Trinseo PLC

corporate finance, and investor relations. Today's conference call will include brief remarks by the management team, followed by a question and answer session. The company distributed its press release along with its presentation slides after the close of market on Wednesday, August 6th. These documents are posted on the company's investor relations website and furnished on a Form K-8 filed document. with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If anyone should require operator assistance during this call, please press star, then the number zero on your telephone keypad. I will now turn the call over to V. Van Kessel. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Amy, and hello, everyone. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After our brief remarks, instructions will follow to participate in the question and answer session. Our disclosure rules and cautionary notes on forward-looking statements are noted on slide two. During this presentation, we may make certain forward-looking statements, including issuing guidance and describing our future expectations. We must caution you that actual results could differ materially from what is discussed, described, or implied in these statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ to differ include but are not limited to risk factors set forth in item 1A of our annual reports on Form 10-K or in our other filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company undertakes no obligation to update or revise its forward-looking statements. Today's presentation includes certain non-GAAP financial measurements. The reconciliation of these measurements to corresponding GAAP measures is provided in our earnings release and in the appendix of our investor presentation. A replay of the conference call and transcript will be archived on the company's investor relations website shortly following the conference call. The replay will be available until August 7th, 2026. Now I would like to turn the call over to Frank Bosich.

Thanks, Bea, and welcome to our second quarter 2025 earnings call. Our core business results in the second quarter were slightly below the expectations we had due to weaker than expected demand across most applications and unfavorable net timing associated with falling feedstock prices. The seasonally higher volumes that we normally see in the second quarter were dampened by trade uncertainty after the April tariff announcements in the U.S. We experienced high order cancellations early in the quarter, which we believe was linked to increased geopolitical and trade uncertainty, but saw the magnitude of cancellations dropping significantly during the quarter. In this environment, it's critical that we remain intensely focused on two things, controlling the things we can control, which are fixed costs and working capital, and cultivating our key growth and sustainability platforms. In 2025, we expect to realize $105 million of EBITDA benefits from self-help actions. Specifically, we expect to see $35 million in fixed cost savings from previously announced restructuring initiatives, $30 million in mixed improvement and commercial initiatives, and $40 million associated with our change in the polycarbonate business model. We expect these actions to offset most of the incremental demand weakness and margin degradation we've seen so far in 2025, resulting in roughly flat year-over-year adjusted EBITDA. On working capital, I'm very proud of the work our team has done over the past three years to drive structural improvement through systems and processes. Over this period, we've reduced working capital by $560 million, with about half of that coming from a 17-day reduction in our cash conversion cycle. We've also made outstanding progress in our transformation strategy by driving growth in higher value applications. Recycled plastic containing products grew 7% in the first half of 2025 and command previous premium margins. For binders, case and battery binders were two bright spots this quarter, with year-over-year volume growth of 3% and 19% respectively. I'll elaborate more on a relatively new battery binder technology later in the call. I'm also pleased to report that we released our 15th Annual Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility Report. We continue to make progress on our 2030 sustainability goals as we remain committed to our investments in advancing recycling technology and sustainable product offerings. Before I turn the call over to Dave, I'd like to elaborate more on our new and unique battery binder platform. Trinzio opened its global battery application lab in Shanghai in 2017 and started selling our first generation high performance binders for lithium ion EV battery and energy storage solution applications in 2020. Our latex binders function in the lithium ion battery is to bind the anode active materials, which are predominantly graphite and silicon, into the current collector, which is a copper foil. The polymer needs to provide strength, ionic conductivity, and formulation compatibility, while at the same time having the ability to withstand a harsh battery cell operational environment to ensure long battery life. To do this, it must resist mechanical, thermal, chemical, and electrochemical stress. Consequently, despite the binder typically accounting for less than 2% of the total battery cost, it holds a highly critical role in enabling both strong battery performance and efficient battery manufacturing. This year, we're launching our fourth generation Voltabon Anode Binder. which enables long lasting, fast charging, and high energy density batteries. This advancement, as well as our global footprint with plants in each region, are key advantages we have to serve these applications. Additionally, we have our first generation water soluble binder prototypes available for testing at key players after demonstrating strong performance in our own labs. Our volume compounded annual growth rate over the past five years has been 63%. And we expect this highly profitable platform to continue double digit growth over the next five years. For these reasons, Battery Binders represents one of our top strategic growth platforms. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Dave.

