ALS Limited

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to ALS Limited H1FY26 results briefing. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star 1 and 1 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one and one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Malcolm Dean, CEO and Managing Director. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Maggie, and good morning, and thank you all for taking the time to join today's briefing. It is great to be back with all of you to share ALS Fiscal Year 26 half-year results. It has been another strong period for ALS, a half that reflects our ability to deliver through changing markets while staying disciplined on growth, margin, and cash. As usual, I'm joined by our Chief Financial Officer, Stuart Haddon. We intend that this presentation will take for approximately 30 minutes and will follow with a Q&A session. Let me start by running through the highlights of the half year results. We are pleased to have delivered another set of strong results in line with our strategy plan. We produced revenue growth of 13.3% to 1.7 billion and pleasingly organic growth was recorded across all business streams. Underlying EBIT increased by 14.7% to 287.2 million and the EBIT margin strengthened by 20 basis points to 17.3%. Excluding acquisitions, the EBIT margin was 19.1%. Commodities performed strongly with positive market conditions supporting low meat-teens organic growth in both minerals and industrial materials. Life Sciences was solid with a robust food result and strength in our key environmental geographies despite headwinds in certain regions. We continue to unlock value from increasing investment in digital innovation and AI across all business streams, with the goal of setting the standards for smart labs globally. And finally, we are pleased to report continued strong free cash flow of $303.9 million, representing 88% of underlying H1BDA. So overall, a strong balanced results with growth across all divisions, discipline execution, and cash generation that continues to underpin our strategy. So let's now turn to how this aligns with the broader ALS vision. At ALS, we remain guided by our vision to be the global leader in the discipline of scientific analysis in pursuit of a better world for all, while ensuring safety is always front of mind. Health and safety underpins everything that we do and remains top priority in every aspect of our business. This is essential to protect our people, to drive performance, and to build trust with our clients. We're very pleased to report continuous improvement in safety performance with total and lost time injury rates for the half year, the lowest ever recorded by ALS. Our safety records continue to strengthen, and that performance foundation flows directly into our results. There's a lot on this slide, so let me draw the attention to three key themes. Strong top line growth, margin discipline, and continued balance sheet strength. The business delivers strong overall revenue growth of 13.3% in the half. and organic growth was solid at 6.9% at the top end of our guided range. The return on capital employed remained steady at 19.4%. Underlying net profit after taxes was up by 17.2% to $178.4 million. On a higher share count post the May 2025 equity raise, Underlying earnings per share increased by 13.7% to 35.7 cents per share. Our cash generation, balance sheet, and liquidity remain strong, supported by our disciplined capital management framework that enables us to continue our growth journey moving forward. Reflecting the group's solid performance while at the same time maintaining balance sheet strength to pursue growth, The board of directors has declared an interim H1 dividend of 19.4 cents per share, an increase of 3%, which equates to a 55% payout ratio, right in the middle of our indicated payout range. So let's now turn to the operational performance across our business streams. At a divisional level, the picture is one of strong execution with some variations in certain end markets. Starting with the commodities division, in minerals, we saw strong organic revenue growth of 11.8%, driven largely by an uptick in sample volume across our hub-and-spoke network. Metallurgy softened, reflecting the normal lag we see between exploration spend and downstream testing demand, with an improvement in Q2 compared to Q1. Industrial materials delivered strong organic revenue growth of 12.2%, All those margins were compressed across the coal and the oil and lubricant business. Combined, the margin in the commodity business was slightly down 11 basis points to 28.1%. Within this, it is important to note there was an improvement in geochemistry margins of approximately 100 basis points as operating leverage more than offset the impact of discounted pricing flowing through from fiscal year 25. In overall terms, minerals margins were steady, with the above geochemistry improvement being offset by margin contraction in metallurgy from lower activity levels. In life sciences, environmental delivered organic revenue growth of 4%, with growth in key EMEA and APAC markets, checked by lower volumes in the Americas. In food, organic revenue was up 7%, And we saw growth and improved margin profiles across all key regions. And finally, our pharmaceutical business saw organic revenue increase by 0.9%, as well as achieving positive earning growth. Combined, the operating margin in life sciences business increased by 74 basis points to 15.1%. Excluding acquisitions, the margin in the legacy business improved by a similar 57 basis points to 17.7%. both ahead of our targeted improvement range of 20 to 40 basis points each year. So let's unpack that growth in more detail, starting with revenue performance. As mentioned before, a solid revenue performance that once again highlights the strength and diversification of the portfolio. Our business delivered $1.7 billion in revenue for the half, a 13.3% increase compared to first half of 25. Of these, 6.9% was organic growth. 2.3% was from acquisitions, noting there were an additional two months contribution from the Western business. And there was a positive FX impact of 4.2%, largely from the depreciation of the Australian dollars against major European currencies. At constant currency, revenue still increased 9.2%. So we are now moving to divisional performance, and we'll start focusing on commodities. where that growth strength was most visible. Total revenue for commodities increased by 14.3%. Organic growth in geochemistry and industrial materials was aided by positive effects. On a constant currency basis, revenue growth was 12%. The underlying commodities EBIT margin, as mentioned before, declined marginally by 11 basis points to 28.1%. The minerals margin, however, improved slightly by 11 basis points to 31.3%, with operating leverage countering the drag-through of pricing pressures experienced in fiscal year 25. We believe that these negative pricing impacts have largely flashed through in H1 and are anticipating subsequent ongoing margin improvements in H2. Geochemistry recorded 14% organic growth. largely through improved sample volumes from exploration testing, continued take-up of high-performance methods, and mine site production testing growth. As also mentioned before, metallurgy was subdued with top-line decline and consequent margin erosion, which impacted the overall minerals margin. But also, as mentioned earlier, we have seen an improved run rate by the end of Q2 compared to the growth rate of Q1. As highlighted in the announcement, we have a management change in minerals, with Bruce McDonald announcing he will retire effective 31st of March, 2026, after 22 extremely successful years at ALS. Bruce has been instrumental in creating the world-class mineral business that we have today, and he will continue to be available for a period after his