巴里克黃金 (GOLD) 2015 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by.

Welcome to Barrick's year-end and fourth-quarter 2015 results conference call.

During the presentation all participants are in a listen-only mode.

Afterwards we will conduct a question and answer session.

(Operator Instructions)

As a reminder this conference call is being recorded on February 18, 2016.

I will now turn the conference over to Angela Parr, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Operator, and good morning everyone.

Before we begin I would like to be point out that we will be making forward-looking statements during the course of this presentation.

This slide includes a summary of the significant risks and factors that could affect future outcomes at Barrick.

For complete discussion of these risks and factors, please refer to our most recent AIF filing.

With that I would like to turn it over to our President, Kelvin Dushnisky.

Thank you Angela, and good morning to everyone on the call.

Thank you for joining us.

I'm here today with our Chief Financial Officer, Shaun Usmar; our Chief Operating Officer, Richard Williams; and our Chief Technical Officer, Basie Maree.

You may recall that two of our mine general managers joined us on our last quarterly update call.

That's something you can expect us to continue in the future.

However, because they will be present at our Investor Day next week we have them on the line today rather than here in person.

Joining us are Matt Gili from Cortez; Andy Cole from Goldstrike; Ettiene Smuts from Pueblo Viejo; Jim Whittaker from Lagunas Norte; and Rick Baker from Veladero.

They will be available to answer any questions you may have at the end of the call and you'll get a chance to hear more from them and others at our upcoming Investor Day.

2015 was a foundational year for Barrick.

We began by refocusing the Company around one overriding objective: to maximize pre-cash flow per share through disciplined capital allocation, operational excellence, and a deep focus on talent.

We identified four key strategic priorities for the year and we made a commitment to stay focused on them and to do exactly what we said we would do.

Our priorities were, number one, to streamline the business by embedding a lean, decentralized operating model; number two, to strengthen the balance sheet by reducing our debt by at least $3 billion; number three, to refocus the Company on maximizing pre-cash flow; and number four, to optimize the portfolio to focus on our best assets in our core regions.

To recap on our progress on these priorities, first we completed the implementation of our decentralized operating model, removing management layers between the head office and our mines.

This has improved information flow and the speed of decision-making across the Company and it has helped us to reduce costs.

Second, we exceeded our $3 billion debt reduction target and substantially improved our balance sheet and liquidity position.

Third, through greater capital discipline, operational efficiencies, and cost management, we were able to generate $471 million in positive pre-cash flow in 2015 after several years of negative pre-cash flow.

We did so despite a gold price that dropped about 10% or $125 per ounce over the course of the year.

At the same time, we achieved a $33 per ounce reduction in our all-in sustaining cost for the year from $864 per ounce in 2014 to $831 per ounce in 2015, well below our original cost guidance for the year.

These savings were driven by lower capital spending combined with reductions in corporate overhead and operating cost reductions.

At 6.12 million ounces we met our updated goal production guidance of 6 million ounces to 6.15 million ounces, adjusted for net asset sales.

We also met annual production and cost guidance for our copper portfolio.

And finally, we divested all or part of seven non-core assets last year, further focusing our portfolio on our most profitable mines in the Americas.

The Company is in a much stronger position today than it was a year ago.

So it's not surprising that many of you would ask, what is next?

I would like to give you some insight on that now.

As I mentioned, our primary objective continues to be to generate and ideally grow free cash flow in any foreseeable gold price environment.

To accomplish this, we are focused on maximizing margins at each of our operations and delivering free cash flow through efficient portfolio management.

This will support a stronger balance sheet while allowing us to invest in our Business and provide our shareholders with a sustainable dividend.

Our production will be measured by quality, not quantity.

While we are producing fewer ounces today than we have in recent years, we're generating significantly more cash from these ounces, and we intend for this trend to continue.

Based on our current asset mix and the full potential divestment, we expect to maintain annual production of at least 4.5 million ounces of gold through 2020.

We have significant options within our portfolio to maintain and grow free cash flow beyond this point and we will continue to assess alternative investments and opportunities which meet our return on invested capital hurdle rate of 15% and aligned with our strategic focus.

Our goals are to lower our all-in sustaining costs to less than $700 per ounce by 2019 and to reduce total debt to less than $5 billion in the medium term.

We are also working hard to create increased optionality within our portfolio that will give us more flexibility with respect to future operating and development choices.

For example through new technologies like TCM, and a staged approach to developing our projects.

Achieving these goals will take some time.

But ultimately we are positioning Barrick to deliver industry-leading returns through the metal price cycle.

As we did last year we set out four priorities for 2016.

The first priority is to ensure we can generate free cash flow at a gold price of $1000 per ounce.

To support this objective across the business, we have implemented a more consistent methodology for determining the pricing assumptions we used for budgeting and mine planning, the calculation of reserves, impairment testing, and assessing project economics.

Our 2016 budget has been prepared using a $1000 gold price assumption, while our long-term planning assumes a gold price of $1200 per ounce.

This ensures a focus on maximizing free cash flow in the near-term while preserving optionality for the future.

Debt reduction also remains a top priority.

You recall that we said the $3 billion target we set last year was the first step, not the final one.

This year we intend to reduce our total debt by at least $2 billion.

We plan to do this using three levers: existing cash balances, free cash from operations, and non-core asset sales, joint ventures, and partnerships.

Our third priority relates to redoubling our commitment to operational excellence with the launch of our best in class initiative which we are implementing across the portfolio this year.

Our operations are already among the lowest cost in the industry but we believe we can do even better.

You'll hear more from Richard later about the best in class program, but I can tell you that we are enthusiastic about the potential for improvement across the business and we are already seeing results.

And finally, we will continue to have a sharp focus on capital discipline.

We have set rigorous criteria for capital allocation including the 15% hurdle rate for new investments all of which are evaluated by our revamped investing committee.

As you will have seen in our release we provided three-year consolidated guidance on production, costs, and capital.

This reflects our plans as they exist today.

Over the next three years, our production is expected be in the range of 4.6 to 5.5 million ounces of gold at progressively lower, all-in sustaining costs.

As I noted, our objective is to improve upon this over time with the aim of achieving an all-in sustaining cost below $700 per ounce by 2019.

Just before I turn things over to Shaun, I want to knowledge the exceptional efforts of the entire Barrick team in delivering our 2015 results.

They reflect the tireless efforts of thousands of people across the Company.

