CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (CF) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Well, hi, everyone. It's -- welcome back. My name is Steve Byrne. It's a pleasure to be hosting the management team of CF Industries for this next session. Let me introduce the crew here. I've got -- as you can see in the photo -- or in the video right here, Tony Will is on the front right there. Tony has been CEO of CF since 2014, and he was at the company for 7 years before that in a variety of roles, corporate development, manufacturing, distribution. He previously was a partner at Accenture and Sears, was at Boston Consulting Group, but he's been at CF for quite some time. Behind him is Chris Bohn. Chris has been the CFO since 2019, and he previously had a variety of roles, manufacturing and distribution, supply chain, corporate development. He started at CF in 2009. And then on the front -- on the left side is Bert Frost, Senior Vice President, Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. He joined CF in 2008, and he had a long career at Archer Daniels, spent a fair amount of time in South America. Martin Jarosick is in the back on the left, manages IR for CF. So it's a pleasure to have all of you here today. It's great to be with you. So thank you for that.

Steve, good to be here. Thanks for the invite. And wish we were in Florida, but managing this way.

I couldn't agree with you more. And a year from now, I hope that's where we are in early March. And given the amount of snow that I have out my window, I am really missing it this year. But listen, I've been following CF ever since they went public or shortly after going public, which was not much before all of you joined there. And in my view, the company has changed really significantly since those days. I mean it was a co-op that went public. And Tony, I would have to lead this question down to you. I mean there has been a significant amount of change at CF, and there's a lot of things that we're going to talk about here. We're going to -- we can go green, blue or gray, whichever you want to start with. But I would like to hear your view as the leader there. CF has changed significantly. But where do you see it going from here? And if you put on a 5-year outlook, how do you think CF could change over this next 5 to 10 years?

Yes. You bet, Steve. So the one thing about, I would say, life here at CF has been that change is a constant. And it started really, as you mentioned, with my predecessor, Steve Wilson, who took the company from being a co-op to a public company and then really had to change a lot of the processes and business models away from being a supply-driven co-op service organization to a for-profit enterprise. And that meant along the way changing a lot of people and continuing to upgrade folks. And he really started us on this journey, including in 2009, when we launched the process to acquire Terra Industries that finally succeeded in 2010. And during that period of time, Bert and I were already at the company and Chris joined to kind of go through that process. So the 3 of us have been together for quite some time. And then soon after that, we went ahead and launched the expansion projects, a big development at Donaldsonville and another one at Port Neal and then reached an agreement with Mosaic to sell them our phosphate operations in Florida and entered into a long-term supply agreement to supply them ammonia and became really a nitrogen-focused company, moving out of the phosphate business and changing our business model again. Bert really led us moving away from just being an FOB seller to being much more of a delivered products sales organization and has gotten us heavily involved in the export business and developed some key relationships for us overseas. And so all of those things have just been a constant evolution and change in the business. And here, recently, in October, we announced a fundamental shift in our approach, which is kind of heretofore, we've been selling the ammonia molecule for the nitrogen value as a fertilizer and, Steve, as you mentioned, we announced a green ammonia project that we're doing in Donaldsonville, bringing on a 20-megawatt electrolyzer to create green hydrogen that we're going to pump into one of our existing ammonia plants to make green ammonia. And concurrently, we're in the process of signing up a series of carbon sequestration agreements to be able to take the captured carbon out of the process gas and permanently sequester that geologically to create what's called blue ammonia, which is basically net carbon 0 ammonia. And we'll be able to supply both green ammonia and blue ammonia into a variety of different end market applications, which is principally aimed at now the hydrogen value or the energy content of that molecule instead of the nitrogen value. But one of the things that's really exciting is, Bert and Chris have both been working with a couple of our channel partners on developing demand for agricultural use of low-carbon ammonia as well, given that there is really a lot of development going on around carbon sequestration in the soils from growers. And so we're very excited about the new change in the direction of the company, which is to not completely leaving our roots as being a key supplier into the food production chain, but then also helping to decarbonize our network and moving certain industries away from carbon-intensive fuel sources to clean energy. And I think as we project out, as you said, 4 or 5 years, we're anticipating being able to cut our CO2 equivalent emissions by 30% by the time we get out to the end of this decade and get net carbon 0 by the time we get to 2050. We've got a number of projects in the works to both expand our low carbon and 0 carbon ammonia productions, and we're just really excited about not only continuing to help feed the world to help power the world in a very sustainable way.

