IFSUF (IFSUF) Q1 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good morning. This is the Chorus Call conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the INWIT First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Luigi Minerva, Strategy, M&A and Investor Relations Director of INWIT. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. I have with me Diego Galli, INWIT's General Manager; and Emilia Trudu, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, please allow me to draw your attention to the safe harbor statement on Page 2 of the presentation. Following a brief presentation on the Q1 2026 results, we will open the floor to questions. Over to you, Diego.

Thank you, Luigi, and good morning, everyone. In today's session, we share our Q1 2026 results, which are consistent with our full year 2026 guidance, reflecting the current telecom market context. A reminder of our 2026 guidance and medium-term baseline outlook, both of which are fully reiterated and a recap of our key strategic point of strength centered on INWIT's high-quality and unique network. The telco sector in Italy continues to go through a challenging phase with low returns and the minimum investment from operators. Mutual infra players can play a key role in this context, leveraging on sharing economics to deliver investments in digitalization in the most efficient way. Our MSAs create value, thanks to the consolidation of infrastructure and the unlocking of sharing synergies to the benefit of all parties. As you already know, our anchor tenants sent us early termination notices in March. We have been clear that both fall outside the legal framework of the MSAs and have taken legal actions to protect INWIT. Anyway, our wish is to move from the legal ground back to business and industrial investment. INWIT remains committed to invest while collaborating with its customers to identify shared value for value solutions. Moving to the next slide. Q1 results are consistent with our full year 2026 guidance. New sites and new PoPs reflect the current market context, while the pace of real estate transactions remain sustained. As we anticipated, revenues on a reported basis are declining year-on-year by around 1%. Revenues are impacted by the absence of uncommitted revenues linked to discretionary project-based revenues. If we were to remove such discretionary project-based revenues from the Q1 2025 numbers, the Q1 2026 revenues show a normalized annual growth above 3%. EBITDA after leases margins at around 72% are in line with guidance. Our leverage ratio remained stable quarter-over-quarter at 5.2x. In a few days, we will pay about EUR 500 million in ordinary dividend, which implies a dividend yield of more than 7% at current levels, reflecting the current undervalued share price. I hand it over to Emilia now for a review of KPIs and the financials.

Operational KPIs in the quarter reflect the current challenging market context. 30 new towers in Q1 is a soft start, and we expect a pickup in H2 in line with our target of around 200 new towers in 2026. Around 300 new PoPs in the quarter, with tenancy ratio growing to 2.39. We are aiming for more than 1,700 new POPs in 2026 with year-over-year continuous growth in tenancy ratio. 60 new dedicated DAS covering premium indoor locations across multiple verticals for a total of around 850, targeting approximately 900 locations in full year '26. 400 real estate transactions in the quarter confirm our strong track record, aiming for a total of approximately 1,600 transactions in full year '26. The normalized 2025 total revenue base takes into account the lack of project-based non-committed revenue components, which we have developed over time with operators, capturing their discretionary flexible budget. As discussed during our full year 2025 results conference call, such discretionary budgets have been put on hold at this stage given the current context of limited budgets and stagnant relationships. Adjusting for this one-off step-downs, we delivered over 3% normalized revenue growth in Q1 2026, driven by the following components: inflation CPI-linked based on a 2025 average index of 1.4%, anchor commitments in towers, new POPs and DAS deployment in line with MSA, OLOs growth with steady pace across other MNOs and IoT, Smart infra growth in indoor DAS across premium locations and smart city verticals. Q1 revenues were minus 1% year-on-year at EUR 264 million, representing over 3% normalized revenue growth year-on-year as we just discussed. Key revenue components, including tower anchor revenues up 2%, supported by inflation and MSA commitment. OLOs and Smart Infra revenues down as a result of the lack of project-based revenues, such as work and studies, installation upgrades on DAS, more than offsetting the growing number of POPs and DAS locations covered. EBITDA down 1.9% year-on-year to EUR 239.5 million, with an EBITDA margin of 91%. EBITDA after leases down 2.2% year-on-year to above EUR 190 million and a margin of 72%, reflecting INWIT's structural operational efficiency. Recurring free cash flow at EUR 176 million has a front-end loaded profile for the year, and net debt at approximately EUR 5 billion, including IFRS 16 liabilities, resulting in a 5.2 leverage ratio in line with December 2025. Recurring free cash flow in 2026 has a front-end loaded profile while remaining consistent with 2026 full year guidance. In Q1, recurring free cash flow reached EUR 176 million, up by 11% year-on-year with 74% cash conversion. This was driven by structurally lower recurring CapEx. No taxes were cashed out with a tax payment scheduled for Q2 and Q4 as per usual seasonality. Positive net working capital of approximately EUR 10 million and financial charges reflecting an efficient debt profile and the specific phasing of interest bond payments. Below the recurring free cash flow line, gross CapEx was just below EUR 80 million to EUR 90 million due to phasing. We closed the quarter with free cash flow to equity of nearly EUR 88 million. Leverage ratio is stable at 5.2x, in line with Q4 2025, and we have an efficient debt profile out of which 85% is fixed, 15% floating with a current average cost of debt of approximately 3% and average bond maturity of 4.3 years. Furthermore, we have just extended our EUR 1 billion bank facilities originally maturing in 2027 to 2031, led by a pool of primary banks. I now hand it back to Diego for the guidance in the closing section. Thank you.

