賓州電力 (PPL) 2003 Q1 法說會逐字稿

This is premier conferencing. Thank you for standing by for today's call. At this time we will still admitting digital participants and the conference will be under way momentarily. We ask you to please continue to stand by. Please stand by. Good day, everyone and welcome to the PPL corporation's first quarter earnings release conference call. Today's call is being recorded. For opening remarks and introductions I would like to turn the call over to the investor relations matter, Mr. Tim Paukovits. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for joining the PPL conference call and results. Today's discussion includes forward-looking statements concerning earnings and other matters. Although we believe the expectations and assumptions reflected in the statements are reasonable, these statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties and actual results could differ. For more information in this regard you should refer to PPL corporation's form 10-K report and other reports on file with the SEC. In discussing earnings and projections, we will be talking about earnings in accordance with GAAP as well as earnings from core operations, which exclude items we do not expect to recur on a regular basis. A comparison to GAAP earnings is provided in PPL earnings press release issued this morning, you can find on the home page of our web site, www.PPLweb.com.

I will turn it over to Bill Hecht, chairman, president and CEO.

Good morning. This morning PPL reported GAAP earnings for first quarter of 2003 a dollar 43 per share. That is made up of 1.06 per share in earnings from core operations and 37 cents positive earnings from an asset retirement obligation adjustment. I'd like to at this point reaffirm our guidance for the year, of 3.45 to 3.75 per share. I'm going to discuss a number of items about the company and its earnings, and its business outlook, and I've put my remarks together with an eye toward questions that you've asked in the past. So I'll try to answer as many questions as I can, in my opening remarks.

I'll first talk about overall corporate issues, breakdown of earnings by segment generally, as well as corporate financial issues, equity ratios, cash flows, and financing. And then I'll move on to some discussions about our hedge ratio, forward prices, earnings at risk, and fuel hedges, and then we'll open it up for questions.

So going back up to the top of my list, our earnings for the year, the GAAP earnings will be made up of about three quarters earnings will be from our supply business, that's the domestic generation and contracts to sell that. And the remainder will be about 50-50 between international activities, primarily Western Power Distribution in the U.K., and the domestic delivery business here in Pennsylvania. I will tell you that at the end of the first quarter, international, particularly Western Power Distribution, is ahead of plan.

I want to talk now just a little bit about the effect of weather on our supply business and how that influenced the company's results net. Ordinarily, people think of weather extremes as benefiting the energy industry by driving up demand and to some degree driving up prices with that. And that's true. Of course, PPL's strategy has been to hedge. That is, to write long-term contracts for selling our production and long-term contracts for procuring fuel, have a managed risk profile that reduces volatility and then focused on asset operations. And that strategy has worked very, very well for us, and it continues to do so.

The largest single hedge that we have is the contract with PPL electric utilities, the affiliate in the East. And that is a full requirement contract, meaning that the supply side of the business, supplies all the energy needs of PPL electric utilities. And it's at a fixed price every hour of the day, every day of the year, a fixed price. And it's around $42 a megawatt hour in 2003. And that grows toward the end of the contract to something around $52 a megawatt hour.

Now, during the first quarter, PPL electric utilities requirements were higher than would normally be expected because of weather extremes. So we were selling larger amount of energy into the electric utility, at a fixed price. We also saw fuel prices rise, oil, and natural gas, and we did use a certain amount of oil, heavy oil, from our Martins Creek unit, to meet the increased demands of electric utilities. So, what we saw was because of cold weather, moderated earnings from the supply business, offset by stronger than budgeted performance in the electric utility because of additional through-put. I thought I would give you that background because our full requirements hedge does produce the greatest value for our shareowners and it does have a characteristic that's a little bit counter intuitive during weather extremes. All in, we are well on plan at the end of the first quarter to meet the guidance that we've given and we are reaffirming that guidance.

Let me move on now and talk a little bit about our financings and our equity ratio. We frequently get questions about equity ratio, and of course with the different forms of debt that we have outstanding, many times people can get -- come up with different equity ratios and they're all accurate, depending on how you define it. The numbers I'm going to give you are the following. They will exclude 100% of the Western Power Distribution debt because that's all non-recourse. And we are committed to keeping it non-recourse and committed to not adding parent company equity to Western Power Distribution. I will also exclude transition bonds, those are the bonds that we sold when we made the transition from regulation to deregulation in Pennsylvania, and those bonds of course are amortized by the ITC charge that all of our wireless customers pay. So transition bonds are traditionally left off in calculating an equity ratio. I am in these ratios including leases because the ratings agencies typically put leases in debt even though in GAAP accounting they may not be put on balance sheet.

