Good morning, everyone. Warm welcome from Bornem, Brussels, to everyone. It's a pleasure to have you here in beautiful veranda for our presentation of our 2024 results. This year has been truly exceptional, and we will remember 2024 for the immense growth we've realized, close to EUR 500 million, the launch of our new Track27 program, and, of course, the first investment grade rating we received. I'm delighted to present these outstanding results alongside these two remarkable ladies that have been crucial in those successes: Els Vervaecke, our CFO, and Inna Maslova, our investor relations manager. Thank you for being here. Thanks for joining the call, and let's dive into the results of this incredible year. EPS guidance has been achieved with a result of EUR 4.73, including the one of FBI for 2023, portfolio growth of EUR 500 million, and sound financials with debt under control at roughly 35% and a net debt on EBITDA of 6.9%. For the agenda of today, Els will start with the highlights of the year. I will update you on the growth of the portfolio. Inna will give a portfolio update. I will give you a market update. Els will give you an outlook, and I will end, wrap up with an ESG update that will be followed by Inna, who will manage the Q&A session. So thank you all for joining. Els, the floor is yours. Thank you, Jo, for this nice introduction. So for 2024, we end the year with an EPRA result of EUR 99.3 million, an increase of 10% year on year, and a net result of EUR 171.5 million, which includes EUR 85 million of positive portfolio revaluation, or EUR 8.17 per share as a net result. The EPS from recurring activities stands at EUR 4.55 per share, which represents a 2% growth year on year, despite an increase by 14% in the weighted average number of shares. Montea received the FBI recognition in the Netherlands for fiscal year 2023, which leads to a positive one-off of EUR 0.18 per share. And this brings the total EPS of 2024 to EUR 4.73 per share. The dividend from recurring activities increased by 7% year on year to EUR 3.60 per share. If we add the FBI-related dividend top-up of EUR 0.14 per share, we get to a proposed dividend of EUR 3.74 per share for 2024. The top line increased by 8% to EUR 115 million of net rental result, driven by, first of all, the new acquisitions and the new developments that we have done throughout 2024, and also by the like-for-like rental growth of 3.4%, of which 3.1% is linked to rent indexation and 0.3% to rent renegotiation. The total property result only increased by 6% to EUR 123 million due to a decline in the total income from the solar panels of EUR 2.8 million, and this decline is mainly due to the one-off of green certificates for provision that we reversed in 2023 for a total amount of EUR 1.3 million and the lower energy prices of last year. All of this leads to an operating margin of 88.5%, stable compared to 2023. The decline in the financial charges reflects the interest increase, the capitalized interest increase, which is due to the transfer of Tiel, Bornem, Waddinxveen, and Bornem into the development pipeline. The tax result is positive, as you can see, and this is because of the inclusion of the FBI-related provision reversal for 2023 and 2024. This brings us to a total EPRA result of EUR 99.3 million. Based on a weighted average number of shares, we get to an EPS from recurring activities of EUR 4.55 and a one-off of EUR 0.18, which totals up to EUR 4.73 per share for 2024. Strong fundamentals will enable the future growth of Montea with a low EPRA LTV of 34.8%, an adjusted net debt on EBITDA of 6.9 times, and an interest cover ratio of 4.5 times. For 2024, the EPRA NTA rose by 4% to a level of EUR 77.6 per share. The debt profile remains solid with long-term funding, both debt and hedging, with an average maturity of around six years. The hedge ratio stands at 98% at year-end, and the liquidity position at year-end is EUR 204 million immediately available funding. Throughout 2024, we were able to remain our cost of debt stable at a level of 2.3%. Furthermore, as already mentioned by Jo, we have received our first credit rating by Fitch, which was a solid investment-grade credit rating of BBB+, with a stable outlook. 59% of the funding is coming from the private placement market. 40% are bilateral credit lines with an average remaining term of 5.7 years. And on the right-hand side, you see that the maturities of those credit lines and bonds are well spread over time. Back to you, Jo. Thank you very much, Els, for this update. As already mentioned, 2024 has been the year with the largest growth in our portfolio in our history. I remember when I joined Montea, we had a portfolio of EUR 250 million. So basically, over the last year, we did two times the size of the company in one year, which is quite significant. We invested EUR 440 million in total, and we have another EUR 57 million in execution projects. So basically, 40% of the Track27 program of EUR 1.2 billion has been realized in 2024. This is a new slide, but I think it's a very interesting slide. I like it a lot. It's about how we grew over the last six years. Basically, what you see is the blue color is standing investments, just buildings we bought in the market. All the green colors are linked to what we call value creation. It's either in-house developments, it's developments with partners, it's energy projects, and it's the land bank. So basically, what you see is that apart from the crazy six months in 2022, the first six months of 2022, over this period of six years, there's roughly, on average, 20% or less that came from buying standing investments. So 80% of the growth comes from value creation, from things we do, business we try to make that is not linked to just buying buildings in the market, but that is linked to us trying to create value. Some deals we did over the last year, most of them you already know, of course, the Rovensa deal, which was the largest deal we did in the year, Hamburg, which was a great deal in the Port of Hamburg at 6.5% with nice rent reversion potential. Ghent Korte Mate, sale and rent back with TML, and Zellik is a project where we signed a lease for a new project and we were waiting for the permit. We did some land banking in Holland and in the Port of Antwerp. 100,000 sq m was delivered over the last year in Antwerp, in Holland, in Tongeren, in Brussels, and another 120,000 sq m is still in execution. That's also in Holland and in Belgium. All these projects, either delivered or in execution, will lead to development margins of roughly EUR 84.48 million. 100% of them are pre-let. The average duration, let's not forget it, of those in execution on first break is 14 years. So it's really creating value for the long term for our portfolio. Then next to that, of course, we have this nice portfolio of another 280-300,000 sq m that either have their permit and are waiting for a tenant or have a tenant and are waiting for their permit. Some of them are in advanced stage. I know I would love to tell you more about it, but we don't communicate on it unless it's 100% sure. So things are happening, but I can't go into detail on that. But as you see, we keep on having the ambition to have an average yield on those of yield on cost of 7%. There's a lot of value creation that will come from that pipeline that is taking indeed a bit longer as we had anticipated two years ago. We believe that the value is there. Given the strong rental market, the rent levels, we believe that the 7% yield on cost is still attainable for us. These are the projects we are currently doing in Belgium. These are the projects we are currently doing in Holland. Next to that, we were able to increase the land bank to 2.7 million square meters now. Of course, in 2024, that was mainly driven by the Rovensa deal. 2.7, that means roughly a development potential of 1.4 million square meters over the next years, which is more than 50% of the current portfolio. Let's not forget, more than 80% of this land is on green and brown fields. 