Title

Presentation

Operator: Thank you for your continued patience. Your meeting will begin shortly. Star zero and a member of our team will be happy to help you. Please standby, your meeting is about to begin. Welcome to the Post Holdings, Inc. Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, participants have been placed on a listen only mode. Lastly, if you should require operator assistance, please press 0. I would now like to turn the call over to Daniel O’Rourke, Investor Relations for Post Holdings, Inc. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today for Post Holdings, Inc.’s second quarter fiscal 2026 earnings question and answer session.

Daniel O’Rourke: I am joined this morning by Robert V. Vitale, our Chairman and CEO, Nicolas Catoggio, our COO, and Matthew J. Mainer, our CFO and Treasurer. This call is being recorded, and an audio replay will be available on our website at postholdings.com. During today’s call, we may make forward looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that should be carefully considered by investors, as actual results could differ materially from these statements. These forward looking statements are current as of the date of this call, and management undertakes no obligation to update these statements. The press release and written management remarks that support today’s call are posted on our website in the Investors section.

This call will discuss certain non GAAP measures. For a reconciliation of these non GAAP measures to the nearest GAAP measure, see our press release issued yesterday and posted on our website. We hope you had a chance to review our management remarks. The key highlights are that our diversified portfolio delivered strong performance in Q2 and adjusted EBITDA above expectations. However, given new headwinds from the conflict in the Middle East, we maintained our previous adjusted EBITDA guidance. Meanwhile, we continued aggressive share repurchases, and fiscal year to date, we have reduced our share count by 15%. Finally, our strong cash flow, liquidity, and credit metrics continue to afford us significant flexibility for opportunistic capital allocation.

With that, I will briefly turn the call over to Matt.

Matthew J. Mainer: Thanks, Daniel. Setting aside the business performance, I am sure you all saw our announcement yesterday on our CEO succession plans. First of all, on behalf of our whole team, congratulations to Nicolas. Really well deserved. You have done a fantastic job leading PCB. We are confident that will translate to more of the same as you transition into leading Post Holdings, Inc. To Rob, we have all learned from the best and truly appreciate your leadership over the past twelve years. As much as Rob is respected by so many on this phone call, it is even more so within the walls of our company. With that, I will turn the call over to the operator for Q&A.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts

Operator: The floor is now open for questions. Again, thank you. Our first question comes from Andrew Lazar with Barclays. Your line is now open.

Andrew Lazar: Great. Thanks so much. Rob, congratulations to you on a terrific run as CEO, and glad you are staying on as Chairman, and I can say, as I think many other packaged food names would benefit mightily from taking a page from your operating and capital allocation playbook. And Nicolas, congratulations to you on being named CEO. Maybe to start, just a question on pricing for the industry and Post Holdings, Inc. I realize there is still quite a bit of uncertainty, but should the industry face another round of more significant inflation, do you think pricing could be one of the levers used this time around given consumers have been pushing back on price points where they are today? Some are actually lowering prices with less than stellar results thus far. I am curious on your view on that and how does Post Holdings, Inc. sort of think about that?

Robert V. Vitale: Thanks, Andrew.

Nicolas Catoggio: What I would say is it depends on where inflation falls. If it is in the low single digits, I think we will see more of CPGs trying to absorb that within their P&L, and that could be in the form of maybe lowering promotional intensity. If it is more than that, we will probably see more targeted pricing.

Andrew Lazar: And then maybe just on pet food. Trying to get a sense of what our expectations should be going forward in pet, because I think this current quarter is when the restage really happens in earnest in the marketplace. How do you think about turning a brand around in a subcategory of dry dog food that is struggling a bit right now relative to some other parts of pet?

Nicolas Catoggio: Yes. Let me frame pet in three big buckets. One is a bit out of our control: the category has been slower than what we anticipated, especially dry dog food. Sixty percent of our portfolio is dry dog food. As we shared in our remarks, that was 4% down in pounds. So that is about 20% of our problem tied to the category. The rest you can think about half and half in two buckets. One is what we shared on 9Lives. We raised prices on a third of the brand that is more functional. As we raised prices, we saw higher elasticities than what we anticipated, and we lost distribution in a couple of retailers. That, in our mind, is fairly straightforward. If you remember less than a year ago, we were having the same conversation about Grape-Nuts when we raised prices.

