Gevo, Inc. (GEVO) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for the Water Tower Research Virtual conference series and fireside chat. As part of our ongoing conference here, we invite leading and emerging growth companies and investors to connect in our forum. We have 2 presentations today, one -- first one here is with Dr. Pat Gruber from Gevo, and we have a second one this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. Eastern with Capstone, for those that are interested in that as well. My name is Shawn Severson, Co-Founder of Water Tower Research and Head of Sustainable Investing Research. In today's presentation, as I mentioned, we'll be hosting Gevo, leader in renewable hydrocarbons. Our topic today will be on the company's project finance initiative and how this fits into Gevo's long-term strategy. You may submit your questions at any time during the presentation by answering the questions in the appropriately named box, that says, ask a question. If you're listening to an archived version of this presentation, you can also submit questions, we will receive them and reply to them or pass it on to the company. I would also encourage you to visit www.watertowerresearch.com, where you'll find additional information about our company and about Gevo as well as our disclosure page on the site. And with that, I'm going to jump right into the questions if you're ready, Pat.

Yes, sure. Let's go. Hey, Shawn.

Okay. So let's start by, obviously, today's topic is project finance. But in order to get to project finance stage, certain things have had to happen. And I think it's worth spending a minute addressing kind of what brought the company to where it is today. It's been a public company for a long time and kind of what's happened recently that now put the company in the position to actually go forward and pursue a project finance initiative.

Sure. Great question. It's fundamental. And what it is, is that carbon can now be valued. That hasn't happened in the past. So this is now going back for a couple of years. And I think it really was triggered by the low carbon fuel standard in California being renewed. That caused people to realize people being big companies who are fossil carbon emitters to recognize that they're going to be held accountable. In conjunction, you have EU RED policies occurring, which also are holding companies accountable. So I think it's now become abundantly clear that they can't escape being held accountable for fossil carbon emission. That has happened then is created a value for carbon or the mitigation of a fossil carbon emission and that allows it to be -- in a way that allows it to be monetized, and that money can be applied to offsetting the increased cost from renewable resource-based product like ours. That's what's happened. And so the investment community, and I mean equity and debt investors, look at that and recognize it's here to stay. Strategics look at it and recognize it that's here to stay, and that's a fundamental change. Before it was just everyone always said, oh, you got to compete on cost, who cares about carbon. Well, that's changed.

And that translate in -- translates through offtake agreements, right? I mean that's what we're talking about in order to get to the next step of -- for project finance is now they're actually offtake agreements, which enable this process to start.

Yes. So in the overall game of what we're trying to do here is -- a big question for people who finance this kind of stuff at a project level is who's going to buy it? What risk has been mitigated? What's that offtake agreement look like? Is it a take-or-pay contract? Most people in our space have some agreement that's not a take-or-pay contract. It's just a contract, and it could be walked away from. This is different. It's got a series of conditions. We manufacture the stuff, they buy it. And that allows it to be financeable. So our focus has been on financeable offtake agreements. So having the carbon value clear that allows us to say, well, the carbon value is X amount of dollars, we can share some with them, some of us, it mitigates some of their cost to acquire our product, but it gives profit to us. And that's what's allowed us to get these contracts structured. And these -- the take-or-pay contracts are fundamental to arranging project financing, which we're talking about today. Otherwise, I'd just be left with I got to go raise like $700 million at a corporate level. And gosh, who knows how that's going to happen, but that's not what we're doing. We're playing a different game here.

Understood. At the recent events, especially like in the airline industry, when you look at what's going on there, that changed any of these or put these at risk just given what's happened in the environment?

