Regis Resources Limited

Thanks Rachel. Good morning everyone and thanks for joining us on the Regis Resources full year results for FY21. I'd note that the Appendix 4E and report and an accompanying presentation were released earlier today and we may make occasional references to these. So before I hand over to John I'll just touch on some of the key financial elements and then I'll leave it to John where John can discuss the results in more detail. So for FY21 year, we saw gold production of approximately 373,000 ounces at an oil and sustaining cost of $1,372 Aussie an ounce and a C1 cash cost of $1,051 an ounce. Now this drove a net profit after tax of $146 million with a net profit after tax margin of 18%, which reflects the strength of the business. EBITDA was $403 million, with a very strong EBITDA margin of 49%. Cash and bullion, $269 million at year end, and that was after a payment of $61 million in fully franked dividends during the year. A final fully franked dividend of $0.03 per share has been declared by the board. giving a full-year, fully-fixed dividend of $0.07 per share for FY21, giving a basic yield of 2.8% and a grossed-up yield of 4%. Overall, a strong result with another dividend return for our shareholders. So I'd now like to pass it over to John.

Thanks, Jim. FY21 saw a solid performance by Regis with an NPAT of $146 million. a solid net profit margin of 18% and an EPS of 26 cents per share. EBITDA was up 2.3% in FY21 to $403 million with a healthy EBITDA margin of 49%. As previously reported in our quarterly results, cash and bullion sat at $269 million at 30 June 21 with debt of $300 million which we took on as part of the acquisition of 30% of Tropicana which we completed earlier this year. So using those two metrics, net debt sat at $31 million at the 30th of June. A couple of points that I'd like to make in relation to our net profit after tax of $146 million for the year, which was lower than the previous year, primarily due to an increase in the non-cash components of cost of goods sold. Firstly, there was an increase in our non-cash costs for depreciation and amortisation. So if we look firstly at depreciation, we see an increase in depreciation charges of approximately $20 million, which was driven by our first full year of depreciation associated with the Rosemont Underground assets, an increase in right of use asset depreciation, again driven by the first full year of the Rosemont Underground being in commercial production, the commencement of depreciation of the Garden Well Stage 3 TSF during the year, and Of course recognition of depreciation charges for May and June associated with Tropicana property, plant and equipment that we acquired as part of the acquisition that we completed. Secondly we see an increase in amortisation which increased approximately $60 million year on year predominantly because for the last two to three years we've been mining above long strip ratios and the deferred waste associated with that is being amortised. In FY21, we saw a significant capital investment in the company's existing operations. If you look at the cash flow statement in our financial accounts, you can see the payments for mine development of $138 million, and that included significant pre-strip and deferred waste expenditure at the Dugton Open Pits, which obviously needs to be amortised. Again, the first full year of commercial production at the Rosemont Underground, and therefore the first full year of amortisation of capitalised underground costs. as well as the recognition of amortisation charges for May and June associated with our 30% interest in Tropicana. We did also see a 16% increase in our cash costs of production from $307 million to $355 million in FY21 and that was driven by a couple of factors including our production as Jim mentioned at approximately 373,000 ounces was 6% higher than in the previous year. And secondly, we have experienced some increases in our cash costs, primarily being the first full year of Rosemont Underground being in commercial production, whereas in the previous year it was only in commercial production for two months. And we've got two months of cash costs associated with our investment in Tropicana. So if we move over to page four of the presentation, you'll see a summary of our financial results for FY21. As mentioned, we saw a production of approximately 373,000 ounces which was 6% up on the previous year. Again, I'll note that our FY21 figures include two months of production from our 30% interest in Tropicana. We sold 367,285 ounces of gold during the year at an average price of $2,229 an ounce. That is the average price we secured after selling into approximately 80,000 ounces of our most out of the money hedges. I'll expand upon that a bit more later on. We had sales revenue of approximately $819 million in FY21 which was a year on year increase of 8.3%. If we move across to page 5 it's pleasing to see that Regis has again declared a dividend. The final dividend for FY21 is $0.03 per share which results in a total payment for the final dividend of approximately $22.6 million. This is 10% higher than the payment made in respect of the interim dividend paid earlier this year and that's driven by the increased number of shares that the