retirement to ensure a smooth transition to his successor and support projects at my direction. We have already started a comprehensive global search assessing both internal and external candidates. And finally, industrial materials deliver strong organic revenue growth, although margins were compressed across both the coal and the oil and lubricant segments, with minor adverse mix and efficiency issues. The next slide is probably where most of you will skip straight to. provides a clear picture of geochemistry performance in half, including the positive momentum we have seen in sample volumes in a stronger market. During the half, sample flow volumes recovered strongly with overall low double-digit year-on-year increase in sample flows to the end of H126. This is still being driven by majors and mid-sized resource companies. We saw increased volumes across more regions with strongest growth in Australia, Middle East, and Africa. North America has lacked somewhat. However, this follows the normal seasonal patterns as we move into the traditional mineral exploration field system in the northern hemisphere. Exploration activity is being supported by high commodity prices, the accelerating energy transition, and the expanding need for critical minerals. An emerging structural tailwind is increased interest in resource nationalism as governments move to secure domestic supply chains and incentivize local mineral extraction and processing. ALS has a continuous focus on business development, which continues to reinforce our leadership position in the market. Our client mix continues to skew towards major, despite an uptick in juniors and intermediate financing. I would note from our interactions with our customers that there's a potential lengthening of the time between raising capital and deploying these against historical norms. Our commodity mix reflects the recent uptick in gold activity and is consistent with global macro trends linked to electrification, battery metals, and rare earth. I'll next talk to the margin profile of mineral business, which is benefiting from both operating leverage and disciplined cost management. In this slide, the chart at the top left shows the various factors impacting the margin progression from H125 to the reported H136 margin of 31.3%. Volume and mixed benefits added approximately 230 basis points, but were largely offset by historical price discounting impacting of 120 basis points, negative impact from metallurgy consulting and engineering of 80 basis points, and similar effects of 20 basis points impact. We were pleased to be able to maintain the minerals margin above 31% once more. Our resilience through the mining cycles position ALS to capitalize on positive growth conditions, increasing market share opportunity, and expanding services. Looking ahead, the pricing environment within geochemistry is expected to improve through the second half of fiscal year 26, positioning ALS to capitalize on any sustained uplift in mineral exploration activity. On the right hand of this slide, you can see our focus on diversifying the revenue stream within minerals outside of the traditional exploration testing, with new service offerings and further downstream offerings now representing a quarter of minerals revenue. High-performance methods continue to see increased uptake, with a three-year revenue CAGR of 20%. We continue to develop, enhance, and refine new HPMs, and we are optimistic about the opportunities these unique ALS methodologies continue to provide clients. Metallurgy three-year CAGR was slightly negative and reflects the softer market conditions in the last three halves. As referred to earlier, the outlook is being more positive than in Q1. Further downstream, Mindsight remained on an accelerated trajectory with a three-year revenue CAGR of 20%. So in summary, we have maintained minerals margins above 31% with clear operating leverage as conditions improve during the half that give us confidence heading into the second half of the year. Now let's turn to industrial materials. That is another area that is showing healthy organic growth. Industrial materials continue to build momentum across all its business lines. Overall, these divisions grew organically by 12.2% in H1. Industrial materials is benefiting from organic investments in both expansion of existing sites and greenfield operations in both oil and lubricants and assay and inspection businesses. Assay and inspections grew revenue organically by 17.6% and saw margin improvements as volume improves in UK, China, and the Chilean markets. Oil and lubricants also deliver an impressive 13.7% organic revenue growth. benefiting from its ability to support key global clients' relationship while investing in footprint expansion. And finally, coal saw some slight margin erosion through adverse mix and a higher occupancy cost as a result of last year's sales and leaseback. Organic revenue growth remains solid at 6.2%. So now we will move from commodities to life sciences that is the other engine of our portfolio. Life Sciences remains a key growth platform for ALS and continues to deliver solid progress. During the half, Life Sciences recorded total revenue growth of 12.8%. Organic growth was 4%. Acquisition-related growth was 3.5%. And FX delivered a positive 5.3% tailwind, again, from stronger European currencies. The underlying EBIT margin was 15.1%, improving by 74 basis points. notwithstanding lower margins associated with the annualization of Wesley and revenue underperformance in select environmental markets that we'll discuss later. Environmental revenue growth was strongest in the largest EMEA and APAC regions, partially offset by challenging conditions in America, including the York integration. PFAS organic growth accelerated further during this half, greater than 25% to substantially outpace the broader portfolio. In food, strong growth in Europe supported 7% organic revenue growth, with an improved margin profile in most regions. And pharma recorded positive organic revenue and earnings growth. Nuwezan saw increased organic revenue and earnings contribution and very strong margin improvement, benefiting from the ongoing execution of the transformation program. So let's take a closer look at the performance of the core of the life sciences business. As I just mentioned, life sciences organic revenue growth was 4% in the half, excluding Novi San, Westling, and York. The legacy life sciences organic revenue growth was 4.3%. This result was achieved against a very strong comparable period, with pocket of market slowdown and operational challenges in some of Latin American markets. Looking at the chart at the bottom of this slide, In H1, we were pleased to generate strong margins growth from both life sciences as a whole and when excluding acquisitions, but the legacy margin also increased by a further 57 basis points. We are targeting continued improvement in life sciences margins, including through the ongoing integration and optimization of recent acquisition. Consistent with our value creation framework, we are focused on delivering the expected minimum 15% return on capital in the medium term. Nubis and performance reflected successful transformation benefit with positive revenue growth and substantial margin improvement of 475 basis points. Westlink in Europe again performed positively with revenue and earnings exceeding the original targets. And York in the northeast of the United States has faced market-specific challenges, short of expectations, but still deliver positive events and cash. These issues are well understood, and we are in the process of being rectified. So overall, another solid positive result with clear evidence that integration and transformation plans are progressing. And with that, I will hand over to the star of the day, Stuart, that will take you through the financials in more detail.

