Mapletree Industrial Trust Aktie

Good morning. Thanks for joining us this morning's second quarter financial year 2026-2027 results briefing. MIT has released its results yesterday after market closed. We will begin with key highlights of the results. [ With us today are ] Mr. Anand Chandran, CEO; Khoo, Geng Foong, CFO; Ms. Serene Fong, Head of Asset Management; [ Siok Khim Chng ], Head of Marketing; and Ms. Sara Wayson, Head of Asset Management, Data Centers U.S. Now I'll pass to Geng Foong to bring us through the [indiscernible].

Thank you, Mui Lian. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining our financial results briefing. I'll bring you through MIT's second quarter FY '26-'27 financial performance and I'll give you some update on our capital management position. Thereafter, Anand will go through the portfolio update and color on MIT's outlook.

This slide shows the year-on-year comparison for second quarter FY '26-'27 against last year. NPI, our net property income has reduced by 3.5% to $119.8 million. This happened in the past 12 months, we do have some nonrenewal of leases in our North American portfolio, and we also divested the three Singapore industrial properties in August 2025. These nonrenewals and Singapore divestment has caused our net property income to increase year-on-year, partially offset by renewals as well as new leases in our Singapore portfolio.

We have used the divestment proceeds to pay down loans. So with the interest savings, lower interest on unhedged floating rate, our borrowing costs has decreased. The effects of this were partially offset by higher borrowing costs from replacement hedges.

Cash distribution from joint venture increased year-on-year due to utility credits received and higher rental income, net against higher borrowing costs from repricing of green interest rate swaps. Overall, MIT distribution per unit for second quarter FY '26-'27 is at $0.0297, which is about 6.6% lower than prior year.

Moving on to quarter-on-quarter. Net property income decreased mainly due to nonrenewal of lease at San Diego. Higher Singapore property operating expense was partially offset by higher contribution from [indiscernible] and new leases from Singapore portfolio. Borrowing costs increased mainly due to effects of higher interest costs from replacement hedges and absence of interest savings from temporary repayment of loans with proceeds from the new perpetual securities in first Q. The distribution to perpetual securities holders is lower this quarter as we have impact of overlap of new and previous perpetual securities in first quarter FY '26-'27. Overall, the DPU for the second quarter of $0.0297 is lower than prior quarter by 4.5%.

On the capital management front, overall, our financial position still remains strong at aggregate leverage ratio of around 37.7%. This still provides us with ample debt headroom to capture growth opportunities. Our hedge ratio remains at relatively lower, close to 73% as compared to prior years of about -- of above 80% to provide us the flexibility to pay down loans with divestment proceeds when divestment materialize. Average borrowing cost for the quarter stands at about 3.3%. We do have about $600 million of interest rate swaps due in each of financial year '26-'27 and '27-'28. These will lock in when interest rates were lower. If we were to reprice these maturing interest rate swaps with current interest rate today, we expect our borrowing cost to increase to around 3.5% to 3.6% for FY '26-'27 and slightly below 4% for FY '27-'28.

Our team continue to monitor the market and be nimble. We will continue to enter into replacement hedges in smaller tranches when there is a slight dip in the market. So I mean, for example, we do monitor the market. If you look at the 5-year USD rates 2 weeks ago, about 4.8%, but it came down slightly to maybe about 4.5%, 4.6% level. So we will continue to monitor the market and be nimble on that front. For some of the hedges, we will also lock in on staggered basis with some slightly shorter tenure. And of course, if we are able to divest some of the properties and we can use the proceeds to pay down loans, this will help to mitigate the impact of the higher interest rate.

Maturity profile. Our debt maturity profile remains well staggered with weighted average debt duration at a healthy 3.5 years. [Technical Difficulty]

Sorry, we had some technical issue there. Our debt maturity profile remains well staggered with duration at a healthy 3.5 years. On the FX front, as much as feasible, we try to borrow local currency loans to provide natural hedge for our overseas investments. This helps to protect FX fluctuation to our net asset value and DPU. For example, about 52% of our U.S. portfolio are funded dollar loans. So one, our exposure to the U.S. by AUM is about 46%. But if you were to net off the onshore borrowings, our distributable income exposure to USD is about [indiscernible]. So for sensitivity, if you look at for every 5% depreciation in U.S. dollars, the impact to our distributable income is only about 1.2%.

For the remaining distribution in foreign currency, we entered into FX forwards to hedge the income into Sing dollar. Currently, close to 91% of our distributable income for the next 12 months hedged or derived in Sing dollar.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining this call. I will really only spend time talking about 6 slides and the portfolio update and outlook section so that we can save more time for the Q&A. We'll start with the occupancy. The overall portfolio occupancy in this quarter has dipped from 90.7% to 89.7%. It was primarily driven by the data center occupancy segment, which has dipped from 85% to 82.1%. This in turn was driven by the dip in the North American portfolio where the occupancy has dropped to 79.1%. This is largely due to the full quarter effect of the lease in our San Diego asset expiring in May 2026.

Nevertheless, as we shared, the post-quarter activities to relet Alpharetta and to lease out San Jose will go some way towards improving the North American portfolio. We should mention that the Singapore portfolio remains strong and resilient. I think it often gets lost about the amount of work that has to go into maintaining the strong figure. So behind this are 184 renewals and 65 new leases that allow us to retain renting level in Singapore. Also of note, Kallang Way asset as of now has a committed occupancy of 72.4%, and we are tracking confidently towards 75% by the end of the FY. [Indiscernible].

The portfolio WALE stands at 4.4 years. And within that, there is strong geographic diversification that speaks to the stability and the growth of our organic income. If you look at the long duration components of that WALE, the 13.3 years in Japan offer us the stability, short duration WALE of the Singapore portfolio of 2.6 years gives us the opportunity to find growth, which we'll speak about a bit in the next slide. And the mid-duration occupancy and WALE [indiscernible] is where we're working on to improve visibility. And if you go down to -- I'm sorry, bring back that slide please.

So it's really the mid-duration WALE that we're focused on. And as we've shared in the last quarter, we had identified in FY '26-'27, 1.4% of GRI of the leases that were coming due. With the Alpharetta reletting, 1.1% of that has been addressed. And so it speaks to the point of us trying to improve the visibility of the income profile in that mid-duration WALE. So there's been good traction there.

We go to the reversion slide, Slide 21. Following on from what I was saying about the short duration WALE part of our portfolio in Singapore, allowing us to capture that growth. In the last quarter, speaking to the quality of the earnings, the Singapore portfolio achieved a reversion rate of 6.9%. This was an increase over the 5.3% from the quarter prior. As I mentioned earlier, this involves a significant number of renewals, so 184 lease renewals for a total of about 640,000 square feet. I think we can expect -- we've got good visibility for the next half of the year for Singapore reversions to remain in the mid-single digits. There were no reversions or renewals in the North American portfolio in the last quarter to speak of, and that's why you see that figure there.

We go to the divestment slide on Eagan, please. And I believe everyone is familiar with the disclosure, but spend a bit of time just covering the details again of the notable divestment activity in the last quarter. So the Eagan asset was divested at a sale price of USD 9.81 million, which was 9% above the purchase price and 10% below valuation. The genesis of this divestment was largely triggered by the embedded purchase mechanism in the lease that was acquired with the portfolio. So in my estimation, this was the best outcome that could have been achieved for this asset given the circumstances and have redeployed those proceeds to pay down debt or working capital.

We shift now to the proactive asset management slide, please. As the slide is moving there. The proactive asset management slide, as you may have seen, this quarter, it's very U.S.-centric in terms of what we're sharing. But really, we're speaking to three themes, one being the reletting, two being the repositioning and three being the rebalancing. We've spoken about the reletting primarily to the good work that's been done to relet Alpharetta and lease-up San Jose. So I won't spend too much time there. On the repositioning piece, our diversified presence across both primary and secondary North American data center markets, while admittedly have presented us with a challenge in recent years given how fast the U.S. data center market has evolved, have also presented us with opportunities, which have been demonstrated in the Alpharetta and San Diego -- San Jose, I'm sorry, lease-ups.

What we're seeing here, and we can spend more time talking about this during the Q&A, some of the early signs of AI inference in what is, as I mentioned, the fastest-growing and evolving U.S. data center market. You could say that they have come from either the AI enterprise or AI colocation market. And so while we are actively addressing any of the challenges presented to us in the North American market, we're also equally focused now and going forward on the opportunities that this diversified presence across North America presents for us. And so our portfolio allows us to observe and capture some of this evolving demand where it works for us in the portfolio.

On rebalancing, as we've mentioned in several quarters before, we are focused on the quantum that we've mentioned about the $500 million to $600 million of divestment targets. The team and I are extremely focused on executing on this before the end of the FY, and we can share more color during the Q&A session. I won't spend too much time on the details in the box below. Those are information that has been covered either in the last quarter or this quarter. But I would summarize it by saying that you can take away from this that we are focused on executing the defense as well as we can across the portfolio. So not just in North America, which you see here, but seeing the active asset management in the Singapore portfolio with the reversions and the occupancy.

I would say also that as it relates to utility exposure, we're also doing our best to increase the utility hedging in the Singapore portfolio. We can share also more in the Q&A if there are questions. But what about the offense. So the offensive actions that we must take in the existing portfolio will include U.S. re-leasing, as we've shared, will include us scanning the portfolio in North America as demand evolves for us to identify in conjunction with industry partners where we can find redevelopment opportunities. And also, let's not forget the Japan portfolio where it is steady long WALE portfolio. But in 2024, we had acquired that asset where we stated that there was redevelopment potential. So the teams are working in the background to work through those predevelopment work streams to ensure that we have a path and a plan towards that redevelopment asset to capture the upside. We are focused on the defense and the offense on the as-is portfolio and our income profile today.

Maybe lastly, I just wanted to speak to a slide in the outlook section. If you go there, please, on the strategic direction. And I think after this, we will segue into -- on this slide, I think there were really three main messages that we wanted to speak to. One is the combination of the existing portfolio. So being very active as portfolio managers and asset managers where we are today in Singapore, U.S. and Japan. Within that, it is the top business deliver on the execution of divestments in the North American portfolio. We will, at the same time, equal weight the growth initiatives that are embedded in the portfolio. So we will focus and have been spending time widening the aperture to look at growth avenues in the industrial -- broader industrial segment as well as the data center sectors.

Where will we focus? We are spending our time naturally in our existing markets in Singapore, U.S. and Japan first. These are already advanced, resilient economies with deep advanced manufacturing and high-tech basis, including those in digital infrastructure. What more, we see a durable occupier demand where the tenants are, of course, of top priority for us, and we will spend time looking at opportunities across those sectors. In the process, it's very important for us to be clear internally but also externally about what Mapletree Industrial Trust identity is. We will remain a general industrial REIT with the ability to go down deep into specific verticals where we have strong conviction as we have evidenced over the last 12 or so years in the data center space. This will continue to give us the opportunity across the portfolio and the optionality, but we must and always will form strong points of view that we will ensure we communicate to the external environment as we identify and execute on these growth opportunities.

Under capital management, I think the main message is that we will be disciplined in terms of our capital recycling and reallocation. We're all aware that we are already in and moving into a high interest rate environment, certainly across our three advanced economies where we are present. So where it makes sense for us, we will redeploy capital into growth. But of course, where it makes sense for us to shelter from the macro environment, we will do so as well.

Lastly, speaking about strategic growth, I am telling you in this seat, but -- and I won't be on this call spending too much time fleshing out a detailed growth strategy because I do want to spend time with the leadership team in the business to identify this. But suffice to say that we are being active in identifying how we can unlock will have to be inorganic growth. The organic growth, as spoken so far, we will definitely try to maximize. But it is really inorganic growth that we will look for going forward. And the question is how we will access this identified inorganic growth. You can broadly say this into the channels on which we will be going to have proactive discussions with business owners, capital owners to find these growth opportunities. And this would generally lead into look like sale and leaseback transactions, redevelopment opportunities, leasing opportunities in our existing portfolio or straight acquisitions of assets and locations where we have a high conviction.

I would just summarize this before moving into the Q&A by emphasizing that when it comes to growth, we will very much be equal weighted on the defense as well as the offense. If you think about this in terms of investment terminology, we will look at both the beta and the alpha. The beta is what we have to face in the macro environment. We will make sure that we manage this prudently without giving up strategic upside where we don't have to. But it's really the alpha where we will focus on being proactive to position ourselves proactively to find growth opportunities. And we will take a tenant-led focus when we're doing this.

So the tenant is ultimately the most important feature for us in our portfolio because that leads to us being able to develop long-term relationships. And the real estate solutions that we can try and solve together with these tenants will be something that we try and solve thereafter. But the identification, the communication, the engagement with existing and prospective long-term tenants is really what we're focused on in terms of our proactive conversations for now.

In my assessment in the short time, I think there's great potential in the people, the presence and the platform of MIT, let alone if we can extract stronger advantages through our sponsor relationships. So we will be focused on spending our time trying to leverage as much of this potential as possible.

I'll end there and maybe we can segue into the Q&A.

Anand, so we will now turn to Q&A. We ask each analyst to limit yourself to two questions. [ Bill ], would you like to ask the first question?

On my two questions, the first one I wanted to ask is with regards to this target divestments, right? How are we coming along the first half of this year? And also, I think earlier in the slides you mentioned of potential redevelopment of some older assets. Could you also give more details on that?

I'll take it and then my colleagues feel free to jump in if you wanted to. So the first part of your question on the divestments everybody would have read in the news, I guess, most recently about the 22 asset portfolio. That forms part of the funnel for us to achieve the divestment content that we've spoken about. So while we can't divulge specifics at this stage, we are -- and I am also directly involved with Sara, who's here today. And our U.S. team in trying to certain about the parties we are talking to, the parts of the identified divestment portfolio that we are speaking about and the time lines that we're holding ourselves to. So I'm confident and we are in specific discussions with a handful of parties on different parts of the divestment portfolio that we put up for identification, and we're holding ourselves to a target of executing on these divestments, a good amount of these divestments by the end of the FY. I'm sorry that I can't be more specific about that.

Certainty in -- we would all like to have certainty in the divestment quarter. We will try to control what we can in terms of dealing with parties that we believe can close our best to preserve the divestment valuation targets that we are trying to target and having these time lines, things to do with the parties needing time to assess the sites and us needing time to negotiate the documents. We're trying our best to make sure that we close within 31st March time frame. So we are working in 31st March timeframe. So we are working in that quantum to try and close that amount in this FY.

On the second point on redevelopment, I would say line of sight for us in U.S. where we haven't yet identified specific redevelopment opportunities. But as I said, part of having that diverse geographically and by asset type and by deployment type data center portfolio across North America from the West Coast to the East Coast in what is the biggest data center market in the world will allow us over time as the market evolves to identify redevelopment opportunities. So while we have been pressed to be in a defensive posture divest because of the change in the market, I really want to stress with the team, and we are doing this for us to create the conversations with the ecosystem because that's what you have to do to identify redevelopment opportunities. Are we speaking to the end users? Are we speaking to the operators within our portfolio or in the market about what they see in our portfolio.

