$3.19—Stale · unknown old
OTCMARKET • Last print unknown ago
$3.19—Stale · unknown old
Operator: Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Reliance Worldwide Corporation Full Year Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Heath Sharp, CEO. Please go ahead.
Heath Sharp: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to RWC's Financial Year 2026 Results Call. This is Heath Sharp, and I'm joined here in Sydney by Andrew Johnson, our CFO. This morning, we released our full year results material. But before we turn to the results, I want to deal with our second announcement this morning. So let's start on Slide 3 of our presentation. RWC has entered into a process deed with Brookfield Capital Partners on August 17. This relates to Brookfield's unsolicited nonbinding indicative proposal to acquire RWC for AUD 4.75 cash per share. The proposal follows earlier approaches from Brookfield at $4.15, $4.25 and $4.50 per share, which the board considered insufficient. Following a period of engagement including providing Brookfield with nonpublic information over an approximately 8-week period, Brookfield submitted its current $4.75 proposal. The proposal values RWC at an enterprise value of approximately AUD 4.1 billion. This represents an FY '26 EV-to-EBITDA multiple of 12.9x on a pre-AASB 16 basis. This is at the upper end of precedent transactions. The Board has assessed the proposal on a fundamental valuation basis, taking into account RWC's strategic position, long-term growth opportunities and cash generation. The Board also considered the FY '27 outlook, including the execution risk to deliver future earnings growth and the broader macroeconomic and geopolitical environment. While the Board remains confident in RWC's strategy and future prospects, this was weighed against the certainty of value offered by Brookfield's cash proposal. After careful consideration, the Board determined that the proposal of $4.75 is attractive and warrants further evaluation. To that end, RWC and Brookfield have entered into a process deed to enable Brookfield to complete a 4-week period of exclusivity to conduct confirmatory due diligence and work towards a binding offer. Based on the merits of the proposal during the exclusivity period, RWC and Brookfield have agreed to work together in good faith towards entering into a scheme implementation deed, as SID on terms consistent with the proposal. Brookfield has agreed that any formal SID entered into will include a go-shop provision. This will allow RWC to solicit and engage with other potential bidders for a 30-day period from signing the SID. I would note that there is no binding offer today and no certainty that a transaction will proceed. Shareholders are not being asked to take any action at this time. With that, let me turn to our FY '26 results on Slide 4 of the presentation. FY '26 was undoubtedly a demanding year for RWC. We had to manage through weak end markets in the U.S. and U.K., the ever shifting impacts of U.S. tariffs and significant cost inflation. While our results were impacted by those headwinds, we nonetheless delivered strong operating cash flow, and we continued to advance our manufacturing footprint product pipeline and service improvement initiatives. In February, we discussed transitioning from copper-based alloys to other materials and in particular, stainless steel. We made good progress on this major initiative during the period. We launched a broad range of accessory products in stainless steel in the Americas. The plan to transition from brass to stainless for core products such as control valves and SharkBite Max is underway. We expect to be in the market in the first quarter of calendar 2027 with the first of these fittings and valves. Our manufacturing footprint optimization has moved at pace. The new Poland facility ramped up strongly after commencing operations last November. As of June, the facility has over 110 people and is assembling 1.2 million fittings monthly. In North America, the implementation of a new facility in Mexico is progressing well and we expect it to be operational by the end of calendar 2026. In Asia Pac, we announced a significant restructuring of our manufacturing operations. The largest move is the closure of brass forging and machining operations in Melbourne. We have also announced the closure of additional facilities within Australia. Turning now to Slide 5 and the financial overview for the year. Reported net sales were 0.7% lower than the prior year. There are several adjustments to reported revenue, which we have called out in the release materials. These relate to tariff refund provisions and changes in the accounting classification for some customer incentives. Adjusting for these, net sales were 3% higher. That also adjusts for the exit from selected Canadian product lines, and it adjusts for the sale of our manufacturing operations in Spain last year. On the same basis, net sales were 1.5% higher in constant currency. Adjusted EBITDA was $242.1 million. That is 12.8% lower than the PCP. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 18.5%, that compares to 21.1% in the PCP. Operating earnings were adversely impacted by U.S. tariffs, higher copper costs, lower volumes in the Americas and EMEA and general cost inflation. These impacts were partly offset by price mitigation actions and $10 million of cost savings achieved during the year. Reported NPAT was $6.3 million, that is net of $103.3 million post-tax of one-off charges. Those charges relate principally to the Asia Pacific restructuring. Adjusted NPAT was $125.1 million, that is 15.3% lower than the PCP. Adjusted earnings per share were USD 0.165. The RWC Board has determined not to declare or pay a final distribution for FY '26. This follows receipt of the Brookfield proposal. Under the proposal, the offer price is reduced by the cash amount of any dividends paid or payable. That applies to dividends after the date of the proposal, including any final dividend declared for FY '26. We undertook 2 on-market share buybacks during the year. In total, we repurchased 25.5 million shares at a total cost of AUD 85.7 million. The second buyback has not been completed and is now suspended following receipt of the proposal. The Board will reassess paying a dividend and resuming the on-market share buyback if the proposal does not proceed. I will now hand over to Andrew to take you through the results in more detail.
