Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody.

Five years ago, we made a deliberate decision to position Goodman as a major global provider of digital infrastructure supporting the rapid growth of technology globally. This meant repositioning our portfolio and operations towards large, infrastructure scale industrial property and data centres, assets in urban infill locations close to consumers where demand is most durable and the assets are hard to replicate.

We've executed this strategy by selling and repositioning more than $8 billion of assets over the past five years. We disposed of properties no longer aligned with our strategy and recycled the proceeds directly into our development pipeline.

We used our internal expertise to deliver complex infrastructure, intensifying selected sites and securing the power and planning approvals needed for data centres. Today, we have a portfolio approaching $90 billion and work in progress of almost $20 billion.

We've concentrated our industrial portfolio and development pipeline in high-quality, modern assets capable of supporting advanced automation and robotics. Our data centre program is gaining momentum, and we are now hitting our stride.

Projects are on track and customer commitments are progressing alongside the construction program. We continue to build into strong demand in supply-constrained, low-latency metro markets supporting cloud and AI inference deployments.

Our data centre work in progress has a completion value of over $15 billion and contains almost 500 megawatts of capacity. The global workbook comprises 10 developments across eight metropolitan data centre markets, reflecting the scale of our business.

Supporting all this is a specialist data centre team with local expertise in each market and global capability across Goodman Group. To date, our team has navigated significant economic volatility, supply chain disruption, securing contractors and critical equipment needed to meet energisation and delivery schedules.

Very importantly, we've the capital in place to fund the build-out of these projects, with approximately 90% held through our data centre partnerships. Our recent announcement of a signed lease for the first 50 megawatt phase of a 1 gigawatt Tsukuba tech central project shows how we are delivering on this plan.

We acquired the site in 2022 alongside a long-term strategic investment partner, and secured power and fibre in 2024. In response to strong demand, we started construction for the first building in 2025 with a leading local contractor.

We've now secured a 20-year lease with a global hyperscaler customer. Fully fitted and operated by Goodman, the 50 megawatt facility will be ready for service in early 2028.

With the project underway, this provided our customer a shorter time to market and greater certainty around that important delivery timing. Securing this global hyperscaler customer unlocks Tsukuba tech central as a premier data centre hub in Tokyo.

The Tokyo lease is one of several opportunities progressing across the Goodman power bank. Slide 15 of the presentation sets out the delivery timing and leasing status of our work in progress in more detail.

With deliveries running from '27 through to 2030, we're progressing customer discussions in parallel with construction to optimise commercial outcomes. A number of projects are in negotiations, with several now advanced, and we're engaging with customers across the balance of the work in progress.

We're also in negotiations and engagement with customers on other sites across the power bank that are not yet in work in progress. We'd expect further leases to be signed over the coming period, certainly over the calendar year.

Our capital management strategy remains disciplined. The group has maintained a strong financial position with low leverage and significant liquidity.

Our gearing sits at 6.5%, with $6.4 billion of cash and undrawn lines. While this gives us the capacity to progress our development program, we continue to work with long-term capital partners to provide investment opportunities, manage our risk and return.

In the world where we live, capital is becoming more selective, and our investment management and capital market programs is providing to be a key competitive advantage. Over the past five years, we've raised more than $60 billion of debt and third-party equity across the group and our investment partnerships.

Our investment, operating, and capital management strategy is continuing to deliver strong outcomes for our partners. Today, we announce an operating profit of $2.675 billion for FY '26.

This represents 10.1% growth in operating earnings per security. I'll now hand over to Nick to make some comments.

Thank you, Greg. I'll begin on slide 20.

We'll first cover the items that relate to our cash-backed measure of earnings, the operating profit. As usual, this excludes the unrealised fair market value movements on the properties, mark-to-market of the hedges, and the accounting fair value estimate relating to our employee long-term incentive plan.

The general strength of the Australian dollar over the year had an adverse effect on the translation of our foreign-denominated income, but that was offset by gains we got from our hedging. That gives rise to $37 million benefit in our interest line, and we'll talk more about this as we go through the numbers.

Investment earnings increased by 7%, or $44 million, over the year. There was a $16 million adverse FX translation impact, this was a $60 million increase on a constant currency basis.

Like-for-like income growth contributed $20 million of this increase. The movements in our investment positions accounted for the remaining difference.

During FY '25, we had a substantial increase in direct property holdings. Over the course of this year, however, a significant volume of assets were sold to partnerships.

We contributed our share of the equity alongside our partners. In addition, the partnerships added outside debt that was used to acquire the properties.

Even though we had a significantly lower closing balance on our direct holdings, we owned about $1 billion of additional direct property in FY '26 versus FY '25 on a weighted average basis. As a result, our direct NPI was up by $44 million overall.

The bulk of our investment income comes through our co-investments in the partnerships, and this was fairly stable. Despite our increase in investment by period end, we had nearly $380 million less allocated on a cash-weighted average basis.

Offsetting this was the underlying income growth. There's scope for significant portion of our directly owned assets to create new partnering opportunities over time.

This will reduce our direct investment and NPI, but increase our co-investments in partnerships and management income. At the same time, it'll provide cash to fund our expansion.

Over time, we do want to grow the investment part of the business as we continue to expand the portfolio of assets under management and our share of it. Continued equity investments for development and acquisitions funded jointly through the creation of new partnerships and growth of existing ones should support this.

The portfolio remains under-rented, and we're invested in properties that should exhibit further market rental growth to support the increase in our investment income going forward. Management revenue was down $147 million overall.

This includes the $9 million FX translation effect. The main reason is that the performance and transactional revenues contributed $206 million this year compared to $372 million last year.

The performance of the investment partnerships was higher in FY '26 than FY '25, but there was a reduced number of them eligible for calculation. Excluding the transactional and performance-related income, revenue from management services was up $28 million on a constant currency basis.