So exclude WPD, exclude transition bonds, and include leases, 2002 end of year actual 38% at the end of the first quarter 39%, and at the end of 2003 will be 45%. Equity ratio to total capital.

Cash flows. Very broadly speaking, we're at about $1 billion in cash flow from operations, net cash from operations. And then in 2003 we have about $850 million in CAPEX, and about $300 million in dividends, common and preferred, leaving us with a net cash requirement of $150 million and financing is in place for that.

We will complete our construction program of Merchant Jen, lower mount Bethel project, remaining project in 2003. In 2004, round numbers, we'll have about a $1 billion in cash flow from operations, we'll have about $600 million in CAPEX, that's primarily sustenance capital, and about $300 million again in common and preferred dividends. And that, of course, will leave us cash flow positive in 2004.

So, I want to move on now to equity sales. In 2002, we sold 500 million -- about $509 million, actually, of common equity through an underwritten sale, about $50 million through a structured shelf equity program. Those are occasional sales that are made into the market on a continuing basis. And about $33 million from our dividend reinvestment plan and ESOP. And that all totaled was almost $600 million in equity in 2002.

Thus far, in 2003, we're at about $100 million in equity. About $77 million, again, through the structured shelf equity program and $20 million in the dividend reinvestment plan. You will note from my news release that we planned to issue $400 million in equity in 2003 now, that's our present plan, not the $300 million we had anticipated earlier. And that we had reported earlier. We've done, as I've indicated a moment ago, almost -- just about $100 million of that leaving $300 million remaining.

Our present thinking is that we will sell a significant fraction of $300 million in an underwritten program, probably relatively soon. We haven't finalized the details on that. Nor have we finalized the detail of how much exactly we'll do through an underwritten program and how much we'll keep going through the structured shelf equity program for the remainder of the year. That decision to sell additional equity, I should tell you, was made based on ongoing conversations that we have been having with the debt rating agencies, and the new data reflect the content and tenor of those discussions. I want to reemphasize that even with this larger equity offering, we are reaffirming our earnings guidance for the year.

Even with the additional dilution, we are absolutely reaffirming our guidance for the year. I should also tell you that we are planning about a $300 million debt offering, and that is something that we have announced in the past, and we are well along in our discussions with the rating agencies that we're conducting prior to that debt offering.

I want to move now back to the supply business and talk about our hedging and where we now stand in hedges for the remainder of 2003 and for 2004. There are a number of ways that we evaluate the extent to which we are hedged, and I'll discuss a couple of those with you now. One is a hedge ratio, and we can look at that in terms of dollars of margin or in megawatt hours of anticipated production. And I'm going to do the latter now.

Overall, for 2003, we have sold, under contract, at known prices, 96% of our anticipated production for the year 2003. That's comprised of about 99% of our anticipated production in the East, and about 83% of our anticipated production in the West. For 2004, we're at about, almost 90% of our anticipated production overall, is already accounted for in hedges. And I will point out that we are more hedged for 2004 now than we were at this time last year hedged for 2003. Dramatically further along. We've seen prices strengthen in the East and the West, and we have been active in accessing that market to write contracts with credit worthy counter parties for significant amount of our production at those prices.

We also look at earnings at risk. And when we do that, what we do is take the earnings that we expect to get from the margin on known hedges, take our delivery business and a fraction of our international delivery, and say that that is the earnings that's not at risk, and the earnings that are at risk we take one half of the margin that we anticipate from the unhedged part of our portfolio, and we take the Latin American delivery business. Okay? So repeating, when we look at earnings at risk, we take our total earnings and we subtract out of it 50% of the margin from the generation that is unhedged, and we subtract out primarily the Latin American international operations, even though they've been performing quite well.

Earnings at risk for 2003 is only about 10% of our guidance or anticipated earnings. About 90% is not at risk, about 90% is regulated delivery and hedged generation. For 2004, our earnings at risk are -- or earnings not at risk, is very nearly that favorable. Only about 5% more of our earnings is at risk for 2004 than earnings at risk for 2003.

