Nykode Therapeutics As

Greetings, and welcome to the NICO Therapeutics Q2 2026 financial results presentation. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. You may ask a question at any time by typing it into the ask a question feature on your screen. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to CEO Michael Engsig. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much, Kevin, and also from our side, a very warm welcome and good morning to all participants on this quarterly results presentation. We assume you are familiar with our forward-looking statements and on that note, we'll move forward. As usual, I am very pleased to have with me here today Agnete Fredriksen, our co-founder, chief scientific officer and head of business development, as well as Harald Gurvin, our CFO. For those not familiar with Nycode, just a few words on the company. Nycode is a clinical stage immunotherapy company with a focus on oncology and autoimmune diseases. Our lead asset is Avesuva, a therapeutic cancer vaccine targeted against HPV16 driven cancer types. We have encouraging results across three different indications, three trials with close to 100 patients in total, which gave us the confidence to move into the first randomized phase two trial in first-line head and neck, which is ongoing in cold ability. On track to deliver the first interim results in 2027. Our second clinical asset is VB10neo. which is an individualized neoandrogen therapy. We saw some very important validating results from the field last week and we'll of course be discussing that more in depth at this call here. We have clinical data from VB10neo from more than 10 tumor types and based on the manufacturing process which focuses around pDNA as the rest of our technology, we do feel that we have a much simpler manufacturing process which compared to the mRNA will support a competitive coxin turnaround time at commercial stage. Furthermore, we have over the years developed an AI-driven target selection, which we also believe strongly will add to the competitive edge of VB10 Neo. The strategy for VB10 Neo has been to position ourselves as the most attractive unencumbered asset or INT asset in the area to leverage the type of validating data that we saw last week. Third asset is our tolerance platform, which is right now focused on autoimmune diseases, utilizing the same technology as we use in the cancer vaccines, currently in preclinical stage. We're strongly capitalized with a runway into 2028, which can be extended to 2029, pending the outcome of the tax case. Very briefly on the highlights before I hand over the work to Agnete. It's been another interesting period starting from the back. Last week we saw what we consider probably the most important cancer vaccine data ever when Moderna came out with positive phase 3 data for their individualized neoantigen cancer vaccine. which clinically validated not only individualized cancer vaccines but we feel in in general all cancer vaccines so that means also the office shelf. We'll have Arne to discuss that in more details in a few seconds. We also showcased our data at the neo-engineering summit in July from the neo assets and we will also have a little bit more about that which goes through it. Finally, we also disclose we have a new patent granted for BPC Neo which further solidifies the IP protection around our asset. Finally, I just want to highlight that our Ability Trial, the randomized Phase 2 trial with Abasuba in first-line head and neck, is progressing at plans, which brings us online for an interim result in 2027. I'll just say a few words on that a little bit later in this call here. With those words, I'm going to hand over to Agnete to take us through an update on VP10 Neo.