Thanks, Frank. We ended the second quarter with $42 million of adjusted EBITDA, which was below our guidance driven by a larger unfavorable impact from raw material timing, the lack of seasonal demand pickup that Frank spoke about earlier, and lower equity-affiliated earnings at America's Styrenics. First half 2025 volumes were 13% below prior year, with the largest decreases coming in latex finders, paper and board applications, automotive applications in North America and Europe, and polystyrene, where we've passed on economic volumes. Of the volume decline we've seen in the first half, about two-thirds is what we consider transactional volume, meaning it's generally lower margin with spot-based pricing and not formulated in nature. At the segment level, engineering materials adjusted EBITDA was $1 million below prior year, despite lower volumes sold into automotive and building and construction applications. Lower volumes were offset by lower fixed cost and mix improvements from higher recycled content sales into consumer products applications. Latex binders adjusted EBITDA was $9 million below prior year, mainly driven by lower volume in Europe and Asia, as well as significant pricing pressure across all regions. This volume decline is most acute in paper and board applications from China, where we've seen demand weakening considerably since the tariff announcements, leading to temporary mill closures. On a positive note, our higher margin targeted growth platforms in case and battery binders continue to outperform the market. Lastly, polymer solutions adjusted EBITDA was $11 million below prior year, driven by lower volumes into building and construction and automotive applications, and increased Asian imports into the European market. We are therefore pleased to see that the European Commission recognizes the ABS dumping activity from both South Korea and Taiwan in their pre-disclosure in July. Second quarter free cash flow was negative $3 million in line with guidance. And we ended the second quarter with $399 million of total liquidity. I'll turn the call back over to Frank.

Thanks, Dave. As previously mentioned, we expect full year 2025 adjusted EBITDA of roughly $200 million. While the current demand level is disappointing, we believe there are five triggers for improvement of the demand environment. First, trade certainty in any form. should improve consumer confidence and provide a landscape for new investments. Second, an enactment of the anticipated Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, which will lower our own interest expense and improve consumer confidence. Third, a resolution of the various military conflicts we see in Europe and the Middle East. Fourth, our positive regulatory reforms in the chemical space in China, which could result in the closure of older noncompetitive assets and reduce destructive industry pricing and lastly the stronger support for the eu chemical industry as outlined in the eu chemical industry action plan while each of these items are uncertain we're encouraged by the dialogue related to each of these that is being reported so now we're happy to take your questions thank you

The line is now open for questions. If you have dialed in and would like to ask a question, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad to raise your hand and join the queue. If you would like to withdraw your question, again, simply press star and the number one. We do request for today's session that you please limit to one question and one follow up. Again, please press star and the number one to join the queue. We'll pause for just a moment to compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of David Begleiter with Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Frank and Dave, you've done a good job in Europe closing some older non-economic capacity in styrene and polycarbonate. Can you talk to your MMA production in Europe and why you haven't taken similar action there, given they're also challenged economics? Thank you.

Yeah, David, thanks. Look, we continually evaluate each of our assets. You know, we prioritized the, you know, taking action where, you know, basically on three dimensions, you know, the speed of execution, the magnitude of the benefit, and the cost to achieve. So we continue to look at various opportunities and, you know, we'll evaluate that asset appropriately. And if we make the decision or work with our works councils, we'll come to a decision that's appropriate.

Understood. I know it's early for next year, but in terms of what's in your control for next year versus what's not, can you help us bridge some of the items that could help lead to maybe a higher EBITDA outcome in 26? Thank you.

Yeah, so...

Look, I mean, let me back up a little bit and give you some context for what we're currently seeing. As we started 2025, our expectation was for demand levels that were similar to 2024, which we believe was low by historical standards with some pent-up demand. However, the impact of trade uncertainty in particular has been an incremental headwind. The resolution of trade uncertainty, in whatever form that takes, as well as lower interest rates, we think unlocks demand and gets us back to a level that we expected and possibly greater. And remember, 10% volume increase for us is about $100 million of EBITDA improvements. and you know i'll go back to what i've said on previous calls we believe even last year that there's been pent-up demand in building and construction and automotive both in europe and north america where we have a significant exposure um you know if we think about housing i won't i i believe the number off the top of my head is there's six million unit shortfall versus household formation over the past decade and the automotive industry the car park right now is at historic age so we think that that you know interest rates and tariff certainty get us back to reasonable you know prior at least prior year demand levels and sort stimulate demand you know, recovery from the pent-up demand that's out there.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Matthew Blair with TPH. Your line is now open.

Great. Thank you, and good morning. I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about the Amstrad business. We understand there were some polystyrene outages in Q2. How much of a headwind Was that to last quarter? And then are there some repair costs in Q3? And if so, how much of a headwind will that be to the Q3 number?

So there was a mechanical outage in one of the styrene assets in Amstey last quarter, and it had approximately a $5 million outage. Impact and there will be increased repair costs in the coming quarter that's reflected in the current forecast or current outlook.

