Cellnex Telecom Stock

Hello. Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone, to Cellnex Telecom's First Half 2026 Results Presentation. I'm Maria Carrapato, and it's a pleasure to be with you today again. Before we begin, as usual, I'd like to remind you that this presentation contains forward-looking statements. Please refer to the disclaimer included in the appendix in the slide deck.

So Marco will open the presentation with the main highlights. Raimon will take you through the financial performance, and then Marco and Simone Battiferri, our COO, will close with some considerations on other industrial and strategic topics that are often raised by the market.

So with that, let me hand you over to Marco.

Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Good afternoon, everyone. So before going into the numbers, let me frame the first half in one sentence. Cellnex is delivering exactly on the model we described to the market: predictable organic growth, expanding margins, accelerating free cash flow and tangible shareholder remuneration. Let me highlight the 4 key messages of the first half.

First is that operational momentum remains strong. Organic Points of Presence growth reached plus 4.9% year-on-year, confirming sustained demand from customers across the entire portfolio. This translated into solid financial performance. Revenues grew by 5%, Adjusted EBITDA by 6.4%, EBITDA after leases by 7.7%, recurrent levered free cash flow by 11% and recurrent levered free cash flow per share by 18.1%. From a margin perspective, both EBITDA and EBITDA after leases margins increased by nearly 200 basis points, reflecting continued operational efficiencies and land management actions.

The second is that free cash flow has entered a new phase, from EUR 19 million in the first half of 2025 to approximately EUR 301 million in the first half of the year. This allows us to reiterate our guidance. Third, we continue to deepen our customer relationship. Sunrise in Switzerland, Vodafone Spain, Telefónica in Spain are all examples of Cellnex being selected as a trusted infrastructure partner for network expansion, contract renewal and network resilience.

And fourth, shareholder remuneration, which is delivered as committed. The EUR 500 million dividend has been paid, the EUR 300 million share buyback has been completed, and 11.3 million (sic) [ 18.3 million ] shares are expected to be canceled during the second part of the year, improving the per share metrics. I'm pleased to share that today, our Board of Directors has approved an additional share buyback program of EUR 200 million to be completed until the end of 2026.

So overall, the message is clear. Our industrial position is translating into predictable growth, stronger cash and direct shareholder value creation as promised. With the announcement we are making today of an additional EUR 200 million in share buybacks, the total shareholder remuneration in 2026 will reach EUR 1 billion, combining the EUR 500 million of dividends already paid, the EUR 300 million of SBB executed in the first half of the year and additional EUR 200 million of share buyback just announced.

Between 2025 and 2026, we will have returned a total of EUR 2 billion to shareholders between dividends and share buybacks, representing 11% of our current market capitalization. There's no doubt that the share buyback we are announcing is a highly accretive capital allocation decision, driving significant growth in per share returns and long-term value creation for our shareholders.

With that, let me hand over to Raimon, who will take you through the financial and operational performance in more detail. Raimon, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Marco. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me start with the Slide 7, which summarizes the financial performance of the first half on a pro forma organic basis. The key message is simple. Cellnex continues to convert predictable top line growth into higher cash flow per share. Revenue growth was plus 5%. Adjusted EBITDA grew by 6.4% and EBITDA after leases grew by 7.7%. At the cash flow level, recurrent levered free cash flow increased by 11%, while the metric per share grew by 18.1%, reflecting both operational execution and disciplined capital allocation.

On the next slide, we show the bridge from reported revenues to organic revenue growth. Starting from the first half '25 revenue base, perimeter adjustments bring us to a comparable pro forma base. This results in EUR 2 billion of organic revenues in the first half '26, representing 5% growth year-on-year, supported by price escalators and continued demand from customers. Moving forward, you can see Points of Presence continue to show healthy commercial momentum.

In absolute terms, second quarter showed strong performance with more than 2,000 new net PoPs and positive contributions across our main regions. In the first half, gross PoP growth reached 5.7%, while net PoP growth was 4.9%. Importantly, this growth comes despite consolidation trends in some markets. Consolidation does not eliminate investment. Healthier operators continue to deploy more capacity, coverage and network quality. This is one of the most important messages from the first half.

The need for densification remains strong, and Cellnex continued to capture that demand through both colocation and Build-to-Suit programs. The operational momentum translates directly into Tower revenues, as you can see on the current slide. On a pro forma basis, excluding Ireland, Tower revenues grew organically by 5.2%. Tower revenues remain the core growth engine of the group, driven by contracted price escalators, colocation and Build-to-Suit activity. This is the essence of our business model, growing coverage, improving densification and leveraging our existing asset base.

Moving to Slide 11. Our other business lines also continue to provide growth upside. Fiber, Connectivity and Housing Services grew organically by 7.8%, adjusted for the French data centers disposal and supported by the continued rollout of the Nexloop project in France. DAS, Small Cells and RANaaS Service grew by 4.5% organically, supported by high demand in high-traffic locations, venues and complex indoor environments. Finally, broadcasting remained stable, growing by 0.5% organically, continuing to provide a steady and predictable revenue stream.

We are providing you practical examples of how our industrial strategy translates into real commercial activity. First, in Switzerland, Sunrise and Cellnex have extended their long-term strategic partnership through an expanded Build-to-Suit program covering 300 additional sites. This supports the next phase of Switzerland's mobile network evolution and reinforces Cellnex's role as a scalable infrastructure provider.

Second, in Spain, our legacy Vodafone framework agreement has been renewed for 10 years, covering approximately 2,000 existing PoPs. Importantly, the renewal has been signed on unchanged technical and financial terms, and Cellnex will also host a limited number of additional PoPs on existing infrastructure. Third, Telefónica and Cellnex have extended the backup battery partnership to a total of 3,800 sites, reinforcing network resilience and energy security after the recent blackouts. This reinforces our role as a trusted infrastructure partner and shows how resilience, energy security and network availability are becoming increasingly relevant customer priorities.

Beyond our traditional Tower business, we are also expanding our presence in DAS and neutral host solutions. For example, Cellnex is deploying a multi-operator DAS at the new Valencia Football Stadium in Spain and expanding neutral host mobile connectivity along the Brighton Main Line in the U.K. These examples show how Cellnex is actively shaping infrastructure solutions for our customers' needs and the ongoing network investments.

Turning to Slide 13. Operational efficiency continues to be a key lever of value creation for Cellnex. On a pro forma basis, cost per tower decreased by 3.3% year-on-year, maintaining a high level of operational quality across the portfolio. As a result, we continue to expand margins with EBITDA margin reaching 84.6% and EBITDAaL margin increasing to 61.8%, the highest level achieved in recent years.

This reflects the operating leverage embedded in our business model that benefits from our efficiency initiatives and the continued progress of our land management program. In short, we are not only growing revenues and cash flow, we are doing so with greater industrial efficiency, supporting sustainable margin expansion and value creation for shareholders.

Next slide shows the cash flow bridge from the first half '26. Starting from EBITDA after leases, we reached recurring levered free cash flow of EUR 908 million and free cash flow after expansion and Build-to-Suit CapEx reaches approximately EUR 301 million. The 3 key drivers behind the result are the solid operating performance and efficient capital and tax structure supported by optimized cost of debt and lower Build-to-Suit CapEx intensity as the Build-to-Suit cycle normalizes.

On Slide 15, shows the free cash flow inflection point where it's clearly visible. Pro forma organic recurring levered free cash flow increased by 11% and recurring levered free cash flow per share increased by 18.1%. The share buyback program is enhancing per share value creation, while the business itself continues to generate stronger underlying cash flows. At the same time, free cash flow increased from approximately EUR 19 million to EUR 301 million in the first half '26, an increase of approximately EUR 282 million year-on-year. FCF generation is no longer a future promise. It is happening now and it's accelerating.

Our liquidity and funding position remain very strong. At the end of the first half '26, liquidity stood at approximately EUR 5.3 billion, including circa EUR 2 billion of cash and EUR 3.3 billion of undrawn committed credit lines. As such, our 2026 and 2028 maturities are largely funded, giving us flexibility to navigate market windows.

With that, let me hand back to Marco to discuss some broader industry dynamics and why they reinforce our confidence in the long-term investment case. Marco, over to you.

Thank you, Raimon. I would like now to step back from the financial results for a moment and discuss the broader industry backdrop. This matters because our equity story is also about why demand for our infrastructure will remain strong for many years. The next slide addresses some of the topics investors raise most often: traffic growth, direct-to-device satellite, Europe's competitiveness and digital sovereignty, and MNO consolidation in France.

For us, the conclusion across all 4 topics is consistent. Europe needs more infrastructure investment, and Cellnex is one of the best-positioned platforms to capture this investment cycle. The topic is very technical. So my colleague, Simone Battiferri, our Chief Operating Officer, is also joining us today, and he will walk you through trends in mobile data growth and explain some fundamental concepts on direct-to-device satellite connectivity. So Simone, make it simple, please, and drive us through the mystery of the technical stuff.

Thank you, Marco, and good afternoon, everyone. Well, looking at Slide 18, the key message is that we see a clear positive inflection point in mobile data growth. And in fact, it is accelerating again. Global mobile network's data traffic increased by 22% between first quarter '25 and first quarter '26, confirming that demand for mobile capacity continues to expand at a sustained pace. Importantly and curiously, this acceleration is not yet AI-driven. Latest industry traffic levers make it -- they are gone clear.

AI applications are still a very small portion of total traffic, let's say, low single digits today. And there has not yet been a visible AI-led inflection in mobile uplink trends. The main growth drivers remain video streaming, the expansion of FWA and the increasing penetration of 5G devices. And this matters because Europe is still in the middle of the 5G adoption cycle. 5G-enabled devices represent only half of the mobile connections in Western Europe today, and adoption is expected to move close to 95% by the end of this decade.

Well, the implication is clear. 5G subscribers already consume around 3x more than a 4G user on average. And 5G traffic per user is expected to further double in the next few years. So the maths are simple. As the customer base continues to migrate to 5G in the coming years, overall traffic will increase significantly. Underlying consumer behavior is, therefore, still pointing to data growth above 20% and more network capacity will be required, just only to avoid congestion and preserve service quality.

At the same time, the nature of traffic is changing, too. The network is not only being asked to carry more data, but to carry more demanding data. AI-enabled applications, real-time collaboration, industrial automation, connected devices, future wearables will require networks that are more responsive, more reliable and more available indoors. They will also increase the relevance of uplink capacity, making networks demand progressively more symmetrical than in the past.

So mobile networks are entering a new phase. The question is shifting from do I have coverage to do I have guaranteed quality, and quality means higher capacity, stronger indoor performance, more predictable service levels, better reliability, higher uplink capacity and lower latency. The physics of the networks at the end are simple. Carrying more data requires more capacity. More capacity generally means using more spectrum and adding higher frequencies.

Higher frequencies deliver more bandwidth, but at the same time, they propagate over shorter distances, requiring a denser grid of cells. Furthermore, they penetrate buildings less effectively, which makes dedicated indoor coverage increasingly important. The only way to solve that equation is to bring the network physically closer to the user. That means densification, particularly in urban areas that translate into more indoor systems and a larger and more capable infrastructure footprint.

So if we go to Slide 19, let me address another topic we are increasingly asked about by our investors, that is the direct-to-device satellite connectivity. Let me start by saying clearly that satellite is a powerful and valuable technology. D2D can play an important role in the broader connectivity ecosystem, especially in remote or underserviced areas where terrestrial coverage is technically difficult or impossible or even economically inefficient to deploy. But satellite and terrestrial networks are designed to solve very different problems.

Terrestrial networks are optimized for capacity, latency, reliability and indoor performance. Satellite networks are optimized for extending coverage over very large areas. The reason is not only technological, it is physical. A terrestrial network can reuse spectrum every few hundred meters, serving a very large number of users simultaneously with high capacity. A satellite beam on the opposite, covers a much larger area, shares capacity across many more users and has far less ability to reuse spectrum effectively.

This is why the average downlink capacity of a satellite D2D connection is today less than 0.1% of a terrestrial mobile network in urban areas and less than 5% in remote locations. So in practical terms, even when constellations are fully deployed, the service will remain much closer to a 2G-like experience, valuable for essential connectivity, messaging and potentially basic voice, but not comparable at all to mobile broadband.

Distance is another fundamental constraint. A low earth orbit satellite is typically hundreds of kilometers away from a handheld device and sends a vertical signal that in urban and suburban environments must pass through multiple physical obstacles before reaching the user. By contrast, the mobile antenna tower is usually a few hundred meters to a few kilometers away and projects a horizontal signal designed to serve users with much higher capacity and better penetration into buildings.

This is particularly important because most mobile traffic is generated indoors. So we are talking about 2/3 where satellite signals face structural limitation. The differences define the role that direct-to-device can play, an excellent complement for coverage, but not a total substitute for terrestrial capacity. So if you go to summarize the key takeaways in Slide 20. First, satellite D2D is fundamentally a coverage solution. Its strongest use case is systemic basic connectivity to remote or hard-to-reach locations.

A clear evidence of these days is the emergency connectivity provided by satellite during the wildfires raging across Spain and France. Second, the capacity gap versus terrestrial networks is structural and rooted by physics itself. Satellites are much further away, beams cover much larger areas, spectrum is reused far less efficiently as signals face more difficult propagation and penetration conditions. So even if there is a major future technology breakthrough in direct-to-device, the satellite capacity will remain multiple times lower than mobile terrestrial networks.

Third, indoor performance remains a fundamental limitation, particularly because most mobile traffic originates indoors. Fourth, handset battery life and antenna constraints create additional challenges for uplink capacity and user experience. So let me say that the conclusion is clear. Satellite direct-to-device does not replace the need for macro towers, network densification or dedicated indoor solutions. As mobile traffic growth and quality requirements increase, especially in urban areas, investment in terrestrial mobile infrastructure will remain essential. Well, back to you, Marco.

Thank you, Simone, and thank you for this jump into the technology. I think you made it simple and clear. So really thank you for your effort. So Europe faces a clear challenge in terms of digital competitiveness. Average mobile download speed in Europe is around 86 megabits per second, materially below North America, China, Korea, Japan. This gap is increasingly recognized as a strategic issue for competitiveness, resilience and security of our continent.

GSMA estimates total mobile investment needs in Europe at around EUR 475 billion over the next decade, EUR 270 billion just to maintain the ordinary technology cycle, which explicitly includes densification to improve quality, coverage and performance, plus EUR 200 billion more if Europe wants to regain connectivity leadership. I would like to call your attention to yesterday's announcement by AGCOM of the spectrum renewal public consultation process in Italy and the network performance metrics expected from the MNO. And please consider that similar regulatory processes are advancing in Portugal and France.

The proposed obligations include investments in transport routes, 5G stand-alone coverage, network resilience and AI-ready networks, all areas that are infrastructure intensive. And we haven't even begun to talk about 6G, which is expected to kick off in 2031 or 2032. This is the core message for investors. Europe cannot close the gap with spectrum alone or software alone. It needs physical infrastructure, more densification, better resilience, higher quality networks. And Cellnex is uniquely positioned to provide an efficient, shared and sustainable platform to deploy those networks.

Let me finish with France, which is one of the topics that animates quite the discussion around Cellnex. Our view remains constructive. We believe consolidation has the potential to create stronger operators with greater capacity to invest in network quality and infrastructure. As shown on the slide, our direct exposure remains manageable, while the process itself is expected to be lengthy, involving regulatory review approvals and a very long transition period, and timing is important.

Operators are unlikely to make long-term decisions based solely on the network requirements that we see today. By the time the consolidation process is fully completed, traffic volumes, 5G penetration, digital user patterns will be significantly different from where they are today, as we already discussed with Simone.

In that environment, operators will need better networks, not smaller networks. Over the past decade, France has been adding around 5,000 PoPs per year, reflecting the industry's ongoing need to invest in network capacity and quality. And despite that level of investment, France still ranks only 21st in Europe and 34th globally in mobile network experience, highlighting the significant room for improvement that still exists.

That is why we believe it is important to look beyond the analysis of the respective networks today and focus on the network that operators will need 5 years from now. Stronger operators with healthier balance sheets will be better positioned to continue investing, densifying and improving network performance. Our objective is, therefore, to remain constructive and proactive working alongside our customers to support that next phase of investment.

So if we step back from all these industry trends, the message is remarkably clear. Mobile traffic continues to grow. Europe needs to improve its digital competitiveness. Satellite enhances connectivity but does not replace terrestrial capacity. And market consolidation can create stronger operators with greater ability to invest. When we look across traffic growth, digitalization, AI adoption, network quality requirements and market consolidation, we arrive at the same conclusion. Europe will need more network capacity, more densification and continued infrastructure investment. In short, the future requires better networks and better networks require more infrastructure. Maria, it has been a little bit longer than usual. Please, I would like to excuse with our investors and analysts, and back to you.

Thank you, Marco, Raimon and Simone for very clear explanations. So we're now open to take calls.

The first question comes from Ondrej Cabejšek from UBS.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Very helpful additional color. I had 2 questions, please, both topics that were touched upon. So the first one was on the French deal, just from a regulatory perspective. We now know that this will be analyzed locally. And I was wondering whether from your perspective, there might be any differences to the kind of remedies that you would expect around, say, investment obligations. And obviously, the reason I'm asking is that while we have some commentary from the French authorities around the need to improve networks, it is perhaps not as explicit as a policy as it is from the European Commission with the [indiscernible] report. So any implications of the local jurisdiction versus EC in France would be very helpful.

And then the second question, Marco, you touched upon this, but the -- and Simone, I guess, as well. But the AGCOM proposal yesterday where the network obligations are, I guess, very conducive for someone like yourselves. So I guess there are 2 dimensions I would appreciate if you could give us color on. One are the coverage obligations and looking at the targets that they set out or AGCOM set out, I was wondering what kind of increase in the number of sites and the physical infrastructure that you were talking about, do you reckon is needed to comply with these numbers?

I believe it would suggest something like 20% to 25% to reach some kind of good coverage in Italy or up to 12,000 sites. So is this roughly your estimate as well that Italy should see kind of an increase in the number of towers similar to that? And secondly, and perhaps more technically, the regulator says there will be a minimum download speed requirement of 150 megabits per second. You make the point that data traffic continues to grow and Ookla reported median speeds in Italy at 1Q exactly half of this proposed floor. So on that one, I was wondering how these higher speed requirements could translate into more business for you? And again, any estimate of like increases to get there would be very helpful.

Yes, sure. So on the regulatory France versus Europe, I think that it has been a good decision because I expect that the French regulator will be closer to the market, closer to the interest of the French. At the end, when you design a new -- when you make a new market design, you're asking to a country to renounce to something, which is the competition on the market. So you're making something that is very important. And so the citizens, the nation, the community needs to receive something in exchange.

So it's good that the regulator is French, but I'm 100% sure that there will be a super strong bonding and connection between the French regulator and the EU authorities. So ultimately, there will be more or less -- it will be more or less the same with, let me say, an easier accessibility of all the parties that are involved vis-a-vis the regulated authorities. So remedies, I expect to be the usual ones, the ones that we expect. It's not what, it's the size probably that will be decided by the authority.

This brings me to your second question. Your second question is, well, 12,000 new sites is mid-high in my expectation. I would have said 10,000 to 15,000. So 12,000, you are in the mid-high part of the Italian need. How much coverage, how much densification? I think that the coverage has a permitting process way easier. And but it has to be thought, I would say, with a business model that has to be more convenient for the operator. I would strongly suggest to have more densification -- more sharing, more colocation. So this is what is needed.

Now your technical part on the speed. You know that when you move from the current 5G to the 5G stand-alone, you're not touching just the transmission because the transmission at the end is limited by the core network. So now a good part of the problems in speed, latency and responsiveness of the network depends also on the fact that the core networks of the operators are not designed for the 5G stand-alone. This is something that most of the mobile operators make very clear every time. My old friend, Pietro Labriola makes clear every time he has to invest a lot on the core network.

Core networks are expensive. Yes, core networks are relatively expensive, not dramatically expensive, a few hundred million euros. But the problem is that it's a few hundred million euros each. So you cannot, it's very difficult to share a core network. So if you can be efficient in towers and in transmission, in transport is less obvious. So if you put in your model something on core network, you don't make a mistake. I hope I answered, Ondrej.

Okay. So the next question comes from Andrew Lee at Goldman Sachs.

I had 2 questions. And firstly, I just want to say thanks for the satellite technology articulation around the debate. Obviously, a lot of misunderstanding or lack of understanding there. And I think articulating is really helpful, especially given that I think operators have really struggled to do that, which has not helped the conversation. But moving on, I have 2 questions. Firstly, just wanted to ask, have you seen any signs of post-consolidation densification acceleration by operators in Spain and the U.K.?

Obviously, it's a key area of confidence building in the consolidation debate. Do you have any visibility yet on when this will begin given it doesn't look like it started yet? And then second question, there was a press article a week ago suggesting that Cellnex had been examining strategic options, including buyouts, large-scale mergers. I just wanted to ask, is there any truth to this? I'm not expecting you to comment on specific examples, but do you think there is a material strategic option available? And in the context of this, I just wonder if you could comment on why you chose to buy back shares rather than pay down debt today?

Okay. So definitely, your 2 questions are 3. Andrew, let's start from consolidation and Spain and U.K. In Spain, we started to see something happening. MasOrange is well advanced in their integration phase. You saw that last year, we had a big bulk of their consolidation. In the second part of this year, we will have a second step that we agreed with them. But as before -- now they are working on 2 areas. They are working very seriously on transportation corridors. Transportation corridors, MasOrange is making this as a strategic investment area.

And they are starting using small cells way more than what was done in the past, especially in problematic dense urban areas. So this is good because we are working very strictly with them. It's not particularly known, but we are the largest operator in Europe in DAS and small cells. So we have big know-how and in particular, our Spanish chapter is possibly the most advanced that we have in the group. U.K., unfortunately, it's taking longer than what we expected. So we don't change our view.

So the fact that something will happen, I'm totally sure that something will happen that there will be a need of some thousands of sites that have to be built, both urban and nonurban. So we are talking about several thousands of sites that we, in our network simulations that we see. For the time being, different from other markets, the carrier-neutral model for, again, transport lines. So the Brighton Main Line is something that possibly some of you use every day when the coverage is provided by us.

So this is something that, again, we see, but unfortunately not in the order of magnitude that we expect. Is it something I do expect for 2026? Honestly, doubtful. Is it something that I expect for 2027? Yes, definitely. On strategic options, I read what my lawyer wrote me. So I state to my -- he is here in the room looking at me. So as a leading European player, it's natural that the company may attract investor interest at current valuation levels. However, we are not familiar with the conversation referred to the article.

So apart from being very well written, you get the sense. Yes, it's convenient this price for [indiscernible], the reason why we're making the share buyback. So your third question is why share buyback and not debt repayment? Well, our cash generation is doing well. And we're convinced that we can do well for the entire year. And this means that we, as I told, we entered in a different phase in which cash is going to be very evident. We are not changing our overall targets for capital structure.

But today, the share price does not reflect our vision on the intrinsic value of the company. Headwinds are, in my view, overestimated in our price and tailwinds that Simone was saying are not included. So the Board is convinced that allocating EUR 200 million to share buybacks at this moment generates value to the shareholders, not only in the short term, but most importantly, in the long term. And this is why the moment is correct for doing it now.

Okay. So the next question comes from Akhil Dattani at JPMorgan.

Marco, maybe I can start with the shareholder return comments you just made and maybe just ask for a bit more color. I understand, as you mentioned, it's a reaction to seeing value. But I guess I'd love to understand the general framework you're using in terms of thinking about what you want to do because over the last couple of years, we've had a few add-on buyback decisions that you've taken as you felt it was appropriate. If we try and step back and think about the journey going forward, can you sort of help us frame how you're likely to approach your decision on buybacks?

Is it going to be opportunistic based on share price? Is it going to be based on more framework-driven decision-making? So just if you could just elaborate generally how you're thinking about the philosophy of what you're likely to do, that would be super helpful? And then the second one was the topic you've mentioned around tailwinds. You talked a lot about various opportunities. One opportunity you didn't mention, which your U.S. peers talk about a lot is edge computing.

And I'd love to understand what your general thoughts are. I appreciate it's a long-term topic, but the U.S. Towercos are already starting to make investments in this space. Do you see it a little bit like small cells where the U.S. pushed hard and ultimately didn't amount to a huge opportunity? And I guess you didn't pursue that at the time? Or is it different this time? Is this something that you similarly also see it being an interesting opportunity for towers midterm?

Well, on the philosophy, you remember, we made very clear that we have a dividend policy that we're not changing. So our dividend policy is EUR 500 million grow at 7.5%, blah, blah, blah. You remember, we are delivering. We paid the EUR 500 million, and you can bet that next year, we will do EUR 500 million plus 7.5%. Second, we said the minimum we're going to do is EUR 800 million and the delta between dividends and EUR 800 million is depending on the value creation.

The value creation is in this moment clearly coming from share buybacks. I wouldn't describe this as opportunistic. I would describe it as logic or if you want fundamental analysis. So there is a big difference between yesterday, today and tomorrow. Yesterday, we made share buybacks because we had some extraordinary disposals and which make available some extraordinary money that we used. Today, we are making a decision that is based on our capacity to generate cash flow, which going forward will remain generous and abundant.

And we said that we will allocate the extra capacity in a way that will generate more value to our shareholders. As of today, the Board made the decision that share buyback was the way. So I would say that this is the philosophy. So let's consider what is the value creation, where the value creation comes from. Let's see what are the resources available -- structurally available, and let's do it.

So on your second question, it's very interesting because Simone and I, we have been discussing this topic not less than 5 times in the last 2 weeks. If I look what has been done today by, look, for example, Nvidia and Nokia, it's not really an edge computing on a tower. It's an AI integrated equipment with a sort of self -- or AI-driven configuration of the equipment. So it's not really edge computing on the tower. But I'm convinced that the more we enter into distributed AI, the more a system that brings everything to the center is tremendously inefficient in terms of traffic load.

