Swisscom AG ($SCMN)

Good morning, and welcome to our ad hoc conference call for investors and analysts. My name is Louis Schmid, Head of Investor Relations; and with me are our CEO, Christoph Aeschlimann; and Eugen Stermetz, our Chief Financial Officer. Let us start with some introductory remarks from our CEO on the JV news of last week and on the termination of the MSA with INWIT we announced today. Then we'll move straight into the Q&A session. With that, I would like to hand over to you, Christoph.

Thank you, Louis, and a warm welcome from my side. Let me briefly share our perspective on the strategic TowerCo initiative announced last week as well as the termination of the MSA with INWIT announced today. So here is our view. For us, the Italian tower situation is completely decoupled from the mobile market we are operating in and is, in our view, in an unsustainable situation. Why? The Italian tower fees we pay are among the highest in Europe and keep on growing and the Italian market is de facto duopoly. On the other hand, the Italian mobile market is highly competitive. Prices have been in structural decline and are among the lowest in Europe. As a result, our tower lease costs are now approximately 20% of our mobile revenues, and this share keeps growing, which is unsustainable for us. In our view, tower economics cannot diverge forever from the economics of the mobile market. Therefore, we decided to take action. First, we launched a strategic initiative with TIM to create an independent open access TowerCo as a 50-50 JV that will develop, own and operate up to 6,000 sites across Italy and commercialize them to multiple operators, including third parties at market conditions and on a nondiscriminatory basis. This pro-competitive project is designed to complement the existing passive infrastructure, support network densification and 5G deployment, create an additional make option and in-source, an increased sourcing flexibility in the Italian market. Through the entrance of a third-party minority investor, there will be 3 co-controlling shareholders with no consolidation obligation, meaning CapEx is off balance sheet for Swisscom and through the multi-tenancy approach, there will be a lower unit cost per tenant. The initiatives will be financed through a combination of debt and equity from the third-party investor with no impact on Swisscom's free cash flow and net debt position. Therefore, we expect decreasing lease expenses over time as the MSA with the new TowerCo will offer services at market prices. Second, we announced today the termination of the MSA with INWIT scheduled for March 2028. The terms and conditions specified in the current MSA stem from a transaction executed many years ago and are strongly favorable to the TowerCo and deviate from market standards in several respects, among others, because of very high fees that are significantly above market and an inflation clause that increases the price we pay by 100% of inflation without any cap, which is unrelated to the actual increase of the underlying cost -- is not at market and not sustainable. Due to INWIT's refusal to engage in commercial negotiations and to renegotiate the MSA terms and given the deadline for an automatic renewal for another 8 years due on March 31, INWIT left us no choice but to terminate the agreement with INWIT now in full compliance with the contractual provisions. Considering the repeated public statements by INWIT in which they claim that the current MSA was subject to a fixed term until 2038, Fastweb, Vodafone has filed an action before the competent courts to assert its contractual right to terminate the MSA. So what happens next? Operational continuity is ensured with the following contractual provisions and measures. Until its expiry date in March 2028, the agreement with INWIT remains fully effective and operational. According to the MSA, both parties must agree on a multiyear migration plan for a period which needs to be agreed in good faith between the parties. As such, we will have access to INWIT towers for the duration of the migration, avoiding abrupt or unilateral disruption. Over time, Fastweb, Vodafone will evaluate the most efficient infrastructure sourcing model and progressively diversify sourcing through 2 different channels. The first channel consists of existing tower providers such as Cellnex and PTI and potentially other tower providers. This category might eventually also include INWIT provided they offer market conditions. The second channel is going to be the new TowerCo that we announced last week. I would like to emphasize that we remain open to a constructive dialogue with INWIT and are available to reach a fair negotiated agreement with lease costs for towers at market prices. At the same time, we are pursuing a more diversified and sustainable tower sourcing strategy. The new TowerCo with TIM will therefore proceed independently of any potential negotiation outcome as it addresses the need for increased densification and competition in the Italian tower market. With that, I'll now turn it over to the operator for the Q&A session.

