HSBC Holdings plc (HSBA) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us. I'm Fais Yousaf, Group Treasurer; and I'm joined by Greg Case, Head of Debt Investor Relations; and Mark Phin, Head of Equity Investor Relations. I'll keep my opening remarks relatively brief as I'm sure you've had a chance to go through the results over the course of the day. There is also a comprehensive deck for fixed income investors available on our website, and we'll flash up a few selected slides as I talk. Once I'm finished, we'll go straight to Q&A. So today, we announced a good set of underlying fourth quarter results and record full year profit before tax of $30.3 billion. 2023 reported revenue was $66.1 billion driven by supportive interest rates and underlying business growth. The return on average tangible equity for 2023 was 14.6%. We returned $19 billion to shareholders, and we've announced a further up to $2 billion buyback to be completed ahead of 1Q results. We continue to target mid-teens RoTE for 2024. During the year, we acquired what was SVB UK, which has enabled us to build our global innovation banking proposition. We also completed the sale of our French retail business on the 1st of January this year. And following approval from the Canadian government, the sale of our Canadian business is on track to complete in Q1. We are mindful of where we are in the interest rate cycle. As such, we have been and will continue to be focused on lowering our earnings sensitivity through hedging, driving growth in non-interest income and, of course, cost discipline. Moving to the quarterly view briefly. In the fourth quarter, revenue was $13 billion. Our underlying profit before tax was impacted by $5.8 billion of notable items and $0.5 billion related to hyperinflation in Argentina. The notable items largely consisted of the re-recognition of an impairment related to the sale of our French retail business and the impairment of our stake in Bank of Communications or BoCom. Turning to credit quality. For the full year, the ECL charge was $3.4 billion or 33 basis points. As we look out to 2024, we expect our cost of risk to be at around 40 basis points given the ongoing macro uncertainty. For Mainland China CRE, the full year ECL charge on the portfolio was $1 billion, in line with the full year plausible downside scenario that we set out last February. Our main focus with respect to this portfolio remains the Mainland China CRE portfolio booked in Hong Kong, which has reduced by $3.1 billion in 2023 overall and now sits at $6.3 billion gross with provisions of $1.8 billion against it. Turning to structural hedging. Our banking NII sensitivity to a 100 basis point down shock is $3.4 billion. This has reduced by just over 50% since June 2022 with more than 1/3 of this due to structural interest rate hedging. Our structural hedge size and duration has increased during the year. The hedge has a weighted average life of 2.8 years and subject to market conditions, we expect to increase the notional and duration further in 2024. As part of our structural hedging activity, we took $1 billion of treasury disposal losses in 2023 for risk management purposes. The replacement hedges a longer duration with a higher yield. Now moving on to balance sheet and issuance. Firstly, a few words on our capital position. Our CET1 ratio remained strong at 14.8%, up 0.6 percentage points in 2023 and broadly stable in the fourth quarter. At the end of the quarter, we were $31 billion or 3.6 percentage points above our MDA level, which was 11.2%. During the year, we generated 1 percentage point of capital through earnings after making shareholder distributions of 0.9 percentage points. The group remains highly capital-generative. The impairment of BoCom had no significant impact on our CET1 ratio, and we expect the sale of our Canadian business to add 1.2 percentage points to the ratio on completion in the first quarter of this year. Our CET1 planned operating range remains 14% to 14.5%. I'd expect our CET1 ratio to remain above this range for the next few quarters given the disposal of Canada. Our MREL ratio was 31.6% of RWAs, 4.9 percentage points above our requirements, and we expect to maintain a prudent buffer. The group retained strong levels of liquidity with a well-diversified deposit base. We have a total deposit base of $1.6 trillion, and our loan-to-deposit ratio is 58%. We hold $0.8 trillion in high-quality liquid assets, and the group LCR rose 4 percentage points to 136% in the year. I would highlight here that the consolidated LCR is calculated using conservative assumptions. Our major subsidiaries all operate LCRs that are significantly higher than the consolidated level. Finally, moving on to issuance and starting with HoldCo senior. This year's plan is lower than our usual run rate with negative net issuance likely. We see gross issuance of less than $10 billion against maturities and calls of around $12 billion. We would expect to be closer to previous year's issuance levels in 2025 and beyond. I'd also note that last year, we reduced our reliance on the U.S. dollar market with around 60% of our senior HoldCo being in U.S. dollars compared to around 80% historically. For Tier 2, we expect to issue $2 billion to $3 billion gross in 2024 against $2 billion of maturities. This will broadly be half of the amount we issued in 2023. With respect to AT1, we have modest needs this year, particularly given our anticipated excess CET1 position. At this stage, we plan to issue around $2 billion of gross AT1, but we'll keep this under evaluation over the course of the year. We have just over $2 billion of AT1 with available call options in 2024. So in summary, a good year with record profitability, mid-teens return on tangible equity and $19 billion of returns to shareholders. Our capital position is strong with good capital generation through earnings. We maintain prudent funding and liquidity positions, and we have modest issuance needs in 2024. We're confident about the future having built a business model that provides balanced growth, good returns with improved stability. On that note, let's open the call up for Q&A. Greg?