As real estate owners and landlords, we will have limited visibility ourselves to identify these opportunities. And that's why we have to have an ecosystem conversation to identify that. So if this ends up in a screening exercise of some sort with a handful of identified potential partners to identify that redevelopment potential, that's what we will strive for. But at this stage, it's still early days. And the other is in Japan, right? So as I mentioned, the asset that we bought in West Tokyo, when we transacted in September, October 2024, it was a stated intent for us to work on the redevelopment into a data center. It is a highly desirable Tier 1 market strain.

So the fact that we have a foothold in this asset with some of the early critical success factors is a good sign for us. It's not something that we will reap rewards from in the next FY or so, but the planning has to go into it. So the teams are actively involved in the planning. And this is a holistic team that's working on this. So MIT team, working with our country teams, working with the external environment for the demand conviction of the site, working with local authorities and regulators to make sure that we line up redevelopment work streams to extract that potential. Your second question is really those two pathways that we spend more time to get more clarity on, and we'll make sure that we communicate this when the right time.

Okay. Got it. Okay. And then can I move to my second question on the interest rate swaps. I just wanted to check what interest -- how much of the interest rate swaps remains to expire for the rest of this year? And for the next financial year, what kind of -- what is the cost of this interest rate swap that expires? Just wanted to get a color on guidance on [indiscernible] cost.

Okay. I mentioned earlier that when we look at the average borrowing cost for FY '26-'27, expected to increase to about 3.5% to 3.6%. So this would have taken in the $600 million of IRS in this year. To date, about $260 million has expired, some of it which we have phased or extended. The remaining will be over the next 2 quarters equally. For next FY, the other $600 million in terms of the increase in -- the differential in the interest is slightly lower than this year, but it is still quite a big gap compared to today's 5-year USD rate.

We are looking at maybe about 150 bps or so. So for FY '27-'28, we are looking at average interest rate of about 3.94% level, below 4%. So but if we are able to divest some of the properties that we have identified and pay down loans, we are looking at average about 3.6%, FY '27-'28.

Okay. Okay. Got it. So just to confirm the guidance for end of this year that 30 bps [indiscernible] that IRS expiring [indiscernible].

Yes.

Can we have Mervin to ask the next question?

I am Mervin from JPMorgan. Congrats, Anand, on the backfilling. I'm just wondering on Alpharetta and San Jose, just wondering whether you can share with us the amount of rent-free period that you may need to provide? And how do the signing rents compare to prior leases before expiry?

Second question I have is in terms of updates for some of your properties which are vacant or low occupancy, for the likes of San Diego, 250 Williams Street, 7337 Trade Street, as well as Rancho Cordova.

And then the final question would be, I mean, the DPU has been on a downward trajectory over the last 5 years. The share price is now at 2017 levels. There's been an enormous amount of wealth destruction. So for upcoming divestments, including the 22 U.S. data centers, would the MIT consider waiving its divestment fees until the DPU stabilizes, to better align with unitholders and restore confidence in the management of the REIT?

Thanks, Mervin. I think there were three buckets to your questions. Just remind me in case I missed any of them.

On your first question on Alpharetta and San Jose, the rent-free period -- so Alpharetta is a longer lease, about a 15.5-year lease; San Jose is a shorter lease, about 5.3 years. There will be some rent-free period because, as we've mentioned, these start to speak to the AI inference demand that we're seeing in the market, and so you can expect that those tenants will require some retrofitting to the asset. So for the longer 15.5-year lease, there is effectively about a 9-month rent-free period, and for the shorter 5.3-year lease, there is about a 3-month rent-free period.

These leases all come with escalations, low single-digit escalations, which is good for us. The reversions, without going into specific figures, were lower than their previous rental rates, but honestly, we have to look at it from the perspective of what is the highest and best use that we can get out of the asset. Are we better off sitting on vacant, non-let assets or are we better off securing leases from the emerging demand that we see in those locations? The decision that it was better for us to have those assets occupied and have the ability to observe this new evolving demand type in the market.

I think your second question was speaking about the other assets in the North American portfolio that are either vacant or have low occupancy. I think you mentioned San Diego and then 250 Williams and Rancho Cordova. Naturally, those will have already formed part of our consideration in terms of divestments. We take a very clear view, that doesn't mean that the team -- Sara and the team in the U.S. are not actively trying to find income-producing solutions for those assets. But we will have to take very clear-eyed views about whether or not, based on what we see, we are the highest and best user of that asset, or whether or not there is another owner in the market that is positioned to get higher and best use out of it. So what I can say is that they definitely form part of the consideration on the divestment portfolio, but that doesn't mean that we've taken our foot off the gas in terms of trying to lease up or improve the income profile of these assets while they sit in the portfolio.

Your last question is a little bit harder to answer, to be honest. You've spoken about the decline, the share price decline. We acknowledge that, I acknowledge that coming into the seat. I know it is something that we will work with the team to try and turn around as soon as we can, and we'll be proactive about that. On the specific question of whether or not the divestments, when they happen, we will waive the divestment fees, I don't think we can say specifically at this stage. It is premature for me to say so, but how we look to reserve and optimize income to unitholders in the form of DPU and the share price is certainly top of mind for us. But I won't say right now that it's something that we can commit to in relation to the divestments.

And just sorry, back on the leases, I mean, that you signed for the two properties is lower, how much lower would they be?

I'm just checking with the team.

I mean, just a range would be enough, I don't need specific like to point detail, yes.

I think in those instances, they were between 10% to 30% lower, double-digit lower than the previous existing leases. And [indiscernible] San Diego had been vacant for -- San Jose, sorry, I keep mixing the two up, my apologies. San Jose had been vacant for some time since 2025.

Based on your previous track record, I think you should be able to turn it around sometime in the future.

Maybe Sara can give a bit, Sara?

Just give, yes, just give Sara a chance since she can give more color on the North American business.

Specifically for the Alpharetta site, that space makes up approximately 55% office space, and then the remaining part is a data center. And so as this is a data center tenant, they are leasing the entirety of the building but do not have much use for that office space, which is really what caused that much lower rental rate from the previous user, who was an enterprise tenant and was using both the DC and the office space.

-- Sara. Can we have Rachel from Macquarie for the next question?

Congrats on the appointment, Anand, on your promotion. Maybe firstly, first question is on divestments, just to follow up. I think San Diego is one of the assets that you probably look to divest. I noticed that there's been a markdown in the valuations, so I'm just wondering whether, in divestments, would you be able to divest above the valuations for the San Diego asset? And maybe just to follow up also, I mean, you talked about a lot of things, that you have acquisitions, you have divestments. How do you stack? Would you divest first before you acquire, or how, in terms of ranking all your priorities, how would you rank your priorities?

And then lastly, I think address Kallang Way, would you be able to give us a sense in terms of where the demand is coming from? I mean, the occupancy, leasing of the space has been quite a drag in the past quarters, and suddenly we are seeing that the leasing is coming up, so could you give us some color on where it is coming from and if demand is recovering?

Thanks, Rachel. Maybe I should start by, I think I appreciate the congratulations, but it's really more meaningful after a year that we assess. I hope to be able to have brought the team and the business to a better place, and then after that, I'm more than willing to accept congratulations; for now, it's maybe a bit premature.

Just on the three questions. First, San Diego, I think the valuation markdown was something that is not a this-quarter issue. But I will say that we are, have been for some time, and continue to be in one specific discussion with a large, established end-user for what is probably going to be the highest and best use outcome of this asset. And so we will commit time to make sure that we can try our best to extract this option value. It may require some time because the counterpart genuinely requires some time to assess the highest and best use they can get out of the asset.

You can imagine this has to do with local diligence, regulatory discussions. But we will commit the time to make sure that we can try to extract this option value. If that outcome pans out, then I'm less concerned about having to divest meeting valuation benchmarks on divestments. So that's what I can share there; that's a specific discussion that we have been involved in and are still committed to for some time.

Your second question, I think it speaks to whether or not we can sequence in an ideal way the recycling and reallocating of capital, right? You spoke about divestments and acquisitions and what my priorities are. I'll separate the two things. My business priorities, as I said earlier, top priority is executing on the divestments at PMS. If we have to take clear-eyed decisions about executing to get certainty, we will do it, because a lot of the portfolio [indiscernible] performance depends on the execution of the divestments. It will speak to everything to do with not just income replacement and acquisitions. It will speak to our ability to manage and shelter from a high interest rate environment. It will speak to our ability to manage the hedge profile in a more optimal way. So that remains the top business priority, certainly between now and the end of the FY.

But conceptually, yes, if we can time the divestments, primarily in the U.S., with suitable investment opportunities to recycle and reallocate that capital in higher-yielding assets, certainly we will do that. And we, of course, have had discussions about how we can try to time them early. But none of those are at a state where they are concrete enough for us to share right now in terms of matching recycling with reallocation. The hinge is really divestment execution, which remains the top business priority. I don't know whether that gives you enough clarity, but all that is not to say -- and that's why I wanted to make sure I emphasize the message of equal-weighting defense and offense. Just because we are preoccupied with the defense does not mean we're not spending any time on the offense.

So what you cannot see is the amount of activity that I'm spending with the investment team, but also the asset management team, the leasing teams, to go into the markets to have discussions about inorganic growth with prospective long-term tenants down the channels that we have identified in the three markets. So that is to me an equal-weighted business priority to identify the growth, so that as soon as we can execute on the divestments, which are here and present, we try to match that with income replacement and growth.

Your third point on Kallang Way, I'll just maybe give a bit of color, and then maybe if Serene feels like she can add more color, I welcome her to. But the leasing-up activity that has been executed and that we're seeing down the pipe, if you ask about trade sectors where they're coming from, I think we're seeing that come from the semiconductor and biomedical manufacturing sectors. One significant prospect was from the optical solutions sector. It's very hard to define this specifically, but optical solutions that feed into the digital infrastructure supply chain in Singapore, of which Singapore is a crucial part of that supply chain. So we're seeing that come, and it is starting to -- we're getting confident. As I mentioned, I think we're tracking well towards that 75% target, and those three subsector buckets are maybe the best way that I can describe how we're seeing the demand.

Can we have Derek from Morgan Stanley?

So I guess I'll start with my first question on, follow up really on Alpharetta, the rent-free period of 9 months, is that all taken upfront or is that spread across the duration of the lease? And does that mean for the next 9 months, what kind of impact on DPU would that really represent?

My second question is on defense. Given all that's going to happen, divestments, high interest rates, how would you ensure DPU stability? It's been sliding, sliding to the point, I think, we are now back towards 2019 levels. It's kind of unwound all of that growth from acquisitions in the U.S. How would you at least bring it to more stable levels? Financial levers you can pull, like taking more MFU, for example? Would that be one of them, or how would you basically go about that?

And the last one would be on the offensive strategy. I think [indiscernible] undertaken power studies of the U.S. portfolio to see where more power capacity can be eked out. Is that still on the table, and where are we right now on that power study exercise?

Thanks, Derek. So three questions, let me take the first one. On Alpharetta, you asked about the rent-free period. Effectively, those 9 months come from across the first year: 6 months at 100% and then the next 6 months at 50%, so effectively it's 9 months. If that gives you clarity on how that is spread out.

On your second question on defense, you talked about the divestment activity and how we're going to shield ourselves from the higher interest rate environment, and how that -- what those imply for DPU stability. DPU stability is about protecting and trying to enhance the existing organic income of the existing portfolio. The material that we shared, what you regularly see in these slides, speaks to occupancy, speaks to WALE for the stability and growth of the income, and speaks to the quality of reversions. I think on the occupancy front, I would say that's where a lot of the defensive actions have taken place to protect the organic income.

Divesting more occupancy of vacant assets where we do not believe we are best placed to retenant them is another way of creating -- flushing out and creating that clarity and putting that floor obviously on the DPU stability. So we continue to do that.

On the interest rate side, we will certainly, I think as I shared, look to optimize interest rate exposure, our hedging profile. We will certainly not veer into any sort of speculative behavior when it comes to hedging because that would defeat the purpose of providing stability in the long term. But we will do what we can within reason to shield ourselves from the capital management perspective from interest rate and FX exposure.

On your question about management fees and units, I believe that's what you're referring to by an MFU. Yes, this probably relates more to growth, right, to growth, not so much to defense. Growth, those are obviously considerations that we will take into account insofar as the accretion is possible that we can show for DPU, quite evident. So yes, from time to time, as part of regular considerations, we'll look at that on the acquisitive front.

On offense, I think you spoke -- you asked specifically about power feasibility studies in the U.S.. Those predate me, I'm still getting up to speed as to what we're doing. But my own assessment is that in any data center market, especially in the U.S., especially with our diversified profile and especially with the constraints that you're seeing in the news about the ability to realize new capacity in any market, primary or secondary, in the U.S., we will have to constantly be in the market, not just with the regulators, with the authorities, but also with the demand side of things. So having those regular conversations about the demand side, not just the supply side, which in my view is really what you see most about in the market.

What you constantly see in the news is supply-side information, how much power is available here, which site can come to market within what horizon. But you really have to spend time talking about the demand side, because you may have supply and if you can -- even if you can eke out supply, if the demand is not there, you still don't have a commercially viable asset. So we are spending time on both. I would say we will continue to spend time assessing, based on demand conviction, where we should be looking to optimize power and then where we can optimize power insofar as the data center portfolio is concerned.

Okay. Just on that DPU stability question, I guess it's more coming along the lines of is that 2019 number of $0.1215, is that kind of a line in the sand for you in defending anchoring the DPU, because right now we are trending towards more of that level? Or are you prepared to see it come down as a consequence of all the recycling divestment activities that are ongoing, because there is a lag effect, right, for your initiatives compared to what would happen to DPU? Longer term, it may be the right direction, but shorter term, there will be financial consequences on the DPU.

And maybe I'll let Geng Foong chime in.

Yes, Derek, I think like you rightly pointed out, there could be some near-term effect. As what we have mentioned earlier, we do have non-renewals, for example, the San Diego effect and all, right? So all these, the full-year effect will be next year. And then of course then the IRS replacement, that just -- that will cost more. So there will be an impact this year and potentially next year. And when we talk about divestments and acquisitions, there will be timing gaps to replace the income, if we're able to divest some of the properties that we have identified. As a REIT, we are not allowed to give any forecast, but from that, you'll be able to adjust that inflow a bit to see what was the number.

And Derek, I'll just add to that, the easiest way to think about this is defense and offense. We will definitely do everything we can on the defensive front to protect the DPU. That's our top priority. We will definitely do whatever we can on the organic offensive front to also protect and potentially enhance DPU. But quite clear that the only meaningful action is really inorganic growth. And so we are really focused on being in the market to identify inorganic growth where it makes sense for us in our markets, because that's the only way we can try to control our fate on the DPU. We will do what we can on managing the downside, but the upside really has to come from inorganic DPU growth, which when you roll it up, has to come from identifying a pipeline that we can execute on together with the tenants that we want to partner with going forward.

