SSR Mining Inc (SSRM) 2019 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to SSR Mining's Third Quarter 2019 Conference Call. This call is being recorded.

At this time, for opening remarks and introductions, I would like to turn the call over to Stacey Pavlova, Manager, Investor Relations.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to SSR Mining's Third Quarter 2019 Call, during which we will provide an update on our business and a review of our financial performance. Our financial statements and management's discussion and analysis have been filed on SEDAR and EDGAR and are also available on our website.

To accompany our call, there is an online webcast, and you will find the information to access the webcast in our news release relating to this call. Please note that all figures discussed during the call are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. All references to cash costs and all-in sustaining costs are per payable ounce of metal sold. We will be making forward-looking statements today, so please read the disclosures in the relevant documents.

Joining us on the call this morning are Paul Benson, President and CEO; Greg Martin, our CFO; Kevin O'Kane, COO; and Carl Edmunds, Vice President, Exploration. Also participating is John DeCooman, Senior Vice President, Business Development and Strategy.

Now I would like to turn the call over to Paul for opening remarks.

Thank you, Stacey. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm pleased to welcome you to our call to discuss our third quarter 2019 operating and financial results. Q3 was another strong quarter, as we produced over 100,000 gold equivalent ounces at our 3 operations, delivering improved margins and maintaining a strong financial position.

All 3 mines achieved solid results. BV delivered a record quarterly production with over 32,000 ounces of gold while achieving quarterly records in recovery and gold grade under our ownership. At Marigold, we produced nearly 53,000 ounces of gold whilst taking 6.4 million tons of ore at a higher quarterly gold rate of 0.51 grams per ton, setting itself well for the remainder of the year. At Puna Operations, where we consolidated 100% of our ownership in September, we produced 1.7 million ounces of silver during the quarter. This improved production was coupled with an increased amount of ore mined in advance of the rainy season. The strong operating performance and production results at each site position us well to meet or exceed our consolidated production guidance for the 8th consecutive year.

From an exploration perspective, our 2019 programs at Marigold, Seabee and Puna are continuing, and Carl will provide an update on each shortly. It's pleasing to see positive exploration results to date at Marigold and Seabee, which are expected to add to reserves and resources at year end 2019.

At the recently acquired Trenton Canyon property immediately south of Marigold, we are focused on confirmatory work that we expect will allow us to bring some of the resources Newmont had identified during its ownership of the property into our inferred resources at year end. Next year we expect to fund the diamond drilling campaign, looking for deeper high-grade sulphide targets.

We're also pleased with our financial performance during the quarter, as we reported $28 million of adjusted attributable net income and generated $53 million of cash from operating activities. We improved our cash balance to $474 million at the end of the third quarter, as we generated $22 million of free cash flow. Notably, our cash and $51 million in marketable securities amount to over $0.5 billion, which provides us with significant flexibility.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Kevin, who will discuss our operational performance in more detail.

Thank you, Paul. As you heard, our operational performance in Q3 and year-to-date continues to track well against our consolidated production guidance, which we improved at midyear. We produced more than 100,00 gold equivalent ounces during Q3 at consolidated cash costs of $759 per gold equivalent ounce. At Marigold, we produced 52,968 ounces of gold, 4% less than the second quarter, mainly due to stacking of ore on the higher locations on the leach pads, which means it takes longer for the solution to reach the collection system. 19 million tons of material were mined, in line with the second quarter. Approximately 6.4 million tons of ore were delivered to the heap leach pads at a grade of 0.51 grams per ton gold, an increase in stacked gold compared to Q2. The gold rate in the leach pads was 34% higher quarter-on-quarter, consistent with plan, as we mined higher-grade ore in the current phase of the Mackay pit. The strip ratio was 2:1 for the third quarter.

Cash costs were $822 per ounce, 2% lower than the second quarter. Higher fuel and tire costs due to longer hauls and timing of change-outs were offset by lower labor and mine maintenance costs. Cash costs were impacted by increased royalty costs with the higher gold price and lower deferred stripping, offset by higher recoverable ounces stacked during the quarter.

Sustaining capital expenditure guidance has been increased by $10 million to $45 million, reflecting the delivery of a replacement hydraulic loading unit in the fourth quarter. The loader was anticipated to be acquired in 2020 but due to favorable lead times, Marigold is advancing replacement before year end.

