Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the PostNL Q1 2025 results. At this moment, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and after the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Now, I would like to hand over the conference call to Ms. Inge Laudy, Manager, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Madam. Thank you, Operator, and a warm welcome to all of you in the call and here with us in The Hague. We have published our Q1 2025 results earlier this morning, and we'll explain the set of results to you in this analyst call. With me in the room are Pim Berendsen, our CEO, and Linde Jansen, our CFO. Linde will present the results to you. Afterwards, Pim and Linde will answer all your questions. Linde, over to you. Go ahead. Thank you, Inge, and good morning and welcome to you all. Nice to be here for the first time and happy to talk you through the first quarter results. Let's start with the key takeaways of our Q1 results. Our Q1 results developed as anticipated and landed below last year's results. Our outlook for 2025 is unchanged. On the recent developments of the global trade and tariffs, it is too early to have a clear view on potential consequences, but I will come back to that later in the presentation. The main drivers for the Q1 performance were as follows: revenue at Parcels were up by 3.5%, with a volume growth of 2%. Also, this quarter, we saw again strong growth from the large international customers. On the Mail side, volumes declined by almost 7%, mainly due to ongoing substitution. Also, in 2025, we expect to see a significant organic cost increase: EUR 31 million in quarter one, which was mainly labor-related, which, on a positive note, have been fully offset by price increases. If we look on the right side at the segments from a more strategic point of view, then for Parcels, I would want to emphasize that we are fully focused on the initiatives which we announced in February. The implementation is progressing according to plan, and the first positive signs from our targeted yield measures are visible. On the Mail side, we see a further significant step down in results, mainly explained by the ongoing volume decline. We have successfully started the transition of business mail towards standard delivery within two days. As you know, current postal regulation prevents us from further adjusting our business model. As long as adjustments to the Universal Service obligation are pending, measures such as stamp price increases are inevitable. Now that we expect that the outcome of the ACM study will be ready later in May, we are encouraging government to take next steps in a parliamentary debate later before the summer. Let's move on to our key metrics. Let's start with the financial KPIs. Revenue in the quarter amounted to EUR 782 million, which is 2% higher than in the quarter last year. We see normalized EBIT at EUR -15 million, which, as I said, is in line with our expectation and mainly driven by the Mail segment, which I will elaborate in more detail later on. Free cash flow amounted to EUR -33 million, and also that I will explain later on. Then a normalized comprehensive income of EUR -10 million. We discussed the results in more detail as we move on to the performance of Parcels and Mail in the Netherlands in a bit. Also, the non-financial highlights and some other ESG highlights for this first quarter. We are proud to mention that we received the Platinum Award from EcoVadis. We achieved a solid, often excellent score across all criteria. What is particularly remarkable is that we scored 100 out of 100 points in the environmental category, a fantastic achievement for our company. Besides this, we also took our first roll cage tilters in use this quarter, supporting our people in their daily physical heavy activities in the depots. In the next few months, more tilters will be installed. We also saw an increase again in the amount of PostNL accounts. This is of strategic importance as these accounts provide us the possibility to reach consumers and obtain information from them, for example, when it comes to delivery preferences. The out-of-home strategy is gaining momentum, as evidenced by a steady increase of customers adding out-of-home options in their checkout and more consumers adding APL delivery as preferred option in the PostNL app. Let's move on to the segments for a more detailed explanation of the developments. I kindly remind you that as of the 1st of January this year, our real estate activities are reported in the segment Parcels. The 2024 numbers have been restated to provide a like-for-like comparison. Let's start with Parcels. Revenue for Parcels amounted to EUR 581 million, which is EUR 20 million or 3.5% above last year, following volume growth, price increases, and mixed effects. Good to know that market share remained more or less stable. Overall, our volume grew by 2%. Volumes from international customers continued its strong growth and were up 19% compared to last year. On the domestic side, the volumes were down by 2.4%. In addition, volumes this quarter were impacted by a different distribution of working day in the first week of the year and the timing of festive days compared to last year. The volume developments impact the composition of our portfolio, resulting in further client concentration, with increasing share of volumes from large players, domestic as well as international, but also platforms and marketplaces. With that in mind, it's encouraging to see that the total price mix