← 返回

2026.09.24 | TB | Consumer | SalMar Volume Recovery

原标题：SalMar – Volume-led Recovery, Processing Expansion & Biomass Constraints

#consumer

Third Bridge · 2026-09-24

Analyst-led • 16 Sep 2026

Companies: SALM NO, LSG NO, MOWI NO

Håvard Stranden (HS) Board Chairman at Piscada Aqua AS

Yanmei Tang (YT) — Third Bridge Sector Analyst

Agenda

Key Insights

Introduction

YT [00:00:04]: Before we start today's Interview, could you please state I agree or I disagree to the following statement: You understand the definition of material non-public information and agree not to disclose any such information, or any other information which is confidential, during this Interview.

HS [00:00:25]: Agree.

YT [00:00:29]: Welcome to Third Bridge's Interview today entitled SalMar – Volume-led Recovery, Processing Expansion & Biomass Constraints. My name is Yanmei Tang, and I will be facilitating today's Interview with Mr Håvard Stranden, who is the CEO at Horizon Software. Håvard, great to have you here with us. Very much looking forward to having a discussion on the topics here. Before we do that, it will be helpful if you could give a brief introduction of your background.

HS [00:01:05]: Thank you for having me. As you said, my name is Håvard Stranden. I'm the CEO of Horizon Software. I've worked in Horizon Software for about one year now, and we deliver production planning and financial software for the aquaculture industry with about roughly a 45-50% market share in Norway, in particular, and also some customers across the other markets. Before that, I was a Technology Director with Akva Group. Akva Group, as you're probably aware, is the world's largest vendor and supplier of equipment and services to the aquaculture industry. Way before that, I used to do a lot of consulting and then I also actually grew up on the west coast of Norway on a small island called Frøya, which is where the head office of SalMar is actually located. I'm very intimately familiar with the history of SalMar and how it all came to be.

Questions

[00:02:15] We have seen very strong salmon supply growth through 2025-26, while the market expects supply growth to slow materially going forwards. How credible is this expectation? How do you see salmon supply evolving over the next 12-18 months?

HS [00:03:00]: I think that if you view the market from an external perspective, I think that the claims that we will see a slower growth at least, perhaps even one could maybe expect a stagnation globally speaking. That's credible to me. I think that the factors that drive these things are at large regulations. As you probably are aware, the Norwegian market is very, very heavily regulated. There are strict limits to how much each producer can produce. There's a traffic light system in Norway and different challenges across the board in terms of both biology and supply chain and stuff like that, which also to some extent, at least limit the ability to expand further. I think, if I were to predict the future, which is not my job, of course, at least not on behalf of the global salmon market, but I would expect the growth to be very small, if anything at all.

[00:04:24] The industry is debating the development in the Chilean market, whose supply upside might materially impact salmon pricing amid stronger volumes. How concerned should we be about that?

HS [00:05:04]: We have some, very limited though, but we have some customers there. I would say that, again, speaking broadly, the Chilean market has been strong lately. I think that when it comes to how to view it as a competitor for Norwegian salmon, I think there are multiple aspects of that. One is the brand, Norwegian salmon itself, which is a very strong brand globally speaking. If you view it as a protein supply, then of course, you compete in supplying salmon protein, but you don't really compete in terms of quality or perceived quality. In Chile, I would say that maybe there's a threat of regulatory changes is present there as well. I would almost expect there to be some changes in the near future to that. That would be at least a risk to the sustained growth in Chile, I would say. Of course, Chile is very well positioned to cater for the US market and the Americas market in particular.

Whether that's actually a threat to Norwegian salmon producers or SalMar in particular, I don't really see that as a challenge for them at least. I think that there's more than enough demand in the market. That's my experience at least. I don't really see Chile being able to flood the market to cap pricing or similar dynamics such as that. I don't really see that happening in my perspective at least. I think there's a fair amount of challenges in Chile as well.

[00:07:27] From an industry viewpoint, you feel relatively confident in terms of lower supply growth – if there is growth at all – and the pricing dynamic will be more favourable for producers. Is that a fair assumption? Are there any other near-term risks we should be aware of?