I want to talk a little bit about forward curve. People often ask, what are -- on what forward prices are we basing our earnings guidance on? And I'll talk about the East, using PJN primarily, and then we'll talk a little about the West. Now, I want to emphasize that the forward curve changes and just as, as the forward curve goes down, that has a moderated or very little effect on us because our prices are already fixed under contract and as the prices rise, it only affects the unhedged part of our generation. In the East, on peak, that is 16 hours a day, five days a week, on peak, we're in the mid $40 range. And our forward projections that we're basing our business plans on show that that's flat over a five-year period. We think that's a very conservative assumption. I said that they were -- our projections were based on flat, last time we spoke and of course prices have risen since then. Off-peak, East, PJM, in the mid $20 range, and around the clock mid $30s.

In the West, I'll use mid-Columbia and -- as a proxy because that's where most of our production is and the vast majority of our margin is in the northwest, probably mid-Columbia the best proxy for that. Mid-Columbia, we're looking at prices on peak for 2004 at over $50, and we're conservatively assuming that that declines on peak to something below $50 for the remainder of the five-year period. And around the clock we're in the mid $40s, in 2004 declining to the low $40s, over the remainder of the five-year period.

Now, those are not -- I would say forecasts, in the sense of -- that we think we can predict forward prices. They're rather, the best judgment we've been able to get from the market of what we think the market will look like and we believe those projections -- those estimates to be conservative. So, that gives you some information on what the forwards look like, or what we think they would look like, conservatively what we're basing our plans on.

Fuel hedges. Coal is our primary fuel, of course, and coal for 2004 overall we're in excess of 90% hedged, about 90% of our coal needs for 2003 are hedged in the East. And about -- and 100% of our coal needs for 2003 are hedged in the West. We're in the process now of writing contracts for some additional fuel for 2004, within a matter of months we would expect to be in excess of 80% hedged in the East for 2004, and 100% hedged for the West, for 2004. So that gives you some sense of our fuel hedges. I hope these opening remarks have been helpful to you.

I'd be happy at this point to take any questions that you may have. Operator?

Thank you, at this time all questions will be handled electronically for today's call. If you would like to ask a question, press star-1 on your Touch-Tone phone. If you are on a speakerphone, we please ask that you press the mute function or remove the mute function to allow your signal to reach our equipment. We'll take as many questions as time permits and answer in the order you signal us. We'll pause for just a moment to allow everyone to signal for a question.

We'll take our first question from John Raleigh with Goldman Sachs.

Thanks. Hey, Bill.

Hi, John.

You mentioned in terms of breaking up 2003 and 2004, that you have 96% of anticipated production in '03, sold forward and about 90% in '04. Can you just give us the assumed units maybe break that down between East and West, is it 7, 8 million megawatt hours in the West and 40, 50 million megawatt hours in the East?

I'll give it a shot. I'm not sure how much detail I'm -- I'll be able to give you for that. Let's say in the West, we are sold forward in the range of -- okay. In the West, we're about 6 to 7,000 megawatt hours, and the East around -- in '04 say around mid 40s, 40,000-plus.

That's the assumed sold forward, not the assumed total production?

That's correct, that's the committed.

Thank you.

Sure.

We'll take our next question from David Schanzer with Janney Montgomery Scott.

Good morning, Bill.

Good morning, David.

Question regarding the infusion of equity this year. Is in any way that going to change your recent changes in dividend policy going forward and also is your dividend policy dependent on what's going to happen in Washington with the President's tax package?

Our dividend policy is not affected by the additional equity sale appreciably. Our dividend policy is influenced first by cash, second by payout ratio, and I would say we are not preoccupied with Washington policy. There's a long way to go in Washington if we're -- before legislation is adopted. So we have not explicitly discussed how or why or even whether we should change our dividend policy if Washington changes their plans and makes -- or goes ahead with the administration's proposal to not tax dividends. Short answer, our dividend policy is not affected by Washington at this time. It's influenced primarily by cash and secondarily by earnings.

Okay. Unrelated second question. Could you give us a status of Susquehanna currently and what the outlook is for the summer?

