Maersk strategy and performance page 2 The new direction Transport & Logistics Energy • Managed and operated as an integrated company • Managed and operated as individual business units • A one company structure with multiple brands • More focused and structurally agile strategies to • Growing topline, earnings for our owners, and optimise value opportunities for our people • Intent to separate out of A.P. Møller - Mærsk A/S, creating value for shareholders in the process, before end of 2018 The Maersk Line brand includes Safmarine, Seago Line, SeaLand, Mercosul Line and MCC Transport Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 3 Focus on cash flow and capital discipline Introducing more disciplined CAPEX High degree of flexibility in the future contractual approach commitment from 2018 Yearly gross capex (USDbn) USDbn 8.0 0.9 10 8 1.0 9 8 2.8 6 7 5.5-6.5 6 5 4 8.7 3.0 4 7.2 3 6.3 5.0 2 2 1 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017E 0 ROY 2017 2018 2019-2022 2022+ Total Maersk APM Svitzer Maersk Maersk Supply Maersk Line Terminals Oil Service Tankers Note: Excluding the acquisition of Hamburg Süd Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 4 Funding in place with liquidity reserve of USD 10.3bn Loan maturity profile at the end of Q1 2017 Funding USD bn • BBB (negative outlook) / Baa2 (negative outlook) 10 credit ratings from S&P and Moody’s respectively • Liquidity reserve of USD 10.3bn as of end Q1 2017* 8 • In addition to the liquidity reserve, the Group has USD 2.1bn in committed undrawn investment- 6 specific funding • Average debt maturity about five years 4 • Corporate bond programme - 53% of our gross debt (USD 7.9bn) 2 • Amortisation of debt in coming 5 years is on average USD 2.2bn per year 0 ROY 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2024 • Exclude Hamburg Süd financing Drawn debt Corporate bonds Undrawn revolving facilities *Defined as cash and securities and undrawn committed facilities longer than 12 months less restricted cash and securities Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 5 Earnings shared with investors DKKbn Ordinary dividend Executed share buy back 40 36.7 11.8 10.0 10 9.7 5.2 3.9 3.2 5.3 5 4.4 4.4 2.9 3.1 6.2 6.6 6.5 1.4 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2015 Extraordinary dividend (Danske Bank) Note: Dividend and share buy back in the paid year. The second share buy back of USD ~1bn was completed in Q1 2016. Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 6 Maersk Line Capacity market share by trade 16% no.2 no.3 no.3 no.1 no.3 14% Intra 22% 12% Europe Pacific Atlantic Asia-Europe Pacific Trade Δ y/y no.4 Asia-Europe +1pp 9% Intra Atlantic -1pp 8% Asia Intra no.2 Pacific +4pp America Oceania +1pp Latin Africa West- Oceania West-Central Asia +1pp America Central Africa +6pp Asia Latin America -3pp 23% 32% 18% 15% Intra Europe 0pp Intra Asia 0pp no.1 no.1 no.1 no.2 Intra America 0pp Maersk Line capacity (TEU) East-West 41.9% North-South 46.5% Intra 11.6% Capacity market share no. Market position Note: 1)West-Central Asia is defined as import and export to and from Middle East and India. 2) Trades mapped as per ML definition. 3) ML EW market shares calculated as ML accessible capacity based on internal data on ML-MSC allocation split applied to 2M capacity market share (deployed capacity data from Alphaliner) Source: Alphaliner as of 2016 FY (end period), Maersk Line Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 7 The industry is fragmented but consolidation has increased top liners market share Capacity market share (%) Alliance structure on the East-West trades Maersk Line 15.8% MSC 14.5% 2M CMA CGM 10.4% COSCO 8.2% Evergreen 4.8% Hapag-Lloyd 4.8% OOCL 2.8% Yang Ming 2.8% Ocean Alliance Hamburg Süd 2.7% NYK 2.6% MOL 2.6% UASC 2.5% Hyundai 2.3% K Line 1.8% THE Alliance PIL 1.8% Zim 1.4% Wan Hai 1.1% X-Press Feeders 0.7% KMTC 0.6% IRISL 0.5% -2.0% 3.0% 8.0% 13.0% 18.0% Source: Alphaliner, 1 April 2017 Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 8 The liner industry is consolidating and top 5 share is growing Consolidation wave is rolling again – 8 top 20 players disappeared