Rambus Inc (RMBS) 2010 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to your Q3 2010 Rambus Inc. conference call. At this time, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. But later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session which instructions will be given at that time. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded. And now, I would like to introduce your host for today, Satish Rishi. Satish, go ahead.

Thank you, operator. And welcome to the Rambus third quarter 2010 conference call. I'm Satish Rishi, Chief Financial Officer and on the call today are Harold Hughes, our President and CEO. And Tom Lavelle, Senior VP and General Counsel and Sharon Holt, Senior VP and General Manager for Semiconductor Business Group.

The press release for the results that will be discussed here today have been filed with the SEC on Form 8-K. A replay of this conference call will be available for the next week at 800-642-1687. You can hear the replay by dialing the toll free number and then entering ID number 15043450 when you hear the prompt. In addition, we are simultaneously webcasting this call and a replay can be accessed on our website beginning today at 5.00 pm. Pacific time.

I need to advise you the discussion today that the discussion today will contain forward-looking statements regarding our financial prospects, pending litigation and demand for our technologies among other things. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties which are more fully described in the documents we filed with the SEC including our 8-Ks, 10-Qs and 10-Ks. These forward-looking statements may differ materially from our actual results and we're under no obligation to update these statements. Further, we'll discuss non-GAAP financial results on the call today and we have posted on our website reconciliations of these non-GAAP financials to the most directly comparable GAAP measures. You can find a copy of our earning release and reconciliation on the website at www.rambus.com on the Investor Relations page in the financial releases. With that, I'll turn the call over to Harold.

Thanks, Satish. Good afternoon, everyone. Customer licensing income for the third quarter was $42 million. A ajor swing factor for Q3 as we discussed when we provided guidance at the last call was signing patent license renewals. While renewal negotiations are active and proceeding well, they were not concluded in Q3.

Our business model builds on a value creation cycle that starts with innovation. As a Company of inventors, we have built a portfolio of over 1,000 active patents. In addition, we have close to 1,000 pending applications in the pipeline. The second part of our value creation cycle is driving adoption over our innovations. In support of this effort, we participated in a number of industry events during the course of the quarter. We had multiple presentations and technology demonstrations at Memcon in July. There we showcased our DDR3 product running at 1866 mega transfers per second with the ability to run to a 2133. This is state-of-the-art performance for DDR3 but particularly so since we implemented our silicon demo in a low cost wire bond package. Wire bond is a key packaging technology for high volume consumer electronics products.

Also during the quarter at the Intel developer forum, two of our Ph.D.s presented how we can meet the challenges of next generation graphics and mobile memory. From an application standpoint, both graphics and mobile memory products must deliver high performance video and images at the lowest possible power. Our engineers have also shown how differential signaling can meet both performance and power requirements of next generation graphics and memory products, mobile products. Excuse me. Our mobile XDR solution is specifically tailored to enable breakthrough performance in upcoming smart phones and tablets. With solutions like mobile XDR memory, Rambus solves some of the industry's toughest system challenges.

The third stage in the value creation cycle is to monetize our innovations. Progress was made here with the signing of a patent license with NVIDIA during the quarter. That agreement was ultimately a result of the action we pursued at the ITC. We're prepared to take whatever action is needed including recourse to the legal process in order to ensure we're fairly compensated for the use of our patented innovations.

Meanwhile, we continue to make progress on our diversification strategy. We're staffing up and equipping our lighting and display technology team to seize the tremendous opportunity of solid state lighting. We've moved into a new design facility in Brecksville, Ohio, hired additional engineers and researchers and are almost done with setting up a state-of-the-art prototyping line there.

We believe our commitment to innovation makes Rambus a great home for inventors. As we have said previously, we intend to bring onboard new businesses like lighting and display that serve our mission and can benefit from Rambus' strengths. We have the organizational capabilities to enable rapid integration of the acquisitions we make and with our world-class licensing platform, we can drive the growth of our new businesses with only modest investment in people and capital. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tom to provide an update on legal developments. Tom?

Thanks, Harold. Good afternoon, everyone. At the end of July, we received notification of the International Trade Commission's final determination regarding certain NVIDIA products. The ITC affirmed the findings of its administrative law judge finding certain NVIDIA products infringe three Rambus patents. The ITC immediately issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders barring the importation of certain NVIDIA products in the United States. This final determination was subject to a presidential review period. The presidential review period has since expired, NVIDIA has appealed the decision to the federal circuit.

