Acacia Research Corp (ACTG) 2011 Q3 法說會逐字稿

I would like to inform you that this conference is being recorded and that all participants are under a listen-only mode.

At the request of the Company, we will open the conference up for questions and answers after the presentation.

I will now turn the conference over to Mr.

Paul Ryan.

Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you for being with us today.

Today's call may involve what the SEC considers to be forward-looking statements.

Please refer to our 8-K, which was followed with the SEC today, for our forward-looking statement disclaimer.

In today's call, the terms we, us, and our refer to Acacia Research Corporation and/or its wholly and majority-owned operating subsidiaries.

All intellectual property acquisitions, development, licensing, and enforcement activity are conducted solely by Acacia Research Corporation wholly and majority-owned operating subsidiaries.

With us today are Chip Harris, President of Acacia; Dooyong Lee, Executive Vice President; and Clayton Haynes, our Chief Financial Officer.

Today, I will give you an overview of the progress we are making in building the business.

Clayton Haynes will provide you with analysis of our financial results, and we will then open the call for questions.

Acacia had a great third quarter as we continue to build our leadership position in patent licensing.

Acacia generated third-quarter revenues and other operating income of $63 million.

The second-highest grossing quarter in our Company's history

Revenues and other operating income for the first 9 months were a record $164 million; an increase of 38% over last year's previous record of $119 million.

Acacia completed 24 new licensing agreements in the third quarter, including agreements with Advanced Micro Devices, Bank of America, Boston Scientific, Siemens, T-Mobile and multiple agreements with Research in Motion and RPX Corporation.

Acacia generated revenues from 22 different licensing programs in the quarter, including 4 new licensing programs generating initial revenue.

And we have now generated revenues from 108 different licensing programs.

Acacia also acquired control of 8 new patent portfolios for future licensing in the quarter by partnering with patent owners, including 3G and 4G wireless patents from a major telecommunications company, a patent portfolio relating to mobile applications for use in smart phones and wireless computing devices, a patent portfolio relating to semiconductor packaging technology.

Over 50 patents relating to semiconductor manufacture processing technology from a major technology company, patents for heart valve technology from a major medical device company, and patents relating to document assembly for printers, domain name registration technology, and computer-aided design technology.

We continue to increase future shareholder value by partnering with patent owners and now control a record 192 different patent portfolios.

Acacia also increased its cash in investments to a record $319 million at the end of the quarter.

Acacia has built its business by partnering with patent owners, taking control of licensing enforcement activities, and splitting the net licensing revenues 50/50.

Our successful track record of generating revenues for patent owners is accelerating new business opportunities.

We are fortunate to have built a market leadership position as the number one outsourced patent licensing company at a time when patents are rapidly becoming a new asset class.

We continue to see rapidly growing interest in patents as a new asset class from both corporations and the investment community.

And think Acacia is extremely well-positioned to expand its leadership role given the breadth of our business model.

We are seeing 3 major trends which are accelerating business for us.

The first trend is the growing number of large companies worldwide who are deciding to generate revenues from their patent portfolios.

There is a rapidly increasing awareness in boardrooms across the world that their managements need to generate returns on investment from shareholder capital that has been invested in research and development.

We are also observing that large companies are becoming focused on their IP balance of payments and realize they need to generate financial returns from their own R&D investments to offset their growing payment obligations to other companies.

The recent sale of the Nortel patent portfolio for $4.5 billion and Google's $12.5 billion bid for Motorola Mobility has served as a further wake-up call to large companies and is accelerating this new trend.

As a result of this trend, we are seeing a significant increase in partnering opportunities with large companies.

Over the past year, a growing percentage of our new patent portfolios are coming from large companies as evidenced in the press releases we have issued.

Acacia's partnering business model is very attractive to large companies who want to generate financial returns from their patent without having to create a distraction to their core business, be involved in litigation, or have to make additional investments of capital and human resources to earn those returns.

Our corporate partners recognize that we have built a highly specialized company for patent licensing and have built a proven track record in generating revenues for these corporate partners.

The second trend we're observing is the increasing amount of sales of patents in the marketplace as the emergence of this new asset class begins to take shape.

Many of these patent sales create a situation where certain companies want to acquire and control the patents rather than having a competitor control them and assert them against them.