impact was positive this quarter. The average price per Parcel was up by EUR 0.03, supported by targeted yield measures and regular price increases. Furthermore, it is positive to note that our cross-border activities continue to trend. We have been seeing for several quarters now, with revenues at Spring being up this quarter most strongly in our intra-European activities, a promising development as international growth is one of our strategic initiatives. The cost reflected significant organic cost increases on the one hand, mainly related to labor. However, we also see the impact from efficiency improvements, from network optimization and rationalization of services. For example, we stopped with Parcel delivery on Sunday, and furthermore, our out-of-home delivery contributed to the savings. Let's zoom further in on Parcels with the normalized EBIT bridge. Here you see the reconciliation of the EBIT from EUR 5 million last year to EUR 3 million this quarter. The volume growth strongly contributed to our results, though was fully offset by the less favorable product customers mix referred to earlier. The organic cost increase amounted to EUR 15 million following wage increases according to PostNL and the sector collective labor agreements and indexation for delivery partners. As you can see in the bridge, the impact from our price increases was also EUR 15 million. We were able to fully close the gap between organic cost increases and pricing. The other costs were EUR 9 million better, mainly as a result of operational efficiency measures and the implementation of the strategic initiatives as announced earlier this year. The other results are down due to various smaller items. The segment Mail in the Netherlands. The revenue for Mail amounted to EUR 309 million, a significant decline compared to EUR 318 million last year, but in line with our expectations. The volume decline of close to 7%, 6.9% to be precise, this quarter was mainly related to substitution, a structural trend which we are seeing for a while now. We also noted a further shift to non-24-hour mail. Furthermore, our revenue was supported by two stamp price increases, one in July 2024 and in January 2025. Looking at cost, labor costs were up following the CLAs for PostNL and mail deliverers, and sick leave rates remained high in this tight labor market. These cost increases were mitigated by cost savings of EUR 7 million from further adjustments in our current business model, such as the transition of business mail towards a standard service framework of delivery within two days. Altogether, this resulted in a normalized EBIT of EUR -18 million, a significant step down of EUR 10 million versus last year's quarter, proving that the current business model for Mail is not sustainable. Let's zoom a bit further towards Mail with the normalized EBIT bridge. The elements of Mail I just discussed are reflected here. The bridge shows the step down of EUR 10 million from the reported 7% volume decline. You see a negative mix effect of EUR 3 million, mainly driven by the further shift to 24-hour mail, which I mentioned before. The stamp prices are referred to added to EUR 13 million of revenue, and the organic cost increases of EUR 8 million were due to wage increases and other inflationary pressures. You then also see here reflected the cost savings of EUR 7 million, which were fully offset by additional labor costs related to sick leave and lower bilateral results. Moving on to cash flow. The free cash flow for the quarter was EUR -33 million compared to EUR -7 million in the same quarter last year, and in line with our expectations. The difference is mainly explained, of course, by the lower normalized EBIT result, but also by the negative working capital development coming from expected phasing effects within the fourth quarter of last year. This brings us to the next slide where you can find the balance sheet and the development of our adjusted net debt position. Our adjusted net debt position in quarter one was EUR 509 million, which is an increase of EUR 35 million compared to year-end 2024, being mainly explained by the negative free cash flow and the addition in the WGA provision. We continue to manage our cash flow, balance sheet, and net position carefully, following our aim to be properly financed. Over to the split of normalized EBIT over the quarters. As mentioned during our full year results in February, in 2025, normalized EBIT has to be earned in Q4 even more than in 2024. The impact of pricing will be larger in Q4 than in the other quarters. When looking at Q1, when looking at the results of Q1 2025, the results came in as expected, as I just mentioned. Overall, the working day distribution over the quarters in 2025 is slightly different than in 2024, which also impacts the quarterly split. For the remainder of the year, for Parcels, you should take into account that the announced yield measures are expected to come into effect as of the second quarter. For Mail in the Netherlands, please remember that in 2024, we had election in the second quarter. For this year, no elections are scheduled. In this quarterly split of EBIT, the impact from the structural cost savings for both Parcels and Mail in the Netherlands is included. In the graph on the right side of the slide, you can see the indicative phasing for the savings. Obviously, the phasing is related to timing of some of the underlying measures. For example, in the course of Q1, we adjusted the process of collection from our orange mailboxes. This kind of