Well, I have a ton of green ammonia questions for you, but I got to ask a couple of gray ones first. And so let me run this one by you, Bert. Tampa ammonia price popped, I want to say, 35% last week. Did you expect that to happen? Is that sustainable? What's your view on, say, near-term nitrogen prices?

So specific to ammonia, I did expect it for this, but I expected actually more because of what's going on in the market, you have to go back a few months. And in the -- for the broader nitrogen market, really nutrient market, we saw a demand-driven period where a lot of money has been poured into the ag community from the government, but then we hit $5 corn. And for those farmers who had harvested and had open positions to sell, which we think were a lot, a lot of cash came in at the tail end of 2020, and to not pay taxes, a lot of that cash then was recommitted to 2021 input costs. So money to the retailer comes in, and then that retailer needs to book those positions with their nutrient provider and one of the big ones being CF industries. We had a lot of orders come in. Demand took off. You saw pricing go into the 300s for urea and a little bit of a lag on UAN and ammonia. But then when the energy spikes happened in Asia and Europe, a lot of ammonia plants went down, and they went out in the market to purchase amount from the Russian providers, some from us they sought as well as Trinidad or anywhere it could be acquired. Prices for ammonia then rose on the international market. Then some other further supply constraints due to downtime or even the freeze-offs in Texas further constrained the available supply in the spot market and even for spring. But on the international market, another step forward was just the improvement in the industrial sector and demand for caprolactone for ammonia as a chemical intermediate and ammonia for phosphate production. I would think every phosphate plant today is running at full speed, soaking up again additional ammonia. So we saw ammonia rally from the low $200s 3 months ago, 4 months ago to today, it should be $500 a ton in North America. And you've seen Nutrien purchase several vessels from North Africa to bring in. Several ammonia plants on the Gulf Coast have been down. And then again the freeze off, we think several hundred thousand tons of ammonia have been lost. So we see a very good market heading into spring. Spring pricing is now out in the Midwest. It's at a very healthy level. We're pretty excited about that. And I think that coupled with where the feed grains are and the outlook for exports of feed grains, production of feed grains and the demand and the stocks-to-use ratio for that segment on the soft commodities gives you a pretty good year to 2-year window outlook for demand.

Steve, if I can just say add one quick thing, last year, with the pandemic impact on the economy and the industrial sector, you saw energy prices kind of collapse and flatten across the globe. You saw demand for ammonia retract, and we were in this period for a big chunk of last year with what I would call unsustainably low ammonia prices. And as we got into the third and fourth quarter, as Bert talked about, and you saw some economic activity start back up and having worked through the glut of LNG that was out there, you saw the cost curve begin to steepen again, particularly in parts of Europe and Asia. And that's when ammonia prices, at least in the U.S. Gulf, were not changing. And so you, in response to that, saw a bunch of the shutdowns that Bert talked about. If you look at where the kind of energy costs are and the energy spreads are around the world, I would say, today is more reflective of history and typical differentials. And I think that's also reflected in what the marginal cost of production is for ammonia from some of the high-cost producers. So I think what's going on today is a combination of -- reflective of the energy spread curve as well as a little bit of tightness based on what the factors Bert talked about.

Last week, we ran an ag retailer survey that we have been doing for many years in collaboration with Purdue University, and this one just kind of jumped out in how different it was from prior years, where prior years, the retailers were highlighting a rather bearish outlook for farm incomes and the pressure that I put on the retail channel versus what we came up with on Friday, when we analyzed the data, was quite constructive. And one of those questions was application rates for fertilizer. And it was -- the results were pretty much the same between NP&K that was all a few percent higher year-over-year, but just a very, very high percentage of respondents said, yes, higher application rates -- low single digit increase, but almost all of them said, yes, higher application rates. Are you expecting that? Is that realistic that growers would actually put down more nitrogen on this crop than in prior years just because the soft commodity price is higher?

