Joining us today is CFO, Mr. Nick Vrondas. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, CEO Greg Goodman. Yeah, thank you very much, and good morning, everybody. Goodman Group has delivered operating profit of AUD 1.2 billion for the first half of FY 2026, as we continue to provide essential infrastructure in supply-constrained markets around the world. We're building into strong demand for city locations across both logistics and data centers. Large-scale logistics customers are targeting productivity and efficiency gains through increased automation and consolidation. Data center customers require low latency, high connectivity, which they are committing to with unprecedented levels of CapEx spending forecast across the sector. Goodman is set to benefit from these structural shifts, given the quality and location of our sites, our power capacity, and our track record of developing complex infrastructure. Power, sites, and capital are critical to being able to build into demand and provide delivery certainty for our customers. Our power bank has grown from 5 GW- 6 GW on sites we own across 16 global cities. The increase is primarily in Australia and Continental Europe. Importantly, we've been advancing planning and preconstruction works on sites around the world to provide speed to market. In the quarter, we commenced a 90 MW, fully fitted project in Sydney, and we're on track to have data center projects providing around 500 MW underway by June, taking work in progress to approximately AUD 18 billion. We're also partnering with large investors to fund multi-year development programs. We established a AUD 14 billion data center development partnership in Europe and a AUD 2 billion logistics partnership in the U.S., with one on the way in Australia. This is consistent with the capital partnering approach we've taken for over 30 years. Our engagement with data center customers is progressing well across multiple sites, with negotiations well underway to provide a range of deployment options. We expect commitments in 2026 as we commence construction on sites and others get closer to their ready-for-service dates. Inquiry and activity across several logistics markets is also increasing, and we expect this to translate into development activity over the next 12 months. I'll pass on to Nick for a few comments. Thank you, Greg. Let's turn to slide 18 to run through the numbers in the usual way. We'll first cover the items that relate to our cash- backed measure of earnings, which we define as operating profit. As usual, this excludes unrealized fair market value movements on properties, mark-to-market of hedges, and the accounting fair value estimate relating to our employee long-term incentive plan. These are the items at the bottom of the table that get us to the statutory profit. Our operating profit for the half of AUD 1.2 billion was a little higher than we had expected when we spoke to you at the September quarterly. We had early timing of development and performance income recognition in the half, which we'd not expected until the full year. As you analyze these results, please keep in mind that FX movements had a AUD 33 million negative impact on the translation of our foreign-denominated operating income before interest compared to the prior period. This was offset with a commensurate benefit in our borrowing costs. This is a result of realized costs on our debt and derivatives, which is how our hedging strategy is designed. I'll call out the impacts on the line items as we go. Looking specifically now at the movement in investment earnings. These are up by AUD 54 million overall, and that's after a AUD 5 million adverse FX impact. Direct property net rental income was AUD 59 million higher. This was due mostly to the increase in assets held directly on the balance sheet, following the reorganization of our investments in the Americas. If you go back to June 2024, we had $1.4 billion of directly owned assets. It got to $5.1 billion by June 2025, with the December 2024 reorganization of our U.S. investments. It subsequently reduced to just over $4 billion with the creation of a new industrial JV in North America. This was a $3 billion increase in the weighted average capital employed in this segment when comparing the two periods. The bulk of our investment income, which comes through our co-investments in the partnerships, was down $5 million, mainly due to FX. The partnership reorganization and the other capital movements reduced investment income by $10 million, which was nearly totally offset by the $9 million contribution from the like-for-like income growth. Again, if we go back to June 2024, we had $13.7 billion of co-investments. This reduced to $13 billion at December 2024, following the North American reorganization. It then grew back to $14.7 billion at December 2025, mainly due to the creation of the new partnerships. Overall, it's a reduction in weighted average capital employed of around $500 million compared to the December 2024 half year. Over time, we wanna grow this part of the business as we continue to expand our portfolio of assets under management and our investment in it. The creation of new partnerships and the ongoing growth of the existing ones should support this. The portfolio remains 12% under rented, and we see this continuing to support NPI growth going forward. There's scope for a significant portion of the directly owned assets to create new partnering opportunities over time. This will reduce our direct investments and NPI, but increase our co-investment income from partnerships and our management income. At the same time, it will provide cash to fund our expansion. Management income was AUD 137 million lower than the prior corresponding half. Of that, a AUD 5 million adverse FX impact was the main driver, but the main driver was the recognition of transactional and performance-based revenues following the exceptionally strong prior corresponding period. They were down AUD 160 million to AUD 79 million. We encourage you to look at the annual averages as a proportion of stabilized third-party AUM. Our total portfolio stood at AUD 87.4 billion at the end of December. Of this, $75 billion was in external assets under management, and of that, stabilized third-party AUM averaged $69 billion in the period. That's up over $4 billion from the prior corresponding half year. As a result, base management income was $26 million higher on a constant currency basis. Total fee revenue for the period as a percentage of average stabilized third-party AUM, was just over 0.9% this half, which is broadly in line with our expected average over the long term. In terms of the outlook for this segment, we expect our third-party stabilized AUM to grow over time as we complete more developments and make new acquisitions net of divestments, and the value of the portfolio grows. Our realized development earnings for the half year were down $36 million on the PCP. FX rates had a $26 million adverse impact. Aside from that, the result was largely in line with the prior period. Several things are moving around, but we're managing activity to maintain our profit and return targets. On the one hand, development volumes have been lower. The average annualized production rate was around AUD 6.3 billion this half, compared to AUD 6.6 billion in the PCP. At the same time, a larger portion of activity has been initiated directly on the group's balance sheet. That