Total fee revenue as a percentage of stabilised third-party AUM was 1% for the year. Our total portfolio stood at $89 billion at June.

Of this, $75.4 billion was in external assets under management. Within that, the stabilised portion averaged $68.7 this year, and that's up from $68 $66 billion last year.

In terms of the outlook for this segment, we expect our third-party stabilised AUM to grow over time. The main driver of this in the next few years is likely to be the stabilisation of the data centre properties we're developing.

We expect to continue to invest in warehouse properties, too. Partly offsetting this in the near term will be the ongoing refinement of the portfolio and the current self-imposed limitations on development of this type.

We remain comfortable with our long-term guidance of fee revenue averaging 0.9% of third-party stabilised AUM. Our realised development earnings were up by $454 million this year.

That was net of a $15 million FX translation effect. Included in the results are $734 million of operating profits related to the reversal of prior period valuation gains on properties that have now been sold.

As in previous periods, we don't reflect these gains in operating profit until the transactions complete. Those profits aren't double counted over time, we notionally offset them against the current period valuation results when we do our reconciliations.

Both the volume and the mix of activities have driven this significant increase in income. Activity levels have increased materially this year.

Our current WIP represents an annualised production rate of over $7.5 billion. That's up from $6 billion at the same time last year.

Over the past couple of years, this sort of growth in WIP is what we've been planning for. The data centre development program has progressed according to our expectations.

We've also made the decision to include the full MEP fit-out on all but one of the buildings in response to the nature of the demand we're seeing. The growth in DC work has materially altered the mix of our WIP.

Given the time in WIP, we require and expect a higher margin to compensate. We're also originating a significant volume of work on the group's balance sheet or in specific development partnering arrangements.

That means a higher realisation rate. In other words, a greater portion of the development income will be reflected in our cash-based operating results rather than a share of revaluation gains.

We're enthusiastic about the prospects for development overall. Customer investment demand and our ability to service it bodes well for future revenue, as well as growth in AUM.

Based on the current timing of the FY '27 activities, we expect the earnings to be largely skewed to the second half. The increase in our operating expenses has been moderate.

We had a $75 million increase in net interest income. This included the $37 million benefit from the hedges I mentioned earlier, but there's also been a $32 million increase in interest earned due to higher cash balances.

On average, our directly owned development assets have increased, capitalised interest is also up by $20 million. Directly owned development assets increased significantly over the last two years, but that occurred mainly in the second half of FY '25.

Since then, the allocation is progressively declining as we've begun to joint venture many of the properties. As a result, the rate of capitalised interest has been declining sequentially for each of the last three half years.

Our average cost of borrowings on our loans is currently around 4.6%, but taking into account interest rate and currency hedges, the net WACD is around 1%. In the near term, the interest line in our income statement will be mainly driven by the amount of cash we invest and FX rates.

As far as the non-operating items are concerned, we had nearly $1 billion of unrealised valuation gains. That represents the group's share of the $3.1 billion across the entire portfolio.

From that, we deduct the realised valuation gains and deferred tax liabilities to get to the $158 million net result you see in the table. Cap rates have declined from 5.1% to 5.0%, and market rents have increased by 0.6% overall.

That was 1.3% if we exclude the effect of Mainland China. Another customary area of difference between operating and statutory profit is the unrealised fair value movement on the hedges.

The rally in the Australian dollar was the main driver of that gain. As usual, we exclude the LTIP accounting cost, but include the tested units in the denominator when calculating our operating EPS.

The increase in the accounting cost this year was influenced by the movement in security price on the ASX and the higher number of securities remaining unvested. The rise in the outstanding awards was, in part, the result of the migration to the 10-year LTIPs, which means that a lower-than-usual portion of the outstanding grants became eligible for vesting.

A few remarks now regarding the balance sheet on slide 21. As a result of the creation of new partnerships for our directly owned stabilised properties, our investments decreased by $1.2 billion over the year.

Our share of the stabilised assets in the partnerships, on the other hand, was up by $0.7 billion over the year. There was $0.6 billion of new investment of equity by the group and $0.8 billion of revaluation gains.

Partly offsetting this was the $0.3 billion impact of disposals from the partnerships and $0.5 billion FX translation effect. Commensurate with increased development activity, our development holdings are up by $1.9 billion overall since June 2025.

Our share of the portion held in partnerships was up by $1.7 billion as we took up our share of the equity for the acquisitions and capex of the sites we're developing alongside our partners. The direct working capital allocation to the group's inventory and investment property under development increased by $0.2 billion.

Despite the transfer of some of our sites into partnerships, we've continued to invest into their development and acquire new ones. The progression of this part of our balance sheet is in line with our expectations to this point.

We have a substantial remaining development working capital capacity following the raising last February. When it's appropriate, we also expect to partner more of the assets we have on our balance sheet, which will give us further capacity to fund more activity as we move through our power bank and industrial developments.

Our cash position increased marginally during the year. We completed three global bond issues and repaid some maturing bonds and tendered for some of the outstanding ones.

We invested $2.4 billion into our partnerships, and this was largely funded out of our retained earnings and proceeds from the bond issues. Overall, we generated $2.7 billion of cash-backed earnings this year.

Over $1.9 billion of this is reported through the operating cash flow statement. In FY '26, the operating cash flow associated with inventories was very similar to the operating profit from developments for this portion.

This is unusual for a growing business like ours, and the difference has been significant in recent years. It reflects the sale of inventories into partnerships, but with new investments being undertaken on investment properties, either directly or in partnerships.

Those investments are reflected in the investing cash flow. As usual, the statutory statement of operating cash flow does not include the profits we make from the transactions involving investment properties.

