PDF Solutions Inc (PDFS) 2010 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the PDF Solutions, Inc. conference call to discuss its financial results for the second fiscal quarter ended Wednesday, June 30, 2010. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session, for which instructions will be given at that time. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. If you have not yet received a copy of the corresponding press releases, they have been posted to PDF's website at www.pdf.com. Some of the statements that will be made in the course of this conference are forward-looking, including statements regarding PDF's future financial results and performance, growth rates, and demand for its solutions. PDF's actual results could differ materially. You should refer to the section entitled Risk Factors on pages 12 through 22 of PDF's annual report on form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, and similar disclosures in subsequent SEC filings. The forward-looking statements and risks stated in this conference call are based on information available to PDF to date. PDF assumes no obligation to update them. Now, I'd like to introduce John Kibarian, PDF's President and Chief Executive Officer and Joy Leo, PDF's Chief Administration Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Kibarian, please go ahead.

Thank you and welcome everyone. I will begin this call with a summary of our results for the second quarter, then I will end my prepared comments with our perspective on the environment and its impact on PDF Solutions. In the second quarter of 2010, we achieved revenues of $15.4 million and a non-GAAP profit of $0.08 per share. Our fourth consecutive quarter of non-GAAP profit. We swung from a GAAP loss of $0.01 per share in Q1 2010 to a profit of $0.01 per share in Q2. Business activity continued to gain momentum, and in Q2, we successfully closed the following contracts. An LOA for a 28 nanometer yield ramp with an existing account put in a facility previously not covered under contract with PDF Solutions, a yield ramp engagement for a 55 nanometer process on an existing account in a facility previously using PDF Solutions and an extension to multi-note engagement for yield ramps and process control.

The business activity this past quarter demonstrates that accounts are using PDF Solutions technology across more nodes, more facilities and longer cost of process life cycle. As we stated at the beginning of the year, a key goal was to increase the number of leading edge logic fabs using our technology. The business activity this past quarter was a significant step in that direction. While gain shares is up over the same period a year ago, it was down over the previous quarter. This is because revenue decreased, due to the end of contract that was partially offset by increase gain share revenues we received under the contract of clients shipping higher volumes. We expect this trend to continue into the third quarter, but reversed in fourth quarter of the year as new contracts enter gain share period and begin to contribute revenues.

The second quarter of 2009 represented a low point for the industry and for PDF Solutions. Now, one year later, I would like to reflect on our performance since that low point. First, by the second quarter of 2009, we saw the majority of the benefits of our cost saving activities. As the chip industry and our business have recovered, our lower cost structure has demonstrated benefits. A sequential increase in design to silicone yield revenue, coupled with continued improvements we made in our cost structure, have resulted in five consecutive quarters that improved GAAP and non-GAAP results. Second, the industry's use of logic manufacturing has shifted. The leading edge investment has moved from IBMs, who have smaller fabs, primarily located in the US and Japan, to larger foundry manufacturers located primarily in Asia.

As Joy will point out in her remarks, our revenue contributions have followed the industry to these geographies. My earlier comments about gain share reflect, in part, the transition to larger fabs contributing to our gain share, where historically, smaller fabs were the majority contributor. This is an important transition for us because the fabs contributing gain share to PDF Solutions today and in the future represent far larger revenue opportunities than the smaller fabs of the past. Yet the costs we incur are relatively similar for large or smaller fabs.

Finally, while we focused on cost controls and our clients results, we also continued to invest in R&D to make our solutions valuable both to the leading edge nodes and across the entire process lifecycle. In the first half of this year, we find our first contract at 20 nanometer and have most recently entered into an LOA at 28 nanometer, demonstrating PDF Solutions' continued ability to deliver value at the leading edge. Moreover, our 55 nanometer contract, as well as our yield ware FDC and DFM contracts demonstrate we are extending the value we deliver to our clients later in the life of a node. This additional use of our technology will result in increasing the length of time each client contributes to gain share.

In summary, since the low point of the industry in Q2 2009, we have lowered our cost structure, followed the revenue to larger fabs in Asia, made smart investments in R&D and moved PDF Solutions to be an important partner to logic chip manufacturers. In the second half of the year, we expect to build on these successes with logic manufacturers and their design partners. Moreover, while we expect the vast majority of our revenue will continue to come from our strength in logic, we are also working to demonstrate technical value in the adjacent markets. As a final comment, while we feel very confident about our business activity these days and our results will continue to benefit from the changes made in the past to our cost structure, we will continue to refrain from providing specific quarterly guidance.

