Vital Healthcare Property Trust (VHP) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Vital Healthcare Property Trust FY '25 Half Year Results. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Aaron Hockly, Fund Manager. Please go ahead.

[indiscernible] Welcome to Vital's interim results call. I will provide an update on Vital's defensive property portfolio and some of the highlights for the half year, including sustainability and a recap on our Dual Listed Trust proposal. Michael will talk to Vital's financial results and capital management, including the AUD $385 million of Australian hedging activity undertaken during the half. Richard will talk to the significant asset management wins during the half year as well as providing some commentary on the Australian and New Zealand health sectors together with Chris. Chris will also speak to the relatively small amount of committed development we have remaining. I will conclude by summarizing our focus and expectations for the period ahead before opening up for questions. Although sales developments and property revaluations affected the components, Vital's portfolio remained valued at NZD 3.2 billion, split 2/3 Australia and 1/3 New Zealand. Since 30th June, 2024, Vital's weighted average cap rate expanded by 14 basis points to 5.46% across Vital's 34 income-producing properties. This is split 5.35% for Australia and 5.67% for New Zealand. After allowing for rent increases and inclusive of development land, the net revaluation loss for the half was NZD 64.5 million. Active asset management led to a further extension of Vital's weighted average lease expiry term, or WALE, to 19.1 years. Vital continues to offer Unit Holders a highly defensive income stream, due to its high-quality and diversified tenant base, high-quality and diversified portfolio, strong sector tailwinds and development upside. Rent to EBITDA for Vital's hospital tenants, who represent around 78% of Vital's property income, continued to improve and now sits at 53%. This is a key measure of affordability and value, with a number of 55% or below considered affordable on a medium- to long-term basis. Put another way, Vital's tenants earnings are around twice their rents, providing a buffer in the event of changes in their financial performance. In addition, Vital has a diversified and well-capitalized tenant base with no exposure to Healthscope and no tenant contributing more than 19% of Vital's rent. A key part of Vital's success over the last 25-plus years has been developments. We reached practical completion on NZD 277 million of developments in the 2024 calendar year, and this has reduced our remaining committed development spend to NZD 77.5 million. Further developments will only be pursued where they are value accretive, and remain subject to Vital's balance sheet capacity. Over the half year, AFFO reduced due to interest rate headwinds, higher taxes in Australia and a timing delay on New Zealand tax deductions. Michael will provide more detail on this shortly. Turning to some key highlights from the half. Over 47,000 square meters of space was leased, extended or renewed, representing 18% of Vital's total property portfolio by net lettable area and 21% by income. Leasing helped maintain occupancy at 98%, extend Vital's already long WALE to 19.1 years and contribute to net property income growth. NZD 47.9 million of noncore assets were sold during the half year. Proceeds have been recycled into Vital's development pipeline as we continue to improve the portfolio across a range of metrics. Net property income increased by 4% on a like-for-like same property and constant currency basis. This reflects rent reviews under existing leases plus leasing activity. The portfolio was also improved through developments and other capital works. For the second year in a row, Vital was acknowledged as a Sector Leader, the highest possible achievement for ESG, by GRESB, for listed healthcare [indiscernible] globally. This was across performance, management and developments. We also completed our first climate-related disclosure, participated in CDP and achieved our first 6-star Green Star as-built certification for the GenesisCare Integrated Cancer Centre in Southwestern Sydney. We also have an as-built certification underway for Phase 2 of the Playford Health Hub north of Adelaide. Our sustainability program helps ensure that we continue to own and develop the best-in-class healthcare assets, supporting both future valuations and rental growth. We undertook extensive consultation with Unit Holders and other stakeholders around the dual-listed proposal that would have been earnings accretive for Vital and provide another source of capital for us. Parties were generally supportive of the end state, but were concerned about transition risk, so we are not proceeding with the DLT at this time. We will continue to consult with stakeholders on this and other initiatives. We have fully [indiscernible] the costs of the DLT in the half year, which Michael will talk more to shortly. And I will now hand over to CFO Michael Groth.

