Morning. My name is Ernest, and I'll be your conference moderator today. At this time, I'd like to welcome everyone to the Interfor Analyst Conference call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question during this time, simply press star and the number one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to withdraw your question, please press star and the number two. Thank you. Mr. Fillinger, you may begin your conference.
Thank you, operator, and thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning. With me on the call, I have Rick Pozzebon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Bart Bender, Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing. I'll start off by providing a brief recap of our second quarter before passing the call to Rick and Bart. Positive EBITDA was generated, with Q2 adjusted EBITDA at $17 million, down from the previous quarter. The quarter-over-quarter decline was driven by a combination of lower sales prices, foreign exchange impacts, and inventory adjustments. Conversion costs were lower in several regions, production improved by 4%, and shipment volumes improved when compared to Q1. Despite a decline in lumber prices, cash flows were positive in the quarter due to working capital release and proceeds from the continued sale of BC Coast tenures.
Although the pace of housing starts has remained somewhat resilient year to date in the context of the interest rate environment and the associated affordability challenges, the political and trade situations in both the U.S. and Canada remain uncertain, and until we know the impacts to the economy, we will continue to be very careful managing our inventories and order files. While some economic indicators continue to show positive signals, the aggressive U.S. trade policy has heightened the risk of prolonged demand weakness, and we are maintaining a very conservative outlook for 2025. We have diversified our company to weather these types of periods of uncertainty. Our U.S. platform represents 60% of our asset base, spanning both the U.S. South and the Pacific Northwest. Approximately 75% of our total production is not subject to duties or U.S. trade actions, and our available liquidity of over $330 million is strong.
In closing, our outlook is mixed; however, our foundations are strong, we're diversified, and we continue to see opportunities to improve efficiencies, costs, and margins across all of our regions. With that, I'll now pass the call over to Rick.
Thank you, Ian, and good morning all. Please refer to cautionary language regarding forward-looking information in our Q2 MD&A. Overall, financial results for the quarter were a significant improvement year over year, reflective of stronger lumber prices and the steps we've taken to optimize our portfolio of sawmills. However, earnings continue to be constrained by a general oversupply of lumber into the market, despite the significant production curtailments across the industry since the beginning of 2024. With respect to earnings, Interfor generated an adjusted EBITDA of $17 million on total revenue of $781 million. Total revenue increased 6% quarter over quarter, with a 13% increase in the volume of lumber shipped, partly offset by a 4% drop in the average realized lumber price and a weaker U.S. dollar.
Stronger increase in volume reflects a catch-up on shipments delayed in the first quarter by tariff-driven uncertainty by the customer base and constrained truck availability. On the cost side, reported production cost per unit of lumber decreased 3% quarter over quarter, reflective of fewer operational disruptions and increased shipment volume. Ultimately, net income of $11 million was recorded in the quarter, which includes an unrealized foreign exchange gain of $19 million, driven by a weaker U.S. dollar. From an operating cash flow standpoint, $85 million was generated in the quarter, with $61 million of this attributable to a reduction in working capital. This working capital improvement was driven by reductions in both log and lumber inventories. Beyond operations, we invested $24 million in capital projects and raised $7 million from the sale of assets.
The asset sales included $6 million of net proceeds from the ongoing wind-down of our BC Coast operations. Over the remainder of this year, we anticipate generating cash flow in excess of $20 million from the ongoing sale of the BC Coast forest tenures. Ultimately, financial leverage, as measured by net debt to invested capital, improved to under 36% at the end of the second quarter, and we are well positioned with available liquidity of over $330 million on a pro forma basis, considering the credit facility renewal announced last month. This credit facility renewal has provided Interfor with enhanced financial flexibility to navigate through the ongoing market volatility. To wrap up, Interfor's financial results for the second quarter reflect ongoing demand weakness, mostly driven by housing affordability concerns and economic uncertainty.
Looking ahead, we anticipate continued lumber market volatility, in part due to significantly higher duty rates on shipments from Canada to the U.S. and the ongoing threat of tariffs. Fortunately, Interfor is well positioned to navigate successfully through this volatility with its high quality and geographically diverse operations. That concludes my remarks. I'll now turn the call over to Bart.
Thanks, Rick. Lumber markets continue to reflect the uncertainty we are seeing on several fronts in our business. Affordability remains the primary issue at the macroeconomic level, but geopolitical events, particularly the Canada-U.S. trade file, are contributing to the uncertainty on the industry level. On the demand side, seasonality, mixed with declining new home construction, makes it difficult to gauge the true demand for lumber. As we leave August, we are expecting to see demand stabilize for the balance of the year. However, at this stage, I do not believe that overall demand for lumber will increase materially for the balance of 2025. On the supply side, with AR6 duties partially finalized, the markets are just beginning the process of reestablishing market prices, given the change in competitive landscape. Obviously, more to follow once we find out the final C.B.D. rates.
