聯華電子 (UMC) 2011 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Welcome, everyone, to UMC's 2011 Q4 earnings conference call.

(Operator Instructions).

For your information, this conference call is now being broadcasted live over the Internet.

Webcast replay will be available within an hour after the conference is finished.

Please visit our website at www.umc.com under the Investor Relations, Investor Events, section.

I would now like to introduce Mr.

Bowen Huang, Head of Investor Relations at UMC.

Mr.

Huang, you may begin.

Thank you and welcome to UMC's conference call for the fourth quarter of 2011.

With me today is the CEO of UMC, Dr.

Shih-Wei Sun; and the CFO, Mr.

Chitung Liu.

During this conference, we will make forward-looking statements based on management's current expectations and beliefs.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including risks that may be beyond the Company's control.

For these risks, please refer to UMC's filings with the SEC in the US and with the ROC securities authorities.

I'd now like to introduce UMC's CFO, Mr.

Chitung Liu, to explain UMC's Q4 2011 and the full-year 2011 business results.

Thank you, Bowen.

For the fourth quarter of 2011, revenue was TWD24.43 billion, a [10.5%] quarter-over-quarter decrease from TWD25.19 billion in third quarter of 2011, and a 22% year-over-year decrease from TWD31.32 billion in 4Q 2010.

Gross margin was 18.6%.

Operating margin was 3.4%.

Net income was TWD1.18 billion and earnings per ordinary share were TWD0.09.

In 2011, revenue for the full year was TWD105.88 billion, with TWD10.14 billion operating income, TWD10.81 billion net income and TWD0.86 earnings per share.

Above is a short summary of UMC's results of Q4 2011 and full-year 2011.

More details are available in the report, which has been posted on our website.

I will now turn the call over to Dr.

Sun.

Thanks, Chitung.

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

In Q4 2011, revenue was in line with UMC's guidance with a 10% decrease in quarterly shipments contributing to a revenue decline.

We shipped 915,000 8-inch equivalent wafers with ASP increasing 5% in NT dollars.

Overall utilization was 68%.

Revenue from 40-nanometer exceeded 10% for December monthly sales, bringing revenue contribution from this node to 8% for the fourth quarter.

Since the first quarter of the year is traditional slow, UMC's quarterly revenue will decrease slightly from the previous quarter, however we expect to maintain operating profitability through continuous cost reduction and efficiency enhancement measures.

During the slow period, our operating profitability has gained resilience and stability as a result of our successful efforts to improve our operating structure and diversify risk.

From a market standpoint, we have observed several signs that the industry cycle is reaching the bottom and believe that the multi-quarter inventory correction will end soon.

However, due to several remaining uncertainties, recovery of momentum will be determined by macroeconomic conditions and the strength of end demand.

UMC is optimistic about the demand for advanced mobile communication and computing chips.

To capitalize on this opportunity, we will expand our comprehensive 28-nanometer and 40-nanometer foundry solutions, cooperate with top-tier customers to gain more flagship products, and build sufficient capacity.

Our 2012 CapEx budget of $2 billion will help fulfill these commitments.

However, we will not blindly add capacity.

Instead, our investment plan is based on progressive stages of both advanced technology readiness and customer capacity requirements.

Due to promising 28-nanometer engagements and strong demand, we believe UMC will be well rewarded when 28-nanometer mass production begins.

As for 2.5D silicon interposer solution, we have successfully taped out a 2.5D interposer for 28-nanometer and 40-nanometer customers.

We have also developed an open platform, with back-end OSAT partners to extend our foundry services.

For 2012, UMC will put forth great effort to strengthen long-term partnerships with customers, provide competitive advanced technology, and commit sufficient capacity to secure the next opportunity for growth.

Now let me provide you with the guidance for the first quarter of 2012.

Wafer shipments will increase marginally.

Wafer ASP, in US dollars, will decrease approximately 5%.

Operating margin will be in the low-single-digit percentage range.

Capacity utilization will be in the high 60% range.

The consumer and the computer segments will outpace the communications segment.

2012 CapEx budget is approximately $2 billion.

That concludes my comments.

We are now ready for questions.

Operator, please open the lines up.

Thanks.

(Operator Instructions).

