Listen and subscribe to the Marketplace Roundtable on these podcast platforms:
TORM (NASDAQ:TRMD) CEO Jacob Meldgaard joined Value Investor’s Edge Live on Sept. 19, 2024, to discuss product tanker markets and ongoing company prospects. TRMD has notably expanded their fleet and reduced balance sheet leverage over the past 2-3 years and now has one of the largest publicly traded tanker fleets with a current market cap of roughly $3.1B. TORM has prioritized a full free cash flow payout to shareholders, and this name remains a favorite for many shipping income investors.
We believe the tanker market is in the midst of a multi-year bull cycle and that product tanker stocks are attractive at this juncture, especially considering that an expected season uplift is just weeks away. TORM is one of the clear market leaders and Jacob is very methodical, well-spoken, and even-handed. This interview and discussion is relevant for anyone with an interest in the shipping sectors.
Other companies to consider include Ardmore Shipping (ASC), DHT Holdings (DHT), Euronav (CMBT), Frontline (FRO), International Seaways (INSW), Hafnia Limited (HAFN), Navios Maritime Partners (NMM), Nordic American Tankers (NAT), Okeanis Eco Tankers (ECO), Scorpio Tankers (STNG), Teekay Tankers (TNK), and Tsakos Energy Navigation (TEN).
Topics Covered
- (0:00) Introduction
- (2:00) Review of ongoing product tanker market dynamics?
- (8:00) When might crude tanker seasonality lift the markets?
- (10:15) Impact from Red Sea disruptions?
- (13:15) Ongoing impacts from Russian sanctions?
- (17:45) Balance sheet: any need for further deleveraging?
- (21:00) Any potential fleet additions? More M&A deals?
- (24:00) Oaktree overhang? Potential for a block deal?
- (26:00) Any concern about the large LR2 orderbook?
- (31:15) Any other major risk factors for tanker markets?
- (35:15) Any triangulation potential for LR2s in the Atlantic Basin?
- (37:30) Why should investors consider TRMD vs. other tanker peers?
Full Transcript
J Mintzmyer: Good morning, everybody. Good afternoon, if you’re joining us from Europe. We’re back with another iteration of Value Investor’s Edge Live, hosting exclusive interviews across the shipping sector. We’ve hosted 19 of these events throughout the end of August into September 2024. Today we have an exciting event. We’re hosting TORM plc. We’re hosting their CEO, Jacob Meldgaard, who’s here to talk to us about the product tanker sector, as well as TORM’s specific strategy and what they’re seeing in terms of market dynamics.
As a reminder, nothing on the call today constitutes official company guidance or investment recommendations of any form. I have no current position, personal position in TORM (TRMD). However, if you’re listening to a recording or reading a transcript at a later date, please be advised those positions may have been updated. Good morning – I guess good afternoon to you, Jacob. Thanks for joining us.
Jacob Meldgaard: Yeah, good morning, good afternoon. Great to be back.
JM: Yeah, fantastic. I think it’s been about a year since we last talked on one of these live interviews. It’s definitely overdue. It was great to see you at Marine Money in New York this past June. We have a lot to talk about today. Let’s start off big picture, starting with the macro overall sector. Tankers have had a very strong last 2 years, 2.5 years, but it’s been mixed in 2024. Sentiment is definitely pulling back a little bit. We’ve seen the stocks. Most of the stocks are down 10%, 20%, 25% from the peaks we saw this summer. What’s driving this current weakness in the product tanker sector? Is there anything notable to talk about there?
JM: Yeah, obviously happy to try and at least give our insights on that. I think, as you point to, product tanker really started this year strongly. We saw the Red Sea disruption, increasing ton-mile with even up to more than 15% year-on-year, early part of 2024. So by the end of Q1, early Q2, we had a really strong market for all of the major clean petroleum products sectors.
Now, here in recent months, rates have softened. You’ve also seen it in the equities from the highs that we saw earlier. And I think it’s partly due to that we do see traditional seasonal weakness. As we come into the summer into Q2, Q3 trade volumes are, on average over the last decade, relatively lower than what we experience during more of what you would term the winter periods of which is basically Q4 and Q1. So I think it’s kind of obvious that this is what you would expect, but in addition to this seasonal weakness, what we’ve at least all experienced is that there has been a further softness to the rates, as a consequence of an increase in crude cannibalization. So obviously, that VLCCs and Suezmaxes have had a pronounced weakness in their markets, and they have been sort of tempted to look at, well, how can we actually increase our earning being at seasonal lows, but also historically lows, and they have come in and taken up some of the CPP, some of the Clean Petroleum Products that we would normally carry.
