Good morning. This is the Chorus Call Conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the Inwit Market and Outlook Update. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions by pressing star and one on your telephone. For assistance, please press star and zero. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Luigi Minerva, Strategy, M&A and Investor Relations Director. Please go ahead, sir.
Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. With me today, I have Diego Galli, Inwit 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 two. Following a brief presentation with an update on the market and on the guidance outlook, we will open the floor to questions. Over to you, Diego.
Thank you, Luigi. Welcome on board and good morning, everyone. We are here to share context and the implication of the status of the market also, and in particular, in view of the recent developments. I will take a few minutes with few slides going through the strengths of the MSAs, the guidance for 2026, medium-term outlook and the key comments, and then opening for Q&A. Starting from the MSA. MSAs are solid contracts which provide value for all parties. Let me remind the key clauses on the duration, which is based on the 8+8 automatic renewal cycles with the all or nothing clause. In 2022, there was a change of control.
Based on the change of control clause of the MSA, the MSAs have been extended for a further 60 years to 2038. The MSA, there is a preferred supplier rights whereby should the anchor tenants need a new tower to meet their rollout plans, the preferred supplier clause applies. Inwit has the right of first offer and right of last refusal. With regard to inflation, as you may remember, inflation has a floor, is CPI-linked 100%, floor at zero, no cap. Let me also take the opportunity to remind the inflation trend of the last years. Since 2015- 2025, so since the inception of Inwit, inflation has been to an average level of 2%. Between 2020- 2025, the level has been average 2.9%.
This is clearly including the peak of COVID years, but overall 2% in the 10 years, 2.9% in the five years. Let me say at overall normal level. Other topic about the MSAs pricing. The pricing of the MSAs for existing and new towers, existing and new PoPs are very competitive. This is thanks to the efficient Inwit operating model based on the synergies from sharing economics, from sharing the towers, and from our excellent industrial efficiency in terms of operations. Clearly, the MSAs are long-term contracts, and they are part of an overall agreement which includes the sale and leaseback transactions together with the long-term MSA agreement.
In the framework of the overall agreement, Inwit has invested a remarkable amount of money that is about over time more than EUR 10 billion for the acquisition of the towers. Briefly, to the updated 2026 financial targets. This update takes into account the progressive deterioration of the market and the relationship with our anchor tenants, with our key customers. Business in the last months have been difficult to maintain and develop, and this is reflected in these numbers. Revenue guidance for 2026 is in the range of between EUR 1.05 billion and EUR 1.09 billion. This includes an inflation of 1.4%. EBITDA margin at about 90%. EBITDA margin at about 72%. Regarding free cash flow in the range between EUR 550 million and EUR 590 million.
Dividend confirmed at EUR 0.55. 2026 dividend paid in 2027 will be EUR 0.55. Leverage net debt to EBITDA at 5.5x. Let me also take the opportunity to share the 2025 guidance is confirmed. In terms of medium term outlook, revenues projection is low single digit annual revenue growth, slightly higher than 3%. There will be a continued margin expansion, based on the continuous operational leverage. Annual CapEx at about EUR 200 million, including investments on land acquisition, investment for growth. Ordinary dividend will be at least EUR 0.55 per share. In case of leverage, we will continue to confirm the financial structural leverage between 5x and 6x.
It's very important for me to explain the logic of this medium term outlook, which we define as a baseline. It is a baseline which is basically a minimum projection, which assumes basically that the market is basically dry, and that the relationship for the market remains stuck, blocked, does not assume any densification, does not assume the normalization of the market, the market dynamics, and does not include the opportunities for Inwit to expand across digital infrastructure.
It's basically a minimum baseline to give transparency on baseline scenarios, which in our view gives again a transparency on a floor and does not include potential upside, which we do believe in, because we do believe in the fact that the market will normalize and we will find a way to normalize the relationship within the market. To conclude, few takeaways from my side, just to confirm that the MSA is solid contract and support a win-win model which creates values for all the parties involved. The tower company, us and the customers, the anchor tenants. Clearly, we're in the context where the telco industry is still under dramatic pressure, and this pressure has been offloaded, its challenges also on infra players and in Inwit. This context has an impact on the 2026 business.