Some of the gains from the sales from within the partnerships have not yet been distributed, which gives rise to differences between OPAT and operating cash flow. The partnerships retain income for reinvestment purposes.

This is in line with our capital management and distribution preferences. We view this as a voluntary reinvestment, in so far as that we could distribute, but have collectively chosen not to.

The combined effect of the treatment of these gains and the distribution policy was in the order of $0.6 billion. This was by far and away the largest driver of the difference between OPAT and operating cash flow.

The remaining difference relates to the timing of receipts of performance fees. We've accrued income for fees that are shortly due and payable.

This is required because those revenues are virtually certain. You can see from slide 22, we have significant financial capacity to help manage market risks and capitalise on suitable opportunities that may arise.

The group and partnerships are in a strong position. Across the entire platform, we completed $11.4 billion of debt initiatives and $19 billion of derivative hedge transactions during the year.

We have substantial funding capacity, and we're very well hedged against interest rate and FX volatility. That's all from me.

Thanks, Greg.

Thank you, Nick. Now in closing, looking ahead, our strategy is clear, and we believe the opportunity over the next five years is very significant.

Large-scale logistics opportunities are emerging in several markets as customers look to consolidate and to automate. Our industrial portfolio and development pipeline provide large-scale modern properties needed to support power-intensive operations.

We continue to actively acquire and progress large-scale sites capable of providing the next generation of infrastructure. In data centres, continued growth in cloud and the shift in AI workloads from training to inference are driving significant demand in our metropolitan markets.

We are building into this demand, and our sites, team, and access to capital position us well to capture these opportunities. We'll also remain disciplined in regard to capital management, keeping leverage low, deploying capital selectively, and partnering, importantly, with long-term capital to progress the development program.

In closing, we enter FY '27 with an attractive and substantial development workbook. We have significant opportunities across our global markets, and we're in a very strong capital position to support this growth.

For FY '27, we're targeting EPS growth of 9% on FY '26. Thank you.

Nick and I will now take questions.

Hi, good morning, guys. Hey, few questions.

The first one's just on slide 14. Appreciate the additional details you've given us there.

I notice just some sites you're in advanced negotiations, some sites you're in active negotiations. You would have chosen those words for a reason.

Which one is more likely, which one is more actually advanced? Can you give us some color on that, please?

Chan, if you go to slide 15, you see we've done it. We've made it easy.

We're trying to make it easy for people. We respect that the information around this is super important, and we get that.

That's why we went out a couple of days with Japan, Tokyo, a major, major milestone for that project. There's planning on buildings 2 and 3 as well there.

Look, if you look down the slide 15, you look at LAX, we're well advanced, Hong Kong well advanced, and Amsterdam, we're advancing as well. They're the three you should focus on.

Then we've got Paris, Frankfurt, Sydney, Madrid, and Paris 2, which we've colored differently, and that's to shade where we are with our activities. I think LAX, Hong Kong 10, and AMS 01, focus on that.

Also we've mentioned in my speech, but also I think in the text, that there's other activities outside this. We're dealing with in France, for example, on some pretty big deployments.

We're dealing also in Sydney, which is not on our power bank secured yet, but also on some potential deployments. There'll be other things around this that will advance as well, but they'll probably be some of the bigger deployments on some of the bigger sites.

I think slide 15 will give you a pretty good view of where we're going. Look, we know everyone's watching this.

We know it's a very, very serious endeavor. To put it in context, if you're not building it and you're not closing out the risk at the back end, you should not be leasing it, right?

You might have to wait a little bit longer to get your deal done, but if you move too quickly, you could end up with a very, very big problem at the back end. We're super conscious on doing this right.

We understand when you're dealing with some of the biggest customers in the world, it's really important. We get our track record now on the right side of this.

That's why Tokyo is so important. That has been in negotiation for 6 to 7 months, probably longer, actually, maybe nine.

We didn't pull the trigger on that too early until we were very comfortable on that delivery in '28.

Hey, this is an elementary question, but those years on top of slide 15, are they calendar years, or are they fiscal years?

They're running to calendar, I think, Nick?

Yeah.

Cool. I just got a question in relation to FY '26 earnings.

Guys, now that it's all said and done, right, can you give us a few pointers as to how to work out how much data centre-related earnings was actually in the FY '26 EBITDA? I'm particularly interested in the European side of things.

Any color on how to think about that would be good.

Look, I think we're not going to get specific about different projects, but it's a number of things. Nick can take you through it.

Where we're creating partnerships, clearly, is important for us. That's P&L.

It's capital is the big driver around those activities. We've got two or three we've got follow-up raisings with at the moment, and we'll have a couple partnership creations during this year as well.

That is a very, very much a capital-driven activity, because the amount of work in progress that you see on the page, say closing in on 20 billion, that will go higher in the next year. We've got to make sure we're well funded.

That's a big activity for Nick, the team, and myself to make sure we're well ahead of this. Otherwise, yeah, it's not good to get behind when these are so capital-intensive.

Nick?

Simon, it won't come as a surprise to you, but you know that from years gone by, there's an variety of different ways that we contract, and therefore has different profit implications, and we manage the entire book of opportunity accordingly. I think giving you any sort of more specific detail around it probably doesn't actually give you too much information.

I think what we encourage people to do is look at the correlation between activity levels and opportunity, look at the inherent profitability of our development book, look at the propensity to earn, yeah, 90 basis points on our third-party stabilised AUM. Mostly other factors are pretty well under control.

We've given you the programmatic sort of timetable for the existing WIP and the completions, and when income can be generated, subject, of course, to leasing. Look, I think at the moment, in terms of kind of the standing investments, out of the 90 billion is about just under 6 billion associated with data centre income.

Obviously, the developments are a high portion in data centres, and that's going to have a correlation with the amount of income we've earned out of data centre development. Giving you anything more than that, frankly, could just be misleading.

