Good morning. Thank you for joining us today.

I'm Allison, happy to host you for CICT's full-year results briefing. 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 Chun 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 you have some good ones, please save them for later.

We'll try to get to as many as we can. With that, I'd like to invite Chun Siang onto the stage.

I'll use this. 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, bear with us.

I will spend just maybe about 10, 10-15 minutes just walking through the highlights, and then we can move on to Q&A, as Allison has mentioned. 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 $1,189.7 million. Second-half NPI grew at a faster pace at 6.8% year-on-year to about $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 26 August 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 11.58 cents, despite an enlarged unit base from the private placement in August last year.

This was supported by a very strong second half, which provided the uplift with a 9.4% year-on-year growth in DPU to 5.96 cents. 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 30th September, 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 $27.4 billion, an increase of 5.2%. Operationally, our portfolio remains strong: overall occupancy 96.9%, WALE 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 continued to execute our value creation strategy across acquisitions, divestments, AEIs, and even development.

This has 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 $428 million. The price is a 10% premium to the latest valuation and a 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% to 37.6%.

We expect to complete this divestment by the first quarter of this year. We'll be embarking on a development project this year.

We won the Hougang Central site through a joint bid, which includes CapitaLand Development. This is the 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 the 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 $1.1 billion, which translates to approximately $3,600 per square foot and 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 the total development cost is reasonable for a high-quality, brand-new mall.

For reference, the capital value for our Bedok Mall is about $3,700 psf, while some of the recent market transactions were done at above $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, 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 northeast 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 square foot of private retail space per capita, far below the national average of 11.4.

This presents an untapped potential supporting the development's long-term prospects. Next, moving on to AEIs.

This year, we will be starting a new AEI at CapitaTower. Essentially, what we are doing is basically repositioning some of the amenity 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 will 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 one, the office tower, to ECB. The target handover of phase two is expected by this quarter.

AEIs and 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 $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, Chun 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 Chun Seng'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 you have more questions, we will 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 will bring the mic to you. I see Mervin.

Go ahead.

Hi, Mervin from J.P. Mervin.

Congrats, Chun Siang, 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 annualize the second-half DPU, looks like you're hitting the pre-COVID 2019 level already.

I know you're not supposed to annualize it, given second half is much stronger, but what are you 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. This year, well on your DPU question, yeah, we don't typically provide forecasts, and typically, second half is stronger than first half, seasonally speaking.

While we hope to improve on our results for this year, but let's see. I think the, maybe we will just break it out into what are the potential growth drivers in terms of our DPU, right?

I think underlying performance for the organic portfolio still remains healthy. We're still reporting positive rental reversions, and the positive rental reversions from last year will also continue to contribute to the organic growth, because, as we calculate rental reversions based on average to average.

In fact, the last two years' rental reversions will also still be figuring into next year's, this year's growth drivers. That's one for organic, 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 cost drivers as well, 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 as they, but 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'll be a full-year contribution, but last year they started contributing probably from the middle of last year. Those are some of the incremental growth drivers from AEIs.

On the third growth driver, I would say, well, we had the benefit of a full year of ION already, so that's, the base has already included 12 months of ION income. Whatever we get from ION going forward will be the, the incremental organic growth.

Last year, we acquired CapitaSpring in August, and that's a fairly accretive transaction. That contributed about four months last year, and this year will fully contribute for 12 months.

Some of the, 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, last but not least, very importantly, interest cost savings.

We know that that's a big swing factor when 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 rates, 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, but it all depends on, 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, so that will benefit from, from, 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. Spent a lot of time answering your first question, I forgot your second question.

Divestments. Oh,

divestments. 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's 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. I think you brought out Germany, which I'm sure is something that's on quite a few people's mind, but I think Germany is, the way I see it, slightly derisked 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 the sense, but actually the asset itself has a long-term 10-year lease, it's pretty much derisked. We have another asset in Germany that is not of the same tenancy structure, of course.

We potentially can look at that as well.

Rachel, please.

Hi, morning Chun Siang and team. Congrats on the very strong results.