Before we start with the Q&A, let me remember you this call is recorded. About 10 minutes after the call ends, you can listen to the recording by the phone, find the details in the invitation to this call. [Operator Instructions]

It's Joshua Mills here from BNP Paribas. Thank you for the conference call this morning. A few questions from my side. So the first one is you've talked about the INWIT contract being well above market prices. Could you give us a bit more of a steer on how much more expensive the contract is in the reference terms you're looking at, so that we can think about the negotiating position and what you're trying to save there would be helpful. And Secondly, on the practicalities of actually doing this network migration, how long do you expect the transition period to last? And how confident are you that you can do this without disrupting network quality? And perhaps related to that, I think at the moment, of the 25,000 sites you have, there's 20,000 with INWIT, how many of those sites do you think you could replace with Cellnex and other options that are already in the market? And then third and finally, related to that, do you already have discussions ongoing with these TowerCo partners to help you manage that transition once we get to 2028?

Thank you, Josh. So on your first question, we don't want to provide too much detail on how much we think they're over market, but you can trust me that they are substantially over market, and we talk about significant numbers here. Otherwise, we would have not undertaken this measure. On the migration side, we are very confident that we can migrate the towers over time. Of course, this will be a multiyear undertaking. As such, we launched the TowerCo to provide us with multiple thousands of towers. But on the other side, we are also already in discussion with other providers such as PTI and Cellnex, of course, to provide multiple thousands of towers. So we are confident that we can rapidly migrate away a substantial amount. And for the others, we are finding solutions. And I would also remind you, we are still also open to work together with INWIT to -- assuming that we find at market agreements, we are happy to continue to collaborate with INWIT and sourcing towers from them as well.

Next question, the line will be open.

I guess the INWIT pushback, if I understand this, is that a change of control at Vodafone, Fastweb would trigger an extension to the MSA and that change in control could have either been in 2022 with the transfer of assets from Vodafone into Vantage or perhaps more clearly in 2024 with your acquisition of Vodafone. So could you just give us your opinion on whether that has legal credibility or not? That seems to be the major debate here. That would be useful.

Yes, I'm happy to answer this, Eugen here. Good morning, everybody. So you're right, the question of change of control is crucial. The agreement is actually quite clear in that respect. So in the case of a change of control under the MSA, any contract party has an option to extend the MSA terms by another 16 years. And in order to exercise such an option, the exercising party had to notify the other party within 30 days of a change of control event. What constitutes a change of control event is precisely defined in the MSA, as I said, in a very precise and unambiguous way. It means the event in which Vodafone Europe B.V. ceases to exercise control or joint control together with TIM over INWIT. And Vodafone Europe B.V. ceased control over INWIT in 2020 with the Vantage transaction. INWIT did not exercise their option to extend the validity of the contract at that point in time. And so the original terms prevail with the termination rights for Fastweb and Vodafone for 31st of March 2028 with 24 months' notice.

So the 2024 transaction is irrelevant. Is that correct? The acquisition.

It doesn't play any role, correct. Next line.

And the next line will be open.

This is Andrea Devita from Bank Intesa. Just an idea of the total investment that you foresee for the network joint venture and the implication for your lease net debt on 2026 and faster CapEx for the next 3 years?

Okay. Happy to take that question. So the investment on the joint venture from our side will actually be very limited. As we explained in the respective press release, we intend to include a third-party investor who will invest equity in the joint venture. And obviously, the joint venture will also take on debt. So our initial investment into the joint venture will be very limited. As for the leverage guidance for 2026, this is unchanged. I remind you the leverage guidance was 2.3x plus whatever would come on top from the renewal or from new tower agreements in Italy. Now obviously, the renewal option is gone, but new tower agreements might be the case in 2026. So our leverage guidance is unchanged, 2.3x plus whatever comes from tower agreements. The whole story has no impact on Fastweb CapEx in the near term and certainly not in 2026 for which our guidance is unchanged.

The next line will be open.

It's Roshan Ranjit from Deutsche Bank. I've got two questions, please. And perhaps just a quick follow-up on the previous one around the triggering of the change of control. You referred to the 2020 event in your press release. I think you answered around the 2024 event. What's about the breakup of the shareholder agreement, which was triggered by TIM in 2022. In your view, does that not trigger a change of control and the 16-year extension that you referred to? And my second question, please, is just regarding the use of third-party passive infrastructure and how that reconciles with the terms of your MSA where INWIT is the preferred supplier of your passive build and any new build, they have the right of first offer. Do you think that does not apply in this situation?

Okay. So I'll take the first one. So the change of control is triggered when the co-control by Vodafone Europe B.V. and Telecom Italia ends, and this ended on [ December 17, 2020 ]. So afterwards, it ended and there was no other option to be exercised. On the preferred supplier clause, this obviously applies only as long as the agreement is valid, which is the case until the 31st of March 2028. And afterwards, there is no preferred supplier clause anymore.

