Good morning, everybody. Good morning from Wolvertem. I think I can start with the headline of our new annual results book of 2023, c onfident in what lies ahead. I would say very confident in what lies ahead. And I think we can say that it is proven by our Q1 results. You can see that we were able to add EUR 200 million direct income-generating assets into our balance sheet and let the portfolio grow to the rounded figure of EUR 7 billion. Besides this, we still have a very nice investment pipeline of EUR 500 million and the combination of developments, acquisitions, energy investments. So a very nice further deployment of our capital. And all of this is indeed based on a unique balance sheet with loan-to-value of 34% and, more important, net debt to EBITDA of 6.6. With all of this, we can confirm our EPS growth for 2024 growing up to EUR 1.47. And I think, and very important in this stage, for the first time since five quarters, we see an uplift in our portfolio value of EUR 25 million. EUR 25 million on the EUR 200 million extra new investments. So I think and I see spring in the air. I see spring in our results even when outside spring is not there yet an d we blended well. I think we can say that #BLEND 2027 is well received internally, externally. I think we started the year with a very clear new plan building further on our strong fundamentals. And not only the strong fundamentals of WDP, but, very important, it is based on built and disciplined, built on indeed very strong and good structural demand drivers and sound market dynamics. Yet there is still good demand. It normalized. Let's say we have to work again when a building becomes free, but we are used to work for it. That's our main and basic knowledge. So we know to do that. Besides this, we see indeed further very nice negotiations with our clients on our land bank to, let's say, to do further new developments. Indeed, in this time of an economic downturn, it takes a little bit longer. We can still see a lot of very positive negotiations within our different teams and different regions. Like I said, we could load our balance sheet out of EUR 200 million direct yielding assets at an average yield of 9%. Besides the EUR 500 million investment pipeline that is running, and above all this, we have almost 2 million sq m of development potential within the balance sheet. But even there, I think the most important is that we planted our flag again in France. And by, let's say, finalizing and realizing the investment of EUR 75 million that we announced in the ABB, we could let the portfolio grow towards EUR 250 million again. So I think this proved also to the market, to the brokers, to our colleagues, that we are, let's say, active again. And we feel that in France, the market is open and that we can grow. We see, again, possibilities. While, on the contrary, for the moment, Germany is still too expensive. There, let's say, a lot of people are still thinking below cost, the cash costs of capital. And then also very important, we could extract value out of the existing portfolio with an indexation of the leases by more than 3%. And we could get a positive rent reversion for 100,000 sq m of 15% in the existing portfolio. And even after an indexation of 3% and 50% higher rents in a small part of the portfolio, we still stay far below market rents. And the reversionary potential, it's still 13%. In the meantime, of course, permanently, we stay neutralizing and we keep on investing in our PV capacity and further on in our energy infrastructure. All of this based on the balance sheet, like I said. And important is there that we still have almost EUR 2 billion of free credit lines. So we have the capability to grow further. And we have the money to realize our BLEND program. And we could already use and, let's say, directly invest more than 50% of the ABB of last December. So let's say we could let the work and the money work for us. So I think this is indeed a perfect start of the year. Yes, Q1, it is only the start. A lot of things are in a start-up mode. But I think it's a perfect start of the year. And to show a little bit how we can create value. And before answering all your questions, I would like to give some color on a very nice project and using it, using this example of the way how WDP creates value. After two years of negotiation with the seller, local authorities, public authorities, we could finalize this deal developed. For the Belgian online, let's say, it is the famous Chinese. It is the place of the famous Chinese trade park of Mr. Kris Peeters more than 10 years ago. It is old ideas. It is an old brownfield, a not used piece of land for more than 30 years. But it was a very complex soil remediation, a soil remediation which is EUR 18 million and which will take one and a half year. But if you calculate, you will see that the soil remediation has a cost of more, it is more than the land value. So we had to find solutions. Therefore, we could also add some extra investments to the portfolio. But important is that by the end of 2025, we will be ready for a new unique development and the hotspot of logistics in Belgium, Willebroek, along