Subsequent to the quarter end, Marigold received a positive record of decision on its Marigold mined Mackay optimization EIS.

Moving on to Seabee, the mine produced a record 32,345 ounces of gold in the third quarter of 2019, a 22% increase compared to the second quarter due to higher mill feed grade, which more than offset lower throughput. Cash costs were $373 per ounce compared to $526 per ounce in Q2 2019, 20% lower -- 29% lower, due mainly to higher production from the higher feed grade.

The mill processed 842 tons per day over the third quarter, 13% lower than the previous quarter, mostly due to electrical transformer damage resulting from lightning strikes. Nearly a full week of production was lost from this weather-related power outage. Gold mill feed grade was 12.39 grams per ton, 26% higher than the previous quarter due to the mining of higher-grade stopes. Gold recovered for the quarter was 98.8%, slightly higher than the second quarter and a record quarterly result during our ownership.

The new underground equipment commissioned during the second quarter continues to operate well. Underground development rates were flat for the quarter, mainly due to the power outages. We still expect to reach a mining rate, and hence a processing rate, of 1,050 tons per day by year end 2019.

As we indicated during previous calls, we are expanding the class of our tailings storage facility to accommodate the increase in reserves added during the past 2 years. We will complete 100% of the 2019 scope for the tailings expansion project during the first half of Q4 2019. The project remains on time and is tracking well to budget.

Puna Operations produced 1.7 million ounces of silver during the third quarter, 12% higher than the second quarter of 2019, mainly due to higher mill throughput and silver grade. Silver sales totaled 1.5 million ounces. Cash costs were $14.22 per ounce of silver for the third quarter compared to $9.80 per ounce of silver in the second quarter, mainly due to lower byproduct revenues and higher operating costs.

During the third quarter, ore was melted at an average of 3,648 tons per day, a 7% increase compared to the previous quarter, mainly due to improved performance at the new tailings pumping system. During the month of September 2019, ore was milled at an average of 4,539 tons per day. Processed ore in the third quarter contained an average grade of 165 grams per ton silver, a 3% increase compared to the second quarter, consistent with the mine plan and average silver reserve grade. The strip ratio during the quarter was 4.3:1, significantly lower compared to the previous quarter, as we indicated during our second quarter conference call.

In summary, the operations again delivered solid results during the quarter, setting us up well for a record full year gold equivalent production, with higher throughput at Seabee and the head grade at Seabee and Marigold near their reserve averages in the fourth quarter.

I will now hand over to Carl, who will take you through our exploration activities.

Thank you, Kevin. During the quarter our exploration activities remained focused on supporting the growth of mineral resources and reserves at our 3 mine sites. While most of the activity occurred at our North American operations, we also began mobilization for a diamond drill program at our Pirquitas property at Puna Operations.

At Marigold we have been active on several fronts. At Red Dot, geotechnical drilling and engineering work advanced towards the goal of declaring additional mineral reserves, while infield drilling continued at Mackay and North and South Red Dot.

Exploration drilling to define new additional resources continued at Valmy, Crossfire and the East Basalt targets. In total, during the third quarter we completed 17,000 meters of drilling in 51 RC drill holes. We are encouraged by results received during the quarter from the Crossfire target on the Valmy property, with results such as 48.8 meters grading 0.85 grams per ton and 21.3 meters grading 1.17 grams per ton in 2 holes spaced 75 meters apart. These are open for expansion and located at minimal depths outside areas of past mining and are expected to increase our mineral resources estimate at Marigold at year end 2019.

Late in June we announced the acquisition of the contiguous Trenton Canyon property, which almost doubles our landholdings at Marigold. During the quarter we began drilling on the project, which presents several interesting targets ranging from near-surface oxide to deeper sulphide targets. We are currently focusing on near-surface work to define oxide resources to be added to our mineral resources estimate at year end 2019. Additionally, we expect to allocate budget in our 2020 exploration program, testing for higher-grade deep sulphide targets on both Marigold and the Trenton Canyon property.

Moving to Seabee. We've continued underground exploration of the Gap hanging wall, Santoy 8A and Santoy Gap mineralized zones. Most of the work centered on the 1,200-meter long Gap hanging wall zone, where we defined -- we are defining additional mineral resources and which we expect to report at year end 2019.

