Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Conference Call of TAG Immobilien AG Regarding the Publication of the Annual Report 2020. May I now hand you over to Martin Thiel, CFO, who will lead you through this conference. Please go ahead, sir. Yeah, many thanks, good morning, everybody. This is Martin from TAG. Welcome to our conference call for the full year 2020. Thanks for dialing in. As always, let's start with page number four of the presentation. That's the highlights slide to summarize the main developments of the financial year 2020. Looking at the operational performance and starting in Germany, you see that we had a good development in vacancy reduction in the fourth quarter 2020. Vacancy was down by 30 basis points in the fourth quarter and ended up with 4.5%. That's a reduction by 60 basis points over the course of the second half of the year. In the total portfolio, vacancy stands now at 5.6%. The difference between the 5.6% in the total portfolio and the 4.5% in residential units is mainly the reason that we acquired portfolios of high vacancy rates in 2020. Like-for-rent growth, including vacancy reduction, came out at 1.5% compared to 2.4% in the previous year, weaker than last year and also honestly a little bit weaker than what we expected. Reason or main reason for that was clearly the pandemic, our voluntary waiver on rent increases for several months, during the course of 2020. FFO 1 came out at EUR 172.6 million, at the upper end of the already increased FFO guidance, which was between EUR 170 million and EUR 173 million. Comparing this with the previous year, that's a year increase from the FFO by 7%, not only in absolute amounts but also on a per share basis. Also the dividend will increase by 7%, the dividend proposal to the AGM, which will take place in May this year, will be EUR 0.88 per share. Looking at bottom of page number four, you see the portfolio valuation results. As every year, the portfolio was fully valued by CBRE, we achieved a total value growth of 7.5%. The 7.5% splits up into a 6.2% pure annual valuation uplift, the remaining difference of 1.3% is due to investments. The valuation remains from our side at still conservative levels, the TAG portfolio is now valued at EUR 1,100 per sq m or a 5.7% gross yields. Moving on to page number five. First of all, looking at acquisitions and disposals in Germany, we have acquired nearly 4,600 units in Germany at an average gross yield of nearly 7%. From our side or from our point of view, a clearly good acquisition year. Most of these acquisitions have already closed. A smaller part of these acquisitions, so I think something around 150 units, will close in the first half of 2021. We've been also active on the selling side, a little bit more than 1,000 units were disposed in financial year 2020. We'll come to the details a little bit later. Looking at Poland 2020, you know that was the first year we've been active on the Polish residential market. In 2020, the business in Poland was still a purely disposal business. The first rents will kick in from 2021 onwards, so 2020 was a year where we had sales revenues purely. The revenues from sales of properties came out at EUR 73.4 million. That was below the guidance of EUR 80 million to EUR 85 million, but that's nothing to worry about. We simply had some handovers that were originally scheduled for December 2020, now in January and February 2021. You see this a little bit below the table. 719 units were handed over in total in financial year 2020. 143 units originally scheduled for December have been handed over in January and February. That's not really an economic difference. That's more something technical. Reason for this postponement of the units were some permissions that we needed to finalize the handovers that were granted later than expected. Even though the revenues, as I said, more technically, were a little bit below guidance, the results from operations in Poland were within the guidance. EUR 9.1 million was here the final result, and that shows from our point of view that the business in Poland is very stable and that prices in Poland, so disposal prices, have even increased in 2020 despite the pandemic. Yeah, talking about the pandemic, please forgive us that we have not a separate slide as in the previous calls regarding the outcome of the pandemic. From our point of view, the situation is unchanged, so nothing really new. The business is very stable, very resilient. Rent deferrals are still of minor impact. The number of tenants in our residential units who are not paying the rent currently as an outcome of the pandemic is still something at 0.1% or 0.2%. You've seen that the vacancy rates have even been reduced in the third and fourth quarter 2020. The business is clearly on track. Talking about ESG, perhaps you're a little bit missing more details on ESG targets or on ESG reportings. We will do this with the Q1 results that we will publish in May 2021, after we have published our new sustainability report on the 22nd of April 2021. I'm now moving on to page number seven. That's the income statements. Just some remarks from my side about the