In the meantime, in August, we signed a patent license agreement with NVIDIA which allows them and the other respondents in the case to continue shipping their products into the US. Under the terms of the agreement which was based on worldwide forward-looking shipments only, NVIDIA will pay Rambus a 1% royalty rate for SDR memory controllers and a 2% royalty rate for other memory controllers including DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, LPDDR2, GGDR2, GGDR3, GGDR4 and portions of GGDR5 memory controllers. These rates are in line with the commitments Rambus made with the European Commission. For those interested, the agreement is similar in most material aspects to the sample license agreement posted on Rambus.com.

There's been some question as to what would happen if NVIDIA was to cancel its license. Under such circumstances, Rambus would be under no obligation to again offer the EC license or rates to NVIDIA as part of any subsequent relationship. Further, the limited exclusion order issued by the ITC remains in effect for the duration of the relevant patents whether there is a license agreement in place or not.

Moving out of the federal circuit, on October 6, oral arguments were heard before the CAFC in Washington, D.C. The issues being discussed were Hynix's appeal of a $397 million judgment against them and our appeal of the Micron Delaware decision. The panel of judges considered of the honorable Judges Newman, Gajarsa, Bryson, Linn and Lourie. The federal circuit impaneled five judges for this case instead of the normal-sized panel of three judges. We very much appreciate the resources and attention the Court has applied to this case, given the issues before it. As is normal for these proceedings, the Court has not given any indication of when it may issue its decision. As a side note, audio recordings of the October 6, oral arguments are available at the Court's website at www.CAFC.UScourts.gov.

In the case against Hynix, they were originally ordered by Judge White to post a $250 million bond as security against the $397 million judgment. And to secure the remainder of the judgment with a lien against certain assets of Hynix in Korea. We thought reconsideration of the original bond order and the Court revised its order and directed Hynix to post a bond for the full amount of the judgment plus post judgment interest. Hynix posted the bond early this week, the bond has issued in the approximate amount of $401 million. These amounts are, of course, in addition to the escrowed royalty payments for the duration of the compulsory license that was also issued and has since expired.

Finally, I would like to provide an update regarding the price fixing case in San Francisco. We have been advised by Judge Kramer that Judge McBride will likely be the presiding judge in this matter at trial. This is fairly typical for the California Superior Court to have a different judge presiding at trial than the judge who oversaw the pretrial activities. We don't have a firm trial date yet but we are hopeful that we will begin trial in February of next year which the judge has indicated is a tentative trial date.

That's it for the legal update for this quarter. Now, I'll turn the call back over to Satish for a review of the financials.

Thanks, Tom. For the third quarter of 2010, customer license income was $42 million, of which $31.7 million was recognized as revenue and $10.3 million was recognized as gain from settlement. Just as a reminder, even though we received $25 million as royalty payments from Samsung, accounting rules require us to recognize only $14.7 million as revenue and the remaining $10.3 million as a contract expense as a gain from settlement.

In the previous quarter, customer licensing was $49.2 million of which $38.9 million was recognized as revenue and $10.3 million was recognized as a gain from settlement. In the second quarter, we received the last payment from three separate license agreements that have expired. We're in the process of negotiating these licenses and we'll have some more detail on that later. In the quarter a year ago, customer licensing, income and revenue were both $27.9 million. The increase in customer licensing income from a year ago was primarily due to the royalty payments from Samsung.

Operating expenses excluding the gain from settlement for the third quarter were $53.5 million down 4% from the previous quarter and up 10% from the third quarter of last year. These operating expenses include approximately $7.5 million, of stock-based compensation, $1.2 million related to the cost of restatement and $4.2 million for the Samsung settlement bonus accrual. By comparison, last quarter incurred approximately $7.9 million of stock-based compensation, $1.6 million related to cost of restatement and $4 million for the Samsung settlement bonus accrual. Operating expense a year ago included $7.7 million, of stock-based compensation and $100,000 related to the recovery of restatement costs, which included reimbursement from insurance carrier.