changes in processes need some time to fully settle. Some of the savings are a bit tied to the absolute volumes, of course, also impacting the distribution over the year. Over to the outlook. We have to acknowledge that the recent developments around global tariffs resulted in more uncertainty and volatility. It is too early to have a clear view of the consequences for the e-commerce market, such as a potential rerouting of Asian volumes from the U.S. to Europe or a slowdown in GDP growth. We keep monitoring recent developments closely and are prepared to swiftly adjust plans if necessary. As said before, the pace of client concentration due to changing consumer behavior is difficult to predict. That being said, our outlook for 2025 is unchanged. We expect normalized EBIT to be in line with 2024 performance. Free cash flow is expected to be negative, as for example, CapEx will be above the level of 2024, including around EUR 15 million cash outflows related to the strategic initiative announced at the beginning of the year. On the right side on the dividend element, I want to emphasize our intention to pay a dividend over 2025. We hold on to our aim to be properly financed, taking into account the anticipated improvement in performance going forward and the progress towards a future-proof postal service. Lastly, good to add that the normalized comprehensive income, which is of course the basis for the amount of dividends to be paid, is expected to follow a pattern that is more or less in line with 2023. Lastly, before we close our presentation and open up for questions, as announced in February, we will host a Capital Markets Update in September. We will then elaborate on how we see the e-commerce market going forward based on market dynamics that we have seen and will continue to see. We will provide you further details on the strategic adjustments. Also, we will give an update on the future-proof postal service at that point in time. Based on all of that, we will provide the market with a medium-term financial guidance for PostNL. Together with Pim, I'm looking forward to meet you all then and have the discussion with you at that point in time. For now, I would like to conclude the presentation and hand back to you, Inge. Thank you, Linde, for your presentation. We now open up for Q&A. Let's start with the analysts here in the room, and after that, we will switch to the people online. Who will be the first, Mark? Yeah, sure. Okay. Yeah, just discussing the comprehensive income to follow the path as seen in 2023. What does that exactly mean? Because I do not have those numbers in front of me. Does it mean that we have the same development through the year or so as in 2023, or the same number as in 2023, or does it really? Not the same number, the same pattern if you look at the development from the deltas from normalized EBIT to normalized comprehensive income as the pattern of 2023. In Q4 deck, there was an appendix slide that kind of indicated that. The balance between reversals, tax positions follows more the flow of 2023 and not the specific developments in 2024. You can see it on slide 21 in the deck. Yeah, try to look at that. Then we see the 2023 in development. Otherwise, we would just take the slide and comment a bit on it. Where are we? On 47 of the Q4 deck, you see that, relatively speaking, in 2024, there was only limited income tax effects, or that follows a bit more the pattern of 2023. There was a positive normalized other comprehensive income element of EUR 8 million in 2024 that we also do not expect at that level. Sorry, are we on slides? I am going back to the Q4 deck because there we had a specific slide that showed both the 2023 as well as the 2024 reconciliation of normalized comprehensive income. That is which slide? 47. The last one. Oh, there it is. Taxes follow kind of the logic, of course, not the absolute amount, but relatively speaking, and the gap there is a EUR 16 million switch between other comprehensive income 2023 being minus EUR 8 million, being positive EUR 8 million in 2024, which we do not expect in 2025. At least not to that extent. On the Parcels volumes, +2% in Q1, but there was a negative working day impact in there. Can you share a bit what the trend was excluding all the working day elements in there? But also, can you provide a bit more colour on what the trend was from, let’s say, through the quarter into Q2? Just to get a bit of a feel for where we are in April, so to speak because things have changed, particularly in April. Not fully, but I can imagine that companies and consumers might have behaved differently. You already talked in the outlook about higher volatility so can you share a bit what the trend is there? I am happy to take that one. So to start with your question on the 2% volume growth and the impact of working days, we can give some color on that. Approximately 2% to 3% impact is expected from the working days. So that would be on top of that, if the working days had followed a similar pattern compared to last year. On the question of what we see for April, for sure, it is too soon to talk about. What we can say is, is that the development over the months of the quarter shows there are no big changes between the months in terms of composition of volume. And the last part more relates to whether we already see, in volume development terms, the effects of tariffs given when they were announced. We do not really see material change there, not in relation to what both Asian customers are currently trying to do. They