main developments. First of all, I want to point out the strong improvement in the net income from services that grew year-over-year by EUR 5.1 million. We will see the details a little bit later. The main growth is here as the previous year, coming from the energy business and from the multimedia business. If you look at the net income from sales, you will see a figure and a total gain in 2020 of EUR 46.5 million. That's substantially higher than what we had in 2019. Out of this EUR 45.2 million, a little bit more than EUR 41 million is coming from sales in Germany. Here, this nearly completely refers to the closing of the stage 1 of the commercial project in Munich. You have to remember that we reported with the full year figures 2019 that we have signed the contract for the disposal of the first stage of this commercial project. It had in total two stages. The first project was a hotel that was now realized. Construction was finished, the hotel was handed over, and that led to this quite significant disposal gain of around EUR 40 million. The second stage of the project, by the way, will be completed in the course of 2021. This will be an office building. It's not yet decided when we start the selling process. We expect the signing of this disposal in 2021 or in 2022. One comment on the personal expenses. You see an increase here year-over-year by EUR 8.3 million. EUR 5.0 million is coming from the first-time consolidation of Vantage, so our new acquisition in Poland. An additional EUR 1 million is also coming from what is called a kind of corona bonus. Voluntary payment that we did to all our employees in the fourth quarter of 2020, who did really a great job in these difficult times of the pandemic. You see increased other operating expenses of EUR 4.3 million year-over-year. The main reason for that was already announced by us, I think with the Q3 results. There's a one-off effect of EUR 3.6 million. We established in 2020 a new foundation, the TAG Miteinander Stiftung, who will do social projects in our regions. That's also, if you want, a kind of increased engagement that we do as a result of the pandemic in social projects in TAG's regions. Moving on to page number eight that shows the EBITDA, FFO and AFFO calculation. First of all, looking at EBITDA. The EBITDA for the full year 2020 grew by EUR 7.6 million. Reasons for that is on one side, the higher net income for services that I already mentioned, and also clearly the higher net rental income of EUR 4.5 million. A good result is surely that also the EBITDA adjusted margin increased and stood now at close to 69% after 68% in the previous year. Looking at the FFO, I already mentioned that the FFO 1 increased by 7% year-on-year. If you look at the development quarter-on-quarter, you see a reduced FFO 1 in the fourth quarter, which is mainly driven by higher income taxes in the fourth quarter. If you look more detailed on page number eight, you see that the EBITDA in the fourth quarter increased compared to the previous quarter by around EUR 500,000. On the other side, we had EUR 1.4 million cash tax expenses in the fourth quarter, compared to EUR 1.8 million tax income in the third quarter. It was not unusual high cash tax rate that we had in the fourth quarter, but more a positive one effect for the third quarter 2020, where we had tax benefits from the repurchasing or the partial repurchasing of the outstanding convertible bond 2017-2022. On page eight, on the right side, you also see how we calculate the result operations Poland. That's the 9.1 million that I already mentioned. You see the bridge from the net income from Poland, where we add back the results or the effects from the purchase price allocation. This result from operations in Poland is a purely cash result from disposals in Poland after taxes, after minorities, and without any more technical impacts or effects from purchase price allocation. Moving on to page number nine, you'll find more details on the balance sheet. Just to summarize one or two points. You see the cash balance at the year-end is quite rich with more than EUR 324 million. The financial debt, the total financial debt in the non-current liabilities, stands now at EUR 2.9 billion. Just as an addition or as a comment, you see this also on the right side. We had further cash settlements of the convertible bond 2017-2022, which we already have repurchased by 50% in August this year. The outstanding nominal volume at year-end 2020 was EUR 82.8 million, and we repaid some of this outstanding convertible bonds in January. As of today, the outstanding nominal amount of this convertible bond is only EUR 17.5 million. On page number 10, you see the EPRA NTA calculation, which shows from our point of view, a good development at a 9% increase year-on-year. The EPRA NTA stands now at EUR 21.95. You see in a footnote that we did not add back transaction costs when calculating the EPRA NTA. We know that there is currently a discussion and there are differences within the peer group. If you add back this transaction cost, which is mainly when you say transfer taxes or not, to arrive at the EPRA NTA, we decided to do it