So actually, when we were in July and August, the month that we’ve just come through, CPP ton-miles, so the Clean Petroleum Product market has been really healthy. It’s up 13% year-on-year. But out of that increase, that bumper increase in ton mile, about a little more than half has actually been carried by our compatriots in the crude tanker segment and leaving them, let’s say about 5% growth for the product tankers.
So the obvious question is, okay, is this something that we are going to see persisting, that this cannibalization will sort of eat into the demand in our markets? And we are seeing sort of the early signs of reversing the future fixed data — for future loadings of CPP into VLCCs have slowed down. And it also obviously coincides with that the benchmark freight rates for the VLCCs, have increased, and they were sort of sub 30,000 at the end of August, and now we’re seeing them in the low 40,000. So that, of course, does not incentivize them in the same way to enter the CPP market, also because our rates have come down.
We saw that the base mark equals LR2 rates were all the way down to the low 20s about 3, 4 weeks ago, and now they’re back to around 30,000. And what we see is of course that this turn of events, the upward trend is sustainable because of that, we enter into this more normalized, stronger seasonal markets.
JM: Yeah, I mean, we’re certainly navigating — we’re at the end of Q3 now, right? That’s September 19th today, but Q3 historically has been terrible, especially for crude tankers. It’s a terrible quarter for crude tankers. And we’re seeing that transpire today. And I think, you know, last year and in 2022, we had such a disruptive market with all the sanctions that some of that seasonality got skewed, it seems like. So I mean, I think when people look year-over-year, there might be some misleading indicators. You think that’s fair?
JM: I agree. So really, I think we are seeing this sort of normalization and that is of course boding well for sort of that we can expect that at least the cannibalization trend that we saw peaking at the same time as the crude tanker rates coming down dramatically, that as they come into a better market, that they will also abstain from spilling over into our markets.
JM: Yeah, of course, it’s much easier for the tanker owners to go from the clean cargos like diesel back to crude oil, right? There’s very little stopping a tanker owner from going that direction. It’s obviously more costly and there are time delays to clean up a tanker. So hopefully, we’ll see that start to happen. Normally, historically when I’ve looked at it, the tanker rates seem to bottom out and start to strengthen somewhere between late September and sort of late October. Do you have — have you been looking at the crude tanker market in much detail? I know normally you focus just on the clean trades, but obviously, it’s a little bit relevant to your market now. Any ideas on when that sort of uptick might happen in crude tankers?
JM: Yeah, it’s actually, I mean, of course, as you point to, it’s a little depend on the year that you look at. But if you take the last decade, it is probably somewhere early, mid-September is kind of the low point over time for these markets. And we have looked at it in more detail now than what I would have done, let’s say, two years ago. And it is, of course, encouraging to see that that trend is coming on already now. We are in the middle of September. I think let’s give it another month and let’s see how markets sort of normalize. Of course, when I say that, it’s also because currently we have seen that what I would say is the crude tanker vessels are currently engaged in carrying clean cargoes. That of course leaves open more clean tonnage to take whatever cargoes are available currently. And we will only see sort of the real effect of the strength in the market in another month’s time because then you will have had a normalization of the clean product tanker trades, leaving it for only clean vessels to be engaged.
Currently, we have actually – we have too much — you have a little over-tonnage in the clean market than what you would have had if the Vs and the Suezmaxes had not been so engaged over the summer. So I think it is really encouraging that we’re already seeing now here in mid-September, that rates are slowly but steadily creeping up from the lows that we saw, let’s say, end of August.
JM: Yeah, I’ll set a reminder for one month from today, October 19, 2024, and we’ll circle back, and we’ll see where the rates are. Personally, yeah, just looking at seasonality and looking at the balances of the market, it certainly looks like the next month should start to involve a lot of tailwinds for both sides, both crude and product. But we’ll see what happens. I do want to talk about the disruptions that have been ongoing. The Red Sea is the obvious one, been on the news a lot more recently. Can you talk about the impact to product tankers specifically that you’re seeing from the Red Sea?