With that, I will ask Shaun to walk you through our strong fourth-quarter and full-year results.

Thank you, Kelvin.

2015 was a critical year for driving change and delivering on our promises at Barrick.

We are really pleased with how the entire organization rallied around our objectives to transform the business financially over the past year and this is evident both in our 2015 results and beyond as you have seen in the guidance.

We pulled every lever at our disposal, including greater capital discipline through enhanced capital allocation, reduced overheads, improved productivity, and lowered working capital.

We also have a great mineral endowment which represents one of the most powerful levers within our control for reducing debt and fueling our future growth potential.

And Basie will cover this later in the presentation.

Our efforts resulted in 2015 while [in] sustaining costs of $831 an ounce coming in well below original guidance of $860 to $895 per ounce and at the bottom end of our lower guidance of $830 to $870 per ounce.

Cash costs are $596 per ounce were well below the bottom end of both our original and revised ranges.

When you strip out our fuel and currency hedges from both 2014 and 2015, which had a year-over-year impact of around $37 a ounce and add about $15 or $20 an ounce in support services to the sites in 2014.

Since G&A wasn't allocated to the sites that year.

Our cash costs are down about $55 per ounce [sold] year-over-year.

In addition to meeting our gold production guidance, we also met our copper production guidance and C1 copper costs of $1.73 per pound were below our original range of $1.75 to $2 per pound.

The team at Lumwana did a great job last year, bringing down their cash flow breakeven costs, aided by the weak [quarter], and they're continuing to find opportunities to drive down costs.

At $1.5 billion total CapEx was significantly below both our original guidance of $1.9 billion to $2.2 billion and our revised guidance of about $1.7 billion.

These robust results allowed us to generate free cash flow of $471 million last year after backing out the $610 million in proceeds from the Pueblo Viejo stream that was sequentially used for debt reduction.

If we were to put 2014 and 2015 on the same realized price and grade basis, the year-over-year increase compared with the cash outflow of $136 million in 2014 would be $1.8 billion versus the reported improvement of $607 million.

The net loss of $2.6 billion in the fourth quarter and $2.8 billion for the year reflects $2.6 billion and $3.1 billion of post-tax impairments respectively.

As Kelvin indicated, we've implemented a more consistent methodology for determining the pricing assumptions we've used for impairment testing, mine planning, calculation of reserves, and our project economics.

We've experienced significant volatility in this economic environment as evidenced by the 10% and 30% drop in the gold price and our share price in 2015 respectively.

Against this backdrop, we therefore adopted a pricing approach to underpin our valuations which is informed through the statistical price moves over past few years and see it beyond short-term spot price mix.

Our long-term gold price assumption represents an assessment of long-term consensus pricing, and will only be adjusted based on fundamental shifts in the gold market.

The impairment charges we've recorded are mainly related to our though metal price assumptions of $1000 per ounce for 2016 and a $1200 per ounce long-term price.

This is a previous long-term assumption of $1300 per ounce.

On an annual basis, the impairments include just over $2 billion of goodwill related to the low middle price assumptions.

The $1 billion related to asset impairments is primarily for Pascua-Lama of about $400 million due to the reduction in market comparable values used to value this project, and Pueblo Viejo, about $319 million due to the low metal price assumptions.

The impairments' impact to earnings was partially offset by $110 million gain related to the sale of Ruby Hill and Spring Valley.

While we certainly don't rely on higher prices to drive our business plans, we remain positive on long-term price fundamentals for gold and copper.

With higher prices in the future we would reassess the fair values of our long life assets such as Pascua-Lama and Pueblo Viejo, and could potentially reverse some of the asset impairment charges recorded.

We were careful at the start of last year that our core focus would be on prioritizing free cash flow per share instead of chasing ounces and I'm pleased with how the Company stepped up to this shift in emphasis, generating substantive cash flow for the first time in four years at the lowest price experience during this period.

I want to note here that we did this through two complementary objectives and without compromising our longevity.

We improved our cash margins in the short-term while focusing on driving sustainability and longer term value creation for the portfolio.

These objectives are independent by high-quality, well-capitalized asset base with the potential for higher-tonne growth in the future.

We are enhancing operating cash flow both through business planning and ongoing actions like best in class, while continuing to drive down the consumers of that cash flow, including by reducing our holding costs at Pascua-Lama, lowering our interest expense, and cutting overhead.

We are also optimizing our growth spend on higher return, lower risk options near our existing asset base, while maintaining our other options for the future at the lowest cost possible.

As result, despite the $250 drop in our realized gold price from two years ago, we generated three consecutive quarters of free cash flow in 2015.

To put that in context, in order to generate free cash flow in 2013, we would've required a gold price of more than $1600 per ounce.

At the beginning of 2015, we would've needed a breakeven price of $1350 per ounce before implementing our cash flow improvements actions.

By the end of the year we were free cash flow positive below $1100 per ounce.

This represents a 35% reduction in our breakeven price over the last two years.

And this year we intend to reduced further to $1000 per ounce to ensure we can generate positive free cash flow at that price.

We've achieved these results by aggressively managing our controllable costs as you will see on the next slide.

Clearly, we can't control gold and copper prices but there are many factors within our control that contribute to our cost of sales and uses of cash.

As you can see, we did a lot last year to mitigate the more than $100 an ounce drop in our realized gold price, and the 20% drop in our realized copper price.

We did this through a combination of productivity gains delivered by the sites which were reflected in the cash cost per tonne process, and management actions to reduce overhead and expiration, closure and project-related expenses which are grouped in the other category.

The per-time costs reflect operating costs which are under the direct control of our site leaders, and improvements they had made last year with respect to productivity and cost reduction offset about half of the price decline.

Operating costs are where we still see the most opportunity to reduce our cost structure, and Richard will speak to this in more detail in a moment.

We've also done quite a bit to optimize capital in the last two years, while the majority of the 70% reduction since 2013 relates to Pascua-Lama after the project was suspended that year.

There were also significant cuts and deferrals made to sustaining and expansionary capital in 2013 and 2014 that were necessary in the lower gold price environment.

This has created somewhat of a [byway] of deferred capital in future years which was something we needed to deal with as a management team last year and we were successful in doing so.

We addressed this in a couple of ways -- firstly by revamping our business planning and budgeting approach.

The key change here is that our operating, technical, and financial teams are now fully and concurrently integrated in the process from the beginning compared to the detailed but more sequential approach of the past.