HS [00:08:01]: That's a very difficult question. If you look at maximising price, I would expect long-term pricing. Again, this is not my field or area of expertise, but the recent reports, the recent guidance from the analysts have largely been that in the long term, you would expect the salmon price to be increasing yet again due to the constrained supply side that you have largely speaking. Now short-term threats, yes, of course, there are plenty of short-term threats towards that price or towards the margins as well. This season in Norway, I would say we've had an exceptionally good biology compared to previous years, not necessarily the best biology across all years, but it's been a very good year. That, of course, creates a far stronger supply side, creates volume growth, which is, of course, a key performance indicator for most producers. The sustainability of that volume it's hard to tell. You could see threats in terms of biological problems, more incurring costs, at least to drive further growth.

The margins of the producers, I would say, it's hard to tell how they're going to be developing. Of course, now I'm speaking from the supplier industry as well as being a supplier to the aquaculture industry. I think that it's fair to say that investments are required in order to drive growth forward given the circumstances that we have, the regulatory environment that we have. As such, the margins are threatened unless the salmon prices will increase. I would, again, given a constant supply, relatively constant supply or maybe slightly growing, but not enough growing supply, you should see increasing prices, which should create the headroom to invest further. That's at least the base case we're all working for from these days, I would say.

[00:10:35] What is your view on SalMar's relative positioning in the market dynamic that you've outlined? The company has performed well in terms of delivering volumes. To what extent do you think that reflects a structural improvement in biology vs the unusual favourable conditions that the entire industry faced? What does that mean for SalMar going forwards?

HS [00:11:09]: That's a very, very good question. I think I'll start off giving my perspective on SalMar. I think it's fair to claim, and I think a lot of people would agree that SalMar is basically the performance king in the market, very lean operations, very sustainable and proven time and time again that they can grow, they can increase their volumes, which one can only say it's very, very impressive to see such a large company sustaining and delivering time and time again. I would say that it's a very strong performance by SalMar. I think some of what is structural, and due to external constraints, it's very, very hard to tell. For this year, I would say that it would be some of the gains that SalMar has had is, of course, due to circumstances, which are not really under SalMar's control. Strong biology, for instance. It would be only fair to say that you can't really expect such an exceptional year to be the norm.

Having said that, though, as I said, SalMar, from my perspective, I view SalMar as a very, very lean farmer or farming company. They utilise their resources exceptionally well. They are, some would say, short-handed, but they have very little staff, very, very simple operations. They are very able to adapt to circumstantial differences or environmental differences that are the norm in Norway, which I think is the only reasonable strategy to have because one fjord is not the same as another fjord. Even if they all look the same on the map, they're very, very different in terms of the environment and the conditions under which you can grow livestock. I think SalMar is very capable of understanding this. I think that's a key differentiator for SalMar. You could claim that that's a structural thing. That's an integral property of SalMar as a company, their perspectives and their strategy and how they approach their production, I would say, which has proven time and time again to be a benefit for them and which I would only expect them to be further capable of executing even better on.

[00:14:31] You mentioned that the market has performed well in the current conditions, and so has SalMar. Could the stronger harvesting in 2026 so far create any risk of weaker biomass or volume growth in 2027 for the company? How do you view that risk?

HS [00:15:08]: Now I have to be very precise here because I can't comment on particulars for SalMar in this setting because of the nature of my relationship to SalMar. Generally speaking, when you have strong performance, you perhaps harvest fish earlier than you would have and more than you would have for a given certain year. All other things being equal, you would have to expect a dip in biomass in the future at some point because that's just the nature of the game. You have to have new fish that grows equally well, and there are regulatory reasons and constraints that exist in both the regulations themselves and the environment in particular, that naturally creates these dips after strong performance periods, generally speaking. Now other than that, I think what I can say is that given the guiding that SalMar has recently published in their recent quarterly reports, I think it's fair to claim that SalMar expects to be able to sustain the biological performance and SalMar expects to be able to further increase their production volumes. That can only mean that there are still opportunities to be had there for SalMar. As I say, the proof is in the pudding. Historically speaking, SalMar has been able to perform close to or even beyond what they have guided.