are still seeking ways into the U.S. There is still a fair amount of uncertainty about how the regulation actually works, in terms of demand, etc. So, no change is visible there. We do not see a huge inflow of volume to Europe to compensate for a shortfall in the U.S. That is not what we are currently seeing, nor do we see a fundamental change of Dutch consumers and where they spend the money in comparison between March and April. They are not getting more cautious, that is what you are basically saying. You see the same trend. It follows the pattern of the first quarter so far. If I may, another one. Just to be clear, we can only look at the volume developments. It is the 6th of May, so in terms of EUR, I do not have a complete view yet. If you look to the price mix element, it was a small positive in Q1, but of course, most of it will come in Q4, as you already mentioned. The Asian volumes are still growing 19%, so that negative mix element might still be a bit higher than maybe you anticipated at the beginning of the year when you gave that EUR 55 million-EUR 60 million, if I'm correct, in the case of the positive price mix. Is it still feasible to get to that EUR 55 million-EUR 60 million given the mix trend we're currently seeing? It might even become bigger, the Asian flows, because of what's going on in the world. Maybe to react on that is, as also reconfirmed in our outlook, which remains as is, we do not see in that sense a different view on that versus the EUR 55 million-EUR 60 million you are referring to. It is good to note, of course, that we also announced the initiatives of targeted yield measures, which will come into play as of the second quarter. That is also in line with how we anticipated in the outlook. In short, no change compared to earlier messages there. Maybe to add, what you can see is potential changes between the separate elements, mix and price and mix between domestic and cross-border, but the overall view is exactly as Linde says. The overall contribution of the components will be comparable. Again, we are not currently seeing additional Asian volume already triggered by tariffs. That is not what we are seeing. Not to say that that cannot happen, but that is not what we are currently seeing. Thank you. I would like to elaborate maybe a bit more on the parcel trends. Because what struck me was that relatively low volume increase, but likely that has been due to the working day effect as you just described, because I had expected it to be higher than your annual guidance. That is the first question, because my sense is that you are a bit more cautious on the outlook as there are more uncertainties nowadays, but are you still aiming for 1-3% volume growth over the year? Yes, I can confirm we still, so as I said, the outlook is unchanged and also that underlying assumption still holds. Okay. What you also said is that the impact of yield measures is expected to come in as from Q2. I presume that we will see the negative impact on the volumes because you anticipated some market share loss. On the other hand, on the financials and the impact of price increases, that should improve. How should we see that? Is that a gradual trend over the quarters, or will there be already something sizable coming into Q2? How should I look at that trend? I think the reason why we mentioned Q2 indeed as one of the elements that bring our growth expectation below the overall market growth is the renegotiation of terms of some of the bigger clients. I do not want to be too specific. Some of these negotiations are still ongoing, which means that as of when they have been concluded, they will come into effect immediately. Of course, the impact of those renegotiated terms will also be a function of volume development over the quarters, where you will see impact in Q2, like in Q3, but partly volume dependent, which means that the fourth quarter will still see the biggest in absolute terms impact, but not because of the fact that then there are still conversations going on. You can already see the telltales of that change by the end of Q2. It will mature based on volume division over the quarters of the year. That is also what you see in that graph with Q2 towards Q4. Yeah. The impact, because that was this quarter, impact of price increases was still EUR 15 million, which is about in line with previous quarters. We should see that going up gradually over the quarters as well. Yes. Final question from my part about the cash flow, because you managed in Q4 to step up the free cash flow to bring it into positive territory over the year. You anticipated phasing, and we saw that also in Q1 of this year. If I would look at a bit more underlying trend, is it then fair to say that it will be on an annual basis slightly negative up to around break-even? Is that a fair conclusion, or am I missing something? I think it is good to bring this back to our outlook, where we say what our proposed or expected free cash flow will be. This phasing effect was foreseen in that and also a part of that. The thing is that that's clear what you anticipate for the year. I was just looking at the two combined. Due to the phasing, probably this year's free cash flow is lower than it might be if the strong Q4 was not there. That is what I'm a bit looking at if I skip out that element. Yeah, I understand what you're trying to do. I think from that perspective, if we would revert it, of course, your delta working capital of 2024 would look more negative than the EUR - 17 that we reported by roughly speaking