1. Kooperationen in der Linienschifffahrt
VLS Veranstaltung
Schwerin
Click to add text

2. Key Figures 2016 – Hapag-Lloyd Fleet & Services
Hapag-Lloyd overview
Key Figures 2016 – Hapag-Lloyd Fleet & Services
Hapag-Lloyd Fleet
Around 170 Vessels, Capacity: slots
Vessels on order, 1 x TEU in 2017 (series of five)
Liner Services
Around 110 services (physical loops) – 125 products
Mainly weekly departures
Cooperations
10 services without partner involvement
Around 68 services in consortia / VSA‘s
Around 47 services as slotcharters and slot swaps
Status: Spring 2017 w/o UASC

3. 1
Hapag-Lloyd overview
Current Fleet
Current Fleet

4. Number of Vessels and Standing Slots - History1
Hapag-Lloyd overview
Number of Vessels and Standing Slots - History
+35%
Net capacity and vessel count (i.e.excluding chartered-out vessels)
TEU‘ 000
240
+60%
220
-6%
744
200
189
188
186
552
180
172
173
171
172
167
163
164
160
153
151
150
151
153
142
144
142
144
145
141
141
140
139
138
139
135
133
132
133
134
133
128
128
124
125
120
120
113
114
q4 07q4 07
q1 08q1 08
q2 08q2 08
q3 08q3 08
q4 08q4 08
q1 09q1 09
q2 09q2 09
q3 09q3 09
q4 09q4 09
q1 10q1 10
q2 10q2 10
q3 10q3 10
q4 10q4 10
q1 11q1 11
q2 11q2 11
q3 11q3 11
q4 11q4 11
q1 12q1 12
q2 12q2 12
q3 12q3 12
q4 12q4 12
q1 13q1 13
q2 13q2 13
q3 13q3 13
q4 13q4 13
q1 14q1 14
q2 14q2 14
q3 14q3 14
q4 14q4 14
q1 15q1 15
q2 15q2 15
q3 15q3 15
q4 15q4 15
q1 16q1 16
q2 16q2 16
q3 16q3 16
q4 16q4 16
q1 17q1 17

5. Number of Vessels and Standing Slots - History1
Hapag-Lloyd overview
Number of Vessels and Standing Slots - History
+25%
Net capacity and vessel count (i.e.excluding chartered-out vessels)
TEU‘ 000
+60%
260
240
220
744
200
+447%
189
188
186
180
571
552
172
173
171
167
163
160
153
151
150
151
153
141
142
144
139
142
145
138
141
144
139
140
135
133
132
133
134
133
128
128
124
125
120
120
113
114 48
187 40 20 99
Jul 04Jul 04
q4 07q4 07
q1 08q1 08
q2 08q2 08
q3 08q3 08
q4 08q4 08
q1 09q1 09
q2 09q2 09
q3 09q3 09
q4 09q4 09
q1 10q1 10
q2 10q2 10
q3 10q3 10
q4 10q4 10
q1 11q1 11
q2 11q2 11
q3 11q3 11
q4 11q4 11
q1 12q1 12
q2 12q2 12
q3 12q3 12
q4 12q4 12
q1 13q1 13
q2 13q2 13
q3 13q3 13
q4 13q4 13
q1 14q1 14
q2 14q2 14
q3 14q3 14
q4 14q4 14
q1 15q1 15
q2 15q2 15
q3 15q3 15
q4 15q4 15
q1 16q1 16
q2 16q2 16
q3 16q3 16

6. Development of Alliances2
Market Update
Development of Alliances

7. Alliances shake-up 2017 2 Market Update Standing Slots ‘000 TEU 3,206
2,791
Numbers represent carriers‘ total ship portfolios irrespective of whether the ships are actually committed to the alliances
Standing Slots ‘000 TEU
2,145
1,561
1,480 5
1,368
+HMM
Ocean
THE
HL+U
Japan JV
Non Alliance
Fragmented market
Maersk
MSC
CMA CGMCMA CGM
COSCO
HL+ UASCHL+ UASC
 JP JV
Evergreen
Hapag-Lloyd
Hamburg Süd
OOCL
YML
UASC
MOL
NYK
HMM
PIL
K Line
Zim
Wan Hai
Hanjin
X-Press
KMTC
Source: Alphaliner Top 100 –

