I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Mr. Greg Goodman, CEO of Goodman Group. Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. five years ago, we made a deliberate decision to position Goodman as a major global provider of digital infrastructure supporting the rapid growth of technology globally. This meant repositioning our portfolio and operations towards large infrastructure scale, industrial property, and data centers. Assets in urban infill locations close to consumers where demand is most durable and the assets are hard to replicate. We've executed this strategy by selling and repositioning more than AUD 8 billion of assets over the past five years. We disposed of properties no longer aligned with our strategy and recycled the proceeds directly into our development pipeline. We used our internal expertise to deliver complex infrastructure, intensifying selected sites, and securing the power and planning approvals needed for data centers. Today, we have a portfolio approaching AUD 90 billion and work in progress of almost AUD 20 billion. We've concentrated our industrial portfolio and development pipeline in high-quality modern assets capable of supporting advanced automation and robotics. The data center program is gaining momentum, and we are now hitting our stride. Projects are on track, and customer commitments are progressing alongside the construction program. We continue to build into strong demand in supply-constrained, low-latency metro markets supporting cloud and AI inference deployments. Our data center work in progress has a completion value of over AUD 15 billion and contains almost 500 MW of capacity. The global workbook comprises 10 developments across eight metropolitan data center markets, reflecting the scale of our business. Supporting all this is a specialist data center team with local expertise in each market and global capability across Goodman Group. To date, our team has navigated significant economic volatility, supply chain disruption, securing contractors, and critical equipment needed to meet energization and delivery schedules. Very importantly, we have the capital in place to fund the build-out of these projects, with approximately 90% held through our data center partnerships. Our recent announcement of a signed lease for the first 50-MW phase of a 1-GW Tsukuba Tech Central project shows how we are delivering on this plan. We acquired the site in 2022 alongside a long-term strategic investment partner and secured power and fiber in 2024. In response to strong demand, we started construction for the first building in 2025 with a leading local contractor. We've now secured a 20-year lease with a global hyperscaler customer. Fully fitted and operated by Goodman, the 50-MW facility will be ready for service in early 2028. With the project underway, this provided our customer a shorter time to market and greater certainty around that important delivery timing. Securing this global hyperscaler customer unlocks Tsukuba Tech Central as a premier data center hub in Tokyo. The Tokyo lease is one of several opportunities progressing across the Goodman PowerBank. Slide 15 of the presentation sets out the delivery timing and leasing status of our work in progress in more detail. With deliveries running from 2027 through to 2030, we are progressing customer discussions in parallel with construction to optimize commercial outcomes. A number of projects are in negotiations, with several now advanced, and we are engaging with customers across the balance of the work in progress. We are also in negotiations and engagement with customers on other sites across the PowerBank that are not yet in work in progress. We would expect further leases to be signed over the coming period, certainly over the calendar year. Our capital management strategy remains disciplined. The group has maintained a strong financial position with low leverage and significant liquidity. Our gearing sits at 6.5%, with AUD 6.4 billion of cash and undrawn lines. While this gives us the capacity to progress our development program, we continue to work with long-term capital partners to provide investment opportunities, manage our risk and return. In the world where we live, capital is becoming more selective. Our investment management and capital market programs is proving to be a key competitive advantage. Over the past five years, we have raised more than AUD 60 billion of debt and third-party equity across the group and our investment partnerships. Our investment operating and capital management strategy is continuing to deliver strong outcomes for our partners. And today we announced an operating profit of AUD 2.675 billion for FY 2026. This represents 10.1% growth in operating earnings per security. I will now hand over to Nick to make some comments. Thank you, Greg. I will begin on slide 20. We will first cover the items that relate to our cash back measure of earnings, the operating profit. As usual, this excludes the unrealized fair market value movements on the properties, mark to market of the hedges and the accounting fair value estimate relating to our employee long-term incentive plan. The general strength of the Australian dollar over the year had an adverse effect on the translation of our foreign denominated income, but that was offset by gains we got from our hedging. That gives rise to a AUD 37 million benefit in our interest line. We will talk more about this as we go through the numbers. Investment earnings increased by 7% or AUD 44 million over the year. There was a AUD 16 million adverse FX translation impact, so this was a AUD 60 million increase on a constant currency basis. Like-for-like income growth contributed AUD 20 million of this increase. The movements in our investment positions accounted for the remaining difference. During FY 2025, we had a substantial increase in direct property holdings. Over the course of this year, however, a significant volume of assets was sold to partnerships. We contributed our share of the equity alongside our partners. In addition, the partnerships added outside debt that was used to acquire the properties. Even though we had a significantly lower closing balance on our direct holdings, we owned about AUD 1 billion of additional direct property in FY 2026 versus FY 2025 on a weighted average basis. As a result, our direct NPI was up by AUD 44 million overall. The bulk of our investment income comes through our co-investments in the partnerships, and this was fairly stable. Despite our increase in investment by period end, we had nearly AUD 380 million less allocated on a cash weighted average basis. Offsetting this was the underlying income growth. There is scope for significant portion of our directly owned assets to create new partnering opportunities over time. This will reduce our direct investment and NPI, but increase our co-investments in partnerships and management income. At the same time, it will provide cash to fund our expansion. Over time, we do want to grow the investment part of the business as we continue to expand the portfolio of assets under management and our share of it. Continued equity investments for development and acquisitions funded jointly through the creation of new partnerships and growth of existing ones should support this. The portfolio remains under rented, and we are invested in properties that should exhibit further market rental growth to support the increase in our investment income going forward. Management revenue was down AUD 147 million overall. This includes the AUD 9 million FX translation effect. The main reason is that the performance and transactional revenues contributed AUD 206 million this year, compared to AUD 372 million last year. The performance of the investment