Thank you, Michael. And you may notice that we start off with NEO today on the back of the very exciting news from Moderna and Merck last year. For those of us that worked in cancer vaccines for decades, we have been waiting for this moment to see what we expect will be the first approval of a cancer vaccine ever. So first I'm going to just remind you a little bit of individualized neoantigen therapy as a class. It's a personalized cancer vaccine targeting specific mutations found in the tumor of the patient. So we identify these by sequencing the tumor and compare to healthy tissue from the same patient and identify these neoantigens, which are tumor-specific mutations, can also be fully patient-specific. So the INT platform means it is fully personalized per patient. That also means you need to manufacture one vaccine per patient, which makes the algorithm-driven neoantigen selection part very important and that you have a A validated method in order to find the relevant new antigens. It's also important that the manufacturing process is as less complex as possible so it can be scaled to expand into multiple tumor indications at a stage that can be competitive commercially both on turnaround time and also cost of goods. As individualized niacin therapy basically takes a tumor sample from the patient. You can do that no matter which tumor type. And that means this therapy can be applicable across poly tumors wherever you can find mutations. Importantly now, the first trial that we've seen being successful now with Merck and Moderna Interpath trial is in melanoma adjuvant setting early stage where you have removed, surgically removed the tumor and then vaccinated to delay or prevent recurrence of When you treat patients at this early stage, there is obviously a high patient number, but it's also important that the treatment can combine, can have a nice safety profile and combine effectively with whatever other immunotherapies that will be given in that time period for each indication. First, a little reminder on what we saw last week. Readout of the phase three in the PASS-001 trial, which is the first phase three trial of any cancer vaccine, in principle, individualized cancer vaccine in patients, as I mentioned, that is in the locally advanced or adjuvant setting. This first one is in melanoma patients in adjuvant setting stage 2b to 4. It's more than 1000 patients enrolled in the trial and we saw with the very first readout that they already met the primary endpoint which is the recurrence free survival. They also already announced that they met one of the key secondary endpoints which are distance metastasis free survival. So these data seem very impactful. We expect to see all the data in detail at the conference later, most likely at ESMO. Importantly, without seeing the data, they announced that both MSD and Moderna will jointly pursue regulatory approval on the back of these results, which means we are most likely looking at the first cancer vaccine being approved for commercial use. So this is a big change for the cancer vaccine field. Cancer vaccines are now suddenly de-risked as a modality. And now it's about finding the right setting and the right technology that can support competitive commercial case across lots of different indications. We will see more data coming out now in the future both in early stage locally advanced adjuvant setting also some data will read out in the future in the first line setting. So we will see the breadth of the potential for cancer vaccines. Then again it's for us also important that this not only validates individualized neoantigen therapies but also off-the-shelf cancer vaccines. or Individualized. There are two important points in order to be competitive and build the best commercial attractive case in as many indications as possible. One of them comes from the technology. It's really important that you have this target selection that can work across indications. Also those indications where there are a few tumor mutations and immune and technology that can elicit immune responses against the sufficient breath and quality that can correlate with clinical outcomes. And obviously also, as I said, safety, reactogenicity that permits the combinations with a range of standard of care. Another very important part here is economics per patient manufacturing turnaround time, and Cost of Goods will have a much bigger role of the attractive case when it comes to an individualized therapy than an off-the-shelf. So this is going to be super important here. Vibetanil is unencumbered. It's clinically validated individualized neon-sense therapy. was one of the first companies that went into the clinic with individualized neoantigen therapy already in 2018. Neoantigen selection platform is something we have used from the beginning as a proprietary, wholly owned, wholly developed neoantigen selection platform. We've also proven that that works. We can use that to identify neoantigens in more than 10 different tumor types. That includes indications with low tumor mutational burden. We do manufacture, provided that they plasma DNA vaccine, which is, per definition, a manufacturing process with fewer steps, which should give faster turnaround time and lower cost of goods. And we believe that BB10 Neo then will be very attractive for this kind of therapy and capture the broad potential of the market. So going a little bit back to the data we have with VB10-Neo. You know our technology, we incorporate the neoantigens in the antigenic unit per patient, and it's linked to our dimerization and targeting unit. Compare this, as you see up to the right, we can identify a stronger immune response against the set of neoepitopes here shown for the MC38 model. and we have clinical experience with VB10 Neo across two trials, both basket trials, both in late stage cancer patients. We have been able to show that our new epitopes selection algorithm that we call NeoSelect systematically prioritizes the most immunogenic new antigens or even within the, of the 20 new epitopes that we include in the vaccine. It is in principle the number one that is eliciting the strongest immune response in the clinic compared to number 20. We have not seen that with other trials. To our knowledge, we also reported a correlation between immune responses against the new antigens in the vaccine and overall survival. To our knowledge, we're the only one that has shown this. What's shown here is even in those patients with the low baseline immune response, and those then in this group that elicits strong immune responses, again, the antigen in the vaccine also do survive longer. When it comes to the manufacturing process, we have worked for multiple years on the manufacturing process with a set of selected providers that are distributed around the world. So even with this setup and all the experience we gained, we have reduced the manufacturing turnaround time from 18 weeks in the beginning to lower and lower across the clinical Experience and since we got the product back we have some key improvements that now gives us a current optimized manufacturing process with the setup that we have with less than six weeks that includes drug substance and drug product manufacturing processes has now been consolidated under one roof which is important for Optimized Slot Utilization and Shipment Timelines. We have Include DNA Isolation Methods and Optimized DNA Plasmid Synthesis Process. And this has led us now to a less than six-week manufacturing process time. And then we know we are still working with multiple providers, and that includes shipments, and it includes weekends, et cetera. So further development of a simple, more consolidated in-house process with removal of all these holding steps can give us a clear path to four-week manufacturing time. So we're already competitive at this stage and should be competitive with the further optimization that will be very logical to implement before commercial use. And to support the cost of goods statements, when you look at the number of steps in manufacturing plasma DNA compared to mRNA, there are just simply We are very happy with where we are and with the clinical data and the stage of the program We are still an innovative company and we have worked over the last period with further improvements of our IPC targeted technology platform. And you can see here some of the data generated over the last year where we are able to find improvements that can even further enhance the immune responses against also here in the neoantigen context. So these can be important for even further competitive edges in the future across different indications. So to sum up, it has been an emotional week for my code when it comes to the A strong now validation of cancer vaccines in general, but also giving us all this confidence back on the individualized new antigen therapy and VB10 Neo in particular. We have two completed trials, actually across certain different tumor types, including tumor types with low tumor mutational burden. We have seen between 88 and also in the latest trials, 100% of the patients responding with immune responses to our vaccine, even in late stage cancer. And it does have a very clean safety profile, not only safety, but also very low reactogenicity. Interestingly enough, the immune responses that we see also correlate with overall survival from what we can see with these basket trials. So to our knowledge, that is unique to this class. And not to forget competitive manufacturing turnaround. Competitive manufacturing turnaround already less than six weeks, 100% batch success, simpler manufacturing process compared to mRNA, and good timing. The US patent now also extending into a broader protection potential against our construct. Then I hand back to you, Michael. Obviously, you are still super important, although we are enthusiastic about Phoebe Thuneo as well.