My first question is probably, I think you spoke a little bit on interest cost. You've done very well in 2025.

Could you guide us a little bit on 2026 interest costs? My second question is, since Mervin have asked divestments, I'll ask acquisitions.

Are you still keen on Singapore retail, like say your sponsor pipeline Jewel, or are you keen to buy the office assets that's out in the market?

I'll take the second question, and then 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 sponsor pipeline. I think 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, lah. 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 unitholders. If it's not accretive, it'll 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.

I think, probably not answering your question, but taking a long time to not answer your question. I think it's quite difficult, lah, for some of those assets that are trading at fairly low yields.

Yeah.

On interest rate, like what Chun 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% to 3.1% level.

Yeah. Joydeen?

Hey,

hi, morning Chun Siang. Congrats on the very strong set of results.

My first question will be on valuation. I think the lower bound of the retail cap rates seems to have tightened a little bit.

Yeah. Are you able to share what has changed?

Is it because of the market transactions? Second question is, if you are looking forward, the picture looks very rosy, just thinking aloud, what are the kind of concerns that you have in mind for 2026, and anything further that you like to derisk in 2026?

Yeah.

Okay. Maybe I'll take the second question first.

First question, I will defer to Yi Zhuan. 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 believe it's 4.5%. No?

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 closer to 3.25%. Very slight movements, but...

I believe it's the same. I think it's the same as last year.

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.

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, hopefully, we will be, I think, and also from most people's perspective, SORA has come down to 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 of inflows, hopefully, SORA remains at the current levels. I think the risk to SORA going out is if the US rate starts going out.

It doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon, but it's always the risk at the back of my mind. Secondly, obviously, it will be the economy, general economy.

Last year, we have a lot of good things going for us. At the start of the year, we were forecasting a recession in Singapore, and 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's could be a big risk. I think last year, there was also a lot of pump priming, right?

CDC vouchers and all that, so that could be, we'll see what the budget brings next week. That 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, is 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,

Yi Zhuan? Yeah.

The range actually, compared to last year, year-end is the same range for both the office and the retail, at least, at least for the lower bound.

Can we go to Joy, please?

Joy from HSBC. Congrats.

Two questions from me. First on development on Hougang.

If I look at the lower end of your cap rate, it's 4.35%. Do you think roughly about 70 to 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, that'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, 80 bps, it sounds small, but it's 20% of the value.

When you have a cap compression of 80 bps at 4% is 20% of the value. I don't know, is that enough for development premium?

When developers do a residential development, I think they price in typically a 10% to 15% margin. Let's just think of it if we don't do this, and somebody is developing, and we have to buy it from them 5 years later at 4.3%, would investors have preferred that?

I don't know. It's a tough call, lah.

I think there's no right answer. It also depends on how we manage the cost.

I think if you are able to manage the cost well, of course, when we plan, it's all about execution of the development and how it turns out in 5 years. Nobody knows what the market is going to be like in 5 years.

Even if you assume inflation of a certain rate, rents should theoretically go up by then. If you are able to get an entry yield of 5%-plus then, $3,600 per square foot, to us, that's reasonable.

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%.

I think for the calculation for this is also a bit different, it's not just simply comparing an asset to another asset. I think we like the location.

I think the location in this precinct is very underserved in terms of retail demand. I don't know, for those who stay around the area, you'll 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 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. Wait, you're talking about specific retail?

Oh. I think for retail, we did have some cost savings, I think.

Utilities cost have come down. I think we have entered into better contracts last year.

There was some utilities cost savings, so that has improved our margins. Yi Zhuan, anything else to add in terms of margins?

I think it's 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, but I will say that this is likely a slightly improved NPI margin that we can expect for 2026 also.

Oh, redevelopment. I think AEIs to us is BAU, whether we did Hougang or not, we will continue to go ahead with AEIs.

The rationale of spreading out AEIs is that it tends to create a drag on our cash flows, because 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, but interest cost is capitalized during construction, there's no drag on DPU as well. The only cost to this, I guess, is gearing.