partnerships was higher in FY 2026 than FY 2025, but there was a reduced number of them eligible for calculation. Excluding the transactional and performance related income, revenue from management services was up AUD 28 million on a constant currency basis. Total fee revenue as a percentage of stabilized third party AUM was 1% for the year. Our total portfolio stood at AUD 89 billion at June. Of this, AUD 75.4 billion was in external assets under management. Within that, the stabilized portion averaged AUD 68.7 billion this year, and that is up from AUD 66 billion last year. In terms of the outlook for this segment, we expect our third party stabilized AUM to grow over time. The main driver of this in the next few years is likely to be the stabilization of the data center properties we are developing. We expect to continue to invest in warehouse properties too. Partly offsetting this in the near term will be the ongoing refinement of the portfolio and the current self-imposed limitations on development of this type. We remain comfortable with our long-term guidance of fee revenue averaging 0.9% of third party stabilized AUM. Our realized development earnings were up by AUD 454 million this year. That was net of a AUD 15 million FX translation effect. Included in the results are AUD 734 million of operating profits related to the reversal of prior period valuation gains on properties that have now been sold. As in previous periods, we do not reflect these gains in operating profit until the transaction is complete. So those profits are not double counted over time. We notionally offset them against the current period valuation results when we do our reconciliations. Both the volume and the mix of activities have driven this significant increase in income. Activity levels have increased materially this year. Our current WIP represents an annualized production rate of over AUD 7.5 billion. That is up from AUD 6 billion at the same time last year. Over the past couple of years, this sort of growth in WIP is what we have been planning for. The data center development program has progressed according to our expectations. We have also made the decision to include the full MEP fit-out on all but one of the buildings in response to the nature of the demand we are seeing. The growth in DC work has materially altered the mix of our WIP. Given the timing WIP, we require and expect a higher margin to compensate. We are also originating a significant volume of work on the group's balance sheet or in specific development partnering arrangements. That means a higher realization rate. In other words, a greater portion of the development income will be reflected in our cash-based operating results rather than a share of revaluation gains. We are enthusiastic about the prospects for development overall. Customer investment demand and our ability to service it bodes well for future revenue as well as growth in AUM. Based on the current timing of the FY 2027 activities, we expect the earnings to be largely skewed to the second half. The increase in our operating expenses has been moderate. We had a AUD 75 million increase in net interest income. This included the AUD 37 million benefit from the hedges I mentioned earlier. There has also been a AUD 32 million increase in interest earned due to higher cash balances. On average, our directly owned development assets have increased, so capitalized interest is also up by AUD 20 million. Directly owned development assets increased significantly over the last two years, but that occurred mainly in the second half of FY 2025. Since then, the allocation is progressively declining as we have begun to joint venture many of the properties. As a result, the rate of capitalized interest has been declining sequentially for each of the last three half years. Our average cost of borrowings on our loans is currently around 4.6%. But taking into account our interest rate and currency hedges, the net WACD is around 1%. In near term, the interest line in our income statement will be mainly driven by the amount of cash we invest and FX rates. As far as the non-operating items are concerned, we had nearly AUD 1 billion of unrealized valuation gains. That represents the group share of the AUD 3.1 billion across the entire portfolio. From that, we deduct the realized valuation gains and deferred tax liabilities to get to the AUD 158 million net result you see in the table. Cap rates have declined from 5.1% to 5%, and market rents have increased by 0.6% overall, and that was 1.3% if we exclude the effect of mainland China. Another customary area of difference between operating and statutory profit is the unrealized fair value movement on the hedges. The rally in the Australian dollar, was the main driver of that gain. As usual, we exclude the LTIP accounting cost but include the tested units in the denominator when calculating our operating EPS. The increase in the accounting cost this year was influenced by the movement in the security price on the ASX and the high number of securities remaining unvested. The rise in the outstanding awards was in part the result of the migration to the 10-year LTIPs, which means that a lower than usual portion of the outstanding grants became eligible for vesting. A few remarks now regarding the balance sheet on slide 21. As a result of the creation of new partnerships for our directly owned stabilized properties, our investments decreased by AUD 1.2 billion over the year. Our share of the stabilized assets in the partnerships, on the other hand, was up by AUD 0.7 billion over the year. There was AUD 0.6 billion of new investment of equity by the group and AUD 0.8 billion of revaluation gains. Partly offsetting this was the AUD 0.3 billion impact of disposals from the partnerships and AUD 0.5 billion FX translation effect. Commensurate with increased development activity, our development holdings are up by AUD 1.9 billion overall since June 2025. Our share of the portion held in partnerships was up by AUD 1.7 billion as we took up our share of the equity for the acquisitions and CapEx of the sites we are developing alongside our partners. The direct working capital allocation to the group's inventory and investment property under development increased by AUD 0.2 billion. Despite the transfer of some of our sites into partnerships, we have continued to invest into their development and acquire new ones. The progression of this part of our balance sheet is in line with our expectations to this point. We have a substantial remaining development working capital capacity following the raising last February. When it is appropriate, we also expect to partner more of the assets we have on our balance sheet, which will give us further capacity to fund more activity as we move through our PowerBank and industrial developments. Our cash position increased marginally during the year. We completed three global bond issues and repaid some maturing bonds and tendered for some of the outstanding ones. We invested AUD 2.4 billion into our partnerships, and this was largely funded out of our retained earnings and proceeds from the bond issues. Overall, we generated AUD 2.7 billion of cash back to earnings this year. Over AUD 1.9 billion of this is reported through the operating cash flow statement. In FY 2026, the operating cash flow associated with the inventories was very similar to the operating profit from developments for this portion. This is unusual for a growing business like ours, and the difference has been significant in recent years. It reflects the sale of inventories into partnerships, but with new investments being undertaken on investment properties, either directly or in partnerships. Those investments are reflected in the investing cash