Thanks Malcolm, not sure if that intro was warranted, but anyway let's move on and good morning, or good afternoon everyone. In short, ALS had a strong half with substantial uplift in both revenue and earnings. Underlying NPAT grew an impressive 17.2% to $178.4 million, led by a strong commodities performance and improved contributions from all business units. Consistent with our guidance, underlying earnings margin improved incrementally by a further 20 points to 17.3%. The group has declared an interim half fund dividend of 19.4 cents per share, an increase of approximately 3% on the prior period. This represents a 55% payout ratio as a percentage of underlying NPAT on the basis that we want to preserve capital to deploy into further growth opportunities linked to our value creation framework as we move forward. Important to note a change that is pending for the full year FY26 results. We are changing the reporting treatment of greenfield losses and restructuring costs to be part of underlying results. Previously these have been taken below the line. Many of you have commented and to be honest we agree and feel now is the time to make this change. It is really about improving the visibility and accountability internally so that we report the same internally as we do externally. In the appendices to this slide deck, you will see the quantum of these costs for the first half of FY26 and full year of FY25. This topic will also be covered by Malcolm in the outlook perspective section later on. Malcolm has touched on the main call-outs here, so I'll move straight along to margins. The group margin increased by 31 basis points on a constant currency basis. with positive organic margin growth offset somewhat by the annualized impact of Westling acquisition and the corporate cost dilution. More on those shortly. The commodities margin was stable, declining by a mere one basis point at constant currency. As Malcolm has pointed out, the negative impact of temporary historical price discounting from FY25 was more than offset by operating leverage coming through from the more positive volumes. Life Sciences organic margin grew by an impressive 112 basis points. However, there was an impact from the dilution from the acquisitions of NuvaSAR New York and Westling, which entailed the overall outcome by approximately 40 basis points. There was minimal FX impact for the group, with only the impact being 11 basis points. All in all, a pleasing half as it relates to margin evolution at ALS. Moving to capital management. The group continues to deliver on the key objectives of our value creation framework. Growth, strong cash generation, shareholder returns and balance sheet strength. During the half, the group successfully completed a $370 million equity raise which reinforced the balance sheet and consequently has reduced leverage. Leverage as reported at the end of half one was 1.8 times. This result is at the lower end of the targeted range of 1.7 to 2.3, which we maintain, and well within lender covenants, as was EBITDA interest time cover at 10.2 times, an improvement of 0.3 times. Moving to capital expenditure, base capex through the half was 89 million, which represents 145% of depreciation and 5.4% of revenue. We continue to invest to support growth with two-thirds of the base capex spent for growth with the balance for maintenance spent. In addition, $68 million was invested into the major HubLab expansion projects announced as part of the equity raise. I'll talk more on this shortly. As mentioned already, the board has declared an interim dividend of $0.194 per share, partially franked to 30%. The dividend reinvestment plan, which was suspended for the equity raise, will recommence for the FY26 interim dividend at a nil discount. Moving now to cash. EBITDA cash conversion for the half was 88%. While slightly lower than the PCP, which to be fair was a record, this reflects a seasonally strong performance and continuous improvement in all facets of our working capital management. The chart on the right illustrates typical seasonality of this metric, with the first half always lower than the full year performance. Reflecting our continued focus on supply chain management, DSO improved to 51 days while DPO was consistent at 63 days. While it doesn't reflect in these numbers, we have also instigated a new program to repatriate cash held in the regions back to corporate. This has resulted in a reduction of what we would describe as surplus cash of approximately 60 million since March 2025. Ultimately, this should result in a lower net interest cost for the company. I'll now turn to leverage. As noted previously, leverage reduced to 1.8 times at the close of the half, largely due to the equity raise completed in May this year, and as referred to before, our sound working capital management. Our improved net debt position provides additional flexibility and scope to complete the HubLab update program, as well as providing capacity for targeted bolt-on M&A in due course. The focus for now remains on solid cash generation as the HubLab CapEx program continues and the completion of the integration of recent acquisitions continues. With leverage well within our targeted range, we have maintained the flexibility to keep investing for growth. Now let me touch briefly on the progress of the HubLab expansion. Just to recap, to protect and enable medium to longer term growth, A substantial, mainly brownfield, capital investment plan to our lab network was announced. This is at four of our key hub labs. In Lima, in Peru, it's geochemistry. The remainder are life sciences. So Sydney here in Sydney in Australia, Bangkok in Thailand, and Prague in the Czech Republic. This involves approximately $230 million of phase spend across five years from the current year to FY30. with approximately 70% will be invested by the end of FY28. During the first half, approximately $70 million was spent largely covering the acquisition of land in Lima, Bangkok, and Prague, as well as finalization of the design and permits for Sydney, with both Sydney and Lima now progressing quite well. At this stage, all four projects are on track. Construction has now commenced in all hub labs except Prague, which is expected to commence in the second half of FY27, as we've got to complete some demolition of the site we just acquired, and then the planning process in the Czech Republic does take some time. We're pleased with the pace and progress being made across our network, and we'll keep you updated on the status of these key investments. Now moving to debt. In May 2025, the group further extended its debt maturity profile through new revolving term debt facilities totaling US $250 million. The weighted average debt maturity is now 4.4 years and average cost of drawn debt is approximately 3.8%. The total underlying interest costs on borrowings and leases reduced to $37.6 million and a half. As guidance for the full year, underlying interest expense for the full year is expected to be approximately 69, between 69 and 71 million. Now moving to corporate costs. Corporate costs are in line with our expectations at approximately 2.3% of revenue in this first half. The increase in corporate costs versus the prior period reflects increased at-risk remuneration costs and additional support in data governance, innovation, automation and AI developments. The latter obviously having longer term benefits or expected longer term benefits for the company. Our quest for improvement of operating leverage of the corporate functions continues. Looking ahead for the rest of this year, corporate costs are expected to represent approximately 2.2% of revenue in FY26. As many of you know, during the half, both Malcolm and I have relocated our new operational headquarters to Madrid. The corporate head office in Brisbane still remains. And with that, I will pass to the real star of the show, Malcolm.