Gearing will go up, but I think we are quite comfortable. With the divestment of Bukit Panjang, our gearing is at 37.6%, so that gives us a very comfortable position.

In a way, we're 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.

1%, every 1% for us is about how much, $27 billion? 200, yeah.

We are about, maybe just under a billion from our debt headroom.

Can we have the next question?

Hi, morning. Just one quick question on the Hougang site.

Does the $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?

I think the short answer to the first question is yes, includes the capitalized financing cost. 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, you can see it as whether we had deployed, last year we made some acquisitions, you can see it as topping up the balance sheet, or we can also use it to fund future acquisitions. You're right, in a way, selling at mid-4% is, in fact, it's slightly cheaper than raising equity, cost of equity is probably 4.8%, 4.9%.

We can use it to redeploy to future acquisitions definitely.

Next is on forward guidance. Maybe just a comment.

REITs' P&L is probably one of the easiest to forecast. SGX has said that forward guidance is encouraged.

Maybe next time we meet you, you can be the first brave soul. Thank you.

Not that.

Tension. Can we have next question?

Oh yeah. Maybe just follow up on Hougang.

Don't mean to flog this, but 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, and we have looked at many opportunities along the way, and 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 won't say aggressive, maybe it's fair pricing.

Five years later, we could look back and think that, "Oh wow, that's cheap." Then this Hougang site came about, and it has a fairly large commercial component.

I think if it was a small commercial component, we probably won't look at it. Then we think, and I think if it's not a big project, we also are less likely to look at it.

The reasons why we wanted to do Hougang, I think one is it's fairly sizable enough, right? $1 billion, $1.1 billion of deployment.

Secondly, competition. I think because not many people out there can do a residential-cum-commercial project.

We've 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 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 $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, but of course we didn't really want to invite competition, we didn't really put it out there, obviously.

The alternative was for the other consortium, which was CDL 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 derisked. Not that a higher price doesn't always mean worse, obviously, because it's a derisked product.

The difference this time is that if they were to do that, then they can't bid as high as well, because they have to price in the margin. Right?

They can only bid, because when they sell to us, they have to hold it for 5 years and then sell it to us, they probably have to bid in a certain margin. Then we thought that, okay, if we will come in directly, then we can get rid of that safety net for them, and then we are a little better than if they would do it themselves.

We debated that maybe that is the better outcome for everyone. That it also means that we have a higher probability of securing a win if the REIT is able to come in directly.

We know that very few other REITs can do that, because $1 billion, because there's a limit to how much development headroom you can do. For us, our total AUM is $27 billion, 10% of that is 2.7, 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 the strategy that we went in with, and 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, 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 derisked at mid-to-low 4%, say for example.

Some of these malls, low 4% are better locations also. Stronger catchments.

It depends. Location, 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.

Okay. Just one last question on reversion outlook, especially for retail, how does that look like, and how does it stack up against your occupancy cost?

I think last year, we have about 6 at a 6.6% reversion. This year, I think we'll probably, I would say that we'll probably stay at moderate to about that level, mid-single digits for retail reversions.

I think that's the guidance we'll give. Yi Zhuan, anything?

I think,

yeah, for office, we will probably looking at, 12 months later, a lot of things can change, but I think we're pretty much looking around mid-single kind of reversion. How it stacks up against for the retail occ cost, I think if you look at the year-end occupancy cost, it's relatively okay, 17%, right?

Downtown, if you look at the suburban, it's actually on the 16-ish kind of percent, I would say occ cost perspective, they are still quite healthy. Of course, along the broader market, you'll see on and off, there's pockets of the retailers having some of these challenges, and on 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 a 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, but I would say, by and large, we should be okay in terms of the occ cost and reversion.

Can we pass the mic to Goola, please? Thank you.

Hi, Goola here from The Edge. I've got a couple of questions on the office front because your occupancy fell, and in terms of the expiring rents, which is on this slide, on slide 34, because they're a bit high for the next year, they're a bit high.