flow. As usual, the statutory statement of operating cash flow does not include the profits we make from the transactions involving investment properties. Some of the gains from the sales from within the partnerships have not yet been distributed, which gives rise to differences between OPAT and operating cash flow. The partnerships retain income for reinvestment purposes. This is in line with our capital management and distribution preferences. We view this as a voluntary reinvestment insofar as that we could distribute but have collectively chosen not to. The combined effect of the treatment of these gains and the distribution policy was in the order of AUD 0.6 billion. This was by far and away the largest driver of the difference between OPAT and operating cash flow. The remaining difference relates to the timing of receipt of performance fees. We have accrued income for fees that are shortly due and payable. This is required because those revenues are virtually certain. You can see from slide 22, we have significant financial capacity to help manage market risks and capitalize on suitable opportunities that may arise. The group and partnerships are in a strong position. Across the entire platform, we completed AUD 11.4 billion of debt initiatives and AUD 19 billion of derivative hedge transactions during the year. We have substantial funding capacity, and we are very well hedged against interest rate and FX volatility. That is all from me. Thanks, Greg. Thank you, Nick. In closing, looking ahead, our strategy is clear, and we believe the opportunity over the next five years is very significant. Large-scale logistics opportunities are emerging in several markets as customers look to consolidate and to automate. Our industrial portfolio and development pipeline provide large-scale, modern properties needed to support power-intensive operations. We continue to actively acquire and progress large-scale sites capable of providing the next generation of infrastructure. In data centers, continued growth in cloud and the shift in AI workloads from training to inference are driving significant demand in our metropolitan markets. We are building into this demand, and our sites, team, and access to capital position us well to capture these opportunities. We will also remain disciplined in regard to capital management, keeping leverage low, deploying capital selectively, and partnering importantly with long-term capital to progress the development program. In closing, we enter FY 2027 with an attractive and substantial development workbook. We have significant opportunities across our global markets, and we are in a very strong capital position to support this growth. For FY 2027, we are targeting EPS growth of 9% on FY 2026. Thank you. Nick and I will now take 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 Simon Chan with Morgan Stanley. You may proceed. Hi. Good morning, guys. Hey, a few questions. The first one is just on slide 14. Appreciate the additional details you've given us there, but I notice just some sites you're in advanced negotiations, some sites you're in active negotiations. You would have chosen those words for a reason. Which one is more likely? Which one is more actually advanced? Can you give us some color on that, please? Chan, if you go to slide 15, you see we've made it easy. We're trying to make it easy with people. We respect that the information around this is super important, and we get that. That's why we went out a couple of days with Japan, Tokyo, a major milestone for that project, and there's planning on buildings two and three as well there. Look, if you look down slide 15, you look at LAX, well advanced, Hong Kong, well advanced, and Amsterdam, we're advancing as well. So, they're the three you should focus on. We've got Paris, Frankfurt, Sydney, Madrid, and Paris II, which we've colored differently, and that's to shade where we are with our activities. I think LAX, Hong Kong 10, and AMS01, focus on that. Also we've mentioned in my speech, but also I think in the text, that there's other activities outside this we were dealing with in France, for example, on some pretty big deployments. We're dealing also in Sydney, which is not on our PowerBank secured yet, but also on some potential deployments. So there'll be other things around this that will advance as well, but there will probably be some of the bigger deployments on some of the bigger sites. I think slide 15 will give you a pretty good view of where we're going. Look, we know everyone's watching this. We know it's a very serious endeavor. To put it in context, if you're not building it and you're not closing out the risk at the back end, you should not be leasing it. Because then you might have to wait a little bit longer to get your deal done, but if you move too quickly, you could end up with a very big problem at the back end. We are super conscious on doing this right. We understand when you are dealing with some of the biggest customers in the world, it is really important we get our track record on the right side of this. That is why Tokyo is so important. That has been in negotiation for six to seven months, probably longer actually, maybe nine. We did not pull the trigger on that too early until we were very comfortable on that delivery in 2028. Hey, this is an elementary question, but those years on top of slide 15, are they FY calendar years or are they fiscal years? Yeah, they are running to calendar, I think, Nick. Yeah. Okay, cool. I just got a question in relation to FY 2026 earnings. Guys, now that it is all said and done. It is all said and done. Can you give us a few pointers as to how to work out how much data center related earnings was actually in the FY 2026 EBITDA? I am particularly interested in the European side of things. Any color on how to think over that would be good. Look, I think we're not going to get specific about different projects. It's a number of things, and Nick can take you through it. Where we're creating partnerships clearly is important for us. That's P&L, but it's capital is the big driver around those activities. We've got two or three we've got follow-up raisings with at the moment, and we'll have a couple partnership creations during this year as well. That is a very much a capital-driven activity, because the amount of work in progress that you see on the page today, closing in on AUD 20 billion, that will go higher in the next year. We're going to make sure we're well funded and that's a big activity for Nick, the team, and myself to make sure we're well ahead of this. Otherwise, yeah, it's not to get behind when these are so capital intensive. Nick. Yeah. Simon, it won't come as a surprise to you, but you know that from years gone by, there's a variety of different ways that we contract and therefore has different profit implications, and we manage the entire book of opportunity accordingly. So, I think giving you any sort of more specific detail around it probably doesn't actually give you too much information. I think what we encourage people to do is look at the correlation between activity levels and opportunity, look at the inherent profitability of our development book, look at the propensity to earn 90 basis points on our third-party stabilized AUM. Most of the other factors are pretty well under control. We're giving you the programmatic sort of timetable for the existing WIP and the completions and when income can be generated, subject of course to leasing. Yeah, look, I think at the moment in terms of the standing investments, out of the AUD 90 billion is about just under AUD 6 billion, associated with data center income. Obviously, the developments are high portion in data centers. That's going to have a correlation with the amount of income we've earned out of data center development. Giving you anything more than that, frankly, could just be misleading. That's fair enough. I'll just go one more. Greg, in your response to my question before, and I think you also printed in the preso, you talked about data center programs expected to progress throughout 2027 and will increase WIP, et c. Can you just give me a little bit more color on that one, please? Is that suggesting that there will be additional data centers potentially kicking off or going into WIP outside of the stuff that's on slide 14 and 15? 