Lightbridge Corp (LTBR) 2013 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Lightbridge Corporation, 2013 first-quarter business update and financial results conference call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to Gary Sharpe, head of Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.

Thank you, Shannon. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Lightbridge Corporation 2013 first-quarter business update. Our earnings news release was distributed after the market close yesterday and can be viewed on the Investor Relations webpage at the Lightbridge website at ltbridge.com.

Seth Grae, President and Chief Executive Officer, will lead today's call. In addition, the following executives are available to answer your questions -- Jim Guerra, our CFO and Chief Operating Officer; Jim Malone, the Company's Chief Nuclear Fuel Development Officer; and Andrey Mushakov, Lightbridge's Executive Vice President for International Nuclear Operations.

Before Seth begins I need to read the boilerplate. Today's presentation includes forward-looking statements about the Company's competitive position and product and service offerings. During the course of today's call, words such as expect, anticipate, believe and intend will be used in our discussion of goals or events in the future. These statements are based on our current expectations and involve certain risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ significantly from our estimates.

The risks include but are not limited to the degree of market adoption of the Company's product and service offerings, market competition, dependence on strategic partners, and the Company's ability to manage its business effectively in a rapidly evolving market. Certain of these and other risks are set forth in more detail in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Lightbridge does not assume any obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new developments or otherwise.

By now, you know you can participate in today's call two ways. First, you can submit questions for management in writing to IR at ltbridge.com. Questions will be read and answered by senior management. If you have already submitted a question, we thank you. If not, or if you have more questions, you can submit them at any time during the prepared remarks or during the Q&A period.

Next after the prepared remarks, we will open the lines for live questions. The telephone numbers and other details were distributed in the news releases that are posted on the Lightbridge Investor Relations website, IR.ltbridge.com.

Now, here is Seth Grae, President and CEO of Lightbridge.

Thank you, Gary. And good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining the conference call for our first-quarter business update.

Strategic interest is growing in Lightbridge nuclear fuel designs together with increased awareness and independent validation of our metallic fuel's significant safety and economic benefits compared to conventional uranium oxide nuclear reactor fuel.

Lightbridge technology remains well-positioned to answer the most pressing global questions facing the commercial nuclear industry as the industry works to deliver safer, more efficient, base-load, and carbon-free electric power.

Safety and pricing operating and construction costs are the two primary challenges facing the civil nuclear industry today.

Over the past four months, two independent studies, a peer-reviewed article, and analytical models were completed and published that validate the safety, proliferation resistance and economic benefit of Lightbridge's fuel designs.

Let's drill down into how Lightbridge addresses the industry's growing demand for safer nuclear fuels.

For years, the unspoken notion in the commercial nuclear business was utilities don't get paid for safety. Utilities get paid only if you keep the lights on, efficiently, affordably and on a massive scale. Of course, that belief is [faceous].

Safety is paramount at nuclear power plants. Regulators and the public demand it. Construction standards, operating procedures at inspections help ensure it.

The emphasis on safety became more profound on March 11 when an earthquake sent the tsunami crashing into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. In the time since this tragedy, we have learned that human error as well as the natural disaster contributed to the destruction of four of the plant's six reactors. It is why we believe by industry investigators that the Fukushima reactors could have remained in a safely shutdown state if the backup electoral systems had not been inundated by flood waters.

As a result, coolant water turned into steam that was subsequently vented out of the reactors via valves to prevent major damage to reactor pressure vessels. This led to water levels dropping, resulting in uncovering the conventional uranium oxide fuel rods which operate at about 1,300 degrees Celsius under normal conditions.

Due to the loss of normal cooling water, the zirconium cladding temperature quickly began to rise approaching the temperature fuel pellets enclosed inside that cladding. Once the zirconium cladding temperature exceeded 850 to 900 degrees Celsius, steam began to react with that zirconium in the cladding, creating hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas could not be vented quickly enough, the gas exploded, destroying four of the Fukushima reactor buildings.

Although any safety procedures were followed at Fukushima, operators did not heed earlier advice to locate backup generators and other sources of emergency power at higher elevations in addition to the generators located in the floodplain of a potential tsunami.