You know what, I'm going to -- I look at -- no, it's actually gone the other way. It's very strange. So what's happened is, remember, we make isooctane or renewable gasoline. So that's a fundamentally important thing. We're not a one-trick pony. That's important on a fundamental level, I like that, and we can make, of course, jet fuel. However, it's -- jet fuel demand is increasing lately, and we're seeing it for more and diversified customers. Now a lot of this is driven from the policies in Europe and Scandinavia or in France or in what's going on in Germany and such. And so I like it from the standpoint that we're developing a portfolio of markets. That's good for us and having diversity, it's not just all about California. And then when I look up like this, by the way, I'm looking at my screen with the data on it. We're sitting here now with 40 -- almost 49 million gallons under contract. We have another 30 million gallons in a contract review stage. And think about that as a value to us of between $4 and $5 a gallon. So these are like real numbers of money we're talking about. That's by the way, 30 million gallons per year. When will we get these contracts done? I don't know. We only know, even in the Trafigura agreement, I knew about it when it got signed from them. I mean I knew that we're discussing it, and I just don't know that stuff until -- and I can't speculate about it because that's, frankly, not okay from a security standpoint. So they're coming along. And then we have another 87 million gallons that are in discussion or diligence when people are testing the products or trying to come up with terms or were trading terms. And so that gives us in our pipeline, a total of 196 million gallons. So that's stunning compared to where we were, if you remember, 18 months ago, and that's all about what we talked about. Carbon value is real. It's here to stay. COVID has increased it. Jet fuel is -- looks to be a little over 50% of the product mix compared to the gasoline. It's increasing. They know they have to do something.

Let's touch a moment on the balance sheet actually. Obviously, very well positioned, recent capital raise or definitely strengthen the balance sheet. And I think it would be worth spending a minute talking about that and why that's important and what that enables you to do, particularly in your longer-term strategy of project finance as well as use of proceeds.

Sure. So as of the end of August, we had about $82 million on the balance sheet. That's quite the change from where we had been. That's a combination of the money we raised and our offerings, plus then we had people convert their warrants. Right now, we only have -- I think we have -- I'm looking at data again. Just want to turn my head like this, 3.9 million warrants as of 8/30 are left outstandings. And so remember, there were an awful lot of those that were like a huge number. So we're down pretty much. We have $12 million -- $12.5 million of principal with Whitebox. Clearly, we have the money to pay that off. So that overhang should go away. People talked about that a lot in the past, right now, not so much. We have -- if you contrast that to where we were a few months ago, like -- we had like, what, $10 million in the balance sheet, with $12 million of debt. We had to have money to do the engineering work, site development work and all the other things we're doing because it's more than one plant we got to build to meet the demand for these offtake agreements. And it's a question of how are we going to do it? So I'd say we're well financed right now in terms -- we have the money to do the engineering work we need to do, the site development work we need to do versus having to go out and beg from people who are really vultures about development money because that's one of the most expensive money you can lay your hands on. So for us now, we're able to go execute those things, and we have money to co-invest in these projects if we want to. And so we're as strong as we've been financially. We also have a huge amount of optionality. For instance, we've talked in the past about building 1 million gallon hydrocarbon plant, we have offtake agreements for it. We could do that. But because the time line for execution of these projects are being compressed, I'm not sure how that's going to fit in exactly. So we're in pretty good financial shape overall to do what we need to do. We're really -- it's amazingly strong.

Let's take that into the subject to project finance. And maybe for investors who aren't as familiar with the concept, can you explain that and how it works and what that means to Gevo, just so I understand the structure, corporate versus project finance and how this impacts the business?

Sure. So corporate finance, obviously, we raise money at the corporate level, and it would be dilutive. Maybe it is stock. It might be convertible debt. It might be preferred, but it would be diluted -- dilutive, in some way, shape or form. When you do project financing, you're trying to avoid the dilution. So it's raising money at a project level. We set up a special purpose entities, SPEs. And there are people who specialize in investing in SPEs and investing in projects. That's what they do. Now a project investor wants to know who is it that's going to buy the product? How exactly is it going to be made? Has it been derisked? Can you prove that it's been derisked? Well, my experts say it's been derisked. And they're looking for basically something that has the risk saw mitigated, and then they're going to get X amount of return. Now our projects all would get on a levered basis, above 20% IRR. And so that makes them attractive for project investors. That's better you could do, say that if you're doing a wind tower somewhere or if you're doing some other project. So it's attractive from that standpoint. It does take quite a bit of capital because for us to build out 70 million gallons of capacity on a project basis, done at a special purpose entity -- entities that might take $700 million. And the way to think of it is $500 million of debt and $200 million of equity. Who is it that's going to put that money up? On the debt side, I think, is more straightforward, but it depends upon the equity, having that pin down. So for us, it's clear that if I think I'm going to do 70 million gallons in the first set of -- in the series of -- I guess, it will come out in tranches, I suppose. Because we'll do one -- first plant, second plant close one on top of another almost and then the one shortly thereafter, we'll be talking about it. Well, obviously, I still got to close some take-or-pay contracts for the next $20 million. And we aren't going to stop there, by the way, we're going to continue to grow. So the idea is to set this up, special purpose entities, use project people who specialize in project financing, it's what they do. It's typical in infrastructure [ Internet of Things ]. And companies, big strategics are also familiar with it. That's how they think internally. And so the idea to make investments at that level. We would be an equity participant as well, depending upon how much we invest or we can get our sweat equity or whatever we want to call it. But it's basically trying to keep it out of running the money through Gevo, which dilutes us.