This is providing Acacia with new partnering opportunities to participate in these patent acquisitions, grant licenses to our partners in the purchase, and then control the ongoing licensing activity of the patents and share the ongoing revenues with our purchasing partners.

Acacia can take the lead in acquiring these patent assets and turn potential problems for companies into profits for our corporate partners.

For large corporate partners, Acacia can first monetize the nonperforming assets.

Secondly, acquire third-party patents that impact their business and turn potential problems into profits.

And third, be a very cost-efficient aggregator of needed in-licences for the patents that we control.

The third trend which is accelerating our business is the increasing interest of small entities such as universities, individual inventors, research centers, and small companies wanting Acacia to take control of the licensing of their patented technologies.

This is being driven by both our successful track record and the growing complexity and cost that is required for small entities to be able to effectively enforce and license patents on their own.

As a result of a number of recent court rulings, as well as the recent patent legislation, we are seeing increasing partnering opportunities with these small entities who now more than ever need an expert partner who is able to generate licensing revenues from their patents.

We have consistently delivered great results for these small entities, often after their own efforts were unsuccessful, which has repeatedly demonstrated our value to these patent partners.

As a result of these 3 trends, along with the hard work of our experienced teams at Acacia, we currently have the largest pipeline of potential new partnerships and patent portfolios in our Company's history.

As the leader in outsourced patent licensing, we have the potential for significant growth, as it appears we are in the very early stages of the emergence of this new asset class.

Our quarterly revenues will continue to be uneven.

Our key internal performance metrics, our growth in patent assets, growth in new revenue generating licensing programs, growth in 12-month trailing revenues, and growth in annual profits.

With that, I would like to turn the call over to our Chief Financial Officer, Clayton Haynes.

And thank you to everyone joining us for today's third quarter 2011 earnings conference call.

As indicated in today's earnings press release, on a consolidated basis, Acacia reported third quarter 2011 revenues and other operating income of $63 million as compared to $63.9 million in the third quarter of 2010.

Third quarter 2011 revenues included license fees from 24 new licensing agreements covering 22 of our technology licensing programs, as compared to 51 new licensing agreements covering 36 of our technology licensing programs in the comparable prior-year quarter.

For more details, please refer to today's earnings press release for a summary of technology licensing programs contributing to revenues during the quarter.

We continued our trend of strong trailing 12-month revenue and operating income growth over the prior-year quarter with consolidated trailing 12-month revenues totaling $177 million as of September 30, 2011, as compared to $138.6 million as of the end of the prior-year quarter.

Currently to date on a consolidated basis, our operating subsidiaries have generated revenues from 108 of our technology licensing programs, up from 87 technology licensing programs as of the end of the comparable prior-year quarter.

License fee revenues continue to fluctuate from period to period based on the various factors discussed on previous earnings conference calls and in our periodic filings with the SEC.

For the third quarter of 2011, Acacia Research reported GAAP net income of $12.5 million or $0.29 per fully diluted share versus GAAP net income of $24.7 million or $0.70 per fully diluted share for the comparable prior-year quarter.

Excluding non-cash stock compensation and non-cash patent amortization charges, we reported non-GAAP net income of $18 million or $0.42 per diluted share versus net income of $28.3 million or $0.80 per diluted share on a non-GAAP basis for the comparable prior-year quarter.

Please refer to our disclosures regarding the presentation of non-GAAP financial measures in today's earnings release and 8-K filed with the SEC.

Net results for the third quarter of 2011, as compared to the third quarter of 2010, included the impact of the following items.

First, in September 2011, Creative Internet Advertising Corp., a subsidiary of Acacia Research, submitted a claim under its verdict insurance policy related to its $12.5 million final judgment stemming from its May 2009 trial verdict and damages award in its patent infringement lawsuit with Yahoo, Inc.

which Yahoo appealed and prevailed.

In connection with a submitted claim, Acacia subsidiary received $12.5 million in verdict insurance proceeds.

Verdict insurance proceeds are reflected in the income statement as other operating income.

Inventor royalties, contingent legal fees, and other costs associated with the verdict insurance proceeds received totaled $7.7 million and are included in operating expenses in the line item entitled Verdict Insurance Proceeds-Related Costs.

Net results also reflect a 38% increase in other marketing, general, and administrative expenses, due primarily to a $1.9 million increase in non-cash stock-based compensation charges resulting from an increase in the average grant date fair value of restricted shares expense in the third quarter of 2011 as compared to the prior-year quarter.