That's fair enough. I've just got one more.

Greg, in your response to my question before, and I think you also printed in the preszo, you talked about data centre programs expect to progress throughout '27 and will increase WIP, etc. Can you just give me a little bit more color on that one, please?

Is that suggesting that there will be additional data centres potentially kicking off or going into WIP outside of the stuff that's on slide 14 and 15?

100%. That's what it means.

That's good. Thanks, guys.

Thanks, Simon.

Thank you very much. Congratulations on the lease at Tsukuba earlier this week.

One of the questions we're getting is, how do the difference sources of revenue from a contract like that flow into FY '27, '28, and '29? Could you just explain to us just thinking about management fees, development returns, and eventually rental income, just the sort of timing of those earnings from a typical contract like that?

Let's not characterise it around Tokyo necessarily, but Nick will give you a bit of a view on a typical.

Yep.

What we're going to do with a data centre once we have it leased and how we're going to move it into Holdcos and things like that.

Exactly. That property and other properties are being developed on the basis that or the history of that partnership in particular has been developed to sell.

At the right time, we'll enter some form of contract for sale, and as you know from past experience, there's a number of different ways and different types of ways that we sell development properties, ranging from presale right through to sale on completion. Depending on the nature of that contract will determine how revenue is recognised on the development portion, and that is the development profit on sale plus any development performance fees.

The development management revenue itself, that is emerged as we develop, and that's a ad valorem. Then in terms of once it's gone into stabilised third-party AUM, that's when our sort of 90 points type fee arrangement kicks in.

Obviously, our share of the equity brings up our share of the investment income, but that will happen at stabilisation. That's typically the way we've done things in the past, and I see that and others that we're working on being no different.

Thank you very much. Just another key debate that comes up in the market is just, if you track operating cash flow over the last, call it, 10 years versus underlying operating earnings, since moving into data centre developments, you've seen more cash outflow as you've been investing into all the groundworks and substations of these data centres.

We've seen your cash flow come under pressure. Could you just explain how that has impacted both that cash flow relative to that underlying earnings over the last 3 or 4 years?

That's why I spent about 3 minutes of my prepared remarks talking about the difference between operating cash flow and operating profit, and I do so every half year and have done for the last many years. You're right.

Typically the difference is exactly what you're saying. You've got a growing business, clearly, as you're growing, you're investing, your outbound investment, which is recorded in the operating cash flow for the inventory component, is higher than the stabilised like-for-like run rate.

If you had a business that the ins and the outs were constant and there was no other change, clearly, operating cash flow and operating profit would line up. We've had increasing investment, and therefore, typically it's weighed on the operating cash flow, because that's how the accounting works.

Then a lot of what we do in terms of the gains that we make are reflected in partnerships and then profits that are generated in equity-accounted investments, and so they're not reflected in the operating cash flow if we're reinvesting those profits. Those two things are the most significant drivers of the difference over time.

Ultimately, it just means that we're investing in a growing business, and that's why we buffered our working capital and equity capital in February last year. The rate at which our expenditures are progressing, very much in line with what we had anticipated, what we've been planning for it.

We're in pretty strong capital position, and that's why our payout ratio is what it is as well, right? We intend to reinvest long-term into our assets that we're developing and continue to hold them for the rental income and potential capital growth over the long term, but we want to be funded sustainably, and that's why we retain a significant portion of our underlying operating profit.

Thank you very much and congrats on the execution.

Thanks, Howard.

Morning, Greg and Nick, thanks for the time. Just firstly on the Aussie DC partnership slipping, can you provide any detail on what's prolonging that process?

Is that on the capital side or the power side?

No, nothing to do with it. We're building it.

I don't know whether you've been out there in Artarmon. We're up to level 3.

Nothing to do with it. We're working with the gate investors on it, and there's some investors in that partnership and we're giving them time that haven't invested in a development partnership before.

We're taking our time, doing it properly, making sure that the education is high. There's been a number of visits out there.

I think we're getting to the end of the diligence program. There's a document that went out a couple of days ago to the final piece of information everyone went.

Nothing to do with the progress on the site. It's going very well.

Just to be clear, we'll start marketing that and we'll start to get serious about it at the beginning of next year. I don't know whether you've been following what's happening in North Sydney, but around Sydney generally, where it's getting harder to get planning and power, and bigger gating.

I think Transgrid came out with a pretty good release today, which is going to make it more programmatic in regard to data centre operators have got 5 or 6 gates to go through. We think that's all good.

That's how we operate pretty well everywhere else in the world. You can imagine that Artarmon is a 90 megawatts of pretty prime data centre space, we're in a very, very good spot on that.

Got it. That's clear.

Just on the logistics side of things, look, you've been talking to activity there and project values increasing, I think through the course of '26, and looks like logistics WIP's fairly consistent with the third quarter and the half. Where could we kind of see that get to over the course of '27?

Will it still be around that 4 bil mark, or would you think higher?

Interestingly, I was chatting to our head of industrial here in Australia just recently. Look, Australia could be 3 $3 billion by itself.

I wouldn't underestimate it. Some of these projects we're talking about with the automation are getting a real, real deliberate move by the customers.

They're bigger buildings. They need 9, 10 megawatts of power, and they're fully roboticized.

We've got some of those going in Sydney. They're just bigger and they're more valuable.

I wouldn't underestimate the logistics phase over the next 4 or 5 years, we think is going to be pretty big.

Great. Maybe just a last quick one.

San Jose, you had two sites there, I think you said were progressing well. Are they going to be an FY '27 story, and still likely to be shells there?

No, that's, yep, going well, and '26 at the moment? Yeah, '27 will be good, yeah.