Yeah, Susquehanna, two units, 100% power this morning. We completed an outage on unit 1 about a week or so ago. Actually, completed it Easter Sunday. It was the most complicated outage we ever had. It replaced the steam turbines at Susquehanna as we had previously announced. It was a 45-day schedule, brought the plant back in 44 days. Under budget on the O&M side. The plant came up to full power smoothly. We completed some machining on reactor internals that was a complicated evolution, so we're extremely pleased. We did get -- we have not conducted a formal detailed turbine test, but preliminary information indicates that we will get at least the up-rate that we had been telling you. I think we told you 90 megawatts total, 45 megawatts a unit, it looks like we're at about 50 megawatts but we're going to do a formal thermodynamics turbine test May 31, to verify the actual megawatt hour gain. Short answer, Susquehanna is doing very, very well. Unit 1 has been in a continuous run for in excess of a year. We passed the 365-day mark sometime last week.

Your expectations for the summer?

My expectation for the summer is that all of our plants are running very well.

Okay.

We did a major overhaul at a large coal unit, brought that back two days ahead of schedule and $2 million under budget, and our plants continue to run real well.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Moving on to Lehman Brothers, Tom O'Neill.

Good morning.

Good morning, Tom.

I was hoping to clarify your earlier statement on earnings guidance. You had indicated there was no change in earnings despite the $100 million of incremental equity.

Right.

Just curious, I guess I assumed this has the assumption of a step-up in power prices in the higher hedge levels since the last time that you gave guidance, and I guess I was curious if there was anything else that's included as an offset to the delusion.

Well, like so many things, everything changes.

Right.

We've gotten some good performance on our O & M budget, as I just described to David's question in the context of our power plants, but otherwise as well. We've gotten very good performance on international, especially WPD. We have a lot of moving parts. All in, we can definitely, clearly reaffirm guidance for the year.

Okay.

Okay?

And then just a couple others if I could. For 2004, what was your prior disclosure on hedge levels?

I don't know that we -- you know, I couldn't reconstruct what we disclosed on hedge levels, but we did put in place a lot of hedges during the first quarter for '04. We probably -- I think we better leave it at that, but we were active in the market during the first quarter as prices for '04 were firming in the East and the West.

Okay.

Okay?

So a lot of the additional hedging activity took place during Q1 for '04?

For '04, yes. Significant amount of activity during Q1 for '04. And as I indicated earlier, we are more hedged now for '04 than we were at this time last year for '03.

Okay. And any sensitivity that you can give for, say, 2004, on a dollar change in megawatt hour what it means in income?

No, I can't, because we've been hedging, and each time we put in a hedge, that sensitivity goes down.

Okay.

Yeah, and the numbers are changing weekly during this time of year, so we don't recalculate that, that frequently.

Okay. And then final question is just credit management, just curious how you're dealing with some of the parties in the western U.S.

In a variety of ways. We have a more frequent payment schedule with North Western, for example. And in other cases, people have posted a letter of credit. We deal with it in a variety of ways. But we either have credit worthy counter parties or in situations where a counter party credit status changed in the midst of a contract, we've exercised the ability to get collateral in one form or another, or in some cases weekly payment.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, you're welcome.

and as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question today, that is star-1 on your Touch-Tone telephone. We'll next here from Teresa Ho with Bank of America.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning, Terry.

I have got just really three unrelated questions. First just to get some of the admin out of the way. Could you tell us what the segment earnings were for the quarter, by supply, delivery, et cetera?

Actually, we don't normally break that down. For year-end we would expect three quarters from supply and the remainder 50-50 between the Pennsylvania delivery business and international. For the first quarter, as I indicated, cold weather actually adds a bit of a challenge to our supply business because of the full requirements fixed price hedge, but international particularly WPD, was stronger than planned, and the Pennsylvania delivery business was stronger than planned because of weather. But the best breakdown I could give you is three quarters supply, 50-50 for the remainder between domestic and international.

Okay.

Okay?

Fair enough. I'll move on. On the equity ratio that you gave out, I want to get back to the assumption. The assumption for those equity ratios that would exclude or include the preferred?

It would -- the equity side includes the preferred.

Your equity side including the preferred.

Correct.

Okay. And as far as the equity, or actually the equity issuance, could you just sort of explain the program that you have on the structured shelf, is there a reason why you're not going through that structure shelf versus, you know, going through an underwriting program?

