Good morning, Wolvertem calling. Welcome, team WDP, wherever you are in Europe.

Welcome also to the readers of De Tijd and L'Echo. Of course, welcome to our investors community.

I think we can say it's a good morning with a happy theme around me for the presentation of the full-year results '25. If we look to, let's say, our operations and operational results, we can say we delivered again a clean sheet with an EPS of €1.53.

It's an underlying growth of 7% year-on-year, an occupancy rate of 97.7%, more than a half million of square meters new leases, a portfolio growing to €9 billion, all backed by a perfect balance sheet with a loan-to-value of 40% and a net debt to EBITDA of 7.5. As an extra, we can also use our balance sheet now as a real value enabler with our new rating, our A3 rating of Moody's, which gives us a top five balance sheet within the quoted real estate world in Europe.

If we look then a little bit closer into our operations, we can really say that we did a perfect job. With 550,000 m² of new leases, we can say that the WDP platform can capture market demand more than our market share.

We secured €600 million of new investments at a net initial yield of 6.8%, which made also that we could keep our investment pipeline in execution at a very high level at €700 million with the same expected net initial yield. Of course, for all this, the funding is in place.

We can really say that we are in full execution and fully on track to reach our €1.70 EPS target for '27. Yes, indeed, we see the €1.70 in '27 at the horizon, and we are fully in track.

Yes, we still have to lease further and to execute our investment pipeline, but we see that most of our new initiatives are already looking beyond '27 and are value-creating beyond '27. This makes that we have to look further and that we are ready to extend our horizon.

Yes, we extend our horizon to 2030 with a clear goal and a clear focus. Our goal is to scale into an integrated EU platform providing total supply chain infra solutions with our classical focus: delivering above-average growth with below-average risk profile.

This brings us to Blend & Extend 2030. As from now, so much more than just a financial hedging product, it becomes a real plan.

A real plan based on our proven building blocks. Yes, build.

Yes, there is structural demand, and we are able to capture it. Yes, we will continue to load it with selective acquisitions, new developments in existing and in new markets like Spain and Italy.

Yes, we still can further extract value from our existing portfolio with indexation, rental growth, and active asset management. Yes, we will neutralize further by adding total energy solutions and keep on decarbonizing the logistics supply chain.

Yes, of course, we will stay disciplined. What do you want?

With Mick besides me, I have to stay disciplined and create value with risk-adjusted capital allocation. A proven, scalable, multi-driver model that brings us and let us grow further into the future.

Mick?

Yes, thank you, Joost. Now, how does that strategic picture translate into our target setting for Blend & Extend 2030?

We believe that we can continue the envisaged EPS growth rhythm of our '27 plan and roll forward the attractive +6% average growth rate towards 2030, translating into an EPRA EPS of at least €2 by 2030. Also, considering that we already generate a very high recurring cash return on equity of 7-8% to start with, even with a minimum portfolio revaluation of just over 1% per year, we believe we are set for double-digit total returns throughout the period, of at least 10% per year, measured as NAV growth plus dividends paid.

The key assumption here is that we have a fully internally funded €500 million capex per year. Why €500 million?

Because that way it is designed to be independent of external equity raisings, considering the higher cost of capital versus the past, we can make the five-year plan fully internally funded, which we believe is a very strong message and attractive. How can we do that?

We have a recurring yearly strengthening of our equity of €250 million to €300 million being a combination of retained earnings, stock dividend, and regular contributions in kind. Hence, that should enable us to achieve that growth and maintain a stable capital structure with net debt to EBITDA staying around 8 times and a loan-to-value around 40%, fully in tune with our top-tier A3 credit rating.

On the next slide, you can see our multi-driver approach at work. As we have been seeing over the last couple of years, we have adapted ourselves to the current environment and a more complex world, and the way we create value.

What we try to do is build layers. We have a first layer of internal growth coming from indexation, rent reversion, and active asset management initiatives.

Then we add the impact of external growth, a balanced mix between acquisitions and developments, and we add another layer of our energy investments. Yes, we can cope with the cost of debt reset, which is manageable and only gradual, and for which you can find more details in the remainder of the presentation.