the amount that you now see as delta, which still means that for the entire year, you would get to, if you correct it, roughly speaking, comparable investments in working capital corrected for that phasing effect. We do not see a fundamental deterioration or improvement of working capital underlying drivers. The only element that I always need to say as kind of a bit of a warning, there are not necessarily linear agreements with postal operators in terms of at what moment in time you settle your terminal due position. That could vary between the years a little bit depending on at which point those terminal dues are really due. We do expect, forget the phasing now, let us say an investment in working capital in this year to get to the overall free cash flow outlook that we also leave unchanged. Perhaps a few questions from my side. First of all, I am struggling a little bit with the +19% international volumes and the minus, what was it, 2.4%, I believe, by heart on the domestic side. I can imagine if I look at the CBS online spending figures, which were published last Friday, then I see positive growth, but it was especially in food. That is not your core business. I understand that. The market has fairly grown. Where do you see what was the main trigger for the international growth at the 19%? Was it still the Chinese platforms? If so, I was positively surprised about the improvement of the average value per item, which was EUR 0.03 higher than it was last year. Perhaps you can shed some light on it. Connected to that, you already said you canceled the Sunday delivery for parcels. Has that had an impact on the domestic volumes in the first quarter? Yeah. Maybe to start with your question on the international volume and the domestic volume, what you see is that, clearly, Dutch consumers, when spending their money on e-commerce, do that more from international clients, international platforms versus the domestic players. That is a trend which we have been seeing already for a while and also which is market dynamic, so not necessarily PostNL specific. On your second question, maybe. Yeah, certainly. I do not know. I do not have an absolute number, but surely because of the fact that we have stopped Sunday and we still had those volumes fourth quarter, it did impact partially your domestic growth rates, although I do not think that is that material in terms of volume. The reason why we stopped it is that, let's say, it was significantly loss-making and we did not get any firm commitments from customers to increase or expectations to increase that volume on Sundays. That is why we basically taken this out. At the same time, that also had a negative impact on your average price per parcel, because there the price points were obviously also higher. Again, I do not think those are material for the markers on volume and average price per item for this quarter. It does show the difficulty you have, the dilemma of making choices. If you were meeting Sunday, was not the dilemma? Because at the end of the day, the gap on value was so significant and the likelihood that we could get more volumes in so remote that to me, this is a good call to make and leave that to somebody else then. Okay. So it is definitely value over volume. Yes. Okay. The other question I had is the international volumes, was that predominantly China? The cross-border volumes, yes, that is predominantly China. Not only, but predominantly. Yeah. Basically split over the biggest Chinese webshops that you are aware of, so Temu, Shein, and AliExpress. And as you said, there is no front-loading going on right now in view of the -- No, what we really see is that they are still not giving up that big market for them and find ways to get local to local done, maybe go through Latin America. There are still a fair amount of questions. At this point of time, we do not really see them directing marketing campaigns to Europe yet. Okay. I want to say that that cannot happen, but currently they are still doing whatever they can to salvage as big as they can a part of that U.S. market. Okay. Final question from my side. During the year presentation, you said you were going to step up the investments in the European cross-border trade. Have you anything to report there yet? What we see is we see also there the positive signs from that strategic initiative. We see good performance over there and also in line with what we planned for. Yes, that is in line and contributing as hoped. Margin, how does that compare to the rest of the Parcels division? At this point in time, it is not accretive yet. What we also indicated is that we do expect in-year a EUR 5 million-EUR 10 million negative impact on online steep because of the steps that we've taken. In this quarter, I would say roughly EUR 1 million-EUR 1.5 million on the Parcels segment relates to kind of front-loading those decisions and already taking costs for that expansion in both Belgium and Spring Europe. Over time, as said, we do expect the same impact as we said in February. We're happy with the progress that we're making. Growth in Europe or Spring is really, really great. I think that gives us a good chance to see revenue growth coming from other areas than just kind of the domestic e-commerce base business. Okay. Okay. Did you see any positive impacts from the strikes that hit Bpost in Q1? Because they were quite significant and they mentioned that volumes went to competition. Yeah. Yes, a little bit. Material, I don't really know. If we talk about Belgium and then Belgium in