Good morning. Thank you for joining us today. I'm Allison. Happy to host you for CICT's full year results briefing. Sorry, apologies about the minor delay. We are very excited to have you with us today, whether you are with us in person or tuning in from your desk. As per usual, today we'll start off with a presentation by our CEO, Choon Siang, who will walk us through his key highlights. After that, we'll move on to the Q&A, where the management team will join us onto the stage to address your questions. If there are some good ones, please save them for later. We'll try to get to as many as we can. With that, I would like to invite Choon Siang onto the stage. I use this? Oh, okay. okay. Hey. Hi, good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. We just announced our results this morning. Quite happy with the overall outcome of how last year went. A lot of things to go through today, so bear with us. I will spend just maybe about 10 minutes, 15 minutes just walking through the highlights, and then we can move on to Q&A, as Allison has mentioned. Okay. First on the numbers. I think CICT delivered a very strong performance for the year FY 2025. Full year NPI, we grew by about 3.1% year-on-year to SGD 1,189.7 million. Second half NPI grew at a faster pace at 6.8% year-on-year to about SGD 610 million. The strong growth was due to quite a few factors across the board. Strong asset performance across the portfolio and the step-up acquisition of the 100% interest in CapitaSpring, which was completed on August 26 last year. Full year distributable income rose 14.4% year-on-year, while second half distributable income expanded 16.4%. Unitholders will be pleased to know that CICT's full year DPU increased 6.4% year-on-year to SGD 0.1158, despite an enlarged unit base from the private placement in August last year. This was supported by a very strong second half, which provided uplift with a 9.4% year-on-year growth in DPU to SGD 0.0596. On the capital management front, we have been proactive, putting CICT in a very favorable position in terms of cost of funding. At the end of 2025, our aggregate leverage has improved to 38.6%, down 0.6 percentage points from S eptember 30, giving us greater financial flexibility. Our average cost of debt has declined to 3.2% from 3.3% three months ago. Versus the end of 2024, we are down by about 0.4 percentage points from 3.6%. This was supported by the easing interest rate environment and our refinancing efforts. Our current portfolio property value is at SGD 27.4 billion, an increase of 5.2%. Operationally, our portfolio remains strong. Overall occupancy 96.9%, while 3.0 years. Rent reversions for both retail and office 6.6%. Tenant sales per square foot up by 14.9% year-on-year, largely due to the inclusion of ION. Shopper traffic up 20.5% year-on-year. Excluding ION, tenant sales per square foot would have grown by about 1.2% year-on-year, while shopper traffic will be up 4.6%. The momentum was stronger in the second half, with tenant sales rising 1.9% year-on-year, excluding ION Orchard. In 2025 and year- to- date January 2026, we continue to execute our value creation strategy across acquisitions, divestments, AEIs and even development. These have strengthened the quality of our portfolio, enhanced income resilience and positioned CICT for sustainable long-term growth. I will cover more on the newly announced initiatives in the next few slides. In January 2026, we announced the divestment of Bukit Panjang Plaza for SGD 428 million. The price is a 10% premium to the latest valuation and 165% uplift over our purchase price in 2007. The exit yield was around mid 4% level. If we were to complete the divestment in end 2026, gearing would have fallen 1%- 37.6%. We expect to complete this divestment by the first quarter of this year. We'll be embarking on the development project this year. We won the Hougang Central site through a joint bid, which includes CapitaLand Development. This is a first major GLS site in the precinct since 2019. We will own and develop the commercial component. The site is in a prime location served by the existing North East Line and the upcoming Cross Island Line and will be seamlessly integrated with a new bus interchange. Surrounding the site, there are established amenities including schools, sports center, community club and parks. We see this as a compelling opportunity to address the underserved demand in the precinct and to curate a retail environment that meets the needs of both residents and commuters. The total development cost for this project is about SGD 1.1 billion, which translates to approximately SGD 3,600 per sq ft. An expected yield on cost of over 5%. This compares very well with the recent retail transactions at the low to mid 4% level. This will be a brand-new mall built to our specifications. Taking into account inflation, the site's prime location, and the integration with the two MRT lines and the bus interchange, we believe that total development cost is reasonable for a high-quality brand-new mall. For reference, the capital value for our Bedok Mall is about SGD 3,700 PSF, while some of the recent market transactions were done at above SGD 4,000 PSF. We will be financing the development through both internal funds and external borrowings. Target completion is expected to be in four to five years. The development is strategically important for a few reasons. Firstly, it increases our exposure to Singapore, which remains our core market and a key source of stable long-term income. Secondly, the site is in a prime location in the heart of Hougang. With excellent connectivity, as I have articulated earlier, and a large residential catchment. Thirdly, this is a rare opportunity, as well-located suburban malls at transport nodes in Singapore are tightly held and rarely available. Through this development, we can establish a strategic foothold in the North-East region and expand our retail footprint in Singapore. The development sits within a strong population catchment, one of the top highest in Singapore. There is also likely spillover demand from neighboring towns like Kovan, Punggol, Sengkang, and Serangoon. Our JV partners will further expand this catchment by introducing 830 residential units to the mixed-use development. Hougang has only 2.8 sq ft of private retail space per capital, far below the national average of 11.4 sq ft. This presents an untapped potential supporting the development's long-term prospects. Next, moving on to AEIs. This year, we'll be starting a new AEI at Capital Tower. Essentially, what we are doing is basically reposition our level nine, which is this floor. Some of the amenities space into a community space and create a higher-yielding F&B space at the ground floor of the urban plaza. On level one, we'll be introducing a two-story multi-tenanted pavilion with F&B offerings. On level nine, the space will be reconfigured to become the first workplace mental wellness center in the CBD. The AEI works will be from third quarter 2026 to the fourth quarter 2027. An update on our ongoing AEIs. Gallileo has completed a progressive handover of phase I, the office tower, to ECB. The target handover of phase II is expected by this quarter. AEIs at Tampines Mall and Lot One and Raffles City are progressing well. On valuations, the key assumptions remain largely unchanged, and cap rates remain fairly stable. Our portfolio property value grew 5.2% to SGD 27.4 billion, largely driven by the step-up acquisition of CapitaSpring and the strength of our Singapore portfolio. Germany's valuation went up after factoring in Gallileo's AEI. I'll conclude my presentation here. Happy to take your questions after this. Thank you. Thank you, Choon Siang. Can we invite the management team onto the stage? Now we have come to the Q&A segment. Before we dive into it, let me introduce the management team. On Choon Siang's right, we have Wong Mei Lian, our CFO. To his left, we have Jacqueline Lee, Head of Investment. To Jacqueline's left, we have Lee Yi Zhuan, Head of Portfolio Management. A few housekeeping rules before we start. We'll take questions one person