Well, the advantage of the structured shelf, of course, is that in theory at least, it puts less downward pressure on the stock because you don't have a single large slug of stock coming on the market in a short period of time. And it also can be done at lower cost. Avoiding the underwriting costs. The disadvantage is, is it takes place over time and is not as predictable and doesn't quite have the certainty that an underwritten plan does. And of course, the reverse of what I said is the case for underwritten plans. You can get a larger piece of equity sold in a defined period of time and there's greater certainty, but of course there are underwriting costs associated with that, and in the short-term at least, the theory a little bit of market pressure. We've done both.

Last year, and we anticipated doing both this year. And we haven 't finalized our specific plans for how much we would do or when, but we would like to do it as much as we can under a structured -- under an underwritten program and do it quickly. Because we think that the uncertainties that have been on the industry for some time now related to liquidity, we think those concerns are unfounded, but they are real, and we're anxious to continue to differentiate ourselves from the merchant players that have seen such challenges. So that's why, if we can just as soon as we can resolve and bring to closure issues and discussions with the debt rating agencies that have taken place in the context of our debt offering, just as soon as we can bring that to quick -- to a quick conclusion, we'll finalize our plans for an underwritten equity offering.

Okay. And but I guess there are no limitations on that structured finance in terms of size?

No inherent limitations, just our own business requirements.

And lastly, just one question on your Connecticut plants, could you give us an update on, you know, where the [FERC] could be headed.

Well, there's some indication that FERC favorably disposed to giving favorable treatment, some kind of I'll call it regulatory treatment, to an asset which, while a merchant asset is required to meet peak load, and there was an order that came out of FERC yesterday or late last week, I believe regarding reliant assets -- NRG assets, I'm sorry. And we're studying that.

I want to emphasize, though, that our earnings guidance and our business plan, does not assume any FERC treatment to the Wallingford plant, even though the Wallingford plant as intended is in a transmission constrained area near south western Connecticut, which is a problem area for the New England power pool. No matter what the FERC outcome, that would not change our guidance.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Daniele Seitz from Smith Barney has the next question.

You said debt financing you intend to do is offset by actually is it refinancing or do you consider that as new cash?

There's some refinancing in there.

Okay. Roughly half of that is financing?

Jim Abel is here with me. Jim, roughly what fraction can be thought of refinancing? Dollars are fungible, there's a little bit of a hypothetical involved in answering that.

Right.

As I recall, I believe the $150 million approximately is maturities but we're also looking at some potential optional redemptions and we're looking at some of the financing activities and opportunity to further reduce our interest expense.

So it's about half refinancing, and maybe more, depending on conditions, and what's economical for to us call.

Uh-huh. I was also wondering because of all the hedges that you already have on '04, you feel more confident that you can make your bogey of 5% EPS growth or is it too early to tell?

Our bogey is actually 5 to 8% growth, but we've made that bogey out over five years, so year to year you'll see some variability. Okay? But 2004 -- and of course, it's far too early in our judgment, to give earnings guidance for 2004. But we are increasingly optimistic that the markets will support our plan.

Uh-huh. It seems as though there was some difficulties in reaching some high margins also in the first quarter from how -- and do you feel that this is past and this was because (inaudible) under outreaches et cetera, and higher fuel costs, but you feel more confident about your profit margin over the longer term?

Well, we feel very confident about our profit margin because of the hedges that we've put in place.

Right.

And as I explained earlier, when markets change, if we've hedged, we don't participate as fully in that change in the market as an unhedged player might. And that's true to some degree both directions. If the market goes down, we're protected. If the market goes up, we participate somewhat because our anticipated production grows, okay? Our anticipated production is a calculation that includes the economics of our generation against the market. So if the market price goes high, then our anticipated generation would climb. So we can participate somewhat in the upside, but certainly not as much as an unhedged player. So our strategy of managed risk reduces volatility in both directions, and that's intentional.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next, Andy Levi with Bear Wagner (ph).

This is Bob Wearen (ph) sitting in for Andy.

Okay.

I had a couple of housekeeping questions for you guys. I was curious if you could help us out with what your weather effect was versus normal for the second quarter and for the third quarter of '02.

