BofA update shows where active managers are putting money
Investing.com -- Shares of PostNL (AS:PTNL) ( AMS (VIE:AMS2):PNL) fell 4% as the company’s first quarter results for 2025 showed mixed performance, with parcel volume growth lagging expectations and a fiscal year outlook that became more back end loaded.
Despite broadly meeting consensus expectations and maintaining unchanged full-year guidance, investors reacted to the weaker parcel volumes and a significantly lower free cash flow than anticipated.
PostNL reported a first quarter EBIT of -€15 million, aligning with the consensus. However, the parcel volumes grew only by 2.0% year-over-year (YoY), which was below the consensus co-consensus of 3%, with domestic volumes dropping by 2.4%.
International volumes increased by 19%, but this was a slowdown from the 42% growth seen in the previous quarter. The company’s revenue from spring was solid, with a 10% YoY increase, suggesting some cost and pricing discipline in a challenging environment.
Mail volumes continued to decline, registering a 6.9% drop, although this was slightly better than the consensus and Barclays (LON:BARC)’ estimate of an 8% decline. The majority of non-USO mail business has transitioned to a standard D+2 delivery time.
The ’Other’ segment of PostNL’s business performed better than expected, with EBIT at -€1 million against the co-consensus of -€4 million. However, free cash flow was a point of concern, coming in at -€33 million, which was far below the consensus estimate of -€4 million, impacted by negative net working capital related to payments due.
The company’s outlook for the full year 2025 remains unchanged despite the ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty. The normalized EBIT is expected to be in line with the previous year, but it is too early to assess the impact of recent global developments on macro and e-commerce flows.
Barclays commented on the results, stating, "View: We see this set of results as neutral to small negative."
This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.