And you have a question from the line of Randy Abrams from Credit Suisse.

Yes, hi.

Good evening.

I wanted to ask a question on the CapEx.

You noted in the afternoon that most of the CapEx was to convert capacity to 28-nanometer from older geometries.

Could you talk about how much 28-nanometer business or capacity you could support with that investment?

No, let me try to make a correction.

Not most of our capacity are used for conversion.

The new buy is still dominating -- is still the majority of our CapEx.

But we allocate a certain percentage of the $2 billion for a capacity upgrade.

That's the first.

Secondly, I mentioned we will provide enough capacity, actually more capacity, than supporting our 5% revenue targets towards the end of the year.

So, I cannot share with you the exact capacity number at this moment.

Okay.

No, thanks for the clarification.

If you could talk about the capital intensity, just to add wafer capacity, how it's changing from 40- to 28-nanometer and if your expectation, after this initial investment, if the costs may come down, say, for the next tranche of 28-nanometer capacity?

So, you mean the incremental increase from 40 to 28?

Yes, like -- yes, I guess the increase in capital intensity.

Just taking the $2 billion in perspective of the 4% capacity growth, it seems like it's a lot more intensive, but I'm wondering if it's the first tranche, as well, and may come down with additional tranches of capacity?

Actually, this $2 billion capacity includes some -- because our capacity deployment is really a continuous spectrum of efforts -- that includes some continuous deployment spilling over to 2013.

So, it's a continuous effort.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, one question on -- the Japanese companies seem to be going through a restructuring and some consolidation of the logic operations.

If you could talk about your view of some of the outsourcing potential and if you're also seeing some pickup in potential outsourcing from Japan as we go through some of the restructuring?

Our experience from foundry perspective, our Japanese customers are not a very aggressive user of the very leading-edge technologies so far.

So, in the meantime, they have their own capacities.

So, they are outsourcing this relatively slower than the other regions, like the US or even Taiwan customers.

But things may change.

I hope they can really be more aggressive using the foundry processes, especially the advanced domains.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Randy.

Your next question comes from the line of Dan Heyler of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch.

Hi.

Good evening, guys.

I had a few questions.

First, I wanted to ask you, on the first quarter margins, it looks as though your utilization is picking up nicely in 8-inch.

So, that's pulling down your ASP, I guess, by about 5% after the increase in the fourth quarter of 4% or 5%.

What are the implications for margins?

Do you get -- will you see margins pick up as a result of that or do margins stay flat at the gross margin level, quarter-on-quarter?

Our guidance on operating margin is low single digits, which is not too different from that of Q4.

And there are positive factor that you mentioned, that loading is picking up and also negative factor is price decline due to mix change.

And also, NT dollar exchange rate is in our -- is moving in unfavorable direction in Q1.

So, all together, we expect to see operating profit margins similar to that of Q4.

Then the depreciation side on cost of goods sold, are you seeing an increase in the first quarter there?

First quarter will be rather similar to that of Q4.

Got it.

Thanks.

For the full year, we are looking for up to 10% increase in depreciation for the full year 2012.

Okay.

What was the full-year increase?

10% -- up to 10%.

Up to 10.

Got it.

All right.

And then on the -- I was just reviewing some of the comments in the afternoon on my notes.

The contribution from 40-nanometer, you previously had expected that to be over 10% in the fourth quarter.

It looks like it's coming in at about 8%.

What's the expectations for that to be in terms of contribution to revenue by the second quarter of this year?

Actually, I said 10% towards the end of last year.

That's true, yes.

So, we surpassed 10% in December.

The whole quarter came up 8%.

So, I said in the afternoon for this year, towards the end of this year, 40-nanometer target is 15% of our revenue.

Yes, I'm just wondering why that's so low, given that you're hitting the inflection point, which should be about 10% of revenue and you've indicated you have 65 customer tape-outs and you're sampling, as well.

So, what are some of the factors why that isn't getting more widely adopted since it is a very mature and widely adopted technology by the industry?

So, if you look at the 40-nanometer and the 28-nanometer together, we are carefully managing the capacity deployment all together.

These technologies, the equipment set is mostly common and they're convertible.

So, at this moment, we are -- we would like to do as much 28-nanometer as we can.