Thanks, Fais. So if you'd like to signal for question, please use the raise your hand function in Zoom and then we'll ask you to meet your line. I'm afraid, as I did note in my e-mails, we won't be able to take calls from people who've dialed in via the phones. So if you'd like to ask a question, please do e-mail me directly, and I'll happily read that out. So in the meantime, while we wait for people to signal for questions, we have a first question submitted from Tom Jenkins at Jefferies. Tom asks, when are you going to address your legacy Tier 1, specifically the sterling [ 5.844s ] and the dollar [ 10.176s? ]

Okay. Thank you, Tom. So probably there are a few different dimensions I'd like to cover here. I guess to start with, as we've said before, we are in active dialogue with our regulators on our legacy stack. And I would say there was a good understanding on both sides. As you know, the Bank of England expect firms to take what they describe as appropriate and proportionate steps to reduce legacy instruments, and that's very much in line with our own strategy. We have made some progress over the past couple of years -- or 2 or 3 years, I would say, reducing the balance by over $6 billion. There's a slide in the deck that gives you a bit more detail on that. But nevertheless, we still have around $9 billion remaining. And this is something that I'm very focused on trying to address. To talk a little bit about the way we think about prioritizing this legacy stack, there are various factors we take into account. And I guess, in that particular order, one of the first things we look at is assessing the complexity and the options to resolve legacy instruments. We'd obviously look at the economics and the size of the issuance and think about pursuing fair treatment for bondholders and shareholders alike. And obviously, the regulatory guidance comes into that. And that's what's really influenced the priority order that we look at this stuff in. So that's kind of a general view on our approach. But specifically, I guess, Tom, to your question, I can't share at this point any specifics about instruments and what we intend to do. But I think it's reasonable to assume that in the case that you described, some of the problems are likely to be down to complexity involved, maybe the legal conditions, timing and costs. And as I said earlier, we're really looking at reasonable and proportionate steps where we can. On the make-whole calls specifically, we've not taken action yet. And as you know, it's been over 2 years since the conditions allowed us to. So you can probably assume that it's just not conducive at this point to take those actions. Hopefully, that addresses your question.

Thanks, Fais. So the first question comes from the line of Robert Smalley at UBS.

A couple of questions. First, on capital generation, and I'm going kind of back and forth between presentations. But it looks like you generated about 1% CET1 or did in the past year. 25 basis points per quarter or so, it's a little lumpy. But do you think that's the right run rate there, number one? Number two, with respect to putting that into dividends and buybacks, it seems like you used about half your generated capital to do that. Is that a good metric to look at? And then on the U.K. Ring-Fenced Bank, RoTE for the year, over 28%. Could you talk about the performance there? You've had an abundance of deposits there that you've deployed both in mortgages and now it appears more penetration for large corporates. Could you talk about some of the wins that you've had there and how you see the business going forward, how you're going to maintain margins and how you see asset quality development?