JM: Yeah, I think we, of course, together with a lot of like-minded owners were sort of early up to say, this is unsafe to go into waters where you risk the livelihood of your colleagues at sea is simply not on. And I think that was kind of the end of last year, early into this year that we saw that. That obviously led to disruption, the cost of transportation from the Middle East, especially into Europe rose because you had to redirect the flow of cargo instead of going through the Red Sea and then the Suez Canal. And then now most owners and most oil companies will not allow themselves to take the risk of going through that area. And now they’re going south of the Cape of Good Hope. And what we have seen is that normally it’s about 12% of actually of the global CPP volumes that would transit through the Suez Canal. Today is down to about 4%. That’s of course a significant trade volume that have to divert. It’s 8% of the global. And that leads to that this Red Sea disruption alone is on a ton-mile basis, not on a volume basis, is up around 11% year-on-year for this year.
I would say, of course, what is also important is to remember that we are seeing in the refinery landscape that the increasing oil demand itself, together with the changes in refining landscape, is also leading to an increase in trade volumes. It’s another 3% that you have just from the fact that we are fundamentally seeing trends that will continue to be supportive, obviously, for product tankers and which is not dependent on what I would say geopolitical circumstances. It’s of course, extremely worrisome that you have a Red Sea conflict at all, and we would all rather be without it — and hopefully that will happen at some point. But then I still find it very encouraging that we still see even in that scenario that trade volumes are also up when you isolate this element out.
JM: And what about the other major disruption, which of course has been ongoing now for over two years, which is the sanctions on Russian exports? How does that impact the market?
JM: Yeah, so the impact there is basically the same. I think we were early out when we saw the statements that Europe would put sanctions on Russian oil. And I have to say that the team we have, that I have around me to guide me on what would be the consequences because it was totally new territory when the EU in the summer of 2022 said, we are going to impose new restrictions on Russian oil and oil trade with the tool of sanctions — that was totally novel for the EU. It’s of course not novel for the US to have used — utilize sanctions in many circumstances, but for the EU it was totally novel.
I think a lot of people were actually sceptical whether it would even transpire into that. But the way we put the data together was that we would see a global redistribution, obviously, of the refined oils coming out of Russia and also the crude versus also that you would now need to locate the imports into Europe from further afield from the predominantly US and Middle East. And that that sort of system altogether is an increase in ton-mile with the same volumes of around 7% to 8%. And it’s — it is around that of course, there’s again seasonality in some of these data points. But I think year-on-year, it’s fair to say that that is what it has increased. That’s, of course a one-off. I mean, once you’ve taken sort of the benefit of that increase seen from a utilization factor, you’re not going to get another increase the following year. You’re sort of at the same level now. That’s the reference point that you have. But it seems to be relatively steady, to be honest, around that with some seasonality, as we also experienced here in the third quarter.
JM: Yeah, and of course, a disruption like that is at its highest magnitude right at the start of the sanctions, right? When everyone is scrambling to reroute their tankers, there’s a lot of uncertainty. And if we look at the rates, I mean, 2022 was a phenomenal year for product tankers. 2023 was strong as well. So it’s almost like, you know, like you said, it’s a — the overall dislocation is a one-time effect, but I think we definitely saw more magnitude earlier on. So it is interesting to see that.
JM: I agree. Obviously, you know, when it is unknown, I think people scramble a little more and probably make decisions just really to take out insurance that you’re not going to get caught up to something. Once you sort of understand what is now your likely sourcing of the cargos that you need and the various types of refined products you need, once you feel more comfortable with that, I think some of the pressure obviously goes off because then you can start planning around it. Yes, it may have a longer lead time to take diesel or jet fuel, what have you, from the US into Europe and from Russia, but it can be done. And then you start planning. And as you say, I think you take some of the steam out. It goes also for other sectors, where, for instance, containerized trade, obviously, when you have this kind of one-time effects, it’s felt very much right at the start of an event and then it sort of normalizes somewhat and I think we’ve seen exactly that as you described. But it’s a very healthy normalization, I have to say, in terms of the rates that the market is offering.
JM: Yeah, certainly a very dynamic market. And it seems like the last few years have been nonstop disruptions. I mean, we had all the COVID stuff that happened, then we had the sanctions, now we have the Red Sea. And things in the Middle East are getting even more unstable, even as we’re speaking today. So it seems like the disruptions have been trending upwards, not downwards. So very, very dynamic time. I do want to pivot a little bit and focus more specifically on TORM and TORM strategy and capital allocation. Let’s start with the balance sheet. So your leverage now has come down significantly. You’re close to the 20% level, roughly net debt to assets. Is delevering, deleveraging complete at TORM or do you still desire to bring that debt a little bit further down?