There are a couple There's 100 there. There are a couple of We're working on 10 gigawatts of opportunity all around the world, right?

You're going to find there's going to be other projects that come into it. We're going to move through some of these.

The pipeline we've got is world-class under anyone's measure, and I'll just leave that with you. We're not run and done.

We're serious about this. We think the hurdles around the world that are getting higher are good for us.

We welcome it. Effectively, we're geared for it.

Planning, having the capital, you've got to own the land before you start, having the conversation, talk to your customers when you can demonstrate you're actually building something and you have what you say you have, then effectively being able to deliver on a dime, when they require it. That's the game we're in.

That's great color. Thanks, Greg.

Good morning, Greg and Nick. Thanks for your time.

I'd be interested in how much capital of your own capital and third-party capital sits in behind that 19 billion 19.7 billion of WIP that's relating to data centres at the present moment? Also, where do you see that capital balance heading over the next, say, 3 years?

Thanks, Tom, for the question. If I understand it correctly, 90% of those projects are already in third-party arrangements.

The construction of those is largely equity-funded at the moment, and that's all understood and agreed equity finance. There's debt capacity already within those partnerships as well.

Now, depending on how much debt capacity we want to have at the end will be determined going forward. For the moment anyway, the work is largely equity-funded, and that's all pre-agreed.

That's typically how we fund ourselves.

How much capital is sitting behind the 19.7 billion of WIP, actual dollar number today? Oh,

well, if I give you that, I'm telling you the cost, I'm not going to do that. It's equity-funded.

Okay. I think,

Nick, that's the point we went back, we made it early in the presentation. One of Goodman's big competitive advantages in the sector is actually, as proved over time, and this is not something new, that we partner up, we spread the risk in the different return parameters.

It's development partnerships, which 90% of our developments in those partnerships, Nick. Mm.

That means it spreads the risk across some of the biggest capital names in the world. Then effectively, the stuff we want to own and hold over time, we can alter how much we own, but fundamentally, those will funding opportunities as well through Holdcos, which we've been doing for a very long time.

That is a tremendous competitive advantage in a world where capital is absolutely critical. You guys follow the capex numbers.

Let's just say out of the top 4 or 5 hyperscalers in the US, I think the capex number for this year is something like $1 trillion Australian dollars, just to put in context, right? When we also

Yes, perfect. When

we also talk today about fully fitted, that's because what the market wants, right? That'll give you a sense of what they're trying to do by bringing credible third-party operators in, rather than just all self-builds, to actually be able to handle some of that load.

You need to be really good, really good at managing your capital and raising capital, otherwise you'll run out of runway in 5 seconds.

No, thanks for the answer. I think to clarify the question, I meant how much capital today, not end cost.

Capital today. I'm not sure the difference between the way I answered the question.

Maybe I just don't understand the question.

Okay. We'll chat about it later.

The other one I was interested in is just your cadence of development starts. Since you raised in Feb last year, you've put half a gigawatt into production.

I was wondering how long it might take for the next half gigawatt to go into production?

Yeah, 20 bil, let's chew through that, right? I think everyone wants to see some leasing on the page.

If we are adding anything to that number, you'll find there'll be some customers in front of it. Then some of them will be bigger deployments, and we're working on some of those right at the moment.

Look, let's get through what we've got on the page. This is a serious game we're in.

Someone was chatting to me yesterday about the tortoise and the hare. Now I'm not saying we're the tortoise, but we don't want to be the hare either, right?

We're going to do this properly. We're going to make sure we manage the capital properly, and we'll move through it when it's sensible and responsible.

I don't think anyone's ever characterised you as a tortoise, Greg.

No, there was a very very good friend of mine was making that comment.

Just a final one on the Tsukuba site, the hyperscaler you've got into that 50 megawatts, do you expect that same customer to deploy elsewhere globally in your portfolio, or do they look at things on a more site-by-site, localised basis?

Look, I won't talk about that customer specifically, but we're having conversations with customers across a number of countries with similar deployments. There's one actually a couple of nights ago.

No, we are. We're very, very focused on good credit, good customers, because when Nick talks about Holdco, right, and that's the capital that will own a lot of these prime data centre assets over time, if you don't have that contract right, and you don't have that set right, if you can forget about Holdco.

That does not work. We're super, super focused on quality, and if that means we take longer to lease upfront because we're more patient, be it.

Thanks very much.

Thanks, Tom.

Hi, Greg and team. Hey, just a quick one.

It looks like there's about $8 billion in commencements this half. If you kind of back solve DC proportional WIP, that looks to be all data centres, and the same completed.

That yield on cost of 9, I think it's 9.1%, and considering 90% is fully fitted, seems lower than the double-digit that you were quoting 6 to 12 months ago. Can you just break down what's going on?

The geography between Hong Kong, Japan, we're not going OTT on rents, but rents are moving quickly. When we're looking at the programs at the moment on fully fitted in most places around the world, We're not talking about Japan and Hong Kong, let's separate that.

We're certainly late 9s in that 9 to 10 11 range depending on the quality. I come back to the quality, the comment I made earlier, because the quality of what you put in the front end, it won't be any surprise to you, it's got a direct correlation with the value at the back end, right?

There's no free lunch here. What you get in at the front is what you're going to produce at the back.

We've been relatively conservative on what we put out and obviously these documents. There's room in those.

Rents are actually moving at the moment, and we've got all the costs pretty well locked down, we'll see where it comes out. We're in a very, very healthy state.

Look, I think we do talk ranges, right? A 20-year prelease to a global hyperscaler, you're not going to expect at the high end of the range, it's fair to say.

Whereas if you're doing a colo facility with enterprise users, you would expect a significantly higher yield on cost. We've talked about it on an average basis, and Greg right.