the logistic highway, the A12, in the middle of the big cities Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent, and Leuven. And we even launched on LinkedIn a request for innovative ideas to get all the ideas out of the market to create a unique project. And in the meantime, let's say, by taking over this difficult brownfield redevelopment, we could also add three small units to our portfolio, but very nice ones. And it are three times high-value logistics: one art logistics, top-class art logistics, pharma logistics, and tech logistics. So really high-value logistics at the right place, generating direct income. And another advantage of brownfield developments is that you don't have to pay the land directly. Let's say you can pay the land step by step during the remediation. So let's say it's very nice, complex deals, value creation, I would say, development projects with brains for the future. This is one of those little examples on where we try to create value every day with our different teams in the different countries. But I told enough now. Let's say let's go to the questions. To everyone, we're now open for the Q&A. Please raise your virtual hand. We already have the first question coming in from Frédéric from Kepler. Yes. Hi, guys. Good morning. I appreciate the new deal you just presented, which looks very exciting for you. I'm just curious, if I look at the Q1 in terms of new project that you found in Q1, you had EUR 10 million in Romania. To me, from an historical point of view, it looks relatively limited. How do you see that evolving through the quarters? Well, I think I answered that, let's say, indirectly, Frédéric. Yes, indeed, it is only EUR 10 million in Q1. But I think it is also normal. Q1 is always the start, let's say, people starting to negotiate, to discuss with us about new projects. But most of them, let's say, the two most important finalizing moments are before summer and before the year end. And there, Q1 and Q3 are always the most, let's say, the moments when we work the hardest but when you don't see the results yet. But I can say that there are indeed that we are in the different platforms negotiating different, very nice projects. And I would not say less than last year on the contrary. Okay. Maybe a second on one. You mentioned that you have to do more work when it's vacant to attract 10 rents versus maybe two years ago, one year ago. Can you describe a bit what you do? And is it through higher rental incentives, or how can we read that? Thank you. No, it's not, let's say, but at a certain moment, one year, one and a half years ago, let's say, even when a building became free, you knew there was no end and somebody called directly even before it was empty. And now, let's say, we have to put it on the website again, to speak with the brokers, to do the normal job. But it's not, let's say, you can still rent it at the new rental levels, at the rental levels we wanted. And it's not that, let's say, we have to give more rental incentives. No, it is just, yeah, you need to communicate that you have a possibility that there is normal work. All you have to do is the normal work of letting out a building in a market characterized by scarcity with upward prices. But the last couple of years, it was also crazy because the building was already left before it became empty. And there was no frictional vacancy. Now it's just the normal letting process in a scarce market. But without price discussion and without any negative price discussion. All right. And then a last one from me. I see you signed a EUR 300 million package with IFC. Can you comment on the level of spread of the loan? Yeah. So it's a deal with IFC to deploy to Romania. It's a term loan which we will gradually take over the next 18 months. It comes at a spread over Euribor just below 150 basis points. But I need to add that this is the pricing level for a big ticket mid-last year when prices were still higher. It's a big ticket with IFC. It took some time to close, which is normal for this kind of procedures. If we would do it now, it would be 25 basis points lower. You said 100 bps, right? 100, it just the margin. The credit spread is just below 150 bp s. Okay. Thanks. But if it were today, it would be 25 basis points lower. This was just, yeah, the price of mid-last year high. Okay. Understood. Thank you very much. Next question from Wim Lewi, KBC Securities. Yes. Hi. Good morning. I hope you can hear me. Yes. Okay. Fine. I've got two questions. One is also going further into the Willebroek brownfield, very interesting. You explained that the cost remediation was even more than the land value. Can you just explain a little bit what the issue exactly was with the seller? I'm not that familiar with the A12? Well, let's say it is, let's say, after fully analyzing the soil and together with a very specialized but internationally known soil remediation company, DEME, also known as the Dredging Group, let's say, we came out at an approved by OVAM soil remediation of EUR 18 million. If you then divide EUR 18 million by 50,000 sq m, you come at EUR 360 per sq m, which is more than land value. The