The benefit of this is that we harness the best talent in each of these areas from the start in conjunction with the business plans generated by the mine general managers who ultimately are accountable under our decentralized model for maximizing value and managing the risks for their businesses.

This approach, along with site specific cash margins, [bolt] into the plans from their inception, ensure that the general managers develop their plans through the lens of ensuring enhanced cash margins at lower prices that would cover our corporate uses of cash -- any taxes, overheads, funding our growth, paying dividends and the like, while preserving optionality at higher prices.

Some examples of the decisions made through this process, including eliminating capital associated with the open pits at Golden Sunlight, focusing more on underground at Cortez and Goldstrike, and removing capital for subsequent leach failures at South Arturo that aren't currently economic.

By leaving marginal ounces in the ground the requirement for associated items like tailings lifts and maintenance disappear.

I want to be clear that what I've described is not high grading or going off to pockets of high grade material.

What we've done by leaving these marginal ounces in the ground is to raise the average mining grade in order to generate cash flow and we've been careful to do this without sterilizing future optionality.

Secondly, we looked at our projects dynamically, and assessed how we could accelerate funding in the event that prices were to be materially higher in the near-term.

We concluded that our project sequencing which is now supported by a more robust business plans is appropriate for the current business outlook, and is not capital constrained.

In terms of our spending outlook, this year we expect total CapEx to be in the range of $1.35 billion to $1.65 billion, lower than 2015 on reduced development capital at Veladero and KCGM, and also reflecting the asset sales.

Project spending for 2016 has been lowered to $50 million to $100 million from $100 million to $150 million last year, and we expect it to be at the low end of this range for the next two years.

Project capital this year largely reflects ongoing pre-stripping of the South Arturo deposit near Goldstrike and capitalized cost for permitting, engineering, and construction activities related to the temporary solution for water management at Pascua-Lama as we transition the project into deep suspension.

Expansion capital for 2016 is primarily for feasibility and development work at Cortez related to the underground expansion project and also for pre-stripping of the crossroad's open pit deposit which is expected to reach production in 2020.

In 2017 and 2018, we expect expansion capital to increase as this work accelerates and it also reflects some costs to improve throughput with additional ventilation at Turquoise Ridge.

For 2017 and 2018 we expect sustaining CapEx to be slightly lower than the $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion this year, at about $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.

But in 2018 it will include about $175 million in development capital for stripping at Lumwana, related to mining [chimney width] stages four and five where the ore is deeper and has a higher strip ratio.

Turning to the balance sheet, we exceeded our debt reduction target of $3 billion in 2015 by repairing $3.1 billion through a combination of asset sales, free cash flow, and new joint ventures.

This reduced our total debt by 24% and our net debt by 28% in just one year.

Including the $610 million in proceeds from the sale of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain received last month, our net debt is now being reduced by 33% from the start of last year.

As a result, our annual pre-tax interest expense will be cut by about $135 million per year and some this is reflected in our lower finance cost guidance of $690 million to $730 million this year.

In addition, we extended the majority of our undrawn $4 billion credit facility up one year to 2021 and negotiated a financial covenant that better reflects our ongoing deleveraging measures.

The net debt to total capitalization covenant requires us to maintain a ratio of less than 0.6.

At the end of 2015, this ratio was 0.44, and we expect it to improve as we make progress on our new 2016 total debt reduction target of at least $2 billion, and our medium turn targets bring total debt below $5 billion.

Our deleveraging assets have significantly improved our liquidity particularly in the near to medium term as we targeted shortened dated debt to clear the runway for the next several years.

We now have less than $250 million in maturities due before 2018 and less than $100 million maturing between 2024 and 2032.

About $5 billion, or around half of our total debt is very elongated, maturing only after 2032.

Last month, (inaudible) placed our long-term debt rating and review and in light of this we been asked whether retaining an investment-grade rating is important for us.

The answer is yes (technical difficulties).

But of equal importance, we're focused on improving our cash flow and cash margins through productivity improvements and cost reduction delivered to our best in class program as well as the continued sharp focus on capital discipline.

We've made consumer progress on all of these expenses covered and expect to make even more over time (technical difficulties).

We believe we will be successful in our efforts and if the downgrade were to occur (technical difficulties) cost of borrowing and the existing public debt of our credit facility.

While a downgrade could increase our borrowing costs if we were to issue new debts, we are very clear we're focused on reducing our debt.

Turning to our financial guidance for the year, I covered CapEx and the interest expense components of finance costs earlier, but I should just note that our finance costs also include accretion, and that the interest expense savings this year from debt reduction are partially offset by higher accretion expense mainly related to the Pueblo Viejo streaming agreement.

The guidance numbers on this slide are based on our 2016 budget assumptions of $1000 per ounce; however, the tax range shown here is based on a gold price of $1100 per ounce.

At $1100 per ounce, our tax rate is expected to be 50% to 55% reflecting the greater contribution this year from [TB] which is taxed at 57%.

At $1000 per ounce including non-deductible expenses such as Pascua-Lama, our effective tax rate rises to 153%.

As I mentioned earlier we reduced our overhead costs last year.

This was down through headcount reductions and downsizing or closing regional offices in line with implementing the decentralized model.

We realized approximately $65 million in reductions to gross functional G&A and overhead costs compared to 2014, allowing us to meet our corporate administration expense target of $145 million after adjusting for severance and other one-time costs.

And we expect to reach $100 million in annualized overhead savings in 2016.

Some additional context on this to help with comparing 2015 to 2014.

At the beginning of 2015, we transferred most of the functional support services to mine sites in order to hold them directly accountable for the cost of the services they're required to run the business, resulting in the allocation of some of our general and administrative costs to individual mine sites.

These costs now form part of mine site G&A costs which are included within direct mining and cash costs.

We've also reduced our exploration budget, but as Basie will cover, we have a strong focus on opportunities around our existing mines where we continue to identify excellent potential for resource conversion at many of our operations.

We'll assess this dynamically throughout the year depending on the quality of our targets, the cash available through our improvements efforts, and the gold price environment where we feel the guidance is appropriate for the current environment.

I will now turn it over to Richard to take your through our best in class program and our operating results.

Thanks, Shaun.

(Inaudible) time has come the industry leader for best in class in the way that we operate and develop our existing and any future mines.

We believe that we've got some of the best assets in the world but to be clear, we judge that the they are not yet being operated at their maximum efficiency as defined by what is possible across the industry and using all available and the latest technologies.