In addition, our average margin defined as gross license fees including other operating income and related costs, less inventor royalties, non-controlling interests, and contingent legal fees for the portfolios generating revenues during the period, was approximately 44% for the third quarter of 2011 as compared to 57% for the comparable prior-year quarter.

Average margins continue to fluctuate period-to-period based on the mix of patent portfolios that generate revenues each period, the terms and conditions of license agreements executed each period, and the related economics associated with the underlying inventor agreements and contingent legal fee arrangements, if any.

Inventor royalties expense, including inventor royalties related to the verdict insurance proceeds and non-controlling interests for the third quarter of 2011, increased to $18.5 million versus $17.6 million for the comparable prior-year quarter.

Contingent legal fees, including contingent legal fees related to the verdict insurance proceeds for the third quarter of 2011, increased to $16.3 million versus $9.7 million for the comparable prior-year quarter.

On a combined basis, inventor royalties and contingent legal fees as a percentage of total revenues and other operating income increased to 56% as compared to 43% in the comparable prior-year quarter.

Primarily due to, in the aggregate, higher contingent legal fee, expenses associated with the patent portfolio programs, generating revenues, and other operating income in the third quarter of 2011 versus the comparable prior-year quarter.

Third quarter 2011 litigation and licensing expenses related to patents increased to $3.5 million as compared to $2.9 million in the comparable prior-year quarter.

Due primarily to an increase in litigation and licensing expenses incurred in connection with our continued investment in new licensing enforcement programs commenced since the end of the prior-year quarter.

Looking forward for fiscal 2011, we expect MG & A, excluding non-cash stock-compensation charges, to be in the range of $21.5 million to $22.5 million, including an estimate of the impact of variable performance-based compensation costs described earlier and on the previous earnings conference calls.

For fiscal 2011, we continued to estimate patent-related litigation and licensing expenses to be between approximately $13.5 million to $14 million.

From a balance-sheet perspective, cash and cash equivalents and investments totaled $319.1 million as of September 30, 2011, as compared to $301.4 million as of June 30, 2011 and $104.5 million as of December 31, 2010.

Working capital increased to $306.4 million as of September 30, 2011, as compared to $291.4 million as of June 30, and $92.3 million as of December 31, 2010.

Net cash inflows from operations from the third quarter of 2011, totaled $20.7 million versus net cash in flows of $14.2 million for the third quarter of 2010.

Net cash inflows from operations totaled $45.8 million for the 9-month period ended September 30, 2011, as compared to $30.3 million for the 9-month period ended September 30, 2010.

In the third quarter, we acquired 8 additional patent portfolios as compared to 4 new patent portfolios in the comparable prior-year quarter.

Third quarter patent-related acquisition costs totaled $1 million as compared to $795,000 in the third quarter of 2010.

Again, thank you for joining us for today's earnings conference call.

I will now turn the call back over to Mr.

Paul Ryan.

Operator, you can open the call for questions.

(Operator Instructions)

Mark Argento, Craig-Hallum and Capital.

I know in the quarter on the IP intake side you brought in a healthcare, I think it's a heart valve portfolio.

I think it's the first time I remember you calling out that you'd been doing a deal with a large med-tech or healthcare company.

Can you talk a little bit more about the progress you're making on that side of the business?

As you know, we brought in Bob Rocker to help with our existing group to expand the medical technology market.

Chip and I have addressed this before.

We think we have an opportunity over a 3-year period to build a business that's as big as our technology business, which took us about 5 years to build.

It's a very large market, generally much higher royalty rate than in the tech sector.

So a very lucrative market.

We are finding a great deal of receptivity amongst major medical companies in availing themselves of partnering on certain non-core and certain non-performing assets that they have.

And certainly our indications are it looks like this can grow into a very large market for us.

I think we've got another 5 portfolios as part of this new emphasis for us.

We have another 5 under option right now that we're going through.

Is the market dynamic a little different?

Do you find that in the healthcare vertical where there's maybe 2 or 3 large players within a specific technology versus traditional technology where you might have a dozen guys making a similar type of product?

Yes, it looks like it.

Obviously, the barriers to entry given federal regulations and long-lead times.

Probably if you had a portfolio in the tech side that has 12 potential licensees, looks like the med-tech might be half.