I don't have an answer, but thanks, Jules. So let me now recap of the key performance highlights for the HAP and share the outlook and priorities for the fiscal year 26. But before we wrap up the numbers, let's step back a minute and link our results to the value creation framework guiding our strategy. The framework combines a risk-weight approach to capital allocation that will protect, extend, and expand the portfolio. Overall, the group is targeting mid to high single-digit organic revenue growth in the medium-long term. and steady improvement in operating margins and strong ongoing cash generation. Allocation of growth capital is seeking a minimum ROCHI of 15%, ensuring maximum growth and returns for shareholders over the medium term. The next slide shows our H126 scorecard by business stream, but most of this has already been covered. We're very pleased to say that in the first half, we have delivered on most of what we set to achieve. This was a true team effort, but be assured that we are pushing for more. There is one point I'd like to highlight within the pharmaceutical business. As we flagged at the fiscal year 25 results, during Q4 of 25, there was a change in regulation in Mexico that relieved certain pharmaceutical products from local testing requirements. We are pleased to report to date the group has been largely successful in offsetting the impact of this change in regulation, and we are currently see the risk being at the lower end of the 5 to 10 million annual EBIT risk we flagged. There are other two areas that we are actively working to complete. First, within York, I would like to point out that we have clear plans in place to ensure we meet the return hurdles set at the time of completing the acquisition. And second, by the end of H1 Fiscal Year 26, Nubis and transformation plan has been executed, achieving approximately 90% of the expected savings. The remaining 10% of the cost-out plan is expected to be completed by the end of this December quarter. So let's now shift our focus to the digital agenda, which, as you know, represents a key focus area as articulated in our investor day a couple of months ago. We're making strides in leveraging technology to connect and optimize our global operations. creating a unified data architecture combining our LIMS and electronic quality management systems. This is the backbone of our efforts to ensure both consistency and digital scalability. We're also deploying intelligent process automation and robotics to enhance safety and productivity. And most importantly, we are using data to improve client experience, margins, and unlock new revenue streams. So let's now close. with the outlook for the fiscal year 26 and the ALS investment proposition. We remain focused on delivering top tier services to our customers consistently, safely, and reliably. And the fiscal year 26 priority are as follows. The group is on track to deliver 6% to 8% organic revenue growth that is revised up from 5% to 7% and steady margin improvement in fiscal year 26. The facing of underlying MPAT earnings is expected to be similar to fiscal year 25, approximately 48% in H1 and 52% in H2. In commodities, the groups anticipate 12% to 14% organic revenue growth, revised up from the original 5% to 7%. The unwinding of legacy price discounting and a more favorable pricing environment linked to positive sample volume trends experienced in H-126 is expected to flow through H-2 Fiscal Year 26 with incremental margin expansion of 100 to 125 basis points as compared to H-126. It is expected that metallurgy performance will benefit as its revenue outlook improves. Within industrial materials, it's expected to see continuing growth in oil and lubricants and assay and inspections. In life sciences, the groups anticipate 4% to 6% organic revenue growth in fiscal year 26, revised down from 5% to 7%. The expectation is that there will be solid growth in key environmental geographies with more subdued performance in the Americas. Food and pharma business units will continue to see organic growth aligned to reported H1 levels. The group is targeting continued margin improvement within life sciences legacy operations of between 20 to 40 basis points in 26. Capital allocation and minimum ROCHI targets will continue in line with the value creation framework. The group remains well on track to execute on its strategy and meet the fiscal year 27 financial targets, including growing revenue to $3.3 billion and growing underlying EBIT to $600 billion with a group EBIT margin floor of 90%. As Stuart mentioned earlier, I would specifically like to draw everyone's focus to the change in the underlying methodology from Fiscal Year 26 onwards, which will simplify the treatment of one-off costs by reclassifying greenfields and restructuring costs as part of the underlying measure, previously taken below the line. For Fiscal Year 26, these are expected to be in the range of $6 million to $8 million at the NPAT line. In H-1 Fiscal Year 26, these total $4.8 million. As mentioned by Stuart, the intention of this is to drive accountability within the business. As we look to the remainder of Fiscal Year 26, we see momentum continuing across both divisions. ALS continues to be a resilient, globally recognized leader in scientific testing with a portfolio that is well-balanced across markets and positioned to benefit from long-term industry terms. Our global network, strengthened by our both models, and increasingly harmonized limbs gives us real scale and consistency. We are proud to hold leadership positions globally, minerals and environmental, and regional strength in food, pharmaceutical, and industrial materials. The HAP lab investments we are making around our global lab network further entrench these positions. We are also making meaningful progress in digital and AI, using data to improve how we operate, how we serve our clients, and where we can create new value. Together with disciplined capital allocation and a diversified earnings base, these capabilities gives us a strong foundation for sustainable, profitable growth. It is pleasing to deliver another strong set of results this half. We carry solid momentum into the second half of fiscal year 26, and our confidence is reflected in the upgrade organic growth target of 6% to 8% and improving margin trajectory. So finally, before we move to questions, let me thank every member of the ALS team. It is an immense pleasure to be part of this organization and to work alongside everyone in this company. Your dedication and commitment makes these results possible. And with that, we will open the floor for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Malcolm. As a reminder to ask a question, please press star 1 and 1 on your telephone keypad and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1 and 1 again. Please stand by as you compile the Q&A roster. First question comes from Rohan Sadram from MST Financials. Please go ahead.