So every time you have to transport a lot of data that most of the time are useless. So imagine that you need some AI for self-driving vehicles. Do you really need to have data going to U.S. and coming back or it's better to have some maps on a tower that is 300 meters from you? I think that this is something that can happen, but it's really at the moment, a bit unclear how it will happen. And Simone is working very actively. Simone has been in the IT and in the semiconductors for a good part of his career. So we are activating our contacts. Just Stage 1, I think, is better understanding. I see an opportunity, but as you said, it's a midterm opportunity more than a short-term one. I hope I answered.

Okay. So the next question comes from Rohit Modi at Citibank.

I have 2 please as well. One is a follow-up on Andrew's question on the article, and I understand you can only talk to some extent on it. But in general, your discussions with private players, how do you see -- what are the key constraints that you see in terms of valuation of Towers? I mean, apart from rates is what is going on in Italy and partly in Spain, a kind of rippling effect in the way private players see now TowerCo valuations with all the renewal risk. And yes, so any color around that?

And secondly, you said -- you mentioned about the cash flow generation was pretty strong in the 1H. Again, looking at the 1H number and the phasing you had in the last 2 years on your free cash flow and recurring levered free cash flow, you are heading kind of towards the upper end of your guidance. Is that the kind of base we should look for the second half and full year? And should that be the base for the next year in terms of when you look at the guidance range?

Good. I'm looking at my lawyer for that, I can't add very much because what I can tell you, we trade at 14x. We trade at 14x. It's 14x, we trade at more than 10% recurring levered free cash flow per share yield. I think that there are numbers that speak for themselves. We are large. We are diversified. So what I can tell you -- honestly, I have very little to add. Cash, Raimon.

Rohit, look, during the year '26, as you have seen, we have massively increased the free cash flow. There is a changing point to a situation where we're going to be this year between EUR 600 million and EUR 700 million that we gave as a guidance, but will grow next year to a level that is from EUR 975 million to EUR 1,075 million. We are reiterating our guidance, and we are not expecting any change on that.

This year, we are on halfway, half the year, halfway in the free cash flow. Second part of the year, we will see as the first half, some Build-to-suit still coming. We will still have some of the growth coming from the colocation and all of it will help us achieve the guidance that we have given to the market. We are not giving any short-term guidance or anything similar because we are just expecting to be as promised between the EUR 600 million and the EUR 700 million.

Okay. So now moving to the next question. We have Roshan Ranjit at Deutsche Bank.

I've got 2 operational ones actually. Firstly, turning to Spain and the renewal of the framework agreement with Vodafone Spain. So I think the first part, very clear, renewal of existing PoPs on the same conditions. But you've also added additional new PoPs. So I just wanted to get a sense of the kind of, I guess, level of discipline in that market. Clearly, one operator has been very strong about wanting to move.

So is there scope for those additional PoPs to go higher that you could offer? I know, Marco, you've been very clear on the kind of degree of overlap in that market. Is that still a big barrier for any kind of operator to switch, please? And the second question, again, on the operational side in France, we've seen a pickup in the BTS deployment. It seems quite evenly split between Bouygues and the SFR Build-to-suits.

How should we think about that going forward in the context of the kind of ongoing regulatory review? Because I know previously, there has been talk about synergies from potentially combining Build-to-suits? Or is it kind of business as usual in terms of the deployment until we get a little bit of news flow through the year or perhaps next year?

Thank you, Roshan. So Spain, our goal #1 was we had 2,000 PoPs, which were secondary PoPs that were expiring. We wanted to renew. And our Spanish team has been able to renew at the same terms and conditions we had before. So tick the box that we made another renewal without suffering, which is one of the many headwinds that time to time we would face. So we continue to renew ordinary course of business.

The second part of your question, we have been asked making an analysis if some of our towers could be eligible for hosting antennas from Vodafone. We made a technical analysis. So some towers, the answer was yes. Some towers, the answer was no. And we applied the usual price list. So we did not make any special favor. And we have been asked to host some hundred antennas, which is good. Now to your point, is it something? Is it new deployment or, sorry, I'm not the CTO of Vodafone, and so is it densification? Is it coverage? Is it, to say the truth, I don't know, possibly it's densification.

Second, France, did something change in our Build-to-suit program due to the SFR split? Of course, yes. It's obvious. What we are doing is, there are areas that are not under discussion, all the Crozone or let me say, all the non-dense urban zone is coverage and coverage is coverage. If there is not enough network, we build the network and it's good. By the way, we continue to insist to the concept of colocation to suit. So every time we build a tower, we strongly insist to have more than one operator in order to make those networks more efficient, first of all, for them in order to avoid that those networks become way too expensive.

And in the urban areas, of course, we are working more prudently. We have to avoid to generate new overlaps even though the consolidation takes time. So there is some business as usual, but business as usual with good common sense. So let's avoid to create today the problem of tomorrow. I think that in this, everybody is well aware. The attitude is constructive. And we have several years of experience with all of them. So we're working well with them.

Okay. So the next question comes from Ulrich Rathe from Bernstein.

I have 2 questions, please. The first one is on BTS. Marco, on the recent interview that sort of popped up on YouTube, you talked about legacy BTS terms that need to be adapted for future BTS. Can you comment on how these terms are changing, such as the one that you're announcing now for Switzerland? If it's not the numbers, it's sort of which elements of the BTS are you touching? My second question is, could you provide an update on the land management program in terms of how far you are and how it's going?

Okay. I answer the first, and I'll leave the land to Raimon. Possibly, the Swiss case is not the best example of an innovative contract. The Swiss case is a bit more of the same. We had a program with our client. We expanded the program. Please keep in mind that building new sites in Switzerland is quite complex because of permitting. It's one of the countries with the most severe legislation, both on permitting and in radio electromagnetic emission limits. So it is a bit more of the same, even though please remember that the Swiss market is really a very solid one because of its structure.

So when I say that going forward, we should imagine something different is yesterday, the Build-to-suit were a sort of a forward execution of an M&A. So you were taking the M&A. I buy a part of the portfolio, which is an existing portfolio and then I buy a part of the portfolio, which is a forward delivery at the same conditions, which means that the same conditions were the conditions of a world that does not exist any longer. Rates are different, conditions are different, et cetera. So what I assume?

I assume first that towers should be built by design, multi-tenant. Every time we go somewhere, we have to make the question day 1, how can we make it multi-tenant? And this can allow to have 2 semi-anchor fees. So you should imagine something between a full anchor fee and a full second fee -- second tenant fee, which will be convenient for both at the end. And it will be convenient because you build day 1, the tower optimized for multiple tenants. So with the structural exercise, the structural engineering that is okay with the energy, which is there. So you have not to go there twice. So you save a lot of money.

Then possibly, if I make something like this by design, I can buy the land by design. And if I buy the land by design, possibly we can share part of the benefit because this is something that -- all in all, I think that the European case suffered a bit of over financial engineering. And today, we are telecom engineers. And telecom engineers work a little bit differently, work more on the cost and the value that we are transferring to our clients. So proximity to the clients, making the network not too expensive, transfer -- sharing the synergies, sharing the savings that we make. And we are making incredible work on AI applications for infrastructure. Of course, we are specialized infrastructure, so we invest. That's it.

Yes. On the land, Ulrich, basically, as you know, we launched in the year '24, the concept of Celland. It was an entity to be able to accelerate the acquisition of land, but as well the cash advances on mainly rooftops in order to achieve an improvement of the efficiencies. This year, our cost per tower has been improving month after month. The efficiencies that we have achieved so far this year offset and are a bit higher even than the increase on CPI. That is our target, always trying to offset the increase on CPI.

Also, you will have seen in the numbers in the free cash flow that the efficiency CapEx and the land acquisition CapEx is a bit below last year. It remains more or less in line, and we're expecting like last year, a bit of acceleration in the second half of the year. We have already acquired more than 700 sites this year, more than 1,000 sites where we have noncash advances, and we continue with the same rhythm. And the returns that we're getting are very much in line with what we had last year.

The only thing is that, as Marco has mentioned before, we are being a bit more careful on some places. For example, in France today, we are looking at the consolidation potential effects to make sure that we buy the site that makes sense buying and we avoid buying sites that can generate a problem for tomorrow. But so far, the program continues working extremely well, and we are not expecting any change rather than accelerating on the second half.

Okay. Now over to James Ratzer from New Street Research.

So I have 2 questions, please. The first one, Marco, we've kind of talked a lot through the presentation about kind of technological drivers helping to support your growth, whether it's kind of 6G or FWA, more transport connectivity, just kind of growing usage. And then obviously, today, you've announced the deal with Sunrise and we have the AGCOM announcement yesterday and other drivers as well. I mean when I take that all together, how do you then actually think about what your organic tenancy growth will do over the next, let's say, kind of 3, 5, 8 years?

You're currently growing your organic PoPs at around 5% year-on-year. I mean, do you think that rate of growth is sustainable at that level for the foreseeable future? Just love to get your thoughts on putting all these drivers together, what it means for overall PoP growth?

And then the second question I had was just would love if you could just kind of dig a little bit further on the answer you gave earlier around Spain to make sure I understand this correct. I mean it sounds like on the new tenancies you've signed with Vodafone, were they approaching you to ask you for a much bigger kind of potential portfolio of additions, but your pricing was suitably high that you only managed to agree on a few hundred. I would love you to expand on that answer you gave a bit earlier to kind of understand the process by which those few hundred new sites were agreed on in the Vodafone Spain contract.

Yes. On the technological drivers, you have to split it in 2. One is increased colocation. Increased colocation, if you want really to understand the increased colocation, first of all, you have to split between towers and rooftops. And when you split between towers and rooftops, you have to split once again between urban and nonurban. On a tower, the tenancy can be way more than 2 because you can go with 2 tenants plus an FWA plus some other dishes, you can put a lot of things.

When you are in a dense urban area and you have a rooftop, going above 1 is -- it really depends where you are. If you are close to the center of Paris, it's possible that the mayor does not give you the authorization. So all in all, our portfolio, if you take mature countries, which are the countries in which we have been able to grow since more time, Spain, Italy, et cetera, the overall blended goes in the direction of slightly above 2. If you take in, it is above 2. If you take mature tower operators, they tend to go above 2, which means that on towers, you are well above 2. And on rooftops, you are in 1.5, 1.6, et cetera.

What makes the difference is the price mix because today, we have a price mix in which there is a big difference between an anchor, a second and a RAN sharing. So going forward, the densification doesn't bring the same effect of new network creation. The economic impact is the economic impact of the second or RAN sharing. And then you have the future need of further network creation, but there will be. There will be further network creation. As I was saying 1 second ago, the business model possibly will be different, but there will be still to build more towers.

And I would say that possibly another exercise will be proactively dismantle some towers. This is going to be an exercise that I see coming, so if I can proactively make some network rationalization, this can drive efficiency that can be shared between the tower operator and the MNO, which once again reduces the appetite for making something bold because we give them, we feed them with the savings that we can make for them.

Is this a 5% growth sustainable 8 years from now? Only God knows. I would say that a 5% PoP growth possibly at 8 years from now, possibly is a bit generous, but it will very much depend on how much network creation we will have because I don't think it's going to be 0. So this is -- the big mistake is that people believe that we have already too many towers, and this is wrong.

Spain, let me try to put a little bit of order. Did we make special prices for the -- or eventually higher prices for new locations? Absolutely not. So we have a price scheme that is the same that we apply for second tenant. By the way, we apply to Vodafone, same as we apply to others. So we don't privilege and we don't penalize. Of course, what makes the difference is that if in order to host a new antenna, I have to rebuild the tower because I have to make so much CapEx to strengthen the tower that is an absurd, it's a little bit difficult.

So the first exercise is if I can materially host you in the place where you're interested because, by the way, you're not interested in every tower I have in my portfolio. So we have been asked for a certain list of towers, and we answered which of those list of towers could be eligible, easy, not easy, dramatic, okay? And so then is it densification? As far as we understand, there is a bit of everything. So -- but this has been the process.

So we don't add specific CapEx, which is not the tower reinforcement. We don't pay for the antenna movement in case there is a movement of an antenna. So it's really business as usual. It's, and I think it's a good contract for our clients. The price we made for them is a very good second tenant contract because, unfortunately, in Spain, prices for second tenancies are a little bit lower than what I would like to have.

That's great. So you wouldn't expect any further announcement with Vodafone Spain at all over the next like year or 2 as they resolve their issue with Vantage, you think your agreement with them is now finished?

As far as we have interacted with them, this is what they told us. Then if they will approach us again for having more, happy to serve my clients.

Okay. So the next question comes from Arnaud Camus from Bestinver.

On network resilience, could you provide more details on the 15, 20 years life protection solution offered to telecom operators and including the recurring revenue profile and unit economics? And is it fair to assume the opportunity is greater in the U.K. and France? And the second one, given the recent geopolitical context and the growing use of drones in modern warfare, how significant an opportunity could this become for Cellnex, particularly in markets close to Ukraine such as Poland? And should we expect deployments of anti-drones to be mainly driven by public sector contracts? And how should we think about them within your reporting framework, if it's a new tenant and additional colocation or any other type of services?

Okay. So when you refer to network resilience services, I suppose we are referring to energy resilience services, which is the batteries to give the [indiscernible] name. So we buy the batteries at pan-European level. So this allows us to have better prices and better conditions. Better conditions means that we have guaranteed the life of those batteries for a material number of years that we are extending. Now we are depending on the supplier between 12 and 15 years. Is it good? It's super good because, of course, if we put the battery, you have to imagine that those batteries can stay indoor or outdoor.

Of course, the life of a battery which stays indoor is longer than the life of a battery which stays outdoor because of the obvious conditions and even if they don't burn in any case, there are weather atmospheric elements that shorten the life. This is important because when we make the agreement with the MNO, the agreement with the MNO has the duration of the underlying contract that we have for the tenancy. So if I have a 15-year contract, I have to provide the batteries for 15 years. So it's important that we have guaranteed behind us that after 7 years, I have not to remake another cycle of investments because otherwise, the business case basically doesn't work.

Some economics we make more or less with -- total sort of EUR 5 million to EUR 6 million a year in this moment with our client, which if you look, it means that good for them, good for us. Of course, this includes also all the maintenance services that are on us. So it's turnkey. So the client has not to worry about nothing because we do everything. Your second, is this potential big? Yes, I think it is. Of course, Spain started first. Why? Because they had the blackout. By the way, now Spain is, we created Iberia and Portugal had the same problem as Spain when there was a blackout. So people start to be sensitive.

But I think that this is becoming more a topic, a trend, a European trend, that resilience. I see 2 big trends. One is sovereignty and the other is resilience. On sovereignty, I can do nothing because honestly, the batteries you can have all the fantasy you want and then you go, you end buying in the same place. On resilience, we can do a lot. Defense, can be defense -- can the tower be used for defense? Well, defense are big, big budgets. And most of the time, when you talk about defense, the problem is not the budget, the problem is the solution.

What is the solution? We are not a company which makes anti-drone systems. We are not, we don't make anti-drone systems. We have good IT, but our IT makes towers. It doesn't make anti-drone systems. Of course, a tower can be -- can host. And so to your question, what is it? It's a colocation and it's a colocation of a PoP. Then which kind of a PoP is it and who is the client? It's more or less the same animal of a client that is not an MNO. That's it. So we don't do more than this. And our business model is not different from the usual PoP colocation.

Okay. So we've got another few questions. I'm conscious of the time already. So let's try and rush through now. It's Fabio Pavan from Mediobanca.

Presentation, I think it is interesting to have it today. And I was wondering if you can help me in reconciling what we just discussed about this need for densification to support all the data center planning and spending capacity. With the news we had today with Europe launching the EUR 30 billion plan for gigafactories, how we could think about digital network to be involved because I think this is clearly needed. So I wanted to have your view on this.

So let me make 2 points. One is, one of our peers invested in big data centers, one of our U.S. peers. Of course, this is giving them a very good growth, but it's draining an enormous gigantic amount of CapEx. And this is one piece of the answer. The second piece of the answer is that requires a huge expertise and know-how. And I love my engineers, but they are telecom engineers and not data center engineers. And we don't have this kind of a know-how. So we decided that investing on scale on gigafactories, on data centers, et cetera, is not for us.

This is why we sold our data center in Spain. This is why our proxy of a data center in France have been sold. And this is why we're not going to put our fingers in big data center projects. There are very good specialized companies, and we leave to them. Second is somehow what was the question from Akhil. So where the data center ends. So there is a portion of the data center, which can stay at the foothold of a tower. Fabio, I'm listening the story since not less than 5 years.

And I saw some of those, I don't know how to call them, remote data centers and at the end, never happened on scale today. But then the point that Akhil is making is sometime it's just too early. Sometimes what is not working yesterday -- was not working yesterday, it was just because it was too early. So is it tomorrow the day that this will happen? We are super active in the technological space. You know me since ever, you know Simone, we are both tech geeks, very curious. So we monitor these and believe me that if there will be an opportunity, we will be there.

Okay. So moving on. The next question comes from Fernando Abril-Martorell from Alantra.

Two very quick ones. First, so you targeted 5x to 6x leverage back at the CMD. So where do you want leverage to be as things stand today? Where do you want leverage to be at the end of the decade? Low, upper end, somewhere else? And linked to this because obviously, this is the other part of the equation, can we assume that you distributed EUR 1 billion last year, EUR 1 billion this year. Should we assume EUR 1 billion as the shareholder return floor for the next years with obviously the committed dividends and on top dividends or buybacks depending on the share price? So should we assume EUR 1 billion as a new floor?

Okay. So leverage, we're going to be between 5 and 6 at the end of the decade. Sorry, it seems to be a little bit a stupid answer, but it will really depend on the conditions on the market. If the market we see with structural tensions, and let me underline structural because what we see today is a crisis that is driven by energy because of a war that we all hope that will not last long. So structurally, we don't see high interest rates long term. So we don't see the need to explore the low, the bottom part of the range.

But if you ask me about end of the decade, I honestly don't know. So we will be coherently in the range between 5 and 6, depending on the structural conditions on the market. Very good question on the floor. It's a mixed answer. I mean, is it a new floor? No, it's not a new floor. It's the demonstration that when we said that everything that is made available will be managed properly is what we do. So we said our floor is EUR 800 million and if there is more, we would return to shareholders. There is more, we return to shareholders. What about next year? We have a floor, which is EUR 800 million. If there is more, we will return to shareholders.

Okay. So now last 2 questions. First, coming from Abhilash Mohapatra at Exane BNP.

I just had a couple of questions on the Q2 results themselves. Firstly, just on Slide 9, where you show your net colocation growth, a nice pickup in Italy and Spain. If you look at the growth on an equivalent basis, it's about 1/3 of the total number. So should we just assume that Spain growth is mainly Digi RAN sharing PoPs and Italy is IoT? And then the second question, just on the cash flow this quarter, quite a strong positive working capital contribution. I'd just be interested to hear your thoughts on how you expect that to evolve on a full year basis? Is it still a sort of neutral contribution? Or do you expect this to remain positive?

Okay. So no, Italy is not IoT. Italy, there was some RAN sharing and the rest was second tenant. The number of Build-to-suit is relatively modest in Italy. And in Spain is Digi. So it's -- the majority is RAN sharing. And we are moving towers for MasOrange. Net-net, when I move from A to B, still remains one. Sometimes moving one, you generate the need of another one. So we have some mild growth, but we have some growth. So Spain is Digi plus MasOrange; Telefonica, not that much. Vodafone, for the time being, no, but let's see.

Going forward, Italy has been some RAN sharing and some -- very interesting, some RAN sharing of Vodafone/Fastweb. So Vodafone/Fastweb, who had a RAN sharing agreement with WIND is still making -- adding some RAN sharing PoP. And this tells you that Swisscom is used to a network quality whose KPI are not the same KPI of Vodafone Italy. And so they wanted to improve the network quality. So that's super interesting. It's something that honestly a bit surprised us. So I have next to me the king of the working capital, so Raimon, please?

So on the working capital, Abhilash, basically, as you have seen in the second quarter, we have been improving following a similar trend to what happened last year. We had first quarter with a negative working capital, second quarter improving the working capital. There are a couple of things there. First, there is some seasonality. We have some contracts that have different payment terms. Some of them get paid end of quarter, some get paid at the beginning of the next. So that always plays. But it's true that we have been improving working capital year after year.

We were having a working capital closer to the 8%, 9% on sales. We are now closer to the 6%, 7% on sales. We expect to keep on improving. We still have some room for improvement, both on the receivables, but also on the supplier side. There is a continuous improvement plan, and we expect that it will keep on improving. But it's true that the more that we make it more efficient, the more difficult it is to keep on having a big improvement. As you know, we always say that working capital tends more or less to 0. So trying to make sure that any growth that we have that had an impact on the working capital can be made more efficient and get back to 0.

Okay. So the last question from Fernando Cordero Barreira at Banco Santander.

For the team, my only question. It is quite a follow-up on the former tenancy ratio question, but with a different scope more on the short and medium term. As we are approaching to the end of the Build-to-suit programs, it's clearly impacting cash flow, but also I would like to understand the impact in organic growth or in other words, at which extent the Build-to-suit program may fade away should be a positive driver for the pure colocation growth? Just to understand if there is any, let's say, link between the end of the Build-to-suit programs and, let's say, some increase on the current trends on pure colocation?

If you look today, the 5% and you split the 5% between CPI, colocation and Build-to-suit, you have a sort of a 3% from CPI plus colocation, a little bit more, and you have a sort of a 2% from Build-to-suit. Now big numbers. If you take this trend, you see that we are investing less in Build-to-suit. So this contribution from Build-to-suit is progressively reducing. And this is also why -- the reason why we were growing at 6%, we're growing 5%.

Now the question is, should we imagine a Build-to-suit down to 0? The answer is no. We should not expect down to 0. Should we expect it down to the huge numbers we had in the past? No, it's not going to be like this. So possibly, of course, our effort will be to push our machine in order to make more colocation. We have several countries in which we can do more. And so we have to make a little bit better if the contribution from Build-to-suit will decrease, but some network creation, I think it will be more selective. It will be with a different contract, et cetera, et cetera, but some network creation will remain. So you have not to factor that the 3 becomes 5 and the 2 becomes 0. The 3 will grow a little bit and the 2 will decrease, but it's not going to go to 0. I hope I gave you a help.

So it was the last one. So before passing to Maria, please let me thank all of you for your time, for the participation and have a super good and joyful summer vacation.

Thank you, Marco. And as usual, if you'd like any follow up with any questions, you know where we are in the IR team. We've also purposely left a slide being projected, which gives you a link to many documents that we've been posting on the website. So please take a look because there's quite a lot of information, which could help further understand the equity story. And I reiterate Marco's words. Have a lovely summer holiday.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm happy to welcome you to the Annual General Shareholders' Meeting of Cellnex Telecom, both of you who are here in the room as well as those who are participating through telematica systems and those who are following the streaming. We are holding this General Shareholders' Meeting at the second call or the approval of the annual accounts of fiscal year 2025 and the rest of the proposals according to the agenda.

I would now like to give the floor to the Secretary to read the call and the provisional forum and the rest of information on the General Shareholders Meeting. Thank you.

Good morning. And following legal formalities in Madrid, 11:30, April 30, 2026, General Shareholder's Meeting has been held at 11:30 at Paseo de la Castellana #81. The meeting has been called due to a decision of the Board of Directors. And the call was published on March 27, on the website of the Spanish Securities Committee and in the newspaper El Economista, according to the Spanish legislation, given that the call is long.

And as I mentioned, it's been published back in March 27 unless any of the proposal be read according to the bylaws, and the Board of Director -- well, the Board of Directors agreed to provide telematic assistance for the participation and attendance that allow real-time participation of the meeting as well as telematic voting for all the participants in the call. You can check the use of such a mechanism. And in the website of the company, you can find the instructions for telematic systems.

Additionally, and notwithstanding and the prep -- what we mentioned previously, shareholders have been able to exercise their rights through telematic means prior to meeting and the call. It is expressly mentioned the shareholders have the right to receive all the documentation that's linked to this meeting. And it has been provided to those who have requested as well, all the information and documentation linked to the General Shareholders' Meeting has been available to all shareholders since it was called back in March 27, both in the headquarters as well as on the website of the company.

And last, I'd like to mention that shareholders who are present in this room will find in several places, QR codes. And to have information to all the -- have access to all the information of the meeting in the application. You can also see the full text of all the elements that are going to be voted today.

I would also like to mention that the President AGM has -- the notary public, [ Mr. Rodrigo Denadregi ], that has been called by the Board of Directors to generate the minutes in accordance to Article [ 2003 ] of the company -- Spanish Companies Act on assistance and according to the call of the meeting. At 10:30, we have closed the process of telematic assistance and a few -- in [indiscernible], we closed the number of participants that have -- that are assisting this meeting physically. And adding up votes of those shareholders present and those by proxy, we are able to declare open this General Shareholders' Meeting. Notwithstanding the fact that they will keep on accepting the participation cuts of shareholders until we formally create the list of assistance.

According to the latest information, a quorum at the start of the Annual General Shareholders' meeting is as follows: 324 shareholders present or represented that account for [ 892,587,710 ] shares that account for 87.13% of the equity of the company president.

Well, taking into account the data provided by the secretary, the Annual General Shareholders' Meeting is opened. In accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board at the table of the Annual General Shareholders Meeting of Cellnex Telecom are made up by the present myself, the CEO, Mr. Marco Patuano; the Secretary, Mr. Xavier Pujol; Deputy Secretary, [ Mr. Martin Lias ]; and the Notary Public, [ Mr. Antonio Leger ].