I'm just wondering, for this year and as well as this year, I'm just wondering 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's the office front. Then for the retail, there's another retail question.

I just wonder, what is the F&B percentage of just the retail portion? Because I think you put it as 17, 16% or 17% for the whole portfolio, but I notice that your peers that only do retail have very high retail portions by GRI and by NLA.

Okay. I think the office one,

yeah?

Yeah. I'll take the office one first.

If you look at the expiring rents, right, it's true that if you look at this 2025 and 2024, actually the expiring rent versus the market rent, right, we are kind of closing up, right? Actually it's much tighter now.

How do we then actually explain the kind of outlook? I'd say a lot of things can change the next 12 months, and we are looking at some of the leases that were in discussion for the office side.

If we look at the consultants, actually they're a lot more bullish than us in terms of rental growth in '26 as well as '27, given that there's actually a little bit of tightness in supply, especially for good quality assets in centralized location. They do expect the market rents to actually go up quite substantially.

Then if we look at the expiring rents, naturally we are the growth in expiring rent is not going to grow as fast as how the outlook of consultants' market rent goes. 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. Then the next thing I will look at is actually the expiry profile for assets, right?

If we look at how our expiry profile is like for office in the '26, '27, '28, it kind of the '27, '28 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, right, to then 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, you mean?

I'm talking about retail portion F&B. What is the percentage of F&B in your retail malls?

Because there's so much F&B, we'll all grow fat

in

the next few years. Because they have a lot higher rents than your cinema or your supermarket, so...

They don't necessarily have higher...

They keep on opening and closing, these food places keep on opening and closing, yeah, I'm just wondering, and is it a risk for you?

We have a slide, right, on the percentage of our F&B? I think it's about 30-over percent.

It says 17.8% here, but this is overall our entire portfolio. Overall, our retail space is typically around, depending on which mall, probably about 30-odd percent.

Your question is how are they doing?

Whether there's too much F&B, especially when the RTS comes and everybody goes off to Malaysia, what's the point?

I think actually people who go to Malaysia will consume F&B, but I don't think that's 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, but 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 will be very small.

We're 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 is actually been a part of retail trade for the longest time. I think 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 this opening, closings, you tend to find them in shophouses, because the rent variance tends to be a bit higher, because some of these shophouses can be very low rent for a long time, and then suddenly, when the owner wakes up one day or a new owner comes in, and then you can have a rent adjustment. Whereas in malls, you're 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 40% in our rental reversion. You don't really see that.

And 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 in your sustainability, right?

Can I just ask a question on Clarke Quay as well? Because I think when you mentioned opening, closing, Haidilao is closed.

Have you decided what's going to come in its place, because Clarke Quay, we've been to it, and my colleagues have been to it, not me so much, but it's not as buzzy as some places.

Haidilao closure does draw headlines, but I wouldn't say it's one of those that open and close. Actually, Haidilao has been there from day one, and it's one of the first stores that opened.

We have rented out the space. Maybe Yi Zhuan can elaborate.

Firstly, thanks for coming to Clarke Quay, and please do come more. It's it's I would say that actually it's a little bit I can understand why people are saying, like, now Clarke Quay is less buzzy, but I think it's the social has changed in type of crowd that we are seeing in Clarke Quay, where it's previously a very loud, very so almost someone like stand rowdy part of certain hour kind of crowd, right?

Now you can't disperse the crowd across the day rather than just concentrated at night, and then you have a lot of tourists because a lot of them come by to, to board the boat and stuff like that. For the Haidilao, definitely we already have a replacement, and of course, I would say that it's not a finished product yet, because a lot of things is also when if I say that actually I have exactly what Clarke Quay has to be for the market today, I would it's probably not true, right?

It's a product that's evolving as we try to also find where is the threshold of the market's preference when it comes to your day and night trade 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 kind of be a bit enlivened, whether there's residential, hotel, tourism, and all these things.

Then we can again fine-tune that trade mix a little bit. There's a evolving process.

In fact, actually, as I've 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, but eventually want to see the execution.