at a time. We kindly ask that you keep your questions to two per turn. If we have more questions, we'll come back to you, as we know some of you always do. Those online, please type in your questions into the chat box. If you have questions, please raise your hands, and we'll bring the mic to you. I see Mervin. Go ahead. Hi. Mervin from JP Morgan. Congrats, Choon Siang, on the very strong results. Glad to see you continuing Tony's very strong legacy. I would say this is probably the best results amongst the S-REIT season. If I analyze the second half DPU, looks like you're hitting the pre-COVID 2019 level already. I know you're not supposed to analyze it, given the second half is much stronger. Why you are excited about this year in terms of growth drivers? Maybe you can share that with us. Second question is divestments. I think previously you mentioned about asset rejuvenation. Is Germany still something you want to be in? Thanks. Thanks, Mervin. Okay. This year. Well, on your DPU question. We don't typically provide forecasts. Typically, second half is stronger than first half, seasonally speaking. While we hope to improve on our results for this year, let's see. I think maybe we'll just break it out into what are the potential growth drivers in terms of our DPU. I think underlying performance for the organic portfolio still remains healthy. We're still reporting positive rental reversions, the positive rental reversions from last year will also continue to contribute to the organic growth because, as you know, we calculate rental reversions based on average to average. In fact, the last two years' rental reversions will also still be figuring into this year's growth drivers. That's one for on the organic side. Second thing on the AEI, this year, we have Gallileo completing. Gallileo will fully contribute for this year. Last year, it started contributing towards the end of the year, probably not significantly. That will definitely be one of the growth drivers as well. Third, of course, there are some of the other AEIs like Lot One and Tampines Mall that will progressively contribute. Those are likely to happen closer to second half of the year. The contribution for this year will probably be slightly smaller. Third thing on the AEI front is that last year, we also completed IMM towards the middle of the year, there will be a full year contribution. Last year, they started contributing probably from the middle of last year. Those are some of the incremental growth drivers from AEIs. Okay. On the third growth driver, I would say, while we had the benefit of a full year ION already, the base has already included 12 months of ION income. Whatever we get from ION going forward will be the incremental organic growth. Last year, we acquired CapitaSpring in August, that's a fairly accretive transaction. That contributed about four months last year, this year will fully contribute for 12 months. Some of the improvement in the second half was actually attributable to CapitaSpring as well. We're likely to see this flow through to this year. Of course, last but not least, very importantly, interest cost savings. We know that that's a big swing factor for REITs. Every time interest rates come down, we will see a significant benefit. Of course, I think, nobody knows what the direction is going to be this year. It looks like SORA has kind of found a footing. Of course, a lot of our loans are still fixed at the higher rates. On average, it's 3.2%. Marginal rate is probably closer to the mid 2% handle. There's still some room. We don't have a lot of loans for refinancing this year, to be honest. I think we did a lot of refinancing last year. Of course, we still have a large proportion of loans in floating, that will benefit from the drop in floating rates. It also means that it will help with our ability to continue to grow and acquire going forward. I think those are the growth drivers. Hopefully, touch wood, if the economy remains nice and chugging along nicely, that should help us. I spent a lot of time on answering your first question, I forgot the second question. Divestments. Divestments. Okay. We just announced one divestment. Take it easy, man. Give us some breathing room. We haven't actually closed the Bukit Panjang. I think let us be focused on closing Bukit Panjang first, and then we will think about the next step in terms of divestment. There are a few possibilities, as you already pointed out. We will start reviewing some of our assets outside of Singapore as well. Of course, those will always depend on the market conditions in the respective markets. You brought up Germany, which I'm sure is something that's on quite a few people's mind. I think Germany, the way I see it's slightly de-risked now because we have Gallileo that has already been handed over to the tenant. From this year onwards, it will start contributing income, there is not as much urgency. We can actually benefit from the uplift in NPI from the asset in any case, whether we divest or not. Of course, if you divest, then you probably have to worry less in a sense. Actually, the asset itself has a long-term 10-year lease, it's pretty much de-risked. We have another asset in Germany that is not of the same tenancy structure, of course. We potentially can look at that as well. Okay. Rachel, please. Hi, morning, Choon Siang and team. Congrats on the very strong results. Thank you. My first question is, probably, if you could, I think you spoke a little bit on interest cost. You have done very well in 2025. Could you guide us a little bit on 2026 interest cost? My second question is on, since Mervin have asked divestments or asked acquisitions, are you still keen on Singapore retail, like, say, your sponsor pipeline Jewel, or are you keen to buy the office assets that are in the market? Yeah. Okay. I'll take the second question, then maybe Mei Lian can take the first question later. In terms of acquisitions, no, I think we continue to look at our portfolio reconstitution. I think the current environment in terms of our cost of funding actually is quite conducive for us. Interest cost is low. Our cost of equity is fairly reasonable. I think we have always been quite selective about what we look at in terms of acquisitions. There are not that many opportunities in the market. You talked about retail and office. Let's maybe look at retail. Retail, I think there aren't that many opportunities in the market. You mentioned Jewel, which is our sponsored pipeline. That has been there for a while. I think it might take some time because I think the financials need to match our pricing expectation as well before there can be a transaction. We'll have to see how that goes. Also the vendor needs to be willing to sell at some point first. We don't know what's the thinking there. On the office front, there are a few office assets that's been out in the market. The challenge, I guess, is the pricing expectation and the yield expectations for some of those assets, whether they can make it work. I think safe to say we are unlikely to acquire an asset that doesn't contribute financially or doesn't really help unit holders. If it's not accretive, it will be quite challenging. If you're talking about those chunky assets, if it needs equity funding, it's even more challenging. I don't know. Probably not answering your question but taking a long time to not answer your question. I think it's quite difficult for some of those assets that are trading at fairly low use. On interest rates, like what Choon Siang mentioned earlier, the amount of loans that is due for refinancing is not that big. Given where current interest rate levels are, in terms of interest rate guidance, I think we could be in the range of 3%- 3.1% level. Geraldine? Hi. Morning, Choon Siang. Congrats on the very strong set of results. My first question will be on valuation. I think foreseeing the lower bound of the value cap rates seems to have tightened a little bit. Are you able to share what has changed? Is it because of the market transactions? Second question is on if you are looking forward, the picture looks very rosy. Just thinking