President and Secretary of the meeting -- of the General Meeting is going to be myself as President, and Xavier Pujol, who are also the members of the Board. The agenda is include my presentation and the CEO's presentation. Next, we will have a Q&A session.

For those shareholders who wish to participate, to request the clarifications on the information they might require. To the shareholders who wish to participate in the room from this moment and until the end of Mr. Patuano's presentation, please, you can go to the table for the Q&A session. In such a table, you would need to provide your information and explain the topic of your intervention. Those shareholders who would participate will have to request this -- your participation on the table. If you wish it to be fully included in the minutes, you will have to provide a text to be checked and included in the minutes.

We have no participants -- telematic assistant shareholders. Mr. Antonio, [ Mr. Don Rodrigo Antonio Regi ], the Notary Public, is here to generate -- create the minutes of the meeting. And next, I would like to give the floor to the notary.

Thank you. According to the request made by the company, Cellnex Telecom SA, in March 27, 2026, I would like to make the following comments in accordance with Article [ 203 ] of the Spanish Public Companies Act. In accordance with what's established by Spanish legislation, I would like to ask the participants, if and there's any protest on all the manifestations on the number of shareholders attending the meeting and the capital present or represented.

There has been no reserves on the comments made by the Secretary on the number of shareholders attending the meeting and the capital present admitting.

I would like to now start my presentation. 2025 is my first full year as President of Cellnex and with the CEO, we would like to share the main milestones and events that have marked the life of the company throughout the year. I would like to inform on the work of the Board of Directors and will make some general comments on the objectives and the performance of the company, Marco Patuano, will elaborate on the performance of the company in 2025.

One year ago, I addressed you first time as [indiscernible], made some commitments that I would like to say have been met and in fact, before what we expected in the Capital Markets Day in 2023. In 2025, we presented some changes in the structure of the Board. And in this meeting, we would like to share with you some of the changes that we expect you to approve. And we have -- we expect it to have the right structure to achieve our objectives.

Of course, we comply with all the legal regulations, even if sometimes they might not seem the most appropriate one and we follow the recommendations when we believe I should and we believe we have a Board that meets in the most strict international regulations, recognized by the high percentages of approval that we can -- that we have one attending to this meeting.

It is -- well, a good governance way of explaining the relationship between those who manage the company and those who trust them, which is shareholders, the shareholders. That's the criteria with which the Board works and with which we measure our performance and changes in governance models. And the most important change in the governance model that we will like to be -- to approve this year is to reelect the Board members.

It's a Board that it's renewed every year. It's not a weaker. The Board is a more responsible Board. It's more accountable towards the shareholders, the markets and itself. This model is usual practice in most international markets, and it's the one that Cellnex would approve today if you shareholders vote in favor of this proposal, which does not mean that there's going to be less stability in the structure of the Board require the opposite.

We believe there's a learning process. And when we appoint the Board member, we expect them to follow the company. And a company of the company in the long term, we believe that the mix of those companies that know the company well have gone through several life cycles. It's a great asset. The only meaning of this proposal is that each year, we are subject to the vote of shareholders and the other ones that should decide.

We have also consolidated in 2025, a model, a remuneration model based strictly on performance. After 2026, shareholders will approve previously the remuneration of the CEO and the management team linked to action plans. And we commit to publish the metrics of these incentives in the long term at the end achieve cycle in a transparent way.

Board members since 2025 also received part of remuneration in shares, reinforcing in such a way the link with the shareholders. These aren't just formal commitments, but decisions -- deliberate decisions that show the type of company that we want to become aligned with the interest of our shareholders with the new appointments that we'll propose next.

We will also ask you to approve the reelection of 8 Board members. Each of them has been assessed by the Board and the Retribution & Sustainability Committee, and the proposal of reelection is the result of such a process. Marco Patuano is chosen as executive, as CEO, and his reelection is linked to the practices of the Board.

A company and requires a management that is able to execute the objection of the company in the long term, Christian Coco, Jonathan Amouyal are elected as Board members and the [indiscernible] of edition and TCI, respectively. Their continuity reflects something that no governance document can show the trust of the 2 main institutional shareholders at Cellnex.

And the path that this Board has chosen and the project we are sharing with you today in terms of independent board members. We have Marieta del Rivero, Ana García Fau, Maite Ballester and Dominique D'Hinnin, each provides to the Board a differential profile. The process of reelection has shown that their contribution is still pertinent and needed for the phase that Cellnex is phasing. The criteria, it's not continually for its sake. But actually, the contribution of each Board member that reinforces the Board of Directors to be able to counsel and guide.

Today, we're also proposing the approval of 2 new independent directors. And I would like to explain the reasons behind those 2 proposals, Cynthia Gordon spent 3 years building and transforming telecommunication operators in very different scenarios and geography. Cellnex operating today in 10 European countries. Our ability to create value relies in how we manage that complexity. And Cynthia provides the Board something that just figures cannot capture the criteria of those who have made the difficult business decision in difficult context.

Kais Ben Hamida has been the Financial Director in very demanding markets like France and the Middle East. And he has participated in mergers and acquisitions in environments in which capital [indiscernible] competitive advantage. Cellnex is at a point in which it has to optimize its balance. Kais reinforces precisely the ability the Board needs to be able to monitor those decisions with rigor.

The Board and the proposals that we are presenting today, 8 reelections and 2 new appointments. It's a proposal that aims to provide a new structure to this Board. If approved, we will have 12 members, 12 nonexecutive, 2 that are independent and 2 women and 2 proprietary. This is the structure of a Board that's ready for our future.

And while the context does not simplify technology, acceleration, geopolitical pressure and capital markets in Europe, create a context in which consistency and transparency have become strategic assets. Companies that generate trust in difficult times have real advantage, and Cellnex wants to be one of those companies. From a business perspective and notwithstanding the fact that the CEO will elaborate on it, we have identified 2 key vectors of growth: densification and quality of the network and security and defense on the other hand.

First, the density of networks and the increased amount of quality open a space for growth that's especially relevant. The so-called indoor solutions being transportation infrastructure, sports and cultural venues as well has densified urban areas require a deployment of mutual infrastructure. So operators can offer their clients the quality of services they are demanding. And that's, in itself, the natural environment for Cellnex.

Second, and I would like to highlight this aspect, we truly believe that infrastructure -- communication infrastructures should be part of expenditure plans of Security and Defense, which will be the priority of any government. We should remember that Cellnex is already in several geographies and designated critical infrastructure. And we provide essential services to the police, the military, medical emergencies through our networks, through our PPD networks. We provide the assistance to systems such as the medical emergency system of Catalonia, and the firefighter civil protection networks in Italy and TETRA and DMR networks in Poland, Portugal and the Netherlands, just to mention a few examples.

And over 100,000 locations are a strategic asset that's been called to complete the defense and security infrastructures in Europe, which is a company that has Mr. Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, is not in a war, but is not in peace either. And that's why we have constant conversations with governments and companies in the sector to make the most of joint development opportunities. And beyond those 2 factors, it is important to mention our backlog and sales close is the one that guarantees the transparency of our revenues. Of course, we must comply with everything included in our long-term contracts. And that discipline -- contractual discipline is the base for everything else. The combination of those 3 elements: densities, security and defense and robust backlog, place Cellnex in a privileged position to keep on growing.

Of course, I would like to mention one aspect of the performance of the company we are not happy with. And I'm talking about, of course, the price of our shares in the markets. So despite we have met the objectives, this has not been accompanied by the behavior of our share price. Today, the share price of our company is much below its intrinsic value. That's linked to our plans and the -- the plans that we are missing and that we will keep on meeting, that's why we started a buyback plan that we will continue in 2026.

While there's a difference between the share price and the intrinsic value of the company, believe me when I say that we believe this is a very important topic, and it is today our clear priority, and that's a solution we are committed to. Both capital profitability and giving that value back to our shareholders through dividend and share buyback is one of our objectives. We are meeting the objectives and the commitments made to our shareholders by reducing our debt and starting to generating free cash flow that will grow in the next few years that -- and will start being noticeable in 2026.

A cause for the behavior of this market, it's clearly the concern on the consolidation that operators might have and the consolidation of operators that might have in our company. We believe that, that pessimistic view is wrong as what can be seeing in the countries in which this consolidation has taken place. We have agreed with operators higher volumes of network density extending the life of our contracts and reinforcing those contracts. We have negotiated, understanding the needs of operators, looking for mutually beneficial agreement because consolidations are linked to improvements in the services of operators. And so in greatest investment and density. So more investment and higher quality, which is an advantage for both clients and companies. Consolidation will not be justified unless those objectives are met.

Our trust is that seeing the markets we follow and meeting our free cash flow generation and giving back to our shareholders, the view of the markets will change. We only need persistence and do what we promise.

Ladies and gentlemen, our shareholders, Europe needs a neutral infrastructure that is well governed. And Cellnex can be a reference as well as paying to our shareholders according to our commitments, and it will be able to do so not just thanks to its size, but also given the quality of its decisions, the strength of its covenants and the coherence of its purpose. This Board works to make sure that positions is not just an aspiration, but a reality that can be proved every year to our shareholders.

I would like to end by thanking the effort made by all those who work in Cellnex in the countries in which we operate, and we want to thank them for their commitment and their excellence in meeting their obligations, ahead of which we can find Mr. Marco Patuano, our CEO, who leads a very important transformation process that started since he was appointed, and that will allow us to grow in a profitable way and in a sustainable way in the future. I would also lean to thank the work of the directors in a year that has been very demanding. And I would especially like to thank the President of the 3 committees whose work is essential for the Board. And in my opinion, and for me, personally, they are of a great support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President, Directors.

Ladies and gentlemen, shareholders, Cellnex team, journalists, dear friends, it's a pleasure to be with you once more to explain the performance of 2025 and what we're doing. And to do so, I would like to announce my presentation on 3 blocks. In the first one, I will briefly review the exercise, the fiscal year and the results we are showing today. And second, what we're doing to ensure value generation and organic growth. Third, our industrial view, the geopolitical context and how we expect to get the most of our position as infrastructure and communication infrastructure leaders in Europe.

In 2025, [indiscernible] has been a turning point in the transformation of Cellnex. We had solid organic results with an increase of our revenue by [ 8.9% ] of EBITDA after lease, the free -- real current free cash flow was 11.5% organically. The improvement of free cash flow has confirmed the robustness of our organic growth and constant progress of the operational efficiency of the company that has allowed us to improve all our financial indicators. We have proved that growth, financial discipline, value creation for shareholders can go hand-in-hand.

For third year in a row and in each and every one of our quarters, we have met the objectives we have announced. All the indicators in the year have been aligned with the forecast that we have communicated to the markets. Results show a constant organic growth, reinforce profitability and the acceleration of our free cash flow generation. We have kept on advancing in our transformation agenda by combining operational excellence and financial strength. This has reinforced the position of Cellnex as a leading telecommunication infrastructure operator in Europe. And besides, as mentioned by the President in his intervention, we have increased and accelerated the remuneration of our shareholders compared to our original objectives.

Now by business line, telecommunication towers, which is the core -- the activity of the group, generated EUR 3.2 billion in revenues with an organic growth of 0.5% -- 5.5% pushed by contractual escalators, and the activity is linked to a PCI solid -- while the integration of the build-to-suit entities and points of presence grew by 4.5% and it actually grew in every market, which shows sustained commercial activity. Co-locations grew by 2.4%, bill-to-suit contributed with 2.2% and the churn rate was still low -- increased 0.2%. All the countries closed the year with positive data, with an average increase of our portfolio of around 2% year-on-year, even in markets that are in the process of being consolidated.

Quarterly performance have shown the sustained dynamism of the business throughout the year with a progressive acceleration of the creation of points of prices in terms of high-density indoor systems or minimal DAAs, small cells and run as a service and other network services contributed with EUR 222 million with an organic growth of 4.9%. Broadcasting provided EUR 264 million with growth of 1.9% in the year that was marked by the renewals of long-term contracts, which shows our essential presence in telecommunication and networks of the operators. Network connectivity and storage generated EUR 234 million with a growth of 16.1%, mainly due to the deployment of the Nexloop fiber project in France. Good results of the company, while linked to improvements in customer satisfaction results that go to all-time high levels with customer satisfaction score of 8.3 out of 10.

I would especially like to mention the use of artificial intelligence. It's used in our operational processes, it's already providing very positive results. Cost of staff per tower were reduced in 1.9%, maintenance cost reduced by 1.4%, and in general -- and general expenditure were reduced by 4.1%. The improvement of data and the deployment of our operational systems based on artificial intelligence improved visibility and precision and trustworthiness of our processes. And thanks to the use of artificial intelligence, we've been able to improve the efficiency of leases through the progressive purchase of land. This allowed us to control in a better manner, long-term cost, and it has helped us consolidate our subsidiary linked to the management of Celland as a key platform for value creation within the group.

As a consequence of all the previous aspects, EBITDA margin improved by 160 basis points in 2025, which shows that our company is in its way to reach ambitious profit objectives.

From a purely financial perspective, we have reduced debt, and we are in a path to bring it to under 6x EBITDA of cash flow generation, which was one of our main objectives in the Capital Markets Day of 2024 has allowed us to anticipate and increase the remuneration of our shareholders. In 2025, we announced a buyback project of up to EUR 800 million. And then in November 2025, we added an additional EUR 200 million to their program. And additionally, as mentioned yesterday, the dividend of EUR 250 million in January this year is the first part of the remuneration that will be paid out in 2026. And the second payment of EUR 250 million is expected to take place on July 15, 2026.

I would like to especially mention sustainability, although today, there is a trend to reduce or not pay enough attention to ESG indicators. We and the Board of Directors are still fully committed with the objectives we set. We have been able to make sure that 100% of the energy we use is screened. We make all of efforts to improve in all the indicators that are linked to the governance of the company and its ethical standards for treatment and to employees and suppliers and also improving our diversity policies as can be shown by our presence in main sustainability indexes, but we are aware of the fact that we can still improve. Especially, we'll have to be able to have more women in management positions.

I would like to finish this block by mentioning our model. We have been able to optimize our portfolio through a disciplined assignment of our capital and divestment aligned with our strategic plan. So as a summary, dear shareholders, the main financial and industrial indicators of the company are extremely healthy and stable.

Please now, and dear shareholders, allow me to talk about the present. Not what it was, but what we are building for the Cellnex of tomorrow to be even more robust. At the beginning of this year, the Board approved a new organizational structure. But I would like to make it very clear what that means and what it does not mean. It is not an administrative adjustment. It is a strategic decision, simplified in order to accelerate focus in order to grow.

The new structure is articulated around 4 corporate units: finance, operations, strategy and corporate affairs; and 5 units in geographic clusters: France; Alpine, Italy and Switzerland; Iberia, Spain and Portugal; and north of Europe, which is U.K., Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden; and a new pan-European vertical solutions unit. This architecture allows to concentrate on the most important element. The strategic priorities, which have a greater impact for the group and for the shareholders.

We have invested more than EUR 43 billion in the last decade. It is the largest bet on digital infrastructure in Europe that has been carried out. Nobody in Europe has built what Cellnex has built. And now we come to the point to develop that investment, to leverage that investment. We are not growing in our perimeter, but in depth. And we now can expand and we also can generate sustained value in the long term. And the results for 2025 are testimony to that.

Europe. Europe enters the hyperconnectivity area, artificial intelligence, 5G, 6G, connected mobility, defense and resilience, all those technologies have one thing in common. They rely on a physical network, which is a real one and a resilient one. Without towers, there is no coverage. Without coverage, there is no connectivity. Without connectivity, there is no digital transformation. And without digital transformation, Europe loses competitiveness of powers.

The investment gap is estimated at around $100 billion in the next 5 to 7 years. It is not an abstract figure. That's a difference between a Europe that leads compared to Europe that follows. And Cellnex wants to be part of the solution. We are ready to accompany the next investment wave.

The consolidation of the operators is a phenomenon that we follow up very attentively. The large operators are investing more. Competition goes from price to quality. And that is good. It is good for the consumers. It is good for the industry. It is good for Europe and for Cellnex. But consolidation cannot translate into legal uncertainty. And I want to be very clear in this respect.

Our contract, what we call MSA or LLA, are commitments that have been negotiated for years, signed with transparency, with full awareness of the implications for all parties. They are not just small letter. They are the backbone of the model. Clauses like all or nothing consent rights, the 10-, 15-, 20-year deadlines. Those mechanisms are -- do not protect Cellnex. They exist because infrastructure requires certainty in order to attract long-term capital. And when capital does not have certainty, it becomes more expensive. And when it becomes more expensive, Europe invests less, and nobody wins.

What has happened in Spain and the U.K. shows that the model works when principles are respected. In the case of MasOrange in Spain, we reached an agreement that presales value for Cellnex and contributes real flexibility to our customer, an agreement that is already generating results, exceeding the initial expectations by both parties. In the U.K., the merger of Vodafone and Three has generated a promising environment for investment. Respected contracts, new opportunities for redensification in a rural area and internal connectivity. That is the benefits. When you comply with the conditions and the requirements and you respect the contracts, everyone is benefited.

So this is an opportunity for our regulatory framework. According to GSMA recent report, more than 500 licenses will expire in Europe in the next decade. The reform of the renewal policy could release up to EUR 30 billion in additional investment capacity. This is not a technical discussion. It is a strategic opportunity that Europe cannot miss. And Cellnex wants to be an active part of this conversation, not just as a stakeholder, but as an industrial player that is able to mobilize capital, deploy infrastructure, invest and cobill together with the operators and networks at Europe needs.

We have spoken about Europe a lot. But I think that we should speak even more about Europe. We are going through moment of reconfiguration of the world or the technology. It's not just a question of companies. It has become a question of nations. The digital infrastructures, either towers, fiber, network nodes, are strategic assets at the same level as roads, ports and grids. The one who controls digital infrastructures controls the capacity to communicate, to compete and of course, to defend.

The world is organized around technological blocks. The U.S. and China are leading the race for AI, quantum computing, the new generation networks. And Europe, Europe has a talent as an industry more than anything has the values. What we need is political will and industrial structures that are able to execute at the scale of this challenge. Cellnex is one of those infrastructures.

And Europe should support the European groups like Cellnex that, apart from contributing to protecting the value that Europe represents, can compete in a global environment without losing sight of their European routes. We are the largest operator of this type of infrastructure in Europe. We're present in 10 countries with more than 100,000 towers and 180,000 presence points. We are connected to all the relevant operators in the continent and with a neutral and independent model of operation, without conflicts of interest at the service of every customers alike.

This model is not just a competitive advantage. It is a contribution to European digital sovereignty because when infrastructure is in the hands of an independent player, you prevent dependence on just one player. You guarantee access, open access and nondiscrimination, and you reduce the systemic risk of the digital ecosystem. So this is what it means to be a neutral operator. It is not a technical concept. It is a position. We are side-by-side with competition, with openness and with European concept.

Allow me to be honest about what Europe needs. They need legal certainty, contracts have to be respected, not just as a favor, but as a structural condition to attract long-term investment. Cellnex has committed more than EUR 43 billion based on clear and stable agreements. If those agreements are questioned because of the commercial pressure, political convenience or the temptation of our unilateral renewal, that private capital for the long term will withdraw. And without that capital, Europe will not close that investment gap.

Second, regulatory framework that rewards investment. The renewal of the licenses are a very powerful tool. The same as having clear rules for the redesign of the market for operators. If operators invest more in the network, Cellnex will invest more in infrastructure. And that's a multiplying effect, which is huge. And the final benefit is for the European citizen that gets better coverage, better speed, digital services more -- which are more advanced than at a good price.

Third, new needs require new answers. Europe has connectivity challenges that are not fully solved yet. The railway corridors and the road corridors, the large facilities, energy resilience of the networks, defense and security, the connectivity for those users, the coverage of rural and remote areas that today is an equity debt that we have, and that is unacceptable. Cellnex provides infrastructure and the knowledge to solve those challenges. But we need government and European institutions to define the framework clearly and to commit the necessary resources that they recognize infrastructure companies as what we are, which is strategic partners of the European digital agenda, not just low-cost suppliers.

The model of our business has developed. Cellnex should not be perceived as an outsourcer of asset portfolios. We should be recognized as what we are, which is a technological partners of the operators, of our customers, of the governments and the European digital economy. And that involves a continuation of our investment in next-generation technologies, in network solutions for applications for AI, energy efficiency because sustainability and competitiveness do not oppose each other, they reinforce each other and also in the training of digital talent in the markets where we operate.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, Europe needs industrial champions, not national champions who are protected by artificial borders, but European companies that are able to compete at a global scale to mobilize private capital in the long term, to execute with excellence that -- and that's what European citizens deserve. Cellnex aspires to be one of those players. We have the assets, we have the experience, we have the team and we have the ambition.

What we request from Europe and from its governments, institutions and investors is that they trust in our model, that they respect the agreements and that they bet and promote investments. And what we committed to do was to keep back what we have always offered: quality infrastructure, disciplined management, sustainable growth return for investors and value creation in the long term.

I would like to close with my gratitude. I would like to thank you, dear shareholders, for your trust and your support; to the Board for the commitment and the work; and to all the Cellnex professionals in 10 countries whose daily work makes it possible everything that I'm telling you today. Analysts, investors, journalists, regulators, national governments, European organizations, thank you very much. Thank you for this permanent dialogue. We continue to build together. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Marco. Now before we start the Q&A session in accordance with the good governance call for listed companies, I'm going to inform you about the degree of follow-up of the recommendations of the Stock and Exchange Commission recommendations.

As it is encompassed in the report on corporate governance for the year 2025, Cellnex complies with almost all the recommendations of this ethics code. There's only one, recommendation 48, that we do not fulfill. And excluding all the other recommendations that were not applicable to the company in 2025. Among those, because we -- the company was not controlled by another institution, not having exercised any shareholders the right to supplement the agenda, not having premiums for attendance to the AGM and not having no many directors.

And the only recommendation that we do not fulfill, which is recommendation 48, establishes that the high capitalization companies have appointments and separate appointments and remuneration committees. Regarding that, I would say that the sustainability appointment and remuneration committee is just one because we didn't consider it necessary to have separate ones because the current committee is able to carry out both aspects in a unified way.

I turn the floor over now to the Secretary, who is going to read the data about the quorum and attendance.

Thank you very much. The final data regarding attendance are the following: 76 present shareholders who own 85,469,000 shares that represent 12.52% of the share capital, and 256 represented by proxy with 507,400,000 shares that represent 74.4% of the share capital. So among all, we have 332 shares -- shareholders that are holders of 562 million shares that represent 86.82% of the share capital of Cellnex. The final quorum will be published in the web page and in the minutes of this meeting in the next 4 to 5 days. We also state that the treasury stock are in the amount of 13,680,000 shares representing 1.71% of the share capital.

All as a consequence of the execution of the repurchase agreement of shares that was communicated in November 2025 with the purpose to reduce the share capital of the company through amortization of acquired shares, which will be carried out according to the capital reduction agreement that was agreed this AGM. According to the article 48 of the company's law, the treasury stock has been calculated as part of the attendance quorum for the holding of this AGM, but treasury stock have a suspension of the voting rights and also political rights. So they have not voted in this AGM.

Dear President?

In light of the data that has been appointed, we ratify that this is a validly convened AGM in its second call.

Now we open up the Q&A session, the turn of interventions according to Article 17 of bylaws. The interventions of those requesting to take the floor will be done in the order in which they are called. I request that you state whether you are acting on your own behalf or on behalf of other shareholders.

In order to facilitate the development of the meeting, once you conclude your intervention, we will answer one after the other. To all the questions, all those requests of information that cannot be answered here will be answered in the next 7 days as contemplated in the company's law.

So we have -- we can declare the Q&A session closed.

So after clarifying all the questions, we go on to the next chapter.

According to the requirements of the call and according to the instructions, we close the voting process of those remote attendees for the items in the agenda, which were open up to now, although no shareholders have connected.

Votes in favor will be considered those to all the shares that are present in person or by proxy. And those are both against or want to abstain, they will have to make it clear right now by coming to the floor so that the notary public can take note of it. And we have processed all the votes that have been received so far. Both those that were submitted remotely and those that are extracted from all the channels that have been made available.

Now, at the request of the Chairman, I will make a summary of the proposals that are submitted to consideration of this AGM, and I will show the voting results close to -- with abstentions and everything. There's shareholders that are attending in the way that I have indicated.

Item 1 of the agenda, approval of the annual accounts management report and financial information. Corresponding to the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Item number 2 of the agenda, approval of the consolidated nonfinancial statement of information and sustainability information contained in the consolidated management report for the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Third item of the agenda, approval of the proposal for the application of the company's profit for the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Fourth item in the agenda, approval of the management of the Board of Directors for the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Fifth item, approval of a share capital reduction for a maximum amount of EUR 6,250,000 through the redemption of a maximum of 25 million shares treasury stock of the company, delegation to the Board of Directors of the powers to set the other conditions of the reduction in all matters not foreseen by the General Shareholders' Meeting, including the powers to redraft Article 6 of the bylaws related to the share capital and to request the delisting of the -- and cancellation of the accounting records of shares that are redeemed.

Item number 6 of the agenda, amendment of the bylaws. 6.1, amendment of Article 5, corporate purpose the company's Articles of Association. Item number 6.2 of the agenda, amendment of Article 7, nature or forum on the shares of the company's bylaws. 6.3, amendment of Article 9, the shareholders and the corporate governance system of the company's bylaws. 6.4, the creation of Article 9 Bis, shareholders' rights of the company's bylaws. 6.5, the creation of Article 9 Ter, the capital increase and reduction of the company's bylaws. 6.6, amendment of Article 18, term of the position of Director of the company's bylaws. Item 6.7 of the agenda, amendment of Article 2020 -- Article 22, distribution of profits, provision and materialization of reserves of the company's bylaws.