So, together because the total capacity is planned together, so those are -- the total capacity between -- the share between 15 -- the 40-nanometer and 28-nanometer, we need to plan them together.

So, it's possible we can do more 40-nanometer, however 28-nanometer is our higher priority towards the second half of the year.

Got it.

Okay, I understand.

Thank you.

And so, based on that scenario, what are you thinking in terms of the 28-nanometer contribution by 4Q?

Are you think 5% or 10% range?

Yes.

We said in the afternoon towards the end of the year our target is 5% 28-nanometer revenue share.

Okay.

So, net/net 20% contribution from 40 and below.

Yes.

Great.

Okay, great.

And then, let's see, I wanted to ask a little bit on the wireless side, if I may.

You've alluded to this transition between 2G and 3G as impacting your fourth quarter.

Are you coming near the end of that?

And are you starting to see the 3G more than offset the weakness in 2G as of yet?

Yes, it's happening.

But I said, also, in the afternoon we won't get completely out of it until the second half of the year.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Steven Pelayo of HSBC.

Yes.

Could you just talk a little bit about your cash flow statement in 2012 here?

Your cash flow was at relatively low levels versus history.

You want to spend $2 billion in CapEx.

I assume you want to pay some dividends.

It seems like you would run that cash level down pretty far.

So, could you talk a little about that and what would be an uncomfortable level of cash for you and how you might deal with that?

Our debt gearing is relatively low.

Right now it's probably mid-teens and I think we are comfortable if we want to gear up to actually 30%.

And I think that actually helps with the average cost of capital, if you will.

So, I think for 2012, at least, debt financing should be sufficient for all the activity we have, either from a CapEx point of view or dividend payout point of view.

And so the current kind of 30 billion in cash and equivalents, is that a low level for you or is this a comfortable level to still run your business?

It's just about right and on top of that, we're actually continuing divesting some of our mature, non-core holdings.

Hopefully, that can be a source of funding, as well.

Okay.

And then the last question is really just kind of a higher-level question.

It seems like your aggressive spending in CapEx to focus on 28-nanometer maybe is a little bit of kind of an acceleration of your strategy, whereas maybe to become a little bit of a faster -- a faster-er -- a more fast follower than what we have been thinking maybe a year -- in the last year or two.

Does this -- is that true?

Does this change your target business model?

We've heard from TSMC in the last couple of years they've had to raise their R&D as a percent of revenues from 7% to 8% to 9% of revenues.

So, I'm curious.

Is there a change in strategy?

What could it mean for your ideal business model from a margin perspective?

No, we haven't changed our strategy.

We continue to execute our customer-driven foundry solutions strategy, provide the right technology at the right time for our addressable customers and markets.

However, there are also shifts in the industry landscape.

For 40- and 28-nanometer, it's clear there are many new first-tier customers so we are engaging now with the flagship products.

Also, we believe 28-nanometer is really a -- is a long-lasting (inaudible) node.

So, we would like to be very aggressive in investing now and the earlier we ramp these new nodes the better for our overall technology portfolio, also blended ASP.

And, also, the structure of profitability.

But from a strategy point of view, there is no change.

We will still execute our customer-driven strategy well.

But it definitely does seem that the capital intensity and the R&D intensity is higher.

So, should we just assume that that's fine, the pricing will adjust accordingly for it and your margins will ultimately be the same?

Or, ultimately, are we facing more margin headwinds from those potential increased costs?

I think we will manage our R&D expenditures carefully.

I think it's quite reasonable.

I don't think there will be a large deviation in the future in terms of structure of profitability or margin-wise.

Actually, for UMC, the sooner we ramp up these aggressive nodes, the better for UMC as a whole, from both revenue and profitability points of view.

Great.

Thanks a lot.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Szeho Ng of BNP.

Well, hi.

Good day, gentlemen.

I just want to know about the CapEx spending pattern for this year on a quarterly basis?

It's quite even for four quarters according to the current planning.

Okay.

All right.

And then, the other one for Q1, should we expect any big one-off items, especially at a non-operating level?

For non-operating, if you look at the Q4 numbers, we have some investment loss from our equity method of accounting investments, many in the solar and also our Japanese foundry operation.