Andrew Johnson: Thank you, Heath, and good morning, everyone. Moving to Slide 6. FY '26 was a challenging year from an earnings perspective, but the business remained operationally disciplined. The key financial themes were tariff-related margin pressure, softer markets in the U.S. and U.K. input cost inflation, and that's essentially copper and the benefits of strong cost and cash discipline. As Heath referenced, underlying group sales were 1.5% higher versus the reported reduction of 0.7% and 3% higher before adjusting for currency movements. We delivered $10 million in cost reduction initiatives during the year, partly offsetting the external pressure on earnings. Importantly, the actions we are taking on sourcing, pricing, manufacturing footprint and operating efficiency are building momentum and will support improved performance over time. On the adjustments, FY '26 included one-off items principally related to the APAC manufacturing restructuring as well as the closure of distribution centers in Sydney and Perth. We have set these out in the supplementary financial information. Adjusted group EBITDA margin was 18.5% lower than the 21.1% in the PCP. I'll discuss the reasons for the movement in each of the regional sections. Second half adjusted group EBITDA margin was 19.8% versus 17.3% in the first half with the improvement driven by the Americas. Turning now to Slide 7 and the Americas segment. Reported sales were 4% lower than the PCP. Adjusting for the tariff rebate provision, the reclassification of customer incentive payments and the exit from selected low-margin Canadian product lines, underlying American sales were 1.4% higher than the PCP. New product initiatives and tariff-related price increases helped offset weaker U.S. residential remodeling and new construction markets as well as around $10 million of customer inventory reductions that we saw and we spoke about in the first half. Channel inventories were broadly normalized by the fourth quarter. In FY '26, a change in accounting for customer incentive arrangements impacted reported sales but had no impact on earnings. To briefly explain the reclassification most customer sales incentives are treated as a deduction from gross sales. However, we have historically had some incentives which have been expensed through SG&A. The change we have made classifies sales incentives in the same way as a deduction from gross sales. Note that we have not adjusted prior period sales or SG&A. Americas sales performance was stronger in the second half, consistent with our guidance. Underlying sales were 8.3% higher, partly driven by price increases as the benefits of tariff-related price rises flow through to results. Adjusted EBITDA was $161.4 million, 11.5% lower than the PCP, with the adjusted EBITDA margin reducing from 19 -- reducing to 19.6% from 21.2%. Earnings were significantly impacted by U.S. tariffs as well as higher input costs, including copper. The tariff cost impact was at the lower end of our guidance range of $25 million to $30 million. We also recorded a net tariff refund benefit of $4.2 million as part of operating earnings. This was the difference between what we received in tariff refunds and a provision that was established for potential tariff rebates to customers. Second half adjusted EBITDA margin was 22.2% compared with 16.9% in the first half. The uplift was partly due to the tariff refund as mentioned earlier and also driven by price increases and cost outs. Operationally, we are on track to commence activities at our new facility in Mexico by the end of calendar year 2026. As a reminder, this new facility will augment current manufacturing operations in Alabama. It will be focused on lower volume manually assembled products that complement our high-volume, high-technology U.S. manufacturing capability. Moving to APAC on Slide 8. APAC sales were 5% higher in local currency. Sales growth was driven by broad-based growth in both RWC and Holman product categories. Intercompany sales were 7.4% higher due to stronger volumes ahead of the planned closure of APAC's brass manufacturing operations in Melbourne. APAC adjusted EBITDA was $21.1 million in local currency, 26.7% lower than the PCP, with margin down 290 basis points to 6.6%. Operating margins were negatively impacted by higher raw material and freight costs and lower manufactured volumes partly offset by price increases and cost reduction measures. Stepping back from the financial performance aspect, it is useful to look at the broader context around the changes in APAC. The business is really undergoing a significant transformation. From metals manufacturing to supply Americas to a business very much focused on its home market. This change is impacting short-term earnings performance. The future APAC business model will be focused on product and brand stewardship, driving further product penetration, revenue