To provide a bit of comparison year over year, I'm excluding expenses related to stock-based compensation, costs related to the past investigation and the Samsung settlement bonus accruals from my discussion. Excluding these expenses, adjusted operating expenses in this quarter were $40.6 million down 4% from the previous quarter and flat with a quarter a year ago. Non-litigation operating expenses at $36 million were down 3% sequentially driven by lower patent related expenses and up 25% year over year driven primarily due to the incremental expenses from the addition of the lighting division. Litigation expenses were $4.6 million for the quarter down 11% from the prior quarter and down 61% from the quarter a year ago. Our adjusted operating income for the quarter was $1.4 million as compared to $6.9 million in the previous quarter and a loss of $12.9 million a year ago.

Overall cash, defined as cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were at $485 million, a decrease of $113 million from the previous quarter. During the quarter, we repurchased approximately 0.5 million shares or $9.8 million and also entered into an accelerated share repurchase program to buy back approximately $90 million in common stock. The purchases have not yet been completed and the shares have not been delivered to us. We expect that to happen in Q4. During the quarter, we also spent approximately $3 million on a couple of patent acquisitions.

Our provision for income taxes for the quarter was $4.4 million. We continue to maintain a valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets and a tax provision is based on the anticipated cash payment for the quarter which is primarily withholding taxes. The previous quarter provision was lower because it contained a credit for prior AMT paid.

Now, I will give you some thoughts regarding the fourth quarter. This guidance reflects our reasonable estimate in our actual results to differ materially from what I'm about to review. For the fourth quarter, we expect customer licensing income to be $50 million to $60 million of which $40 million to $50 million would be recognized as revenue. Approximately $10 million as a gain from settlement. The wider range reflects the fact that we currently have patent license renewal negotiations underway with a few licensees which may or may not conclude before the end of the quarter.

For the fourth quarter, we expect operating expenses to be between $46 million and $51 million. This includes a credit from the gain from settlement of approximately $10 million, and estimate for litigation expenses of $6 million to $9 million, stock-based compensation of approximately $8 million and a Samsung settlement bonus accrual of approximately $5 million.

Before we open the call for questions, I would like to address a couple of inquiries we've received from the shareholders via e-mail from our website. The first question is for Sharon. Sharon, can you give us the status on the past license renewals in Q3?

Sure, Satish. As Harold said during his remarks, we are in active and ongoing discussions with the licensees who are up for renewal. That includes Toshiba, Renaissance and Elpida among others. As I've said in previous calls, our general philosophy is that we're going to take as long as it takes to reach agreements that meet the needs of our business and our shareholders. That's exactly what we're doing. That being said, the negotiations are proceeding well. And I also want to remind everyone that the revenue doesn't go away. So to the extent it takes us longer to get a license signed, once we sign it, we still expect to receive catch up payments to fill the gap.

Thanks, Sharon. The next question is could you give us the status on the signing of the mobile XDR licenses?

Sure. Thanks, Satish. We believe mobile XDR is the best solution for next generation smart phones and feature phones and we're pushing very hard to secure design wins for mobile XDR. As we're out doing that, we, of course, have gained a better understanding of the alternatives being considered by our customers. Those really include two different paths. One would be a continuation of the industry standard road map. That would be the LPDDR road map. The other potential path for customers is a more disruptive technology. A wide IO memory solution.

Again, as I said, we believe mobile XDR is the best solution. It has got a unique combination of time to market performance, ease of use and solution cost advantages over both of these other alternatives. One thing that we are encountering is a perception by some customers that the industry standards solutions are free. I want to remind everyone that we have licensees paying us today for the use of our innovations in LPDDR and LPDDR2 memory solutions. And to the extent that these or other future industry standards solutions are adopted, and use our innovation, we will pursue to monetize that through our licensing efforts.

Thanks, Sharon. Tom, on a previous conference call, we had been asked about the Farmwald and Horowitz patents that had been extended past April 18, 2010. Can you give us an update on that?