Remember that these brands have lower margins, and that is why we do what we do and we focus on profit. We raised prices on Grape-Nuts, we saw the same elasticities, we fixed that with rollbacks in the short term, and now we have fixed it with price pack architecture, and that brand in one of our larger retailers is growing at 40% in pounds now. So we see that as the same playbook. We tried price points, elasticity was a bit higher, we can solve it in the short term with rollbacks, and then longer term, call it a couple of quarters from now, we should fix it with price architecture. So it is fairly straightforward. And then the third bucket is Nutrish. We are in early stages of the relaunch, and that will take probably the entire Q3 to fully hit the market.

It is happening, it is flowing in, but it is still, especially in the food channel, taking a bit longer to be fully reflected on shelf. That one, if you remember, is a full relaunch: new positioning, new packaging, and new price points. We feel encouraged about where it has been fully relaunched. In one of our largest retailers, we are already seeing sequential improvement week after week, and the last week of April, we already saw the brand flat to last year in a category that is again declining. So that is a positive, but it is still early on and we probably need a couple more months. By Q4, we should start seeing the carryover showing at least flat to slight growth versus a year ago. That is how we think about that.

Andrew Lazar: Great. Thanks so much for the color. Congratulations again.

Nicolas Catoggio: Thanks so much.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Matthew Edward Smith with Stifel. Your line is now open.

Matthew Edward Smith: Hi, good morning. You had another strong EBITDA and cash flow performance in the quarter, and the guidance reiteration referenced caution around new cost pressure and uncertainty. Are there specific areas of the business where you are seeing these higher costs, and are you seeing an impact from a more cautious consumer? Is the uncertainty more focused on the cost side?

Matthew J. Mainer: I think directly we are seeing the cost impacts, Matt, really around fuel charges and surcharges. We have some coverage or hedges in place, but this is exposure beyond those coverages. Given the dramatic increase in diesel, that flows through across the company, especially in North America. So that is really the key driver.

Nicolas Catoggio: Thanks, Matt.

Matthew Edward Smith: Just a follow-up. The cash flow performance has been strong and supported the share repurchases to date while holding leverage flat. You called out the strong liquidity position Post Holdings, Inc. maintained. How would you characterize the M&A environment? Are you seeing an increase in asset availability? Do you think seller expectations are reasonable? And has there been an impact to deal flow from Middle East disruption and uncertainty? Thank you.

Matthew J. Mainer: Yes. I think it continues to be a bit more of the same. You certainly have some assets, some private investments, that have not come to market yet, and I think that is a nod to where public multiples are and where a clearing price might be. So there are still some potential transactions sitting on the sidelines. That aside, we continue to see some of our larger competitors talk about maybe separating portions of their portfolio. We have seen it happen already in a couple of cases in the last year. I think those are larger, more transformational transactions. We look at everything, but that is something we would evaluate. Then I think it is a bit of a barbell: you have the smaller tuck-ins that are available that are, for us, more synergistic and obviously easier to digest.

But the backdrop for us is really where our share price is trading and the implied multiple. Again, we laid that out in the prepared remarks, and that is really our benchmark, our comparison. It continues to be a high bar, but we continue to look at all that is out there.

Matthew Edward Smith: Appreciate it, Matt. I will pass it on.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from David Sterling Palmer with Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.

David Sterling Palmer: Thanks, and congratulations on your career so far, Rob, and all the value creation. And back to you, Nicolas.

Nicolas Catoggio: Thank you.