growth with our channel partners and operational excellence around sourcing and fulfillment. Turning to EMEA on Slide 9. EMEA reported net sales were 3.4% lower in local currency. External sales were 0.8% lower after adjusting for the sale of our manufacturing operations in Spain in FY '25. U.K. external sales were down 3.6%, with U.K. plumbing and heating sales down 4.7%, while specialty and other product sales were 5.4% higher. Continental Europe performed well with external sales 6.8% higher after adjusting for the sale of Spain. Germany, France and Italy all recorded sales growth supported by product launches across an expanded distribution network. Adjusted EBITDA was 11.3% lower than PCP, second half EBITDA margin was flat on the first half, and we had previously guided to higher operating margin in the second half. The U.K. service improvement program impacted margins and the Poland ramp-up led to a short-term increase in costs in the second half. The ramp-up has gone well. And as Heath mentioned, we have achieved a record output of 1.2 million fittings per month. We expect the lower cost base of the new Poland facility to support earnings growth in FY '27. On Slide 10, you can see that cash generated from operations was $263.4 million and operating cash flow conversion was rather strong at 108.8% of adjusted EBITDA. This strong result was partly due to the receipt of the U.S. tariff refund late in the financial year. As a result of this strong cash flow performance, we were able to repay $88.2 million in borrowings during the year, and our leverage at year-end was 1.11x compared to 1.3x in the PCP. On Slide 11, we have again demonstrated our tight management of working capital. Inventories were slightly higher than the PCP despite significant input cost inflation, particularly copper. Total net working capital was $35 million lower than the PCP. We continue to be very disciplined with capital expenditure while continuing to fund critical strategic projects including Poland, Mexico, new product development and manufacturing optimization. And with that, let me now hand you back to Heath.
Heath Sharp: Thanks, Andrew. On Slide 12, we have set out our guidance for FY '27. This covers the full year. For FY '27, we do not expect an improvement in economic conditions in our major end markets. As we referenced in our results materials, global geopolitical uncertainty is likely to be a headwind, so too are higher commodity inflation and interest rate pressures. Americas external sales are expected to be up by mid- to high single-digit percentage points, driven by new product revenue and pricing actions. We expect EBITDA margin to be broadly consistent with FY '26. That is despite the significant rise in input costs, most notably copper. Price increases to offset cost inflation will assist us with this. We expect a net impact from U.S. tariffs to be $5 million to $7 million in FY '27, that is consistent with our previous guidance. Asia Pacific external sales are expected to be up by mid-single-digit percentage points. Total sales are expected to be lower than the PCP due to the reduction in intercompany revenues of approximately AUD 50 million. This follows the closure of metals manufacturing in Australia. We expect EBITDA margin to be broadly consistent with FY '26 despite the decline in intercompany revenues. EMEA external sales are expected to be up by mid-single-digit percentage points. EBITDA margin improvement is expected through a combination of pricing actions and ongoing cost reductions. At a group level, we expect consolidated sales to be up by mid- to high single-digit percentage points relative to FY '26. Adjusted EBITDA margin is expected to be broadly consistent with FY '26. We are targeting further cost reductions to deliver approximately $10 million to $12 million in savings for the full year. And I will pause there and open the call to questions. We will take questions first from those on the conference call line then Phil King will read any questions received via the webcast.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Ramoun Lazar from Jefferies.
Ramoun Lazar: Just one for you, Heath, around the bid this morning -- announced this morning. I was just wondering just the thinking around engaging with Brookfield at those prices. I mean given the significant changes in the manufacturing network that the team has put into place over the last 12 months following the trade changes, the transition to stainless steel and the housing cycle while bouncing around the bottom, not getting worse. I mean, is there a change -- a structural change in the earnings power of this business going forward? Maybe if you can shed some light there, particularly given -- I mean, the share price is above that bid, not that long ago, and it looks like the worst is kind of behind you given all those changes that the team has worked hard to put in place?