We've taken a hit in 2026, and we set a new outlook based on the baseline scenario should the market remain stuck and conflictual. Baseline delivers a single digit revenue growth slightly higher than 3%, continued margin expansion, solid cash generation and dividend sustainability. This in a context where the industry needs dramatic investments for densification, innovation and network improvement. This will unlock opportunities within the market and for tower companies and for Inwit opportunities over and above the baseline we have just shared. The business planning with business plan will be updated during the year as soon as we will get more visibility on how the market and our relationship with customers will evolve.
I would say that's it from my side, and I think it's now important to take your questions.
Thank you, sir. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchtone telephone. To remove your question, please press star and two. Please pick up the receiver when asking questions. The first question comes from Roshan Ranjit of Deutsche Bank.
Oh, morning, everyone. Thanks for the presentation. I have a quick question. Diego, you mentioned, or the press release mentions, the outlook does not include any potential upsides related to the reestablishment of the constructive relationship. The adjustment you've made on 2026 and the midterm, is it fair to assume that is on the uncontracted revenue growth, and you're assuming, as it stands, an ongoing renewal or ongoing process of the current MSA, because clearly one of your anchor tenants is talking about adjustments to the current status of the MSA. What is baked into your 2026 and your midterm outlook for the MSAs? Is it fair to assume the adjustments are all from the uncontracted growth? Thanks.
Thanks, Roshan. Yeah, 2026 outlook includes an adjustment related to uncontracted revenues. Over time, we developed uncontracted business, but recurring year over year. There is a series of activities, a series of this business which have been put on pause, put on hold or blocked. Basically this has an impact, this remaining impact on 2026 on revenues. Overall, what we included in the outlook is the committed revenue going forward, the MSA's committed revenues going forward. We have assumed that the MSA continues as in line with the extension of the contract to 2038. Yeah.
Okay, thank you. If I could just quick follow-up. Sorry. You pushed out your you know results date to, I guess, reflect any incremental news flow on the MSA process. You've now come out with this release ahead of that. I guess, are you still in discussions on the MSAs, or has that been concluded? How should we think about that? Thanks.
Yes. Yes, honestly, we have been trying to discuss and to create a common ground for a fair, transparent and reasonable discussion. Clearly, facts and yesterday's announcement showed that this space for negotiation has not been achieved and is difficult, that is, reopening in the short term. There is honestly a distance, different views on MSAs. We think that the MSAs and the contracts are valid and they have to be respected. As shared in the past, we are very open to talk about commercial optimization, particularly on the new investments, as well as honestly considering, again, commercial optimization opportunities on the MSA, but in a logical and in a framework of win-win approach where there is value creation for all parties.
I think this is a very reasonable approach. Actually, in these days, considering that the common ground for starting a serious conversation had not been achieved. We realized and yesterday has been basically the last couple of days there has been the trigger to bring us to realize that some time has passed and there is an impact on our numbers, and we reflected that on 2026 outlook and guidance and the midterm outlook to give more clarity, at least on the baseline to the market.
From a commercial point of view, let's see, we're always open to sit down based on reasonable, fair and consistent approach, starting from the acknowledgement that the MSA is a contract which is valid and has to be respected. What else can happen between now and the second yesterday could be further news. We think that 2026 guidance factors in the scenarios of some legal escalation, and that's included. We don't expect any clearly. We may have some additional news, but that's this is the guidance for 2026 midterm outlook, which as I said, already considers additional potential news flows in the next days.
That's helpful. Thanks, guys.
Thank you.
The next question, sir, is from Andrew Lee of Goldman Sachs.