[00:17:03] You mentioned that SalMar’s lean operating model provides a structural advantage. What underpins this efficiency, and how has the operating setup evolved in recent years? Which elements do you think can continue to support performance going forwards?

HS [00:17:35]: I think it's the shortest way I can summarise this, and again, this is my perspective, I think it's the entire setup. That's the shortest way I can summarise it. Now let me elaborate a bit. I would say that for SalMar, again, historically speaking, they've always been excellent at managing biology. They've been really, really good at catering to the biomass, ensuring that they maximise the potential that is there across all the sites that they produce on. They've been very good in ensuring that they have ample and correct, I would say, for lack of better words, smolt supply, meaning that they are certain that whenever they need to be able to introduce the next generation, whenever they need to be able to further increase the future production capacity that they have, they are able to do so because they have good control of the supply chain upstream towards the grow-out phase.

Apart from that, that you could also claim that they are also very good downstream from the harvest phase where they go through the processing plants. SalMar has been traditionally been heavily invested in that with the two major processing plants in Norway, both InnovaNor, which is the newest one and earlier about 10 years ago or so, InnovaMar, which are very, very high-performing processing plants, which they can operate very close to 24/7 if they so desire. These are largely, I guess, you could call them structural properties of the way SalMar is set up that allow them to basically perform or even outperform the market.

[00:20:09] Do you expect more opportunities for SalMar going forwards? Are there any other levers that could allow the company to reduce costs further and improve efficiency?

HS [00:20:35]: Again, from a very general outside perspective, I would say that you can only expect SalMar to continue hunting the next percent or so of the game. That's in their nature as a company. That's how they drive things. It's always about that next opportunity. It's always about that next step. For example, technology, they're not necessarily a first mover in terms of whatever new production method or new opportunity comes in that one, they're very methodical about it. They try things out, and they learn. They see what works and what doesn't. I would say that that's in their nature to do in their approach. You can only expect SalMar to continue on that.

[00:21:49] We have seen a significant gap between central and northern Norway for SalMar. What do you think has been the driver behind that gap? Beyond the ISA [infectious salmon anaemia] and harvest timing, have any other structural differences contributed to this gap?

HS [00:22:25]: As you said, I think you quoted some numbers in your questions, which I think are from a very recent quarterly report. They seem familiar to me at least. I would say that why this gap, if you ask that question? There are benefits to operating further north, which I think was, again, in only my own perspective, a key strategic decision that SalMar made probably 15-20 years ago even, where they expanded to the north rather than expanding to the other regions, particularly the surrounding regions around mid-Norway or even further to the south, which at the time seem to give more immediate returns. There's a structural difference, I guess, you could say, between the north and the south of Norway. The water is, of course, colder. It's just a natural inhibitor for lice. It's also, of course, a natural inhibitor for growth, which is, of course, problematic. Given the landscape that we have today, I think that that strategic decision proved right because the cost of treating that you see in the southern parts of Norway is very high. As the waters have warm slightly, you're seeing better growth, but fewer treatments to the north. That's a key driver behind the difference that you're seeing, and which, of course, drives margins up because basically, let's say that roughly 40% of the cost is feed, 40-50% even or some.

Let's say that 10-15% is aggregated what you could call biology costs, so cost of treatment and cost of handling various problems that arise. It's a benefit to operate in the north. More recently, you could claim that not this year, but last year, you had a lot of biological challenges in the central parts of Norway which created a very challenging situation for everyone, including SalMar, which could also explain some of the gap, I would assume, because it would create a higher demand for restocking livestock, feeding more, treating more proactively, investing more heavily in proactive strategies to handle the challenging biological situation that we saw in both 2024 actually, but certainly in 2025.

YT [00:25:53]: Do you expect this gap to remain? How much gap can SalMar close? What do you consider as a more realistic normalised EBIT per kilogram for central Norway?