company has on issues following the Tropicana acquisition. At 3 cents per share, this final dividend brings dividends declared for FY21 to 7 cents per share. It gives a basic dividend yield of 2.8% and a grossed-up dividend yield of 4%. It also represents 29.5% of our FY21 net profit after tax and 10.7% of our FY21 EBITDA. It brings the total dividends declared by Regis since 2013 to well over half a billion dollars and indeed that now sits at $532 million in total. As we have noted previously, we will continue to assess the level of future dividends in the context of gold price, operational performance and capital expenditure requirements. Page 6 of the presentation provides a cash flow waterfall that plots our movement in cash and gold on hand across FY21. I'll just talk to a few of those categories. Cash flow from operations of $378 million for FY21 which is the first bar that you'll see is basically cash flow from operating activities shown in the cash flow statement adjusted for income tax and other costs which is primarily head office expenditure which are shown separately in the wall. We've got mine development costs of $138 million. and that primarily relates to pre-strip activities at the Duketon Open Pits, and that's primarily at Moolart Well, Banago and Dogbotta. We've got capitalised deferred waste at the Duketon Open Pits, primarily at Garden Well and Tooheys. We've got capitalised underground costs at the Rosemont Underground and obviously pre-production costs at the Garden Well Underground. In addition to that, we also have deferred waste at Tropicana for the Havana and Boston Shaker Open Pits for May and June. Moving on to the next component of the waterfall, we see exploration and McPhillamy's costs for the year of $45 million and the next bar in the waterfall shows other CAPEX costs of $42 million for the year, which primarily includes two main areas of expenditure. Firstly, there's payments for property, plant and equipment, which was approximately $21 million and that includes TSF3 work undertaken at Garden Well. mill lifters and liners, a new workshop for the Gardenwell underground, portal support works at the Gardenwell underground and electrical substations and fans for the Rosemont underground. The second component of that other capital expenditure which accounts for the balance is finance lease repayments. Moving on to the other category in the cash flow waterfall we see a spend of $10 million and that's primarily corporate overhead. but it does also include a couple of minor adjustments associated with the Tropicana acquisition. What this then shows is that the company's cash and bullion balances increased from $209 million to $353 million before the payment of dividends, taxes and before the impact of any residual funds retained from the capital raising. The waterfall chart clearly shows that Regis continues to be a substantial taxpayer with an actual income tax payment of $77 million for FY21. The next bar shows that while dividend payments were approximately $61 million in total across FY21, some shareholders elected to participate in the company's dividend reinvestment plan leading to a lower cash outflow of $51 million. Finally we have some residual cash retained from the capital rating and this will primarily be used to pay stamp duty associated with the acquisition of Tropicana. I should note that we funded the acquisition of Tropicana through a $650 million equity raise and a $300 million loan. Now clearly we haven't shown those flows on the waterfall as they would make access on the graphs meaningless. So what we have done is show the residual funds that we retain after executing that transaction. And the factors that I've just gone through are really the key drivers behind why the company is sitting with a cash and bullion balance on hand at the end of FY21 of $269 million. Before I hand back to Jim, I'll just talk briefly about the company's hedging and the debt that we have. During FY21 we continued to execute our strategy of selling into our lowest priced hedges and we met the target that we set of selling into 80,000 ounces of those hedges across FY21. This means that our hedges reduced from approximately 399,000 ounces at June 20 to 320,000 ounces at June 21. In late May 2021 we announced that we had changed our hedging structure from spot to third to flat fourth and that did a number of things. Firstly it locked in or it set a goal price for all of our remaining hedges of $15.71 per It moved us to a product that is better understood in the market and it still gives us the flexibility to increase sales into our hedges if we choose to do so. What we have done from the 1st of July is we have increased our sales into our hedges from 80,000 ounces per year or 20,000 ounces a quarter in FY21 to 100,000 ounces per year or 25,000 ounces per quarter across FY22. And finally I note that the company now has $300 million of debt which it put in place to partially fund the acquisition of Tropicana. Subsequent to the end of the financial year the company worked with Bank of America to syndicate the debt for which there was very strong demand and we've previously announced that the syndicate members are now Macquarie, HSBC, NAB and Westpac. And having said that I'll hand back to Jim.