not because we consider the situation about retro pre-share deals in Germany is very uncertain. If we want a more conservative approach that we're doing here. If we would do that, if we would do this adding back of the transaction costs, you see this in the footnote, the EPRA NTA per share would stand at EUR 25.23 per share. Just if you want to compare this with other calculations. Page number 11 shows the financing structure. The average maturity of the total financial debt is nearly unchanged and at close to seven years. The average interest rate of the total financial debt has been decreased to 1.4%. There's still refinancing potential. Looking at the years 2021-2023, at bank loans that are maturing over the interest terms are ending. The average coupon of this bank loans still stands at 2.7%. As we are today financing new 10-year bank loans below 1%, we will see further interest cost savings in the future. Page number 13 shows you an overview of the portfolio, Germany and Poland. The total GAV stands now at close to EUR 6 billion. The very largest part of that is still coming from the German portfolio. The GAV of the Polish portfolio is EUR 150 million at year-end 2020. As you know, this will grow significantly over the next years. 88,000 units in Germany and the units in Poland that are already secured. Our total contractually secured pipeline in the meanwhile adds up to EUR 8,742. Page 14 shows the rental growth and the CapEx allocation. I already mentioned that the total rental growth stood at 1.5%, including vacancy reduction. You see a detailed split on the bottom left of page number 14, how this rental growth is composite. Total maintenance and CapEx in EUR per sq m was slightly increased from EUR 20.4 per sq m to EUR 21.6. That's more or less in line with the development that you have already seen in the course of the year and also unchanged if you look at the full year results regarding the regions where we allocated our CapEx and Chemnitz and Berlin regions. We are still clearly in the focus of our investments. Page 15 shows the vacancy development. As I already mentioned, good development in the third and fourth quarter 2020. 4.5% was the vacancy rate at year-end 2020. On page number 16, you find a detailed split of our service business. Looking at the total results, the FFO contribution from all our service businesses achieved more than EUR 10 million after roughly EUR 8 million in the previous year. It's more than 6% in the meanwhile that the service businesses contribute to the FFO or to the total FFO. As in previous years, the main FFO contribution is coming from energy services and from multimedia services. On page number 18, you'll find more details on the German portfolio valuation overview. As I said, the total value growth was 7.5%, 1.3% from investment. Here on page number 18, we analyze a little bit more in detail the pure valuation uplift, which was 6.2% after 8.6% in the previous year. Comparing the second half with the first half, you see that the results were very similar. The semi-annual valuation uplift was 2.9% after 3.3% in the first half of 2020. If you ask us what you should expect for the first half of 2021, it's clear as of today, we don't know any valuation results, or we're not able to give a complete figure. Everything that we hear from our valuer, everything that we see in the market should point towards the direction, that the valuation result for the first half of 2021 should be somewhere in the range of the second half of 2020. That's from our point of view, nothing that should change this positive development. Page 20 shows a summary of the acquisitions in Germany in 2020. We were very happy with the total acquisition volume of close to 4,600 units. As I said, most of these units have already closed in the course of the financial year 2020. A smaller acquisition of 168 units will close in the second quarter of 2021. On page 21, you see more details on our disposals in Germany. In total, we disposed 1,009 units. You can divide this disposal into two groups. First group is the disposal of non-core assets. Around 800 units were disposed in several regions with a vacancy rate of 22%, where we consider these assets as not good enough from the location or from the construction quality. On the other side, in Berlin and Kiel, we sold around 213 units at a multiple of more than 26 times. This is something that you perhaps already know from us from the last years, that we are also selling here in somewhat higher-priced markets. From pages 23 onwards, you see the current development portfolio in Poland on 23. There is a summary. In the meanwhile, in Poland, we have three locations. Not only Wrocław, this was the starting point. Also Poznań and Łódź were following locations in the course of the financial year 2020. The total current projects, so that means really contractually secured or acquired, add up now to 8,700 units. Out of which, 5,700 units are designated for the build-to-hold projects. That means after the first year of our operations in Poland, we have already secured land banks and projects, which are also at least partially under construction for 5,700 