a lot, what are the kind of concerns that you have in mind for 2026 and anything further that you want to de-risk in 2026? Okay. Maybe I'll take the second question first. First question I will defer to Yi Zh uan. Did our cap rate lower bound move? I don't recall it moved. Retail, I think 4.35%. Last year was 4.35% also, right? Last year, I believed it's 4.5%. No. Yeah, I think 4.35% is the first time I'm seeing such a tight cap rate. For office also, it's 3.15%. Last year, I'm not sure. I think it's closer to 3.25%. A very slight movement, but [crosstalk]. I believe it's the same. Yeah. I think it's the same as last year. Okay. Maybe Yi Zhuan, you can double-check, and then we can get back later. What's the second question? Concerns for 2026. Oh, risk. Yeah. Okay. To me, the biggest risk is actually interest rates, because we have come down quite a bit over the last one to two years, and there is always this fear that we might start reversing the trend. Australia just hiked rates last week, there's always this pressure. I think Singapore is in a fairly stable environment, also from most people's perspective, SORA has come down to a low 1%. How much lower can it go, right? I think there's a lot of liquidity still in the system. There's still a lot in flow, hopefully SORA remains at the current levels. I think the risk to SORA going up is if the U.S. rate starts going up. It doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon. It's always the risk at the back of my mind. Secondly, obviously, it will be the economy, the general economy. Last year, we had a lot of good things going for us. At the start of the year, we were forecasting a recession in Singapore, we ended the year at, what, 4.8% GDP growth. That's a big swing from beginning of the year to the end of the year. Whether we are able to repeat last year's performance in the general economy, I don't know. That could be a big risk. I think last year there was also a lot of pump priming. CDC vouchers and all that. We'll see what the budget brings next week. There could be some effect there. Third, I don't think it's a big risk, but people in the street will always put it as a risk. Of course, it's the completion of RTS this year, whether that will have an impact. I think we have talked about this at length many times with many of you. Different people have different opinions. We'll see what happens. We can't rule it out as a risk. Yeah. Maybe we'll go back to the first question on cap rates, Which one? Yeah. The range actually compared to last year-end, is the same range for both the office and the retail, at least for the lower bound. Okay. Can we go to Joy, please? Joy from HSBC. Congrats. Two question from me. First, on development on Hougang. If I look at the lower end of your cap rate, 4.35%, do you think roughly about 70 basis points-100 basis points of spread is sufficient to compensate for development risk? With Hougang, can we assume you won't look at redevelopment of your existing assets in the near term? That's one. Second question is on NPI margin. I think historically, Q4, your retail NPI margin usually is lower. If I look at the quarterly trend, this quarter you actually bucked the trend. Your NPI margin is very strong. Can I understand what's the swing factor, and can I take this as the base for next year? Thank you. I think on the development premium front, there's always a judgment, right? When we say it's at least 5%, we didn't say it's 5%. That's one. If you look at 70 basis points, 80 basis points, it sounds small, but it's 20% of the value when you have a cap compression of 80 basis points at 4%, it's 20% of the value. I don't know. Is that enough for a development premium? When developers do residential development, I think they price in typically a 10%-15% margin. Let's just think of it, if we don't do this and somebody's developing and we have to buy it from them five years later at 4.3%, would investors have preferred that? I don't know. It's a tough call. I think there's no right answer. It also depends on how we manage the cost. I think if we are able to manage the cost well. Of course, it's all about execution of the development and how it turns out in five years. Nobody knows what the market is going to be like in five years. Even if you assume the inflation of a certain rate, rent should theoretically go up by then. If you are able to get entry yield of 5%, then SGD 3,600 per sq ft, to us, that's reasonable. Yeah. It's a bit of a judgment call, but the reality is, I think it's hard to find an asset at that kind of yield in this market, as we have found out in the last few months. Of course, we could also go down the safe path and buy a core asset at maybe 4.2%, 4.3%. Yeah, the calculation for this is also a bit different. It's not just simply comparing an asset to another asset. We like the location. This precinct is very underserved in terms of retail demand. I don't know, for those who stay around that area, you know that there is not that much in the neighborhood. I think the neighborhood is starved of a retail mall, a big retail mall. There's been quite a lot of new neighborhoods in the area. That's a very new, from Hougang all the way to Sengkang, Punggol. Which obviously is a higher NPI margin. It may not be a like for like when you compare year-on-year. You're talking about specifically for retail? Oh. I think for retail, we did have some cost savings, I think. Utilities costs have come down. I think we have entered into better contracts last year. There were some utilities cost savings. That has improved our margins. Yi Zhuan, anything else to add in terms of margins? I think it was actually in part your utilities savings is one, and then there's a bit of rebates from the electrical front. For 2026, probably you can see a little bit of that continuing. I would say that this is likely a slightly improved NPI margin that we can expect for 2026 as well. Oh, redevelopment. I think AEIs to us is BAU. Whether we did Hougang or not, we will continue to go ahead with AEIs. I think the rationale of spreading out AEIs is that it tends to create a drag on our cash flows. When you do AEI, you have to sacrifice some NPI because you have to shut down some of the spaces to rejuvenate. The difference with Hougang is that you don't give up any NPI because you're not tearing down anything. There is definitely balance sheet consumption, interest cost is capitalized during construction, there is no drag on DPU as well. The only cost to this, I guess, is gearing. Gearing will go up, I think we are quite comfortable with the divestment of Bukit Panjang. Our gearing is at 37.6%. That gives us a very comfortable position. In a way, we are not sacrificing any DPU to go into Hougang. It shouldn't affect our other BAU initiatives. If a redevelopment comes along, and it makes sense, it shouldn't matter whether we have done Hougang or not. Of course, the only thing is whether we have the balance sheet to do the redevelopment. I think we are fairly comfortable at 37.6%. It gives us a lot of debt headroom. Every 1% for us is about how much? SGD 27.2 billion. We are about maybe just under SGD 1 billion from our debt headroom. Okay. [audio distortion]? Hi. Morning. Just one quick question on the Hougang site. Does the SGD 1.1 billion include capitalized interest costs? Secondly, on Bukit Panjang Plaza divestment proceeds, would you set that aside for development, or is there a chance that you could actually redeploy during the next one to two years? Okay. I think the short answer to the first question is yes, it includes the capitalized financing costs. It includes all of our construction costs and all the contingencies that we have provided as part of our normal planning purposes as well. Bukit Panjang proceeds, money is fungible. Last year we made some acquisitions. You can see us topping up the balance sheet, or we can also use it to fund future acquisitions. You are right. In a way, selling at mid 4% is no different from, in fact, it's slightly cheaper than raising equity. Currently, our cost of equity is 4.8%, 4.9%. We can use it to redeploy into future acquisitions, definitely. Next