加载中...
共找到 25,633 条相关资讯
Hugo Nunes: Good day, everyone, and welcome to Thungela's 2025 Annual Results Presentation. I'm Hugo Nunes, Head of Investor Relations. And I'd like to take a couple of minutes to introduce today's agenda and to explain how the day will run. But first, allow me to draw your attention to a couple of disclaimers ahead of today's presentation. While you take a moment to read through the cautionary statement, we will start with the CEO, Moses Madondo, who will provide an update on the execution of our strategic priorities, Thungela's 2025 highlights and a market update. Thereafter, the CFO, Deon Smith, will take us through the financial and operational results for 2025, and Moses will then conclude the presentation. This will be followed by a Q&A session, following which today's call will end. Turning to Q&A. [Operator Instructions] Today, I'm pleased to introduce our new Chief Executive Officer, Moses Madondo, who brings deep operational experience and a strong track record in mining. Now please allow me to hand over to Moses. Moses Madondo: Thank you, Hugo, and good day to everyone on the call. Let me start with a matter that is affecting us all at Thungela, our concern for colleagues in Dubai. The events that have unfolded in the Middle East have understandably caused concern, not only because of the implications for the world economy, but primarily for the human impact. We are actively supporting our colleagues in Dubai, prioritizing their safety and well-being and staying close to them every step of the way. Our stakeholders can be assured that as we continue to support our teams through this difficult time, we have the necessary business continuity plans in place and continue to closely monitor the situation. As a new CEO of Thungela, I'm pleased to share with you the 2025 results. Reflecting on my time since joining Thungela, I'm excited at the future prospects of the business. I've been inspired by the people, the business capabilities and the strong culture within the organization. Moving on to strategy execution. We have remained committed to the strategic objectives and have delivered a strong set of operational results. These strategic pillars have served us well and remain core to our purpose. As we look to build the future from the solid foundation already formed, I'm working with the Board as we determine the next chapter for Thungela's journey. We are committed to the safety of our people. Safety remains at the core of everything we do, guided by a zero harm mindset, ensuring that our people return from work safe and healthy each day. I'm pleased to report that we have operated a fatality-free business for 3 consecutive years. We will continue to maximize value from our assets and derive value from the resource endowment. A number of steps have been taken to create a longer life business, and we have now completed 2 key life extension projects, the Annea Colliery, previously known as the Elders project and Zibulo North shaft as well as increase the Thungela ownership of the Ensham mine in Australia to 100%. The capital allocation framework remains central to the strategy, and we will maintain this disciplined approach. I am pleased to announce that the Board has declared a dividend for a ninth consecutive period, showcasing our focus on delivering returns to shareholders and creating long-term sustainable value for stakeholders. Let me now turn to the group highlights for 2025. The group recorded 17.8 million tonnes of export saleable production, exceeding the guidance range in South Africa and landing at the upper end of the range at Ensham. This is on the back of a strong performance at Mafube, the ramp-up at Annea as well as overcoming the challenging geological conditions experienced in the first half of the year at Ensham. We achieved export equity sales of 17.8 million tonnes, up from 16.6 million tonnes in 2024, mainly as a result of higher export saleable production in South Africa, which was further enabled by the improved TFR performance. The 2025 financial results were impacted by lower thermal coal prices in South Africa and Australia, where benchmark prices were significantly lower year-on-year, approximately 15% and 22%, respectively. The financial results were further impacted by the effects of the weaker U.S. dollar and a stronger rand. The group incurred a loss per share of ZAR 54.64 in 2025. This reflects the lower price exchange rate volatility and includes a noncash impairment loss of ZAR 8.8 billion. The impairment loss is as a result of the lower benchmark coal price assumptions and exchange rate forecast. The group's dividend policy is to distribute a minimum of 30% of adjusted operating free cash flow. In the first half of the year, we generated adjusted operating free cash flow of ZAR 484 million. However, in the second half of the year, we incurred a negative adjusted operating free cash flow of ZAR 88 million. As a result, the Board exercised discretion in determining an appropriate ordinary cash dividend. The Board remains committed to prioritizing shareholder returns where the balance sheet allows for it and where the future prospects of the business remain supportive of a distribution. Accordingly, the Board has approved a final dividend of ZAR 2 per share or ZAR 281 million. Together with the interim dividend of ZAR 281 million and the ZAR 139 million share buyback completed following the interim results, this brings the total shareholder returns relating to 2025 performance to ZAR 701 million, representing 177% of adjusted operating free cash flow for the year. Now let me turn to safety. Our unwavering zero harm mindset is guided by 3 critical focus areas: effective risk and work management, doing the basics right as well as driving a strong safety culture. The group's total recordable case frequency rate increased to 2.83, primarily due to the challenging operating environment during the production footprint transition. During the year, Goedehoop North ramped down and Isibonelo transitioned to care maintenance. While we continue to ramp up efforts at Annea and completed the Zibulo North Shaft project. Now to improve our safety performance, we implemented targeted interventions for the increased risk areas and work crews through an innovative leading indicator safety heat map program. I'm happy with the improvements we have made. And yes, we still have work to do to further entrench the zero harm mindset in the business. Moving on to our ESG aspirations. We are committed to driving long-lasting social impact, fostering community partnerships and responsible environmental stewardship. We are very pleased that we have achieved 0 reportable environmental incidents in 2025, the first time since our listing in 2021. Socioeconomic development investments remain integral to our purpose. The Thungela education initiative and enterprise supply development program Thuthukani continue to deliver measurable and meaningful benefits to schools and suppliers within host communities. At schools, we are strengthening the school leadership, enhancing teaching and providing learner support. Together, these programs demonstrate our dedication to creating long-term sustainable value for stakeholders and helping to build communities that drive beyond the life of our mines. Now I will touch on TFR's performance. In 2025, TFR's rail performance increased by 9% to 56.8 million tonnes. This reflects the benefits of ongoing efforts to improve rolling stock availability and strengthen network reliability through various initiatives enabled by collaborative efforts by industry and TFR. Looking ahead, we expect further improvements in performance as these initiatives continue to bear fruit. We are encouraged by the Department of Transport's rail reform program and the facilitation of private sector participation to further improve logistics performance. Strengthening the coal logistics system benefits the broader industry, supporting both established producers and emerging participants while reinforcing Thungela's position in the global coal markets. The seaborne thermal coal market remained depressed for much of the year, largely due to weak demand in key coal consuming countries. In China and India, seaborne demand fell short of expectations as both countries continue to expand or sustain domestic production and accelerate investment in alternative energy sources. India and China's production grew modestly, while Japan, Korea and Taiwan increased their consumption of gas and nuclear power, which further reduced coal imports. On the supply side, the sustained production levels from Indonesia, Australia and South Africa from late 2024 and throughout 2025, created an oversupply imbalance, which the market could not fully absorb. In recent months, however, restocking activity in the major import hubs, combined with a pickup in the Indian sponge iron market has provided price support for the high CV South African coal, which provides us with a competitive advantage. The weak market conditions as well as the impact of linear discounts relating to the qualities we produced and sold widened the discount in South Africa to 16.6%. While at Ensham, we achieved a marginal discount of 0.4%, primarily due to a higher proportion of fixed price agreements concluded on a favorable terms that mitigated the effect of declining prices over the period. We, however, remain confident in the long-term fundamentals of coal in the energy mix. In developing economies, the starting point is energy security. Without reliable, affordable energy, industrialization, job creation and economic growth simply do not happen. Coal continues to provide firm and dependable baseload power at scale, which renewables cannot yet deliver reliably or affordably in most emerging markets. Coal also underpins critical industries such as steel, cement and manufacturing, which are foundational for infrastructure development and economic growth. From a socioeconomic perspective, coal supports millions of direct and indirect jobs, sustains local economies and contributes materially to export revenues and fiscal stability. Therefore, companies with high-quality coal operations like Thungela have a significant structural advantage in this market. The medium-term outlook for thermal coal reflects the market transitioning into a structural plateau, largely due to the continuing shift in demand by emerging markets in Asia, coupled by potential supply side interventions that we have seen from Indonesia. The recent escalation of the conflict in the Middle East provides evidence of how finely balanced the market is today. The disruptions in the flow of oil and gas in the region have again increased energy security fears and pushed up the prices of oil, gas and coal. While coal's contribution to energy security remains evident, the outlook is increasingly influenced by volatile geopolitical conditions and evolving market pressures. Now let me hand over to Deon to cover the financial results for us. Deon? Deon Smith: Thank you, Moses, and to those online for making the time to dial into our results presentation for the year ended 31 December 2025. While production and cost performance was solid, it has been a challenging year from a market perspective with materially lower benchmark coal prices and a stronger rand placing pressure on both revenue and margins. Despite this, we continued to invest in the business in line with our capital allocation approach and benefited from strong cash flows from operations. In the next couple of slides, I will cover the key financial metrics for the year, unpack the major drivers behind the year-on-year movements and close with a net cash position as well as shareholder returns. Let's turn to the results. Adjusted EBITDA for the year was ZAR 1.2 billion, reflecting the impact of materially lower benchmark coal prices and the stronger rand against the U.S. dollar. Despite these headwinds, the operations remained resilient with positive EBITDA contributions from both South Africa and Australia. We incurred a headline loss of ZAR 839 million, primarily driven by the lower pricing environment. After recognizing noncash impairment losses of ZAR 8.8 billion across our operations in South Africa and Australia, the group reported net loss of ZAR 7.1 billion. These impairment losses reflect updated long-term assumptions on prices and exchange rate at the time of finalizing the results, but do not affect liquidity or ability to continue operating sustainably. Against this backdrop, the business continued to generate cash. The group generated ZAR 2.4 billion in operating free cash flows. After accounting for the sustaining capital spend of ZAR 2 billion, we arrive at adjusted operating free cash flow for the year of ZAR 396 million. We ended the year with a robust balance sheet, holding ZAR 6.1 billion in cash and a net cash position of ZAR 5.1 billion after deducting funds held on behalf of the community and employee trusts. Our balance sheet structure provides resilience in the current market environment, preserving our ability to invest through the cycle and to continue to prioritize returns to shareholders. As a result, we are returning ZAR 281 million to shareholders as a final ordinary dividend. This together with the interim dividend of ZAR 281 million and a share buyback of ZAR 139 million completed after the interim results takes total shareholder returns relating to 2025 to ZAR 701 million. Taking a closer look at the income statement, revenue is down mainly due to weaker coal prices combined with relatively stronger producing currencies against the U.S. dollar. Operating costs, excluding depreciation and amort were approximately ZAR 900 million lower than last year. This is a function of actions taken to improve cost discipline and the impact of lower prices through reduced commodity purchases and royalties, offset by inflation and higher selling expenses. These revenue and cost figures resulted in adjusted EBITDA of ZAR 1.2 billion. Earnings were supported by net finance income of ZAR 2.7 billion, which includes ZAR 2.3 billion of gains from derivatives over foreign currency. The tailwinds from these derivatives, of which ZAR 1.3 billion has been realized in cash became more pronounced as the rand continued to strengthen against the U.S. dollar. We do not have the same level of currency protection in place for 2026 and currently do not expect the tailwind to be as pronounced in the current year. The impairment losses of ZAR 8.8 billion have been recognized across our operations in South Africa and Australia and reflect weaker forecast benchmark coal prices and a stronger local currency against the dollar contracting the projected margins over the life of our mines. Impairment losses are measured at a point in time based on information available at 31 December and changing market dynamics may have changed the outcome of the assessment was done at a different date. The impairment reflects a write-off of historical capital and the remaining PPE balance of around ZAR 12 billion and is more effective of the capital spend post our listing in 2021 than the cash spend on the acquisition of Ensham. Income tax for the year is the credit reflecting the impact of net loss incurred in the year. Deferred tax assets of ZAR 1.1 billion have not been recognized based on the same factors contributing to the impairment losses. Turning now to operational performance for 2025. Export saleable production across the group remained resilient at 17.8 million tonnes, reflecting 13.9 million from South Africa and 4 million tonnes from Ensham. FOB costs remained well controlled in a lower price environment. In South Africa, the FOB cost, excluding royalties, increased to ZAR 1,170 per tonne, while in Australia, the FOB cost, excluding royalties, was stable at ZAR 1,435 per tonne. Sustaining CapEx for the group was ZAR 2 billion with ZAR 1.4 billion invested in South Africa and ZAR 600 million at Ensham, whilst expansionary CapEx of ZAR 1.1 billion was primarily directed towards the Zibulo North Shaft project and the Lephalale Coal Bed Methane project. Overall, our operational delivery remained robust with continued progress on productivity, logistics performance and disciplined cost control across both regions. Group revenue for the year declined by 17% to ZAR 29.6 billion. As shown in the graph, this was largely driven by materially lower benchmark coal prices and a stronger rand. In South Africa, revenue reduced to ZAR 22.1 billion. The benchmark price was 15% lower year-on-year, and we also saw wider discounts as market conditions remained weak across most of the year. This impact was partially offset by higher export volumes. Domestic revenue was lower due to reduced production at Isibonelo softer industrial demand and the sale of Rietvlei in late 2024. Revenue from Australia decreased to ZAR 7.5 billion consistent with a 22% decline in the Newcastle Benchmark coal price. Importantly, Ensham discount remained very narrow with realized prices at 99.6% of the benchmark. Finally, the stronger average rand relative to the U.S. dollar also weighed on reported revenue given that export sales are denominated in dollars. Turning to unit costs in South Africa. FOB cost, excluding royalties, increased to ZAR 1,170 per tonne from ZAR 1,130 per tonne in 2024. The key drivers of the increase were inflationary pressures in the mining value chain, lower domestic revenue offsets and higher selling expenses associated with increased rail activity. These pressures were partly offset by stronger export production, lower underlying production costs and a lower noncash charge related to the environmental provisions year-on-year, reflecting updated assessments of future rehabilitation requirements. Together, these factors helped us contain unit cost inflation below typical mining inflation levels in what remains a challenging environment for margins. Including royalties, which were lower due to realized prices, FOB cost increased by 2.2% to ZAR 1,176 per export tonne. At Ensham, the FOB cost performance remained stable year-on-year. Excluding royalties, the FOB cost was ZAR 1,435 per port tonne, broadly in line with the prior year's ZAR 1,433 per tonne. This stability reflects a reduction in the noncash charge related to the environmental provisions, which helped to offset inflationary pressures and higher selling expenses. The increase in selling expenses was driven by above inflation rate adjustments and additional rail capacity that we secured to support our sales commitments in the second half of the year. When including royalties, the FOB cost reduced from ZAR 1,674 per tonne last year to ZAR 1,598 per tonne in 2025. This reduction is consistent with the lower realized coal prices given the progressive royalty regime in Queensland. I would like to pause for a moment on the evolution of our capital spend in South Africa. On the slide, we show total CapEx spend, the sum of sustaining capital from 2022 through to 2025. And as expected in 2026, based on the upper end of the guidance we issued today. In 2022, the total CapEx of ZAR 1.9 billion was largely spent on sustaining CapEx, reflecting a focus on asset integrity and business continuity following the demerger. In 2023 and 2024, CapEx peaked to close to ZAR 3 billion as a result of expansionary CapEx spend to build Elders and the Zibulo North Shaft projects. The successful execution of these projects has transformed Thungela from a short life business at the time of listing into one with longer life assets that should generate attractive returns through the commodity price cycle. In 2025, total CapEx stepped down to ZAR 2.5 billion as the life-ex projects neared completion. Expansionary CapEx in 2025 also included spend on the gas project. Looking to 2026, we expect a reduced CapEx spend rate. Total CapEx is expected to reduce by 56% year-on-year to ZAR 1.1 billion at the upper end of guidance as expansionary CapEx has largely been spent and sustaining CapEx moves into a lower run rate. This reflects the group's commitment to disciplined capital allocation, investing through the cycle and now transitioning the South African business into a lower CapEx phase. Looking at the movement in net cash for the year. We started the year with ZAR 8.7 billion in cash. We paid ZAR 2.2 billion to shareholders through the 2024 final dividend and buyback in the 2025 interim dividend and buyback. We generated ZAR 2.4 billion in cash from operating activities, and that includes the ZAR 1.3 billion in inflows from the settlement of derivative currency instruments. We invested ZAR 1.1 billion and extending the life of the business through the Zibulo North Shaft and gas projects, and a further ZAR 2 billion in sustaining CapEx. In addition, we contributed ZAR 478 million in green funds in South Africa and Australia as required by the providers of environmental guarantees in those jurisdictions. We acquired the additional interest in Ensham for a total of ZAR 511 million. Together with other smaller movements, this leaves us with a total of ZAR 5.1 billion in net