Certainly, Agnete. Thank you very much for that review. We'll keep it short on apesuva this time here. As you all know, our current focus for apesuva is on first-line head and neck. And head and neck cancer does represent a very sizable patient population with more than 60,000 new cases of HPV16-driven head and neck cancers across the EU and US every year. The unmet medical need is still significant for this patient population with only one in five patients actually responding to the standard of care and the medium or old survival no longer than 12 months for the standard of care. Furthermore, although head and neck does receive a lot of attention right now across the field of drug developers, the main bulk of drug candidates in development for head and neck are actually focused on the HPV negative population. So here we are targeting a population that is not well served or addressed by current drugs in development. Finally, we are looking forward at an expected future significant growth in the HPV16 head and neck cancer cases and a very attractive projected market increase over the next decades. Worthwhile noticing is this is not the only potential area for Abyssuva, there is also Thank you very much. Most important activity in Abesuva right now is of course our randomized ability trial, phase 2 trial enrolling up to 100 patients and randomizing into two arms. The experimental arm is Abesuva in combination with Pembrolizumab, which is the standard of care in this patient population. The other arm, the control arm, is Pembrolizumab alone. and we will be assessing objective response rate and progression-free survival as the co-primary endpoint in this trial. The protocol is now approved in eight European countries, so seven EU and on top of that UK. The first patient was enrolled in Poland in May 2026 and since then The patient enrollment has further expanded across additional sites in the UK, Spain and France. So we do see progress as planned in this trial. Focus going forward is of course to further expand the number of sites and countries. We do expect to add two to three additional countries to the list. and ensure that we have full engagement and motivation from our investigators across these countries. All in all, we are still online, our target for an interim readout in 2027, and we'll of course keep you updated further as we get a better view on when in 2027 we can expect to see these data. We have also started looking in particular on the back of the Moderna data last week. We feel further encouraged to that. We've started to look into exploring Abysuva in a locally advanced setting. We believe there is a huge potential for Abysuva in that setting also. More on that later. Just a very few words on tolerance, our third asset and the AFIT platform that we represent an entirely new approach to treating autoimmune diseases. It relies on the same core technology, so targeting of the antigens to the antigens presenting cells, which is also in autoimmune diseases a key regulator of the immune response. and for our AST platform we have adapted our technology to restore the immune tolerance in the autoimmune diseases which leaves the key to addressing autoimmune diseases going forward. We are progressing the AST platform forwards towards the first clinical development program and we will be guiding you more on that path in the coming period. With those words, I'll hand over to Harald to take us through the financial results.