seller had to compensate it by adding those very small but very interesting value added and high-value logistic buildings in order, let's say, to get to a neutral result. And just to add, because you mentioned, I'm not familiar with the A12. It is just on that site. There is a problem with that site. Actually, just that site on which there is polluted material. And it needs to be removed. We made the assessment. And we deducted it in full from the price of the other buildings we acquired. So we will just in the end, for us, it will be economically after the soil remediation, it will be economically as if we buy the land at market value. And we deducted the full soil remediation of the overall price of the transaction. And it is covered by it is back to back. By a specialist in soil remediation. So, for example, then we got this all for free. But now we have to invest in the soil remediation. Okay. You refer to Kris Peeters. Is the Flemish government involved at all in this project? No, no, no, no. It was 10 years ago. For those with a good memory, 10 years ago, Kris Peeters announced a big new Chinese trade park on that piece of land. But nobody ever realized it because nobody could overcome the soil remediation. We did. We realized, let's say, in a tripartite between OVAM or for OVAM, the community, the seller, and we, and DEME. DEME as a guarantor. Okay. So that's all clear. Okay. My second question was on the cost of debt. You explained in your results that the proactive hedging pushed down the cost of debt to 1.7 from 1.9. Is there more potential for that, or is that kind of that potential used up now? Yeah. We didn't sign any new hedges. It is based on the hedges we signed predominantly in early 2022. In early 2022, we signed EUR 1 billion of hedges at almost 0%. We still benefit from that. It's also a bit of a technical effect because we are slightly overhedged today after the ABB. Because then technically, you reduce the amount of debt and save your interest cost on the variable interest rate loans. The benefits of the hedges, which are in the money, is still there. That's why technically, the cost of debt came down a bit quarter-on-quarter with 20 bp s to 1.7%. For the remainder of the year, it will increase a bit as we draw again on the floating rate credit facilities. But it will still be this year below 2%. Right. If it ends pro rata, as you spent like two-thirds of the capital increase, that 2/3 of the overhedge has been used up. Is that a fair assumption? Yeah. We look at more at the global level. And the hedge ratio came down from 120% to 112%. And by summer, it should also further decline. And by the end of the year, it should return back to 100%. Okay. All right. Thanks. Those were my questions. Marios from Bernstein. Hi. Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. It's Marios here from Bernstein. Just a couple of remaining questions from my side. I noticed you mentioned a few times about negotiating, leasing, and the development pipeline. I noticed that it was the pre-letting progress was pretty flat in the period hovering around the 70% level. Any comments you can provide on how quickly we could expect this to advance over the coming quarters and the negotiations you're having? And then secondly, just on your operating margin, noticed that ticked down year-over-year. Again, any comments you can provide and what you expect in terms of trends throughout the year? Thank you. First one. Yeah. So let's say the pre-leasing ratio of 17% was indeed, let's say, not that we changed our strategy to start developments unless but it was due, like we said in the year results. It was due to some specific reasons. Let's say in Grimbergen, it was that we won a tender and could, let's say, get the project. But it was with a promise also there to do the soil remediation and to realize that brownfield development. And then the promise was there that we had to start also with the development. The other one was in Schiphol. And so let's say it's not a change of strategy. It's a little bit more specific due to specificities of some projects. But we are confident that it will be used up by completion. Absolutely. And then the second question on the operating margin, which is indeed down year-on-year to 89%, but that has a specific reason because in last year, there was a one-off of EUR 2 million in the G&A expenses, a positive one-off. And that fell away. So that's why year-on-year, the margin has dropped. And also know that in Q1, because of the fact that we need to reflect as a result of IFRIC 21, all the property taxes which are net at the charge of the WDP, we need to reflect that in our results. That Q1 is always the quarter with the lowest operating margin. And it was perfectly in line with the budget, with our internal budget for which the full-year budget is in our annual report. The full-year budget has an operating margin target of just over 90% consistent with that year figure. Very clear. Thank you. Just on the pre-letting, I take your point on the specific reasons. But should we expect this to continue to tick up over the year but probably remain a bit below prior levels