8. On the back of consolidation, alliances have been re-shaped2
Market Update
On the back of consolidation, alliances have been re-shaped
Alliances at a glance
Partners [#]
Services [#]
Vessels [#]
Port Coverage
THE Alliance 2M
Ocean Alliance
THE Alliance 2M
Ocean Alliance
THE Alliance 2M
Ocean Alliance
THE Alliance 2M
Ocean Alliance 3 2 4 32 25 40
241
223
323 78 76 95
Hapag-Lloyd – a strong partner in THE Alliance
After Japanese JV1) we are three partners in THE Alliance:2)
THE Alliance covers all East-West trades
Comprehensive network of 32 services will connect more than 78 major ports
Combined capacity of ~3.6m TEU or around 17%2) of world fleet – vessel pool of more than 241 ships
Leading product characterized by fast transit times, broad port coverage & latest vessels
Unique contingency plan – Independent trust fund to safeguard customers’ cargo on board
17%
43%
Hapag-Lloyd
K-Line, MOL, NYK
41%
Yang Ming
1) Subject to regulatory approvals and closing; 2) Total operating capacity of THE alliance partners, not all to be deployed in alliance (Hapag-Lloyd including UASC)
Source: Transmodal; internal data; Official Carrier information

9. 2
Market Update
THE Alliance offers fast, competitive services on the three major East-West trades
Competitive on all trades
Atlantic
Transpacific
Far East
Others 5%
2M1) 49%
Others 9%
2M1) 20%
Others 6%
2M1) 37% 2 2 3
THE Alliance 34%
THE Alliance 29%
THE Alliance 23%
Ocean 12%
Ocean 42%
Ocean 34%
1) 2M including Hamburg Süd
Source: Alphaliner monthly (April 2017), Drewry (Forecaster 1Q17), MDS Transmodal (April 2017)

10. 3
UASC Merger
Hapag-Lloyd / UASC merger creates a top tier pure-play carrier – Final preparations on track for closing end of May
At a glance
Deal rationale
Combined
Entity1)
Corporate HQ
Hamburg
Dubai
Alliance membership G6
(until
31 March 2017)
Ocean 3
THE Alliance
(since 1 April 2017)
Ships [#]
172 58
230
Capacity
[TEU m]
1.0
0.6
1.6
Container [TEU m]
0.7
2.3
Strengthened market position
Strong partnerships
Well-balanced trades
Large, young fleet
Significant synergy effects
1) Sum of stand-alone figures as of 31 March 2017 (rounding differences may occur)

11. Vessel size range by carrier3
UASC Merger
Vessel size range by carrier
Source: Alphaliner

12. 3
UASC Merger
Source: Alphaliner

13. 4
UASC Merger
Network: The Combined Entity will have a very balanced trade portfolio – more than any TOP 5 carrier
Breakdown of capacity by trade1)
Hapag-Lloyd/UASC
Maersk/HSDG
MSC 3% 3% 5% 6% 7%
14%
17%
12%
13% 9% 5% 4% 2% 1%
11% 6%
27%
21%
19%
26%
20%
28%
23%
18%
CMA CGM
COSCO
Evergreen 3% 1% 1%
10% 4% 9% 9%
19% 1% 2% 5%
24%
12%
33%
21% 5%
22%
24% 8% 9%
28%
13% 8%
29%
Atlantic
Transpacific
Far East
Latin America
EMAO
Intra Asia
ME / ISC related 
Others
1) As of March Breakdown based on capacity deployed by individual carriers on direct services only. Excl. wayport capacity, transshipment services, slot exchange arrangements and cross-trade intra-alliance arrangements; numbers for Hapag-Lloyd based on exposure to global trades; 2) Includes idle fleet
Source: Alphaliner monthly newsletter (April 2017), plus HL/UASC internal data (as of )