We will open the next question in line.

Nicolas Gourdain from Lexcor Capital here. I'm just curious about the reaction of the Italian government and regulator on this course of action because the objective has clearly been to increase the quality of the network in Italy, which is poor and drive investments. And basically, here, the deal seems to me like you're going to give a lot of effort, a lot of money to at best replicate what you have with little hope of really improving quality in the period. So isn't there a risk that should eliminate the authorities? And could it impact also the negotiation where you're asking for free spectrum in the sense that the money freed up for investments in exchange of the free spectrum is now really more to replicate what you have rather than to improve?

So I think it's an excellent question. Obviously, the relevant party to answer this would be the Italian government. So I cannot speak for the Italian government. But my impression is that this undertaking is viewed positively. As we are taking pro-competitive measures, we are trying to make the tower market more competitive to lower overall cost in order to be able to then redirect more investment into the network and actually improve the Italian network overall on the mobile side. So our intention is clearly to accelerate mobile densification and network quality to redirect investment into the network. And for this to happen, we need to work on the tower costs overall. And so I think it is in the interest of consumers and businesses, it's the interest of the country and overall, a favorable move.

And just a second one, if I may. You sound a bit like you -- presumably, you knew all of this when you bought the asset, right? So it sounds a bit like certainly the cost is very high. It's surprising to us. It's not -- in a way, was it always the plan, I guess, that this was sort of a contract that you knew about that you were going to change basically the terms of...

Well, I think we already made clear in February 2025, immediately after the takeover that we were of the opinion that the tower cost was above market. So this is not a new topic, but we have been talking about this for a while.

Taking our next question now.

It's Akhil Dattani from JPMorgan. I've got a couple of questions as well, please. The first is just to understand the legal process from here. As you've mentioned, INWIT's disputing the termination time line that you believe is appropriate. Can you just talk us through the legal steps that you'll now take to assert the time line that you believe is right? And at what point and how quickly can we get visibility to the resolution of that dispute just to know that the process you're now taking obviously can move forward? That's the first question. The second one is just on time line on your tower JV. Obviously, you've said 6,000 sites is what you're targeting. Can you help us understand within Italy, how quickly you think it's actually possible to build sites like that? And then the last one is just a broader executional question around the plan that you have here. If you're going to theoretically migrate a substantial portion of the sites off INWIT, assuming you can't get some sort of agreement with INWIT through this process, can you just talk us through the one-off costs that, that would incur? Because presumably, you're going to have antennas and other associated costs that you have to build up as you're replacing this, you won't be able to migrate the existing antennas you have with INWIT. So when you think about whatever you do, can you just help us understand the execution risk and costs that might potentially associate with this plan that you have here?

I can take the first question. So the legal action that we commenced against INWIT is essentially aimed at obtaining a ruling from the Court of Milan confirming the lawfulness and validity of the termination of the MSA by Fastweb, Vodafone and consequently confirming that the MSA will terminate on the 31st of March 2028. As for the timing, we would not like to speculate on that topic. We all see over time.

Okay. And then sort of second question, the tower JV. So first, we need to establish a tower JV and it needs to be approved. But we plan with a rollout of roughly 500 towers per year. So this gives you an indication of the speed and the rollout speed that we will have once the JV is established. On the migration side, of course, depending on how we migrate, it implicates different one-off costs. It depends if you migrate to existing towers to new towers. And so the precise costs that will be needed depend on the precise migration planning, and we will share this in due course once it becomes clear how the migration planning will be set up once we negotiated it with INWIT, which will take probably some time to step up in the -- with the counterparty over the coming months and quarters.

We'll move now to next line.

It's Christian Bader here from ZKB. I have a follow-up question on the legal process. Can you tell us when do you expect a judgment by the competent Court of Milan -- do you expect the judgment before the end of this year? Or is it, let's say, more for the medium term?

We already had that question. All I'm going to say is that we all know that Italian courts tend to be not extremely fast. So that can take quite a while. But I don't want to speculate on exact number of quarters or years of how much that could take.

We will take now the last question.