Thank you, Michael. Looking at the income statement, other income of 106,000 for the second quarter relates to government grants. Employee benefit expenses for the quarter were 2.3 million compared to 2.9 million for the same period in 2025, reflecting a reduction in organizations. Other operating expenses were 4.1 million in the second quarter, up from 3.4 million in the same period in 2005, reflecting increased clinical activities following initiation of the AbilityTribe. Finance income and costs were net 400,000 negative in the quarter, which mainly relates to interest income and unrealized currency movements on Norwegian crown exports. So overall, we recorded a net loss of 7.2 million for the second quarter, compared to a net profit of 800,000 for the same period in 2025. Moving on to the balance sheet, we are still well capitalized, with a cash position of 44.8 million at the end of the second quarter. With disciplined execution and strong financial focus, we will reach key inflection points within the estimated cash run way into 2028. This does not include the pending tax case where we have booked a non-current receivable amounting to 33.4 million at the end of the second quarter, as further described in the quarterly report. NAICOD is confident that we will receive a positive ruling in the tax case, also based on advice from third-party tax experts. The latest we have from the Secretariat in the Tax Bill Board is that we can still expect to receive a draft recommendation from the Secretariat in August. We expect to communicate to the market immediately once the draft recommendation is received and we have time to process the information. A positive outcome would push the cash runway into 2029. Moving on to equity liabilities, we have total equity of 80 million, which represents a strong equity ratio of 93%. And with that, I will give the word back to Michael.

Thank you very much, and I will just conclude with the outlook before we open up for questions. As stated earlier, well capitalized with a runway into 28, and as we said, this will present with a possible outcome on the pending tax case. That brings us well past a number of significant inflection points for our assets. The focus for the coming period will, as said before, obviously be on the execution of the APLG, where the priorities right now is to expand the number of countries and sites, get the sites engaged, and motivate the investigators to identify the patients currently on plan for an interim readout in 2027. In addition to that, we see a number of potentially very exciting data reading out from peers across the cancer field, similar to what we saw last week. So we will of course be keeping a keen eye on our most important peers in the field for the coming period. As our leader said, the period has never been more exciting than what we're seeing right now for cancer vaccines. We are expecting, based on guidance from the authorities, first a draft recommendation on the tax case in August. and we will continue to progress and mature the ACIP platform bringing us forward towards the first clinical development program and that continues into 2027 while we do expect to see further peer data from our peers reading out as well, of course, being able to report the Ability Interim results during 2027. So exciting periods ahead of us. And with those words, I think we are ready to conclude the form part of this call and move to the questions, Kevin.

Thank you. We'll now be conducting a question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question today, please tap question into the ask a question feature on your screen. Our first question today is coming from Gaia Holm from D&B Carnegie. You state that the Ability Phase 2 trial is progressing according to plan and reiterate that the first interim efficacy readout is expected in 2027. Could you elaborate on the key parameters and milestones you are monitoring to assess the likelihood of being able to present interim data by year-end 2027?

Yes, sure. Thanks for the question, Gaia. And it's getting a little bit technical here, but just to give you a feeling for the kind of KPIs that we are measuring here and reviewing against a plan is obviously getting the protocol approved in countries and getting the sites up and running. So once we have approval in the country, the next task for a site is to get the site contract Medical trial agreements signed and get the site staff trained on all the parameters that needs to be trained before we can give every site a so-called green light and at that time point they can start So we have projections both for countries getting approved and sites getting approved. So that's the most important parameter in the beginning of the trial. Then from there, of course, we begin to monitor the number of patients entering screening before they subsequently and subject to a successful screening. enters the enrolled stage, so that is where they get the first dose. So it's a multitude of different KPIs that we are monitoring and revving up against a predefined plan together with the board to be able to gain confidence that we are on track towards 2027. I think that's enough said on that question, Kevin.

Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up from from D&B Carnegie. Could you elaborate on the potential paths you're considering to bring your first tolerance asset into clinical development, including the key steps and milestones required to reach the clinic?