14. Average vessel size [TEU]1)3
UASC Merger
Fleet: Access to young and fuel-efficient fleet with large share of ULCVs with no planned need to invest in next years
Young and fuel-efficient fleet
Ship deliveries
Vessel
2015
2016
2017
Combined
7.2
CMA CGM 
7.4 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2
-1.3
yrs
Average fleet age1)
COSCO
7.6
19,500 TEU
Top 15 2)
8.3
TEU
19,
57,
38,
Hapag-Lloyd
8.5
Vessels
Maersk 
8.5
MSC
8.7
15,000 TEU
TEU
45,
15,
60,
30,
Combined
66%
34%
Vessels
COSCO
60%
40%
Hapag-Lloyd
57%
43%
10,500 TEU
Fleet ownership [%]1)
Maersk 
53%
47%
TEU
21,
31,5003) 33)
Top 15 2)
49%
51%
Vessels
CMA CGM
46%
54%
9,300 TEU
MSC
36%
64%
TEU
37, 9,
current owned fleet
current chartered fleet
Vessels
Combined
6,839
CMA CGM
6,181
3,500 TEU
+982
COSCO
5,970
TEU 7,
Average vessel size [TEU]1)
Hapag-Lloyd
5,858
Vessels
Top 15 
5,281
Capacity [TEU]
Maersk 
5,163
101,
81,
105,
21,
31,5003) 33)
30,
CMA CGM
5,038
Vessels
1) Diagram assuming that all currently announced mergers (Hapag-Lloyd & UASC; NYK & MOL & K-Line; Maersk & Hamburg Süd) will receive regulatory approvals and are executed as announced. Simple sum of stand-alone operating capacity 2) Weighted by carrier capacities 3) All three vessels have been delivered within the first four months of 2017
Source: MDS Transmodal (April 2017) plus HL internal data (HL Fleet as of , Combined as of ), only vessels >399 TEU

15. 3
UASC Merger
Synergies: Synergies of USD 435 m expected from 2019 onwards – Focus on fast-track integration and realization of synergies
Synergy potential, full run-rate [USD m]
USD 435 million
Network
Overhead
Other
Expected synergies
Synergies of USD 435 m per year from 2019 onwards
One-off costs of approx. USD 150 m largely payable in 2017
Comments
Network
Overhead
Other (terminals, equipment and intermodal)
Optimized new vessel deployment/network
Slot cost advantages
Efficient use of new fleet
Consolidation of Corp. and Regional HQs
Consolidation of country organizations
Other overhead reductions (e.g. marketing, consultancy, audit)
Lower container handling rates per vendor/location
Imbalance reduction and leasing costs optimization
Optimization of inland haulage network
Best practice sharing

16. United Arab Shipping Company United Arab Shipping Company3
UASC Merger
Partner: New core shareholders with strategic interest in the Combined Entity
Transaction overview
UASC shares contributed to Hapag-Lloyd in exchange for newly issued Hapag-Lloyd shares
Continued investment of sovereign wealth funds QIA and PIF highlight continued strategic importance of HL for the region
C. 39% of shareholders representing governmental bodies and interests
C. 37% of shareholders backed by wealthy entrepreneurs with focus on and long experience in logistics
Planned cash capital increase of USD 400 m 50/50 backstopped by incumbent and new key shareholders within six months post closing
QH1)
PIF2)
Other
Minorities3)
CSAV
HGV
Kühne
TUI
Free Float
51.3%
36.1%
12.6%
31.4%
20.6%
20.2%
12.3%
15.5%
UASC shares
Hapag-Lloyd shares
United Arab Shipping Company
Hapag-Lloyd
(Frankfurt / Hamburg)
CSAV
HGV
Kühne
QH1)
PIF2)
TUI
Free Float4)
22.6%
14.9%
14.6%
14.4%
10.1%
8.9%
14.7%
Hapag-Lloyd
(Frankfurt / Hamburg)5)
United Arab Shipping Company
Shareholders’ agreement / Controlling shareholders
1) “QH” refers to Qatar Holding LLC on behalf of the State of Qatar 2) “PIF” refers to The Public Investment Fund on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 3) Other UASC Shareholders include Kuwait Investment Authority on behalf of the state of Kuwait (5.1%), Republic of Iraq (5.1%), United Arab Emirates (2.1%) and Bahrain (0.4%) 4) Including 3.6% Other UASC Shareholders (KIA, Iraq, UAE and Bahrain) 5) Shareholding structure prior to cash capital increase

