Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. We'll pause for just a moment while waiting for them to queue for questions. Thank you. Once again, as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Thank you. We will now take our first question from Edoardo of Green Street. Your line is open. Please go ahead Good morning. Question from me on the CapEx element of this portfolio. So I understand the leases are all FRI, and the walls are pretty long. But do you have an idea of the potential CapEx backlog on this portfolio? And how are you thinking about financing it and potential returns on that CapEx going forward? Yeah. Thanks, Edoardo. In terms of CapEx on the portfolio, we have terms in the leases, which require the occupiers to commit to a certain level of spend on each of the buildings. So we actually have site-by-site CapEx requirements and obligations from the occupiers, which they have to fund themselves. That is very comprehensive and detailed, and it is not just maintenance, it's actually about improving the building. So for example, it does include refurbishing bedrooms, supplying new equipment. And it also is a full obligation on the occupiers to meet all of the environmental spend required to improve the EPCs. So actually, these are very landlord-friendly leases, and so there is no CapEx required. Now, obviously, we could approach the occupiers, and we could volunteer to help fund that if we wanted to, for a right level of return, but that's... That we obviously haven't had those conversations, and there's no requirement to do so. Understood. And then maybe I had a second question on the merits of the portfolio. Do you have an idea of sort of the long-term returns from an IRR perspective, and how this sort of would compare with primary care-type asset? I expect stronger medium-term growth on the back of different lease terms, but in the longer term, how are you thinking about the merits of sort of a return perspective? Yeah. So, I mean, obviously the starting point for these assets is higher than in primary care. So, you know, the initial yield on cost is just under 6%. And you've got that guaranteed indexation with the cap and collar between one and four, and you've got very long leases. So that is an excellent starting point. So if you model that on an ungeared basis, you'd be looking at high single digit. And depending on your financing assumption, you know, clearly, you're on a geared basis, you're well into the low double-digit numbers. That is ahead of where we'd be modeling our primary care, primarily because you've got a higher starting point, you've got longer term leases, and you've got the guarantee of that indexation. So yes, you should expect there to be a higher overall return on these assets than you would see in primary care. Understood. And then perhaps finally on the disposal program, which you hinted at, so what type of assets are you sort of expecting to sell? And also in terms of the pace of that disposal program for maybe the rest of the year and sort of the next 24 months? Sure. On the disposal program, I think we—I wouldn't really describe it as a hint. It's a clear statement of intent from us, and we've been very deliberately front foot about this and been very clear. So we've set ourselves an 18 to 24-month timeline, and we're committing to get the LTV below 45 and the net debt to EBITDA below 9 through these disposals. So it's a very firm commitment on our side. And in terms of our outlook for that, I guess the you know, the good news is, you know, we have a number of options, and we are pursuing all of those. So clearly, we announced earlier in the year, the joint venture with USS. We've transferred, you know, we announced GBP 107 million going into that vehicle to start with. Clearly, we can put further assets into that vehicle, and in fact, we've started those conversations already. So, we're not at contractual stage yet, but we've started those discussions. We also are looking to dispose of some of our primary care assets into the open market. So we have a portfolio that we are currently marketing. That's about a GBP 25 million portfolio. And we're at, you know, close to the final stages of agreeing a deal on that at the moment. So that, those two things would happen relatively quickly. So we would want to do those, you know, certainly within 12 months. And then on the longer-term timeframe, clearly, we have total flexibility. So we could do a third tranche into the JV. We could actually create a JV vehicle for these assets. So we could create a private hospital JV and attract capital that way. Interestingly, this deal was actually leaked into the press, and so it was public knowledge a while ago. And just out of interest, I had an unsolicited approach from an institution saying they would be very interested in participating in such a vehicle. So we clearly have those options, too. And then lastly, we have the option of making further disposals of our primary care assets, and that's likely to be calendar year 2025, but that is also something that we would, we'd be interested in doing. So the good news is we've got plenty of options. We're very confident in our ability to, to deliver the numbers to, to hit those targets that, that I've, that I've mentioned. And, and we'll be looking to do that in the timeline that we've set. Great. That's very clear. That's all from me. Thank you. We will now take our next question from John Cahill of Stifel. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, morning, team. Well, well done on this deal today. Just got a question about the operators. So the Nuffield, Circle, and Spire are pretty familiar names to us, but could you perhaps just give a bit of color on the financial status of them as operators? And, you know, what I'm getting at is that presumably their staffing costs are rising fairly quickly. Are they able to pass that on in terms of their pricing to patients such that, you know, the rent roll stays pretty far down the list of things they need to worry about in an affordability sense? Yes, thanks, thanks, John, for your, for your comments and, and, and for the question. So yes, so, so in terms of financial performance, obviously, you have, we've, we've disclosed in, in the presentation that the overall, rent cover on the, on the portfolio is, is 2.3. So sort of industry's standard is, is 2. So clearly that, that is ahead of, of where we would expect to be. And also pleased to say that they're all improving, and growing, rent covers, and that reflects the fact that across, across the portfolio, what we're seeing is the occupiers do have pricing power. So because of the increase in demand and the sort of surge in activity that we're seeing across the board, that all of the operators have actually been able to increase their margins in the last 12-18 months, and that is a trend that we expect to see continuing, certainly for the next 2-3 years on what we can see coming down the pipe. So actually the rent cover we expect to improve from the 2.3 going forward. It's something we'll monitor on a very regular basis, and we will disclose it in full going forward as well. The other thing just to highlight is we actually have asset-by-asset performance data. So we can monitor how every asset is performing, and we've got our own projected models of how we think the assets will perform, and we are confident that that will lead to increasing rent cover. And so there's no concerns about their ability to meet the rent liability. Great. That's really helpful. Thank you. Thank you. We have no further questions in the queue currently. Handing it back to Jonathan for Webcast questions. Great, thank you. So we've got a number of questions that have been submitted online, and we'll take these in order, and I'll just read out the question, and then we'll tackle it between Jayne and myself. So first question is from Angelo at Cohen & Steers: NorthWest Q1 presentation shows a 19.6 years weighted average lease expiry on this portfolio. Do the leases include breaks, or were the assets regeared between Q1 and today? Very detailed and perceptive question. The answer is, they've been regeared. So the NorthWest undertook a regearing exercise before they brought the portfolio to market, so that's why the leases are now 26 years. Another question from Angelo: How does the 5.9 net initial yield compare to the average net initial yield of your portfolio? So our overall portfolio has a net initial yield of 5.17. We haven't ever separately split out the hospital side, but it's consistent. It's close to our overall position. So the net initial yield on these is slightly wider than our current portfolio. I think that reflects two things. I think it reflects the fact that we feel that we've bought well. NorthWest are a motivated seller because they're looking to address some of their corporate-level liquidity issues. And also, our portfolio is largely brand new and purpose-built, and so 'cause it's brand new, it's got a slightly tighter yield. Okay, next question is, another one from Angelo: Is the 48% and EPRA LTV company defined or EPRA, and what is the issue price of the shares? So I'll pass over to Jayne to answer that and also to perhaps give you an update on the debt position and the position with the rating agency. Jayne? Yeah. So, the 48% is the company-defined LTV, but there wouldn't really be much difference between that and the LTV at the moment. In terms of the credit rating, I'm very pleased to say, as I said in my script, that we've been engaging with Fitch around this, and in the last hour, they published an update where they have affirmed our A-minus rating, which is great. They have put us on negative outlook, but that's purely due to potential execution risk on the disposals. But as Jonathan said, within the 18-24 month timeframe, we are confident that we will get that net debt to EBITDA down to under 9x. We think that's a really good result and shows the strength of the business and the strength of the assets that we have purchased. In terms of the issuance price of the shares, that is based on the 30-day VWAP basis. Okay, great. Thanks, Jayne. So, another question from Angelo. "NorthWest disposal was part of a strategic review to exit the U.K. market. What gives you certainty that they will remain shareholders, given that they will own 8% of the float?" So you're absolutely right, that there was a, NorthWest undertook a strategic review, and this is part of that process, though this was not, these assets were not chosen for sale because it was a market they wished to exit. In fact, quite the opposite. NorthWest actually wanted to retain these assets and were actively trying to pursue a joint venture with other parties. Those conversations didn't proceed as planned, and so they were effectively forced into making a sale rather than it being a strategic decision. They have other assets in their portfolio which are less attractive and less liquid, and so hence, they've sold the best assets they have as a way of achieving that liquidity. So actually, they are committed to the U.K. market. And actually, if you look in our announcement, there's a very positive statement from them in there about their belief in these assets and their commitment to the market. Okay, so the next question is from Kempen. There's quite a few, so I'll take them one by one, if that's all