We want to see the market acceptance towards it, and 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, and like all brands, right, for a long time when when everything is doing stabilized, nobody really go.

Now when you say it's going to close down for renovation, things suddenly everybody starts to go. Hooters, nobody went to Hooters for probably a while, but then suddenly everybody's asking what's going to happen to Hooters.

I think that's that it's very inherent that all these things catch that can hit lines, but at the end of the day, what we see is really that when you look at occupancy cost of all the retailers, we know some that works, we know some that don't, and that's where we will talk to the tenants. Either we help them to grow their sales, if not, then we'll have to look at replacements.

I think if you see across some of the closures across, I think recently there's another one about, some of the closures in malls, right? Often times it's not just about the rents, it's really about manpower constraints.

Some of the retailers that we we spoke to previously, they did share that they have overexpanded, and they are looking at how to right-size because they don't simply the the manpower constraint, manpower costs, all these makes a lot of their operating costs not sustainable. Then that's where naturally then we will feel the pressure, because at the end of the day, when 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, it's one that we do see a shift in the consumer patterns, right, where the 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's sales is very good, Sushiro very good. The challenge is that when we bring all these 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 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 scale of operation efficiency, operational efficiency, that's where they are under pressure in terms of their survivability.

Yeah.

Can we pass 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?

It's 25, yeah, on the 3rd

of Feb. Thanks for the question on Australia.

Actually, Australia is generally doing quite well. Market consensus on Australia is that things have bottomed out probably last year.

Rents are actually going up at least in the core CBD. Core CBD actually occupancy is quite strong.

Unlike some of the other cities in Australia, Sydney is holding out 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 incentives in Australia is also coming off.

Actually, 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 our occupancy in Australia, it's also picked up slightly across our properties.

Perhaps now we'll turn 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? Or expiry profile?

The drawdown. Oh,

as in how much money is needed, is it? Maybe.

Per year.

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.

I don't know, I'm guessing that 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, lah, whether it's debt or otherwise.

Like Mei Lian said, of course, the land cost, right, will be paid this year. We'll be paying within 90 days, I think, the 100% of the land cost, and then, of course, there's stamp duty as well.

For construction costs and the rest of it, right, will be progressive because construction will probably begin only in 2027 after the planning period, which I think probably is going to be about 1 and 1/2 years. Construction will really begin in 2027, and then 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 have still debt headroom available?" I think

it's a hard question, because it depends on what's the opportunity, right? I think quite less likely, but 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.

Yeah. Then

last question from Fraser, we have his congratulating us on the strong results. And, "Like-for-like revenue growth seems a tad low versus the strong reversion.

What's the cause? Is it due to AEI?"

What's the like-for-like growth? I think it was about 1.4%?

1.4%.

1.4%. Okay.

I think 1.4%, I guess a little bit of that, 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.

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 DBS Singapore.

Thanks for the presentation. Just 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, also your comments on RTS, just broadly, what is your thinking about the entire north of Singapore right now? Would that be a catchment of interest to CICT, perhaps somewhere newer like the Turf Club Kranji area away from the more crowded established areas now?

Thanks.

I don't think we have a specific view in terms of we went into I see, in Singapore is always and in real estate in general is always very localized. To talk about north in general, it's very hard.

You can have two malls next to each other and the performance can be quite different. It always depends on the 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, and 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.

Because 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? Because then we can then access the database and customer base in in the northeast, because people naturally always shops somewhere near their resident residence.

I I I think we're not we're fairly agnostic in terms of, whether it's northeast or Obviously, I think there is market talk about how the northern part of Singapore is going to be more affected by RTS. I guess partly true, but you will also benefit from the inflow.

There will be a certain vibrancy at the at the entrance to So, maybe more leakage than less, but I don't know. For us, fortunately, we don't have that much exposure in that area.

Whether we see that as a yeah, I don't I think, like I said, we we will look at it specifically on each individual location on its own merits.

Pass the mic to Vijay.

Hi. Morning.

Congrats on a good set of results, letting most of my questions are asked. Just two questions from me.