17. We achieved a clearly positive EBITDA in Q1 20174
HL Financials
We achieved a clearly positive EBITDA in Q1 2017
Operational KPIs
Q1 2017
Q1 2016
YoY ∆%
Q4 2016
QoQ ∆%
Transport volume [TTEU]
1,934
1,811
+7%
1,949
-1%
Freight rate [USD/TEU]
1,047
1,067
-2%
1,033
+1%
Bunker price (MFO) [USD/t]
300
178
+69%
257
+17%
Exchange rate [EUR/USD]
1,07
1.10
n/a
Revenue [USD m]
2,271
2,124
2,182
+4%
EBITDA [USD m]
140
136
+3%
246
-43%
EBITDA-margin
6.2%
6.4%
-0.2 ppt
11.3%
-5.1 ppt
EBIT [USD m] 4 5
-30%
111
-96%
EBIT-margin
0.2%
0.0 ppt
5.1%
-4.9 ppt
Group profit / loss [USD m]
-66
-47
-40% 46
-243%

18. Note: Further result publications expected within next weeks3
HL Financials
The effects of our cost savings are clearly visible when looking at our relative performance
Carrier Revenue vs. EBIT-Margin FY 2016
Q EBIT [USDm]
EBIT-Margin [%]
0.4
Hapag-Lloyd
ZIM
3.8%
0.2
Wan Hai
0.0
Hapag-Lloyd
0.2%
ZIM
NYK
-0.2
CMA CGM
NYK
(0.8)%
OOCL
-0.4
Maersk Line
K-Line
Yang Ming
(3.9)%
-0.6
MOL
Maersk Line
(0.8)%
-0.8
Evergreen
-1.0
(3.8)%
MOL
COSCO
-1.2
Yang Ming
Revenue [USDm]
K-Line
(5.3)%
-1.4
Note: Further result publications expected within next weeks
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
Source: Company information (11 May 2017)

19. Transport volume increased by solid 6.8% to 1,934 TTEU in Q1 2017
HL Financials
Transport volume increased by solid 6.8% to 1,934 TTEU in Q1 2017
2016
2017
Transport volume [TTEU]
7,599
+2.7%
1,934
+6.8%
The 6.8% volume increase was mainly driven by a strong growth on Intra- Asia and Transpacific trades
In preparation of the integration of UASC, the trades have been restructured and a new trade Middle East has been added. The assignment of individual services and historic figures have been amended accordingly
Growth [YoY%]
2.1%
-2.7%
4.6%
7.0%
6.8%
Growth YoY [%]
1,892
1,947
1,949
1,934
1,811
+3.5%
+11.2%
+2.0%
+13.3%
+3.0%
+16.9%
+14.7%
102
106
100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Atlantic
Transpacific
Far East
Middle East 
Latin America
Intra Asia
EMAO

20. 4
HL Financials
Bunker price increased by 69%, whereas average freight rate showed a slower recovery
Freight rate1) [USD/TEU] vs. bunker price2) [USD/t]
Freight rate
1,225
1,036
1,047
-15.4%
1,400
1,100
1,331
1,000
1,300
1,264
900
800
1,189
1,200
700
1,116
-2%
600
1,100
1,067
500
1,027
1,033
1,047
1,019
400
1,000
+69%
300
200
900
100
Bunker price (MFO)
-32.7%
312
210
300
800
-100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2015
2016
2017
1) Hapag-Lloyd average freight rate for the period 2) Hapag-Lloyd average (MFO) consumption price for the period

21. 4
HL Financials
Bunker prices have increased significantly – However, Hapag-Lloyd benefits from a reduced consumption
Bunker price [Rotterdam; USD/mt]
Bunker consumption & expenses
1,000
3.42
MFO
Bunker cons. per slot1)
800
MDO
3.28
600
462
0.45
408
368
Bunker cons. per TEU
400
0.42
354
200
212
1 Jan 2014
1 Jan 2015
1 Jan 2016
1 Jan 2017
Bunker mix [MFO; MDO]
Q1 2016
Q1 2017
MFO high sulphur
MFO high sulphur
Bunker expenses2) per TEU
695 (85%)
671 (84%)
47 (6%)
80 (10%)
72 (9%)
MFO low sulphur
MFO low sulphur
61 (8%)
MDO
MDO
∑ = 821 k mt
∑ = 803 k mt
Q1 2016
Q1 2017
1) Average nominal deployed capacity in TEU 2) Expenses for raw materials and supplies
Source: Bloomberg (10 May 2017)

22. Thank you for your attention!
Gordon Wellmann
Director / Network & Cooperations
Hapag-Lloyd AG
Ballindamm 25
20095 Hamburg
Tel: +49(40)