Thank you, Emilia. We reiterate our 2026 targets, medium-term baseline outlook, reflecting the current market environment. Even in the unrealistic scenario in which the market remains stuck over the medium term, we will be able to have a decent organic growth, an attractive dividend and a solid balance sheet. The baseline outlook does not include the potential upside related to the normalization of the industry dynamics, the network densification, both outdoor and indoor and INWIT opportunities to expand across digital infrastructure. At the same time, the baseline outlook does not include the downside risks of MSAs' termination as we don't believe this is a likely or realistic outcome. Moving to the next slide. We are protecting the integrity of the MSA and INWIT rights to the legal path, and we are confident on the strength of our arguments. However, we would rather focus on investing in efficient growth and value creation for all parties and stakeholders. It's not appropriate to enter into legal details considering that the case is open. Let me just say that timing-wise, it's moving on as expected given the complexity of the case. I'm also keen to reiterate that we have always executed the contract in fairness and good faith. Of course, being open to discuss with our customers and, by the way, as envisaged by the contract itself, to further optimize the commercial opportunities within the contract framework. At the same time, good faith discussions require the identification of solutions that create value for all parties, being also mindful of the impact on all stakeholders, including the public interest related to the strategic nature of our infrastructure. Moving to the next slide, let me reiterate a few important considerations on our MSAs prices and terms. MSAs fees are competitive and intrinsically linked to the structure of the sales and leaseback transactions as industry standard. The higher the upfront amount paid to the operator, the higher the resulting tower MSA fees. With regards to INWIT, the MSA terms and conditions are an integral part of the overall transaction carried out in 2020. The average total fee per pole is around EUR 20,000. This is the combination of sales and leaseback towers, new towers and new PoPs. We can estimate that broadly half of the fee is related to the financial component of the transaction, which is comparable to the interest fee of a perpetual bond, while the other half is related to the pure hosting fee. All our prices are in line with the market. They are even more attractive because the MSA fees also include unique rights to the benefit of anchors. On the left-hand side of the slide, we show once more a benchmark of our MSAs tenant fees, which are competitive and well below the European average. Finally, we are aware we benefit from an uncapped escalator linked to the inflation. This is a better feature than in other European MSAs. We paid for this as for all the other components of the MSAs in the 2020 sale and leaseback transactions. Looking at the 5 years or 10 years time framework, the average inflation that we applied with our escalators has been about 2% or 3%, basically in line with historical trends and expectations. Anyway, we understand that the uncapped escalator created some specific impact and going forward, uncertainty for our clients, and we have been and we are open to talk about alternative approaches. Talking about infrastructure and network, our network of about 26,000 sites is the result of 40 years of work from Telecom Italia, Vodafone and INWIT, where we could take the benefit of first-mover advantage to build top quality sites in the best available location. 35% of our sites are in unique locations. This means that there is no other tower company within relevant distance range. For 40% of sites, there are other alternatives within the relevant range. However, either there is no space available on the towers or there are technical issues that prevent the same quality. Our network is available to our anchors on an all-or-nothing basis. As I said, our network is the result of the consolidation of multiple network and is a material source of efficiency within the industry through the benefits of sharing economics. A consolidated and optimized network is also a way to reduce the use of natural resources. Greenfield initiatives in a mature market create infrastructure duplication and fragmentation, leading to medium- to long-term inefficiency and a structural higher cost base for the industry. Furthermore, we believe that the market needs further 10,000 new towers in the next few years. Such greenfield initiatives would divert CapEx and delivery capacity away from the network densification that the Italian market needs to make the much needed progress on digitalization. Final remarks from my side. Q1 results are consistent with our 2026 guidance. The towers business model is based on long-term contracts that create value for all parties, thanks to sharing economics and network efficiencies. The Italian telco market continues to be under pressure with low prices and sub-par returns. And telcos are offloading challenges also on the infra players. Regarding current context, the legal path will move on as expected, and we are confident on the strength of our arguments. For us, it's key to protect the integrity of the MSA as a long-term contract. We are open to optimize further the terms of the contract, particularly on new investments, and we remain committed to collaborate with our customers and identify shared value for value solution. The industry needs material investment for densification, which may unlock growth and material opportunities for all. With this, we thank you for your attention. We aim to provide you with an updated business plan as visibility would allow it. We now open the floor to Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Ondrej Cabejšek from UBS. Ondrej Cabejšek: My question was really on the guidance, the fact that you are now able to provide targets for the year in terms of KPIs. If you could just talk about what that means, how you've kind of engaged with your customers year-to-date, and if this includes even the anchors? And then related to that, you've been -- you mentioned that in the second half of the year, you may be able to provide a mid-term outlook. So how should we think about that statement in the sense of, obviously, you having less visibility given what's going on with your anchors. So are there any -- is there any progress in -- or should we look at this as some kind of progress in talks or a pickup in market activity? Or what is this actually driven by?