Item 7 in the agenda, reelection and appointment of directors and fixing of the number of members of the Board of Directors. 7.1, reelection of Mr. Óscar Fanjul as an Independent Director. Item 7.2, reelection of Mr. Marco Emilio Angelo Patuano as Executive Director. Item 7.3 of the agenda, reelection of Ms. Concepción del Rivero Bermejo as Independent Director. 7.4 of the agenda, reelection of Ms. Ana García Fau as Independent Director. Item 7.5, reelection of Mr. Christian Coco as -- or nominee director. Item 7.6, reelection of Ms. María Teresa Ballester Fornés as Independent Director. And Item 7.7, reelection of Mr. Jonathan Amouyal as Nominee Director. Item 7.8, reelection of Mr. Dominique D'Hinnin as Independent Director. And Item 7.9, appointment of Ms. Cynthia Gordon as Independent Director. 7.10, appointment of Mr. Kais Ben Hamida as Independent Director. And 7.11, fixing the number of members of the Board of Directors that would be set at 12%.

Item 8 of the agenda, remuneration. 8.1, approval of the delivery of 64,747 shares of the company to the Chief Executive Director, Mr. Marco Patuano, as a share component of the special incentive or buyout award agreed on the occasion of the -- his incorporation into the company on the 1st of June 2023. 8.2, approval of multiyear and long-term incentive plan consisting of the delivery of shares of the company to executives and employees of the group, including the Chief Executive Officer, and the approval of the delivery of shares to the Chief Executive Officer under the aforementioned incentive plan. Item 8.3, amendment of the directors' remuneration policy.

Item 9, this is an advisory vote on the annual report on directors' remuneration for the year 2025.

On Item 10, delegation of powers to formalize, amend, interpret and execute all the resolutions adopted by the General Shareholders Meeting.

In light of the development of the vote -- regardless of the votes that have not been contemplated yet, there is a majority, which is sufficient to approve all the proposals that were submitted by the Board of Directors to the AGM. So we can declare all the items in the agenda approved.

On the other hand, regarding Item 7, which is a reelection and appointment of members of directors, all those appointments have been proposed, they have accepted through in writing for -- to take on that position. And there is no conflict or legal incompatibility to perform that task.

The result of the votes and everything will be stated in the notarial deed. According to Article 525 of the company law, in the next 5 days, we will include the information and the results of the votes and the agreements that have been -- the resolutions that have been agreed, on the web page.

We have -- the Chief -- the CEO has had the highest figure in terms of approval as among the members of the Board. So -- and he's ahead of me. So also get ready because this is not a very nice, at least in Spain. So having said that, with the approval of all the proposals that were submitted by the Board of Directors regarding both -- all the items in the agenda, we can declare the meeting adjourned, and we thank you very much for your attendance.

[Statements in English on this transcript were spoken by an interpreter present on the live call.]

Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our First Quarter 2026 Conference Call -- Results Conference Call. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that the presentation contains forward-looking statements, and please refer to the disclaimer included in the appendix to the slides.

So Marco Patuano, our CEO, will open with the main highlights of our results and some strategic commentary; and then our CFO, Raimon Trias, will take you through some more details on the results for this quarter. And then we'll be available to take your questions as usual.

In addition to the slides in the pack that we've just posted on the website, we've also included, as we have in the last couple of quarters, some frequently asked questions slides. And in addition, we're highlighting some IR materials in the back of the presentation that are now available on our website and that covers some of the more recurrent themes that come up in conversations with you and our investors, and we hope you find them useful.

So with that, let me hand over to Marco.

Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Good evening, everyone.

It's a pleasure to be with you again as we open Q1 2026 and reflect on what has been a strong start to the year. In Q1 '26, we continue to deliver on all fronts, confirming the resilience and predictability of our industrial model. The macro environment remains volatile, and we continue to execute our strategy with conviction, and our results speak for themselves.

Let me take you through the 5 key themes of this slide. The first is on operating and financial performance. Our business fundamentals remain very healthy, as shown by the 4.7% year-on-year growth in PoPs, demonstrating a sustained demand from our customers across the portfolio. And we had another strong quarter in terms of organic financial performance, reflecting the solid performance of all our business drivers and our ability to drive operating leverage.

So revenues, plus 4.7%, adjusted EBITDA, plus 6.4%, EBITDA after lease by 7.2% with margin expanding from 58.8% to 60.5%, led by the ongoing efficiency measures and proactive management initiatives. The recurring levered free cash flow grew by 12.2%. And on a per share basis, the increase was 18%, combining the impact on organic growth and our share buyback program. As a second point, I would like to highlight the consolidation of our free cash flow turning point. We generated EUR 118 million of free cash flow in Q1 '26, an increase of EUR 184 million versus Q1 '25. Free cash flow is no longer a forward-looking commitment. It's here, it's growing. Third point, a comment on macro and capital markets. Our revenue and cost structure remains naturally hedged against inflation, and our balance sheet is well insulated from rate volatility with ample cash and undrawn revolving credit facilities, providing funding optionality to avoid unfavorable market windows.

I will talk a little bit more about this point. The fourth point is on asset rotation. In Q1 '26, we cashed in the proceeds from the disposal of our French data center, which was EUR 373 million and from the DIV II fund participation, which was EUR 170 million. This transaction further sharpened our focus on core telecom infrastructure assets and enhance our financial flexibility. And last, the fifth, shareholder remuneration. 2026 dividends totaled EUR 500 million, 2 equal tranches. The first tranche has already been paid EUR 250 million on January 15, 2026, and the second tranche of the other EUR 250 million is going to be paid on July 15, 2026. Our share buyback program continued throughout the quarter with EUR 60 million executed in Q1 '26. As of March 31, '26, EUR 260 million out of the EUR 500 million announced on November 6 has already been completed, and the outstanding balance is on track to be completed by year-end 2026.

So I ask you kindly to move to Slide 5, where I want to take a moment to reinforce why our business is structurally resilient in the current environment. Our macro protection framework rests on 4 pillars: revenue; costs; rates; and liquidity, which offer protection in the volatile environment we are living in. On revenues, 65% of our revenues are linked to inflation and a further 35% have fixed escalators, meaning that our entire revenue base has built-in growth mechanism regardless of the inflation environment. On costs, approximately 80% of our energy consumption is directly passed through to tenants by contract. And the remaining residual exposure is hedged through forward contracts and PPAs. In practice, our energy cost base is almost entirely price protected. OpEx growth is below inflation, which drives margin expansion and reinforcing operating leverage. So net inflation exposure results to be positive. On rates, 78% of our debt is at fixed rate, providing contained exposure to rate fluctuations. Our variable debt, 22% of the total is linked to the 1-month Euribor, which has shown relatively low volatility and is further protected through pre-hedge mechanism.

Our average maturity is 4.3 years, and it gives us a balanced refinancing profile, spread over various years, avoiding any near-term concentration risk and liquidity. We entered the quarter with approximately EUR 6 billion of liquidity, EUR 3 billion in cash and a further EUR 3 billion in undrawn committed revolving credit facilities. Our 2026 maturities are fully funded, and we maintain the flexibility to tap bond markets opportunistically when market conditions are going to be considered favorable. As you may recall, in Q1 '26, we issued a dual series bonds for EUR 1.5 billion to prefund our 2026 refinancing needs, extending maturities to 5 and 10 years and securing pricing at an average of 3.4%.

This framework is not new. It has been a cornerstone of our investment case since our Capital Market Day, and it is increasingly visible in our number quarter after quarter. Let's move now to Slide 6. I want to take a moment to show you that our margin expansion story is not a recent deployment. It is a multiyear trend, and it is accelerating. On a pro forma basis, excluding Ireland, French data center, the O&M business discontinued in Spain, our EBITDA margin has expanded consistently from 82.7% in Q1 '23 to 84.7% in Q1 '26. It's 200 basis points of expansion over 3 years, driven by continued organic growth, operational transformation of our industrial platform, strict cost discipline and the inherent operating leverage of our infrastructure model.

But the EBITDA after lease picture is even more compelling. EBITDA after lease margin moved from 55.3% in Q1 '23 to 60.6% in Q1 '26, more than 530 basis points of improvement in the same time frame. This reflects not only EBITDA progress, but also the tangible results of our proactive land management program, which is structurally reducing our lease cost base over time. The trajectory of success is clear, and possibly, there is more to come. In Slide 7, I want to spend a few minutes on a topic that I know is in front of mind for many of you. So the MNO consolidation in France and specifically the SFR process.

I want to be direct. We are well positioned, well protected, and we intend to be a proactive and constructive part for the solution. Let me walk you through our exposure and the contractual protection we have in place. We operate approximately 33,000 PoPs across 27,000 sites in France. Our contracts are structured to require Cellnex consent for any changes to the MSAs, including transfer or contract splits, which means that we are a necessary party in any consolidation scenario. In terms of our exposure to the SFR-related process, out of our total SFR PoPs, approximately 12,000, a little over 40% are located in dense areas.

Of those, less than 10% are non-anchor PoPs. In rural areas, the Crozon areas represent 57% of the PoP outside dense areas. Risk is very low. RAN sharing between SFR and Bouygues is already in place in these areas and secondary contracts have already been renewed for 10 or 12 years, providing long-term visibility on that portion of the portfolio. We have performed extensive analysis of potential overlap post consolidation, and it is confirmed that estimated impact remain limited. And critically, from a structural demand perspective, France ranks 49th globally in the 4G, 5G availability according to OperSignal. Densification is needed in urban areas and the ARCEP new deal and the 5G obligation require further rollout by 2030.

This means that regardless of ownership structure, network investment must continue and Cellnex is the natural partner. On the contractual structure, you can see at the top left of the slide, our long-term MSA agreement maturing in more than 10 years with all or netting extension and also the secondary contracts were both recently renewed in 2023. As a leading provider of critical infrastructure in the French market, Cellnex will inevitably have to be part of the discussion and an enabler for a solution that is beneficial for all.

Our objective is straightforward, preserve the NPV of our contracts, secure relationship with financially healthier clients and minimize any PoP losses, while maximizing the use of committed and future densification programs. I want -- also to set the right expectation on timing. This is a complex regulatory and commercial process, and it is not likely to be solved quickly. We're talking about a multiyear journey, one that will involve regulatory review, commercial negotiation, technological realignment, careful sequencing across multiple parties. And all this will be happening whilst operations still need to deliver best-in-class communication experiences to their customers. From Cellnex perspective, that is not a source of concern. It is actually a source of comfort.

Our contracts are long term. Our protections are contractual and time works in our favor. We are in no rush, and we will not be pressured into outcomes that do not preserve the full value of our infrastructures. We are available to support our customers throughout the strategic transformation of their business, but with full visibility on the strength of our position and the conviction that we will achieve an outcome that is positive for our customers and for us. We will keep you updated as the process evolves. On Italy, there has been no change in the fundamental of our business. We recently covered the key dynamics of the market and our business in detail, including our position regarding the ongoing discussion between Iliad, Fastweb, Vodafone and TIM.

We had a fireside chat hosted by Morgan Stanley on March 31, 2026, and the full recording and supporting materials are available on our IR website. So I encourage you to refer to the session for a comprehensive view of our perspective on the Italian market. You will find a direct link to the IR materials at the end of this results presentation. So after this rush, so let me hand over to Raimon, who will walk you through the details of our Q1 2026 results.

Thank you, Marco. Good evening, everyone. I would like to start by reinforcing the very positive performance we delivered in the first quarter of '26 in terms of organic growth and cash conversion. Robust revenue growth, combined with continued focus on operational excellence is driving higher profitability, a stronger operating leverage and expanding cash flow. As you can see in the slide, the improvement is visible across every step of the waterfall. On a pro forma basis, starting with organic revenue growth, we delivered a solid 4.7% year-on-year.

Adjusted EBITDA grew by 6.4%, supported by our ongoing business transformation and increased operational efficiencies. EBITDA after lease was 7.2% higher, incorporating our proactive lease management activity. And the recurrent levered free cash flow rose by 12.2% year-on-year, supported by the disciplined implementation of our capital allocation strategy. The headline metric that reflects our focus on shareholder value creation, recurrent levered free cash flow per share grew by 18%, driven not only by operational improvement and disciplined financial management, but also by the continued execution of our share buyback program.

As usual, on Slide 10, we show you the bridge between the reported and organic pro forma revenue growth. Starting from EUR 964 million of revenues in the first quarter '25, the perimeter adjustment for Ireland, the French data centers and the O&M business line discontinued in Spain, brings us to a pro forma revenue base of EUR 941 million. From there, the combination of escalators and CPI contributing EUR 14 million, Colocation and other business adding EUR 9 million and Build-to-Suit and fiber revenues of EUR 21 million led to organic revenue growth on a like-for-like basis of 4.7%, bringing organic revenues to EUR 985 million.

A small combined FX and perimeter adjustment of EUR 1 million takes reported numbers of the first quarter of '26 revenues to EUR 984 million. The strong organic revenue performance is led by consistent PoPs growth. As you can see in the next slide, gross PoP growth was 5.4% year-on-year, and net PoP growth was 4.7%. Let me give you some further detail. In the first quarter '26, we added 1,772 gross new PoPs, comprising 962 from gross colocation and 810 from Build-to-Suit additions. Churn was contained at 885, of which Spain accounts for the majority. This gives us 1,587 net new PoPs in the quarter.

If we look at it on a country by country, France was the lead country, mainly by the solid rollout of our Build-to-Suit programs with Iliad and SFR. Italy's performance was driven by Fastweb, Vodafone and Iliad RAN sharing program, while Poland continues to deliver the execution of Build-to-Suit with Play. In Spain, program churn from the MasOrange deal was offset with an additional Build-to-Suit and organic growth in PoPs, evidence of continued demand for network densification and coverage in the Spanish market.

The sequential trend is consistent with typical seasonal pattern. First quarter is historically a softer quarter for Colocation activity with momentum building progressively through the year, as you can see in the chart at the bottom. I would like to highlight that the net PoPs in the first quarter '26 is 28% higher than the same quarter last year. The strength of our operational performance flows directly to Tower revenues, which grew organically by 5.3% above the consolidated revenue growth rate, reflecting the continued outperformance of our core business, as you can see in the Slide 12.

Starting from EUR 778 million of Tower revenues in the first quarter '25, the Ireland perimeter adjustment brings us to a pro forma base of EUR 767 million. From there, escalators and CPI contributed EUR 13 million, Colocation added EUR 10 million and Build-to-Suit generated EUR 18 million, reaching organic Tower revenue growth of 5.3%. After an FX perimeter adjustment and other of minus EUR 7 million, reported Tower revenues in the first quarter came in at EUR 801 million.

Moving to Slide 13. Let me cover our other business lines. Fiber, Connectivity and Housing Services grew 4.3% organically, adjusted for the French data center disposal and supported by the continued rollout of the Nexloop project in France. DAS, Small Cell and Broadcast Service grew 1.1% organically, adjusted for the O&M activity discontinued in Spain. Within this segment, DAS and Small Cells delivered growth of over 16% year-on-year, reflecting a strong momentum in the U.K. and other key markets. The quarter was negatively impacted by lower trading projects in the first quarter and the FX impacts from the run in Poland.

Broadcasting grew 0.2% organically. As agreed in the 2025 contract renewals, CPI indexation will start contributing from April '26. So we expect a more meaningful contribution from Broadcasting in the second quarter onwards. The next slide captures how our continued focus on operational efficiency is translating into tangible cost improvements across all key expenses lines. All metrics are on a pro forma basis, again, excluding Ireland, the French data centers and the O&M business in Spain. Our efficiency initiatives are translated in clear margin expansion, minus 5.7% in staff cost, plus 4.6% in repair and maintenance impacted in this quarter by timing effects, but we expect for the full year '26, a reduction in line with our efficiency plan proof on prior results trends.

SG&A was down 13% and leases 0.2%, enhanced by our land acquisition plan that is accelerating and the rent renegotiations and cash advances. In summary, the operational efficiency is not limited to topline growth. It runs through the full cost structure.

Moving to Slide 15. The slide shows the bridge from reported EBITDA after leases to free cash flow and all the components that shape our cash generation in the first quarter 2026. Starting from EBITDAaL of EUR 595 million after maintenance CapEx of minus EUR 20 million, working capital of EUR 37 million negative, net interest paid of EUR 122 million and tax paid of minus EUR 39 million, we arrive at a recurring level free cash flow of EUR 378 million. Deducting expansion CapEx of EUR 67 million and the Build-to-Suit CapEx of EUR 193 million, the free cash flow comes in at EUR 118 million.

As Marco mentioned, it's a turning point when compared to the same quarter last year, where free cash flow was minus EUR 66 million. The strong free cash flow generation in the first quarter '26 is driven by 3 main factors: operational performance; our efficient capital and tax structure with optimized cost of debt; and lower CapEx intensity as the Build-to-Suit cycle normalizes. Moving to the next slide. Our operational improvements are clearly flowing through to cash, and this slide puts that in perspective. On a pro forma basis, recurrent levered free cash flow grew by 12.2% to EUR 363 million from EUR 323 million in the first quarter '25.

Recurrent levered free cash flow per share increased by 18% with additional per share improvement coming from our ongoing share buyback program, which continues to reduce the share count and enhance value per share. Looking at reported free cash flow. It reached [ EUR 118 million ] in the first quarter '26 versus minus [ EUR 66 million ] in the first quarter '25, an improvement year-on-year of EUR 184 million. As explained before, this improvement is driven by solid recurrent levered free cash flow growth by lower intensity of CapEx as build-to-suit declines.

First quarter '26 confirms the positive trajectory we described at our full year results '25. The inflection in free cash flow generation is not longer a projection, it's a fact. Moving to Slide 17. Our liquidity and funding position remains robust. As of the end of the first quarter '26, we have total liquidity of approximately EUR 6 billion, comprising EUR 3 billion in cash and further EUR 3 billion in undrawn committed revolving credit facilities. Our 2026 maturities are fully funded, providing complete visibility on near-term refinancing needs. As highlighted, in the first quarter '26, we successfully issued dual series bonds for EUR 1.5 billion with maturities of 5 and 10 years at a blended pricing of 3.4%.

This was a proactive move to anticipate our 2026 refinancing requirements, extend duration and locking attractive pricing in a window of favorable market conditions. The transaction attracted a strong investor demand and further demonstrates the confidence that debt capital markets have in our credit story. Our strategy when issuing bonds allow us to preserve our cost of debt, while maintaining ample liquidity buffers. On gross debt composition, our EUR 20.2 billion stack is well diversified. Euro Straight Bonds represent circa EUR 12 billion, convertible bonds, circa EUR 3.5 billion and bank debt, circa EUR 3.5 billion with Swiss instruments at around EUR 1 billion. This reflects the disciplined funding strategy that underpins the free cash flow trajectory we described.

Moving to Slide 18. I would like to give you a clear picture of where we stand on shareholder remuneration, both what has been executed and what remains ahead. In 2025, we returned a total of EUR 1 billion to shareholders, comprising EUR 12 million in dividends and EUR 1 billion through our share buyback program. That was a year of strong capital returns. In 2026, we have committed to returning a minimum amount of EUR 800 million, made up of EUR 500 million in dividends and EUR 300 million in share buybacks. Looking at the execution timeline for the year, the first dividend tranche of EUR 250 million was paid in January '26 as committed.

By the end of March '26, we had already executed EUR 60 million of the buyback program committed for this year from the EUR 300 million in total. The second dividend tranche of EUR 250 million will be paid in July 2026 on July 15. The remaining EUR 240 million of our ongoing buyback program will be executed until the end of the year. We are on track. The program is being executed with discipline and precision. In summary, first quarter '26 was another quarter of strong organic performance with healthy drivers of demand across our portfolio. Operational transformation and financial discipline are driving strong margin expansion and free cash flow growth as promised. Our equity story remains intact with our leading industrial platform delivering on its premise of highly predictable and secure revenue growth and consolidating the generation of strong returns and value creation for our shareholders.

With that, let me hand over to Maria for the Q&A. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Raimon. Thank you, Marco. So we're now available to take your questions. So looking at the list, we have Ondrej from UBS to kick off the questions.

Thank you for the additional materials also that you sent around yesterday. I wanted to touch upon, obviously, France, probably as the first question. So we now have new color from the consortium given the revised and seemingly final offer, including that Bouygues committing to acquire SFR networks in densely populated areas. So I was just wondering if there is an update on the discussions from your point of view, including any kind of further detail on how you are involved in possible synergy and remedy talks of your customers? And when do you expect to be able to kind of provide an update to the market after, obviously, the deal completes?

And then second question that I had, if I may, just on the tenancy side with respect to the U.K. Obviously, you're progressing with the VodafoneThree network integration. And I was wondering from VodafoneThree's competitors who are now at a material disadvantage when it comes to the site count in the U.K., do you see kind of progress in their willingness or plans to bridge that gap? And can we expect an acceleration in tenancies based on that going forward? And is that a blueprint you think for some of the potential M&A situations in other countries in the EU?

Okay. So you should know, Ondrej, that you made Vincent, my Chief Strategy Officer, win the bet on the first question because he bet on France. So he won. On France, the situation is finally becoming way more clear and this is a net positive. So the consortium entered in an exclusivity period. They are working on what is a full offer that includes, not only a term sheet, but includes an SPA and all the terms of the SPA, which is very positive because the transaction is fairly complicated. It's complicated in the execution. So a split of such a size has never been performed before and not only in Europe, it's never been done.

It's not obvious from the regulatory standpoint, and it's not obvious in terms of remedies that have to be decided by the regulator in order to approve the deal. So to some extent, our MSA is super clear, and this is a big advantage in the discussion we are having with the consortium because the terms of this MSA are not under question. So the driving principal of the MSA that any change in the MSA has to be agreed with us is recognized and agreed by everybody. So we want to be cooperative.

We have been cooperative in U.K., we've been cooperative in Spain, and we want to be cooperative. There are a lot of ways to be cooperative. And as we -- and we said many times, the value that we have to bridge with an NPV neutral negotiation is not that big, which again is a big advantage because more or less, we all agree that on what can be the numbers we are talking about. Now timing for sitting at the table. Until when the part of the consortium, the buy side and the sell side have not agreed, there is no matter of discussion. So we stay in Barcelona, and we wait for receiving a call, which is not true that it means that we are doing nothing.

So we are working CTOs with CTOs in order to understand where are the overlaps, where we can be useful, what we assume can be the logic of an agreement. But as of today, talking about having a negotiation, there is no negotiation because there was nothing on the table. So we agreed that we stay in contact. We stay very much in contact with the buy side. By the way, we are not blocking the operations with SFR because, for example, we continue to make network development in the Crozone zone, which is something that has been agreed by SFR by Bouygues because life goes on. And so we continue to operate, which is the reason why you see that our growth in France is okay.

And it's -- again, it's an indirect indicator that the relation among the party is okay because otherwise, if you start having problems, you don't work nicely on other areas. As we told you, we will inform if there are progresses. I think that if something move, we will be proactive in letting you know. On U.K. It's very interesting. So U.K., there's a lot going on because what is happening is that Vodafone is -- with one hand, is optimizing the integration of the 2 networks. And with the other hand, they have to start working on the remedies that they received from CMA. So they have to make this double job of becoming more efficient and increasing their presence.

And this starts to put some pressure on other operators. So allow me not to enter too much in the details, but we see the other operators starting making their own analysis on how they can commercially respond or better technologically respond to the network performance increase that VodafoneThree is start to have. Again, work in progress and keep you posted.

The next question comes from Roshan Ranjit from Deutsche Bank.

I've got 2, please. Firstly, on the Colocation trend, and thanks for the details as always. I appreciate there is seasonality through the year. But coming off the strong 400 gross Colocation number in Spain last quarter, could you perhaps provide us with a bit of color around the trends for the colocations through the year, particularly in Spain, given that the MergeCo is now fully focused on its reconfiguration, post the kind of network rationalization. So how can we expect that to, I guess, pick up through the year? And when should that accelerate?

And secondly, and maybe just touching on the previous question, thanks for the detail, Marco. You mentioned that there are no negotiations currently on the table from your side, I guess. Based on what the consortium have said, they're in this exclusivity period, and we are waiting on this MOU, which should present some kind of details around the synergies. So based on what you said around the MSAs and your strength of the MSA, should we think that there could be or should be limited synergies or savings from any kind of mobile network overlap or rationalization in France as part of this deal?

Okay. I take France and I leave Colocation to Raimon, okay? So France, the short answer is I don't think so. I don't think that having a limited number of overlaps means that the synergies are small. Synergies are also coming from improving the quality of the network using assets that already exist. So the fact that they start relocating SFR sites in order to cover needs of network improvement that the 3 of them will have, if you want, is somehow a way to make synergies because alternatively, if the deal didn't happen, they had to make huge CapEx.

Decommissioning is always good, not necessarily because you save on towers, but you save on antenna, you save on energy, you save on maintenance, you save on several aspects. And as we did in Spain some time, the good way to work is to decouple what you can do operationally from what will be the financial impact on the operation. So it's not necessarily true that if you decommission 1,000 antenna, you should have a discount of 1,000x the price of antenna. So you can negotiate with the clients in several ways, which is, I think, a proactive way and intelligent way to be positively a part of this efficiency gain.

So we want to help our clients to make the efficiency happen. So please don't think that we are against. We are strongly in favor of what is going on. We think that 3 operators will invest way more than what the 4 operators were doing on a stand-alone basis. So we are strongly there. We will do everything we can in order to allow our clients to be successful in this.