cash at the end of the year. Reflecting on what that means for shareholder returns, you'll be aware that the group's dividend policy is to distribute a minimum of 30% of adjusted operating free cash flow in the preceding period to shareholders. The group generated adjusted operating cash flows of ZAR 396 million for the year, which in itself does not necessitate a further distribution in terms of the dividend policy, recognizing the interim dividend of 281% (sic) [ ZAR 281 million ] is well above the minimum of 30%. Notwithstanding this, the Board remains committed to prioritizing shareholder returns where the balance sheet allows for it and to the extent that the future prospects of the group are supportive of such. Accordingly, the Board has declared a final ordinary dividend of ZAR 2 per share, reflecting distribution of ZAR 281 million pertaining to the final 2025 dividend declaration. Together with the interim dividend and the share buyback completed after our interim results, we are returning a total of ZAR 701 million to shareholders or 177% of adjusted operating free cash flow generated in 2025. The trust will also receive a further ZAR 31 million. This leaves the group with a cash buffer of approximately ZAR 4.7 billion, which the Board considers to be appropriate in the current market circumstances. With that, let me hand back to Moses for concluding comments. Moses Madondo: Thanks for that overview, Deon. Now let's turn to guidance for 2026. Starting in South Africa, productivity improvements across the portfolio, coupled with the improvements in TFR rail performance have limited the production hiatus we previously expected in 2026. Accordingly, export saleable production guidance for 2026 is 13 million tonnes to 13.6 million tonnes. Our production footprint is in transition. Annea continues to ramp up and is expected to reach steady-state production run rates in 2026, replacing volumes from Goedehoop. Zibulo North is also in ramp-up and is expected to reach steady-state production run rates in 2027. FOB cost, excluding royalties, is expected to be between ZAR 1,320 and ZAR 1,370 per tonne, in line with the previous guidance assumptions adjusted for inflation. Sustaining CapEx is expected to range between ZAR 700 million and ZAR 1 billion in 2026. With key life extension projects in South Africa now substantively complete, expansionary CapEx of only ZAR 100 million is expected in 2026 related to the completion of activities at the Zibulo North Shaft. At Ensham, export saleable production guidance for 2026 is between 3.9 million tonnes and 4.2 million tonnes. The mine is now better equipped to traverse geological faults while we have also made good progress on improving productivity. FOB cost, excluding royalties, is expected to be between ZAR 1,480 and ZAR 1,570 per tonne. Sustaining CapEx is expected to be between ZAR 500 million and ZAR 700 million. Production in 2027 across both geographies is expected to be broadly in line with 2026. Thungela moves into a new year as a resilient and well-positioned business. We remain focused on operating a fatality-free business and we will reinforce the zero-harm mindset through targeted interventions. Our established track record of controlling the controllables remains firmly in place, and we'll continue to drive operational excellence through cost efficiency and productivity improvements. This will be supported by a successful ramp-up of Annea and Zibulo North. At the gas project, we will continue to validate the commercial viability and marketability of the resource. Thungela's disciplined capital allocation framework remains a cornerstone of our strategic delivery. We will continue to maintain balance sheet resilience, ensuring the long-term sustainability of our assets by investing through the commodity cycle while also prioritizing returns to shareholders. As we look forward to the next chapter of Thungela, we'll build on a solid foundation and seize the opportunity to grow the business to its full potential, emboldened by good assets, resources and supportive stakeholders. Our people remain at the heart of the business, and I look forward to leading this amazing organization with a people-centric culture driven to achieve. I extend my sincere appreciation to the Board, my executive team, our employees, community partners and our shareholders. Thank you. Back to you, Hugo, for Q&A. Hugo Nunes: Thank you very much, Moses. We will now move to Q&A. [Operator Instructions] For those who have questions via the webinar platform, I'll be reading those out. Operator, please could I ask you to open the line for the first question. Operator: The first question we have is from Tim Clark of SBG Securities. J. Clark: Can you hear me? Hugo Nunes: Yes, we can. J. Clark: Perfect. My first question, Moses, is just your point, I think it's still on screen now where you talk about diversification options and creating future diversification options. You also spoke earlier on just about interaction with the Board on working with the Board on the next chapter. So given you've been in the business for a few months, I wonder if you could give us a little more flavor on that. And then my second question, maybe just while I've got the mic is just for Deon on the hedges. The gain was ZAR 2.3 billion. You said it was ZAR 1.3 billion in cash. Does that mean that the other cash is coming in this year? And are there any hedges outstanding at the moment? What is your hedge position as we stand right now? I'll leave it there for now. Moses Madondo: Tim, thank you for that question. Certainly, as I said, we have a business that's really set with a strong foundation and really a base to set up for us for growth. And of course, what we are very clear about is that we are going to chase growth. And that growth is going to come from -- informed by 2 things really. We play where we have really a strength to play and take those opportunities where we can -- we believe we can immediately see value come out of those assets. We, of course, got a strong balance sheet that's supportive for that growth, and the Board has been really supportive of this thinking in terms of our growth. And we are going to keep our discipline on capital allocation, which has been the theme of this business and really has delivered -- helped us deliver on our strategy. And maybe to close, there are no specific assets that we are necessarily targeting, but really driven by value and where we can realize value. J. Clark: Sorry, just to follow up on that. Just to understand playing to your strength, is that a sort of mining strength, the project strength? Where do you see Moses having been there for a few months, where do you see the kind of critical strength where you can add value to other projects? Moses Madondo: Yes. I think that's a very good follow-up, Tim, thanks. Really, the business is a business that has strength in people, capabilities. And some of those capabilities, of course, have showed up in our project delivery, which is incredible. We deliver our projects on time, within budget. And really, that provides us an opportunity to target those things that will allow us to apply those strengths. And technically, the team is strong. And so the ability to realize the value that we've seen out of Ensham also gives us the confidence that our ability to diversify to where the opportunities are that we can take full advantage of those opportunities. Deon Smith: Tim, thanks again for dialing in. In relation to hedges' question, there are 2 parts to the answer. The first one is the ZAR 2.3 billion tailwind in our income statement consists theoretically of 3 parts. Part 1 is you might recall in 2024, we booked a loss in relation to derivatives of about ZAR 450 million through the income statement. Clearly, that was at a point in time assessing the derivatives we had on hand, but that subsequently reversed in 2025. So that's one part. Part 2 is the ZAR 1.3 billion in cash that we made off the back of those derivatives. And then part 3 is essentially recognition that at the end of the year, we still had hedges in place, which will only unwind during 2026. So the most recent check on what we still have in place, which is the second part of the answer to your question, is that we have around $580 million forward sales, the most simplistic instrument to talk about. And the average rate of those was around ZAR 18.13 to $1. So in Jan and Feb, we converted about $170 million of that already at ZAR 18.40. And then clearly, there's another $400-odd million, $410 million that will vest up to the end of November this year, 2026 at an average rate of about ZAR 18.04. Hugo Nunes: Operator, any other calls? Operator: The next question we have comes from Brian Morgan of RMB Morgan Stanley. Brian Morgan: Can you just maybe chat to us about what your marketing team has been seeing in the last 3 weeks in the coal market? Perhaps if you could differentiate between energy customers or your power station customers and the sponge iron customers. I'd be interested to hear what they've been seeing. Hugo Nunes: Bernard, can I ask you to take that one? Bernard Dalton: Can you hear me? Brian Morgan: Yes. Bernard Dalton: Thanks very much, and thanks for the question, Brian. So in the last 2 weeks, we have clearly seen -- obviously seen an increase in the prices across both South Africa and also Richards Bay on the back of the war in the Middle East and Iran. Specifically, in terms of the 2 market sectors you spoke about, Brian, the first being the sponge iron, we had actually started seeing the sponge iron demand increase towards the back end of last year and become very strong during the first quarter of this year. Moses and I, in fact, were in India towards the back end of January and met with a number of the sponge iron customers, and they were extremely bullish. So we had really started to see that increase in demand during that period. Of late, given the energy security. But energy security across all sectors, we have seen an increase in demand. We've seen that in Southeast Asia. We've seen it in parts -- even in parts of Africa. So right now, we are definitely seeing firmer demand for all our products. Hugo Nunes: Sorry, that was Bernard, our Executive Head of Marketing. Any other questions? Brian Morgan: It's fantastic.Yes. Just maybe a follow-up, if I may. Given what's happened to coal prices, would you expect the sponge iron demand to remain firm or would begin to roll off? Bernard Dalton: Brian, it's a good follow-up question. Right now, the demand does remain firm. I guess the only concern we may have is that as we go forward and these prices remain firm that the inflationary pressures may step in and start muting demand a bit. But I have to say, overall, if you look at specifically India and you look at the infrastructure development plans, I remain positive for that sponge iron industry. Brian Morgan: If I can just move on to another question. Kleinkopje sale, how much of the rehab liability was transferred to the buyer? Deon Smith: So Brian, in both the Kleinkopje sale as well as the Goedehoop North transaction, whilst we entered into definitive sale and purchase agreements over the last number of months, both of those transactions are still subject to Section 11 approvals. That process also involves replacing the environmental guarantees in a methodology that we, alongside the regulator need to get ourselves comfortable is sustainable and responsible transfer of those liabilities. We estimate across those 2 transactions, if they are both successfully completed during 2026, which is our current time line, that we would derecognize around ZAR 1 billion of environmental liabilities by the end of the year. Brian Morgan: Do you have any others in the pipeline that you'd be looking at? Deon Smith: At this point in time, nothing to talk to you about, Brian. Hugo Nunes: Operator, any more questions on the line? Operator: There are no further questions, sir. Hugo Nunes: Thanks. I'll be reading out some questions, Moses, Deon Bernard. Perhaps the first one, Deon, for you from Giles at Apex Partners. With the post year-end depreciation of the ZAR relative to the USD and the increases in the benchmark coal prices, is there a likelihood of a portion of the ZAR 8.8 billion impairments being reversed in the first half of 2026? Deon Smith: It's indeed a very good question. And we've said before, we do an impairment check probably every 6 months. It so happens that at the time of end of December, there was a confluence of matters that between the forward-looking coal price and the foreign exchange rates that this impairment was fairly pronounced. The review as to the appropriateness of our PPE balance will continue every 6 months. The hurdle to reverse an impairment is much higher. The Board management needs to be convinced and have high conviction that the structural change in price and FX into the future is indeed sustainable. And therefore, I think it's highly unlikely for such a reversal. Remember, this impairment was noncash and the noncash reversal, I think, would be even less likely. So whilst we will review it and if there is a structural change and we can convince ourselves of the need to reverse fully or partially, but I think that is highly unlikely. Hugo Nunes: Next question, Moses, for you. What is the optimal TFR rail performance volume for Thungela? If it was 56.8 million tonnes in 2025, what would TGA management like to see this improve to in 2026? Moses Madondo: Thank you, Hugo. Richards Bay terminal this year are planning to receive up to 60 million tonnes in 2026. And this is reasonable from what we've seen in the first 3 months of the year. We are comfortable that we can rail our allocation to that 60 million tonnes. Hugo Nunes: A question from Chris Reddy at All Weather Capital. Regarding capital and excess cash going forward, what are the views regarding buybacks and/or special dividends going forward given higher coal prices and weaker currency? Deon Smith: Good to know all those on the call. Thank you very much for your question. So you might recall 2 years ago that we had some of our larger shareholders not vote in favor of our special resolution at the AGM to approve the share buyback. And clearly, we're respectful of all shareholders' perspectives and wishes on whether to receive cash back or through buybacks. What we've demonstrated is that we will, at every cycle, carefully consider the proportion of buybacks versus dividends. But as a general rule, I think what we've said before and we can repeat is that our dividend policy remains. We will pay back a minimum of 30% of our adjusted operating free cash flow. And any excess cash above that 30%, we would split between a buyback and a dividend and probably in the ratio of 1/3 buyback and 2/3 cash dividends. Shareholders are, of course, welcome to reinvest that cash back into the share also. Hugo Nunes: Thanks, Deon. Moses, a question from David Fraser at Peregrine Capital. Please clarify, would you look at acquisitions outside of coal? Moses Madondo: Thank you for that question. We're working with the Board. Again, we're looking at our strategy this year and look towards June to complete that process. Of course, as we again reiterate our position is always we look for those opportunities where we are able to make a difference and add value and where our strengths are the right to play. So of course, opportunities that come and fall within those parameters, we will most certainly consider. Hugo Nunes: Thanks Moses. Deon, a question from Shashi Shekhar from Citi. The FOB cost guidance implies a circa 15% increase in South Africa cost while just 6% increase in Australia. Could you please elaborate more on this? Deon Smith: Shashi, good to hear from you. I know we can unpack this in a lot more detail a bit later on our one-on-one call. In some ways, we are a victim of our success in the cost per tonne in 2025. Previously, we estimated if you look at our guidance range for '25 that we'll spend a lot more per tonne. Clearly, the markets didn't allow us to do that, and we also produced at a much higher run rate than what we anticipated last year, also achieving above run rate production outcomes relative to our guidance. So our cost per tonne benefited very favorably in 2025 from conditions at the time. If you then look at the midpoint increase, so from what we actually achieved in 2025 to the midpoint in 2026, that increase isn't as pronounced. It's slightly higher than inflationary. But we'll unpack that a bit later on today when we speak one-on-one. It is a normalization of that cost. Yet again, for obvious reasons, internally, we will target the lowest possible cost per tonne in 2026, and we hope to surprise you again on that outcome. Hugo Nunes: Thanks, Deon. Deon just a question from Herbert from Absa. With the developments in the Middle East, are you getting any interest from Europe? Are you in any position to service that market? Deon Smith: Good to hear from you, Herbert. The answer is always yes. We -- since -- in the last 2, 3 years, Bernard and his team has broadened the flow of our coals across many, many, many jurisdictions, ranging from Europe, Middle East, Far East, Southeast Asia. And our spread of coals is now much broader. Yes, the heightened tensions in Europe and the recent events even over this past weekend has given Europe much to effect on in terms of energy security and inbound calls from actually many geographies, not only Europe, has continued since the onset of the conflict in Iran. Hugo Nunes: Thanks Deon. Operator, any further calls on -- or any questions on the call? Operator: We have a question from Tim Clark of SBG Securities. J. Clark: Can I just ask about your life of mine? I just noticed on your reserves that there's a bit of a transfer out for the Four Seam at Mafube. Does that affect life of mine? Or we don't seem to -- I mean, I know you're only able to release the full reserve statement later. I just wondered if you could give us that one. And then Deon, just on depreciation for next year. With the massive impairments, it's quite hard for us to back up what the depreciation is likely to come out that given the PPE is down so much. Can you give us some guidance there, please? Moses Madondo: Tim, I can cover the front and you can cover the second question there, Deon. In terms of the life of mine, of course, both Annea as well as Zibulo do have opportunities for us to exploit in terms of the Four Seam opportunities there. So the current life of mine, of course, informed by the Seam work, we are continuing -- starting work now to study the opportunities that Four Seam opportunities provide. Of course, in the right market and the right prices, those opportunities can come to bear. But like I said, we are starting the studies on both of those. Deon Smith: And just in terms of the resource and reserve statement, so the Four Seam at Mafube is not going to affect the life of mine at Mafube. There are options that we are looking at extracting that also. So no, that is just a temporary feature as to where that mine finds itself in its life of mining cycle until the most credible pathway to extract that Four Seam and sell it is redetermined. In terms of your second question on depreciation, you would have seen that if you look at our income statement a bit more closely and again, on our one-on-one call later today, we can unpack that a bit more. But our depreciation has actually increased in 2025. And the reason for that increase is clearly as a result of the Elders or now in near mine and the Zibulo North Shaft capital that has made its way into PPE. So that depreciation has come into our income statement also. We will certainly help with a high-level view on what we believe depreciation is likely to be in 2026. But you are correct that it is probably going to be down by about 40% on what we've seen historically. So that's into 2026 as a result of that. Hugo Nunes: Okay. Last question then just for Moses. Ensham had a good production volumes in the second half of the year to recover full year volumes after the challenging geology in the first half. Is there any more challenging geology expected in the mining plan in 2026? Moses Madondo: Thank you for that question. Of course, mining is always got geology that we need to navigate through. I think the challenges of H1, the team has done good work to land and therefore, you saw the response in H2, as you point out, quite a positive response. It's really informed by our ability to respond to those geological conditions and setting ourselves for success. We've created capacity to with an exceptional team to deal with the geology as well as panels that we can keep the 5 key teams that are operating at Ensham always in full production. Hugo Nunes: Good. I'll wrap up the Q&A session here. If you were not able to get your -- if we were not able to get to your question today, please do get in touch with myself or Shreshini via e-mail. Thank you to everyone for making the time to join our results presentation today, and we wish you a pleasant afternoon further. Thank you.
