Paladin Energy Ltd

Thank you for standing by and welcome to the Paladin Energy Limited June 2025 quarterly results call. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you'll need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr Ian Purdy, CEO. Please go ahead.

Thank you everyone for joining our fourth quarter conference call. With me today in Sydney are Paul Hembrough, our Chief Operating Officer, and Anna Thudlow, our Chief Financial Officer. Paul and the whole team have delivered an outstanding quarter with strong production at the Langer Heinrich mine and another key milestone progressed at our PLS project in Canada. The Langer Heinrich mine finished financial year 25 strongly with the commencement of mining executed successfully and safely during the quarter. The expected benefits from the introduction of fresh ore into our processing plant were realised and the performance this quarter is evidence of a significant step taken forward in our ramp up of the Langer Heinrich mine. Noting the progress made in the ramp-up during the quarter, the company is also pleased to provide financial year 26 guidance for the Langer Heinrich mine. The guidance sets the roadmap for Langer Heinrich as it transitions from its continued ramp-up during financial year 26 to expected full operation in financial year 27. And our Patterson Lake project in Canada The Financial Environmental Impact Statement was formally accepted by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment and is currently undergoing a public review process. The acceptance of our final EIS is the culmination of many years' work by the Canadian team and is a credit to their consultation processes and the quality of the work which has been completed. Finally, I'm also incredibly pleased to report that the Board of Paladin has appointed Paul Hembrough as the next CEO and Managing Director of Paladin Energy, a thank you from the 3rd of September. Having worked closely with Paul for the past two and a half years, I can confirm he is an incredible leader who has the skills and experience to drive our company forward. The entire Global Senior Management team share my excitement with Paul's appointment. Thanks again for attending. I'll now hand over to Paul to run you through the operational highlights for the quarter and also step through the Langer Hyret mine guidance for financial year 26.