David Sterling Palmer: I want to ask a first question on foodservice profitability. Clearly, there was a moment of a lot of trade-in to higher-margin value-add. Prices were higher and egg prices have come down, and it has been a darn good profitability run here. I am wondering how you are thinking about profitability evolution going forward, maybe rising to sort of a mid-cycle profitability from here as you see some of your accounts doing better lately. In other words, I am trying to figure out if $125 million a quarter is really going to be the right run rate into fiscal 2027 or if you see upside to that. And I have a follow-up.

Nicolas Catoggio: We still see that as the run rate. Again, in the quarter there were many puts and takes between lapping HBI supply constraints and pricing and cost in excess of pricing last year. But our supply and demand remain balanced. While we do not provide guidance segment by segment, we see us going back to our run rate.

David Sterling Palmer: Got it. And then similar to the previous question on Pet, I just want to get a sense on cereal of your confidence in getting what I think would be your goal of a low-single-digit decline rate just to really have that pull its own weight. Cereal has been rough. What is the confidence in getting to that, and what is the outlook there? Thank you.

Nicolas Catoggio: Let me start with the category. As we shared in the remarks, it has been better compared to where we were a year ago. For the quarter, the category was down 3% in pounds, and if you look at April, it is 2.5% down. So it is improving. It is still not where it was pre-pandemic, but it is getting there. For our portfolio, you have seen some of the data; we are extremely pleased with where we are. Q2 was another quarter where we were still working through the transition assortment, especially in the food channel, to be better prepared or have higher return on promotional spend. Because of that, our promotional spend was down a bit versus prior year, and still we were the only large player that held flat dollar market share year over year. So we feel really good about our portfolio, and we feel good about the improvement in the category.

David Sterling Palmer: Thank you.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Thomas Palmer with JPMorgan. Your line is now open.

Thomas Palmer: Good morning. I would like to echo my congratulations to both of you and appreciate all the help, Rob, as I have ramped on Post Holdings, Inc. I wanted to follow up on David’s question on the foodservice business and some of the egg dynamics. Obviously, in the quarter, falling egg prices seemed to be a tailwind for earnings, especially based on some of the disclosures about input costs. But I did want to ask about the prospect of either lowering prices in your view here, or whether you are seeing any shift by customers, given how cheap whole eggs are, to shifting in the direction of the more labor-intensive side of starting with whole eggs instead of buying prepared egg products. I want to make sure that neither of those is something we should be looking out for. Thanks.

Nicolas Catoggio: Sure. On the potential switching, that is obviously a risk we evaluate. But honestly, given the value proposition, what we find—especially in the larger operators—is once they switch to our value-added products, they are able to take that labor out of their system, and they see the benefits of consistency, food safety, and other attributes of the products. It is quite sticky. I would say that maybe the risk is around some of the smaller independent operators, which is a much smaller component of our business, where they have a little more flexibility in the back of the house to make that switch. But, again, by and large, the majority of the portfolio sees that change as quite sticky.

Thomas Palmer: Okay. Thanks for that. And I wanted to ask on Weetabix. On the license commentary and how reported sales were a bit worse than underlying consumption trends for the broader business, how big is the license impact that we should be thinking about, and to what extent is 2Q reflective of the full magnitude we should be thinking about in the quarters that follow?

Robert V. Vitale: Sure. That was related to the OREO licensing agreement that we had, and I believe we have another quarter before we fully lap that going away. In terms of volume, looking out to the balance of the year, we would expect better year-over-year performance as we lap that in the second half. As a reminder, we have seen the category come back to more flat, which is historically the right spot for what we have seen out of cereal in the UK. Weetabix—the yellow box product in particular—has strong momentum and continues to outperform. As we lap the OREO license going away as we get into Q3, we expect to see better performance overall out of our portfolio with that.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Scott Michael Marks with Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Scott Michael Marks: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking our questions, and again, congrats to Nicolas and Rob. I wanted to touch on Weetabix off the back of Tom’s question, more on the profitability side. Obviously, margins are still significantly below what they had been. Can you help us understand the path back toward that 30% level and how we should be thinking about opportunities within that business?