On the Spanish Colocation, just to highlight first, maybe let's try to remember how Colocation was last year in Spain. If you recall, and we were always showing the graph of Spain on a quarterly basis, last year, on the first quarter '25, we had a churn coming from the MasOrange transaction that was already planned with them that we managed to then recover between the second -- third quarter and mainly fourth quarter, thanks to the entrance of Digi in terms of land sharing. And that's what brought the big increase at the end of the year. This year, we're expecting a more normalized situation in Spain in the sense that we keep on deploying the rural 5G with some Build-to-Suit. You have seen that this quarter, we have something like 30 Build-to-Suits.

We believe it's going to continue in this trend, probably increasing a bit in the second half of the year. And from the Colocation perspective, we believe it's going to be more or less recurrent the same Colocation we're having now on the upcoming quarters with not big differences. So we do not expect to have this big peak at the end of the year coming from the Digi RAN sharing.

So the next question comes from Akhil Dattani, JPMorgan.

I've got 2 as well, please, if I can. The first one was just on disposals. Marco, you talked about the 2 recent transactions that you've closed. But I'm sure you've seen there's been press speculation in regards to you potentially having restarted the Swiss sale process. So I'd love to understand whether there's any credibility to these rumors. If there are, what's initiated that change and what you can tell us around conversation and what's going on. So that's the first one.

And then the second one, just to go back to France, but maybe address the question in a slightly different way. You mentioned that so far, there's been decent conversation, and I guess you're keen to work in a collaborative way with your partners. I guess you're probably also aware from the sidelines that we've seen a surprising shift in Italy after consolidation there in regards to what's happening in INWIT. So I'd love to understand, as you look at it from the outside in, what you're thinking around the situation in INWIT, how you would compare and contrast that with your situation in France, just to give the market comfort that, that's very different and not something we should be looking at too closely.

Akhil, happy to hear you. So -- I'm sorry, on the first point on Switzerland, as you said, we are talking about press rumors and the house habit is not to discuss about press rumors. So I'm sorry not to give you more color. We always said that if there is the price, we do a deal. If there is not the price, we don't. That's it, very simple. So I would like really to elaborate on your second question because it's very intriguing. I spent last week 3 days in Rome just to meet government, to meet the regulator, to meet our client and to spend time understanding closely what's happening. My strong conviction is that we are talking about a commercial lease agreement. So the parties of a commercial agreement have a strong disagreement of the terms of their contract. That's it. There is no signal, any signal that there is any regulatory or whatsoever backdrop in this, which seems to me absolutely logic. So it is what it should be.

And I spoke with my client very intensely. We have our renewal in 2030. So it's not something that is beyond the corner. And let me say that we are talking very constructively on what we should do together because the main point in Italy of my client is to understand about spectrum renewal what is going to be the investment coming with the spectrum renewal, how to improve the permitting, how to improve the operations, blah, blah, blah and a lot of work to do. So I would say that the Italian case -- the more I see the Italian case, the more it seems to me a commercial dispute. I'm very sorry to see that the commercial dispute can end in a court. But ultimately, I think that the rule of law is the rule of law.

And it's important not only for INWIT, I would say also for Italy to show that in a large country, the rule of law has to be respected. That's it, as simple as that. I'm sorry, I'm not very much in the details of this dispute because I'm the competitor. I cannot tell you more than this. So is it possible that it creates a pandemic effect on France? Look into the interest of the party, I would make it short and say no. So I don't see any signal that tells me that this can flow into the French situation. So to make it short, no.

Okay. So now moving on to the next question from Rohit Modi at Citibank.

Some of my questions have already been answered. Just 2 questions. Firstly, sorry, back on France. As the operator recently mentioned, there's been change in structure of the deal now from asset deal to shares deal, which means the entity has been transferred, will be transferred from Altice to consortium. Does that change anything from Cellnex position in terms of there will be change of control beforehand, before there's a split of asset? So just trying to understand from Cellnex perspective, is there any change that you see?

And secondly, you touched upon WindTre and certainly, there is a clause on the WindTre contract, which you have explicitly mentioned that there could be a price renegotiation that can happen between minus 15% to plus 5%. And given you're already in discussion, like if you can give any color around where do you see that ends by 2030?

Okay. A share deal is mildly better. It's almost the same. It's mildly better for us. In an asset deal, basically, you have to decide before where the asset go and which assets are treated in which way, which makes the preliminary work way more complicated. So in a share deal, you transfer the shares and you have more time to work on how to reallocate the assets among the members of the consortium, which makes it mildly better procedurally, I would say. From the legal perspective, it doesn't change absolutely nothing.

So our contracts are the same. But if you want to split, you need our consent. So if you transfer the shares, you can make it. There is a change of control issue, but there is no problem of splitting the contract. So it's mildly easier for us to deal with a share deal than with an asset deal, but not such a big difference. So the second question was you were referring to the WindTre contract, correct?

Yes, exactly. The renewal on the WindTre contract.

Okay. The renewal is due in 2030. So we are not in a hurry, not on my side and not on Benoit Hanssen side. So we have time. The contract is pretty clear because there is a corridor in which the new price is going to be set. As always, when you make a corridor, you take the midpoint of the corridor and it becomes a reference point. But what I can tell you, it's a bit early to discuss something that should happen in 2030. From the regulatory perspective, it's absolutely neutral. It's a renewal. So it's an all or nothing renewal that has no discussion from the client, no discussion from our side. So what's a really very much -- what is very much important for us is that we serve with the maximum quality, which seems to be the case. So happy for my Italian team.

The next question comes from Abhilash at BNP.

I've got 2 hopefully quick ones, please. Firstly, just on the Colocations and one of your smaller markets, Switzerland, it was mentioned. I mean, this has historically been a market with sort of relatively limited Colocation growth and you've, I think, previously characterized this as a sort of low growth market. So just wondering what drove the stronger growth in PoPs in Q1, Colocation PoPs and if that is something that we should expect to continue?

And then secondly, just coming back to your point on the U.K., just a point of clarification, I suppose, if there are sort of more BTS opportunities, is that something that Cellnex would be able to pursue? Or is there a market share limitation on Cellnex's ability to grow more sites in the U.K.

Okay. I'll take the second first, and then I leave to Raimon for Colocation. So on BTS, no, we have no limitation in order to participate eventually to a BTS program. Then, of course, we have to better understand what are the terms, what are the -- what is going to be the process, et cetera. But no, technically speaking, we have no particular limitation. So if there is some of our clients who want to go in this direction, we, for sure, we're going to be happy to participate. U.K. is a market where we would like to invest more. It's a very good market, solid market. And I think that the market repair will make it way better than before. So Raimon, please?

On the second question, just to make sure, Abhilash, that I understood. I'm not sure if you were talking just about Switzerland or if you were talking about all the countries.

Yes, that was on Switzerland, Raimon.

So Switzerland, we have had a good first quarter in terms of Colocation, mainly a lot of PoPs coming from [ ILD ] . I would say probably we don't need to expect that significant growth in the next quarters. I would say that the next quarter is going to be more in line with what we have had in the past in Switzerland, that there is a bit of a smaller growth in the Colocations, but it remains the Build-to-Suit program that we have that will continue over the next quarters.

Okay. Now moving on to James Ratzer at New Street.

So I had 2 questions as well. The first one was about thinking about the kind of impact of satellite on your business because what we've seen recently is people like Amazon, LEO, Starlink start to sign some tower backhaul agreements with MNOs. So I was kind of wondering whether is that something you would be open to offering on your towers? And I'm kind of wondering how could that affect your business? I mean, could that actually be additional upside for Cellnex because you would then start to get an additional tenant on the tower in the form of a Starlink or an Amazon LEO dish?

And then the second question I had was just on your Broadcast business in Spain. So you're indicating that, that growth is going to reaccelerate back to inflationary levels from Q2. Could you run us through what the details of the contract renegotiation you did last year there was? How secure is that revenue stream until the kind of next renegotiation? Should that just grow in line with inflation until then?

Yes. On satellite, more than additional revenues from backhauling, which is always possible. We don't see in our countries this happening a lot. But we still have some radio links. So backhauling made using high-capacity radio links. So should it be substituted with satellite links, it's not impossible. It always depends on several conditions, not only price, but especially performance. Now the price of a radio link and the price of a satellite link for backhauling is not very different. So not very big for the time being. What we see is LEO constellation looking for ground stations. So a ground station for the LEO constellation is pretty different from the old ones.

The old ones were very big dishes because the satellite was in an orbit approximately 700 to 800 kilometers in an orbit, which is 450 to 500 kilometers. So the kind of dish used for the dialogue with satellite is completely different. The configuration is different. The density is different, et cetera. So we are talking about areas relatively bigger than what we are used to do with with a normal tower.

We're talking about sort of 2,000 to 3,000 square meters of land, multi-antenna with land control for land control and data transmission. You need a very demanding requirement for energy, for connectivity. So we are talking about very, very, very high demand of energy. So we assume that in Europe, every constellation should have a sort of 40 to 50 ground station, at least the big ones. Eutelsat uses a totally different technology. So we should not refer to Eutelsat. We are referring to the LEO.

So this is basically what we are going. And of course, it's priced consistently. We don't price the same as a normal tower. It is a big animal. We have an agreement with one constellation. There are some several elements that are under NDA. So I stop here before I say something too much. My CEO is looking to me very badly. So I stop here.

On the broadcasting, James, just to give you an idea, we have renewed 5 years contract with the nonpublic broadcasters. It's true that in June '25, licenses were renewed for a longer period. It was 15 years, and contracts are CPI-based. So it's very simple.

Marco, on the first, have you got many towers where you have 2,000 to 3,000 square meters of land spare just adjacent to the tower?

No, they don't want to be in the same piece of land as a tower because the access -- the perimeteral access to this piece of land has to be very strictly monitored. And so we have to avoid the interferences, radio interferences, electromagnetic interferences. So it's -- no, no, no. It's a totally isolated piece of land. We are happy to do. We already did 2. So this I can say. We made 3. So Simone is correct, we made 3, and we have a pipeline of doing some more.

So we've got now about Nick Lyall from Berenberg.

I hope you can hear me. I have a couple of questions. Marco, if possible. Just coming back to the U.K., you mentioned it's a solid market, way better than before on your expectations. But could you help us on how that growth in the U.K. might be split between VodafoneThree and the remedies? Are the remedies enough to keep the VodafoneThree revenue positive and growing and raising it? Or are you reliant on the other operators coming in for the U.K. to grow? Could you just tell us how the consolidation affects it?

And then secondly, on the contract renewals. There's been a lot of talk of the operators' balance sheets getting stronger. They're going to get more aggressive because of this all linked with the INWIT situation. So how are you finding the operator's approach to pricing as they renew contracts? Is there any sense the operators want more aggressive cuts to prices at renewals or things as they were before?

Okay. Good. So on U.K., I would say that it's very; different the job that VodafoneThree is doing from what the other operators are doing. VodafoneThree has 2 hot potato in the hands. One is you have to take 2 networks and you have to integrate and make in one and to understand every time you have a duplication, what is the better alternative forward looking. And I underline well forward looking because what we see is that operators before dismantling something in urban areas, they think it 3x, not only one time because then the process of building in dense urban areas is not improving in terms of permitting, in terms of time to market, et cetera.

So Vodafone has a dual need. They have the need of making the 2 networks being integrated. And then they have to expand their coverage. And in the coverage expansion, they have to consider that they have a portion of the country in which they are RAN sharing with VMO2, which adds another element of complexity because in their part of the Beacon RAN sharing, they can do basically what they want. In the other part of the RAN sharing, they have to sit and discuss and agree with VMO2.

So this is Vodafone. We are working a lot with Vodafone because, as you know, the network of Hutchison Three U.K. was heavily relying on us. And so we're working with VodafoneThree in order to design for them the best combination, the best possible combination. And what is important is that we have been able to give them a good quantity of flexibility without impacting our revenues, which has been particularly good.

Now the conversation with everything everywhere and with the VMO2 is totally different. So they have their network. They have to decide to make their decision how to expand their network. EE is totally hands-free and VMO2 has the topic of Bacon and to understand what they do in Beacon. So it's an interesting puzzle. It's fairly complex, but we are at the table with 3 of them. And it's going to be very interesting. On the operational approach, you are making a point that I think it's the big misunderstanding of the contract renewals, okay? So when an anchor contract is signed, in the anchor contract, there is a component, which is clearly, clearly a financial component. So this financial component is designed over a long period, over a 20-year time frame. So you cannot come after 10 years and say, you know my balance sheet now is okay, I want to renegotiate the price.

So think about real estate. So a part of what you are paying is a mortgage because this is what they did over a 20-year period. So can you go after 10 years and say, I'm sorry, I want to rediscuss because my balance sheet is better. No, I think that the fact that the balance sheet is better is very relevant. It's very relevant because the new Build-to-Suits are going to be designed possibly with a lower component -- with a lower financial component, with a higher industrial component, which is super good. We are 100% okay with this. But sorry, you cannot come and say that the old contracts have to be renewed because you feel better. So I'm happy for you that you feel better.

Also, Nick, we have added into the frequently asked questions part. Two documents, one where you can see all the due date of renewals of our contracts being the first one in 2030 and thereof after 2033 going forward. And we have added as well the record of the contract renewals we have had so far. And in all of them, we have managed to find a way forward that is good for the MNO, that is good for us, and we have managed to close with very good results.

Okay. Moving on to Andrew at Goldman Sachs.

I just -- there's 2 basically follow-up questions. One, just following on from Akhil's question on Switzerland. I wonder if I could just ask maybe more hypothetical question around potential deals, but more about the interest levels of private investors in towers. So a year, 2 years ago, we saw private investors storming around towers with a low cost of capital and prepared to pay a premium. And then for the last 1.5 years, we haven't really seen anything apart from a pretty low multiple deal in France.

Are you seeing a return of interest of private investors or any sign of return of interest to private investors into the space given credit backdrops, et cetera? And any sense of the cost of capital having shifted on that front? Just trying to get a sense of is there a bid out there outside of public investors who are obviously weighed down by several structural concerns at the moment?

And then secondly, one of the things that, I guess, people are trying to get to the bottom of around the U.K. and Spain is when will we see evidence that post consolidation, there's an acceleration in investment in networks and densification. I think in -- so rather than what's going on now, I think in the past, I think you suggested that we might start to see that densification evidence in 2027. What are you seeing right now that's giving you optimism that we'll start to see that acceleration in investment? And if you've got any sense of time line, that would be helpful.

Yes. I answer to your question saying that at least there is more optimism in the U.S. So if I take what is happening around SBA, Vertical Bridge, et cetera, it seems to me that at least some better sense of humor is there. So there is more -- I think that some of the big headwinds have been -- I don't know. I think my personal view, they have been overpriced in our share price. And I would say in our sector. There have been -- there are headwinds, yes, possibly, yes. It has been fairly priced. I think it has been overpriced.

Because when you see the risk premium that a sector like the towers is now facing, I think it's a bit too high. So with a lower risk premium, we should be in a different territory with our shares. And this possibly explains why starting from the U.S. where there are bigger PoPs of capital, possibly it's started from there. Sorry, it's an indirect answer.

On U.K., Spain, my base case remain 2027, not because I'm not working. Believe me that my team is working every single day in order to let it happen before. But if you ask me a realistic vision, a realistic vision is that I prefer to keep it as a 2027 event with a potential good surprise if it happens before. But it remains for me a 2027 acceleration.

So now David Wright from Bank of America.

Hopefully, you can hear me. I'll make it nice and brief. I guess it's kind of an opposite to James' question about satellite coverage. Marco, do you think generally, I mean, we're seeing stand-alone 5G rollout across Europe now. Would you think there is really an indoor solution in place right now for the industry? It seems to have been very under-indexed in conversations certainly with the investor community. Do you think the European telcos have a sufficient indoor coverage solution under stand-alone 5G? Or do you think that could be another wave of potential revenue acceleration for the towers?

I think that in general terms, Europe is underinvested in 5G, so not only indoor. Take a car, make a road trip in several countries, U.K., France, Germany, and you have -- and you discover how many times you are without 5G. So indoor is, for sure, an issue, but it's not only the indoor. So I think that people start to consider good 5G coverage as something absolutely needed. So you see that at least it happens to me, I'm always annoyed when I'm traveling by train in between Barcelona and Madrid and my phone is not working properly.

So this is why, by the way, we decided to make the so-called Vertical Solution business unit because you need specialization, you need capital, you need know-how, you need a lot of things. So short, 5G is not enough macro and micro. On macro, I think that the investment is so big that operators need to have some, I would say, some tailwind that can come from spectrum renewal. It can come from in-market consolidation. It can come just from price uplift, we start seeing some price uplift. Please consider that the GSMA, not Marco, the GSMA said that they think that Europe should make not less than EUR 100 billion of 5G investments in the coming 5 to 7 years. So this is a big number.

And second, what we call special coverage, special coverage, which includes indoor, includes transportation routes. It includes mega concentration places like football stadium, arena, railway station, airports, et cetera. We have to work on all of this. And there is a lot of work coming and a lot of work for my -- Gianluca, the Head of Vertical Solutions.

So now it's time for the last question. So Fernando Cordero from Santander.

It is related with land investments. I would like just to understand for how long do you expect the current EUR 200 million, EUR 250 million per year generic run rate could be, let's say, the standard. And in that sense, also, if you are seeing any kind of pressure on the returns on land acquisition or do you continue to have compelling returns in that product?

Thank you. Very good question, especially the second part. So how long do I expect? As of today, the percentage of our land long-term ownership, call it, property, call it, long-term prepayment is still relatively low. So we are in a sort of 15% at the end of the year, maybe less. So let's say, possibly something between 13% and 15% at the end of the year. If you ask me what is a reasonable target, it's not going to be 50%. It's going to be way less.

So if we say 25% to -- 25% to 30%, it's reasonable. So what we are missing is another 12%, 13%. So make the math and you see that the number remains pretty material. But if you want to see the other way around, the opportunity for saving is material, massive. So the increase in EBITDA after lease margin can be still good for several years in a row. Now the second part of your question is very interesting because I would say that the so-called hostile land aggregators, which are guys who have a pretty predatory attitude of buying the land in order to have unfair profit from this acquisition is reducing.

What is there is there are land aggregators, which are doing their job. So they have a cheap capital, cheap financing. They go in the market. They know that we are a good client. We are good risk. So at the end, they can invest because we are a good payer, and it makes -- so our strategy is not to enter in a match race in which we pay any number. We don't pay any number. So if a deal is convenient, we make the deal. If the deal is not convenient, we sit and we discuss. By the way, we are entering very good agreements with some land aggregators. Why? Exactly because we are a good payer. And so sometimes, they like to have a big portfolio of land where we are the tenant. We negotiate good price for 10 years, 12 years, 15 years, and we sign good agreements.

So to make a long story short, as of today, our return remains very good. Very good means levered return after tax is way double digit. It's not double digit. It's way double digit, okay? So good, cool. Until when it's like this, we will continue to be selective and to use our capital. If the condition materially change, we will review the logic, but we are pretty strict in the capital allocation.

Last point, which is important, our people from our Chief Operating Officer now is putting together 2 concepts, which is land acquisition and MNO consolidation. So don't buy the land of a tower that the day after tomorrow can be at risk. So if you see that there is a possibility of an overlap of 2 towers, think well before you buy the land because if the day after tomorrow, this tower doesn't exist any longer, then it's a bit embarrassing to make tomato cultivation.

Okay. So I think that's a wrap in terms of questions. Thank you for your attention. And if you need any other support, we're always here and look forward to speaking to you next quarter.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to our full year '25 conference call. Thank you for being with us again. We have the full Executive Committee with us, Corporate Executive Committee, and we'll kick off with Marco Patuano, CEO, a brief review of results, handing over to Raimon Trias, speakers for our financial overview, and then we're all available for Q&A.

Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be with you again as we open a new financial year and reflect on our results and our strategic progress.

So in 2025, we delivered on all our promises, and we confirm how resilient our industrial model is. In a very volatile environment, we continue to execute our strategy with conviction and clarity and delivered results that demonstrate the quality of our assets and most importantly, the predictability of our revenues and organic growth model and reaffirmed the strength of the relationship with our plus.

We successfully delivered on our 2025 guidance, and we reiterate our 2027 outlook. We have returned EUR 1 billion to shareholders through share buybacks, 1 year ahead of the plan, representing a total yield of 4.5%. We initiated dividend payments at the beginning of 2026 as committed at our Capital Market Day, and we continue on track to meet our leverage targets, reducing leverage from 6.39x in 2024 to 6.28x in 2025.

We have reached an important turning point where year after year, we will generate increasing free cash flows, giving us greater flexibility to enhance our shareholder returns, fund industrial initiatives and reach our leverage targets. In 2025, we grew organically in all fronts with new points of presence accelerating throughout the year, showing continued demand for digital infrastructure.

On a pro forma organic basis, our revenues increased by 5.8%, EBITDA by 7.1%, EBITDA after leases by 7.9% with a 1.6 percentage point increase in margin. Transformational industrial actions focused on boosting top line growth, optimizing cost and proactive lease management are unlocking the operating leverage of our business. Our recurring levered free cash flow grew by 11.5% and on a per share basis by 16.7%. And the free cash flow grew to EUR 350 million, confirming the positive momentum.

On our capital allocation strategy, we completed the disposal of the French Data Center business, allowing us to increase our focus on core telecom infrastructure assets. At the same time, we have agreed to dispose our participation in the DIV II fund for circa EUR 170 million. DIV II for memory is a participation in a European infrastructure fund underwritten in 2021 in order for us to explore minority investment opportunities in digital assets. And we successfully issued in 2026, a bond for EUR 1.5 billion in 2 tranches to anticipate funding requirements, extending maturities and securing a pricing at 3.4%.

From an organizational standpoint, we also recently announced the implementation of a more streamlined and agile leadership structure, which I will give you more color on shortly. Returning to our guidance for 2025, I would like to highlight our delivery across all the key metrics. And the fact that this guidance was set almost 5 years ago confirms the resilience and the predictability of our business. Consistent execution of our industrial plan is translating into operating results, which combined with normalizing capital intensity, underpins the trajectory of growing cash generation and sustained profitability.

As I mentioned, we announced a new organizational leadership structure in February, marking important progress in the next chapter of our industrial transformation strategy. The new model is designed to bring sharper strategic focus, deepen customer relationship, enable faster decision-making and stronger functional alignment, all essential to support continued organic growth. We combined geographic cluster with a pan-European Vertical Solutions division, strengthening execution while ensuring consistency across markets. We are entering in a chapter defined by operational focus, team empowerment and agility, ready to capture the opportunities ahead.

I would like to give you a flavor of why we created our new Vertical Solutions division. Several connectivity needs today exceeded the capacity of a traditional macro coverage and require solution very specialized by nature. Transportation, venues, city centers, public safety, defense, resilience, all of them are very different in terms of technical solution, but very similar across the geographies. We are deploying an operational model aimed to scale up every vertical connectivity solution, increase the commercial focus and ensure execution discipline and improve accountability. We are already leaders in Europe, leveraging on our centralized design capabilities and our country execution power, we want to further improve our performance.

Now I hand over to Raimon to go over the highlights of our operating and financial performance. Raimon, please.

Thank you, Marco. Good morning, everyone. I would like to start by reinforcing our very positive performance in terms of organic growth and cash conversion in the year '25. Robust revenue growth, combined with a continuous focus on operational excellence is driving higher profitability, a stronger operating leverage and expanding cash flow.

Starting with organic revenues, we delivered a solid 5.8% year-on-year. EBITDA grew by 7.1%, supported by ongoing actions to increase operational efficiency. EBITDA after leases was 7.9% higher, reflecting our proactive lease management activity and recurring levered free cash flow rose 11.5%, supported by the disciplined implementation of our capital allocation strategy. Very important, the recurring levered free cash flow per share grows by 16.7%, underscoring the incremental value we create for shareholders.

Moving to Slide 9. As usual, we show you the bridge between reported and organic pro forma revenue growth. Starting from EUR 3,941 million revenues in 2024, the perimeter adjustment for Ireland and Austria brings us to a pro forma revenue base of EUR 3,790 million. From there, the combination of escalators and CPI, colocations and build-to-suit deployments led to organic revenue growth like-for-like of 5.8%.

This strong revenue performance, as you can see in the next slide, is led by healthy PoP growth in the fourth quarter '25 and as Marco said, throughout the year. Gross colocation and build-to-suit accelerated to 3,043 in the quarter, demonstrating sustained customer demand and a strong commercial traction across the portfolio. We recorded a strong colocation in France, 220; Italy, 887; and the U.K., 128. We continue BTS deployment across most countries and overall churn was contained at 307 units. Net new PoPs have shown consistent quarter-over-quarter growth throughout the year.

Moving to Slide 11. The net PoP growth in 2025 has been 4.5%, fully absorbing a 1.2% churn influenced by the effects of 2 major consolidations in Spain and the U.K. In Spain, despite the Mas Orange network reconfiguration process underway, we recorded year-on-year growth in total PoPs. This reflects the importance of the support we provide our customers in their ongoing network deployments and how we benefit from the unlocked potential for MNOs to invest after-market consolidation.

The U.K. also posted consistent quarterly growth, driven by continued 5G deployments, amendment programs and selective new site activity, illustrating the depth of demand and ongoing investment to catch up and improve network quality across the country.

If we go to the next slide, the strength of our operational performance is again clear in this slide, which shows organic growth in Towers revenues of 5.5%, driven by contractual escalators, colocation and ongoing build-to-suit rollouts across our main markets. A reminder that these figures are adjusted for Ireland and Austria for comparability. Here, we have selected a few practical examples that show how our industrial strategy is being translated into real-world execution across different areas of the business.

First, 5G densification in Italy. Fastweb, Vodafone and Cellnex Italy have extended their strategic agreement for an additional 12 years. This enables enhanced coverage and improved service quality through the deployment of 5G, supported by over 1,000 points of presence across the country.