Operator: Welcome to the Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc Quarterly and Full Year Results 2025 Presentation for Analysts and Investors. I would now like to hand you over to Mark Learmonth, the CEO. Mark, over to you. Mark Learmonth: Afternoon, and welcome to this management conference call. If we could move to the first slide of the presentation, please. Just go to the disclaimer. So that is the standard disclaimer. If we could go on to the next slide, please. Presenting teams, there is me, Mark Learmonth, Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc’s Chief Executive. We are also joined by Ross Jerrard, who will run us through the financial performance for the year; Victor Gapare, who will talk to us about what is happening at Bilboes; and Craig Harvey will give us an update on the various exploration initiatives. If we could move on to the next slide please. So just in terms of the summary of the results, it was a very strong financial performance, underpinned by a higher gold price and some consistent operating delivery. Revenue up by 46% to $267,000,000. Gross profit up by 78% to $137,000,000. EBITDA up by 100% from just less than $60,000,000 to just over $125,000,000. And profit after tax up by 200% from $23,000,000 to $67,000,000. So there are some quite big numbers there. Ross will unpack those numbers in more detail in a moment. We move on to the next slide, please? Before we go much further, can we just briefly discuss Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc’s value creation proposition? So from one angle, what we see here is looking at this from the perspective of our distributions in country, to government by way of taxes and royalties and also to our local shareholders. Over the course of the last nine years, we have distributed just over a quarter of $1,000,000,000. We are making a very, very substantial contribution. And you can see quite how that increased in 2025 as a result of higher taxes due to higher profitability, higher royalties due to the higher gold price, but also an increase in local dividend payments to our local minority shareholders as a result of the strong financial performance and the unwinding of certain local ownership initiatives. That is very pleasing to see. But moving on to the next slide. As well as paying a quarter of $1,000,000,000 out to local stakeholders, we have also delivered very significant value to our shareholders. So the top line shows Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc’s share price over 10 years with dividends, and we have given a return of just over 1,000%. Over the same period, GDXJ has increased by 464% and gold up by 300%. So as well as making significant contributions locally, we are also delivering a very, very healthy return for our shareholders. Should we move on to the next slide? Right. Let us just quickly focus on the operating results. Clearly, we had a very unfortunate fatality in September as a result of a secondary blasting incident. As a result of that, we initiated a comprehensive review of our safety practices and our safety procedures, our operating controls, and our training programs across the entire business with the objective of improving our risk management and making sure that we operate as safely as it is possible to do in a very hostile underground environment. That includes instilling operational discipline, a proactive forward-looking approach to identifying hazards and avoiding such hazards, and embedding a zero-harm culture across the organization. Should we move on to the next slide? What we see here is the usual graph. The top graph shows our tons milled and grade. The bottom graph, the bars show the ounces, and the line shows the recovery. What is notable really on the top graph is that the tons milled has been stable. We are pretty much operating the metallurgical plant, the crushing and milling and the CIL plant, pretty much operating that at maximum capacity of about 820,000 tons a year. And that has been very stable, largely because we have been able to make use of the stockpile to draw down from the stockpile on those rare occasions when the mine has not been delivering the tons. But also what is clear from the lower line is the extent to which the grade is lower in Q4 or Q3 than it has been historically. Part of that is due to the fact that temporarily we are mining lower grade areas. We are developing into high grade areas that we expect will reverse into 2026. So in January and February, we were still mining relatively low grade areas; that has improved in March. And also to some extent, as we have been drawing down from the stockpile, the stockpile itself is relatively low grade. The bottom chart clearly shows the ounces, but it shows the drop in recovery, and that is largely due to the lower feed grade. The tail grade that we deposit onto the tailings facility, pretty much it is 0.2 grams. We are not going to get much better than that. So inevitably that means that the difference being that the recovery goes down. Can we move on to the next slide? Craig will talk in a lot more detail about exploration towards the end of the presentation. Our exploration activities at Blanket are really targeted with replacing what we are depleting. So we are effectively standing still. Nevertheless, we have actually done rather better than that. So over the course of the year, over the course of the quarter, it was Q4, you can see that we added quite substantially more tons than we depleted. And as Craig will explain later on, that will in due course result in a revised reserve and resource statement for Blanket. Should we move on? Right. I will now ask Ross if he could run us through the financial results. Ross, could you do that? Ross Ian Jerrard: Thank you, Mark, and good afternoon, everyone. Before we dive into the financial results, I just wanted to draw your attention to the format of the reporting. And as previously advised, Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc is now classified as a foreign private issuer under Canadian rules. So the standard filing requirements in Canada that you have historically seen have changed. We will be filing full financial statements under the SEC rules, so included in our 20-F, which is scheduled to be filed in April, you will see the full financial statements and controls attestation. And that is all going to be done in April. So I am delighted to talk you through the financial results today. And you can see on the summary slide in front of you, we have had a fantastic year. The performance was really driven by the benefit of the higher gold price environment but also delivering the ounces. Blanket Mine produced 76,000 ounces of gold in 2025 and sold 77,000 ounces. The 1,683 ounces of gold inventory movement and other adjustments together total 79,000 ounces on the top right-hand of the chart. Importantly, to highlight, our on-mine costs were up some 19%, and the unit costs were marginally above those cost guidance ranges that we had guided the market. This was really a reflection of the restricted access to some of the higher grade areas, but also some inflationary pressures and our continued investment in development to ensure long-term operational reliability and safety, but also that grade profile. So with grade coming through slightly lower than we had originally anticipated, that did have a flow-on impact on our unit costs, just slightly above what we had guided. The overall result, though, was a very pleasing financial result with EBITDA up 109% to $125,300,000, which was a significant improvement. And after our capital expenditure, which was largely on track to guidance when you take into account some commitments that will roll over year-end, we delivered on our CapEx profile, all resulting in healthy free cash flow of $62,000,000, which was up some 483% on the prior year. And after our distributions, it resulted in earnings per share of $2.83, which again was up over 200% for the year. So a very pleasing set of financial results. Just diving into a little bit more on production costs, so if we can turn to the next slide, please. You can see in the bottom right-hand pie chart that the makeup of production cost categories is largely driven by labor, consumables, and power, indicated with the blue, orange, and green slices, and then a little bit, 10%, across admin. You will see in the figures our overall production costs went up 25% across the group; 19% was an increase at Blanket. Really those were driven by those three buckets of labor, consumables, and power. Our labor costs were up this year again due to higher overtime payments that were made during the year and production bonuses together with some wage inflation. But really the delivery of the ounces needed more volume being moved and hoisted to compensate for that lower grade, and as a result, we had to pay that overtime and the various bonuses that came through the system. Our consumables were up some 14% for the year. This was driven by some of the inflationary impacts on consumables, reagents, and the like. But there is a ZIG premium in terms of local procurement. There has been a big push this year in terms of deploying our local ZIG components back into the market. With that, there is a slight difference with the ZIG versus U.S. dollar differential in terms of the local market. And I would highlight that it has been a very pleasing year in terms of foreign currency. The differential between the ZIG and the U.S. is very close now. We are not seeing the high differentials that we have seen in the past. But as we have taken a strategic decision to deploy into the local procurement market using ZIG, we have incurred an additional premium in terms of that ZIG to U.S. dollar differential. We will talk a little bit more about the overall forex loss when we talk through the cash flows. But that has been a driver in terms of our consumables. Our power costs have been grid and genset power, which has been really driven by supporting that additional output. We are obviously mining in deeper areas within the mine, driving higher power usage and requirements and obviously incurring more power. And we do have initiatives in place that will address these three buckets as part of our ongoing cost initiatives to ensure that we can at least reduce or at least maintain our cost profiles in those significant buckets. Moving on to the next slide, please. You will see the results as we work our way through the profit and loss. So top line revenue up at $267,000,000, driven by those ounces and the higher gold price that I had spoken to. Our royalty this year was up at $13,500,000. That is driven by the higher revenue number. And I would draw your attention to the change in the royalty rates. As we deliver ounces over $2,000 an ounce, they do attract an additional 5% royalty charge. Our production costs, as already indicated, are up some 25%, and depreciation charges were largely unchanged. So we are very pleased with our gross profit that was generated, up some 78% for the year, driven by those improved margins and thanks to the gold price. You will see the net foreign exchange losses were down from $9,700,000 to $3,300,000 this year, and again that was a very pleasing result in terms of the exchange differential that we had historically seen, and we are very pleased with the ability to access the willing buyer, willing seller market. $8,500,000 is the profit on our solar plant. I will not talk to that. We have gone through that in previous results presentations, but it was pleasing in terms of being able to sell that asset, generate proceeds that we could then deploy across the group. I would draw your attention to the administration costs at $20,480,000. That is higher than the historical run-rate and general trending that we see going forward. This year, we have incurred some quite significant one-off fees, predominantly around our advisory fees related to the convertible, some additional employee costs that have gone through the system, and some other transaction costs we do not see ongoing. And we think that run-rate will come off by some 10%–12%, more closer to a $17,000,000 type number on a per annum basis. We have incurred a fair value loss on our derivative financial instruments, so those are the hedging instruments that we put in place to protect our side, our mine, and the gold price at a $3,100 gold price. So those hedging instruments are really put through the P&L. We do not do any hedge accounting or anything that is nuanced to that extent. So everything goes through the profit or loss. And we were delighted with the ultimate profit before tax of $106,000,000, up 162%. The tax expense was higher off this great result but also included the capital gains tax on the solar plant sale, which pushed up that tax expense a bit more than a normal run-rate, but we are delighted with our P&L result with our overall profit for the period of $67,500,000. If we can move on to the next slide, please, and let us quickly touch on some of those aspects from a cash flow perspective. So our cash flow from operations was up at $105,000,000, up 90%. I have spoken to interest and tax payments, included that solar sale. Our CapEx was on track in terms of what we had guided the market in terms of expenditures. And the proceeds from the sale and the gross proceeds from the solar sale were able to be deployed into our treasury options, where we deployed those into various fixed-term deposits during the year. And we were able to allocate central treasury and start our treasury function as we look to Bilboes and beyond. Ultimately, our net cash used in investing activities was able to then be deployed across some dividends paid. The $19,900,000 was a result of dividends paid both to our Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc shareholders of $10,800,000 but also to GSCOT and NIEEF, so they are various partners at the Blanket Mine level in terms of deployment. So they got $5,500,000 and $3,600,000, respectively. A very pleasing close to the period with a net increase in cash and cash equivalents of $32,000,000 for the year, which was a great result. If we move to the next slide, you will see our overall liquidity and what it means is that we exited the year with cash on hand of $35,700,000, and if you add in our bullion on hand at year-end plus some gold sales receivables and our fixed-term deposits, before utilization of facilities we had almost $60,000,000 available to us and a total liquidity of just under $55,000,000. So a very pleasing result and very solid position in terms of our performance for the year. On top of that, in early 2026, we were able to successfully complete a $150,000,000 convertible note offering, where, after inputting a capital structure, we received a net $130,000,000. So post year-end, we are in a very healthy cash position as we look to further development of Blanket but importantly as we start our deployment and our spend on our Bilboes project, which I will talk to in a couple of minutes. So moving on, I had mentioned that CapEx was largely on track and you will see our various expenditures that were aligned with guidance, so nothing that stood out in terms of where we spent the money. But ongoing sustaining capital expenditure was really about underground mine development, where we spent 22% of the CapEx budget, and that was really development and looking at new mining areas and underground developments targeting additional reserves and resources. Thirty-one percent of the spend was sitting in the engineering department and that covered the whole bouquet of electrical, mechanical, and central shaft upgrading and engineering. And then there was 27% that went across the other mining departments in terms of mines, milling, and the MRM department. Our only non-sustaining CapEx project was the tailings storage facility and that accounted for 20% of the CapEx spend. So turning to the next slide, you will see the slice of where those various spends occurred in terms of sustaining and non-sustaining split. But we were pleased that we were able to deliver those CapEx projects and continue to invest in the mine for the future with some solid cash flow generation. If we move to the next slide, please. Closing off on CapEx, you will see in the announcement that there have been some additional CapEx approvals by the Board. So our total group capital expenditure for this financial year 2026 is projected to be $178,900,000. The two key projects that were approved last week by the Board were $14,200,000 construction of a $34,000,000 power line connecting to the 132 kV backbone and a $2,200,000 allocation against the central winder for the central shaft, converting it from AC to DC. Both projects are great projects with quick payback periods and really underwrite some solid reliability in terms of power usage at the mine and also some imperative upgrades in terms of the underground mine. So we are looking to the future, investing in the future, making sure that some of these critical projects are delivered. Over and above that sustaining CapEx, we have $136,000,000 allocated primarily against Bilboes, where $132,000,000 is anticipated to be spent against both the FEED phase but also some early deployment of expenditures against the Bilboes project, and then just shy of $4,000,000 which is further exploration at the Motapa project. If we can move to the next slide, please. We are delighted that the results of 2025 have delivered a solid performance and we are continually looking at that balance of our capital allocation in terms of both growth projects and shareholder returns. As you can see in CapEx that we have both delivered and planned to deliver, we are looking at growth for the future and investing in that future for the long term. Equally conscious about shareholder returns. So we are delighted to have another dividend, a quarterly dividend of $0.14 per share. Dividends have been paid since 2012, so we continue with that continued payment of dividends and balancing both growth and shareholder returns. And I will just draw your attention to the key dates in terms of that dividend payment. So if we can switch to the next slide, please. I will now