Although, the margins and the profitability are in many times larger and more significant in the healthcare side than they are outside of maybe software on the tech side.

I know in the quarter, the big changes in terms of patent legislation.

Any initial thoughts on how that might impact your business or how you might have changed your ways of operating as a result?

We think it's going to have a very large positive impact.

As a matter of fact, one of our executives gave an address at the LES, the licensing conference, earlier this week to a packed house.

He was introduced by the chairperson of that committee, saying that the law of unintended consequences of large companies have now fully put Acacia on the map to be a major player in the sector.

They realized that many of the new regulations are just making it more complex, more sophisticated for an individual patent owner or university to transverse all of the levels of these new requirements and legislation.

We're ideally suited to do that.

And we're already seeing a pickup in interest.

And we think it's going to be -- create a lot of tailwind for us with the small entities.

Great.

Thanks, guys.

Congrats on the quarter.

Paul Custer, JPMorgan.

It's Mark Straus on the line for Paul Just wanted to dig a little deeper on the verdict insurance.

So the policy that you take out for the Yahoo judgment, was that kind of a one-off thing or was that something you guys do every time that you receive a judgment?

It would be dependent.

If we get judgments, we'll certainly look into the availability.

In certain cases we may, certain cases we may not.

It depends on the individual circumstances and the pricing, obviously.

Mark asked a good question about healthcare.

With regard to the smart phones, give us an update on the access portfolio, how we should think about when that could potentially be monetized.

We've already begun that.

We have licensed, without litigation, Microsoft.

And we've also licensed now Nokia, Research in Motion this quarter, as well as Motorola, Samsung.

We have several large potential licenses to go, namely, companies like Apple and HTC, some of the very biggest players remain to be licensed.

That's a great revenue potential for us going forward.

Just filed a case with --

We also just expanded with the Amazon new product.

That now infringes our patent to technology.

So that's opening that market as well.

So we recently filed against Amazon with those patents.

(Operator Instructions)

Jonathan Skeels, Davenport.

Hi, guys.

Congrats on the quarter.

Clearly, the pipeline of new partnership opportunities is strong.

And we see you signing partnerships with large companies.

Can you help us to quantify what that looks like?

How many more opportunities are you seeing now versus a year ago?

Is there any way to put a number on that?

Is it 2 times?

5 times?

I'd say it's an order of magnitude.

We're booked with meetings right now, both with companies, very well-known companies, that want to us come in and take a look at the non-core assets.

Many companies who are interested in strategically partnering patent acquisitions, we're in discussions with.

I would say from a year ago, it's an order of magnitude.

We're in discussions with companies who are in the midst of M&A transactions that may want to have us take control of the IP pre that closure so as not to have the IP fall into their cross licenses.

We're talking about things that 2 years ago we didn't even know existed.

What's interesting is the people are calling us and asking us into the negotiations.

We are also seeing opportunities to partner on third-party patent acquisitions.

There's some real structural benefits that Acacia can provide.

As a free-standing legitimate independent company, we passed that test.

Many companies are now looking when they acquire assets not necessarily to give a free cross license to all their existing cross licensees, so they can structure transactions where they're buying an important asset that they need without necessarily giving away a large value of that to existing cross licensees.

There's also, obviously, situations where you've got antitrust issues going that we think we can play a key role in independent licensing company and other partners as non-controlling investors, can achieve competitive and financial goals, without those kind of risks inherent.

We provide a lot of structural benefits in addition to our great track record.

The companies respect what we've done.

We've negotiated against them, and many of the meetings that we have, quite frankly, are a result of their being impressed with our teams that have negotiated transactions with them.

They know that we've created a very specialized company.

As a matter of fact, very large sophisticated companies are having us come in and evaluate certain of their patent portfolios we've used toward us, enforcing those.

We've clearly carved out a niche here, not only from a level of expertise and execution, but just from a structural standpoint can be very beneficial to these companies.

On the structure term licenses, obviously given all of the partnership opportunities you have in the new portfolios you see, the opportunity costs of signing them is going up, which is a bullish sign for your business.

How should we think about the number of these deals you can sign or how active you will be in signing these deals on a go-forward basis?

More importantly, what is the criteria for deciding who you partner with or who you sign your structure term license with?

We're going to continue to do these transactions certainly when it makes sense.