So when you look at that driver, at $5 corn, if you're harvesting 200 bushels, that's $1,000 an acre of gross revenue. When you look at seed, chemical, diesel, equipment or interest rates, all those costs are lower. And so I think one question would be our nutrient costs are at a fair value. Not only are they at a fair value, even at these higher levels, the economic proposition to a farmer is exactly, as you say, they will increase applications. Even if that's a 1%, 2% or 3%, let's say, 1% to 2%, that's probably 300,000 to 400,000 tons of additional urea, if everything were to be urea needed for this spring. That coupled with additional acres, which at these prices, we think, were at 92 million, but many of the grain companies are higher than that. So let's say there's additional 2 to 3 million acres at 200 pounds per acre, again, an additional several hundred thousand tons of urea equivalent imports are behind schedule compared to last year and previous years. So that is -- one of the reasons why we have a tightened market today is, through those 3 dynamics, increased application, increased acres, lower arrivals as well as probably lower production due to the freeze-offs, we have a tight market, and it will be very good spring for us.

Do you have any worry that these high fertilizer prices could shift acres to beans?

Well, you're going to have your natural rotations anyway, but if you are a farmer in Nebraska and you're yielding 200 bushels an acre, and that's probably very low for those states, if the trend yield is 178 or 179, your dry land farmer is going to be much lower than that, you have a very good profit potential. And farmers like to plant corn when the stocks-to-use ratios are low. And so even at the forward market, the December at [ 4 70 ], you're probably betting on the upside for that to hit closer to 5 or even maybe higher. So no, I do not think that's going to happen. I think you do -- you are having a bean to corn ratio fight for the acre, but I still think we'll be at a 90-plus million acres of beans and 90-plus acres -- million acres of corn.

A couple of hours ago, we had a fertilizer outlook panel. I don't know if you were able to watch that. But one of the panelists was Melih Keyman, who I know you know. You've had a historical relationship with KEYTRADE. But he brought up this very interesting point about the Chinese government kind of putting an end to their 0 fertilizer growth policy, and it's not surprising to me, given that country is having to import a lot of beans and probably more corn than they would like. That's an area of potential growth for crop production, but that is -- it seems logical there would be a commensurate increase in fertilizer consumption as well. Do you look at that region as either less nitrogen exports or more domestic consumption? Is that -- does that give you a little more of a longer-term constructive outlook?

I think both of those things. One of the key focuses of the central government is food security. And based, as you said, on the amount of imports of food, clearly, they're not self-sufficient in the production of food. And I think in that regard, the 0 growth or the negative growth of nitrogen application is more a luxury of a country that is self-sufficient as opposed to one that isn't. And so that reversal of that policy, I think, absolutely is happening, whether it's been explicit or people are just looking the other way and it's happening anyway. But at the same time, not only has the internal coal prices gone up, but also the political tension with Australia and the lack of imports of coal has driven the cost structure for domestic production up quite a bit. So we see that based on lower kind of operating rates than historical, although they have come up a little bit here recently, relatively high cost and large domestic demand does mean structurally just less product available to come out into the international marketplace. I think it sets up for a very constructive next couple of years.

No, I agree. The dynamics are taking place in China with no subsidies, no [ fringe ] subsidies, water subbies, electricity subsidies, no incentive to build new plants, taking off-line 6 or 7 million tons of static capacity and operating at lower rates and now recognizing carbon and the disruptive nature of their build out, and like Tony said, eliminating this production idea, but you still have a problem in China of water. And so you're not going to see feed grains grow to the level that you can grow in Iowa, then soil, water and available logistics, they're going to be an importer. So all those dynamics not only impact the [ nitrogen ] market, but impact the feed grains in oilseeds market. And going back to my time in Brazil, we would always calculate what was the maximum capability of Brazil to produce, the maximum capability of China to supply, and both have far exceeded any of those expectations from 10 to 15 years ago, and the growth curve is positive. And what we're seeing today with 20 million tons of corn from the United States going out to China, that's still being sold on a China basis probably at $1 per bushel margin for the Chinese importer. Those are great. They've got to rebuild their [ herd ]. There's a growing appetite for protein. So all the structural dynamics are positive for our business.

Chris, I've heard you talk in the past and maybe it was that virtual corn belt trip we had a few months back about -- in your view, you think you could produce blue ammonia for roughly the same cost as gray. Can you talk us through how you can do that? And how far away are you from being able to do that?