Heath Sharp: Ramoun, thanks for your question. Look, I would say that the Board assessed the proposal on the basis of fundamental valuation and we've taken into account our strategic position, all of our long-term growth plans and cash generation. I think it's fair to say the Board considered the outlook for FY '27 and the near-term operating environment, which is clearly quite different to sort of 6 months, 12 months ago as well as the execution risk to deliver on the future earnings growth. And all of that, of course, in the context of the broader macroeconomic and geopolitical environment. And weighing all of that up against the certainty of a cash proposal. So, in that light, the Board considers the proposal to be credible and attractive. And so, in the best interests of shareholders to undertake further due diligence work towards a binding offer.
Ramoun Lazar: Right. Okay. So there's nothing sort of structurally different that you see with the business and the earnings power against what you've previously talked to the market about? I mean you had an Investor Day not that long ago here in Sydney, talking about the various businesses and the earnings power of those businesses. Has something changed in terms of getting back to that kind of run rate of earnings across the business? Or is it just about this near-term volatility uncertainty?
Heath Sharp: I think there's no structural change for our business. I think we've weighed up all aspects of the environment we're in, taking into account all of our plans, whether it be stainless steel Poland, Mexico, ongoing footprint. We worked as you would expect, all of that into our model. And all of that pointed to us are considering it or the Board considering it appropriate to engage at $4.75.
Operator: The next question comes from Sam Seow from Citi.
Samuel Seow: I just really wanted to follow on from Ramoun there. You had the 4 bids in 8 weeks, but still, I guess, a lack of a recommendation. I just wanted to ask to what you're allowed to say how you're thinking about the valuation, where we are in the cycle? And if there's a view on normalized earnings or normalized margins and just high level what that might look like?
Heath Sharp: So a couple of points in there, Sam. First of all, we're not holding a binding offer today and shareholders are not being asked to take action. What we've announced is the process deed, not an SID. And as I said, to Ramoun's question, the Board believes the process announced is appropriate given the attractiveness of the proposal and the increases in proposed value over a few bumps over the last few months and the go-shop mechanism that we've announced. So all that being considered, taking into account the outlook and acknowledging that it is quite a different world right now to 12 months, 2 years, 3 years ago. That's what has led us to the announcement today.
Samuel Seow: Got it. Got it. That's helpful. And then maybe on the outlook, I guess, clearly, conditions aren't expected to improve, but sales growth across most of your regions are looking quite healthy or expected to look quite healthy. Maybe if you could just give us some color on what's driving that and maybe the rough split between price and, I guess, share gains or bottom-up initiatives?
Andrew Johnson: Thanks, Sam. I think most of that uplift in revenue that you see in FY '27 based on the guidance that we've given, most of that's going to be price. I'm not going to give you the split between price and what volume we would see based on our initiatives in NPD. But to the extent that we have volume, it would be based on those 2 factors. We really don't see a significant change in the macros in any of our regions through the course of FY '27.
Operator: The next question comes from Brook Campbell-Crawford from Barrenjoey.
Brook Campbell-Crawford: Heath, just first for you, I guess, while you and the Board were considering this offer, did you sort of step back and consider alternative options to unlock value for shareholders, accelerate performance and things around the portfolio that you could do to try and deliver a better outcome for shareholders over a period of time?
Heath Sharp: Brook, thanks for the question. I think it's fair to say that the consideration undertaken by the Board was quite exhaustive. Considering the proposal that we had received, a number of other inbounds and specifically to your question, yes, we considered all manner of alternatives sort of directly under our control as a stand-alone business. All of that was considered in forming the view.
Brook Campbell-Crawford: Okay. And just around the due diligence. Can you just provide a bit of color around the extent of due diligence already sort of provided to Brookfield. Are they looking for a huge amount more information? Or are they largely sort of completed their process, and it's a bit more down to formalities now? And I guess second question, it might be in the release, so apologies if it is, but just do you have an estimated time to closure if this sort of progresses with Brookfield that sort of what time would it close and shareholders get their funds?