However, our growth is not dependent at all on these types of transactions.

As you can see over the last 2 quarters, we had $100 million in revenue with no structured-term transactions, which is great for our shareholders because we haven't taken any of those opportunities off the table.

In the third quarter, you will observe there was 1 company where 3 of our subsidiaries concurrently entered into licensing transactions with a very large company.

But that transaction did not include a forward license, which has been the component of other structured-term licenses.

So there's kind of going to be hybrid deal here as well.

Certain companies we're going to concurrently have subsidiaries settle all matters, and then we'll grant them a small forward license.

In other cases we won't, It comes down to pricing, and you're right; with the pipeline accelerating and with the growth of assets we have, we have to reassess the opportunity costs of these types of transactions.

The companies we negotiated these deals with, in hindsight, got a pretty good deal given the pipeline we have.

If we can get the right price for shareholders on the term value, we will do it.

In other cases, we may just settle all existing litigation with the independent subsidiaries without the forward grant.

The important thing to take away is we realize because it's a metric, kind of the only metric that we've put out there, is that people have logically focused on it.

Again, our Company is not dependent on these types of deals to continue its growth rate.

The vast majority of companies we worked with that we've had litigation with multiple times, always ask about it.

It's just a function of the bid and the ask intersecting.

Our ask has moved up significantly.

When those lines intersect, you'll see those types of deals.

We can do just as many as we always [said we do].

Or we can do half as many, twice the amount.

But the opportunity costs, we take into account and we price it accordingly.

Walter Ramsey, Walrus Partners.

Congratulations.

Another great quarter Just going to ask about the structured deals myself; I do have 1 additional question.

The 3 that you have on already in-house, do they continue to pay as you add to your portfolio?

What happens to all this new -- these new patents that you add?

Do they get access to that?

Do they have to pay extra for it?

Generally, that is part of the payment is that they get a forward license to the new portfolios we take in over a short period of time.

And then, obviously, that then becomes subject to -- its guillotine license that becomes subject to renewal licensing.

To give some relief to a company if we 8 or 9 licensing matters with them, and we concurrently settle all of those matters, then we can.

In some cases we choose to, in addition to that, grant a forward license if the price is right.

There wouldn't be additional payments during that sub period by that company.

Not until we got to the renewal period.

When you were quite a bit smaller as a company, the idea was to build up to 3 structured deals this year, 4 next year, and then keep going; 1 every quarter, or something along that line, off into the future, is that no longer really what you're aiming for because the value has gone up so much?

We were just putting that out there, and I think people have assumed it's some kind of rigid goal or metric of our Company.

Our goal is the 3 key things -- bringing assets, turning them into revenue, producing and increasing 12-month trailing revenues.

We'll keep doing them at the same pace; it's a matter of getting them priced.

A lot of companies -- we see what we've brought in.

Furthermore, we know what our potential pipeline is of deals we have under contract we can close on, so we're building that pricing in.

So it's getting the other side to agree to where we are now as opposed to the level of portfolios we had 2 or 3 years ago in pricing.

So we've got to get them up to that level in pricing.

If we get them at the appropriate level, we'll do the deal.

It's still a goal.

It just has to be at the right price.

It's not the (inaudible).

Hello?

Oh, your train's leaving.

No, I'm kidding.

(Laughing.) It's just a matter of pricing.

That's all.

Now, we're in discussions with companies right now, and you know, if we can get to the right price, we'll close them.

Shareholders like the deal.

So did we because the time value has high margins.

Okay.

Just one last thing, I guess.

You guys started up that hedge fund a little while ago.

You put in whatever it was, $20 million, or you didn't put it in, but you brought an investor in.

Have you had anymore capital there?

What's going on?

We've just been deploying.

We have a lead, very large institutional investor.

I think we deployed a substantial portion of their capital that they've invested.

And we're starting to generate returns on that.

Given the capital that we've been building, that is being thrown off by our operations and our cash, I doubt we're going to go to the outside, certainly not in the near term, to raise any outside capital.

But opportunistically, with the fund in place and with a track record if down the road we decided we wanted to do some off balance sheet capital, we'd have a structure in place to do it.

But right now we don't intend to raise anymore money in that fund in the short-term.

It looks like you guys have a phenomenal future ahead of you.

So congratulations and keep it up, I guess.