Okay. Thanks, Rob. Quite a few questions there. I'll try to address them. So first of all, on the capital generation piece, yes, as you say, I think I quoted in my prepared notes that we see 1% capital generation. But that was after dividends and buybacks. And so the capital generation is in excess of that year-on-year at the moment given where we are. So I think that's worth bearing in mind. You're right, though, in terms of your math on the 25 basis points. It is 25 basis points per quarter at $2 billion buyback. So we did $7 billion of buyback in 2023, and we just announced a further $2 billion for this quarter. So overall, on the capital generation and our capability to retain that kind of flow of dividend payout ratio and buybacks, we're pretty confident at this stage given where we are in the rate cycle. And obviously, we'll monitor that fairly closely. And I'm not giving any guidance, just for clarity, in terms of future buybacks, but we will think that through as we go along. And we've got, obviously, the Canada sale coming up, hopefully, to complete at the end of Q1, which will bolster our cash position. On the Ring-Fenced Bank comment and question, yes, look, we've had a very healthy return on tangible equity, as you point out. We are seeing competitive pricing pressure in deposits in the U.K. generally. I think there are probably a few factors that drive that. The upcoming TFSME refinancing in the market, it might be one of those factors. Cost of living and QT pressures might be others as well. I think my own view is that you see some of the smaller players that don't have access necessarily to the capital markets as wanting to be particularly competitive on pricing. There are, obviously, as we know, also economic uncertainties, which have been well discussed, and we need to see how that all plays out. But from our perspective, the economy has been very resilient indeed, and we continue to see strong performance. Though, obviously, we're not being complacent. Our view is that as rates start to come down and decline, that should trigger for us more lending and get the balance sheet moving a little bit more. Overall, just to give you perhaps a little bit more color on the U.K. deposit picture, and perhaps I'll broaden it out because I think it would be of interest to others as well and talk a bit about the Hong Kong. Deposits we've seen in the U.K. come down year-on-year by about $22 billion. That's reflective of the broader industry trends that I talked about and the pressures on customers. We've seen in that WPB balances come down by about $14 billion and CMB come down by about $8 billion. So that covers the U.K. bank. But more broadly, if we look at the overall group, we've seen positive uptick in Hong Kong deposits that's pretty much -- actually, Asia in totality is about $22 billion up on the year, and 1/3 of that is due to the deposit campaign that we pursued in the fourth quarter. So overall, that's what's -- that's some color to the overall movement that we've seen in our deposit base at the group level. And you can see overall deposits for the year are up. That does take into account some of the SVB acquisition as well. Hopefully, that addresses both of your questions.

That's very helpful. Thanks for doing the call.

No problem. Thank you, Rob. Have a good day.

Thanks, Rob. So we've got a question submitted in from Panos Toskaa at NatWest. So first, this asks, can we have a clarification around your IBOR Expo securities? You say on the slides that we do not intend to use LIBOR as a means to extract value from holders of our MREL and regulatory capital. What does this mean specifically? And does it refer to all currencies and across the capital stack?

Okay. Thank you, Panos. Thank you for the question. So probably a few factors to talk through here. Look, our overarching principle really that we're working towards is that we want to work together with investors to reach a solution that's mutually agreeable and in line, of course, with regulatory requirements. Now obviously, that may not be possible in all cases. But our approach is to try to not leave investors with legacy LIBOR risk without first offering them some kind of market-standard reach-out. We've made some pleasing progress, or what I would describe as pleasing progress, on remediation over a few years now. As I think you will know, Panos, that we undertook successful consent on our sterling English Law Securities in '21, I think it was. And we also redeemed some of our same bonds in '22. And we made announcements in '23 detailing alterations that we would make for U.S. securities following the LIBOR Act and the ARC fallbacks. But on to the particular statement that we added to our slides in terms of not extracting value, really, what we're trying to do is clarify that we don't want -- we don't view relying on the AT1 fallbacks as a credible path to mitigation if it involves the transfer of value from bondholders to us. That's not our intent here. So we want to, as I said a minute ago, offer some form of remediation exercise. Now obviously, if holders choose not to take up that offer, which they're obviously free to continue to do so under existing terms, our view -- given on -- given the current rate dynamics is, it's probably not economically beneficial for them to do so. But obviously, that's a choice. So that's really what we were trying to get across in that statement.

Thanks, Fais. So the next question we've got comes from Paul Fenner. So a number of questions, Paul, so I might simplify this a little bit. Apologies. So firstly, in terms of AT1, given your messaging and the capital levels, is it just as likely that you do no issuance this year? Or will you do the 2? And also, furthermore on issuance, how do you think about currencies for this year excluding U.S. dollars? How will you think about euros, I guess, specifically? And finally, on the loan-to-deposit ratio, it's incredibly low now at 58%. What's the right level? And is there a strategy around this at all?