Heath Sharp: Thanks, Brook. So what I would say is over the last sort of 7, 8, 9 weeks, we have been engaged with Brookfield in discussions, primarily dealing with, if you like, the commercial aspects of the business and our positioning and relative strength and focuses and so on. And on the basis of those discussions, Brookfield made their latest proposal, which is the one that we've presented today. The process now is a short 4-week process that is confirmatory in nature to go through all of the normal things you go through in a due diligence wrap-up process. So that's the first element. Timing. So we have essentially started today that 4-week DD process during that 4-week period we will work together with Brookfield to -- with the aim of developing a SID along the largely the same terms as the proposal. At that point, that's -- well, that it will include the 30-day go-shop mechanism that we've set out in the materials. So that 30-day starts at the point of signing a SID. If that occurs, and they're the main near-term milestones in the process.
Operator: The next question comes from Peter Steyn from Macquarie.
Peter Steyn: Andrew, if I may, could you help just bridge how you've accounted for what you've got refund wise, the net $4.2 million and then the guidance for FY '27 from a margin perspective in Americas at flat. I guess I'm kind of coming back to some of the questions that have been posed before. But just curious more specifically how you go about getting your margins back to where they were before because that has been the ongoing intent to effectively reset those margins to pre-tariff levels. So just curious when that happens and how it happens?
Andrew Johnson: Thanks, Peter. I think to your first question, we did recognize a net tariff benefit of $4.2 million, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks. That's the net number. Obviously, there was a gross refund amount. And then there was a reduction of that, which was essentially a provision that was an offset to sales. And that's a provision that we put on the books. And first of all, it was a conservative accounting position, as you would expect from the accounting team at RWC. But secondly, it will provide, I believe a provision that will be useful over the course of FY '27, as we discussed, not only pricing but also customer investments and strategic initiatives. I'm not going to give you the 2 pieces, but obviously, we have disclosed that there is a $4.2 million net tariff benefit there. In terms of the Americas guidance, for FY '27, we have said broadly consistent or flat. And look, and I think that there are a couple of big moving parts there. The first one that you would more likely come to would be the reduction in the tariff cost benefit. So we've said that we were at the lower end of our range in '26, so $25 million to $30 million back that down by the tariff refund. And so you're in that low 20s range. And we expect that to go to $5 million to $7 million in FY '27. So roughly a $15 million tariff benefit year-on-year. I think the next thing we need to talk about, however, is inflation. And as you guys know, copper has really made a run through the second half of FY '26. We do expect that the year-on-year increase in the LME for our books would be roughly $3,000 per ton. As we've said in the past, our sensitivity is $900,000 per $100 movement. So that's a significant impact. Partially offsetting that, of course, would be price and cost outs. But there's a lot of moving pieces, a lot of things to execute on, and I think the team has done a good job to get us back to consistent or essentially flat year-on-year. I will say that given the amount of inflation that we're covering with price, there is a dilution impact to margins that you don't see. I mean some of the other actions that we're taking are offsetting that, but that kind of furthers the headwinds that we're facing from a margin perspective in the Americas.
Peter Steyn: Got you. So the rebuilding of margins is going to be a multiyear process. Is that the read on that then, Andrew?
Andrew Johnson: For sure, Peter. I think that we are working on Mexico. We will see some benefits from the metals closure and moving to stainless steel, but we'll be well into FY '28 before those really come through on the P&L.
Operator: The next question comes from Harry Saunders from E&P.
Harry Saunders: Firstly, just on copper, can you talk us through any potential price increase to cover that in the interim with the transition to stainless steel and then how we should think about the earnings upside in '28 and '29, as you transition away from copper, please?
Andrew Johnson: So Harry, we do have quite a bit of price coming through in FY '27 to cover copper. You can see that in the revenue guide that we've stated. I don't want to talk too much about FY '28 given the time and distance between now and then. But I will mention that we do expect to see savings related to the move to stainless steel. And as we've called out in the past, we expect that to be roughly USD 9 million, but that will be FY '28.
Harry Saunders: And is that saving, assuming you sort of offset any copper movements on a go-forward basis?
Andrew Johnson: Yes.
Harry Saunders: Understood. And just wondering more broadly, if you could bridge '27 to last year, I appreciate you helpfully provided us with the net tariff benefit of $15 sort of million. But the other benefits, could you just talk us through those and repeat non-repeats of sort of one-off costs, perhaps destocking or manufacturing changes. Maybe you could just give us the building blocks, that would be helpful.