Sure, Satish. What I want to point out is 13 of the Farmwald Horowitz patents have expiration dates past that date, April 18th of 2010. Of those 13, 6 have since expired. That is they had expiration dates before today. Of those 13 patents that have expiration dates longer, five have been asserted in various Rambus litigations. Of those five that have been asserted, two currently remain unexpired and their expiration dates are in June and September of 2011 respectively. So for the math challenge, that's seven of the original Farmwald Horowitz patents remain unexpired to date. Two are in litigation in assertions and they expire June and September of 2011 and there are obviously five others that have not expired either. And they have expiration dates that go anywhere from June of 2011 through June of 2014.

Thanks, Tom. With that, that concludes our prepared remarks. On behalf of the management team, I would like to thank those who submitted questions to us during the course of the quarter. Our plan is to continue addressing questions submitted by shareholders on a periodic basis at this forum. Operator, we're now ready to open the call for questions.

Okay. (Operator Instructions). Our first question is coming from Jeff Schreiner from CapStone Investments.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for taking my questions. I think this might go to you, Satish, first. But given your guidance which looks like a healthy increase, even after you take part in Samsung and put it down in the OpEx as an offset, should we be assuming or could you provide us some guidance that the variance in what you reported this quarter and the growth in next quarter comes primarily from NVIDIA or is there an estimated range that you could give us that you're expecting for the NVIDIA quarterly payment?

Jeff, it is difficult to give a range on NVIDIA because we still haven't received -- it could be our first payment. Once we get the first payment, we'll be able to see what calculations they're using versus ours. I'll defer that to next quarter. But you're right. Some of the delta does include NVIDIA. We also have additional expected royalties coming in from Q3 shipments typically shipments occur in Q3 we get payment -- all the payments in Q4. So some of the variable will also be higher in Q4 than they were in Q3.

Okay. Thank you, Satish. Have you guys been able to compile any information about NVIDIA's average ASPs considering the -- considering the price restrictions set in the EU agreement?

We have a tremendous amount of data we've been able to compile but I don't think that's something we should discuss in this call. Representing NVIDIA's ASPs is something you should look for them to do.

Okay. Okay. What about -- the CAFC's decision. Tom, I'm looking at that -- I've got a couple of questions on that just in terms of maybe what that decision impact could have on NVIDIA's ability to litigate past due portion of the royalties.

Well, that -- that's a speculative question. What could it do depends on obviously what the fed circuit decides with respect to both Hynix and Micron. I'm just not really in a position to speculate on what they're going to decide. But is it possible that there could be some impact? It is possible on the one hand. On the other hand in the ITC case, the administrative law judge found that there was no prejudice and the LEO went into effect and the ITC confirmed that. It is not obvious there would be any effect at all at this point.

Okay. And what impact has NVIDIA's decision to negotiate and license with Rambus, how has that affected negotiations with AMD? Should we be modeling a flat amount going forward or has Rambus been able to achieve and it is the end of the year that I believe you stated you would give us some information. Has Rambus been able to achieve a higher quarterly payment from AMD now?

So, Jeff, I'll start to answer your question and then Satish can chime in. You mentioned ongoing negotiations with AMD and I just want to be clear. That there are not negotiations going on with AMD at this time. They already exercised their right to renew and there was a predetermined calculation that was part of the original license agreement that determines what the forward-going payments will be under the renewal and Satish, I think can shed a little bit of light on that.

Just looking at their year-to-date numbers and compare them to 2005, I think we expect our six payments to go up by about -- by the mid teens. So, I would say between 14 to 18 percentage higher than what we were receiving in the past.

Okay. So, just so I'm understanding correctly, 14 -- you're saying to increase into the teens on an annual basis is what they're going to pay or were you talking about the percentage increase?

No, this is their payment to us on a quarterly basis or annual basis because they have a fixed payment.

Right. So, you're saying now you think it is going to be in the mid teens?

The percentage increase is going to be in the mid teens.

That's what I was trying to understand.

It would be 1.14 to 1.18 times what we have been receiving in the past.

Okay. Very helpful. I don't want to take up too much time, so I'll just ask one more question here. What -- what's the status, Tom, with the antitrust trial and the reason I say status is that if McBride takes the case, what ability do the defendants have to delay the starting of the case by appealing that decision and does that then impact at all, in your discussions, with your counsel, the ability of this case to go to trial if Mr. Price's case has not gone to trial February 1, in mid February versus June. A lot of uncertainty it seems here for you guys and just trying to understand, how you're handling maybe Satish, the expense of legal with that. How you handle getting ready for a February trial that may be moved to June or vice versa. And maybe how you think a potential appeal, if lobbied in by the defendants could impact the case in the near term.