And this provides us with a significant opportunity for improvement.

To address this, and over the last six months, we've been rolling out a business improvement system called the best in class.

This is a data-driven operating system that will maximize value duration from our operations by driving improvements in efficiencies and productivity, as well as sustainable reductions in costs and improvements in safety, and environmental management across our portfolio.

It brings together into a single place all of our existing and future improvement initiatives such as those already identified in what we've called our value realization studies last year as well as those associated with the $2 billion cash flow improvement target that you'll be familiar with.

It's not just a top-down process, it's being built in tandem with the mine leadership, and provides both them and us with a constantly evolving plan to close the gap between current performance and optimal performance at each site.

It does this by exploiting opportunities to close where we currently are to that defined by the current system's technical limits in ways that are familiar across the industry, and we do it at all of our operations.

While concurrently, seeking any opportunity to deliver step changes in performance by system changes i.e.

changing mining methods, [digitization], or other such measures.

As well as pulling forward in a structured way any new innovations that across the spectrum with a particular emphasis on information management.

All of this is done while simultaneously investing vital time and effort in areas that are often forgotten and are the bedrock of any mining company, and that is the operators and their skills, and the front-line leaders and their skills.

To drive this we've developed a scorecard with concrete targets to reduce and optimize the intensity of labor, mining, energy, and capital, as measures against growth in revenue, improvements in asset efficiency, increasing operating margins, and the sites' annual short-term incentive schemes.

Progress towards these targets are reviewed and driven every week at our business plan review, or BPR meeting, the weekly video conference that links all sites with the head office and in monthly optimization, innovation, and talent development reviews.

As Kelvin is sure to mention, this program is being rolled out across our portfolio, and is to be managed by standalone business improvement groups that have stood up and reports directly to me and is headed by Michelle Ash, formally of [publication].

She obviously will work with Basie Maree, the Chief Technical Officer; and Peter Sinclair, the Chief Sustainability Officer; and teams from finance.

It's this process that provides the concrete support for our target to reduce our all-in sustaining costs to less than $700 an ounce by 2019.

And we will cover this in more detail in our Investor Day next week.

Moving onto our operating guidance, 2016 goal production remains at five 5 million ounces to 5.5 million ounces and reflects about 1 million ounces in asset divestitures last year as well as low and expected production from Lagunas Norte this year.

We've reduced our cash [flow] guidance to $550 to $590 an ounce, from $596 into 2015.

This reflects lower-than-expected costs of PV on increased production and higher [filter] credits related to last year.

Lower costs from Acacia and the sale of higher cost ounces, but carried higher average costs in 2015, as well as an expected positive impact from currency and fuel hedges at this year's lower rates.

We've also reduced our all-in sustaining cost guidance $775 to $825 per ounce based on lower capital expenditures and lower G&A and expiration expense that Shaun's outlined already.

Although all-in sustaining cost will be driven down by the best in class effort, the first half of the year is expected to be higher than the second half all-in sustaining costs, for the second quarter expected to be the highest cost of the year.

Turning now to the sites.

Our Cortez mine led by Matt Gili has had an excellent year, significantly beating our original operating guidance for the production of 999,000 ounces, just short of 1 million, and all-in sustaining costs at $603 per ounce.

And it benefited from improved underground productivity and higher open-pit grades and recoveries.

The guidance this year, we're 900,000 to 1 million ounces, and an all-in sustaining cost of $640 to $710 per ounce which includes about $250 million ounces of refractory oil that will be processed at Goldstrike.

The higher inspected cost in 2016 reflecting increased sustaining capital related to water management projects and timing of open pit whole truck maintenance.

Best in class initiatives for reference currently underway at Cortez include optimizing shifting change sequencing, revamping fleet maintenance, improving underground capital efficiency, installing advanced process controls, and strengthening geometalurgical modeling.

We'll provide updates on plans for the expansion of underground mining of Cortez at the Investor Day as well as the results of the prefeasibility study for the Goldrush project located within the Cortez district.

Moving across to Goldstrike, production at 2015 was in line with expectations at 1.1 million ounces but all-in sustaining costs of $650 per ounce came in well below guidance on improved underground mining costs, optimized [holdage] roots, and lower contracted costs.

Throughput and recoveries from our new and innovative TCM circuit, which doesn't use cyanide as you know, continues to improve with ongoing adjustments, in line with expectations for the ramp up of a new technology.

Still work to go yet, but we're content with the progress at this point.

We expect to achieve design throughput of 11,000 tonnes per day by the third quarter of 2016.

Production at Goldstrike this year is expected be similar to last year, but higher all-in sustaining costs of $780 to $850 per ounce, reflecting increased sustaining capital for failings expansion, water management, and timing of underground equipment replacements.

Best in class initiatives in 2016,our focus on supply chain cost reductions, optimization of Arturo pit hauling, maintenance improvements, and overall equipment effectiveness of shovels and trucks.

We expect initial production of about 140,000 ounces of 60% share from South Arturo in the second half of this year.

And moving across to PV, our share of the production in 2015 was 572,000 ounces, at all-on sustaining costs of $597 per ounce.

Production was impacted in Q4 by the failure of two oxygen plant motors in November which affected [auto play] and throughput.

You should all be aware.

In terms of solving this, we're quite proud of how our new decentralized model worked well to resolve it quickly, with full productive capacity restored in late January with one repaired motor back in operation supported by portable compressors.

The second motor has now also been reinstalled.

Our share of production in 2016 is forecast to be 600,000 to 650,000 ounces, at all-in sustaining costs of $570 to $620 per ounce.

The mine [brought all] autoclave maintenance activity in December to mitigate the impact of the unscheduled downtime, and is currently treating higher grade oil in the first quarter which is not processed that month.

Best in class initiatives this year are focused on improving efficiency and throughput through all blending optimization, labor intensity measures, increasing autoclave availability, and optimization of maintenance activity.

Moving to Lagunas, Lagunas Norte mine produced 560,000 ounces, as the all-in sustaining cost of $509 per ounce in 2015.

Costs were lower than expected primarily on lower sustaining capital spending, fuel and labor cost savings, and decrease in royalty expenses.

Production in 2016 is expected to be 410,000 ounces to 450,000 ounces, an all-in sustaining cost of $570 to $640 per ounce.

Lower production and higher costs largely reflect the transition to sulfide oil and lower expected recovery rates.