Post-Fukushima, regulation and construction standards have been and will continue to be revised to include even more safeguards. Where applicable, seawalls are being built and extra thought is given to location for backup generators and other sources of emergency power. Today, the new understanding is nothing is more expensive than a lack of safety.

Safety is an important differentiator for Lightbridge as we progress toward demonstration and commercialization of our metallic fuel designs. Lightbridge is and will be involved in the ongoing discussion of affordable nuclear power plant safety measures. Here's why.

Due to its patented design and composition, Lightbridge's metallic fuel operates at approximately 1,000 degrees Celsius cooler than conventional uranium oxide fuels. In the event of what our industry called a large break loss-of-coolant accident, or LOCA, where fuel rods began to uncover quickly, our fuel remained at least 200 degrees Celsius below the temperature at which steam begins to react with zirconium to generate hydrogen gas and an explosion risk.

We recently presented data from analytical modeling of our fuel in a large break loss-of-coolant accident, LOCA, to the Lightbridge Nuclear Utility Fuel Advisory Board. The group is comprised of the top nuclear fuel managers at four of the largest US nuclear utilities -- Exelon, Duke, Dominion, and Southern. Together, these four utilities generate nearly 50% of all US nuclear electricity. In short, these fuel managers are enthusiastic about the safety features of our metallic fuel design. They have told us that Lightbridge fuel could help moderate the expense of post-Fukushima safety requirements that are driving up nuclear power plant operating and construction costs.

These fuel managers remain keenly interested in the additional tests that are planned to confirm our preliminary analysis as well as Lightbridge's progress towards commercialization.

This is just one of the many facets of the safety features that Lightbridge metallic fuel rods can provide nuclear utilities. Lightbridge fuel is safer by design.

During the first quarter, Siemens industry Inc. announced the findings of its independent analysis of Lightbridge fuels proliferation resistance. A summary of these findings is posted in the Investor Relations page of the Lightbridge website.

In short, Siemens said that Lightbridge fuel is classified as low in rich uranium and is unsuitable for processing for nuclear weapon construction. In fact, the analysis says, quote, it would actually be more efficient and stealthy for a diverter to process natural uranium, raw ore to the enriched -- to the highly enriched state, unquote, as opposed to processing our fuel for weapons use.

The economic benefits of Lightbridge fuel technology were also validated recently. In December, a separate study by Siemens Industry, Inc. showed that our metallic fuel for a 10% power up rate and a 24-month cycle in existing pressurized water reactors can deliver highly attractive returns on invested capital to nuclear utilities, even with conservative assumptions on reactor conversion and regulatory licensing costs.

In addition, a peer-reviewed article on the Company's fuel technology was published by the American Nuclear Society in December and the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nuclear Technology. The article highlights how our fuel is capable of increasing the power output and extending the cycle lengths of current generation light water reactors. The paper also reviews the unique geometry and composition of our metallic fuel and its application to power up rates in light water reactors. Submitted in 2011, the paper was subject to rigorous review by the top technical experts as the peer reviewers. You can find both Siemens studies and links to the peer-reviewed article on the Lightbridge Investor Relations website.

Now, let's talk briefly about Lightbridge's advisory services business segment. We offer comprehensive advisory services to governmental entities in countries that want to establish safe, secure, cost-effective nuclear energy programs. Since 2008, Lightbridge advisory services have generated more than $45 million in high-margin revenue. As we disclosed earlier, Lightbridge's consulting contract with a nuclear regulatory authority in the United Arab Emirates was renewed in 2012 and extended to the end of 2014.

The success of Lightbridge's advisory services division is, perhaps, one of the Company's best calling cards. Beginning in 2008, our experts structured a program for entities within the United Arab Emirates. Using the Lightbridge roadmap, construction of a $40 billion four-reactor project is underway in the United Arab Emirates and remains on time and on budget.

We have submitted consulting proposals in other countries in 2012 and so far in 2013. Many of these consulting proposals contained -- in many of these consulting proposals, Lightbridge's teams with large and engineering and construction companies. Lightbridge adds value as a highly regarded expert resource for nuclear reactor site selection, procurement, and deployment, reactor and fuel technology and international relations and regulatory affairs. We believe the Company is well positioned to earn more of this type of long-term, high-margin business.