right. So, You draw GBP 80 million from the RCF next to the term loan and the available cash. Why wouldn't or couldn't you raise more cash through the term loan instead of tapping into the RCF? Shall I take that, please? Thanks for the question. Yes, we've decided to draw on the RCF. There's a couple of reasons. One, we had a very tight timeframe for this transaction, and the term loan matched the term loan that was being repaid from NorthWest. And two, we are actually quite comfortable with looking at our disposals that we should pay down the RCF relatively quickly. And therefore, we don't have an issue with this. If we'd drawn too much of the term loan, and we can pay it back, and there's no cost to us, but we're comfortable using the RCF. The second part of the question is: "Will you keep the RCF drawn portion unhedged, or are you planning to replace it with another term loan?" In the short term, we will keep it unhedged, but as a proportion of our overall debt stack, it is very, very small, and as I said, we expect to pay it down relatively quickly. Great. Thanks, Jayne. Next question is from James at Peel Hunt. "Assura's exposure to GP surgeries, NHS reduces to 65%. Is there a low limit to where this may go?" I think this was something we discussed at the Capital Markets Day in February, and we were quite clear that we don't have any specific targets or targets around these ratios. It's very much if you look at the different segments that we highlight in the strategy presentation, you'll see there are all the new markets and the relative attractiveness of them. And it very much depends on where the opportunities are and where they arise from, so that will, that percentage will move based on where those opportunities arise. Clearly, we also highlighted at the Capital Markets Day that if there was a portfolio, it would move materially, and we'd be comfortable with that, which is obviously what's happened. But no, there's no firm plans to reduce that any further. It'll be based on what opportunities are arising. Next question is from Miranda, from Berenberg: "What are the EPC ratings of the buildings?" So yes, good question. These are the EPC build of these buildings, there's 24% of them are an EPC of B, so this is actually quite significantly lower rating than our current portfolio. And obviously, that is something that we will look to address over the medium term. I mean, clearly, the great news, as I said earlier, was that actually, it's not our cost. The leases, the occupiers are obligated under their leases to bring all their EPC ratings up to the required governmental standards at their own expense. So we will definitely work with them to ensure that that is addressed. But as I say, it won't be at their cost... It won't be at our cost, rather, it will be at their cost. Okay, so are there any further questions? I think that is all the questions that have been submitted online. Oh, there's one more question. Sorry for the interruption. Is that okay? Sorry, there are two questions from the audience. If that's okay for me to take? Yes, please. Yes, please, go ahead. Yep. Thank you. We will now take a question from Max Nimmo of Deutsche Numis. The line is open. Please go ahead. Hello? Hello. Hello. Hello. Hi. We can hear you, so if you are happy to- Yeah, this is Kanad from, this is Kanad from Barclays. So there's some confusion. So my question is, with this transaction, do you think this is kind of a stabilized hospital portfolio now, or are there more that you may be looking at in the future, or in the near future? So in terms of short term, clearly, the focus as we've stated in the announcement is around the disposals program, so that will be our priority. So we wouldn't be looking to acquire any further hospital portfolios, you know, within with current resources, clearly. So we've gotta focus on the disposals in the first instance. And, what we do highlight, though, is the medium-term opportunity. And that is real. And clearly, the opportunity for us to develop effective relationships with all of these providers that we now have these relationships with, could open up opportunities down the line, but that's more of a medium-term opportunity. So short-term, the focus is very much on stabilizing and taking on board the portfolio and delivering against our disposal plans. Is also in addition to disposals, is equity is also one of the options for deleveraging, not quite at this point? Yeah. So, just to be clear, the disposal program is what we have agreed with the rating agency, is what we need to deliver, and we are, we're intending to achieve that delevering process through our own disposals program. There is no need or indeed any intention to raise equity to achieve that. Thanks. Thanks for the answers. There's no more questions. Thank you, and we'll now take a follow up question from Edoardo of Green Street. Please go ahead. So just a follow-up question. So your, your rent cover at 2.3, where would it go if you ascribe a maintenance CapEx reserve to be spent by operators? Would it fall to 1.5? Would it be from a bit higher than that? Do you have a gauge for that? I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I don't want to give you a false read. I'll come back to you with that. It's not gonna drop anything like that much, but let me get the actual numbers and come back to you, Edoardo, if that's okay. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, so if there's no further questions on the line, then, that's the last question being submitted. So thanks. Thank you. Thanks, everybody, for the time. Greatly appreciate it, and, look forward to catching up with you all, in the future. Thank you very much.