From a species perspective, the markets continue to show support for SBF. Price differences in the market highlight a clear preference in some markets for some applications over Southern Yellow PIne. Interfor is strategically well positioned, with 30% of our production being SBF. We expect that if availability of SBF remains fluid, substitution of S, Southern Yellow PIne, will remain muted. Considering in-market inventories, we support the notion that inventories are in balance. However, context is important. Volatility in pricing that we saw through Q1 and Q2 was fueled primarily by supply concerns as opposed to actual curtailments. We suggest tension is right below the surface of the current supply-demand balance and doesn't take much to move. Inventories reflect this balance, which in our view means that they are on the lower end of historical levels. Our outlook for Q3 and Q4 is one that will be characterized by change.
Interfor is well positioned to navigate the uncertainty, and as such, we'll continue to approach the markets with discipline. That'll turn the call back over to Ian.
Thanks, Rick. Thanks, Bart. Operator, we're ready to take any questions.
Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, we now begin the question and answer session. Should you have a question, please press star followed by one on your touch-tone phone. Your line will be prompted your hand has been raised. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press star followed by two. If you are using a speaker phone, please lift the handset before pressing any keys. One moment, please, for your first question. Your first question comes from Hamir Patel with CIBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning. Ian, the Canadian federal government recently announced plans for up to $1.2 billion of industry supports, including loan guarantees. Are there any programs in that announcement that you could see Interfor tapping into?
Hi, Hamir. You know, there's not a lot of detail yet on that. Some of the trade associations are trying to get more details, but our review for Interfor is no, not really in the immediate term. The idea of creating more demand in Canada, obviously we support that. The idea of using Canadian lumber, I think there's not a lot of the U.S. lumber coming into Canada already, so I really don't see too much of an uplift on that. On the trade file overall, Amir, the signal that we're getting from the Canadian government, it's a top priority right up there with autos and steel. I got to believe, or our belief is that this is a conversation that is happening between Canada and the U.S. Obviously, Interfor supports a negotiated settlement, you know, sooner than later.
Really, anything that can bring stability to the markets and improve housing affordability with a trade agreement is obviously something we think is important. We do believe that it's on the radar as a top priority for Canada to get this resolved, and yeah, we're supportive and on standby to assist in any way possible. Yeah.
Thanks, Ian. That's helpful. Bart, I wanted to get your views on European lumber imports to the U.S. How do you see those trending in coming months, just given the escalating duties on Canadian lumber?
There has been a bit of volatility, quite frankly. Some months are up, some months are down. I think a lot of that is fueled by the uncertainty as they try to thread the needle around any potential tariffs that might come their way. My perspective on the European lumber side is they have a number of choices for different markets. They compete for each other, and where the North American market fits in with them is a combination of what that market's doing, what the relative risks on tariffs are, but also what their other markets are doing. As those things move around, you'll see different rates of participation from Europe overall. I would expect that the trend we've seen of late is likely going to continue, and for the year end will be somewhat similar to the previous year.
Hamir, I would just, tying into Bart's comments and your previous question around trade file and support mechanisms. If there is a negotiated settlement that would be reached between Canada and the U.S., and there's some vision or some discussion around the duties are on deposit, what would be important for Canada is some restrictive means that we would want from the U.S. on third country imports for any kind of give on a settlement on duties on deposit. It's something to keep in mind.
Yeah, fair enough. That's all I had. I'll turn it over. Thanks.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Matthew McKellar with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I'd like to start just by asking about log costs. Can I ask what your expectations are for how stumpage evolves in Canada through the second half of the year with lumber prices pushing higher on the increase in duties? In the U.S., I think the Pacific Northwest is quite a tension market, and I'd also wonder about costs in the South, potentially less salvage activity there. Could you maybe just walk through how you're thinking about log costs and how they'll impact your operating costs over the next couple of quarters? Thanks.
Yeah, for sure. Matt, Ian here. Yeah, on Canada, with the stumpage calculation adjustment and reducing the time period that the BC government would assess stumpage on, has more closely tied the stumpage rates or log costs to the market. We applaud that and supported that and are happy the BC government did that. My point here is that our log costs will move up and down with lumber prices, but we don't see a material impact in Canada or in the U.S. South relative to log costs. In the Pacific Northwest, there's tension there for sure, but again, I don't think from a ratio standpoint of log costs to sales net, which we track, it's not really moving in any kind of material way.
Thanks very much for that color. You also mentioned that you continue to see opportunities to improve efficiencies, costs, and margins across your platform. Can you provide a bit more detail on where your areas of focus are for the balance of the year?
Thanks.