However, bidding processes for these complex multimillion dollar contracts are long and differ in every country. We are in active discussions with government representatives on these proposals and we expect responses beginning in the second half of 2013.

Now let's move on to the Company's financial performance.

Our financial results were summarized in the news release that was distributed after the market closed yesterday. In addition, our Form 10-Q was filed with the SEC last night. Results for the quarter also are posted on the Lightbridge website. I won't recite all of the details now except to report that at March 31, 2013, Lightbridge had $3.2 million in cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and marketable securities. Working capital totaled $4 million with no long-term debt. The Company has never incurred long-term debt in its history.

We have disclosed previously that we expect to seek new financing or additional sources of capital in the next six months to support the ongoing R&D activities required to continue to advance Lightbridge fuel products to a commercial stage.

There are three primary potential sources of cash available to us.

First, equity investments by institutional investors. To facilitate that option, Lightbridge recently filed Form S-3 with the SEC to update our shelf registration documents. We regard a shelf as one of the benefits of being listed on the NASDAQ exchange. And it is a good cost-effective way to ensure the Company's financial flexibility.

We would carefully consider the dilutive effect of a potential equity raise as compared to the enhanced balance sheet strength and liquidity needed to support our ongoing R&D activities.

Second. Strategic investment or fuel development cost-sharing through alliances with major nuclear fuel vendors, fuel fabricators and/or other strategic parties. We began discussions in 2012 with potential partners relating to US-based nuclear fuel fabrication which, we believe, could streamline production of Lightbridge fuel and enhance access to a major segment of the fuel's addressable market. We expect these discussions to be completed later this year.

And three. Thirdly, is the new consulting contract. As I mentioned earlier, Lightbridge submitted advisory proposals for services in several countries, mostly in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, where there are plans to create or expand electricity generation using nuclear power plants. Responses are expected beginning in the second half of 2013.

Now, let's open the call to your questions. Remember in addition to asking life questions by telephone, you can also submit questions in writing now to IR at ltbridge.com. Gary Sharpe who is in charge of our Investor Relations has collected questions and let me turn you over to Gary and also to you, Shannon.

Thanks, Seth. While we wait for the Q&A lineup to form, let me start with one of the questions that has come in via the Internet.

Independent analysis continues to prove the value in Lightbridge patents and technology. Lightbridge intellectual property cannot be replicated and one would assume is worth far in excess of the roughly -- the Company's $20 million market cap. With the need to raise $3 million to $4 million to fund R&D, is there any plan to monetize current intellectual property in the near future?

Right. The independent analyses have been validating the value of the Company's IP and we expect that to continue going forward as there is more analysis. I agree that the intellectual property is the sole property of Lightbridge. It is solely our value, our patents, in a sense, our legal monopolies. And I do think their value will prove to be much greater than the $20 million market cap of the Company.

The way we are going to be monetizing the IP in the longer run is through the licensing of the IP, the fuel fabricators that will be making fuel and selling it to utilities and each time utilities buy fuel, there will be a royalty paid to Lightbridge. And every year, as each utility around the world is buying fuel for reactors, that will be recurring income to Lightbridge.

In the nearer term, we intend to monetize the IP through the strategic relationships that we discussed a few minutes ago where we are working with major companies, including nuclear fuel fabricators, on strategic alliances that could bring cash into Lightbridge and we are expecting some of those to be completed later this year.

Now, Operator Shannon, if you would please remind our listeners about the process for asking live questions.

(Operator Instructions).

While we're waiting, Shannon, for more questions, let's go back to the email-written questions.

Revenues declined each quarter and is down about 40% since the first quarter of last year due to slowing consulting revenue. You have mentioned that you would have better visibility around the June timeframe on more consulting contracts. Can you provide guidance on your expectations around the size and timeframe for new government consulting contracts?

Yes. The revenues were more solid on the consulting until Fukushima and have fallen since as countries that were planning to start nuclear power have taken a pause. But as I have said before they're -- they are now just about all returning and some others that weren't even looking at nuclear power before Fukushima, which is why we do expect during the second half of this year to have the proposals we have been in making other countries to start having some answers and some results.