In terms of office, 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, I think if I look at overall tenant sales, looks a bit soft.

I think 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 possibility in next few years? Thanks.

Okay. Maybe I will take the second question, and then Yi Zhuan can take the first question.

I think tenant sales, we are up about maybe, yeah, I think it's on the board now, call it just slightly over a percent for the year. I think 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 think I mentioned it earlier in my presentation as well, we're up close to 2% year-on-year, which, I guess, is sales growing at inflationary rates, I guess, is it's business as usual. Whether we should be outperforming that, I think it's okay.

I think 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 cost. As we have also mentioned a couple of times, our occupancy cost is actually not super demanding at the moment.

We are at 17-odd percent. Pre-COVID, we are about 19%.

Our sales have gone up quite significantly, probably much faster compared to our rents over the last few years. Sales always lead rent, 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 grow up to catch up with 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 a weak growth rates. Maybe the first question on drop in office occupancy?

Yeah. For 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 CT tenants actually left, so that one on its own is quite a big void. Six Battery Road, we have a few of the kind of smaller kind of tenancies that expire.

These are kind of things that we are aware of ahead of time, and so actually some of the space has already backfilled. Like for example, the one in CapitaTower, we're about 20-plus percent backfilled, and then it's fortunately at a positive rent reversion.

The ones at Six Battery Road, we have also backfilled some of the spaces. Some of the spaces in part this drop in occupancies also 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 on the market.

It's largely that. I would say that going forward in the next quarter also, we probably will see a little bit of volatility and a little bit of this occupancies, because some of these movements in the market is quite natural, especially at the point in time where we see movements in the market as there's flight to quality, there's people consolidating and expansion, and then there will be natural down times for 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 is a bit cautious in terms of with all these global uncertainty, market uncertainty, then, of course, they try to be a bit more prudent when it comes to rent negotiations, right?

By and large, I would say the broader themes that is still happening, right, 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 one that always recover and grows fastest. Companies are prepared to pay for the right space, given that in the view of the broader business, right, actually real estate cost is just one function of their 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, right, some of the landlords are starting to do fitted-out offices to help companies bring down their initial setup costs and all these things, then it becomes 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 these ESG, central location, it fits their business better or cost-efficient thing.

The delta between decentralized and CBD is still not wide enough for them to then say that actually decentralized location is the 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 harp back on this point, on the RTS, have actually done any modeling to kind of talk about leakage, or modeling in terms of how much leakage you would see on that front?

Also 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 the

On the office side, yeah.

On the office side. We have sold off Bukit Panjang, we are not averse to selling assets.

We sold off 21 Collyer Quay, which is an office asset, we're not averse to selling office asset. I think between office or retail, I wouldn't say we have a preference over either, right?

Because I think the cycles always changes. 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's very attractive, I think we will always take a look.

We're not we are not if it's attractive enough, we will definitely always take a look. That's what I would say.

Yeah. On 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.

I think there are two parts to this, right? Question is the existing leakage, which is already happened, and the incremental leakage as a result of RTS.

I think existing leakage, I think when people talked 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 concern about is the incremental leakage from the RTS, which I think is a bit hard to model, I think.

If you look at it from a pure

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 and you want to be able to, if you have the ability to drive, most most likely you drive.

I don't think that will substitute away to to RTS. RTS is likely to create the additional demand from people who use to take the causeway bus.

I think there is an existing causeway bus which I have 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 like 15, 10-15 minutes.

Of course, there's that additional time that you have to take from your house to the edge of the causeway, lah. Just crossing the causeway itself actually is really quite already quite convenient.

Of course, with the RTS, it makes it even more convenient. Maybe 15 minutes can cut down to 5 minutes.

Likely, you will take away the demand from the 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. This facilitates cross-border labor flow, right?

Which then allows us to tap into incremental demand in terms of labor labor flow both ways. You also and RTS also, the whole Johor is booming, right?

There are likely to be greater population growth in Johor, either organic or, you know you 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 weekends, etc.