Second, network resilience and power autonomy. Telefonica and Cellnex Spain have signed the first agreement of its kind between a TowerCo and an operator to strengthen power assurance across more than 2,000 sites. This initiative improves network resilience and energy security following the recent blackouts in Spain. There is potential to develop more energy-related business across our portfolio, provide interesting upside to our core tower services.

And third, the new markets through nonterrestrial networks. We provide land acquisition and construction capabilities to support low earth orbit satellite initiatives. Cellnex can provide essential gateways between LEO constellations and the terrestrial fiber backbone. Together, these examples illustrate how our operational strategy is being deployed on the ground and how it is opening new avenues for growth while reinforcing our role in next-generation connectivity.

Let's move on to Slide 14. Fiber, connectivity and housing services delivered a strong 16% increase in revenues, supported by the continued rollout of the Nexloop project in France. Growth in DAS, Small Cells and RAN as a Service was driven by flagship deployments and the increasing relevance of neutral host solutions with projects delivered across venues and high-traffic locations such as [ Roig ] Arena in Valencia, La Cartuja stadium in Sevilla, PGE National Stadium in Poland, 5G rollouts in Madrid Metro in more than 40 parking facilities as well as multi-operator small cell deployments in Portugal and the renewal of long-term IoT agreements such as Securitas Direct.

Our broadcasting business remained stable with a 1.9% growth year-on-year. And importantly, we secured the renewal of our long-term contracts with the leading broadcaster in Spain.

On Slide 15, we can see that our industrial plan continues to scale and strengthened by the adoption of AI. The initiatives shown here aim to standardize processes, automate operations and reinforce asset management across the group. This collective effort is making the organization more agile, reducing operational complexity and improving our ability to respond quickly and consistently across countries. It is also visible externally.

In 2025, customer engagement reached a new high with customer satisfaction index increasing to 8.3 out of a maximum of 10, the best result of the past decade. We are on a path of coordinated transformation that is elevating efficiency, effectiveness, quality and overall service experience. This industrial platform has helped so that our efficiency initiatives are translating in clear margin expansion, as you can see in the next slide.

On a pro forma basis, we reduced cost per towers across all our key cost categories, 1.9% less in staff cost, 1.4% less in repair and maintenance, 4.9% reduction in SG&A per tower and 1.1% reduction in leases. Land management remains a key value driver for us. We deployed EUR 270 million across land acquisition CapEx and efficiency programs, generating around EUR 24 million in efficiencies, displaying how our disciplined capital allocation strategy helps offset volume and CPI-related inflationary pressures in lease cash-outs. These focused efforts have driven an increase in EBITDA margins of 300 basis points to 62.1%, up from 59.1% in 2023.

The first part of the next slide shows the bridge from reported EBITDAaL and all the components that shape our free cash flow. In addition to our operating performance, this strong recurring levered free cash flow comes from an efficient capital and tax structure, combined with the continued decline in expansion and build-to-suit CapEx, free cash flow amounted to EUR 350 million. This free cash flow acceleration represents a turning point, as you can see in the next slide.

Our operational improvements are clearly flowing down to cash. On a pro forma basis, recurring levered free cash flow grew by 11.5%, almost EUR 200 million. And on a per share basis, the increase was even stronger at 16.7%, also reflecting the share buyback program, which continues to enhance value per share.

Looking at reported figures, free cash flow reached EUR 350 million, with underlying free cash flow, excluding or before the remedies, improving by EUR 307 million year-on-year. 2025 marked an important milestone for us with the entry into a new phase of consistent and rapidly accelerating free cash flow generation that supports our deleveraging strategy, as you can see in Slide 19.

Net debt to EBITDA improved to 6.28x from 6.39x in 2024 and 6.85x in 2023, keeping us firmly on track towards our 5x to 6x target. I would like to note that the pace of deleveraging could have been faster. If we hadn't brought forward EUR 1 billion in shareholder remuneration, our leverage would have closed below the 6x. Our recent EUR 1.5 billion bond issuance that Marco mentioned before in January '26 successfully [ propounded ] most of our 2026 maturities with a strong appetite from investors on the back of a good market momentum and our strong rating outlook. We managed to extend maturities and secure an attractive 3.4% pricing.

Now let me hand back to Marco so that he share our guidance '26 and '27.

Thank you, Raimon. I would like to close our presentation with the message of confidence. The strength of our business and underlying sector drivers, the continued execution of our strategy and the power of our customer relationship give us the confidence to firmly reiterate our guidance for 2027 and share our outlook for 2026.

Let me highlight that our old outlook has been adjusted to reflect 3 elements: the change of perimeter following the data center disposal, the discontinuation of our operation and maintenance business in Spain and the incremental financial costs associated with the share buyback. As you can see, we are very optimistic about our continued growth, profitability and cash generation.

So in summary, 2025 was a great year for us, and we're very confident going into 2026 and 2027. Our business model is intact. Drivers of network investments are healthy and customer relationships are stronger day by day. Our organization is driven with renewed leadership focused on growth, efficiency and customer excellence. Our growth trajectory and increasing free cash flow underpin our commitment to enhanced shareholder remuneration and give us further capacity to outperform our CMD distribution targets. So thank you.

Okay. So before moving to the Q&A, I'd just like to highlight that in addition to the main slides in the body of the presentation, we've added a few new slides at the end, some fact slides that cover many of the topics that you often ask us. So we really hope you find them useful. And with that, we're now available to take your questions.

So the first question that we have on the line up is from Roshan Rohit -- Ranjit at Deutsche.

I just got 3, hopefully, quite quick, please. Marco, you highlighted the Spanish revenue pick up, so kudos. I guess this is the benefit of the kind of the mergeco ready coming through now. Could you remind us how many ops and the trajectory of that ramp up through 2026, please?

Secondly, on the EBITDA pick up, a strong acceleration on the organic growth. Is this now the benefit of the rank of [indiscernible] coming in and we should expect that momentum to continue through '26, or is there an element of timing effect in there, please?

And lastly, thanks for the additional color on the backup slides. I'm quite interested in the RAN sharing slide, and you've given examples across Europe. Is it possible to get a sense of the kind of pricing premium across different markets that you attribute from RAN sharing?. Is it kind of a consistent uplift in the pricing? Or does it vary dependent upon market structure?

Yes, very good. So on your first question on Spain, I take question 1 and 3, and I leave the EBITDA to lease to Raimon. So on your first question, so Spain had -- the first phase in Spain was the redesign of the network coming from Mas Orange. So you see that at the beginning of 2025, we had a material churn in the -- in our point of presence. We started in the second part of 2025 to activate the RAN sharing agreement we have with Digi, which was a part of the deployment strategy of Digi in Spain, and we started the so-called rural project in Spain with Mas Orange.

Now for 2026, we start entering in the densification process project that we have with Mas Orange and we will continue to activate more PoPs with Digi. So 2025 was Mas Orange very much focused on reshaping the network and the activation of Digi filled the gap that was coming from some discontinuation in Mas Orange and 2026 on the contrary will be Mas Orange starting the densification project.

Your second question on RAN. The question on RAN is pricing depends very much on -- not very much, to some extent on market conditions. You should imagine something between half of a colocation price and 1/3 of the colocation price, depending on the structure of the market. Normally, they have very, very, very limited activation costs on our side. So it's a pure margin for us. because there are basically no CapEx associated to this. Yes, there are some OpEx because our engineers have to make some little adjustments, but it's pure margin.

The EBITDA perspective and Landco, as you will have seen this year, we have done up to EUR 270 million worth of initiatives, both on efficiency land acquisition across all the different countries that have allowed us to save approx EUR 24 million in terms of savings of EBITDAL. As you have seen on the guidance, this trend will continue going forward. The idea is that over the next years, since we created Celland, we have accelerated the amount that we are able to buy and we're buying more than prior years. It is true that we need to be careful not to compete with ourselves, and we need to keep certain level that normally we consider rate between EUR 250 million, EUR 300 million for the coming years to keep on achieving this level of savings going forward.

That's great. So just on the last point, Raimon. So the kind of Q4 exit EBITDA growth would be something that we can expect through '26 then?

I would say, if you take the savings that we have achieved this year, there is part of it, as you are saying, there has been a bit more of activity in the last quarter and a bit more of savings. So you have to consider that for doing the phasing for next year. But then next year, it will depend if we buy EUR 250 million, EUR 300 million, that the new savings of next year will kick in as well.

So moving on to the next question. It comes from Rohit at Citibank.

I have 3, please, as well. Firstly, on the guidance for 2027, I understand the guidance was initially given it was a bit long dated and you have a broader range. Now given you are near to 2027, we have already in start of 2026, we still have, I understand 5% on range on the revenue level, but that goes down to 20% on free cash flow level and with a business like Cellnex where you have a higher visibility. I'm just trying to understand what are the swing factors on recurring level free cash flow and free cash flow for '27 that you expect that number can move from lower end to higher end. That's the first one.

Second, again, there's a lot of noise we have seen particularly recently in Italy around renegotiation of contracts. I'm just trying to understand, Cellnex could be any kind of beneficiary if -- from -- if any, anything happens in Italy.

And lastly, if you can just remind us around the derivative position that you have taken last year, the swaps just before the buybacks. I mean, is there a kind of termination date do you have on those swaps given you do mark-to-market and you have kind of cash outflow -- potential cash outflow if you move terminate that contract.

Okay. So on 2027 guidance, yes, I remember there was a bit of skepticism in the recent past about our capacity to go to target. The more it was long term, the more the skepticism was higher. Today, I think that the level we reached in 2025 give good visibility of how the recurring level free cash flow and free cash flow are achievable. So what are the factors that made them achievable? Well, we defended and protected the revenue growth. The revenue growth despite a worse-than-expected originally expected CPI, we are maintaining a good level of growth. This is important.

And as you saw, the idea of making a new organization is in order to keep revenue growth. We are performing well in terms of efficiencies, Raimon just explored. And even more, our discipline in capital allocation was demonstrated more and more. So the range for 2027 is what we confirmed at the Capital Market Day. And the more we get closer to this day, the more we see it feasible, both in terms of recurring levered free cash flow and even more importantly, in terms of full cash flow.

So your second question was about contract renegotiation. Look, what I can tell you is that we already renegotiated several contracts. Renegotiated with Telefonica, we had no problems. We renegotiated with Vodafone, we had no problems. We renegotiated with KPN in the Netherlands, we had no problems. With Iliad in France, we had no problems. So our experience is that the renegotiation moment is a moment in which you sit with your client. The client will tell you what he likes and what he doesn't. But the core elements of our contracts have never been questioned.

So the fact that it is a long term is a long term, the fact that it's an all or nothing, is an all or nothing, and it has never been questioned until today. On top of these, talking about Cellnex, what I can tell you is that the coming renegotiation are not tomorrow. So we have the next renegotiation we have one in Italy in 2030, and then we go to 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2038, 2042, 2048. So in this moment, of course, we are looking with attention what happens in the industry, but our experience as of today has not been dramatic. And the last, I leave to Raimon.

Yes. On the last topic, I'm not sure if I understood properly, but I'm going to try to answer what I understood. I think that you were asking why last year, most of the return -- all the return that we have done to shareholders have been through the share buybacks. There are various reasons. The first one, if you remember, in the Capital Markets Day, we committed to a dividend starting 2026. Why is that? You've seen the guidance that we have given. The free cash flow is between EUR 600 million and EUR 700 million.

So it allows us to pay a dividend based on the cash generation from the business. Last year, we had cash available that it was coming partially from the cash generation of the business, the EUR 300 million that we have done EUR 350 million, but it was coming also from the divestments of Austria and Ireland. And on top of that, the share price was at a moment that was very attractive. That's why we also decided to use the proceeds for doing the share buyback. I hope it was clear enough.

Sorry, it was regarding the swap, the swap contract that you entered last year, would you continue to have that contract?

No, the equity swap, it is still in place. It matures in June '26, and it was bought at EUR 32, and we are today at EUR 31.5.

Okay. So moving on to the next question. It's coming from Arnaud Camus at Bestinver.

First, I assume the disclosure may be limited, but could you provide some indication of the size of the battery resilience agreement you have signed with Telefonica in Spain? Should we assume this is a replicable model to other countries of your footprint? And two, more broadly regarding the forthcoming Cybersecurity Act. I know it may still be early, but could you share any initial visibility on the potential CapEx envelope and implementation time as you are an infrastructure provider to telecom operators? And is it already considered within your 2027 guidance?

So the battery agreement is still -- sorry, it's relatively sizable with Telefonica. We are discussing with them how to expand it more because what we agreed with them is to have modular development of this program based on the network design. Our technical teams are working strictly together. The target is to have several thousand sites covered. And it's a super interesting business model because what we do is like imagine not to be a pure infrastructure or a simplified infrastructure, but to be a service infrastructure provider. So we help to take care of the infrastructure from the bottom to the top.

Having a program that allow us to buy batteries on a pan-European basis, we can have very good prices. And even more importantly, we have very long insurance terms for the life protection of those batteries. We agree on life protection up to 15, 20 years. Is it replicable? Yes, it's very replicable. We have several other customers that are interested in this business model exactly because of what I told you. We are negotiating very good prices on very good volumes. don't underestimate the fact that securing volumes in this moment in which there is -- starts to be a certain level of shortage on this type of elements is clear.

About the Cybersecurity Act, the CSA, I was in Brussels last week talking about DNA and CSA, so the 2 regulations that are expected going forward. The answer is, yes, we are working very closely with the European community. There are still margins of nonclarity -- nonperfect clarity in what is going to be the final outcome. And to be honest, different member states have a different interpretation of the scope. Some are more strict, some are less strict. What we have in 2027, we are convinced that is full enough for what is going to be the requirement of the CSA. Then if you ask me if the CSA will be fully enforced in 2027, I'm not so optimistic.

Okay. So moving on to the next question. It comes from Fernando at Alantra.

Two quick questions from my side. First, on the expansion CapEx. I've seen it is down 6% year-on-year on a pro forma basis. So I don't know if you can elaborate a little bit on the main drivers behind this? And also, how should we think about its evolution for '26 and '27, the split between the different 3 CapEx items?

And second, on PoPs growth. So you've accelerated throughout the year. Is it reasonable to assume a similar growth profile in '26? And can you give us an indication of what share of new PoPs will be linked to RAN sharing agreements?

Okay. On expansion CapEx, so there are 2 elements. A few time ago, Raimon showed you that on DAS, Small Cells, RAN and other services, we grew almost 5%. The reality is that if you open this number between DAS and Small Cell RAN and other, you would have seen that DAS and Small Cell were growing about 8.1%, RAN about 10% and the other was growing much less. But the real focus for us today is DAS, Small Cells and RAN. So going forward, what we see -- the place we see having the CapEx is those 2 areas; DAS and Small Cells in this order, more DAS than Small Cells.

So the Small Cell take-up is still low even though there are some interesting use case in some European countries that we are monitoring very closely of Small Cells covering city center very efficiently and with a very low urbanistic impact and the other is RAN. Our RAN project in Poland is using some CapEx. So this is about the expansion CapEx. Then of course, there is a part of expansion CapEx that is linked to colocation, but its tower expansion CapEx that you know every year, we have more or less the same. About PoP growth, Raimon?

Yes. So during the year '26, you know that our growth in PoPs comes from 2 things, comes from colocations and it comes from build-to-suit. Build-to-suit will slow down a little bit in the year '26 basically because our programs of build-to-suit are reducing year-on-year as they come from the prior M&A deals. The normal colocation, we're expecting similar growth this year, not a big difference. And you were asking as well from our RAN sharing perspective. This year, the RAN sharing has mainly been in Spain with the entrance of Digi. And I would say that for next year, although you also have a bit in Italy, I would say that for next year, you have to consider that there will be similar RAN sharing coming from Spain and a bit in Italy as well. But I would just consider that from the colocation comes from Spain is what will be RAN sharing.

So moving on to the next question coming from Ondrej at UBS.

I had to step away for a moment, apologies if I'm repeating the question. Please feel free to ignore. I have 2 questions, please. One is on the news that Iliad has decided to allocate part of the contract that you were mentioning at the previous quarter that you are kind of looking at the 4,000 sites in France. So Iliad has allocated at least half of this to TDF. I was wondering, Marco, if you can again kind of explain to us your thinking about the returns on this project, why this is the second project with Iliad specifically that you are kind of turning or walking away from presumably because of the kind of IR not meeting your standards. So that would be question number one, please.

And second question related to France. We heard last week on the CMD that Christel, the CEO of Orange, was talking about again, again kind of investment remedies. And so I was wondering if this is something that is already somehow kind of taking shape in light of various positive, say, developments, for example, the European Council openly suggesting that M&A should be allowed and investment is needed, remedies are needed in that direction. So any kind of color on developing talks around that potential situation would be very helpful.

Okay. I answer Nemrod and then today with us, there is also our Chief Strategy, who is French, by the way. So I will leave him to respond Ondrej. So on Nemrod, yes, we have been -- we participated to the tender and the tender itself is an evidence that there is more need of coverage and densification. So this is -- I commented a million times in the past and then there is a tender. So the good part of the story is that densification needs are there.

We've been looking to the tender. We submitted an offer, but we submitted an offer that was in line with our capital allocation rules. So did make us not to reach the agreement with Iliad because it was out of our investment criteria and our capital allocation criteria. So we decided that if there was someone offering more, we would have stayed disciplined. So our goal is not to catch up with every investment there is in Europe. There are -- we are disciplined. We know where we create long-term value creation. And so that's it. We will focus on other projects.

Vincent, would you like to answer the second question?

Yes, of course. So yes, we are obviously very -- extremely close to our different customers. We are not directly involved, as you perfectly know, within the discussion of the consortium. But we are also, as Marco mentioned, pretty convinced that any consolidation, if it happens, will come with investment remedies not only in new coverage, but also on the resiliency of the system. So we have shown our proactiveness with all our partner there to support these remedies. And as you perfectly know, in any case, what we will procure is to protect the NPV of our contract and giving some short-term flexibility in exchange of long-term growth that will come from these remedies without any doubt. And this is what we will protect -- this will result in the protection of the NPV of our contract.

Okay. Thank you. So yes, I was with some members of the French institutional establishment and what they told me is that they consider infrastructure investment, a high priority for the country. So there's no doubt that there will be more investment coming.

Okay. So now moving on to the next question. We have Abhilash from BNP on the line.

I just had one, please. I wanted to come back to the topic of the guidance ranges and specifically around the revenues. So about EUR 100 million delta for 2026 between low and high and EUR 200 million for 2027. Just wanted to understand specifically around revenues, what is the key factor there? Is it around inflation assumptions, presumably not given it's so close. So is it mainly around colocations? Or are there any other factors? So any color you could add there around the revenue would be very helpful.

Yes. Do you want to Raimon?

In terms of the guidance, the only thing that we have adjusted, you have it in the presentation is basically the change of perimeter that is coming because of the data center disposal. Also, we have adjusted the discontinuation of the operational maintenance activities that we have in Spain. If you recall, we decided to stop this something like 18 months ago, but it had an impact during 2 years still because it took some time to discontinue the operations. And the third thing that we have adjusted into the guidance is the impact of the increased share buyback that was not considered in our numbers in the Capital Markets Day. The rest of the guidance, '27 has not changed and remains as it was before.

Apologies, if it was not clear from the way I framed the question. I was just -- maybe sort of more wondering around what is driving the variance between the low and high end of the revenue range. What are the key factors?

Yes. I think that the width of the range depends very much on somehow the future of build-to-suit programs if we are going to allocate more build-to-suit programs or not. A [ Nemrod ] project enters, we have the full capacity in our cash flow to have such a project and it contributes to your growth. The Nemrod project doesn't enter, and we rely more on colocation and the existing commitments that we have. So having -- or maintaining a certain element is absolutely normal.

And by the way, so it is also a decision of not to touch what we committed at the Capital Market Day. So if we start touching one point, then we have to make a full revision. So -- but if you ask me what can move us from the low end to the high end, I would tell you that what is going to come from colocation, RAN sharing, et cetera. More or less, we have a fairly clear picture. What are the commitments that are already taken. We know even the [ cent ] is possible that something more materialize in the coming months before -- between here and the end of 2027. Yes, and we will evaluate. We demonstrate we are disciplined. We're not going to make crazy stuff. If we do something, it's because it generates value, long-term value. So I think it's fine.

If I can add to Marco, it's important that everyone understands the predictability of the business. This year, we have achieved the guidance '25 that was given 5 years ago. So the barrier that can happen within these numbers is very small in that perspective.

Good.

Thank you both for the color. So just to clarify, so you're saying that the high end of the guidance is more sort of predicated on additional build-to-suit projects over and above what we already have, if I understand that correctly for the revenue guidance...

For going up to the higher part of the guidance, yes, there are other projects that should be won during the year to be able to get to the higher part of the guidance correctly.

Okay. So moving on. We can follow up afterwards if you still have any questions. Now moving on to the next question, comes from Fernando at Santander.

My two questions, in fact. The first one is related with a follow-up in the sense that you have been already asked about your confidence on the growth for 2026. I'm going a little bit beyond given that the build-to-suit activity is going to clearly decrease by 2027 and onwards. How confident are you of replacing the current [indiscernible] of growth coming from build-to-suit with colos.

And the second question is on active equipment. You have already seen the project in Poland. I just would like to understand at which extent you would be also, let's say, open for additional projects, and particularly, I'm thinking in Spain, just as a way to complement your current portfolio and even to, let's say, to give more visibility in the long term to your current business in Spain?

So the build-to-suit programs, as I said, 1 second ago, we are -- we have a program of committed that what has been already committed, has a sharp decline after 2026. 2027 will be materially lower than 2026. And -- so this is why we are working on analyzing future possibility, future opportunities that can appear in the market.

On your question on active equipment and especially on Spain, I would say that it's not our sweet spot. So if you ask me if is this your sweet spot? My clear answer is no. We have the project in Poland. We are performing the project in Poland, I would say, fairly okay, okay in terms of how the project is going on, what are the returns, the relation with the client, et cetera.

But what I can tell you is that contributing with a material benefit to the client we can do way more on the traditional perimeter than on the active component. Then every case is different. Today, a case in Spain is, I think, more a press rumor than a real case. So as of today, my answer is more no than yes. This is also something that is not so clear if it is a real case or a speculation. But I would say more no than yes.

My question on the PoP growth is because [indiscernible].

We can't hear very well.

Can you speak a bit louder, please, Fernando?

Can you hear me right now?

Much better.

Okay. Perfect. Now my point is the following. There is a debate that at which extent your current PoP growth in Colors is subdued by the fact that you are deploying the build-to-suit programs. And in that sense, what should be, let's say, the your, let's say, your base case in terms of ops, it is the total growth that we are seeing today or just the colors when the build-to-suit product will be trading down.

Well, the color that you see today is what we assume is going to be the rhythm of the colocation. And of course, if you see that the build-to-suit tend to reduce after 2027, we are going to push more on colocation. The point is we are looking to an important market share on new colocation. So what we are doing is maintain or eventually even increase our market share. And in order to do this, our technical team is working with proactive models in order to codesign with our clients better coverage. This is something that if you want, we can explore and explain better separately.

So moving on. Next question comes from James Ratzer at New Street.

I have 2 questions, please. So the first 1 is you're seeing some very encouraging growth in the kind of just organic colocation on your Towers. I'd be really interested just to hear more precisely where you're seeing that demand coming? Is this in kind of urban hot spots is this rural areas? Are these transport links. And you're speaking to the MNOs, where are you finding that particularly seeing this demand for organic colocation growth?

And then secondly, kind of bigger picture, Marco. Where do you see Cellnex's portfolio of assets going, let's say, over the next 3 to 5 years. I mean if you announced here this morning another small disposal I mean, how do you see yourself at some point ever going back into acquisition mode and growing the portfolio of the business? I'd just love to here a bit more conceptually how you think about the kind of strategic portfolio over the next 5 years.

Yes. Very clear, James. So on organic colocation, it's super interesting because when we go with my Chief Operating Officer and we start looking at the detailed figures, we look to our portfolio splitting between towers and rooftops and then urban, suburban, rural and deep rural. So the more you are tower in non-super dense area, the more you have opportunity for colocation, which is good common sense. If I'm in the center of Paris, adding a co-location on an existing rooftop is not difficult technically. It's difficult urbanistically. So you don't get the permit.

So colocation are most of all suburban and suburban is the big roads and transportation corridors even inside the cities because these generate traffic congestion -- data traffic, not only car traffic congestion, but also data traffic congestion.

And the rural, the rural is going to be a mix of colocation and RAN sharing. The more you go in deep rural, the more we suggest to our client to be efficient. We are making this, for example, in Switzerland. We are telling to our clients RAN share more because the industrial cost is for them, not for me, for them. The industrial cost make the investment having a better return. So the more you look at tower and the more you look at non-super dense urban area, the more you have opportunity for colocation. The more you have -- you are densifying dense urban areas, the more you have to think about more towers or eventually distributed small cell system or distributed antenna systems. I hope I made it clear, James.

The second is how do we see the portfolio medium to long term? So point number one, everything that is noncore and you are easy to understand the participation, we were a limited partner in an investment fund. Hard for me to say that this is core. We had a commitment of further EUR 50 million to be invested in the future, and we could repatriate with a nice return, our old investment. So why not to rotate this asset? I think it was a relatively easy decision. We had a very good cooperation from the GP, the general partner cooperated with us very nicely. And so we made it.

Now -- when you look at can Cellnex be on the buy side, I would say, for geographic expansion, I'm fairly categoric in saying no. I don't see Cellnex exit from markets and then reentering new markets because -- no, I don't see this that in terms of geography, I think we are pretty much okay. But if the MNO are claiming that there is too much fragmentation in the market, I would say the tower sector in some markets can say the same. In Spain, there are 4 tower players and 3 networks. In France, there are 5 tower operators. And if you count also smaller ones, you can eventually even consider it more fragmented. So those -- U.K. is the same. U.K. is pretty fragmented in terms of tower operators.