Thank you for your time and attention. Now I'll turn the call over to Joy, who will discuss, in detail, our financial results for this quarter. Joy?

Thank you, John, and welcome everyone. As a reminder, in addition to using GAAP results in evaluating PDF's business, we believe it's also useful to consider our results using non-GAAP measures. Non-GAAP excludes stock-based compensation expense, amortization-acquired technology and intangible assets, restructuring charges and their related tax effects, as applicable. You can access the press release that contains the reconciliation of non-GAAP to GAAP results in the investor sections of our website located at pdf.com. As John just reported, the summary results for the quarter are that PDF achieved total revenues of $15.4 million in the second quarter. On a GAAP basis, net profit was $0.3 million, or $0.01 per share, up from a net loss per share of $0.01 in the prior quarter.

On a non-GAAP basis, net income was $2.2 million or $0.08 per basic and diluted share, up from a net income of $1.7 million or $0.06 per share. The slight trend up in total revenues reflect sequential growth of 1% over Q1 revenues of $15.3 million and maintains a strong year-over-year growth of 60% over Q2 '09 revenues of $9.6 million. Within revenues, design-to-silicon-yield solutions contributed 70%, and gain share contributed 30% for the reported quarter, compared to 68% and 32%, respectively, in the prior quarter.

Let me offer some details. Design-to-silicone-yield solutions revenues in Q2 were $10.8 million, up approximately 4% from Q1 2010, and 48% compared to 2009. This is due to our strong client base which has helped maintain our quarter-to-quarter revenues growth. During the quarter, we signed one new engagement for a 55 nanometer yield ramp, and one new letter of agreement for a 28 nanometer process. In addition, we extended an existing multi-node, yield ramp and YA-FDC engagement. Gain share performance incentive revenues in the Q2 were $4.5 million, down 6% from the previous quarter, primarily due to contractual end of gain share revenue on an older engagement. Compared to the same period last year, gain shared doubled, which we attribute primarily to improved inventory demands.

A snapshot look at total revenues for the reported quarter by region reveals Asia contributed 73%, North America contributed 17% and Europe continued at 10%. During the quarter, ten service engagements from seven clients each contributed at least $150,000 to revenues. This represents a net decrease of two engagements and one client from the prior quarter. Gain share revenues were generated from six engagements and five different clients, which is the same number of contracts and one less client the compared to the prior quarter. The top ten clients represented 91% of our revenues in the quarter. The number of clients contributing to revenues greater than 10% for the quarter was four, up one from last quarter, up two from the same period last year.

Gross margin was 59% for the quarter, up 3% sequentially. Gross margin included $439,000 of stock-based compensation expense and $360,000 of amortization of acquired technology. This compares to Q1 2010 gross margin of 56.2%, of slightly lower revenues of $15.3 million. Note, non-GAAP gross margin was 64.2% for the quarter, up 2% sequentially. Operating expenses as a percentage of revenue increased slightly. Total GAAP operating expenses for the second quarter was $8.9 million, or 57.8% of total revenues, up by 1.2% as compared to Q1 2010. Operating expenses included approximately $1.1 million of other charges as follows; $1 million of stock-based compensation expense compared to $0.9 million in the first quarter 2010, acquisition-related amortization expenses of $0.1 million, flat from last quarter. R&D was at 28.2%, up compared to prior quarter.

Research and development expenses for the reported quarter were $4.3 million and included $0.3 million of stock-based compensation expense. Higher expenses for the quarter were driven by higher outside sub-contractor development expense and the shift of some R&D resources back to development projects. SG&A expenses decreased from 30% of revenue last quarter to 29.3% of revenue this quarter. Selling, general and administrative expenses were $4.5 million and included $0.7 million of stock-based compensation expense. The net of interest income, interest expense and other income and expense in Q2 was $0.4 million, compared to $0.3 million in the prior quarter. This delta was primarily driven by a gain on foreign currency exchange.