100%. Yeah, that's what it means. Sounds good. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Thanks, Simon. Our next question comes from Howard Penny with Citi. He may proceed. Thank you very much. Just one of the questions that's a big debate. Congratulations on the lease at Tsukuba earlier this week. But one of the questions we are getting is, how do the different sources of revenue from a contract like that flow into FY 2027, 2028, and 2029? Could you just explain to us just thinking about management fees, development returns, and eventually rental income, just the timing of those earnings from a typical contract like that. Yeah. Let's not characterize it around Tokyo necessarily, but Nick will give you a bit of a view on a typical- Yeah What we are going to do with a data center once we have it leased and how we are going to move it into wholecos and things like that. Yeah, exactly. So, that property and other properties are being developed on the basis that or the history of that partnership in particular is being developed to sell. At the right time, we will enter some form of contract for sale. As you know from past experience, there is a number of different ways and different types of ways that we sell development properties, ranging from pre-sale right through to sale on completion. Depending on the nature of that contract, we will determine how revenue is recognized on the development portion, and that is the development profit on sale plus any development performance fees. The development management revenue itself, that is emerged as we develop, and that is ad valorem. Then, once it is gone into stabilized third-party AUM, that is when our sort of 90 points type fee arrangement kicks in. Obviously, our share of the equity brings up our share of the investment income, but that will happen at stabilization. So that is typically the way we have done things in the past, and I see that and others that we are working on being no different. Thank you very much. Just another key debate that comes up in the market is just, if you track operating cash flow over the last, call it 10 years, versus underlying operating earnings. Since moving into data center developments, you have seen more cash outflow as you have been investing into all the groundworks and substations of these data centers. We have seen your cash flow come under pressure. Could you just explain how that has impacted both that cash flow relative to that underlying earnings over the last three or four years? Yeah, that's why I spent about three minutes of my prepared remarks talking about the difference between operating cash flow and operating profit, and I do so every half year and have done for the last many years. But you're right. Typically, the difference is exactly what you're saying. You've got a growing business. Clearly, as you're growing, your outbound investment, which is recorded in the operating cash flow for the inventory component, is higher than the stabilized like-for-like run rate. If you had a business that the ins and the outs were constant and there was no other change, clearly, operating cash flow and operating profit would line up. But we've had increasing investment. Therefore, typically, it's weighed on the operating cash flow, because that's how the accounting works. A lot of what we do in terms of the gains that we make are reflected in partnerships, and they're profits that are generated in equity accounted investments. They're not reflected in the operating cash flow if we're reinvesting those profits. Those two things are the most significant drivers of the difference over time. But ultimately, it just means that we're investing in a growing business. That's why we buffered our working capital and equity capital in February last year. The rate at which our expenditures are progressing are very much in line with what we had anticipated. We've been planning for it. We're in a pretty strong capital position. That's why our payout ratio is what it is as well, right? We intend to reinvest long term into our assets that we're developing and continue to hold them for the rental income and potential capital growth over the long term. But we want to be funded sustainably, and that's why we retain a significant portion of our underlying operating profit. Thank you very much, and congrats on the execution. Thanks, Howard. Thank you. Our next question comes from Cody Shield with UBS. You may proceed. Morning, Greg and Nick. Thanks for the time. Just firstly on the Aussie DC partnership slipping, can you provide any detail on what's prolonging that process? Is that on the capital side or the power side? No. Nothing to do with it. We're building it. I don't know whether you've been out there in Artarmon. We're up to level three. Nothing to do with it. We're working with the gate investors on it, and there's some investors in that partnership, and we're giving them time, that haven't invested in a development partnership before. So we're taking our time, doing it properly, making sure that the education is high. So there's been a number of visits out there. I think we're getting to the end of the diligence program. There was a document that went out a couple of days ago to the final piece of information everyone went, but nothing to do with the progress on the site. It's going very well. Just to be clear, we'll start marketing that, and we'll start to get serious about it at the beginning of next year. I don't know whether you've been following what's happening in North Sydney, but around Sydney generally, where it's getting harder to get planning and power, and bigger gating. Transgrid came out with a pretty good release today, which is going to make it more programmatic in regard to data center operators who've got five or six gates to go through. We think that's all good. That's how we operate pretty well everywhere else in the world. You can imagine that Artarmon is 90 MW of pretty prime data center space. So we're in very, very good spot on that. I got it. That's clear. Just on the logistics side of things, look, you've been talking to activity there and project values increasing, I think through the course of 2026. It looks like logistics WIPs fairly consistent with third quarter and the half. So where could we kind of see that get to over the course of 2027? Will it still be around that AUD 4 billion mark or we think higher? Yeah, interesting. I was chatting to our head of industrial here in Australia just recently. Look, Australia could be AUD 3 billion by itself. So I wouldn't underestimate it. Some of these projects we're talking about with the automation are getting a real deliberate move by the customers. They're bigger buildings. They need 19 MW of power, and they're fully roboticized. We've got some of those going in Sydney. They're just bigger and they're more valuable. So I wouldn't underestimate the logistics phase over the next four or five years, we think is going to be pretty big. Great. Maybe just a last quick one. San Jose, you had two sites there, I think you said were progressing well. Are they going to be an FY 2027 story, and still likely to be shells there? Yeah. It's going well, and it's a What are we