JM: Yeah, so after we’ve paid out, we distributed here earlier this month, another dividend. I think our LTV is around 25% actually, but we are very comfortable with the leverage you have — you can say from a capital allocation perspective, it’s quite interesting. Obviously, we could bring it down further. I mean, there’s no, I mean, we’re generating cash, and you can as management and sort of on behalf of shareholders, you can, of course, decide to bring that down further. My personal opinion is that that’s not a very efficient. Once you are at a certain level, it’s not very efficient to do that. I would argue that it’s an inefficient allocation of capital, not to pay back the sort of the proceeds that we get from the markets to our shareholders in the current environment because the cost of the capital that I would be paying back on is really low.
I mean, we are sort of all in paying 5%, 6% on our debt. So you could say, yes, I can bring that down. But that would, of course, be under the assumption that shareholders in general cannot have an alternative use that is better than what I am taking out of it. So I think that once we are sort of at this level where even if there was a black swan, and of course none of us can predict or point to it, there’s a lot of uncertainty that we’ve seen over the past years and I think that is continuing. So there’s a lot of uncertainty, so you have to — need to be prepared for a black swan. Nobody can with certainty predict, and I think the current debt level that we have is certainly offering that even if vessel values were halved, we are still at a very comfortable LTV of around 50%. And that is not going to bring anybody to sort of making desperate moves. So we are in a very comfortable situation.
But I think the capital allocation we will continue to pay out dividends when and if markets are healthy, we will continue to utilize our stock. We have increased the stock count by about 50% over the last three, four years by virtue of adding tonnage to our fleet. So we actually, a significant larger platform with the efficiencies that we have, but we haven’t taken a lot of cash out to do that. We’ve actually utilized our currency in our stock.
JM: You’ve been in a fortuitous position where the stock was trading strong, and you were able to use a combination right of cash and shares to renew and grow the fleet a little bit. Is there more potential to do more of that? Those sorts of transactions, any sort of larger scale M&As, is there anything on the table?
JM: Well, I think as I like to say, and I think maybe I even said it a year ago, I mean, if I were put in charge let’s say with an objective that was now you’ve done this number of deals, we would like to have a strategy where we know that in one year time we will have added another, pick your number, 10% of shares increase or 20%. I think that’s not a very realistic way to go about in our industry, actually, because there are so many things that need to be aligned for us to enter into these types of deals. We obviously need to have a willing seller of assets who likes our currency and who sees merit in taking that rather than cash. We also need to identify assets that we actually think are value creating for our existing shareholders. So that the price point and the asset that we get is something that we can see is meaningfully adding value to us over time.
So to your point, yes, certainly, we’ve been — I think we’ve been fortunate to enter into these types of deals. I would love to be able to identify more, but it’s not a given, because there’s not been that many. When we look in this universe it’s not something that is used a lot and there’s been few in a broader scale of that. We’ve got more than 3,000 vessels in our space. You could argue that the fact that we have, let’s say, over the last couple of years done 20 ships or 30 ships is that’s a very small number of assets, given that you’ve got such a big asset base.
For a broader, bigger M&A, time will tell. I think nobody is really very open at this time, when I think everybody is doing really well. But who knows, nobody can predict again what will happen. But it seems — everybody seems to be pretty pleased with the position that they’re in. So it takes a lot of confidence if you’re going to try and make a bigger M&A transaction because I think sellers, again, will be pretty happy to sit tight with the assets that they’ve got for good reason.
JM: One of the questions that we’ve discussed a lot in the past and came up this summer and asking you it again today, you have a fairly large investor, Oaktree, who has been with you since the restructuring. It’s a bit of an overhang, it’s a bit of a large block on the shares. Is there any potential transaction there that could be mutually beneficial? I mean, if we look at Oaktree’s other shipping holdings, they had one in Eagle Bulk, they had one in Star Bulk, and they were able to do sort of a mutually agreeable transaction where they sold some of their shares and some of those were repurchased. Is that anything potential that could happen with TORM?