We recorded tax expense of $0.3 million in the reported quarter, as compared to a tax expense of $0.5 million in the first quarter 2010. The income tax expense primarily consists of foreign withholding taxes, minimal foreign tax expense on earnings generated from foreign operations and local statutory withholding taxes. On a GAAP basis, we reported a net income of $0.3 million or $0.01 per share on 27.1 million basic shares and 27.4 million diluted shares. This includes $1.5 million or $0.05 per share related of stock-based compensation expense under FAS-123(R), and $0.4 million or $0.02 per share in connection with amortization of acquired technology and intangibles. The net income for the quarter was $0.3 million or $0.01 per basic and diluted share on a GAAP basis versus a net loss of $0.3 million or $0.01 per basic and diluted share in the previous quarter, and a net loss of $6.6 million or $0.25 per basic and diluted share a year ago. Excluding the above item, the non-GAAP income was $2.2 million or $0.08 per basic and diluted share.

Now, turning to the balance sheet, at the end of the second quarter, our total cash plus marketable securities and long-term cash investments stood at $32.8 million, down from the prior quarter due to a large customer payment received just after the end of the reported quarter. Net AR increased to $23.4 million from $19 million at the end of Q1. Collectibility of our receivables remains current and healthy.

Head count at the end of Q2 was 306 worldwide compared to 302 at the end of prior quarter. This represents a 1% increase from the end of Q1 2010 when head count was 302. Annualized revenues per head were $200,000 were down slightly, 1% as compared to previous quarter, but were 75% higher than a year ago, reflecting improvements to processes and continued productivity made over the year. This completes the summary of our second quarter results. As mentioned earlier by John, we're not providing guidance at this time. We intend to provide guidance when our revenues are well above our cost and expense levels, and the potential earnings impact of any contracts in negotiation is minimized. In closing, we are committed to growing our top line and leveraging our lower cost structure to deliver positive financial results.

Thank you, and now I'll turn the call over to the operator for for Q&A.

Thank you, Ms. Leo. (Operator Instructions) Your first question is from the line of Tom Diffely with D.A. Davidson.

Yes. Good afternoon. A couple things here. First one, is there any natural seasonality in your business?

In terms of signing up engagements, not really Tom. Gain shares sometime does take seasonality, depending on the customers. This year's been, ever since really Q2, 2009 has been kind of an unusual experience in terms of just the trend on gain share. Normally it peaks up as you get towards the Christmas season and then rolls off a little bit in the early part of the year and then picks back up as you go through the year. This year, 2009, it didn't really do that.

Yes. Okay. And when you talked about a continuing downward pressure on the gain share, are you thinking in the same relative ballpark as you saw the drop in the first and second quarter?

Yes. Tom, we're not really going to give a specific number. But we do expect it to go down in Q3. We do expect that to be a blip. I garbled the words there, and we expect it to go back up in Q4 and then continue as some newer, larger facilities really start contributing more significantly.

Okay. And bigger picture, the fact that the number of clients is going down, it sounds like these clients are bigger clients now, so it doesn't necessarily impact or wouldn't drag down your design-to-silicone-yield portion of the model?

Yes. I think Joy talked about the number of 10% customers going up. And the top ten customers representing something like 90% of the revenue. In my prepared comments, I mentioned that for us, delivering a yield ramp to a small fab or a big fab, the costs are relatively similar. There are some incremental costs, because they usually have more flavors in the node. But the revenue opportunity at that facility, given the volumes they produce, tend to be much higher. So, you're seeing in general, in the industry, a concentration in the small number of manufacturers that offer a very large opportunity for us.

Okay. And when you look at the opportunity in a new facility versus a existing facility, do you get engaged sooner in one or the other? Or is one a larger opportunity overall? Greenfield versus a ramp in an ongoing facility?

The nice thing about greenfield facilities, if you're engaged in the first node they put in, you've got a much larger opportunity. When you look at the times that we've, let's say engaged at 65 at a facility that was already running material, it takes an awful long time for that 65 to be a large portion of the volume, because typically the previous node's got a relatively long life on it. So, greenfield's ramp up faster generally about -- have the potential to ramp up faster in terms of the gain share contribution than a new node in an existing facility.

Okay.

By the way, that depends a lot on the environment. If you look at some of the fabs that were built in the 2003 and 2004 timeframe, the time that they actually got to full capacity was quite long. In this environment recently, folks are at least putting out schedules that get them to full potential capacity very rapidly. So, my comments would really apply in that case.