45% of this is yielding today at an average yield of 5.8%. You get an overview of these land plots, and so I will hand over the floor to Inna now for the portfolio update. Thank you, Jo. To start off with, we've achieved a positive portfolio value valuation of EUR 72 million over the course of 2024. This has accelerated in Q4, and both components are linked, first and foremost, to development gains, where most of the value creation has been achieved. But also, our standing portfolio has seen a positive value creation over the course of 2024. It's an increase of 3% year on year, and we do see that the EPRA net initial yield on our portfolio has stabilized at 5.1%. Our portfolio has now reached a size of EUR 2.8 billion, so we remain firmly on track to get to our size of EUR 3.5 billion, which we target by 2027 end. Just to provide a bit more split and color, we have invested EUR 441 million in CapEx, so we are roughly 10% above our targeted investment volume under Track27 over the course of last year. And indeed, the portfolio valuation has topped up to that. We continue to focus on both pillars of growth, and certainly the value creation for us has been predominantly coming from our development pipeline since 2022. In the overview, you will see that in 2024, we have booked close to EUR 50 million of development gains alone. And I think that is, again, a testament to our value creation through developments and long-term focus on our growth ambition. If we look at the ERV growth on our standing portfolio, it stands at 4.3%, clearly accelerating in Q4. This has predominantly been linked to the acceleration we've been seeing in the Netherlands, given the fact that the market has been quite active, and certainly the letting activity is also gradually starting to pick up, and on the standing portfolio, it does reconfirm the resilience of our portfolio with yield effects on the valuations now stabilizing, and ERV growth is the one that has been the driver for the revaluation of our standing assets. Looking at where we capture and where our portfolio currently stands versus the market, our reversionary potential on the portfolio has reached 12% now. It's up two percentage points versus Q3, and our net reversionary yield stands at 5.3%, so that's roughly a 20 basis point yield spread versus where we're currently valued. That has indeed, again, been driven by the fact that the valuers are seeing growth in rental levels in the markets where we operate. Touching upon an important topic of our standing portfolio on the lease maturities, so for today, we have, of the 9.5% of the leases that we have maturing over the course of 2025, already renewed or extended leases on 58%. One point that's important to mention is that the remaining 42% are predominantly skewed towards the second half of the year. So we will see a gradual evolution of the 58% figure over the coming quarters. If we look back at 2024, we have achieved a renewal rate of 96% on the same level of leases that we have maturing this year. On the 2% of the rent roll that we renegotiated last year, we have achieved an average rental uplift of 12%. That is broadly in line with where we see the reversionary potential on our portfolio. Looking forward, certainly on the occupancy rate, we extend again at 99.9%. What we expect over the course of 2025 is even looking at a lower retention rate. Historically, we've been at 85%. Out of prudence, if we take into account 80%, we would still come out at an occupancy rate above 98% over the course of 2025. That, again, reconfirms the quality of our assets and the strong positioning in terms of location. Jo, back to you on the market update. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Inna. Indeed, I would like to go a bit deeper on those market dynamics, looking at the four markets we're in. If you look at Belgium, we try to put in dark blue the main corridors of the country. Obviously, this has always been the golden triangle, Ghent, Antwerp, Brussels, where we are mainly active on that axis, Ghent, Antwerp, but also the spillover from Holland going on the axis, Antwerp towards Liège. And you see that in Belgium, apart from Charleroi, that is 12.3%, and that is really having an impact on the average. You see that in Flanders, vacancy rates are still roughly between 0 and 3%. So a very good market. And as you can see, close to every building is on those main axes. Same goes for Holland, where we focus indeed on Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Tiel, Northern Brabant, and Limburg markets that are doing very well today. In France, we see, of course, with the Rovensa portfolio, we now added the Nord to the French backbone. We also added the Atlantic Arc to our portfolio. Apart from the northern part of France, which everybody knows where there's more land available, these markets are performing quite well. In Germany, where we are still kind of a startup, markets where we're active around Frankfurt and Leverkusen are also performing very well. There's not a figure for Hamburg. Why? Because there's zero vacancy in the Port of Hamburg. So that's an easy figure, but also performing very well. This is an interesting slide, in my opinion. It shows on the left-hand side, it shows the take-up. So I take Belgium as an example, which was in the top year, 2023, 1 million square meters that came down to roughly 650,000 square meters in 2024. So take-up is indeed down in every market if we compare 24 to 23. But what is interesting to see is if you look at the right-hand axis, that shows you the speculative development compared to the total take-up. You also see that in every country, speculative development has come down also. So basically, the development is following the trend in the market. There is no risk. I can't repeat it enough. There is no risk in our sector for oversupply. A, the land is not there. And B, there is no premium you get from speculative development. So only 13% in Belgium, 5% in France, only 7% speculative development in Germany. Holland is now a player with 37%, but that is mainly linked to the take-up that came down significantly. And what we see is if we look at where this speculative development is, this is mainly on B and C grade locations, so not really in competition with the locations we are looking at. Another very interesting, in my opinion, market figure is the rental growth in the countries we're active in. What you see is the rental growth over the last 10 years. And of course, if you compare Europe to the U.K., it's really an outlier. But if you look at the countries we're in, we see that Benelux, France, are below the average of European rental growth. So we are actually, although we had rental growth of 25% to 30% over the last three to four years, you see that they are going up, but they are still below the average in Europe. So we feel really confident in our markets that the rental levels we're currently at will be sustainable over the coming years. With this positive message, I go to my CFO, who will give us an outlook. Thank you, Jo. For 2025, we reconfirm our guidance of EUR 4.90 per share of EPRA results. That's the target for 2025, which represents an 8% year-on-year growth, excluding the potential 9% one-off from the FBI recognition for fiscal year 2024. We announce a target of EUR 3.90 dividend per share, also 8% year-on-year increase, excluding the potential 7% one-off linked to the FBI recognition. For 2027, we reconfirm the EPS target of EUR 5.60 per share. Track27, the growth plan that we announced, will be done through disciplined financial allocation with a focus on operational excellence. The leverage will remain under control, in line with our track record, and an adjusted net debt on EBITDA of around eight times, giving us an investment capacity of more than EUR 600 million available to grow under Track27. With an average cost of debt that won't exceed 2.5% and a consistently high occupancy that won't decline below 98%, we are guiding towards an operating margin of 90% by the end of 2027. The EUR 300 million of investment volume that we want to achieve for 2025 will be done through a healthy mix of in-house developments, acquisitions of standing investments, including land bank positions, and green investments in solar panels and battery energy systems. Next to that, we have, of course, our