units. We are already quite close to our midterm target, which stands at 8,000 to 10,000 residential for rent units in Poland. Page 24 shows you more details on the build-to-hold pipeline, and looking at bottom left of page number 24, you will see that the first rents will kick in in Poland from 2021 onwards. Of course, in 2021, the result will not be very significant, but looking at 2022 and especially 2023, you will see that our portfolio, in the build-to-hold segment in Poland will grow quite significantly. Poland for us is a clearly midterm project, but very visible. It's not the case that we are now talking about a lot of years that we still have to wait until we see results. If you want, through 2021 and to a certain part also 2022 is a kind of transition period where we are investing. From 2023 onwards, we expect that we already have a portfolio in the build-to-hold segment of around 5,500 to 6,000 units in Poland, and this will then of course, lead to a material FFO contribution. On page 25, we give you more details on the build-to-sell pipeline. If you look at the annual handovers on the bottom left of page number 25, you will see that from now on, as planned, the number of handovers in the build-to-sell pipeline or in the build-to-sell segment in Poland will be something at around 300, 400 or 500 units. That will be more or less a continuous business that we will keep beside the resi for rent business. The last one, the resi for rent business, will be the clear focus of the future. Page 27 shows you more details on ESG ratings that we achieved in the course of 2020, and we're very happy that nearly in every rating agency, we achieved significant improvements. As I said, you should expect more details on ESG targets, with our Q1 reporting after we have published the sustainability report in April 2021. Finally, on page 29, the guidance for the financial year 2021, which is unchanged to what we have published in November last year. In total, we predict now an FFO growth of 4%, not only in absolute amounts, also on a per share basis, and also a dividend growth of 4%. This FFO 1 guidance for 2021 is based on the current portfolio, without any further acquisitions, and as I said, it is based on the German rental business as the rental activities in Poland will start in the year or in the third and fourth quarter 2021. We expect here in Poland in future years, clearly FFO contribution for 2021, that is still purely the German business. That is it from my side as overview of our financial year 2020 results. Thank you so far already for listening, but now I am of course, very happy to take your questions. The first question received is from Andres Toome of Green Street Advisors. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Mr. Toome, your line is now open. We go on to the next question. It's from Thomas Neuhold of Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is now open, sir. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks a lot for the presentation. Thank you. My questions. I only have two actually, and it's more on the regulatory environment. Firstly, I was wondering if you can share your thoughts on the impact of the upcoming EU taxonomy on your portfolio modernization and construction strategy. The second question is also regarding regulations. There's a new federal funding regulation for energy efficient buildings in place in Germany. You might also be able to get up to 45% of your investments back as a subsidy. Can you give us an indication what impact that could have on your business, especially the modernization business? Thank you, Thomas, for the questions. Honestly, we are of course looking carefully at that. At the moment, we have doubt that this really materially changes our strategy. Materially changing our strategy would mean that we now really rethink about the possibility to do new constructions in Germany. I mean, at the moment, the answer is very clear. Contrary to Poland, where we achieve gross yield in the new construction business between 7%- 8%, you know that in Germany this is materially lower. That's still the primary view that we have. Of course, this could clearly help in the volume of energy and efficient modernization programs that we're doing, also for reducing vacancy. You know that this has always been the focus of our modernization strategy. Please understand that we can't give you any details. As of now, I would say you should not expect a material shift in our strategy, but perhaps as a slightly increased volume in modernization programs. It's now too early to give clear, concrete numbers. Okay. Understood. Thank you. We try again with Andres Toome of Green Street Advisors. Your line is now open again. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. I hope you can hear now. I was just wondering if you can maybe add some color on the rental market in Poland and, given that it's become a bit softer, how does that affect your underwriting for build-to-hold developments? Is the initial letting going to result in the lower end of the guided 7%-8% gross yield? Thank you for the question, Andres. I think it's important to analyze why has the rental market in Poland, especially in the second year, been a little bit softer. That's not an outcome of, let's say, underlying trend of a change in demand. It's simply an outcome that a lot of short-term leases came to the market. Short-term leases that were normally done by students or tourists. All these apartments in cities that are rented out by the Airbnbs and so on. Of course, as a result of the pandemic, were not let in this volume as in the prior years. We expect, or we see it to a certain part already, that this is just something temporary. If we do underwriting today, if we do calculations for new projects, we're absolutely convinced that our yield that we expect between 7% and 8% is still the right number. Okay, fair enough. I was just wondering on the reported like-for-like as well. It seemed that back in the third quarter, you were quite confident that you'll achieve above 2% for this year. Is there any specific reason that didn't come through? I would not say that there's a specific reason, so that we can say, well, especially in this field, we've been behind what we expected regarding rental growth. It's coming from basically every cluster. Yes, the vacancy reduction was good. In the fourth quarter, we were down to 4.5%. We initially hoped that it was even a little bit better. If you look at the like-for-like rental growth from tenant turnover, which was 0.6%, we hope that this number was also a little bit higher. Also some rent increases for existing tenants that we did were slightly below that, what we've been doing before. Also, honestly, we've been a little bit more careful with rent increases in the current environment. You know that in this time of the pandemic, getting rent increases is perhaps not really welcomed by everyone. There's nothing specific. Yeah. It's clear, like-for-like rental growth at 1.5% is weaker than in the year before. Also looking, I would say, in the peer group in total, that's not really a completely different picture to what you see in the market today. Okay, thank you. Last question on maybe transactional activity in your core markets. What are you observing year to date in terms of pricing? I know there have been few quite sizable transactions in your home markets. In Germany it's clearly unchanged. The market is very competitive. We've been very happy that we were able to acquire 4,600 units last year. The market is competitive, and that requires, to some extent, an opportunistic approach. We're really working hard on that. If we have opportunities, we will clearly try to get them. It's also clear that the times where we were able to acquire in Germany at an 8% gross yield are perhaps over. I mean, the average gross yield in 2020 was 6.8%, still attractive. Something around this number. Anything between 6.5% and 7% gross yield should be a realistic pricing for today's acquisitions. As in years before, we're not giving concrete guidance on the acquisition volume in Germany. In Poland, I think we have here more visibility. The market is also competitive, but not as hard as in Germany, and we clearly try to make use of that. The zloty is, at the moment, compared to the pricing one year ago, a little bit weaker, which is good for us because this enables us to buy and to invest at a more attractive pricing in EUR. When we have this 5,700 ready for rent pipeline today, getting that to a number that is then already in our target range of 8,000-10,000 units by year-end, that should be a realistic assumption. Thank you very much. That's all from my end. Before we take the next question, just a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press zero one. The next question received is from Kai Klose of Berenberg. Your line is now open, sir. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. I've got two questions. First one is on page 32 of the presentation. Could you give us a little bit more details on the evolution of the position of the change in vacancies across the portfolio? Just curious, you spend almost the same amount in Rostock for CapEx as in Berlin, but vacancy rates went up. In that context, is it fair to say that, except for some changes on a regional basis, the current vacancy rate of 4.5% is a level what is a kind of floor from which a further reduction might be lower or only be achieved by spending higher CapEx on a regional basis? Yeah, good morning, Kai. Starting with your second question, that's clearly not our assumption. This 4.5% that we currently have is from our point of view, definitely not a kind of structural vacancy rate. The structural vacancy rate should be more something at 3% or perhaps 3.5% depending on the individual region. With the investment volumes that we're doing today, which is something around EUR 20, EUR 21 per square meter, it should be possible to get that. It's not the case that we're now at a kind of minimum vacancy rate already. It's true. I think you see the details on 33, perhaps picture 33 perhaps a little bit more clearly that we have regions, and this is mainly true for Rostock, where we've also increased vacancy rates. That's not an outcome of any structural change or fundamental change. Here