Understood. And earlier this year in April, I believe, you engaged Citigroup. And maybe can you just give us a progress report on that? I mean it's been a number of months and just what has happened to date projects?

Yes. And so the way you do this is that one of the -- we go -- first thing you do is you put a management presentation together. If you go in with Citi, you got to go through all the diligence with them because it's got to go through all the committees. And you got to show them in the models, here's what it works, here's why it works. Here's the financials and all the gory detail. You distill that into a fairly long confidential memorandum, basically a PowerPoint, but it goes into excruciating detail about everything you can think of that could go good or bad or ugly or superb and explain the business. Now it takes a lot. It takes a quite a bit of work to explain to people what we're doing. Right away, people go, oh, you're ethanol. No, we're not ethanol. Ethanol is not us. Ethanol is a product, first generation, that's not what we do. We do gasoline. Getting this simple point across the people is amazingly difficult because everyone just said, oh, I'm all about that. No, they don't. They haven't even thought about it. No, we're talking about gasoline for cars, a drop in, same thing with the jet fuel. And so the stuff that people have not thought about. They didn't know it was possible. So we do an enormous amount of education. So we talk to several dozen companies, investors and they're all strategics, and they are financial institutions who invest in stuff like this at a project level. And then we ask them for -- they do some diligence. We meet with them, they do some diligence, and then we say, well, we got to have a term sheet. And so we've already collected several term sheets from people. And now once you have a term sheet, then we'll go to the next level of diligence, where they hire their experts and then the experts dig in. And they're trying to find out everything wrong if they possibly can because they're trying to mitigate risk or have a discussion. Now -- and so we're in the midst of that game with several people. And it's going to -- it will take time to work through that, but it's pretty interesting. We have a good collection and the term sheet amounts are more than enough money that we would need. But we've got to get them done and got to close them. And we also have the issue of, I get how Luverne gets built out, the second site beyond Luverne, right? Like I can see where that one is going to go. Then we'll have to pin down the next site after that.

So what's the normal time line for project finance like this? I mean, just trying to understand perspective. So some unique challenges, obviously, you face because this is a relatively new technology, let's say, to the project finance community. But just to frame up what's the normal cadence or sequence of this and kind of why -- and I understand it's taken a little bit longer, but just any other color you can give on the timing would be great.

Well, no, it's -- project finance deal is typically about a year to get close. And that's what we therefore planned for. So that's no different than we've always talked about. That's actually to the close. When we start announcing who's who and what's what publicly? Well, that's on a different time frame, right? And that's when we got like binding letters of intent or binding whatever the deal is and with conditions precedent or something, that they will make the investment and we move to close. So that stuff happens earlier. And it can happen 6 months earlier, 9 months earlier than the close. So we're -- it's sometime in -- about a year from now, I'd expect to close the deals. We'd announce it much sooner than that, though, because we got to tell everybody it's material. Who are -- I mean when someone's plopping down $200 million or maybe it will be a mix of people. I'm not sure yet. We've got to see who can play together. We got to decide -- I mean, it will be material for people who that is because it's not everybody goes, yes, I love that. It's cool. I'm going to plop down $200 million. I think that it's better for us to have a mix of people because, like I say, we aren't planning on doing just 3 projects and stopping there. We've got a demand. We can see demand for hundreds of millions of gallons of fuels, and we should continue to build plants. And so we already are having more discussions in Europe, it's more in Asia and all the rest. So it's going to be interesting to see, but that's what the time frame is. So right now, they're doing diligence. We move them through the diligence phase. Then we have to negotiate who's who, who's in lead, who's doing what? We got to get the parties to work together or maybe it will be just one. And then we go from there.