Combined, that is important, it gives us an average +6% throughout 2030 leading to, as Joost said, above-average growth for a below-average risk. Now, turning to the outlook for '26, we have an EPRA EPS guidance of €1.60, so that's 5% growth year-on-year, with the key underlying assumptions being in tune with the drivers just mentioned: a combination of internal and external growth; and, that's important as well, operational and financial KPIs staying strong with occupancy rate above 97% and in line with the long-term average, and also with stable leverage metrics.

This figure is also looking robust already now at the start of the year, as most of the work has been done, and our teams are now working in full force to get to that finalization of the €1.70 in '27, and are very eager to start the work for the 2030 plan. Joost, over back to you.

Thank you, Mick. We can say that we are ready to build the platform of tomorrow, from a regional leader in the past to a core €10 billion+ European platform, where we can use our scale in order to help our clients with cross-border solutions.

We can do it efficient and profitable, and so enabling total returns. Indeed, very important for us as a real estate company, this gives us a superior access to capital.

For this growth, we will be supported further by the next generation of the family De Pauw, who showed again their long-term commitment as a reference shareholder by appointing two new directors in our board. Besides this, we also strengthening our board with more international knowledge, and this is also important in order to become a real European player.

Yes, indeed, we are ready for delivering today with a vision for tomorrow, and this all will generate an above-average growth with a below-average risk profile. Now, I will give the floor to Alexander in order to answer all your questions.

Before we do that, we give you just a little overview of some recent real estate projects. See you in a minute.

Welcome to the Q&A. Before we start, via the chat you can either put your questions in or you can raise your hand.

Alternatively, if you're calling via the teleconference, you can push pound key 5, and to withdraw your question, pound key 6. Before we address the questions, maybe the first important one, Joost, what's your take currently on the market?

Indeed, I think the first question of you all is still demand. There, we can give you a clear answer: with more than half a million of square meters new leases in '25, a normalizing occupancy rate between 97% and 98%, and a normalizing retention rate around 90%, we can say that demand for logistics real estate in Europe is normalizing from the exceptionally high during the pandemic years towards the multi-year prepandemic average, with a market balance gradually improving as tenants optimized their inventory and operations and new developments remain disciplined.

While the pickup of market demand still depends on consumer spending and business confidence, last quarter we really witnessed an improving leasing momentum by our commercial teams. Of course, demand is still more dynamic for smaller and high-end units up to 10,000 m², but it is now also selectively extending into larger-sized units, mainly for those clients that are able to take strategic decisions in this still volatile world, and this is an important sign.

More recently, we even see some cautious bigger tenders in the market again. Demand is mostly originating from specific sectors such as food, pharma, e-commerce, as well as strong-performing companies expanding their market positions.

Our commercial platforms remains well positioned to capture that demand, considering our high-quality portfolio. It's about having the right building at the right location besides, of course, our deep-rooted international network and our flexibility to adapt buildings to meet the client needs.

Looking ahead, the medium- to long-term fundamentals for logistics and industrial real estate remains positive, underpinned by limited land availability, constrained supply, and the continued need for more resilient and regionally diversified supply chains. As I said in my intro, a resilient supply chain is not a nice-to-have, it's essential infrastructure.

Thank you. The first question is coming from Marios Pastou from Bernstein.

Marios, please address them one by one.

Perfect, thank you very much, and good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

I do have two from my side. I'll ask them one by one.

Just firstly, on the capital allocation across your country mix, can you maybe give us an idea of the order of priorities as part of your plan to 2030? Would France and Germany be a priority, for example, as that's been your target for the last couple of years, and Germany hasn't really ramped up yet?

Or will this be purely opportunity-driven?

We never give that split of our intended capital allocation, because the moment we say X, the next day it will be Y. It will be a balanced mix across the geographies.

Yes, if we can do something more in the new markets, then that's always a plus, of course.

This is purely opportunistically driven. There's no kind of priority in terms of which markets to enter?

Where we can generate value measured as EPS growth with a good long-term solid total return.

Thank you. Very clear.

Then just secondly, in terms of establishing the presence in Spain and Italy, are you looking for landbank, are you looking for existing portfolios with upside potential, and maybe give us an idea of how many opportunities you're currently tracking then? Thank you.

I think there we will look as to those countries as we did in the past and as we do in every other country. Let's say there will be one difference.

