9. Q&A C. Illek, T. Langheim, T. Höttges – Deutsche Telekom's Capital Markets Day 2021 #DTCMD21

Good afternoon everyone, and welcome. Please join me here on this couch. Acceleration is the word you've heard—how Srini called it yesterday—but it's about being reliable and perchlor negoc? So acceleration here we go. Let's see if we have some questions. I see quite a few guys already on the screen. We start with Akil.

Good afternoon. I have one strategic question and two hopefully quick financial ones. In Thorsten's presentation he talked about T-Mobile US being a major value creation event. Do you see any other transformational strategic decisions on the horizon, or is the story more operationally driven? Second, Christian talked about a 6.5% RoSI target, but Germany is going from 6% to 9%. Can you bridge that? Third, on the dividend, guidance cash flow is €18 billion, so the dividend at €4 billion is only a third of cash generation. How do you think about the residual cash and priorities?

Akil, two months ago I would have said the next five years are about operational improvement—utilizing the best 5G network and doing more of the same. But now Verizon and AT&T have shed media assets, which shows how strong we've become and that they take us seriously. It also raises the question of how to differentiate further. Convergence could be a topic, and that's why we want to retain control of T-Mobile US—to have a juicy control premium for shareholders. I don't have a crystal ball, but we started in 2013 as the smallest operator and now challenge for number one. On RoSI, we predict larger than 6.5%. Germany is at 6% and growing, but don't underestimate the investment level in the US—we added €8 billion in spectrum, so it will take time for US RoSI to progress. On the dividend, expect it to increase with EPS growth. We want flexibility, hence the 40-60% payout ratio. We don't know if we'll have the flexibility to pay more until we secure 50.1% in the US. Also, leverage—we aim to get back to comfort zone by end of 2024, but there are delays. It's about balance, and we'll strike the right balance. Having these choices is nice because free cash flow per share will be over €2 in a few years.

It really is about the balance, isn't it? We'll strike the right balance. So that's good. Next question is from George at CT.

Good afternoon. A couple of questions on towers. First, how are you thinking about tower value crystallization? Price not being the determining factor, would you prefer a clean exit or maintaining exposure? Second, do you believe in market synergies within towers, especially in Germany? Third, on long-term network infrastructure, regarding cloud-native networks and edge cloud, are these investments better done from a tower perspective or an operator level? How does that affect the strategic importance of towers versus edge cloud?

I think the first one is one for Torsten. I'll take the first one.

I think the next one is for you now—it plays to networks of networks and how we orchestrate that.

Well, let me answer. In the context of what Tim presented yesterday about networks of networks, we have the capability to orchestrate. We won't always own the network everywhere, but we'll put it together best for customers. The ecosystem is changing, and we should be adaptive. We're opening doors to partnerships—with Microsoft, Cisco, and others. It's about creating win-win situations. We've grown up in this ecosystem, and when it comes to network architecture and softwareization, we have to embrace that. The last years taught me that partnerships are more winning than losing.

Great, excellent. Thank you Tim. Next question is from Josh at Exxon.

Thanks. A few quick ones. First, following up on towers: what percentage of your German towers are genuinely strategic and differentiating that you'd want to retain control over? Second, on cash conversion: can you give direction on how finance leases, vendor financing, etc., will trend over the next few years? Third, on leverage: what would you need to see to raise your comfort range from 2.2-2.7x to 2.5-3x?

On leverage, we will not change the corridor. It forces discipline. I prefer to tell you when we're out of the comfort zone and have that discussion, rather than raising it. Mathematically you're right—the lease impact is about 0.4 points—but it's a disciplinary tool. Share buybacks from the US will help deleverage and continue beyond 2024. No change on leverage—keep the discipline.

One sentence: leverage is good for equity holders as long as you have EBITDA and FCF growth. Interest rates are lower than 10 years ago. We feel more relaxed now than five years ago when leverage was lower. But that doesn't negate Christian's point.

On free cash flow, our ambition is to make it as healthy as possible. In Q1 2021 we had reverse factoring; we're trying to do that on an ongoing basis. Vendor financing in the US hasn't increased while FCF is increasing, so the dilution is coming down. On lease trends, in Europe there may be slight increases due to 5G buildout, but not massive. The biggest question is the renewal of the leasing contract with Crown Castle and SBG in the US, which we haven't mastered yet. Once past that, we shouldn't expect a significant increase in lease trends because deals are 15 years long. No vendor financing and T-Mobile has a constant level of finance leases. So it's squeaky clean.