And for the solar operation, we think their operating loss is coming down in Q1.

But overall, it will be negative for their contribution.

And we are also divesting some of our mature investments in the other spaces, mainly in the IC design industry.

So, hopefully, we can offset some of the losses from our solar investment.

But there shouldn't be anything extraordinary in Q1.

Okay, all right.

And last question from my side, could you talk about the technological roadmap after 28 nano?

Yes.

We are also engaging at least two first-tier customers working on the 28-nanometer -- no, working on the 20-nanometer technology with second generation high-K metal gates technology.

Actually, it's not only K (inaudible), but also high-K (inaudible).

So, 20-nanometer today, at this moment, we are targeting pilot production next year.

Pilot production next year?

Yes.

Okay.

20-nanometer, using the double-patterning technology, yes.

I see.

So, I assume it should be end of next year, right?

There are two customers, slightly different.

One is the middle, one is the second half next year.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Okay, got you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of [Pon Lu Lu] of Goldman Sachs.

Hi, Dr.

Sun, Chitung, and Bowen.

Good evening.

I have a few questions.

First is on your cash dividend policy.

What, given the high CapEx, what -- would you change the cash dividend payout ratio in 2012?

In 2012 we do have to make a choice of balancing our higher CapEx as well as the dividend payout and this is actually up for our Board to finally decide the numbers.

But we are comfortable to commit at least a 50% payout.

50% payout ratio?

5-0, yes.

And my second question is, you just commented that the depreciation should increase 10% in 2012.

A 10% increase, yes.

Over 10%?

Up to, no more than 10%.

Got it.

I mean, you CapEx is quite high in 2010, 2011, 2012.

I mean, what's the depreciation period now?

Is that still five years for equipment, 10 years for --?

Yes.

It's five years, plus one year revision.

No change.

I guess the difference is really coming from our Singapore facility, which was mainly invested five or six years ago and their depreciation pretty much comes to the end and that helped to offset some of the incremental increase.

For 2013 and '14, I think the increased ratio probably will be higher than 10%.

But we don't have the exact numbers for now.

We will disclose that maybe a year later.

But for the time being, no more than 10% is the figure for 2012.

Got it.

And also, looking at ROE over the last few years, I mean, last five, 10 years, it has been around 5%.

And are we seeing improved ROE now with 65- and 40-nanometer?

I'm trying to gauge, like, with increased CapEx are we going to -- are shareholders eventually will get more cash dividend or more return, of it's still 5% ROE, it seems like the more you spend, probably not going to be very beneficial.

Any comment?

Yes, I think ROE is still our final goal, to improve the return to stockholders value.

And the reason we are very -- become more aggressive in advanced technology, the reason is for the new technology, in the beginning, the price erosion for the new technology is actually quite aggressive, quite fast.

And if UMC at this moment we got a great opportunity on the 28-nanometer and some 40-nanometer technology.

If we engage early, get that technology early, we enjoy a much better return.

And also, the industry landscape is shifting and we are at a great position to offer this value at the same time we're expecting good returns.

Also, I -- we believe, as we get the technology earlier, ready earlier, the blended ASP and the structure of profitability will improve.

And the final goal is certainly still the overall ROE enhancement.

Chitung, you have anything to add on?

Yes.

In the meantime, as I mentioned, we are gearing up a little bit and trying to pay out more cash dividend and divesting our non-core assets.

So, all together, hopefully it can improve our WACC, weighted-average cost of capital, as well.

So, certainly, it goes both ways.

Good.

Yes, my last question is, Dr.

Sun, you just commented that the 28-nanometer is probably a more long-lasting node.

Can you just elaborate on the reason why you think that's the case?

Yes.

If you look at the next node, 20-nanometer, it requires double patterning.

I gave an example in the afternoon meeting.

For each metal patterning, you need to go through very extensive immersion lithography four times and that's very, very expensive.

So, technology-wise, I think we -- as I mentioned earlier, we are working two leading customers, but economically, it'll be very, very expensive.

Not all the customers and not all the products will go there.

In the meantime, 28-nanometer, the toolset is somewhat consistent with 40-nanometer.

However, there are a few key technologies we need to establish.