We have Brandon from Citi to ask the next question.

Just three questions, right? Just going back to the U.S. divestments, could you share with us what's the floor and ceiling in terms of your divestment premium or loss that you're willing to take, especially with the more hawkish rate hike outlook? And also to confirm what you said is that you expect $500 million to $600 million to be done by the end of FY '27, is that right? So that's my first question.

The second question relates to the occupancy and the NPI margin for the U.S.. I think if we look at both numbers, they are trending at a record low. Is it -- could you share with us whether that could go down further or whether we should -- we could see some improvement over the next 3 to 6 months or thereabouts? And the last one is probably more on your target split on contribution going forward as the new CEO, where should we see BC and general industrial contributing on an AUM basis?

Thanks, Brandon. I'm just noting down your questions. So I think you can remind me if I missed out anything, but I think your first question was on U.S. divestment floors. Do we have a set floor or ceiling in relation to divestments vis-a-vis valuation? Have the interest rate environment affected buyer sentiment and is there any outcome of those divestments? And are we setting ourselves the target of achieving that, I think, $500 million to $600 million divestment quantum by the end of FY? I'll leave this one.

The last one, the target. Yes, I mean, I am holding myself and we will jointly hold the team accountable to achieving those divestment targets by the end of the FY, and we will try to get as much certainty as we can about that. So you roll back -- if we set that target, then you roll back to what are the actions that you can control to try and create that certainty, which speaks to your point about the floor and the ceiling. I would very much like to be able to go to the market and say, look, this is my divestment floor, and at the same time, I offer you a divestment ceiling, buyer, to buy this asset from me. It doesn't work that way. We will definitely try to always be in positions of earning power strength where we can. That means how we position these investment portfolios with a mix of assets that we believe can entice demand, and how active we are with brokers and ourselves directly with potential buyers. That's what we can try to control.

I can't guarantee that we will achieve all the divestments at or above valuation. In the instances where we have to take a firm view that it must happen, even if it's at a number below valuation because in the broader picture we have to recycle and reallocate this capital to higher, better use, then we will take those decisions. And we will communicate them as well as we can.

With regards to the interest. Well, I can't identify a floor. But has the interest rate environment affected buying sentiment? Not that we have seen so far very overly. I mean, the LOIs that we have in flight with potential buyers, none of them have been scrubbed in ongoing discussions because of the macro environment changing. So that's all I can share there.

Your second question, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you were talking about occupancy levels in the U.S. being at periodic lows, and your question was whether we see them dropping further. I think as I was trying to say earlier about the U.S. occupancy dipping below the 80% handle, the post-quarter leasing activity definitely helps improve that. We are, of course, concerned as well when we see that number going down. But if you look at the lease profile, the identified pockets of worry, which were in FY '26-'27, that 1.4% of leases that were renewing, of which 1.2% had been identified as confirmed non-renewals, we've addressed 1.1% of that with Alpharetta, and we continue to work on the remaining delta for this FY. So I don't think we have new concerns of anything else popping up this FY.

Going forward, as far as the U.S. portfolio is concerned, there is a run rate of about 2% to 3% of GRI coming from the North American DC portfolio. The teams are actively in discussions with those tenants as to renewal intent, but also scouring the markets for both proactive and preemptive tenanting discussions, which will also allow us to be in the markets to catch evolving demand. Whether that leads to new demand types, the likes of which we're seeing in Alpharetta and San Jose, or whether that leads to us being able to jointly figure out redevelopment potential with demand end-users, it is something that we'll have to look forward to going into the next FY [indiscernible]. Yes, I can't say with certainty now that there's positive upside, but at the same time there is no undue concern for occupancy downside.

Can we say the same for the NPI margin as well, because it does look quite subdued at the current 61% to 62%?

I'm just [indiscernible] information.

So I think it is -- maybe I'll just clarify, for the U.S., the NPI margin is a bit tricky because we do gross up the revenue and the expenses on the [indiscernible] on tenants. So, I mean, mathematically, that will be affected whenever there is a bigger chunk of, let's say, electricity recoveries. So for this quarter, when I look at the NPI margin, it is affected by two things. Firstly, of course, like you say, let's say, for example, San Diego, right? Previously, the NPI margin for San Diego was higher than the average, but then in 2Q we'll need to bear some of the expenses. So the NPI margin was affected because of that.

On top of that, there's also quite high electricity recoveries during summer months. So that impact is around 4%, so if you were to add that back, it's like 64% -- no, you have to add about 4%, so about 66% NPI margin.

So that's a good number, that's a good number to model.

Because actually, most of our properties are triple-net, right, so yes, it will spell true. It may not be very meaningful for our U.S. portfolio.

Okay. Yes, so Brandon, I'll just add two things. I mean, there is of course the mechanics to do with timing that Geng Foong mentioned. Of course, if we divest vacant assets for which there are some ongoing expenses that we have to bear anyway, that ones improves organically the NPI. But to the broader point about do we see the quality of the earnings of the existing NPI in the U.S. diminishing going forward? I don't think we have undue concerns about the quality of the existing earnings diminishing going forward. So as far as that high-level thing is concerned, we don't see quality of earnings deteriorating in the existing NPI.

You have one more question, Brandon, I don't want to forget that. Your third question was on the split of contribution, right, between DC and industrial. It was one reason why I wanted to make sure I emphasize in the last slide earlier that our identity, right, we remain a general industrial REIT, just on the high conviction point of the portfolio going down a specific industrial subsector, which has been the highest growth, highest opportunity subsector in the world for the last 5 years or more. And we will always default to the identity of being a general industrial REIT because that gives us the optionality

[Audio Gap]

on basis of look out of conviction of, say, a 3- to 5-year period. We will have the optionality to do that. But every time we do, we will have to be prepared to manage the portfolio of that subsector that we go down. So it will be a cadence of us over a long duration [indiscernible] certain industrial subsectors investing heavily, managing that portfolio well and at the right time optimizing that portfolio if we have to. So I would say, I can tell you at a high level, I want the business to increase the diversification out of the data center industrial vertical. That is not to say we diminish it. We increase the diversification by putting more effort in being proactive in identifying other industrial sector themes, broader industrial real estate tenant relationships that we can form and, therefore, broader industrial real estate acquisition pipeline built for ourselves.

So your question really, how we're going to intend to spend our time and how that will translate into portfolio split contribution over time, I do want to try to make sure that we diversify and we rebalance the portfolio with a good emphasis on broader industrial sectors.

Donald to ask the next question.

Yes. So a couple of questions from me, high-level ones in extension to previous question. So Anand, in your new CEO, you mentioned that you want to remain as a general industrial REIT and also increase diversification across industrial. Could you broaden that out, please on what do you mean by increasing the diversification across industrial, different industrial asset types? Or is it geographical regions? I think, I guess my question is what's your vision for Mapletree Industrial in the next 3 to 5 years? Where do you want to be?

So I think you mentioned two questions. Is there another one or can I start on that?

I mean the other one is related. I mean I would just ask all the questions ahead. The related question is, do you think Mapletree Industrial is still best placed to remain in the U.S. given the trials and tribulations over the last couple of years and also being predominantly a Singapore REIT. Will the team spend too much time going too many places and stretch the resources?

And also the last one, I guess, the more philosophical question is in your role now, are you looking with the lens of a CEO on Mapletree Industrial? What do you think is the biggest issue or the valuation discount that the stock is trading at right now?

Let me take those in order. So you wanted more color about how I and the team think so far about diversification across industrial. I think it really stems from the fact that any business, whether you're a REIT or otherwise, any business needs to have strategic diversification in some form. You either do that geographically or in business and asset sector exposure. So let me deal with the geographic one first. I unless -- I think there's a lot of potential that we can identify where we already are. So Singapore, the U.S. and Japan. And as I said, these are already large industrial advanced economies.

Of course, the difference in scale of opportunity, right? Singapore will never have the scale of opportunity that the U.S. or Japan has. Conversely, the U.S. and Japan will have significant amounts of opportunities in various industrial subsectors, and we have to be active in the markets to identify those in direct discussions with business owners and capital owners because if you think about it, the macro environment, the beta, the strains in the interest rate environment are affecting every business. Any business that has leverage is going to be affected by the business. So we are identifying where we believe there's potential and being in the markets to speak to the business owners, capital owners in various industrial subsectors to identify where the growth will be.

So to take off the question on geography, I'm primarily focused on our existing markets. I think it will take us a lot of conviction to see if there are other geographies that [indiscernible] because that's not trivial, right? Opening up a new geography is a nontrivial exercise. It speaks to a broader market entry strategy. That's a long -- it's more than 1 quarter, half a year or 1 year of planning decide to enter the market and scale up over the long term in a new geography. So geographically, we're focused on Singapore, Japan and U.S.

Can I identify today the specific focus subsectors? I can't do that. And we need time to be in the market to speak about. Of course, we have some view as to where we think we may want to go and fish for these conversations. But that's different from saying that today, I'm prepared to guide sector A, B or C for the next 3 to 5 years. That would be a little bit vacuous of me to say right now. But certainly, in due course, as we develop the conviction, we will come to the market to communicate this ideally in the form of acquisitions. But it's not our thinking about how we're spending our time. So that's how I would say I'd address the first question.

The second is an existential question you're asking us, are we best placed to stay in the U.S. or not. And today, we are -- there are 2 parts of your question. One, are we best placed to stay in the U.S. given all the travails? And secondly, reading into your question, is the business too scattered in terms of focus? And would it pay to be more focused geographically or subsector. So the way I think about that, so in the U.S. today, we're in the data center space, right? So let's segment the thought process.

So in the data center space, I can tell you that most data center developers and owners would give an arm and a leg to have a presence in the U.S. market, but most people give up because there's no chance to get a foothold in the world's biggest data center market. So while we have entered the market through acquisitions as opposed to development, we have had to deal with the natural issues that come with the fast-changing market cycle in the U.S. that cannot plow our vision entirely as to the fact that there will be strategic opportunities for us to work with the right partners to either find new growth or find higher growth in the existing portfolio.

So I do not think it's the right decision strategically to give up, nor will we give up North American data center presence. We will work through the difficulties and try our best to find offense in the data center market in North America. This is -- it's a question of segment. Are we going to be the huge hyperscale turnkey AI-related segment in North America DC? I don't think so, but we can still be meaningful as landlords serving a specific segment of their infrastructure in North America, which provides you with the broadest spectrum to invest in. But that's only DC, right? So will we spend time trying to find conviction on non-DC industrial growth sectors in the U.S.? Yes, we will. We are trying to have conversations to figure out whether we have conviction there.

As an ecosystem, if you start talking about whether we're too scattered, we have good organizational development infrastructure in U.S. Certainly, we're set up best in Singapore. We are probably next best set up in the U.S. within the MIT team, but don't forget we are a sponsored REIT. So we also benefit from the sponsor's infrastructure in terms of organizational development in the U.S., which will allow us to extract opportunities if we are meaningful about being proactive in the market. So I would sort of bookmark the discussion by saying I don't think it is wise strategically for us to say we are decanting or vacating from the U.S. It will remain, despite its travails, the world's largest economy for some time, which will present us with opportunities if we are focused.

Your last question was what is the biggest issue in my mind that has suppressed or depressed the share price. Again, there's so many things, right? So there is the macro environment. REITs as corporate vehicles will always be susceptible to interest rate and FX volatility depending on how the portfolio is exposed. There's an element of that. There's an element of the portfolio difficulties in North America, primarily. It's not a secret to anybody. And we are doing our best to be proactive about it. We will continue to be. And then widely, we have taken, the share price reflects the difficulties that we face, right? And it's our job to take actions that will turn that around.

I also think the main reason is ultimately growth. REIT or any other business is any business is able to clearly identify and execute on growth. That just creates momentum. That creates positivity off the basis of demonstrable results and communication. So that is probably the key to be. The differentiator will be the growth. And as far as the REIT is concerned, all affected by the data. The difference is really can you get your people and processes lined up to find the alpha. And if you can find the alpha and execute on it, then the growth story is really the thing you have in your control to drive the share price upwards.

So that's my view. It is admittedly premature. I've only been in the seat for several weeks, but it is something that we've already had discussions about within the leadership team about the importance of finding inorganic growth and the collaborations required across the platform to extract that growth. [Indiscernible] people and presence and the platform being MIT, but also sponsor [indiscernible] that we can leverage. There's great potential, right? We just have to make sure that we are being proactive enough, aware of where we are in the market cycles, being in the markets to have the right conversations and then being collaborated enough to find that growth. A bit long winded, I'm sorry, but it is some of what is top of mind for me.

So, mindful of the time so ask remaining analysts to ask one question each. Can we have Yew Kiang from CLSA to ask the next question?

I'll just ask a very top-level question. You mentioned that you're only in this role for a couple of weeks, and we are just a few months away from your financial year-end. Does it not make sense for you to revalue your assets, wait for March, mark it down and then do the divestments? I mean it's only beneficial for you in terms of maybe for KPI purposes. And probably in this couple of months because of rate hikes, it's going to be tougher to negotiate on divestments. Is it not? I just want to have a sense like why don't you kitchen sink this year and then wait for a better year ahead.

So is it Yew Kiang, is it?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Sorry, I never met or spoke, but nice to speak to you. Well, how to respond to your question. So you're essentially asking whether I think it's actually better to wait and revalue and mark down. I mean [indiscernible] I don't think about Anand Chandran being in the CEO and seeing what's best for fostering in terms of KPIs. We have to have -- all of us in the leadership team are front and center what's best for the business, because what's best for the business is what's best for unitholders ultimately. And we can't control the valuations, we can't control, that's beyond our control. The best thing that we can do is to have really solid assets in really solid markets with really great tenants and the valuation will sort itself out.

So I'm focused on the things that we can control. The things that we can control also are use of our time. I don't think we are in a position to give up time. So I'm very much about being proactive about the time that we have. That's why I'm jumping in sometimes annoyingly in U.S. divestment conversations with Sara and team. It's because we don't have time. We don't have the luxury of time to sit on our hands and wait for things to happen for us when it comes to divestment because so much, as I said earlier, so much hinges on us being able to execute divestments, not because of messaging or posturing reasons, but because it unlocks a lot of strategic levers for us if we can deliver on the capital recycling and then the capital reallocation going forward.

So I guess the answer I am not -- at the end of the day, the share price is the most important [indiscernible]. And all of us are held to share price KPIs, but that doesn't drive our behavior. We're focused on what's best for the business long term, link that to the short-term issues to position us well for long-term health of the business. So we won't wait to try and strategically posture for whatever revaluation or markdown outcomes will come. I don't think that's the right thing to do.

Can we have Derek from DBS to ask the next question.

Just maybe just one question. Could you give us a bit more color on the target portfolio that you put up to the market, the U.S. portfolio, the exit yields that you are hoping to achieve? I'm just thinking aloud that some of the assets there are nonincome producing, some are. So if you sell the nonincome-producing one from current point onwards, it's accretive, if you can redeploy, and there will be a bit of dilution also, I would expect, given where cap rates are. So maybe, maybe some further color on that would be helpful.