Thank you, Aaron, and good morning. Turning to some of the detail around our interim results. Adjusted funds from operations for the half is NZD $0.0496 per unit versus NZD $0.0554 in half year '24. Distributions have been maintained at NZD $0.04875 per unit, in line with our annual distribution guidance of NZD $0.0975. Vital's AFO payout ratio was 98% for the half, meaning that Vital's distributions to Unit Holders is cash covered. While this is higher than expectations, we anticipate the full year payout ratio will normalize to around the 92%-93% mark following resolution tax timing differences that I'll touch on in a minute. Net property income was up 2.6% over the prior comparative period, driven by like-for-like constant currency income growth of 4%. Corporate expenses are up NZD $3.2 million, in part reflecting the NZD $2.1 million of costs associated with the decision not to proceed on the Dual Listing proposal. The remainder is attributable to other strategic project-related expenditure that's been written off, increased Australian nonrecoverable foreign owner land tax and CIB implementation costs. Net interest expense was up NZD $3 million to NZD $23.1 million off the back of higher average borrowings post asset [indiscernible] and the completion of developments which interest was previously capitalized. Rounding out Vital's pretax loss of NZD $42.8 million was a noncash property valuation decline of NZD $79.3 million following further softening of 18 basis points on a like-for-like basis with property cap rates. Finally, underlying income tax expense, which forms a part of AFFO, is up NZD $2.5 million to NZD $8.7 million for the half, impacted by the building depreciation in New Zealand being terminated, decapitalization rules in Australia and a timing difference of approximately NZD $800,000 on tax deductions expected to be recurred to the second half. On Slide 10, net property income was up 2.6%, or 1.5% on a constant currency basis. Underpinning this increase was the embedded rent growth associated with CPI fixed increases, which delivered a 3.6% or NZD $2.4 million increase in net property income versus the prior comparative period. Pleasingly, the leasing of long-term vacancies has contributed to the NZD $74.3 million of net property income reported for the half. Rounding out the other major contributors to net property income was income from rentalized and completed developments of NZD $5.1 million versus HY '24, offset by the impact of property divestments settled over the past 12 months. Vital's balance sheet remains sound with the appropriate capital and debt lines to deliver the completion of the committed developments, support operational requirements and, most importantly, provide certainty for Unit Holder distributions. Vital property portfolio value was flat at NZD $3.2 billion as both property divestments and the softening of the portfolio cap rate were offset by developments and additions to the portfolio. While there has been a small uptick in leverage to 40.7%, the transparent and long-dated cash flows from tenants whose businesses are built on the delivery of nondiscretionary services more than support both the quantum and the servicing costs of this debt. Reflecting the above, net tangible assets per unit were NZD $2.58, down from NZD $2.69 at 30th June last year. On Slide 12, you will see that Vital has material headroom versus all banking covenants. Debt duration remains solid at 3 years with no expiries until March '26 and prudent facility limits exist to support Vital's commitments. Interest rate hedging continues to be a priority, underpinning Vital's sustainable Unit Holder distribution of NZD $0.075 per unit. In this respect, the last 6 months have seen additional hedging established, delivering AUD 385 million of increased interest rate protection focused primarily on the 1- to 3-year time horizon, extending the weighted average duration of the hedge book to 3.1 years and achieving a weighted average fixed rate of 3.61% for new swaps, noting the majority of this additional protection has been taken out to cover Australian interest rate risk. I'll now hand across to Richard to take you through asset management.