Before, we always said we need first a portfolio, and then we go for a team. I think we learned from Germany, which is, of course, a very difficult country, that it is better to have first a country manager, then letting them make a plan, and then indeed starting it.

We will first go for country managers letting them make a plan, and then we will go into the countries with a plan. It will always be a combination like in Blend.

Yes, we will look for existing portfolios. Yes, we will do the developments.

It's all based on with what can we create value. That can be with an existing site, with a development.

It will always be the combination. That's the reason why our plans are called Blend, a combination of internal and external growth.

Thank you very much.

The next question in line is from Suraj from Green Street. You're now unmuted.

Hi, good morning. A couple of questions from me.

I'll also do it one by one. First one is I guess you touched on it a little bit, but just know on the desired form of presence in Spain and Italy, I appreciate you can't necessarily give any sizing by 2030 and you did touch on your approach, but just taking a step back and thinking high level, what's kind of drawing you to these markets?

What do you really like from a supply and demand perspective?

I think, first of all, we add them to the portfolio because it's logic. We come from the Benelux, added France and Germany, and then we go down so that we can offer better, more international solutions to our clients.

That's the first idea. Then, for the rest, yeah, it will indeed depend on opportunities and possibilities.

Yes, it is part of the 2030 plan, but within the capital allocation of the €500 million a year.

Perfect. Very clear.

Just a second one, again quite broad, just on the Benelux as a whole. I know you mentioned the demand drivers earlier and occupancy's been increasing within your own portfolio, but do you think the vacancy has peaked for the wider market within the Benelux?

What are your thoughts for future rent growth?

Suraj, maybe just a small add-on on the overall market. What we basically have seen over 2025 is a bottoming in take-up levels over the first half of 2025.

Q3, Q4, for that data that is still out, you currently see a quarterly take-up in most markets, and that's in our core markets as well as in Romania. When it comes to vacancy, it's stabilizing between 4.5%, 5%.

What you every now and then see is, when you look at the key figures at country level, you might see an increase in outlier in France, for example, 6%, or in Netherlands it's around 5%, but when you look through micro levels, you typically see that, for example, in the Randstad, it's closer to 3.5%. There we actually see that the underlying vacancy is also very low.

As Joost already mentioned, it's also supported by land scarcity, permitting, grid connection, which is also creating challenging times to add new space. That's in terms of the spot vacancy that we see in the existing markets.

When you then look at new construction starts, it's also broad-based down with 50%. Typically you have closer to 5% of total stock being delivered every year.

That's already down to 2.5% as well, and it's also 80%+ pre-let. That's in terms of vacancy and in terms of rental growth.

Here

on the market rental growth, we think the most logical picture would be that in last year was a bit more difficult markets that it stayed flat after years of a very strong increase. The good thing is that we can really achieve those ERVs, and in some cases we can also improve them by improving further the buildings.

The most logical thing would be when the market, as we expect, starts to further recover, that ERVs would first grow back in line with inflation and that afterwards, in the mid- to long-term, they would grow with inflation plus, given the scarcity elements and the importance of having land and also now more and more power available.

Perfect. Thank you.

The next in line is Wim from KBC Securities.

Yes, hi. Good morning.

Congrats on your Blend 30 program, especially in these uncertain times to come out with such a long-term view. I also have one question and a small follow-up.

My question is really on the internal financing, and I fully understand that you now give an outlook of €500 million capex, mainly internally financed. Now, although the market, I believe, is expecting, because of your premium to NTA, that you might consider also raising equity.

Now, your answer to this, and I've heard it many times, is that and I think also Mick mentioned it in the presentation, is your cost of equity is too high. Now recently, you participated in the Catena issue.

My question really is: how much do you see or do you need your cost of equity to decline or your share price to increase before you start thinking of, let's say, becoming a bit more aggressive on raising equity and maybe then growing also faster in certain regions that you've been eyeing, or where prices have been too high?

That's something we will not comment on, because then we start the speculation. We think the most important thing is, Wim, that we can have the internally funded capex of €500 million per year, and that we can achieve 6% growth to at least €2 per share.

Yes, if we see attractive opportunities generating a return above our cost of capital at that moment, because cost of capital moves every day, interest rates moves, share price moves, and then we will obviously, when we see an accretive opportunity, we will not hesitate to use our share, like we have done in the past when needed. The most important thing is we can get to the €2 fully internally funded.