Yeah. Good morning, everyone. I had two questions. First question, just on your new commentary in the release today around the preferred supplier status for any new tower builds. Could you just talk us through exactly what that entails? You know, how would it be derived that you're offering a fair and commercial offer for new tower builds? Yeah, how do you kind of hold the two tenants to that contract for future tower builds? You know, how watertight can we see that agreement? Because obviously, that's a key part of your statement overnight. Second question, just following on from the last commentary, just to establish a little bit better your relationship with those two tenants.
Have you been able to have a conversation with Swisscom, Fastweb, Vodafone, and TI post the release of their JV announcement yesterday? Any insight you can give into that would be helpful. Thank you.
Thank you, Andrew. Yeah, the preferred supplier is another, I would say, important element of the MSA, which is consistent with the full structure and spirit of the MSA, built on a partnership between Inwit and the anchor tenant and the long-term business relationship in a framework where clearly the MSA and the overall transactions is a balance of give and takes between the parties. It's an important pillar, which again demonstrates and supports, underpins the long-term value of the contract. In practical terms, it means that when the anchor tenant needs a new tower, Inwit has to be informed and Inwit has the right to make the first offer.
If the customers will go through different options anyway, Inwit has the opportunity to do a last call and eventually to match or improve the alternative offers. Again, it's an operational mechanism. Clearly, it's a clause clearly stated in the MSA. It holds, in our view, well. Again, it's fully consistent with the content, the spirit, and the overall framework of the MSA, based on and constructed upon a logic, industrial and financial logic of a long-term partnership. With regard to the second question, yeah, actually, no, we're not. We didn't have time actually. Overall, no, we didn't have any conversation since yesterday, joint venture announcement.
Thank you. Just maybe a follow-up to that first question on preferred supplier. Obviously, it sounds like it's predicated on a constructive relationship too. How confident are you that holds, that you can retain the preferred supplier status and that that will place a well, basically a 100% limiter on the JV to have to build new towers away from you?
Yes. No, I'm confident, considering the legal contractual element. Let me say also, let me take the opportunity also that I remain confident on an approach in the industry focused on creating value and win-win approaches among parties. I think that Inwit is a player which has been creating value for all parties as an operating model, a business model in financial terms, MSA terms, which create support in efficient deployment of the network from the operators. I'm confident that we will find a way to get to a reasonable approach and again to create value. I strongly believe that the tower co-business model creates value for all parties.
I think that the focus on infrastructure for the tower companies and services for the operators makes a lot of sense from a capital allocation perspective, from industrial perspective. I'm confident that the contract will be respected, not only because it's a contract, but also because there is a strong financial and industrial reason to keep on working as we did in the past.
Thank you.
Welcome.
The next question is from Ben Rickett of New Street Research.
Hi there, guys. Thanks for the questions. I had two, please. Firstly, it looks like the guidance for 2026 implies that revenue declines a little bit next year. Are the tenants actually removing tenancies, or this is just you're no longer receiving the one-off sort of smart infrastructure revenue that you have in 2025? Then going forward, you've given sort of the midterm guidance for low single digit revenue growth. Is there a risk there that the tenants could be more aggressive and start removing tenancies and that the revenue growth is therefore lower? Thank you.
Thanks, Ben. Yeah, on 2026, we have basically removed, yeah, that kind of business based on, yeah, one-off contribution, so recurring business, but on one-off contribution without a long-term contracted revenue stream. That's the core basically. On medium term, I think that the need for the customers is actually the opposite, is densifying the network and increasing the point of presence. Somehow yesterday announcement confirmed that there is a dramatic need for densification, dramatic need for additional point of presence, to cope with the additional traffic, to cope with the transport corridors, to cope with the expansion of 5G in the suburban areas. Clearly, we have the best locations in the industry.
We have in the market thousands of sites in unique locations which are not replicable. We have clearly the benefit of the historical rollout from Telecom Italia, the incumbent, and Omnitel Vodafone. The first challengers we somehow took the opportunity to select the best locations. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible in some areas, to build a new point of presence without going through a long and challenging permit process, which basically is our expertise. Just to mention, in Rome we have something about 700 towers, in Milan about 500 towers.