Hi, Derek [indiscernible]. So the question is really about what kind of exit yield for the divestment portfolio. And again, I wish I would have the luxury of being able to say for certainty, I'm going to sell assets 1 to 10, which I know 1 to 4 are vacant and 5 to 10 are income yielding so that I can pin down the exit yield. Unfortunately, it very much depends on what the buyers want to buy and where we come out in negotiations in terms of which assets we end up selling, which of those are vacant, which of those are income yielding, prices at which we sell. So I can't pin down a number. I don't think it's wise for us to miscommunicate a number at this stage.

But definitely, we are always trying to be mindful of what you said, right? So obviously, if we can divest of the vacant assets, great, that forms part of our divestment portfolio composition strategy. Obviously, if we can get as tight a divestment cap rate valuation as possible, the better. So those remain business goals. The reality is how those negotiations pan out and the actual compositions. So I don't want to misguide a number because the reality may pan out to be different and I don't want that.

So just one very quick one. But in terms of redeploying, your first port of call, can I say that it won't be the sponsor 50% stake that they have JV with you? You want to do something else, right?

Definitely think about sponsor portfolio, right? [indiscernible] It must meet a suitable metric, right, for us to trigger that line of sight on reallocation, must be a willing-buyer, willing-seller situation where we can demonstrate a sensible level of accretion to unitholders, right? That won't be a forced reallocation. But for us to is there anything else that we can line up to do? That's why we are already being extremely proactive in the markets to line up a reallocation from replacement discussion. I can't identify that to you today. Hopefully, we will in due course, but definitely, the matching of the recycling and the reallocation. If you get an ideal outcome, we are trying to line up that reallocation part of it as well as we can.

[indiscernible] from CDC will ask...

Just a quick one. So in terms of your 21% of leases expiring in FY '27-'28, based on your current visibility, any proportion that is unlikely to renew?

No. So as I said earlier, there's nothing that's of undue concern for us. You're talking about the 20.8% in FY '27-'28. I think you can see from the historical and even in this quarter, the amount of work and the positive results that the Singapore portfolio continues to generate. So those two wedges there that you see in the slide, the yellow and the green, we have no undue concerns that will be, we'll continue to leverage the strong performance that we can generate there, no red flags. The, as we mentioned, for a time it has been the watch out of the North American portfolio, right? So that blue slice. The main focus was this year, we flushed out a lot of the renewal concerns. Going forward, a cadence of, say, 2% to 3% of GRI in North America, we don't see any watchouts at this moment. But of course, that doesn't mean that we're not proactively trying to preempt renewals or potential [indiscernible]. There's nothing that we have undue concern about today.

Okay. So the blue portion for '27-'28 for the U.S. DCs, you are fairly confident about the renewals?

Yes. We have no undue concern. So no one has told [indiscernible] that they want to vacate the asset, no. But we will definitely have preemptive discussions about renewals, including those.

[indiscernible]

Hi, Anand. Congrats on your appointment, on your promotion. Just one question from me. You've actually emphasized inorganic growth as a key driver of DPU growth or stabilization. Given the rising borrowing costs globally, where either by sector and/or geography, do you actually see attractive spreads between acquisition cap rates and borrowing costs? And perhaps if you could share some of these numbers? Or is it likely that we should expect MIT to fund some of these overseas acquisitions with Sing dollar debt?

Thanks, [indiscernible]. So just finishing noting down your question. Okay, so you're asking about inorganic growth. You're asking about, look, does this make -- how are we going to find positive yield spreads in a macro environment where, look, if you just take Singapore, Japan, conventionally, rates are rising everywhere, so theoretically your spreads should be compressing everywhere, right? Yeah, I mean, I agree with that statement. But does that mean that no transactions happen that they are accretive? No, right? I refuse to believe that.

But what's required is for us to be extremely proactive and preemptive in terms of pitching ideas to find the alpha first to counterparts, as opposed to analyzing real estate that comes to the market. That's not a behavior that we will prioritize. We will prioritize being much more active in terms of pitching ideas that we identify to business owners, capital owners who similarly will be facing the same considerations that we're facing. Everybody with leverage is facing high interest rates, worrying about how to optimize their EBITDA, worrying about how to recycle any trapped, low-yielding capital on their balance sheets to reallocate the capital into higher-yielding part of their business.

So those are the kinds of conversations that we're trying to identify with business owners and capital owners where we think we can be meaningful as a long-term, stable landlord that can be involved in recycling any trapped capital. So we spend a lot of time doing that. I can't give you specific projects XYZ today because we have just started out on this, I don't know the best way to describe it, this new behavior, us being in the market much more. So I have identified specific opportunities, but definitely we will not be investing where spreads don't make sense. But I also, at the same time, refuse to believe that there are no opportunities where the spreads make sense. We just have to go and find them. And the only way to do it is to be preemptive on deals before they become deals. So we'll spend time there. I really hope that in time we can identify and communicate more of this pipeline.

Your second question, which was really, are we going to borrow in Sing to fund overseas acquisitions? There are broader implications there, right? So it may seem like an easy conversation because relatively speaking, the Sing dollar debt environment is better than North America, for sure, but maybe also Japan. And it may be a simple solution to say, look, why don't you just borrow in -- maximize borrowing in Sing to invest overseas. We have to think beyond that, right? That this common statement of prudent capital management is extremely important in an environment like this. We do not want to put the business into a position where we're overstretching and sheltering from interest rate exposure, exposes you to FX exposure. We won't make decisions like that. We won't drastically change our hedging posture just sale of a short-term carry trade situation. So we won't do that.

But where it's meaningful for us at the corporate level to think about whether we can slightly rebalance Sing dollar debt exposure to fund in order to generate or support that positive yield spread in our market share, yeah, we will think about that. But it will not drastically change our hedging behavior. I don't think that's a wise thing to do in the long term. Would be too opportunistic, as opposed to a long-term path we're using.

[indiscernible] feel free to reach out to the IR team.

Thanks for joining us this morning for MIT 4Q and Full Year FY '26 Results Briefing. MIT has released its results yesterday after market closed. I'll ask the management team to present the key highlights of the results. Ms. Ler Lily, CEO; Khoo Geng Foong, CFO; Mr. Peter Tan Head of Investments; Ms Serene Tan, Head of Asset Management; Ms. Chng Siok Khim of Marketing; and Ms. Sara Wayson, Head of Asset Management Data Center U.S.

Now I'll pass to Geng Foong to bring us through the highlights of the results.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for MIT Full Year FY '25-'26 Financial Results Briefing. I'll bring you through the financial performance and update on capital management. Thereafter, Lily will go through portfolio update and give you some color on MIT's outlook.

For full year, during the year, we divested 3 properties in Singapore. The lower NPI is largely due to absence of income from these 3 properties. There is also lower contribution from nonrenewal of leases in the North American portfolio and a weaker U.S. dollar against Sing dollar. These were partially offset by higher contribution from Japan portfolio mainly full year contribution from Tokyo property, which we acquired in November 2024 and completion of final fit-out works at Osaka Data Center, which was completed in May 2025, as well as renewals and new leases from Singapore portfolio, borrowing costs fees, mainly due to repayment of borrowings with the divestment proceeds lower interest on unhedged floating rate loans and effects of weaker U.S. dollar against Sing dollar. These were partially offset by higher borrowing cost in relation to the Japan portfolio. Cash declared by joint venture decreased due to higher borrowing costs from the repricing of matured interest rate swaps, which were previously locked in when interest rates were lower.

On a full year basis, MIT DPU for FY '25-'26 is at 0.01271 which is 6.3% lower than prior financial year. However, if we exclude the divestment gain that we have distributed in FY '24-'25, our DPU would have been lower by 3.2% instead. So on -- for quarter-on-quarter, our net property income decreased due to nonrenewal of leases at North American portfolio, higher property maintenance and property taxes, partially offset by full quarter impact of renewals and new leases from Singapore portfolio. Borrowing costs decreased due to temporary repayment of borrowings with the proceeds from the new perpetual securities that we issued in March ahead of redemption of the existing perpetual securities. Cash distribution declared by joint venture decreased due to higher borrowing costs from the repricing of mature interest rate swaps.

Accordingly, DPU quarter-on-quarter decreased slightly 2.5% to $0.0309. Our NAV per unit is lower by about 4.7% to $1.63 as compared to prior year actually due to revaluation loss, weaker U.S. dollar and lower mark-to-market on derivatives.

As at 31st March 2026, total valuation of the 136 properties in MIT's portfolio stands at $8.2 billion, a decrease of about [ $230 ] million as compared to $9 billion as at 31st March 2025. Excluding the $535 million properties divested and lower translated asset value of $234 million from the weaker U.S. dollar and Japanese yen, our portfolio valuation decreased by $58.5 million year-on-year.

So within our North American portfolio, we do have some properties that are vacant, or with pending nonrenewals. So for some of these properties, the valuer has adopted sales comparison approach, hence, the lower valuation. These were partly mitigated by the completion of the final phase of the fitting out works at the Osaka Data Center and the improved operational performance of the Singapore portfolio.

During the quarter, we successfully issued $300 million of perpetual at 3.25%, ahead of the redemption of the existing perp in May 2026. In the interim, we have paid down debt with the perp proceeds and accordingly, leverage is lower at 34%. While this is expected to increase to around 37.5% when we draw the $300 million debt to redeem the existing perp in May, we still have ample debt headroom for growth. With the $300 million debt, the hedge ratio is also expected to reduce to around 80% level. Average borrowing cost increased slightly to 3.2% as compared to prior quarter, mainly due to higher interest on expiring interest rate swaps, which were previously locked in when interest rates were much lower. We have about $600 million of IRS coming due in financial year '26-'27. These were previously locked in when interest rates were lower.

So assuming if we replace this maturing IRS with a new 5-year rate today, maybe about 3.6%, 3.7%. The borrowing cost is expected to increase to about 3.4% to 3.5% in FY '26-'27.

As we pursue further divestments and we use the divestment proceeds to pay down loans in the interim, we will be able to reduce the impact of these expiring hedges on borrowing costs. Of course, we will continue to monitor the market and be nimble when entering to replacement hedges, say, $20 million, $30 million each tranche when opportunity arise, i.e., when any dip in interest rates.

On our debt maturity profile, it remains well staggered, with average debt duration of about 3.4 years. We have sufficient commercial credit facilities to refi loans in FY to '26-'27.

On FX front, as much as local currency loans to provide for a natural hedge. This helps to mitigate impact of FX fluctuation on our NAV and DPU. So for example, about 50% to 52% of our U.S. portfolio is funded with U.S. dollar loans. What our exposure to the U.S. by AUM is around 47%. Net of the onshore U.S. dollar borrowings, our DPU exposure is reduced to around 80%, 20%. So just to give a sense, for every 5% depreciation in U.S. dollar, the impact to DPU is not 5% but it's only around 1% to 1.5%.

Good morning, everyone. I will bring you through the operating performance for the portfolio. I think to start off with, that would be the occupancy. If you look on the overall basis, the overall portfolio occupancy has declined very marginally from 91.4% to 91.2% as compared to last quarter. As you can see, the Singapore and Japan portfolio remains a stable base. And if we focus a bit on the Singapore portfolio at this point, the Singapore portfolio occupancy has actually improved by about 0.4% -- 0.4 percentage points across both the Hi-Tech and the Business Park segment as well as the general industrial segment. These 2 segments continues to see positive rental revision. I think on a weighted average basis, you're looking at about 6.2%. Between the 2 segments, we are seeing both rental revision, 5% to 6%. Based on the Kallang Way occupancy, committed occupancy at this point is about 65.5%. If you compare to last quarter, it has improved marginally, very slightly.

But having said that, we do continue to have a few discussion that is ongoing. So we do hope that we are able to bring the occupancy up further by next financial year may be somewhere around the 75%.

Looking at North America data center portfolio, the average occupancy went down from 87.5% last quarter to 86.1%. I think this is mainly arising from the full effect of the expiry at 2005 East Tech, which has the lease has actually expired in December 2025 as well as tenants in 250 Williams, who has renewed its data center space but return is office base with effect from February 2026. I think this is something that we have flagged up earlier. In terms of the lease renewal, if you look at the portfolio WALE, portfolio Wale declined marginally by about 0.1 years from last quarter. That's largely due to the natural progression of time for Singapore and Japan portfolio. But if you look at the North American portfolio, there is actually an increase with the commencement of a long-term lease at Morrisville..

So I think that is something that the team has put in place some time ago. So now that the lease has commenced, it actually starts to contribute in terms of the -- towards percent WALE.

On a year-on-year basis, our portfolio WALE has maintained across all the geographies, including in North America with these efforts on getting some of these renewals done. So our focus during the year was very much to address the re-leasing challenges. About 400,000 square feet of leases were executed in financial year '25-'26, that is about 5.6% of MIT's North American portfolio NLA. So these are also for long. We have also signed this for long lease period ranging from 5 years to 15 years. So about 34.3% of the leases executed were actually new leases, while the balance 66% are renewals, which includes also forward renewals at a weighted average rental revision rate of about 3%.

If we look at the lease expiry profile for FY '26-'27 17% of the portfolio GRI will be expiring. So specifically for North American data center, more than half of the leases are set to expire after FY '30-'31, which is in more than 5 years' time. Within the portfolio or the North American portfolio, 5.4% of the portfolio is expected to expire in FY '26-'27 We have highlighted in the past quarters as well that the -- there are confirmed nonrenewals, and that stands around 4.7%. And as we all know, these are mainly from 3 properties. We are actively working on the nonrenewals. And in fact, I'm quite happy to share that we are in advanced negotiation and quite close to signing a backfill lease. Although I will not be able to provide any information at this point. I think you understand the sensitivity be high at this point.

For the remaining leases due in FY '26-'27, we don't think that will be an issue. Now beyond what has already been highlighted, there are no new confirmed non renewals. And if you look at the expiry profile, you'll also note that after FY '26-'27, the expiry profile is actually more manageable. You're talking around the 2% to 3% range. So if you look ahead at the next financial year or FY '27-'28, we think that the renewal -- the risk of nonrenewal is not high.

Now we have generally been very focused in managing the expiries. So over the past 2 years, we have proactively executed forward renewals, which actually helps to spread out the expiry. Say, for example, you have the 2 leases at Richmond and Houston, which are both enterprise users. In addition, we have also been signing the leases for new space. So if you look at the vacant or those properties with upcoming nonrenewals, divestment backfilling or even reletting to industrial users would be the possible options that we are exploring. So we are seeing greater interest from prospects for certain properties in the key data center market or those with potential to increase power capacity. So as I mentioned earlier, we are close to signing one of the backfill. So we do hope that we can bring the good news and bring it across the line and bring the good news soon.