Okay, and that's it. Otherwise it's squeaky clean. So with that we move on. Thank you Josh, to Jacob at Credit Suisse.

Thanks. I had a few straightforward questions. First, you said DT is a 20+ euro stock, but you won't buy back stock in the next 2-3 years. Why don't you want to buy back stock? I understand you're growing the dividend, but why do buybacks make sense for T-Mobile US but not for DT? Second, in Torsten's slides you showed you rejected two European tower co mergers/JVs. Was that purely about price? Can you help us understand the rationale? Third, it sounds like you've become more flexible on ownership of mobile and fixed line assets. Could you look at broader monetization of fixed line down the road? Could the German fiber network sit in Group Development in a few years?

Jacob, excellent question. I couldn't agree more on the buyback topic, but we have leverage constraints and the priority of retaining control in the US. First things first. On the tower discussions, let me keep it private due to NDAs. But I indicated before that MLA terms, price, lease liabilities—they may hit you in European accounting, something I don't understand coming from a cash world. But two things have moved: when the first American came to Europe and then the subsequent acquisition by Cellnex in France, terms have improved significantly. So take that as my answer.

Let me add two topics. First, I'm totally with Torsten on why not do EPS buybacks on the stock? My observation: there's a difference between US and Europe on buybacks. In Europe, I always see it as a lack of strategy if someone does a buyback. I wouldn't say we lack strategy, but we lack communication and conviction. That's why we hold a 9-hour Capital Markets Day and constantly talk to investors—that's our answer to the undervaluation. Rather than buying back shares, we try to attract investors. Dividend is a more sustainable instrument showing conviction. Second, on asset ownership: we are an infrastructure company, not a service provider. We should own the network. Ownership of fixed and mobile gives us credibility. We run and build networks better than many. The majority of infrastructure should be under our control for technical flexibility. But our balance sheet is stretched, so we can't go 100%. So we partner where needed, creating win-win. That's the change in our thinking. Our network guys love to own 100%, but the world is developing differently. We've changed this paradigm successfully.

I would add one point on separation complexity: we looked at it intensively a few years ago. It's not like you open a zipper and separate the go-to-market from the network. It's a complex undertaking, as seen in New Zealand. The financial results are questionable. So it makes sense to keep integrated.

Yeah. And if I may add one thing, I think Sweeney talked about this yesterday. There's a lot of execution capability and optionality in how you run the value chain in fixed line networks. Ideally you let others build some stuff, you get onto the chain where the money is, and use joint ventures. That's where a lot of value creation will be, especially in Germany. So next, thanks Jacob. The next one is from Robert at Deutsche Bank.

Yes hi. I loved the vision and drama over the last two days—best box set I've seen all month. Going back to the conglomerate discount: either investors don't like the US (not true) or think the x-US part is worse (not true), which leaves the interface—intergroup cash flows. One issue is the buyback vs. dividend from T-Mobile US. Are they fully fungible? And on the payout ratio, having a payout of earnings is logical, but compared to non-telcos, DT has high D&A vs. CapEx, dividend was cut, interest rates are rising, yet you seem cautious, especially at the low end. From your comments, it seems the leverage target is the constraint. If you monetize some portfolio, will that directly release cash for distribution?

Thanks. On the payout ratio: yes, we don't pay at the same level as competitors, but they don't have the same business profile—we're growing much faster across the Atlantic. Not sure we're cautious. On EPS, we said >€1.75, which means the full potential is above that. On the dividend vs. buyback from T-Mobile US, they are fully fungible. From a tax perspective, buyback is better. T-Mobile US sees itself as a growth company, so they prefer buybacks over dividends. They gave buybacks for three years and won't stop in 2025. So it's as reliable as a dividend.

Okay, hope that's a good answer. Thanks Robert. Let's move on to Polo again.

Hi, thanks for taking questions. Three quick ones. First, German politics and the EU recovery fund: most parties propose increased investment in broadband. How will that impact the German broadband market? Could subsidies lower German CapEx? How about the EU recovery fund? Second, on German headcount: with digitalization and retirements, how should we think about longer-term headcount? Third, on risks and opportunities: what are you most excited about and what is the main risk to achieving your 2024 targets?