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the question. So on AT1 -- actually, let me take a step back for a minute just to talk about the overall '24 issuance. So as I said in my prepared notes, on the senior HoldCo, we're expecting a pretty modest year, and that is driven by averages borrowing demand, but also -- well, the elevated cash position that we expect following the sale of Canada. On AT1, what we've typically looking to do, we did a little bit of prefinancing of our redemptions in '23. So we did $2 billion of the $4 billion in '23. And now we're largely looking back and looking to move to a position where we fully replace any redeemed AT1. So this year is probably a little bit different. And given the excess CET1 position, I expect to continue to look at the utility of any new issue. And that's why we've guided to approximately $2 billion. We'll look at that call and we'll look at whether what else we've got and our CET1 position at the time. On currencies, so as I also said earlier that, we've somewhat reduced our reliance last year on U.S. dollar, but U.S. dollar is really very important to us. It's over -- it's around about half, perhaps a bit over, in terms of our RWAs. That's U.S. dollar and U.S. dollar-linked instruments. That said, we will look to diversify where levels are attractive. We have our ring-fenced bank, which is almost exclusively a sterling balance sheet. Now we're aware of the heightened spread levels in that market and thoughtful about how we'd access the market given it's fairly small. But we will obviously look at sterling, euro, which was, I think, specifically your question, will be another area we think very carefully about. Zing will be 1/3 and perhaps a few other currencies. So that's probably all I can offer at this point in time. Then finally, I think there was a comment about loan-to-deposit ratio. And yes, look, it is very healthy. We continue to look at that. We have a healthy liquidity position as well in a number of our legal entities, as you will have seen in the slide deck. There's nothing I can share at this point in time in terms of changing that or a target. We don't have a particular target. We're expecting loan demand to pick up later on in the year, and we'll see how that plays out, really.

Thanks, Fais. So we've had another submitted question from Dan David at Autonomous. So Dan asks, I think, 3 questions here. Firstly, on leverage, can you comment on the increase in Q4 in the European resolution group? And is this a sign of a longer-term trend or shorter term? On legacy, do you have a target for the reduction in the amount outstanding in '24? And specifically regarding the make-whole bonds, that will be the Tier 1s, would a 50 basis point cut in Central Bank rates push the economics in your favor to take action?

Okay. I'll deal with the legacy one. Perhaps, Greg, I'll ask you to talk a bit about the leverage question. So on legacy, in terms of whether we have a target outstanding, no, not explicitly. As I said earlier, we have -- we maintain continuous dialogue with the regulator and we are looking at options now, but there's no target that I can share with you at this stage. And on the 50 basis points reduction, it really depends on which securities one is looking at. In some cases, it could be beneficial; in others, not so much. Greg?

Yes, sure. So Dan, I don't think there's one specific thing I'd point towards on the increase in leverage in the European business. I think there is a few moving pieces. So of course, the European resolution group houses are our non-ring-fenced bank, which is a global booking center for our markets business. So that will naturally flex up and down as we see opportunities. And I wouldn't say necessarily we call out a longer-term trend there at this stage. The other one to bear in mind, though, is there is a bit of noise here. So you'll recall that the European Unions required us to consolidate all of our European Union businesses into -- underneath one subsidiary as the IPU. That requirement came in at the end of the year. And we made a few transfers out -- from outside of the European resolution group into the European resolution group, which increased its notional assets at the same time. So there's a few pieces there, but nothing I'd specifically call out as driving it. Moving on. So we have a anonymous question come in. So first, would you mind walking us through the -- why the -- why we have a lower level of issuance this year and how confident you are in this negative net issuance for HoldCo senior specifically?