because of these specific reasons? Yes, yes, yes. It will gradually be used up towards completion. Exactly. And in the meantime, when we add projects, they should normally be pre-leased conform our strategy. Great. Thank you very much. A question from Inna from Petercam. Yes. Good morning. Thank you very much for the presentation. Two questions from my side just to come back on Marios's question on the operating margin. The main increase from what I see is related to the G&A expenses. Is it fair to assume that the one-off was related to that specifically, the one-off from last year? Yeah, yeah. It was in the G&A expenses. Plus EUR 2 million was a one-off in the G&A expenses of last year. Okay. The target margin for 90% that is communicated for 2024, should we assume that this is something that you will be targeting also going forward? Yes, absolutely. Yeah. We try to copy the profitability of our existing business model as we go further and expand. And that is an operating margin of at least 90%. Yes, that's our assumption. Okay. That's clear. Thank you. And then just a last question on the markets because we've started to see quite an uptick in terms of transactions, certainly in France. And I think some of your peers have commented that they're seeing quite a few more potential acquisitions opportunities. Could you perhaps comment on how you experienced this and also, yeah, if there are any particular markets that really stand out? Well, like I said, Inna, I think, yes, we see a reopening of the French market. I think people accept the new cost of capital being, let's say, at least 5%. And there you see, let's say, step by step, new files coming to the markets. While on the contrary, in Germany, it's still difficult to accept that the cost of capital is 5%. I think or I would say the German market is still more frozen by NAV and the fact that they are still at 4.5%. In their valuation, they don't want to move because if they do something, it will change their NAV. And that is still at 4.5%. So that market is still frozen. Okay. That's clear. Is there any particular background in terms of sellers that are looking or are placing the assets on the market? No. But different from small to big ones, people who waited, of course, the last two years. It also depends on the rotation. Yeah. But it's not, let's say, that it would look as distressed or whatever. It's more rotation in funds, people who have waited to sell and need to sell because they have a mandate in their funds, which has, for example, I think it's lifetime or some optimization in their. But it's not one sector or one niche specifically. No. There is more liquidity in the market and more things opening up gradually in France. Very clear. Thank you very much. Steven from ABN. Hi. Good morning. Of course, thank you for taking my questions. Besides France, you mentioned that Germany is a bit more close. But we see peers acquiring land and brownfield sites in Germany. So apparently, they disagree with you that Germany is closer to expensive. Do you have any idea why this is different, why you see this different than peers? Or could you comment on the availability of land and the land prices between France and Germany? It's different. What I meant, Steven, was on acquisitions. What I said was on the acquisition side. Earlier, you say it's about land and brownfield redevelopment. There, indeed, we have seen some transactions of our colleagues, let's say, who are deeper in the markets and who are, let's say, deeper in those markets and know, like we can realize here in Belgium, those kinds of deals, they were able to do that. They have bigger teams than we have in Germany. So there's a difference between land and acquisitions. And the difference between, yeah, land price, I think, yeah, that Germany has very high land prices. Now, depending on the region, it's also, of course, very yeah, the difference between, let's say, Eastern Germany or Leipzig versus Munich, that's totally different. That's different worlds. It's a big country. In France, land values, except around Paris, are still lower versus, let's say, the Benelux and Germany. There you still have, yeah, land stays cheaper. But even when it's cheaper, it's difficult to find. Okay. Clear. Are you expecting to increase your presence then in Germany? Maybe it has more to build teams there, or is that not in the plans? Yeah. We really have the intention to build out France and Germany. Let's say by 2027, we want to have two very nice portfolios with two teams, with two local teams and extra so that we can grow from three platforms to five platforms, let's say, by 2027. That's one of the main goals of #BLEND 2027. Okay. Very clear. Important this, Steven, that we want to do it profitable. We want to grow. We like to grow. But we want to do it profitable so that and of course, depending on how strategic it is, we can do something extra. But in the end, we want to grow from three platforms to five platforms in a profitable way. Yeah. Okay. That is very clear. Then my final question more broadly on the markets. So could you comment on the Dutch, Belgian, and Romanian markets, what vacancy