Andrew Johnson: Sure. So from FY '25 to FY '26. And I'll talk about the consolidated numbers. Look, there are -- typically, there's 2 things that we have to talk about. There's net tariff costs, which, as I mentioned earlier, there's a couple of pieces in that. And when I talk about net tariff cost, that's going to be inclusive of the tariff refund benefit. The net tariff cost, roughly $21 million, copper through our P&L in FY '26, we saw roughly $1,000 per ton increase. So as we've said, that gets you close to $9 million to $10 million of copper, just copper inflation that we've had to deal with. And as you look through the rest of the moving pieces, you're going to find the volume was slightly down. We obviously have wage inflation like we do every year. We did see some unfavorability related to factory performance, and that's specifically in the APAC as we've gone through the metals closure and the ramp down of that production. We've also talked about some investments in customer service deliveries in the U.K. as well as the Poland ramp-up, which caused some slight factory underperformance in FY '26. Now those things are offset by roughly $10 million in cost savings that we've been able to bring to the bottom line. So those are the big moving pieces. And it's essentially -- and you'll hear this a lot in our Q&A, the big moving pieces are tariff costs copper inflation and then what we've been able to do in terms of self-help with the cost outs.
Harry Saunders: Got it. And are you able to perhaps quantify those one-off kind of impact factory performance in U.K. and Poland impacts there as well?
Andrew Johnson: Harry, I'm not going to go into specifics on those. We're not talking huge numbers. We're talking low single-digit millions.
Harry Saunders: Okay. And just one more follow-on from Sam's question earlier. Can you just give a sense of the upside in the earnings base from macro recovery and also operationally?
Andrew Johnson: So we're not anticipating significant macro recovery in FY '27. So from a macro perspective, that would just be very minimal. Some of the upsides that we've mentioned, we do -- as you see in our earnings guide, we do see a lot of price coming through in FY '27, and we called out cost savings between $10 million and $12 million. So those are some big moving pieces. And I've talked about the tariff reversal. What's between those savings or favorability is a lot of inflation. We're talking not just copper, we're talking resin, freight, and of course, wages. So -- but those are the things I would call out.
Operator: The next question comes from Lee Power from JPMorgan.
Lee Power: Just on -- Andrew, on your comments around the stainless upside, like I'm surprised it's not looking a lot more attractive now. Like you've got copper well above $14,000 a tonne, you like a first mover. I would have thought everything would have probably looked more positive around the stainless rollout. So can you just maybe like help me understand what else has kind of changed there?
Andrew Johnson: Well, I don't think anything has changed. I think that -- look, we're talking about FY '28. And certainly, a lot could change between now and then. We've talked about $9 million in savings, and that's a number that we'll stick to. And obviously, there's risk associated with achieving that $9 million. If we do better, I think there'll be some puts and takes, obviously, but $9 million is the benefit that we see sitting here today.
Lee Power: Okay. And then just the rollout piece, like how quickly do you get this out there? I would have assumed likewise, like the pressure on copper is clearly enormous on you at the moment. I'm assuming it's the same for everyone else. So like how quickly can you actually get this product rolled out through the channel? And then maybe is anyone else kind of doing something similar when you look across your peers who are not in stainless currently?
Heath Sharp: Look, I think there's kind of 2 streams here. I think to some extent, releasing new products and new additions to our range doing that in stainless and/or non copper-based alloys is now business as usual. So our U.S. team during the course of the last 6 months have launched a couple of hundred items in stainless steel, so particularly across appliance, connectors and so on. So that's now just a matter of course, to use stainless as the material for new products. So that's rolling on quite nicely. As I said, a couple of 100 components and they've got line of sight to an additional sort of 300-odd and SKUs. So well underway. The second stream, though, is more the one that Andrew was referring to there, which is the transition of existing products to stainless steel. And the big volume items there in terms of copper consumption or the control valves, the safety valves and SharkBite Max. As you would imagine, we are moving at pace on those items, but also aware of the significance of those items in terms of quality and performance and so on, and that underpins our brand and our reputation in the market. So we are being very thorough there. The first of those products on the larger-sized SharkBite items and some of the safety valves will be launched into the market at the start of next calendar year. So that is to my mind, are quite rapid for our industry, but also prudent given the nature of the product where they're used and how they underpin our brand and reputation in the marketplace.