In terms of the divestment targets, we continue to look at about $500 million to $600 million. So this would largely be the portfolios with vacancies or upcoming non renewals, we have pushed out quite a few divestment exercise. And I would say that we are starting to make some meaningful progress. As we pursue this divestment, we are also actively monitoring the market for suitable acquisitions opportunities. So I think if you look at some of the potential deals in the market that we are seeing, we do have some that is in the Asia, say, Japan. And of course, Europe continue to be area that we would like to expand in.

So our goal very much is to then rebalance the portfolio, achieving the greater geographic diversification and enhancing the overall portfolio quality to ensure that the portfolio is future-proof. I think what you see here is some of the activities that we have done in FY '25-'26, where we have actually completed more than $500 million of divestments and these are done at a premium to book value. So the proactive portfolio rebalancing will continue to be will continue to be the key strategy that we are pursuing right now. So we hope that with this, we will be able to provide a better portfolio to the unitholders.

Thanks, Lily and Geng Foong. Now we will take questions from the analysts. [Operator Instructions]

It looks like some exciting developments in terms of backfilling. Just wondering whether you can disclose which property is that related to? And were there any updates on potential redevelopments?

Second question I have is in terms of FX rates, U.S. seeing, what's the hedge rate that you have for this coming financial year?

I'll take Steve the first question. I think at this point, I would -- I don't think I'll be able to release a lot of information on this. I think that is something that the team has always been working on. So we do really hope that we are able to share the news shortly. At this point, I think there is some sensitivity, so we'd rather keep it as it is right now.

for the second question. In terms of hedging forward there's a cost in terms of hedging because given the interest differential between U.S. dollar and Sing dollar rates, so currently, it's quite high 2% to 2.5% for 1 year. For the next 12 months, we have hedged close to 60% of our income to about 1.26 FX rate.

And the rest, you progressively hedge, I presume throughout the course of the year?

Yes.

Sorry, just my first question, the update on the redevelopment.

Sorry, again?

Any updates on potential redevelopment? In some properties, you've undertaken power studies. So I don't know whether that is...

Nothing that we can think that we can say at this point. But I think you will also understand that redevelopment is something that we -- is 1 of the options that we will look at. Although I think the focus perhaps is a little bit more on the divestments and reletting of the properties.

Okay. I look forward to some positive news soon.

We have Derek from DBS to ask the next question.

Can you hear me? .

Yes.

Just a few questions. Just wondering, Lily, can you give us an update on your plans for San Diego and Hawthorne? Given that the leases are coming off, right? So I understand Hawthorne has a significant power allocation right? So any positives around these two assets? Or what are your planned leasing, selling or what we can think about in terms of the next move? Maybe that's my first question.

Then maybe my second one, if I can. If we look at Singapore portfolio, right, I think your occupancy, it appears quite strong already. Is there any room to still move it higher? And in terms of divestments wise, while you put $500 million, $600 million in largely in the U.S., right? Are you looking to sell Singapore as well? That's all I have for now. Yes.

Okay. I think for San Diego, I think we saw the situation for San Diego, if you look at the market right now, I would say that the interest for data centers or life science in San Diego is not exactly very strong. So one of the possible options that we are looking at divesting or relettings to the industrial users. So I think that will be something that we will continue to work on, right?

As for Hawthorne, yes, you are right. Hawthorne's facilities where there potentially can be more power. So as it is that it's probably one of the properties where we can see some interest coming through for people who are looking for more power or there is some bright spot, I guess, we can say that for the Hawthorne.

Okay. Sorry for Hawthorne, the power is secured already, right? Or it's just still getting the study.

We have gotten the studies. So the studies basically shows that we are able to bring it up to I think, up to 99 megawatt. But of course, it's not something that you -- it's not immediately, you want it, you get it type. So there will be certain time that is required for the power to be brought in. But I think we are seeing prospects who are interested in tapping such potential of more additional power. So I think that basically spells something quite positive for Hawthorne.

Okay. And you will relet it at that extra power, right? I mean I expect a lot of increase in revenue.

The structure of our lease is actually more as a real estate. So much on a per megawatt basis.

Okay. Got it. Got it. Okay. Sorry, Singapore?

Yes. So for Singapore, I think you know that we have divested $500 million of 3 properties. I think that one basically idea was to maximize or to look at those properties where we have maximized our potential as well as the business part where we know that the demand for Business Park is soft, and we have always been trying to push up the occupancy. But for the past 10 years, it's not easy to do that. So that hints the rationale behind the portfolio divestment. Whether will we continue to look at Singapore, the we will continue to always look at opportunities when it arises, right? Because I think if you look at the Singapore portfolio, there are still some potential that we can unlock. And of course, that's also some of the properties with short land tenure, right? But I think having said that, the focus for us at this point would still very much be on the North American portfolio where we know that, that is where we need to -- that is the area that we need to address at this point. I hope that answered your question.

Yes, that's -- sorry. Last one is Singapore organic growth still stable coming year?

Singapore organic growth, well, I think if you look at the rental revision, we still continue to see or to believe that we are able to achieve a positive rental reversion I think the previous guidance of single digit is still there.

We have Jonathan from UOB to ask the next question?

Yes. My first question relates to impact of higher electric city tariffs. So the 76.5% triple net leases, they are not affected. But what about the other two segments, the double net leases and gross leases, are they affected by higher cost of electric city?

And then second question relates to like renewal. I think for this quarter, you renewed McCrimmon and Parkway and then also Sir Timothy Drive. So one of them you renewed 11 years, what about the one, Sir Timothy Drive, how many years do you renew? And for these two renewals, what's the rental reversion like?

Okay. Address the utilities first. I think that one is easier. I think generally, even those or the North American portfolio even though some of them are on a gross net basis or double net basis.

In terms of electricity, it is still very much passed through to the tenants or borne by the tenants. So I think from that perspective, we don't see the effect. We don't expect the effect to filter true on us for the North America and the Japan assets. I think where the where it possibly may hit will be basically on the Singapore portfolio where we have quite a bit of multi-tenant buildings.

But having said that, we have actually done some hedges for the electricity where we have entered into power procurement contracts. And these are till December. So that's about 20% of the portfolio. So what we are open with will be 80% portion. Yes. So I think if you look in terms -- just to give some sense in terms of the impact, if, let's say, the tariff rate were to -- if the tariff rate were to say, increase by 50%, the impact on our DPU will probably be...

Sorry? So we can't hear you.

At 1%.

So for double net leases, for data center, the tenant pay for the 80% unhedged is quite high.

I think -- well, I mean, if you look at the numbers in itself, like 80% seems quite high, the utilities forms only about 30% of our operating expenses, right? Of course, I think as things move on, we will always be looking potentially at increasing this hedge ratio if you want.

Sorry. The next question is on the renewals that we see. Yes, this quarter, we have the Morrisville, which the lease has commenced in this quarter. But actually, this renewal was signed, I think, quite some time back. This is one of the -- this was signed quite some time back, I think, for 11 years. And if you talk in terms of reversion, there's actually no reversion because this is a new space. This is not a backfill lease. So you don't have a comparison to make. So what we have done then is we have actually filled up an empty space, which is already there.

And the other one that you're talking about, that's the one at Sir Timothy Drive. I think the renewal is actually for a short period, like about 2 years, but this is one of the hyperscalers. So I think for them, they tend not to lock in very long, but it is an auto renewal that you just keep going. So I think our past experience is they will just renew when it comes to the expiry.

The new space at Morrisville, does it mean that you added space to the data center.

It's added the space in terms of occupancy, yes. But I think this is a small space. I think it's about 34,000 square feet. So -- and this is -- I think -- I believe this is more for industrial use.

Vijay to ask the next question.

Just a couple of questions. First one is a bit of a follow-up to Jonathan's question. Quarter-on-quarter, the increase in property maintenance and taxes. Was it one-off? Or what -- how much was it was and do we expect it to recur?

You are talking about quarter-on-quarter, right?

Yes.

I think for this quarter, you see the margin a bit lower. So because of the operating expenses, increasing, but that's because we have kind of -- this is more a timing issue where we did our facade maintenance in this quarter. That's why it kind of bumped up a bit in the quarter.

So It's a one-off?

So it's a one-off for the quarter.

Okay. But looking ahead, you would expect some margin pressure to continue because of utilities in general. Is that right to say?

Yes. But we think that the impact is not that significant. As I said, even if the tariffs were to increase by 50%, the impact on our DPU is less than 1%.

Okay. Got it. So my second question is in terms of divestment, you have done well quite well last year. This year, also a targeting $500 million, $600 million. What are your plans to redeploy the proceeds as there will be an income that came from these divestments?

Yes, we are definitely looking at acquisitions now that we have really divested $500 million with more divestment the way that will actually give us quite a nice headroom for us to look at our acquisitions. So I think that will be something that the investment team will always be looking at. I think in terms of where we want to or what kind of properties we're looking to invest, we continue to keep our eyes on data center, but we wanted to have some diversification in terms of geography.

Hence, we have always been talking about us wanting to look at the Asia Pac region, looking at Europe. As you will note that I think in Europe at this point, we have no presence at all, right? So I think when it comes to geographies like U.S., we tend to be very, very selective because of the -- because we already have quite some presence in the U.S. So not so much into U.S., but for Europe and Asia Pac. So I think, again, if you look in terms of the yield spread, what seems to make sense at this point is perhaps in Japan and Europe as well.

So just to confirm that your balance 50% of the stake on the data center, your priority is focusing on Japan and Europe over this balance acquisition of balance with 50% stake.

I think the 50% also very much depends on what -- whether the sponsors want to let that go, right? So I think that is something that we will want to get if the opportunity comes. I think if you look at the portfolio of the joint venture, it is definitely a good quality portfolio, where we have almost I would say about more than 50% of that portfolio are actually the hyperscalers, which is something that we would like to have a little bit more exposure on, right?

But I guess it's also really if I have -- if I'm able to do more diversifications for my portfolio through getting more exposure in hyperscalers, that will be great. And in terms of geography, if we are able to get more diversification by looking at other regions, that will be something that is quite welcome as well. And I believe all this will actually help to improve the resilience of the portfolio.

Just one last question. In terms of your data centers, do you expect CapEx for the ones which you have vacated, and how much CapEx would it be? Just to give some sense in terms of new tenants.

I think it very much depends on who the tenant is and what is the condition of the property at that point of time, right? For some of the leases that we are talking or we have been discussing or we have executed. The CapEx may not be very huge. Say, for example, the one at tenancy, I think the CapEx was kept relatively low at about $4 million. I think for some of those, we do have tenants who are prepared to say that it doesn't matter, I'm okay with the structure with everything that is with the property. And hence, I don't really need a lot of CapEx. Any CapEx will probably come in the form of like repaving the drive way, making sure that the walls are not leaking, repainting, that kind things. So, not significant CapEx as far as we can see.

We have Bill to ask the next question.

Just a quick question for me. With regards to the renewals and backfilling of the North American portfolio, I just wanted to get an idea as a percentage of revenues, how should we look at it?

Meaning?

No. So basically, for the renewals that were done, right, in the North American portfolio, I think that the 400,000 or so you did mention it's about 5-plus percent of NLA, but as a percentage of revenues, does it differ a lot? Just wanted to get a sense.

I don't think it will fall very significantly away from that number. I would say most of the leases that we have signed, okay, let's say, if you are talking about renewal, the renewals are coming through with -- the renewals are coming through with a positive rental revision. I think just now, I mentioned our revision is about 3%. So if you look in terms of the contribution, it will be higher than what we were looking at, at least for the renewals, right? And of course, all these also come with escalation.

On average, do you have average escalations for these renewals and new leases?

Average escalation, I think it actually ranges, I would say, largely around 2% to 3%. Earlier on the revision, I think we are looking at is about -- with average 3%. Of course I think we will also highlight that for some of these there is actually rent-free included. So the real contribution may come in see in about 6 to 12 months' time.

Okay. So on average, safe to assume that rent-free is typically 6 to 12 months for a 5-year lease?

I think it depends. Very generally, rule of thunbs tends to be 1 year, 1 month right? But a lot of this also depends on negotiations. Say, for example, if you look at the Brentwood, the Tennessee property that we have leased out to Vanderbilt. The lease was for a good 30 years, but my rent-free is only 12 months.

We have Tan Xuan to ask the next question.

I understand you mentioned earlier that the rest of nonrenewal for FY '28 is not high. Would you -- do you think that the occupancy for the portfolio will actually trough in FY '27 then?

We -- of course we hope so. Well, I think -- okay. Seriously, if you look at it in terms of your expiry profile, you see that the tower in '27-'28 is the highest, right? And that is also where we see we faced quite a bit of increase. I think we have mentioned the 4.7% nonrenewal that, I think everybody knows of which the larger component actually comes from San Diego. If you look going forward, the renewal proportion is actually quite small.

A large part of the portfolio for North American portfolio is still, I would say, almost 50% -- more than 50% is actually due in 5 years' time. So if you just look at the next few years, the lease expiry is actually quite manageable. I think the range is around 2% to 3%. So once the nonrenewal wave is kind of stabilized, right? All the efforts that we are putting in, into saying, divesting some of these vacant or coming to be vacant type of properties or our efforts to be able to backfill them is definitely going to have some positive impact.

Following up on FY '27-'28, right, do you see any risk for the Singapore lease expiry?

No. In fact, I think that there is a lease that is coming up for renewal. That's why I think you see the tower a little bit higher, right? But we have already commenced our discussion with that tenant. And we are very confident that this renewal is there.

Okay. And just one last question on the divestment that you're looking at. Are these assets that are vacant? And also how should we think about gains or loss against book value?

Okay. I think if the $500 million to $600 million, a large part of that would be the vacant and coming due to vacant type of properties. I mean, naturally, right, because these are some of the properties that we want to be able to address the releasing challenges. But we have also -- if you remember, I have mentioned previously that we have actually take a very critical look at the list of properties that we have. And for some of those which we feel that there may not be that may not be able to contribute very positively towards the growth will be packed into this potential divestment. So I think some of these may be income producing. But I think if you're looking from it from a longer term, if there's no, say, on a low power capacity type or we think that there is -- it's not as easy for us to try to gather the releasing later on, if it never happens. Then I think it's best for us to do the divestment. So we have actually run through a very -- take a very critical look at the portfolio to identify some of these properties. So that all in would then give us around $500 million to $600 million.

How does -- how do you think this will compare against book value? Is it divestment price versus book.

I think if you look at our valuation, this round, we have actually taken some valuation loss on certain properties. So I think those would mainly be the ones which are going to be vacant right? So I think if you're talking about whether will we be insisting that we must sell at book value, I think that is something that we have to be practical and we have to look at what are the alternative for us, right? So we -- of course, we hope to be neutral on an overall basis. But we are not insisting that we must sell above valuation. I mean for those property that is not going to contribute, it's actually better for us to just take the hard decision and divest it so that we can recycle it into something that is contributing to the portfolio.

We have Derrick Heng for the next question.

Can you hear me?

Derrick, you need to speak up a bit near to your mic.

Is it better?

Yes.

Okay. I just -- sorry, I missed out the earlier part of -- earlier half of the call, but I caught something about the utility impact. I mean there was a 1% DPU number being mentioned, is it if utility costs were to increase by X percentage, it leads to a 1% DPU impact?