thing is on forward guidance. Maybe just a comment. REITs P&L is probably one of the easiest to forecast. As you have said that forward guidance is encouraged. Maybe next time we meet you can be the first brave soul. Thank you. Note that. Thanks, Shen. There we have question. Okay. Maybe just follow up on Hougang. Don't mean to flunk this, how did this come about? I don't think REITs generally don't participate in GLS sites, even as a joint venture partner. How did this come about? Did you volunteer or? Yep. Okay. That's an interesting one. If you had asked us a year ago whether we would do a pure development project, probably the answer might be closer to no than yes, probabilistically speaking. How did this come about? I think one is we have always been quite focused on growing over the last, we have looked at many opportunities along the way. We have also found that it's quite difficult to do acquisitions in Singapore, as you all might appreciate. A lot of assets that are available for sale have been sold at very aggressive pricing. I wouldn't say aggressive, maybe it's fair pricing. Five years later, we could look back and think that, "Oh, wow, that's cheap." This Hougang site came about. It has a fairly large commercial component. I think if it was a small commercial component, we probably won't look at it. I think if it's not a big project, we also are less likely to look at it. The reason why we wanted to do Hougang, I think one is it's fairly sizable enough, right? SGD 1 billion, SGD 1.1 billion of deployment. Secondly, competition. I think because not many people out there can do a residential- cum- commercial project. We have seen from, say for example, The Clementi Mall bid, the competition was quite tough. When you have 10, 15 people bidding for the same project, the value gets competed away. We know that there probably won't be that many people who can bid for such a huge project. If you add in the residential and the commercial component, the total development value is north of SGD 2 billion. There aren't that many parties in Singapore that can do that. In a way, true to that, there were only three parties that bid it. Of course, we know the likely two or three parties that were likely to bid. Actually, we looked at it for a while, since the site was announced. Of course, we didn't really want to invite competition, so we didn't really put it out there, obviously. The alternative was for the other consortium, which was CLD and UOL Consortium to bid. The earlier conversation was that they will bid, win it or not, but if they win it, we can potentially just buy over from them, which is our normal process. If they were to do that, then we will have to buy at a different price. Which is fine, because it's de-risk. Higher price doesn't always mean worse, obviously, because it's a de-risk product. The difference this time is that if they were to do that, then they can't bid as high as well. They have to price in the margin. Right? They can only bid, because when they sell it to us, they have to hold it for five years and then sell it to us. They probably have to bid in a certain margin. We thought that, okay, if you come in directly, then we can get rid of that safety net for them, and then we were a little better than if they would do it themselves. We debated that maybe that's the better outcome for everyone. It also means that we have a higher probability of securing a REIT if the REIT is able to come in directly. We know that very few other REITs can do that because there's a limit to how much development headroom you can do. For us, our total AUM is SGD 27 billion, 10% of that is SGD 2.7 billion. It gives us very comfortable headroom and still able to do other projects. For some of the other REITs, probably we know that they are more limited by that. That is our thinking, and that was a strategy that we went in with. Fortunately for us, that worked out relatively well. Despite that, we only won by a very thin margin, we really needed that competitive pricing. Even though we won by a small margin, I think the pricing is generally, we are quite happy with the outcome. We think that buying at that price is fairly reasonable. It's probably no worse off than buying a brand-new retail mall that is de- risk at mid to low 4%, say, for example. Yeah. Some of these malls are like [uncertain]. Sorry? Some of these malls at low 4% are better locations also. Stronger catchments. Depending on how. Yeah, it depends. More central doesn't mean a better location, I guess. I think location to us depends on the catchment and the scarcity in the area as well. Yeah. Okay, cool. Just one last question on reversion outlook, especially for retail. What does that look like, and how does it stack up against your occupancy costs? I think last year we have about 6.6% reversion. This year, I would say that we'll probably stay at moderate to about that level, mid-single digits for retail reversions. Yeah. I think that's the guidance we'll give. Yi Zhuan, anything to add on? Yeah. For office retail, probably looking at now, 12 months later, a lot of things can change, but I think we are pretty much looking around mid-single digit of the reversion. How it stacks up against the retail op cost, I think if you look at the year-end occupancy cost, it's relatively okay, 17%, right? The downtown, if you look at the suburban, it's actually on the 16-ish kind of percent. I would say our cost perspective, we are still quite healthy. Of course, along the broader market, you see on and off there's pockets of the retailers having some of these challenges, and a like for like basis, we probably have to tackle some of the localized kind of specific issues across the different trades, right? Like for example, we talk about cinemas, whether or not there's an immediate replacement to cinemas or we are taking a short-term kind of extension to some of them. That will play out a little bit effect in terms of rent reversion. I would say by and large, we should be okay in terms of the op cost and reversion. Can we pass the mic to Goola, please? Thank you. Hi. Goola here from The Edge Singapore. I've got a couple of questions on the office front because your occupancy fell. In terms of the expiring rents, which is on this slide 34. They're a bit high for next year. I'm just wondering for this year and as well as this year, whether you said mid-single digit reversions for this year, but I'm just wondering what you think is the outlook and why did your occupancy fall for that office front? For the retail, there's another retail question. I just wondered, what is the F&B percentage of just the retail portion? Because I think you put it as 16% or 17% for the whole portfolio. But I noticed that your peers that only do retail have very, very high retail portions by GRI and by NLA. Maybe I take the office one. Yeah. Yep. I'll take the office one first. If you look at the expiring rents, it's true that if you look at this 2025 and 2024, actually the expiring rent versus the market rent, we are kind of closing up. Actually, it's much tighter now. How do we then actually explain the kind of outlook? I say a lot of things can change the next 12 months. We are looking at some of the leases that were in discussion for the office side. If we look at the consultants, actually they are a lot more bullish than us in terms of rental growth in 2026 as well as 2027, given that there's actually a little bit of a tightness in supply, especially for good quality assets in centralized location. They do expect the market rents to actually go up quite substantially. If we look at the expiring rents, naturally, the growth in expiring rent is not going to grow as fast as how the outlook of consultants market rent grows. That kind of supports a little bit of hope that some of these things that we set out. Because if I give a very low guidance in terms of reversions, you all will think that I'm being conservative about it. I think it's just realistically how we are looking at this. The next thing I would look at is actually the expiry profile for assets, right? If you look at how our expiry profile is