Thank you, Michael, and good morning again, everyone. Turning to the portfolio section. With over 86% of annual rent reviews aligned to CPI, Vital's NZD $3.2 billion portfolio generated income growth for the 6 months to 31st December of 4% on a like-for-like basis in constant currency, 2.6% after adjusting for the impact of asset sales and currency. Vital has a portfolio and income stream which is highly diversified by location, tenant and healthcare use. Since 2013, Vital has reduced its reliance on its single largest tenant from 40% of income to 19% of income today, with overall occupancy strong at 97.7%. We expect that occupancy number to continue to increase over FY '25 as we finalize leases for the remaining vacancies in our recently completed developments at Playford and Armiston. Vital's tenants include many of the largest health care operators across Australia and New Zealand, with roughly 2/3 invested in the larger Australian healthcare market and 1/3 invested in New Zealand. These top-tier operator relationships are critical in that they provide Vital investors with a diversity of income across different operators, geographies and hospital types, strong covenants that provide security of income, and significant opportunities to grow income and enhance assets through expansion of existing hospitals. Turning the page, during the first half of FY '25 through active asset management, Vital leased, renewed or extended lease term on 47,000 square meters of lettable space, representing 21% of Vital's total income annually and 18% by portfolio area. This result is reflective of the high quality of the Vital portfolio, with the additional benefit that Vital has no material lease expiries in the next 18 months. Over the last 10 years, Vital has significantly increased its WALE from less than 12 years to over 19 years at the end of CY '24. Our strategy of providing in-house development capability to support the renewal and expansion of our existing assets, coupled with our locational focus on medical presales, has resulted in our tenants making longer-term commitments to our hospitals and ambulatory care centers. Turning to the health sector overview. While we acknowledge post-COVID healthcare operators in both Australia and New Zealand have been managing several operational challenges that include the availability of staff and related labor costs and general cost inflation not fully offset by revenue indexation, resulting in a requirement for our operators to focus on efficiency and margin gains, both through cost containment and case remix, notwithstanding these challenges, there are substantial tailwinds that will continue to enhance the financial performance of Vital's operator partners well into the future. These include strong demand fundamentals, with both countries having among the highest increases in populations of advanced economies, as well as a population base that is rapidly aging. For perspective, healthcare treatment costs for those over 65 is 5x greater than those 18 and younger. This growing and aging population base is putting significant strain on underfunded public health systems and creating growing waiting lists. This and other factors are, and will continue to, drive growth, with private hospital admissions in Australia up 4% between FY '23 and FY '24. In New Zealand, estimates showed that by mid-2022, nearly 140,000 more adults were holding private health insurance when compared to the previous year. I will now turn the presentation over to Chris Adams to provide additional health care market context.

Thank you, Richard. As noted by Richard, Slide 19 reinforces the push by operators to drive efficiency, including making decisions around core clinical functions, including the closure of lower-volume or marginal services, using technology to drive efficiency with significant investment in systems for patient management and staff rostering, electronic medical records and improved coding for reimbursement by group procurement and investment in retention and training of clinical staff for stability of workforce. Also by seeking improved funding from health insurers, government contracts or user pays, and consideration of the rationalization of poorly performing or aged facilities. Vital has been ahead of this trend with the sale of regional or inferior assets over the past number of years. These [ trend ] factors translate to operators working hard for the marginal dollar. But with the overall outlook [ being ], well-located, high-quality scaled hospitals and medical office buildings continue to perform, particularly those positioned in precincts, a key strategic driver for Vital. The New Zealand market is showing robust underlying performance, reflective of an overburdened public system and greater pricing power for operators. And well-credentialed Australian operators continue to show improved performance. This means we strongly believe the strength of the Vital portfolio of assets and our operator partners, and these continue to perform. In fact, recent market dynamics only reinforce the economic moat around Vital assets as barriers to entry increase, including extremely high cost of replacement. Turning now to development. The Vital strategy is well known to our Unit Holders and continues to create the next generation of assets, deliver future earnings growth, work with key operating partners in delivering to their portfolio improvement and growth and deliver to our overall strategy of medical precincts, which provide proven outsized returns with lower risk. We are proud of the circa NZD $730 million of developments completed over the last 5 years that have delivered to our key goals and position the portfolio for the future. Despite the success of our development program, we are also extremely conscious of market conditions that have persisted in recent years, including cost of capital challenges; construction costs remain high, whilst they are moderating in certain markets, including New Zealand; and operator headwinds for new business cases, particularly in Australia. These factors put focus on limited project activation where returns need to be strong and capital partnering is required for anything of scale. This run-up of projects is demonstrated on Slide 22. NZD $241 million of projects remain in progress, but with most in the end stages and the vast majority of the remaining spend of NZD $77.5 million due to be completed by September of this year. On Slide 23, we have highlighted two project completions in the half year. The Vital team is again extremely proud of the outcomes achieved by the completion of Stage 2 at the Wakefield Hospital opened by the Health Minister, Simeon Brown, last week, which provides the key clinical areas of the hospital, including seven operating theaters, two cardiac cath labs, ICU and high dependency and 37 inpatient beds. Our tenant, Evolution Healthcare, has committed NZD $30 million to this overall NZD $169 million project and remains responsible for the balance of the work, [ being ] demolition of the existing hospital, which has [ traded ] throughout the 5-year rebuild, along with relatively minor car parking and back-of-house services. The new hospital is now positioned as one of New Zealand's premium hospitals, including being base isolated for seismic resilience, and is future-proofed for future growth capacity by way of expansion space for a further inpatient ward, with the new hospital already showing high levels of occupancy immediately post-opening. And we have also concluded an expansion of Maitland Hospital in New South Wales with the addition of new areas of mental health, medical oncology and broader hospital amenities, including car parking. The Maitland project represents a further example of Vital's very successful brownfield development program. I will now hand back to Aaron for concluding remarks.