Matthew J. Mainer: Sure. Scott, first a reminder: UFit continues to grow nicely within the portfolio. It is a co-manufacturing business, but as it grows, EBITDA margins compress, which is fine because we are still growing profit dollars. In terms of sequential improvement from where we are now, we executed some network optimization at the March quarter-end and closed a facility on the private label side, given our RTE acquisition a couple of years ago. That was part of the plan. We were able to execute it, and that will lead to better profitability in the second half. So, as you look at EBITDA margins, expect noticeable sequential improvements in Q3 and Q4 relative to the first half.

Scott Michael Marks: Okay. Appreciate the thoughts there. Shifting over to Refrigerated Retail, very strong volume performance in the quarter. I know you called out a little bit of Easter timing benefit. Can you help us understand the magnitude of benefit there and how we should be thinking about run rate for that business in the back half?

Matthew J. Mainer: Sure. We saw a pretty significant lift in dinner sides for the business—12% growth. The biggest driver certainly was Easter, and historically when Easter falls, it is a big lift. I would say that is the majority of the year-over-year movement, given Easter was in Q3 last year and in Q2 this year. The other contributor was the new private label products we rolled out at the beginning of the fiscal year. Those continue to do well. Arguably, they probably had a little Easter momentum behind them as well, but those are really the two drivers. Easter will fall away, but we will be lapping the private label introductions until we get through the end of the year.

Nicolas Catoggio: Scott, I would add that there was some underlying volume growth for our branded portfolio. Of the 12%, call it roughly a third underlying volume growth, a third private label, and a third Easter timing, give or take.

Scott Michael Marks: Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks. I will pass it on.

Operator: Our next question comes from Marc J. Torrente with Wells Fargo Securities. Your line is now open.

Marc J. Torrente: Hey, good morning, and thank you for the questions. Rob and Nicolas, congratulations as well. First, on the incremental cost impact from energy that you are expecting, has that started to flow through the P&L yet? Is it more of a ramping dynamic to the back half? And when would you decide to take pricing action if needed, and how quickly could that provide some offset?

Matthew J. Mainer: Sure. We certainly are seeing the impacts as we got to the end of Q2 and into the beginning of Q3. It is pretty consistent, depending on the level of hedges we have in place, through the balance of the year. You can think of it as a steady run rate assuming the war extends to the end of the fiscal year, which is our base assumption.

Nicolas Catoggio: On pricing, it is business by business, but for the most part, right now we are assuming we will absorb that through the P&L this fiscal year. We will probably then consider pricing, but it depends on where inflation falls. Right now we are seeing it in fuel and a little bit impacting packaging. If things get worse, we will have to think about pricing, and it is probably going to be in the new fiscal year. It is way too early to say.

Marc J. Torrente: Understood. Thank you. And then maybe an update on the performance of the APAP Nuisance holding in the business. What was the contribution in the quarter since this was the first quarter of just having the ongoing business? And how is the integration and synergy capture progressing? Thanks.

Nicolas Catoggio: The underlying business performance is in line with the deal model, so we are pleased. Some puts and takes—some slightly better, some slightly worse—but for the most part, in line with the deal model. The integration is going extremely well. Synergies are a bit ahead of the plan, and we should be hitting run-rate towards the end of this fiscal year as we anticipated. We feel really good about the combination. The team stayed focused with no distractions, the business is performing, and we are probably overdelivering on the synergies.

Marc J. Torrente: Thank you.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from John Joseph Baumgartner with Mizuho Securities. Your line is now open.

John Joseph Baumgartner: First off, to Rob, really fun ride the past decade and many thanks for all your insights and interactions over the years. It was a great learning experience. Thank you, and all the best in your future endeavors. Nicolas, congrats on the opportunity as well. First, relating to the ready-to-drink protein shakes: you understand this category very well, and you made the capital commitment to the manufacturing facility. I am curious about your perspectives on the sustainability of category growth and your participation as a manufacturer, given the influx of new brands coming in. How do you think about the competitive environment through a manufacturer’s lens? And second, given the de-rating of public equities in RTD—and maybe private assets as well—do you think about reengaging RTD as a brand owner again?