Interesting that we've had only one regulation question in nine hours—shows regulation is relaxing. In Germany, the new telecom law opens up better ways to build infrastructure, supported wholesale deals. The 'no cost in' privilege has been decided, wholesale prices are not increasing, and regulation supports national roaming. The likelihood of legal enforcement of certain issues is low. The regulator is easing the situation. On the EU recovery fund: Europe has €750 billion, Germany €140 billion. We've built an organizational unit to analyze pots and apply. The biggest problem is the application process, not the money. I initiated an independent support at BDE to get money into the system quickly. About 25% of the total is relevant for us, including T-Systems. Examples: digitization of schools (not just fiber but cloud and system running), the Corona app, global vaccine passport, rural connectivity subsidies, Gaia-X, Open RAN. Money is flowing already. We are applying professionally. I'm personally involved in debates on digitization. So we will see the impact over the next few years.

On headcount: we've been reducing headcount in Germany by 3-5% per year for many years. It's a continuous process with our social partner, no noise. The IDC program is lower ambition because we need capacity for fiber buildout. Retirements kick in around 2025-26, so we don't have the luxury like the French. It will take time, but natural levers will increase in the mid-20s.

I'm a veteran in this scene. The narrative that headcount reduction is impossible in Germany is wrong. We have a constant decrease and over-delivered on €1.5 billion cost savings. You have to do it in the right way—collaboratively with the works council. Srini in Germany is a no-bullshitter and is working with unions to think about how many administrative people we need. So there is more cost discipline needed.

On opportunities and risks: our plan is prudent. I see more opportunities than risks—the worst of COVID is behind us, there's a backlog of digitalization, people value quality, rational market environment. I'm confident we will achieve our targets.

Excellent. And there are some greater signs in front of some of the targets. Thank you, Polo. Next is Andrew.

Hi everyone. Thanks for the last 24 hours. I had one on Torsten's slide 22: what gets DT to a 20+ euro stock? Specifically the T-Mobile US valuation within DT. You guys read analyst reports and know that the European stub is cheap, but it hasn't made a difference. It looks like DT investors aren't paying the right value for T-Mobile US. Why do you think this discount exists? Outside of buybacks, what can you do to make DT shares better reflect the value? And what do you mean by 'seeing is believing'?

Andrew, I know you've written about this. It's a difficult question. We've seen this in other sectors—SoftBank and Alibaba. Sometimes you have to crystallize value, which we try by highlighting towers and Dutch operations. But on the US, investors are waiting to see the benefit in the dividend. That's what 'seeing is believing' means. If we hit €1.75 EPS, we can pay a higher dividend, and then the bots will buy. It's a timing issue. Over the last five years, T-Mobile US has appreciated significantly, but DT shareholders haven't had the benefit of higher dividends or cash. We want to bridge this timing issue because a higher share price gives us more optionality. Some argue we should buy back DT stock at this valuation if we're convinced. A few years ago, I told people the same thing: we have a leverage ratio to bring down, and it's financially attractive to be invested in the US. We don't want to get near a trap where DT shareholders don't get the benefits of US cash. That doesn't mean we won't support creative ways from Mike and the team. But we need to see a higher dividend—that's the benefit the DT shareholder wants. We'll help by crystallizing value in Europe. Sometimes I think we could list Europe to put a value on it.

Great. Thank you.

The market would better understand the benefit of having these assets not fully reflected in the share price. If Thorsten were the CEO, I would be the chairman of 20 companies because everything would be on the market. But I can tell you two things: first, we have a lot of internal bets about the $20 share price, and there are bets that when we get there we'll make a big donation to a good purpose. Thorsten was even dancing on the table in our supervisory board promising the $20. That was a big commitment. I was sitting under the table. Then we had an internal discussion about why we are not there yet. One observation is that a lot of the machines are buying our stock, and you're spot on—I saw your report recently, you got the points and you understand our business. The machines look at different criteria, and one reason we are focusing on earnings per share is that we believe we can trigger additional demand for our stock by understanding better what machines are doing. That's one reason we are changing the paradigm. It's not about our fundamentals or the future prospects of our business; it's about communicating and addressing the market. The second thing: I got some harsh mail from a competitor about my presentation, saying it's unfair to compare our total shareholder return with theirs. I was not criticizing the work of European peers—I know how tough their work is. The issue is that Europe is seen as a lost cause in telecom, and all European telcos are undervalued. If you cannot win in Europe, you have to find ways to manage, which we did by changing the portfolio, focusing on the US, investing heavily, doing the merger, and making structural changes. We think we can do significantly better and believe we are a €100 billion stock prospectively. The third answer, Andrew: When we run out of this Capital Markets Day, and we were not allowed to do this earlier, this team is buying a big pile of stock. That's another commitment because we believe in our shares. We were not able to do this before because of insider information, but we will do it right after this event. Please follow up on Monday—we put our money where our mouth is. I'm heavy invested in the stock, double digit, and I believe it's coming; it's a question of time. I feel like an entrepreneur in this company and we have to move on honestly. I believe we will see it; it's only a question of time.