Both in city centers, touristic areas, we have a set of dedicated and special locations which are not replicable. Going back to your questions, we have embedded some normal regarding termination, but in a normal kind of run of business, honestly, also from all those that happens. But in the normal running of the business, which again requires additional point of presence.
Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Can I just check, do the tenants now accept that the contract ends in 2038 or is there a risk that they do try and terminate before the end of this month?
Yeah. That's still a topic for clarification from their perspective. Our position is very clear and very straight. Let me say, is a position which is fully consistent with the letter and the substance of the contract. It is crystal clear that the change of control did happen in 2022 when there is determination of the joint control of Inwit from Vodafone and Telecom Italia. Inwit was under a joint control with the shareholder agreement that was ceased, terminated in August 2022, and that has triggered the extension by 16 years for all parties of the contract to 2038. Quite straight, as supported by now quite considerable clearly legal analysis.
We are fully comfortable and confident on that, though we still are aware that our customers are maybe on a different ground. Swisscom, Fastweb did mention in the past that they were reviewing the contract and its duration. We know clearly you may remember the contract whereby in their interpretation there may be a right to send a termination notice by March 2026 in order to terminate the contract by March 2028. This is their interpretation. Eventually that will be something which may happen between now and the end of March.
In our view, there is no legal ground and clearly we will take all the necessary actions eventually to bring this to clarity, as soon as possible in a short time frame.
That's clear. Thank you, guys.
Welcome.
The next question comes from Rohit Modi of Citi.
Thank you so much. I have a couple, please. Firstly, the follow-up on 2026 revenue guide, the contraction. I'm sorry if you have answered it. The line was not quite clear for me during the last question, when you answered the last question. Basically, if you look at including CPI, your revenue is contracting from 2025- 2026. I think there's some level of churn that you're expecting on your MSA contract. So if you can give any clarity on what level of churn is allowed on your MSA contract annually? Yeah, that's the first question. Second is on the free cash guide, recurring free cash guide.
For 2026, if I see the revenue decline is somewhere between EUR 65 million at the midpoint, but your free cash decline is EUR 85 million. That's additional EUR 20 million. Just to confirm, that comes from this escalation, legal escalation cost or anything, what exactly is driving that additional 20 million decline there. Lastly, on your BTS pipeline, the plan was to roll out 800 sites this year and then 500.
Sorry, Rohit. Rohit, line quality is pretty bad. Can you start, maybe stick to one question, please, and just.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Will do. Sorry about that. Yeah. If you can give more color on 2026, churn level at MSA and the FCF, please.
Yeah. So the churn level of the MSA. The MSA basically it's a contract which is again a long-term contract with 8 + 8 renewal cycle. We talk about the extension to 2038. In the MSA, there is an allowance for termination, which is about 290 towers per cycle. In the case those towers are not needed anymore. So if there is no need, then they can be terminated. So that's the kind of allowance. Again, let me make my comment about the fact that we do think that all towers are needed and actually there is a need for additional densification.
Thank you, Diego. Second question on the free cash guidance. You know, the further decline from revenue and the free cash, EUR 20 million additional decline in the free cash guidance.
Yeah. The guidance is basically as we indicated with the revenue, the revenue growth of slightly higher than 3%, margin expansion. The recurring free cash flow guidance and projection and growth will be the result of both taking into account the evolution of interest cost and tax in line with the business plan that we shared.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next question is from Fernando Cordero of Banco Santander.
Hello, good morning, and thanks for your availability and for taking my two questions. The first one is, let's say a clarification on the preferred supplier clause that you have in your contract. I just would like to understand if this preferred status or preferred supplier status is still valid if your anchor tenants are building by their own the new sites. Just to understand if the preferred supplier status applies only if they are asking the building from third parties or if also applies if they build the sites by their own. The second point is also trying to understand a little bit, let's say, not only the whole story, but let's say potential scenario, say, in your relationship with your anchor tenants.