Also do not forget that we manage the capital structure on a forward-looking basis. With the €250 million to €300 million of equity coming in each year, that already reduces without investments 3% the loan-to-value and 0.5 times the net debt to EBITDA.

That's a very strong machine we have going on.

Let me try another way, because I fully appreciate that you want to avoid speculation. There is now exactly speculation on something that might come where you think differently.

If I rephrase it: so you recently participated at Catena. Can you confirm that if your cost of equity would be around the same of Catena, that would

I don't think the link to Catena is really of importance. We supported Catena as a reference shareholder and maintain our 10% strategic stake, and we support the company, which is doing very well.

With respect to WDP and equity raising, I will quote what a famous Belgian politician once said: we will deal with it when the opportunity arrives. Then we will look at what our return on that acquisition is versus our cost of capital at that moment.

That's what Catena also did. They had a big opportunity, and then they looked at it, and then based on the opportunity they had, they raised equity in order to make accretive deal.

That's it.

Okay. Just for a short follow-up: you also mentioned contributions in kind.

Can you give an indication of what size that could be? Are we thinking €20 million, €30 million, €50 million max, or could that be also a bigger size?

No, for the €250 million to €300 million per year, we have around €100 million of retained earnings, €125 million coming from the stock dividend, and €70 million, €75 million of contributions in kind, like we do each year around €50 million per year.

All right, that's clear. Thanks a lot.

Welcome.

The next question is coming from Jamie from Coeli. You're now unmuted.

Hi, guys. Congratulations on the results, and thank you for the update.

I have just one question. What occupancy assumptions are embedded in the 2030 EPS target, and how sensitive are those to occupancy falling, given you're already operating at high levels today?

What we foresee in the Blend 2030 plan is that the occupancy stays around these levels and above 97%, which is normal and fully in sync with the long-term average.

Thank you.

The next one is coming from Pierre-Emmanuel from Jefferies.

Yes, thank you. Good morning.

Actually, the first question is a follow-up of the previous one. On the 2% like-for-like rental growth that you are targeting for 2026, first, how much is coming from indexation and reversion on top?

If I'm looking at your 2030 target, what is the average like-for-like rental growth that you took as a main assumption?

Yeah. On the like-for-like breakdown for '26, we have a guidance of like-for-like rental growth this year of around 2%, and the composition is that the inflation component, indexation, is a bit less than 2%, and then we add 50 basis points through the rent reversion and then minus 50 base around minus 50 basis points due to the occupancy rate.

That is solely linked to tenants moving in and out, a bit of frictional vacancy. Because, yeah, we were used to fantastic pandemic years where when a tenant moved out, then the next day there was the next tenant coming in and the rent just continued.

Now you have just the normal typical short void periods like you have in a normal market, like in the past. Actually, going towards that 2030 target, the organic growth we foresaw is pretty much the same as in '26 apart from the occupancy part, of course, and that we can then have inflation plus, capture inflation plus with 2% average indexation, and we can capture per year around 50 basis points of reversion above indexation.

That's the assumption in the 2030 plan.

That's clear. My second question is on the the vacancy for 2025.

What could have been the impact on vacancy if you if you would have kept the empty asset that you sold at the beginning at the end of the year of last year? On top, can we expect more disposals of empty buildings in order to keep the vacancy below 3% in 2026?

The first one, I'll take that one, Joost. The second part, the impact was around 30 basis points.

Okay.

Concerning let's say, we are always looking for the best value creation and doing a good asset management. First indeed, normally we don't sell assets, but sometimes when it is, let's say, when you can do an interesting deal, we are always open when let's say it creates value for WDP.

Like, for example, the end of last year, there we could sell Okay, it was a big unit, but it was a small unit in the bigger port of Liège, where we have, let's say, a very small position, where we where only the third player on that site, there was not we had not a lot not a lot of power to create value. Then we could sell it to the neighbor, an example of a strategic buyer who said, "Look, this is probably a once-in-a-lifetime moment, I'm ready.

I, of course, will have to pay the right price." When he pays the right price, we said, "Okay, you can have it, and you can buy it instead of renting it."