During the quarter 13,732 meters of drilling was completed from 3 underground drill stations. In addition to the exploration information we published in July, in the quarter we received positive results from Gap hanging wall, such as 16.3 meters grading 5.97 grams per ton, 5 meters grading 10.9 grams per ton, and 3.6 meters grading 11 grams per ton gold.

Encouraging results were also returned from Santoy 8A, where we have connected an area between 2 lodes of indicated resources, with results such as 5.8 meters grading 19.8 grams per ton and 2.6 meters grading 29.8 grams per ton gold.

Greenfields activities on Seabee and the contiguous Fisher project wrapped up for the season in the third quarter. Objectives here are to identify new areas with potential for inferred resources through soil geochemistry, prospecting, trenching and geologic mapping. The work has located numerous zones of anomalous gold in bedrock and soil located near Batman Lake and an area 800 meters north of the Gap underground workings as well as north and south of the Mac zone on the Fisher property. Analytical results will be received during the fourth quarter of 2019 and will form the basis of some of our 2020 exploration work.

Shifting to Puna Operations, we mobilized 1 diamond drill to our Pirquita site to drill the Grenada target, which is located 800 to 1,000 meters below the area between the Cortaderas underground resource and the depleted San Miguel pit. The drill targeted the intersection zone of 2 major mineralized structures in the district, and we expect to report on the progress here next quarter.

Now over to Greg for a discussion of our financial results.

Thanks, Carl. I'll keep my comments brief, as the quarter delivered what our investors would expect with improving precious metals prices. Predictable operating performance, which delivered strong financial results at expanded margins. All operations contributed positively to the quarter, with corporate and capital spending remaining on plan.

For the quarter we generated revenues of $148 million and income from mine operations of $52 million. Revenue was similar to the second quarter, and if you recall, the second quarter benefited from a catch-up in silver and zinc concentrate sales at Puna Operations. However, mine operating earnings increased 74% compared to the second quarter, showing a strong increase in operating margins at all of our operations. This improved margin increased our bottom line significantly, as we reported net income of $18.1 million or $0.17 per share and adjusted net income of $28.4 million or $0.23 per share. These were quarter-on-quarter increases of 89% and 53%, respectively, on a per-share basis.

You likely noted the high tax expense in the quarter. This was driven by a larger-than-normal deferred tax expense, so therefore noncash tax expense at Puna Operations due to the significant devaluation of the Argentine peso that impacts the tax basis of the operation. We continue to forecast not paying cash income tax in Argentina over the coming few years.

Turning to cash flow. The story is even better. Cash flow from operating activities totaled $53 million, an impressive 57% increase from the second quarter. Cash flow would have been even stronger if we hadn't built gold bullion and concentrate inventories in the quarter due to timing of shipments from the sites. Sustaining capital at all operations stayed consistent with guidance, with capitalized stripping below expectations, as both Marigold and Puna mined at a lower strip ratio.

We made a top-up investment in SilverCrest shares of $3.4 million to maintain our 9.8% ownership, which was largely financed by offsetting sales in other marketable securities. This investment takes the average entry price of our investment to CAD 3.91 per share, with their current share price about double that amount. We ended the quarter with a higher cash position of $474 million, as we generated $22 million in free cash flow. Working capital stood at $636 million at quarter end.

Of note in the quarter was the acquisition of the 25% interest in Puna Operations. Since we already consolidated 100% of Puna as the controlling shareholder, the impacts to our financial statements were fairly benign. We recorded the minor cash payment in our investing cash flows, with the remainder of the transaction being balance sheet changes, as the non-controlling interest previously reported was compressed into equity and the partner loan was eliminated. Going forward, this simplifies our reporting and gives us full economic exposure to the asset. The Chinchillas project has now effectively been completed. However, some capital amounts will flow to the last quarter as we clear contracts and holdbacks.

While at Puna Operations, just to comment on the reported cash costs, which jumped a fair bit from Q2, I have noted previously that we will see volatility in reported cash costs at Puna due to its nature as a concentrate producer with meaningful byproduct credits. We had a quarter with low byproduct credits and low deferred stripping, both of which impact on reported cash costs. Also, at both Puna and more so at Marigold, higher metal prices, while most welcome, resulted in higher royalty charges flowing through cash costs.