in 2026 at the moment? Yeah, 2027 will be good. Yeah. There are 100 there. Okay. There are a couple of, we'd have another. We're working on 10 GW of opportunity around the world, right? You're going to find there's going to be other projects that come into it. We're going to move through some of these. The pipeline we've got is world-class under anyone's measure, and I'll just leave that with you. We're not run and done. We're serious about this. We think the hurdles around the world that are getting higher are good for us. We welcome it, and effectively, we're geared for it. Planning, having the capital, you've got to own the land before you start having the conversation. Talk to your customers when you can demonstrate you're actually building something and you have what you say you have. Then effectively being able to deliver on a coin, on a dime when they require it. That's the game we're in. That's great. Thanks Greg. Thank you. Our next question comes from Tom Bodor with Jarden. You may proceed. Good morning, Greg and Nick. Thanks for your time. I would be interested in how much capital of your own capital and third-party capital sits in behind that AUD 19.7 billion of WIP that is relating to data centers at the present moment. Also, where do you see that capital balance heading over the next, say, three years? Thanks, Tom, for the question. If I understand it correctly, 90% of those projects are already in third-party arrangements. The construction of those is largely equity funded at the moment, and that is all understood and agreed equity finance. There is debt capacity already within those partnerships as well. Now, depending on how much debt capacity we want to have at the end will be determined going forward. For the moment anyway, the work is largely equity funded, and that is all pre-agreed. That is typically how we fund ourselves. How much capital is sitting behind the AUD 19.7 billion of WIP, like the actual dollar number today? Well, if I give you that, I am telling you the cost. I am not going to do that, but it is equity funded. Okay. Nick, that is the point we went back, we made it early in the presentation. One of Goodman's big competitive advantages in the sector is actually, as proved over time, this is not something new, that we partner up. We spread the risk in the different return parameters. So it is development partnerships, which 90% of our developments in those partnerships, Nick. That means it spreads the risk across some of the biggest capital names in the world. Then effectively, the stuff we want to own and hold over time, we can alter how much we own, but fundamentally, those are also funding opportunities as well through wholecos, which we have been doing for a very long time. That is a tremendous competitive advantage in a world where capital is absolutely critical. You guys follow the CapEx numbers, let us just say out of the top four or five hyperscalers in the U.S., I think the CapEx number for this year is something like AUD 1 trillion, just to put in context. When we also Yeah. We also talked today about fully fitted, that is because what the market wants. So that will give you a sense of what they are trying to do by bringing credible third-party operators in, rather than just all self-builds, to actually be able to handle some of that load. So, you need to be really good, really good at managing your capital and raising capital, otherwise, you will run out of runway in five seconds. No. Thanks for the answer. Sorry, I think to clarify the question, I meant how much capital today, not end cost. Capital today. Yeah, I'm not sure of the difference between the way I answered the question. Maybe- Yeah Maybe I just don't understand the question. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll chat about it later. The other one I was interested in is just your cadence of development starts. Since you raised in February last year, you have put half a gigawatt into production. I was wondering how long it might take for the next half gigawatt to go into production. Yeah. AUD 20 billion, let's chew through that, right? I think everyone wants to see some leasing on the page. If we are adding anything to that number, you will find there will be some customers in front of it. Some of them will be bigger deployments, and we are working on some of those right at the moment. Look, let's get through what we have got on the page. This is a serious game we are in. Someone was chatting to me yesterday about the tortoise and the hare. I am not saying we are the tortoise, but we do not want to be the hare either, right? We are going to do this properly. We are going to make sure we manage the capital properly. We will move through it when it is sensible and responsible. I do not think anyone has ever characterized you as a tortoise, Greg. No, there was. A very good friend of mine was making that comment. And just a final one on the server side, the hyperscaler you've got into that 50 MW, do you expect that same customer to deploy elsewhere globally in your portfolio, or do they look at things on a more site-by-site, localized basis? Look, I won't talk about that customer specifically, but we're having conversations with customers across a number of countries, with similar deployments. There was one actually a couple of nights ago. Yeah, no, we are. We're very focused on good credit, good customers, because when Nick talks about wholeco, right, and that's the capital that will own a lot of these prime data center assets over time. If you don't have that contract right, and you don't have that set right, you can forget about wholeco. That does not work. So we're super focused on quality, and if that means we take longer to lease up front because we're more patient, so be it. Thanks very much. Thanks, Tom. Thank you. Our next question comes from Adam Calvetti with Bank of America. You may proceed. Hi, Greg and team. Just a quick one. It looks like there is about AUD 8 billion in commencements this half. I am just trying to back solve DC proportion of WIP. That looks to be all data centers, and that is saying completed. That yield on cost of 9%, I think it is 9.1%, and considering 90% is fully fitted, seems lower than the double digit that you were quoting 6 to 12 months ago. Can you just break down what is going on? Yeah. The geography between Hong Kong, Japan, we are not going OTT on rents, but rents are moving quickly. When we are looking at the programs at the moment on fully fitted in most places around the world where we are not talking about Japan and Hong Kong, we separate that, we are certainly late 9s, in that 9- 10, 11 range, depending on the quality. But I come back to the quality, the comment I made earlier. Because the quality of what you put in the front end, it will not be any surprise to you, has got a direct correlation with the value at the back end, right? There is no free lunch here. What you get in at the front is what you are going to produce at the back. We have been relatively conservative on what we put out in obviously these documents. There is room in those. Rents are actually moving at the moment, and we have got the costs pretty well locked down. We will see where it comes out, but we are in a very healthy state. Yeah, look, I think we do talk ranges. A 20-year pre-lease to a global hyperscaler, you are not going to expect the high end of the range, it is fair to say. Whereas if you are doing a colo facility with enterprise users, you would expect a significantly higher yield on cost. We have talked about it on an average basis and Greg is right. What is typically in these numbers is a more conservative side of that estimate. There is also, we have started industrial projects as well, which at lower yields. That is why the average