like for office in the 2026, 2027, 2028, the 2027, 2028 kind of is in the window where there's actually a tightness in terms of supply again. Hopefully we can take advantage of the tightness in supply that supports a higher rent, to again negotiate for better outcomes for office portfolio. I think there's a second question on retail. I didn't really quite understand your question. When you say, are you talking about retail portion of office links? I'm talking about retail portion, F&B. What is the percentage of F&B in your retail malls? There's so much F&B, we'll all grow fat. Yeah. The next few years because they have a lot higher rents than your cinema or your supermarket. They don't necessarily have [crosstalk]. They keep on opening and closing. These food places keep on opening and closing. Just wondering, is it a risk for you? We have a slide, right, on the percentage of our [crosstalk]. Do we have? F&B. I think it's about over 30%. Okay. It says 17.8% here, but this is over our entire portfolio. Over our retail space is typically around, depending on which mall, probably about odd 30%. Your question is how are they doing? Whether there is too much F&B. Whether there is too much. Especially when the RTS comes and everybody goes off to Malaysia. That is the point. Yeah. I think, actually, people who go to Malaysia are less likely to be consuming. They will consume F&B, but I don't think that is the trade that will get affected most because everyone can only eat one lunch a day. If you go to Malaysia, you can only eat one lunch. You go there and buy groceries, you can buy 10 detergents. Actually, F&B is probably the least at risk to the RTS opening. Although there will be some leakage, but it'll be very small. We are not so worried about that, actually. In a way, having more F&B is likely to be more defensive. I think F&B opening and closing has actually been a part of retail trade for the longest time. It's been a bit more on the news lately, but I think a lot of the closures are also not really in our malls. A lot of these opening closings, you tend to find them in shop houses. The rent variance tends to be a bit higher, because some of these shop houses can be very low rent for a long time. Suddenly when the owner wakes up one day or a new owner comes in and then you can have rent adjustments. Whereas in malls, you are less likely to see that, right? In our contract, most of our rent escalations are 2%, 3%. We're seeing average rental reversion of 6.6%. We never ever see it 40% in our rental reversion. You don't really see that. 6% rental reversion actually means 2% per annum, which is not significant. Most of the F&B that are in our malls, it tends to be able to survive as long as the business model is sensible and is sustainable. Those that are not able to survive typically means that they are not able to survive even if the rents don't increase, because a 2% is unlikely to make a difference to your business model and your sustainability, right? Yeah. Can we just ask a question on Clarke Quay as well? I think when you mentioned opening and closing, Haidilao is closed. Have you decided what's going to come in its place? Clarke Quay, we've been to it, and my colleagues have been to it, not me so much. It's not as buzzy as o ther some places. Yeah. Haid il ao closure does draw headlines, but I wouldn't say it is one of those that open and close. Actually, Haid il ao has been there from day one. It's one of the first stores that opened. We have rented out the space. Maybe Yi Zhuan can elaborate on that. Firstly, thanks for coming to Clarke Quay, and please do come more. I would say that actually it's a little bit I can understand why people are saying now Clarke Quay's less buzzy, but I think it's also a change in the type of crowd that we are seeing in Clarke Quay. Where it was previously a very loud, to almost some extent rowdy past a certain hour kind of crowd. Now we disperse the crowd across the day rather than just concentrated at night. Then you have a lot of tourists because a lot of them come by to board the boat and stuff like that. For the Haid il ao, we already have a replacement. Of course, I would say that it's not a finished product yet because a lot of things is also If I say that actually I know exactly what Clarke Quay has to be for the market today, it is probably not true, right? It is a product that is evolving as we try to also find where is the threshold of the market's preference when it comes to your day and night shape mix. Then, of course, the other part that will be important for us is when eventually CanningHill is completed. Then we will see when the whole precinct be a bit enlivened, where there's residential, hotel, tourism, and all these things. We think we can again fine-tune that shape mix a little bit. There's an evolving process. In fact, actually, as I shared previously, there's also an element of experiment that we are trying to take with Clarke Quay. Some of the tenants are deliberately kept short-term or temporary, right? Because we didn't want to sign on a tenant, not sure whether that concept They can promise you a lot of things, right? Eventually you want to see the execution. We want to see the market acceptance towards it. That's why we will try out some of these concepts and see how all these things pan out. It's a work in progress. I would say that there's a few good things that's happening. Zouk is going to do a renovation. Like all brands, for a long time when everything is doing stabilized, nobody really go. When you say it's going to close down for renovation, then suddenly everybody starts to go. Hooters. Nobody went to Hooters for probably a while, suddenly everybody's asking what's going to happen to Hooters. I think that it's very inherent that all these things catch the headlines. At the end of the day, what we see is really that when you look at the occupancy cost of all the retailers, we know some that works, we know some that don't. That's where we will talk to our tenants. Either we help them to grow their sales. If not, then we will have to look at replacements. I think if you see across some of the closures, I think recently there's another one about some of the closures in malls, right? Oftentimes, it's not just about the rents, it's really about manpower constraints. Some of the retailers that we spoke to previously, they did share that they have overspend, and they're looking at how to right size because simply, the manpower constraint, manpower cost, all this makes a lot of the operating cost not sustainable. That's why, naturally, then we will feel the pressure, because at the end of it, where they want to protect their margins, right, and something else goes up, they will try to find to cut from other place. I think there's all these things that's ongoing. I'll say F&B is one that we do see a shift in the consumer patterns, right? Where now actually they go to something that's not overly pricey, but they like something innovative, experiential, and everything. Like Chick-fil-A, when it opens, right, the first month sales is very good. Sushida n, very good. The challenge is that when we bring all this new to market in, right, we are not here to do a tenant for one or two months. We want to make sure that that kind of product that they do is actually something that can sustain their sales going forward. That's why I think there are a lot of challenges for some of the F&B operators is, it's not difficult to open F&B, but when they start to open F&B that is offering something that pretty much everybody is offering without something that's differentiating and still without the skill of operational efficiency, that's where they are under pressure in terms of their survivability. Yeah. Going way past my two questions. Just one more. Australia. What are your views on your Australian assets, given that the RBA moved cash rates up 25 basis points this. On the February 3rd. All right. Thanks for the question on Australia. Actually, Australia is generally doing quite well. If you look at the market consensus on Australia is that things have bottomed up probably last year. Rents are