Thanks Tim. And just to repeat some of the numbers: greater than €1.75 in 2024. Christian said it's going to go there in a basically straight line. Next year earnings are up over €2. Free cash flow per share, proportionate free cash flow per share in 2024. It's not a J-curve; it's a straight line. People will be looking at that, and that gives us confidence. And it's not a jam-the-future story. Okay, so let's move on. Thank you Andrew, and move on to Usman.

Hey Usman. Hey, thanks for the opportunity again. I have two questions. First, on the special factors and cash outs in the ex-US business. You spoke about some reasons why the cash flow guidance in the ex-US business was a bit lower than the 2018 CMD. One factor I can see is that special factors cash is slightly higher, €100-200 million higher than expected. I wanted to understand what happened and what the outlook to 2024 is. In the 2018 CMD presentation, there was a chart showing special factors cash items going down to around €700 million. Is that still the outlook or is it different, and if so why? The second question is for Torsten. Just on pushing back on what is in Group Development and what isn't. T-Mobile Netherlands is doing really well with fiber uptake. Why should it not go back into DT's ownership rather than wanting to monetize it? And related, is there any scope in T-Systems, where a deal was attempted with IBM in the past, to do anything that can better surface the value of that business?

Let me start with the special factors. First of all, Usman, you're right: we predicted a significant decrease towards 21. I think we were a little bit too optimistic in the previous Capital Markets Day. On the other hand, we have reduced costs significantly higher than anticipated, and therefore we needed some additional special factors to fund this. Looking forward in a free cash flow environment: we have EBITDA growth which funds our expanded capex envelope, and free cash flow in the European business grows to €4 billion. All other items neutralize themselves. We expect higher cash taxes in the upcoming years, but at the same time we'll see improvement in working capital and special factors. By the outer years of the current projection, we'll see if we get there, but the last CMD was a bit too optimistic on this. It's worthwhile to spend those special factors—you have seen our indirect cost structure and the significant number of people we let go over the past four years. Do you want to talk about the Netherlands?

Okay, thank you Thorsten. So next we have Ottavio at SocGen, please.

Hi, thank you for taking the question and congratulations on the results so far. The first is on the leverage, and it's for Christian. What I appreciate about Deutsche is that your targets are always very consistent and clear. Could you give a bit more insight on the assumptions behind the targets? For example, what have you baked in regarding participation in the T-Mobile payback, any exercise of SoftBank options, and the renewal of tower leases with Crown Castle and SBA Comms in the US? It would be interesting to know what's behind the assumptions. The second question is for Torsten: your preferred partner in the tower space has been Cellnex, but management of Cellnex keeps saying the value is not on the towers per se but on the size and future cash profile guaranteed by tenants. What is the contractual relationship between GD Towers and DT, particularly the length of contracts, any savings granted to DT if new colocation contracts are signed, and escalator clauses? Third, again to Torsten: when you talk about market-leading third-party share revenues, does the 23% ratio you show in the slides only reflect revenue from hosting antennas or also additional services like backhaul provided to third parties such as Telefonica Deutschland? And when you talk about modernization, do you plan to crystallize the value of the backhaul, which is a big differentiation for Deutsche Germany?

Let me start with the first question on leverage, Ottavio. I don't want to change the corridor because I want to keep discipline in the group; there's a violent agreement among the board to stay like this. We have clear visibility on what we need to get to 50.1% of T-Mobile US. You heard Peter Oswald yesterday talking about a share buyback of up to two times €20 in the years '23 and '24. The buybacks will help us increase our position. We have the 45 million fixed price option, which will be massively accretive and gives us access to a low price for T-Mobile US, and another 56 million on the floating option, which needs to be converted at market price. There are other levers we will not declare. Thorsten is always talking about optionality along two dimensions: tools and timing. We have time until 2024, and we will let you know when we have done something, but I don't want to front-run.

Great, thank you Thorsten. We've got two more questions. Time for two more questions. The next one is from James at New Street. James, hello.