take the opportunity to hand it across to Victor to talk a little bit more about Bilboes. Victor Robinson Gapare: Thank you, Ross. Can we move to the next slide? With regards to Bilboes, we have previously announced that the Board approved this project implementation in November. Basically, all the parameters which are in there, we have announced them before. An IRR of 32.5% at a gold price of $1,548. Obviously, the returns are materially higher at prevailing spot gold prices. Can we move on to the next slide? Basically, what we have shown here are the economics at three different prices: the consensus forecast of $2,548 per ounce, the three-year trailing average price of $2,350, and the price which was on 10/2026, which was $5,177 per ounce. Obviously, there has been some volatility in the price of gold, so those figures, at the end, you can put any price you want, and you can come up with different margins. But clearly, you will see that economics change quite significantly if we apply the current economics. That is all we are showing. So effectively, what we have done is we have started implementing the project following approval. As Ross has said, we have raised some money and we have appointed an EPCM contractor, and that work has started. We are hoping for the plan to have the first gold pour towards the end of 2028, and our first year of full production will be 2029, which would be at just about 200,000 ounces per year. That is peak production. Can we move to the next slide? Ross will cover the funding aspects—what we have done and what we are planning to do. Ross, over to you. Ross Ian Jerrard: Thank you, Victor. So our funding strategy for Bilboes is covered by four funding pillars, and we are delighted with our progress in terms of how we are tracking against that strategy. The first phase was underwriting our Blanket production and securing a series of put options at a price of $3,500 per ounce that covered a three-year period from January 2026 to December 2028, effectively the construction period. The key elements of that hedging strategy were really to provide a floor to the cash flows that were generated. It was not giving up any upside in terms of gold price above $3,500, but it did enable us to basically earmark the best part of $200,000,000 from our own operations that we could deploy against the Bilboes project. At prices closer to $5,000 an ounce, that $200,000,000 escalates to closer to $300,000,000. So it is a core, cornerstone strategy in terms of using our current asset on the portfolio to underwrite the strategy. It also helped us in terms of our pricing with the various banks and financial institutions in terms of how we would take on our various debt facilities. The second step, as you have seen and previously mentioned, is the raising of some funds from a convertible note offering. It was a $150,000,000 raise, upsized from $100,000,000 due to some amazing demand out of the U.S., and we are delighted with the result that we were able to receive those funds in short order. And we were also able to allocate some of those funds against the cap-call structure, which effectively increased the conversion price to $56 a share, up from $40 a share. So those two steps, steps one and two, have been completed and have enabled us to be able to move forward in short order in terms of the remaining funding facilities. The first one is an interim funding facility, so we are currently in negotiations with a consortium of both Zimbabwean and South African banks to raise a $150,000,000 facility. You would have seen the announcement in terms of appointing Standard Bank and CBZ as co-lead arrangers for that facility. We are targeting the middle of this year to get that facility in place, and the cornerstone of that is, again, the Blanket Mine cash flows. And in parallel with that, the fourth arm is really the project finance facility, a longer burn rate in terms of getting that facility in place, but that formal process has commenced, and we are expecting that to be delivered in the next 12 months with the various due diligence procedures. So we are very pleased around where we are positioned with what we have done to date in terms of underwriting that financing strategy, and we are on track in terms of the discussions with the various banks and financial institutions. If we turn to the next slide, we will just illustrate, I guess, our thought process and the overview in terms of our sources and uses and actually how we believe that this funding requirement will be met. I will refer you to the right-hand side of the slide in the first instance, in terms of the use of funds. So you will see our capital cost is basically $485,000,000, but when you add in our capitalized interest and some working capital, the ask is closer to $600,000,000 in terms of a package. On the left-hand side, you will see the column at $3,500 an ounce, and you can see, together with our cash and our net proceeds from the convertible bond and our forecast future cash flows, the ask from senior debt and other facilities is just over $300,000,000 in terms of delivery of those funds. If we move that pricing deck up to $5,000 an ounce, you will see that senior debt and other facilities reduce down to close to $170,000,000, and we are well on track in terms of getting that funding in place between both the interim and the wider project finance facilities. We are really pleased in terms of the status of the financing workstream. Importantly, we have got some big spend that is coming up. So we need to deploy the best part of $130,000,000 in the third and fourth quarters of this year as we start the more significant spend on the Bilboes project. And we are excited about that, well on track with that, and I think it is all coming together very nicely. So with that, I will hand it across to Craig Harvey. Craig Harvey: Thank you, Ross. I will just give you an overview of the exploration activities that have taken place at Motapa and Blanket in the past year. So if you could go on to the next slide, please. So 2024 and 2025, Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc has put quite a lot of money into Motapa. We have drilled surface drill holes totaling just under 30,000 meters. It is a very strategic asset. As we can see on the map on the screen, it is located directly to the south of the Bilboes project, which we have just heard about. That kind of scale from the top of North to Bilboes is between 200 to 400 meters away. So I think we can all draw our own conclusions as to synergies between Bilboes and Motapa, bearing in mind it is basically hosted into the same shear zone. Mineralogy and metallurgy are expected to be quite similar. So going forward for 2026, we have had a further allocation of $3,800,000 for exploration. We will continue looking at Mapuzi, and we are going to focus on Motapa South for the year. Clearly, there is potential for a sulfide resource below the historic open pits, but at the same time, there is a strong potential for oxides to the east. We have put in two drill holes to have a look. Results were encouraging. So things to look out for at Motapa: during Q2 2026, the company will probably be publishing a maiden resource estimate. We are just waiting for some of the final QA/QC checks of the data and geological interpretations to be complete. But in all likelihood during 2026, we will see what the drilling activities have actually given us. If you can move on to the next slide, please. So during 2025, there has been a continued deep hole or long hole exploration program at Blanket. Just to give you an overview of the areas that we are drilling: on the northern side of the property, which is to the left of the image where you can see Lima, it is the Lima and Eroica ore bodies, and to the south on the right of the image, that is the mainstay of the mine—that is the Blanket and the Blanket Quartz Reef ore bodies. So I will zoom into a bit more detail on each of these areas. Could we move on to the next slide, please. So on the Blanket side, where we have essentially a whole bunch of ore bodies that come together—AR South, the Blanket Quartz Reef, and the Blanket ore bodies—and the Blanket ore bodies are Blanket 1 through to Blanket 6. Of course, we have also got Blanket 7 now. What is important to note here: I have got a grade legend on the side of the map there, and really what you want to be looking for is the little purple stripes that you see coming off from those draw-off traces. Anything that is purple there is 5 grams a ton plus. Now in the next month or two, again we are just finalizing some QA checking from the lab, we will be putting out a press release regarding the drilling results that we have done at Blanket. That will give people insight into the widths that we encounter in these grades. Very, very exciting. So 34 Level is the base of the Blanket Mine currently. We are putting a decline, as you can see there, from 34 to 36 Level. It is on 36 Level at the moment. We are starting with the 36 Level infrastructure development. And what is key to note: 34 Level is 1,110 meters below surface. The deepest hole there that we have represented with those little purple stripes is 277 meters below 34 Level. Now 277 meters below 34 Level equates to a depth of approximately 1,350 meters, which equates to 42 Level. So the main levels of set-up are 34 to 38, 20-meter lifts apart. So we are quite clearly looking at, all things being equal, another two main lifts at Blanket that we are going to have a look at. Very encouraging. We carry on doing the work. Just to give a bit of reference, if you had to move to the south to the right of the image, we will be putting in another hanging wall drill cubby to create another fan of drill holes in due course adjacent to these holes. This is at the limit of our inferred resources. So clearly with this drilling coming in, we will be looking at upgrading inferred to indicated, as Mark, the CEO, has indicated, with a view to upgrading mineral resources and mineral reserves in due course. If we can move on to the next slide, which then focuses on the northern portion of Blanket Mine. So on the very left, the very northern portion where there is a little bit of colorful goods that you see there—stopes—is the Lima ore body. And in the middle is the Eroica ore body. Now Eroica has been a mainstay. Why you only see a couple of drill holes there is the majority of this area was drilled during 2023 and 2024. You can already see some of the development that is accessing these areas. The majority of this area is now indicated resource. But you can also see that there is a long hole that is also maybe 60 meters below 34 Level—so currently on a 36 Level type horizon. Clearly, as we advance 34 Level, we will have a hanging wall cubby put in place, and we will continue drilling on the Eroica ore body from 34 Level down to 42 Level. The left-hand side with Lima, again you can see some of those little purple stripes which represent 5 grams a ton plus. One hole, on purpose, we pushed down to around the 34 Level mark to test the depth to see that we are not wasting our money. We did pick up the Lima ore body, but Lima itself is not one single ore body; it is made up of six ore bodies. So there is a lot of scope to continue doing this. The lowest level of mining on Lima is at 750 meters below surface. You can just work out for yourself, if we take it down another 250 to 300 meters, we are talking 22 Level to 34 Level of mineral resources that may be exploited. Again, below 22 Level, it is inferred resources on Lima. With the drilling coming in, we will be looking at including that and seeing if we can upgrade some of the inferred resources into an indicated resource or better. So in a nutshell, Blanket keeps on going. The grades are still looking good. The grades, the widths—we obviously model what we are expecting to find with our drilling, and it continues to return similar, if not better, results at depth. So thank you for that. With that, I will hand back to Mark to give some closing comments. Mark Learmonth: Good. Thank you, Craig. We have kind of run out of time, so I just want to draw your attention to an event that we hosted on the fringes of the Cape Town Mining Indaba in February. Along with five or six other foreign-owned Zimbabwe mining companies, we hosted a briefing event where we invited representatives from the Zimbabwe government—Minister of Mines, Minister of Finance, and the Reserve Bank—and the objective was to try and dispel some of the pervasive, continued misunderstandings about what it is like to operate in Zimbabwe. It was very well attended, and the way the representatives of the Zimbabwean authorities engaged in a very transparent, constructive way with the audience hopefully is a first step—first step of many—to trying to overturn some of these misunderstandings about Zimbabwe. So that was very good. Can we move on to the next slide? So just to finish and move on to questions. Clearly, our strategic focus after the fatality last year is to continue commitment to the safety of our people, the objective to maintain reliable operations at Blanket, which, let us face it, is going to be an important generator of capital for the construction of Bilboes, but, as you have heard from Craig, has very significant long-term extension plans in its own right. Leverage the strong gold price to invest in Blanket’s projects to create operating resilience and to mitigate further input cost pressures. Moving along with Bilboes as quickly as we can in terms of the financing and development plan. And to continue to explore at Motapa, which in due course we think will be a very exciting project. So all of those together really mean that we are continuing to execute our strategy to become a multi-asset, Zimbabwe-focused gold producer. So I think that is the end of the presentation. Can we open it up to questions, please? Operator: Thanks very much, Mark. If I could just remind people, if they would like to ask a question, please use the raise hand button that is at the bottom of your screen. We will pause for a few seconds just to wait for people to raise their hands in order to ask a question. Our first question is going to be from Howard Flinker. Howard, I have unmuted you. Please unmute yourself, and then please ask the question to the team. Howard Flinker: Can you hear me now? Yep. What is the maturity of the convertible bond? I have another question too. Mark Learmonth: It is—I think it is seven—is it seven years, Ross? It is a slightly longer-dated maturity than most convertibles, and that was specifically so that it matures outside the timing of the scheduled repayment of the project finance. Ross, is it seven or was it slightly longer? Ross Ian Jerrard: Seven years. Seven years. So 2033? Yep. Mark Learmonth: Next question, Howard. Howard Flinker: Yep. And I thought this solar plant was in Jersey Island. Mark Learmonth: So that would be a big mistake because it is often not very sunny here. Howard Flinker: No. I thought the ownership was there and it was tax free. What is the capital gains rate on that? Mark Learmonth: Roughly. Ross Ian Jerrard: It ended up being $2,000,000. So—and there was a combination—some of it was on a total capital gain, and there was an element, but it was $2,000,000. Howard Flinker: Oh, and what is the tax rate on the loss on the derivative? Was that a regular tax rate or something different? Ross Ian Jerrard: No. So all the derivatives are held outside. They are all held here corporate. So it is 0% for the derivatives because they are sitting in Jersey. Mark Learmonth: I think for practical purposes, it would be very difficult—strike impossible—to structure derivative holding through Zimbabwe. I think having to go through the various RBZ approval processes would just fly in the face of being able to—you know, when you decide to do these things, you do them very quickly, and to have to pause for RBZ approval would just make it impossible. Howard Flinker: So the effective tax rate on the derivative pre-tax and post-tax is the same, right? Zero taxes. Ross Ian Jerrard: Zero. That is right. That is right. Yeah. Howard Flinker: Finally, I am going to say this is pretty thorough financial accounting. Nice job. Ross Ian Jerrard: Nice. Thank you, boss. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. You are welcome. Operator: Howard, we have got our next question from Joseph Parrish. Joseph, would you like to go ahead? Joseph Parrish: Yes. Great presentation and anticipated a lot of my questions, so this will simplify things a bit. Only thing I really had left to ask has to do with power cost. You know, the solar plant, of course, was intended to keep those contained. With the recent conflict in the Middle East, there are temporary increases in fuel and energy prices. Depending on how long this goes on and maybe just with the higher operating cash flow you are enjoying on the mine, would further investment in solar plant facilities at Blanket become a higher priority as you are looking at these, or are these something that is being considered now? Mark Learmonth: No. No. It would not. So let us just deal with our exposure to fuel. Blanket uses about 2,000,000 liters of fuel a year. Approximately half of that is diesel generators. The other half is used on diesel equipment in the business. Last year’s diesel price—that represents about 3% of our OPEX. So we are not particularly exposed to diesel in our operating costs. And in terms of supply, we have got just over six months of supply either on the property or on consignment stock, so we are not particularly exposed there. The problem with solar is that when the sun does not shine, you do not get solar. And the particular issue we face right now is that the way electricity gets through the grid to Blanket means that the last 30-odd kilometers goes through a pretty poorly maintained 33 kV line, which typically has bigger reliability problems when it is rainy. And so you have got the combined effect of rain, which means that you have got a higher chance of power interruptions from the grid, and also it means that the solar panels are not working very well. So the two issues kind of compound each other. So what we are doing is we are putting in a 132 kV line, which we expect will reduce the average incidence of power outages from, say, 30 hours a month to an average of, say, three hours a month, and that will reduce our reliance on diesel. And once you connect to the 132 kV line, that gives you much more flexibility to access power both in-Zim and in the region. There is no shortage of power. So, frankly, solar kind of compounds the problem; it does not solve the problem. So the simple answer to your question is no, I am afraid. Joseph Parrish: Okay. Well, I appreciate the detail. I am sure investors will appreciate it as well. Thank you. Operator: Thank you. We are going to take our next question from Mike Kozak. Mike, unmuting you. Please go ahead. Mike Kozak: Yeah. Yeah. Good afternoon, guys. You hear me okay? Mark Learmonth: Yep. Mike Kozak: Great. So two questions from me. First one, sustaining capital for this year. It looks like it increased from $27,000,000 to $43,000,000, and you did a good job explaining where that money is going. But I did not flag any change to the 2026 all-in sustaining cost guidance that you guys set a couple of months ago, I think between $2,100 and $2,300 an ounce. Are you going to stick with that range? Mark Learmonth: No. That is clearly fallen between the gap, in that we got the Board approval a couple of days ago for the extra CapEx. And clearly, I guess that should flow through into all-in sustaining cost. Is that correct, Ross? Ross Ian Jerrard: That is right. And we are just looking at timing, Mike, in terms of when some of that will actually drop. So while the projects have been approved, we are just going to see when they are scheduled to be paid. Mike Kozak: Okay. Got it. Thanks for that. And then my second one, if I back out from your earlier quarterly results from last year, I should say, it looks like Q4 you recorded a derivative loss of around $4,800,000, I think. Is all of that related to the put options you guys bought in December, or is there something else going on there? Ross Ian Jerrard: That is all to do with the puts. Mark Learmonth: To be clear, even with this current volatility, the gold price is much higher than the put price. The point of the puts is, I think, as Ross outlined—just to reinforce the point—is it creates a floor price for the purposes of the Zim banks in terms of putting together the interim funding facility. So it is still strategically important to us. Mike Kozak: For sure. I just want, for my own numbers, to know what to adjust out for and what to expect in future quarters. I just wanted some clarity on that. I appreciate it, guys. Thank you. Operator: Thank you, Mike. Thank you. We have got our next question from Nic Dinham. Nic, please go ahead. Nic Dinham: Hi, everybody. Usually, I would like to just spread around the questions. The first is for Craig, I think. Craig, it does look encouraging what you are doing. But coming back to Blanket Mine, are the reconciliations between what you are actually getting out of the mine at the moment adhering to what you would have expected from your reserve models? Craig Harvey: Hi, Nic. Yes. Yes. So Q4 was affected by a couple of forced moves that we had to make. We could not access the areas as quickly as we would have liked. So we were forced into maintaining production out of some lower grade, some medium grade areas. As we all know in mining, trouble always hits your higher grade areas, and people see it. So yes, it is maintaining what we are expecting. Nic Dinham: Okay. Excellent. I think the next question is for Ross. Ross, it is a usual one. Have you repaid your facilitation loans to your non-controlling interests? And the second question with that, I will have a few more, but second question is, how many dividends did you distribute from Blanket? Eventually, can we get some numbers here? It was not quite clear. Ross Ian Jerrard: Nic, so I will do it the other way around. There were $60,000,000 of dividends that were declared in 2025 from Blanket. Not all of that equated to actually cash moved; there was an opening balance and timing of the payments post period, but it was $60,000,000, and there is a $5,000,000 rollover with $44,000,000 paid during this year. So high level $60,000,000, but there were some timing differences in terms of the cash flows. BETZ repaid its facilitation loans in Q4 2025. Mark Learmonth: That is the employee trust? Ross Ian Jerrard: Sorry, that is the employee trust. And NIEEF has got about $500,000 left on it to be repaid. And NIEEF is the government beneficial shareholder. Nic Dinham: Okay. So it is all over for them; from now, they will be securing their share of the dividends from now on. Ross Ian Jerrard: That is right. Yep. Nic Dinham: In your—actually, one of the questions about the loss on the derivative reporting—and obviously this is a moving piece because you are marking it to a price at the end of the period—do you have a sense of what that number would be if you were to take today’s price? What sort of loss would you be recording? Ross Ian Jerrard: I have not looked at it today. That range in the actual valuations ranges quite considerably as we do the pricing because it is a delivery of a put option each month for the next three years. So it is not a prima facie where we are under the three and a half; they are all written off on day one. There is a value that goes up. But no, I do not have the price for you today, especially after today’s. Nic Dinham: No. I just thought you might have an idea of sensitivity. And the last question is, you have started to accumulate some near-cash equivalents, and you have got some deposits being made here. What do you think you need in terms of keeping Blanket solvent and keeping the rest of business lubricated with cash? How much do you think is the minimum residual cash that you should have on hand at any one time, or cash equivalents at any one time? Ross Ian Jerrard: Okay. Well, selfishly, from a CFO perspective, I would rather have a little bit more in the back pocket than normal, but anywhere between $30,000,000 to $50,000,000, I think, would be a healthy position, particularly with the projects that are coming through the system. So we have got a large amount now that will be deployed, but I think having that sort of quantum on balance sheet just gives us some protection in terms of where we are going. Mark Learmonth: So, Ross, do you mean cash, or do you mean liquidity? Nic Dinham: Let us call it liquidity in terms of facilities. Ross Ian Jerrard: Yeah. Craig Harvey: Yep. Nic Dinham: Okay. And then just on the operational side, there was a discussion previously about a buildup of ore stocks. Now you have run them down again to meet the requirements of the end of this last period. Is your strategy still to rebuild those stockpiles? Mark Learmonth: Yes. So one of the things that we will be introducing in the middle of the year is a new shift system at Blanket to introduce two—it will do two things. First of all, it will introduce seven-day working at the mine as a standard, and that is pretty common now across the mining industry in Zimbabwe. The mine drilling and blasting only currently take place six days a week. So that should result in an extra day of drilling and blasting. If we can get the stuff trammed and hoisted in the ordinary course of events, that should give rise to an extra 100,000 tons a year. In the short term, we will be using that to accumulate a stockpile to see us through the hiatus relating to the AC-DC conversion. So currently, the central shaft winder works AC. We will be converting that to DC for safety reasons and also for cost reasons, but that will result in the central shaft not being able to hoist for a period of two to three weeks. And so we do need to make sure that we have got a healthy stockpile at the end of the year to see us through that. So it very much is the intention over the course of this year to build stockpiles. And then once we are confident that the shift system is working and we have got adequate stockpiles, then clearly we will be looking at what we need to do to address and use the extra production, increase our milling capacity. That is a work in progress. So at this stage, I cannot tell you what the costs of increasing that milling capacity would be and what the effect on OPEX would be. Let us just focus on the shift system, delivering the ounces, delivering the extra tons, building the stockpile to see us through the AC-DC conversion. And then for next year, there will be, hopefully, the story about how we are going to convert that into increased ounces. It is premature to say that at this stage. Nic Dinham: Okay. Excellent. Thank you. And then the final question for Victor here. At the end of this year—this time next year, sorry—at the end of 12 months’ time, you will have spent circa $130,000,000 on Bilboes. What will you have in place by the end of the period? What is your approach going to look like on the ground? Victor Robinson Gapare: Okay. So thank you, Nic. What we are really doing is placing orders—long lead items is what we are basically doing most of this year towards the end of this year. That is really what we will be doing. We will probably have some contractors moving in at the end of the year, but really most of the money we are spending this year is on orders on the long lead items. Mark Learmonth: It means very little physically to see. Victor Robinson Gapare: Yeah. Very little to see. The only thing you will see there are contractors moving in and starting to do some work. Nic Dinham: So this will be in the form of prepayments then, really, will it? Mark Learmonth: Payments and deposits. Nic Dinham: Yeah. Yep. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from Tatu Zuwonora. Please go ahead. Tatu Zuwonora: Hi. Can you hear me? Operator: Yep. Tatu Zuwonora: Alright. So I just have three questions. The first one, can you explain more about the consortium facility, as in which banks in South Africa you are courting? And what is their level of interest in supporting the company, given the 15% non-resident tax which resumed this year? Could you explain that? That is my first question. Mark Learmonth: The 15% non-resident tax—Ross, are you able to answer that? Ross Ian Jerrard: Not specifically for the banks, but we have got two South African banks and then the Zimbabwean banks that are participating. So half a dozen banks that we are talking to for the interim facility. And, yes, we have been pleased with the appetite to participate in such a facility with those banks. So, no, we have not had any negative connotations or discussions from that perspective. And then our facility is the African banks in terms of DFI that we are talking to, with a similar sort of feedback. Tatu Zuwonora: Okay. And my second question is, PGM companies have reported substantial amounts of their ZIG portion of the export proceeds are being trapped at the RBZ. I think there were complaints from Zimplats and Unki, and I wanted to find out if Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc is facing such a problem with their ZIG portion of the export proceeds being trapped at the RBZ. Mark Learmonth: Absolutely not. Tatu Zuwonora: Alright. Then my final question is, has your outlook changed in terms of the gold prices which you are expecting for the year, given the geopolitical tensions happening in the Middle East right now? Mark Learmonth: So do you mean that we are going to adjust our—are you asking if we are going to adjust our production level? Is that the question? Tatu Zuwonora: Yeah. Considering that the commodity market has become volatile owing to those geopolitical— Mark Learmonth: No. The mine plan is pretty much set. We cannot just arbitrarily increase and reduce production. The objective is to mine, to optimize operating efficiency, and keep the mills full. What you could do is adjust your cut-off grade. So if you thought the gold price was going to be much higher, you might reduce the cut-off grade so you can perhaps mine more material that would be less attractive in a lower price environment. But, no, the current gyrations are not giving us any thoughts about changing our overall approach to the mine plan and our mining schedule. Tatu Zuwonora: Alright. Thank you. Operator: Thank you for your question. Next question is from Tinashi Dumas. Tinashi Dumas: Can you hear me? Operator: Yes. Tinashi Dumas: Okay. Nice presentation and nice performance as well. Great performance. My question is how much of this year’s performance is genuinely operational? I am talking about the year and the period under review. How much of the performance is genuinely operational and how much is simply gold price leverage? I concur that production at Blanket was broadly flat, and while gold prices are up circa 44%. And from that, I could argue that your earnings were largely price-led rather than execution-led. So what comfort or evidence can you give that the business can protect its margins and sustain cash generation if the gold price normalizes? Mark Learmonth: Okay. So one of the things that we perhaps did not make clear enough—you are quite right. In 2025, a lot of the good performance was driven by the high gold price. One of the things that we are doing—and we have seen quite significant increases in costs at Blanket. If you look back over a five-year period, in 2020, Blanket’s on-mine cost was $784 an ounce. Last year, it was $1,280. People need to understand that Blanket now is a very different mine from what it was in 2020. We are hoisting significantly more material from much, much, much deeper. In 2020, we were hoisting most of our material from 750 meters below surface. Now we are hoisting most of our material 1,200 meters below surface. So inevitably that means that you are going to be using more electricity even before you start taking account of the incremental need to use electricity for improved ventilation. And in terms of employees, if you look at the pointy end of the business—that is the people involved in the mining, the underground tramming, the hoisting, the people involved in the milling—we are actually handling more material, more tons per person now than we were five years ago. But our costs have gone up, and if you look at our consumable cost, we are pretty much using less in the way of inputs like grinding media, cyanide, drill steels—we are using fewer kilos of that per ton milled—but every year, year on year, we have seen our costs such as the costs of steel balls, which we use in the ball mills, go up on average 10% per annum over each of the last five years. So the cost profile has gone up. What we are doing now is we are focused on trying to reduce dollar costs. In particular, the first three initiatives are targeted at electricity. So the 132 kV line, the AC-DC conversion—they are expected to give rise to significant cost reductions over the course of the coming three years. In addition to that, we are trying to use electricity more intelligently. So we are trying to reduce our overall power consumption by just being more clever about how we use electricity. The shift system that I referred to earlier on has got two aims. The first is to reduce worker fatigue by reducing overtime. Reduced overtime will clearly then reduce some of our labor costs because overtime is clearly at a premium rate. But the other thing—a lot of those cost reductions, I expect, may well be offset by other pressures that we are going to experience over the next three years or so, particularly in terms of providing better quality housing for the workers. And so the only way I can see that we can get sustainably reduced costs at Blanket is to increase production. So as I have mentioned, we would expect, as a result of the shift system and introducing seven-day working weeks instead of six-day working weeks, to harvest more tons which should give rise to more ounces, which should mean that our costs are spread over more ounces and therefore get the cost down. So that is not going to happen quickly, but over the next three years, I would be hopeful that as a result of the combination of those packages, we can begin to get the cost down. But do not for a minute think that Blanket is going to go back to being a low-cost producer at $784 an ounce. It is not. The only way for a deep-level, relatively low-grade mine like Blanket to be sustainable—and Blanket is 120 years old this year; we want to keep it running. As you have heard from Craig, there is plenty of potential to extend Blanket’s mine life by going deeper. And the only way we can do that is by continuing to invest to improve resilience and lock in economies. So that is a long answer to a fairly short question, which I hope answers your question. Tinashi Dumas: Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I have been answered. I am from Equity Access, by the way. Thank you. That was enough for me. Mark Learmonth: Okay. Let us be clear. The phrase that I use is “escaping forwards.” From pretty much any mine in Zimbabwe which is facing rising cost pressures, the only way to counter that is to escape forwards through growth. And that is what we are looking for over the course of the next three years. Okay. Any further questions? Operator: That concludes the questions that we have at the moment. So, Mark, I would like to give the floor back to yourself for any closing remarks. Mark Learmonth: Okay. Well, clearly, it was a good year financially, as we have identified, largely driven by the gold price. We are focused very much on Bilboes, turning that to account. That will be a game changer not just for Caledonia Mining Corporation Plc but also for Zimbabwe. But we are not neglecting Blanket. And as I think the comments at the end of that Q&A session made very clear, we are focused on using this high gold price to invest in Blanket, both to try and tickle up the gold production but also to lock in resilience and efficiency. So that is going to be a three-year exercise, not a quick turnaround. But we will keep stakeholders informed as we move along. So thank you very much for your attendance, and we will be putting out our Q1 results in about six weeks’ time in May. Okay? So thank you all very much.