Hi Malcolm and Stuart, thank you. I'll start with the commodities business and Maybe, Malcolm, if you can just please expand on the regional commentary, how you're seeing the sample flows by region. You made some comments, but just came to get a bit more color. Thank you.

Hi, Rohan. Thanks for the question. So what we've seen this year is, I think it's also reflected in, I think it's slide 11 of the, no, not slide 11 of the pack, slide 10 of the pack, that we have seen an improvement in most of the regions. I think that the improvement has been consistent across, I would say, Africa, Australia, Asia, and South America as well. Probably the lagger of that was North America that we started seeing a recovery probably at the beginning of the traditional season, and we are now seeing an improved momentum. As mentioned during the cold, a big part of the uptake was still coming from majors and mid-years. And while we are seeing junior financing improvements, we haven't seen those volumes or those clients being a substantial part of our portfolio at this stage. And that may mean that we are seeing a longer lag between capital raising and deploying funds for exploration. But clearly, the environment is much more positive than what it was at the beginning of the year and what it was last year. Anything to add, Stuart? No.

Thank you. And maybe just a last one from me. If you could please just provide a bit more color on where you're seeing challenges in LATAM. Are we talking more than Mexico?

Yeah, actually Mexico, as we mentioned, probably is part of LATAM, but it's doing more positively than expected. The challenges were primarily in the environmental business, not in pharma. I would call out three areas, Brazil, Chile, and Peru. Those are challenging markets in terms of pricing perspective, but clearly I have to be candid and say that we have our own operational challenges within those operations, and we are working on them, and we have seen improvement recently, but the challenges came from a top-line slowdown, and part of that is related with price, but also part of that is related with the operational improvements and opportunities within our businesses.

Thanks, Nelson.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Just a moment for our next question, please. Next, we have John Patel from Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Good day, Malcolm and Stuart. Hope you're both well. Just had a couple of questions, please. Thanks for your comments on minerals there and obviously noting that the recovery at this point is driven by the majors and the mid-tiers. Just wanted to clarify in terms of whether you're assuming any improvement from the juniors in the second half in terms of your guidance there, and if not, is that potential upside if that happens?

Hey, John. Thanks for the question. Good to have you on the call. I mean, the juniors has been well covered by this audience, including ourselves here. I think what's evident, like clearly as a macro indicator, it is positive. But as we've, I guess, been consistently saying, we are yet to see that transpire into increased activity for us at this point in time. We share, I guess, the optimism that that should become a more positive indicator impact on volumes as we move forward, but I guess we would have expected, to be honest, to see some of that in this half, and we didn't. So we're just being, I would say, appropriately cautious, because what seems to be clear is the lag between equity raising and activity in terms of exploration has extended. It used to be two to three months. I don't know exactly what it is now, but it is clearly longer than two to three months. Hopefully that answers your question, John.

Thank you. And just the second one, in terms of the Life Sciences first half margin there was up 74 bps on PCP. You've kept the 20 to 40 full year uplift guidance. Is there any call out there in the second half that would drag down on margin or is there some conservatism there? Thank you.

I think good observation, John. I think we just say we're being appropriately conservative because we've got some moving parts in life sciences. There's some that, as we flag, that call it on watch and I wouldn't say they're in the sick bay but they're certainly getting some attention. So I think it's really probably more a tale of being appropriately cautious because we haven't fixed them yet. We know what we've got to do but we haven't fixed them yet.

Thank you. And just one last quick one, if I may, just in terms of potential acquisitions from here, and obviously the tick sector continues to consolidate. I think Malcolm has said previously nothing transformational, but it's more potential for bolt-ons here across the business. Is that still the case?

Yeah, I think that that's still the case. We're building the pipeline and we're seeing interesting opportunities, but in the same range that what we've done in the past. more bolt-ons strategic to our protect, extend, and expand parts of the portfolio. I think it's a fair comment that there's more discussions about industry consolidation, but we haven't seen that coming through yet. So we are focusing on our strategy, and I think it's clear in the value creation framework which areas we're looking to add bolt-ons, and we know specifically geographies and services that we want to add. So the strategy remains very clear for us, and we're not going to deviate from that.

Thank you.

You're welcome, John. Thanks for the questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Megan Lewis from Baron Joey. Please go ahead.

Morning, guys. First question, geochemistry. So it looks like the pricing impact there is around 3%. And I guess that's despite those discounts on wine. So just how are you thinking about that into second half?

So what we're seeing on what we, I think we call it out, Megan, first, thanks for the question. What we call out is that we are seeing a more favorable pricing environment on the second half. If we have reduced substantially the discounting, have we moved to positive environment of pricing? Not yet. Clearly, we continue seeing the volumes in this trend. That's going to turn around. If following to, I think, Rohan or John questions on juniors, if juniors come into play, that will also be a tailwind for the business, especially in terms of pricing. How we're thinking right now is that probably the effects of the pricing for the second half will be flat, not the negative 120 basis points that you see in that chart on the 11th slide of the deck. And as I mentioned before, we're seeing probably that the high discounting we gave last year, as most of that has already flashed through the through their business, so the WIP and the work that we're getting now, it's coming with a different price point.

Great, thank you. And then I guess just on the reclassification of those costs, how should we be thinking about the level of that going forward? Will there be an unwind of that restructuring as York and Wesleyan are turned around, or should we just assume it's part of the underlying business?

Good question, Megan. Look, I think it's It's a little hard to gauge what the annual number will be. I mean, we'll do our best, like we've done here, to give you a guide of what it has been and what we expect it to be in the second half. I think if you're trying to, I think the number we've quoted is like six to eight million at the NPAT line. I mean, I think if you use that, you're gonna be pretty close, I would say, and we'll provide guidance as we go along the journey of obviously what has happened. and what we expect to see happen. But in a network of ours where we've got the best part of 450 sites, there's always going to be some restructuring opportunities, which is for the good, not for the bad. And this change really, as I said, is to improve. There's one thing about the external reporting, and I think we've got the feedback and we accept that These are a recurring part of our business, so to treat them below the line was, I think, a little disingenuous, even though it's quite common in the tick space. I think from an Australian market point of view, that was not appropriate, so we've changed it. But I think from a go-forward point of view, as I said, they will continue to be there, and we want to continue investing in greenfields, et cetera, but we will also continue As you would imagine, if there's efficiency opportunities from closing some sites and getting better scale at other sites, well, we will continue to do those activities as well. I know it's a long answer to your question, Megan, but hopefully it helps you.

Yeah, and just to add to what Stuart said, just to complement what Stuart said, Megan, I think it's important to explain why we're doing this. And we know that the TIG space will have different practices, but what we are trying to do with the executive team is to drive accountability throughout the organization and to understand that whether it's below the line or above the line, it's still cash that we are using and it's cash from shareholders. So we need to be very conscious of that. So we are still going to be pushing for greenfields. You've seen the number of greenfields that we've done in oil and lubricants, in food, in ASEAN inspection, and we will continue supporting them. Similarly to spoke locations in minerals, once you close one of those spoke locations, it's part of the OPEX. And I think that that creates a better accountability to the management team. And in line with what we've been doing with Stuart in the last two years, it creates consistency between what we tell the market and the targets that we have internally. So I know that that was not part of the question, but hopefully it helps understand why are we taking this decision. We didn't do it on the first half because we wanted to explain what we were doing to avoid any noise. And that's how we're going to run the company moving forward.