Well, I'll start with the answer on that, Jeff, thanks. I will fully confirm that there is a lot of uncertainty as to that particular case, the starting date certainly therefore when it would be completed. You may know it and I continue to hope that we will have a February 2011 trial date started in front of Judge McBride. I don't want to speculate on what kind of strategies or theories that the defendants can come up with to further delay the trial. They've surprised us with some of the things they've come up with to date and rather than give them anymore ideas, I think I won't make any speculation on that.

As you know, I think Judge Kramer has indicated that the start of the Mattel versus Bratz trial is a significant issue in getting our case started. Apparently a ninth circuit ruling occurred today that makes it -- pushes it off into December as to summary judgment motions in that case, which we're not a part of so there's no misunderstanding. We won't know realistically when that trial will start until late December, possibly January, possibly later. And so that just sort of further identifies the uncertainty. We really don't know when it is going to start but we're still hoping for February of 2011.

Okay. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Jeff.

Okay. (Operator Instructions). And we'll go with our next question from Michael Cohen from MDC Financial.

Great. Thank you for taking my call. My first question is actually about the Fujitsu license that was executed back in March of 2006. It was to be between $108 million and $198 million based on Fujitsu's use of license memory. I was wondering if you could share how much money Rambus has received to date from Fujitsu in between that $108 million and $198 million range.

Michael, we typically don't break out by customer. We do show who our top ten customers are in our Ks and Qs, but we don't disclose by customer what the payments are, what we have received and what we have yet to receive.

Would you be willing to give us a clue like the high or low end of the range?

Well, the license comes up for renewal next year.

That's correct.

And I'm not going to say whether they're in the high end or the low end at this point in time.

Okay. Can you share what quarter next year it is going to come up for renewal?

It is Q1. Q1 of 2011. It was a five-year term from 2006.

Okay. And my next question, this might be a Harold question, is similar to the Fujitsu license, is Rambus doing anything to put pressure on (inaudible) companies to use license memory and sort similar to the Fujitsu deal and if so, how has the Samsung license changed the dynamics by having a lot more licensed memory out there to choose from?

I think that your final phrase goes a long way in answering the question. You may recall that the Fujitsu license was negotiated quite awhile ago. In essence, with the exception of Elpida, everyone was unlicensed. We have done quite well we think in litigation, we hope to do better shortly and obviously we have signed Samsung. We're working hard to get Elpida signed so the beneficial effect of that particular concept is obviously reduced in proportion to the number of companies signed. That would be the best way I can put it.

Do you think that we should kind of abandon the hope that we might see more systems level licenses or is that something that Rambus is actively trying to pursue with the strategy?

Well, I would simply say that the issues revolving around DRAM and the controller running them is a -- one way of looking at system licenses. We have other ways of looking at system licenses. As it relates to the first model, if you will, the one used at Fujitsu. I don't believe we'll use it. But that does not mean that other system-type licensing is off the table, on the contrary.

Okay. And my last question is probably a combination for Satish and Tom. There appears to be still two outstanding shareholders from the back dating period. Option back dating period. I was wondering if Rambus had taken a charge or if you expect any kind of material liability that we should expect from those seats going forward.

We have not taken a charge. And we do not expect to be taking -- its not a contingent liability on our books at this point in time.

More precisely, we haven't taken a reserve, a charge has only happened were there to be a settlement.

No, there is no settlement at this point on either of those cases and you're referring to the -- the Steelcases and the Kelly cases. We're working hard, as you probably know to try to get the Kelly cases fully dismissed. They have been dismissed previously. We're working to get those redismissed if you will. With respect to steel, that's an ongoing litigation. I'm treating it as seriously as any of our other litigation.

Okay. It appears that the Kelly case recently had a ruling where they were allowed to file a second minute complaint so it appears that one is still going forward as well.

They were given the opportunity to do so again. We're still hopeful that that case will be dismissed. Keep in mind they're representing themselves and quite often, judges will give a lot more leeway in pro se cases than they would if they had been represented by outside counsel or law firms, for example.