It's Robert Grindle from Deutsche Bank here. Do you envisage a scenario whereby you could beat your synergy expectations on the Italian acquisition via taking this route? Or is this about securing what you were hoping to do in the first place? And there's obviously some dispute about the change of control dates and you have your view, which you've had since the purchase of Vodafone Italy. Just to ask whether you have any indemnities from Vodafone, should your opinion on this point not be supported by the courts?

Okay. So let me be clear about the synergies. The synergies have nothing to do with the question at hand. You all know the sources of the synergies. The most important one is the migration of the Fastweb mobile customers onto the Vodafone network. this whole discussion here comes on top and has nothing to do with the realization of synergies, which is fully on track. Then the second question on -- again, on change of control. Sorry, I lost the second question. Could you repeat it again?

We have an indemnity.

Yes, we are not going to comment on any relation with Vodafone in that regard. Sorry, I forgot the question.

Okay. There's still a couple of questions. We'll try to get some more over the next line.

It's Paul Sidney from Berenberg. Just a couple of follow-ons from questions we've already had, please. Could you discuss the net free cash flow implications for the Italian business going forward? Obviously, there's so many moving parts, both OpEx and CapEx. And obviously, we have the JV to think about as well. But if you could just set out how should we think about that free cash flow profile for the business looking forward, assuming that the determination goes ahead? And then just secondly, it feels like much of the dispute comes down to legal interpretation of the MSA, and it does feel like this could end up in the court for many years. But if it's -- if a legal dispute goes on beyond March '28, I know that's sometime in the future, but do we just roll on in terms of the contract under the current terms? Is that the right way to think about it?

Okay. So on the free cash flow question, as I said before, there is no immediate impact on free cash flow. There will be tower leases irrespective from which tower company we source the towers over time. And also if we source them from our joint venture with TIM, there will be tower lease expense in the Italian P&L. Obviously, the whole point of the exercise is to bring down the tower costs over a long period of time, much closer to what we believe is market standard. So long term, there is a positive free cash flow impact compared to a continuation of the status quo. Then after March 31, 2028, as Christoph already pointed out, a migration period will start, the details of which has to be defined together with INWIT. And obviously, during those periods, we are going to pay for the towers that we use from INWIT.

Next line to be open.

This is Ondrej Cabejšek from UBS. I had a question in terms of the migration. So I think in the past, we've had a situation in Italy where due to various limitations, including EMF proximity, et cetera, it's been very difficult for operators to actually co-locate on infrastructure that is pretty full in terms of tenancies, which is both -- which is the case for both INWIT and Cellnex and it has been impossible to migrate even low to mid-single-digit thousands of sites to either of these companies in the past. So my question would be, if you are planning, if I understood correctly, to migrate about 500 -- or build 500 sites per year, presumably with the amount of sites that you have and presumably, again, the limits on the amount of sites that you would be able to move to either Cellnex or PTI infrastructure, it sounds like the realistic time line for migrating the rest would be a very long one. And presumably also in uncertain especially high traffic density, et cetera, areas in the city centers of a lot of Italian cities, this could be virtually impossible, very difficult, if not virtually impossible. So my question would be, how do you plan on actually kind of completing this project because there will be a big amount of sites where this will be very difficult to actually do.

So I can maybe comment a bit on the planned migration. And indeed, the new EMF regulations in Italy made it much easier to co-locate sites, which is good news for us in this situation because it makes it much easier to reuse existing sites from PTI or Cellnex. And this will be one of the main axis of migration, of course. So not building new sites, but reusing existing sites and actually augmenting the colocation factor on existing towers, which will be one of the main avenues of our migration plan. And then, of course, some sites will need to be built. This is, as you pointed out, not always easy, but it's not impossible. And don't also -- so we will proceed also on that front. Of course, this requires a CapEx depending on how it is structured if we go through a JV or a direct build on our own. But on the other side, it also frees up substantial lease liabilities and out payments. So it's always a balance of what you, let's say, upfront payments and the costs over time. So we are confident that we have a good migration plan in place. Of course, now all the details need to be discussed with INWIT and agreed upon. And once we have more clarity on how we proceed, we can then update you again on what this means precisely in terms of numbers in the long run.

And maybe if I can follow up. How do you -- I guess, there will come a point where, as you say, some sites will be very difficult, you'll be left with a certain number of sites where maybe traffic is crucial, et cetera. So then it comes into play the all or nothing clause and how -- I guess, do you plan on dealing with that once the wind-down agreement actually reaches the end because presumably it's going to be forever. So how do you plan on dealing with the all or nothing element in this contract?