That's helpful. Thank you. I'll pass it on.

Thanks, Megan. Thanks, Megan.

Thank you. Next, we have Nicholas Rawlinson from Walgreens. Please go ahead.

Hi, Malcolm and Stuart. Thanks for taking my question. Can you talk to GeoChem turnaround times for ALQ at present and potentially amongst your competitors, if you have any insight there?

Thanks, Nicolas. That's a great question for our competitors, so I will try not to help them. What I can tell you is that we have been successfully filling the pipeline of work in most regions, and obviously that means that we need to see those turnaround times continue improving to serve our clients at the end. We serve clients that need results in real time, and they need the reliability and trust of ALS, but they need it in real time. So I'm not going to give a specific answer on how the turnaround time is working. If we can work or we can build better processes, better methods, better sample prep, our turnaround will improve, and we will provide consistency to our clients. What I can confirm is, yes, the WIP within our major hubs has improved materially. So that means that our hub facilities are starting to be full and we have been adding staff in the last, I would say, three to four months consistently throughout the regions. But a specific number of days is not something that I will disclose in this call. Nicholas, I apologize and thanks for the question.

Thanks, Malcolm. Just one last one from me, probably for Stuart. You mentioned the repatriation of cash into the corporate group, which will result in interest cost savings. Will that start to take effect from the second half? And can you give us an indication of quantum?

Yeah, well, I think I told Nick, and I mean, I think this has been a bit of an elusive quest for us, but we've We've sort of changed the game internally how we're driving this. To answer your question, we called out a sort of $60 million improvement from March. You've got to also understand in some of the jurisdictions where we had what we would call surplus cash, it was actually earning interest income. So don't take the $60 million and just assume it's a straight benefit to us. To give you a guide, I would think it's about half of it. would be what I would say should result in a lower interest bill for us.

Okay, that's helpful. Thanks, Stuart. Thanks, Malcolm.

Thanks, Nicholas.

Thank you. Next, we have Jacob Koukanis from Jarden, Australia. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Hi, Malcolm. Hi, Stuart. Stuart, maybe just the first one for you, just the phasing of MPATs. I think you said the first half will be 48% and then 52% in the second. Can you just help me on slide 33, what MPAT that's referencing? Is that as reported in that first column or is that under the new reclassified? And I guess the difference being on the reclassified methodology, you're at about 174 of core MPAT and then on the present method, you're at 178. Can you just help me what you're using for those splits?

Yeah, good. Good question, Jacob. Just, yeah, to make it easy, take the 178 number as the, what's the 4852, and then once you've done that, then take off what we've guided to for the one-off cost, which is six to eight million.

Okay. Easy. Okay. Thank you.

And then just going on from... Jacob, sorry, just to, I mean, it's our... What we can see at the moment, that's our view. If you look at us historically, it does move around a little bit. But I think we're just trying to help shape from what we can see at the moment, that's how we think it's going to be. So often in our history, it's been flat or the first half has been more positive. But with some of the activities that are unfolding here, it looks like that's moving to more second half being stronger than the first half.

Okay, I appreciate that. I just wanted to follow on from John's question just on life science's On slide 15, you talk about the underlying business having 57 basis points of margin improvement in the first half. And then in the guidance outlook, you're still guiding to that 20 to 40. Again, it's on that legacy operations on slide 29. So that implies in the second half for that legacy business, you're going back somewhere between 20 and 40 basis points. Is that the right way to think about it? And if that is the right math, Where's that weakness coming from? Because I read in the slides it seems like environmental in the U.S. specifically, and if it is that, can you talk to how much is industry activity versus competitor?

So again, let me cover the macro and that part, and Stuart will answer the... Where are we seeing headwinds? We call Americas. Within the Americas, clearly the U.S., there is a component of of market, and that's something that other peers have called the same. It has been slightly softer than the previous year. Also bear in mind, Jacob, that last year, the first half, we had a 12 percent organic growth. So from a comparison base, it was pretty very strong. In Latin America, we call out three specific countries with challenges. That is a mix. I would say 60 percent are internal opportunities, and the remaining 40 percent would be market challenges. And those probably are the two big areas that are having headwinds. In terms of York, we also mentioned that it's performing slightly behind these first half expectations, but we have plans in place to recover. So going back to your first question, how do we reconcile the 20 to 40 basis points and improvements that we have on the first half, I think that we are being perfectly cautious considering the headwinds that we've seen in those business on the first half and some of the risks that we have. Obviously, those risks could be opportunities as well on H2 or in H1 of the following year. But also considering, Jacob, that the world is being very, very unstable and that we have seen fluctuation, especially in the United States, for example, with the government shutdown. we did have the impact on that specific business with a very prolonged shutdown in specific areas that impacted the business. So we don't know if that will continue or not. Clearly, it seems that things are being resolved. But one thing that I would say that everybody would agree in the call is that the lack of stability is the new norm in the world, and we have to be properly cautious when we give guidance to the market. Stuart, anything to add?

I think that's well described. I'd accept and I think same to John's question. I mean, I think we have been appropriately conservative. If you want to set us a target, Jacob, I could understand you might do that. I think we've got some visibility on some of the businesses that need some assistance. Inevitably, in my experience, it takes longer than what the whiteboard would say it would. So I think we're just being appropriately conservative And I think also, to be fair, you know, in life sciences, while we've been really pleased with Nuvosan, I would say to you that pharmaceutical is the industry that has been most disrupted by the whole tariff discussion. So, you know, there's still, I mean, are we at the bottom of that? To be honest, I don't really know. And I don't think anyone knows. So I think that's part of why we're just being appropriately conservative with our guidance for life sciences.