Thanks, Chris. FY '25 guidance remains at NZD $0.0975 per unit, and we expect the payout ratio to be around 92%, as Michael has indicated. Vital has the best healthcare portfolio available for public investment in Australasia due to the diversity and quality of our properties, the diversity and quality of our tenants and our focus on ESG, both an asset level and an [ agency ] level. This is a portfolio carefully acquired, developed and refined over the last 25 years and is in stark contrast to our listed peers in Australia, for example. While our returns, both AFFO and the unit price, have been below where we would like them to be, we remain very confident for both the immediate period as well as a return to growth over the medium term. We're now happy to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question today comes from Arie Dekker from Jarden.

Just on divestments, firstly, I think there was about NZD $180 million in due diligence at FY '24. You've divested just under NZD $50 million in the first half and now have circa NZD $225 million under consideration. So a bit of an expanding -- expansion in the envelope. Can you just give a bit more color on the assets you're considering for divestment, including New Zealand versus Australia skew and just what the motivation is for the enlarged envelope?

Yes. Yes, so just to clarify, at our last results, we had approximately NZD $200 million under DD or being actively considered. So it's only slightly expanded up to NZD $225 million, essentially due to exchange rate plus the addition of some strategic land we are potentially looking to sell. In terms of the assets we're looking to dispose of, it's a mixture of strategic land, some hospitals and some other facilities that we don't think are long-term holds for Vital. All good assets, and we're getting down to the -- we got rid of the things that we didn't want to hold long-term. We're now getting rid of the things that we think we can reinvest the proceeds better. So it's not core assets. It's just that we think we've got better use of the funds, and it is a mixture of assets, but all Australia.

And just New Zealand versus Australia in terms of the mix?

Yes. So all Australia, that's all we're considering divesting at this point in time. However, we are -- to the point that Chris made, we are considering the wider portfolio, particularly where market conditions sit. And so some New Zealand assets might be considered as part of that mix, but we're at early stages of considering what we may sell, and it really depends on what we would use the proceeds for. So if we consider that we have better use of the proceeds longer term to reapply them to the development pipeline, then that may result in an expansion of that program.

And then just, I guess, expanding on your comments around sort of the change in the type of asset you're sort of considering for sale. A lot of the divestments over the last couple of years have been smaller, and as you say, sort of regional assets and that. I mean I note in the valuation movements for the year that there are some larger assets, assets like Stepney and Carina Heights, that have seen reasonable expansion in their cap rates and reduction in their value. Are those -- is that sort of a signal that those assets are sort of included in the ones you're considering?

Arie, it's Richard here. I think the answer to that question is yes. We continue to market those types of assets where we think that we can get returns very close to book value. And we have managed cap rates to ensure that they properly reflect what we think the market would pay or close to what the market would pay, so...

Yes. Okay. No, that's useful. Just on the development pipeline -- and obviously you're coming to the end of what was a massive development phase, you've been very clear about meeting the right conditions and that sort of thing. But I guess just a little bit of a guide, particularly in terms of New Zealand versus Australia, where market conditions and the opportunities you have, where you're more likely to develop when you do kick off again?

Hi Arie, it's Chris. I think there's probably a [ bias toward ] New Zealand in a development sense in the current environment. There's no doubt that operators are [ traveling ] well in the New Zealand environment and the comment that the Australian -- sorry, the New Zealand public system has its challenges around capacity and other constraints. So we think there's opportunity there with the strong players in the New Zealand market. Construction costs have somewhat moderated. Cost of capital still remains elevated. So -- but sort of the key [indiscernible] dynamics sort of point you more to the New Zealand marketplace. But we're being very considered about those projects. Importantly, that overall program has really renewed the portfolio. You can see that through the average age over the medium to longer term. We're sitting on a high-quality portfolio. So we'll selectively add to that as and when is right to do so.