Thanks Ian and good morning everyone. Well, I'll talk through the results at Langer Hyret mine. I'll move into the Langer Hyret mine guidance and we'll conclude with the remaining highlights from other parts of the company. I'm pleased to report that Peladon achieved a number of significant milestones in its order. Our Long Island mine recorded a 33% increase in quarter-on-quarter production, producing just over 993,000 pounds of E3LA. This is the highest quarterly output since the mine's restart and brings our total production for the financial year to 3 million pounds. Additionally, we achieved the highest quarterly crush of circuit throughput in the history of 100 mine operations with 1.17 million tonnes process, beating the previous record of 982,000 tonnes in the March quarter of FY14. This result was achieved on the back of mobilising the mining fleet, which brings us to nearly 50% of the planned mining operation. More importantly, however, we delivered primal from the pit to the crusher, complementing the medium-grade stockpile feed with coarse, high-grade material. We've also seen continued stabilisation of our overall recovery at 87%, as well as an increase in the grade of crusher speeds to an average of 477 ppm for the quarter. This exceptional performance is a testament to the hard work, problem-solving capability and dedication of our team, and these results have proven three key things. And they are, the project delivered what we thought it would, an increase in the process stability and deep bottleneck throughput. Secondly, that our hypothesis about adding more forthcoming mines and optimising blend strategy to improve handleability and grade will deliver an uplift in production of new treatment ways. And thirdly, that we have the capability to mine efficiently and effectively to deliver the results that we need. I could not be more pleased with this board's performance and I look forward to building on this capability in the year ahead. Our financial performance remains strong, with the cost of production at $37.50 per pound, which largely reflects the increase in volume and continuation of low-cost crop-cold drawdowns, as well as access to mining and previously blasted untouched ground in the G6. We achieved an average real-life price of $55.60 per pound for the quarter, which is a function of the timing and composition of the contract that we delivered against in the quarter. For the full financial year, we received an average realised price of 65.70 per pound, reflecting the company's balance portfolio of contracts with a mix of base escalated fixed and market related pricing. Our cash and cash equivalent stands at 89 million with an under 150 million revolving debt facility. This does not include the cash receipts of 29 million received in July for revenue recognised in the June quarter. I'll now move into the FY26 guidance for Langaheinrich Mine. Let me start by reiterating where we are at today. Langaheinrich Mine has approximately 49% of the mining fleet in operation today. The processing plant is delivering at record production rates and we have a medium-grade stockpile of approximately 2.2 million tonnes remaining. The Langaheinrich Mine will continue its operational ramp up during FY26. Over the course of the year, we'll transition from processing soft-boiled medium grade ores to processing primary mined ores. We expect the operation ramp-up to be completed by the end of FY26 with full mining and processing operations planned for FY27. We intend to provide annual guidance for FY27 in July 2026. Key aspects of our FY26 guidance. Nutri8 produced 4 to 4.4 million pounds. The sale was between 3.8 and 4.2 million pounds. A unit cost of production between 44 and 48 dollars per pound with capital and exploration expenditure between 26 to 32 million dollars. I'll talk to these numbers directly and I'll start with Nutri8 produced. Production is primarily a function of three things, crusher throughput, grade and overall recovery. In crusher throughput, we've seen a significant uplift in plant performance, which has been driven by a number of factors. The most significant being the ability of the mining operations to deliver time. In the year ahead, we will observe three key performance aspects. Firstly, mobilisation of the remaining fleet in the first half of the financial year. and subsequent commissioning of that fleet during the second half of the financial year to give us full mining operation. Secondly, concentration of the mining fleet in the GC area with a significant proportion of time spent on overburden removal and low grade stockpiling in the first half. This means the first half of the year will be largely processing of medium grade stockpiles and lower levels of primary mine ore feed for the crusher. opening up the productive lower benches of the GP for the second half of the financial year. Looking at these three performance aspects, while we expect a strong first half of FY26 aligned with the performance that we saw last quarter, we expect a strong second half to deliver in the guidance range. On grades, I'll provide transparency at the end of every quarter going forward and provide verified grade numbers. is that as we feed stockpile ore into the crusher and optimise the blend as we go, we see two primary impacts, improved grade and improved throughput. The grade is reconciled after crushing and following a mass balance from the plant. The actual grade input into the plant will vary as we change blends and access different parts of the stockpile and the mine. I'll do the work, optimise the performance and report grade after that work is complete. As I mentioned before, quality production plans are expected to vary during FY26, mainly due to reduced primary mined ore feed into the processing plant in the first half of FY26. Production is expected to be higher in the second half of FY26 with a high level of primary ore feed available for blends with a medium grade stock of material. This brings me to the third component, overall recovery. Improvements in processing plant performance achieved during FY25. are expected to be sustained in FY26. Our guidance is based on considered client availability and utilisation instructions and includes allowances for expected water supply disruptions, estimated planned and unplanned maintenance activity and general client disruptions based on historic performance. During FY26, Parliament expects to continue delivering uranium to its global customers in the US, Europe and Asia. We continue to look for opportunities to lay a new contract with high quality counterparties. Sales volume, cash receipts and real life pricing are expected to vary quarter on quarter due to the timing of shipment, individual contract terms and prevailing stock prices. We do not expect to buy or sell material on the stock market during FY26. Both in our contract book as of July 2025, the Forecast Realised Uranium Flight Sensitivity, or FY26, under a range of spot assumptions are in the table within the announcements. To wrap up the commentary on guidance for LHM, I'd like to reiterate that the last quarter has given us confidence that we can deliver full processing and mining operations by the end of FY26. This is the final ramp-up year and while the first half will be strong, the second half will be stronger. We're confident in our plans FY26 and look forward to achieving our operations and financial targets. Let me quickly cover the other aspects of all the performance reports before we move to questions. As the Patterson Lake South project final environmental impact statement was formally accepted by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, as Ian mentioned earlier, our winter drilling program delivered the most significant radioactivity results ever recorded outside of the RRR deposit. These results enhance our understanding of the saloon trend and reinforce the long-term strategic value of the project. Safety and sustainability remain our top priorities. We record an average total reportable indirect frequency rate of 2.7 billion hours, exceeding our FY25 safety target. We also continue our investment in local communities. supporting the establishment of a breast cancer clinic in Swartham State Hospital and partnering with Cricket Namibia to develop the Mondesa Cricket Hub. Being covered are often our leadership changes and I'm extremely pleased to be taking on the role of Managing Director and CEO in September. I'd like to quickly take this opportunity to acknowledge Ian's outstanding contribution to Paladin over the last six years. We'll now open the floor to questions. There are a lot of questions rest of the reading and I ask that you limit your questions to two per person and if you have further questions after the close, please follow up with Paul or Appo. I'll now open to questions.