Best in class initiatives there are focused on strengthening front-line management, increasing labor productivity, and capital efficiency, outsourcing opportunities, increased carbon and [column plant] performance, and reducing costs associated with external services and consumables.

At our Investor Day on February 26, we'll provide an update on plans for the addition at refractory oil processing circuit at Lagunas Norte which could significantly extend the life of the mine.

Now moving to Veladero, if performed in line with expectations in 2015 but better than all expected all-in sustaining costs of $946 per ounce.

It's expected to contribute 630,000 to 690,000 ounces into 2016, at a lower all-in sustaining cost of $830 to $900 an ounce on higher-than-expected production and sales volumes.

The increased production of this year -- good news -- reflects mining of higher grades, improved mining productivity, and improved inventory, drawn down relative to 2015 through better operational management of the leach pad.

Also expected to benefit from the government's decision to lift import restrictions and eliminate the 5% export duty, both of which were announced in the late 2015.

Best in class work at Veladero in 2016 is focused on cost reductions related to supply chain and inventory management, better maintenance practices, mining productivity, and energy efficiency.

Across to Turquoise Ridge, that mine significantly outperformed our expectations in 2015, with our share of production up 270,000 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $742 per ounce.

The mine benefited from increased productivity and throughput, driven by improved equipment availability and change in mining methods to fully mechanize the top cuts.

These productivity improvements and others are expected to continue in 2016 allowing for greater mining flexibility and reliability.

Production this year is expected be in line with 2015 levels and slightly higher all-in sustaining cost of $770 to $850 per ounce related to increased sustaining capital from the water treatment plant and timing of equipment replacements.

Best in class initiatives for 2016 will focus on operational efficiencies, economic optimization of mine design, and a valuation of potential alternative rock breaking methods.

As with our other projects, we will provide an update on plans to expand underground mining at Turquoise Ridge at our Investor Day.

Now turning to copper.

Production guidance for 370 million pounds to 410 million pounds reflects our reduced 50% ownership at Zaldivar, but doesn't include production from Jabal Sayid mine, which started up ahead of schedule in December of last year.

As the mine will still be in the mill commissioning phase for part of the year.

Our 2016 all-in sustaining cost guidance has been reduced to $205 to $235 per pound to reflect currency benefits and improve costs at Lumwana.

I will now turn it over to Basie to cover our exploration and reserve update.

Thanks Richard.

Our (inaudible) was profitable and sustainable in long-term production.

This we'll achieve through a renewed focus in our mine earnings programs aimed at timely resource conversion to enhance our long-term mine plans while maintaining our [minimum] past number of years in our exciting global exploration programs.

We also have very active projects study and execution programs underway to ensure new projects identified for our drilling campaigns online as per our discipline project capital guidelines.

Our efforts continue to focus on our goal regions of Nevada and the Andean region of South America.

Approximately 80% of the 2016 total exploration budget of between $125 million and $155 million was allocated to these regions and strikes a balance between near mine drilling and global exploration programs.

With respect to near mine exploration or MinEx, and in line with our rigorous approach to capital allocation we are applying increased focus to higher returns and lower risk for [on field] opportunities.

Our MinEx programs will also benefit from standardizing its approach with our very effective global links system called BXX that has yielded discoveries like Lagunas Norte, Goldrush, and Alturas.

We see strong potential to add reserves at Hemlo, on [receptive plans], at Turquoise Ridge and [Pobre], and at other operating sites which (inaudible) in more detail at the Investor Day.

About half of the global X budget is allocated to emerging discoveries like Alturas.

There is also excellent potential to discover new deposits in [imported] districts.

For example we are currently installing a target known as Four Mile located 1 kilometer north of Goldrush.

This area is geologically similar to the high grade [depots] and deepstar deposits in the Goldstrike area.

Early drilling has intersected utilization well above the average grade often measured and integrated resource at Goldrush.

At the Alturas discovery in Chile, we have reported an initial inferred resource of 5.5 million ounces of gold.

Our focus in 2016 will be to continue infill drilling and step out drilling to expand the resource.

[Drill] to-date continues to indicate that this deposit is geologically similar to the oxide mineralization at Veladero.

It's at an average grade of about 1.25 grams per tonne, and [to be able to] reach this were very favorable as well.

Respected project studies, we plan to spend about $50 million this year to advance the [forming] project we've been studying and will now also add Alturas as a [first key] project and will continue to convert resources to reserve at these projects such as we've done at Cortez and Lagunas Norte.

The current metal price environment also presents new opportunities to gain access to effective exploration projects through earnings and partnerships.

Evaluating these third-party opportunities will be our focus in 2016.

Turning to our reserves, we have estimated these for 2015 year end and based on a two tier pricing approach using gold price assumptions of $1000 per ounce until 2020, and $1200 per ounce from 2021 onwards.

This compares to 2014 when we used the flat price -- the gold price of $1100 per ounce.

The two-tier approach as part of our overall focus on announcing mineral resource management to create a very short-term and long-term value for all of our mines, which is reflected -- reflection of our emphasis on producing profitable ounces.

This reflects our commitment that any new investment we make must be capable of generating a 15% return on invested capital.

As of year-end 2015, our proven and probable reserves modeled at nearly 92 million ounces.

After depletion, we added 8.8 million ounces through drilling and cost reductions and the change in price.

After 5.1 million ounces added from drilling and cost reductions, the largest additions were 3.5 million ounces at Veladero, mainly at the [Quatros Escas] area, 2.5 million ounces converted to reserves in Deep South zone at Cortez, and 1.6 million ounces converted to reserves in the Deep South zones at Lagunas Norte.

We also added ounces at KCGM, [Ochre], Hemlo, and PV.

For our resource estimation, we used a slightly more conservative price assumption of $1300 per ounce compared to $1400 per ounce in 2014.

As of year-end 2015, our [measured] indicated resource was 79.1 million ounces.

Of this, 9 million ounces is attributable to the sale of non-core assets in 2015.

We replaced nearly all of the 8.8 million ounces converted to reserves for drilling and cost reductions most notably from additions at Lagunas Norte, PV, and Cortez.

We also added ounces at Veladero, Golden Sunlight, and [Pobre].

The [unfit] resource of [22.4] million ounces includes 5.5 million ounces at Alturas as mentioned earlier.

Our project pipeline has significant number of opportunities for the future as you can see here.

And we're progressing a number of projects through pre-feasibility and feasibility studies.