Thank you, Ondrej. Yes, the -- as we shared, the baseline plan is the result of the respect of the committed with anchor tenants. There is no additional discretionary business, reflecting the ongoing activities which are moving on in consistently with the committed revenue profile and investment profile. We -- with regards to your second question, clearly, now we have a situation where actually at operational level, we keep on working as appropriate with all our effort to make things work well and even better than before. There is a legal case which is ongoing. There is no ongoing discussion or negotiation with the anchors, though we do expect visibility gradually to improve and we would expect to be in the condition to give more clarity by the second half of the year. Ondrej Cabejšek: And if I may follow up specifically on these 1,500 new PoPs that you expect to have this year. Can you just give us color in terms of the breakdown between the anchors and the OLOs perhaps?

Yes. In the current context, let me say that the majority of it is related to OLOs as a mix of other MNOs, utilities and IoT.

The next question is from Roshan Ranjit, Deutsche Bank.

I've got 2 as well, please. You built 30 new sites this quarter, and I think your competitor built 3. Obviously, very, very limited progress, as you mentioned, the dry market. At what point do you think the regulator or in fact, the government kind of steps in here to -- clearly, there is a lack of investment and it is dragging on the telco sector. So do you envisage a scenario where the government will step in here to move things along quite quickly because per the time frame that you have outlined, this could really, really drag on. And my second question is regarding the discussions. I think last week, one of your customers kind of suggested that they tried to have a discussion, but the discussions weren't perhaps entertained. Is it more the topic of the discussions or there just haven't been any talks that have been ongoing?

Yes. I think the point you're raising is quite valid. The industry and the market in Italy requires investments to catch up and to accelerate on densification and digitalization. The market has been -- I think there is a strong consensus on that has been invested because it's a market which is impacted by pressure on the top line and low or very, very limited returns. I think that there is worthwhile to mention that there is the frequency renewal process, which is going on. And I think that can be a catalyst trigger, and that's probably by the end of 2026, beginning of 2027, there could be more clarity. But let me reiterate that sooner or later, the market will reaccelerate again for the benefit of the overall industry and digitalization of the country. With regards to the second question, clearly, we have been talking, as I always shared with our customers trying to identify a solution and opportunities to optimize the contract and the relationship though our approach is based on win-win approach. On solutions which should create value for all parties. And this is for us, is the meaning of fairness and good faith. And while we have not engaged in discussions where the approach is we lose and there is net transfer value. That's what we mean when we say that we want to defend the integrity of the MSA framework. Let me also say just to be even more specific that conversations stalled based on different assumptions of the contract, we proposed to have an arbitration actually 2x, and that has not been accepted by the customer. Just to show again on concrete and tangible terms how constructive and positive approach based on good faith we have been following across the last several months. And as I said, the legal path continues. But overall, we would prefer to focus on investments and growth, and we remain open always to collaborate with the customers to identify win-win solutions to create value for all parties. And I think that should be the ground to do so, again, based on fairness and good faith.

The next question is from Paul Sidney with Berenberg.