I would like to understand, given that you have been probably negotiating with them for quite a long, can you give us or share with us some color on how far are the, let's say, the position of both parties in this negotiation process? How do you see this spread between their, requirements and, what you can offer to them? Thank you.
Thank you Fernando. Yes, the MSA in the letter, in the spirit applies to all cases where the anchor tenants need a new tower. In all kind of situations. It's a clause and it's a condition which again applies to all different scenarios and when the anchor tenants need a new tower. That's fully consistent again with the overall structure of the MSA where there is an agreement, there was a sale and leaseback, and there is also an agreement to support. The MSA does support, again, in the spirit of long-term partnership, the opportunities for further development and growth for Inwit. With regards to the negotiation and the ground and the distance.
I think that the stage is relevant and is material. I think that, you know, our costs are less than 10% for the anchor tenants. While our revenues with the anchor tenants are basically 90% of our P&L. I think that we have all to be reasonable and fair when eventually come to a table and discuss, recognizing that, let me say, a EUR 10 million discount. The material impact on the value of a company such as Inwit.
It's again important to get to a common ground where we do recognize which is important eventually to find an agreement which is win-win, which creates value for all parties. Cannot be a unilateral transfer of value from our customers, company and Inwit. Should be a way, and I think there is. There are ways. The dramatic need for densification, the dramatic need for investments in the market, as confirmed by yesterday's announcement, is a way to create a common ground for creating values for all.
Okay.
I hope it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next question is from Akhil Dattani of J.P. Morgan.
Hi, morning. Thanks for taking the questions. I've got a couple, please. Firstly, you mentioned obviously there is an ability to try and find a suitable resolution for all parties, but clearly you've also said that the parties are quite far apart today. Can you talk us through if you ultimately need to go through legal recourse to try and resolve the issues around the contract durability, things like this? Can you just talk us through what those steps are and try and help us understand the timeframe to trying to resolve what is obviously a very big difference in opinion as we stand today? That's the first question. The second one is, you mentioned about the preferred supplier relationship. Apologies if you have answered it, and I haven't quite interpreted that way.
I didn't quite understand how, if that's the case, these two operators are able to try and set up a tower co. Can you sort of explain, were you offered the rights to build these towers? Is it simply that they've refused the pricing? Just if you can tell us, you know, sort of how that's worked and how we should think about that.
And then the last bit on the guidance. I was just trying to understand the decision to revise the dividend at this point. And I guess what I'm trying to understand is if you feel obviously your contracts are strong and you feel you have obviously legal recourse to protect your rights, can you help us understand what the reason is to take that decision now rather than wait until we have more clarity on the situation?
Thanks a lot.
Yeah. Thanks. Yeah, clearly let me clarify. We don't want, we don't need, and we don't appreciate the legal route. Clearly we are focused always on creating values for our customers in the spirit of partnership. The legal path could be triggered in case Swisscom send termination notice. Based on their interpretation of the contract related to the expiry date by 2028, which means not recognizing the change of control happening in 2022. If we receive a termination notice, yes, that will trigger a legal proceeding. Clearly our focus will be to focus the legal proceeding.
The legal process in a way to get to clarity as soon as possible. With regards to the preferred supplier topic, yeah, clearly we have been talking with customers about new towers. Let me take the opportunity to again underline that our terms and conditions offer very competitive prices to our customers. It is on the back of, again, the sharing economics and the fact that we have two anchor tenants which allow us to, again, since the beginning, to offer, again, very competitive terms and pricing to customers. Clearly as a neutral host, we incorporate in those prices also the opportunity to further co-locate the infrastructure. We are clearly very efficient, and we pass the efficiency to our customers.