Presumably, it is growth accretive and free cash accretive, and you would get synergies from repatriating the volume with a vertical operator. How do you think about your position in that category now and going forward?

Robert V. Vitale: Yes. I think we have to be careful about questions that we answer from the perspective of BellRing. It is entirely appropriate to answer questions from a manufacturer’s perspective but not as a brand owner. I will let Matt talk about the manufacturing side.

Matthew J. Mainer: In terms of the shake business, we continue to see opportunities to grow with BellRing. We are a key supplier of theirs. We have gotten our house in better order in terms of volume on the shake side, so we are feeling better about that business. We have talked about some higher costs we are trying to work through in terms of higher-than-anticipated costs around the manufacturing process—some of the costs we are absorbing. But on the volume side, we are seeing better performance, and there is certainly demand for the volume that we are pulling through on the BellRing side.

John Joseph Baumgartner: Thanks for that. And then my follow-up: we are seeing some pockets of the industry where foodservice brands are making nice inroads in retail grocery and making that channel crossover—soup, french fries, mashed potatoes. You have the presence of Bob Evans already. Given how tough volume growth is for a lot of traditional retail brands, how do you think about leveraging the manufacturing assets to maybe expand Bob Evans into new categories or license other foodservice brands to enter additional categories within your meals orientation? Have you considered that as a means of growth, leveraging your assets?

Nicolas Catoggio: I think you said it right. That is a lot of what the Bob Evans business is—it leverages a lot of the Michael Foods assets. Expanding to other categories is something our teams assess all the time, and it depends on where they see the ability to win in a category. I would highlight that the Bob Evans business is essentially that model: it leverages the Michael Foods assets.

Operator: Thank you. We will go next to Carla Casella with JPMorgan. Your line is now open.

Carla Casella: Hi, thanks for taking the question. You talked a bit about private brand today, and it raises the question: how much of your business today is private brand, and in which category are you the highest as a percentage of the segment? Is there more opportunity there, and is that a margin opportunity as well?

Nicolas Catoggio: Post Consumer Brands is where we have the largest private label business and the highest as a percentage of total business—around 20% of the business. In terms of our position, we have a very strong position in cereal, granola, and peanut butter. We are a smaller player in private label pet; we have more of a premium private label presence in pet. In terms of opportunities, we see opportunities in all of those categories. In general, in all categories we play in, we consider how to leverage the branded and private label portfolio.

Carla Casella: It sounds like you are growing more on the Refrigerated side. Is there any private label in Europe?

Nicolas Catoggio: There is with Weetabix, yes, and that has been the case for years now. We are growing faster in Refrigerated because we made the decision to reengage with private label in that category—going from essentially nothing—so we see it as an ongoing opportunity. For now, it is targeted on fewer retailers, but there is opportunity there as well.

Carla Casella: Is the opportunity similar to where you are in brands? Do you see those categories get to 20% private brand?

Nicolas Catoggio: It is difficult to say. We never set a target like that. In the UK, it is higher than 20%.

Matthew J. Mainer: Weetabix, from a category standpoint, operates where private label is much larger in the UK than the US—obviously a much smaller market overall—but our shares are in line with the category in terms of branded versus private label. Private label is north of 40% for us over there. We feel really good about having alternative price points, just like we do at Post Consumer Brands. We think that gives us a competitive advantage and inroads with retailers both on the branded side and with that private label presence.

Carla Casella: Okay. And can I ask one quick finance question? You have done a lot with share buybacks and a bunch of refinancing lately. How much cash should we model that you need to keep on the books just to run the business?

Matthew J. Mainer: We generally think about $150 million of cash on the balance sheet for working capital purposes. Given our Weetabix offices as well as international operations, that is about the right level of cash needed for daily operations.

Carla Casella: Okay. Great. Thank you so much.

Operator: Thank you. This does conclude today’s question and answer session, as well as Post Holdings, Inc.’s second quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. Please disconnect your line at this time. Have a wonderful day.

Receive real-time insider trading and news alerts