Well, for us and investors that sit outside the company, what are the things that we can look for? I mean, are there certain milestones or things that are going to help push us over the goal line? Just trying to understand what a catalyst might look like and getting this over if possible...

Yes, you got to watch for additional contracts. They're going to be -- they're interesting. And obviously, our stock responds well to -- our stock responds well to contracts. And so as we do more contracts, and I already said, I don't have an immediate need to raise money. So that should -- our stock should respond well. Then you have that. We have to -- we will be announcing our engineering firm. We've selected them. And so we're just finalizing it. And I think it will -- that -- I don't know, for some people it might raise an eyebrow as to who's playing with us. We'll see. I don't know. And then we have -- there'll be the -- there's other things we'll do about announcing plant sites, for example, because we're going to have -- where are we going to go build this? Okay, cool. At Luverne. How big -- could I build 40 million gallons at Luverne? I could if I wanted to. Do I want to? I'm not sure. I think there's an optimum amount to build at Luverne because they already have installed capital that serves a certain amount. Maybe there's a better place. So -- and that gets us into who are our partners, how that deal will be structured? Will it be done as a JV with somebody, which is in discussion? Or is it going to be done as -- that we have to acquire a site? These are the questions that we still have to work through, but those are also dependent upon who it is that's funding the projects. So it's already entered a platform like this. And that's the game we're playing. So the stuff will get announced as we know it, not before. One of the points that I'll mention is that I do get these questions. I see them come in from our investors sometimes, and it's like they want me to like make up stuff for announcements. Sorry, can't do that. It's like we can't make up stuff. We can do stuff only when we know it and announce it when we know it.

Well, so let's say the underwriting gets put together and you have the project finance in place. Can you give us a little perspective on how long it takes to actually construct a plant? What the process would be once you have the funding and then what investors should look for?

Yes. It'd be about -- we budget 24, 28 months to build a plant to give ourselves enough leeway. And obviously, we're picking places where -- Luverne, we already have the permits in place. At other sites as -- when we look at other sites, that is one of the criteria of how long would it take to permit. And we look for -- so yes, about we give ourselves, we would hope to have something under construction late next year.

And then from there, it's a multiyear construction, though, at that point, right?

Yes. These are big plants with a heavy capital. We got -- it takes 2 years. So we -- in our contracts, it's late 2023, early 2024 at the earliest.

Well, let's go back to the discussion of sweat equity and co-investing in these plants. What does that mean? I mean, how much would you expect to get from the sweat equity portion? And also maybe dig into a little bit how you would -- like you could use capital or would use capital to co-invest in the plants? How that would impact [indiscernible] shareholders?

Sure. So Luverne, obviously, we have some capital already installed, so we should get some credit for that, and that increases our ownership stake and a project an SPE focused on Luverne, we would have a bigger equity stake than if we were just playing a role of developer. A role of developer, it depends upon who it is the equity partners are and how difficult they are. But you're talking about 3% to 5% of the ownership straight away just as a developer, and that's kind of normal, okay? That's what you would get just as playing the role of developer, if I was developing anything. That's what I would kind of expect. Because at Luverne, whatever SPE we set up there, we're going to wind up owning a bit more of that because we already have assets in place in infrastructure. We also have the ability to co-invest. And so could we -- how much can we invest? We got a fairly strong balance sheet for it, but it's a question of we got to make our money last, we got to balance it out, make sure that we're taking into consideration any of the risks or timings and all those kind of things. And I'm not real keen on -- it's one thing if we said, oh, here's giant brand name strategic A who's the investor. Well, that will be interesting to see what happens to our stock, if that's the case. And then how much should -- how much of a position should we take in that? It's a question. If we had to, could we raise the money or do the money ourselves for doing a project like at Luverne? Yes, prob -- maybe we could. It'd be tight, we could probably do it ourselves and arrange the debt. We have enough money for that. So overall, I think we're in a pretty good spot. It's -- and that will be a future decision. I don't know yet is the answer, Shawn, because it -- we're going to -- obviously, we make more money. Let me talk about how we make money, first of all, in this developer model. We get money for licensing. We get money for project development. We get equity position for project development. We get a -- and then, of course, the equity position gets you rights to a cash flow stream from the project itself. We have operating and management fees because there aren't people who know how to run these plants, we do. And so we'll be operating the plants. We're still doing the market development. And so we get a bunch of fees. So even after we extract a whole bunch of fees. And the fee extraction from these projects would make us a profitable company at Gevo. That's what we expect. Just from the fees itself, let alone additional equity interest in the projects. And if we invest more, obviously, we make a whole lot more money. And it's a growth game, it's a growth game. As I say, we do -- Luverne, clearly, we're going to get that built next plant after. We're going to do that one kind of in combination, I think, with Luverne, and there will be one shortly after that. So -- and then we'll continue on as Tim lands more contracts, we'll go beyond, and we'll do more projects around the world. It's a good time for us.