It is out of our hands whether we will have any new information in the June timeframe. There is a potential contract that the customer has indicated they would let us know in around that timeframe, but it is really up to them and these things often slip. It could be a little later.

So, I can't say exactly when the dates will be other than I will say more broadly the second half of the year.

I do think that as Fukushima is receiving into the past and countries are once again taking very serious looks at starting nuclear power programs, that you will see new consulting agreements for Lightbridge. I will also mention that it hasn't only been declining revenues. We also had, as I said, our contract to the regulator in the UAE renewed and actually extended.

This is Jim Guerra. I would point out that for the first quarter we had an administrative delay in getting projects approved. So that was, I would say, a one-time issue. And then once we got the projects approved we were able to go ahead and execute. But sometimes there are administrative delays in just getting these things through the pipeline and getting the proper signatures on these tasks.

Yes, and administrative delays are government approvals, including very high level approvals to do certain work in certain countries, both in the US side and from the other country side. So as Jim said, there is some work that has now been approved, but you will see the results of it in future reporting.

Next question from the Internet. I am wondering if Lightbridge technology can be applied to help take care of leaking radioactive waste in and around Hanford?

No. It is a very good question and very relevant, but the short answer is no, that the fuel at Hanford is mostly from the nuclear weapons complex. It is not from nuclear fuel rods. And what those materials are and what they are stored in is very different from nuclear fuel. Now nuclear fuel rods are stored in what is called dry cask storage after they are removed from the fuel pools at reactors. And the spin fuel pools at reactors. And for example, at Fukushima, the fuel in the dry cask storage was not damaged. The dry cask storage concrete cast themselves, some of them moved between about 1 and 3 inches, but that's it. There was no other damage or anything that suffered from that. And we do not intend to go into the line of business of looking to deal with nuclear wastes that have nothing to do with nuclear fuel.

On the nuclear fuel side, for where reprocessing occurs, our fuels can be used to dispose of plutonium and perhaps other waste that come out of their reactor. But this is also very relevant to some other benefits of the fuel that we haven't talked about much, but we are studying and getting results on, which include what is called the improved mechanical integrity of our fuel and the reduced consequences of fuel rod failure.

So if for any reason there is a fuel rod failure in a reactor, that can be a radioactive release when these fuel rods crack and gas comes out of the fuel. But when you have a solid extruded metal fuel like ours, that is really not as much of a problem at all. And as you have this ceramic fuel, this uranium oxide fuel in conventional zirconium cladding tubes, the mechanical integrity of that can degrade over time. It becomes brittle as you have to have to move it, transport, be it to a reprocessing facility or you have the mountain type facility over time can result in damage to the fuel. And again, the improved mechanical integrity of our fuel will be better on the back end of the fuel cycle plus our fuel will generate less waste per unit of electricity generated and less toxic waste and less proliferative waste.

But unfortunately for people at Hanford, we are not going to help them with those kinds of tasks and those kinds of tanks and the kinds of waste in those tanks.

All right. Another written question. What is your preferred way to raise capital for R&D expenses?

Yes. The two preferred ways are first of all the revenue from growing our existing consulting contract and landing new consulting contracts in new countries that we will be advising. And secondly, and just as importantly if not more importantly, the strategic commercial arrangements we are seeking to enter into during the second half of the year with major companies in the nuclear power industry, including nuclear fuel fabricators and other significant players in the industry.

The third choice, which I listed first when I was giving my talk a few minutes ago, was an equity raise with equity investors which, because we have a shelf filed and that has now been declared active by the SEC, and we have the ability to do that too. But that would be our third choice out of those three.

Another question from the Internet. Can you provide an update on the Nuclear Utility Fuel Advisory Board that was created with large US utilities? Would any members of the Fuel Board be interested in taking a minority stake in Lightbridge to help fund future R&D?

The Nuclear Utility Fuel Advisory Board consists of the top nuclear fuel managers at four of the largest utilities in the country -- Exelon, Duke, Dominion, and Southern Company. They are very helpful to us in the analysis of the fuel and the commercialization of the fuel.

The way our business model works, we will be licensing technology to fuel fabricating companies that will then make fuel and sell it to utilities such as those that are on the Nuclear Utility Fuel Advisory Board.