I also had 2 questions, please. Your 2 anchor customers and the MSAs recently set out their view that they believe and move away from INWIT is possible in 10 years. I think one said it explicitly and another didn't disagree. I feel it's easy to put it in a PowerPoint slide, but could you outline some of the practical considerations and challenges that would be involved in migrating away from INWIT in such a short time frame? And just in terms of the preferred supplier clause, I know you set this out at the end of March in your call, which is very helpful. But I just wondered a month on, have you had any further thoughts on the supplier clause, the legal implications, the robustness of that clause and what that could mean in terms of going forward if some of your customers did look to build out their own towers.

Thanks, Paul. Yes, we saw the slide as everybody and I don't want to enter into commenting on specific basis, but I would say that in general, greenfield projects in mature markets have never been done. The switching of the network as material switching costs. Operationally very, very complicated. I think that talking about our experience to do towers in urban areas such as the big Italian cities or touristic areas is extremely difficult. Also considering the regulations which have been implemented in the last 10 years by the municipalities. Also in rural areas, it's not as easy as people may think for the next-generation EU project on 5G in white areas. Actually, we -- I think it's on the newspaper today is the kind of opposition from local municipalities has been amazing. So it's from an operational point of view, from a financial point of view, from an environmental point of view is clearly very, very complex and takes a lot of effort and focus. And as I said, I think it will be more valuable and will be instead of value destruction for the industry will be value creation for the industry to focus on the new investments which are required for the densification instead of, again, investing resources for duplication and fragmentation. With regards to the preferred supplier, is a clause whereby on the new towers in the right of the first offer and the last call. And we think that we will be able to match all the potential alternative offers based on our financial strength and even more our industrial capabilities to deploy new towers in a very efficient and timely manner. Clearly, in the last few years, we set up an organization which is best-in-class across all the chain of the machine from site search to permit to build, to maintenance. So, we think that, again, from a financial and industrial point of view, we can match all potential alternatives. So, we will be in the condition to use the preferred supplier clause to keep on working with the customers and satisfy all their new towers needs.

That's great. Can I just have a quick follow-up? Apologies. I missed the number of towers that you said. I think it was in your introductory remarks on Slide 12, but the number of new sites that you believe that Italy needs ultimately. I'm sorry, I just missed that number. I wonder if you could just clarify.

We think it's broadly in the range between 7,000 to 12,000 new towers. So let me simplify the 10,000 new towers for network densification to address the capacity needs in urban areas, the coverage and densification needs in suburban and also to provide coverage in the corridors and the transport corridors related to road and rail.

The next question is from Fabio Pavan with Mediobanca.

The first one is if you are exploring in the meantime, some opportunities to secure additional external growth? And the second question is clearly with a mid- to long-term horizon. I know there are already discussions ongoing over the future 6G network, which many think should be AI native, implying higher need for densification, low latency and densification. So are you already having some discussion on that kind? What's your view on this future demand?

Thank you, Fabio. Yes. We -- as part of the last year business plan, we laid down the direction for growth. And clearly on top of towers and real estate optimization, we are growing organically in a significant matter on what we call the smart infrastructure, so indoor coverage and dedicated coverage with important projects. Let me mention a couple of those. One is the 5G coverage of the new tube in Milan from the airport to the center done last year. And the 5G project, Smart city project in Rome, which again will bring 5G coverage across metro line and across 100 city squares, where we will bring 5G small cell readiness Wi-Fi, IoT and cameras for security. So it's a major digitalization for the smart city initiative. So that's almost organic and is embedded in our growth path. On top of that, we think that the avenues for future growth are related to the edge data center and active equipment. Those are the 2 areas where there is potential synergies to our existing core business. And that's where we clearly we are open to talk with our customers about playing a role on the management -- ownership and management of the active equipment through the role of neutral host. Also on edge computing, yes, we do share the view that also related to 6G, we do share the view that there will be a dramatic need of computing capacity at the edge of the network. And we are very well placed on that because we have the more distributed network in the country with 26,000 point of presence across the nation, and that is a unique asset, which will be even more relevant in the mid to long term as long as 6G low latency digitalization will move on. So we are also focused on that and as consistently with our strategic plan.

The next question is from Abhilash Mohapatra, BNP Paribas.