Okay. So, if a fab is planning on ramping up, say the tool gets installed and it starts producing a year from now. At what point do you become involved?

Let's say if they've got tools in, let's say January and they're starting to run wafers, let's say by April, somewhere between the January and April timeframe, they're going to start buying CDs.

Okay.

But our characterization vehicles are test vehicles, typically.

Is that typically a couple quarters then before official output?

Yes, sometimes folks put out really crazy schedules that you scratch your head and wonder if they really can live with. We tend to be a little bit skeptical about when they give us numbers. And mostly, we're a quarter in arrears anyway.

Yes.

So, we'll model it probably slower than they'll model it.

Okay. So, going back to that arrears, if, in general, the industry has a slow down in the first quarter, would you typically see that gain share in your second quarter then?

It could be. It depends on manufacturing quarter. We've talked about this before. Our manufacturing quarters don't all line on fiscal quarters.

Right. Yes.

It gets a little bit blurry. It's almost like you had a picture that you fuzzed up a little bit.

Okay. But, in general, you'd expect, in normal times, the first half of the year to be a little softer than the second half?

Normal times, yes.

Yes. Okay. And then, finally, is there some way you can characterize the relative opportunity as you go down the nodes from 45 to 32 to 28 to 22?

Yes. 22 or 20, whatever you want to call it. I think there's two things going one. We're trying to get a handle on what our intrinsic share is on each of the nodes. And it's hard for us to do that because they have a lengthened out, in terms of when they become meaningful, when each node becomes meaningful. And, to some extent, it's hard to understand exactly what the volumes are at some of the facilities in each of the nodes. But, in general, what we're seeing is because of the concentration of the manufacturing, a number of those companies being our clients. I think we are getting to a situation where our share qualitatively is going up. It's very hard for us to actually -- I think folks thing we don't share that with investors because we see it as proprietary. I think we don't share that because we don't really know that we believe in that. It's very hard for us to have a good feeling for that. Qualitatively, we think when we look at those names that we know we're engaged with, we think our shares, in general, are going up.

Okay. And then, over the next few years, could you see a situation where the gain share actually becomes half of your business?

Certainly, it would be our intention.

Okay. That's it for now. Thank you.

Your next question is from the line of Kakkean Rajkumar with RBC Capital Markets.

Hi, guys.

Hi, Kakkean.

Hi, John. So, could you talk a little bit more as to what is the incremental opportunity from the foundry space, when these guys consolidate. In terms of both the upside opportunity for revenues as we fall through to margin dollars because of the lower costs of revenues for the larger outfits?

I think that's a good question. If you look, there's, I think, two things going on. First of all, if you go back to our customers, for our integrated device manufacturing customers, they bought PDF mostly to lower their cost of manufacturing and a hedge on bringing up of a new node. If you go all the way back to our first engagement with Charter. Charter Semiconductor was the first customer we ever had that actually put on their website that they used PDF to bring up their nodes. And in fact, I think we were the only yield management solution that they had on their website if you went to manufacturing on the old website. For us, that really says that the customer on the contract manufacturing does use PDF as a way of marketing to their customers and we've seen this with our customers that go out and offer capacity to others. Invariably, we will see them make reference to using us on a node. And that really -- Charter is not the only one that does that. They're the only one on the website, but we know of others that have and have seen the presentations when we've gone to talk to fab less accounts.

At the core, we're more valuable to a contract manufacturer because we're about their marketing. The second point that you bring up, which is the point I made in my comments, the opportunity on the manufacturing side tends to be quite a bit larger as well and less replacement. In some of our Japanese accounts over the years, when they would ramp up the next node, it would come at the expense of the production of the previous node. So, the gain shares were mostly replaced. What we're seeing with some of our newer accounts, if you look at this past quarter we said well this 28 nanometer LOA was with an existing customer but a new facility, this is what we're starting to see. In a couple of our larger accounts, they're contacting us and using us in the next facility, yet gain share and opportunity in the previous facility and the older node remains, and that gets us more of an additive opportunity than we've had in the past.

Got you. I suppose that is because the older nodes at the larger foundries are not being replaced, they're simply taking on additional capacity.