HS [00:26:14]: All things equal, I would say that there would still be, as I said, there's a structural difference there. There's an underlying driver that's just there at the moment at least. If I were to guide the margins, I would expect the margins further north to be better, generally speaking. It's just a fact at least for the time being. Now it doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have changes in, for instance, production methods, closed pens submersible, stuff like that, which could drive the picture in favour of the other regions long term, but that's very long term because these things require investments, of course, and investments have to be paid down. I think that the gap might be less, but it's still going to be there, I would say.

[00:27:31] What would you say are SalMar's biggest competitive advantages and vulnerabilities in the next 1-2 years vs its peers, given the moving parts we discussed regarding the top line and cost management?

HS [00:27:58]: I would say that the single biggest competitive advantage for SalMar is probably what we discussed earlier, their sheer efficiency, their operational excellence, for lack of a better term, they basically outperform all the other players in that sense. This is generic across any market basically. Sustaining such a gap requires an immaculate degree of execution over time, which is, of course, very hard to achieve. Those running behind you are going to try and catch up. There are opportunities across production methods, as we spoke about earlier. Other players are investing more heavily in alternate production methods than SalMar. These things might pay off. That could be an opportunity to close the gap. The strategy that SalMar has with being very lean with focusing on small iterative improvement, flawless execution, as I mentioned, is a double-edged sword to some extent. It could also be that taking larger risk, trying out more opportunities for alternate expansion could pay off, of course. That's also a vulnerability in that sense. Whether that is the largest vulnerability of SalMar, though, I'm not sure. I would say that there are a lot of vulnerabilities potentially.

One is, of course, as I mentioned, the flip side of the operational excellence where your very small changes can have a huge impact, of course, when you're optimising an already running game as much as they are. Also, I would say that you could have changes, more fundamental changes in how the market perceives the produce from Norway, which could impact SalMar as well. Now I'm talking more across to contracts and that side of things. There are vulnerabilities as well, of course, as any strategy has.

[00:31:11] You mentioned that SalMar's competitors are investing more into alternate production methods. Is that a potential watch-out for the future? Are you seeing any players already doing better and closing the gap compared to SalMar because of such investments?

HS [00:31:47]: So far, I would claim and again, this is my general perspective on things based on what you read in the news and following the market that at least some of the investments into alternate production methods so far haven't really paid off. It's been a tough game. It's been hard to predict the performance of a particular production method in a particular environment or such as the submersible pens that Lerøy has been heavily investing in, have shown very different performance across different locations, which has been a challenge for them, I believe. For Mowi, to some extent, I would say that they're doing the same thing as SalMar, heavy focus on operational excellence as well. Mowi also has been very invested in a post-smolt strategy. They have been a firm believer of that, which has been a challenge in and of itself. There are natures to or there are intrinsic properties in the growth of post-smolt produce that are challenging and have proven challenging that were hard to predict ahead of time.

Of course, Mowi is a different piece as well. They have production spanning different regions of the coast of Norway compared to SalMar, which pointing back to the mid vs north margin gap is a benefit for SalMar compared to Mowi, I would say. Mowi, of course, also are operating in Canada, Scotland, Chile markets or locations where SalMar has actively decided not to pursue opportunities in, which has their own set of challenges and their own operational concerns.

YT [00:34:13]: Have you not seen any obvious wins from Lerøy and Mowi that might close the gap with SalMar?

HS [00:34:26]: Not so far. I wouldn't really say that no. I think that submersible, my personal view is that I'm doubtful to how well that's actually going to work, ultimately speaking. Closed pens, closed cages, I'm far more bullish on, if you can say that. I think that there are opportunities there, particularly since the regulatory environment seems to be, to some extent, making it more beneficial to invest in such technologies. I think there are key environmental benefits to the approach of closed cages. I can certainly see production strategies with a combination of closed cage and grow out in traditional facilities for the final few months being very beneficial. There are a lot of opportunities still to be had and whoever succeeds in finding that strategy first is all of a sudden ahead of the game. These things could change, yes, definitely.