Then we could directly reinvest it from a local port, the port of Liège, towards the port of Paris with a new strategic investment and a new strategic client, Seafrigo. Yes, if we can do similar deals in the futures, we are always open for that, but always with the idea that it has to create value for WDP, and not just selling a building because we want to sell something.

We don't need to sell anything, but active creative asset management, we are always open. Like I said, sometimes you need to be creative, and sometimes also a little bit contrarian.

Understand. Just a quick follow-up: in your 2026 guidance of a vacancy below 3%, does it take into account potential disposal of empty buildings?

On top, maybe it would be interesting to guide us through the lease schedule in 2026. How many leases are at risk?

How many tenants may leave in 2026?

We are back at a normal retention rate of 90%. Today, from the 10% tenants with a break in '26, there is already, let's say, almost two-thirds are already prolonged, which is more than the long-term average of 50%.

No, there are no further let's say, sellings of buildings foreseen in the plan in order to keep the occupancy high or higher.

That's clear. Thank you very much.

The next in line is Francesca from ING. You're now unmuted.

Yes, hello. Good morning, everybody.

Many thanks for taking my questions. I have just a couple.

The first one is about the assumption that you took about the cost of debt over the 2020 2030 plan. The second one is about the 500 million

One by one,

Francesca.

One by one, please. Absolutely, yes.

For the cost of debt assumption, we took into, first for the base rate, the forward interest rate curve, with Euribor rising from 2% today to a bit less than 3% by 2030, and the swap rate rising from 2.5% to 3%, and then with the margin added, below 100 basis points, which is what we currently pay for 5- to 7-year debt. That's the assumption.

That's fine. I move to the second question.

How much of the €500 million investment spending that you plan for 2030 is going to be devoted to the energy division? What type of hypothesis you took behind this type of investments?

Yeah. For the energy division, it's a bit less than 10% of the €500 million per year, around, let's say, €40 million per year.

It's composed of the further rollout of our solar panel program. We will go to 350 MWp by '27, and thereafter it will further grow in line with new development projects.

Then, secondly, we have the on-site batteries we are installing. Then we also have, commissioned by '29, a big standalone battery projects for which we just obtained the grid connection, which you can see on this slide in the green area.

That's the bulk of those investments. Then we will also add some first pilot projects in EV truck charging in mobility hubs, as it is foreseen that our clients and transport will change towards electrification.

There, it's too early to make bigger assumptions on that, because of what is happening now in the world around geopolitics, energy, self-sufficiency. We believe that that could come for a later plan.

That's the assumption we took, and you should take into consideration, let's say, profitability of solar panels, 8% IRR, 10-15% yield on cost. For the battery, it's around 15% IRR and 20% yield on cost.

Those elements should bring us to a doubling of the revenue towards €50 million in 2030. Hope that's sufficient color.

Yes. Maybe my last question is on the development costs, important part that we're seeing in development projects, development pipeline.

Can you share your feelings about the development costs for 2026? Do you experience any differences amongst the different geographies where you are operating?

We would say that over the last years after COVID, they have declined towards a level which is now broadly stable, depending a bit on where you have how much work the construction companies have, or per projects, how big it is. In general, they are okay and stable.

We can with the current construction costs, we can generate the targeted returns. Let's say the most distinguishing factor to achieve the desired return on a development project is the availability of land, the cost thereof, and the availability of power.

Those are the most important determinants of a development project today. Right, Joost?

Yeah. The good thing is that, let's say, we can create value with the combination.

It's not only that we need developments to create value or that we only can buy. No, it is the combination.

You can do an acquisition, and based on that acquisition there can be an extra development. It's really the value is in the combination.

It's not about developing or doing acquisitions or entering a new country. No, it is that combination, that blend element.

That is really we blend everything, and then we can create value. That is the most important future-looking.

That's clear. Many thanks.

The next in line is Paul from Barclays. You're now unmuted.

Hi, guys. Thanks for presentation.

Just a couple of questions from me. First one, on the depreciation of the solar and other energy, I think currently running at about 45% of the revenue is depreciation, which, given there's arguably zero value once solar panels are used up and batteries are used up, surely that is a cost that should be included in your analysis and probably shouldn't be added back when looking at your net debt to EBITDA, rather, you're taking 100% of the positive and zero of the negative in your debt metrics.

Just wondering your thoughts on that and how that is included and thought about in your plans. Thanks.