total, so domestic flows from the Netherlands to Belgium, cross-border flows to Belgium, then we saw growth beyond the market growth. I don't think that has been impacted that much by those strikes. Might be a bit, but not significantly more. I don't have a number. Just to confirm, I mean, the Asian webshops, the yield measures will kick in in Q2. There were no price increases yet on the Asian shops. Correct. Yes. Correct. It means that the price points that you saw in first quarter are realized on other clients. Yeah. Maybe then coming back to your full year presentation, there was this slide in there where you showed the development of the Mail and Parcels business if you would not do anything or if there would be a change in D+2? If you then see the trajectory of that graph, including that D+2 approval, etc., and the measures taken in the longer term also, you see that in 2025, 2026, there is only a small deviation, let's say EUR 10 million-EUR 15 million, if I do a bit of the measurements on the graph. All of a sudden, you see it bend off in 2027 to a big plus in 2028. What makes that graph all of a sudden come from, let's say, a big minus, let's not put a number on it, to quite a big plus? Is that going to a D +3? Is that the savings? Because the savings from just getting approval from the ACM now seem to be rather small because it's a small part of your volume going into D +2 because most of it is already done? Can you maybe explain a bit more? Yeah. That slide before that famous graph tried to explain this, Mark, but let me. It's slide 29. Yeah. I say look at 28, then the answer is partly there. What will happen is, yes, we can take cost savings if we can go to D +2. We already are taking those case saving measures and are part of 2025 for the business mail because already we have migrated 70% of business mail to D +2 at this point in time. It will contribute roughly, roughly, I would say for now, around EUR 7 million of cost savings in year 2025. That part you cannot migrate again. What you can subsequently migrate in 2025 to 2026 is the remaining 30% of that part. It is depending on what moment in time you can migrate the USO part. That already impacts your 2025 to 2026 phasing. The big change is if you can really go to D+3 because then you can take out your off-peak days completely. That is the biggest contribution to cost savings. That leads to the step-up of cost savings from EUR 40 million-EUR 45 million to EUR 80 million-EUR 100 million on that graph. Yeah. That is on top. It is EUR 40 million-EUR 45 million, and another EUR 40 million-EUR 45 million, and then EUR 80 million-EUR 100 million. That is the big change. You need then, if the conclusion is, do you need to go to D +3 in this regulatory framework to get to positive numbers again? The answer is yes. If we are stuck at the D +2 service level, we'll not get to positive numbers. Do you feel comfortable that the government will? It's a different thing. This is our plan that we've presented. Where are we in that process? We expect within the next couple of weeks a report out from ACM based on the research that they are asked to do. We expect, of course, that the Ministry of Economic Affairs will make up their own mind. We still envisage a discussion in Parliament before summer recess. By then, I guess we would have more clarity on the phasing elements of these elements and whether or not D +2, D+ 3 is both in that draft postal law, yes or no? We believe it should be. That is also why in the meantime, before we get to a change in postal law, we have put that financial contribution request on the table. Now for 2025 and 2026, but if the line stays a line below zero, I think you can guess what we will do. Yeah. Because the blue line, the orange line does not include the compensation. No compensation included, nor in the orange line, nor in our outlook. Right. Thank you. Okay. Let us go to the people in the call. Operator, could you please explain the procedure for questions via the lines? Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press star one, one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one, one again. We will take our first question. The question comes from the line of Michiel Declercq from KBC Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one would be on the yield measures at Parcel. You already talked about it a bit that you're currently in negotiation phase. I understand that you cannot disclose a lot on it. Can you just give some qualitative comments on how these higher compensations, how they have landed or how they are landing, how this is interpreted by your customers, and if there is maybe a reaction from competitors as well to that? That would be the first question. The second one would be, yeah, for me, it's still a bit unclear on the Parcel volume. I understand, of course, the 2%-3% phasing and timing effect, but with the yield measures expected to accelerate in the second quarter, yeah, volumes, I assume, would drop then. I'm still puzzling a bit how you would then get to this 1%-3%, or is there also a positive phasing effect from calendar days in the second quarter? That would be my second question. Maybe lastly, on the cross-border and the Spring business, it's, of course, a lot of inbound and outbound into the Benelux. If I'm not mistaken, in Spring, you also have the non-Benelux to non-Benelux volumes. I was just wondering if there is any direct volumes between China and the U.S., and if you could maybe quantify this because this would then have a rather direct impact