levels are and how speculative developments are going, if they decrease or not? Steven, so in general, when you compare what's in European markets in the States, it is largely the same. When you're looking at Belgium or the Netherlands, you're looking at vacancy rates below 3%. And on micro markets, even lower. For example, in the Asse, it's 1 km from Brussels. In Romania, even when you're looking at vacancy rates, you're at a sub-5 level, which is historically one of the strongest markets over there. Even in the Bucharest region, you're at 4.5% where typically, the peers are developing more on a speculative basis. When you're looking at new speculative supply coming on the market, it's actually quite limited to around 10%-15% of annual data. Supply has actually come down and has been pre-letted approximately 70%-80%. So the risk on any supply overhang in the short term is relatively limited. Very clear. Thank you so much. And then we have another question from Kenneth from Barclays. Hello. Thanks for taking my question. Just looking at your acquisitions during Q1, I see it's very profitable, kind of 6.6% gross yields. When you compare it with your development pipeline yield and also the fact that pre-letted is kind of flat, how would you still kind of balance your property additions still more towards development, or would you take a different stance today? No, it's in function of the opportunities. We have always historically been, yeah, opportunistic in there in what is profitable. So in some cycles, you need to develop more. In other times, you can, again, acquire more. Now, in the recent years, we were full-fledged developments because the market was too expensive. Now, we live in a different world. And we think we can acquire more. It's just in function of the opportunities, in function of the specific location assets, and if it's a good addition to the portfolio and whether it's profitable. The bulk of our investment plans, #BLEND2027, is still the bulk of the CapEx. It's still built on the new pre-letted development projects and then supplemented by selective acquisitions. And we have never been there to market makers. If we can do some interesting off-market deals or buyouts with the neighbors in some of our locations, then we can do it. We have the money to grow further and to capture and snap up some deals. Thank you. And that's all from me. Frédéric, do you have a follow-up question? Yes. I just wanted to rebound on your comment, Joost, on Germany where you said that yield would be a bit considered too low today at 4.5% and needs to move up for you to really be considered as attractive. But then how can we interpret your net initial yield of 4.3% in your portfolio for Germany? Yeah. This 4.3% yield in our German portfolio needs to go up. That's for sure. Sorry, but yeah, it's ridiculous. That yield on 4.3% is just based on undervalued and based themselves on no transactions, on the historical transactions. There has been almost no liquidity in the German market because it is paralyzed by the NAV dilemma. If they sell at a higher yield, then they need to mark down their assets. We have already done that for the bulk of our portfolio. Germany is only small, but it will go up and converge towards the rest of Europe. We don't see a reason why that should be materially different. That's why I say that. I think it's proven also in our balance sheet that Germany is frozen by NAV. Yeah. And specifically, also, you have in our portfolio in Germany. There is also one important comment: it is also substantially under-rented. Yes. Substantially under-rented. Substantially under rented as well. But in any case, it will go up. Yeah. Okay. The relationship yield is actually much higher than the portfolio. Yeah. Okay. But then I appreciate that Germany is very small. But can we say that for the rest of the countries, at our prices, are now in line with the market, or? Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. In Germany, it is in line with all the valuations. Yeah. It's just our humble opinion that it should increase because we see the market as blocked as a result of it. But it is based on the valuations in each country. But in each country, it will go up. There are files today, Frederic, where people say, "If we don't have or we don't get a 4.5% net initial yield, we don't sell because our valuation is at 4.5%." Okay. Thank you. Yeah. It is what it is. It is what it is. Thank you very much. Yes, Monsieur? Yes. Good morning, gentlemen. Another question on that valuation. So Segro yesterday said that we have reached the bottom and that there is a turning point nearing. What can you say about that apart from Germany, of course? We follow that reasoning. Absolutely. You see it also in our results. Let's say the bulk of our Western European portfolio is valued at a net initial yield of 5%, which will also automatically already expand over the next 12 months by around 20 bps-25 bp s because of the reversion and the indexation. And that's perfectly in line with the market based on also the fact that we have a reversion yield over 6%. That's why I said spring was in our valuation. Yeah. And for