Yeah, sure. So it's a pretty standard path to the clinic from where we are today. So we have worked on the platform and made sure we can be confident on the modality and the targeting units, etc. And from there on, when we are selecting the indication that Thierry Thring Engsig, Agnete Fredriksen, So there is a TOCS program you need to make sure that the exact product manufactured under a similar manufacturing process as you will do for the clinical trial is safe and considered to be safe to be given to patients. And as part of that, you need to move that manufacturing process onto also a GMP manufactured product. and then all the documentation of this goes into a regulatory filing through the authorities together with the then designed clinical development plan for the first trial and when we get that approval we're basically back to what Michael just explained from getting the approval and in each country and setting up the sites etc. Part of this, depending on which indication, will decide whether we do these studies for the first part in-house or with a commercial partner or an academic partner or any partner.

Thank you.

Next question.

Our next question is coming from Gasper Viren from Arctic. mRNA vaccines are believed to have more efficient delivery as the mRNA only needs to reach the cytoplasm, whereas plasma DNA has to cross both the cell membrane and the nuclear membrane before expression can occur. However, your vaccines encode protein that targets antigen-presenting cells, APCs. Would you say you can compensate for less efficient DNA delivery through biological targeting after expression?

So this is a long, I can talk about for a long time. mRNA and DNA are both genetically based, but they do have very different mechanisms of action in principle. So DNA is basically the template for making the mRNA. So if you inject the DNA, the DNA will make mRNA. So there's a huge difference. You can either give the mRNA directly, A product that only needs to reach the cytoplasm. That's true. But if you don't have the DNA, the mRNA you inject will be the mRNA that you can rely on. There will not be a new DNA that can encode the mRNA and multiple new mRNAs. So meaning when you give the mRNA, you give it, it reaches the cytoplasm. And when that is degraded, there is no new genetically encoding new vaccine proteins. which means there is a very different kinetics of DNA needs to go into the nucleus but they will then start to make mRNA and can do that over a longer period of time than giving the mRNA as the only product. Then obviously the protein that we're encoding maybe one point first the dose that we give of DNA is higher than what you give of RNA so that also That is also based on the safety process because both RNA and LNPs that they formulate is more reactogenic than DNA. So we can give a higher dose of the DNA than you can of RNA. Then the protein that is being encoded, whether it first starts with the DNA, goes through the mRNA and then code the protein or you give it as mRNA yourself. needs to be taken up by antigen presenting cells, processed and presented on the surface of these antigen presenting cells to T cells. And that's where our technology with the three components we have in our protein makes that part more efficacious as to how we elicit the immune response. So they all have different methods in order to achieve the end goal, and the end goal is to elicit the optimal T cell response. So there are lots of things coming into consideration here. I think importantly for us, DNA manufacturing costs, durability of expressing new proteins, and also our technology and the way we elicit the T cell responses is of importance. Thank you.

Our next question is a follow-up from Gaspar Viren from Arctic. Your current time for VB10 neo from biopsy to injecting the vaccine in a patient is approximately six weeks. How fast can you compress it to four weeks and what needs to happen to achieve this?

Thank you very much, Gaspard, although a good question. So importantly, the optimizations we have seen so far and the optimizations we are looking forward at is basically optimizing the current process that we have. So we are looking at refinement and adjustments of our supply setup by combining things under one roof and Agnete Fredriksen, Agnete Fredriksen, Harald Gurvin The whole times that occurs when you shift between the different stages of the production. So it's more a matter of actually investing into the process and see more intensive labor processes than inventing new steps. So this can be done in a pretty effective way should the investments be warranted. So we're quite confident that would be quite an easy fix. Next question.

Thank you. Our next question today is coming from George Tikalanov-Bjerke from ABG Sundell Collier. George says, good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. I have two. In the report, you state that ability continues to progress according to plan, with enrollment having expanded across additional sites in the UK, Spain, and France. Can you provide some detail on the ratio between screening and full enrollment that you have seen so far? And secondly, can you provide any color on the extent to which you have already seen a meaningful increase in partner interest or discussions following last week's news on intramural autogene from Moderna and Merck? Thank you.

Yes, thanks, Gero, for these questions. I'll take the first question and then hand over to our lead informer for the second question. On the first question, it is too early to conclude on any meaningful trends. These countries do have some of the processes that are necessary for setting up the sites are a little bit unique to the country. So we do see the countries coming online, if you can call it so, with activation of the sites. Agnete Fredriksen, Agnete Fredriksen, and the engagement we see from investigators. Also, we've not seen anything concerning in terms of screening failures. So, as I said, I'm repeating myself here. To date, we are quite happy with the start-up progress of the ability trial. And it has also been the full focus of the organization. So, as I said before, This is priority number one, two, and three. And it's all hands on deck for this trial here in the team. So I'm very happy with what we're seeing so far. I'll hand over to our lead for the second part of this question here.