Hi everyone. Yes, can you hear me? Okay, great. Two questions. The first is a follow-up from the tower views for Christian. I'm a big fan of your decision to push the leverage target from 2023 to 2024. That seems to give you flexibility to exercise the SoftBank option before 2023, which might not have been there before. Given you've moved the target out by a year, why are you not announcing today that you're exercising the option? If you're bullish on T-Mobile's share price going up, it would be in your interest to exercise sooner. Similarly, with the buyback, you suggested you might sell pro rata, you might not. Given you're bullish, what's the thinking on selling shares into a buyback? Second question for Tim: I know you were bemoaning the lack of questions about regulation, so here goes. We've seen returns on capital declining in European telecom for 10 years, now clear signs of improvement. In your discussions with regulators, how does that metric come into play? Do they have ideas of where returns should be? Are they happy with where you are targeting? Do you see scope for further upside before regulators might intervene again?

Let me start with the leverage question and why we don't exercise the options now. First, 45 million shares are determined at the transaction price of $101 per share. Why should I do it now when I have a guarantee to do it until the end of 2024? Second, I've declared we're out of the comfort zone, but that doesn't mean I can do whatever I want. We expect leverage to peak this year around 3.2x. If I exercised the floating options, I would increase our net debt, and we don't want to do that. Also, there's a sequence—Thorsten, do we have to do the floating option first or the fixed price option first? We have to do the fixed price option first. There are other tools to secure a lower price. We don't have to exercise now, but we have clear visibility on how to get to 50.1%. This group is really determined to get the majority to 50.1% because there are other things to be done in the portfolio.

I do not want to be disrespectful, but there is no politician in the world who knows what the WACC is. Maybe Thierry Breton understands the definition of IRR. I even had a discussion where I talked about market capitalization and they questioned what that is. So this is not something in school books of politicians in Europe and Germany. Therefore, make it simple: talk about what's going on. The pitch we constantly make is that connectivity is a human right, and we understand it should be cheap. But if it's too cheap, we might need to reduce costs. Allow synergies; if you don't allow intra-market consolidation beyond what we have today, then you have to ensure there are enough funds to invest in higher fiber deployments and 5G. The flywheel we showed has to work. In Germany, it works better than in other markets like Spain. But the conversation has changed: politicians now care about digital sovereignty from China, security of infrastructure, innovation in Europe, and digitization of businesses. They ask: what is your contribution? How can you create an ecosystem for venture capitalists and cloudify the world? Gaia-X is a high topic. I had a session with the chancellor on ID management. They are more on use cases now than classical infrastructure. Ex-ante regulation is not trying to steer from a political angle; they leave it to the industries. We will hear a lot of noise in Germany this year as each party guarantees bandwidth and coverage to citizens. How it's financed, nobody is talking about. But it's an opening for us to say: we are willing to do it; we need your support. Then you can explain WACC, IRR, and amortization. I think the balance between consumer prices and sustainable investments is getting into a much better equilibrium.

Thank you, Tim. Okay, good. So it's all about equilibrium. And in Germany, since the first of April, bitstream fees are no longer ex-ante regulated—they are subject to commercial regulation and general cartel law. Okay, so thank you James. Let's move on to Steve at Redmond.

Hey, yeah, good afternoon, guys. Thanks again for the excellent presentations. I'll go for three if I can. I want to come back on towers, but I actually want to ask Srini—not Thorsten—who understandably has gotten most of the attention. Hello, I'm hoping Srini is there to answer. [Reply: Yes, it's good, Srini, come on.] You've been on both sides of the fence: running challenger operators, being in India, now running an incumbent in Germany. What are your thoughts on the importance of tower ownership in Germany versus other markets you've operated in, and how active is the discussion between you and Thorsten on the future of towers within the German unit? Then a question for Thorsten: clearly there are funky infrastructure models on the wireline side. What's most important is market penetration—how many customers you can get onto your fiber infrastructure. How do you think you'll make a return in Holland where T-Mobile has less than 10% retail share on fixed? With KPN building to 80% of the country, how do you make a return on that investment? And then a couple of detailed ones on the earnings guidance. Can you confirm we should assume a 50% stake in T-Mobile in the €1.75? And Christian, did you effectively place a ceiling on that stake at 50% in your last comment? Also, the tax rate you're assuming for the next three or four years in that guidance would be helpful.