Whether there could be an investment stake by utilities is a separate thing that we have not sought including for potential conflict of interest and other reasons that it just would not be appropriate at this time. And it is not their business. They are not really -- they are in the business of running reactors and other types of power plants and selling electricity, and they tend to be highly regulated by state boards in what they do.

So, that is not something I would look for in the immediate timeframe. But there are other major players in the nuclear industry we are talking to, not so much necessarily about an equity investment in Lightbridge, although that potentially could be. Could be part of a transaction, but much more strategic in the value that we bring to their business with a more efficient, more profitable nuclear operation that is safer using our fuel.

That segues into another written question. Have you made any headway in a possible cost-sharing with a JV entity, a joint venture?

Joint venture structures are part of what we are discussing with some strategic players. And we have made progress towards that.

Okay, Operator Shannon, could you please remind our listeners about the process for asking live questions?

(Operator Instructions). Tom DeHudy, Brandywine GLOBAL.

Given the growing evidence that you have that the fuel that Lightbridge is developing is considerably safer both from an operational standpoint and as pointed out by the Siemens study from a proliferation standpoint, are you making any progress with reactor designers in terms of getting Lightbridge's fuel designed into newer reactor designs, so that immediately as these new reactors would come online Lightbridge's fuel would go directly in?

Yes. And just to clarify this a bit, when we talk about new reactors, we mean new built reactors of a current type. Particularly, pressurized water reactors. And we are also talking with people who are involved in what are called SMRs, small and modular reactors, that are pressurized water reactors that are smaller.

We are not talking about new reactors like future concepts, like fusion and fast reactors and things like that. But for new pressurized water reactors, light water reactors as they are also called, yes.

We are working with the utilities that deploy reactors both here and in other countries. And we are working with the companies that design and supply the nuclear steam supply systems for the nuclear islands for their reactors and while our focus is on the 10% power upgrade version of the fuel for the existing reactors as the nearest term market. And then, the 17% power upgrade also for existing reactors perhaps following on the 10% power up rate in the same plan.

The fuel for the new reactors is a 30% power up rate. And one of the advantages for places that were looking to build, say, a four-unit reactor where they would have four reactors at one power plant, you could build three and get about the same power. And that is a significant advantage and has advantages throughout the supply chain as well. So the short answer is yes, we are actively in those discussions.

Just to elaborate on that, given that there is an enormous amount of investment going on in building such reactor complexes in China, in India, in other countries, wouldn't there be some fairly significant interest on their part if they could build three reactors rather than four? Or four reactors rather than six?

A small number of companies, including some of the large -- well, I think, including all of the largest companies in nuclear in the US, but including some small companies as well, have been selected and invited by the United States government to go on the first official US government-led nuclear trade mission to China next week. I will be on that as an invited participant for Lightbridge to discuss our nuclear fuel designs with Chinese authorities and companies.

The trade mission will also go to Vietnam where it will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Vietnam to give you an idea of the level of who we will be talking to in these countries.

Senior officials traveling on this trade mission come from the White House, the State Department, the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce which organized and is leading the mission. We were here at Lightbridge on a conference call with some people, senior people in China this morning, separate from the trade mission. And I will also be back in China again next month. So when we talk about some places where we are in some of the active discussions we've talked about on this call, some of that is in China.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions).

Operator, while we are waiting let's go to another written question. Can you provide an update on the part 810 or 123 agreement negotiations?

Yes. We've received every export license, every approval we have ever sought in the history of the Company. We have never been denied one.

The active one that we have right now that we are seeking approval of relates to the work in Russia for the fabrication in Russia of the nuclear fuel for the samples that will be put into the Dimitrovgrad reactor to test our fuel and the advanced test reactor here in the United States in Idaho. That has been approved by the United States Department of Energy on all their internal processes and it has been approved in Russia in their processes except one, which is the nonproliferation assurances that come from the Russian government into the US government which the Russian government finalizes upon final signings of the contract. And we are in those active processes in rushing out to finalize those contracts which we believe will then trigger the 810. As many of you know Dr. Ernest Moniz is about to become the new Secretary of Energy. There are very few 810 export licenses issued by the Department of Energy in any given year. It is only about six.