We have conversation on how to support customers on the further densification, the densification which is needed. We have also offered and talked about the opportunity to stretch further our prices to allow our customers to invest at even more convenient terms. That's part of the ongoing recurring discussion with our customers, and clearly have been also in the past in the framework of trying to find a common ground for a fair and balanced negotiation. Yesterday, we had to acknowledge that the customers at this stage have done a different choice. Let me remind again that I don't think that choice is the best choice from a capital allocation perspective, from an industrial perspective, from a strategic perspective, from a financial perspective.
I continue to believe, looking at the numbers, that our proposition is more efficient than building a joint venture, which by the way, is not, we think, in line with the MSA. Sorry, a long story. I hope it helped a little bit. On the dividend. I think the dividend at EUR 0.55 is consistent at this stage with the approach we have taken on the baseline approach, outlining a minimum growth trajectory, and that's fully consistent. As I said, we think there are a potential upside which will materialize over time, considering the industry, the industry status and the need for densification and Inwit opportunities for further growth. When that will be more visible, then we will keep on assessing the opportunity to improve shareholder remuneration.
At this stage, the decision about dividend is consistent with the level of uncertainty and low visibility which has taken us to give transparency and clarity on a baseline scenario.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you. In the interest of time, can we just stick to one question each, please? Thank you.
The next question is from David Wright of Bank of America.
Yeah. Thank you guys for the call and opportunity to ask questions. I think I'm just extending Akhil's question for a little more clarity. My sort of feeling here is that the MSAs, assuming they are extended per the change of control, they protect your rights. However, and I'm no legal expert, but if you're just the preferred supplier of new TowerCos, then they can decide not to choose you. Am I correct that you have no legal right of recourse on the new TowerCo assumptions, but that you do on the MSA assumptions? Is that the correct conclusion?
David, I think that DM in the MSA there is a preferred supplier clause which applies to all the cases where anchor tenants need a new tower. To all cases. As all contractual clauses there is for Inwit the legal rights to protect and enforce respect of the clause.
That gives you the opportunity to present a price for new towers, but it provides no obligation for the other parties to accept it. Is that correct?
If we match, there is the obligation. There is, the right of first offer and last refusal. The last refusal allow us to match all the alternative offers, and if we match, then the customer has to take our offer.
Okay. That's clear, Diego. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
The next question is from Ondrej Cabejsek of UBS.
Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. I guess the key question I would have is in terms of the all or nothing renewal, if there's the clause triggered, say now by the end of the month, the all or nothing is active in 2028, there will be some unwind of the network. As you mentioned throughout this presentation, I guess we all intuitively kind of know it's very difficult to replicate for either of the anchors the infrastructure that they are relying on with your towers.
My question would be if we take this situation to an extreme, which kind of on the side of the anchors triggering these clauses, but on the other side, if we take this to an extreme, surely there is a date at which you are no longer obligated to provide services to the anchors. I guess, you know, what risk is there for the anchors in triggering this clause in the sense of are you able to at some point, for example, turn off their networks as they have triggered this clause? Is this, I guess my underlying question is this from your perspective even a realistic threat? Thank you.
Thanks for the question. Actually, we stick to contracts. We do respect contracts, and based on the change of control clause, the contracts have been extended to 2038 for all parties. That's where we do stick. Your question is also anyway giving me the opportunity to confirm that our network is not replicable, cannot be replicated. There is a material set of unique locations. Also, let me also say that the network is the result of 30 years of ongoing optimization. Actually the network is not only cannot be replicated, but also honestly requires additional investments to be completed and extended to cope with the demand. Just in short, contract is up to 2038, and we will respect that.
Network in which grid is not replicable.
I guess, can I follow up please? Because if there is an escalation from the other party, surely there's a point at which, you know, you have or the contract allows you some protections as well. Again, if they are going to the extreme of triggering the all or nothing, what extreme can you go to? Is my question. I guess, is it true or would it be intuitively the case that at one point, when the contract expires on their end, they also become vulnerable because you have some kind of, I guess, extreme rights to, you know.
Yeah.
Fair enough access to the network for them, somehow be it electricity or whatever, and this obviously would clearly damage them. I guess if there's a clause being triggered on the one side, what is the extreme protection for you?