On the new nodes. Exactly. And we never experienced that before our integrated device manufacturers. It was always replacements.

How does one go about putting in a model ball park on that statement which you just said? How does it work?

Kakkean, certainly, it's for us a very big question. We are experiencing this in realtime and we're trying to get a handle on it. This past quarter was the first time we had that happen with one of our larger customers. They said, okay, now we have a new facility and here's what we want to do in this facility. And that's what the LOA was. We have another customer that we've had those kinds of conversations with, but nothing is signed yet. So we're starting to see this happen. As we get through this year, and that was, I think, in my prepared comments, we believe we will be able to know exactly roughly how many facilities we now have on these larger facilities we now have under gain shares in comparison to the past. Maybe we'll be able to figure out how to quantify that or represent that to the investment community. I think we're closer than we were let's say, three months ago, but we're still not there yet. And probably we'd like to sign up some of these things like we did this -- we started to this past quarter .

What you said of that that the gain share in the dollar terms and as a percentage of your total revenue finally will be -- would start growing as opposed to staying largely flattish.

That's correct. And which is, I think when Tom asked the question, did we look for gain share to be 50% of our revenue and our answer was yes, we certainly are driving to that.

That is something which we'll hope to get there on a multi-year basis.

In the next quarter, exactly.

Would it take for the gain share to come on par with your (inaudible) revenues for you folks to be able to feel more comfortable in giving a guidance?

We actually plan to be able to give guidance before then. However, when you get to that situation certainly the earnings are much less a function of the sign up of a incremental fixing engagement. It does typically have a few hundred thousand dollar impact in the quarter. So, certainly as gain share grows, we're more insulated from any particular contract signing.

Got you. All right. Switching gears a little bit, then one would sort of expect that as long as the size of your R&D and sales teams aren't expanded, the wise person of your business will remain more or less flattish because that now depends upon how many hands can you supply in the field?

I think you bring up -- you really get the point that we're trying to make in the prepared comments. The consolidation in this industry really plays well to our model. Our model is one where our costs and our R&D are really about being in a node and then our profitability comes down to how much of the wafers in that node we're able to capitalize or leverage on. And certainly, once we're in the node, once we have a working solution for a 20 nanometer we abort the majority of our cost of our 20 nanometer solution per se. And then it's just how many wafers can we deploy that across? In the past, that's been at two facilities that are 5,000 or 10,000 wafer starts a piece. And each one of those has a service team associated with them. As we move to the future, there will be a smaller number of facilities. All of them, in order of magnitude, larger than what we typically worked with in the past. And as a result, an intrinsically more profitable opportunity for us should we deliver on the results that we commit to our clients.

Have you been able to expand your foundry opportunities outside of Taiwan and Singapore into other geographies?

Yes. I think if you listen to Joy's comments, I think she said over 77% of our revenue was in Asia this past quarter. And that is a collection of -- 73% -- that is a collection of a number of countries.

Anyone care to give a more granular (inaudible)

Yes, that's how we've broken out at this point. Because it's coming down to one company per country. It's a little bit tricky without coming close to affecting our relationships with our specific accounts.

Fair enough. Have you guys seen any momentum in the hope of getting business from the memory folks?

Good question, Kakkean. I think as we've gone through this past couple of quarters, we've had a number of discussions with accounts using our process control solution, what we call YA-FDC and we do see interest in pilots and activity with some of the larger manufacturers. We hope to kick some of those off as we get in the second half of the year. That was really, in my prepared comments, what I was eluding to. And we do believe there is viability of our solution in that market from a technical standpoint. But also, in our prepared comments, we were clear that we believe it will be a small, but relatively insignificant, portion of our revenues this year.

And then how about next year?

I think that depends on the success of these pilots. But should they be successful, we would expect that they start growing.

Okay. That does it for me. Thank you.

Your next question is from the line of Greg Gerst with Gerst Capital.

Hi, John. Hi, Joy.

Hi, Greg.

Quick question, hoping you can expand little bit more on the -- what you had said earlier the reason for the two consecutive quarters of decline of gain share. Could you go through that again?

So, I think we've had a couple of older contracts and older facilities come offline. There's been increases in gain share due to volumes at some of the newer facilities that we are experiencing. And those two in the past quarter did not -- the increases in volumes at the new facilities did not compensate for the loss of gain share at an older facility, fully compensate for it.