Yeah, for sure. We've launched internally at the beginning of the year an initiative to chase a certain target on a margin, and so there's several projects that are going on with sales and marketing operations in both Canada and the U.S. that are focusing in on cost reductions, product mix improvements, inventory adjustments, etc. Year to date, we're pleased with where that's at relative to our targets. It really comes down to product mix, mill efficiencies, uptimes, costs, and inventories. We do have an internal project that is running and a matrix of KPIs that we're tracking, and they're tracking in the right way. More work to do, but happy with the focus and the accountability that's being driven through the organization.
Thanks very much for the detail. I'll pass it back.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.
Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. Just one question from me. It's a multi-part question, and it's related to the 25% volume exposure that you have going cross-border. Given a new level of uncertainty in Canada's trade relationship with the U.S., Ian, when you sit with the board and discuss strategy, where do you want that 25% number to be in 2030? Assuming you want it lower, would that be through redirecting trade to domestic or Asian markets? Would it come through dilution of capacity through growth elsewhere? Could you consume it by investing downstream? Forgive me for being naive, but is it possible for that to eventually go to single digits? Thank you.
That's a big question, Ben. I appreciate it. I would say that if we look at our regions and end uses, our BC platform is very diverse. Our two largest operations out of the three cut five different species, and we have multiple markets other than the U.S. that we push to. Our third mill in the BC interior is also working on diversification plans by doing test runs of other species, which generate other markets other than the traditional market that it's for. When we look at the Canadian side of the business, we do have a lot of stud production in, or sorry, the Eastern Canadian. We have a lot of stud production in Ontario and New Brunswick.
To Bart's point, Ben, if you talk to our major customers and particularly ones in the Texas area, they do not want to use Southern Yellow PIne for their construction of new homes. They want SPF volume. The real reasons are, using Texas as an example, the Southern Yellow PIne is heavier, so you have higher transportation costs, you have workers that have to handle heavier wood, hard to nail, the nails pop afterwards, the Southern Yellow PIne will twist and degrade in the heat, and SPF is the clear winner in those types of applications. I think what you're asking is, what's the Canadian product mix and future look like? I would say we're very strong in BC to be diversified, and in Ontario and New Brunswick, when we think about the stud volume, we think that's got a SPF stud volume has got a bright future.
Obviously we're diversified in Ontario with our I-joists plant. Our engineered wood product line there is a strong performer, month over month, quarter over quarter, and it sells out a different strategy and a different cadence than traditional stud or dimension lumber. I think we will continue to fine-tune our Canadian platforms, but I'm pretty happy with the way it's positioned right now.
That's perfect. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Ketan Mamtora with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Good morning, and thanks for taking my question. Ian, on your earlier comment on, you know, having a preference for SPF in new residential construction, I'm curious, as we are seeing more of these factory-built crosses, is that kind of changing the dynamic around using more Southern Yellow PIne? Because essentially it's the machines that are doing kind of a lot of the truss building. Are you seeing kind of in that application more Southern Yellow PIne being used?
Yeah, Ketan, I would say, and Bart can jump in if I'm wrong here, but we're not seeing a lot of that type of construction happening today. Bart and I, a while ago, toured a plant and generated a new customer out of that on what you're talking about. Their preference to us was SPF or fir. There was no Southern Yellow PIne being used in the factory that we visited. I'm not saying that's not an opportunity for Southern Yellow PIne, but we're just not seeing a huge demand or anything material coming with that type of construction. I think the principles of a more stable SPF species are going to be the priority for anybody. I think there's still the same disadvantages when it comes to construction. Qualities will exist for prefab.
They're most interested in stable nailability, don't stop the factory line for any upset conditions, and we think that SPF is a clear winner in those.
Okay, no, that's helpful. Other question, with kind of duties moving higher here, do you think there is kind of increased risk, at least here in the short term, till we get to know what is happening on section 232? Do you think there's increased risk on more SPF imports from Europe?
I think Europe would be sending every stick they can today if it's profitable into the U.S. I, you know, I'm not sure if I would think that a bunch more from Europe would be hitting the U.S. that's not already doing that today. I think that the uncertainty with the higher tariffs that we're facing today, as Bart referenced in his comments, and countervailing duty, which should be announced shortly, has probably put a bit of a pause on the order files. I think people are digesting how this will work. At some point, that will change and discussions will be happening around the tariff and pricing to reflect those additional costs. Right now, I think it's kind of in a wait-and-see mode a little bit.
There's definitely transactions happening, but I think it's a little bit slower here, which we anticipated this last week or so, but that will correct itself.
Got it. Just one for Rick. Rick, any updated thoughts on the duty deposits, the cumulative amount that you have? Are you sort of, any thoughts around potentially monetizing it in some way? How are you thinking about that?