Yes, sure. Okay. Perhaps I'll start with just talking a little bit about what we did in 2023. So we had -- I was pretty happy with where we ended up in '23, actually. We had an overissuance plan for senior HoldCo of $17 billion to $19 billion, which we communicated at the beginning of the year. We landed at about $19 billion, so at the lower end of the range. And as I said earlier, about 60% of that was U.S., 30% or so was euro and the rest in sterling and other currencies. For Tier 2, we had an issuance plan of $4 billion to $5 billion that we communicated at the beginning of '23, ended up at around $5 billion. And then for AT1, it was $2 billion. So happy in '23. And as the questioner has rightly observed, it is more modest this year. And really, look, we have a pretty good degree of confidence actually in the plans that we have. There are uncertainties, nevertheless, in terms of if loan demand picks up, that might prompt us to change. Obviously, it's somewhat contingent on us concluding some of our disposals this year as well Canada in particular. But really, on the senior HoldCo, what we're saying is up to $10 billion in terms of the plan this year and as you all have heard, compares to '17. Now I'm expecting us to -- sorry, and that makes us a negative issuer then in the senior HoldCo. I'm expecting us to return to more 2023 levels in '25. So this year is probably somewhat unusual in our thinking. So that's on the senior HoldCo, which I think was a question. But actually, just for completeness, I'll mention a little bit about Tier 2 and AT1. Tier 2, likely to be $2 billion to $3 billion this year. And that's probably the run rate on a go-forward basis. And the AT1s, as I said earlier, it's probably like-for-like in terms of, as we call, we'll look to replace. And we don't necessarily need to prefund in order to replace, but we'll probably go along those kind of lines.

Thanks, Fais. So we've had another question come in. [Operator Instructions] So this comes in from Lee Street at Citi. Lee asks, you highlight the $6.3 billion of Mainland China exposure, but the bank also has a lot of other real estate exposure to Hong Kong and China. Please, can you give us some color on what is the -- or is happening generically with those exposures and why they are seeing differently? And secondly, Lee also asks, the MREL buffer is $42 billion. Why is that buffer so high? And what level could you realistically envisage reducing that number down to?

Okay. Thanks, Lee. I was expecting you actually to call in. So thank you for the question anyway. So there is a slide in our deck. I think it's around $35 million in the fixed income deck, Page 35. So it's probably in the appendices, which breaks out our commercial real estate exposure year-on-year. And I think the things I'd call out are that on a full year basis, we've reduced the overall CRE exposure by around 13%, from memory. So it's now about $83.5 billion around the world. The kind of areas that I would perhaps zoom in on or focus on is Hong Kong. And we have reduced those numbers from $50 billion down to $42 billion, so around 15% reduction. When you drill into that detail, if -- then one of the reasons we look at this differently is, that is not necessarily residential mortgages as you would see in the China CRE space. It could be office or other types of commercial real estate retail, et cetera. The office exposure that we have was around 8% down in 2023 and is down, I think, around 26% versus our peak, which is around about 2018. So we've reduced that exposure somewhat. And we feel -- we remain comfortable with it, actually. There's nothing I would call out in terms of a worry there at this point. Also in the U.S., we've made substantial reductions in 2023. I think that may have been commented on earlier in the day. And that's come down to just under $4 billion, so down about 27% in terms of our CRE. I would also draw your attention on the same slide, Slide 35, to our LTV analysis, which shows that in Hong Kong, the LTV -- 70-plus percent of our LTV is less than 50%. And in the U.K., similarly, we have a very healthy LTV position. So that's all, I think, very positive. Now in -- on the second part of your question, if I recall correctly, you were talking about the $42 billion. The majority of that is CET1. And we have a prudent buffer in place. There are obviously regulatory constraints there, but we're confident about those debt buffers. I guess that's probably all I'll comment on. But Greg, perhaps I'd welcome you to make any comments you have.

Yes. So as you note that the majority is CET1. So as you can imagine, given that the MDA level is 11.2%, and we're operating at 14.8%, the bulk of that MREL buffer is in CET1. So it's going to largely follow that track. And I think elsewhere, we're broadly comfortable with those buffers. So we have a call coming in off the line of [ Phil Pole ] from Deka.

Can you hear me?

Phil, go ahead.

Yes. So my question is around this quarter, you've published lots of negatives with the Bank of Communications and so on. Do you think now everything negative is like off the table? Or will these stories -- these negative stories like on China CRE provisions and Bank of Communications and Argentina and so on, will they continue in the next quarters?