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 Alastair Rankin from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Good morning Ian, Paul, Anna. Well done on another consecutive quarter of solid production growth and also congratulations to you Paul on your appointment and also to you Ian on building the company to where it is now and good luck with your future endeavors. Just for my first question, you mentioned for the FY26 guidance you'd factored in allowances for expected water supply disruptions based on the historical performance and then performance over the last couple of quarters seems to have been or last quarter has been okay but are there any further work streams to improve the consistency for water supply from NAMWater planned over the near term?

Yeah thanks for the question Alastair. We have seen an improvement in performance of NAMWater and the Orano desal plans We've also improved our unit water consumption on site and we have both of our bladders up and running successfully. During the course of the year, we also commissioned a second Fork Up River extraction bore and we have our UCSF balance dam in operation. This means that we've improved the capability of the water balance on site. and we're in reasonably good shape moving into the year ahead. For the last outage that Orono had, we had very, very minimal destruction to the protesting facility due to the installation of these infrastructure changes.

Perfect. Thank you. And just my second question. Could you just give an update on how you're going with the dewatering of that G-ped? I know you've stated that you're targeting by the end of the CY 2025, which seems to line up with when you're expecting the final view, with the final mobilisation of your mining equipment, but just looking for an update on where it is right now.

Yeah, Ian and I were in Namibia a couple of weeks ago and had a look around the GCN details. There's actually only one very small part of the GCN that still has some water in it. There's a little bit of seepage. But it's not a huge volume. So what we're able to do is over the next couple of months we'll do the top soil clearing. We'll pre-strip the pit, drill and blast and I don't anticipate any significant challenges from that small pit with some wood in it still.

Okay perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Daniel Roden from Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Good day, Ian, Paul and Emma. Thanks for taking my questions. First, I just wanted to ask if our 26 sales guidance is 200,000 times lower than production. I just wanted to hear if you could provide a bit of colour and commentary around what that discrepancy is pointing us towards, please.

Dan, thanks for your question. Nothing in particular other than our current schedule of expected shipments. As you know, Dan, we get periodic, fairly large-value shipments out of all this paid to our global customers. We take a view with our customers on a high-level shipping schedule over the forthcoming about 18 months. So we've based our guidance on that, but it is subject to variability depending on when the actual ship arrives or if the customer can move a shipment a month before that. So I think it's a realistic estimate that sales may be a little bit lower but close to production. But having said that, it could quite easily swing the other way with the timing of one particular shipment. So it's our best estimate. we think it's appropriate for the market to assume sales are a little bit lower than production at this stage.

Okay. And I've noted that the unit costs provided in June and the FY26 guidance exclude low-grade stockpile costs over Should we expect that to be consistent over the life of mine and I guess when was the decision made to start excluding those and I guess the cost associated with stockpiling low-grade, has that been provided in historical capex forward guidance estimates as well please?

Hi Daniel, it's Anna. So what we provided in the June quarterly is the actual cost for the low-grade stockpile processing. So we haven't provided guidance on it because it is quite variable quarter to quarter, but we are committed to providing that actual number to you in our quarterly results. I think historically we have provided that information. If you look back at our PFS release, the low-grade stockpile was included in there. I don't think there's necessarily a change in treatment. It's more about how we're disclosing that for you. And then maybe the only other thing to mention is this is a new item, right, because we've commenced mining. So we haven't had these costs up until this quarter.

Yep, thank you. I appreciate your answers. And I'll hand it over. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from James Willen from Canaccord. Please go ahead.