partnerships with the developers, like we have with Cordeel. We have a track record of a 9% EPS growth per year on average, and for the next years, under Track27, we guide for a 6% increase in EPS per year on average, going to EUR 5.60 per share for 2027. Over the last 10 years, we delivered a total accounting return of 12% on average, which highlights a strong return track record and the resilience throughout the market cycle. We were able to achieve a solid EPRA NTA growth, also in times where the repricing of the logistics real estate happened, and I'm referring to the years after 2022. You see that the EPRA NTA continued to increase despite the repricing that was seen in the market, and this is linked to the fact that we have, of course, a very qualitative portfolio and the value creation that was done through value creation with in-house developments. For the future, for the next years, we will, of course, also focus on the value creation for the shareholders. Back to you, Jo, for the ESG update. Thank you very much, Els Vervaecke. It will be a very short update. Basically, we are on track. Also there, you remember that we have some very exciting KPIs for the Track27 growth plan. We have now 84 megawatts of solar capacity on our roofs. 45% of our buildings are heated with heat pumps and close to 80% of our buildings have LED lighting today. So this is totally on track with the program, which is also recognized by Sustainalytics, who improved our score to 11.2, which gives us, again, a seat in the top 20% of most sustainable REITs globally. And this should position us to get us back in the Bel ESG Index, as we hope. So everything is well on track according to that program. This brings me to the end of our presentation. Thank you very much for your attention. I would like to give the floor to Inna for a Q&A session. Thank you, Jo. We will start with the questions in the room before moving to the ones that are online. So, Francesca, I think you were the first one. Please go ahead. Please. Hello, and many congratulations for the great results. First question is about investments. For 2025, do you think it's fair to expect some more acquisition in standing investments, or would you push the accelerator on developments? We saw the market reopening over the latest months with nice acquisitions from yourself and also peers. So what is realistic to expect going forward? The second question is on the operating margin. You said you target the operating margin too. Yeah. Can we see something already in 2025? And the last question is about relettings. You did already a lot from the beginning of the year. How are renegotiations and discussions with tenants going on? So anything to flag? Yeah. I will take the first one, if that's okay. Els, you take the one on the operating margin and you take the one on the rental. Is that okay? So 2025, of course, we have the EUR 300 million target. As I said, on average, 20% comes from standing investments. We think that given the current share price and the current cost of debt, doing business below 6% on standing investments is difficult for us. It has to be a very exceptional product for us to go below that hurdle rate. And we see in the market, and you read that also, that for exceptional buildings, the yields today are between 4.5% and 5%. So apart from the first six months of 2022, we are not able, or not willing, it would be dilutive for us. Although we like those assets, it would be dilutive for us if we have no role to play. So frankly, on today's status, I think we will have to be very creative. We will have to really use the business development skills that are in every one of our countries to grow. And so we have to have some added value in order to do it. So I'm very reluctant on standing investments today, given the dynamics of the market. But that's a good thing because that's, of course, the best proof of the value of our portfolio is the fact that there are still deals between 4.5% and 5%. And I absolutely understand those deals. Given our share price, that would be difficult. So we will have to focus on preletting the land bank, where we have EUR 300 million, to unlock the potential. Again, the rent levels are there. The construction cost is under control. Everything is under control. We just need somebody to sign those leases because we only built them with a 100% pre-let. To continue, the team is also there. So that's why we had a drop in our operating margin for 2025. I assume it will be rather stable and will slightly go up towards 2027, where we target indeed an operating margin above 90%. But with the fact that, of course, new people were hired throughout the last year as well, this has an impact because those people, the run rate of those people will also have an impact on the 2025 figures. So the increase will be slight and visible really towards 2027. To make it very, very simple, we need those in-house developments in order to get the operational margin back to 90%. So the full focus of the organization is on realizing those in-house developments. Yeah. And on your last question about the lettings and renewals we achieved in 2025 so far, so if we look at the split of 58%, it's roughly 50% of breaks. So the tenants simply did not exercise that break option. And the other 50% was renewals. Renewals, we have actually signed not with new tenants, but existing tenants. So it was basically a new contract that was set up in place, generally the same conditions with indexation in place. So that's at the moment where we stand. Thank you. Vivien, I think you are next. Can you hear me now? I hope. Thanks for the presentation. A few questions from me, maybe just coming up on the first question. You mentioned that standing assets are not really in your, I would say, price tag for the quality that you look at. Does it also apply to the yield in land bank, or there you still see a lot of opportunities? Then secondly, I think that you mentioned the partnerships as a way to maybe look like you did with Cordeel. Maybe a bit of a view on where, in which country you believe it's applicable and what type of agreement are you looking at and what will be your criteria in such partnership? Because, of course, the profit-sharing agreement is the key to get your good share of the development profits, but where are your limits or your willingness there? And then the last one will be on the CapEx. So you did better than expected. Congrats. Does it mean that there will be lower around the next three years or just EUR 40 million top-up to your target? Thanks. Thank you, Vivien, for your questions. I will take them. Now, on the yielding land bank, that's definitely where we see opportunities. I think Rovensa has been a very good example. For many years now, we position ourselves as a developer and investor. Now, the developer is always cash-oriented. When he buys a land, he wants to develop it as soon as possible so he gets the money back. An investor is looking at long-term returns. We believe that the positioning of Montea is somewhere in between. We can live with residual income for the next four, five, six years and then see the potential of redevelopment. So a lot of deals we've done, for example, Diemen, for example, Maastricht, it's even a nine-year lease, but it's a triple net. So we are not involved in any works that would need to be done in those nine years. So for us, we see it as a yielding land bank. So if we can unlock the potential in nine years, that's fine by us. So for us, the yielding land bank, the positioning between the pure developer and the pure investor, that's the sweet spot for Montea. So I absolutely believe that a lot of the growth will come from that branch. On your second question, partnerships, that's, of course, the reason we put this now really clearly in our communication is because for the first time, the fact of having that EUR 600 million shooting capacity, what Els was talking about, is valued again. Let's go back to 2022. If I was talking to a developer at that time and I would say, "We can team up and we can finance part of your development," and then we share the margin, he would say, "Why would I work with you? My bank will