Hey, good morning, Ketan. Rick speaking. Yeah, we continue to think about that, as I've noted on previous calls. We do have duty deposits exceeding $620 million today. We think that does represent significant value that's locked up or trapped right now. There have been several transactions in the marketplace in the $0.30 - $0.35 on the dollar range for duties, similar to the deposits we have. We know there's value there. We're just not at the point of needing to do that, as far as we can see. We've done a really good job over the last couple of years reshaping our portfolio, managing our cash flows, selling off other non-core assets, such as the forest tenures that we have on the BC Coast that we continue to monetize. We're not quite at that stage yet where we think it makes sense.
Got it. Rick, is it that, you know, you think that $0.30, $0.35 is too low a number and it's not something that you are willing to do? Is that how I should read it?
I wouldn't necessarily say that. There's a whole bunch of factors that go into a decision like that. Price is just one of them.
Understood. Okay, that's helpful. Good luck in the back half. Thank you.
Thanks, Ketan.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, if you have any questions, please press star one. Your next question comes from Kasia Trzaski Kopytek with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning everyone. I wanted to ask about the revised credit facility term. Can you give us a sense of how much net debt to cap relief you're getting on the covenant, and is there anything around minimum liquidity considerations?
Hey, good morning, Kasia. This is Rick speaking. Yeah, you're referring to the renewal of our credit facility that we reported out last month. That was quite a positive step for us. We're quite fortunate to have a lender group that really understands the volatility in the forest product sector and supports Interfor. In terms of the flexibility on our covenants, we still have the same maximum leverage ratio of 50% net debt to invested capital. The change is that we now have the flexibility to increase the leverage level at which that minimum interest coverage ratio test applies. Normally, that leverage level is 42.5%, as you know, but over the next nearly two years, it can be raised much closer to the 50% maximum. That's the flexibility we have. It's worth noting today that as of June 30, we had an interest coverage ratio greater than two times.
That means we've got plenty of headroom up to our 50% maximum leverage covenant. There will be more details provided on the credit facility when it gets filed in due course here. In terms of the minimum liquidity, there is a threshold there. We're well above it. We don't think that is a concern for us going forward.
All right, thanks for that, Rick. I know I'll get more details when you guys file, but I'll just lob in one other one. Can you give us a sense of the implied change in your borrowing costs due to the added flexibility?
There may be an increase in our borrowing costs only if we go into that flexible period, which we're not in today. As of today, there's no increase in our borrowing costs related to obtaining that flexibility.
If you were to go into that flexibility period, are we looking at maybe, I don't know, 100 basis points, something like that?
It depends, probably something a little less than that.
Okay. Switching gears a bit, I understand April held up okay from a volume standpoint, and May and June fell off pretty hard. How did that trend into July, and what are your curtailment plans for Q3?
Sorry, our curtailment plans for Q3?
Yep.
We don't have any curtailment plans for Q3.
Okay, so presumably maybe just regular summer shutdowns?
We don't take regular summer shutdowns either.
Okay, fair enough. Maybe a question about your list prices for U.S. customers. Presumably, you're putting them out, including the higher duties at this point. What has been the customer response to that? Is your sense that nothing will really happen in the near term, that customers are just going to sit on their hands for the rest of the summer?
On a call like this, we really won't get into that question. I did signal in a previous response that, given the new higher rates that have recently been announced in the countervailing duty, which still could come out today, that customers are slowing a bit in these last week or so. We think that that's just to digest how the producers and how the market and how the customers are going to interact. We think that we'll get back on track here once the countervailing duty is announced and there's a few days of discussions between customers and producers.
Right. Okay, thanks for that context. One last one from me. The USMCA binational panel issued a decision on AR1 in late July. Do you think these outstanding duty cases pose any challenge to getting a broader lumber trade deal done, more from a legal standpoint, I'm thinking?
I think when there's pressure on either country, given any kind of legal outcome, it will work in one or the other's favor. Keep in mind, if you look at the Southern Yellow PIne pricing today, and let's say it's $350-ish, somewhere around there, the average Southern Yellow PIne mill is probably losing cash today. When you think about the duties on deposit and timing of governments being able to talk about a negotiated trade deal, I think things are lining up well for both Canada and the U.S. to potentially come to discussions on this.
Okay, thanks for the thought. Those are all the questions I had. Thank you.
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Mr. Fillinger for closing remarks.
Okay, thank you, operator. One final point that I want to reinforce, which Rick had talked about, is the portfolio adjustments that we made in 2024 were tough decisions and impacted people and businesses. As we are in this period in 2025 and looking forward, it's a much stronger position that we feel we're in to navigate these uncertain times. With that, operator, thank you, everybody, for dialing in, and have yourself a great day, and reach out to any one of us if you have any follow-up questions. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your conference call for today. We thank you for participating, and as such, please disconnect your lines. Have a great day.