JM: Yeah, I don’t think there is anything sort of to learn specifically from other situations where Oaktree or other PE firms have been involved. What I can say is, as I also mentioned this always, that we really had a fantastic relationship throughout with Oaktree. I think they are very prudent owners, prudent shareholders who’ve done well on their investment. But of course, that has also benefited all other investors. And I think that’s the way I think about it, overhanging or not, that Oaktree is going to do what will be beneficial for all shareholders.
JM: The full dividend payout policy has been mutually beneficial to all shareholders. And I’m sure Oaktree has been advocating for that as well, and that’s worked out nicely for them. And of course, that’s a way, right too, to take some cash off the table while maintaining your full ownership of the company, right. So I think investors really love that.
So one other question I wanted to ask, I want to talk a little bit about some of the risk factors or concerns in this market. And one of the concerns that I have, and other investors have is when we look across the order book segment, the order book is often discussed in the tanker sector as being very bullish, right? There are very few crude tankers on order, especially, VLCCs and Suezmaxes. But when we look at the LR2 order book, it is quite large. Does that concern you from a product tanker owner perspective?
JM: Yeah. No, I think it is definitely an observation point. What we’ve sort of, from the beginning, it’s been very clear that there has been the flavor of the LR2s have been preferred by investors over the last couple of years. So you’ve sort have been seeing that if you look at LR2 isolated, that the order book to fleet ratio is north of 30%. So that feels like a big number, isolated. However, when you combine it with the fact that LR2 is more of a younger type of vessel, the sibling, which is the Aframax from the crude market, has had a longer sort of existence in our markets.
And when you combine the LR2 and the Aframaxes, then the known order book is around 200 vessels. So we sort of say, okay, 200, that’s a big number. However, already today, at times of this recording, there are 187 LR2 and Afras that are 20 years or older. So that’s obviously, whether they are scrapping candidates or whether they are the inefficient vessels, that’s quite a pool. But if we fast-forward and say that these 200 on order ships will obviously be delivered over the course of the next three, four years. And if we add to what is over 20 years, five years from now, and imagine that all vessels will be there, which clearly they will not, then it’s 500 that is over and above 20 years.
I think my point is of course, clearly that there’s a big pool of older vessels from the LR2 and Aframax, existing vessels that will either be significantly lower efficiency in the markets and/or that will be — being deleted from the fleet. And that will, of course, depend on the strength of the market. In a slightly weaker market, you will see a more tendency of course for these assets to no longer be there and go for scrap.
And in a stronger market, they will still be there. But I think it is fair to say that, that feels like a big number, but when you dig into it, just the numbers that I gave, 200 in order, but you actually have 500 assets that are over 20 years of exactly that type over the coming five years, that gives me some comfort. And the other thing is obviously that when we’re now looking at that, whatever your price point for an LR2 today, call it, 70 million out in the future and a lot of the orders have been placed by operators and owners who own Aframaxes.
And clearly, if you own an Aframax today, and you’re going to spend, let’s say, it’s a significant investment to buy one at 70, and not alone, if you buy 10, that you buy yourself an option for that Aframax that you’re substituting from your existing fleet into a future vessel, that you also buy the optionality of having coated tanks so that you can potentially carry clean. I think that is also part of the equation here. That is simply such a low option cost to operate your existing asset from Afra to LR2, that it almost makes no sense not to do it. And that’s, of course, also why we see that out of the order book that is already there, the vast majority, more than 90% is LR2s. It’s not Aframaxes because there are very few owners who decide not to add that optionality.
JM: Yeah. So it sounds like your view there is basically you need to combine all the Aframaxes and all the LR2s and then look holistically at the age profile in the order book. Is that fair?
JM: That is fair. And I think also the fact that we saw here over the summer that the crude and the product market was more sort of cyclically together, when Vs came down, product rates also came down. Now, when Vs are coming up, product rates also come up. I think this is another testament to that, in the future, we’ll — we can see even more that these vessels will be more versatile in between where the earnings are. So I think we need to look at the ecosystem broader, especially, when you look at the order book for LR2 and Afra. I have no doubt about that.
JM: We talked about the risk of a potential larger order book in LR2s. What are some of the other risk factors that you see in the product tanker market? What are some of the reasons to be cautious in today’s market?
JM: Well, I would say, clearly, what is the effect in China of both the economy sort of, transferring from being fossil fuel into more of EV, sort of, economy or alternative fuels in general. How will that play out? I think that is something to think about and form an opinion around, from what I see, then China has been slower this year. I think whether public data or official data is obviously saying probably 4% or 5%, I think if you look at the economists that are following this, whether it’s zero or one or two, obviously I think none of us will ever know, but it’s at least a very — it’s a significantly lower number than what is coming out from the official data.