We have substantially changed our approach to project development in the last year and are now focusing on what we call starter mine concepts, where the project is to commence as a smaller, low-risk operation requiring lower initial capital, allowing for early project optimization which can then lead to self-funded expansions if justified.

We are on a tight and rigorous review of the economics of each site guide and are prepared to redirect or even terminate the project through a steady life cycle should it not meet our technical or financial requirements.

I [won't talk to used] project on the slide, but some have reason to have been improved by (inaudible) progress to the next stage.

The goal for us in the Lagunas Norte sulfides projects have moved into feasibility and Cortez South will go before the committee very shortly.

Alturas is in the exploration phase and is expected to have the scope and study completed by the end of this year.

We'll provide more detail on all of our projects next week at the Investor Day.

On Pascua-Lama, our[ten piece] suspension plan was approved by the governments of Chile and Argentina last year and will moving the project into deep suspension.

This has enabled us to significantly reduce costs for 2016 to between $18 million and $100 million from about $190 million the previous year.

These costs are mainly for water management as well as the close of the [capital] on the Argentina side.

Beyond 2016, we want to decrease the holding costs even further.

The team at Pascua-Lama will be focused on developing an optimized plan in 2016 and will assess the spend when it's complete.

But we've been clear that the project must ultimately meet our 15% return on invested capital hurdle rate before we will consider any new project or program.

I will now turn it over to Kelvin for his concluding remarks.

Thanks Basie.

In closing, we've transformed Barrick over the last year into a Company that is distinguished by a strong partnership culture and a decentralized structure with owner managers who are deeply invested in the success of the Company.

We continue to be sharply focused on effective capital management and apply rigorous investment criteria.

We'll maintain strong liquidity going forward by ensuring we have a prudent cash position and by continuing to reduce our debt.

We're fortunate to have some of the best assets in the industry and we will manage them to deliver superior returns through the cycle by continuing to drive down costs and by active portfolio management that retains the best assets and the best noncore assets at the right time.

Our portfolio has excellent optionality with about 140 million ounces in resources and undeveloped projects, much of which can be leveraged by existing infrastructure.

We expect to add to this over time given our track record of discoveries which we have successfully converted into cash flow.

This provides our shareholders with exciting upside exposure.

There's still a lot of heavy lifting to be done but we have the right foundation and the right team in place to do it.

With look forward to providing more detail in our plans for 2016 and beyond at our Investor Day on February 22.

Before closing, I want to thank the many investors, some long-standing, some newer to the Barrick story, who provided us with valuable feedback in 2015.

We're grateful for your support, and we intend to earn it even more.

That concludes our presentation for today.

Operator, we would now be happy to take questions.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions)

Andrew Quail from Goldman Sachs.

Morning Kelvin and team.

Congratulations on a very strong quarter and a very solid 2015.

A couple of questions, first one is on CapEx.

You guys have given guidance in 2016 of 1.35 to 1.65.

Taking a mid-point, it's pretty much in line with 2015, given your -- I would call robust and solid three-year guidance, of production costs, what -- can we sort of model, what would we expect for say CapEx post 2016?

Thanks Andrew.

Thanks for your nice comments regarding the year.

Regarding CapEx been beyond, guidance we gave - I will turn to Shaun so he can give direction in where he thinks we'll be.

Hi.

We'll be covering some of this more on our Investor Day.

And of course next week, but directionally when you start looking at particularly our sustaining capital and the dollar balance spaces, particularly within the range that you would see over those few years is what we would be expecting.

But let me hand it over to Richard who I think can comment also on some of these parts.

Hi Andrew, nice to hear from you.

On the capital going forward, we've got a plan, which Shaun's outlined coming up in the Investor Day.

The best in class process will also -- it will be scrubbing all these things as we go forward.

Some of the plans we've got in place today -- the general managers are working on and they are reviewing we'll adjust as we're going for.

It's not just the cost of what we're doing, because that's obviously all being pushed down as we negotiate with new suppliers, contractors and whatnot.

But it's also going to be the plan to do the [investment] itself.

Expect a little bit of Darwinism, and I would say at this point expect it on the downside rather than the upside.

Right.

Okay.

You had a second question, Andrew?

Yes and I suppose my second one is on cash and debt.

I mean you guys are doing really good job over the last 12 months and nearly $2 billion target.

Is there a level of cash that you guys are comfortable with on the balance sheet?

Or is it $2 billion, or is it more or is it less?

Is there something that you guys sort of won't go past?

Because you talk about paying down debt.

I'm trying to get -- is it net debt?

Or is it debt?

Again, just trying to decipher between cash and net debt.

Sure.

Thanks Andrew.

$1.5 billion to $2 billion is probably a number we're comfortable with.

Shaun, do you want to add a little more detail?

I can appreciate last year and given the volatility and pricing.

We are focusing on the things that we know control and we can deliver.

So think of that $2 billion as a minimum target of total debt reduction for the year ahead.

But that has to be seen in complement with the improvements to continue to generate cash flow.

You know we talked about it with you before, but as you see we've produced the fewest [answers] I guess in many a year, but more cash than we have, as well and that will continue.

That's it for me.

Thanks very much guys.

Thanks Andrew.

John Bridges from JPMorgan.

Hi and good morning everybody.

Congratulations on the results from your current operations.

You've got these four reports which are coming through.

But when are we going to see those things?

Because we need to know what sort of capital you're going to be spending later in this decade to continue this performance.

John, the three prefeasibility studies and the one [keys] on Turquoise, we are going to be presenting those details next week at the Investor Day.

Okay.

And the detailed studies, will they come out concurrently or afterwards?

Following.

Following.

Okay.

And then I take your point about leaving lower grade material in the underground mines and that's helping you with your cost structure, but then about a third of your reserves is sitting at open pit mines where that's not so easy.

When you are pushing your -- the gold price to $1000 for your reserve calculation for 2016, that presumably is pushing up your strip ratios and how is that being shown in your accounting?

Basie?

For 2016 we're not releasing a major increase in stripping ratios on our mines.

The guidance to a lower reserve price and mining guidance, as you say, is really focused on bringing the best rates forward.

I think it's been focused on this for quite a few years and it really hasn't shown up in our reserves (inaudible) and our mining stripping.

So at this point in time it's not an issue for us.

And John you won't really see that in our accounting for the future.

Okay.

Maybe we can ask about that on Monday.

Thanks a lot, guys.

Good luck.