I don't want to predict an outcome of a case but they're given more -- a little bit more leeway than many other parties would be given.

I've noticed there had been many complaints both on the federal and the state up to this point.

That's correct.

Okay. I guess that answers all of my questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Thanks, Michael.

Okay. Thank you. (Operator Instructions). We'll take our next question from Kelly Anderson with Sidoti & Co.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Just a quick one on the timing issue for the price fixing case. The potential for delay there, is that being motivated by specific issues to the case, are there additional challenges you have to address or maybe related to the switch in judges there or is it completely related to the other trial that's going to go ahead of yours?

That's a good question. Thanks, Kelly. At the present time, the delay in getting a trial date set in court is the potential conflict of another case by one of the attorneys representing one of the defendants in the case. And that is, as I alluded to earlier, the Mattel versus Bratz case in which one of the defense lawyers in our case is a lawyer in that case as well. So, at the present time, Judge Kramer has indicated that that conflict is the issue with respect to whether we start hopefully February or sometime later in 2011.

Okay. Thanks. That's very helpful. I also had a question on the lighting initiatives there. You seemed to reference initiatives in solid state lighting. I understand you have some technology related to back lighting as well. Can you tell me a little bit about what your focus is for the lighting products and how quickly you think if there is any way you can put a guess to this, you can monetize the investments that you've made there?

Yes. Thank you. In my comments, I referenced the design facility that we're completing in Ohio. The purpose of that facility is to prototype various lighting solutions for customers, the first of which is GE, obviously we would like to sign other ones showing -- doing a prototype design for GE based upon their needs within the manufactured presumably in a lower cost country and then shipped through GE. That's a process that I think you could measure in quarters. Not longer than that. As I said, in addition to GE, we're obviously going to attempt to sign many other people. Very excited about that and we think we have technology that will allow GE to be very successful.

The patents that we acquired and there were a large number of them, I won't guess the number off the top of my head, it was the better part of 200, have relevance to back lighting as you've said and we're contemplating our particular strategy right now. No, I do believe that they have value and we'll get back to you in the not-too-distant future as to how we'll go to market.

Just a follow on to that. The patents that you acquired during the third quarter, were they also related to lighting technologies?

The smaller ones we acquired?

Yes.

No, they were -- they're what we call semiconductor tuck-ins.

Got it. Okay, great. Then just a quick one for Satish. Is there any way you can help us to estimate what the share count might look like for Q4 given the accelerated repurchase program?

Stocks being fairly stable between $18 and $20 at this point in time. For $90 million, you can make an estimate and say if stock buys remains where it is, I'm sure you want to make, you can take $90 million divided by $19 or $20 and get to the number of shares because the ASR will be completed in Q4. So, we will reduce the share count by $90 million worth of dollars in the quarter. So, I think that would be a fair enough guess.

Ok, great. That's helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, maam. Our next question is coming from Hamed Khorsand from BWS Financial.

Hi, I wanted to start off with -- you made some comments about XDR mobile, you are going through. Could you provide a little bit more details, there is a whole process that you guys have to get involved in. Have you guys been able to obtain a handset maker included into a design so like testing could begin with actual handset with the memory solution? Any details on where you guys actually are in the process?

Hamed, there is a lot that we have been able to do both on our own and then in sharing information and simulation results with potential partners. But as of yet, we haven't announced any partners and so I'm not at liberty to give names.

Okay. And then talking about the increase in staffing, are you just basically nullifying the restructuring you guys incurred last year? And what kind of increase are we looking at in OpEx?

I don't think I would structure -- I would state it as a nullification. A significant portion of the increase in heads we have has come in the lighting division, about 20 to 25. That's a large portion of the increase. And we continue to look at areas outside of just the memory area where we make some hires to begin to build small businesses there. And replacing any of the turnover we have.

Okay. So, is it fair to assume that OpEx would continue to move higher beyond Q4?

I think that it is fair to assume that but not by amounts that are terribly significant to our P&L would be how I would state it.

I would agree with that.

Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.

Certainly.

Okay, at the moment I'm showing no further questions.

Again, thank you, everyone, for continued interest and support and we look forward to talking to you next quarter.

Okay. So, assuming we'll end the call. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude your conference. You may now disconnect and have a great day.

Thank you.

Thank you.