So I have one more question for you, and then we'll take a couple from the field. We're coming up on 30 minutes here. But I guess, I would like to address where do you think the biggest risks stand today? I mean, you've gone down this path a little bit with Citi. You've had the offtake agreements. Where does the risk or obstacles in the business sit today as you see them? Is it critical? It is economic -- what...

Let's -- I'll tell you what we've already derisked. The technology is derisked. The product performance is derisked. The marketplace demand is being derisked, right? We derisked a whole bunch of it, but we know because that's what the take-or-pay contracts do. We have -- so all the basics -- the production technology has been scaled up, so that's derisked. So we're about as strong as you can be for something like ours that hasn't been built in the tens of millions of gallons a year level. So we're in pretty good shape. For us, it's about financing, what's the deal? Who's playing? How is it? Do we get -- like I could see -- but if someone steps in and goes, hey, you're so cute, I'm going to buy you. What happens, or how much you're going to grow? Well, you know what, you do a deal like that, depending upon who it is. You don't do a deal with another person, you're done. And so a good thing or a bad thing for us. It depends upon the price we pay. Well, okay, it's tough -- so there's all these -- I want to say these are open questions that I don't know how it will unfold. I know that the more material we get and the more contracts we get, the more interesting we are for strategic because we actually moved the [indiscernible] then as we secure more contracts. So it's going to be interesting to see. So it's about -- the risk are all about how we finance, when we finance, it's about securing more take-or-pay contracts. Is there really a demand track that looks as big as we think it is? Will it -- who else wants to play with us, how will they play with us, what's the deal? It's stuff like that. And -- but none of them are risks at a fundamental level, like you're talking about, whether it's political, I don't think it matters which party is in power, it doesn't. It just doesn't. So they're going to -- and this is about California, Europe initially, and the Feds will do whatever they're going to do and they got to get their act together. We'll see. There's -- so we're in a good spot. Carbon value is increasing. It's fundamental. Companies know they're held accountable for it. We're at the right time in the right place, I hope. I think we are.

So let me take a question here that somebody submitted. It's regarding the economic sensitivity of project finance. And I think it's a good one. Has the pandemic and all these other -- not all these other but pandemic specifically been a delay factor in getting things done, do you think, and will it continue?

You know where it delays is that we can do so much, only so much by videoconference. Now it's been beneficial in that between Tim, Chris and I. Chris is our -- Chris Ryan is our Chief Technology Officer, Chief Operating Officer; and Tim Cesarek is our Chief Commercial Officer. We have a lot of contacts. So people already know us, that's helped us tremendously in this game of wrangling people who want to play with us. And -- but it's harder because you got to actually sit down and look people in the eyes, talk to them. And they've got to get to know you a bit. So with some people, that's slower. But it's a -- so it's been definitely slower than I would have expected because we can't go sit down and show people. You do it in iterative video conferences, I don't like that.

Sure. And then next question is are there any other types of loans that you would be available? I think they're talking about government loans or anything around the subsidies or anything like that, that would come into play or would this be strictly a private sector project finance?

Okay. There's different parts. So we also are doing an RNG project. An RNG project is ripe for government type of a loan. And we've already been talking about -- they've already arranged the debt financing for that. So that one, we would expect to be a government type a loan for the RNG portion of the overall project. The -- and of course, RNG is used for -- we use it for the boiler gas. It's not clear to me yet as to -- have some opinions that say we could get government loan back loans. I have other ones that say we could do bonds. I have other ones would be private debt, although there's some interesting creative options that are out there. Citi has done an outstanding job at figuring out the debt side of things. It will be fun to talk about. We have a specific approach we're going to take with Citi. It's straightforward. It's interesting. They're creative. And that's -- we'll have -- we'll be able to talk about that in conjunction when we talk about the equity players, I think.