I couldn't begin -- I would say none. Second and third quarter '02, I don't think the weather effect was significant enough for us to have focused on it.

Okay. So you haven't quantified that at all, I guess?

I haven't seen that as a key business issue for us. With our hedging strategy, what we're trying to do is reduce volatility and risk and to some degree that also includes weather. Now, it's true that the third quarter of '02 was hot in the East, at least, in the northeast, relative to history, but our supply business doesn't particularly benefit from that because we've got that fixed price full requirements hedge with the utility. The utility was a little bit stronger probably because of weather.

But I suppose I just would like to add that I think companies spend far too much time talking about the weather than they should. The weather's going to come and go. You can't build a sustained growth business based on variability of weather in one particular year. So that's why we try to give you an inside -- insight into our earnings that will be sustainable. Okay?

Okay.

If you want to do some arithmetic, just assume the weather net-net, zeroed out for us for '02.

Perfect, that will work. And just one other question. I was curious if you could help us out with the average wholesale price for you guys, broken out for East and for the West, for the second quarter and third quarter of '02.

For the second and third of '02, no, I couldn't. You probably can find in our material the hedge price for the affiliate transaction, that was a flat price, but no, I couldn't -- I couldn't begin to go back and reconstruct that, I'm afraid. Wish I could help you, but the past is gone.

Okay.

Okay?

Thanks a lot, guys.

Sure.

and as a final reminder to everyone, star-1 to ask a question. We'll move on to Christopher Muir (ph) with ABN Amro.

Thank you. A quick question. You're talking about your equity to total capital ratios improving to 45% by year-end.

Yes.

Do you believe that's going to be enough to get you off center S&P's negative outlook, or sort of what do you feel is the timing on that?

Well, we're anxious to see that brought to closure. I think we'll be hearing something from the agencies very, very quickly, because we've been working with them for a while now, and I think we're, you know, very close to a final decision. I think any negative outlook issue is an industry issue rather than a PPL issue. And you know, your question, will the $400 million be enough? Well, my belief is the $300 million would be enough, but if the agencies and the markets feel more comfortable with $400m, that's what we're presently looking at.

All right.

I think our credit profile is very strong. Our merchant risk is basically non-existent.

Okay.

So -- and as I said, the WPD debt is non-recourse, so I think that there is, unfortunately, quite an industry overhang, even though there are dramatic differences from company to company in how they're positioned.

All right. And then, this all leads to my next question. WPD has a negative outlook on it currently. Do you know anything about the timing of --

That was just changed.

Okay.

Okay and as Jim Abel is going to look for the data to give you the details. But WPD is now stable.

That's correct.

Okay.

WPD's ratings have been reconfirmed. BAA-1 senior unsecured at Moody's and stable. And also stable at Southwest PLC, BAA-1. AS Standard and Poor's does, as they are in the U.S. does continue to have a negative outlook and again we're told that's more of a view just toward the general industry trends rather than concerns about the regulatory environment coming into rate review period.

But we're stable on Moody's, at WPD.

Okay?

Standard and Poor's is still negative? Based on industry trends?

Yeah, sort of an industry outlook.

All right, thanks very much.

Sure.

We do have a follow-up question from John Raleigh with Goldman Sachs.

Hi, John.

Hi, Bill. I think back in October, you talked a little bit about the sustenance CAPEX level.

Yes.

And you mentioned today, I think, that your estimates are about 600 million. You had discussed cutting into that. Is that something that you looked at and weren't able to cut into or something that you just decided would be money better spent now?

No, we were talking, I think at 600 to 650 and we have cut into it. I'm giving you the round number now is 600 million. We have cut into it. And that does reflect that.

Okay.

and we're going to continue to look at it.

The final question is, in terms of the better than expected or the strength at WPD, what's the nature of that strength? Just demand?

Both demand and operating expenses, we continue to drive down operating costs, and some fraction of it, of course, is currency. You're aware of that.

Uh-huh.

Okay. But we -- so there is some currency component, but we've also been continuing to manage costs.

Thanks, Bill.

Sure.

And Mr. Hecht, it appears there are no more questions at this time. I'll turn it back over to you for any closing or additional remarks.

Okay, thank you everyone for their participation, this morning, and I hope we've been able to answer your questions. Good day.

That does conclude today's conference call. We thank you very much for your participation and have a very nice day.