the first time, you have now seen since Q4 of 2022, the underlying values of the existing portfolio have been flat in Q1. All right. Thank you. There was some specific talk about a renting or lease contract in the region of Liège at EUR 80 per sq m. It was not signed yet. But what can you say? Is that EUR 80 will not become the new normal, or is that a wet dream of some people? Liège is a specific region. Liège will never be a normal market. Let's say it will never be, let's say, the example for the rest of the market. Of course, we cannot speak about what is going on in the market if it's not signed. But let's say, let us be honest, EUR 80 is not the new normal in Belgium. Okay. Thank you. Then a small remark. I would like to thank you for the extended reporting here on Q1. So foreign competitors are reporting less. So maybe you should also do that in order to further improve your margin. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then we have a follow-up commentary, another question coming from Marios. Hello. Hey. Hi. Good morning. Sorry, camera wasn't working there. Just a quick question on the, I think, the general market consensus at the 4% versus 5%. But I think sellers want to sell at 4%. Sorry, buyers want to buy at 4%. Sellers want to sell at 5%. And how you're seeing that, so kind of in your transactions generally and how you're seeing that play out in your interactions with buyers and sellers. Yeah. I think things are reset. In Germany, it's difficult to make a deal. There are also less deals in Germany because of that. In France, it's more open yet. You have seen the. I think indeed, in France, the market is now, let's say, in France, also brokers accept the fact that the cash cost of capital is 5% and, let's say, doing developments are 7%. So that, depending on the location, the quality, the reversionary potential, that the acquisition market needs to be between 5%-7%. And that is also what brokers are advising to their clients. And, let's say, that range is accepted. While in Germany, also the brokers, a lot of the brokers say, "No, we don't want to see and we don't accept offers starting with a 5 because our market in Germany is still below 5%." And then the sellers say, "Yeah, our NAV is at 4.5%. If you don't offer 4.5%, we don't sell." And so we see portfolios that are already more than one year, two years on the market but who are not sold because people still hope. Mick calls it the strategy of the hope that they still hope to get 4.5%. And so they wait. And if you don't have to sell, you can wait. And then yes, sometimes you see a small deal for somebody who absolutely needs to buy. And then you see sometimes 4.5%, 4.77%. But that's not a real market. They're the people that, in general, the market does not accept the cash cost of capital of 5%. Yeah. I think the baseline is the reason why the French market is open, because sellers are cognizant of the fact that the NAV opportunity rises with 5%. All righ. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. No problem. Then we have a final question from Lucas. Hi. Yes. Thank you again for the presentation. I have a final question on the reposition, actually, of your company. I was reading in your annual report that the Netherlands from 2025 onwards now establishes abolishment. And as far as I know, you also have the status in Belgium and France. And could you maybe shed light on the position in these countries if in the future also this can be expected there or if this is not expected? No, we don't expect any changes there. Of course, the main one is the Belgian REIT regime, which is functioning well and which is a very important segment on the Brussels Stock Exchange. There are no specific talks or issues. I would say, on the contrary. It's still currently performing very well and considered as a very good regime, one of the best ones in Europe in terms of design and success. And I think that situation is a bit, yeah, specific. And it actually is opposite to the trend in Europe where more and more countries are adopting a REIT regime because they are aware of what it could bring, a stable, listed REIT regime for their country, for investments in infrastructure, for public savings through REITs. So there are no issues expected. To the contrary, and in the Netherlands, there is a bit of a pity situation. And it will be abolished as from 2025. Yeah. But in the Netherlands, it's not, let's say, the REIT regime which has been abolished, but it was a broader regime of which the REITs were only a small part of it. So it was site damage. Okay. Thank you. This concludes so far the Q&A. Unless anyone has another follow-up question. And in that case, I'd like to hand the word back to Joost. Thank you for the questions. Thank you for listening. I will say, yes, spring is coming. We are confident. We are, let's say, looking forward to realize our#BLEND20 27 project. We see a lot of possibilities and opportunities before us. We are supported by a very good and liquid balance sheet that we can use the coming period in order to realize all our plans. Thank you. See you soon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.