Looking forward to the fourth quarter. Our focus remains on delivering improved, consistent and predictable financial results to close a successful year.

With those comments, I'll turn the call back to Paul.

Thanks, Greg. So in summary, another strong production quarter, which positions us well to meet or exceed guidance for the 8th consecutive year. The solid operating delivery at all 3 mines translated into a strong financial performance for the quarter with improved margins, $22 million of free cash flow and an increased cash and marketable securities balance of over $0.5 billion.

With this, we conclude the formal remarks of our earning call. I'll now pass the line to the operator to take any questions you may have.

[Operator Instructions.] The first question comes from Mike Parkin of National Bank.

Since the depreciation per ounce, I've noticed a trend that this is dropping for Marigold and Seabee, it seems, for each quarter on a per-ounce basis. Is that something that -- like where do we see that stabilizing on a go-forward basis, or should we benchmark that off like a per-tonnage basis?

Yes, thanks, Mike. Obviously, the overall depreciation charge is really broken into 2 components. One, which is the PP&E side, which is really looked at, if you look back at our accounting policies, is done on a straight-line basis. So that's more tied to the overall mine life. So with the success we've had at both Seabee and Marigold, we've seen that charge drop because of the mine life extensions there. So I'd look back at our reserve basis for those 2 operations to look at how that PP&E gets split over the coming periods.

The other piece is the depletion piece, which is the mineral resource part, which is done on a units-of-production basis. So again, that should stay relatively stable within the year but will decline as additional reserves are proven up, and we can then amortize that depletion over more ounces.

The part that does cause some volatility is really the deferred stripping piece. Because that's done on a phase-by-phase basis, we'll be amortizing that deferred stripping over the existing phase. And that one's a little bit more challenging to predict, but it's the smaller component of those 3 pieces.

The next question comes from Cosmos Chiu of CIBC.

Maybe first off on Marigold here, good to hear that likely we'll see some inferred resources come out maybe by year end on Trenton Canyon. But I'm just wondering, like when can we find out a bit more detail on these newest acquisitions -- Trenton Canyon and Buffalo Hill or Buffalo Valley and when they might potentially come into the mine plan?

The Focus at the moment really is on the QA/QC and confirmatory work on the resource that Newmont had, and that's what we're talking about. We expect to see some of that to come into our inferred resource when we do the update early next year. And that's really the work we're doing there at the moment.

Next year we'll fund exploration at 2 levels. One, chasing the oxide to see what we can prove up there. But also, we'll start to fund the deeper exploration program, targeting the higher-grade sulphide, and that will start next year.

Because it would be a satellite operation, we have to do the work. We've got to any study to see how any discoveries there are actually then brought into the Marigold operation, and that will play out over the next couple of years. We're really excited by the ground. We've doubled the land position, and we already know there are targets there. And hopefully, we'll continue to find more.

And that leads me to my next question here. It sounds -- it's a huge positive that you were able to get the EIS permit for the expansion of Marigold, now including Red Dot and the associated facilities. But then again, maybe this is too early, but if we were to include some of the other acquisitions -- the 2, Trenton Canyon and Buffalo Valley again -- could you walk us through what other permits you might potentially need in terms of walking through that process of getting them back up and running?

Yes, as a simple generalization, you can't have more than 1 permit application in at any one time in Nevada. So we started that process back in 2015, around the same time we bought Valmy. So Valmy wasn't included in that. So where now we have that record of decision on the Marigold Mine property, we're going through a planning process to decide what we do next, whether we can amalgamate Valmy with Trenton Canyon and Buffalo Valley. Once we decide the best way forward on that, we'll obviously inform the market in terms of the process we're running.

The important thing is that down at Trenton Canyon, there's disturbed ground and we're able to drill there already, so that isn't held up by it. So we don't see it impacting or delaying any of our mining decisions.

For sure. And then I noticed for your sustaining CapEx for 2019 in Marigold, it increased by $10 million. You did mention that it's for the hydraulic loader that you're going to bring in that was to be scheduled for 2020, but now brought into 2019. Is the entire (inaudible) for this hydraulic loader? Because again, (inaudible) seems to be a bit high in terms of just for 1 hydraulic loader. This isn't those big rope shovels that I've seen onsite, right? This is in addition to it?

