
Good. Also, a number of questions sort of related to the sort of, should we call it the turmoil that we have seen sort of in the beginning of the year. We've seen a weakening dollar. The question goes on how would that affect you and how are you prepared to this in case the dollar should weaken further from here?
Yeah. I think you can split our dollar exposure or the shareholders' dollar exposure in two. One part is that we have our headquarters in Denmark with DKK costs, and we have a fairly big office in Cyprus with Euro costs. I think there is an element that a weaker dollar will make these headquarter costs more expensive and, of course, will then be negative for our margins if we do not do anything about it. This is one part. It is one part where we do hedge our exposure out in time so that it will not hit us immediately. It is something that we can hopefully plan around going forward. The other thing is that the Norden stock is listed in DKK in Copenhagen. Of course, the NAV is basically a US dollar calculation.
If the US dollar declines, then the NAV will also decline. I think anyone can actually go in now to our NAV table in the report and make their own calculation with a new dollar DKK rate. I think actually based on the NAV that we showed today, if you use the dollar Danish krone equivalent of 6.5, the 372 will be 20 kroner per share less. It is not immediately, I think, a key concern, but it is certainly something that we need to be aware of if the dollar sort of loses its reserve currency status.
Very good. Also on the oil price, I guess there is also a direct impact on a lower oil price from the fuel you are using for your own vessels. I guess there is also an indirect impact or an indication that a lower oil price is usually a reflection of an expected lower economic activity going forward. Could you also elaborate a bit on that?
Yeah. If we start with the cost picture, fuel, of course, is the biggest variable cost that we have, but it is to a large extent what we call a pass-through. Sort of the minute that oil price changes, the minute our freight rates will also change that we negotiate with clients. In that sense, I think the exposure is fairly limited. A lower oil price, as you say, can be an indication of lower growth. It can also have the effect that ships are incentivized to go a little bit faster, which actually adds some shadow supply into the fleet. For dry cargo, I would say that if it is a big decline in the oil price, it can be a small negative due to this supply effect.
On the tanker side, a lower oil price can also lead to more either inventory building or more consumption, which tends to be actually good for tankers. There are many, I would say, varied effects on our business. It all depends on the reasoning behind a falling oil price, I would say.
Good. A couple of questions also on geopolitics. There is one, have you started again operating on the Black Sea? Yeah, that is one question. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. We are, you can say, very, very rarely trading on the Black Sea. We are open to doing it, but we do not trade Russia and Ukraine at the moment. There are other ports in the Black Sea that we can trade. Often it can be on TC vessels where we do not necessarily control completely where the ship is headed. It is a very, very small item for us currently.
In relation to this, there's also one on if peace agreements of some kind should come through, how would that sort of affect your market? Another one here is also, please provide an update on your view on the dynamics in the tanker market via the potential changes in the sanctional trades.
Yeah. I think there are at least two factors related to geopolitics that have been very important in supporting the tanker market in recent years. One is the sanctions on Russian oil, which means that the Russian oil is transported longer because a lot less of it is taken directly into Europe, but it's instead transported out into, for instance, India and East Asia. That adds demand for vessels. A similar effect can be seen in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, where, of course, the hostilities down there against certain types and certain flags of vessels also mean that the vessels, to a larger extent, go south of Africa instead of through the Suez Canal. Both of these have a tendency to be supportive for rates.
Of course, then the opposite is, if they were to all fall away in case of a peace agreement, that would be negative for tankers. Sorry. Yeah. That would be negative for tankers. I will say, though, that just because there is a peace agreement or a ceasefire in Ukraine, it is not necessarily the case that all sanctions are removed. The picture is a little bit noisy there. The overall conclusion is that removal of sanctions and removal of impediments to trade will be negative for tanker rates.
Good. There was also a number of questions on the tariffs, but I think you also came across it on your slides. I think as with the wording you had there, that you expected limited, at least direct trade impacts from the U.S. tariffs. Of course, it can have some other indirect effects, but I guess the direct effects, as you see it currently, are limited.
Yeah. The direct effects are limited, but we do think the tariffs have added to uncertainty. We do think that will lead to, all things being equal, less strong global growth in the coming quarters.
Yeah. There is a question related to your purchase options. It says here with 44 purchase options currently in the money, are you expecting more vessel sales in 2025? If so, are any of the in-the-money purchase options included in current guidance?