finance it at 1%. And at the delivery date, you can take a ticket like 80 other investors and just give me a yield below 4%, and you might have a chance to be in the second round." That has changed. And it took some time for some parties to understand that the market they were used to is not coming back very soon. So the fact of having that equity capacity today is valued again. And we have talks in every country today with potential partners where we can team up and we can say, "Okay, alone, you go faster or you might have a bigger margin, but together we can go further. We can do more. We can do more projects and we can unlock the potential of your pipeline." So that's really teaming up. And to answer on that question, I also want to be very clear. The hurdle rate of 6% will be also the hurdle rate in these kinds of partnerships. We need to have a return, of course, if we step into a project one year, two years before delivery, obviously, and the same criteria as for our in-house developments, which means preletting, are also applicable to that branch. So very clear on those two. On your third question, to say if that EUR 40 million means that now it's EUR 1.24 billion instead of EUR 1.2, let's say that it will be above EUR 1.2 billion. We haven't changed the target for 2025 or 2026 and 2027 either. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Vivien. Go ahead, Fred. Frédéric from Kepler Cheuvreux. Just a few questions. Maybe I will address one by one. It could be easier. Just on your remaining EUR 760 million you need to invest, so EUR 270 million still come from the pipeline and EUR 500 million will come from other projects. What will be the percentage of in-house development out of those EUR 500 million? We said that the EUR 1.2 billion would be 50% in-house developments and 50% standing investments. So we're ahead of that scheme if we talk about in-house developments. But as I said, standing investments, if we split that up into yielding land bank and just buying mature assets or delivered assets, I think it will be more in favor in today's conditions towards the yielding land bank than towards just standing assets for the reasons I gave, too, on the question of Francesca. Okay. Perhaps Frédéric also to add, we have the green investments program as well, which is EUR 75 million in total, and EUR 50 million of that is allocated to the battery energy storage, and that is really going to start kicking in from 2025 on. Thank you. Maybe a question on your portfolio values. You showed that ERV growth was actually 4.3%, which is ahead of the figure that you show for the market for Germany, Benelux, and France. And you mentioned an acceleration in Q4, but actually the like-for-like valuation of the portfolio was relatively, well, in line with Q3. So I'm just willing to understand what was the driving element of the appraisal not fully reflecting the ERV growth of your portfolio. In Q4. I think a part of it was linked to the ERV revisions in the Netherlands, and there was also, in terms of the step-up, it was gradual, and the Netherlands has been the largest part in that regard. Okay. And just also, so you mentioned a total of EUR 70 million, EUR 72 million revaluation gain. In the P&L under the line revaluation, I see EUR 85 million. What's the difference? Is it? It's the solar panel valuation and a part is going through equity directly. And final comment, just on the slide 41 that you showed, I think on the total return, I'm not so sure the above chart is correct, but you can look at it. For instance, in 2024, you show 4% total return, but actually your dividend is already at 7%. So it should be probably double-digit growth this year. But the relative impact, I think, was a bit smaller. Sorry? Relative impact. Speak a bit louder. The relative impact is a bit smaller, but we can speak it out. We can take it off after that. Thanks. Vivien, maybe you have to speak up a bit for the people in the audience. I'll go. Okay. Thanks for taking my question. I want to drill down maybe a little bit further on the partnership. Then you explained Cordeel. Is Cordeel, I think, announcing new CEO? So the results is Cordeel kind of the preferred partner? And could that also extend to Battery or other? Because they also have these technical partnerships. And then maybe follow on to that, and I think also Vivien asked the question, is there any potential for JVs in France? Look, for instance, Argan is selling down their portfolio. They recently sold a data center. Bring LTV down. Is that something that you've been in talks with? Why does that make sense if you want to grow there? You want to build scale and somebody's selling assets that that could lead to maybe some kind of partnership? Well, I think partnerships have always been in the heart of our growth. I remember for those who have been with us for quite some time, they remember we had a great partnership with MG Real Estate at the time where we did a lot of nice developments in the airport of Brussels. We did nice developments in Willebroek on the axis Brussels Antwerp. We've done great partnerships in Holland with parties like Build2Build. Cordeel is indeed a good example of an ongoing partnership. There is no exclusivity from their side nor from our side. We work together on the battery project, but there also there's no exclusivity. So it's really we are open for business. That's the message we want to bring in the market. Yes, France is a very interesting market on that. So we're talking to a lot of people today. But of course, if somebody wants to go to a JV and has the same profile as we have, again, that would be for me a standing investment deal. So it would be rather difficult because we value our portfolio at 5.1%. They will probably be in the same league, in the same figures. So it would be difficult to do a deal that is both lucrative for them and accretive for us. So I think that is a difficult one. So I think when we talk about partnerships, it's more towards developers than towards investors. Okay. Just last on that. Because being inside of France, also because of the red tape, but also bringing something else into standing assets, more like skills in negotiating, as with the portfolio you just brought, that there is a lot of potential to develop. You also have to get these things done. When we talk about the operational margin that is under pressure or that is at 88.5% and we would like to go to 90%, that's because of the R&D department we have built in France and Germany. We have now in France a team of 12 people for a portfolio of EUR 500 million. We really need to step up there, but we have all the skills in-house, both on business development, on asset management, property management. We really need to do it ourselves. We don't need to team up in order to get skills in. No, we have them on our payroll today. That's great. Last thing, a follow-on. It's a bit of a technical question. We noticed that the capitalized interest, and you explained that, that because of its change in the calculation. But also you referred to the portfolio where there was quite a lot of pipeline in there, which then obviously increases the capitalized interest. Now that the development pipeline is shrinking, I wonder how do you account for the residual portfolio? Because in fact, you also described it partly as a yielding land bank is part of, let's say, the debt that is against that project. Can you also capitalize that so that you could capitalize that for maybe eight, 10 years until the whole is developed? No. We don't do it today. We see it as a yielding land bank. So we don't, if there's an income stream from it, we don't. It would be doubling up. And furthermore, you start the interest capitalization as from the moment you have determined a development project. But the reversionary portfolio isn't yet a project. There might be some extensions in the next nine years. But the real redevelopment to qualify for capitalized interest will only start after nine years. That's the first option. That makes sense. So that means that as the development pipeline is shrinking compared to last year, then also the capitalized interest percentage could come down, let's say from about 40% to maybe mid-30s or any guidance? Yeah, but it won't go to the level that we have seen in 2023 and before. Yeah. Not because of the calculation, also because of the amount of developments that are in execution. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Vivien. Thank you, Vivien. Geert. Yes, you. A number of things. First, on the slide that is missing in the presentation. So it's on your final list of the Onderneming van het Jaar. I don't know why you didn't. Entrepreneur of the year, yeah. Did not forget it, but no. And then another point. I saw on LinkedIn that this evening you will be in a panel on data centers. Maybe you can say now what you intend to say this evening. I'm on a panel. I'm not a keynote. So basically, I will answer some. Tell something. I will answer some questions on what the data center market is and might become in Belgium. So that's what I'm going to say. As I told you before, we did an analysis on our portfolio on where the potential for data centers might be in our portfolio. What we see today is if we just look at the standing portfolio, it would be difficult in France and in Holland for us. Some of our sites in Belgium might be potentially interesting for data center development in the future. Of course, we have one disadvantage. That is that everything is let. We have a 100% occupancy. So it's not something where you will see a huge development in the next quarters, but it's definitely a market we are looking at. There is a huge development in Brussels and around Brussels and around the airport. Yes, it's definitely becoming a market that is growing in Belgium. Yeah. In Wolvertem, they are not interested in it. Okay. An opportunity for now. On the regulatory work, so we are close to the new government, in fact, so there was some regulation or some resolutie, to say it in Dutch. Okay. It's too early, maybe it's too late, too early to say something on that? It's never too late because e-commerce is only at the start of this huge development. You remember, Geert, that I've always been very vocal on that. We've seen the impact it has had in the past. There have been major players that all moved to Holland 10 years ago. It was dramatic for Belgium. If you look at the figures today, for every inhabitant in Holland, there is 2.5 square meters of logistics. In Belgium, it's one square meter. So there's more than double of surface per square meter in Holland. It's not that they spend more because we both spend roughly 14% of our purchases we do on the internet. So basically, the Dutch have the same behavior as we as Belgians have. We just outsourced that business to the southern part of Holland. There's a reason why they all developed in Tilburg and Waalwijk and Breda. It's just because there was this night regime which we didn't have in Belgium. If we look at the U.K., the purchase there via internet, via e-commerce is 28%. If I compare that to the 14% in Belgium and Holland, I think the market will double over the next year. It's a great thing that we finally get a change there. It will be very important for the sector. It will have huge potential, especially in regions where there is still unemployment, and I think of the Walloon area. I think of certain regions there where there's really potential to do something. I think this is a very, very positive evolution for Belgium. Okay. And then on the average age of the portfolio, so it's relatively low. But from which year do you start to have some more redevelopment, re-refurbishment to do? Is that, do you have some projects in the near term or is that only a problem for 2030 or? Let's say that the sustainability targets have advanced some of those investments we want to make because we have ambitions on CO2 reductions in the portfolio. Roughly, the lifecycle of a building is 30-40 years. Renovation CapEx is rather low in our portfolio due to, as you mentioned, the average age of the portfolio. We also, in our new developments, and I can't stress that enough, all our buildings today are energy positive. They use less energy than they create on their roofs. We are able now on our new buildings to get an average consumption of 17-18 kilowatts per square meter per year, where the average in the market is roughly around 40. All the more recent developments have been developed in a way that they will be within the criteria of the market, even beyond 2050 today. That is rather limited in the total cap. I will ask that question again in 2030, so no problem. Then on M&A or acquisitions, okay, you have done a small deal in Germany. It's still a small market. In Germany, some guys need to sell. They don't want to sell because they're afraid of lower prices and pressure on valuations. They said they did some strategic deal in Germany at a lower yield. You did a strategic deal in France. What is your thought? Because you talked about the cost of capital, but at some time, maybe you will have to jump with a number, with a deal at a lower yield because we talked a lot in the past months on the Tritax EuroBox and the SEGRO and all these guys. I will not say buying anything that came on the market, but yeah, what can you say about it? Or maybe do you need to go to other countries apart from Germany? Okay, in France, you will have some work to do, but when you see CTP in Central and Eastern Europe, maybe some of your customers are moving over there. Can you join them? Or is, I don't know, what can you say about it? Germany is a tough market to enter. We needed some time to realize that basically it's not like France or Belgium or Holland where you have one central center of decision, but it's a very decentralized market with all local heroes in eight different markets. So that's been a difficult one. I think we will have to focus on some submarkets. I will tell you more about that later on, but we think we have to focus on some submarkets in order to be successful, in order to become local heroes instead of trying to cover the entire country. That's an important one. If we look at the yields, if there are transactions today, it remains very difficult for us, as in every market, to do standing investments. Why were we able to do the Hamburg transaction? Because it's a land lease. German investors don't like land leases. They want freehold. So the land lease sets you apart from a lot of German local investors. And next to that, we were able to renegotiate the land lease with the Port Authority of Hamburg. And that really made the deal attractive for us. It took over a year to do the deal because we had long negotiations with the Port Authority. But that made the deal interesting for us. Now, this being said, if you want to go into a market on our model where you say it will probably not be standing investments, it will be land lease, it will be developments, it will be partnerships, then you need those boots on the ground. You need those local teams. And as I said, it's 12 people in France now. It's seven people in Germany. I don't feel the need to add a fifth or sixth country today on that model because it would mean that you would immediately have to hire five, six, seven people. Let's now focus on those two markets. Let's focus on France. Let's focus on Germany. Let's get some results there, and then we'll see where the wind brings us, but today, it's full focus on France and Germany. Thank you for the presentation. Two small questions. First is on the loan-to-value. It's still below 35%. Is this a target? And how do you see it in the future? Is there a possibility maybe to go to a little higher level? And then you have an official triple B plus rating now. What do you think if there will be an impact on, for example, spreads in the future? Or do you think it's just confirmation of the quality of your balance sheet? For the EPRA LTV target, we don't have a real target, but 35% is not a target, let's say it like that. But internally, of course, to prepare our budget, we take into account a certain threshold, which is around 40% indeed. And in terms of spreads linked to the BBB + Fitch rating, it will have a really marginal impact because today, the banks, they already take into account the fact that we were BBB or BBB plus solid investment grades. So I don't think that will change very, very fast. So you don't have the ambition to move the market into a bigger deal and maybe lower spreads? I think we will first stick to the bank facilities. 