Yes. I think you were saying that if the tariff rate increased by 50%, then we -- the impact on the overall DPU will be about less than 1%.

Less than 1%, okay, from current rates and from current base tariff rates?

Yes.

Okay. Got it. And when do you intend to hedge the remaining 80% of the Singapore assets -- sorry, 80% of the rates?

I think the decision to hedge very much is weighing what is the cost of it. I think you also require us to switch to the same power. But I think that it will take some time for us to be able to do that.

Okay. Okay. And switching to U.S. the U.S. portfolio, you mentioned that $500 million to $600 million divestment. Does that include assets which you're currently doing power studies on? And is the -- does the $500 million, $600 million already in into account the effect of the power study or it doesn't?

I think for some of these properties, whether we are done power study or not, okay? If we are not seeing significant contribution coming through, then I think they will be in the lease, right?

Having said that, I think the power in itself, having the power capacity in itself doesn't mean that we are going to get it immediately. So there is going to be some level of CapEx that's required to put through and time is also required to bring the additional power in, right? So I think for some of these properties that we have done, we would consider divestment if there is a good value or if there is someone who is prepared. So we are not close to the option to say that just because I've done power study, there is potential, therefore, will not divest or I will only do a redevelopment think we have to also weigh the various factors.

Okay. And on -- just on that, right. This Hawthorne, for example, you're looking to intensify to 24 or even potentially 99 megawatts. The current valuation $15 million is on current power capacity only, right? Do you expect an uplift in valuation if you were to secure a larger power bank?

As I said, because this core and shell basis, the rentals are actually based on the area. That means based on the NLA rather than based on the megawatts.

Do you not sell on the basis of power bank?

Sorry?

Do you not sell on the basis of power bank?

We don't charge based on the megawatts.

I mean, that divestment when you sold the asset when you put it on a market, can you sell on basis of power Bank?

Sure. I think just to answer the question, I mean, this asset is actually on a power shell basis, all right? What we have done in the power study is that we already spoke to the grid, and they actually told us that they can actually increase the power up to 99 megawatt. I mean with that, there will also be quite a significant capital investments. But to answer your question, the -- if we go -- do go to the market to sell, the potential buyer will definitely look at the potential uplift of the power to 99 megawatts, but they will also have to consider the CapEx that we will need to put in. But of course, that will increase the attractiveness for the asset, whether are we looking to release it or to sell it.

Okay. So I mean, so expectations basically would be probably hoping to sell that around current valuations even for Hawthorne?

I mean, yes, that's the current valuation we have. Yes.

We have Rachel from Macquarie to ask the next question.

Yes. Sorry, I dialed in a bit late. I just want to confirm the San Diego, you're looking to divest, right? And then San Jose and Alpharetta what are your plans?

Okay. As I said, San Diego is not exactly in the key data center market. So divestment is definitely on the card. If you are talking about Alpharetta and San Jose, I think these are still very much in a good data center market, re-leasing is something potentially that we expect to get. Of course, again, we don't close the door in terms of the divestment.

Okay. Got it. Okay. Yes. And then my next question is on the divestment the $500 million and $600 million, mainly vacant assets going to vacant. Does that mean that it will take a while for you to divest? Current asset, and I would presume that the interest would be quite low?

So we -- I mean we have been cooking this for quite some time already. So I think in terms of vacant or versus income producing, we are probably looking at a mix of both, all right? But I think what we can say is that we are looking at both the vacant and income-producing assets for this $500 million to $600 million. And definitely, this will be our target, at least within the next 12 months or so within this FY. So I think some of them we are already in slightly more advanced discussion. So hopefully, we can have some good news coming out in the next 6 months or so.

Okay. Understood. Okay. And then if I hear correctly, your interest on acquisitions is still Japan and Europe, right? But I think looking at your peers, they have been acquiring some Japan data center assets and from the same sellers. So I'm just wondering whether you have looked into it. And is it your decision of not acquiring? Is it because you haven't done much divestments?

I mean that's part of that decision. But of course, as you mentioned, those acquisitions that our peers have done are probably very similar to the -- some of the other acquisitions that we have done, right? So essentially, this decision was made at that point of time, we do have a lot of factors that in our mind about we want to divest more, we want to diversify out of existing countries that we have and so on. So -- but I mean it's good that we -- at least we are keeping some balance sheet for other acquisitions that we are looking at. But again, with more divestments, it will actually improve our balance sheet and our appetite to invest.

Okay. All right. And maybe just one last one FY '27 interest rate guidance.

Sorry, is it '27-'28 or '26-'27.

'26-'27 coming financial year, right, the coming financial year.

For FY '26-'27, we do have $600 million IRS coming due. The interest rate is expected to increase to around 3.4% to 3.5%.

We got Brandon from Citi to ask the next question.

Can you hear me? .

Yes, we can.

I just want to check, right, on this $300 million to $600 million, right? Does this refer to your carrying value or the expected valuation that you can fetch? Because I think if you look at the latest reval exercise and some of these assets have really taken quite a bit of reval losses, right? Yes. So I just want to check that. And also what is -- if you can share with us, is there a rough timing on how fast you can execute these divestments and the general level of interest in this kind of assets in the current market?

Okay. I think we'll addressed the first question first. These numbers would have taken these properties at around revaluation. I mean naturally, right? Because we will always minimally try to hit the valuation. But if the demand is such that we might have to take below valuation that we take up. But our first stance is always, as I said, right? And as for how long it will take, I think, generally, the $500 million to $600 million we probably can get it done within the next 1, 2 years. To be frank, when we pushed out, I think we will have pushed out a little bit more. So this is what we think we probably can achieve. Am I missing any other questions -- that's it right. Yes.

Okay. So basically, there is a certain kind of interest in this asset, right, is it going to stay that? Because obviously, you're not selling your best assets, right?

Yes. Well, we are not selling our best. But I think we do -- sometimes we do try to sell the slightly better assets with the not so good assets and then you sell the portfolio. I mean that is one of the user divestment strategy that people will look at. So I think we apply across all the various strategies that we can, when we look at to divestment.

And I just wanted to just double check, right, for your assets in San Diego, Milwaukee and San Jose, right? Which we saw a very significant fall year-on-year in valuation. That is really because of the vacancy.

That is because of the vacancies. And I think the -- when it comes to the valuation, the valuers have taken a slightly different approach. So they actually use the sales comparison approach, and they look at it from an industrial land perspective. So I think that is the reason why value has been dropping for quite some time. But I think you -- the value has dropped. But I think we also recognize that these are the properties where we have seen vacancies for quite some time.

Okay. Just one last one, right? Are you intending to sell anything in Singapore? And should we expect some form of compensation, say for some of your more prime assets like your 2 Kallang assets, right? I think over this quarter, they did see a very sharp fall in the valuation.

You're talking about Kallang 1 and 2, right?

Yes, I think it was a 20% fall right, yes.

That is because of the short land tenure. Those are the ones. I think the remaining tenure is about 7 years -- 5 years. So as the usual valuation, it will go when you hit a certain remaining life, they will start to bring them down very quite a huge jump all the way down to 0 because these have limited kind of life spend, right? So it is expected that when your short land tenure, when your land tenure comes closer to the expiry, you will see impact on devaluation.

So whether we are looking to divest some of these, of course, we will be looking at it, right? Given that there is a land tender decay, I think that will be something that we will want to be able to do some divestment because that will then help us in maintaining the capital value for. But I think the question then is always out there in the market will be prepared to buy. There are people who like to look at it, but it's not a very wide market as you would appreciate, right?

So whether we are potentially looking at some of these divestments, yes, we are. But I think as I mentioned earlier, the key focus at this point is really on the North American side. the short land tenure is something that we will continuously be looking at. So I think for the short land tenure, what we have been trying to do is to engage JTC as much as we can to see whether there's any possibility for us to do that extension. We have been also looking at seeing whether we are able to find a user which the Singapore government would love to have, and therefore, on that basis, be willing to extend the land lease for us, right? I think other than that, divestment is a potential option that we can look at. And of course, the other way to address this structural issue in Singapore is really that you try to dilute the effect by growing elsewhere with freehold land. I think that is something that is a strategy that a lot of the Singapore REITs has done in the past years.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, great. Thank you very much.

Maybe we'll just take 1 question from the online audience. This question was [indiscernible] and paying off debt is important. New balance between selling assets to pay debt versus acquiring assets to increase revenue and DPU. I would like to hear your strategic approach?

I mean the best is always that is divest today. And today, in the very same minute I divest, I can buy. That is the best dream or transactions that we can have. But unfortunately, we have to be realistic about it that your divestment and acquisition are not -- it's very difficult for us to time it that way. So there will always be a time difference between the acquisitions and the divestment. In which situation, then the question we ask ourselves is what do I do with these, let's say, I do my divestment first. The question then will be, what can I do with the money? Do I sit on it, put it in the bank and earn very low interest income right? So the best option for us to do is actually to repay some of the debt, you take interest on that component, right?

I think that will be more for temporary. That's why every time when we say we do a divestment, it is really to create a headroom, okay, which will allow us to look at our acquisitions with ease and with flexibility. And at this point, if you look at our gearing, we are about 34% if you take into consideration the refinancing of the perps 37%, which is a very nice headroom that we have created with the divestment of the 3 properties in Singapore that we have done earlier on.

We are mindful that we are coming close to the hour. So if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us. Thank you for joining us today.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us this morning for MIT Second Quarter and First Half Financial Year '25-'26 Results Briefing. MIT has released its results today after market closed.

We have the management team to present the key highlights of the results. Ms. Ler Lily, CEO; Ms. Khoo Geng Foong, CFO; Mr. Peter Tan, Head of Investment; Ms. Serene Tan, Head of Asset Management; Ms. Chng Siok Khim, Head of Marketing.

I'll pass to Geng Foong to bring us through the results highlights.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. So for second quarter FY '25, '26, year-on-year, our net property income decreased due to loss of income from the divestments of 3 industrial properties in Singapore, which we have completed in August. Lower contributions from the North American portfolio from nonrenewal of leases, weaker U.S. dollar. These were partially offset by the higher contribution from acquisitions we did end of last year, as well as the completion of final fit out works in May '25.

Borrowing costs decreased due to repayment of borrowings with the divestment proceeds, lower interest on unhedged floating rate loans and effects of weaker U.S. dollar. These were partially offset by higher borrowing costs we took for the Japan portfolio.

Distribution declared by joint venture decreased due to higher borrowing costs from repricing of matured interest rate swaps as well as pre-termination of lease at one of the joint venture properties in prior year. So overall, our distribution to unitholders decreased 5.3% to $90.7 million, and our distribution per unit increased 5.6% to $0.0318.

This prior year, we also distributed about $3.3 million of divestment gain from divestment of Tanglin Halt. So if we exclude that, our DPU would have decreased 2.2% instead. So for first half, most of the reasons are quite similar, so I'll skip that.

So for quarter-on-quarter, our net property income decreased due to loss of income from the divestment of the 3 industrial properties in Singapore. Full quarter impact of end of lease amortization for the fit-out works at one of the property in Singapore portfolio, higher operating expenses at North American and Singapore portfolio. These were partially offset by the full quarter contribution from the final fit-out works at Osaka Data Center.

So on borrowing costs is lower mainly due to repayment of borrowings with the divestment proceeds and lower interest on unhedged floating rate loans. Overall, our distribution to unitholders decreased 2.7% to $90.7 million and DPU decreased quarter-on-quarter 2.8% to $0.0318.

From a capital management perspective, our total borrowings reduced to $3.1 billion, largely due to the repayment of loans with the divestment proceeds. Accordingly, our aggregate leverage ratio decreased to 37.3% and our interest rate hedge ratio increased to close to 93%. With a lower leverage ratio, this provides us with ample debt headroom to capture any potential growth opportunities.

Our average borrowing cost for the quarter reduced slightly to 3%, largely due to repayment of higher cost debt with the divestment proceeds and lower interest rate on the unhedged floating rate loans.

Having said that, we do have interest rate swaps coming due every year. So for this financial year as well as next financial year, we do have about $600 million of IRS due or coming due, which we expect to have impact on borrowing costs. Even these interest rate swaps were previously locked in when interest rates were lower. So overall, the borrowing cost for this financial year, we expect to be around 3.1% to 3.2%. And for next financial year, the interest cost will be about 3.3% to 3.4%.

Our debt maturity profile remains well staggered. No more than 24% of total debt maturing in any single year and average debt tenure of 3 years.

On the FX front, as much as feasible, we try to draw local currency loans to provide natural hedge for our overseas investments. This helps to protect FX fluctuation on our NAV and DPU. So for example, about 50% to 52% of our portfolio are funded with loans.

So while our exposure to the U.S. by AUM is about 47% of onshore borrowings, our distributable income exposure to U.S. dollar is about 25% to [ 20% ]. This means that in terms of sensitivity for every 5% depreciation in dollar impact to our distributable income is only about 1.5%.

So for the remaining of the foreign currency, we enter into FX forwards to hedge the income into Sing dollar. So we have about 86% of our next 12 months distributable income is hedged or derived in Sing dollar.

Now to Lily to go through [Technical Difficulty].

I will cover the operational performance. So if we can start off with the occupancy of the portfolio, I think that's something that above our [indiscernible].

On a portfolio basis, the occupancy rate has, I would say, remained relatively flattish. So we are looking at 91.3%. If you look at the Singapore portfolio, pretty resilient. We have managed to keep the occupancy flat, right?

For North American portfolio, we do see a bit of slightly marginally down to 7.8%, and that's largely because of the expiry of lease at San Jose, which is something that we have spoke about in the last quarter.

On the Singapore side, something which I missed out just now would be the progress of the Kallang Way property. I think that one, we have managed to improve the committed occupancy to 64.4%. So there is about a 1 percentage point improvement from the last quarter we have reported.

I think this quarter, we have also seen quite a bit of new leases and renewal that we have actually executed. To date, we have executed about 184,000 square feet of the space in North America. This is about 2.6% if you look specifically at the North America [indiscernible].

Of this 184,000 square feet, we have about 20% -- 20% to 23% of these leases actually pertains to empty units, which were previously vacant. So we are able to fill up some of the vacant units. The rest of it are basically just renewals. So it's not going to -- it basically means that we are able to extend the lease period, right?

I think if you look in terms of some details for lease renewals, weighted average revision comes up to be about 3%. I think if you look at the range of the revision, we are talking about from a low single of 2% to a double digit like 10%. And on lease renewal also for a relatively long period, so about 5 to 11 years.

I think maybe I just also want to highlight that these are -- a lot of these leases or most of these leases, we will be taking effect only in FY '26, '27. That means the next financial year. I mean these are actually forward renewals that we have entered into.

The lease commencement actually starts next financial year. So we will see the effect. I think the current financial numbers does not include the effects of these leases, not significant [indiscernible].

The rental revision in Singapore continues to be quite positive. I think we are looking at a weighted average of 46.2% on the average. Of course, if you look in terms of greater details, the general industrial buildings continue to see encouraging rental revision at about 8%.