Thanks John. Look, I would just like to take a moment to cover off again on our guidance for FY22. We are expecting a very strong year of growth within our business as production continues to lift at Duketon. And we also see the impacts of a full year of Tropicana starting to come in. So our guidance for gold production, 460,000 to 515,000 ounces across the year. An oil in sustaining cost of $12.90 to $13.65 an ounce, Aussie. Growth capital, a range of $1.55 to $1.65. Exploration across both sites, both Duketon and the Tropicana area, $46 million. And finally, about $26 million at the moment on McPhillamy's. Now look, as we noted previously, the September quarter is expected to be a soft one for Duketon. That's at Duketon. And this is due to, we had some major scheduled mill shutdowns and a motor change out during the month of July. We've also been undertaking some pit rescheduling requirements in the short to medium term. This was due in part to some preventative geotech work on catchment fences that we did both at Rosemont and Garden Well as a preventative action. And also we've just seen a slower than planned ramp up in some of our mining activity, surface mining. We're confident and we know that we'll be able to pick this up, it's just we'll have an impact on this, certainly on this September quarter. And we also see Rosemont underground rebasing into its steady state. We ran it pretty hard during the June quarter. and we've just got to get that back to a stable point and so we're getting some rebasing on Rosemont Underground production. So coming out and closing out on FY21, it was a big year for Regis Resources. The acquisition of 30% interest in the Tropicana Gold Project, clearly very significant. The ramp up of Rosemont Underground, Good thing to see that we're seeing the potential for extensions clearly possible there with our drilling. We're particularly excited about that. We've commenced the garden well underground and plenty of strong indicators of both more material at depth and also potentially an additional mining area just to the north, about 800 or so metres to the north of garden well underground. and that's sitting underneath the main pit, that's looking, certainly got some potential in it as well. Now, this all, we delivered a net profit after tax of $146 million, fully franked dividends of $61 million paid. For FY21, as John mentioned, total declared dividends of $532 million, over half a billion dollars since 2013. And, you know, if you include franking credits, that's three quarters of a billion dollars in value nearly to... to our shareholders. Regis continues to build on its history of growth and dividend return. Last financial year we delivered on major increases and continued to work on growth. We grew Dugden's life through reserved addition and we continue to optimise the operations there. We delivered a step change through the addition of Tropicana We're also anticipating increases in production from this operation coming over the next 12 months or so as we start to round out on the end of the stripping associated with the Havana cutback. We continue to push forward on the next step at Macphilemys and we continue to be convinced that there's still plenty of value to find across the Duketon Greenstone belt as is reflected in our exploration program and funding. And all the while, we're just keeping alert for other external opportunities as well. It's been a big year and we are so much better set up for the future now. And the exciting part is we know that we're only just getting started. So look, on that note, I'd like to hand it back to Rachel and we'll open up for any questions. We can see there's a few there. So back to you, Rachel. Thank you.

Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press Star 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press Star 2. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Matthew Friedman with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Sure, thanks. Morning, Jim and John. I appreciate all the detail you provided on the financial results, but wondering If I can just ask for a quick update on the McFilmy's approval process. It appears that the DPIE is still waiting for further information, obviously related to the DA, and has been waiting since February. Is that still the case, or has that information been provided? And just wondering if you can give us an update on the expected timeline, at least for the approvals part of the process from here.

Yeah, look, it's an interesting process, to say the least, that we're trying to work our way through here with the New South Wales government. There is outstanding elements or query that they've got with us. To be honest, the outstanding nature of that relies on information and guidance from an internal government department itself, which is what we're working on, and we're working quite closely with with DPI Planning, as they're called, or the Department of Planning Infrastructure and Environment. So, and they're being very constructive and helpful as we try and work our way through this. As we've mentioned before, the key area that we're still working on here is, at this point, is the surface water licensing and how that's calculated and how those licenses can be estimated, allocated, and locked down. And that's basically the area that we continue to work and try and establish clarity that provides the clear path forward, which is what DPIE planning is waiting. They're reluctant to, as I said, they're supportive of the project, but no one wants to get a project recommended to IPC without having the I's dotted and the T's crossed. So that's what we're working through. Timing wise, look we'd love to, I guess we've been dealing with the uncertainty of the time lines frankly over the last probably 10 months or so as we've been anticipating things would be happening from these areas faster than they have been. We'd love to work on the basis that we hear something constructive and moving forward sometime in the December quarter. But at the end of the day, that really sits with government as we try and work through the various bureaucrats to get resolution on this area of uncertainty.