Okay, guys. Yeah, just one final one still on slide 29. You just talk about the FIS 27 strategic targets. Again, that 3.3 bill of revenues, 600 of EBIT. On slide 22 of that 2022 strategy day, it said $1 billion of acquisitions and 500 mil of scope revenue. Can you just confirm that those targets do or don't include M&A? And yeah, just what's changed maybe as they're presented to now?

No, those targets are based on the current business without any scope. So the ones that we confirm, it's the ongoing businesses with acquisitions we made to date. There's nothing new that you should be considering for that.

I think your question, Jacob, is were those targets including M&A? The answer is yes.

And that's one of the reasons why we changed how we are giving acquisitions. long-term targets to the market, because in the past we gave a specific revenue target that included both scope and organic, and we don't want to be put in that position. So just to clarify my question, that's how they did it in the past, not how we're going to do it in the future. And when we confirm that we are on track to deliver those numbers, it's based on the business assays right now.

Thanks, Carlos.

Thank you, Jacob. Thanks, Jacob.

Thank you. Next, we have Nathan Riley from UBS. Please go ahead.

Good morning, gents. Just a little bit more detail, if I could please, just around the commodities or the upgraded commodities organic revenue growth target at 12% to 14%. Just curious, how material is growth in the mine site testing volumes and market share which you've been pursuing just in terms of dropping through to that updated growth guide?

So I think that what we're including in that target is a similar range that what we have seen, that is 20% CAGR. During the first half, we have a couple of wins. We have one loss of a specific mine, but we increased the number of of projects, let me check the numbers, but I think to 32 in total from 28, 29. So we have a couple of wins and the pipeline is quite strong. But we are just considering a similar growth rate that we had H1 against H1 and for the full year for this specific business.

Yeah, there's not, Nathan, there's not a lot of, look, I want to say, because it's relatively small part of the overall portfolio, so It has been growing, it's been growing faster than, call it the hub and spoke exploration part of geochemistry, but it's relatively, in terms of dollars, it's relatively small. So just see it as, in that 12 to 14 that we've called out, just see it in there.

Perfect, thank you. And I guess as an extension to that, just wondering whether you can sort of share some perspective in terms of I guess the operating leverage in the minerals business in terms of the underlying EBIT margin performance, just given the nature of the mine site testing being a smaller component overall. Just how you might think about that in terms of a recovery.

So what we said was 100 and 125 BIPs and geochemistry includes mine site. So you should be considering that the potential margin difference between mine site and the commercial labs is already included in that statement that we said on margin improvement on H2 against H1.

Yeah, and Nathan, I think everyone on the call knows, we don't disclose it specifically because it's pretty sensitive, but the margins in mine site aren't as attractive as the hub and spoke because you just don't have the scale or operating leverage you had with hub and spoke. You know, they're not, as I said, it's relatively small. So within that sort of net 120 basis points, I wouldn't see it as having an improvement we made in geochemistry. Mine site is fairly neutral in that calculation.

That's helpful. Thank you for that.

Thank you. Next, we have William Park from Citi. Please go ahead.

Hi, Mark. I'm Stuart. Thanks for taking my question. Can I just clarify with the commodities margin expansion that you're expecting in second half versus first half, should we be working off the reported margin or the reclassified margin?

William, to be honest, I'm not sure what the The difference is what we're really saying is that chart on slide 11 at the top left, really what we're saying is that the second column that says pricing negative 120, what we're guiding to is we think that'll be close to zero in that same chart for the full year. Understood. Thank you.

Thanks for clarifying.

Yeah.

Yep, no, thank you.

Okay, carry on.

Yep, no, thanks for that. That's very clear. And in terms of the CAPEX that you were expecting for those four major hub labs upgrade in second half versus first half, like how should we be sort of thinking about the CAPEX profile in second half versus first?

I think we spent, well, I said we spent $70 million in the first half, but a lot of that is land. So now we're starting to get into, as I said, demolition in Czech and we've got ongoing construction in Sydney and Lima. So, I mean, if you're asking for a number, I'd be thinking more $30 to $40 million in the second half.

Thank you. That's very clear. And then just one last one from me. I know at the investor day you talked about increasing your limbs penetration to 95% to 100% in three years, currently sitting at 78%. Just wondering, do you expect this to sort of accelerate in the second half or is it sort of more skewed towards the back end of the three-year journey that you've alluded to back at the investor?

William, it's a great question. Those things are easier to say than to do. So we always challenge ourselves if we can go faster, but sometimes you need to understand the pace of implementing this type of solutions into very different geographies, regulations. It's quite complex. So don't expect that we're going to jump from 78 to 85 on this year. but clearly we're going to be in that 95% target by the end of the year three, but it's going to be incremental. Once you have some of the big regions that probably is going to happen between age two of this year and the full year of 27, we're going to be closer to the target. So it's going to be incremental, William. It's not going to be something that we're going to change in two, three months.

Thanks very much. Thank you.

Next, we have John Campbell from Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Thanks, guys. Yeah, a lot of the good questions have been asked, but just a couple. Just on pharma, I mean, it's obviously been, you know, in the post-COVID period, it's been in the slow lane for sure, not just your business, but the pharmaceutical industry per se. And we're still seeing issues. You mentioned tariffs, but we're seeing vaccine hesitancy and the US administration sort of a big pushback against big pharma, it would seem. So are you seeing any sort of light at the end of the tunnel on pharma or are we locked into very low revenue growth scenarios? for an extended period, and obviously you're doing a great job on the cost front, but just in terms of the revenue front, could you just give a little bit more color on how you're seeing it?

Yeah, great question. I think that the other item that you didn't mention is the most favored nation decision by the Trump administration. Probably that was the most disruptive decision that the pharma industry had in a long time because it's clearly putting pressure on the pharma industry, especially in places like Europe and Japan, for example, and how they're going to take care of the health systems with the price that some of these companies were charging in the United States. So I think that that will reshape entirely the business and that will move a lot of the R&D and focus of the governments to support more R&D into Europe. Having said that, I think that the market is slowly turning around. And from a biotech and VC funding, for example, in the last couple of months, we've seen an increase. And it's been consistent. It's not been only a couple of green shoots. We've seen also an opportunity to develop pharmaceutical R&D in Europe. And we've seen governments more open to support this type of initiative. So talent moving from the US to Europe, and that's making things slightly easier, which is positive. So I don't think we're going to get to that COVID hype that we had a couple of years ago, but clearly it's going to be a business that is going to go back to the normal growth rates that we've seen in the past. And potentially with AI, what we're going to see, there's an acceleration of small molecule developments that will create more healthy pipelines for the large pharmaceutical companies. So it doesn't change our view on the businesses that we own, just want to be very clear. But we see probably a change in the environment for the CROs in the next six to 12 months.