Operator: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Lithium Argentina AG Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Please note that this call is being recorded. After the prepared remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question during that time, please press star followed by 1 on your telephone keypad. Thank you. I would now like to hand the call over to Kelly O'Brien, Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Kelly O'Brien: Thank you for the introduction. I want to welcome everyone to our conference call this morning. Joining me on the call today to discuss the fourth quarter and full year 2025 results is Sam Pigott, CEO of Lithium Argentina AG. Alex Shulga, our CFO, will also be available for Q&A. Before we begin, I would like to cover a few items. Our fourth quarter 2025 earnings results were press released earlier this morning and the corresponding documents are available on our website. I remind you that some of the statements made during this call, including any production guidance, expected company performance, updates on development plans, the timing of our project, and market conditions may be considered forward-looking statements. Please note the cautionary language about forward-looking statements in our presentation, MD&A, and news releases. I now turn the call over to Sam Pigott. Sam Pigott: Thanks, Kelly. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. 2025 marked an important year for Lithium Argentina AG. Cauchari-Olaroz demonstrated its ability as a stable, cash-generating operation, but we significantly advanced our next phase of growth. Starting with operations, the project is performing exceptionally well. For the year, production was over 34,000 tons, reaching the high end of our guidance range and ending the year near capacity, with fourth quarter production at 97%. We are now seeing that strong operational performance translate into lower costs, with fourth quarter operating cash costs around $5,600 per ton. Following year-end, the operation distributed $85,000,000 of cash, $42,000,000 for Lithium Argentina AG’s share, and we completed a $130,000,000 six-year loan facility, strengthening our balance sheet and highlighting the financial capacity of our assets. In parallel, we were able to make meaningful progress across our growth pipeline. This included the consolidation of PPG, supporting a more efficient development plan as outlined in the scoping study released late last year, as well as the submission of RIGI applications for both PPG and stage two. Since completion of the chemical plant in late 2023, production has steadily increased. 2024 represented our first full year of production. In 2025, the focus shifted to consistent recoveries, sustaining higher production levels for longer periods of time. During the year, the team made continued improvements across several areas, including brine management, wellfield optimization, process stability in the plant, and reduced reagent usage, which together supported more reliable and consistent operating performance. That progress resulted in the operations achieving close to nameplate capacity in the fourth quarter, with production of approximately 9,700 tons. This operational performance translated into strong financial results, which, despite the low lithium price environment in 2025, Cauchari-Olaroz generated $56,000,000 in adjusted EBITDA. I want to spend a moment on cost, because I would argue this is just as important as the production story, if not more so. Since Q1 2024, cash costs have declined 30% from over $8,000 per ton to around $5,600 in Q4. That improvement is broad-based: reagents, maintenance, camp services, overhead. Every major cost line moved in the right direction. This is not just fixed cost at higher volumes. Much of this reduction is in variable cost driven by our efforts to optimize the operation following the ramp-up. The best way to show this structural change is by looking at the impact to a revised long-term estimate. Based on the current cost structure at full capacity, we now forecast cost of approximately $5,400 per ton, down from $6,500 a year ago. That is a 17% reduction to our own prior estimate. And it is important to note that we are not done. We and our partner, Ganfeng, remain fully focused on driving further efficiencies with both stage one and as we grow. On the next slide is an updated cost curve, which includes actual operating performance at Cauchari-Olaroz. Not a feasibility study. It is not a projection. These are actual costs from an operation that has now been running and improving quarter over quarter. This operation is one of the few sources of lithium chemical production to come online outside of China in the past ten years. We now have the opportunity to scale from 40,000 to over 200,000 tons of lithium chemicals to serve global markets directly from the Americas. Turning briefly to the market, since mid-2025, there has been a significant recovery in lithium prices, supported by strengthening demand across both electric vehicles and, increasingly, energy storage systems. On ESS specifically, the wide range of forecasts you will see from global banks and consultants reflects how new and large this demand is becoming. This gap is particularly visible even in 2025. Our estimates, especially those outside of Asia, are still adjusting to how material ESS has become as a driver of overall lithium demand. For Lithium Argentina AG, this rising ESS demand aligns well with our existing operations and growth platform that we have developed, in terms of scale, cost, and ability to integrate with a more global customer base. Looking ahead to 2026, we expect production in the range of 35,000 to 40,000 tons of lithium carbonate, reflecting our focus on sustaining stable operations at current levels and long-term optimization. Based on our production targets for 2026, Cauchari-Olaroz is expected to support significant EBITDA under a range of lithium price scenarios. Using today’s market price of about $20,000 per ton and the midpoint of production guidance would imply around 460— Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, please be on standby. We will just address a quick technical issue. Again, please be on standby. We will be back momentarily. Thank you. Sam Pigott: Apologies for that. My line dropped. Obviously, we are not recording this. And so I will carry on where I left off. Based on our production targets for 2026, Cauchari-Olaroz is expected to support significant EBITDA under a range of lithium price scenarios. Using today’s market price of about $20,000 per ton, and the midpoint of production guidance, would imply around $460,000,000 in EBITDA for 2026. This incorporates actual results year to date and adjustments to market price. From a cash flow perspective, this should translate into strong cash conversion supported by accelerated depreciation and low sustaining capital requirements of approximately $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 per year. Following year-end, the operation distributed $85,000,000 of cash, increasing Lithium Argentina AG’s cash position in Q1 to now around $95,000,000. In March, at the corporate level, we also completed a $130,000,000 debt facility with Ganfeng, increasing our balance sheet flexibility. With Cauchari-Olaroz now operating at close to capacity and costs well below $6,000 per ton, we are turning our attention to what comes next. And the opportunity in front of us is significant. We have the potential to grow from approximately 40,000 tons per annum today to over 200,000 across a series of phases, using Cauchari-Olaroz stage one as the foundation. In 2025, we laid the groundwork. The resource base is defined, the permits and RIGI applications are advancing, and the economics, as the PPG scoping study showed, are compelling in nearly all pricing scenarios. We recently published an updated resource and reserve estimate for Cauchari-Olaroz, reinforcing the scale of the basin, with total measured and indicated resources increasing by approximately 42%, positioning Cauchari-Olaroz among the largest lithium brine assets globally. Beyond this, our platform includes PPG, another large-scale brine resource with over 15,000,000 tons of measured and indicated LCE resources. Together with Cauchari-Olaroz and PPG, we are advancing two of the largest lithium brine resources globally, providing the right scale and brine chemistry to support our growth plans. We continue to see a more supportive investment environment emerging in Argentina, with the RIGI helping to attract long-term capital and improve project economics, as reflected in the more than $70,000,000,000 in investment applications submitted or approved under the program. RIGI applications for both Cauchari stage two and PPG have been submitted. As we look ahead, we are scaling our lithium platform in Argentina. At Cauchari-Olaroz, we are advancing the stage two expansion plan of 45,000 tons, leveraging our operating track record, existing infrastructure, resource scale, and using the significant cash flow from stage one to provide a strong foundation to support the execution of this expansion. In parallel, at PPG, we are progressing what is targeted to be Argentina’s largest lithium operation, with a phased development plan to grow to 150,000 tons LCE. Here, we are working closely with Ganfeng to bring in the necessary financing and are seeing strong engagement from customers and potential minority partners. The next phase of execution is defined by a series of clear milestones to de-risk this growth, including RIGI approvals, finalizing the stage two development plan, and financing PPG. In conclusion, we are incredibly proud of what we have accomplished and excited for the years to come. In 2025, we delivered what we set out to do: establish a strong operating foundation with industry-leading costs, strengthen our balance sheet, and take meaningful steps to de-risk our growth pipeline. Looking ahead, we are in a very strong position to build off what we have already accomplished at Cauchari-Olaroz stage one and scale from 40,000 to 200,000 tons. We have world-class teams, a proven track record, two of the largest and highest-quality lithium brine resources globally, a much improved investment environment in Argentina, and a market that is undergoing strong demand tailwinds from continued EV growth and accelerated demand from energy storage build-outs. We are focused on de-risking and advancing a path to more than 4x-ing our lithium production and creating the largest lithium platform in Argentina. Kelly O'Brien: And with that, we are ready to open up the line for questions. Operator: We will now open for questions. Please limit your question to one question and one follow-up. We will pause for a brief moment to wait for the questions to come in. Your first question comes from the line of Anthony Tagliari of Canaccord Genuity. Your line is now open. Anthony Tagliari: Good morning, Sam and team. So first of all, congrats on the excellent cost performance in Q4. My first question is related to cash cost expectations for 2026, noting your new long-term goal of $5,400 a ton. So how should we expect this to evolve in 2026? Is $5,600 a ton the new base case for Q1 moving forward? You know, between that 35,000 to 40,000 tons of production on an annual basis? Sam Pigott: Yes, thanks for the question. So, yes, in Q4, we delivered $5,600 per ton in cash cost. These were really driven not just by volume increases reaching 97% capacity, but also structural changes we made to the cost profile. So that would include things like reagents, camp services, maintenance, and optimization of our workforce at camp. With all those changes, and what we realized in Q4, we did update our long-term cost estimate at full capacity of $5,400, which is the 17% decrease from what we put out last year at $6,500 per ton. So we would expect some variability quarter over quarter tied to volumes produced and timing of cost. But certainly, sub-$6,000, that $5,600 is a pretty good indication of where things are likely to settle throughout the year. Anthony Tagliari: Okay. Great. That is helpful. And maybe as a follow-up on Q1 realized price expectations. Could you bridge us from sort of the average Chinese benchmark price of approximately $21,000 a ton to date in Q1 versus the expected realized price of $17,000 a ton? So, you know, simple math after considering that, that implies around $1,900 a ton of processing costs there. So is that something we should expect moving forward for the rest of the— Sam Pigott: Yes. I mean, as a general statement, our pricing today is based on the market price for battery-quality lithium carbonate outside of China. So that does strip out VAT from the export reference prices you typically see quoted by SMM, Fastmarkets, etc. Beyond that, the adjustments for quality are around mid-single digits from that reference price. And that is something that we continue to monitor with our partner, Ganfeng. But at the moment, that is what we are realizing. Anthony Tagliari: Thank you. That is helpful. I will pass on. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson of BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open. Joel Jackson: Hey, Sam. You talked about the different opportunities working at any price level. I think your partner, Ganfeng, would sort of say similar things. Can you talk about some of the volatility you have seen in the global markets the last few weeks? If that has changed any risk factors to think about Cauchari or its phase two or PPG. And then also, would your objectives be the same as Ganfeng? Obviously, they are not your companies, but could you talk about maybe how some of your objectives versus your partner’s growth over the next couple of years could be similar or different? Sam Pigott: Sure. Thanks, Joel. I mean, as a broad statement, we are obviously monitoring the impacts of the situation in the Middle East. We are not seeing any material impact to our operations. In a lot of ways, we are pretty well set up and insulated from increased costs to oil and gas prices. Our largest energy input by far is the solar radiation onto our ponds. We have done a series of analyses over the past couple of weeks just given the developments in the Middle East and the energy complex. And our direct energy exposure is very limited. So approximately, or less than, 2% of our total operating costs are tied to diesel and natural gas. And then looking further afield into our indirect costs associated with logistics and other cost lines, it all remains below 5% of our OpEx which is exposed to that. So we are very well insulated. We are not a traditional mining operation with heavy reliance on diesel for mining or for crushing or haulage. So from that perspective, we are doing very well. All of our deliveries and shipments are meeting their targets on schedule. Demand is still being pulled very strongly from China and our offtake agreement with Ganfeng. So, you know, we obviously do monitor it, but are very pleased to report that minimal, if any, impacts are being experienced to date and various limited likelihood for escalation. In terms of our growth ambitions with Ganfeng, I think both of us understand the unique position that we have here today. We have brought online Cauchari-Olaroz exceptionally well. Costs are, again, below where we thought they would be at full capacity going back last year. $5,600 in Q4, the ability to more than double production at Cauchari-Olaroz, and then similarly, the largest potential lithium project in Argentina, 150,000 tons staged across three 50,000-ton phases, expecting operating costs to be low $5,000 a ton. So I think we have the right type of growth. We now have proven that we can execute. I think the partnership is working very well. Ganfeng has pretty ambitious targets for where they want to see their lithium production by 2030. A big part of that growth is through their portfolio with us in Argentina. I think it is around finance. Ganfeng is a $20,000,000,000 market cap company, with huge access to capital in China. I think the question was always, are we going to get pulled in one direction or another? I think the answer to that is, one, our shareholder agreements provide joint control over key decisions, including expansions, so we do have some control over our destiny. But the way things are developing now, Cauchari stage two, at today’s prices, stage one would be generating somewhere in the order of $460,000,000 in EBITDA, which provides quite a bit of cash flow to execute on stage two. We are obviously waiting for a development plan midyear. And then PPG, when we decided to put all these assets together with Ganfeng, we made it very, very clear, and in a formal agreement, to work together on financing plans that would not require shareholders to contribute equity, and we are seeing a lot of engagement around that. There are a lot of groups that really appreciate the scale of this business. They appreciate the team that has been able to execute at Cauchari. And so we are very confident we will be able to put together a financing package that does not require equity contributions from shareholders. So I think, in today’s market, we are very much aligned in terms of pursuing both growth plans simultaneously. Joel Jackson: Okay. Now I will just follow up with, I know you and Ganfeng talked about wanting to put on some DLE plans and trial it out at different assets in Argentina, Pastos Grandes, Olaroz, Mariana. Can you talk about, at least for Cauchari, what is the DLE plan there? Or is it more going to be a stage two idea? Sam Pigott: It is going to be a stage two. So the DLE, all the results that we are working with Ganfeng on, they are really taking the lead, as you would expect in terms of new technologies, applying new technologies to brine assets in Argentina. So right now, the focus for us is completing this development plan with Ganfeng, and we are targeting mid-2026. With that, we will obviously have a lot more to share through that report and other disclosures. But I would say the bar has been raised in terms of what we would want to see from that new technology. Conventional has pluses and minuses, but we are seeing a lot more of the pluses right now. I mean, our cost profile has come to a level that I think we were all very impressed with. These are structural changes to the cost profile of the business. A long-term target of $5,400 a ton, which is very, very real. I mean, we just came out of Q4 at $5,600 a ton. It already places Cauchari certainly in the first quartile of the cost curve. And so we look favorably on the technology that Ganfeng has been pushing ahead. But it has to deliver better CapEx and better OpEx, which we are confident it will. And we will disclose more when the development plan is finalized mid-2026. Joel Jackson: Thank you. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Corinne Blanchard of Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open. Corinne Blanchard: Hey. Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Maybe the first question, I want to come back on the pricing. Obviously, this is quite a big jump from 4Q to 1Q due to the spot market. But can you maybe share your view on expectations throughout 2026 and maybe kind of a six-month shared view here that would be helpful. And then maybe the second question, maybe if you can just comment on the financing environment for the extension. I know you cannot comment extensively on Ganfeng, but there is definitely a question coming from the converts and balance sheet. So anything you can address there? Thank you. Sam Pigott: I mean, pricing is, as you know, Corinne, very, very difficult to predict. I think the visibility that we get is largely through our partner, Ganfeng, which is the largest lithium producer in China. They are seeing very, very strong demand, and it is really based largely on ESS. I think the view is, pricing could remain volatile, but expectations are for pricing to remain in and around where it is trading today. I am not saying that is necessarily our expectation, but that is what we are hearing through our partner in China. And I think part of that is just around—we had it in one of our slides—because ESS is relatively new, it is growing very quickly. It is relatively opaque versus tracking EVs. There is just not the same maturity of data collection and disclosure that there is in the automotive business. So there is a huge divergence of view in terms of what the market is going to be in 2030. You know, even in 2025, I think people are still trying to reconcile what the actual lithium demand pull-through from ESS installations or shipments was. So, I mean, getting feedback from China, and this is shared by many of the other end customers that we have discussed over the last couple of months, is that energy storage is certainly on the high end of the bank and consultant range. So that should be very supportive to lithium prices going forward. And, sorry, your second question, do you mind repeating that? Corinne Blanchard: Yeah. No problem. Just asking about financing and, again, you kind of fenced it a little bit previously with Ganfeng’s view, but if you can talk about balance sheet and converts and what you intend to do there. Sam Pigott: So, I mean, I think we are very, very pleased with the progress we have made strengthening our balance sheet over the last year. We have closed a $130,000,000 six-year debt facility with Ganfeng. We distributed $85,000,000 from the operation, $42,000,000 of which came to LAR. Our cash position is just under $100,000,000. And meanwhile, if today’s prices are anywhere near them, the project is generating meaningful cash flow. So I think taken together, the cash we have on hand, the cash flow capacity of our operations in a wide range of pricing scenarios, provides us with a lot of flexibility and optionality to address the convert. I would say, one thing that I think is important to note is that the lithium price environment has been very challenging over the last couple of years. Anybody following the space would appreciate that as a fact. Meanwhile, LAR has not issued a single share for any financing purposes. And I think that speaks to our discipline and quality of our approach, and we are in a very, very good position right now. So that is on the convert. In terms of the financing plan for our growth, I think there are two different distinct paths between PPG and Cauchari. Cauchari stage two has stage one as a foundational backstop. So at today’s prices, $460,000,000 of EBITDA, which can provide some funding to the project. It can also allow us to access debt to finance phase two, and we will have a lot more information midyear with the development plan. On PPG, this is a joint effort with Ganfeng, working with some of Ganfeng’s global customers to look at different potential minority partners to bring into that project to provide the majority, if not all, the equity financing required. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson of Scotiabank. Your line is now open. Ben Isaacson: Thank you very much, and good morning. Hoping I can ask three quick ones. Sam, your costs have improved dramatically over the past eight quarters or so. And I am just curious, do you think your costs at sub-$6,000 are a competitive advantage? And why I am asking that is, do you feel that competitive projects in Argentina have the ability to also reach that sub-$6,000 area? Or do you think LAR is unique in that? Sam Pigott: I mean, there are a lot of different projects in Argentina. So it is hard to paint them all with the same brush. Chemistry composition is obviously a very important factor. Scale is an important factor to get costs down. And then the ability to execute and the technology selection. So, all different factors, but certainly brines do represent a very attractive resource base to deliver low-cost lithium units into the market. I think the second factor, in terms of what it represents overall, is brine seems to be the lowest cost and, in some ways, most resilient, reliable source of lithium chemical production outside of China. The entire industry is fixated on how to deliver these chemicals without going through China eventually. There have been a number of attempts and efforts to bring in conversion capacity outside of China to process spodumene concentrate. I think to date those plans have been challenging from a cost perspective, from an execution perspective. So I think my answer is yes, Argentina can be low-cost producers. Yes, I think there is something fundamentally different about what LAR has been able to accomplish, and I think that is related to the quality of our underlying resource as well as the design of our stage one plant. Ben Isaacson: Great. Thank you. And then just second question, I see that stage two for Cauchari is rated at 45,000 tonnes. Can you talk about debottlenecking opportunities at stage one? Is it possible to get back to 45,000 tons? Why or why not? Sam Pigott: Yes. I think with further investment, we probably could push it above 40,000 tons. I think one of the realities in planning stage two is that we are currently under a RIGI application process. RIGI is a very attractive investment framework in Argentina. It provides a number of fiscal benefits: lower tax rates from 35% to 25%, some changes in terms of VAT treatment with a non-cash item. But more importantly, any qualified, approved RIGI project has very clear ability to take cash out of Argentina and keep it out of Argentina. So I think our preference certainly is to make investments in stage two, whereby all of that production, sales, and profit will be captured under the RIGI. Ben Isaacson: Great. And then just my last one. Sam, you have a lot of experience on lithium and in China, and I was hoping you could share some insights into how you think sodium batteries are evolving and what it means to lithium demand growth rates, and maybe on the EV and on the battery storage side. Thank you. Sam Pigott: Yes. And we typically hear a lot about sodium-ion batteries whenever lithium price starts to spike. And this start of this cycle is no different. So, yes, I think our view is that both technologies are improving. LFP has a significant advantage right now in terms of energy density, in terms of weight, and in terms of cycle, I should say. So all those are very important for, obviously, the EV segment, any mobility application, but also energy storage. There is still a significant economic advantage. I think sodium is a legitimate risk if lithium prices were to approach where they were last cycle. That starts to really eat into the economics and forces people to look at substitution. But I do not think we view it as a material threat at today’s price level or even significantly higher than today. Ben Isaacson: Great. Thank you. Operator: If you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by 1 on your telephone keypad. That is star followed by 1 on your telephone keypad. Your next question comes from the line of Mohamed Sidibe of National Bank. Your line is now open. Mohamed Sidibe: Thanks, Sam and team, for taking my question, and congrats on a good quarterly cost performance. You answered my question on growth, the cadence of your growth projects as well as financing on that. But maybe back on the cash operating cost that you have, I know you touched on the no impact on fuel and diesel, but are you seeing anything from reagents pricing impacting your cost right now at the operations? Thank you. Sam Pigott: As of now, we are seeing very limited impact. Most of the impact would obviously be the input cost to producing the reagents that we have. So we obviously use soda ash, lime, hydrochloric acid. I mean, obviously all of those do use diesel as an input to the actual production of the reagent itself. None of it travels through the Strait of Hormuz. None of it travels through the Middle East or the Red Sea. So from a shipping logistics standpoint, it is somewhat unaffected. We do understand that the war in the Middle East, or the conflict in the Middle East, is creating some issues for various fertilizer inputs. We are not exposed to anything of that order of magnitude. Our exposure is really around what the diesel price is going to do, and are those diesel prices going to be forced down into higher input costs for us. And so far, it seems minimal, if at all. Mohamed Sidibe: Great. Thank you. Operator: As of right now, we do not have any pending questions. I would now like to hand the call back to Kelly O'Brien for closing remarks. Kelly O'Brien: Great. Thank you, and thank you everyone for joining us this morning. Please feel free to reach out directly to the team if you have any additional questions. Have a great day. Unidentified Speaker: Thanks. Operator: Thank you for attending today’s call. You may now disconnect. Goodbye.
Operator: Good day, and welcome to the Bionano Genomics, Inc. Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Webb Campbell, from Gilmanton Group. Please go ahead. Webb Campbell: Thank you, Carmen, and good afternoon, welcome to Bionano Genomics, Inc.'s Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Financial Results Conference Call. On the call today is Dr. Erik Holmlin, CEO and principal financial officer of Bionano Genomics, Inc., and Mark Adamczak, Bionano Genomics, Inc.'s vice president of accounting and principal accounting officer. After market closed today, Bionano Genomics, Inc. issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2025. A copy of the press release can be found on the Investor Relations page of the company's website. Certain statements made during this conference call may be forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from such statements due to several factors and risks, some of which are identified in Bionano Genomics, Inc.'s press release and Bionano Genomics, Inc.'s reports filed with the SEC. These forward-looking statements are based on information available to Bionano Genomics, Inc. today, 03/23/2026, and the company assumes no obligation to update statements as circumstances change. During our call, we may reference certain non-GAAP financial measures which we believe provide useful information for investors. Reconciliations of these measures to GAAP can be found in our press release and slide deck. An audio recording and webcast replay of today's conference call will also be available online on the Investor Relations page of the company's website. With that, I will turn the call over to Erik. Erik Holmlin: Thank you, Webb. And good afternoon, everyone. I am excited to share our fourth quarter and full year 2025 results with you today, as well as to provide you with our expectations for 2026. I want to begin, however, with the context of the broader space we are aiming to impact, namely pathology, which is the discipline that investigates the causes, developments, and effects of disease. Our products and solutions are focused on transforming pathology from tedious, slow, costly, and labor-intense analog workflows of the past towards streamlined workflows of a digital future defined by technology and platform consolidation, automation, and powerful AI-driven software. Our work in 2025, including the hundreds of publications and presentations by our users, demonstrated meaningful progress toward this goal and the significant value represented by this opportunity. As part of today's call, I want to take time to review the strategy we began implementing in September 2024, our progress in 2025, and summarize key takeaways from a deep dive into our customer base, revealing the composition of our most profitable customer profile. First, however, I want to ask Mark Adamczak, our principal accounting officer, to review our Q4 and 2025 financial highlights. Mark? Mark Adamczak: Thanks, Erik. Revenue for Q4 2025 was $8.0 million, which is down 3% from $8.2 million in Q4 2024 but at the high end of our preannounced range of $7.8 million to $8.0 million. We sold 7,554 nanochannel array flow cells in Q4, which was down 6% year over year, but it is worth noting that late in Q4, our manufacturing partner that makes the silicon wafers for our chip consumables experienced delays. As a result, supply was constrained against higher consumable demand. We entered 2026 with a healthy backlog of consumables demand that we expect to realize in the coming quarters as these constraints ease. For the full year 2025, revenue was $28.5 million, down 7% from $30.8 million in 2024. After adjusting for $1.7 million in clinical services in 2024, core revenue was down 2%. We sold 30,171 flow cells in 2025, down just 0.4% year over year. We also installed nine OGM systems in Q4 and 32 for full year 2025, exceeding our original guidance of 15 to 20 installations in the year. Turning to profitability, Q4 2025 non-GAAP gross margin was 43%, up from 42% a year ago. For the full year, non-GAAP gross margin was 47%, up from 35% in the full year 2024, an improvement of 1,200 basis points year over year despite lower revenue. This reflects the efficiencies we are driving in our business under our new strategy. Fourth quarter 2025 non-GAAP operating expense was $9.7 million, down 9% year over year. For the full year, non-GAAP operating expense was $36.6 million, down 47% from $68.9 million in 2024. Importantly, since Q2 2023, we have removed approximately $100 million of annualized non-GAAP operating expense and reduced headcount by over 300 people. The transformation of our cost structure is clearly evident in these results. We ended the year with $29.6 million in cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale securities, including $10.3 million subject to certain restrictions. Based on factors described in our 10-K, we expect our cash runway to extend into 2027. I would also note that our senior secured convertible debt is expected to be fully retired in May 2026, which will mark a meaningful balance sheet milestone that will further simplify our financial profile. With that, I will turn it back over to Erik to review our strategic progress and achievements in 2025 and finish by providing financial guidance for 2026. Erik? Erik Holmlin: Thanks, Mark. That was an excellent job and your first time participating in one of our calls here. It is great to have you. In response to the challenging backdrop for tools and diagnostic companies that has persisted for some time now, we made a strategic shift that started in September 2024 and entailed going away from aggressively expanding our installed base toward focusing on profitable growth from high-volume users and selective customer acquisition. We established four strategic pillars to anchor this execution. First is to support and sustain the installed base of routine OGM and VIA software users. Second, to increase the utilization of optical genome mapping by these routine users by supporting menu expansion and improving ease of use with VIA software and our IONIQ system, which automates isolation of nucleic acids. Third is to build the support needed for optical genome mapping reimbursement and inclusion into medical society guidelines and recommendations. And fourth is to improve profitability and scalability through lower costs, higher volumes, and continuous improvement in product quality. Starting with the first and second pillars tied to enabling our customers to use products more, which will in turn result in higher consumable sales, while fourth quarter flow cells were down 7% at 7,554 and full year flow cells sold were essentially flat at 30,171, 2025 was certainly a transitional year where we faced uncertainty as to how stable the customer base would be during this strategic shift. We are pleased to see stability and consistency in the number of consumables that were purchased. If we remove flow cells tied to sales of new OGM systems in both periods, existing flow cell customers—existing sales of flow cells to customers—declined 4% in the fourth quarter, but grew 5% for the