Yeah, Matthew, I think Frank's great. Yeah, is that a 5 million impact to to us to add to the equity income we recognize from Einstein the second quarter? I mean, looking forward to the back half of the year. There will be an impact of it. And by the way, it was a styrene plant. It was not not polystyrene. you know, there will be a similar impact, I would say, to the third quarter. So, you know, I would expect the progression of AMSI's earnings to us over the back half of the year, you know, Q3, there'll be a similar number to Q2, and then higher in the fourth quarter as we expect, you know, better operational reliability.

Sounds good. And then regarding your 2025 full-year guidance, the implied figure for the back half of the year, does that incorporate any of the net timing headwinds in Q2 being reversed?

No, it does not.

So Matthew, for us, timing is fairly hard to predict. I mean, it's really a function of what happens largely to timing prices, frankly, over the next six months. So it's hard to predict. But standing here today, the guidance we've given assumes flat net timing for the back half of the year.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Frank Mitch with Spermium Research. Your line is now open.

Hey, good morning. Frank, I was intrigued by your comments that the pace of cancellations due to the trade issues was slowing down as you progressed through the quarter. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that and if that's the case. I mean, should we not start to see the pace of business match underlying demand here in the third quarter?

I think what we saw, I guess what I read into what we saw happening in Q2 was that the order book that we began the quarter with reflected a normal seasonal uptick in demand and that Because of the, you know, as a result of the trade announcements in early April, that uptick was taken off the table. So I think that's how I read what we saw occur during the quarter.

So you don't anticipate that those pent-up orders flowing through in 3Q? No.

Well, as I said, if we see trade certainty and the improvements in interest rates or any of the five factors that we mentioned, we believe that's a trigger for an improvement in demand and a recovery of those lost orders. But again, it's impossible to predict. Sitting here today, it's impossible to predict the timing of for that or have any certainty for when that would occur. But yes, I believe that would be a trigger.

Okay. Terrific. And interesting comments regarding battery technology. On the latex binder side, roughly how much is the battery business of that segment today? And I believe, David, you also mentioned that there was significant pricing pressure in latex in 2Q. Actually, it was positive price in 1Q, but yet flipped to negative price in 2Q. Any elaboration or any color on that would be helpful. Thank you.

Yeah, so I'm going to give you a number by memory of our latex binders. Case and battery represents approximately 20% of the volume of last year volume, but a significantly higher share of our margin. I believe that because of the pressure that we've seen in paper and board this year, it's a significantly higher portion this year, but I don't have an exact figure and we can get that to you. Your second question, Yeah, maybe could you repeat it, Frank? Sorry.

Yeah, it was a significant pricing pressure. You know, prices in latex were up in 1Q and then obviously down in 6% in 2Q. David indicated significant pricing pressures, and I was just curious if you could elaborate on where that's coming from.

Yeah. So, well, what we saw, you know, you can imagine a lot of our latex goes into paperboard packaging. And in particular, in China, with the beginning of the tariff announcements, you just look at the 35% reduction in container shipments out of China. Those are mostly packaged goods, right? So there was a significant reduction in demand in China in paper and board in Q2 as a result of that. and mill closures. So as a consequence, a lot of the industry was scrambling to keep volumes and were very aggressive with price. And some of that we declined to. A lot of that is transactional and transitory, and we chose not to participate in some of that volume, and that's why we saw the volume decrease in the second quarter. But again, we believe that's transactional and transitory activity that we can get back. Thank you.

Alright, thank you and the next question comes from the line of Hassan Hamad with Albemarle Global. Your line is now open.

Morning Frank and Dave. You know, wanted to revisit and I, you know, obviously understand that it's early days to give any 2026 guidance, But, you know, as I take a look at what you guys are guiding to for 2025, I mean, it seems for the back half of the year, which typically is a seasonally weaker sort of period, you know, you'd be at a quarterly run rate EBITDA of around $50 million a quarter, right? So, you know, you sort of annualize that. And again, obviously, this is a seasonally weak period. So you're at least at $200 million in a sort of well below normal demand environment, right? Now, let's assume demand doesn't really improve materially next year, but seasonality maybe kicks in, further sort of benefit from your cost-cutting drive and the like. So what's sort of like the minimum sort of benchmark to think about? I mean, would you guys do at least $250 million in that environment, in EBITDA in 26? And what would that mean at least for free cash flow next year?