And then just finally, I guess, just a question on the capital partnering. And you obviously still are attracted to the potential to do that. What's sort of the status there in terms of any active discussions or pushing it out still at this stage for maybe later in the calendar year?

Yes. It remains ongoing. It's definitely a way that we can retain exposure to the high-quality assets that have been bought or developed over time, but also provide balance sheet capacity for new development. So it's probably our #1 priority. We're refining in accordance with where the market is sitting today. So that's probably a little bit different than when we launched 18 months ago. It's very high on the agenda. I can't speak to any different discussions that are underway though.

And just to be clear, that would be assets -- on assets that sit outside those that are under consideration for divestment?

Yes, we think so. I mean we wouldn't rule out capital partnering on the existing investments. As I said, we've really disposed of the assets that we didn't want to hold; everything we own now we want to hold. We just think there might be a better use of funds. So if there's capital partnering in relation to some of those assets, we'd certainly consider it. However, at the moment, the focus has been on the sale of that NZD $225 million we've [indiscernible] the results.

Your next question comes from Rohan Koreman-Smit from Forsyth Barr .

Sorry, I just might have misheard either my line or your microphone, but the payout ratio that you suggested for the full year, can you just repeat that for me?

Roughly about the 92% mark, Rohan.

92%. Okay. So that suggests a pretty big second half. Can you just take me through the moving parts there?

Sure. There's probably three key moving parts in that. So firstly, there is obviously the RBA and RBNZ markers around what interest rates are doing. So I'm sure the market's well aware of that. So that's expected to provide a tailwind to the second half results. There's a number of leasing initiatives and outcomes that we need to complete, but are attractive opportunities that we're working through that are expected to deliver to, I suppose, some of that inherent vacancy, the 97.7% portfolio at this moment. And then there is the tax equation. So there's a number of things that we're working through with the IRB. We're at the final stages of [ locking ] those additions away. But again, that expects to be a tailwind in the second half results. Some of that is timing and some of it's a little bit more permanent than that. So that are the elements that give us confidence around that 92% payout ratio that we're giving.

And Aaron, just going back to your comment on divestments, I think it's the first time in a while we've seen you sell what you called strategic land. Does that mean that there's some of this development pipeline that just doesn't make sense anymore from an economic rents required perspective?

There's an element of that because of the construction cost pressures that Chris just indicated, notwithstanding that some of that's moderated. So that's definitely an element. There's also an element, as I said, that if we're looking to launch a development that's live and we've got a tenant [ precommit ] on selling a parcel of land that doesn't have that same condition might make sense for us. And the third element is where we've been approached in relation -- approached in relation to land and it makes sense for us to consider it.

Perfect. And then just kind of going back to your Dual Listed Trust proposal and what you were trying to do. Effectively, I guess my question is, how do you think you can unlock value in the near term given the set that you've got in front of you? I think when you work through your development land bank pre-asset sales, your gearing gets up to kind of 42-ish-percent. The stock is trading at a pretty big discount to NTA. And when you need to sell assets, you have to devalue things 50 basis points or so to meet the market, or meet what the market can pay. What are the kind of steps here to unlock value and maybe get rid of some of these other headwinds around tax drag in Aussie and the like?

Yes. Well, [ lastly ], Rohan, your points from me this morning sort of outline what we consider to be the short-term initiatives. So capital partnering is number one, for the points we've discussed, that does help us unlock capital. It helps us reduce leverage initially and then helps us reinvest proceeds back into the development pipeline. We've said a couple of times that we do consider New Zealand to be slightly ahead in terms of where we want the marginal dollar to go in terms of investment, but we've got some great opportunities in Australia as well, so there's a balancing act there, and capital partnering across Australian assets, but also potentially some New Zealand assets, in addition to the asset sales.

Yes. I think we should add grinding away on the portfolio, that's a key thing, Rohan. I mean, the space we have to lease is high-quality lease space. So he referenced the comments around that leasing of the balance of the two [indiscernible]. That's high-quality space that's only been recently delivered in the main part. So the levers within the portfolio that we're continuing to push it on, and that's all part of the dynamic of what we need to really focus on as a business to achieve the numbers that we want to as a business.