[00:35:49] Regarding contracting strategy, slightly over 30% of SalMar's volume has already been contracted. What do you think of this strategy? It seems that customers are willing to contract above the forward price. Do you think the company should increase the forward price to improve its earning quality? Would that result in it giving too much potential spot price upside?

HS [00:36:33]: I can't answer specifics for SalMar. Generally speaking, if you have a strategy that is geared towards a spot market, that, of course, all things being equal, increases the risk because you're more sensitive to future prices. Given what we said initially in the conversation, where you're seeing a constant supply over time, I would claim that it would be fair to expect a strategy that is geared towards the spot market to be beneficial over time. It all depends. You could also claim the opposite and claim that it would be beneficial to soften the risk of potential or to be less-price sensitive, I guess, you could also claim that you could hedge with a slightly higher amount of fixed-price contracts. All things being equal, given the current landscape, I would say that a spot-geared strategy makes a lot of sense to me at least.

[00:38:19] Could you discuss mid-to-long-term growth drivers for SalMar? You mentioned that the company is already present in many markets with well-established distribution channels. In the long term, which region do you see as the largest driver of structural demand growth for SalMar? Is it China, the US or Asian markets? Do you still see more room for growth in Europe?

HS [00:39:02]: That was a difficult question. Again, not really my area of expertise, but I would say that, Europe, starting with that, I view Europe as a, how do you say, mature market in the sense that supply is, how do you put it, there's a lot of supply, let's put it that way. I would say that given the recent developments in the US, I would claim that there are still fairly large. Maybe I would go as far as to say even massive potential for further growth in the US market. Then in Asia, Asia is very large, the sub-markets in Asia are very different. At least in China, you have an ever-growing middle class. That should only drive further opportunity for growth in terms of being able to supply more. I would say that those are probably the two largest growth opportunities, the US and Asia, maybe even in that order.

[00:40:49] In the markets you mentioned, do you think growth will be mainly coming from higher consumption volume? Do you think there is opportunity for further premiumisation and value-added products?

HS [00:41:10]: Perhaps both. I will have to think about this. I would say my perspective on the US is that it's maybe more of a volume game, at least initially, whereas for the Asian markets, they're so different in how they consume. In the Asian market, maybe there is more opportunity for growth within VAPs or value-added products and stuff like that. You could even claim that in Europe, there are still opportunities for a more premium price given an increase in more value-added product consumption. There are probably opportunities in the VAP markets as well. Again, I'm not really the expert on these things.

YT [00:42:13]: How do you assess SalMar's relative position to capitalise on the growth you've outlined?

HS [00:42:31]: I would say that SalMar is, again, a very strong player, particularly in Asia. They have a long-standing position in the market there, should only be a continued opportunity for growth for them, strong positioning. I think in the Americas, maybe there's more opportunity still to be had there for SalMar. Mowi is very strong there, at least that's my perception. Maybe there's more opportunity there. That's not really decisive at least for the time being for how well SalMar succeeds. I think they're very good at catering to their markets. They're very good at developing their markets, finding channels, finding ways to distribute the fish, getting it out there. They're very good at that. They're very skilled at sustaining their ability to deliver to the target markets and expanding their market opportunities as well, historically speaking, at least. I don't perceive the market opportunities as being a capping factor in any sense for neither of them, actually. I think there's plenty of market for everyone there still, at least for the time being.

[00:44:12] Do you expect SalMar to further enhance its uncontrolled distribution channel? Do you think it makes sense for the company to expand more, given its established local distribution?

HS [00:44:44]: Again, it was a very difficult question, but as we talked about, SalMar, their supply chain is very well-established. They're very good at operating it and ensuring that they meet the demand in the market. All that is fine. There are certainly opportunities, as we talked about, probably within VAP and probably you could even imagine more ready-to-cook type approaches either directly from SalMar or through partnering with other producers. There are opportunities to be had there as well. A fundamental view, from my perspective, is that it's the other way around, if that's fair to say. I think that in the current salmon market, the producers themselves don't really decide how the markets respond. It's what drives the demand? You can even bring this back to the local markets in Norway. It's more price than anything else really over time, I would say. You see that even in the US now that with the customs and all that, increasing the price leads to lower demand, and that's more of what ultimately controls the demand side more than anything in my perspective.