It will be reflected in the end in our balance sheet, as these investments come in the balance sheet at their fair value as they are for the property. We believe the income, the recurring cash income, should be included in the EPRA earnings, and also do take into consideration that the solar panels last a long time, the last 20, 30 years; batteries, 15, 20 years, depending on the intensity of the usage.

If you use them faster, then the income will have been higher as well. Yes, there is no land component like in the buildings, but, yeah, buildings are in essence also depreciating.

We take the view that that is more a revaluation component, and that will be reflected in the balance sheet rather than in our EPRA earnings.

Okay. It is quite different given the zero value, but that's fair enough.

The just coming back on the leverage question, and leverage continues to increase, which is sort of counter to what we're hearing most investors want companies to do. They tend to want leverage to move in the right direction rather than the wrong direction, which is the way you've been going.

Appreciate your comments around the cost of equity, but have you or the board considered looking at your company more in a US way, looking at implied cap rates rather than necessarily a made-up cost of equity, which nobody really knows what the answer is? If you compare you to Catena, for example, you're trading pretty much exactly the same implied cap rate, and yet you were happy for them to issue equity, but not happy to do it yourselves, other than in payments in kind, which is an issue of equity, or a scrip dividend, which is effectively an issue of equity.

Just wondering why you have a different view on sort of pure equity to Catena or others, and why not looking at it from an implied cap rate basis?

We look at it from an implied earnings yield, inverse price-earnings perspective, because that's the metric we need to look at to generate earnings per share growth. Then it will simply depend on the opportunities.

We have not said we won't do it. We said, if we don't need it for executing the growth plan, which we believe is a fantastic statement and reassuring also for you, the investors, that it is self-funded to achieve already 6% growth throughout 2030, and we have said that when we see attractive opportunities generating an accretive return above our cost of capital, then we will not hesitate to use the share.

That's how we are in it.

The cost of equity between WDP and Catena, there is a big difference still today. We are at a 7% earnings yield, and Catena was at or is at a 5.5% let's say cost of equity.

There is still a big difference, and so then indeed they have a better cost of equity, and it was in combination with an opportunity where they could create value. There, let's say, we followed, and we also say indeed that that was a good deal and the right moment to do that.

It's really still the difference in cost of equity is still very big, and we are still below the sector average. While price-earnings are today 17 around for our sector, and we are still around 14.

Our cost of equity is still higher.

Yes, and we are aware about the comparison you mentioned that we are a bit higher in leverage than our US counterparts. Then, on the other hand, we are much lower in net debt to EBITDA, which is the metric that matters in European perspective.

Also, we believe that having the A3 rating also gives us somebody to us and a story and of confidence in our balance sheet strength towards the generalist investors. Also do note that our balance sheet is still based on values per square meter less than €1,000 on average.

No, I hear that. I think surely that looking at it from an earnings yield basis, you should adjust for your current cost of debt, which is lower than the marginal, whereas Catena's is more in line with marginal cost given the variable exposure.

That's a large reason why they have a lower earnings yield than you do is that their debt has already repriced, whereas your debt will reprice at some point in the future. Hence, the reason looking at it on an ungeared or implied cap rate basis where you're basically trading at the same level.

As I say, a US company would be looking at your equity and saying, "Issue equity every single day, because it's cheaper to use your equity to buy assets. The market is overvaluing you on an implied cap rate basis."

I think your equity is cheap, by the way, so that's a separate point, hence the reason I'm

[laughter] We agree to disagree, that's no problem. We appreciate having exchanging the opinions.

Perfect. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

The next in line is Fred from Kepler.

Hi. Good morning.

Just two questions on my end. Maybe the first one, can you describe a bit the evolution of the ERV in your respective market, please, and how do you see it evolving in 2026?

Just to link on that, you described an uptick in leasing momentum, also potentially for larger unit. Do you see more incentive to be given?

That's the first question.

On the ERV, we answered it. Short-term, it was flat, and now, as the market starts to pick up again, we believe it will move back in line with indexation, and in the mid- to long-term, inflation plus because of the scarcity elements.

Then on the leasing momentum

Indeed, on incentives, we can say that it is not a matter of pricing, not a matter of incentives. It's about: am I ready to jump, do I need that building, do I can create value?