We do still have the strategy that we are what we call risk-off. We do still think that vessel prices are factoring in a market that is stronger than what we think is realistic. That is a convoluted way of saying that yes, we will still pursue vessel sales. Our guidance includes vessel sales that we know of, that we have already signed and agreed. Guidance does not include future vessel sales that we hope will materialize going forward.
Good. There is a question if there is sort of any impact or if you could give any reflections on the SMB Tech and Golden Ocean merger that we are seeing. Is there any sort of market effect from these mergers? Will this, yeah, will there be a need for you to react on these kind of mergers and also do some consolidation in the industry?
I'm not going to say that I know a lot about the specifics of that merger. I can't really comment on whether that will have any impact. I don't think that will actually have any impact on the market there. There has from time to time been transactions. It happens. I don't think it materially changes sort of the competitive dynamics of the industry.
Very good. We're through most of the questions, Martin. There's one final here that is sort of the mismatch that's currently between your NAV, that is at DKK 372, and the market that sets the price of your shares at DKK 186. I don't know, could you give us sort of any reflections? I know, yeah, it's always a bit tough to comment on that.
Yeah, but it's certainly a key point. I think it's fair to say that it seems that stock markets are more negative on the near-term outlook than shipping markets. The NAV that we report is actually based on asking brokers, what could we sell these ships for in the current environment? The ship vessel prices, both in dry and tankers, are actually still quite high. You will see actually that in our Q1 report now, we have added some sensitivity analysis on the NAV, which indicates that a plus minus 10% change in both market prices for ships and market prices for freight going forward. If those two both change 10% up or down, it will lead to a DKK 70 per share change in the NAV.
That means that, say, we trade at around DKK 180, that means that we can have two and a half of those scenarios, and that is what is priced in already in the share price. It is a simple way of saying that the share price looks to be discounting a 25% decline in both asset prices and freight rates in both dry and tankers. Of course, we think that is very pessimistic, but we do agree on some of the direction. That, of course, is part of the reason why we are selling ships. Converting vessels that trade at a 50% discount into cash that I think should not at least be trading at a 50% discount should be good for shareholders in the near term.
Very good. We will conclude by that, Martin. Thank you very much for the rundown here of the quarterly reports.
Thank you. Thank you for your interest in Norden.
The same from here. Thank you for listening in and for some very good questions. We will end it here. Thank you very much and have a nice day. Good morning and welcome, everyone. We are ready to start today's event here. My name is Rasmus Køjborg , and on behalf of Hans Christian Andersen Capital, I have the pleasure of welcoming CFO Martin Badsted from Norden, who will take us to the Q1 2025 report that was published this morning. First of all, a warm welcome to you, Martin. Before I hand over, also a warm welcome to all of those of you who signed up for today's presentation. As usual, you can ask questions in the chat. You are welcome to do that. You can do it either in English, and you can do it in Danish if you prefer that. I'll do the translation then.
Should you want to see the presentation again, we will record it and publish it on different platforms afterwards. With that, I will leave the floor to you, Martin.
Thank you very much. To all of you listening in, welcome to this presentation, our Q1 results for 2025. Let's jump right in. As some of you may have seen from our recently published report, we generated a group net profit of $33 million in the quarter, corresponding to a return on invested capital of 11%. That earnings was actually, to a large extent, driven by good coverage in what we actually consider quite challenging spot markets. You will have seen that late last week, we upgraded our full-year guidance estimate from an original interval from $20-100 million. Now we expect $50-130 million, mainly on the back of vessel sales and good operational performance. We do see improved operational performance compared to last year, especially driven by margin recovery in the D ry Operator segment as part of the FST business unit.
The updated net asset value for Norden is DKK 372 per share by the end of Q1. We have actually spent a considerable amount of time and effort in realizing part of this NAV during the last four months. The board has again decided to return capital to shareholders. We are complying with our own internal dividend policy of distributing at least 50% of net profit. Now we distribute $17 million in a combination of dividend of DKK 2 per share of $10 million and another share buyback program running until August of $7 million.
Before diving into the different business units, let me just point out that we have actually added information in this Q1 report compared to previously. We have had the request from several analysts and investors that they would like to understand better what is going on in the FST business.
Now we have actually provided additional segment information. You can actually see margins and earnings for the Dry Operator, Tanker Operator, Projects and Parceling, and Logistics segments. I hope that will add to the transparency and understanding of that part of the business. In FST, we generated an EBITDA of $3.3 million in Q1, a considerable improvement from a rather weak Q1 2024. That was, as I said before, driven by Dry Operator and margin improvement and in projects and parceling, again, steady profit and actually good growth in their activity levels, whereas the Tanker Operator had lower earnings as a result of a lower market, which was as expected.