of the starts is where it is. Okay. That is clear. Then just on the 9% EPS growth target, what leasing milestones, data center leasing milestones are embedded in that target? Then how do we think about the potential sell down of Tsukuba Tech Central across the year? Is that embedded in the 9%? Well, pretty important to note in Japan, we are not talking about Tokyo sell down. We are talking about building for a customer, and Goodman Group will be owning that asset long-term with partners, just as we do at the moment. We are not being specific about that. In this, effectively though, I think running into 2027, I do not think we will not have a lot of assets completed. I do not think there will be a lot of transfers around those. There could be some pre-sales of some of these if we wanted to, but Nick and I will work that through with the teams around the world, what makes most sense, as we go through the year. Yeah. There is a lot of opportunities in front of us across sites that have not even started yet, right through to things that are in process. We've got a few more partnerships we're going to be creating as well. Yeah We'll just see how it balances out. Yeah. Okay, just one quick one as well. Just how many sites outside of the 0.5 GW have you started works on or site works on for DC use? So- Maybe to quantify that. Just on the secured. No. Yeah. If you go to the secured, right? Because they are secured, we started early works packages on a lot of those things and moving earth around, we're moving earth around on a number of those at the moment. But, if it's not secured, generally we're not running around moving earth around. Does that make sense? There's a couple sites where there's some minor works going on, but yeah, nothing substantial. Yeah. Okay. That's clear. Congrats on the result. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Callum Bramah with Macquarie. You may proceed. Hi. Thanks for taking the questions. Just a couple. I think, Greg, you referred to a self-imposed limit on the amount of risk you would take. Is there an actual quant number, like a percentage of total assets that Goodman will have at risk in developments? Do you differentiate within that, of speculative versus those that have a customer contract? Yeah. Good question, Nick. We were in a meeting about three days ago on that, weren't we? Yeah. It was me, Cal, so I will own up on that one. I will step up on that one. Sorry. But the comment I made, you're right, and I'll talk to that in a second. The comment I made was more in relation to something we talked about a couple of years ago. We have a number of development opportunities. You remember we parked some of them, which were earmarked for industrial development. We parked them and said, "Hang on, there's power, there's opportunity here a nd so we've diverted land resources as well as other capital resources into data center development, and that's what I meant by self-imposed limitation is we've diverted our resources. But as a general rule, there are risk limitations that we do work on. And they are sort of combination of capital and earnings at risk. So there are limiters out there. We're working within those limiters at the moment, largely because we've entered into partnerships and so that's given us capacity. We do have capacity. I think at the moment, what Greg talked about, it's more of a just commercial judgment and when's the right time and what's the right thing to do for each asset as we go. There's not a percentage of your total assets that you'll have exposed to a development that you could share, like 20%, 25% of total assets that is a cap? No, we don't cap on the development asset portion. It's more dynamic and granular than that. We look at it on a risk prioritization basis. So spec development, for example, is one of the areas that we look at. But you got to look at it in the context of where's our gearing, what's our earning sensitivity to that? What's our liquidity look like? What are the actual risks? And so it's a bit more complex than that. Too much detail to go through on this call. But the board looks at it, we look at it every day. The board looks at it every time we meet. The Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee looks at it. There's a range of different risk measurement tools that we use. Okay. That is great. Maybe just a couple on customer. Just LAX, I think it is a customer looking to take the entire thing. Is it the same customer as is looking at maybe taking a single data hall? Then just on Tokyo, does the customer have an option over any further portion of that broader project, the 1 GW? Yeah. Last question first. No. The second one, no. The first one no, and the second one, no. The new customer at LAX. Yeah. Well, it is a new building, so it has got to be a new customer. We do not have a customer in LAX at the moment. We are in the marketing phase. We are fielding a number of customers, some advanced in regard to negotiating the lease. We think that will be a single building customer, but if it is not, there will be three or four customers. So we have got two options and we are just weighing those up at the moment. Okay. Maybe just one last one for me. Just on the commencements in the fourth quarter, I think it was AUD 4.1 billion. Can you just talk to what portion of that is additions, if you like, to the WIP as opposed to just upsizing existing projects? Well, there's about AUD 1 billion of upsizing of the existing projects, and the rest is new starts. Okay. The roll forward bit, Nick, I think there's AUD 2 billion or AUD 2.3 billion in the fourth quarter relating to. Is it just to FX in the FX other bucket? Sorry, mate. Ask that question again. Oh, just in that roll forward of the width, if you look at it in the fourth quarter, it seems like the other and FX is quite a big contributor in the fourth quarter. Is it just FX? No. I think that is where we put the. It is a net of two. FX on the one side going down and the additions on the other side going up. That is the net effect of those two. Okay. Thanks. Maybe can I push my luck and just go one more. On slide 15, are you able to just talk to how that relates to capital spend and profit recognition? I guess there are different ones in there, I suppose, but what is kind of confusing to me is L.A. is on your balance sheet. Have you actually sold the 50% of it to the? No. L.A. is in partnership with DataBank. And they've contributed their 50% of the equity? Yes. Yeah, that's why they're 50% of the- Yeah. I think you'll find, and this will be consistent, I think consistent with what we've said, the way we're managing a very, very big development book is it's our program primarily in the main to partner all the development assets around the world, and then as they come through the different stages of contracting in regard to customers, then we'll move them to wholeco. So, I think that's consistent. That's the way we can keep the capital moving, we can keep the return on capital moving, and we can fund over AUD 100 billion, AUD 150 billion book we've got here. When you work through our whole 6.5, I think it's AUD 150 billion + or something like that. In a world where capital, as I mentioned in my speech, is I might have said that it's not infinite, it's finite. You'll even see the big hyperscalers reaching and reaching for capital in all sorts of ways as well. So, this is a big capital game. If you can manage the capital, you've got a world of opportunity, right? So we're going to keep partnering. We're going to keep partnering with the biggest, best names in the world, and we're going to keep moving that capital in the wholecos once we bring them out of the development phase. We'll then choose, right? Nick's got the menu of outcomes. We can choose early, middle or end, and we'll make those selections as we go, depending on return on equity, where we are in the leasing process and all those sorts of things. Yeah. Cal, on slide 14, the fourth column tells you what the ownership is. Yeah In all our materials, I think we give you the percentage of each of those that Goodman has. So, yeah, that is where it is at. So SYD01 and Madrid 01 are currently the only two on the balance sheet wholly owned. Madrid 01 is not very large, so it is really SYD01 that is the only one that we wholly own at this point. Okay. Thanks a lot. Cheers, mate. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Brayshaw with Barrenjoey. You may proceed. Good morning, Nick. Just wondering if you could give us a steer on management income for FY 2027 as a percentage of external stabilized AUM. Yeah. Around within 0.9, Ben. That's the best estimate. Great. Thanks. That was my question. Thank you. Thanks, Ben. Our next question comes from Andy MacFarlane with Bell Potter. You may proceed. Yeah. Hi, guys. Just a quick one for me. Yeah, the net WACD, the cash and FX gains. Obviously, you realize more than AUD 100 million of gains in 2026. Just interested in a bit of- Andy, sorry, mate. We can't hear you. You might have to speak up. Oh, can you hear me now? Yeah, that's better. Thank you. Yep. Just in terms of interest expense on net interest expense, you're a net or beneficiary net AUD 100 million this year. Just interested in a bit of a steer on where you think that might go for FY 2027. Well, yeah. Obviously, the FX component is a little bit hard to predict. So that is why I said that that is going to be a major driver of where it goes. But if you do constant currency basis, because that basically the FX driver is kind of the flip side of the earnings translation. But if you do it on a constant currency basis, the net WACD on a going basis is 1% of debt and that is probably your best indicator. There will be some capitalized interest. Obviously, we have direct properties still on the balance sheet in work in progress, so there is some capitalized interest against that. But look, I would expect it is going to be all other things equal, it will be a pretty low interest income number closer to zero. But it will probably still be an interesting net interest income number. Thanks, Nick. Thank you. Our next question comes from Richard Jones with JPMorgan. You may proceed. A couple of quick ones. The 25% pre-commitment of development yield, does that include Tokyo? No. Thank you. Nick, just at the mix of earnings growth in 2027, can you give us a steer around development versus management in terms of what its key contributors might be? Yeah. Look, the opportunities in the development are significant. I do not really see that being any less than what it was this year. The other parts— In growth or the actual? No. Well, no, in terms of the actual level. The other parts of the business, so if you think about the investment line, the full period effect of those assets, direct property asset sales that I talked about will have kick in for FY 2027, but at the same time, we have got properties completing, we have got new investments we are making into the equity and the partnerships. So overall, yeah, and there is some underlying rent growth, but overall, I expect some moderate growth on that line. Base management fees are increasing. They have been and expect that that will continue. Performance fees to be determined, but if you work on 0.9, that is a little bit lower than this year at 1%, but the basis will be hopefully a bit higher. So some growth there, but the opportunity is really in the development space at the moment. Can I just call out a couple of potential realizations? Are they, and just clarify whether you think they will be 2027 contributors. So, Artarmon, Vernon, Moorabbin, and Brickworks, are they some of the big projects contributing this year? There is 50 developments in process at the moment, and any and all of them, plus the ones that are not even in process, could contribute as well. That is why we are being a little bit elusive about it, Jones, because that is how we think about it. You weigh up the mix of all the potential opportunities and what is the right thing to do at the right time for the asset and for the company overall. So we are not being specific because we do not have a specific. We have got a ranking of which are most likely and which are most executable, but there are other opportunities outside of that that we are working on as well. I apologize, but we are just not going to give you too much color on which is in and which is not. Can I just ask to clarify then, Moorabbin and Brickworks, have they already been recognized or are they still to come? Settled. Settled and booked in 2026? Yeah. Brickworks was just an acquisition, so there's no. I'm not sure where you're going with that one, but yeah, that was just an acquisition. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, mate. Thank you. Our next question comes from Claire McKew with Green Street. You may proceed. Thanks, guys. Just two from me. Firstly, on planning. So of the 1.3 GW, how much have you secured in terms of planning, and more broadly, have you. Obviously, you've had some success per the media in terms of Western Sydney, but broadly, have you encountered any challenges on a global scale in terms of planning approvals? Yeah. So, when we've got power in the secured bucket, you could come to the conclusion that we've got to be either very advanced in planning or we've got a pathway to planning, otherwise it's not in the secured bucket because you can't utilize the power. So I think that's clear. And certainly the things we're building, you could assume we hopefully have planning, otherwise we wouldn't be building them. So I think that's fine. Look, I think planning is a big issue all around the world. Funny enough, planning is less an issue in the U.K., but power is more of an issue. In Australia, I suspect we're going to end up with planning and power being an issue. But planning will be an issue here as well, and one that I think is manageable. But I think, it's not going to be as easy as it has been, and I think that's a good thing, because I think you need a lot more community outreach, and social obligations. And we think that's a good thing. And I think the gating process we're going through in a number of markets around the world is also good. We're seeing it in the U.S. as well, and you'd probably note there's a lot of states in the U.S. that are in moratoriums at the moment. That's why some of the big hyperscalers around the U.S. are actually looking at places like Tokyo very, very strongly. Strong demand. They're looking at Sydney, Melbourne, strong demand effectively. And we've got big sites also in places like France, outside Paris, where we've got some bigger deployments. We're looking at those very seriously. So, look the whole world is super dynamic on this, and I think the best people to be able to navigate it are people with global portfolios, have the capital, and can push and pull where we think the opportunity is. Because in the main, t he customer base we are talking about is, they can travel and they will travel. So if they can get a deployment in France, that might be better than pushing one in Texas and things like that. Yeah, super important. Planning and power, you need to give planning equal weighting, which probably hasn't been the case over the last number of years. Okay, thanks. Obviously the 500 MW is planning has been approved. So, you are saying the 1.3 watts is pretty much, is there or almost there in terms of planning approval. But then beyond that, have you had any issues? Have you had any situations where you have sought approvals