YT [00:46:31]: Is it still a commodity market where the producer's pricing is quite limited?

HS [00:46:43]: Basically, yes. I haven't seen any signals or heard any signals in any other direction than that. I would say that the supply it's a limiting factor more than anything. Again, then ultimately, the price is going to dictate how much demand you're going to see. In my perspective, that's still the case for the salmon market.

[00:47:15] What was your reaction to SalMar's July 2026-announced acquisition of Måsøval? What are your thoughts on the main strategic rationale and the economics behind this decision?

HS [00:47:54]: To me, it makes a lot of sense. Strengthen yourself where you're already strong. It makes a lot of sense in terms of how SalMar is put together and how their strategy towards salmon production is. You always want to chase a higher biomass ceiling. From my perspective, it makes a lot of sense.

YT [00:48:23]: You mentioned that the acquisition would help SalMar build on what the company is already strong with. What does that mean in terms of synergies and the competitive landscape in that region? Are there any directional levers that you think will make this a strong acquisition for SalMar?

HS [00:48:57]: I think that first and foremost, they're already essentially neighbours, SalMar and Måsøval, they are neighbours. They've been neighbours for as long as they have existed. FYI, even the families live just a couple of kilometres apart, the owning families. It's a very close relationship. This is an acquisition that is at the core of where SalMar already operates. It's only natural to expect SalMar being able to harvest a lot of synergies following that acquisition. I think it will be reasonable, though, to expect these things to take some time because there are differences at least from my perspective, in how the two have traditionally operated. More similarities and differences, but there are some differences, particularly in the equipment that they use and how they approach the production, it might take time to harmonise these things, I would say. Maybe give it 1-2 years before they're fully integrated and before all the synergies are harvested. I think it will be reasonable to expect there to be a lot of synergy. Exactly how much remains to be seen, of course. I would expect that.

YT [00:50:38]: Where do you see the largest synergies? Is that all about site utilisation, biology, harvesting logistics and overhead?

HS [00:50:57]: All of the above, basically. It's like cross-site utilisation, improving upon what the sites are currently doing with SalMar's operational excellence, structurally being better positioned to utilise the regional biomass that they have. There are a lot of opportunities there that they're probably going to harvest on.

[00:51:24] You mentioned that it will take at least a couple of years to realise synergies. What would you say are the biggest integration risks to watch out for?

HS [00:51:45]: There's both and again, just generally from my experience, when you merge things, you have two organisations that need to come together. They have the nature that they have, each on their own, and they're going to come together as one. That's a risk, of course. Getting the operational management in Måsøval to adopt to the SalMar way could prove challenging. I would also say that there's probably some risk involved in the way that Måsøval, again, this is from the outside only, but if SalMar has been optimising traditional or more traditional methods, then Måsøval is probably even further down in that game, so they're probably even more conservative in terms of how they produce their biomass. Again, sheer speculation on my term, but maybe there is a risk for increased investments being needed at certain facilities in order to be able to fully harvest the opportunities that are there. That's certainly a risk. There's also the inherent biological risk, of course. No two sites are ever the same. There is some risk to that as well, I would say.

YT [00:53:32]: Is there anything else that you think is important for us to know?

HS [00:53:51]: No, I think we did a fairly well rundown or whatever you want to call it, of how SalMar is approaching this. At least, I was able to hopefully clarify and share a lot of my perspectives on it from the experience that I have. No, I don't think there are any major concerns or topics that we haven't discussed yet. I'm happy with what we have discussed.

YT [00:54:33]: I have asked a comprehensive list of questions. Thank you so much for bearing with me and sharing your insights. It's a great place for us to wrap up here. Thank you so much again for your time. Really appreciate that.

HS [00:54:52]: Thank you.

Transcription ends at 00:55:01 of the recorded material