means a greater portion of the development gains can be reflected in our operating results, rather than a share of revaluation gains. Yields on costs on the new projects are also increasing. This is commensurate with the longer dated periods to stabilization of data centers. Moving forward, we'll be progressing more data center developments and are now on what should be an upward trend in activity levels. These projects will, on average, be in WIP longer than our historic projects, so the impact on production rate will not be linear, but should still be positive. The pause we took also means that there is a resynchronization happening that is resulting in a lower volume of completions in the short term. All other things equal, this should correct over time. Given the increased project duration and the leasing time frames, we also expect higher-than-average margins to compensate. At the same time, we expect to continue to originate a significant volume of work on the group's balance sheet, so we'll have the opportunity to crystallize a greater portion of the gains in operating profit. The expected yield on costs on our WIP has increased to over 8%, which is now more than 70% data centers. These estimates are based on our current expectation of commencing data center projects on a fully fitted basis. These projects are largely uncommitted from a lease perspective, so the expected yields are forward projections based on the fit-out funding and commensurate lease type. The current level of pre-leasing is reflective of the stage we are at in the data center expansion and the long lead times to completion. It also reflects the group's desire to optimize the timing of contracting with prospective customers. We are compensating for this by retaining low financial leverage. We did, however, have AUD 2.5 billion of developments completed this half, 87% of which are already leased. Demand from logistics users for quality buildings in strong locations is also picking up, which we expect to start to contribute to growth in WIP in the future years. The diversion to data centers is a better use of our sites, is, however, occupying a greater portion of our opportunity set now and is expected to continue to do so in the near future. So over the course of the full year, rising activity level is expected to result in an increase in income from this segment on a sequential half-over-half basis. We remain enthusiastic about the prospects for development demand overall, which bodes well for future revenue as well as growth in AUM. There's been a moderate increase in our underlying operating expenses, but that was offset by a higher capitalization due to the rising activity levels on balance sheet. Capitalized costs are part of the cost basis of the assets when we calculate our operating profit. There was also a slight FX benefit. Net interest income increased by AUD 63 million compared to the PCP. Gross interest paid on our loans was AUD 14 million higher due to rising interest rates and the impact of the refinancing of our bonds, which resulted in a slightly higher WACD than the PCP. There were, however, a range of other items that more than offset this. There was a AUD 33 million benefit on the FX hedge to earnings that I mentioned earlier. We also earned AUD 48 million more interest on the cash and derivatives due to the higher interest rates and cash holdings. Our directly owned development assets have increased, so capitalized interest is up by AUD 31 million. The cost of borrowings on our loans is currently around 4%, but considering our interest rate and currency hedges, the net WACD is around 1%. As far as the non-operating items are concerned, we had over AUD 250 million of unrealized valuation gains in the half, which represents the group share of around AUD 900 million of gains across the entire portfolio at the 100% share. That's before the AUD 335 million deduction for the now realized prior period valuation gains. We treated these the same way as previous periods, so don't propose to repeat that methodology here because I think everyone's across it by now. So after the deduction for the prior period gains, we and accrued costs, the net result is a deduction from profits of AUD 112 million, which is what you see in the table that reconciles to OPET. The weighted average cap rate is currently 5.03% on the stabilized assets in the portfolio, and we're very comfortable with that. Another customary area of difference between operating and statutory profit is the fair value movement of hedges. The currency strength in December gave rise to an AUD 150 million increase in the value of our FX hedges, but you can see an AUD 325 million decrease in the FCTR. More than offsetting this was a decline in the value of our interest rate hedges, which came about because we have a large volume of fixed receiver swaps to partly fix the income on cash deposits and FX hedges. That's why we end up with a net loss of AUD 48 million in the reconciling table. As usual, we exclude the LTIP accounting costs, but we include the tested units in the denominator when calculating our operating EPS. That's when they actually impact on security holders. A few remarks now regarding the balance sheet on slide 19. Wholly owned stabilized assets have decreased since June 2025 for the reasons discussed earlier. On the other hand, even after accounting for the debt funding portion of the acquisitions by the partnerships, our share of the stabilized assets within them were up on a constant currency basis. Compared to June, our development holdings are up from AUD 5.6 billion to AUD 6.5 billion, which represents our share of the developments in partnerships, as well as the wholly owned properties. This is consistent with the higher capital intensity of the new projects, as well as the higher portion originated on the balance sheet. The directly owned portion was up by around AUD 100 million to AUD 4.2 billion, but this was a result of AUD 200 million of net investment, partly offset by the FX translation. This incorporates the impact of the movement of some of the European data center properties from the group to the new development JV, but also demonstrates the amount of investment we're undertaking on the balance sheet. The share of development capital in partnerships was up by AUD 1.4 billion to $2.2 billion—from AUD 1.4 billion, sorry, to AUD 2.2 billion, which was largely influenced by the European DC development JV formation. This is progressing, as expected at the time we raised equity last year. Our aim continues to be to initiate more projects, to give us an opportunity to have meaningful discussions with both customers and investors alike. We aim to continue to bring partners into the developments at the appropriate time to manage risk, capital, and returns. Just looking at the other major movements now. Overall, we generated around AUD 1.2 billion of cash backed earnings through our operations this half. Nearly 600 million of this is reported through the statutory operating cash flow statement, which is up by around AUD 200 million from the PCP. As usual, however, the statutory statement of operating cash flow includes outflows associated with the expenditures on development inventories. A portion of these, of our earnings also arise from transactions that are included in the investing cash flow for statutory reporting purposes. That's either because they are in our investment property under development