Got it. Yeah, thanks for the update there, Jim. And then I guess just on your... I guess a recutting of the numbers on McPhillomys. I see that you've got unallocated segment assets of nearly $600 million Aussie. Just wondering if maybe John can give us an idea of roughly what component of that is McPhillomys and is there potential or is it likely that when you do get an opportunity to complete that revised EFS, do you expect that that may trigger a reassessment of those carrying values? Thanks. Thanks.

I'm not sure that I can give you precise numbers, Matthew. Perhaps I'll have a look into it and I'll have a chat to you afterwards. I don't have the exact breakdown off the top of my head.

Okay, no problems. We'll pick that one up offline. And then maybe just finally, Jim, you mentioned there, I guess, the Tropicana stripping profile. Clearly, there's a component of that in growth capital next year or in FY22, I should say. Can you give us a bit of a sense of the ongoing stripping requirements for that asset, maybe in terms of total material movement levels? Is the TMM going to stay broadly flat over the medium term? And just wondering whether we might see a shift over time from either capitalising that stripping to expensing those stripping costs. Just wondering how much of that capitalised stripping is expected to carry forward. Thank you.

Yeah, look, I think, I mean, what we're seeing in the growth capital at Tropicana, as we've noted in our guidance, you know, the reality is you end up with these two different approaches almost to how stripping can be defined. Now, under the oil and sustaining cost version, Certainly the bulk of, in fact, I think all of the growth capital, as it would be defined for all in sustaining, will be completed this year. And then it will move into a phase of just sustaining and lower strip ratio type of work. Because obviously at the moment, I think most of this year, or a big chunk of this year, a lot of the material moved out of Havana is all waste as we get down and get access to the ore. So I'd expect that to drop over time. We haven't given any specific guidance at this point, and we're still working on what that longer-term strategy story is that we're able to convey. When we make a decision to do that, we'll give some better guidance on it. But I would certainly be anticipating that that stripping ratio will drop off as we get well into the realms of mining and processing ore. Of course, there's nothing coming out of it... virtually nothing coming out of it at the moment.

Okay, thanks. That's helpful, Jim. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from David Coates with Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead.

Thanks, guys. Morning, Jim. Morning, John. Just quickly just following up on that. That's CY22. I assume you're talking about this coming year that growth capital, quote-unquote, expected to be completed at the Havana cutback.

Yeah, sorry, what was the... Just say that again.

Just following up from Matt's question, you were talking about the growth capital, you know, the great oil pre-strip at Havana being complete this year. I assume you're talking about calendar 22 or FY22? FY22. Right, OK, thanks. Let's see, just... Oh, yeah, you mentioned the steady state at the Rosemont Underground and a couple of ramp-up issues at the Open Pits. You're sort of getting settled into the September quarter. Can you just give us a bit of a background on some of those, some of the types of issues you may be seeing? Is it labour tightness? What are some of the underlying factors behind that?

Yeah, look, I've just been thinking about that first question that you asked. We are anticipating a little bit of growth capital. We'll probably roll into the September quarter next year, which would put it in the very early stages of what would that be? FY23. But it's certainly expecting that it will all be well and truly just running as sustaining CapEx by the end of next calendar year. But yes, there will be a little bit in the September quarter we're anticipating, if I've made sense on that one. Coming back to your other question as to these impacts, yes, look I don't think there's any doubt. It's a pretty consistent message with around the tightness in the labour. It is having an impact. It hits at different areas. A fair chunk of our professionals work from the East Coast and we're now at that stage where everybody's either moved or given up and moved home. And that causes what I would call a bit of a slow rundown. You don't have quite as many geos or quite as many mining engineers as you... would normally have, it doesn't have an impact on day to day but it does mean that you're like a spinning wheel that hasn't got quite as much energy being put into it or in this case intellect and so the business just starts to run down a little bit and gets a bit harder to achieve things. So we're certainly seeing that as a potential risk. Then on the near term our contractors and their source of labour is certainly getting harder, and that is having an impact. If we were running at steady state, we probably would have been able to manage that, but because we've ramped up our activity on BCM movements from our pits, at least for the next, we had it planned for the next six months, I think that's just causing some challenges. Because it is sort of a lift and a drop, we believe that we've got the ability to cover that over the year. It's frustrating and having a short-term impact, but we believe that it can be managed over the longer term. The other area that we've just seen is we've got to increase our drilling and blasting capacity, which I think and we're mobilising, some more rigs are being mobilised at the moment for that just as we've been, we've had to shuffle our activity around it's just brought forward some of that additional drilling and blasting requirements. In terms of the geotech you know as you know last year, last financial year we did have some impacts on the geotech and we've been watching that quite closely these delays that we've had early in the in the September or during the September quarter have been less around actual failures and more about, well, we want to put up some safety management, some catch fences, geotech fencing that captures loose rock as it scuttles down, it comes loose. particularly as the pits start to get towards the bottom and you've got a lot of work occurring in a relatively confined space, you know, down the bottom. We just need to make sure we've got the right elements for risk management in place and that takes time. And because you've got a narrow base while you're putting in the walls, basically, you've got to stay clear and that's just caused that... It's actually been pretty painful for us, but we'll come out of that and recover that. But it's a short-term issue, but it's definitely something we wanted to do for risk management. The mill shutdowns were just fairly routine, nothing out of the ordinary, just timing-wise, as you can imagine. Sometimes they might have originally been planned for June, but you push them over because that's what happens in June, and we just... a little bit of catch-up and just a little bit of work that was all scheduled to happen at the beginning of the year, which I prefer it to be at the beginning rather than at the end. So that sort of adds a little bit of flavour. You know, COVID also impacted our... You know, when we go into a lockdown, which we have done in this quarter, a month or so ago, that causes productivity issues for us because we can only run... Things like night shift crews only run for a certain amount of time before we have to give them breaks for fatigue. They just have a bit of a cumulative effect. In a quarter where we're expecting and planning for our activities to lift a bit, they have lifted but not to the extent that we wanted. They're having an impact on our immediate production this quarter.