Yeah, great. Thanks, Malcolm. And just to follow on there, with the more subdued activity levels in pharma, do you think, and I guess also the US really trying to push through more cost efficiency in the nature of how they're engaging with the industry, Does it sort of lead to potentially to sort of more consolidation pressure to get more of the pharma testing done on larger scale and be able to reduce costs through scale? I mean, do you see any impetus for consolidation in the sector?

So let me answer one first on our business from the micro to the macro. We've seen our revenue increase. third-party revenue growth in very healthy levels in the last eight months. And I think that the pipeline has improved, especially in the last three to four months. And that's some data that I can share with you that actually we've seen an improvement on pharmaceutical companies restarting their budgets, not only for R&D, but also for clinical trials. Obviously, if you don't do R&D, the clinical trials pipeline would be dry. If we see an opportunity of consolidation, if the question is from a service provider perspective, I think that the challenges would be in terms of intellectual property and how governments see pharmaceutical in terms of strategic assets for the countries. So that would be probably something bigger than just ALS. But what would happen in eastern CROs and how can they support the western pharmaceutical companies and the need of ensuring IP and protect IP moving forward. So a consolidation from CROs, I think that I'm not 100% sure about that. What I believe is that big part of the R&D from these Western countries will be requested to be done in countries that ensure better IP protection than other jurisdictions. So that means that there's an opportunity. And if you're in those right locations, it may be an opportunity for consolidation. I'm speaking from a CRO perspective. I cannot give you an answer for pharma companies.

Yeah, okay. That's very helpful. Thanks, Malcolm. Last question from me. PFAS has obviously been something we've all focused on for quite some time, and we've seen the sort of... We as well. Yeah, yeah, indeed. And we've seen the revenue share of PFAS across the entire business increase, you know, reasonably well up to... sort of 2% and it sort of seems like it's still growing obviously, but it seems like the growth rate is leveling out. Is that a fair comment?

No, I don't agree. I think we've seen this year 25% organic growth on PFAS. So we are having a great run in PFAS. We are developing new methods. We see new requirements and new regulations and and labs working with consulting companies, but also with authorities to understand what are we going to do and how are we going to manage PFAS. And PFAS is not going to be an environmental opportunity. It's going to be a food opportunity. Think about packaging. Think about cosmetics. Think about any OTC as an opportunity to test PFAS. And we have developed methods in our centers of excellence, for example, in New Zealand, and already deployed them in the United States to serve the MOCRA regulation. that is still in place and will demand all OTC products to be tested to be PFAS-free. So if you ask me, have you seen a slowdown in PFAS, well, 25% seems quite a positive growth in that business and we are, as Stuart always says, appropriately investing ahead of the curve to be sure that we have a substantial part of the market there and we are very very supportive, very bullish with that market, not only in the US, but also in Europe and in Australia.

Great. So what you're saying, Malcolm, you clearly see it. This is not like a two-year thing. This is five years plus of growth ahead of you in PFAS.

Yeah, again, I think putting things on perspective is 6% of the environmental revenue. But what we are expecting is that this will diversify from water testing or Soil testing, you will have air testing, you will have cosmetic testing. So this will slowly be wider and bigger and bigger. Probably at some stage will be part of the normal suite testing in some regulations. Probably the answer is yes, but we don't think that that's going to happen in the short term. So we still see lots of opportunities in PFAS, and we are quite excited with our service offering and how we can serve globally with consistent solutions and methods.

Thank you, Malcolm.

Thank you. Just a moment for our last question. Last question comes from a line of Cameron Needham from Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks very much all for the presentation. Just first one from me. On some of the challenges you've outlined in the US, I'm just keen to know, would this be enough to make you rethink how and where you're allocating capital, just in terms of your growth ambitions and what sits within expand and protect and extend versus more selective growth? Thanks.

No, the answer is no. We think that York is a good acquisition for us, Remember that we set a 15% return on capital loading in year five. If you go through the history of ALS, don't bring in who is on the other. Sorry, there's some noise online. Some other acquisitions, but traditionally it takes us three to five years to get the business fully integrated and to deliver the margins expected. So we know we're having some short-term headwinds normal in this type of integrations. We've experienced that with other acquisitions in Europe. We've experienced that with other acquisitions even in Asia. So it's not a surprise. It's just something that we need to work. We also think that we are very focused on where we want to put the money, for example, in the United States. We said that openly, and there are some regions that we're going to be more aggressive and some regions that we're going to be less focused in the United States. So yes, don't expect that we're going to buy businesses in every single corner of the U.S., but in the regions that we are growing and that we know that we can build a competitive edge, we're going to prioritize capital. If you ask me, are you going to do acquisitions in the short term, clearly we need to digest what we have already, but after that we are very supportive of that market. So the answer is we think it's the right acquisition, we think it's the right market, we have the right team in place. Sometimes we are more impatient than what we should be, And we know historically that fixing these businesses and integrating these businesses from a LIMS perspective, from a culture perspective, takes time. We are calling out that we have a headwind, but it's nothing different than we had in other integrations in the past as well. Thank you very much.

I'm happy to answer that. Yeah, that's great. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you for all the questions. This concludes our Q&A session. I will now turn the call conference back to Malcolm for closing remarks.

Yeah, thank you everyone again for the time, for being part of the call and for all the questions. Obviously, we'll follow up with the meetings throughout the week, but just reach out if there's any other questions. And also want to also give a kudos to the ALS team. I think we had a very strong first half. We are in pretty good shape for the second half and I want to commend the entire ALS team for the efforts and the commitment to build this great company. Thank you everyone for the time and hope to see you soon. Thank you.

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