actually going up, at least in the core CBD. Core CBD, actually, the occupancy is quite strong. Unlike some of the other cities in Australia, Sydney is holding up quite well, and there's a bit of a flight to quality, right? Supply is getting tighter, rents are going up, vacancies are coming off, and the incentives in Australia are also coming off. Which is the reason why if you look at Australia today, there are actually quite a bit of capital market transactions going on. People are actually getting a bit more optimistic in terms of what's happening in Australia. If you look at occupancy in Australia, it's also picked up slightly across our properties. Perhaps now we'll attend to the online audience. Thank you for being with us virtually. We have four questions. First one is actually from Andy, OCBC. Can you provide the debt breakdown schedule for the Hougang development project? What do you mean by debt breakdown? Expiry profile? I don't understand. The drawdown. As in how much money is in debt, is it? Maybe, I think per year. Well, I don't have the exact amount, but a large part of it will be in this FY, given that we will be paying for the land acquisition. Yeah. Yeah. I'm guessing the question actually is not about debt, it's about how much is needed per year. The deployment schedule, the cash deployment schedule for the next few years. Whether it's debt or otherwise. Like Mei Lian said, of course, the land cost will be paid this year. We will be paying within 90 days, I think the 100% of the land cost. Of course, there's stamp duty as well. For construction cost and the rest of it will be progressive because construction will probably begin only in 2027, after the planning period, which I think probably it's going to be about one and a half years. Construction will really begin in 2027, that construction cost will be drawn down progressively. Another question we have from Helen, CBRE. Will CICT consider another development project before Hougang's completion as we still have that headroom available? It's a hard question because it depends on what's the opportunity, right? I think quite less likely. Like I mentioned earlier, AEIs continue to go on, depending on how you view what's development, to us, AEIs is BAU. If the question is whether we will bid for another development project, which I think is what the question is driving at, probably less likely. We try to not manage too many projects on an ongoing basis. Let's do this really well first and build a track record of executing development projects well before we look at subsequent projects. Of course, never say never. If something is very attractive that comes up, who knows? I think the current thinking now is quite unlikely. The next question we have from Derek, DBS, and Mr. Yap. What is the status of the ION tax transparency? I think no new updates on that. As I mentioned in the last earnings update, this is unlikely to come anytime soon. Last question from Fraser. He's congratulating us on the strong results. The like-for-like revenue growth seems a tad low versus the strong reversion. Why is the cause? Is it due to AEI? What's the like-for-like growth? I think it was. 1.4%. 1.4%. Okay. I think 1.4%, if you look at our reversions, it's about call it 6%, average 2%. Should we be tracking closer to 2%? Some of it could be possibly due to the AEI. Maybe we can break down the details and then get back to you, Fraser. Yeah, Fraser, we'll get back to you. Thank you for the question. Now we turn our attention back to physical audience. Jovi? Thank you. Hi, Jovi, also from The Edge Singapore. Thanks for the presentation. One small question here also about retail. Combining a few threads mentioned here with the news of Hougang, with the line from the slides about establishing a strategic foothold in the northeast region and reading that along with your comments on the lack of retail offering for that catchment, and also your comments on RTS. Broadly, what is your thinking about the entire north of Singapore right now? Would that be a catchment of interest to CICT? Perhaps somewhere near the turf club country area away from the more crowded established areas now. Thanks. I don't think we have a specific view. In Singapore, it's always, and in real estate in general, it's always very localized. To talk about north in general, it's very hard. You can have two more things to each other, and the performance will be quite different. It always depends on the actual location, right? I think generally we are Singapore centric. We like Singapore in general. If there's an opportunity in Singapore, we will definitely look at it. When we look at it, we will evaluate, obviously holistically in terms of whether that particular location makes sense for us. Definitely we did mention that one of the reasons why we went to Hougang was because we don't have anything in the northeast. It always helps us to expand our customer base. We have a loyalty reward program. The more malls we have across, it gives our customer base a wider selection and offering as well, right? Then we can then access the database and customer base in the northeast. People naturally always shop somewhere near their residence. I think we are fairly agnostic in terms of whether it's northeast. Obviously, I think there is market talk about how the northern part of Singapore is going to be more affected by RTS. Partly true, but you will also benefit from the inflow. There'll be a certain vibrancy at the entrance too. Maybe more leakage than less, but I don't know. For us, fortunately, we don't have that much exposure in that area. Like I said, we will look at it specifically on each individual location on its own merit. Okay. Pass the mic to VJ. Hi, morning. Congrats on a good set of results. Most of my questions are asked. Just two questions from me. In terms of Singapore office occupancy drop seen during this quarter, maybe can I know the reason why? Specifically with office rents hitting multi-year high, do you see pushback from tenants in terms of increasing it higher, some tenants moving out of CBD areas? That's my first question. Second question is, in terms of retail sales, if I look at your tenant sales, overall tenant sales, it looks a bit soft. It's in line broadly with market, while I expect you to outperform. Any specific reasons, with this level of sales, do you still see pushing up rents a possibility in next few years? Thanks. Okay. Maybe I will take the second question, then Yi Zhuan can take the first question. Tenant sales, we are up about maybe, it's on the board now. Call it just slightly over 1% for the year. We also have to be mindful that the first half of the year was a slightly more cautious environment. If you strip out the effects of the first half, if you look at it on the second half alone, which was, I mentioned it earlier, in my presentation as well. We're up close to 2% year-on-year. Sales growing at inflationary rates, I guess is business as usual. Whether we should be outperforming that, it's okay. We are quite happy with 2% growth on a year-on-year basis. If nothing else, it's in line with our rental reversions of about 6% per annum. Which then allows us to maintain the same occupancy costs. As we have also mentioned a couple of times, our occupancy cost is actually not super demanding at the moment. We are at odd 17%. Pre-COVID, we were about 19%, and our sales have gone up quite significantly, probably much faster, compared to our rents over the last few years. Sales always lead rents, right? Your sales have to go up before your rents can go up. We have already had the benefit of sales going up quite strongly the last few years. We do have rooms, I think, for rents to go up, to catch up with the occupancy cost. If nothing else, at least if you continue to grow at 2%, 3% sales per annum, at least you are able to maintain the same occupancy cost as this year. I wouldn't call it weak growth rates. Maybe the first question on drop-in office occupancy. Yeah. Okay. For our fourth quarter, actually, the main reason for the drop in occupancy is actually some transitional vacancies that we see in the Singapore