Well, if I may, after 31st of March 2028, there is no all or nothing anymore. So there is just the opportunity beyond the migration plan for both parties to come together and agree if we are interested in sites from INWIT and INWIT is interested to provide it at market terms to come together. But the whole all or nothing clause is something that lives during the life of the agreement. That means that the older sites have to be taken together at a fixed price, and you cannot move away at least not more than a small number of sites, but it has no impact whatsoever beyond the life of the contract.

Next line will be open.

It's Joshua Mills here from BNP Paribas. Just a follow-up on Rob's question earlier. I understand that the synergy targets with Vodafone Italia are unrelated to the TowerCo deal. But when you did announce that transaction, you provided some longer-term guidance as well on the run rate pro forma of EBITDA, operating free cash flow and also link that to your dividend guidance as well. So my question is, does that financial guidance, which was laid out at the time, assume a renegotiation of the tower contract or an alternative network build? Or would savings that you plan to make either of those routes be additive to the current guidance. I just want to really stress us how confident we can be in your current financial guidance based on this debate about the towers, which may take some time to be resolved.

Yes, sure. So the picture we presented upon the signing of the transaction in March 2024 still stands. If you remember what we presented back then was net synergies of EUR 600 million at the level of operating free cash flow. It was always clear that obviously, outside that net accrual of synergies of EUR 600 million, there would be pluses and minuses from the ongoing business as we observed. And this tower opportunity we are talking about here is exactly one of these additional pluses. But as we know, the market -- in the market, there are also minuses. And net-net, we still stand by our net EUR 600 million plus communication when we presented the deal.

Next question in line will be open.

It's Andrew Lee from Goldman Sachs here. I had two questions. First is just in terms of coming back to the plan B, which you cite Cellnex as a key partner, which, of course, it must be. The feedback from management meetings with Cellnex, is that Cellnex understands that it can't act first of all, in terms of capacity for that many towers to enable the plan B, but also that if it were to facilitate the termination of master service agreement, it derates the whole sector, including its own stock. How confident are you -- your commentary around the relationship with Cellnex and negotiation suggests a more constructive engagement. Could you just help us understand that tautology between your position and the difficulties that Cellnex has to support you on that journey? And then just second question, more explicitly, just on the -- what's your understanding of the cost to take antenna of one tower and put them on to another, just per tower, what's the cost that you've envisaged and put into your model?

So on the Cellnex question, I think I already went into details around the migration plan. So yes, we are confident that we can reach an agreement and that we will find good solutions to make our plan B work.

As for the CapEx to move antennas, you're correct. There is some CapEx associated to that. We are not in a position today to give a precise estimate. It's still early days. But suffice it to say that whatever antenna moving CapEx, if that's what you want to call it, is going to come, will be within the typical total CapEx envelope that we have envisaged for Fastweb, Vodafone in our business plan.

And that strength of the relationship with Cellnex that regards both the migration of the existing antenna off of INWIT onto Cellnex as well as the incremental tower build that you announced with the JV last week. It's both elements that you think you're having a constructive dialogue with Cellnex on.

I'm not sure I got your question.

If you could you repeat the question.

Say that there's two elements to your dialogue with Cellnex. One, can Cellnex support you in building new towers as part of your JV? And secondly, will Cellnex existing towers receive antenna that have been taken off the INWIT towers? Do you think there's a supportive constructive dialogue on both elements of those discussions?

Absolutely so.

Next line will be open.

Justin Funnell Here. Yes, just follow-up questions, please. I mean, hypothetically, is this just a question of price? If INWIT was charging you market rate, you would just extend? Or is it also to do with other things, for example, the nature of the all or nothing contract, you want to move away from that type of contract, perhaps more of a sort of tower-by-tower deal? Or in any case, you want to diversify supplier, perhaps use more second tenants? And then secondly, can you tell us any more about INWIT's obligations to sustain the service whilst you go through this migration process? How much leverage do you have to switch off towers after you've switch their places.

