June 2, 2016 All figures in millions of dollars Revenues: Jan Mar - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

June 2, 2016

2

19.4 76.9 7.4 103.8 20.7 82.8 7.3 110.9 Fishing Salmon Other Seafood TOTAL

Revenues: Jan – Mar All figures in millions of dollars

+7%

• 1%

2015 2016

+8% +7%

3

Results Jan – Mar

EBITDA (before Fair Value) Profit/Loss

2015 2016

• 7.0

4.3

• 0.3
• 3.0
• 3.6

1.4

• 0.5
• 2.7

Fishing Salmon Other Seafood TOTAL

• 4.3

8.2 0.3 4.1

• 1.2
• 6.0
• 0.2
• 7.3

Fishing Salmon Other Seafood TOTAL

4

25.5 53.0 60.0 66.1 58.7 45.1 47.1 21.6 10.1 459 483 485 496 489 453 462 439 446 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 EBITDA Revenues

Development: Last 4 mobile quarters

10.0% 5.6% 11.0% 12.4% 13.3% X%

EBITDA/Revenues

12.0% 10.2% 4.9% 2.3%

5

20 1 27 21 18 22 2015 2016 2015 2016 E 2015 2016 2015 2016 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Anchovy: No catches due to impact of El Niño.

Pelagic Fishing

Thousands of tons

87 95

2015 2016 E Year

Anchovy catches include own and third parties. Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

6

73 45 42 44 2015 2016 E Year 19 22 29 7 2 23 4 23 31 19 8 2015 2016 2015 2016 E 2015 2016 2015 2016 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

• J. Macker.: Favorable fishing conditions (56% of the annual quota catched in 1Q 2016).

Sardine: Higher catches vs Q1 2015, but low presence in the 8th region (third parties).

Pelagic Fishing

Jack Mackerel Sardine

Thousands of tons

89 115

Sardine catches include own and third parties. Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

7

Fishmeal Price

1,605 1,763 1,780

1,813 1,803 1,532 1,398 1,492 1,567 1,850 2,013 2,247 1,844 1,613 1,760 1,570 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016

Prices hit a peak in Q1 2015, and fell after normalization of the Peruvian quotas. Current prices show recovery due to the effects of El Niño and expectations of lower quota for Peru (under 2 M ton).

US$ / ton (Camanchaca)

1,825

Prime Fishmeal Price (Chile) IFFO Week 20 2016

May to Jul: 2.5 MM Ton (68% catched) Nov to Jan: 2.5 M Ton May to Jul: 2 M Ton Nov to Jan: No quota

Peru’s Fishing Quota (North-Centre Region):

Nov to Jan: 1.1 M Ton (99% catched) May to Jul: 2.6 MM Ton (98% catched)

8

China: port off-takes and stocks

Stocks in China bellow the average and higher port off-takes to final consumers

Source: IFFO

9 March 31, 2016 December 31, 2015 March 31, 2015 VOLUME Months of Production ThUS$ VOLUME ThUS$ ThUS$ SALMON Atlantic Salmon (Tons) 4,864 2.2 34,089 7,458 42,198 32,940 Salmon Total 34,089 42,198 32,940 FISHING Fishmeal (Tons) 7,873 1.8 8,136 5,793 6,937 12,454 Fish oil (Tons) 1,987 1.9 2,314 846 1,896 1,534 Frozen Jack Mackerel (Tons) 378 0.3 222 1,185 694 14 Canned Fish (thousands of boxes) 632 8.0 6,373 43 664 2,100 Langostino Lobster (Tons) 85 1.1 1,308 225 2,824 3,880 Fishing Total 18,353 13,015 19,982 OTHER SEAFOOD Mussels (Tons) 2,521 3.5 5,337 2,280 5,304 3,884 Abalone (Tons) 82 4.6 1,855 86 1,969 3,711 Scallops (Tons) 19 1.0 147 19 157 857 Other Seaafood Total (Tons) 7,339 7,430 8,452 COMPANY TOTAL 59,781 62,643 61,374

Stocks

(valued at cost) Rise in canned fish due to productive focus and decrease in salmon due to higher sales with less production

10

Algae Bloom in Chile: Feb-Mar 2016

• Industry impact: neighborhoods 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 10 (10th region)
• Mortality of ~25 million fish
• 45 sites affected
• Estimated impacts for Camanchaca:
• 93% mortality in 3 sites (~2.7 million fish)
• Estimated Direct Impact after insurances: US$ 5 – 7 million
• Camanchaca adjustments due to lower activity:

Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

2015 2016 E Hatcheries Units 5 3 Harvests Th Ton WFE 43 30 Fresh water sites Units 19 16 Harvested sea sites Units 11 7 Salmon staff 2015 3T 2016 E Puerto Montt (Harvest) 546 363 Tomé (value added plant) 988 520 TOTAL 1,534 883

11

Mortality Economic Feed Conversion Rate

2015 2016

Atlantic Salmon Sanitary Conditions

(closed cycle)

15% 40%

8.7% 64.3% 5.4% 20.0% 14.2% 12.9% 10.9% 43.0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year

1.40

• 1.80

1.35 2.88 1.30 1.60 1.36 1.35 1.35 1.90 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year

Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

12

Cost reduction

Atlantic Salmon - Cost ex-cage liveweight (US$ / kg)

3.41 3.01

Impacts in Q4-15 and Q1-16 due to SRS and lower oxygen in the 10th region since October 2015.