Yes, thanks John.

Stephen Walker from RBC Capital.

Great.

Thank you and good morning.

Just two questions, first for Shaun.

We talked in the past about freeing up working capital with the sale of non-core assets and then just you know higher management of capital allocation to the mining assets.

Can you give us an idea of what was squeezed in the way of cash out of working capital in 2015 and is there any more to be gained through working capital management in 2016?

Stephen, yes, it's always an important theme as you point out, and for us for last year, we set about a 40% reduction in working capital and a big reduction in [source] and space inventory in particular, and we'll continue to focus on this.

I'd like to get Richard to comment on some work that we do particularly on the supply side.

Just one thing which I think you'll -- maybe I'll touch on as we go through this is -- with our life of mine planning, we've looked explicitly at the stockpiles and as you know there's really only two large sources of stockpiles in our balance sheet and that's primarily, obviously in Goldstrike, and at PV.

So those will be and are included in the plans that we worked out.

Richard, anything you want to add?

It kind of depends on what Shaun was saying.

Again I may hand over this to Andy and Matt to talk a little bit about Nevada and those stockpiles and then supply chain management.

But to highlight what Shaun has outlined we've got our new supply chain boss, Mel Miller, based out of Henderson in Nevada that's been driving down Shaun's outline any unnecessarily supplies or obsolete inventory.

There's been very good work done in Veladero in Argentina, obviously Rick Baker is on the call, and he can talk to that.

Return to stockpile management, there is some limitations in Nevada courtesy of the nature of the oil, which means it's around about $1 billion worth.

Is that right Shaun?

Stockpiles sitting in Nevada?

And for that, actually, I will hand over to Matt Gili and Andy Cole to talk a little bit about what they're doing for that down there.

Matt, over to you.

All right.

Thank you Richard, and thank you Stephen.

So we're talking about the stockpiles that exist at Goldstrike and remembering, too, that there's those deposits at Goldstrike in Cortez are both re-factory in nature.

The from the Cortez standpoint, 2016 we'll see an overall reduction in stockpiles because of the increased amount of oxide material and increasing the throughput through the oxide plant.

Andy, regarding Goldstrike?

As far as Goldstrike stockpiles, those are those long-term, lower-grade stockpiles are really the reason why we push forward with the new technology of TCM.

And as TCM comes up and reaches full capacity over the life of mine project, we will continue to work down those stockpiles.

Thanks Andy, thanks Matt.

And just for one other guy on the call, Rick Baker, could you talk a little about your working capital management down there at Veladero?

I know you doing a lot on that as well.

Yes, thanks Richard.

As far as supply chain management, we made significant improvements in that in 2015, and we're targeting further reductions in 2016, both in inventory and on our supply-side.

So Stephen, hopefully that answers your question.

You had another question as well?

Yes, thank you for the comprehensive answer.

Just on Pueblo Viejo, the effective tax rate this year is 57% I believe was mentioned, and if I'm not mistaken, the deal with the government of the Dominican Republic for PV had a greater amount of cash in 2013 to 2016 period.

Two questions, what is expected tax rate in 2017, and presumably it will be lower for the next couple of years?

And secondly, has there been any discussions with the government of the Dominican Republic with respect to the expiry of the existing agreement and potentially changing of any of the terms?

I will take the first part and the second part of the question, Stephen.

In terms of the actual agreement, it doesn't expire in 2017 or 2018.

2017 is the opportunity to revisit the MRT calculation for the present schedule.

That agreement stays in place.

We do have the ability again in terms of looking at the -- after the first four years, what the MRT payments are based on the past prior period.

In terms of the effective rate, Shaun?

Yes, Stephen for guidance purposes keeping a similar sort of range that we have been experiencing is the appropriate thing at this time -- for this time being.

What we've -- as I said in my presentation, we do see a greater impact because of those earnings, particularly at low prices.

We continue to look at opportunities for this tax rate in general in the portfolio.

For the time being that's what I would be using.

Thank you Kelvin, and thank you Shaun.

Thanks.

Greg Barnes from TD Securities.

Yes, thank you.

Richard, the $700 per ounce on sustaining target, that's a very aggressive number.

Is that coming more from sustaining capital coming down or operating costs coming down?

Can you kind of give us some sense of that?

Yes, hi Greg.

Thanks for the question.

And yes, it is an aggressive target.

We're very confident we're going to hit.

Michelle Ash, who's come on in to review what we've been doing up to now in terms of the best in class, as I've outlined in the brief early on we've done in conjunction with the mines and been a sort of team effort across the way here.

We've identified this year already a couple $100 million worth of savings that were going off, and that's actually not in terms of capital deferment.

That's actually stripping out real sustainable costs.

And as we look forward through to next year, I know a couple programs in the very early days that we're looking at, how we're going to be adjusting things through that next sort of 48 month period, identify an additional $300 million.

This is being done with the mine managers.

So we can give you sort of texture on the IR Day on specifics of each of these.

But there has been quite a remarkable amount of opportunity identified through this process.

And all if it's come from bottom up.

You got to remember Greg, a year and a bit ago we had the region sitting on top of these mines and things were run slightly differently.

And so as result of getting Andy, Matt, and the others, we can sit and say right -- let's have a really good look at how we can strip out any waste that we've got in terms of operating efficiencies.

Adjust how we're organized, bring in new systems, and then have at it.

They've actually come up with some pretty remarkable opportunities themselves, and as the results of central advice as well as support from Michelle, Basie, and other are providing that from top down.

We are actually seeing some really remarkable changes already this year, a lot of which will come out on the IR Day.

Fundamentally, Greg, my view is it's aggressive but I'm looking at a whole series of things that are achievable, and the only thing that will stop it happening, really, to be blunt, is a failure of leadership either at the mine site level or at our level which clearly we're not really that interested in tolerating.

So frankly, it's looking pretty good.

Okay.

It's all on you then, Richard.

(laughter) Just a follow-up.

You had a really strong Q4, and lost some momentum on the production side.

Last year forecasting to a 45, 55 [awaiting] second half.

Are we going to see a reverse of that this year so you will see stronger production the first half and weaker in the second half?

It's reasonably balanced, in fact, Greg, throughout the quarters I think we're about maybe 100,000 ounces or so higher in Q4 but this year as opposed to last year it's roughly smooth through the quarters.

Okay.

I think you would see about half of the volume effect being sort of more back-end weighted.

But it's a lot smoother.