So, I think overall speaking, based on our recent dialogue with customers, 28-nanometer, we think, will be a big, long-lasting node in the industry.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Satya Kumar of Credit Suisse.

Hi.

Thanks for taking my question.

I just wanted to clarify a comment that you made earlier about the linearity of the CapEx.

You said it would be fairly even through the year.

Is that based on the cash CapEx that you spend or is that based on when you actually take the equipment shipments?

Are the equipment shipments first-half-weighted or second-half-weighted or are the equipment shipments also linear through the year?

All the CapEx number we disclosed is cash pays, including evenly distributed among the four quarters.

Okay.

Could you comment if the actual equipment shipments will be first-half-weighted or is that more linear, also?

That's actually difficult to comment.

I mean, it varies, equipment by equipment.

Okay.

I think there's been a lot of discussion here about the cost of the capacity.

I was wondering if you are able to quantify that a little bit.

If you were to look at the cost of adding capacity for 1,000 wafers of new 300-millimeter capacity, how is that cost tracking, in your view, from 40-nanometer to 28-nanometer to 20, 22-nanometer?

I can give you some really relative comparison.

If you're comparing 28-nanometer high-K metal gate, it's about 40% more than the 40-nanometer.

And if you go to 20-nanometer, because of the double patterning I mentioned earlier, it will be, maybe, even up to 50% more from 28 to 20.

Okay.

And then lastly, you mentioned that a portion of the CapEx is actually upgrades and a portion is new capacity.

Yes.

Could you quantify that a little bit and are you converting older capacity, 65 or 90 capacity to 28 or what is that upgrade for?

Yes, we are doing that every day, converting capacity from a (inaudible) node to the more advanced node.

It's a constant effort.

For example, we converted 90 to 65.

And this year we may convert some from 65 to 40 or 28.

But it's a convoluted issue, yes.

And what part of your budget is for such upgrades versus new capacity?

Mostly still new capacity, but there is a significant percentage will be used for conversion.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

(Operator Instructions).

You have a question from the line of Dan Heyler of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch.

Yes, thanks.

I had a follow up for Dr.

Sun.

Could you elaborate on the current pricing environment, relative to previous cycles?

Better, worse or the same?

I think it's not bad at all.

I mentioned in the afternoon the -- our pricing, if you compare quarter to quarter the price erosion portions are pretty much consistent.

Even this is Q1, usually in the past, price erosion in Q1 is more serious, but even comparing with our last quarter, the pure price erosion is pretty similar.

Then the main reason for the blended ASPs are from the mix.

So, it's pretty good.

Pretty even, I guess.

Yes, thanks.

Yes, I mean, I've heard many fabless companies complain about pricing.

They want better pricing.

(Inaudible).

I just wondered if there was any bit of a change.

We try to satisfy their requirements the best we can, yes.

I think they are okay.

(Inaudible).

Great.

That's good, thanks.

And then on the mix side, there seems to be a lot.

I know that the upgrading process is very common in the foundry business, but I'm wondering if this could be a meaningful ASP lift for the year overall, because there's quite a bit, I think, of 65 capacity at UMC and that -- if that moves to 40 and to 28, I'm wondering if you're going to see a nice ASP lift on that basis?

I'm not sure I understand.

So, you convert 65 to 40, you will enjoy a better ASP, right.

Could we see an ASP -- I mean, if pricing is relatively stable, could we see a blended ASP rise this year into the second and third quarter?

We don't have the number.

That's actually the -- one of the reasons we are doing that.

Right.

Yes.

Okay.

And then on the high-K metal gate, I'm wondering what the status there was.

You've done -- you're pretty much on schedule with the 28-nanometer poly/SiON gate.

I'm just wondering, would you start to ship high-K metal gate by 4Q?

There seems to be a lot of issues with that, so if you could update that, it would be great.

Yes.

We are still working very hard on the high-K metal gate, the 28 HPM process with many customers, mobile communication, computing, networking, rechannel, many, many customers.

So, we -- today we are scheduled to go to risk production in the second half of this year and go into production next year.

That's the current schedule, yes.

Certainly, we are also struggling -- not struggling -- we are working hard on similar challenges, which is the reliability boundaries for the technology, which everybody is facing a similar challenge in the industry.