office portfolio. Of course, we have one, I think previously I mentioned that one of the city tenants actually left, so that one on its own is quite a big void. At Six Battery Road, we have a few of the smaller kind of tenancies that expire. These are the kind of things that we are aware of ahead of time. Actually, already some of the space has actually backfilled. For example, the one in Capital Tower, we've got about 20%+ backfilled, and then it's fortunately at a positive rent reversion. And the ones at Six Battery Road, we have also backfilled some of the spaces. Some of the spaces in part of this drop in occupancy, so we have to set aside for some of the things like, for example, fire compliance work at Six Battery Road before we can put it back out on the market. Yeah. It's largely that. I will say that we are aware, I would even say that going forward in the next quarter or so, we probably will see a little bit of volatility in a little bit of these occupancies because some of these movements in the market are quite natural, especially at a point in time where we see movements in the market. As you know, there's flight to quality, there's people consolidating expansion, and then there will be natural downtimes to some of these things. Yeah. I think there's a second part of that question where you talk about whether tenants push back on rents. I would say, actually, not really at this point. Of course, naturally, everybody's a bit cautious in terms of with all this global uncertainty, market uncertainty, they try to be a bit more prudent when it comes to rent negotiations, right? By and large, I say the broader themes that are still happening, flight to quality, because ultimately it's about talent attraction, talent retention. Centrality is actually a key theme, not just in Singapore, in Australia as well, as we see the core CBD markets are the ones that always recover and grow fastest. There's actually companies are prepared to pay for the right space. Given that in the view of the broader business, actually, real estate cost is just one function of the other parts that they are concerned about. In fact, actually right now, the challenge for a lot of them is not so much the ongoing rent in the monthly payment perspective, but it's actually more the initial CapEx that is involved in moves. That's the reason why you can see in many cases, some of the landlords are starting to do fitted out offices to help companies bring down their initial setup costs. All these things then become rentalized into the rents. That's gaining a little bit of popularity across quite a few buildings in CBD. By and large, I think that the companies are aware that ultimately, there's only so much space that's available, and they have to make a choice, whether all this ESG central location fits their business better or cost-efficient thing. The delta between a decentralized and CBD is still not wide enough for them to then say that actually a decentralized location is a better way to go for just pure cost reasons. Yeah. Do we have any more questions? Dexter? Hey. Good morning. Dexter from Bloomberg. Can I ask, I know to hop back on this point, on the RTS, do you have actually done any modeling to talk about leakage? Or modeling in terms of how much leakage you would see on that front? On the retail side, again, sorry to harp on this point, but what kind of demand are you seeing now in terms of tenants for your retail malls? Is it still largely coming from overseas, the usual suspects? On the office side, obviously Capital markets seems to be improving, like you kind of pointed to. If you guys are approached to sell some of your assets, will you be considering that? Thank you. Your question is, if we are approached to sell some of our assets, will we contemplate. On the office side. Yeah. On the office side. We have sold off Bukit Panjang, we are not adverse to selling assets. We sold off 21 Collyer Quay, which is an office asset. We are not adverse to selling office assets. I think between office or retail, I wouldn't say we have a preference over either, right? I think the cycles always change. For us, it always depends on what is the proposition in hand. If someone offers us, never say never. If someone offers us a price that is very attractive, I think we will always take a look. If it's attractive enough, we will definitely always take a look. That's all I will say. Yeah. That's on the office and retail front. I think the first part of your question is on RTS leakage, whether we have done some modeling. I think we did before. There are two parts to this, right? The question is the existing leakage, which has already happened, and the incremental leakage as a result of RTS. Existing leakage, when people talk about leakage, there's some confusion about the two, because actually existing leakage doesn't affect the numbers anymore. They have already leaked. It forms a new base. Whatever delta from a year-on-year basis does not make a difference. What we should be concerned about is the incremental leakage from the RTS. Which is a bit hard to model, I think. Yeah. If you look at it from today, the people who drive are likely to remain drivers into JB, because you cannot substitute that away. You drive because you want to be able to move around from point to point. Because you spend a whole day there, if you have the ability to drive, most likely you drive. I don't think that will substitute away to RTS. RTS is likely to create the additional demand from people who used to take the Causeway bus. There is an existing Causeway bus, which I've taken to test it out and see how convenient it is. It is already very convenient because just from one side of the Causeway to the other side only takes 10 minutes, 15 minutes. Of course, there's that additional time that you have to take from your house to the edge of the Causeway. Just crossing the Causeway itself actually is already quite convenient. Of course, with the RTS, it makes it even more convenient. Maybe 15 minutes can cut down to five minutes. Likely it will take away the demand from those who are currently taking bus and move it over to RTS. That's not incremental leakage. The incremental leakage is the people who are currently not going to Johor and then suddenly decide to go to Johor. If you are currently not going to Johor, why is that? Why would RTS make you go to Johor? Must be because of the added convenience, and the slightly shorter time. Actually it doesn't take that much of a long time today anyway. If you are the type that will go to Johor to shop for cheap goods, you're probably already doing it today. I think the incremental effect to me is not as big, but I could be wrong. To me, people who have the propensity to shop for cheaper products in Johor are probably already doing it. What RTS will also do is that it allows Malaysians to then more easily come into Singapore, and this facilitates cross-border labor flow. Right? Which then allows us to tap into incremental demand in terms of labor flow both ways. The whole Johor is booming, right? There will likely to be greater population growth in Johor, either organic or, y ou can't have economic activity without people, right? You are likely to attract people from other parts of Malaysia coming down to Johor. There are a lot of things that Johor doesn't have that Singapore has. Some of these people will likely want to come to Singapore for whole weekends, et cetera. You have expats and all that moving to Johor because of all the development of industrial activity. There's also the incremental benefit. Previously, these people probably, may or may not drive into Singapore, RTS now creates an avenue for them to come to Singapore. I don't think it's all bad. It's not all doom and gloom. There could be some incremental leakage as what I mentioned earlier, but I think it's probably not as big as it is, because all the leakage that is likely to happen has already probably happened. It also facilitates flow back to Singapore. That's how I would think about it, but it remains to be seen. Let's see how that goes. Was there another question on the RTS? I think