So it is not something done lightly and by law they have to be personally hand signed by the Secretary of Energy. We expect to have a new Secretary of Energy next week and we expect to finalize these matters in Russia soon and to have that 810 issued.

The 123 agreements refers to something different. 810 is part -- 810 -- of the Department of Energy regulations which deals with nuclear export controls. 123 refers to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended. And under part 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, there can be nuclear cooperation agreements between the United States and other countries that have to meet certain criteria, including nonproliferation assurances. United States has 123 agreements with many countries that allow US nuclear trade with those countries. The one with South Korea will expire next year. The countries have agreed to extend that one for two years while they negotiate the terms of a new one which is hung up over whether the US will give advance consent to enrichment and reprocessing to South Korea. There's active 123 negotiations with Saudi Arabia. The one with Taiwan will be renewed soon. There are others coming along, including with Jordan. We are involved in some ways in some of these discussions, including on the Saudi 123 agreement and the South Korea 123 agreement.

We think the US government getting those done would open opportunities for many US companies throughout the supply chain to reactors being fueled and serviced and constructed in those countries, including Lightbridge.

Another question via email. Could Lightbridge Advisory Services participate in any way in the work being done between Areva and Mitsubishi on a new nuclear power plant in Turkey on the Black Sea or in the Japan UAE agreement to transfer nuclear materials and technology?

Turkey is going to deploy reactors on two sites. Down on the Mediterranean there will be Russian-deployed reactors that will start construction soon on two of them. What are called VVER 1200 type reactors which could use our fuel. And secondly now the new agreement up on the Black Sea where Turkey will deploy to Mitsubishi from Japan and Areva from France designed or to call the [Atnea 1] reactors which are approximately 1,100 megawatt pressurized water reactors and these are the first orders for Atnea 1 pressurized water reactor.

Our fuel could be used in those reactors. The question relates to advisory services. Yes we could provide advisory services in Turkey relating both to Neo 1 type reactors and to VVER type reactors. And we are in some discussions in Turkey about those matters relating to UAE and Japan cooperation.

The UAE has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with just about every responsible country in the world that is a supplier of nuclear. And we are obviously very involved in the UAE and have been from the very beginning, including in some of these issues. Including we had some roles in discussions relating to the 123 agreement for nuclear cooperation between the US and the UAE.

And so, the fact that they have signed a cooperation agreement with Japan and that they are dealing with fuel cycle-related activities with Japan is similar to what they are doing with the United States and with many other countries.

So, for example, conversion is a step in the nuclear fuel cycle where uranium is made into hexafluoride gas that can be enriched and then the enriched uranium is made into pellets for the fuel. And Converdine in the United States now has a contract in the UAE for doing conversion work.

Similarly there are contracts around the world with many countries around the world relating to uranium mining, uranium ore, conversion of that uranium, enrichment of that uranium, fabrication of that enriched uranium into fuel, sale of that fuel into the UAE for their program, services relating to the assurance of the quality of the fuel, et cetera.

So this is not something only between the UAE and Japan. It is between the UAE and many countries and many steps of the fuel cycle as it is pretty much between a lot of countries and [multiple] supply chains around the world.

So we do work at ENEC, which is the energy, the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation which is deploying the reactors in the UAE. And some of that work sometimes does touch on fuel-related work where we do advise them.

I am showing no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the conference back over to Seth Grae for closing remarks.

I want to check whether there are any last questions over the Internet, Gary.

I see nothing new.

Okay. Well, thank you, everybody, for joining us for this first-quarter conference call. We have been happy to elaborate on Lightbridge's operations. As I said before, momentum is building throughout the global nuclear power market and Lightbridge is well-positioned to serve this growth with the next generation fuel designs and expert advisory services. The evidence is irrefutable.

I also want to remind you that our professional and personal interests are closely aligned with yours as Lightbridge investors. We are working every day to advance Lightbridge strategies for success and to enhance shareholder value. Thank you for continuing confidence and support in these efforts. We look forward to speaking with you on the second-quarter business call. Please be in touch with us at IR at light -- ltbridge between now and then and thank you very much. Good day.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. Thanks for your participation and have a wonderful day.