3.72

3.81 3.35 3.07 2.95 2.92 3.02 3.08

3.66

Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Others Medicine Labor Smolt OPEX Feed

13

43 30 4.4 5.2 E Year 11.6 9.1 4.9 6.5 11.2 15.6 4.8 4.2 4.5 5.5 4.4 4.1 E Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Atlantic Salmon Price

Prices upwards due to decreasing global supply. 2016 lower harvests due to algae bloom.

Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

Δ-12% Δ+22% Δ+18%

2015 2016

Harvest (Thousands of Tons) Price (US$ / Kg WFE)

14 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 jan-04 jul-04 jan-05 jul-05 jan-06 jul-06 jan-07 jul-07 jan-08 jul-08 jan-09 jul-09 jan-10 jul-10 jan-11 jul-11 jan-12 jul-12 jan-13 jul-13 jan-14 jul-14 jan-15 jul-15 jan-16

Atlantic Salmon Price: Long-term trend

Urner Barry Equivalent Trim C 2-3 *- US$/Lb Market prices on its trend line due to falling global supply. Effect on Camanchaca’s prices: starting from the 2nd quarter.

may-16 * Equivalent Trim C

15

Hike in price

Prices every week: Chilean salmon (UB trim D 3-4 lb)

Source: ABG Sundal Collier (05/16/2016)

UB price hike to levels of US$ 5.95 /lb

16

Camanchaca’s Atlantic Salmon RMP

Camanchaca vs Market (Salmonex, January 2013 = Base 100)

March 2016: Camanchaca prices below UBarry and Salmonex indexes (-86 and -55 cents respectively) due to sharp rise in the spot price. Q1 2016: Tie with Salmonex and 8 cents below UBarry.

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 ene-13 abr-13 jul-13

• ct-13

ene-14 abr-14 jul-14

• ct-14

ene-15 abr-15 jul-15

• ct-15

ene-16 abr-16 Urner Barry Salmonex Camanchaca

17

Price GAP 2016

By Country

Average price per Lb - Miami - Fillet Trim D 2-4 (Norway Price = Base 100)

63 83 20 40 60 80 100 120 Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Chile Norway Canada

Price GAP reduction in the last 5 months

18 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Jan-16 Apr-16

Raw Material Cost and RMP (Raw Material Return) Base 100 = RMP January 2013

RM cost before processing RMP

Negative margin in Q1 2016, but reversed in April 10th region sites 11th region sites

Development of Atlantic Salmon Margins

Porcelana Benjamín Tahuenahuec Izaza Cabudahue Fiordo Largo Pilpilehue Ahoní Loncochalgua Leptepu Cahuelmó Lamalec Licha Puelche Contao

Mañihueico

Islotes Edwards Izaza |F.Largo| |-------P.Arg.------| |---Cabudahue---| |--Pilpilehue--| |-----Ahoní-----| Leptepu Cahuelmó Porc. Loncoch. |-Marilmó-| |-Forsyth-| Johnson 2

Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

Jun-16

19

Development of Atlantic Salmon Margins

0.64

• 0.10

0.87

• 0.72
• 0.8
• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016

EBIT (US$/Kg WFE) before Fair Value

Atlantic Salmon Business includes other Revenues and Costs due to services and sales to third parties, and intercompany salmon sales to our offices abroad.

20

Benchmarking Jan – Mar 2016 Salmon Producers with Public Information

Revenues x Gross Margin (before FV) Gross Margin (before FV) / Revenues E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Camanchaca

• 20%
• 18%
• 16%
• 14%
• 12%
• 10%
• 8%
• 6%
• 4%
• 2%

0%

• 16
• 14
• 12
• 10
• 8
• 6
• 4
• 2

21

Crisis in Chiloé

Presence of red tide (Alexandrium Catenella) in the 10th region causes social conflicts in Chiloé SALMON

• Stoppage of primary process plants (17 days):
• Calbuco: 10th region harvest processing plant
• Quellón: 11th region harvest processing plant
• Detention of harvests, production and fresh salmon sales
• Impact of 8-day supply for the US market

MUSSELS

• 1 of the 3 farming sites is already open
• Impact on mussel plant in Rauco, where operations will be resumed with third parties raw

material and after that, with our own raw material

Estimated impacts for Camanchaca: US$ 1.3 - 1.6 million

Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

22 0.35 0.35

0.54 0.30 0.54 0.40 0.49 0.43 0.50 0.40 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year

2015 2016

Q1 2016: A constant volume, fuel savings of US$ 1.1 million.