Okay. So we should think about this becoming more -- the portfolio weighting shifting more to New Zealand kind of in the next 2-3 years. Is that fair?

Yes, we have been creeping up slightly. So we're probably a continuation of a slight step-up that we've done over recent years. It's unlikely to be a dramatic sudden shift up.

Okay. And sorry, last one, just a clarification for RDX. Is that pre-leased? I remember there were some leasing discussions going on there. And I was just wondering if you could give us an update on that.

Sure. I'm happy to do that. It's Richard here. Look, for full transparency, we would have budgeted to be much closer to 30% sort of lease committed at this point in the development cycle with that asset reaching PC later on this year, likely sometime in mid-August. We're probably closer to 20% at this point in time. We are, however, very encouraged by a number of active leads that we're working with -- we're also being very aggressive about opening up the asset to non-life science, non-medical users. We would incubate portions of the building with what we would consider more office-type users and then look to remix that asset in the coming years. Overall, it's an asset that we're very proud of. And we're also encouraged by the fact that we've got some time because of the 58% underwrite that we've got in Northwest for the next 12 months.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Nick Mar from Macquarie.

Just to clarify on that underwrite, is that the total amount of rent that they would underwrite and you'd take off the amount that's leased? Or is that -- could be an addition if you only get to, say, 40%, you could get the additional [indiscernible]?

Yes. For clarity, it's on top of the rent to 58%.

That's helpful. And then just on gearing, just remind me, are you in the range where there's an additional margin on some of your facilities, as you're north of 40%?

So Nick, it's Michael here. We've got a number of -- depending upon the facility -- hurdles or thresholds effectively that apply to increased interest costs. By and large, we're well below those marks at the moment. But it is a position that we are monitoring closely.

And then just on the development side, you talked about sort of making them economic. And I guess we've seen, sort of in New Zealand in particular, a bit of construction pullback. There will be the return on capital piece, which you need to balance in terms of balance sheet capacity. But ones where you say are shovel-ready and the sort of tenant interest or almost tenant commitment in it, is the balancing figure not then just paying a bit more rent to make it sort of stack up? And I'm just wondering how those ever sort of stack up barring your sort of cost of capital coming down materially from here and essentially accepting a lower return?

Yes. I mean I think there's [indiscernible] patience in our development book that we talk capital partnering, but capital partnering doesn't have to be -- can be on particular assets as well, with the right partners. So we have those, as I say, shovel ready to meet a need, but certainly bringing capital partners to balance -- manage prudently the balance sheet position is seen as a suitable solution to those projects that are sort of here and now and the economics make sense in a [indiscernible] cost and quality of operator partner-tenant perspective. Does that answer the question?

Yes, sure. And then lastly, just on Playford sort of still not a lot of [ leads ] up to here. What's the sort of current state of progress there? You mentioned hopefully in the next 6 months, there's some [ efforts to ] lease up, I imagine that's part of it.

So Playford's in great shape. We enabled the project with the first stage, which was the 500-bay car park and associated retail. Now we -- as you're aware, completed the medical office building, and that's a very high-quality group of tenants. We have Sonic, GenesisCare, Calvary, SA Health, a public provider. We're currently at sort of 71% [ binding ] and very quickly moving to near full occupancy on that site, which was -- we expect to get there ahead of business plan. And it's an example where that sort of quality space in the market has been strongly supported. There is a third stage, which is the hospital, and that's something that would be 100% committed to by Calvary, but -- so again, a very high-quality player. But that's got to be the right time and place around the economics of the operating business and the construction costs. So -- and we can be patient around that because really the vast majority of the land cost has been absorbed in the 2-stage state, which are successful. And the more we tenant that building, the more -- half the car park is tenanted by SA Health themselves, but the casual pools and other tenants obviously start to really drive that car park [ hard ] as a result of that building filling up, which is actually happening. So that's an example of the sites that are going to plan, which is basically the position across the book. Richard raised [indiscernible] similar dynamics. Wakefield is 100% pre-committed, but strong demand. So that's what we're seeing across the book as we're building these sites in very strategic locations, we're getting strong take-up, where we take [indiscernible].

As there are no further phone questions at this time, I'll now hand the conference back to Mr. Hockly to address any webcast questions.

Thanks, everyone, for your time today. Happy to take any questions via e-mail as usual after the call. Thank you.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.