Yes. So as we look at blue, as we mentioned, that we believe the cost structure for that is going to be aligned with what conventional is. And that's really related to 2 factors. One is our system, unlike a lot of other systems, is already removing and capturing the CO2 that is produced through the ammonia piece of it. So that infrastructure [indiscernible] needs to go into place, and you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars and [ real years ] to put that in. That exists because we use that CO2 today in a lot of cases to upgrade and then other parts that we capture, we do [ vent ]. So that infrastructure doesn't have to go in from a capital standpoint. And then the second part is, there is tax incentives, the 45Q, which allows up to $35 for EOR if you're using your CO2 to sequester in EOR and up to $50 per ton if it's in CO2 sequestration. So we see both those areas develop, primarily the CO2 sequestration. The credit resides with those who capture and remove the CO2, which would be CF in this particular case. So we see those tax credits being more than enough to provide an ample return on any additional capital that would have to go from basically removing the liquids of the CO2 and dehydrating it and compressing it. So the time frame in which we look at that is really to put in the capital, dehydration and compression is probably something that's in the 18- to 24-month time frame. And then additionally, EOR exists today. So you can move into that EOR leg with sequestration of CO2 immediately. And as you're probably aware, there's a lot of players from small players to the BPs, Exxons, Occidentals, who are looking at CO2 sequestration points in filing Class VI permits here, probably in the first half of this year. And that will start that whole process going. So we look about 2 years out as this starts to develop from a blue ammonia.

And Steve, the incremental variable cost of production is really just the dehydration stuff and then the compression and transport and injection of the CO2. So you're talking about fairly low dollars in all of those cases because the actual production process is the same for blue ammonia as it is for conventional ammonia. It is conventional, and then we're just sequestering the CO2. So from a variable cost perspective, you're just adding a little bit of CO2 compression and transport and injection costs. And the 45Q credits that Chris was talking about more than cover that incremental variable costs and, in fact, provide a return on the incremental capital that we have to put in. And so at the end of the day, we could end up with a product that's net the same cost to us, if not even lower, but is more highly valued in the marketplace because whether it's in agricultural applications, you've got a low-carbon input or whether it's in marine or other applications that are trying to decarbonize, again, you've got a 0 carbon net neutral product. So it's rare that you can have something more valuable from lower costs. But it's kind of the sweet spot that we're aiming for here with us.

And the EOR opportunity, is that potentially before 2 years from now?

Well, the -- we would still have to put in the dehydration and compression, but there are avenues where some of the EOR providers would do that end of it. So that's something that we're looking at. That's going to be before the CO2 sequestration. I think there'll be opportunities in the enhanced oil recovery.

So any incremental sale of ammonia into any of these end markets is not a ton that you could offset by operating at a higher rate. Fair to say?

Yes. We're already running the plants 24/7/365, except for scheduled maintenance and a little bit of unexpected downtime here and there. So that -- in order to produce more that's going to require either some debottlenecking or additional capital or build-out, and it's really now a question of how to optimize the return on a fixed amount, and that's what Bert is really focused on day in and day out.

But do you see the potential within a couple of years that these incremental sales of blue could tighten your legacy gray market?

Yes. So the kind of the industry prognostic is, I would say, that hydrogen will represent somewhere circa 20% of the energy complex by the time we get out to 2050. And ammonia even if it only takes a very small percentage of share of the hydrogen slice of the energy marketplace or transport or storage or marine application for utility power generation, et cetera, will more than double the amount of ammonia and nitrogen that is currently produced and consumed on the planet on an annual basis today. So if that marketplace develops the way that a lot of the pundits suggest it will, that it follows that we're going to need to invest pretty heavily in ammonia production capacity on a global basis. And one of the things that's exciting about that is given that we already are the largest ammonia producer globally and have the most extensive infrastructure, logistics, storage, shipping capability, we're in a prime position to participate in that and, we think, earn differentially higher returns because of being able to leverage the scale of our network.

When we've talked about this in the past, Tony, about your level of interest in building greenfield in the U.S., that conversation doesn't go anywhere. I mean it gets cut, gets shot right down. Is that -- has that changed? Has either this higher-priced market that we're seeing for gray and what you guys have just been talking about is potentially a multiyear up cycle, has that changed your view on whether there could be a reasonable ROIC on greenfield? Or would you look to another region of the world to do that?