40% is coming from the bank, so there is still margin to go and get the cheaper financing, the funding. And then secondly, of course, there is the private placement market next to the commercial paper market in which we are not active yet, which might be an option for EUR 100-EUR 150 million of new funding at, of course, lower spreads, but that will have an impact on the average remaining term, so there we will have to do the trade-off, but a public bond issuance won't happen in the near future. I think we are too small to get EUR 300 or EUR 500 million at once with one maturity date. Francesca. Maybe just a follow-up question on his questions. How do you see the cost of that evolving for 2025 and what you consider for the guidance? We think it will continue or remain stable at 2.3%. That was the percentage of 2024. We target for a maximum cost of debt on average of 2.5% till the end of 2027. This is linked to the combination of bank funding, commercial paper, and private placement market, where the latter is the most expensive one. I don't think there are any questions remaining around the room. No questions in the room. Then we will move to the ones online. Our first question comes from Callum Marley from Kolytics. Callum, please unmute yourself and go ahead. Callum? Hello. Can you hear me? Sorry, I wasn't unmuting. Just two questions, please. First one is a lot of good slides in the slide deck on the supply side. Can you just comment on what you're seeing on the demand side of things, particularly in each of the submarkets, given the very different political and macro environments? And then just secondly, you might have already touched on this, but just looking at where your share price is today, obviously you did the rights issue a few months ago. Your net debt to EBITDA is kind of close to maybe that self-imposed threshold. How are you thinking about capital recycling or capital raising as of today to get you to that Track27 target? Thanks for your question. I think on the demand side, we see there is still traction. There are still possibilities, mostly linked to sectors like e-commerce, of course, is a very important one. We think that, of course, Amazon is back in the market, a very important one. We see them in every country today. They are looking back at opportunities. Next to that, food, pharma are, of course, very interesting in the market. And of course, Germany is struggling with the automotive sector. That's not a secret. But in short, I think it is very important to look, and that's what we try to do in this presentation. It's very important to look at the micro markets. There can be huge differences within one country. I showed you the example of Belgium between 0% and 12%. So it's really a sub-market play that is very important now. On your second question, I will ask Els to elaborate on that. Yes, so indeed, we are today at just a net debt to EBITDA of 6.9. There we have an investment capacity of more than EUR 600 million available to grow to that eight times. Of course, under Track27, it will mean that we will do the first EUR 600 million only by debt. But for the investment volume that we target for 2025, we see that this can be done through debt. That's clear. Thank you. Thank you. Of course, we leave the options open for contributions in kind and other capital increases next to public capital increase or an ABB transaction. Thank you, Callum. Next question is from Thomas Rothaeusler from Deutsche. Thomas, good morning. Please go ahead. Couple of questions. The first one actually is on the pre-let activity. I mean, possible to get any more color on what we can expect for this year? I know you are cautious to comment, but would you say you feel more confident now than three or six months ago? And then the second one is overall on dynamics of demand, given the weak economic outlook overall in Western European countries. What would you say at what point of the cycle would you say we stand currently? I mean, do you think we are already through the trough? I mean, one of your peers has recently switched to a more positive tone here. And also here, more specifically, is it correct you basically stick to the more cautious view on the retention rate? So you expect it a bit lower, I think, than historically. Thirdly, on the ERV momentum and reversionary, just wondering if you can provide more color on that. It has been a driver, I think you mentioned Netherlands. Yes, I think that's it. Thanks for your questions. It's not a problem of confidence. I think we absolutely believe we have the right product on the right location. We have the candidates in place, but there has been, so there's basically on the fundamentals, there are no questions, and it's also shown by the, as you mentioned, the rent reversion, so there is no question. It's just about parties having the courage again to take decisions, companies being able to take decisions again, and there has been an absolute standstill in 2024. I wouldn't want to talk about confidence. We are confident about the quality of the product, but when we talk about getting those deals signed, I would like to prove it. I would like to be here back with you guys in six months and really be able to tell of the 300,000, we're having 100 to 150 in development. Let's wait for that signal. My personal target, as I mentioned in the presentation, we delivered new projects, 100,000 last year. We will deliver this year 120,000. That is now already in execution. Then we should be able to add at least 100,000 this year. But it really depends on those parties taking the decision. It's always, it's about two or three deals. That's what we're talking about. Yes, I feel confident due to the quality of the product, but it will be a tough market because it's tough decisions to take because it's about new buildings. Of course, the reversion is that you see that the occupancy rate in our existing portfolio remains very high, 99.9%, as Inna mentioned. Even if we would take 20% of those that are not committed yet, we would leave it, we would still be above 98%. The resilience of the existing portfolio because of that clear focus on the core locations and core quality is now really paying off. That's where we believe in. Retention, as Inna mentioned, 96% in 2024 is really high, our retention and reletting. That's very good. Of course, rent reversion, yes, it was mentioned last year. I don't think we will see major step-ups over the next year. It's about getting that gap. It's about closing that gap between our current rent and our ERV and the famous 12%. It's good to see that over the last year, on average, we were able to close that gap. We have to continue working on that. We don't see, as I already mentioned, any pressure on the rents. I think looking at it as we did in the presentation on a larger scale, if you compare it to the U.K., if you compare it to the European average, let's not forget we are in the four markets with the highest scarcity. It's the four markets where take-up has always been higher than what can be brought to the market. The amount is higher than what can be brought to the market. There is absolute confidence that the rent levels will be sustainable. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Our next question comes from John Vuong from Kempen. John, please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. Can you hear me? Hi, John. Hi. Just Just on the reversionary potential, it continued to increase in Q4. Just to confirm, is this fully driven by the ERV revision in the Netherlands? It's not entirely just the Dutch revaluation, but it has played the largest part, and indeed, if you look at the split of our reversion of the 12%, a big part of it, if you look at the entire portfolio, it's actually linked to our German acquisition in Hamburg as well. It's significantly under-rented compared to where it currently stands on the market. Okay, clear. And just to follow up on that, how much of that do you expect to capture in 2025? I think if you look at the fact that we already did 58% of our leases that were coming to break or expiry, that has already been done. What's coming up, so the remaining 42%, you could roughly say about half of that would be linked to purely breaks. So there we don't have any flexibility. It's just in tenants' hands to basically continue or to tell us that they would like to leave. To mention on that, we have a six-month notice period. So we know well ahead if the tenant is willing to leave. And on the remaining part, I think we remain quite cautious because we do see that the market is more challenging. I think generally speaking, it's not only speaking about a specific sector. There have been more bankruptcies. So I think we take a more cautious stance on that. In case you're looking for more guidance on where like-for-like would go for 2025, we are predominantly basing ourselves on an average inflation rate of about 2%. Okay, clear. Thank you. And just on that demand, I think you mentioned that occupiers need courage to make decisions. What's in your view necessary to bring back that courage? A bit of stability in the market, but that would be idle hope, I think. I sometimes compare it to a household that's having a bit of a cash issue that has lost its job and mom is in between jobs and there's a bit of a cash issue and they decide not to buy new shoes for the kids. They can postpone that for one month. They can postpone it for two months, but one day they will have to buy new shoes for all the kids at the same time, and that's what we see in a lot of sectors. People are reluctant and they're all reluctant at the same moment, and then at a certain moment, they feel the confidence again and they see with their competitors that they're confident again, and then all of a sudden, they all want to move again. So that's a bit of the, yeah, the cyclicality that's in every market, I think. But we come out of a market where there's been kind of a standstill or a significant slowdown, but there are obviously signs that there is recovery. But let's see for the signed deals before we open up the champagne. All right. Very clear. Thank you. Thanks, John. Thank you, John. Our next question comes from Steven Boumans from ABN AMRO ODDO. Steven, good afternoon. Go ahead. Sorry. So I have two questions. First, if I'm correct, it seems that one of the French pre-lets, but non-permitted projects fell out of the pipeline. Why is that? That's correct. There are two projects that were leased, but waiting for a tenant. The first one has gone up to execution. Waiting for permit. Sorry, waiting for permit. Excuse me. Leased waiting for permit. One in Holland went up to in execution. That's when we're building for Vos Logistics in Oss. One dropped out because the tenant told us that basically he doesn't need the extension right away. It will probably be something for 2026 or 2027. We took that one out indeed. Okay, clear. Thank you. Different question on energy and solar. It's a couple of questions. So first, what's a reasonable range for your energy income and how much energy income is in your 25% budget? And the second, maybe some color on what percentage is more or less fixed due to contracts or certificates and which part is more available to short-term energy prices. And the third is, could you remind us how the revaluations of solar assets work and why the value is down like EUR 60 million quarter on quarter? I will take that one. I will start with your last question, Steven. So on the valuation, indeed, we have booked a negative revaluation on solar panels of EUR 16 million in the course of 2024. The main reason is, as you know, the solar or the energy prices, especially the intraday energy prices, have been very volatile over the course of the year. And effectively, what this means, in some cases, they even went negative. So what is now included in our valuation assumptions was the adjustment of where we originally, where the original estimates on the energy prices have been. I think going forward, what we are looking to do also to mitigate the impact of the fluctuating energy prices, first and foremost, it's to utilize our battery storage system. So in this case, we can also smoothen out any pressure that there is on the energy grid. At the same time, we will also have curtailment measures, in which cases we can effectively, in where there are no solar, let's say, battery storage systems available, we can effectively shut down the generation in case the energy prices are negative during the day, but the idea is to really, if we look at the actual utilization rate of the energy we produce on our warehouses, currently it's around 35%, so what is really being used by our tenants, and the idea for us is with the introduction of our battery storage systems that we would really utilize as much as possible and also have a third-party management system for us that would be able to help us, let's say, play on the energy markets to optimize the revenue. On the points regarding our income for 2025, if it's okay for you, we'll take that one offline and we'll provide you with the exact breakdown. Roughly 7%-8% of our top line income is coming from solar panels. 7%-8%. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And our next question comes from Kanad Mitra from Barclays. Kanad, good afternoon. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you for taking my question. So a couple of questions. How do you see your yield on cost trending? I think the last time we spoke in Q3, it was slightly above 7%. So are you seeing in your pre-letting discussions rents ticking up? That's one. And the other one is in terms of occupational markets, how do you see warehouse utilization going? Because there was a point that came up in our last conference call. I think it was you saw a slowdown to more normalized levels of 80%-90%. And generally, how are pre-letting discussions going on? So I mean, how much can you move on letting execution over the next few months? I didn't catch the first question on the 7%. Could you repeat that question, Kanad? You said something about 7% in your first question. Was that rent reversion? Yes. Yield on Cost. Cost. Cost. Yeah. The yield on cost, excuse me. Yeah. So the yield on cost of 7% for in-house development for the pipeline, we already communicated that's still 7%. Why? Because this is, of course, land we bought time ago. So if we see the increase in the rental levels and we compare that to the construction cost, we are still able to get that 7%. For new land bank, for new opportunities, it will probably be around 6.5%, roughly between 6.25% and 6.75%. But based on a pre-let basis, so zero risk on the development itself. So yeah, the 7% for new developments we add to that land bank will be challenging. So roughly around 6.5%. But the 7% on the one we already earmarked in 2023 now, that is still very valid. As said on the reversion, as Inna mentioned, 12% last year, that should be the target again this year on those where we have the opportunity to renegotiate. Because let's be very clear, more than half of the leases that are included in that 9% are breaks only for the tenants. So we cannot renegotiate the rent there. It's just a break option from their side. So it's only in a limited part where we are able to renegotiate. But that 12% on that part should be the target again, given the fact that current rent is 12% below ERV today. Sorry, I was asking about warehouse utilization. I think in the last conference call, I think you said they were down to pre-COVID levels or a more normalized level of 80%, 90%. Do you see anything? Yeah. Yeah. Occupancy rate? The utilization rate of the warehouse. The utilization rate within the building, yeah . Yes, they are back at normal levels between 80% and 90%. That is indeed still the case. Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Also just on yield on cost, just one follow-up. You see construction cost kind of offsetting the rent increases that you are getting if you were to have a pre-let today. I think at some point it was slightly above 7%, if I recall correctly, based on kind of a spot level what you saw then. What is important in the construction of a logistics warehouse is that basically the part that is linked to wages is lower than in other sectors. Roughly 40% of the total construction cost is linked to wages. 