full year. Keep in mind that consumable supply was constrained in the fourth quarter, which muted some of that growth. Taken together, consumables and software revenue decreased by 1% to $4.8 million in Q4, driven by a 22% decline in software revenue that offset 8% growth in consumables. The year-over-year decline in software revenue is a result of a handful of orders that were pulled forward into prior quarters. For the full year, software grew 7%, and consumables and software together grew from $19.0 million to $20.4 million, which represents 7% growth, and as a share of total revenue increased from 62% in 2024 to 71% in 2025. We believe this emphasis on consumables and software is a healthier, more predictable revenue profile that is also more profitable. Now I want to talk about the composition of our installed base, and this is something that we brought up on calls over the course of 2025, and I want to focus on the customer profile that we have identified as the target for future growth. Throughout 2025, we focused on a subset of customers, so-called routine-use customers. Those are customers who we believe have the greatest potential to purchase higher average volumes of OGM consumables. We also maintain a high level of support for our IONIQ system users and our VIA software users who use VIA software for non-OGM applications. Our geographic focus has also narrowed to include the United States, Canada, most of Western Europe, and Israel, although we have the help of excellent commercial partners who sell and support OGM outside of these regions. Looking across the 321 customers that have a total of 387 OGM systems installed as of 12/31/2025, routine-use customers comprise about 130, or 40%, of them, and they collectively operate about 175 systems, or 45%, of the global installed base. Routine-use customers by definition have well-defined applications for OGM and a steady flow of samples coming into the lab for analysis, and tend to have institutionalized funding for OGM, meaning they are not solely dependent upon raising grant funding for each individual project, although grants do support these sites. Despite accounting for less than half of total OGM customers, these routine users drive the consumables business. In 2025, they accounted for about 83% of OGM consumables revenue. The average revenue per routine-use customer in 2025 was about $89,000, or double the average per customer across the entire global installed base. Currently, there are about 60 routine-use customers that have validated their OGM protocol, and in 2025 those customers accounted for about 56% of total consumables revenue and 69% of the consumables revenue coming from routine users. Their average consumables revenue per year was $131,000 per customer. We also believe that there are about 55 routine-use customers who intend to validate an OGM protocol in the future and about 15 who use OGM routinely but do not intend to validate. Going forward, we see the number of routine-use customers increasing as new customer acquisition will focus on this customer type almost exclusively. We also see average consumable revenue per routine-use site increasing as they expand their menus to include new applications, and as others validate their protocols and begin offering their products commercially. Regarding our second pillar, we can help routine-use customers in a variety of ways, including techniques and tools that enhance their ease of use with products like VIA software and our IONIQ system for automated nucleic acid isolation. In 2025, we made great progress to integrate VIA into customer workflows and upgrade our software and compute platforms to make analysis of OGM, microarray, and next-generation sequencing data faster, easier, and more accurate. On this front, in 2025, we commenced a broad commercial release of our software and compute upgrades in the fourth quarter. VIA 7.2 extends the AI-driven OGM workflow from hematologic malignancies into constitutional genetic disorders, giving labs the same automated curation and report capabilities that have accelerated heme malignancy workflows. Solve 3.8.3 expands the structural variation control database and improves detection accuracy, while the Stratus compute upgrade using advanced GPUs doubles weekly cancer sample throughput without any hardware change. VIA's reach extends beyond OGM. It is the gold standard for copy number variation analysis in microarrays and is gaining traction with next-generation sequencing and even long-read sequencing users. These non-OGM VIA customers represent a meaningful software revenue stream and a natural on-ramp to broader Bionano Genomics, Inc. adoption at these customer sites. The IONIQ system continues to expand, delivering high-purity DNA and RNA for both NGS workflows and, of course, high-purity ultra high molecular weight DNA for OGM workflows at scale. To build support for reimbursement and guideline recommendations, we are pleased to see incredible traction across the OGM community with publications that can support reimbursement decisions, professional society guidelines, and new customer adoption. 2025 was a record year for OGM publications: 136 new peer-reviewed publications, up 25% year over year. 2025 also saw approximately 450 publications in total, up from 359 in 2024, and the total number of publications exhibits a compound annual growth rate of about 28% since 2020. In addition, the community has published roughly 1,190 human clinical research genomes in 2025 alone, which brings the cumulative total to nearly 12,700, up from fewer than 500 in 2021, with 4,500 added in 2025 alone, and that growth reflects a compound annual growth rate of about 30% since 2021. We believe these publications are an excellent leading indicator for the growing acceptance and future adoption and utilization of Bionano Genomics, Inc. products and solutions. Thanks to all of this progress, reimbursement improved significantly in 2025 with the establishment of a second Category I CPT code for OGM, covering OGM use in constitutional genetic disorders. The final price determination was $1,263.53, and that appears on the 2026 Clinical Lab Fee Schedule. In addition, the 2026 CLFS reflects a 47% increase in the payment determination for the Category I CPT code used for OGM hematologic malignancies. That is now priced at $1,853.22, up from $1,263.53. Taken together, these two codes cover OGM's current primary application areas and represent key infrastructure that is now in place. We are also seeing OGM consortia from all over the globe coming together. These regional user groups help with things like access to reimbursement and influencing local guidelines, which together facilitate menu expansion and overall support the entire community of OGM users along their journey. We believe this is validation that OGM is really taking off, and we are gaining this critical mass that is so important, where the community is becoming the advocate versus the company, which has historically been the case. Regarding our final strategic pillar of improving profitability and scalability, we continued to make progress in 2025, highlighted by the non-GAAP gross margin expansion we mentioned earlier. Our non-GAAP gross margins have now expanded from 22% in 2023 to 43% in 2025, while quarterly non-GAAP operating expenses fell from roughly $34 million to now under $10 million over that same period. Going forward, we expect margin expansion in line with revenue as volumes grow and product mix shifts towards consumables, and this is going to help us manage toward important financial milestones such as EBITDA breakeven. Finally, I want to highlight the excellent efforts from our team to host Bionano Genomics, Inc. Symposium 2026. This event is held in late February, and this year, we had over 1,250 registrants coming from 73 countries around the world. The content featured 35 outside speakers presenting 33 presentations, and the community contributed 50 posters to our poster hall. The event itself lasted four days, and among the many excellent presentations, four reflected key themes that suggest growth opportunities for OGM going forward. Dr. Agnes Dodunyong from CHU Lille described how the French Optical Genome Mapping Group, or FROG, is acting as a network in support of implementation of OGM across 29 French-speaking laboratories in France, Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium. Dr. Ying Zhu from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine presented the largest OGM dataset in sarcomas, revealing complex abnormalities and novel biomarkers in karyotypically normal cases. These sarcomas represent an expansion of sample type from the blood and bone marrow aspirates that are commonly used with OGM today. There were two speakers who spoke to an incredibly important theme in Symposium 2026, which is OGM at scale. Dr. Alexander Hoysian from Radboud University Medical Center in The Netherlands described fully automating ultra high molecular weight DNA isolation and labeling for OGM and their plans to ramp to processing 3,000 samples per year, up from just 500 in 2025. Radboud now has three Stratus systems and two Saphyr systems, making them the lab with the most OGM capacity in the world, aside from Bionano Genomics, Inc., of course. Dr. Adam Smith of Labcorp presented a rigorous comparison showing that a scaled Stratus workflow can process up to 10,000 cancer samples per year versus approximately 240 for a similar high-throughput long-read sequencing platform, and the cost of OGM is less than one-eighth of the initial capital investment for processing 1,000 long-read sequencing samples per year. We believe OGM is moving from early adoption into operation at scale, and academic networks like FROG, academic medical centers like Johns Hopkins and Radboud University Medical Center, and national reference laboratory institutions like Labcorp are building the operational and use cases for it. All of this progress and support gives me confidence in a strong outlook for the full year 2026. Therefore, we are initiating revenue guidance of $30 million to $33 million, representing growth of 5% to 16% over 2025. And for the first quarter of 2026, we are initiating revenue guidance of $6.5 million to $6.7 million, representing flat to 3% growth over 2025. As our Q1 expectations imply, we do expect revenues to grow throughout the year consistent with the seasonality common in our business, as we continue executing on our mission to increase the use of our differentiated capabilities among our valued customers. We are very excited about this work and the journey ahead of us at Bionano Genomics, Inc. With that, we will now open for questions. Mark Adamczak: Carmen? Operator: Thank you so much. And as a reminder, if you do have a question, simply press 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To remove yourself, press 1-1 again. We have a question from the line of Yi Chen. Please go ahead. Yi Chen: Thank you for taking my question. Could you give us any color on what your expectations are regarding how many new OGM systems could be installed during 2026? Erik Holmlin: Hi, Yi. Thank you for joining and asking an important question. I think that we have expectations which are comparable to what we shipped last year. We are not providing any guidance on the number because, as you can see, we significantly overperformed guidance last year, and we want to stay flexible about the new systems that are being installed. It is reasonable that we would have a comparable year this year to what we did last year. Yi Chen: Mhmm. Got it. And also, the reported number of nanochannel array flow cells sold in 2025 was slightly below that number in 2024, while you installed 32 new OGM systems and brought back 16 during the year. How should we look at the number of nanochannel array flow cells to be sold this year? Do you expect that to be relatively flat as well? Erik Holmlin: No. I would say that when you look at the revenue growth that we are forecasting, that revenue growth is going to be driven by new systems, of course, and consumables at existing customers. I would expect the consumables volume range to likely track with the revenue growth, which is a wide range, but that is our expectation. We were flat year over year on total consumables volume. When we look at what routine users did, we do see that routine users grew in 2025 over 2024, and keep in mind that we were constrained with supply at the end of the year. It is nothing that is particularly concerning. It is a supply constraint that will work its way out over the course of the next couple of quarters. If we were not up against that supply constraint, we would have had additional units growth. Yi Chen: Okay. And your guidance for 2026 provided $30 million to $33 million, which translates to approximately 5% to 16% top-line growth. How many new OGM systems do you need to sell to achieve that level of growth? Is there any catalyst that you expect to occur in 2026 in order to achieve that level of top-line growth? Erik Holmlin: Again, we are not going to put a number out there on systems. The reason is that we want to keep the focus on the productivity of the routine users, and we will be updating on some of the dynamics of that group over the year. If you look at total number of customers at the end of the year, 321, total systems installed, 387, and 32 systems shipped in the year, it is really about these 130 or so routine-use customers, 60 of which have validated an OGM protocol and roughly 55 are intending to do that at some point in the future. How can we take that 55 and convert them over to the validated group, and then how can we expand revenues amongst the validated group? That is where we expect the growth to come from, and as long as we repeat on a year-over-year basis some of the same dynamics, we will hit these numbers. From a catalyst perspective, a big catalyst is the increase in the price determination for the hematologic malignancy CPT code—a 47% increase—from about $1,200 to about $1,800. That became effective 01/01/2026, and we have seen the positive effects of the originally priced code, and we expect this higher price to accelerate adoption and utilization more. That is a major catalyst. Yi Chen: Okay. Got it. Thank you. Operator: Thank you. And this concludes our Q&A session. I will pass it back to Erik for final comments. Erik Holmlin: Thank you, Carmen, and thank you, everybody, for joining. We look forward to updating folks on our progress in 2026 in the not too distant future. Thank you very much. Operator: Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.
Investors have plenty of concerns right now. Two of the main ones are the impacts from the conflict in the Middle East and growing worries around private credit markets.
Remember the empty streets, boarded up stores, and bare shelves of 2020? Something like that appears highly likely, should there not be any major positive developments in the Middle East (which looks quite unlikely).
US-Iran talks are picking up for the first time since the end of February, and that's creating a crazy shift in markets, to say the least. After another gap above $100 per barrel in WTI at the Globex open, oil prices have been tumbling to lows not seen since March 11.
Escalating US/Israel–Iran conflict is driving global market volatility, with energy-importing nations suffering the most severe equity declines. Oil remains the primary market mover; ongoing conflict keeps prices elevated and inflation expectations rising, prompting a more hawkish Fed outlook.
European shares start to rise after US president says talks have been ‘very good and productive'
Most of us have been taught that diversification provides benefits. We're told there are assets that can be held alongside equities to smooth out the twists and turns of the market.
Leveraged ETFs employ derivatives to give investors a convenient way to make magnified bets on an index like the S&P 500.
The U.S.-Israel War on Iran is giving mixed signals, the latest of which comes from this morning, with Trump announcing "productive conversations" with Iran. Although Iran denied any talks, the market is eating up the news, and that, to us, points to a market that has more confidence in the Trump administration.
Higher profit estimates from Wall Street for four stocks make them notable in Monday's stock market as they near buy points.
The Investment Committee debate how to trade the market's rally after President Trump says talks with Iran are ongoing.
Travel-related stocks such as airlines and cruise companies rallied Monday after President Donald Trump postponed his deadline for more strikes in Iran, saying the two countries had held “very good and productive” talks — something Iranian media reports rebuffed.
Let us talk about something that is going to sound almost radical in today's market environment. Warren Buffett built one of the greatest investment track records in history while almost completely ignoring wars, elections, politics, and whatever the financial media was hyperventilating about at the time.
Cooper Howard with @CharlesSchwab says it's important for investors "hunkering down" to keep their heads on a swivel to headlines surrounding the U.S. and Iran. He talks about the key "drivers" he sees moving fixed income markets and ways to protect your portfolios.
Since hostilities began in the Middle East three weeks ago, I've urged investors to stay calm and resist the temptation to panic-sell.
Chicago Federal Reserve President Austan Goolsbee said Monday that he's more worried about inflation now than he is unemployment, even with apparent progress made on the war with Iran. In a CNBC interview, the central banker said policymaking is difficult in the current environment.
I see oil as extremely overbought, with USO doubling since early 2026 and backwardation signaling a likely sharp price correction. Demand destruction is underway, with reduced jet fuel demand, shortened workweeks, and IEA forecasts pointing to lower global oil demand.