and not in inventory, or they were sold from within our partnerships. This is not unusual for us either. So the combined effect of these development activities accounts for over AUD 200 million of the difference between operating cash flow and operating profit. There's always a difference between the timing of distributions and fees received and income or expenses recognized in the partnerships, and that was around AUD 100 million this half. Capitalized costs, in other words, capital movements, created another AUD 100 million difference, and the usual impact of the incentive payments was AUD 200 million. Over the full year, timing difference can be smoothed out, but the issue of the investment back into the business is symptomatic of a growing enterprise. The classification of certain transactions in investing cash flows is also a source of permanent differences. Our retained earnings are designed to contribute to funding such investments, which is consistent with the design of our long-term capital management plans and the distribution policy. That's a good point to turn to slide 20. Gearing is 4.1%, which is slightly lower than it was in June, and we have $5.2 billion of liquidity, including cash and undrawn loans. That's after we funded acquisitions and CapEx, and we repaid EUR 300 million on the maturity of one of our corporate bonds. As we said before, we'll operate our gearing within a range of 0%-25%, with a level to be set with reference to the mix of earnings and activity. We're very comfortable with where we stand at this time. In fact, we have capacity to increase gearing and remain within the bounds of our FRM policy objectives. This is consistent with the strategy we laid out a year ago, with the aim to build out more data centers and fund the growth in WIP, whilst maintaining a strong balance sheet. As we continue to partner with investors, it will enable us to recycle capital to bring forward development capacity more rapidly. Over time, we expect to hover around the midpoint of the gearing range once we get further into the data center construction activity. That's all for me. Thanks, Greg. Thanks, Nick. Demand for digital infrastructure in our markets is expected to materially exceed supply over the foreseeable future. Goodman has a significant opportunity to develop into this demand, given our metropolitan sites in supply-constrained markets, our power bank, and our very strong capital position. The scale and location of our power land bank is rare. Construction-ready powered sites take many years to acquire, plan, secure power, undertake infrastructure works, and ultimately deliver. We're putting the infrastructure in place to carry out our program over the next 10 years. Also, on the logistics side, we're moving forward with larger deployments for customers as they consolidate and invest in robotics and automation to enhance their productivity. The remainder of FY 2026 will see us growing work in progress, supported by Goodman's strong balance sheet and our capital partners, and the right structures and opportunities to actively rotate our capital. And in closing, now, I'd like to confirm our target to deliver operating EPS growth of 9% for FY 2026. Thank you, and Nick and I can now take some questions. Thank you. As a reminder to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. One moment for questions. Our first question comes from Lauren Berry with Morgan Stanley. You may proceed. Oh, good day, guys. It's actually Simon Chan. I used the dial-in code. Hey, first question is just for a bit of housekeeping. Hey, at the half year, I think, Vrondas, you alluded to this. I think you were thinking about a 40/60 split of EPS for this year. In your prepared remarks, you talked about how, you know, you've got some early timing, well, some early timing of development performance income in the first half. Does that mean the 40/60 split is out the window now, or should we still assume a 40/60 split, notwithstanding the AUD 1.2 billion delivered in the first half? No. So, Chan, so the full year target is still the same number, but sums come forward. So yeah, 40/60 is now not 40/60, but the end target is unchanged. That's. I hope that's clear. Okay. Okay, that, that's good. How much of that early recognition or early timing was to do with the establishment of the European JV, or has or will all the profits for European JV come through in the second half? Look, it was a little bit because we had some fee revenue that we would have earned from the beginning, so there was a little bit of catch up with the closing of part of the transaction, but it hasn't all come through yet. But remember, I mean, that's, that was all in the guidance. We, we discussed that, I think, at, in August, or maybe in September, I can't remember. So yeah, there was, there was a little bit of that, but, there were other items as well. Yep, fair enough. Hey, can you guys walk me through your program of works now going forward? I guess three parts to my question. One, how much of that 497 MW on slide 14 is actually in WIP at the moment, and how much of it isn't? Going forward, say, over the next 12-18 months, should we expect potentially more establishment of data center development JVs as you activate more of your pipeline? Or is it, "No, no, we've got the partnerships we need, put the queue back in the rack, and it's just more about building." Like, how should we think about your program of works? Yeah. First one is easy one, 370 MW. Yeah, that's in WIP. That's got- 370 MW of the 497 MW? Yep, that's about AUD 10 billion of AUD 14.4 billion. Goes to about AUD 18 billion in June, and so there's a pickup in regard to obviously about another 100 or so coming in, and that's primarily around the starts in Europe. But we've activated about 1.92 MW, 1,926 MW in total. So we've activated those sites. So there's another 1,332 on that slide, which is important to note because that's obviously the pipeline that'll be coming through in other years as we start these other programs. Yeah. Is that clear? So we're going to 18 in June, and that's not being heroic on industrial. And on the industrial side, first time I've seen billion-dollar buildings, and we'll be doing some big industrial projects all around automation and robotics. And we're talking 100,000 m plus sort of buildings with very, very extensive robotics and operations inside them, which is then the consolidation of a number of sites into, into single sites. And that's happening pretty well in all locations around the world. So don't underestimate, as well, the industrial pickup, and I think that's running at about AUD 4 billion of work in progress at the moment out of the 14. You know, that could be a surprise on the upside as we go into, you know, late 2026 into 2027. Now, the second question, which I've, c ould you just repeat that? Oh, it's program of work. As in, you know, you've done a lot of partnerships already, right? Japan, Europe, you reckon you'll get Australia done. But is that it, or as you roll out the rest of your pipeline, you will be seeking to establish, you know, one of these new partnerships every 18 months, et cetera. Is that, is that how we should think of that? Yeah. Yeah, we're, we're, we're good. We're good at the moment, and moving forward, there'll be long-term holding structures rather than development partnerships. There'll be transfers. Work in progress will go into assets under management, I think, as