The first one was just a clarification really to your earlier answer on the 200 sites target for the full year. Just to clarify, did you say that that's all based on committed growth? Or is there some uncommitted targets that are baked into that as well? And then secondly, just a broader question, Diego, I don't know to the extent you'll be happy to comment, but you made a reference to the uncapped CPI, how that's been viewed as a problem. Given your comments around not being ready to take a win-lose approach, should we take that to essentially mean that you would not be ready to sort of consider reversing some of those past CPIs and therefore, giving a discount on the MSA? I appreciate that's not something you may want to comment, but just wanted to ask.

Thanks, Abhilash. Yes. On the first one, the 200 towers are committed as part of the MSA and the finalization of the next-generation EU plan. On the second one, we drill down a little bit on this topic of inflation. We are -- because we understand that there is a specific clause quite, let me say, a specific feature of our MSA. And honestly, overall, let me say, we are keen and open to talk overall in the framework of a win-win approach where there can be gives and takes. The balance of give and takes can be positive for all. And that's where inflation can be part of the of the overall equation where considering the dramatic need for additional investments, I do believe that there is room again to share value among all parties.

The next question is from Andrea Devita Intesa Sanpaolo.

It's basically on discretionary investment by other operators. So I saw that in the presentation, you claim to have a positive organic growth in OLO revenues, while the arithmetic suggests a negative. So I thought that most of the discretionary was on anchor. So I'm asking the split basically for last year and then the expected for this year of the potential revenue lost from discretionary between Anchor and other telephone operators.

The project-based discretionary revenues is something which has been particularly strong on anchors considering in this specific year, considering the current context has been part of the normal business we do with the other customers and with the customers depending on the budget availability and specific timing. So there has been also in the past years up and downs, which have been absorbed overall in the overall growth path. Clearly, this year, the combination of this impact on discretionary project-based revenues on almost and in particular, on anchors in the current market condition is visible and cannot be offset and that's why we reported in a revenue decline. The key point to underline from my side is that somehow 2026 has set a new base considering that the discretionary project-based revenues are extremely, extremely limited. So that's why from 2026 onwards, we will show also in the reported line what is the normalized revenue growth of about 3%, which together with the real estate savings will drive to a 4% margin growth over time.

Basically my question amounts to what's the proportion roughly of discretionary investments in your other operators' total revenues last year? Just to have an idea where to start from.

I think that clearly, we don't give this level of details, but you may figure it out from the minus 6% that you see on the line of the OLOs revenues. So the minus 6% is part of the termination of some project-based projects and partially offset by the recurring organic growth coming from the independents.

The next question is from Victoria Adé with Barclays. Victoria Adé: I actually have 2 regarding refinancing. So you just mentioned during the call that you have extended your bank maturities during '27. So that's great news. Just wanted to confirm that it's both the RCF and the term loan that are extending to 2031. And then I was wondering if you have any plans on the refinancing of your upcoming Euro bond due in 2028.

Yes, I confirm that we have extended both the term loan and the RCF to 2031 for an overall amount of EUR 1 billion. Of course, the term loan was drawn while the RCF was undrawn. So gives us liquidity margin on top of the cash. And concerning the next refinancing need is the bond expiring, let's say, the relevant maturities bond expiring in October 2028 that we will refinance due time, let's say, that we have time to the end of 2027. So more than 18 months, and we will evaluate the most appropriate funding strategy also taking into account the development. But we have a strong focus on our debt maturity management with a proactive approach.

The next question is from Milo Silvestre with Equita.

I have some question about regarding the migration plan. So if you have started already discussion with Fastweb and how can we think about the maximum, let's say, duration of the immigration plan and the remuneration, should you be remunerated based on the number of actual hospitalities?

Thanks, Milos. Yes, clearly, a key pillar of the MSA is the all of nothing clause, whereby the full state, the full infrastructure is considered as a block and altogether again, based on the all-or-nothing clause. The other MSA clause is related to timing. And the MSA says that the timing issue cannot be shorter than 3 years. So it's at least 3 years. So these are the 2 corners on the pillars, very clear -- very clear in the contract and we will -- we are not talking and no discussion started with the customer on that. And -- but when it will start, that is the framework we will work on. The migration plan has to be agreed between parties. And clearly, we'll have to respect the needs and opportunities of both parties.

Okay. And how should we think about the migration plan that last 5 years? Should we expect -- I mean something which remuneration is broadly in line with the number of sites?