Morning, Willen. Congrats on that quarter. So you've produced close enough to a million pounds of uranium for Q4, but the bottom end of your guidance for FY26 is four million pounds. Is there some maintenance or other things that we should be factoring into our numbers? Because I was just a bit surprised that for the bottom end of your guidance, you're not anticipating any improvement going forward. Yeah, thanks, James. What we're anticipating in the first half is a performance that is aligned with what we saw in the last quarter, which I think will be reasonably strong, and then stronger in the second half. a number of days for planned preventative, planned corrective maintenance as well as water outages. But we think this is a number that's been developed quite rigorously. It's a bottom-up build and I think it's a number that we can confidently achieve. Got it. Anderson, thank you. I was hoping someone else would ask about the average realised price but I guess I'll have to. Pretty low, clearly driven by one of your contracts or maybe more. Do you expect the lumpiness of realised price to occur in FY26 or do you think it will be closer to your sort of average matrix performance depending on the spot price?

I don't know. So, yes, it was $55 for the quarter but, you know, as I think Paul noted, $65.70 for the year. And, yeah, we do expect that our price outcome will be aligned with that realised price table guidance we've provided. And, yeah, I mean, we will be very lumpy and variable because, as you'd appreciate, it's a function of deliveries in the quarter. I think what you can assume is, you know, for this quarter, we were delivering into one or more of the earlier contracts. Looking forward, you know, what we've done in our marketing strategy is delay a contract over time. So what we would expect is that pricing will potentially go up in the future as we strike contracts into the future. But, you know, we've taken that balanced approach to the portfolio around pricing. So what you're going to see is an exit mechanism every quarter. And what we're trying to achieve here is really good downside protection with considerable upside exposure. But I think, you know, the guidance table on realised prices is now expected at $1.26.

Does that low price contract end soon?

James, all of our contracts are a duration between three to five years. So that contract would have started this year, would have been potentially, let me just... Yeah, it's in three to five years. And it'll average now. Yeah.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Milan Tomek from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Hi Tim. Thanks for the call. I'm just interested at the current rate that you're going, when do you expect to deplete the medium grade stockpile? I guess if I can ask it another way, what do you expect the split to be between fresh ore and stockpiled ore in FY26? And maybe just the second one, is the fresh ore performance as it relates to the grade in line with your expectations? Or just, yeah, appreciate you can't give a specific number, but just interested in if that's performing in line with your expectations. The second question is this. Yes, it's performing in line with our expectations. I've been really pleased with the contribution to an uplifting grade. Your first question, When will we deplete this stockpiled ore? What we've been doing is creating a blend as we uncover stockpiled ore based on how we judge the handleability characteristics of that ore. And so the blend ratio has been changing quite a bit. will have a bit less prime ore available and so we're just going to need to be a bit careful about how we blend the ore to get the best economic outcomes from that stockpile. What that means is the stockpile could be completed sooner or later, potentially as late as the end of this calendar year.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Regan Burrows from Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead.

Good morning all and congratulations in call and on a good sort of finish to the year. Just following on from James's question earlier with regards to performance over that first half, I mean, if we were to assume sort of a continuation of the 4Q in terms of processing times and potentially a little bit better, Does that mean you sort of expect a decline in grade over the first half and I guess what visibility do you have on that? Yeah, thanks Regan. What we will process in the first half is more stockpile ore than fresh feed ore and the stockpile has continued to surprise us on grade. I guess we'll see what happens as we progress through that stockpile. We'll have some crime all coming out of Jesus in this next half, but I'm pretty confident we'll have a stronger second half than the first half, but the current half I think will be in line with the previous quarter. Great, thanks for that. And then just on the sensitivity to uranium prices, I guess you would compare that table to what was initially provided at the beginning of FY25, particularly at that top end as the uranium price starts to go up. You have sort of a decreased sensitivity to that increased uranium price. Is that just a layering in of lower fixed price contracts or are there sort of additional volumes that have been signed since then?