Nick was talking about. So if you sort of think there's AUD 20 billion of work in progress running through to the end of the year, a lot of that is keepers for us because of the locational quality of it. Those over time will roll into longer-term holding partnerships and things, things like that. So, yeah, it's been the same. Nick reminded me the other day, it's 30 years. I had 20, but he reminded me of my age. We'll effectively be continuing the same thing we've done and making sure, though, we've got the capital and the strength of the balance sheets around the world, because one thing you need when you're developing the size and scale of what we're doing globally, you need a lot of money, right? We're very conscious of that. We want ahead of it, want to stay ahead of it. We will stay ahead of it. That is one of our competitive advantages, particularly in the data center sector, where Goodman has been and is very good at partnering capital around the world and the biggest capital partners in the world. That is extremely important for our program and our strategy over the next five to ten years. I wouldn't underestimate that, and it's gonna get harder, not easier, for people. Great. My last question is just on our customers. You got any updates for us on that one? I guess the rest of the question is, you know, it's actually more a question. Have you guys taken, you know, a view internally on AI, right? You're talking a lot of customers, but then I guess you also know that, you know, some AI proponents may be more successful than others. And I guess the quality of the counterparty is very important, right? Given you're in a long duration asset class. So what's your view on AI internally? Oh, look, look, the first point is, the big customer negotiations and the big volume sites, it's all hyperscalers, right? So I think that makes it very, very clear. And, yeah, we're adopting the AI products that are relevant to our business. It's gonna drive productivity, and this is a 10-year, 10-year game, and it's changing the world, and that's just a fact, right? Now, whether it all goes in a linear fashion and it grows at the same rate, I think that's all very, very debatable. But, it's a, it's a revolution and an evolution all around the world, and we're all adopting it, some at different paces. But yeah, we're adopting it. Okay. Thanks, Greg. Thank you. Our next question comes from Cody Shield with UBS. You may proceed. Good morning, Greg and Nick. Thanks for the time. Maybe just to expand on one of Chan's questions around the partnerships. If you're set, just with respect to Vernon, how are you thinking about that asset and an approach that you'll take there? I will talk about that a bit later. We're, we're pretty deep in discussions about that at the moment, so, we'll leave that, we'll leave that for a couple of months. Okay, sure. Maybe just turning to the Australian DC partnership, would this only include assets currently in development, or would you be looking to, you know, have a combination of existing developments and other sites with approvals and power and so on? The one we're doing at the moment is, Artarmon, which has already started. Okay, sure. And it would just be Artarmon. It wouldn't be any of the other sites around Sydney? No. We'd-- look, we're dealing with partnerships on reality-... If you sort of map what we did in Europe, we spent a number of years getting all the sites ready. We brought in a partner as we were going vertical. Right, so there's no delay in regard to starting them. We're starting them. We bring in the capital when we're ready to start, so we're not waiting six months and saying, maybe, what if? Capital comes in, we're starting, and then the clock's ticking on the return. Yeah, so shorten up, do it. Same approach with the customer. It's being built. We're now in discussion with the customers because we can give them a delivery date of 28 or whatever the date might be for their first data hall. That's the way we're running it. Okay, great. That's clear. Maybe just a last one on, you know, something like a Tokyo, one of those multi-building campuses. You know, how would something like that progress? I mean, I imagine once you do the preparatory work, the, you know, the second and third building come along a bit quicker than the first. Is that right? Like, what would the timeline on something like that look like? Well, we'll wait, wait and see, but we're, we're right into it, into our big, big site up there at the moment. It is a great site. Not a lot of power in Tokyo. This is the biggest one in Tokyo, and, yeah, good demand. Okay, great. Thanks for the time. Thank you. Our next question comes from Mithun Rathakrishnan with CLSA. You may proceed. Yeah. Hi, Greg. You might have James Druce here, and Nick. Can we just, just on the 0.5 GW that we're sort of starting before June, can we just talk to the construction contracts, that they've all been locked down now, have they? What's there remaining to do there? What's remaining there to do there? Well, yeah. There's a lot of contracts. You're talking $ billions and billions. Some have been locked down, some have been started, and some are just in the final pieces of negotiation, right? So no, we've got contractors. We're down to signing contracts and moving on with the prices locked in. Okay. And is there, I mean, the data center complex industry is getting a bit more complex in terms of development. How do we think about the right time now to actually bring in a tenant? Is it as fast as possible, or do you want to kind of get all your ducks lined up, you know, get all your MEP equipment done, or how do you think about sort of the right timing for that? Yeah, look, look, it's iterative. It's different on different sites, depending on the demand signals. So you'll play a site maybe in Amsterdam differently than you'll play a site in the U.S., where there might be more supply. So it depends on where you are, right? But you need to be building to a design where you've got flexibility. You need to be building to a design you can build into the demand so that you can shorten up the delivery period. So if people are placing orders for 2028, you've got to be able to deliver in 2028. If you want to deliver in 2029, well, you better wait 12 months, and then you're probably, you're probably taking a deal in 2029. So build into it, get your essential infrastructure out of the way, make sure you've got your buildings coming in around the slabs and sticks are going up, you know, effectively, and you're building to a design or a program which is flexible. Now, on some sites right now, as we're starting to build, we are having the negotiations, and we are actually designing it for those customers. And there's some AI inferencing in some of these now, where you've got water loops, and then you've also got air. So we're thick into it right now, but it'll depend on where you are and what you're doing in the different countries and the demand signals. So there's no one-size-fits-all. Yeah, no, that's clear. Some feet are bigger than others. Can we just talk to, I mean, on slide 15, it, you know, sort of shows the Japan partnership, there for the 1 GW. I mean, we've sort of known it's been there, but, I mean, how does that kind of roll out in terms of fundraisings for GJDP, and how much of that is actually covered today? Look, it goes building by building. We've got approvals for our first phases. We're doing from the partnership. The partnership then will have assets. Those assets, as they're stabilized, will be in a more of a stabilized Goodman partnership, and that's exactly what we've been doing in Chiba. Same, same MO. Right? Look for the same approach. In Japan, we've been doing this for a while. I think the team there is very good at this, and we've been doing, I think we're just finishing a fourth data center in Chiba right at the moment, quite frankly. They're all 50s and rolls off the tongue quickly, but 50s are big, right? Just to be clear. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Adam Calvetti with Bank of America. You may proceed. Hi. Hi, Greg and team. I mean, with Artarmon and the five additional ones that you're going to be committing to the second half, I mean, what type of fully fitted data center are there? You've got three types, whether it's run by the customer, yourself or yourself or operating partner. Where are these ones going to land? Most of them are fully fitted to your mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, you know, the MEP program, that's primarily it. But we'll be operating some, a lot will be self-operated by hyperscalers. And there might be a color in the mix there, where we may be doing a joint venture as well. So yeah, there's gonna, we'll hit all those boxes, I think. Then there's some shells that are probably popping in the second half, we don't have on the page, where we're gonna deliver some shells for some hyperscalers, as well. So you're gonna see the whole topography across the board. And it's really important to emphasize that I, that I think we've been doing it for a while, but I'll just reemphasize it again today. Our competitive advantage at Goodman is around the infrastructure, right? We don't desire to operate everything in the world, and we won't be. There's a number of hyperscalers that want to operate their own facilities, and we're very happy about that. We wanna build them world-class infrastructure that then fits for us for a long-term investment, which is also, we've got to be very clear, we're building to own and bring investors in. So we need something at the end of the day that actually is saleable and investable, right? So white elephants, that's not what we're about, and I think you might find that's a discipline that Goodman brings to the long-term ownership that may be very critical as we move forward over the next 10 years. With so much capital required for this sector around the world and the rotation of capital, you can only rotate it if you've got something investable at the end. So big discipline on that. Okay, that's very clear. And then, I mean, the power banks increased about 1 GW. So that's split between Australia and Europe. Can you just comment maybe on how you're seeing demand in those two markets and returns? Returns in Europe are very good. They're, they're in line, I think, with what Nick's talking about. And Europe is short of infrastructure in those major markets we're in. So we're building into a very, very strong demand market. But the discipline around building them and getting the, the buildings, up, up in the air, we are very well equipped because we've got a very, very good development team around infrastructure in Europe. And where you're gonna get caught or stuck is getting out of the ground, right? Once you get out of the ground and you've got your orders in for all your equipment, it's then a program, and we're very good at running programs. We're very good at building basically complex pieces of infrastructure, and we've been building multi-story buildings around the world for highly automated buildings for big customers of 120, 130, 150 thousand meters, right? We've got disciplines internally at Goodman around building these things, which is world-class, and that is one of our competitive advantages. Greg, maybe just to focus in on Australia, with the 0.6 GW increase there. I mean, I've been hearing that hyperscaler rents in Melbourne have stagnated. How are you seeing the Australian market? Look, I think, let's just see what's real and what's not, firstly. There's a lot of promises, but let's look at the deliveries. So we're focused now, for example, in Melbourne, on 28 deliveries, right? So, let's work that through, and I think you'll find there's good demand in Australia, but we've got to be sensible about how big that demand is, relative to the U.S., which is 70%+ of the global market, right? So we're building into places like Japan, we're building into places like Europe, where there's big demand signals, and we've got some great sites in Sydney, Western Sydney, Melbourne, effectively, and North Sydney, so we're in the best locations. Let's just see where we end up. Yeah, because we're playing globally, we've got a lot of options and optionality to push U.S. a little harder, Europe a little harder, back off in some other markets if we think there's a supply issue. But even in Australia, honestly, the infrastructure and the timing is still, yeah, it's still difficult, and it is difficult everywhere in the world at the moment. Great. Thanks, Greg. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Brayshaw with Barrenjoey. You may proceed. Good morning, Greg and team. Could you just talk about SYD1 in respect to two things, please? When do you expect the project to reach practical completion and be able to generate income? And secondly, the strategy for the leasing. Is the intent to lease all of the capacity to one hyperscaler, or do you expect it to be multi-tenanted, as in two or three or more tenants? Thanks. Yeah, good question. 2028, we'll be delivering the first power available. And I suspect being a five-story building, very complex, it'll be multi-tenanted. That's my view, but that's not to say we don't have demand for whole buildings over a series of time or a series of years. Bear in mind, Macquarie Park is becoming difficult. Most developments on the North Shore are either not occurring or delayed. Right. So to have something coming out of the ground, which we do now, we're having serious conversations, but we're very happy to manage and operate it over multi floors. But we're also happy to do a whole building deal, depending on the economics and the deal we do. And perhaps it's a question for Nick. Could you provide some color on how many sites have been sold down into the European partnership to deliver the forecast revenue for the vehicle? And how many are remaining on the balance sheet to be transferred? And will that transaction happen in the second half, or will it be phased over time? Yeah, so the ones that have gone in already were the Frankfurt and Amsterdam properties, and the two Paris properties will go in in this half. So, that's all that's contracted at this stage. And just, just finally, in relation to SYD1, the site, has the ownership transferred to the balance sheet from out of the partnership? And, and will the- Yes. Will the establishment of the partnership potentially give rise to a trading profit or an uplift on the carrying value when that is settled? Well, I don't think we're commenting on that, but yes, it has transferred. And partners will come in to the 50%. I suspect that Goodman line 50, I think, is the plan, and partners will come in for the other 50. But yeah, I don't think we'll make any comments on uplifts or anything like that. No, but look, I mean, it's not that big either. It, it won't be much of a needle, needle mover. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, guys. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Richard Jones with J.P. Morgan. You may proceed. Well, just following up on Ben's question. Is it fair to assume that the bulk of the land value uplift in Europe across Frankfurt Amsterdam has been booked, and the two Paris project uplifts will come in the second half, Nick? Look, we're not commenting specifically, but yes, generally, that is a fair estimate. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And Greg, just interested in your comments about automation, robotics on industrial projects. Are you looking at funding that for the tenant as well? No. No, I, I think same, the same approach as we've taken with a lot of the big sheds we've taken. But once you go gate to gate, you know, they're billion-dollar investments, but the buildings and the land and where it's sitting, you-- we, we would be into $600 million-$700 million, and then there's, there's the fit out components that might be anywhere between $100 million - $500 million. It's all going robotics. Warehouses inside five, you won't have anyone in them, effectively, and, some of our big customers are already planning on that, right? So when they pull the trigger on full robotics, warehouses, probably not today, but they've got the technology now to do it, and, and that's the way it's heading. Most of our big warehouses, we need 6 MW-8 MW of power. So that's the same power discipline we're using the data centers. Actually, we're using also, and have been using around big industrial buildings. So when I talk about essential infrastructure and the ability to get these things powered up and plan them, the discipline around both actually is very, very linear and very parallel, and that's why Goodman, as an operator and a developer in the sector, there's some big competitive advantages we've got around infrastructure, because we've been doing that infrastructure for many, many, many years. So I think we're in a really, really good spot to do both and effectively don't underestimate, as I said before, some of the work in progress on industrial, because they are getting bigger, and there are six buildings going into one, and that is gonna drive productivity, and it will drive costs out of business over the long term, and they are big customers with big budgets. Can you clarify what, what the returns look like on those big industrial projects? Yeah, they're good. So you look at our, excuse me, you look at our averages. I think we're throwing out between anywhere between sevens and nines. You know, it's in there somewhere. Okay. One more quick one, just one more quick one for Nick. Just what, what would be the capital commitment from a CapEx perspective you'd anticipate to the balance sheet in the second half? Don't have that number at my fingertips. About AUD 500 million, I think is broadly where I think it's at. That's based on the- Okay. Kind of current projects. That's excluding sort of any acquisition, new acquisitions or anything that, you know, hasn't been sort of identified yet. That's just what's in the pipeline. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Callum Bramah with Macquarie. You may proceed. Hi, thanks for taking my question. Apologies if I've missed it somewhere in the announcement, et cetera, but I just wondered, as I understood it, the two near-term completions for the data centers was LAX01 and then, HKG 09. I just wanted to know about the customer commitments on those, and, and if you could give us an update on progress and when we should expect, that to be completed? Okay. So no, LAX is not. That's not in- Through, and I imagine across in the other segment. Hello. LAX01 is not in completions. Yeah. And what else do we have in completions? It's mainly, it's mainly Chiba. Chiba is popping in this month. It's mainly industrial. Yeah ... industrial items in the completion, so no- none of the data center ones were in the completion. Yeah, the next one to complete is in Chiba, which will be shortly. Yeah. Apologies. I might not have asked clearly, but just in relation to the data center projects, when are you expecting to get a customer commitment for LA and for, I think, was it HKG 09? Are the two that are kind of nearer term in completions? It's going out. The Hong Kong- So Tsuen Wan, Tsuen Wan. Yeah. Yeah. Texaco, we're going fully fitted, so it's gonna be a while away yet. That's the plan, and the other one on Hong Kong is already committed. In regard to LAX, we're in discussions at the moment. Bear in mind, we have our first power bank available, sort of running towards the end of this year. We're in good shape on that one. And, and- Our view on that, that's a multi-customer building and a full operational building, right? So that'll fill up over a period of time, in as we deliver, is the program on that one. But look, there'll be more about that in the next month or two. Okay, and that's on track for powered shell completions due in June? No, we, we're gonna actually have our first data all ready by, before the end of the year. Right. We're building full, full mechanical, electrical, and plumbing outcome there. The shell, the shell, I think you got to distinguish between the shell and the fit out. Yes, on the shell, but we're moving then through to the fit out of the MEP and having progressive, available for service, ready for service for the data halls, which will happen, as Greg said, progressively from the second half. Yeah. I think maybe on, based on prior conversations, there was an expectation of maybe getting customer commitments, you know, 12-18 months in advance. Is there a change in that because of the market dynamic, or a strategy, or a tactical play that for Goodman? Are you able to just give us a bit of color about timing of- Yeah on those customer commitments? Yeah. Yeah. It, it's topography, right? So the LAX01 is going to be multi-customer. You're talking anywhere between probably 1 MW to 10 MW. So we're talking to a customer at the moment, that's the higher number. They might take the first bolt of power. We're gonna. It's an operating asset, so that's very different to doing 100 MW or 200 MW, you know, in a different location, where the customer will wanna go earlier. The one on LAX, LAX is ready for service, and you're, you're leasing it as you go. Artarmon is gonna be very, very similar to that. As an operating asset, we'll lease it as we go, and there'll be some other assets that are gonna be effectively pre-committed. We might be starting some earthworks, there might be some transformers in and things like that, but there's some big ones we're actually working on at the moment, which are effectively, we're designing for those customers. Even though we might have started- Amazing ... a few of the earthworks in getting it ready. Yeah. So you'll see, you'll see both, of those type of deals being done depending on where they are and, and what they are. And if I can just push my luck with one more. Just in relation to the Paris assets going in, which, based I think on your earlier comments, Nick, have yet to go in. Can you just clarify the drivers of the timing of when they go in, and maybe what your current expectations are? Yeah. So, you might recall there were CPs that related to local municipalities. In the main, that was the main reason. The municipalities have preemptive rights, and so there's just a regulatory notice period, Q&A, so they can understand the basis of the terms, and then they notify you. So on one of them, we have subsequently been notified, and so the settlement of that, the process of the settlement of the first one, is about to be initiated, so that'll close within the next month. And then the second one is very, very close behind. So, yeah, expect well and truly before the end of June to have closed those two. Is that across the entire project site or just the first data center, if you like, of the campus? No, the whole, the whole thing. The whole campus. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. No worries. Thank you. Our next question comes from Tom Bodor with Jarden. You may proceed. Good morning, Greg and Nick. Just picking up from one of the comments you made about Callum's question. Where you do have multi-tenanted facilities, such as LA, what do you assume for a timeframe to stabilization, post-completion, and where do you see stabilization from an occupancy perspective? Something like that, you could knock that off in a couple of years, effectively on the as you build it, build it through. So there'll be another 12 months in building out the MEP, and during that time, I suspect you've got most of it done, and then there might be a tail at the end. But yeah, over a couple of year period would be more than enough time, unless you let it to one customer, of course, and then they'll take a programmatic approach to it and take maybe floor by floor over a period of time as they require the requirement. Okay, but so when you hit PC, what's your sort of broad working assumption for these multi-tenanted facilities in terms of occupancy and what timeframe post PC do you sort of see it getting to fully let? Look, look, I think within 12 months you'd be aiming for, but you're gonna get. You're delivering them floor by floor, right? So I think LAX01, we've got 6 MW, I think 6 MW available shortly, right? So we can deliver that and then just move through it in a programmatic way. Okay. So you're spending capital as you go. It's not all spent at that point, then you keep spending it on the way through, as you need to do that. Yep, that's, that's clear. Just a final one from me. You know, there's obviously a huge amount of capital required to develop these facilities, as you've highlighted. And it's a long way away, but how do you think about pricing and capital demand for core data centers? Do you think there will be an ultimate takeout at the end, or do you think a lot of your partners just want to develop to core and sit into the partnerships long term? They're all approaching it differently, depending on their view on returns. Development returns are obviously a lot higher, so there'll be partners that will wanna clip the development returns, and move through. Then there's the whole scenario whether a platform value is worth more than the sum of the parts, which I've got a bit of a view on, which I won't share here, but I think you'll find that that's starting to play out, as well at the moment. So there's a number of different combinations. We're super focused on making sure we've got something at the end that people wanna be in, and it's gonna have a good growth profile, and it's a good piece of infrastructure investment. That's why you won't see us owning and holding assets in faraway locations. We're gonna be bull's-eye. I think they call eyeballs some of the eyeball locations, some of our U.S. friends, effectively. So we wanna be where we've got flexibility around the buildings, great locations, low latency type facilities that we think over the next 10 years are going to be the best for residual value and for terminal value. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Claire McKew with Green Street. You may proceed. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. So I just wanted to ask more big picture. You know, given this is a 10-year and beyond story, as you strategize internally regarding, say, a music stops or a true bear case scenario, you know, Jevons Paradox type events, et cetera, how are you positioning the brownfield data center pipeline? Like, what would be the next best alternative use for the land, and how does that profitability profile compare? Yeah, good question. The sites are industrial sites. So for example, we're in planning in Melbourne, Western Sydney, they're industrial sites at industrial land values. So if, for example, demand wasn't strong enough, we'd, you know, flip it around and build a good old shed that might be in demand. So we do have flexibility. We're not over our skis in paying big, big, big prices for land around the world for data centers, and there's no options. We do have optionality around everything we're doing because in the main, the 6 gigawatts of sites, and to be clear, we're working on double that as a global portfolio, but the 6 we put on the page, which is in secured and advanced, yeah, we own it. And where we have bought it in the last 12 months, we bought the land, and then we've grabbed the power cable, right? So we're not lifting the cost basis on these things to the point where we don't have an alternative use in the main. So that's the off-ramp. The other off-ramp is, to be quite frank, capital, and that's called equity. The amount of leverage that's being raised around the world, that's all good, until you can't get it. So we're making sure we've just got a lot of equity, what we're doing is sensible, we're doing it with some of the biggest partners in the world, and we can build through for customers, even if the debt climates and things change. What our big customers wanna know is that, can you build it, can you deliver it, and can you do it in a way where we're gonna get a high quality product, and there's not a financial issue on the way through? Now, we've all been around, or certainly here a fairly long time. And we know things change. We know capital markets change, we know debt markets change, right? So we're building something that's sustainable, resilient, and we can deliver for our customers, and we can deliver over a long period of time. So, yeah, be very pragmatic, sensible about what we do, but what we can do, we can do it in volume, and we can do it globally, and that is tremendously attractive to our customers. Yeah, thanks. That's helpful. I would have thought resi might be in there on some of them, but, yeah, appreciate industrial's bread and butter. Just another one on the economics of the European partnership. So I appreciate there's a staged path to recognizing development, profit and profit share, but just focusing on the land uplift that, that would have been achieved, is it still fair to think about data center land values at around sort of EUR 4 million a megawatt of critical IT capacity, or sort of that 3x-4x comparable industrial land based on this deal? Or- Uh, yeah. Are you seeing values edge higher given the depth of demand? Generally speaking, I'm not—I won't talk about the land values on, on this deal because I think, people try and run comparatives, and quite frankly, we've looked at a lot of land deals, and they're at a certain price, but they actually don't have power, even though they say they do have power. Mm. So I think, I think it's a big, big differential. So I'd be very careful about quoting land rates and things that have been selling. Very different if it's shovel-ready and you can go vertical with your slab and your sticks, and you can go