If I might just pop one more in, you're thinking around changing the hedge profile?

Yes. Yes, that's right David. We are increasing the sales into our hedges to 100,000 ounces a year and I think at this stage the intent is that we'll continue to sell down those hedges at that rate.

So the strategy behind it?

The strategy behind it? Well, certainly we inherited a pretty substantial hedge book that was a fair bit out of the money some time ago and frankly the strategy has been that we prefer to be more exposed to the Australian dollar gold price and so we put in place a strategy probably two years ago now to start selling into them and we've continued to execute that strategy. we've progressively increased the amount that we're selling into and we can do that with a not overly significant impact on our revenue stream. So that's the strategy that we've been executing over the last two years and it's a strategy that we'll continue to execute into the future at this stage but we continue to assess it as we do a number of things.

And that hedge was around for quite some time, and we had the right reserve base to be able to, in effect, kick it down the road, if you like. It was clearly, with the increase in gold price, it was an issue that we knew that we were going to have to deal with, so that's why we started selling it into it in the first place. The reason that we changed from the spot deferred to the... to the flat forwards with a locked-in profile was we just found, number one, there has been a cost in running with the spots of thirds. You don't see it because every time they get rolled, basically the pricing was getting readjusted and it was costing us, you know, in reality, well, you don't see it as a cost, but you see it as a further reduction in the strike price, the price for the hedging. And that was probably, in a high gold price environment, was costing us $1 to $1.5 million at least a month, as we were seeing that backwardation occurring. We've locked that down now. We don't see that anymore. We feel that it's much easier and clearer for us to plan the cash flows around this profile. And frankly, it's a lot easier for the market to understand what our hedge book is and run it, because even though the spot deferreds were probably almost unique to Regis and not everybody understood it. So we felt that there was, number one, it had to be dealt with and we started dealing with it a couple of years ago. Number two, we saw that with a strong gold price it was costing us effectively a hidden cost behind it that we just wanted to lock away. which we've done, and now we just continue to sell into that hedging and, frankly, just get rid of it.

And I'll just add on the end there, David, that what we've seen is that since we put that in place, you know, the gold price, the Australian dollar gold price has increased, and that increase out of the money funding risk is no longer borne by Regis. That's effectively one of the benefits of doing what we've done.

Awesome. Thanks so much.

Thanks, Dave.

Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Your next question comes from Peter O'Connor with Shore and Partners. Please go ahead.

Hi, Jim. Hi, John. A couple from me. Tropicana, Jim. When do we expect to get the MROR? That's first quarter next year from Anglo. And when will that be when you'll be in a position to give a much clearer view?

Sorry, what was that?

Were you talking about... Oh, mineral resource update.

Yeah, I believe that they... ..that the site runs on a... Sometime during the March quarter, I think, it'll be the same. They run the same. In fact, coincidentally, we've changed our reporting period to be pretty much the same. But, you know, we won't see an update until sometime around March, I wouldn't imagine.