All right. I'll take just last question. I apologize. We have many, many questions we weren't able to get to today, but we had a limited time of 30 minutes. But last question is regarding the cash flow potential from these plants. And I think it's a good one, and maybe I can expand on it a little bit. I mean, you're talking about 20%, 25% IRRs. You can do the math and say $700 million and look at the IRR and the cash. But -- and it's a good question. Just what does the cash flow look like from this business if it were -- if you delivered on the $700 million in construction in the plants?

At what level? Do you have a level or project level or what?

Well, I think if we start at the project level because then it would depend what Gevo's ownership is, right, whether you get sweat equity or co-invest. But I just -- I think it's a good question because it goes to the point of understanding the cash flow profile of a renewable hydrocarbon plant that you would build.

Okay. Just a second. I want to look away from the camera again to look at a screen.

I assume you're looking at 20% IRRs, right, in the -- for the investors.

More than 20% IRRs. Yes. So they're higher than that -- the IRRs. So you're talking about -- let me just find -- let me make sure I see something correctly here. Okay, just a second. I got to find the right my eyes aren't as good as they used to be. Okay. Here we are. These projects, yes, their levered IRRs are all above -- they're above 20% and so that...

Above 20%?

Yes. And then you're talking about -- it's in the -- the EBITDA is in the -- well, over $100 million. So it all depends...

And we don't work as Gevo gets a split of that back to the corporate level if they co-invested or from the sweat equity. Just trying to understand how it flows through the P&L for the average shareholder.

Well, that's after we've already taken out fees for this stuff. A 20-plus percent IRRs is after we've taken out our fees already as the fees. Now the equity is on top of that. So whatever equity position we have on this project is on top of that. So as I mentioned, I expect us, if we did these projects with these fees, we should be profitable as a company, even with a significant burn that we're going to -- burn is the wrong word because it's market development expense and business development expense and site development expense. We're developers, right? And that's the role we're playing. And then we also would take an equity position in things. So for us, we'd expect to be profitable. And what's interesting is that it depends when these deals close, could it be -- when could we be profitable? Maybe we could be pretty close to maybe next year. Maybe if the deals close on and when we think they will. And if it's -- maybe it's early the next quarter, after that or so we're not too far away from cracking the nut and getting this done. And it's getting to be sporting. And as I said, if we did like the Luverne project itself, just built out Luverne. We've talked about this publicly. So I'm just going to look at the -- I'm going to look at the economics, and I'll tell you, give you an indication at least. You're talking about, again, 20% IRRs and P&L EBITDA.

Yes, Pat, you're talking about full build-out of the existing Luverne facility alone?

Right. If we were to build out Luverne, built a plant out, 18 million gallons of isobutanol with 13 million-gallon hydrocarbon plant, that's plus -- that's like $20 million to $25 million of EBITDA right there, and that's a small plant.

Yes. Understood.

We're not selling isobutanol, we're selling hydrocarbons.

Well, that runs us through our time today, Pat. Really appreciate your participation in our fireside chat series, and we look forward to having you back again on another topic, and I'll turn it over to you for any closing remarks on your end.

No. Thanks for having us. It's good. It's good to explain these things. We watch a lot of the comments that go on. I wish I could tell you more about all the details that I know from who we're working with. We will disclose them when it's -- we can do so. But we have a -- we do take the approach that we don't disclose stuff like names of people specifically until the deal is signed because we've seen too many other companies get themselves in serious trouble with securities law. So we're really careful about it. So I know that everyone wants me to tell them something sooner rather than later. Sorry, I'll tell you when the time is right to tell you when I -- when something is closed and signed. But we are making progress on the 3 front. We're making progress on the customer front. We've got money on the balance sheet. I don't have to raise money anytime soon. So we're in a very, very good position. Very interesting for people now, for the first time ever, and think about it. Before, if anyone -- any strategic came along, the first thing they go, oh, gee, your hat is out Pat, you need money instantly to survive? Wait a second. Well, that's not what we have now. We're actually kind of pretty in terms of what we are. They're going, well, gosh, you've got money. You don't need our instant help. We see what it is. So it's a very fundamentally different game than where we were several months ago.

Great. Thank you, and thank you to everybody for participating today. We hope you join us again for our next fireside chat, and that will conclude today's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you very much.