Consolidation -- in-market consolidation in tower operator can make good synergies. The easy and evident one, I can manage more portfolio, more towers with less than proportional growth of people. This is, let me say, the trivial one, the easy one. The most interesting one is that when you put 2 portfolio together, you start realizing the real overlaps between portfolios and you can start decommissioning part of the portfolio, transfer to your clients part of the benefit. And this is what is -- what make it very, very, very interesting. So this kind of consolidation is not there today because there is nothing there today. But if your question is, how do I see it medium term, I think that this fragmentation, same as the MNO saying that it's unefficient, I can say that it's not particularly efficient even in the tower sector.

Okay. So now moving to...

We have another 2 and then...

Yes. So now moving on to Graham at Jefferies.

Yes. I'll just stick to one, if that's okay. Can I just ask a bit more on the reorganization that you announced that you took at the beginning of the year. Maybe if you could help us understand more about the characteristics of that business unit as to why it suits the cross-market leadership structure and what the challenges were that you're encountering before this that the new organization is looking to resolve.

Thank you. Thank you, Graham. The reorganization was based on 2 main drivers. One is at corporate, we need to be more efficient. And to be more efficient, we need to be more focused and more slim, if you want, and then we have to decide what we do and what possibly it's not absolutely necessary. So this is why we made our organization at the headquarter level leaner. Leaner means faster and means also it makes easier to make decisions. So this is why we were reorganized the headquarter. When we were looking to the countries, we had some, let me say, some combination -- geographic combination that were a little bit hazardous.

So we had a Portugal together with Poland, instead of being together with Spain, which is honestly not very geographically natural. So we've made some adjustments because it could make available some synergies that are not to imagine enormous synergies, but there can be some synergies.

And the last and most interesting part was what we call Vertical Solutions. So Today, what happens is that if you take a large country like -- let's take 2 large countries, one is Italy and one is France. In Italy, the non TowerCo business accounts for a sort of EUR 40 million to EUR 50 million. In France, it accounts for less than EUR 5 million. Do you mean that the French market is 10x smaller than the Italian market? Or do you think that with the EUR 40 million to EUR 50 million, we covered all the opportunities we had on the Italian market? The answer is no and no.

So -- but the problem was that sometime each and every country is very specialized and very focused on the day by day and sometimes some opportunities are simply not big enough, not priority enough, not to specialize -- we are not specialized enough to make it possible. So the idea was, okay, we are -- altogether, if I take all my countries, we are the #1 in Europe, but we don't play as the #1. We play 10x as a small operator, and we want to play one time as a big guy. But in order to do this, you have first to think big. If you think small, you remain small.

So we need to think big. And in order to think big, I need to put all the volume together. And think central, act local is going to be the route. So I think that, yes, like every matrix organization, there are challenges, but it can work well. Do we have an example? Yes, Celland. It was a lot of small initiatives, each of them small. Now we have Celland and it's doing phenomenal. So let's try to capitalize on good experiences.

Okay. So now to end the call. I'll ask a question from Andrew at Goldman Sachs.

I just wanted to -- just one question, just to dive in a bit more deeply into the Spanish densification reacceleration. You've obviously seen the equivalent PoPs in Spain tick up, I think, as was mentioned in an earlier question. Could you just give us a bit more insight? Because obviously, this is a key metric for us to be thinking about whether -- as to whether consolidation is a good or bad thing for telcos. And obviously, consensus thinks it's a bad thing and you think it's a good thing.

So we're obviously all looking for evidence of densification acceleration. If that's happening now, what exactly does that look like? So what will be the equivalent PoP growth in Spain that you see in 2026 and 2027. I think -- sorry, the company average or Cellnex average is 3.7% equivalent PoP growth in the fourth quarter. What does it look like in Spain with that growth acceleration that we're seeing from densification?

You are a little bit difficult because you talk about equivalent PoP and they talk about PoP. So the concept of equivalent PoP was a concept that has been used by Cellnex some time ago in order to facilitate the exercise of saying equivalent PoP time average price equal to revenues. The world doesn't work in equivalent PoP nor in average price. So average is a bit tricky exercise because I'm eating an entire chicken, you eat 0 and we had half a chicken each. So it's not true when we see if you're hungry at the end or not.

So the growth in Spain or what happened in Spain is point number one, Mas Orange had to take 2 networks, one built at Orange standards and the other built at MASMOVIL standards, which were, believe me, very different and to create the Mas Orange network. So we had to avoid duplications. We had to make new colocations. We had to build -- or we have to build new sites, all at the new standard, which is the Mas Orange standard, which is the Orange standard. So top quality, top everything, carrier grade, top carrier grade.

So this is what happened in Spain with Mas Orange, which is first part of the year, an accelerated decommission of PoPs, some of them anchor and some of them second. And then a progressive relocation of some of those antenna, most of them anchor, okay? On top of this, we are partner of Mas Orange in their rural deployment program, rural Spain program. And in the beginning of 2026, we are completing the delivery of this program. And this is the picture with Mas Orange.

So going forward, what is going to happen? It's going to happen that they are working on improving -- further improving the quality of their network. We are making available more colocation and we are -- and we both committed that we will build for them some of the new installation that they need.

Second, part of the decommissioned sites that Mas Orange made available have been taken by Telefonica. Why? Because it was a good location. There was a space on the antenna, which was made available by eliminating one previous antenna. Telefonica considered it interesting. So this happened in the second part of 2025 and will continue progressively in 2026. Our relation with Telefonica is particularly good, as you saw with the battery program.

And so we are discussing with them if we can make available more sites with them. In their case, we are talking about more colocation than build-to-suit, but it's a very healthy relation. With Telefonica, we agreed on the activation of the RAN sharing program they have with Digi. It was -- it is a fairly big program. It started in the second part of 2025, I would say, in the last part of 2025, and it will continue in 2026. Why it took a little bit of time because we had not only to agree on a technical program, but also we had to amend our original contract in order to make available for them the RAN sharing on our network that originally speaking was not confirmed. So we made the agreement.

So this is another demonstration that when people say that every time there is to discuss about agreements, it's a fight. No, it's a discussion. It's a discussion between 2 [ adults ]. And this is going to continue. In -- to be honest, our relation with Vodafone Zegona is not one of the largest relation -- business relations we have. So the fact that there is a little bit of noise around this is not affecting us particularly. Of course, if we can support Zegona and Vodafone in their network needs more than happy. As of today, it has been relatively small. But of course, if they need, we do.

What we see more? We see more densification coming. This is something we absolutely see. We see more densification coming in Spain. And the big question mark is if Digi someday will deploy not only RAN sharing, but also some proprietary network. They did in other country. As of today, it's not in the plans, at least in the plans shared with us, but you never know. I hope I answered, Andrew.

I guess the reason why you're using equivalent PoPs was just because it has a more direct correlation with actual revenue growth where these days so much. And it's really what we're trying to ask is like, is revenue growth going to accelerate? What's the revenue growth in Spain post consolidation, post the kind of the rebalancing of 2025? That's the real question. It sounds like you're not able you're not going to -- you can't answer that today, but I guess that's what we're really looking for.

Well, what I can answer is that 2025 has been a little bit better than what we expected. So these -- so let's take the small positives.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone. It's been a long call, very, very productive, I think. Thank you for your continued support. And as usual, the full team is available for following up if you have any additional questions. Thank you very much.

Okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Maria Carrapato, I'm the Head of Investor Relations. And I'd like to thank you again for joining us for our third quarter '25 conference call.

I'm joined by our CEO, Marco Patuano; and our CFO, Raimon Trias, who will go through the key highlights of our results, and then we'll open the line to take your questions.

In the interest of time and clarity, I'd ask that you focus on more strategic questions for the management team and avoid repeating topics that have already been explained in previous questions. On more detailed numerical issues, I encourage you to place them to the IR team to make this call as relevant as possible for all participants. [Operator Instructions]

So, without further ado, over to you, Marco.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be with you again this quarter to share how we continue to execute our strategy with discipline, consistency and a sharp focus on long-term value creation. While we acknowledge recent concerns around potential impacts from MNO consolidation that have affected our share price, I'd like to begin by focusing on what truly matters, the fundamentals because ultimately, it's the strength of our business and our ability to deliver sustainable performance that defines Cellnex value for both shareholders and stakeholders.

We report another period of strong operating and financial results, enabling us to reaffirm all our public targets and demonstrate the resilience of our business model. The first nine months of the year, we delivered a solid growth across all major financial metrics on an organic pro forma basis. Revenues increased by 5.7%. Adjusted EBITDA rose 6.9%. EBITDAaL grew 7.5%. These results reinforce our confidence in the business and allow us to strengthen our commitment to shareholder returns. We began returning capital ahead of schedule with EUR 800 million delivered in 2025 via share buybacks. Today, we're committing to a total of EUR 1 billion in shareholder returns through the end of 2026, representing a 5.4% yield at current share prices.

So now looking at the highlights of our results for the period. The operational demand remains robust with continued momentum in BTS and colocation. PoPs grew by 4.1%, underscoring our critical role in enabling digital connectivity across all our portfolio, including markets that have recently undergone consolidation.

Our operational efficiency and land acquisition programs are delivering tangible results, driving a 150 basis points improvement in EBITDA after lease margin, which expanded to 60.8%, up from 59.3% a year ago. We remain confident in our ability to unlock further efficiency and enhance operating leverage.

Recurring level free cash flow grew 9.5% year-to-date, reinforcing a consistent quarterly trend. Over the past 10 quarters, recurring level free cash flow has delivered a CAGR of 2.1%. And on a per share basis, a key metric for us, recurring level free cash flow has achieved a CAGR of 2.5%, reinforcing our commitment to sustained shareholder value creation. Free cash flow has turned positive and is accelerating along a clear upward trajectory, supported by lower capital intensity, positioning us firmly to meet our 2025 and 2027 targets, which we fully reiterate today.

As communicated to the market, we recently signed a put option agreement to sell our French data center business for EUR 391 million, reinforcing our focus on core telecom infrastructure and unlocking value through disciplined asset rotation.

A note on our shareholder reduction program underway following the EUR 800 million buyback executed earlier this year, this will drive clear improvement in per share metrics and continue enhancing shareholder value.

On the balance sheet, leverage is down from 6.6x to 6.4x, and we remain committed to our 5x to 6x target range. We are investment grade and fully committed to maintain that status.

I would also like to share positive news on our credit rating. Just days ago, Fitch reaffirmed our BBB- rating and raised our leverage threshold from 7.0x to 7.3x. This adjustment give us greater financial headroom. We view it as a further indefinite validation of our strong business outlook and financial discipline.

In summary, we are delivering continued operational growth, increasing operating leverage through efficiency, reducing capital intensity and accelerating free cash flow generation, positioning ourselves to capture long-term value. The outlook is positive. And as a result, we are accelerating shareholder returns whilst reinforcing strategic focus.

Let's now take a closer look at the details behind our results. In Slide 5, we illustrate the strength of our operational leverage and how it translates into profitability and cash flow growth. Over the first nine months, we've delivered consistent progress across all key metrics, underscoring the resilience of our model. Organic revenue growth was solid and combined with efficiency initiatives, we successfully converted that momentum into profitability. Both EBITDA and EBITDA after lease advanced on strong rates, reflecting not only scale but also disciplined cost and lease management. Beyond profitability, we further reinforced cash generation. And when we look at the recurrent level of free cash flow per share, the improvement is even more pronounced, highlighting our commitment to creating sustainable shareholder value. In short, these results confirm that our growth is efficient, margins are expanding and our ability to generate recurring cash is stronger than ever.

Moving to Slide 6. We're happy to announce EUR 1 billion shareholder remuneration for 2026, which will be split in EUR 500 million in dividends as previously announced at our Capital Market Day, which will grow at an annual rate of 7.5% through 2030. Payments will be made in two equal installments of EUR 250 million in January and July. EUR 500 million will be returned via share buybacks. This includes EUR 300 million already earmarked for shareholder remuneration, plus an additional EUR 200 million enabled by the sale of our French data center. The buyback program will be executed in the regulated market and will run through the end of 2026. Remaining proceeds will be used to reduce leverage, reinforcing our disciplined approach to capital allocation. This reinforced commitment to shareholder returns reflect our deep conviction in the fundamental value of our company and our focus on delivering long-term value. And yes, we should expect more on that front.

Financial look, our outlook is reiterated. Given the strength of our results and continued execution, we are reaffirming our guidance for 2025 and 2027, underscoring our confidence in delivering our business outlook and on our commitments to the market.

I will now hand over to Raimon to share some more key data on our operational and financial performance on the quarter. Raimon, to you, please.

Thank you, Marco. Good morning, everyone.

Let's move to Slide 9 and dive into the results. We have in front of us another quarter of a strong performance. As highlighted earlier by Marco, revenues grew organically by 5.7%, demonstrating solid momentum and the resilience of our business model. Adjusted EBITDA increased by 6.9%, while EBITDA after lease rose by 7.5%, reflecting a strong operational leverage. Looking at cash generation, recurring levered free cash flow reached EUR 1.3 billion, keeping us firmly on track to meet our full year targets. Free cash flow came in at EUR 187 million, reinforcing our trajectory of accelerated cash generation supported by lower CapEx intensity, mainly lower build-to-suit.

Turning to operational metrics. Execution remains strong. We added almost 3,000 new build-to-suit PoPs, expanding our footprint to meet rising demand. In parallel, we delivered above 2,000 net new colocations, underscoring our strategy of network densification and quality enhancement for our customers. Our customer ratio improved to 1.60x, up from 1.58x at the year-end '24, marking continued progress in tenancy. We continue to execute effectively on our lease management programs. As committed in the Capital Markets Day, we are increasing the focus on land initiatives. As a result, this year, land and efficiency CapEx totaled EUR 195 million compared to EUR 135 million last year, more than 40% increase. All our metrics show solid performance quarter after quarter.

As you can see in Slide 10, we continue to deliver a strong year-on-year organic growth. Such growth is driven by several key factors: CPI and escalators on the base revenues, colocation on existing sites and the rollout of new build-to-suit programs, particularly in France and Poland. To provide a clearer view of our performance during the period, we have excluded the impact from Ireland and Austria. On this slide, we present our organic revenue bridge on a pro forma basis. Excluding both countries, organic pro forma growth at the consolidated level was 5.7%, while tower revenues grew by 5.1%, underscoring the strength of our core operations.

Let's look at the data on the remaining business lines on the next slide. Starting with Fiber, connectivity & Housing Services, we delivered a strong growth of over 20% year-on-year, driven mainly by the continued rollout of the next fiber project in France. DAS, Small Cells & RAN-as-a-service growth was 0.8%. But when adjusting for the discontinuation of operation and maintenance contracts in Spain, the underlying trend was positive at 6.2%. Please remember that we decided to discontinue O&M activities due to its low profitability. Project deployment in DAS and Small Cells tends to be quite lumpy, depending on the pipeline execution phasing, but also impacted by trading activity that is less. Finally, broadcasting delivered stable growth of 1.5%, supported by ongoing renegotiation of contracts. Overall, these results confirm the robustness of our diversified portfolio with each business line contributing to consistent growth.

Moving to Slide 12. This slide reflects the continued positive evolution of our PoPs growth across all geographies, driven by a combination of colocation and build-to-suit programs. What stands out is the consistency of this trend, even in markets that have undergone consolidation processes.

Take Spain and the U.K., for example. both have experienced consolidation among MNOs, which could have created headwinds. Yet, we successfully mitigated these impacts and maintained robust growth, proving the resilience of our model, the strength of our customer relationships and our contracts. Looking at the consolidated view in the top right, the upward trajectory is clear. We have a large and growing base of PoPs across Europe, reinforcing our position as the market leader. This scale not only supports current demand, but also gives us a strong platform to capture future opportunities. In the bottom right, we show the quarter PoPs growth by country and providing the split between colocation and build-to-suit program. It is worth noting that in the third quarter, we had an important contribution of RAN-sharing PoPs from Digi in Spain.

Moving to the next slide, we provide the details on how our operational efficiency and industrial focus are driving tangible results. It all starts with the key levers, process optimization and standardization, integrated maintenance and vendor management, centralized knowledge and performance excellence and targeted land acquisition and efficiency actions. These initiatives enable automation and scalability, creating standardized and data-driven operations across all countries. We have achieved sustained reductions in maintenance costs to improve operations and efficiencies. Full digital adoption has allowed us to standardize workflows and enable real-time supervision, while centralized models have reduced complexity and improved resource utilization. The impact of these actions can be clearly seen on the right side of the slide on a per tower basis. Staff costs are down 1.7%. Repair and maintenance costs have decreased by 3.7%. SG&A is down 5.5%. And in leases, we have offset the impact of CPI as a result of the successful outcomes of our lease management and CapEx programs. Altogether, these efficiencies have contributed 180 basis points to EBITDA after lease margin, reinforcing the scalability and cost effectiveness of our operating model. In short, this is a strong example of how industrial discipline translates into measurable financial benefits and positions us for sustainable growth.

Moving to Slide 14. The first part of the slide explains the reported bridge from EBITDA after lease to free cash flow, showing all the components that shape our recurring levered free cash flow and free cash flow. This strong recurring levered free cash flow generation is the result of our solid operational performance and efficient tax and capital structure. Finally, our free cash flow was positive at EUR 187 million, supported by the strength of recurring levered free cash flow and lower capital intensity on both expansion and build-to-suit CapEx. On the bottom chart, we break down the evolution of pro forma CapEx. First, overall expansion CapEx decreased by 1.7%, reflecting disciplined investment without compromising growth. Second, looking at the mix of expansion CapEx, we see a balanced allocation. Towers remain the largest share, while efficiency CapEx initiatives have increased, reinforcing our focus on optimizing returns. Finally, build-to-suit CapEx decreased by 4.2%, reflecting progress to complete the outstanding programs supporting the free cash flow acceleration path. This disciplined deployment is driving efficiency and improving free cash flow conversion, which is a cornerstone of our strategy.

On Slide 15, we see that cash flow generation is accelerating, supported, as we mentioned, by lower capital intensity. This improvement reflects disciplined investment and a clear focus on efficiency. It also adjusts for the impact of remedies. Equally important, our share buyback program is enhancing per share metrics, as Marco mentioned. Let me remind you that during the year '25, we have executed EUR 800 million of share buybacks. The recurring level free cash flow per share has grown significantly, 13.2%, showing that we are not only generating cash, but also returning value to shareholders in a meaningful way. Together, these elements confirm that our capital allocation strategy is working. We are investing wisely, generating more cash and creating sustainable value per share.

Before I give the floor back to Marco, let's now take a look at our debt maturity profile on Slide 16. All 2025 maturities have been either repaid or refinanced. As a result, there are no remaining maturities left in the year, while we still remain with a strong cash position. It is worth noting that 78% of our debt is fixed rate. Our average cost of debt is 2.1% with an average maturity of 4.4 years. Our leverage ratio has improved from 6.6% to 6.4% and net financial debt decreased despite the execution of the share buyback by circa EUR 500 million, reflecting disciplined capital management.

Now I'll give the floor to Marco to continue with the presentation.

Thank you, Raimon. Well, in this moment, it's mandatory to tackle the topic of the MNO consolidation, so let's do it.

Let's move to Slide 18. First, I remain confident in our future. Demand for data is increasing. networks are congested and we provide a mission-critical service to operators. The need for densification driven by the rollout of 5G, the coming demand from artificial intelligence and the early pilot test of 6G are just some indications of what's ahead of us. It also benefit from positive optionality stemming from regulatory requirements as we saw in the case of the U.K. merger between Vodafone and Three with mandatory investment requirements and the continued rising in data consumption. This is only going one way and this way is up.

So the elephant in the room is MNO consolidation. This might be new to some of you. It's not definitely new to us. We successfully preempted contract renegotiation with Telefonica in 2023, extended to 2052. We recently announced two contract extension with MASMOVIL 2048, Vodafone Three 2055. More duration is more predictability, it's more visibility. Those are tangible results. It didn't happen by luck. It's a result of strategic planning by Cellnex. Overall, I'm not over concerned about MNO consolidation.

Let me share with you a few reasons why our business is resilient in the face of consolidation and why we see it as a strategic opportunity. The key reason why MNO merged is for market repair, not for site decommissioning. This push for consolidation among European mobile network operators is driven by long-standing market challenges, declining revenues, low margins, limited room for further efficiency gains, high investment needs, low return on capital.

Consolidation can help MNO to repair their markets, eliminate inefficiency, unlock potential for improvements and expansion in their margins. Remedies have generated new entrants and remedy taker. None opposition by regulator comes this way with behavioral remedies demanding continued improvement in network coverage, capacity and quality. These drive growth in the market and for the towercos in the medium term. At the same time, spectrum renewals are increasingly being tied to CapEx obligation, signaling again a meaningful shift in regulatory priority towards investment-driven outcomes. We are confident that all those opportunities will offset the potential challenges related with potential churn or growth reduction in the immediate aftermath.

Our all-or-nothing contracts offer long-term visibility and stability, but equally important is the strategic alignment that defines our trusted relationship with clients. MNO will not walk away from this agreement, not only due to the complexity and the cost of replacing a partner deeply embedded in their network evolution, but also because of the value we co-create and the absence of a viable alternative to replicate such a significant portion of their infrastructure.

MNO recognized the need to invest in network quality and coverage. In Page 19, we present you some -- a selection of some of the many public statements made by the MNOs.

Let's now move to Slide 20 to tackle the MNO consolidation in some of our key markets. In past consolidation cases, we have successfully negotiating win-win outcomes. We have consistently demonstrated the strength and enforceability of our contracts across all consolidation scenarios. Each case has affirmed our legal standing and led to successful negotiation that not only reinforced but extended our contractual terms, underscoring the respect MNO have for their validity and their strategic importance.

So we have strong legal protection. Our long-dated all or nothing closes and our consent is needed due to change of control clauses. We have a direct seat at the negotiation table. This is what has allowed us to extend contracts in recent years. We have captured incremental business, both from consolidating operators and from broader market-driven growth. Post consolidation, our MNO clients are stronger and better clients and willing to improve their networks to better compete on network quality and services. Investments are needed and Cellnex owns the key infrastructure for that. These outcomes have preserved the net present value of our assets while contributing to a healthier, more investment-ready MNO ecosystem.

While early year cash flow may be slightly lower due to flexibility we provide to MNOs in order to streamline in efficiencies, they rebound over time and ultimately surpass previous levels. And that's before accounting for additional investment in mobile networks. We have positive optionality there.

Spain and U.K. are proven success stories. We have already demonstrated our ability to thrive through consolidation. Preserved NPV of our contracts, extended MSA maturity, Spain to 2048, U.K. to 2055, strengthened client partnership and expanded business scope. For example, we recently announced new deployments with Vodafone Three in U.K., part of their EUR 11 billion investment plan to build one of the Europe's most advanced stand-alone 5G networks, aiming to reach 99.95% of the population by 2034. Other MNOs will likely respond with further investment in order to remain competitive. In Spain, market momentum continued to build. Digi has contracted an additional 3,000 PoPs through RAN-sharing on Telefonica network. And Telefonica itself has expanded its footprint with us by adding 110 new physical PoPs.

I want to move to France, Slide 21. In France, we have around 12,000 PoPs from SFR with over 80% under all or nothing contracts and annual churn rates below 1%. The earliest MSA renewal is in 2039 and secondary tenants contracts begin to expire only in 2034. With a geographic reference in rural areas, 60% of our PoPs are in rural cross zone areas with full sharing between SFR and Bouygues so already very efficient.

From the terms announced in the MNO's first offer, as expected, Bouygues will retain rural sites where SFR is an anchor tenant, ensuring continuity. These sites were part of our original portfolio and generate no incremental RAN-sharing fees. So financial impact is simply nonexistent. In this area, less than 10% of the PoPs are non-anchore, meaning almost all are protected by long-term contracts. Our technical analysis shows that these sites are critical not only for SFR, but for Bouygues, even and Orange, supporting ongoing densification efforts even amid consolidation uncertainty. From both a legal and technical standpoint, we see minimal risk of churn under any consolidation scenario. Any changes to our contracts requires our consent, positioning us as a key stakeholder in the negotiation. We expect to participate meaningfully in the value created, capturing synergies from the emergence of stronger, more resilient MNOs and benefiting from the substantial CapEx commitments that regulators will require as a condition for their merger approvals.

It's also important to know this will be a long process. MNO must first agree on terms, then navigate due diligence. They have to pass through regulatory reviews, stakeholder approvals throughout maintaining service quality, which will be paramount, and we are essential to that continuity.

Recent rumors in Italy, so another market, our approach remains the same, remain consistent. We are confident we can preserve the NPV of our contract with credible upside potential for the reason mentioned above, data consumption, network capacity, congestion, et cetera. But there are a few points that are very relevant on the potential on MNO consolidation in Italy as a market. Italy has stringent emission restrictions, making our existing sites extremely valuable. And colocation on our main competitor is limited given its high starting colocation ratio. Our sites are needed. The risk on our operation in Italy is low. Possibly, you saw this morning the last announcement on additional colocation agreement and extension with Vodafone Fastweb for further 12 years. So our thesis is demonstrated once again.

Now time to wrap up. Let me leave with a few takeaways. We continue delivering strong operating and financial performance across the board, and we remain firmly on track to achieve all our targets. Our focus on industrial excellence continues to pay off, driving increasing operating leverage and accelerating both in EBITDA after lease and free cash flow metrics.

We've also seen clear validation of our strategic partnership with customers and on the strength of our MSA contracts, which continue to demonstrate resilience amid evolving market dynamics.