What were -- the loss of gain share at the older facility, what nodes were those at?

45 and higher.

Okay. Is my data correct that we've seen industrywide, if we look at it based on what we read and talk to people that the wafer output at 40 to 65 nanometer ranges, that has been increasing materially over the last couple quarters?

Yes. That would be correct.

Okay.

I would assume roughly flat between Q1 and Q2.

Okay. I guess having the gain share rolling off on nodes below 65 already, could you -- that's a surprise to me, that you've got contracts rolling off at those nodes, some of them which are, just now seem to be ramping.

Yes. So, as I said in my prepared comments, Greg, our gain share on older contracts were primary in the US and Japan. That IBM, some of whom have really decreased their activity, even in those nodes, from a internal production standpoint. When you look at our count concentration in Japan, and that's in 2007 and 2008 timeframe, some of those manufactures have fundamentally not expanded and even contracted or shifted out their production on those nodes.

Okay.

And the particular one in Q2 is a very specific manufacturer.

Okay. And is it that same manufacturer that's going to be lagging impact into Q3? Because you said Q3, it sounds like Q3 is probably going to be down again a little bit.

Right. Q3 there is a partial completion on a more mature node and a ramp up on a ramp up on an ex node in that facility, I think taking, basically a quarter to see.

Okay. Second question, just on the financial side, I've seen the last two quarters the share dilution has accelerated a little bit. Could you give us some guidance on what you expect the percentage share dilution to be in the coming year or so?

That's a hard question, Greg. The share dilution is primarily because there was obviously a difference in the price within last quarter and this quarter. So, that actually added to that where there's more in the money. But, obviously, it was also primary to the vesting of some of the RSUs. But I wouldn't say that the growth of that's going to be that much different.

Okay. Because if we look at the growth rate, we annualize the latest quarter's change that's going on 6.5% to 7% year-over-year annualized growth rate. You're saying you think it's not going to continue at that rate?

No, I don't believe so.

Thanks that's it for me.

Your next question is the from a follow up from the line of with Tom Diffely with D.A. Davidson.

Just a quick follow-up on the cost side. And it looks like your costs have been fairly stable for a few quarters. Do you see your current cost structure being sufficient for a little bit higher revenue levels as well? At what point do you need to start adding more people to ramp the top line?

I think we're pretty comfortable at the level that we're at. And I think it's just going to be the complexity of different nodes that we're going to see any ramp in head count.

Okay. And it looks like the people are fungible between R&D and the direct cost in our projects?

That's correct.

Okay. So, as a combined group, those two line items are fairly stable for the next two quarters?

That's what we perceive right now.

Okay. Thank you. One more. Is it hard to find good engineers that are appropriate people at this point? If you have a spot need here and there?

Tom we hire when we feel it's appropriate. We're always looking for good athletes. Over the last couple of quarters when folks have come to us, who we think are particularly knowledgeable in the field that we are in, we have hired them. Often they seek us out because if you do this kind of work for a living, we have a very strong collection of individuals here who have contributed in this technical field for a long time. So, we always respect significant talent. And we will go after significant talent when we see it available. In the technical world, when we talk with accounts, something 120 or 130 folks in this place are PhDs, mostly in this field. So, if you do this work for a living, we certainly want to talk to you and generally folks want to talk to us.

Okay. Finally, from the geographic point of view, does it matter where the fab is or what, in actuality the company is?

Yes, I think what we reported now is where the fab is.

Okay.

It will be become more confusing over time.

All right thank you.

Are there any more questions?

Your next question is from the line of Greg Gerst with Gerst Capital.

Hi. I forgot a follow up. The synopsis SC micropaper given at the AMSC or ASMC conference just a couple weeks ago, can you comment on what you think of that as a competitive threat?

Greg, you'd have to tell me what the paper was.

This was, it came up on a web article. Basically, it sounds like a system very similar to yours. You're not aware of that?

I'm aware of many papers. I don't know which one you're specifically talking about. I think we've had significant business with ST for a number of years and anticipate that that will continue. I don't really see that there's a product out there that is competitive or substitutional to what we're doing with them. So, I don't know the paper you're referring to specifically.

Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the program. At this time there are no more questions. Thank you.

Thank you.