Then 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, and then RTS now create creates an avenue for them to come to Singapore. I don't think it's all bad.

It's not doom and all doom and gloom in my So there could be some incremental leakage, as what I mentioned earlier, but I think it's it's probably not as big as it is because it's because all the leakage that are slightly to happen has already probably happened. It also facilitates flow back to Singapore, lah.

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 RTS? I think that's about it,

right? Sorry, would you have a number on that point?

Because it seems like a net negative then in a sense from what you implied. On the retail side again, can I also ask, right, in terms of softness, I think Vijay talked about just now, but are you seeing change in consumer habits in terms of, obviously, the footfall seems to be increasing, but 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.

Have we done a modeling? Yes, we have done a modeling.

We won't be the only joy doing it. 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, lah.

If anything, I will refer you to DBS report, probably that was a good reference point. I hope that addressed that question.

I see. The previous on the consumers?

Yeah.

On the retail consumer's pattern, I would say that generally, I think, for example, It's very hard to just use a single line to kind of capture the whole market shift, lah, but of course so at risk of generalization, we do see that people are moving away from very, very big-ticket items. You start to see people are trying to spend on experiential dining, experiential entertainment, lifestyle elements.

Of course, there's a little bit of shift towards more like sports and healthy kind of living things. The shift in trend also does not always reflect in the kind of sales that you see, because for example, you talk about year-on-year, if you compare, say, for example, sports equipments, and then you look at, just using Brompton, for example, right, you see it coming down doesn't mean that there's less people are cycling compared to three, five years ago.

It's just that on a year-on-year basis, because it grew a lot the prior year and the base is high, and then it came off subsequent, but by and large, that trend inherently directionally is still going a certain way. We also see that actually, 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, but 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 a thing.

Toys, games, all these things no longer become something that used to be for kids. Now, these days actually the one that's spending a lot of all these things are, fortunately for us, lah, I won't say unfortunately, but it's actually the adults.

That's the kind of shift 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, right, are evolving. Then we talk about all these closures and whatnots, are we seeing a lot of brands from overseas, right?

In the past, right, the comment has always been that, oh, malls are cookie-cutter malls. Then, 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, and then what does it mean for local?

It's finding the right balance. I don't think in any of our malls, right, I can't say 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's from local fashion, they can buy a local F&B, they can also if they choose to do something else, Chinese food is very, very good. Today, you have options, and I think that's important when people come to the mall.

Because especially if the mall nearest to you, right, is all one style, one pattern, one product line, right, 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, but that aside, we also see a lot from the Western part, right?

For example, again I bring back Chick-fil-A, We see permutations, right, in what for example, certain things that tend to be high-cost items, now they try to make it more mass pricing. People can still experience the same thing for a much cheaper price.

You see some of these things evolving along the way.

Yeah. Thanks.

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 a 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, and given that you are already the largest REIT in APAC, would you be a bit underrepresented overseas, and would this be the right time to expand more overseas?

Interesting. Thank you.

Thank you. No, I think question is whether if one day we I guess I mean 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. Because at the end of the day, if we have to if we'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, because 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 and decent, sizable opportunities that continue to be accretive, financially makes sense for us, and puts our portfolio in a good position.

We did this Hougang is also another way that we deploy capital in Singapore as well, and that also is another reason why we also look at it, because 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 that we can look at without going to details and names. I think the short answer is if we are able to deploy the next dollar in Singapore, we rather do that than going overseas.

Do we oh, 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.

I as I mentioned, I think it's as a 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 that was indirectly answering your question.

I think that's all the time we have. Before we conclude, Chun Siang, would you like to share some closing remarks?

No,

I think this is a very good set of results, and I think 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 bigger hurdle to climb over, but 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, but actually the organic assets still makes up 98%, 95% of our portfolio, and 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, but we know it gets much harder and harder each time. Thank you.

I think we have some tea break outside, right?

Yes, thank you everyone.

We can speak more later.

If you have further questions, please feel free to reach out to us. Otherwise, have a great day, and those in person, and join the refreshments outside.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.