It's primarily due to the mix of contract deliveries to various contracts. So in the first year, we obviously left some flexibility in our contract book and had a more flexible arrangement with one of our customers that provides market pricing. So it's a very similar contract between the two years, but in the second year,

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Dimari Singer from UBS. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Alice, and congratulations on finishing the year of the wet sail. Just following up on that previous question, though, I'm really surprised. So if I was to just do a straight read The price sensitivity table that you just provided, spot price of $100 gets you a realized price of $79. I compare that to what you provided a year ago, and that would have been $85.

For me, it's very hard to compare the two and not think that you have a lower realized price going forward versus wherever spot is.

Am I incorrect there or can you help me up as, yeah, unpack that a little bit more?

I think it's fairly straightforward. The realised price that we've quoted for financial year 2026 is the result of our balance book of our full contract portfolio, which includes market price contracts, floors and ceilings, as well as both escalated pricing. And that's the price we expect to deliver at those various spot prices as per the sensitivity. The sensitivity provided for financial year 25, which has just gone by, was calculated the same way based on the mix of deliveries. And as I mentioned, for financial year 25, our contract with our customer who provides market pricing also provided us with delivery flexibility, which we took... So what I can say is the overall pricing in our contract book has improved year on year with the rising Uranium market that we've seen over the last few years. So overall our book has improved from last year.

Okay. I guess just on the idea or the intention to provide guidance for FY27, that's the result. Can you walk us through the rationale behind that? It just feels like there's still a lot of variability in the ramp up. So, you know, if you could expand on that, please. What we're going to do is provide guidance in the same way as our peers do. So we've got a lot of work to do this year and I think what we've provided is reasonable guidance. What we will also do is add our actuals and our quarterly with a bit more detail and by the time we get to the end of this financial year, I think we'll be in really good shape to be able to provide more forthcoming and accurate guidance for FY2017.

Can I also just note that we're providing now under the TSX quarterly financials and MDNAs, so you will be getting a lot more detail on a more frequent basis, quite detailed actually.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Glenn Lowcock from Byron Joey. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Paul, just firstly, I think you mentioned you would give quarter-by-quarter guidance for grade. I thought you said I might have missed whether you actually provided it. But just curious, you did bottom up. So can you provide us with just the throughput and grade expectation average for 26 that drives your guidance? Thanks. What we're going to do is provide our actual grade at the end of each quarter. So what we're doing in the mine is we're producing a blend strategy to deliver optimum throughput and economic outcomes in the planet. We're going to use the existing stockpile, which, as you know, Blend has quite a bit of grade variability, but our mind is meeting our expectations in terms of grade so far. So what I'd rather do is understand what the reconciled grade is and provide a bit of actual space on what we actually did with respect to the blend strategy and the different kits that we open up during the quarter, rather than provide an estimate of what we're going to do in the quarter ahead.

Fair enough. Okay. But I mean, I guess you had a bottom-up viewpoint, so there is a throughput and grade that you're thinking.

You're just not going to share that today. The second question was just on the costs, you know, the cost guidance of 44 to 48. Is that directly comparable to the 40 a pound that we just saw? And how do I think about that? Does that mean we're looking at a $200 million cost base and that would move up a little bit more as you pull the full fleet through in the next six months? I'm just trying to think dollar millions wise because it is confusing a little bit with the costs and what you capitalise.

I'm just trying to think about dollar spend.

So for the last quarter we had a lower production cost and that's specifically because we had a higher volume of material produced but also we were using previously blasted material. That 44 to 48 guidance reflects any of the additional costs associated with the ongoing ramp up. expect for FY26 on average. Like a lot of our metrics, we will see a reasonable amount of variability quarter to quarter depending on utilisation of the median rate stockpile, how much oil is processed and mined. So I think the quarterly view will be variable. We're pretty comfortable with our guidance as to the outcome of a regular budget and review process.

Thanks, Anna. I guess maybe if I could just push you a little bit further then. If you look at the quarterly cash flow statement, production cash out the door was close to $50 million for the quarter, so annualising $200 million. Should that pick up, do you think, as we head through this half and you put a full fleet on, or will there be some other offsets to hold you around that $50 million cash outflow for production per quarter?

I think that you're better off looking at the production cost guidance than necessarily the quarterly cash flow because that was the mining ramp up and also during the quarter we had the impact of the water. It's probably better to use the guidance for FY26 in thinking about that.