in Rostock also included is not only City of Rostock, also the City of Greifswald, where we normally rent out quite a significant number of apartments to students. This is clearly a sector which is in total for the whole group, not that material, but for that region material, which has suffered by the pandemic more than others. Thank you. The last question on page seven regarding the other OpEx, the other operating expenses. Besides of the first kind of special contribution or special event from the foundation, is there anything from COVID or let's say anything specific for the setup of the operations in Poland, which was driving the uplift in the other operating expenses? No, that's not the case. The total uplift was EUR 4.3 million, out of which EUR 3.6 million is coming from the establishment of the TAG foundation. The difference is EUR 700,000, and this is then mainly the effect from the first time consolidation of Vantage. There's nothing in this number that is anything that is worth mentioning regarding COVID impact or any special cost development from my point of view. Understood. Thank you. The next question received is from Manuel Martin of ODDO BHF. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Three questions from my side, if I may, please. First question, maybe one by one. First question is on your valuation results. Are there any regions in particular outstanding when it comes in regards to your valuation results? Any regions producing especially a lot of valuation results? Good morning, Manuel. You see in the appendix on page 34 of the presentation, a detailed split of the valuation result based on the regions. Not very much change to previous years, especially in the Berlin region, which is, in our case, not the Berlin city, but the commuter belts around Berlin and in the eastern Leipzig, Hamburg regions, the valuation result was stronger compared, for example, with Chemnitz or with Gera. Every region had a positive valuation result, that should be clear. Kind of focus, not materially, but if you look at page 34, you see this kind of focus was in these regions that I mentioned. Okay. My next question would be concerning Poland. It's a bit maybe looking forward in terms of COVID, so it might be tricky, but I have the impression that COVID-19 in Poland is somehow a bit more nasty than in Germany. Do you see any signs or indication that COVID-19 might hamper construction progress, for example, or any other impact on your new market there? When looking at financial 2020, not only in our group but also on the market in general, looking at the results that other developers that are listed in Poland published, it seems to be that the market is very resilient also in Poland. None of these developers really had significant reduced sales numbers. None of them reported about reduced sales prices, especially. What we see in the market is still enough demand, especially demand for the ready-for-rent product. We just commented on some developments in the short term leases that were clearly a result of the pandemic, which is then attributable students that are not renting apartments or to people who are normally on vacation, the Airbnb apartments and so on. Also interesting perhaps, there have been some results published on M&A transactions in Poland where listed developers were sold, like Atal or like Budimex. That's all public. If you look at the pricing there, you see that's possibly significantly about what we have paid for our acquisition, which gives us the feeling that we are on the right way. Other people are looking at the market and not only at the pure development market, also on the ready-for-rent market. We are a little bit ahead of the curve, if you want. It's not that the case that CG has the only idea to enter this market, but we're very happy that we're now really very close to renting out apartments in Poland. We are still convinced that this business will have a very attractive future. Okay. I see. My last question is a bit on acquisitions and disposals. Given the market situation in Germany, do you remain confident to be still a net buyer in 2021? I would say that's a clear yes. You know us, that we are here acting disciplined and would also have no problem with the year of being a net seller. That's from our point of view, nothing negative. If the market is really that competitive, the prices are materially higher than today. On the other side, there are disposal opportunities. Why not taking this into account? Again, we don't see that for 2021. We're really here in two different markets. In Germany, it's not a target to have a growth in absolute terms, which is honestly contrary in Poland, where we need a certain portfolio to really have a efficient platform, to really have a certain volume. That's already done in Germany. Therefore, as in the previous years, you will see us disciplined on the acquisition side. Again, if you ask us, would we be a net seller in 2021? That's nothing that we expect. Okay. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, again, as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press 01 on your telephone keypad. The next question is from Marios Pastou of Societe Generale. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Mr. Pastou, your line is now open. Are you still on mute? We take the next question is from Simon Stippig of Warburg Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Good morning. I have a couple of questions, if I may. The first one would be regarding FFO per share and EBITDA-adjusted margin. As we can see in the full year 2020, the margin is 69%, and Q4 it was 66.4%. I know there are seasonal effects always coming in Q4. I just wonder, is there anything else, any impact, any reasons to it that the margin was that low at 66.4 below Q3 and below the full year average? Good morning, Simon. No, that's not the case. We have, I would perhaps say not really a seasonality, but a kind of swing in EBITDA margin, depending mainly on things like maintenance that occurs in one quarter, or also quarters where we do more service charges or not. From our point of view, it makes more sense to look at the full year development, and here you see the improvement from 68%-69%. That's from our point of view, the better way to look at that. There's nothing especially in the fourth quarter behind the EBITDA margin. Okay, great. Just one more question, especially slide number eight. You also have higher capitalized maintenance. Compared to full year 2019, is there any explanation for that as well, please? You're right. That's an increase by EUR 1.9 million, which is in part of the total CapEx of around EUR 70 million. Again, if you ask me, do we hear more in this category? I would say not. For us, honestly, how do we look at that? We don't look when we decide on investments so much is this, from an accounting perspective, maintenance, is this capitalized maintenance or is this CapEx? Is it in general capitalized or not? We look at that really from a cash flow perspective, therefore that doesn't make any difference. Also if you follow our reporting, how we handle that, we're always talking about in this year, EUR 21 per sq m total investment, that includes everything. From time to time, it's more an accounting question. If you ask me if there anything behind it regarding any strategic decisions, that's not the case. Okay. No categorization. It's just a higher capitalized due to your cash flow view and accounting view, but no underlying changes that capitalized maintenance is higher. That's just correct. We always decide on a project based on the, let's say, cash out. Then the second question, the more something technical, can we capitalize it? Is it from the category capitalized maintenance or modernization CapEx, which is also something which is not white and black. Okay. Then maybe another question in regard to revaluation of your portfolio. It's lower than H1 2020. Maybe if I compare it, for example, to ADG, it's a little bit CapEx. Is there any reason for this, especially because the share of yield compression is higher? In regard to the operational effect, is that driven by COVID-19 impact, or do you have any other reason for that? How do we look at the valuation result in the second half, and how do we compare it with the first half? You're right. If you look at it percentage-wise, we had now 2.9%, and I think in the first half it was 3.2 or 3.3. That's a difference in absolute amount, if I remember correctly, of around EUR 20 million out of a EUR 6 billion portfolio. For us, that's not really something different. I think it's not correct to get into that extremely detailed and to try to find out are there any specific developments behind it. We simply see here, as in previous years, a continuous positive trend. As I said, also for the first half of 2021, we are optimistic. Why is that? If we look at the acquisition markets in our regions, we don't see here any pressure on prices. To the contrary, the markets are competitive. We also see this in our acquisition growth yields, which are still on a very good level with 6.8% in 2020. Yeah, the development is clearly there, and then it's, from our point of view, a question of time until this is then in fully shown in the valuation results. Okay. Yeah, I'm just asking, Ronald, that the argument that there could be a lagging effect of operational efficiencies or growth, what we saw in, for example, rental growth and a little bit maybe lagging vacancy reduction. You could have a catch-up effect in H1 2021. That's the background to my question of the split between yield compression and operational performance. It's all answered. Thank you. I would have another question in regard to sales. In Q4 you sold some assets. I would categorize it into one part. There's Berlin Kiel, which is quite strong locations with higher rental growth. Berlin, IG, Eberswalde, Strausberg, et cetera. I wonder that on the one bracket of higher vacancy, you show actually high book profits, but on the other side where you might have larger expectations of growth, you do not show any book profit. Is there any inference I could draw as to the reasons of this? I would say in this group of non-core assets, there was especially one very successful portfolio sale of, I think, 300 units in a quite small