Thanks.

Yes, I was wondering, just to hit your 5% forecast or, roughly, your target, I should say, could you achieve that without high-K metal gate or do you need to see that really improve in order to get 20, to ramp in the second half.

No, the 5% target, they are mostly poly/SiON.

Okay, great.

Excellent.

And then for the 2013 adoption rate, I guess what you're saying is, do we hit an inflection point for adoption on the high-K metal gate?

I mean, how important is that to your customers?

If you're able to figure that out sooner, rather than later, does that represent a major kind of inflection point for adoption or not?

It's -- actually, that's an interesting question.

The high-K metal gate at 28-nanometer is -- the volume and the ratio versus poly/SiON is changing, actually.

In the beginning, most of the efforts are focusing on the high-K metal gate, but in the last few quarters or months it's actually changing.

So, we are adjusting the customer requirements accordingly.

So, we will -- at this moment, I cannot make much projection for next year's high-K versus poly/SiON kind of ratio.

So, they're getting -- that could be that they're getting better economics than they thought on the poly/SiON gate than previously thought, hence they're willing to adopt 28 on the basis of poly/SiON, then?

That's possibly one reason, yes.

I agree with you.

Okay.

Excellent.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

That's it for me.

Good night.

Good night.

Your next question comes from the line of Steven Pelayo of HSBC.

Yes, just two quick follow ups.

You guys have done an admirable job over the last few years diversifying your customer base, but I think a couple of your still top three or four customers in kind of the PLD world and, as well as traditional 2G baseband customer, there are some question about them either shifting to different suppliers or having their own competitive issues going on.

Do you worry about this?

Do you have enough new business going on to more than offset, potentially, fall-offs from customers that have been as much 10% of revenues for you?

Is this something I should be thinking about here?

Yes, yes, that's exactly what we mentioned.

The industry will have landscape shifts.

So, we have been working hard.

So, we were pretty much coming through this transition in the second half of the year, engaging many new customers, starting to have a new 40-, 28-nanometer business with these first-tier customers with flagship products.

That's exactly what we have been doing in the past two years, yes.

And that kind of begs my next question, which is I'm just curious in the last one to two quarters, maybe three quarters or so, has the competitive landscape in the foundry world changed at all?

That's maybe helping to drive more customers to engage you, more first-tier customers?

Let's face it, SMIC is struggling with profitability.

There's been concerns about GlobalFoundries that maybe yield issues.

Is that also part of the reason why, maybe, you're seeing some more customer engagements?

Possibly.

You are -- that's possibly the reason we get more engagements, but I think that if you go back to our strategy of providing customer-driven foundry solutions and we are more low profile, trying to deliver what we committed to do very honestly and steadily, I think we -- I guess we earn some of the respects from the new customers.

And I think that's a -- instead of -- certainly the industry will have changes and competition landscape will be changing.

I think we are focusing on our fundamental basics, delivering customers the good value.

So, we will continue to do that.

And the last question was just a little bit of details on the communications segment of revenues.

Breaking it out kind of wireless versus wired, obviously up in the fourth quarter, but down in the third quarter.

Could you provide a little detail on what the shifts are going on, wired versus wireless?

Are they both in synch?

Around 3 to 1, wireless 3, wireline 1, 3 to 1.

And both in the same synch?

So, they both go down, they both go up the same in fourth quarter, first quarter?

I guess similar.

Directionally?

Maybe fourth quarter wireless is stronger.

But, really, this is probably the 3 to 1, I guess.

Okay.

So the falloff in communications in Q1 is still being seen by both wired and wireless?

Actually, we could say I mentioned in the afternoon in Q4, there were lots of rush orders on the wireless side.

So, maybe Q1 just going back to a more normal situation, I guess.

Okay, fair enough.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

And there are no audio questions at this time.

I would like to turn the call over to management for any closing remarks.

Thank you again for your interest in UMC.

Please feel free to contact us directly if you have any additional questions.

Now, operator, back to you.

Thank you for your participation in UMC's conference.

There will be a webcast replay within an hour.

Please visit www.umc.com under the Investor Relations, Investor Events, section.

You may now disconnect.

Goodbye.