Also, in Logistics, we actually see good operational improvements. You will see from the graph at the top of the right-hand side, the overall FST margin developing quite positively in the last 12 months.
Asset Management continues to do very well with an increase in underlying contribution margin. When you look at the EBITDA, it actually decreased compared to the same period of last year, but that was mainly actually because last year was affected by a considerable amount of gains from sale of vessels. When you take that out, it's actually still also a solid underlying performance. At the end of Q1, we still had 81 purchase options, and just over half of those can be declared within the next two years at strike prices that are 15% below current broker values.
Even though we, as we have announced again and again, we are declaring purchase options and selling vessels, we actually also built the portfolio in the deferred end by entering into new lease agreements with purchase options.
We still have the same number of purchase options as we did by year-end 2024. Overall, we think that we are quite well positioned in what we deem to be quite weak markets so far this year. Spot rates are down actually in both tanker and dry segments. Overall, it was a quarter marked by mainly political developments and uncertainty. First of all, there was the, it says USTR, it means the US Trade Representative proposal to actually put on substantial port fees calling US ports targeting Chinese and built and Chinese-operated vessels. There was a hearing period, and a new proposal that has been issued has significantly watered down the original proposal.
Actually, as it stands right now, we think that the port fee regulation, if it is implemented as it looks right now, would be something that our flexible business model can handle with limited costs. Overall, I think the entire world was affected by the talk of U.S. tariffs. Not that our trade lanes are actually impacted a lot because we do not actually trade a lot into the U.S., but the uncertainty created by tariffs and the potential effect on the global growth, we think, is negative in the short term for actually both dry cargo markets and tanker markets.
We are well equipped to capture opportunities in weak markets. We have a strong balance sheet with low bank debt, and we have positioned ourselves with fairly high cover in the near term, but fairly large exposure to a potential structural strong market in the coming years.
You will see from the graph at the bottom right and also in the last bullet that we actually currently for the short term have more open tanker days than dry cargo days for 2025. Dry cargo days is actually mainly a short in expectation of continued weak spot markets. This brings me to a short review of our business model. Some of you may have seen this slide before. We believe that there is a lot of power in the way that our business model is structured because we are so flexible that we can handle many different things in the markets that we operate in. Depending on our market view, we can have high exposure or low exposure. It can be dry cargo or tanker. It can be short-term or long-term, and it can be asset-heavy or not.
By working with all these different ways of positioning our portfolio, we believe that over time we will generate best-in-class returns on invested capital. That is also indicated by the graph at the bottom, where we are best in class on ROIC, but certainly also quite high on volatility in ROIC. It does not come without a certain element of risk, of course. As I said previously, we did upgrade our full-year guidance at the end of last week. Now we expect $50-$130 million.
A substantial part of this upgrade was newly agreed vessel transactions, but actually also underlying good operations. This expectation is based on continued improvement in margins in FST compared to 2024 and based on asset management having quite a high coverage in both dry cargo and tankers at profitable levels for the remainder of the year.
That brings me to the key summary. What we think is a solid Q1 with net earnings of $33 million and ROIC of 11%. As I said, we are well positioned for weaker markets in the short term while maintaining deferred exposure in markets that we believe will be attractive long-term. A business model that can cope with a lot of the stress that is seen in the underlying fundamentals and with good upside from a big portfolio of purchase options, which we believe will deliver best-in-class returns to shareholders over time and also indicated by the fact that the current share price indicates large upside to the updated NAV as of the end of Q1. That was actually my presentation. I think we will open up for questions now.
Perfect. Thank you very much, Martin. Yes, let's jump into some of the questions that came through. There was one sort of on a, that's more on an overall basis. What is your view on future fuels? Do we have a sustainable strategy? I guess it's on the, yeah, what will be sort of the standard on engines going forward and the fuels that will be used for these vessels.
Yeah. The way we think about sustainability and green fuels needs to be adapted to the way our business model works. We work with, even though we operate 400 ships, we only own a very small part of them. There is a limit to what we can actually do in terms of engines and mechanics and stuff like that. Fuel types is quite important to us. We believe that the biofuel is an option that has been a little bit underappreciated in recent years. We think that it is a good way to actually reduce emissions, and it is a solution that can be scaled quite quickly, and it can be used in all the existing ships that are currently underwater.