(Operator Instructions) Darrin Peller, Barclays Capital.

This is actually Adam here subbing in for Darrin.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Paul, you were recently at a conference, and you discussed how you guys are looking to move into the energy sector.

Wondering if you could help frame the market there, how it is in comparison to the traditional tech and the med-tech, and what kind of opportunity you guys are seeing there?

That's a further out opportunity.

We're beginning to take a look at it, but we're not very active at the moment.

We're trying to get in touch and put some people in place who are very knowledgeable in that industry.

If we do as we've done in the medical practice, we will put a team together to do that.

So it looks like a potential one, but it's not one certainly that over the next 6 months we're going to be very active in.

We are going to have our hands full with the tech and medical tech.

If it's something that maybe in the second half of next year that we might start exploring.

We may do a couple of deals, but we're not going to have a dedicated effort in that direction probably for at least 6 months.

In terms of looking at the inventor royalties and the contingent legal fees as a percentage of revenue.

Is this the level that we should expect going forward?

I know that, obviously, it'll vary depending on which patents are involved in deals.

But I was wondering if you could provide anymore color on that.

If you are using it for your model, I wouldn't.

I don't think today's inventor royalties and contingent legal have no bearing on next quarter's.

It's going to be very highly variable.

And now we've actually, we've purchased a few assets directly ourselves where, obviously, we'll have much higher margins.

Potentially, we're developing corporate relationships where's I think going forward, we may do -- enter into licensing transactions with no litigations.

So the margins could be very large if you own the portfolio outright or have 90% economics with no litigation payout on a contingency basis.

It's going to vary widely depending on portfolios.

There may be opportunities -- it's not a focus or a goal or a metric of our Company, because you could get a portfolio that has a huge potential opportunity and hundreds of millions where we might be earning 30% margins.

And for the degree of effort and SG&A we need to put out, that's a great return for our shareholders.

And on another portfolio, it may be 70%.

We have to look at it in terms of the kind of profits it can generate for our shareholders relative to the manpower and SG&A costs.

So looking at an average percentage rate just isn't a key metric for us.

Yes, but there is no relationship between whatever those percentages were this quarter and what the percentages will be next quarter.

It's varied widely depending on the portfolio.

Jonathan Skeels, Davenport.

A follow-up on the structured-term relationships that you have.

You talked in the past about partnering with some of those companies to license their own patents.

Are you starting to see those opportunities?

Yes.

So there's traction on that front?

Yes.

And is that a key determinant for the companies you choose to partner or enter into structured-term deals with?

How important of a role does that play?

Yes, yes, and yes.

And then lastly there was a question before asked about patent reform.

Can you just talk about the new disjoinder rules and how that impacts your business and what impact you think it'll have on maybe other licensing entities out there?

Well, we can have Ed, who is our general council, make a few more sophisticated comments.

Coming from a businessman's perspective, there's 2 major things.

One, it's very positive for us and that there is no joint defense now.

One of the tactics that oftentimes was used with a patent owner, particular small entities, who have multiple infringers who wanted to put them in 1 case, the defendants would pool their resources generally and financially.

And that's no longer the case.

It's more expensive on the defense side.

We think we're uniquely suited, based on the scale and amount of portfolios we have to navigate through this and not have it be a significant impact to us.

I don't know, Ed, if you want to give anymore specific comments on that or not?

The new rule requires a certain amount of nexus between defendants in order to bring them in to individual suits.

As Paul alluded to earlier, we are having to bring probably separate suits which in many cases is driving inventors to Acacia to navigate those complexities.

Does it impact many of the current cases you have filed?

It's not retroactive, so it doesn't impact the current cases.

There's still some unresolved issues with respect to adding other defendants to existing cases, whether it would apply.

The law doesn't readily address that.

There are a few unknown issues, but for the most part, it won't impact existing cases.

This will conclude the question-and-answer session.

I will now turn the call back to Mr.

Ryan.

Okay, I want to thank you all for being with us here today, and look forward to you being with us on our next call.

In the meantime, if you have any questions, you can direct those to Rob Stewart, our Senior VP of Investor Relations or you can give me a call.

Thanks so much.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to access the replay for this call, you may do so by dialing 855-859-2056 or 404-537-3406 with confirmation code 12464198.

This concludes our conference for today.

Thank you all for participating and have a nice day.

All parties may now disconnect.