and they have been declined, or has it been pretty steady sailing for those submissions? No, I don't think anything steady sailing on that front. Pretty well anywhere actually. You have got pathways in France for power, and Macron's big on data centers, and it's nuclear, so it all works. But planning in Paris is an art and a skill. But we have got planning on our sides here, for example. But if you are trying to get another one in around Paris, that might take longer. Look, I think you have just got to be very good at the planning side, not just the power side, effectively. There is an equal balance now, where it was probably not as focused as it is at the moment. In Australia, clearly, there are opportunities to get planning in certain areas. If it's in a big industrial area and you are not affecting households and people like that will be an easier pathway than if you are trying to do it in the leafy north shore. So, I think you have just got to weigh these things up as you are pushing along. Okay. Then just lastly on tenant credit underwriting. Appreciate you're really focused on the hyperscalers for the larger leases outside of colo. But just generally, given we're seeing credit CDS spreads widen unevenly across even some of the major hyperscalers, how are you thinking about that in terms of your underwriting on leasing terms, rental term, the lease term, and so forth? Yeah. Look, it just heightens it, doesn't it? I think the very best credit is what you want. I go back to that position a bit earlier. In a world where there is a real problem with supply of data centers globally, but there's good, strong demand, you need to build into it, you need to be patient. Because if you end up with the right credit, that will put you in a better situation at the back end, which we talk a lot about at Goodman, not just about, haven't we done well, we've signed someone up. Let's just see who that someone is, and effectively, what's it worth at the end? Because all our big investors around the world, I can promise you the first topic of the conversation is what is the asset worth, right? So, forget about the 10 or whatever you think you're going to get cash on cost at the front. What's it worth at back, right? So, they're big conversations we're having all the time. Yeah, look, I think the other thing is tenant credit issues, in relation to metro colo facilities may be different to those in non-metro, specific campuses. So, if you've got a property that's well located, and has appeal to a wider range of users, then you've got to take that into account as well. So obviously, we've observed what's happened in the credit markets, where we're active in the credit markets ourselves. Partly, I think technical reasons and partly could be credit reasons. But not for us to say how much of which is what. But certainly, yeah, we are mindful of it and taking it into account. Okay, thank you. That is all from me. Thank you. Our next question comes from Paul Mason with E&P. He may proceed. Hey, thanks, guys. Just the first one on the slide 15 with your sort of cadence of potential delivery of sites. Can you talk to us a bit about just the long lead time items and how you are handling that? Have you got orders in for all that capacity in with, like the Rolls-Royce of the world and whatnot? Or yeah, how are you managing that? Yeah, buy them early. It is really simple as that, and that is same approach everyone is taking around the world. But once again, you need to have the money, right? We just forked out for a big piece of equipment here in Australia. I think it was AUD 130 million or something. Yeah, for a big site we are working on at the moment. So yeah, you have got to be out front. You need a good procurement program. This comes back to the point I made earlier, that if you want to hit it on a dime for a global customer, you want to be able to deliver, you need to get those risks out of the way. Otherwise, do not promise you can hit a 28 if you do not know. So yeah, we are doing all of that. It requires money and requires liquidity. That is why we are running the capital plans the way we are running them at Goodman. Okay, great. Just maybe, there has been a bit of a gap in knowledge in the market. Could you talk to us a little bit about, now you have got your first deal with a data center where you are going to operate it, the differences in negotiating with a hyperscaler on operating a site versus the leases you have done with hyperscalers in the past where you just provide them with a power shell? Was there any differences at all in terms of the teams or the way the contracting worked or anything, or is it basically the same process that you have done in the past that happened this time around? Yeah, look, it is very similar. You need to demonstrate though you have got the operating teams, processes and systems in place, and we have been doing that for a while now with all the hyperscalers. So, with the one in Tokyo, there was an issue around operational competency and ability to do it. Because we have got all the systems and processes, we are putting it all in place because that is what the customers want of us. If they did not want it, we would not have to offer it. If they wanted to self-operate it, they can do so. But with all the work going around the world and all the massive projects that are on, you can imagine even hyperscalers and big customers around the world want people like Goodman to make it easy for them. That is what we are doing, and it is really as simple as that. We put in the people, the systems, and the expense in the systems to make sure that then we can offer that, and we will offer that if required. That happened to be the case in Tokyo. This is not the first time we have done MEP installation on behalf of customers. That part of it is not new. Yep. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Donald Chua with Bank of America. You may proceed. Hi, guys. Thanks for the opportunity. Just very quick ones. Circling back to page 15, looking at the data center deliveries, should we be looking at the development profits, particularly from data centers correlating with the deliveries? Yeah. I think we have covered that a couple of times on the course of the call. I will reiterate. We have a number of different ways that we contract. There are a number of different options as to which we contract and how we contract, and there are opportunities outside of this list that we are working on that can give rise to earnings in FY 2027. We cannot be specific because there is a number of different ways we could do it and how we do it and when we do it. So, it is a case of managing both bottom up and top-down risk, capital management, optimizing not only capital management for these projects, but also capital management on the remainder of the book and the starts that we are working on. All of which can give rise to development earnings. Certainly, having leases in place does help the liquidity, and it does help optimize the value for new transactions. That opens the window of eligibility, but it does not necessarily correlate directly one for one with earnings, necessarily because of what I said earlier. Yeah, that is clear. My final question, one quick one. I appreciate there is a lot of FX movements this season. What would be the total net FX impact on operating profit for FY 2026? It is pretty close to zero. The hedges offset the translation. Let's call it zero. That has been the case for many years. Okay. That is all. Thank you. Thanks, Donald. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call back over to Mr. Greg Goodman for any closing remarks. Thank you very much and have a good day. Thank you. This concludes the conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.