What's typically in these numbers is a more conservative side of that estimate. We have started industrial projects as well, which at lower yields, so that's why the average of the starts is where it is.

No, that's clear. Then just on the 9% EPS growth target, what data centre leasing milestones are embedded in that target, and then how do we think about the potential selldown of Tokyo across the year?

Is that embedded in the 9%?

Pretty important to note in Japan, we're not talking about Tokyo selldown. We're talking about building the building for a customer, and Goodman Group will be owning that asset long-term with partners, just as we do at the moment, right?

We're not being specific about that in this. Effectively, though, I think running into 2027, we won't have a lot of assets completed, I don't think there'll be a lot of transfers around those.

There could be some presales of some of these if we wanted to, but Nick and I will work that through with the teams around the world what makes most sense as we go through the year.

There's a lot of opportunities in front of us across sites that haven't even started yet right through to things that are in process.

We've got a few more partnerships we're going to be creating as well, we'll just see how it balances out.

Yeah.

Okay. Just one quick one as well.

Just how many sites outside of the 0.5 GW gigawatts have you started site works on for DC use?

Able

to quantify that?

Just on the secured. No, look, yeah.

If you go to the secured, right, because they are secured, we've started early works packages on a lot of those things, and we're moving earth around on a number of those at the moment. If it's not secured, generally, we're not running around moving earth around.

Does that make sense? Look,

there's a couple sites where there's some minor works going on, but yeah, nothing substantial.

No.

That's clear. Congrats on the results.

Thank you.

Hi, thanks for taking the questions. Just a couple.

I think, Greg, you referred to a self-imposed limit on the amount of risk you'd take. Is there an actual quant number, percentage of total assets, that Goodman will have at risk in developments, and do you differentiate within that of speculative versus those that have a customer contract?

Good question. Nick, we're in a meeting about 3 days ago on that, weren't we?

Yeah. It was me, Cal, I'll own up on that one.

I'll step up on that one.

Sorry.

The comment I made, you're right, and I'll talk to that in a second. The comment I made was more in relation to something we talked about a couple years ago.

We have a number of development opportunities. You remember we parked some of them, which were earmarked for industrial development.

We parked them and said, "Hang on, there's power, there's opportunity here." We've diverted land resources, as well as capital resources, into data centre development.

That's what I meant by self-imposed limitation is we've diverted our resources. As a general rule, there are risk limitations that we do work on, and they are sort of combination of capital and earnings at risk.

There are limiters out there. We're working within those limiters at the moment, largely because we've entered into partnerships, and so that's given us capacity.

We do have capacity. At the moment, what Greg talked about, it's more of a just commercial judgment and when's the right time and what's the right thing to do for each asset as we go.

There is not a percentage of your total assets that you'll have exposed to a development that you could share, like a 20 25% of total assets that is a cap? No,

no, we don't cap on the development asset portion. It's more dynamic and granular than that.

We look at it on a kind of risk categorisation basis. Spec development, for example, is one of the areas that we look at, but you've got to look at in the context of, where's our gearing, what's our earnings sensitivity to that, what's our liquidity look like, what are the actual risks.

It's a bit more complex than that. Too much detail to go through on this call, but the board looks at it.

We look at it every day. The board looks at it every time we meet.

The Risk and Compliance Committee looks at it. There's a range of different risk measurement tools that we use.

That's great. Maybe just a couple on customer.

Just LAX, I think it's customer looking to take the entire thing. Is it the same customer as was looking at maybe taking a single data hall?

Then just on Tokyo, does the customer have a option over any further portion of that broader project, the 1 gigawatt?

Yeah. Last question first, no.

The second one, no. The first one, no, the second one, no.

The new customer at LAX?

It's a new building, it's got to be a new customer. We don't have a customer in LAX at the moment.

We're in the marketing phase, and we're fielding a number of customers, some advanced in regard to negotiating the lease, and we think that'll be a single-building customer. If it's not, there'll be 3 or 4 customers.

No, we've got two options, and we're just weighing those up at the moment.

Okay. Maybe just one last one for me.

Just on the commencements in the fourth quarter, I think it was $4.1 billion. Can you just talk to what portion of that is additions, if you like, to the WIP as opposed to just upsizing existing projects?

It's about a billion of upsizing of the existing projects, and the rest is new starts.

Okay. The roll forward bit, Nick, I think there's $2 billion or $2.3 billion in the fourth quarter relating to, is it just to FX in the FX other bucket?

Sorry, mate, ask that question again.

Oh, just in that roll forward of the WIP, if you look at it in the fourth quarter, it seemed like the other in FX is quite a big contributor in the fourth quarter. Is it just FX?

No, I think it's a net of two, FX on the one side going down and additions on the other side going up, and that's the net effect of those two.

Okay. Thanks.

Maybe can I push my luck and just go one more. On slide 15, are you able to just talk to how that relates to capital spend and profit recognition?

I guess there's different ones in there, I suppose, but what was kind of confusing to me is LA's on your balance sheet. Have you actually sold the 50% of it to the

No, LA's in partnership with DataBank.

They've contributed their 50% of the equity?

Yes. That's why they're 50% of the Yeah.

Yeah.

I think you'll find, and this will be consistent with what we've said, the way we're managing a very, very big development book is it's our program primarily in the main to partner all development assets around the world, and then as they come through the different stages of contracting in regard to customers, then we'll move them to Holdcos. I think that's consistent, and that's the way we can keep the capital moving, we can keep the return on capital moving, and we can fund over $100 billion, $150 billion book we've got here, right?

When you work through our whole 6.5, I think it's $150 billion plus or something like that. In a world where capital, as I mentioned in my speech, is not infinite, it's finite, and you'll even see the big hyperscalers reaching and reaching for capital and all sorts of ways as well.

This is a big capital game. If you can manage the capital, you've got a world of opportunity, right?