that's about it. Yeah. Oh, sorry, can I add? Do you have a number on that point? It seems like a net negative then, in a sense, from the way you apply it. On the retail side, again, can I also ask, just adding, in terms of softness, I think VJ talked about just now, but are you seeing change in consumer habits in terms of, obviously the footfall seems to be increasing but the spending seems to be coming down. Have you seen that in your malls as well? Sorry, you were asking if we have a number for the sales leakage? Yes. Okay. Have we done the modeling? Yes, we have done the modeling. We won't be doing our job if we don't do. Whether is there a number I can share with you? I only can say that it's not a number that I will worry and lose sleep over. If anything, I will refer you to DBS report, probably that one's a good reference point. I hope that I addressed that question. I see. On the previous observations? On the retail consumers pattern, I would say that generally, it's very hard to just use a single line to capture the whole market shift. Of course, what we see is a little bit of a, at the risk of generalization, we do see that people are moving away from very, very particular items. You start to see people are trying to spend on experiential dining, experiential entertainment, lifestyle elements. There's a little bit of shift towards more sports and healthy living things. The shift in trend also does not always reflect in the kind of sales that you see. For example, you talk about year- on- year, if you compare, say for example, sports equipment, and then you look at, just using Brompton by example, right? You see it coming down, doesn't mean that less people are cycling compared to three, five years ago. It's just that at a year-to-year basis, because it grew a lot the prior year and the base is high and then it came off subsequent. By and large, that trend inherently, directionally is still going a certain way. We also see that here, for example, IP collectibles are doing very, very well. We used to ask who buy blind boxes. Now we ask who have not bought one before, right? I don't know if any of you have not bought one. Even if you don't really believe in it, people will still try and buy. In fact, we do also see some of the traditional operators that sell toys to kids are now also trying to pivot a little bit into this adult kind of thing. Toys, games, all these things no longer become something that used to be for kids. Nowadays, actually the one that's spending a lot of all these things, fortunately for us, I almost said unfortunate, but it's actually the adults. That's the kind of shifts that we do see in some of these consumer patterns, and that's also the kind of things that we always say, that the retail products are evolving. We talk about all these, focuses and whatnot. Are we seeing a lot of brands from overseas? In the past, the comment has always been that, oh, malls are cookie-cutter malls. Of course, when we start to bring in overseas brands, we start to say, oh, there's too many overseas brands, new-to-market brands. What does it mean for local? It's finding the right balance. I don't think in any of our malls, I can't speak for the rest, but I don't think in any of our malls you can say that, oh, our malls are predominantly tenants from one particular location. It's not a local versus foreigner thing. It's really getting the right mix right, that when somebody goes to our mall, they can buy things that is from local fashion, they can buy a local F&B. They can also, if they choose to do something else, if you want Chinese food, it's very good. Today, you have options, and I think that's important when people come to the mall. Especially if the mall nearest to you is all one style, one pattern, one product line, I don't think you'll want to go back there even though it's the nearest mall to you all the time. Overseas exposure, we do see continued interest from Chinese brands, of course. That aside, we also see a lot from the western part. Again, I bring back Chick-fil-A, I bring back new concepts. We see like permutations, right? Certain things that didn't tend to be high-cost items, now they try to make it more mass pricing, so people can still experience the same thing for a much cheaper price. We see some of these things evolving along the way. Yep. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I'm just mindful of time. Maybe we'll take one last question from John. Can we pass the mic to John, please? Congrats on the very strong DPU growth. My question relates on growth and how that change your view on country allocation. Yeah. For example, would you be open to expanding to retail in Hong Kong? Would you be open to expanding to office in Japan? Right now, locally, asset prices are quite high, given that you are already the largest REIT in Asia Pac, would this be the right time to expand more overseas? Interesting. Thank you. I think question is whether if one day I guess, you preface your question with, because of the new growth mindset, whether we will look at overseas. I guess the assumption is that if we want to continue to grow, will we run out of opportunities in Singapore? At the end of the day, if you're able to find something in Singapore, we rather spend the money in Singapore and continue to grow in Singapore. Question is, have we run out of opportunities? You're asking if this year is the right time to look at overseas. No, I think we have shown in our track record that we are still able to find opportunities, decent, sizable opportunities that continue to be accretive, financially make sense for us, puts our portfolio in a good position. This outcome is also another way that we deploy capital in Singapore as well. That also is another reason why we also look at it. It offers us another way to grow in Singapore. I don't think we have run out of opportunities. There are still so many assets in Singapore that we can look at, without going into details and names. I think the short answer is, if we are able to deploy the next dollar in Singapore, we'd rather do that than going overseas. Do we like Hong Kong and Japan exposure? I think Hong Kong is probably going through quite a bit of challenges, as we can see in some of the other, our sister REITs that have assets there. Rental reversions are still on a negative trend. I don't think it's something that we will be keen to look at, if you ask me. As I mentioned, most of our investors, I think prefer us to still be predominantly Singapore. I think we have also addressed some of these questions in previous. I think, in fact, if we have a choice, I guess we may even look at reconstituting some of our overseas portfolio, if possible, before we look at growing. If possible. Oh, Japan. Wasn't on my mind, I guess I forgot about that. I guess that was an indirect way of answering your question. I think that's all the time we have. Before we conclude, Choon Siang, would you like to share some closing remarks? I think this is a very good set of results. I think I really want to thank all of you for continuing to support us. We know that this sets the bar even higher for us, makes it 2026 a bigger hurdle to climb over. We will continue to work hard, push for results, and stay disciplined in terms of what we do. I think we have a very strong team. I think credit to everyone sitting here and everyone sitting there. That's the reason why we are able to deliver on so many fronts. I think it's not just the acquisition front, although that's the things that a lot of people focus on. Actually, the organic assets still makes up 95% of our portfolio. If we are able to deliver performance from organic assets, that will make our job a lot easier, actually, in terms of looking for growth. Hopefully we continue to deliver. We know it gets much harder and harder each time. Okay, thank you. I think we have some tea right outside, right? Yes. Thank you everyone. We'll speak more later. If you have any further question, please feel free to reach out to us. Otherwise, have a great day. Those in person, enjoy the refreshments outside. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.