Yes. I think before we went and did greenfield, there's a fair number of debottlenecking of our existing asset base that we would likely pursue first. It tends to be much more capital efficient. And they tend to be smaller bites that you can pace in a way that it makes sense in order to be able to do that. I think the challenge with building greenfield in the U.S., is the construction labor element of it, which tends to, by regulation, be on a reimbursable basis, whereas in much of the rest of the world, you can contract on a lump-sum turnkey basis and have a very good idea of what your total cost of ownership is going to be going into it. That's just not true in the U.S. And so I would expect, just like is happening today, for there to be much more development internationally than there is here in the U.S. Today, it's around places that have very low gas costs. So you're talking about Iran, Nigeria, Russia. In the future, I could imagine those same locations being primed for or [indiscernible] areas primed for new capacity expansions. But I also think you could see ammonia plants that are built in areas that have abundant renewable energy or excess renewable energy not predicated on natural gas, but green ammonia facilities. And I think that, that is one of those areas that we'll likely see a number of announcements on in the coming years.

Speaking of those regions where you have renewable power conditions, the U.S. Gulf is one of those regions by most people's view. I was just curious whether -- you're a big electricity buyer, I'm sure, down in Donaldsonville. Are you -- and I've seen your reference to down the road $0.04 per kilowatt hour cost structure for that electrolyzer that you're going to build. Can you get $0.04 per kilowatt hour electricity pricing now?

Well, that's about what we're paying in Donaldsonville currently, $0.04 to $0.05.

And that's renewable or off the grid?

Well, that's from the grid, but about 25% to 27% of our total electricity consumption across the network is renewable that varies quite a bit plant-by-plant. But in aggregate, that's what we're purchasing. About 1/4 of our power consumption is already renewable energy.

And this project that you're building, the green hydrogen electrolyzer, this 20-megawatt unit down in Donaldsonville, it seems very capital efficient in that you already have world-scale separation and ammonia reactor. You just need to start stacking electrolyzers down there. So -- and you already have the transportation infrastructure to move that ammonia. Presumably, that same advantage from a capital use perspective would be the case at many of your other nitrogen plants. Are there any that you would highlight that could be next?

So I think as we look at subsequent investments in electrolyzers and green ammonia capability, it really is going to be driven off of electricity costs and with outbound logistics. Just like today, we think about what's the natural gas cost, the input, and where the local demand is and logistics capability. I think in the future, what we'll look at is what's the energy cost from an electricity standpoint and, again, outbound logistics. So from that perspective, our Verdigris, Oklahoma plant is in a pretty interesting location. Donaldsonville, just because of its -- where it's located and our ability to immediately access seaborne trade on relatively low-cost electricity is very interesting. We would think about the U.K. because of its proximity to what we believe will be a large and growing demand region in Europe, but current electricity cost is pretty high in the U.K., and around both of our facilities, the government has announced 2 carbon sequestration projects. There is the Teesside, that 0 project, where our Billingham facility is. And then there is the high net project in the northwest where our Ince location is. And if we've got the opportunity to make or to sequester the carbon up there, particularly coupled with relatively high electricity cost, that probably would move the U.K. to down the priority ladder. The other thing is, Steve, on our initial investment in Donaldsonville, about 1/3 of that -- of dollars are going into some common infrastructure platforms that we can then leverage going forward. So we're much more likely to add subsequent trains back into Donaldsonville, given that we've already made some core infrastructure investments there and the ability to -- the logistics outbound capabilities.

Okay. That's helpful. There was a fair amount of discussion on your earnings call about investment-grade status potentially this year. Just curious, what is your level of optimism about getting to IG this year?

Well, as we talked about in the past, I mean, I believe our metrics are already there. So it's really up to the rating agencies. We have payment of the 2021 notes that were coming due this December that we'll be making later this month. So we take our gross debt down to $3.75 billion. Additionally, we talked about that trying to get to that investment grade, we may opportunistically take out a little bit more debt in order to get that done. I think the market Tony and Bert talked about, strong market we're in should help us as well. But really, our drive to get to investment-grade is there are 3 reasons that I look at. One is, we have frictional costs right now that are about $7 million to $10 million that we pay by not being investment-grade. Additionally, a lot of these projects we're talking about, whether blue or green, there's been a lot of calls since we made our announcement with partnerships and having investment-grade gives us a little more leverage and flexibility in those discussions. And then finally, I think it helps us build a little dry powder as we have a lower gross debt. When we do see opportunities, whether it be from acquisitions, expansions of this growth platform we're talking about or share repurchases, that we have the ability to execute those along the way.