Operator: The next question comes from Keith Chau from MST Marquee.
Keith Chau: Maybe just a quick follow up on Lee's question on stainless. Heath, I was thinking about stainless steel driven earnings upside, the shift to stainless steel is it more about matching product economics, say, for control and safety valves and SharkBite Max. Is it more about matching those product economics to, say, $10,000 copper price by shifting to stainless steel? So perhaps defending against product economics eroding? Is that a better way to think about it? Or is there genuine upside shifting to stainless steel relative to a $10,000 copper price?
Heath Sharp: I think -- and you're going to hate this, but I think it's buffers. I think the initial thinking was that more conservative, how can we backstop the cost of our product to USD 12,000, USD 12,500 a tonne for copper. That was sort of the initial drive. I think as we've gotten into it, though, we do see a competitive advantage for us in the stainless steel products. It's regarded generally as a superior material, yielding a superior product, which I think is in keeping with who we are, what we do, the brands that we have, and so being able to frame the products as an improved superior product, I think, is helpful. And then, look, over time, we will continue, as we always have, to seek ongoing processing improvements, continuous improvement to sort of to chip away at that cost basis. I think that's independent of the material we use. I think though moving for statuses and new material perhaps gives us a little more scope than brass. But it's going to be sort of an incremental ongoing process, I think, Keith. And ultimately, it leaves us, I think, with a really good product range and an offering to the marketplace that's in keeping with what we've created here.
Keith Chau: Okay. Certainly don't hate that answer, I think that's a good response. And then secondly, under your go-shop provisions to the extent that you can provide us some color just can understand what it would take to progress discussions with another party? Is it simply a list in the offer price? And is there a certain range of magnitude of lift that would be required to produce something else? Or are there other key terms that RWC is looking for under that go-shop provision or the process of running through the go-shop provision?
Heath Sharp: So what's probably we're doing is just talking briefly about the process over the next couple of stages is, as you know, we're not holding a binding offer today. So there's, in our view, no recommendation to make, and we're not asking anyone to take any action. We have though begun a 4-week exclusivity period in order for Brookfield to undertake confirmatory due diligence. During that 4-week period, it is exclusive and everything that, that entails. No shop, no talk, no DD with others. The aim of that -- during that 4-week period, we will aim to prepare in conjunction with Brookfield SID along largely the same lines as the proposal that SID will include the go-shop mechanism. Once a SID is signed, that begins a 30-day go-shop process or mechanism. During that -- those 30 days, we are able to receive and able to solicit interest from other parties. Should another offer emerge that is superior to the $4.75, then we are able to continue to work with that party and develop that proposal through or beyond the go-shop period if we have received a superior offer during the 30-day period. We can extend that period to the extent which is necessary to fulfill our statutory and fiduciary obligations and then develop that and see where that lands. As you would expect Brookfield has a matching right or will have a matching right as part of any SID that signed.
Keith Chau: And just for clarity, are you looking for just -- when you go into that process, are you simply looking for a lift in the total offer price? Or I think -- are there going to be considerations around whether you might see -- receive a bit of part cash, part shares. I mean what's the trade-off there? Is that something you just go through with the board as if a bid does come to fruition or alternative bid?
Heath Sharp: Yes. Look, I guess, I would say the potential certainty of an all-cash offer is part of why we've taken the action that we have today and engaged or in the process deal of $4.75. In the event there is a competing offer, then we simply will need to consider on its merits. But I don't want to preempt what is or isn't appropriate at this point in time.
Keith Chau: Yes, that's fair. And just going back to Ramoun's question earlier on, I guess, I think we're also looking at this big, okay, well, the share price has been as high as $6 previously, the bid's at $4.75. Clearly, the world has changed. As you look at the business, and this is maybe we're just requiring a broad comment here, but has the earnings power of the group do you think perhaps deteriorated in the last 5 years? And if so, is that principally driven by cost inflationary pressures. I don't know if you can answer that in a very broad way heat, but maybe some views on maybe the -- some reference points over the last 5 years might be an easier way to answer that question?