Phil, so I mean, it's always going to be very, very hard to predict these items. And I think, yes, certainly unfortunate the significant numbers of one-offs that did come through the results in Q4. And of course, we'd hope that it's a smaller number in the future. And there were a number of quarters in 2023 that were pretty clean, actually. So yes, it's unfortunate that they all came through in Q4 and made it understandably difficult to pick through. In terms of the BoCom impairment, we've been doing that calculation on a quarterly basis for a very long time. Effectively, the fact that the market value of our ownership is below our carrying value is an indicator that we need to do an impairment test. It's simply that we've got to with the point in that impairment test that it's crystallized a $3 billion loss. We'll continue to do those tests in the coming quarters as long as we're -- it's necessary for us to do so. And of course, we couldn't rule out further impairments, but there's nothing to add at this stage. Argentina hyperinflation, that has been a feature for a long time in our results, but it's been relatively minor. What you saw in Q4 was a very significant devaluation in the peso, which accelerated a significant volume of that into -- of the adjustment into Q4. And of course, that will -- again, it's out of our control. To the extent that a further adjustment is necessary, that will be determined by the -- how the currency moves and the inflation in Argentina. But yes, we'd love to see as many clean quarters as we can in the future.

And a second question, if I may...

Phil, just before you do, I just wanted to add to that -- add to Greg's response. I would comment that the adjustment that was made, as Greg has indicated, it is a technical accounting adjustment. And it had no impact on CET1 ratio, no impact on our dividends. And Nova, as you've heard already, I mean, there's a very positive story in terms of our dividends and payouts for 2023. I should also say, as was said in the call this morning, it doesn't change our strategy to Mainland China. There's no impact on our strategic relationship with BoCom, no impact on HSBC or BoCom's operations or strategic outlook. It is purely an accounting calculation, the VIU test, the value-in-use test, which we are mandated to do on a quarterly basis. And we're not expecting or not anticipating any further adjustments at this stage.

And just one last question, if I may. Your -- the HoldCo bonds that you issued, the HoldCo seniors, do you account them at fair value still so that you might need to issue more or less depending on where rates go?

Yes, we do, we account for them at fair value. We know that we take a conservative approach for our MREL and capital stack. We believe that's the right way to value these instruments, albeit there are a variety of practices. And we know that the regulators are looking at this with welcome clarity, but we use fair value to value them.

Yes. And just to add to that, Phil, just to finalize that, I know that this has been a headwind to us in previous years. In 2023, it was actually a tailwind. So some of that negative mark-to-market that we accrued through the regulatory ratios in 2022 did come back to some extent, particularly in the fourth quarter. So all in, it's probably benefited us by $3 billion, $4 billion, I'd say, at this stage. But of course, that will always be dependent on the path of rates and how that changes.

Yes. I've got in the back of my mind that we were at $8 billion negative value at one stage, and we're $4.5 billion as at year-end. So...

That's right, Fais, yes. So we've had a -- thanks for your question, Phil. We've had another question in from Iuliana Golub from Goldman Sachs. Iuliana asks, could you please comment on the Mexican business cost of risk outlook for 2024? It looks like a fairly high charge in Q4 for the unsecured consumer book? And I'll take that. So yes, look, we're growing that business. So as we grow that business, there's 2 things to think about. So firstly, growing arguably a higher-risk book than we typically originate around the rest of the group given Mexican unsecured business will generate meaningful stage 1 and stage 2 charges as we do that just because of the day 1 recognition. In addition, of course, is as we grow that book, we will be fine-tuning risk over time. But the level of impairments that we're generating in that business, we're comfortable with and reflect -- and is fully reflected in the pricing that we're getting on the asset side. So yes, it is contributing. We are conscious of that. It is still a pretty small business in the grand scheme of things and certainly on the balance sheet side, you'll see Mexico still remains a relatively modest contributor to the loan book compared to its profit contributions. But yes, I think something we'll continue to keep our eye on. And I think that draws us to an end. I think we've got through all the questions that have been -- oh, sorry, we've got a question from Rob Thomas on the line.

Just a follow-up, just Argentina. Can you remind me what business you do there and what the importance of that business is for the group?

So we've got a historic operation in Argentina. It's a full-service business, albeit it's got smaller in recent years, I think, particularly on the retail side. And it does what most of our subsidiaries do around the world. It provides part of our international network and is a broader, largely corporate institutional business there. So yes, I think that's all the questions we have. So Fais, I'll just hand it back to you if you want to wrap up.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your time today and for joining us. I hope you found the call useful. If you do have further questions, please do pick up with Greg and the IR team. And we are looking forward to seeing some of you when we're on the road over the next few weeks and months. Thank you very much and have a good day.