Yes, I'll pass it over to Kevin.

It is a hydraulic shovel, and it's about halfway in size between our existing hydraulic shovels and the large rope shovel, so it is a large shovel.

And what we talked about last year was with the optimization study, we were thinking -- we looked at whether it made sense to bring in a big rope shovel. The issue there, you also then have to increase the whole plate size significantly as well, and that analysis said we didn't need to do it. This one is a bit bigger than the existing hydraulics and will give us significantly more flexibility and it will have a lower mining cost. The reason we brought it in this year is it just happened that there's one available at Elko ready to go, so it avoids the 10-month waiting time. So it was -- we were lucky to be able to get that.

Of course. Maybe switching gears a little bit here, I noticed that you've maintained your 9.8% interest in SilverCrest, and that's a question I get quite a bit on my end as well from investors.

So do I.

So maybe, Paul, if you can reconfirm or remind us of any standstill agreements that you might have in place. And what's your current thinking right now in terms of that investment? Clearly, you've made good money on it. I think you got in at about (inaudible). Now it's almost doubled. So what's your current thinking at this point in time?

Yes, what we've said all the way along when we took that position, we like the project. It's a great project and obviously, the standout aspect of it is the grade, very high grade, and grade always rules. We kept our 9.8% position during the quarter as they did a further capital raise. The team there have done a tremendous job, both in terms of geology but also advancing the project. I think they're currently working to feasibility in Q2 of next year. And what we've said to our shareholders all the way along is that we're very happy with the project. We're benefiting from the exposure. Long term, we'll either end up owning more of it or less of it, but we'll make a decision based on how we think it suits our shareholders. And so we're happy to sit back at the moment and see how that project develops.

And I don't know, again, if you can answer this question, but is there any kind of timing in terms of when you might be making that decision?

No. We're happy to sit back and watch them. They've indicated at the moment, I think, around May for the feasibility study, and so we'll wait and see what happens.

And then maybe one last question, accounting question here, if I may. Greg, as you mentioned, you're not -- you don't foresee paying any kind of cash taxes in Argentina. And if I look at your financial statements, it doesn't seem like you're paying cash taxes overall as a company. I'm just wondering if you anticipate that on a go-forward basis in terms of cash taxes. I only asked that question because I see that your deferred income tax asset has now been decreased to almost now $63,000. Your deferred tax liability has increased, and based on my prior career as a non-practicing accountant, I thought that would be somewhat connected to how much cash taxes you might be paying. Could you maybe walk us through that aspect?

Yes, I think as a basis, I'd just refer you to the cash flow statement, and it clearly shows the income taxes paid line. So we are paying cash taxes at Marigold and Seabee. There is mineral taxes payable on both of those and obviously, depending where gold prices end up, we'll pay income tax at those 2 jurisdictions.

And as well in Argentina, we do pay royalties and other provincial taxes. They get reported as royalties, not through the tax line, because they're tied to an NSR, not an income tax. So I certainly don't want to leave the impression that we aren't paying cash income taxes as an organization, because as you can see, we've paid about $15 million year-to-date of income taxes. It was a bit lower in the quarter, but that's just timing. As we file our income tax returns at midyear, that tends to focus the bulk of the payments at certain periods of time.

Okay. And then maybe since you mentioned Argentina, or maybe I mentioned Argentina, you've been in Argentina for a long time. You know Argentina well. About 2 weeks ago now, there was an election. A left-leaning party that you might know well got elected. Puna, Chinchilla, Argentina as a percentage of your NAV is now a lot less significant than it would have been 7 or 8 years ago. However, I'm just wondering if we should be concerned, any concerns that we should have in terms of the changes in Argentina?

No. Obviously, the actual government changes in -- I think it's December. Certainly the President-elect has a previous track record of, I think, being very fiscally responsible, so our people on the ground are obviously paying attention, but from where we are, we've got a good business there. We're a significant employer in Jujuy, and the business is running smoothly down there. But we'll wait and see how things change in the country over the coming 24 months.

Congrats on a very good financial quarter here.

The next question comes from Chris Thompson of PI Financial.

Congratulations on a really, really good quarter. So I have a couple of additional ones, though. Really, 1 question, 2 parts, same theme. I wonder if you could walk us through the nice bump in grades at Seabee and Marigold. Specifically, are they sustainable by way of the Marigold -- sorry -- by way of the mine plan envisaged in the near term for each mine?