I think we are seeing some slowdown in the Chinese economy, and that has obviously some consequences for oil demand. I think I was out lowering, but of course, it’s on the margin, but if you saw a real step down in that confidence, consumer confidence in China and the broader confidence in the economy coming down, leading to significantly lower economic activity that could have some impact on our market.
China is a big economy and a big vehicle, of course, for — directly for oil consumption, but of course, also all the indirect effects that it’s got on production of all the things that we all hear in Europe and the United States are utilizing, that’s, of course, coming from a production line where fossil fuel is also normally part of it.
So I think it’s a kind of, it’s a bigger theme, but it is the weakness that we’re seeing in China. Is that going to persist? Is it going to even maybe increase in the coming year? And what will be the consequences on sort of the global landscape? What gives me some comfort is obviously that in the clean petroleum product alone, China is still less than 5% of all the trade volumes. I think a slowdown in China could have impacts, of course, across the global economy. It could have impacts — negative impact on all global trade that is also seaborne. Actually, CPP will not be the one that is first in line for what I’m describing. It would be — I would think that it’s more profound in dry cargo or container or car carry, where you see that overall part of the Chinese demand and supply is much greater than what we see for our sector. But I think it’s still something to be aware of.
JM: No. I’m just absolutely agreeing with you that China is a must-watch. And of course, for us at VIE we cover 47 companies and of course, China is the biggest sort of X factor for almost every single one of those. So no disagreement there. We did have a sort of technical question, sort of follow-up that was posted in the chat. Specifically, looking at LR2s, the large portion of those, of course, are east of Suez, out of Singapore, Asia, those sorts of markets. Is there any notable market west of that, like, in the Atlantic basin, or you pretty much just have to return on ballast and load back up?
JM: So you can find that out of the U.S. Gulf, so obviously over the last decade, the importance for — in general for the U.S. Gulf refinery sector has increased, the export volumes have increased, and with that, we’ve also seen that the LR share out of the overall volumes coming out of U.S. Gulf has increased over the last couple of years. So I would say, you could argue that you really have a relatively inefficient cargo system as you point to because you are sort of loading in east, discharging in west, and then you’re just going to ballast back. But there are options out of the U.S. Gulf and there are also some options out of Europe, but it is more profound to be ballasting back than it is to load out.
JM: Yeah, I think that was the crux of the question is whether or not there’s a triangulation opportunity there or whether or not it’s mostly a one-way cargo.
JM: We like it when we find it, but it’s not something we count on when we make the decision to go west. We would calculate that we have to take it the hard way back without triangulation. But of course, we try to identify with our clients exactly those optimization options.
JM: Yeah. So from like a modeling perspective, you know, when looking at rates, basically just treat it like a regular round voyage then.
JM: Yeah, I would do that.
JM: Okay. Certainly, makes sense. All right, Jacob, well, this was extremely helpful for us today. I appreciate your insights on the broad market and answering some questions about TORM in particular. As we wrap up here, I want to give you the last word, basically, asking you, hey, look, there are a lot of product tanker companies out there. If you include the crude tanker universe, there’s about a dozen firms that investors can pick from. Why should investors consider TORM or prioritize TORM today versus all those other peers?
JM: Yeah, I mean, you should make your own choice, but I think that numbers speak its own language and I like numbers. So I would study, okay, where is it that I get the most value? And at least, if you look back, that’s been in our stock. If you look forward, I think you should expect us to consistently do exactly what we’ve done in the past. And with that, sort of leave it up to the well-educated investors to make their own choice.
JM: All right. Well, the numbers historically in terms of total shareholder return have definitely shined favorably on TORM. You can always, of course, highlight the strong dividend payout policy and then significant total dividends paid out in the last two or three years. So excellent job operationally and also from a corporate governance perspective, Jacob. So keep up the good work. It was great talking with you this morning. Thanks for joining us.
JM: Thank you.
JM: This concludes another exclusive interview at Value Investor’s Edge Live recorded on the morning of September 19, 2024 at about 10 o’clock eastern time. As a reminder, nothing on the call today constitutes official company guidance or investment recommendations of any form. I have no current position in TRMD; however, if you’re listening to a recording or reading a transcript at a later date, please be advised those positions may have been updated.
Read the full article here