Listen, we -- I don't have any specific plan what is public. And honestly, I've read what is public and honestly, I have read five, I've read about 10 years. Could be also about a longer timeframe, if not everything goes well. So honestly, for me, I cannot comment because I don't have any specific detailed plan from the customers. Again, let me reiterate the all-or-nothing clause, the at least 3 years and the framework of a contract, which has 8 years renewal cycle and the fact that, again, discussion and negotiation will be in good faith from all parties and to respect and create the opportunities and needs of both parties.

Okay. Just a quick follow-up on the financing side. How do you plan to finance the payment of dividend considering that you have EUR 300 million of cash available and the cash out is roughly EUR 500 million?

Basically, the dividend, we have -- we will fund the dividend through the cash available and, let's say, the tactical and temporary use of our revolving credit facilities for the remaining part.

The next question is from Ben Rickett, New Street Research.

I had 2 questions, please. The first question, there was a report a few weeks ago that you were looking at buying data center assets from Wind Tre. I don't know if you can talk specifically about those reports. But generally, can you discuss whether you would be interested in buying or buying data center assets? And then second question, could you -- I'm just trying to understand why your OLO revenues are being impacted by this dispute? Because obviously, the OLOs are not party to the dispute. So why are you seeing an impact to that revenue line?

Thanks, Ben. On the -- let me start from the second one. Actually, yes, you're right, there is no impact from the dispute on the OLO revenues -- it's two different things. As I said before, actually, the OLO revenues have had some fluctuations also in the past related to specific initiatives, project-based initiatives that we have deployed over time also with all, let me say also that there is no correlation with the unfortunately consistency with the overall market environment, where the investments are dry and the investments in the industry from everyone, all the operators are very limited. So it's low CapEx probably also in the context of the frequency renewal process where visibility is expected to trigger the new investment cycle. On the first topic, we are not interested in as a potential opportunity for growth in big data center -- about strategic plan, about integrating our distributed network with computing capacity distributed at the edge of the network. We see synergies because again, we've got the most distributed point of presence across the country. We are -- it's the business model is very similar to our current one, playing a role of neutral. We can also leverage on our expertise in terms of site search, maintenance. So there are plenty of synergies sharing the view of a fully connected and digitalized society and economy where there will be the need of computing capacity and low latency distributed across the footprint. So we think we can play a role, and we will keep on assessing opportunities according to our approach, which is creating industrial synergies and healthy returns consistent with our business model based on investments and long-term visibility on revenues and cash flow generation.

The next question is from Rohit Modi with Citi.

Apologies, I missed starting a bit of a start. So if my question has been answered, my apologies in advance. Two, please. One is I understand you mentioned about the environment. I mean the investment in the industry is basically very low. I'm just trying to understand, does -- if operators get the relief on the spectrum side going forward during the second half, does that change your medium-term outlook? Do you expect more investment coming into the sector that can benefit your top line and kind of upside to your medium-term guidance given it's a baseline guidance as of now? And second question is basically -- and apologies for ignorance, but I'm just trying to understand you have 2 processes going on, legal processes going on with the injunction process decision expected sometime in June, July. I'm just trying to understand if that decision comes in your favor, does that change anything given you have another process going on, which is kind of a bit long term goes into 2029. So what changes with injunction process? Can just give a bit more detail?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Rohit. On the first one, yes, the current market environment is dry, and we think that the frequency renewal process and may be a catalyst for the start of a new investment cycle in Italy, there has been under investment for a long time. There is the need to catch up and accelerate. And there have been discussions about getting frequency renewals at certain conditions to the operators in exchange for investment commitments that can create value for all parties and that can be, for sure, a catalyst of a new investment cycle with potential benefit for the industry and of course, for INWIT as well. On the second question, yes, that the legal path is moving on. We are confident on our argument. And at the same time, we think that the preferred path overall for us, for our customers in the industry is somehow to move to the ground of business discussions to find an equilibrium balance with a win-win solutions for all. And that's where we keep on being open to start as deemed the right time to happen.

But any decision in June or July does it change anything from perspective just if it comes in your favor in June?

I think again that if there is more clarity and if there is more clarity about the termination being not valid and the contract being valid up to 2038, it may help, but it should help in the framework of discussions, constructive discussions in good faith with the customer. Ultimately, I think that the overall situation should be addressed not on the legal ground, but on the industrial approach, again, for the benefit of our customers, for the benefit of INWIT and for the benefit of the development of investments, network densification and digital solutions.

Mr. Minerva, gentlemen, there are no more questions registered at this time.

Thank you very much, operator. We are available for any follow-up. Thank you so much for your attention today, and speak to you soon. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over, and you may disconnect your telephones.