Heath Sharp: Sure. Look, I would say it -- look, it's even hard to pick a point in time over the last 5 years as to reference. I mean it's been quite a period and the world today feels different generally to how it felt 5 years ago. I guess all I can do to elaborate on the process we went through is we considered all of the things we're working on, whether it be stainless steel, Mexico, Poland, ongoing footprint activities in all of our regions around the world, the new product initiatives, the stainless steel, our view of what the market will do in the coming years as best as we're able to factor all that in to develop our own valuation. And I think it's fair to say that on that basis, we were -- we thought it was appropriate to engage with Brookfield in this manner at $4.75.
Operator: The next question comes from Daniel Sykes from Jarden.
Daniel Sykes: I was just wondering if you could just flesh out a bit of those comments around the resin impacts. Just if you could help us understand, I guess, how that impacted top line and also below the line across the segments in FY '26? And then also what you'd expect in FY '27, whether some of those are rolling off as well?
Andrew Johnson: Yes. So we really did see after the start of the Iran war, I think we started to see pretty significant resin inflation, specifically in our APAC region. A lot of that goes into inventory towards the end of the year, and then we'll push into FY '27 as an impact. And it will be significant. If you look on balance, the inflation that we will see related to resin, freight and all and wages and everything else is really coming close to what we're going to see on the copper side running through the business. So it's significant.
Daniel Sykes: Are you able to kind of give us an idea of how much that impacted the top line as well in terms of how much you were able to push through those costs in the second half in particular?
Andrew Johnson: Look, I think we've mobilized pricing in all regions, probably multiple rounds certainly in APAC and EMEA. I'm not going to call out specifically what those pricing actions were and the financial impact. But I will say that the majority of that top line increase that you'll see was price driven.
Operator: The next question comes from Nathan Reilly from UBS.
Nathan Reilly: First question. I'm just curious to get a bit of understanding in terms of the level of shareholder engagement you've kind of had through this process as you've been receiving the offers from Brookfield, more so just conscious just in terms of maybe how that's influenced your decision to propose or not declare that final dividend?
Heath Sharp: Look, we -- during the course of this week, we'll undertake engagement with our shareholders. That's really the plan for today and the next few days.
Nathan Reilly: And also just in terms of maybe from a historical perspective, just the level of engagement you've seen from either sort of, I guess, what are we consider to be more sort of traditional trade players, plumbing manufacturers, building materials manufacturers just in terms of showing interest in the operations in the business?
Heath Sharp: You mean in the context of providing competing bids in the process?
Nathan Reilly: Just in terms of how you've got the go-shop option available to you? Just trying to get a sense of whether that -- you've had a high level or a moderate level of inbound interest indicative of otherwise [indiscernible]?
Heath Sharp: Look, I would say that -- so look, first of all, the proposal from Brookfield was unsolicited, but over the course of a few months, we've gone through a process, which has yielded increasing value proposals over 3 months. We have received multiple other inbounds over the last several months and held discussions with interested parties, and none of those have progressed to the same level of engagement. We've received no -- nothing in writing there. Nonetheless, we thought it was in the best interest of shareholders to establish a process that provides a mechanism for anyone who does see value beyond $4.75 to participate, which is what we've announced today as part of that process.
Nathan Reilly: Great. And final question, just in terms of the strategy to take copper out of your products. We've heard, Andrew, just in terms of the impact in terms of what you'd expect current copper price inflation to mean in terms of EBIT impact. But once you kind of get through that process, fully sort of implementing those changes from a stainless steel transition point of view, where do you expect that level of kind of earnings sensitivity to ultimately end up when that process is fully completed?
Andrew Johnson: Look, I think we'll still have some exposure to copper, certainly. For example, we sell the electrical cords as part of the appliance connector business. There's a significant amount of copper in that. But it's really hard to say where that sensitivity will land. We haven't finalized those calculations.
Operator: The next question is a follow-up from Sam Seow from Citi.
Samuel Seow: I just wanted to pick up on your previous comments there where you said you look to enter into a SID on terms consistent with the proposal. I just wanted to clarify, is there any, I guess, other terms not price related with the proposal? Or do you just mean price?
Heath Sharp: We -- as I've said a couple of times, Nathan, we have no finding offer at this point in time. We will work over the next 4 weeks with Brookfield in a process that ideally turns an indicative proposal into a binding proposal along the same lines as the proposal. So really nothing else to add to that. Thanks, Sam. I think we have time for 1 more question, if there is one.
Operator: No. At this time, we're showing no further questions.
Heath Sharp: Very good. Well, with that, I will thank everyone for their time on the call today. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you.