Yeah. And thank you, Jørg. I mean, we can't comment on details on what's happening directly with the dialogue with potential partners, of course. What I can say is that we should I would be surprised if the partner interest in cancer vaccines, including individualized cancer vaccines, would not increase on the back of this news. Importantly, I think you should know that this comes on the back of the first ever trial of any cancer vaccine tested in a phase three setting in in the adjuvant setting where you have removed the bulk of the tumor and then you vaccinate and you prevent recurrence. So it does not come on the back of other technologies failing and it does not come on the back of other cancer vaccines failing in other cancer indications in the adjuvant setting. So that should, in my mind, lead to a lot of curiosity for pharma partners as to explore the potential of additional cancer vaccines, both off the shelf and individualized in a range of other indications and seek which one is the best. Others have just simply not been tested yet in that setting. I mean, we've seen this happen before with the GLPs, with antibodies, with checkpoint inhibitors, et cetera. So on the back of the first success, usually there is an increased change in the strategy of multiple pharma companies wanting to be part of the new wave of a new modality.

Thank you. Our next questions today are coming from Eric Hoffland from Eric Investments AS. You have previously shown that NeoSelect's ranking correlates with actual immunogenicity in patients. How do you feed clinical data back into NeoSelect to improve future vaccine designs? And does this mean that NeoSelect could potentially become better as you accumulate clinical data for more patients and vaccine designs?

Yeah, so this is both a technical question and a regulatory question, or an answer at least to your question. So yes, I mean, everything we learn currently, we assess whether that can be used in order to further improve Neoselect. So we take that very seriously and where the amount of clinical data and the established high quality competence that we have in this company is something that I feel is a competitive edge. And then, as we know, Part of a clinical development program within certain indications, et cetera. At a certain time point, you need to lock down the neoantigen selection method. So that we will also obviously keep in mind and do that at the right time. Next question.

Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up from Eric Hoffman from Eric Investments AS. Following the positive phase three results from Merck and Moderna, What do you now see as the key characteristics that differentiate VB10 Neo from other individualized Neo antigen vaccines?

Yeah, so I mean that's a long list that I went through in the in the webcast. So we do think there are multiple features that are key differentiators. If I were to select one from now on, I do think the Less complex manufacturing is going to be extremely important. We don't see so far that the immunogenicity data generated by the quite limited clinical reports from Moderna is not scary for us. but we also don't know at this stage what the immune responses are needed and across different indications. So the manufacturing process is the key and then it's all the technologies abilities to be applied in additional indications and provide efficacy in those as well in addition to what we've now seen in melanoma adjuvant setting will be interesting.

Thank you. Certainly, our next question is coming from Eric Hoffler from Eric Investments AS. Through a general agreement already demonstrated in 2021, the value of combining large amounts of patient data and antigen selection with NICODE's platform, how important do you believe data and machine learning will be as a competitive advantage for NICODE over the next five years?

I think we have just seen an increasing applicability of AI and ML in the last few years and the longer we've been around as a company and the more data we generate both pre-clinically and clinically and obviously the entire field of AI and ML from also the outside of the world When you combine all of those, there is quite impactful improvements that we can take advantage of on the drug design. Importantly, I think since we started with individualized neoantigen therapies very early, we have built that experience earlier than most other companies. and we have also now generated clinical data but also importantly preclinical data with our constructs with a very high number of constructs and can use all this data in order to learn what would be the optimal cancer vaccine design and also obviously in tolerance so for Thank you. We've reached the end of our question and answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over for any further closing comments.

Thank you very much, Kevin, and thank you very much to everyone dialing into this results presentation and for your engaged questions. We feel you are as enthusiastic as we are for the coming period for cancer vaccines. I look forward to keep you updated on our future efforts and achievements. So with those words, I wish you all a good day and talk to you soon.

Thank you. That does conclude today's webcast. You may disconnect the line at this time and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.