Yes. I would echo what Chris said, and I think there's been some interesting reports from the credit analyst side of the world out there that suggests, particularly compared to some of our myriad competitors in the fertilizer space that are investment-grade that our metrics are superior to theirs. So I think our belief is, we're -- as Chris said, our metrics are already there. We're needing just to, I think, ramp up the pitch on why we deserve it, and our hope is that it happens sooner rather than later.

I got a question that just came in about your comments earlier about blue ammonia in ag markets, that farmers could be encouraged or somehow compelled to pursue blue ammonia instead of gray. Can you talk us a little bit about how that could happen? How was -- how is farmer Brown going to be compensated for an additional price on an ammonia fertilizer?

Yes. So I'll give a little bit of just background and then I'll throw it over to Bert, who's been leading these efforts for us and, I would say, there's a real opportunity out there. So there's been a couple of high-profile voluntary sales. And several companies that are out there interested in really pushing this idea forward. And I think from an agronomic standpoint, based on best management practices, there is real carbon sequestration that growing the crop has in terms of putting carbon into the soil. And that is calculable, and you can determine that. And the issue is why aren't the growers getting compensated for that? And so today, there is a developing voluntary market for it, but our expectation is that with the emphasis and the focus that the Biden administration is putting on climate change and carbon that there will be a real opportunity to tap into that and get certified credits. Question is in terms of what the protocol will be to get there, but at least in the near term, there's a voluntary market available. And so if you are net sequestering carbon in the soil based on existing practices and what you're doing is substituting a lower carbon input into that process, you're now, on a net basis, sequestering even more carbon in the soil. So that's where the value proposition comes. And in the near term, in the voluntary marketplace, that might be more in the $10 or $20 range. But longer term, we think that, that would rise to the point of being consistent with where carbon is traded. And in our expectation, that would be closer to $35, $50 or maybe even above. But Bert, do you want to talk about...

I think you hit on the major points, and it's -- but to condense it, it's just establishing the protocols, which today, it has a voluntary market. Like you said, those protocols that are quantitatively verifiable do not exist. And so creating that credit that is understood and then tradable with the value going to the farmer and then it gets to the value chain. So with appropriate agronomic practices, a low carbon or 0 carbon input like ammonia, fewer passes by -- of diesel, as you aggregate all that information together, and with a higher yield, you're capturing more carbon that carbon stays in the ground. Therefore, that value and in terms of tons of carbon is then sellable into the traded market, that's where the future is going.

And Tony, in your opening comments, you mentioned Terra, the acquisition of Terra. And are there still some debottlenecking that you could do in some of those legacy assets that, I think, the view was that some of those plants were held together by duct tape and bailing wire when you first acquired them. Is there still more opportunity to go there to increase your production capacity?

Well, I think we've got the ability to [ unpack ] all of our ammonia plants. And in fact, before we decided to build the new plant at Port Neal and the other new plant at Donaldsonville, we looked very hard at a program aimed at debottlenecking the entire fleet of North American ammonia plants and then decided to pull away from that and go the new build route instead. So we have kind of the engineering designs on what would be required to further debottleneck those not just the legacy Terra plants, but the Medicine Hat plants and also the Donaldsonville plant and have an ability to pretty significantly ramp up our gross ammonia production through those efforts. Now historically, it hasn't really made sense because the value prop associated with ammonia, particularly if we were having to export a fair bit of that ammonia was not terribly compelling relative to the new capital that it was going to take to build it, but as we look at on a go-forward basis, where if demand starts developing the way we believe it will for ammonia and a number of industries like shipping and transport and electricity generation and so forth, then those debottlenecks would make all the world of sense for us to execute against. But the other thing I'd say is, we have put a fair bit of capital into a lot of those plants. And if we look at our asset utilization rate, which I think is world-class, we're very pleased with the way that all of our plants run these days.

Well, very good, fellows. We've run out of time, but it's been a pure pleasure to speak with you in the last 45 minutes. So my best to you for the year, and I look forward to staying in touch as the season unfolds. So thank you.

Steve, thank you.