So mainly on your first question, so it's mainly a question of price, but not only it's in general, let's say, overall conditions. So I outlined 2 of them. One of them is the inflation clause. The other one is the price per site. There are some other topics that we would like to discuss as well like cost of new spectrum, RAN sharing benefits. But it's overall, let's say, the main focus is on commercial conditions. It's not about other things like the all or nothing clause or -- which is not really our main focus. On that side, we created the other tower JV to create more, let's say, sourcing opportunities in the market. But at, let's say, the right commercial conditions, we would have been happy to renew the INWIT contract as we have stated multiple times. But unfortunately, we couldn't reach a conclusion with INWIT on these topics. Now the MSA foresees multiple obligations in terms of the termination. The most important one is a good state negotiation of the migration plan. And as such, we would expect that INWIT doesn't just turn off towers because it's also obviously clearly detrimental to their own position and revenues. So we are confident that we can reach a good agreement with them, either how to offboard or maybe also find an agreement on the commercial conditions for the sites that we would like to source from them.

The next line will be open.

It's James Ratzer from New Street Research. So I have two questions, please. So the first one is your press release says that you're allowed a multiple year transition under the MSA to remove your equipment. How many years is that? And during that transition period, does the MSA require that you pay the ongoing rate per site where you still have equipment? And then the second question I had was, do I assume from the release today that you're now acting unilaterally from Telecom Italia here? And if so, does that mean your RAN sharing agreement with Telecom Italia is now effectively terminated? And if so, do you think that the lost synergies you might get from the RAN sharing agreement could be offset by greater tower savings moving to a third-party tower?

Okay. So I'll take the first question. You're correct. The migration period will be multiyear starting from 1st of April 2028. So we are talking about a very long time frame here. There is even a minimum migration period stated, which we're not going to talk publicly about because it's in the agreement, it's not public information. But you can assume that this will be a transition that will span many, many years, during which, yes, as I said before, we are going to obviously pay the ongoing rate for the towers that we continue to use during the migration period.

So on the third question, of course, we are acting unilaterally. I mean we are talking about our contract between Fastweb, Vodafone and INWIT, which we are terminating. The precise impact on RAN sharing, we will see depends now also on, let's say, the next steps and what happens over the coming months. But I would highlight again that the RAN sharing benefits are not included in the EUR 600 million synergy target. So the EUR 600 million synergy target that we announced upon signing the deal in 2024 are completely independent of: a, RAN sharing; b, the tower JV; and c, now the termination of this contract with INWIT, and we will deliver the EUR 600 million synergies irrespective of what is going on in the mobile tower side.

All right. Let us take one final question before we conclude today's conference call.

I'll open the last question in line.

It's Mathieu Robilliard from Barclays. A few questions, please. So the first one, in terms of the strategy to redeploy your antennas into sites. Any sense you can give us in terms of the mix of what could be migration to existing sites from Cellnex or PTI, and what you think you will need to build? And linked to that, does it mean that maybe the JV you announced with TIM could be expanded in terms of scope? You talked about 6,000 sites. Maybe it could be some more. That's the question. And the second one is a bit of the logistics. I mean, what kind of CapEx are you taking into consideration to build new sites? And in terms of the antenna, how does it work? You can literally take them out of the existing INWIT site and put them back into your new sites? Or do you need to -- in practice, you need to build -- to buy a new antenna?

So the -- on the strategy to redeploy the mix, it's too early, I would say, to give precise numbers in terms of mix between existing and new sites. It depends on the precise migration plan. So we will reinform in due time. Of course, expanding the JV with TIM is always a possibility to increase the build mix. And this is certainly something that we will also look into. Now in terms of logistics, I mean the CapEx requirements also depends on the mix of existing and new. So at the moment, it's too early to make a clear announcement on that side. But in reality, how does it work? You basically take the new site in production. So you need a new antenna and then you dismantle the other site, and this antenna can then be reused for the next site you migrate. So there is some incremental antennas you need to buy, but to build the first or migrate the first site. But once you migrate the first, you can dismantle existing sites and then reuse this equipment. So there is no real impact or, let's say, fundamental impact on CapEx that is required to buy a lot of new antennas because we essentially will recycle the existing equipment and move it from site to site.

If I may just add one sentence to be clear, for the moment, we do not foresee any CapEx to build new sites, okay? Maybe we were not entirely clear before. There is no CapEx plan to build new sites. New sites if built, would be built through the JV. So I would like to reiterate, there is no change whatsoever to our general financial predictions. There is no change to our financial policy or dividend policy whatsoever. There is no impact of this whole exercise on our overall financial strategy.

All right. Thank you, Christoph and Eugen. And with that, I would like to thank everyone for joining and close today's call. If you should have any follow-up questions, feel free to reach out to us from the IR team. We are happy to support. Have a great day.