Diesel Price: favorable effects on costs

US$/lt

• 44%

Company’s estimations are based on current information, which could change due to deviations

23

Changes in salmon density regulation

To limit growth, Subpesca made an amendment of the density regulation in order to:

 Define the maximum number of smolt transfer for each grow-out site based on individual losses of the previous cycle, with stricter punishment.  Establish a stricter biosecurity score for each neighborhood, which affects the maximum density of each sites in the neighborhood, unless the site has an outstanding performance in the previous cycle.  Score punishes losses over 5%, wich was 15% before the amendment. 10-12% is considered normal.  Score gives more weight to growth and less to losses performance.  The score of each neighborhood is a function of the environmental impact (10%); losses in the previous cycle (55%); and subsequent growth of smolt transfers (35%).  Strong punishment for smolt transfer growth > 3%  Pros:  Strongly reduces the chance to grow, which gives stability to the site biomass  It still rewards the sites with outstanding performance  Cons:  It does not take into account or give credit to individual reductions outside the neighborhood (eg, in macrozones) or allow optimizations as a result of a site relocation outside the neighborhood.  It does not address the entry of a new site in a neighborhood with few actors

24

Table of Individual losses

Applies to the grow-out sites according to the actual loss calculated as:

% loss productive cycle Biosecurity score Smolt transfer reduction for the next cycle

0% - 15% High Approved technical project 15,1% - 18% Medium-High

• 10%

18,1% - 22% Medium

• 20%

22,1% - 26% Low 1

• 40%

More than 26% Low 2

• 60%

% loss productive cycle Biosecurity score Smolt transfer reduction for the next cycle

0% - 10% Alta Approved technical project 10% - 14% Media-Alta

• 10%

14% - 20% Media

• 20%

20% - 25% Baja 1

• 40%

más de 25% Baja 2

• 60%

Current table New table

Smolt transfer + 2% Smolt transfer - Harvest

25

Neighborhood score

Environmental element: unchanged Environmental impact (INFA) % of sites operating with a positive last INFA Score Weighing

75,1% - 100% 100 10% 50,1% - 75% 75 25,1% - 50% 50 0% - 25% 25

Change in sanitary element Losses Score Weighing

0% - 15% 100 65% 15,1% - 17% 75 17,1% - 20% 50 More than 20% 25

Losses Score Weighing

0% - 5% 100 55% 5% - 15% 75 15% - 17% 50 17% - 20% 25 More than 20%

Current table New table

26

Neighborhood score

Change in productive element Smolt transfer projections (relative to the previous period) Score Weighing

0 - 100% 100 25% 100,1 - 110% 75 110,1 - 120% 50 More than 120% 25

Smolt transfer projections (relative to the previous period) Score Weighing

0% - 60% 200 35% 60% - 80% 150 80% - 100% 100 100% - 103% 50 103% - 110% More than 110%

• 100

Current table New table

27

Neighborhood score

Change in density table Current table New table Total biosecurity score Biosecurity Level Maximum Salar density (kg/m3) Individual site biosecurity Maximum Salar density (kg/m3)

85,1 - 100 High 17

• 17

64,1 - 85 Medium 15 High (losses < 13%) 17 43,1 - 64 Low 1 13 High (losses < 13%) 15 0 - 43 Low 2 11 High (losses < 13%) 15

Total biosecurity score Biosecurity Level Maximum Salar density (kg/m3) Individual site biosecurity Maximum Salar density (kg/m3)

79 - 100 High 17

• 17

69 - 79 Medium 15 High (losses < 13%) 17 59 - 69 Low 1 13 High (losses < 13%) 15 42 - 59 Low 2 11 High (losses < 13%) 13 Less than 42 Low 3 8 High (losses < 13%) 11

28

Neighborhood score

Example

Base data: 1. Neighborhood with:

• 80% positive INFA
• 16% losses in previous cycle
• Smolt transfer projection: +4% growth

2. Individual site had 1 million of smolt transfer in the previous cycle with 14% of losses and wants to growth 5% in the next cycle Old regulation:

• The individual site can grow 5% complying a maximum density of 15 kg/m3

New regulation:

• The individual site must redure their smolt transfers at least 10% complying a maximum density of 8 Kg/m3

 Strong punishment against growth plans.

29

Debt payment on May 25

Refinanced debt in May 2013: US$ 234 million On May 25, 2016: a payment of US$ 15.6 million is made:  Amortization quota: US$ 8.5 million  Cash Sweep (Southern fishing): US$ 4.5 million  Interests: US$ 2.6 million  Debt balance after payment: US$ 196 million