OK, to McPhillamy's. the timing that you talked about and the uncertainty, COVID or red tape or both?

Look, certainly more the latter than the former, although COVID is just making it really difficult to, you know, I guess, get in front and have those face-to-face meetings to try and push the process along. You know, it's challenging and trying times in New South Wales, particularly at the government level, trying to manage, you know, this extremely significant outbreak. I can understand where their short-term priorities would lie. COVID just makes it a whole lot harder. It adds a level of, you know, instead of... Instead of swimming in a stream slightly, swimming slightly against the flow, you're swimming in treacle because everything's just slowed down. But they're both part of the timing issue.

Okay. And on the topic of COVID, do you encourage or will you mandate requirements for vaccination for employees?

Yeah, good question. Good question. Very topical one, Peter. Thank you. I'm not sure how that relates to value, but I guess I get it.

Get the bums on seats, Jim. It's important.

Yeah, look, it's an interesting one. I think the whole question of mandating, and clearly there's lots of different views around. I think the number one thing that will drive any decision that we make as a company will be on the basis of protecting the safety of our people. And that means that whether we go down a path of mandating and I know there's been some commentary made over the last few days of course about whether it would make life harder or easier with people but at the end of the day whatever you do you can't afford to put your people at risk. So does that mean we mandate? Maybe. Does that mean that we look at other alternatives for example You don't need to be vaccinated, but if you aren't, then you're going to have to take extra precautionary measures like permanently wearing masks or we may close off access to sites for risk areas. We're still working with the advisory groups, CME and AMEC, to understand what what's the right thing that the industry would take. We would certainly support and participate in any program that involved mining companies helping and assisting with the rollout and being points. We would certainly step up to that. We're not a big part of the population, and we are definitely actively encouraging everybody at the moment within our company to get out and get their vaccinations done as soon as they can. both for the benefits of the company and also for the broader community.

Thank you, Jim. I'm John on finances to the dividend. And the slide, which is five, you steered a lot of numbers around how it fits with regard to the payout ratio of net profit, payout ratio of EBITDA. Is that the way the board thinks about it, despite your sort of more subjective commentary below? Is it 30%? Is that a way to think about it a line in the sand for the dividend? Or did that just drop out that way?

Yeah, good question, Peter. We don't have a formal dividend policy, but clearly the board is very cognizant of its dividend paying history. I mean, we just look at it or we looked at it as a percentage of NPAT. That's essentially what fell out of it. But there was there was, as there always is, very robust discussions at board level about the dividend, and that's the dividend that the board landed on. They certainly take their dividend paying history pretty seriously, and that's where they land. Absolutely.

Yeah, I mean, every time there's a conversation, Peter, it's clearly around, number one, capacity to pay, what was our profit, but also there's looking ahead to what future requirements might be for capital and so it's a combination of capacity to pay, level of profitability and future capital requirements. We've all entered into the discussions that we had in the lead up to this dividend decision and they're the ones we always have. It's the same points that we need to consider.

Okay, and John, just on your funding facility and the syndication that Bank of America has gone through, how did the syndicate look at you as a risk, or not you, but the company in terms of risk? Given your hedge book is now a less proportion of your overall production profile or your reserve base, you've got a diversity of assets where you didn't before, and what sort of coupon drops out of that against that risk profile that they have?

So in relation to risk Peter what I'd say is that it's safe to say that we were inundated with banks wanting to participate in that syndicate. So in my mind that's the easiest way of suggesting to you that I would say that the banks viewed us favourably in relation to risk. We had pretty much all of the major players and a lot of the smaller banks as well wanting to take part. That's how I'd answer that one. And in relation to the coupon rate, I think, you know, that's probably commercial incompetence, I suppose. But the reality is that the rate is, you know, it's remarkably low. And I doubt that I could probably, you know, get a home loan for the same sort of rates that we're paying.

Is it like a BBSB plus a margin? Is that how I should think about it?

Actually, there is a little bit of disclosure in the financial statements there, Peter, about that. So it is a BBSY and not a margin.

That's right. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Jim. Thanks, Peter.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. And I'll hand back to Mr. Beyer for closing remarks.

Thanks, Rachel. And thanks, everybody, for dialling in and listening. As always, if anybody's got any follow-up questions, please feel free to give us a call and we'll do our best to help you out. Okay, thanks for joining us and have a good day.