up, as opposed to something that might be, right? And there's a very, very, very big difference. But I've got to say, generally, power infrastructure is costing more money, it is taking more time, and effectively, you can expect that the cost of these things is going up, not down. And that applies to land as well. So the infrastructure, the basic infrastructure around the grids around the world, you know, it's getting long in the tooth in many, many places, so everything is costing more money around the infrastructure. The other point is, if you look at the demand that's required globally, I don't think we've got enough production. We don't have enough infrastructure to even supply that ambition, and I think that is a concern that's been voiced by a number of big customers around the world or proponents of AI platforms. Very hard to compare land values because they're all very, very different stage of readiness, put it that way. Yeah, no worries. So this was more around land value of power ready, ready to build land. And it just really stems from obviously when we're underwriting the value of Goodman, a lot of the value stems in the, the value creation from the data center pipeline, which where there's land value, which is transactional, but also intrinsic value or platform value. So I'm just trying to sense check, you know, how we're, we're evaluating the value, of, of the, of the land. Yeah, I understand. So we're not going to help you too much today. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry about that. Sorry. That's all right. Thank you. Our next question comes from David Grace with Evidentia Group. You may proceed. Thank you. Greg, you've got work in progress of AUD 14.4 billion, heading to AUD 18 billion, current yield on cost of 8.1%. Just interested where you see yield on cost trending to, as you continue to add long duration projects to the pipeline. Yeah, look, look at it moves up, you know, effectively. So I think it'll be, depending on how much industrial we do, because that'll be a little lower, but you can see it moving up from that 8.1. I think the just on the commencements, I think that was through 9. So yeah, it'll, it'll move up over time, depending on that mix. But look, it's healthy. Yeah. I go back to the growth here on cost is one thing. The quality of what you're doing is another thing, right? We're very conscious of the quality and the location because the billions and billions and billions you require, and 6 GW, I think, ends up at $140 billion of in value on the sort of mix we're doing at the moment. You need a lot of money, right? You need to be building stuff that you can partner and own. That is a good investment. Our eye is on making sure that we have a residual value, we have a terminal value, or we have an investment value that is gonna hold up over time. That means you need good sites, resilience, flexibility, all those things above. You build some... You build a piece of infrastructure that's not a, you know, a five-year, five years run and done. Yeah. No, thank you. So can I imply from that then that the AUD 18 billion WIP should actually increase, just given the nature of the long duration of those projects? Yeah, look, it'll look, I don't think it's any surprise if it's 18 in June, with the duration of the projects, that it goes higher. It's gonna go through 20 billion. I think that's how far through that will depend on how successful we are in regard to around the customer side of it, I think. So we're regulated and monitored, but we've got to make sure, and we have, we've got the capital, so then we can work through it. We're dealing with some of the biggest companies in the world, or the biggest companies in the world, not some of. So we've got to make sure that we've got sustainability, we've got resilience, we've got capital, and we can deliver over long-term time frames, multiple countries, multiple languages. But you're dealing with the same customers. So yeah, it's gonna be pretty interesting. Okay, great. Thanks heaps, Greg. Thank you. Our next question comes from Andy MacFarlane with Bell Potter. You may proceed. Morning, guys. Just a quick one for me. Just interested in, in terms of turnkeys and power shells, just how you're thinking about it, you know, one versus the other, and I guess whether there's been any change as you've progressed through the data centers in time. And, you know, I guess the second leg of that would be, you know, kind of what you're seeing hurdle rate wise and yield on costs and if that's factored in your thinking of, what product and where you're doing? Yeah. Look, down this part of the world, running up Asia Pac, just as a general comment, the customers are wanting data center-ready facilities, so that leads us into the MEP build, that build out and what have you. And pretty well most of the discussions, if not all, in Asia Pac around fit, around fit outs. We're having the same conversation in Hong Kong at the moment, where we've doing a shell that'll go through to a full build-out. Japan's the same, and down in Australia will be the same. Europe, because hyperscalers are doing less of their own builds, so they expect in Europe, full build-out programs. So everything we're looking at in Europe is a full build-out with MEP and delivering floor by floor, effectively. So that's that. The U.S. is different because you've got a lot bigger build-out programs of the hyperscalers. It's the majority of the market globally. And you'll see us with big shell programs, but you'll also see us with operating buildings like the program we have in L.A., that's a 150 MW gate-to-gate program, maybe up to 200 MW effectively, that you'll see those potentially being all operating buildings because of that location and what we're doing. So you'll see more shells in the U.S., but some operating. Europe will be very much operating MEP-type facilities, and down in Australia we'll be filling the buildings up with mechanical and electrical facilities for the customers. Are you seeing any change- So a lot of it's gonna be heavy on infrastructure. Yeah. Sorry, Greg. Yeah, are you seeing any change to hurdle rates or yield on cost returns? No, but we're very, like I said, we're very disciplined in understanding that you don't survive in this industry unless you can deliver a good product for investors long-term. You can't rotate your capital unless you do that. And then the Goodman investors, for putting out the capital at Goodman Group, need a return on their capital. So unless you get that all right, the machine stops. So I think you can be fairly assured we're doing it at the appropriate margins to make sure that machine keeps on going. Otherwise, we don't have a rotation of capital, and Goodman Group shareholders don't get a fair return. Andy, though, I mean, you would expect that if you're just looking at yield on costs, on mark to market value of land, you would expect that something that's fully fitted would have to... You'd have to compensate with a higher yield than something that's core shell. If you mark to market the value of the land, like for like, theoretically, that, that is what you should expect, if, if that's the nature of your question. Yep. No, thanks, guys. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call back over to Greg Goodman for any closing remarks. Thank you very much, and good morning. Thank you. This concludes the conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.