I'll talk to Seabee and I'll let Kevin talk to Marigold. With Seabee is significant variation in grade across the ore body. I think the average at the beginning of the year was 9.2. We've obviously mined about that at the quarter. But that area that we mined was more or less in line with the model, so it's not unexpected and very much according to our schedule. We've indicated that we expect grade to come back closer to reserve grade in Q4. Kevin, on Marigold?

Yes, again at Marigold, the variability in absolute terms is not as large at Marigold as at Seabee. As we indicated in the call, the grades in the fourth quarter and going forward are going to be in the neighborhood of the reserve grade, and so that's what you should expect.

Okay. Great. And then just a final question, just moving over to Puna. I wonder if you'd just update us by way of plant optimization, specifically the balance between lead and zinc.

Yes, zinc is the minor product there. We run the plant to maximize silver production, and the silver goes predominantly with the lead as a concentrate. So everything's driven around maximizing the value, so silver is very much the third product. Kevin, any other comment?

Not only do we run the plant that way, but we feed the plant that way from the stockpiles so that we feed the highest grade value first, or highest value material first with the highest recovery, which is the silver-lead combination.

All right, so do you think the Q3 grades we saw by way of lead and zinc are representative of what we should expect, moving forward?

Yes.

The only other thing I was going to say is in terms of byproduct credits, we produce 2 kinds, so the lead con, which has the silver, and the zinc con, and they shipped separately in a different time, so that's why you can get variation in that as well.

[Operator Instructions.] The next question comes from Adam Graf of B. Riley.

Just a quick -- you guys still are holding Pitarrilla and San Luis on the books. Just curious if there's any progress there or you guys have considered, given current pricing of the underlying commodities, maybe potentially spinning those out into a separate equity spinout and trying to gain some value there.

Adam, I'll just talk briefly to Pitarrilla and then I'll let Greg talk to San Luis. Pitarrilla, what we've indicated is that at the beginning of last year, we said we were going to have a look at a configuration focused on the high-grade sulphide at depth. And we said we'd only go ahead with that project if it was a double-digit IRR. During the year we indicated the results were -- it was definitely NPV positive, and this was at spot prices, but it was single digit, and we were sticking with that discipline.

What we had noted, however, is that the resource and reserve modeling had all been done assuming an open pit, and the drilling had been done assuming an open pit. So it tends to be vertical holes. The high-grade mineralization at depth tends to be subvertical, so we know that the drilling profile had a risk of underestimating the amount of high grade.

So we're looking at a project to see whether we extend an existing decline that was put in, in the 2000s, extending that a bit to get into a position where we could do some horizontal infield drilling. The objective there would be to see whether we can increase the size of the higher grade. That would improve the economics of the project. We're just going through a process of re-bidding on the development for that and seeing what's available there in Mexico.

The project, all up, order of magnitude if we went ahead with it, the ballpark figure would be about $10 million and it would probably take 18 to 24 months when you consider the development and the drilling that you do from that. And I think it would make sense for us, depending on what those contractor costs come in, for us to do that before we make any decision on the project. And San Luis, over to Greg.

As you know, San Luis is a high-grade, high-cash-flowing, relatively modest-sized asset. We've had some progress this year with the communities. We had stepped back for a couple of years just to let that situation settle down, and we started a strategy of reengaging in late 2018. So we have seen some progress, and we're back into an active community engagement piece with both the Ecash and Cochabamba communities and have signed some recent agreements with them. It is still step by step, so we're taking it slow. But we're encouraged that there's some progress and some better engagement from the community side there.

Ultimately, our strategy here is to position the project for maximum value. And whether that comes through as a development project for us or as a different model, we'll make that decision as we get the project to a point that we really feel it's stabilized.

I think I just said, I think Greg has led that team in-country. And when you look at the other news that's happening in Peru, where there have been lots of issues, where people have gone backwards with respect to community relations, et cetera, yes, this has really been an impressive result. We've been happy with the progress. It's been slow and steady, but that's the way you can move these projects along. So hopefully, we'll continue to chip away at that over the next calendar year.

Okay. From what we can see, that's the final call, so with that, thank you very much for joining the call, and speak to you again next quarter.

This concludes today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.