60% is material cost. We are less impacted by the indexation of wages. And that makes construction cost, of course, much less impacted in total for us than in some other asset classes. This being said, we also see that some of the order books of the construction companies are under pressure, which gives us some more leverage to negotiate. Construction cost is absolutely under control in all four of our countries today. Thank you. Thank you for taking the questions. Thank you, Kanad. Thank you, Kanad. I don't think we have any additional questions online. Last check around the room. Yes? Geert. Please go ahead. Yes. On taxation, maybe when we discuss that, we'll be not hungry anymore, but okay. On the Netherlands, so we have said yesterday, so for acquisitions, they will first look to Belgium and to Luxembourg. What is your position? Will you use a higher yield requirement to compensate for that, or don't you bother? You mean the abolishment of the FBI status? The abolishment of the FBI status also gives us some opportunities. It was a very strict regulation. We were not allowed to sell services. We were not allowed to sell energy. So it also had its limitations. So it will also give us some opportunities to do more business than what we did in Holland before. And I think the effective tax rate on the total portfolio. If you look at the new developments for the Netherlands, the effective tax rate of those new developments, if they are green, BREEAM, outstanding, or excellent, then that would mean that the effective tax rate is 0% for the first five to nine years. So if we add that on top of the fact that the normal effective tax rate of assets that were FBI previously, that is around 7%. The average new effective tax rate for the coming years is below 4%. Okay. And then there was talk about a change in the tax treaty with France, which would have an impact on the dividends received from France. Can you say something on? And then at the same time, maybe first you can answer that. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, because of the fact that there was no government and we have some issues to get something in place with five governments, that we don't know when it will be applicable. But indeed, there are thoughts to increase the branch tax from 5% to 25%. The dividend upstream coming from France is very limited. So today, looking at absolute figures, the taxation that we pay in France is less than EUR 200,000. And then, yeah, indeed on that dividend upstream, because if you pay dividend on, if you pay tax on dividend from the Netherlands or Germany or France, it's not showing up in the consolidated results. So it's normal. It's not consolidated. Can not consolidated. Can you say something about, in fact, some cash leakage? If only you pay 5% on the dividends coming from Germany, that's limited. There is some impact. So how do you deal with that? So I've been discussing this with two or three REITs recently. So very complicated. And yeah, that's why. Yeah, but for Germany, there is no dividend upstream because there we pay taxes. So we don't apply for the REIT regime. And then for the Netherlands and France, there is an upstream that, or at least for the Netherlands, there is an upstream that has been done. But for France, there is just a taxation. There is no obligation to do the upstream. Okay. Thank you. Frédéric, here's the last question. The last one. Just so we have been discussing yield on cost, obviously, of projects. I was just wondering if you are also thinking about the IRR of some projects. Because, for instance, if I look at Lummen, I think the project in Lummen has been discussed for, I don't know, four, five years now. Is it the first time you bought the land? Yeah. I'm just wondering if at some point in time, you're like, "Okay, I know I have to boost my IRR, which is actually the return I will be making on my equity. And I will be giving maybe more rent incentive to attract someone in order to meet that IRR, even if it means a yield on cost below 7%. I couldn't agree more. I always say, and I mentioned it already in this meeting also, we are a developer and an investor. But that means we also have to have the DNA of the developer, which means although we don't immediately need the cash of that land, there is some debt capital there. Luckily, I have a CFO who was trained by a developer. So she mentions it a lot that indeed the land bank, you have the yielding land bank, that's fine. That's 5.8%. That's great. But the non-yielding, so you have the yielding land bank, then you have the part where we have land under option. That's fine too. But it's, of course, the part where we bought the land and we don't have a project. I would say the internal target is we need to deploy it in the next two to three years. And Lummen is, of course, the example in the portfolio where we would have thought in 2019 that it would have been long developed by now. We have been in exclusive negotiation with several parties over those years, but we were not able to close the deal. And of course, it's part of the assessment we do on a six-month basis. Do we want to keep this? Now, what I can tell you specifically on that case is that if we look at the price we bought it and the interest, capitalized interest that we have had on it, if we capitalize them, we are still well below the current market value. So for us, it's not a bleeder. And we will take all measures not to let it become a bleeder. So we are still perfect in line there with our ambitions. But you're absolutely right. This is an assessment we need to do on a yearly basis. We cannot have that capital in the company. We have this obligation toward the shareholders on EPS growth, and we will not allow to have that capital in the portfolio. I fully agree. Yes. I'm going to be annoying for you guys. Sorry, one last one. Just a bit of a view on your land bank. How much is potentially coming to an end? And how do you react in the current market? Are you rather looking to extend it further with existing tenants and say, "Let's wait one year, two years at lower rent, but at least I'm more flexible to redevelop when demand will be stronger"? Or are you saying, "Yeah, let's go for it. Demand is going to get back. We can maybe add it back to the pipeline"? I I can quantify a bit what is coming back to you recently. For us, the definition of the yielding land bank is actually its assets. We have an acceptable income today, and the 5.8%, that's acceptable. It's not great. It's just below our hurdle rate of 6%, but it's good. But we see that there is more potential once the current tenant would leave. So we have to see an upside. Otherwise, it's not a yielding land bank. If something happens to the tenant and you have a problem, then it's not a yielding land bank. So all of them have an upside once the tenant would leave. So to say now, "Oh, let's hope they're not leaving this year because it might be better in two years," that's not the case. It's all on strategic land, on strategic locations. So for us, all of them are absolutely, we're looking forward to redeveloping them. Of course, they are well spread over time. As I said, there is land that will become available in 2026, but there is also land that will become available in 2036. So basically, it's well spread over time. And that's why I remember when we had the same discussion two years ago, everybody was saying, "Yes, but you're going to use that land bank and you will not be able to replenish it." I think we have proven now that we are able to find opportunities in the market, in all of our markets. So yeah, and they all, I want to be very clear on that, they all have upside once they would become available. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining. Thanks for all your very interesting questions. Thanks for joining. And for people on the call, thanks. I hope to see you soon in person on one of our road shows. Thank you very much. Thank you.