city in East Germany. Please understand that I can't give you the name because that could perhaps hint to this transaction, where we achieved the very largest part of the total book profit that we've shown. In general, we are selling today with a slight book profit, I would say. Often we have a kind of technical effect that we sign, that at least then to a very small book profit. This is this case when we sign a project or sign a disposal, and then there's the next balance sheet date, for example, the end of a quarter. Automatically we do a valuation uplift to this disposal price, and then if we hand it over and if the closing occurs, then the book profit is zero. It's basically part of the valuation result. Looking at the total valuation result, this effect is not material, but that leads often in the group on our figures the effect that the book profits are quite small, but in general, we're selling above book value. Here in this non-core assets, I think there was one very positive transaction. Okay. Referring to what you just said, in regard to the Berlin Kiel disposed assets, did you have a book profit then, which you showed in an earlier revaluation or in the revaluation of H2 2020? Yeah, this was included, but that was not material. I just wanted to make that clear because I think if you look at this slide and there's even a small loss of EUR 100,000, that seems to lead to the picture, oh, are we selling below book value? That's not the case. The book profit is not based on the fact that it's just 200 units of the material. If I have it right in mind, perhaps something around EUR 1 million or something around that, we're selling not below book value. That's just the statement I wanted to say. Yeah. Okay, great. Maybe if I may, just the last question in regard to Poland. Could you give me the quick definition between the current and planned projects? Second part of the question would be, on page 23, the difference of total projects to Q3 is exactly what you sold. First of all, the difference in the definition is that the current projects that's really acquired or at least secured, and the planned projects, these are projects where we're concrete looking at. Where we are perhaps already in a kind of due diligence process, where we are really perhaps in some negotiations or we have really concrete view on that, but not yet signed and not yet 100% sure. We are publishing this figure to give a kind of overview where will this total portfolio growth end in rough numbers. That's more a mid-term outlook. That the really secured projects and the really acquired projects, that's defined as current projects. Perhaps Simon, you can repeat your second question. This was something different. The second question, maybe I give you some more. I will also give you a figure to that. It's on page 23. You show the total project is 14.4K, 14.4 thousand. You show in Q3, you showed 14.9 thousand. I assume you sold those 500 assets. Yeah. Even a little bit more. Let me think. That could be correct, but it could be more a coincidence. The total handovers in 2020 have been 719. The very largest part of that was in the fourth quarter. That's then something that leads to a reduced number in total projects. On our side, we had also some smaller acquisitions in the fourth quarter. That would be a coincidence if this is exactly the same number. Yeah. Okay. Sure. That's a net number. Just that will also translate to your accounts receivable, the changes within your Q4 cash flow statement. That I can tie those two numbers, those 420 units you potentially sold in Q4, is exactly tied to your accounts receivable changes in your cash flow statement of Q4. Is that right? It is, I think, around EUR 82 million. That would also be a coincidence if this is the case. Okay. For the disposals in Poland, that should be the very largest part, I would say nearly 100% cash in our now balance sheet. That's a small amount that is deferred where we handed over the properties in December and we received the final payment in the beginning of January, for example. That's not really the reason. All the disposals in Germany, especially the 1st stage of this project in Munich, the cash inflow was in 2020. Yeah. Well, differently asked, what would you say is the cash in? You say the number is 100% cash in literally from your sales in Poland. Yeah. I assume, Simon, but perhaps you can analyze this for you a little bit more detailed. This number that you're pointing out in cash flow statement is not only, if I have that correct in my mind, account receivable, that also includes change in other short-term assets. Is this right? That could be a mix of several effects. Great. That's interesting. That was all my side. Thank you very much for answering. Yeah, thank you. As there are no further questions, I hand back to Mr. Thiel for closing remarks. Yeah, many thanks to listening to our call. As always, if there are any questions left, please feel free to contact our department or myself. Wish you a good day and talk soon in the next days and weeks. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance. This call has been concluded. You may disconnect.