We're going to keep partnering with the biggest, best names in the world, and we're going to keep moving that capital in the Holdcos once we bring them out of the development phase. We'll then choose, right?

Nick's got the menu of outcomes. We can choose early, middle, or end, and we'll make those selections as we go depending on return on equity, where we are in the leasing process, and all those sorts of things.

Cal, on slide 14, the fourth column tells you what the ownership is,

and I think

in all our materials, I think we give you the percentage of each of those that Goodman has. That's kind of where it's at.

Syd 01 and Madrid 01 currently the only two on the balance sheet wholly owned. Madrid 01's not very large, it's really Syd 01 that is the only one that we wholly own at this point.

Okay. Thanks a lot.

Cheers, mate.

Good morning, Nick. Just wondering if you could give us a steer on management income for FY '27 as a percentage of external stabilised AUM?

Around 0.9, Ben. That's the best estimate.

Great. Thanks.

That was my question.

Thanks, Ben.

Hi, guys. Just a quick one for me.

You have a net WACD cash and FX gains, obviously, to realise more than $100 million of gains in '26. Just interested in a bit of that.

Andy, sorry, mate. We can't hear you.

You might have to speak up.

Oh, can you hear me now?

That's better. Thank you.

Yep. Just in terms of net interest expense, you're a beneficiary net $100 million this year.

Just interested in a bit of a steer on where you think that might go for FY '27?

Obviously, the FX component a little bit hard to predict, so that's why I said that's going to be a major driver of where it goes. If you do constant currency basis, because that basically the FX driver is kind of the flip side of the earnings translation.

If you do it on a constant currency basis, the net WACD on a going basis is 1% of debt, and that's probably your best indicator. There will be some capitalised interest.

Obviously, we have direct properties still on balance sheet in working progress, there's some capitalised interest against that. Look, I would expect it's going to be, yeah, all other things equal, it'll be a pretty low interest income number, closer to zero, but it'll probably still be an interesting net interest income number.

Thanks, Nick.

a couple quick ones. The 25% pre-commitment of development WIP, does that include Tokyo?

No.

Thank you. Nick, just the mix of earnings growth in '27, can you kind of give us a steer around development versus management in terms of what its key contributors might be?

Look, the opportunities in the development are significant, I don't really see that being any less than what it was this year. The other parts

should be growing?

No, well, no, in terms of the actual level. The other parts of the business, if you think about the investment line, the full period effect of those assets, direct property asset sales that I talked about, will kick in for FY '27.

At the same time, we've got properties completing, we've got new investments we're making into the equity in the partnerships, overall, yeah, and there is some underlying rent growth, but overall, I expect some moderate growth on that line. Base management fees are increasing, they have been, and expect that will continue.

Performance fees to be determined, but if you work on 0.9, that's a little bit lower than this year at 1%, but the basis will be hopefully a bit higher, and so some growth there. Really developments, the opportunity's really in the development space at the moment.

Just

can I just call out a couple of potential realisations? Are they and just clarify whether you think they'll be '27 contributors?

Artarmon, Vernon, Moorabbin, and Brickworks, are they kind of some of the big projects contributing this year?

There's 50 developments in process at the moment, and any and all of them, plus the ones that aren't even in process, could contribute as well. That's why we're being a little bit elusive about it, Jones, because that's how we think about it.

You weigh up the mix of all the potential opportunities and what's the right thing to do at the right time for the asset and for the company overall. We're not being specific.

We've got a ranking of which are most likely and which are most executable, but there are other opportunities outside of that that we're working on as well. Just, yeah, I apologise, but we're just not going to give you too much color on which is in and which is not.

Okay.

Can I just ask to clarify then, Moorabbin and Brickworks, have they already been recognised, or are they still to come?

Settled.

Settled in and booked in '26?

Yeah. Brickworks was just an acquisition, Not sure where you're going with that one, but yeah, that was just an acquisition.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Thanks, mate.

Thanks, guys. Just two from me.

Firstly, on planning, of the 1.3 GW, how much have you secured in terms of planning? More broadly, obviously, you've had some success per the media in terms of Western Sydney, but broadly have you encountered any challenges on a global scale in terms of planning approvals?

When we've got power in the secured bucket, you could come to the conclusion that we've got to be either very advanced in planning or we've got a pathway to planning. Otherwise, it's not in the secured bucket, because you can't utilise the power.

I think that's clear. Certainly, the things we're building, you could assume we hopefully have planning, otherwise we wouldn't be building them.

I think that that's fine. Look, I think planning is a big issue all around the world.

Funny enough, planning is less an issue in the UK, but power is more of an issue. In Australia, I suspect we're going to end up with planning and power being an issue, but planning will be an issue here as well.

One that I think is manageable, but I think is not going to be as easy as it has been. I think that's a good thing, because I think you need a lot more community outreach and social obligations, and we think that's a good thing.

I think the gating process we're going through in a number of markets around the world is also good. We're seeing it in the US as well, and you'd probably note there's a lot of states in the US that are in moratoriums at the moment.

That's why some of the big hyperscalers around the US are actually looking at places like Tokyo, very, very strongly, strong demand. They're looking at Sydney, Melbourne, strong demand, effectively.

We've got big sites also in places like France, outside Paris, where we've got some bigger deployments where they're looking at those very seriously. Look, the whole world is super dynamic on this, and I think the best people to be able to navigate it are people with global portfolios, have the capital and can push and pull where we think the opportunity is.

Because in the main, the customer base we're talking about is they can travel and they will travel. If they can get a deployment in France, that might be better than pushing one in Texas and things like that.

Super important, and planning and power, you need to give planning equal weighting, which probably hasn't been the case over the last number of years.

Thanks. The 1 point Yeah, obviously, the 500 megawatts planning has been approved.