in last 2 years 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 Wave 3 Wave 2 Wave 1 27% 31% 36% 43% 45% 57% Announced, not closed top-5 market share top-5 market share longhaul trades 53% 66% Disclaimer: The proposed acquisition of Hamburg Süd is subject to regulatory approvals and due diligence Note: Long haul trades defined as non-intra-regional trades. Source: Alphaliner Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 9 Nominal supply has been lower than demand for two consecutive quarters Growth y/y, (%) 10% 8.7% 9% 8.5% 7.9% 8% 7.3% 7.2% 7% 6.4% 5.9% 6% 5.7% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.3% 5% 4% 3.0% 3% 2% 1.5% 1% 0.8% 0% Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017E Global nominal capacity (1) Global container demand Note: 1) Global nominal capacity is deliveries minus scrappings, 2) Q1 2017E is Maersk Line internal estimates where actual data is not available yet Source: Alphaliner, Maersk Line Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 10 Fewer deliveries and increased amount of scrapping has lead to lower amount of net deliveries, while idling has declined Net deliveries Idling TEU '000 (Idle TEU As % of cellular fleet ) 600 14.0% 501 500 475 465 440 421 12.0% 383 400 352 368 367 319 10.0% 296 281 300 273 217 182 195 186 200 8.0% 100 6.0% 0 4.0% -40 -27 -28 -100 -44 -57 -95 -102 -91 -127-137 -128 -138 2.0% -200 -154-159 -181 -213-209 -300 0.0% Q1 2013 Q3 2013 Q1 2014 Q3 2014 Q1 2015 Q3 2015 Q1 2016 Q3 2016 Q1 2017 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Deliveries Scrapping Net deliveries Source: Alphaliner Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 11 No ordering of ultra large vessels since Q3 2015 Orderbook New orders TEU '000 (Orderbook as % of current fleet) 1000 35% 32% 30% 29% 794 800 734 735 25% 23% 599 21% 20% 20% 600 20% 521 467 16% 15% 386 15% 400 296 10% 228 181 181 200 156 122 5% 81 64 44 26 0% 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Q1 2017 Q1 2013 Q3 2013 Q1 2014 Q3 2014 Q1 2015 Q3 2015 Q1 2016 Q3 2016 Q1 2017 Source: Alphaliner Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 12 Supply/demand imbalances historically have led to falling rates Maersk Line’s average freight rate has declined 2.8% p.a. since 2004 Maersk Line freight rate, (USD/FFE) 3,500 Since CAGR (%) CAGR -2.8% 3,300 2004 -2.8 3,100 2008 -6.3 2,900 2010 -7.1 2,700 2012 -8.9 2,500 2014 -12.7 2,300 2,100 1,900 1,700 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Q117 Source: Maersk Line Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 13 Maersk Line rates correlate with CCFI but with lower volatility partly due to contracts Volume split, 2016 Average freight rate 1 By contract type USD/FFE Index 3,500 1,600 30-40% 15-25% 3,000 1,400 Spot Short term (<1 month) (1-3 months) 1,200 2,500 1,000 2,000 800 1,500 600 1,000 40-60% 400 Long term (>3 months) 500 200 0 0 Q1-10 Q2-10 Q3-10 Q4-10 Q1-11 Q1-11 Q3-11 Q4-11 Q1-12 Q2-12 Q3-12 Q4-12 Q1-13 Q2-13 Q3-13 Q4-13 Q1-14 Q2-14 Q3-14 Q4-15 Q1-15 Q2-15 Q3-15 Q4-15 Q1-16 Q2-16 Q3-16 Q4-16 Q1-17 Maersk Line (USD/FFE) Note: 1. Oct 2009 = 1000 for SCFI, January 1998 =1000 for CCFI SCFI (Index) CCFI (Index) Source: Maersk Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 14 Freight rates out of China and rest of world have increased in Q1 Volume split, 2016 Average rate By trade USD/FFE 15% 3,200 Intra 3,000 region 2,800 36% 2,600 East-West 2,400 2,200 2,000 49% 1,800 North-South 1,600 1,400 Q1 13 Q1 13 Q2 13 Q3 13 Q4 14 Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 15 Q1 15 Q2 15 Q3 15 Q4 16 Q1 16 Q2 16 Q3 16 Q4 17 Q1 China export Rest of world Strategy and performance – Q1 2017 page 15 Maersk Line’s response to lower rates is to focus on cost Maersk Line’s unit cost at floating bunker has declined 7.6% p.a. since Q1 2012 Unit cost1, (USD/FFE) 3,200 CAGR -7.6% Since CAGR (%) 3,000 Q1 2012 -7.6 2,800 Q1 2014 -7.2 2,600 Q1 2015 -7.7 Q1 2016 1.3 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 Unit cost (floating) Unit cost (fixed)2 Note: 1) Unit cost excluding gain/loss, restructuring, share of profit/loss from associated companies and including VSA income.