Importantly, Cellnex remain an unavoidable counterparty in any consolidation scenario. Our consent is required across the board, reinforcing our central role in shaping outcomes. We view consolidation as an opportunity, a chance to deepen strategic alignment with our clients and to benefit from the growing need for diversification and quality improvement. Finally, we have reiterated all our public targets. We remain fully on track for our dividend commitment starting in January '26.

Thank you. Let's move on to Q&A. Maria, the floor is yours.

Okay. Thank you, Marco. So we'll move over to the first question. It comes from Andrew Lee, Goldman Sachs. Operator, can you see if the line is open?

Yes, the line is open.

Okay. So let's go to the next question. So the first question comes from Roshan Ranjit at Deutsche Bank.

I've got two questions, please. On the buyback, can I just get a kind of understanding of how you think about the mix when you came up with the kind of the EUR 1 billion. Obviously, last year, you put this ordinary dividend for EUR 500 million. You kind of used the proceeds from the data center sale to top up the buyback. But was there a consideration to maybe start the ordinary dividend from a higher base? And just coupled with that, can I just check that you are still guiding to the kind of EUR 10 billion cumulative cash distribution by 2030?

And secondly, on the credit rating change, I think the Fitch kind of decision came, I think, earlier than what you had perhaps thought. What are the kind of implications of that higher headroom? Because clearly, you're a whole turn below the upper ceiling there. So how should we think about the benefits of that? Is it more of the cost of funding when we come up for the refis? Anything you could say around that would be very helpful.

Thank you very much, Roshan. On the buyback, First of all, we committed to EUR 500 million dividend, and we stay to the EUR 500 million dividend. We'll walk our talks. In this moment, we -- one year ago, we said that the minimum would have been EUR 800 million. And I think that we all agree that with the share price at this level, just for being consistent, we made a share buyback at 32. With the share price at 27, we do 26, we do share buyback. It's consistency. So the idea is we want to have the dividend strongly linked to the free cash flow that we are generating. Further cash that is made available is going to be allocated depending on the market moment to share buyback extraordinary dividends. I think that we all agree that at this level the best decision is this.

On credit rating, having flexibility is always good. So we have -- first of all, what is important is that Fitch after S&P has confirmed the validity of our investment thesis. If you take the report issued by Fitch, you see that how they evaluate the risks, even the risks of M&A consolidation, they are considered moderate risks. So this is very important. For us, it's important to have flexibility. In this moment, in this very moment, the Board decided that the flexibility is capped for the rest of the year. But having the flexibility means that in any moment, we can use the flexibility.

Okay. We'll move on to the following questions. So it comes from Rohit Modi at Citi.

Just one follow-up on the leverage question that is you keep giving your leverage target 5x to 6x given you have a higher threshold. Firstly, on the timing, I think your earlier target was '25, '26, but with this shareholder return, clearly, you will be above 6x in '26. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So are you moving a bit further when you say 5x to 6x leverage target range? And then the flexibility around -- I'm just trying to understand, will there be flexibility in terms of using the flexibility on investing into organic growth, like operational efficiencies, you have been generating quite a decent return on those investments. So what kind of opportunities you see there?

And second question is just on any other disposals that you have in pipeline or that you think like the data centers that could come up in near future?

Sorry, I tried to answer.

Rohit, the first question I think was clear. The second question wasn't clear. Sorry.

Apologies. It's only around the disposals. Any other disposals that could be in pipeline apart from the French data centers that you think that you consider could be on strategic and want to dispose?

So the leverage question was in terms of the timing of the target.

The path to deleverage has been very consistent. Now the moment we decided to have -- to accelerate our shareholder remuneration this year and the increase of the shareholder remuneration for 2026 is clearly going hand-in-hand, not with the change of our target. Our target remains 5x to 6x, but we consider that even having in mind this flexibility that we were mentioning before, we aim to be between 2026 and 2027 for going to 6.0x or below 6x. So, our target remains the same. We have a prudent view on our capital structure. We want to be between 5x and 6x. And as I told -- as I said before, having some flexibility give us not flexibility in the final goal, but flexibility in the time to go, which, in any case, will remain fairly consistent in our view.

On disposals, our key principle is that we sell an asset when the value can be maximized. So, in this moment, we don't need to sell assets to maintain our commitments or to deliver what we promised to the market. So having the value maximized is what we did in Ireland is what we did in Austria, Nordics and even recently in the French data center. If you take why we had -- we took a little bit longer to sell the French data center simply because we decided to maximize the result of the disposals. So discussions in one of the specific markets still ongoing, but we are not under pressure. We have no more commitments. So if there will be something -- if there is something more, we will let you know. We stay absolutely disciplined, and we only sell when value can be maximized.

Okay. So moving to the next question from Ottavio Adorisio at Bernstein.

The first question is actually on the business as it is at the moment. Look at the results, you have seen reducing contributions from colocations and that is a big contrast with the improving mom in the PoPs. So the question is, it's just the fact that the PoPs came towards the end of the quarter. So, therefore, we should expect better contribution next quarter or just the mix because it was RAN sharing. Therefore, the economics are not as good, and therefore, that's the reasons why colocations contribution to revenues has not been great.

And this tied up to the questions on M&A. You this is not the first time we talked extensively about all the protections that you have on the contracts towards consolidations and the fact that you do work in partnership with the MNO it's just not that the fact you're protected by the contracts just because the MNO will need you. And my question is, as the MNO talks to one another, and therefore, the negotiation has been long in the making, is the fact that probably they've been halting or posing their colocation plans, and that is impacting your current performance of revenues?

Thank you, Ottavio. Well, your first question, the answer is both the topics that you mentioned. So the growth in the as we said, is coming in a certain quantity from RAN sharing in Spain. And as you know, let's make a rule of thumb. If an MSA counts one, the price of the second tenant is half of it and the price of RAN sharing is 1/4 or 1/5 of what is an MSA anchor fee. So, the answer is yes, there is both. There is a portion that is due to timing and a portion that is due to price mix.

On M&A, well, first of all, thank you because you clarified, spot on that the protection is coming on one side from the legal, but on the other side, from the intimacy we have with our clients. I was just talking a few days ago with our clients in France, and they were telling me the process, if we are able to make it, will last four to five years, a couple of years between agree on the price and getting the approval and then another couple of years for making the asset allocation among the bidders. So do you think that we can wait five years before making another colocation or another? So the answer is no. The life goes on because the clients are there and the competition is there and the quality requirement is there and the traffic growth is there.

So the answer is I think that we tend to overestimate that the world stops because there are talks about people talking about consolidation and so the entire planet stops. Those processes take here. And therefore, the fact that we work with them is super important. But then, of course, we work together. We are saying to SFR, let's slow down in urban areas, but let's continue in the rural areas because in the rural areas, everybody knows that the day of tomorrow, it will go to, who is run with them. So it's a day-by-day work. We work with them every day. We work with them constantly. It's very much on the intima.

And now moving on to [ Halima ] from Goldman Sachs.

I have two, please. Firstly, on the decision to stick to the minimum EUR 500 million dividend. Just wondered if you could take us through the thinking around this and how you look at allocating capital between the dividend and buyback?

And then secondly, could you share any update on your refinancing plans past 2025?

Yes. Okay. I take the dividend, and I leave the refinancing to Raimon.

Well, sorry, I say again what I said before. We committed to EUR 500 million growing by 7.5% starting from 2026. But we decided that 2026 could be from January 1 to December 31. And so we said, okay, let's start in January because our cash flow is very much okay, is slightly better than our original expectations. So the dividends are there. And then we have as a minimum of the EUR 300 million as a minimum. And how do we think about -- well, with the share price of EUR 26, EUR 27, it's very easy to think about because the attractiveness of the share buyback in terms of long-term value creation for the shareholders is there. So there is nothing to invent.

I hope that it will not take so long to create me the doubt of if it is still convenient or if we have to think it to extraordinary dividends. As of today, the decision is very easy.

Raimon on refinancing.

So when looking at refinancing, I would say various things. First, we have closed the quarter with EUR 1.4 billion of cash available with no maturities in the year '25 and EUR 1.7 billion of maturities in the year '26. On top of the cash, we have the undrawn facilities, EUR 3.3 billion. So in total, our liquidity is EUR 4.8 billion that covers the maturities of '26 and '27. So we have a good situation from a liquidity perspective.

We have the first maturity coming April '26, if I'm not wrong. And our idea is to go to the markets probably beginning of next year. We're looking and we are actively looking opportunities to see if it makes sense to go out this year or next year, and we will decide depending on market situation. But so far, what we are trying to look at is to gain as much duration as possible so that our debt correlates more also to the income that we have from our contracts.

So we're looking at maturities from 7 to 10 years that makes from a cost perspective, but duration perspective, more sense than the situation we have today so that we are able to increase the average maturity of 4.4 a bit longer.

So now moving on to James Ratzer from New Street Research.

I have two, please. So the first one on organic growth. What I'm interested about is when I look at your BTS programs, you have a few that have just finished. You've got a few that are coming up to expire, so kind of Iliad in Italy and France, you've maybe got Sunrise in Switzerland, a couple in Portugal. What are you seeing from those MNOs in terms of their demand for tenancy growth as the formal BTS programs complete? Do you see kind of ongoing demand beyond the completion of those BTS programs?

And then secondly, just interested in the performance you had in Italy this quarter. It looks like, in particular, kind of tower revenue growth you booked there was extremely strong. I was wondering if you can comment on that any more? And is that a kind of sustainable level of growth going forward?

Yes. I'll take the first, and I'll leave to Raimon the second. .

Well, the build-to-suit programs that we are completing now are the result. It's a sort of a forward execution of the original M&A. When we bought the portfolio, there was existing towers and new towers. So, going forward, is it going to be -- there is going to be more growth? The answer is yes. This growth is going to be all via colocation. No, it's not going to be all via colocation. But I think that the quantity of new towers that is going to be built in the future is going to be materially lower than what we built in the past.

Operators realize that if they want to be efficient, one way to be efficient is stop building towers and pay every time an anchor fee. So paying a second fee is a good way for being more efficient in their network deployment. But it's also true that some further towers are going to be needed. It's -- I'm not violating any secret. So Iliad is launching an RFI for building more towers in France from 2026 to 2035. So -- and this is basically what we say. It is the world goes on.

What I don't think is that future build-to-suit programs can be as expensive as it has been in the past. The past model was an M&A -- a copy paste on M&A of an M&A contract. Going forward, this is going to be much more industrially driven. So what's the reasonable cost of building a tower, what's the reasonable cost of maintaining a tower and what's the reasonable cost for renting a tower. This is more what we see going on.

Hope I answered. And Raimon on Italy.

Yes. So, on Italy, as you will probably have seen today, we have signed and renewed an agreement with Fastweb Vodafone, where we have today a bit more than 2,000 PoPs, and we have negotiated for an extra 1,000 PoPs to continue with their 5G development and it's a renewal for the next 12 years. This will enhance the coverage of 4G and 5G. It will cover more or less a bit over 1,000 sites. And what you have in the financials this quarter, and it will be again next quarter is a one-off part of this agreement in order to reserve those spaces that they have asked for.

So moving on to Ondrej Cabejšek at UBS.

Just I guess, 2two questions. One is a follow-up on the debate that we just ended. Marco, you mentioned the RFI that Iliad is launching. I believe last year, you actually turned down, if I'm not mistaken, a similar small build-to-suit project for them.

Sorry to interrupt to you, Ondrej, but the line isn't very good. Maybe you can try and speak closer to the phone?

Is this okay?

Maybe it was a bit slow. Can you hear us? If you could speak a little bit slower.

Is this okay?

Yes, much better.

Okay. Apologies. So I wanted to follow up on the build-to-suit. So you mentioned that Iliad is launching this RFI for a new build-to-suit program in France. I was wondering because I believe last year, you guys declined a small project from Iliad in Italy. I think one of the reasons was that basically the free cash flow profile was of paramount importance to you, so you did not want to get into a new build-to-suit program. I was wondering with the rapid decline or with the visibility on the rapid decline of build-to-suit CapEx over the next couple of years. And at the same time, obviously, I guess, your desire for going after opportunities that would spur further growth over the midterm. How are you thinking about your interest in new build-to-suit programs for Cellnex over the midterm? That's number one.

And then number two, relating to the, I guess, higher level situation in France. Obviously, you are flagging and I think very logically the fact that you are so embedded with 3 out of the 4 parties that would potentially be merging in Italy in France. I was wondering from your perspective, at which point in this negotiation process, are you expecting to be able to go out to the market and communicate some kind of framework at least for an outcome relating to the network structures or the anchor contracts rather that you have with the MNOs -- because I believe in Spain, for example, from the moment that we had the MASMOVIL Orange announcement, we had seen almost 2.5 years a lapse between that announcement and your announcement of a renegotiation with the contract there.

So I believe France is likely to be very different. But at what point -- or like have you had conversations with these companies already? And at what point or how early in the process are you confident that you can actually give assurance to the market that you are, again, in like an NPV positive situation or neutral?

Yes. First, on your first question, I correct you mildly. So when we refused to enter in a build-to-suit -- in a new build-to-suit program, was not because of CapEx restriction, but it was because it was not a good business. So we are very disciplined in looking to the returns on our capital allocation. Time ago, you were making calculating the return starting from a zero free risk rate. Now free risk weight is not zero. Cost of capital is not zero. Cost of capital is higher. And so we needed to have a good return on capital. If the return on capital is not good, it's not good. That's it.

So the fact that going forward, we will have a better cash flow does not mean that we are going to relax our requirements in terms of return on the investments. the return investment have to be accretive. If the investments are not accretive, they are not good investment. They're not good capital allocation and they prefer to allocate capital as they did now, for example, in buying shares. So this is -- it's not that since I have more cash flow, I have to use the cash flow badly or poorly.

On France, France -- sorry, of course, if there is good capital to be put at work, more than happy to do it. France, we meet with our clients almost once a month. So -- and my guys in France, I meet with them, I can't say every day, but let's say, even more frequently. The truth is that everybody knows that we have to be brought to the table early stage. But early stage means that you need to have at least a framework to talk about. In this moment, what we discuss with our client is how can we make preliminary homework. So our engineering department is making analysis, by the way, together with the MNOs to understand what is the traffic per cell, per city. So we are making a lot of homework in order to be ready the day of tomorrow that we have to allocate not the nonurban, but the urban towers, who is the natural buyer because there is not a single natural buyer. The natural buyer means that Tower A contributes more value to Orange and Tower B, more to WIG, and Tower C to Iliad, and we're going to allocate this way.

That's the work we are doing. We're not wasting our time. But it's still too preliminary for having a real allocation, a real matrix of allocation. What we all know is rural is not going to be a problem, 0.0 problem. Urban, we all know that the problem is super modest. So we are there. We are working there, Ondrej.

And moving on to the next question from Graham Hunt at Jefferies.

I've just got two questions. I think just coming back to a question earlier, just on confirmation of the total capital flexibility of EUR 10 billion out to 2030. But on that sort of following on from that, if, as you say, the ratings agencies are comfortable with your outlook and even the risk around M&A consolidation, if they're offering you more leverage headroom, is there actually potential for upside to that EUR 10 billion number? And given where the shares are today, is it -- what is it that's stopping you from sort of leaning into the buyback a little bit more, maybe not in 2026, but could you see that stepping up a bit more aggressively over the following years?

Thank you, Graham. So the EUR 10 billion, we're already including a component, which was a component of releveraging. But the releveraging we are considering is staying within the 5x to 6x okay? So let's say that we are in the ballpark of EUR 10 billion and depending how close you want to stay, 5.5x or 6x, you can move a little bit up or a little bit down, but this is the ballpark.

So is it important to have this flexibility? Yes, it's extremely important. As I said before, we don't change our long-term view. We want to be with a prudent capital structure. Now nobody see clouds at the horizons. But if clouds come all of a sudden, capital structure can't be changed one day to another. So it's much better to be prudent with good weather than discover that you have not been prudent with bad weather.

Is it impossible to be more aggressive going forward? Yes, it's always possible. I think that these are long discussions that we are making with the Board. Every time the Board, we have, as you know, a capital allocation committee inside the Board. It's, I think, one of the best committee I've been. I've been in Board since a long part of my life. It's one of the best I've seen operating in my life. And every time we have a good session and this is one of the topics of how bold we should be in terms of how prudent we should be and what is the correct mix.

Having the flexibility is having the flexibility, 5x to 6x stays 5x to 6x, but having the flexibility is always good. So I leave to the Board to make the final decision.

So now moving on to the next question from Fabio Pavan of Mediobanca.

Actually, I think there is a big debate to travel a lot these days and to meet industry leaders in the telecom space on the need to speed up 5G coverage as low latency is crucial to sustain the takeup in generative AI. And I think it's also something you were mentioning that the regulators are flagging some need for invest more in digital infra. So to me, it looks like we are concerned about MNO consolidation, which, as you pointed out, is something that may take time to be implemented. While in the midterm, maybe earlier than this, we should have an increase in demand for new services from your side. What I'm missing on this?

And the second question, which is probably related to this is market clearly is concerned and doesn't see any upside, which I do see on this low latency takeup. Do you think that this may lead as a consequence to some consolidation also in the tower space, not just in the telecom space at European level?

Thank you, Fabio. Always good in your analysis. 5G coverage in Europe is way beyond the rest of the world. Asia, they are already talking about 6G. And in the U.S., the battle is really a battle of network quality instead of being a battle of who cuts the price most. You saw that AT&T and Verizon are fiercely battling for who has the metal of the best network.

In Europe, we are still counting on the networks of the old good times, but the network of the old good times are suffering. Every time an operator installs a new network, a new 5G network unlocks enormous quantity of traffic. And this is something that is mandatory, cannot resist more. So people want to have better networks. U.K. has been a clear example. The quality of the network in U.K. is so dramatically poor that cannot stay like this. You leave -- in Italy and every time you take a high-speed train, you have a high-speed train and low-speed telecommunication network.

So it's there. We have to catch it. And we are ready to work together with our clients. I think that this is very important. So business is there. I have zero doubt. We are an essential facility. Digital is our life. Our life is digitalized, and we are the infrastructure for the digital mobile digital life. So we are an essential facility. It cannot be -- it cannot go back.

The tower consolidation, well, tower consolidation, there are two kind of tower consolidation. One is in-market tower consolidation and the other is cross-market tower consolidation. In-market tower consolidation every time is possible is good because ultimately, there are too many portfolios and some of them are overlapped. So part of the tower consolidation can turn into decommissioning of tower, which turns into synergies into efficiency, it would be good.

Now is it possible? As of today, we don't see many, many markets in which this is possible, but there are markets in which the situation is turning bizarre. Spain has 3 -- 2.5 networks and 4 tower operators is bizarre. You live in Italy and Italy is much more linear. There are 2.5 or eventually 3 networks with 2.5/3 tower operators much more linear. So this is what I think it's possible in the near future.

Okay. So moving on to Akhil Dattani at JPMorgan.

I've got two questions as well, please. Firstly, if I could just maybe ask a question on your organic growth. If we look at the last couple of quarters, on a headline basis, it looks like organic growth rates have been slowing. So last year, you reported just over 7% organic growth. But the last three quarters, each quarter, it slowed. I think this quarter, if you back it out from your year-to-date, it comes in at 5% for Q3. And I guess if we strip out the point that Raimon made about the Italian contract, maybe it's even close to 4%. So I'm just trying to understand what is going on. And I know maybe there might be some distortions in there from works in study. So maybe the slowdown is not what it looks like. So maybe you could just help us understand what's going on top line performance and how we should understand it? So that's the first question.

And then the second question is on consolidation. Marco, you've obviously given us a lot of color around why you're so confident and the protection you have in your contracts. But I guess I'd love to understand what do you think could go wrong? Because I guess if we look at the market today, that's what the market is fearing. I guess the comparison I often get from investors is the U.S., where U.S. tower companies are also very confident going into consolidation, but growth rates have slowed a lot. So what do you think -- if you think about the puts and takes, what are the areas where there might be risk? Obviously, I understand the strength in your contracts, but where could there be potential areas of slippage in growth from consolidation?

Okay. Yes, on organic growth, we should split the organic growth -- as you know, the organic growth has a component coming from PoP growth. There is a component coming from some engineering service like every company in the tower space, we adapt sites in order to co-locate antenna and PoPs and objects dishes, et cetera,. And this is something that has seasonality because you can -- there are moments of the year in which you can do more and moments of the year in which you can do less.

So if I take the colocation, the colocation, we are -- we have had more than an issue of an issue. More than -- the explanation is more in the mix of the price than in the number of the PoPs that are colocated. I mean the mix is how many build-to-suit, which are anchor clients, very, very high price, how many are secondary tenants, which are mid-price and how many are RAN sharing, which come with a lower price. So the mix -- the price mix is something that people tend to a bit underestimate.

In this moment, with the change of mix, so having less build-to-suit growth and more colocation don't have only a different impact on CapEx, but you have also a different price mix. And therefore, the impact on revenues is different from the past. In the past, a lot of the growth was coming from build-to-suits or from anchor clients, also contracts with very high price.

On consolidation, as we discussed several times, consolidation, you have to imagine consolidation as a moment event. The first part of the consolidation is a reorganization of the network. People talk about efficiency, but you have always to think. I cannot serve two customer base with a single network. So the first moment is how can I serve two customer base with two networks that have to be designed more efficiently. So this is the first part of the exercise. And the second part of the exercise is what is the quality I want to deliver to my clients.

The topic of the quality is changing very, very, very quickly. If you talk with any expert in AI-driven application, they will tell you that it's not that it will drive more data consumption, but it's a different kind of data consumption. Network has to be dense. Network has to be more capacity for uploading, et cetera. You need to design the network differently. So, yesterday, we were talking with a very good CTO of one of our clients, and he was telling us there is a topic of coverage because ubiquitous service is considered mandatory today. If you don't have the good network in your subway, you're not happy. Capacity is a big problem and accessibility is a big problem. So everything goes in the direction that going forward, more has to come. So, I'm positive.

What was breaking us breaking until today, the fact that the MNO had not enough resources to invest. That's the truth. The truth is that they did not -- they could not invest enough because they did not have enough money to invest. And the day they will have more money to invest, they will invest more.

Okay. So moving on to the last two questions. So we've got Abhilash now from BNP.

I've got two, please. Firstly, just a clarification on the shareholder returns, given what you said about the sort of mix between dividends and buybacks. So if we think about 2027, should we think that it's -- the dividend is sort of EUR 500 million, growing by 7.5% and then any further gap you sort of make up with buybacks so that you do at least EUR 800 million a year from 2027 onwards as well?

And then secondly, just a quick clarification, please, on the numbers in France, if I may. The EBITDA there continues to benefit from the sort of a net benefit from pass-through revenues for the last few quarters. Maybe if you could just give some color there and whether you think that this is sustainable in the coming periods as well, that would be helpful.

Marco will take the question on the shareholder returns. And then maybe on the detailed question on numbers, we'll take it in the call later in the IR team, okay?

Okay. On shareholder return, yes, we are committed to EUR 800 million not only for '26, but '27 onwards. So, as you said, the EUR 500 million will grow 7.5%. So the EUR 500 million becomes -- so help me with the math is EUR 540 million or something like this. And the remaining part is going to be allocated depending where the share price is going to be in 2027. Please hand me to surprise me to make me the doubt that making share buybacks is not convenient. So it's a topic for the moment. Same as for the total amount, as we always said. So we fix -- we committed to a minimum. And every time we can allocate more, we will allocate more.

Okay. So last question coming from Fernando Abril at Alantra.

First, a follow-up on the shareholder remuneration. So I don't know if you can be a bit more precise on the leverage target on the 5x to 6x EBITDA I don't know if you want to be today in the upper end of the range or the low end because, I mean, 1x EBITDA is EUR 3 billion to EUR 4 billion of potential remuneration for the next four, five years. So I don't know if you can be a bit more precise where do you want leverage to be in the next years?

And then second question on expansion CapEx. I've seen it is down around 10% year-on-year. Also as a percentage of sales is down more than 100 basis points. I don't know if you have any -- I don't know if this is -- this was temporary or a structural decline for the next years? And do you have any internal target for expansion CapEx to be as a percentage of sales in the next few years?

Cool. On the financial leverage, being prudent depends also on the moment, on the climate, on what is around us. So what we said is we want to be in the 5x to 6x. And then where if it is going to be more 5.5x or 5.7x, et cetera, it will depend zillion, zillion things. I became CFO in 2008 and the world exploded all of a sudden. And people who was CFO zero interest rates had another story.

So, I think, Fernando, if I can add, on the Capital Markets Day, what we said is that our target was the middle point, 5.5x, and we would move up and down from 5x to 6x depending how interest rates are moving. And that has not changed. We remain exactly the same. Interest rates are maybe a bit lower also with investment grade that we were not at the moment or we became just at the moment. So more or less, that has not changed.

Also just to highlight one topic on that, that is remember, and we mentioned that in the Capital Markets Day, we delever every year around 0.4x. And that's important because when you were saying where we stand today, we stand at 6.4x, but with the capacity of deleveraging of 0.4x per annum.

The way we consider expansion CapEx is not a percentage of the revenues. The way we consider is we go project by project. We look if the projects have a good return. This year, we decreased a bit the expansion CapEx, but it's not -- I think that considering a fixed percentage is very convenient for making -- for modeling but it's not the way that we work every day. So countries send us projects. So they intercept projects. They prefilter the project in order to avoid us to analyze the projects that are clearly not convenient. And then they compete for a basket of resources. So best project goes first. So this is the way we work. It's not a fixed percentage. So I would be happy to have a very good project with very good returns, so going forward.

Okay. So thank you. Thank you very much, everybody, for being on the call and all your interesting questions. As always, the IR team are available and management. So please feel free to call. Thank you very much.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.