Yeah, look, I think that, you know, this goes back to the question that I give the same answer I gave earlier, you know, that we believe that right now we're seeing transitory headwinds that affect, you know, depressed demand in the business and suppress it. significantly from prior year, which was already low with pent-up demand. So I believe that we will see a resolution of one or more of the five items that I mentioned, and that will have a significant impact on our end demand in most of our end markets. So again, it'd be very difficult. Again, I believe that we have significant leverage to the upside with volume, and that would come with some more certainty regarding trade interest rates and the various regulatory activities around the world.

Hassan, I'll add a couple of points related more to the free cash flow side. We have a slide in our deck on slide 14 where we outline the cash flow components for 2025. You know, if I were to if I were to bridge these things to 2026. Restructuring costs of 55 million that will be a much lower number in 2026 than 55 million this year. The other is interest expense. Cash interest this year is 200 million. You know, clearly since the last call we had, I think there's been a bias. There's been a market consensus view that there will be. You know, given the employment statistics, probably more rapid succession of rate cuts than we previously thought. And 100 basis points of rate cuts is worth $19 million a year to us. So, you know, I think it's obviously too early to put numbers on 2026, but certainly I think the numbers that are listed on this page are will be much lower than 365 million of cash outflows next year.

That's definitely very helpful. Now, as a follow-up, I mean, you know, obviously all sort of fairly recent with regards to the whole sort of anti-dumping sort of measures in the EU as it relates to ABS, but how do you see this playing out? How do you see sort of China, you know, the Chinese sort of reacting to it and how does it all sort of drill down back to you guys?

Yeah, I, well, look, there's a lot of uncertainty with regard to that, but I know that the EU commission outlined a chemical industry action plan for that includes some protectionism and also an anti-dumping protection to ensure that there is fair competition with imports into Europe. So we're encouraged by that. We're waiting to see how that takes place. And at the same time, what you see happening in China, the regulatory discussions in China, related to the anti-involution policy there, which would rationalize, you know, the non-competitive or older non-integrated assets in China, you know, again, make us optimistic that that will be addressed. And I want to spend a second on this because, you know, there's some discussion about it, but 21, the statistics that I've seen is that 21% of the Chinese chemical industry capacity is older than 15 years old. Now, those assets would be the ones that would be most likely subject to the anti-involution policies. And if that capacity comes off the table, it would help the industry broadly, not only in China, but in the rest of the world. The other thing I do want to point out is that while there's uncertainty with regard to the trade policies and the tariff policies that have been introduced in the U.S., on balance, we would benefit from tariffs because we produce locally. And in particular, we understand that the U.S. government or, you know, the policymakers are focused on transshipment of Chinese products into Mexico that would be compounded and then brought into the U.S. as U.S. MCA compliant. Now, if that is addressed, that's a significant upside for not only us, but everybody in the chemical industry. So those are... You know, I think there's a lot of, it's too early to tell, but the discussions and the ideas that are being floated are very encouraging. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. And your final question comes from the line of Lawrence Alexander with Jeffries. Your line is now open.

Good morning. It's Dan Rizwan for Lawrence. So I was just wondering with the guidance you give for 2025 and why now you're finally giving yearly guidance, but you're kind of not giving Q3 guidance. I mean, is visibility improved or just why the change in policy from last quarter?

Yeah, I think it's simply... You know, it's been a very dynamic and volatile environment from a policy standpoint that's affected the industry. And, you know, at this point in time, we've seen what the impacts were in Q2. We had, you know, I would say starting Q3, we see it in a similar fashion. you know, sort of a similar market dynamic that we had in Q2. So we believe absent certainty around any of those five things that we can anticipate a similar environment to Q2 for the remainder of the year. But clearly we expect that resolution of any of those five items will change that to the positive.

I I think that like from a policy perspective, you're right. We gave quarterly guidance earlier in the year. Because we had limited visibility, I don't think anything has really changed, frankly, on our visibility. We still have the same limited visibility, but we chose to give annual guidance just because of where we are in the year. I mean, we're kind of approaching two-thirds of the way through the year, and we thought it was appropriate to give annual versus quarterly guidance. That's really the only reason why.

Thank you. That's helpful. And then just a little more granular. With corporate costs, I think it's running roughly $20 to $25 million a quarter. Is that kind of how we should think about it over the long term, given all the kind of moves you made, the costs you've taken out, that that seems to be a decent run rate? Or will it be a little more volatile than that?

No, I think the current run rate is we're at – our current run rate reflects the actions that we've taken to date. And that would be, you know, that's appropriate to use in our forecast.

And just one other, just minor point on that, due to kind of the accounting treatment of stock compensation, our Q1 corporate costs are always going to be higher than the other three quarters of the year. You can talk to, you know, we've mentioned that in prior calls, but I just want to make sure you're aware of that. So, you know, kind of annualizing the first half of the year probably is not a good idea. not a good approach.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.