instead of the rerouting trends, which are now a bit more uncertain. Those would be my questions, please. Yes. Let me start with answering your second question on the growth, the growth volume you are referring to. Indeed, the overall growth is 2%. Taking into account the effect of working days, you would then come around 4-5%, which is also in line with the assumed total market growth. What we have mentioned in our outlook and also at the beginning of the year is that given the yield measures which we are taking and also what we talked about before, we expect there to be a step down in that growth because of the yield measures we are taking and therefore resulting in the 1%-3% growth which we are referring to. That gap is then the assumed market share loss which we are anticipating because of these targeted yield measures which we are taking. Maybe on the negotiation side, on the developments there, maybe. Yeah. Let's say it is at least progressing. Difficult to be specific here. I, of course, appreciate the question. Let's say I am positive about the progress. You will expect them to be slightly distracted by what happens in the U.S. because, of course, they are significantly impacted as a company because of all of that. Some of these conclusions are not or negotiations have not concluded because of that fact, not particularly because of the position we take, but just by the distraction that gets to them. Positive about the progress. Addition to Linde's point maybe is that to be clear, that also means that if we expect market share loss, it will be share loss driven by that international volume. Not on your domestic percentage points, but on your international points because the yield measurement discussions that we just had for this quarter focus predominantly on that flow. Maybe on the cross-border question then, yes, there's a bit of to U.S., not necessarily only China, but we do have trade lanes from the Netherlands or from Spring- origin countries to the U.S. That trade lane is not that big. That's also why we said we do not expect the impact of trade wars as a consequence on those trade lanes to be material enough to walk away from our full year outlook. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one, one on your telephone. We will take our next question. Your next question comes from the line of Marco Limite from Barclays. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for my question. The first question is on recent press articles about one of your largest retailers, let's say, stepping up efforts to setting up in-house deliveries. Just any comment on that, what have been your latest discussion on that? Second question is on the state compensation. I mean, is there any timing you expect for final decision on the compensation for 2025 and 2026? Third question is just a follow-up on your outlook for Parcels volume growth. International volume grew a lot, especially towards the second half of the year last year. If we have a slower international volume growth in the second half of this year because the comps become tougher, do you expect basically domestic volumes to accelerate, or do you expect a very similar split in terms of growth as of Q1 for the rest of the year as well? Thank you. Thank you for your questions, Marco. First point is related to the news article that was in the Financial Times, Dutch Financial Times, that really relates to a part of Bol.com. The way we look at it is there's a very strong strategic partnership between PostNL and Bol.com that's there already for quite some years. That is a very strong partnership that works both ways. We were aware of the fact that Ampère, which is the part that is referring to, is testing and piloting in some parts of the country home delivery. The size and scale of these elements, in our view, do not change the logic of the strategic partnership that we have with Bol. I do not expect any material impact because of that. On the second point, the state composition, is there a timing? The answer is yes and no. There's no formal required written deadline in legislation. At the same time, we've put forward a deadline in our request and basically asking for a resolution and decision on it prior to our half-year numbers. So roughly speaking, end of June, beginning of July. That's what we've set out. We believe that's a realistic and reasonable time frame. We do expect the Ministry of Economic Affairs to take their view. We need to wait for that. On your last question with regards to the impacts of the international volumes and looking forward, as Pim mentioned before, the impact of global trade and what will happen and the consequences thereof, it is too early at this point in time to say anything about that. At this point in time, we are comfortable with our outlook for 2025. Yeah, we are agile and we'll adjust where needed. Can I add two quick ones? The first one is, what is your exposure to Bol.com, or what's the amount of your domestic volumes coming from that retailer, number one? Also, another question. Do you think that despite you have kept the outlook for 2025 and change, now the outlook is a bit more back-end loaded compared to your expectations in February? Thank you. No, it's not more back-end loaded. It's as back-end loaded. Bol.com is our biggest customer. But as said, we really talk about fractions of their volume, really small. Think about 1%, 2%, 3% of their total volume that potentially might be served through Ampère for home delivery. It is our biggest client, but the size of the risk that they on scale take a lot of those volumes for self-distribution is very limited. Quite frankly, I also really do not see the logic why they would do that given the partnership that there is in place and also what it takes to be able to deliver parcels at scale in every household of the Netherlands. Thank you. Thank you. We will take our next question. Your next question comes from the line of Stefano Toffano from ABN AMRO ODDO. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Good morning, everybody. Apologies for the quick first question because it is another one on Bol.com a little bit related to what my colleague Marco was referring to. I understand that you are not worried about now the volumes that Bol.com might take on its self-to-delivery. Aren't you a little bit worried on the trend? I mean, there are examples of other players which had a large client which started slowly, but then three, four years down the line, that 2% became a little bit bigger. Then they started to ask some, yeah, lower prices. Basically implying that Bol.com's position will become a little bit bigger in the future. Aren't you a little bit worried on that? It seems to me you are a little bit too relaxed on this news, but maybe I'm understanding this. I'm overstating this completely. The second question is you mentioned that it is encouraging to see evidence that consumers are increasingly finding the way to out-of-home options, also mentioning the locker solutions. Can you maybe tell us a little bit on that and what you're seeing right now and the progress on this? The last one is a more technical one. I mean, last year, CapEx 2024 was much lower than 2023. If I look at the Q1 CapEx, I see EUR 26 million last year, EUR 24 million this year. Obviously, the impact is just EUR 2 million. Is this lower year-on-year CapEx an indication of the rest of the quarters? Thank you. All right. Go back to the first point. I do not think I am too relaxed about it. I would say we are educated about what happens in the market. We know what type of models parties can apply. At the same time, we also know what it takes to distribute a million parcels. That is not easy. If you want to grow a parcel delivery yourself, it is asset-heavy, as you know. You'll need men, women, vans, sorting capacity. This is not something that will turn to scale quickly. Are we following it? Yes, of course. Do we expect some clients to take those steps maybe to create leverage or put pressure on terms negotiation? Could be the case. The question was, are you worried about development put in that news article, and then my answer remains the same. It's actually also not a Bol.com spokesperson that said something there. We follow this. I'm not relaxed about it, but at the same time, I do not expect a material impact of it. Yeah. Maybe on the APL, or your question on your APL progress, there we see that as part of our strategic initiatives, we see good progress there with a continued high NPS score of + 46 for the automated parcel lockers. We also see that already 7% of our users of the PostNL app are choosing APL delivery as their preferred option. Also from the implementation side or let's say placement of the APL or the automated parcel lockers, that is progressing according to plan and as such on track according to our initiative. On the CapEx guidance, we've given a bit of guidance in February about this, basically saying slightly higher than 2024, also driven by roughly EUR 15 million of investments that do relate to the five strategic initiatives that we at that point in time introduced. This remains the full year CapEx outlook. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will take our final question. Your final question comes from the line of Frank Claassen from Degroof Petercam. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes. Good morning, all. I've got indeed one question last. You've indicated that you are agile and willing to adjust plans if things would deteriorate in the course of the year. Can you elaborate what you are referring to? Are you referring to more cost savings, accelerating cost savings? How flexible are you with that? What are the, let's say, the game plan if things would deteriorate? I think we said agile in both directions and not necessarily only in case of deterioration because there's also potential outcomes where there could be more volume coming our way depending on the choices that Asian web shops make on how they look at Europe. It is not necessarily only one direction. It means that we'll look at the options that we have to scale network capacity or to increase the utilization in certain parts of the year. Also, that applies downward. If we see volumes coming down versus expectations, what we always do is think about the composition. Do we leave all depots open for first and second sorting, yes or no? Can we take capacity out to adjust for volume losses if they occur? Those are the bigger elements there that we refer to. Okay. Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. Likewise, yield management plans if more volume comes your way. What are you going to do price-wise to accommodate that above and beyond what already is committed? There are also commercial elements to this agility. I see. Thanks. Thank you. This concludes the question- and- answer session. I will now hand back to Inge Laudy for closing remarks. Thank you all for participating in our analyst call for Q1 2025. We see you back somewhere in August, August 4. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.