You're saying the 1.3 GW is pretty much there or almost there in terms of planning approval, but then beyond that, have you had any situations where you've sought approvals and they've been declined, or has it been pretty steady sailing for those submissions?

No, I don't think anything's steady sailing on that front, pretty well anywhere, actually. You've got pathways in France for power, and Macron's big on data centres, and it's nuclear, it all works, but planning in Paris is an art and a skill, but we've got planning on our sites there, for example.

If you're trying to get another one in around Paris, that might take longer. Look, you've just got to be very good at the planning side, not just the power side effectively, and there's an equal balance now whereas it was probably not as focused as it is at the moment.

In Australia, clearly, there's opportunities to get planning in certain areas. If it's in a big industrial area and you're not affecting households and people like that, that will be an easier pathway than if you're trying to do it in the leafy North Shore.

I think you've just got to weigh these things up as you're pushing along.

Okay. Then just lastly on tenant credit underwriting.

Appreciate you really focus on the hyperscalers for the larger leases outside of colo. Just generally, given we've seen credit CDS spreads widen unevenly across even some of the major hyperscalers, how are you thinking about that in terms of your underwriting on leasing terms, rental tone, the lease term, and so forth?

It just heightens it, doesn't it? I think the very best credit is what you want.

I go back to that position a bit earlier. In a world where there is a real problem with supply of data centres globally, but there's good, strong demand, you need to build into it.

You need to be patient, because if you end up with the right credit, that will put you in a better situation at the back end, which we talk a lot about it at Goodman, not just about, "Ah, haven't we done well, we've signed someone up." Let's just see who that someone is, and effectively, what's it worth at the end.

Because all our big investors around the world, and I can promise you, the first topic of conversation is, "What is the asset worth?" , right?

Forget about the 10 or whatever you think you're going to get cash on cost at the front. What's it worth at back, right?

They're big conversations we're having all the time.

Look, I think the other thing is tenant credit issues in relation to metro colo facilities maybe different to those in non-metro specific campuses. If you've got a property that's well located and has appeal to a wider range of users, then you've got to take that into account as well.

Obviously, we've observed what's happened in the credit markets. We're active in the credit markets ourselves, partly, I think, technical reasons and partly could be credit reasons, but not for us to say how much of which is what.

Certainly, yeah, we're mindful of it and taking it into account.

Thank you. That's all for me.

Hey, thanks, guys. Just the first one on the slide 15 with your sort of cadence of potential delivery of sites.

Could you talk to us a bit about just the long lead-time items and how you're handling that? Have you got orders in for all that capacity in with the Rolls-Royces of the world and whatnot or, yeah, how are you managing that?

Buy them early. Sometimes it's really as simple as that, and that is the same approach everyone's taking around the world.

Once again, you need to have the money, right? We just forked out for a big piece of equipment here in Australia.

I think it was $130 million or something. For a big site we're working on at the moment.

You've got to be out front. You need a good procurement program, and this comes back to the point I made earlier that if you want to hit it on a dime for a global customer, you want to be able to deliver, you need to get those risks out of the way.

Otherwise, do not promise you can hit a '28 if you don't know. We're doing all of that.

It requires money, and it requires liquidity. That's why we're running the capital plans the way we are running them at Goodman.

Great. There's been a bit of maybe a gap in knowledge in the market, but could you talk to us a little bit about now that you've got your first deal with a data centre where you're going to operate it, sort of the differences in negotiating with a hyperscaler on operating a site versus, yeah, the leases you've done with hyperscalers in the past where you just provide them with a powered shell?

Was there any differences at all in terms of the terms or the way the contracting worked or anything, or is it basically the same process that you've done in the past that happened this time around?

Look, it's very similar. You need to demonstrate, though, you've got the operating teams, processes and systems in place, and we've been doing that for a while now with all the hyperscalers.

With the one in Tokyo, there wasn't an issue around operational competency and ability to do it, because we've got all the systems and processes, we're putting it all in place, because that is what the customers want of us, right? If they didn't want it, we wouldn't have to offer it.

If they wanted to self-operate it, they can do so. With all the work going around the world and all the massive projects that are on, you can imagine even hyperscalers and big customers around the world want people like Goodman to make it easy for them, and that's what we're doing, and it's as really as simple as that.

We put in the people, the systems and the expense in the systems to make sure that then we can offer that, and we'll offer that if required, and that happened to be the case in Tokyo.

This is not the first time we've done MEP installation on behalf of customers, so that part of it's not new.

Yep. Great.

Thank you.

Hi, guys. Thanks for the opportunity.

Just very quick ones. Circling back to page 15, looking at the data centre deliveries, should we be looking at the development profits, particularly from data centres, correlating with the deliveries?

I think we covered that a couple times on the course of the call, but I'll reiterate. We have a number of different ways that we contract, we have a number of different options as to which we contract and how we contract, and there are opportunities outside of this list that we're working on that can give rise to earnings in FY '27, and so we can't be specific because there's a number of different ways we could do it and how we do it and when we do it.

It's a case of managing both bottom-up and top-down risk, capital management, optimising not only capital management for these projects, but also capital management on the remainder of the book and the starts that we're working on, all of which can give rise to development earnings. Certainly, having leases in place does help the liquidity and it does help sort of optimise the value for new transactions, but that opens the window of eligibility, but it doesn't necessarily correlate directly one-for-one with earnings necessarily because of what I said earlier.

That's clear. My final question, but a quick one.

I appreciate there's a lot of FX movements this season. What would be the total net FX impact on operating profit for FY '26?

It's pretty close to zero. The hedges offset the translation, call it zero.

That's been the case for many, many years.

Cool. That's all.

Thank you.

Thanks, Don.

Thank you very much, and have a good day.