You saw last year that, or the year before, I think it was, we invested in a biofuel company called MASH Makes, and this was with the exact intention of actually being able to do voyages with biofuel in the future. The IMO just came out with a new regulation, which is sort of only halfway ratified, which actually does mean that biofuel can be a very attractive element in emissions reductions going forward. I think that this is our key focus in terms of securing biofuels for future voyages.
Very good. Thank you. There was also a question on the USTR port fees. You came across it, Martin, during your presentation as it has been watered down. It seems like the effect will be limited with what we're looking into. If the initial proposal were to go through, would that have some kind of impact for you?
Yes. The original proposal, which also added big penalties for vessels calling U.S. ports in case the operator had a certain share of Chinese vessels in its fleet or a certain share of new buildings from China in its new building program, stuff like that can be very, very tricky to sort of avoid. That would mean that even though we came with a non-Chinese-built ship into U.S. ports, that could be quite expensive. The way that it is phrased now, they focus on either Chinese operators or Chinese-built vessels. We are not a Chinese operator, so we can focus on the Chinese-built vessels. I think that can be avoided. There are not so many import port calls into the U.S. I think an operator like us can find non-Chinese-built ships to actually make those port calls.
I think that is once again actually a strength of the business model that we can accommodate this at what I think will be limited costs.
Very good. There is also a question related to a segment called Project Cargo or Break Bulk. It might not be as well known as the other segments you're operating in, but there's a question. You have gradually increased your exposure to Project Cargo. Currently, the contribution in earnings is small compared to your dry and product tanker. The Project Cargo market is much more opaque for outsiders looking in. Can you give us a bit of insight on how big the market is and hence the potential for Norden? Is it possible in the future we see Project Cargo as a major earning contributor to Norden, or will it always be a small add-on?
That is a good question. I don't actually think that we have good market data about how big the market is. Just for the viewers here, the Project Cargoes are typically, let's say, it could be big machines or it could be steel coils or stuff that are processed goods, but don't really fit well into a container. There is the parceling bit, which is really where you use the different cargo holds on the ship to transport various types of commodities as opposed to our normal Dry Operator business, where it's typically one commodity in the entire ship. We are definitely very pleased with our performance in Projects & Parceling. We think they make a good margin and a fairly steady margin and have all, as I said, also been able to grow the business.
It is something that we would like to actually focus on and grow because it gives us, I think we can call it high-quality earnings that are quite stable. That is definitely a key focus area of ours going forward.
Good. Also, a number of questions sort of related to the sort of, should we call it the turmoil that we have seen sort of in the beginning of the year. We have seen a weakening dollar. The question goes on how would that affect you and how are you prepared to this in case the dollar should weaken further from here?
Yeah. I think you can split our dollar exposure or the shareholders' dollar exposure in two. One part is that we have our headquarters in Denmark with DKK costs, and we have a fairly big office in Cyprus with euro costs. I think there is an element that a weaker dollar will make these headquarter costs more expensive and, of course, will then be negative for our margins if we do not do anything about it.
This is one part. It is one part where we do hedge our exposure out in time so that it will not hit us immediately. It is something that we can hopefully plan around going forward. The other thing is that the Norden stock is listed in DKK in Copenhagen. Of course, the NAV is basically a US dollar calculation.
If the US dollar declines, then the NAV will also decline. I think anyone can actually go in now to our NAV table in the report and make their own calculation with a new dollar DKK rate. I think actually based on the NAV that we showed today, if you use the dollar Danish krone equivalent of 6.5, the 372 will be 20 kroner per share less. It is not immediately, I think, a key concern, but it is certainly something that we need to be aware of if the dollar sort of loses its reserve currency status.
Very good. Also on the oil price, I guess there is also a direct impact on a lower oil price from the fuel you are using for your own vessels. I guess there is also an indirect impact or an indication that a lower oil price is usually a reflection of an expected lower economic activity going forward. Could you also elaborate a bit on that?
Yeah. If we start with the cost picture, fuel, of course, is the biggest variable cost that we have, but it is to a large extent what we call a pass-through. Sort of the minute that oil price changes, the minute our freight rates will also change that we negotiate with clients. In that sense, I think the exposure is fairly limited. A lower oil price, as you say, can be an indication of lower growth. It can also have the effect that ships are incentivized to go a little bit faster, which actually adds some shadow supply into the fleet. For dry cargo, I would say that if it is a big decline in the oil price, it can be a small negative due to this supply effect.
On the tanker side, a lower oil price can also lead to more either inventory building or more consumption, which tends to be actually good for tankers. There are many, I would say, varied effects on our business. It all depends on the reasoning behind a falling oil price, I would say.