Let me start. Steve, I want to hire you for my finance organization because your face is always looking so serious and grumpy—I think you are very qualified for our finance department. After that charm offensive... So Steve, rather disappointingly, I agree with a lot of what Thorsten said. It's more fun when I disagree. Let me give you a couple of perspectives. First on Germany: I think Thorsten's right; there are a smaller number of strategic sites than you think, and I'm absolutely interested in ensuring we keep those golden sites. Second, read across from India experience on towers: there are two types of tower players—one is a pure financing play, exploiting arbitrage; you do it when you need it. The more interesting structural play is bringing in genuine expertise to manage towers and create real value by increasing tenancy. My instinct is always on the second side. When we do stuff with the crown jewel asset, you will see more of a sense of how to create genuine economic value and give ourselves exposure to an asset class that will grow with time. I hope that answers some of your questions.

Okay, we can't hear you, Steve. Srini? Okay, so let me go ahead.

Very good. And Steve, let me say: you know I work in the finance department of Deutsche Telekom and I'd love to welcome you as a colleague. So let's work on that. Before I pass on to Tim for his closing statement, let me thank you all for your kind and patient attention, the many good questions, and also thank the management team and all those who supported them. I hope you take away from this investor day our spirit of acceleration and excitement about the future, the significant, highly visible, and great earnings growth ahead, and how we will balance capital allocation to the maximum benefit of shareholders. With that, I pass on to Tim for his closing statement.

Thank you very much, everybody. Before I go into a very short summary, let me say thank you as well. I'd like to thank Hannes for making this Capital Markets Day possible with all the content—you cannot believe how much work we spent on it. I'd like to thank his investor relations team and our strategy team. I'd like to thank my board colleagues and the US team for making this event happen. It feels a bit like X Factor, sitting since nine hours in one studio together. When somebody comes off stage, we do this or that. There's one guy who is going into extension: Torsten. Real Madrid against Bayern Munich, it's nil-nil, so he has to work on his presentation style, especially on the pictures of me. I also thank everybody who made this event possible in a COVID-safe working environment—it was very difficult and hopefully the last time. I'm proud of the technicians, camera people, and everyone in the studios. It showed digitization and the virtual world works. There was no glitch; our network was stable. Great work. Now the summary. I know you are tired. Thank you for listening to us for nine hours. Think about watching nine hours of a Netflix series and how you feel after this binge watching of Deutsche Telekom. This was the fourth episode of binge watching Capital Markets Days. I'm a main actor and still alive—that's surprising in a Netflix series. The rest of the team is there. So thank you for nine hours. I hope you got something. One colleague, Birgit Bohle, our head of HR, didn't join today but deserves appreciation for listening for nine hours to her team. Compensation: we'll make an extra nine-hour episode of HR—you'll enjoy that. Now serious comments. At the last CMD, I was on stage talking about the European single market, regulation improving, digitization, opportunities in the US, and growth. I shared optimism in an industry in dire straits. Four years down the road, we delivered. We showed you a company that is growing. I'll do that again. We have accelerated, delivered on many things, and even say our targets should be higher this time. I'm optimistic about digitization, Deutsche Telekom's portfolio setup, and the team and culture that have evolved. We have self-confidence to tackle challenges. I hope we were able to share that optimism. We have a right to play and should be the pick in the telco industry going forward. Deutsche Telekom is not a one-bet company; it's a multi-bet opportunity: the US synergies, Germany fiber attack, 5G deployment, B2B opportunities. This is a multi-bet opportunity, and hopefully we claim that way. But when the cameras are off, I'll tell my team: do you believe everything you said about being premium? I promise you, we come down to earth. Only the paranoid survive. Leading is dynamic, not static. Leading is an attitude—striving all the time to do the best for this company. I cannot promise we will deliver on all these ambitious targets, but I can promise we have the attitude to always do the best to achieve what we committed over the last nine hours. This is our playbook for the future. This world will not be easier over the next three to four years with the conflict between China and the Americas, supply chain challenges, volatility, indebtedness after COVID, nationalism, political unrest. The purpose of helping societies become better, enabling future wealth, being sustainable—that is a big driver for the energy needed. Telecom will be a lighthouse orientation point. That releases additional energy to fulfill our commitments. It's about passion for our brand, passion for the purpose for societies. The good thing is we have a clear area: we are the transatlantic telco. We are in one hemisphere where we can play this playbook. That is a big advantage not only from risk and volatility but also from identity. We hope we can convince more buyers into our stock, more people who trust in Deutsche Telekom, the transatlantic leader. Thank you very much for joining us. Hope to see you soon, healthy and physically.