Yeah. No, I understand your point and, yeah, theoretically it's absolutely right what you say. The MSA clauses are symmetric, so all parties have same rights in terms of same rights and duties. Theoretically, if, when contracts will be terminated, all parties have the rights to terminate. The all or nothing applies also to our benefits, and the termination applies also to our benefit. Does it help?
Yes. Yeah. Thank you very much.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
The final question, sir, is from Abhilash Mohapatra of BNP Paribas.
Hi. Good morning, and thanks for taking my question. Diego, I just wanted to come back to your earlier comment, when you said you think you're ready to have a discussion on a win-win scenario on both the sort of future growth and potentially the current contract as well. But then you also sort of alluded to the fact that, you know, there can't be a sort of unilateral transfer of value, for example, by, you know, giving a discount, I suppose, on the current pricing. I think you illustratively mentioned the figure of, like, EUR 10 million. I'm just trying to understand from your perspective, you know, how do you view this?
Is it an absolute red line that, you know, you will not sort of yield on the pricing of the current terms of the current MSA? Or, you know, how do you sort of balance it with the future growth prospects of Inwit, I suppose? Secondly, just a clarification, in response to the earlier question about, you know, what happens if Swisscom potentially serve notice. It sounds like you're saying that your interpretation given that, you know, your interpretation is that the contract runs till 2038. Does that mean that even if we do get into some kind of a legal process, from your perspective, you will continue honoring everything in terms of hosting the sites until 2038? Is that what that means? Thank you.
Yeah. Let me start from the second question. The answer is yes. So the contract will continue and the services will continue till 2038. On the first one, I think, yeah, considering again the dramatic need of investments somehow confirmed by yesterday announcement and the need our efficient operating model, our ability to offer convenient terms to our customers, there is room to have a win-win solution. We have also different time horizons. You know, we are a long-term business, so we appreciate more the long-term opportunities and the long-term contribution.
There could be room to again find a balanced, reasonable and fair equitable solution where there is no unilateral transfer, but there is a win-win value. There is a value creation and win-win and sharing the value creation among parties. I mean, in basic terms, clearly we look at NPV, and we look to the balance between investments and returns over time. We are flexible and we have been flexible and open, again, to discuss ways to support further pricing for the additional investments. We are open to consider some value exchange on the current perimeter, again, in win-win approach. We are open to discuss about how to regulate inflation for the future.
There are several topics which can allow on a reasonable, transparent and fair ground to have a negotiation. Honestly and unfortunately yesterday we had to realize that the approach yesterday has been to continue to force us to a negotiation from a position of weakness, and that for us is not acceptable. We aim and we think we should have a negotiation based on fairness, building on the strengths and needs of all parties. We are not open to enter a negotiation in a position of weakness, being forced to do that under the threat of a termination or under the threat of alternative ways of running the business, not in line with the existing contracts which we paid for. We paid significant amount of money for the MSA, and we think upfront.
We paid a significant amount of money upfront, and we think that contract has to be respected. Just to conclude, contracts have to be respected structurally, but we are always open to further support customers in the development and improvement of their network based on reasonable and fair commercial terms. I think this was the last question. Just give me a minute to recap that today we have tried to confirm and to share our views on the MSAs and the solidity, the robustness, and the fact the MSAs are solid and are an enabler of win-win operating model to the benefit of all. We shared an updated guidance for 2026 and medium term, taking the stock of what has happened in the last weeks and days.
Setting a baseline which is a minimum projection, which shows slightly higher than 3% revenue growth, margin expansion, consistent cash generation and dividend sustainability. We think that the market will come to a normalization. The dynamics will be normalized, and this will unlock the opportunities of Inwit and its customers consistently in the ecosystem to build and invest for the digitalization of the country, for the densification, which is dramatically needed, and this will create further opportunities for growth. We will, as soon as there will be more visibility, we will share the business plan. I think that's it from my side. Thank you to all of you.