Good. A couple of questions also on geopolitics. There is one, have you started again operating on the Black Sea? Yeah, that is one question. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. We are, you can say, very, very rarely trading on the Black Sea. We are open to doing it, but we do not trade Russia and Ukraine at the moment. There are other ports in the Black Sea that we can trade. Often it can be on TC vessels where we do not necessarily control completely where the ship is headed. It is a very, very small item for us currently.
In relation to this, there is also one on if peace agreements of some kind should come through, how would that sort of affect your market? Another one here is also, please provide an update on your view on the dynamics in the tanker market via the potential changes in the sanctional trades.
Yeah. I think there are at least two factors related to geopolitics that have been very important in supporting the tanker market in recent years. One is the sanctions on Russian oil, which means that the Russian oil is transported longer because a lot less of it is taken directly into Europe, but it is instead transported out into, for instance, India and East Asia. That adds demand for vessels. A similar effect can be seen in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, where, of course, the hostilities down there against certain types and certain flags of vessels also mean that the vessels, to a larger extent, go south of Africa instead of through the Suez Canal. Both of these have a tendency to be supportive for rates.
Of course, the opposite is, if they were to all fall away in case of a peace agreement, that would be negative for tankers. Sorry. Yeah. That would be negative for tankers. I will say, though, that just because there is a peace agreement or a ceasefire in Ukraine, it is not necessarily the case that all sanctions are removed. The picture is a little bit noisy there. The overall conclusion is that removal of sanctions and removal of impediments to trade will be negative for tanker rates.
Good. There was also a number of questions on the tariffs, but I think you also came across it on your slides. I think as with the wording you had there that you expected limited, at least direct trade impacts from the U.S. tariffs. Of course, it can have some other indirect effects, but I guess the direct effects, as you see it currently, is limited.
Yeah. The direct effects are limited, but we do think the tariffs have added to uncertainty. We do think that will lead to, all things being equal, less strong global growth in the coming quarters.
Good. There is a question related to your purchase options. It says here with 44 purchase options currently in the money, are you expecting more vessel sales in 2025? If so, are any of the in-the-money purchase options included in current guidance?
We do still have the strategy that we are what we call risk-off. We do still think that vessel prices are factoring in a market that is stronger than what we think is realistic. That is a convoluted way of saying that yes, we will still pursue vessel sales. Our guidance includes vessel sales that we know of, that we have already signed and agreed. Guidance does not include future vessel sales that we hope will materialize going forward.
Good. There is a question if there is sort of any impact or if you could give any reflections on the SMB Tech and Golden Ocean merger that we are seeing. Is there any sort of market effect from these mergers? Will this, yeah, will there be a need for you to react on these kind of mergers and also do some consolidation in the industry?
I'm not going to say that I know a lot about the specifics of that merger. I can't really comment on whether that will have any impact. I don't think that will actually have any impact on the market there. There has from time to time been transactions. It happens. I don't think it materially changes sort of the competitive dynamics of the industry.
Very good. We're through most of the questions, Martin. There's one final here that is sort of the mismatch that's currently between your NAV that is at 372 and the market that sets the price of your shares at 186. I don't know, could you give us sort of any reflections? I know, yeah, it's always a bit tough to comment on that.
Yeah, but it's certainly a key point. I think it's fair to say that it seems that stock markets are more negative on the near-term outlook than shipping markets. The NAV that we report is actually based on asking brokers what could we sell these ships for in the current environment. The ship vessel prices, both in dry and tankers, are actually still quite high. You will see actually that in our Q1 report now, we have added some sensitivity analysis on the NAV, which indicates that a plus minus 10% change in both market prices for ships and market prices for freight going forward. If those two both change 10% up or down, it will lead to a DKK 70 per share change in the NAV. That means that, say, we trade at around DKK 180.
That means that we can have two and a half of those scenarios, and that is what is priced in already in the share price. It is a simple way of saying that the share price looks to be discounting a 25% decline in both asset prices and freight rates in both dry and tankers. Of course, we think that is very pessimistic, but we do agree on some of the direction. That, of course, is part of the reason why we are selling ships. Converting vessels that trade at a 50% discount into cash that I think should not at least be trading at a 50% discount should be good for shareholders in the near term.
Very good. We will conclude by that, Martin. Thank you very much for the rundown here of the quarterly reports.
Thank you. Thank you for your interest in Norden.
The same from here. Thank you for listening in and for some very good questions. We will end it here. Thank you very much and have a nice day.