Our clients also have to create value in by renting a building. Can they use it in a positive way?

Let's say, when they say, "I can use it," then let's say they pay the price. There are not so many possibilities most of the time in the building they want on the location.

It's not a price discussion, on the contrary. I would say, if it would be only a matter of incentives, I give for every empty building three months rent-free, and if everything would be rented, then I'm a happy man.

It's not the case. It is: am I ready to jump?

Then people pay the price. Indeed, most of the time, those prices are higher than the tenant who was in before.

Everybody accepts the new price levels.

All right. Then the second question on Catena, what has the company brought to WDP excluding dividend, since you have this 10% stake?

Because it seems that, to refer to the question of Paul, the company trades at a higher multiple than yourself, which means isn't there better use of your capital allocation today? Just wondering.

No, we believe it's a strategic stake, and are very happy with that. The company is performing very well, as said, and we are happy with that long-term strategic stake, because we could never cover those markets by ourselves, and now we can also offer solutions in other countries through Catena.

We can help and reinforce each other. We recently also did a deal with a

With Indeed, and I think now, let's say, we did that not as a short-term opportunity, but as a long-term partner in order to be able and to become, let's say, a company that can offer solutions, let's say, from Stockholm and soon from Helsinki up to Madrid and Rome. Then we can offer to our clients total solutions on whole Western Europe.

This is important, and that is over the short-term cycles. Indeed, for example, the deal in Le Havre with Seafrigo, well, that was also, let's say, Seafrigo is a client of Catena before, and so Catena could introduce us, and there we could use the combination of clients, for example.

For us, it's really about long-term helping clients and being able to give a total solution to our clients in core Western Europe.

All right. Therefore, does it mean that if you find, for instance, a company in the private market which is active in Spain and in Italy, would you be happy to take a minority stake in order to invest indirectly into this market?

No, that's will not be the case. We do it 100%, we do it by ourselves.

No, there we really said we want to do it ourselves.

That's clear. Thank you.

The next question is coming from Steven from ABM.

Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my question.

Only specific question on Le Havre, where you had investments. Any comments on the region, and more specifically on where we are with permitting for your land there?

Do you have this project contributing in '27 or only in 2030? Adjacent to it, do you see risks on permitting as a result of the upcoming regional elections?

Dunkirk? There, let's say, we are still waiting for permits.

We have had a problem with the permitting time due to a bird, like it sometimes happened. When there strikes down a bird during the right period, you can do nothing, they have to investigate.

We got a longer option. Normally, but yeah, in France, it can take a long time, we should get the permit, let's say, by the end of the year.

It will take still a long time, but in the meantime, of course, it is only an option, and we are not owner of the land, it doesn't cost us anything. There is no specific reason, that's just the normal procedure.

In France, it takes two years to get your permitting, and here, due to the bird, then it will be three years. That can also happen, let's say, in the Netherlands or other regions.

Permitting is taking time everywhere.

A potential risk of the local elections, could that be a risk in your view?

I think, well, no, not really. Let's say there are always everywhere elections in Europe.

There has been elections, there are also elections, if I'm right, in the Netherlands and in France. Let's say logistics is not politically sensitive.

It is a strategic sector. It is strategic infrastructure, let's say we don't depend on, let's say, the local or more political waves.

We also invest in industrially zoned land.

Yeah.

Clear. Thanks so much.

Then we have one more question from Alex [unclear]. You're currently unmuted.

Just for the other questions that are in the activity feed in the chat, as we try to respect the time, it's getting close to 11:00, we'll address them, but we'll reach out to you directly. The floor is yours.

Thanks very much. Good morning.

One question on the scrip dividend: what's your assumption in your EPS growth target there?

That we do it in line with historical of minimum 50% take-up rate.

All right, perfect. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This currently concludes the Q&A.

As said, we'll address the other questions in the chat directly. Any concluding remarks, Joost?

Yes, of course. Thank you, Alexander.

To conclude, I can say that indeed, thanks to our platforms, our strong fundamentals, and our DNA of being effective, creative, entrepreneurial, and now and then a little bit contrarian, that DNA that Tony and I created together the last 25 years, well, that DNA makes that we can deliver today with a vision for tomorrow. We are ready and looking ahead to 2030.

Thank you all, and see you soon.