We do have a little bit of a negative revision in the Hi-Tech building and business space, specifically, that is more on the business park, where we have one particular tenant. I would say, not very sizable, but it's not your usual typically 1,000, 2,000 type of spaces. So we have actually defended the occupancy by taking a lower rental rate. So that accounts for the negative rental revision that you see.

I think then if you look at the lease expiry -- in terms of the WALE, we will see that there is a slight improvement in terms of the overall portfolio. Last quarter, we reported 4.5 years. So this quarter, we actually reported a 4.6 years. Of course, you also understand that every time you move 1 quarter, naturally, this number will drop, but we have actually managed to improve it, and that is mainly because of one of the renewals that we -- which was one of a renewal, which I've mentioned earlier on that actually take effect towards the end of the financial year. So that has basically lengthened the WALE.

If you look in terms of the profile for FY '25, '26, in total, we have about 4.6% of our total portfolio expiring. If we look specifically at the North American data center, that would be about 1.8%.

And of course, I think we have spoke about this last quarter as well [indiscernible] 1.8%. There is also 1.2% that is largely due to the vacant unit. The office spaces that was given up by one of the data center tenants in 250 Williams. So I think whatever that is left in the remaining of the financial year, we are quite positive in terms of the renewal and backfilling.

Okay. So for next financial year, '26-'27, of course, the large part of the expiry for the North American portfolio continues to be the San Diego. So that is something that we are keeping an eye on as well.

I think in terms of some of the investment divestment activities, we have completed our divestment -- the Singapore divestment of the 3 properties. So that takes place -- that took place on 15th August. I think that is also why this quarter, we see some effects of the loss income coming from the divestment [indiscernible] through the financial numbers, right?

With this, I think we will continue -- we will still continue to look at our divestment for the portfolio. But I think this -- the focus will be more on the North American side. I think that is something that we have always been looking at as well, right? So I think we probably will be looking at another $500 million to $600 million of divestment for the portfolio.

In terms of investment activities, I think since our divestment, we have managed to bring our leverage ratio down. So that does give us some headroom in terms of looking at acquisitions.

So I think we have -- we are seeing quite a few transactions in the market, say, in the Europe and more recently, in fact, I would say, a little bit more on the Japan side. So Europe and Asia will continue to be our focus. And of course, the 50% stake that the sponsor is still holding it will continue to be something that we want to look at.

I think if you look at this portfolio specifically, it is a good portfolio, which can help to improve our quality of the quality of MIT's portfolio overall. And of course, we also know that, that is the one, where the hyperscalers facilities forms a large part of it. So it will be an interesting pipeline for us.

So with this, I think we hope to be able to recycle the seeds that we have obtained from the divestment. And of course, with further divestment that can come through, that will also help to give us more gun powder in terms of the acquisitions.

So looking ahead, I think our priorities will remain very much centered on improving the occupancy at both the Singapore and the North American sites. We have been getting some traction in recent times. So we are quite encouraged by that [indiscernible] continue doing this.

We are still in talks with a few potential renewals or new leases in the North American side. So that is something that we hope we can continue to provide some good news next quarter. right?

I think in terms of the interest rate side, as Geng Foong has said, we do have some repricing replacement that needs to be managed. So we need to be very nimble, and we can just adjust the hedge ratio and keep a lookout for any opportunities.

So I think as we move along, there may be some transitional impacts on our results. Some of these -- as I said, some of these renewals that we are looking at are actually forward renewals. So we are actually paving the way going forward. So that's something that I hope you guys will understand.

I think with this, that will end our presentation. I'll pass it back to -- I'll pass the floor back to Mui Lian.

[Operator Instructions] Terence, would you like to ask the first question?

This is Terence from JPMorgan. Just wanted to ask a bit more on the backfilling of the U.S. data centers. Could you share a little bit on what -- how do you see progress? Or how should we expect backfilling for 250 Williams and the AT&T next year

I think for 250 William, we have -- as you will probably note that for the past few quarters, we have been able to lease out some of the office space. Although, as I said, these are not very big significant type of areas that we can go -- that we can fill up immediately, but we have been making some progress, and we are actually quite encouraged by that.

There have been still quite a number of -- we are still seeing quite a few inquiries, some people coming to view, et cetera. So I think it seems like while the office space continues to still be quite weak in terms of the demand, there seems to be some slight recovery that is coming back. So we hope that we are able to continue this traction.

In terms of the AT&T, we are still -- we are actually talking -- we are still kind of -- we need to talk to them and see actually what is their plan because if you remember, for AT&T, there is a further options to -- for them to extend another 5 months. So that's something that we will get some clarity -- we want to get some clarity from them.

And of course, the efforts for us to release the building, repurpose the building or even to do a divestment for the building continues to be something on the card that we [indiscernible]. I hope that answers your question.

Yes. So is that -- I mean, to give a sense, is there any details on whether we should expect that 5-month extension?

There's no clarity at this point actually.

Okay. Great. Could I ask about the FX hedging? What is the hedge rate for U.S. dollar ForEx into the second half of the year? And how should we see the FX hedging for next year?

So for the income hedges, we have hedged about 53% of our USD income stream for the next 12 months. The average rate is about [ 1.28, 1.29 ]. Hopefully, it's for the next 12 months.

And maybe a final question for me. Any thoughts? Could you share a little bit more on the acquisitions? I understand that you're looking at both the sponsors, 50% and also Europe and Asia. Maybe a bit more details in terms of cap rates and how you are seeing any preference?

I think now with the current interest rate environment, where the rate seems to be easing off, it is something -- it is a development, which will, I guess, help in terms of the acquisition cases. I think at least in terms of the yield spread that can start to make sense or make better sense for some of the projects that we are looking.

So I think in more recent time, we have been seeing transactions that is coming up from the Europe, from the Japan and I think even from the U.S. for that matter. I think for us, it is very -- we do recognize that it is something that we want to -- that we will want to keep on pursuing in terms of the acquisition because at the end of the day, now that we have divested a bit of the -- relatively significant portfolio from the Singapore side, it is something that we will need to be able to replace at least if not part of the income that has been lost. So that is something that the team will have to continue to work on.

So I think if you look in terms of the numbers or that, I don't think the numbers very, very far out from what you're seeing in the market. So Japan, you typically will still be looking at around 4%, sometimes maybe a bit sub-4%.

But I think the interest rate side, I think there is still some -- I'll say that the increase doesn't seems to be so coming in so strongly. So I think in terms of the yield spread, it still quite makes sense. So I think we probably can be looking at a yield spread of around, say, 1.5% to 2% type. And you'll probably see a similar type of yield spread across the other regions as well. So basically, when your cap rate is there, your cost of funds tends to follow it as well.

And in terms of timing, how should we think about timing? Is there a time or target for acquisitions?

In terms of what, sorry?

Sorry, timing of acquisitions?

Well, I guess the thing with external acquisition is you either get it or you don't get it, right? So we have evaluated. We have tried -- we have done some submissions, et cetera. So I think we hope that we're able to get something quite soon as well. But as I say, this is something that we will have to continuously be in the works.

Of course, what would be easier within which will be the 50% stake that we can look at. So I think that is something that we are always in continuous discussion with the sponsor. If they are looking to sell, I think it's something that we want to look at it seriously as well.

Can we have [indiscernible] to ask the next question.

Can I ask about the next $500 million to $600 million of divestment? Is that something that we can expect over the next 6 to 12 months? And also, is this sufficient to fund for your acquisition? Or are you also open to equity fundraising?

Okay. Let's address the $500 million to $600 million. I think that is generally the part of the portfolio, which we think that we want to do a recycling. As for the timing in terms of $500 million to $600 million, it is not it's not small, okay? So I think if you look at the U.S. trending so far, those properties that we have been selling are generally on individual basis relatively small, right?

But this -- I think we do expect that perhaps we hope that for this financial year, we can do about $100 million to $200 million, right? But to fully divest the entire $500 million to $600 million, I think it will probably take some time. 12 years might be a bit too much. 12 months might be a bit too short for us. So you'll probably take, say, maybe about 1 or 2 years or so.

Funding for acquisition?

Sorry. So whether we will consider EFR, of course, it's never a case of I must do a divestment before I do an acquisition, right? It very much depends on the attributes of the projects. And if the market is conducive, we would want to do a bit of equity fundraising. That is that can basically help us in terms of managing our balance sheet as well. So I think it will also depend on the sizing of the -- the size of these acquisition targets.

Okay. Got it. Second question is on debt hedging. Can you explain why is it at 90% currently? And what's the comfortable level for debt hedging?

We pay down loans with the divestment proceeds. So what we have done is, of course, we paid down the unhedged portion. So that brings our interest rate hedge ratio to close to 93%. But we do have IRS coming due remaining financial year. So by March, we'll see this closer to about 80% back to the normal level.

And the target is to maintain it at 80%.

By year-end, it will be 80%. But of course, I mean, but over the next few years, we'll see the interest rate environment and recalibrate the hedge ratio.

Do we have Derek from Morgan Stanley to ask the next question?

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you.

All right. Perfect. I just want to ask on the upcoming lease expiry in FY '27 for U.S., how much is U.S. account for FY '27? And of that, how much is the AT&T lease?

Okay. So you're talking about FY '26-'27, right?

Yes.

In total, if you look at the total portfolio, it's 19.2%. Specifically for North America, that would be about 5.5%. Of course, the majority will be for San Diego. I think San Diego generally contributes about 2.4%.

2.4%.

2.5%.

Sorry, 2.4%.

2.5%.

2.5%, 2.5%. Okay. So 2.5%, that one is more -- that one visibility is much lower, but the remaining 3 percentage points that shouldn't be an issue?

I think it's something that we are continuously looking at. That's why I think if you look at some of the leases that we have signed this quarter or to date, some of these are actually pertaining to the '26, '27. So we would be able to -- I would say, the significant lease is actually more on the San Diego one.

Understood. The ones that you signed, which also pertains to FY '27, those came at reversion of 3%, right?

Weighted average 3%, yes. I think in terms of the range, which is a wider range. So you're talking about the low 2% [ of ] 10%. So it's about 2% to 10%.

2% to 10%. Okay. And just on, I guess, San Jose, is there any updates on your power studies over there?

The power study has been done. We understand that the current facilities can take up to 7 megawatts, although I think previously, it was running at about 3 megawatts, right. if we want to bring the facilities up to a 20 megawatt, it is possible, but I think it will -- means that you need to put in the power supply -- the power supplier will need to put in additional CapEx to bring -- I think they need to build a new substation and put the new cabling through. So there will be cost involved in getting the 20 megawatts. And of course, that also means that it will take some time.

So are you angling towards just going ahead with 7 megawatts without having to build power station? And how soon would you expect the lease-up of that asset?

Yes. So I think with this, what we have actually done is we wanted to -- with the power study in Japan, we wanted to actually sell the properties. I think the response is not as expected as what we expected.

We do note that there is quite a number of requirements, those that come to look at it, the requirements tends to be more for the immediate power. So I think some of them are not prepared to wait 3, 4 years for the additional powers to come in. So I think this is something that we will have to continue to engage the prospect.

Okay. So there's no timing per se that you can guide for at this point in time?

I think we are currently in the progress of actually trying to reach out to the prospect and maybe also to expand the marketing program.

Okay. Understood. And are there any other power studies for other assets or it's just San Jose for now?

We have done one for Horton. And I would say that it is quite positive, right? So we are able to bring in much higher power as compared to San Jose, right? So I think that Horton is currently still leased. The lease will end probably next financial year. So that's something that we're also talking about talking to a tenant about the re-leasing -- sorry, the renewal of it.

This is the -- this is in FY '27?

This is in FY '26, '27, the next financial year.

How much does it account for that 5.5% for U.S., the Horton one?

I think it's about 1.2%.

1.2% Okay. Okay. So you're in the process of renewal and if that doesn't come through, you would use the power studies and increase the IT capacity for the [Technical Difficulty].

Derek from DBS has the next question.

Can you hear me? Just a few questions from me. First one is on your rent reversion that you achieved for America, right? I'm just curious whether the leases were likely renewal or backfilling. I just want to get a sense whether there's possible improvements in occupancy.

Those -- the rental reversion we talked about is only for the [Technical Difficulty]. So we're talking about backfilling as in us trying to fill up additional empty spaces. I think just now I mentioned out of the 184,000 square feet that we have signed to date, about 23% are actually, I would say, backfilling of empty units. So yes, you'll see some contributions towards the occupancy. But I think we will also [Technical Difficulty].

Then my next question is on your comments on acquisition, right? You're mentioning that you are scanning -- you're potentially divesting. But if you look at, let's say, opportunities that you're keen to execute, right, what -- how will you rank the 50% stake will be ranked the highest in our view?

Well, I think it's a difficult question.

Easy as I know, but...

[indiscernible] question I ask Peter to address, okay?

Yes. I mean, what Lily mentioned earlier, the 50% stake, those are very good properties and a good portfolio add-on to improve our quality of our portfolio. But we also -- we are also seeing a lot of other decent opportunity that is coming on our table. So we will have to assess it, but it kind of at least give us some leeway to choose, which is the assets or which are the portfolio that we wanted to add on to MIT.

It's not a very easy decision, I guess.

To add on is like [indiscernible] we have to choose.

I guess if we are able to get in other [ draw free ], it will also help in terms of the diversification for the portfolio, right? Notwithstanding that, the acquisition of the 50% stake will also increase our exposure to the hyperscalers. So I think that is something we have to evaluate when the transaction comes so forth.

Okay. Okay. Got it. But you're saying that you're also looking for Asia and Europe, anything that you believe is very -- that will rank quite soon because I'm just thinking about it from a new spread, right? I mean, Europe and Asia will be higher.

I think there is quite a number of transaction that potentially can be coming out. So that will be something that we'll be quite keen to pursue. So -- and you're right. I think in terms of the U.S. spread, maybe initial might be similar, but I think the difference also lies in terms of the built-in escalation, right?

So I think typically, if you look at Europe, you'll be around 2% to 3%, which is quite similar too. I think Japan, generally, we are seeing some between the 1% to 2%. So that's something that we have to take into consideration as well. Of course, transactions varies from one another. So it really depends on what is the attributes, so.

We have Rachel from Macquarie to ask the next question.

Maybe my first question is on the interest cost. I think at the start of the year, there was like $597 million of IRS that's due this year. And then now there's $600 million due this year and next year. Can you give us a breakdown in terms of how much has already lapsed and has been included in the interest cost? And then how much are we expecting the rest of this year? And how much are we expecting next year?

Thanks, Rachel. So okay, it's a bit difficult to -- because we do like some of the earlier renewal of -- mention of the hedges. So early this year, we have about close to $600 million IRS, right, coming due this financial year. But of course, all these were progressively due over this financial year.

But having said that, whenever interest rate [Technical Difficulty] slightly, we will try to lock in a bit. So to date, we have locked in about maybe about $200 million IRS. So we still have about $400 million to go.