Yeah, but I guess guidance is for $200 million. If I take the midpoint of your cost and the midpoint of your production, I get $200 million for the year. So I guess that's what I'm sort of trying to rationalise and understand.

I think that's right. All right. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Branko Skocic from E&P.

Please go ahead.

Good morning guys.

Thanks for your time. Maybe one for Paul. You've mentioned full mine operations are expected from FY27. So I'd be interested in whether this implies you're comfortable with the original production targets from the 2021 feasibility study. or should we be interpreting this as it will be under review as you move into the CEO role over the next couple of months? Thank you. Yes, I'm the CEO, Adrian.

Thanks for the question. Look, there's a lot of work to do between now and 12 months' time. What we will do is we'll go through a period where we bring in some additional fleet at the back end of this year and we'll also... that we've got currently on the stockpile and optimise that fleet. At that point, I'll really have a good understanding of the overall fleet capability. We'll have 12 months of processing the plant's performance, so we've got a bit more time to further optimise the plant. And by the end of this financial year, I would have done the work to really understand the capability of the full mining operation, which is why I'll be giving guidance at the end of this financial year on FY27. Okay, thanks. That makes sense. And just a quick one on costs and just how we should be thinking about long-term costs in the context of what was a pretty decent fourth quarter number, but then also some weaker guidance, FY26, if I compare guidance versus where consensus is at.

Yeah, sure.

So the opposite provider do the 48 for FY26. And of course, they will provide an update for FY27 guidance next year. We run an annual rigorous process. You know, as we do so, we source the data from the current year, so that will be our process going forward. You know, the actual cost of it varies quarter to quarter, and just, I guess, bear in mind that this is a transition and ramp-up year, so we are impacted by the production volume of the year. So what you see in this quarter is the benefit of that higher volume being reflected in your production cost

No worries. Thank you.

Thank you. Given the time, we ask that you please limit upcoming questions to one question per person. Your next question comes from Daniel Roden from Jefferies.

Please go ahead. follow-up question on the loan material. So I just wanted to understand how much, I guess, the loan material cost was you were incurring over 25 and into 26, and if that was impacting, I guess, your held final product inventory for reconciliation purposes.

Sorry, Dan, but it's quite hard to hear you. So we're using loans on an ongoing basis. I think we've We expect that loan volume to remain between £400,000 and £500,000 on an annual basis. I missed part of your question, so I'm not sure if I've covered what you asked or whether there was anything else.

Sorry, I was just asking if the cost of that loan material and if that was impacting the finished product inventory.

No, it's not material and it's not impacting the inventory reconciliation but for us it's really just a standard tool we're using to manage the working capital cycle.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Alastair Rankin from RBC. Please go ahead.

Thanks for the follow-up. You mentioned that the key driver of stronger throughput is going to be delivery of the remaining mining equipment and increased material movement, particularly from the G-pit. Is that the only bottleneck to reaching your peak annual throughput rate of 5.5 million tonnes per annum right now or is there some front-end plan optimisation that you can do as well? Thanks.

There's always continuous improvement opportunities in a processing facility and so I think we've got some work we can do over the coming months in the processing plant. But primarily in mining, it really is the liberty of the remaining mining fleet. That's going to arrive at the back end of this year. We'll start assembly of that kit and as we commission that equipment into the mine or decommission some of the smaller fleet off the stockpile. That ultimately, at the end of FY2026, gets us to our full operational capability.

Okay, perfect. Thanks.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Regan Burrows from Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Rob. You mentioned in the quarterly no disruption to shipments over the past quarter. Are we to assume that you successfully met your contract requirements or were you sort of successful in flexing those volumes down? And I guess if you were successful in flexing those volumes down, are they pushed out to a later date or are they effectively cancelled?

Thanks, Regan. No, we met all those requirements. Okay, great.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

So for summer, Melbourne has made significant progress this quarter and we're well positioned for FY26 and 27. This is the final roundup here and I'm looking forward to presenting detailed results on a quarterly basis in the year ahead and I thank you all for your continued support. Thank you very much.

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