What was that Shaun?

Sorry.

I said it's a lot smoother but it's about half of volume effects weighted towards the second half of the year.

Q2 is going to be probably our weakest quarter.

Okay.

Thank you.

David Haughton from CIBC.

Good morning, Kelvin, Shaun, Richard, and Basie.

A couple questions.

Firstly a little bit of clarity on your expectation of 10%, 15% return on invested capital through the [metal] cycle.

Is that applicable to new projects or is it your ambition to put that measure against your existing operations?

The 15% hurdle is on new investments, David, and eventually the intent is it will be 10% to 15% through the cycle.

Okay and through the cycle I presume you mean scenario testing up-and-down from where we are today?

Is that a reasonable way to think about it?

David, I think it is.

If you also look at our scorecard, it's reinforced through that.

I think it's we test on [price falls] there's not a lot we can do perhaps about some of the same capital.

We certainly make sure we go for investment, or meet those hurdle rates, and it's risk-appropriate for our needs.

And then with driving down costs and the things we've been focusing on and continue to do, obviously we're looking on a go-forward basis generate those sorts of returns through the cycle.

Right again.

Shifting to operational questions.

First (inaudible) Richard was saying it's in production now.

I didn't see the numbers on the guidance.

What's required for it to be running through the P&L for you guys?

I can comment.

We are going through the ramp up phase now at JS targeting the 100 million pounds production in 2017.

But as we're going through the ramp up stage this year, we didn't guide specifically on JS, David.

Anything to add, Richard?

No, and at the moment to actually get it sort of [registered], there's a couple more agreements required with our partner in Ma'aden and the local government to actually ensure that all the permits are in place to declare that production is valid.

So at the moment we're basically at the end of our sort of commissioning phase, really.

And then a couple of more sort of permitting legally agreements are in place and it will go straight to -- as you said into the --

And at the end of Q1, maybe Q2 commercial production, but we'll be clear on later.

All right.

So we may see it coming through at least in the second half of the year, but just with some uncertainty of time you've just given yourself some breathing space.

Yes.

You're on it.

Okay over to TCM, so this is one of your newer projects coming up and running, I'm wondering if you could give a little bit a commentary as to what you are seeing there?

Richard you said it's going to get up to capacity 11,000 tonnes a day by the third quarter.

I just wonder what you're seeing so far?

Is it extracting the gold to the level of recovery that you've anticipated?

And what sort of trajectory can we see it on through to full production?

David we've got Andy Cole on the line at Goldstrike.

Andy, do you want to field that please?

Yes.

Thank you, Kelvin.

David, and we'll be covering more of this on Investor Day as well.

But you know, first as with any new construction, you do see some design defects and engineering challenges.

So we've been working through that over the course of the year to eliminate some of those mechanical and design defects.

As far as overall, so that's helping us ramp up the tonnage and getting the tonnage up there.

Because it is a new technology and even though we ran lots of pilot plant work and had a pretty good understanding of the chemistry from the lab and from those pilot plant demonstrations, we are seeing some differences, you know in the full-scale commercial operation.

So we're learning some of those nuances.

So our focus right now is really understanding and optimizing.

And our expectation, as Richard mentioned earlier, is you know, we've had a pretty steady increase, we hit commercial production in the third quarter last year.

We're up to over 80% capacity by year-end.

We continue to expect that go up -- continue to go up through the second quarter of this year.

We're at full capacity this year or by the third quarter of this year.

Recovery is following a little bit.

But we expect the recoveries are down about 8% or 10% where we are predicting, had predicted, and hope to be again by the second half of this year more in line with our predicted expectations.

And my recollection of those expectations was 85% metallurgy recovery?

Is that correct?

It's really dependent upon the grade that's running through the facility.

You know, at this point in time we're running the lower grade, longer term stockpiles as I referenced earlier, and so those grades are a little bit lower.

On the material that's going through the plant right now, we predict it should be around 70% in that neighborhood.

So we're a bit lower than that.

Righty-oh.

Thanks, Andy.

Thanks David.

Jorge Beristain from Deutsche Bank.

Hi, guys.

Jorge from DB.

I guess my first question is for Shaun.

I'm not sure if I misheard you, but did you say that your corporate effective tax rate could be as high as 133% under a $1200 gold assumption, and was that for the entire corporate or just for PV?

I just wanted to clarify that.

Thanks, and Jorge, you did mishear me.

I wasn't very clear on that.

Luckily, not at $1200 -- it's going to be over $1100 an ounce, so that 50% to 55% range would be appropriate.

What we start seeing at about $1000 an ounce, as I mentioned in the presentation, is that 133% or so that you referenced.

That's a point where the -- you've got a very low-cost operation with PV at a high effective rate so it has a greater weighting, we've got losses in the other part of the portfolio.

Then you've got non-deductible expenses from Pascua-Lama and other areas that contribute to that sort of calculation.

So got it.

It's kind of a regressive tax, not a progressive tax.

I just wanted to make sure that if we do start to model spot gold we're not nipped in the bud by a higher than expected tax rate.

Smart.

The other question I had was just maybe on how you guys think about your application -- a consistent application of your metals methodology?

Obviously, the world is becoming very confusing with every gold company choosing different short- and long-term gold assumptions, and I get that you guys are being conservative at a discount to spot.

But then I look across to your copper operations where you're still holding fast at about 275 copper short-term and $3 long-term, significant premium to spot.

So could you just walk me through why you're treating copper differently than gold?

And could you sort of update us as to are we going to expect more write-downs at year end 2016 if we're still in a $2 copper world by then?

Just to be clear.

We're not using $2.75.

We're using $2.00.

If you look through our material, you should find that it does ramp up to around $3 over a five-year period.

But we're not -- we're using a similar approach which we think is appropriate, not conservative but appropriate in this environment.

I'm sorry.

I must have misread somewhere in all the footnotes.

I thought I saw around $2.75 for your reserves.

That's what I was talking about, reserves.

We'll continue to revise and to look at this.

We stress test our portfolios, we work through the 74 planning and evaluation purposes, the price (inaudible).

Okay.

I guess I will see you guys next week in New York.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

At this point, Operator, I'd like to thank everybody for joining us on the call.

I appreciate everybody's participation and we look really forward to speaking with many of you again at our Investor Day next week.

And of course updating everybody on our progress against our targets as we move through the year.

So, thank you very much again for joining the call.

This concludes today's conference call.

You may now disconnect.