But having said that, like I mentioned earlier, our hedge ratio is quite high. So we will -- this $400 million floating rate and then so that the hedge ratio will be about 80%. But net-net per annum impact, if you look at it, per annum impact all these replacement hedges for IRS is due this financial year, [ NIM ] is about $9 million to $11 million, but most of these are in U.S. dollar. onshore. So we have a bit of tax shield there. So net of the tax shield may be about $7 million, $8 million. And so you see the full year impact probably next year. This year, maybe half year impact.

So meaning the net impact, $7 million, $8 million this year is half of that the impact and then next year will flow through.

Yes.

Okay. And then the remaining [ 400 ] hedges that is expiring this year, you will drop it off. But next year, is there any more IRS?

Yes. So like I mentioned earlier, we have another $600 million IRS coming due next year. Similarly, we will see impact from these replacement hedges. But having said that, the average interest rate for those IRS coming due next year will be kind of slightly higher than this year's IRS due. So we'll see some impact, but not as much as this year.

So -- okay, sorry, the next year one is also $600 million. Yes. So the $600 million this year and next year, $600 million, roughly. Okay. Okay. Then my next question is in terms of the San Jose, if I were to follow up, now that the tenant, I think you mentioned that the tenant want a higher power, right, but you are still talking to the tenant. So any intention of you putting in CapEx now that you're talking to a tenant? Or you will still walk away from putting in additional CapEx? And are you able to sell these assets?

Yes. I mean, just really to clarify, were you referring to San Jose or the one that we mentioned about, we're talking to existing tenant, which is Horton?

No, no, the San Jose one.

So San Jose, the tenant have vacated earlier already, but we did complete the power study. So we are now just exploring whether with potential prospects to divest the property essentially.

Okay. I see. So okay, right, to divest the property completely, right, with potential tenants, okay. Okay. Got it. Yes. And then maybe just squeeze in one. I remember in terms of acquisitions last quarter; you were actually more positive on like EU in terms of acquisition. But somehow rather this quarter seems the narrative seems to have changed a little bit. Can I just understand, has something changed along the way?

No. I'm still keen on Europe. I think at the end of the day, we do recognize that it will be good to have Europe, which is one of the -- which is one of the largest data center market globally. So Europe is definitely something that's on our radar.

Similarly for Asia as well. I think in more recent times, we are -- I would say, in more recent times, we are seeing a little bit more transaction coming out from Japan. I think Europe, there is a few. So no, our radar is still on these 3 -- on Europe, Asia and potentially the 50% stake.

Okay. Got it. Yes. And are you -- do you still intend to acquire bigger data centers in terms of the size?

I think in terms of the size, of course, we have done a range of transactions from $100-plus million, $500 million to about, say, $1-plus billion. So the range remains similar. Of course, considering where we are, it will be very hard for us to do a 1 gigawatt or 100-megawatt type of data center, but probably $1 billion-ish or so or from $100-plus million to $1 billion-ish remains on our radar.

We have from [ Yew Wong from CLSA ] to ask the next question.

I just have one question focusing on the 50% balance from the sponsor. Can you share more details about this portfolio in terms of performance, right? So if we look at your U.S. data center portfolio has been trending down over the past few years. Was -- does the 50% mirror similar trends?

And also, secondly, what is the NPI margin as well for -- do you see the similar NPI margin decompression trend that you have with your existing portfolio? And how much of the 50% balance, right, has exposure to hyperscaler and also like megawatt capacity? Anything that you can share?

And lastly, does the valuation of the portfolio, right? Is the cap rate similar to your existing cap rate of your U.S. data center portfolio?

Okay. For the 50% stake, that portfolio, a large part of it, I would say, about 60% of it is actually the hyperscaler that you see here. So the balance of it, most of them are colo providers, right? I think the issue that we are seeing with some of -- with our current portfolio is more of the facilities that were previously occupied by the enterprise user.

So I think I mentioned previously before that when it comes to enterprise user, they are fixed in terms of the location, they are fixed in terms of how they allocate the space and how they design, the data centers fit-out, et cetera, may not be as efficient as what a data center operator was. So that kind of makes the re-leasing a little bit more difficult, right? But you don't have that in the 50% stake portfolio.

So the margins will be better as well and the occupancy will be arguably higher?

Okay. I think from a margin perspective, because they do have triple net leases and gross leases and so on. So ultimately, we will probably be looking at very similar cap rate currently about 5.5% to 6%.

And I think in terms of -- sorry, your second question is the occupancy, yes. So for this 50% portfolio, the occupancies are generally pretty very strong. So we have always seen it as more than 90-plus percent currently and going forward.

Okay. So it did not really come down to the 80s, mid-80s as seen in your portfolio?

Not yet. Yes. I think…

not yet. Or is it -- you don't expect it to come down?

No, we think that it's probably quite pretty resilient or you will be more than -- you will be more [indiscernible].

Yes. And this is actually locked in for quite long term as well. I think maybe just for this portfolio, if you recall, in one of the quarters, we [ said ] that we have a tenant who has vacated one of the buildings in Tampe is that. So I think that one, we are in the progress of backfilling it. We think that there shouldn't be any problem.

Okay. Okay. Yes. And any idea on like power capacity?

Yes. So I mean, for the 3 hyperscale data centers that we have in Northern Virginia, those [ carry ] between about 60 to 70 megawatts. And then the rest would be spread. Each asset is probably about 3 to 4 average. So total -- but the 3 to 4 are mainly our power shell assets. So -- but in terms of IT load, you're talking about, including the Northern Virginia ones, probably about 90 to 100 megawatt.

Okay. So total will be -- you're talking about the 50% that is from the sponsor, right?

Yes, yes, correct, correct. But all is on the entire 100 all the buildings -- is on the building, it's not proportionate.

Maybe just to add, so for the [ MRODCT ] portfolio, right, there's 2 parts, the power shell and the data hyperscale data center. So the 3 data hyperscale data centers, they are actually located in Northern Virginia, a very tight market at the moment.

For the [indiscernible] data centers, right, actually, the WALE are fairly long. They are looking at maybe around 7 to 9 years. So for this particular portfolio, right, actually, we see trending maybe above 95%, 100% is about 94%.

And then -- and sorry, slip in one more question. So if you were to fund it using U.S. debt, right, what's the current debt that you can get in the market today?

For USD today, maybe about all in U.S. dollar funding, maybe about 4.4%, 4.6%.

We have Jonathan from UOB Kay Hain to ask the next question.

My first question relates to divestment. You mentioned you will focus on North America. And the size you indicated is quite large, $500 million to $600 million. Can I ask if you are like looking at like divesting a basket of data center in North America that will help you achieve that sizable goal? Are you looking at selling a few of them in a portfolio. Is that what you're looking at?

Second question relates to your guidance of cost of debt going higher to 3.3% to 3.4% for FY '27. What's your assumption in terms of rate cut going forward for -- to get that 3.3% to 3.4%. And does that include or doesn't include the JV, the interest rate that you have mentioned?

Okay. I think in terms of the divestment portfolio; I think the approach is something that is not fixed. It doesn't mean that I will just group every one up because the moment you group everyone up, it becomes pretty sizable. So it may not be that easy to sell.

And I think because the portfolio is actually quite spread out in terms of the location, et cetera, so depending on the individual local situation, sometimes it's better for us to just sell it as asset by asset or we also may look at bundling up some of the assets together as a portfolio to sell.

So the approach that we are taking is not a very -- it's not something that is fixed at. I'll just package everything and go, right? So given the different attributes and the different local situation, demand and supply situation in the market, we will want to take the approach that can give us the best value.

Okay. So not cast in stone...

Yes. Maybe to add on, we do have -- okay, I won't say it's cast in stone, but we do have really identified how do we want to divest all those assets. Some of them are single asset transactions, some of them are on a portfolio basis. So you'll see a mixed bag. It won't be like, say, we want to sell 10 properties for $600 million or so.

Okay. So on the interest rate for FY '26-'27, the guidance 3.3% to 3.4%. Basically, we have assumed that the whole 600 million IRS coming due next year will be refinanced with, let's say, a 5-year USD [Technical Difficulty] about 3.4%, 3.5%. So as you're aware, we cut the base rate. So now it's around 3.75% to 4% range.

So if because various banks have various expectation or forecast for next financial year -- for next year. So if the floating rate come down to around 3%, we may be able to so-called adjust that hedge ratio and accordingly, we price this at a lower level [Technical Difficulty]. And yes -- so just to clarify, all our capital management positions include our JV.

Okay. So you do factor in rate cuts in that forecast.

No. We have not factored in so-called the rate cut. We have assumed this 5-year pricing, a 5-year interest rate swap today instead of floating rate.

Okay. That is the rate today that you get.

For 5-year interest rate swap.

We have Vijay to ask the last question.

A couple of questions from me. Firstly, in terms of the operating costs, I think operating costs for this quarter seems to have gone up a bit because of maintenance and utilities. Are there any one-offs? And moving forward, what should we expect in terms of margins?

I think in the set of numbers for this quarter, we do have some training contracts, which was renewed. So that one, we do see some inflationary increase in terms of the contract price. So that kind of explained it. But I think we basically I would say, tranche out our contracts. So we don't renew every one at one go, right? So the effect will be more muted that way.

But I think in terms of the margin, the NPI margin, we should expect it to be somewhere similar to what we have this quarter.

My second question is in terms of potential portfolio, I mean, possibly if you add on U.S. assets and Europe assets, I think over time, your Singapore exposure is going to go less and less below 40% or closer to the mid-30s, et cetera. Are you comfortable with that because I don't see any pipeline also in Singapore?

I think we would love to be able to add on more to Singapore. Our -- while we are doing a lot of acquisitions in terms of the data center global Singapore remains our home ground, and that will still be one of the focus.

The only thing is at this point, acquisitions opportunities are actually quite limited. So I think if you look at it in terms of, say, data center in Singapore, the market is very tight. So we would love to be able to add something on.

But it is also very limited in the sense that the government has been -- is putting on quite a bit of control in terms of the power acquisition -- sorry, the power allocation, right? So I think -- and in order for us to apply for all these power allocation, there are certain criteria that needs to be met. And some of these actually has to be -- it's more -- is something which an operator will be able to achieve, like you need to have a PUE of at least 1.3x, et cetera. So we are -- it is not -- the opportunities for us to do the acquisition in Singapore is not easy.

And of course, if you look at other industrial properties that we see in Singapore, that continues to be something that we will be keen to look at and we will continue to look at. The only issue is when you look at the Singapore industrial property, a lot of them comes with the short land tenure.

So that proves to be a bit something that can be -- well, I think that makes our decision much more harder because the moment you buy, say, 25 years underlying lease, in 5 years' time, you start to see the valuation of that property dropping simply because of the shortening land tenure. So that is something that we are also quite careful about, right?

Of course, what we can do in terms of the Singapore properties is that we continue to look out for opportunities where we can do, say, build-to-suit projects, so getting land allocations from the governments together with the tenant that they like, right? Or we can also look at redeveloping the existing properties that we have on hand.

I mean, if someone comes along, happy for us to take up some of the space if we were to redevelop, that can actually be a potential trigger for us to go to the government and see if they are able to extend the underlying land lease. So these are some of the things, which we hope that we can execute, and we will continue to scan the market for such opportunities.

Got it. Just one last question, if I can. Can you give some color in terms of business park demand and Hi-Tech demand in the Singapore market at this point of time, which still seems a bit soft looking at the reversion in your portfolio?

Yes. I think Hi-Tech space and business park space are definitely still a weaker link at this point of time, and we have been seeing this for the past few quarters. Generally, I think when we look at the demand that is coming through there continues to be demand. So it's not a case of totally nobody even wants to look at it. There continues to be demand, except that the demands are not for the bigger space. So this tends to be the smaller areas.

So if you take, for example, our development at Kallang Way, we started off [Technical Difficulty] redevelopment, we started off hoping that we are able to lease up floor by floor, which is relatively huge floor plate, right? But the demand aren't' really there. So we actually start to cut them out into smaller units, and that is where we start to see a bit more traction.

So I think if you track our progression so far, last quarter, we managed to improve the committed occupancy by 3 percentage points. This quarter, 1 percentage point. So I think the -- I would say the transactions continues to be there. We are still continuing to be able to cross some of these inquiries into contracts. So this will be more for the smaller space.

And for business park, I think we also know that there is quite a lot of competition in the vicinity. If you -- right now, we have already -- we have -- we had 3 business parks. Now -- and we divested 2. So I'm just left with the one in Changi Business Park. But if you look at Changi Business Park, specifically for our building, while the business park demand may not be so good, we have been able to hold up to the occupancy rate for Changi Business Park pretty well. right? Right now, I think you are looking at about 83%, 85% occupancy, right?

If you look at some of the buildings in the vicinity, similar buildings in the vicinity, the occupancy is definitely not there. So I think that is also the reason why we want to make sure that we are able to defend that.

And I think that was also the point that I made where we decide that for a tenant, where you have a slightly bigger size unit, okay, we are prepared to go down a bit just to defend the occupancy. I think the rest of the renewals that possibly can be coming up for the Changi Business Park smaller floor units. So that is something that we think we still can hold.

Maybe we can have Donald to ask the last question and end the session. Donald, are you there?

Can you hear me? Okay. Just a couple of quick clarifications. First is on the interest rate question. Do you mentioned -- so if U.S. rates -- swap rates come down by around 50 basis points, you mentioned about 3%, you can -- are you able to -- you can get some savings? Would that mean that your WACC is likely to come down if we -- if U.S. rates come off by 50 basis points in FY '27.

Yes. So for next [indiscernible] I think I want to like clarify that when Fed cut rates is on the floating. When we look at the interest rate swaps replacement, we look at the long-term rates, the 5-year long-term rates, which is today maybe 3.5%, right? So when they cut it, it doesn't mean that your 5-year rate will be lower? So…

Sure. So maybe put it another way, at current rates, you're expecting your interest cost -- all-in interest cost to go up in FY '27. By how much must rates come down for you to see your all-in interest costs come down? Yes.

Let's put it the other way around. If let's say, this $600 million now, I assume 3.5%, right? But in -- come next year, if the floating rate for U.S. dollar is 3%, we have the loans hedged. So I see that for [Technical Difficulty] 50 bps on that $600 million.

Sorry, you broke up a little bit. So if floating rate gone up by to 3%, you will see a neutral level. Is that what to take away from that?

You will still see some impact because all the interest rates were locked in when it was quite low, right? So average maybe 2%, 2.3%. So you still see why you have a bit of savings.

And then the second question about the MRO DCT portfolio. Any indication of what's the valuation and the ticket size at this point?

[ SGD 1 billion ].

SGD 1 billion for the 50% stake, is it?

Right.

Okay. And is there any under-renting in the colo leases or hyperscale leases at this point?

Under-renting I wouldn't say it's under-rented [indiscernible].

So pretty, quite near -- pretty much at market.

Yes, that's correct.

[Technical Difficulty]. If you have any questions, please reach out to us. Thank you.