Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Thank you for holding and welcome to MRV 's conference call regarding updates on its subsidiary Resia in the United States. We would like to inform that all participants will be in listen-only mode during the company's presentation. After the company's remarks are completed, there will be a question and answer session when further instructions will be given. Now I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Rafael Menin, the CEO. Mr. Rafael, you may continue. Good morning everyone. Thank you for attending this conference call. In one more event of MRV. Today's purpose is to recap the history of the company in the U.S. market during these 13 years, the lessons learned, and showed that we had very successful cycles, some difficulties in the cycle shortly after the acquisition. Today we have a company that we call Nova Resia, New Resia, that's very prepared and with a new strategy, new management, new governance. We are sure that this movement that we started at the end of last year will bring important and very positive results to our balance sheets. Looking forward to the new strategy that was implemented at the end of last year, it will certainly be a winning strategy and will generate value to MRV. Like I said, Resia has a track record of 25 developments during these 13 years. It's a very mature market with a high demand, highly competitive, and we've captured and learned a lot during these years. The real estate market is a market in which we have to learn the local dynamics and the local market. We did that and it was an MBA for our management at MRV. Today we are much better prepared and we have much more knowledge about it. The company is mature and has a winning strategy to operate in the U.S. market. There was a development in the portfolio, in the construction process as well. As we've shown in the last two or three years, we implemented the plant, our off-site process that is a lot more industrialized than the peers we compete with in a context of restricted labor that could even be worsened when compared to current trends. Brazil is very well positioned in terms of construction model, design of the apartments, as well as the region it operates and market segment in those regions. This table shows this track record. We've built 7,500 units. It's a very significant number, most of them in South Florida. We were rather successful in all the projects in Florida. In the new markets in which we joined starting in 2020, Austin, Dallas, and Atlanta, we faced some challenges, some growth pain points because as I said, real estate is a very local industry, so we had to learn. This learning process happened during the COVID pandemic, during which the company was under accelerated growth. There were several factors happening at the same time which caused us to have a performance lower than expected by shareholders and the board members for a period of time. These are the pictures of some of our projects. They look very nice. With the high NPS, high quality, we are very successful in leasing the units. Recently, the rental speed has increased considerably. The demand in these four cities remains very high. What we see now is a lower supply of new units entering the market, which causes the rental speed to go up. The rental prices also present a positive response regarding increased prices. We see the future as very positive now, breaking down by moments of cycles of the company. Resia was founded 13 years ago in Miami under the name of AHS. It was founded by the family and we've been operating in Florida for more than 20 years. We started in 2002, 2003 with several types of real estate properties. We knew the market of South Florida better. In 2012, we decided to enter the multifamily segment. We've made a few projects and with great results. There were seven developments, 1,300 units with a yield on cost of 6.5% and that were sold after stabilizing. Some of them took a bit longer to be sold. The company still didn't know whether it was a property company or real estate or a home builder. Some projects took a bit longer to be sold than others. On average, the projects had very good results. In 2020, MRV bought AHS and did a rebranding to Resia. Some projects had been started before Resia was purchased by MRV projects that were started in 2018, 2019, and even during the pandemic in 2020. The first cycle of Resia, second cycle of the company, considering AHS, was also good with a yield on cost of 6.8% with a cap. It was also good, a cap rate of 4.8%, and it was capital intensive with high profitability. We were still testing the model and proving that it worked. It was a smaller company, mostly present in South Florida. The third cycle, which was indeed a poor one. The characteristics were that we entered two new states and four new cities in a scenario of pandemic with very high inflation rates, 30% inflation in two years. In addition to that, the cost of capital was very low, especially in Texas. There was a very important market for us with very low entrance barriers. Many projects were started at the same time and they were ready in the beginning of 2024. Although the market has a very high demand, which still continues, the supply grew higher at a higher speed, especially in Texas, but not in Florida. Rental prices were pressed. Several factors contributed: accelerated growth, growth to new market inflation rates, and rental prices that did not go up during two to three years in the state of Texas. We name it a legacy cycle. The result was bad. Until the end of last year, we understood that it would be correct to change the strategy, a change in management to change the governance of the company and then the term of office. The strategy of this new management was to recycle these legacy properties in a diligent way on a short-term basis. Obviously, when a recycling of assets is done on a short term, with the capital markets that's still stressed with high interest rates, naturally we cannot obtain the best sales price for those properties. Those properties had a low yield on cost. Of course, the yield on cost grows with time because rental prices that we see with the balance between supply and demand has changed in a significant way. We expected to have much better rental values in the next quarters. Our strategy today is to be very diligent and to sell these projects at a loss, but generating an important amount of cash for MRV&CO and a significant deleveraging for Resia. It is a trade-off for the moment. Looking at the cost of capital in Brazil, the cost of capital abroad, and looking at all those factors, we decided that Resia must make those sales in this time window that we defined as 2025 and 2026. Now, the pipeline of this legacy cycle, we have sold two projects. One of them was sold in the fourth quarter and the second project in Dallas was sold in the second quarter, Dallas West. There are still four projects for sale. One is Tributary in Atlanta, is stable, so ready to be sold. The definition of when has to do with the stabilization of NOI. That's a project that has some instability, but will be sold shortly. Rayzor Ranch and Memorial are very good for rental. It's very likely that the three of them will be stabilized by the end of the year. The quarter in which they will be sold depends a bit on prices and oi. It's important to affirm that these are successful projects in good locations, good cities, and they will have a good performance. Shortly the three of them will be stabilized. About the divestment plan, we've been talking about it since the end of last year and we've been able to execute it according to plan. We've sold projects as well as land, and other plots of land are under contract. We expect to close the deals of all the plots of land in the next two or three quarters. This is a summary of the result of these sales. The land bank naturally has a higher loss because low. Not many companies are starting new projects, so the price of plots of land has decreased with time. There were some inherent costs that were allotted to such projects with an important impairment which amounts to $81 million of the 12 land plots of land in the land bank that will be sold in following quarters. As for projects, the impairment is lower, amounts to $63 million. That does not take into account Golden Glades, which is a project that was ready 60 days ago. It was below the cost price and it was delivered before scheduled. It has a very excellent rental speed. In summary, the total impairment of the strategy is $148 million or rather $144 million with including projects and plots of land. Until the end of 2026 it will generate $493 million. A part of that will be Equity Limited Partner and the net debt of resident will be reduced by $365 million. At the end of the cycle we'll have a small debt of $90 million. We had a profit net profit of 200 and would be 319 would be $175 million. Today the company is being traded at a very high discount, half times the book value. After the impairment it will p over book value would be of 0.65 x. As for New Resia, with the lessons learned in these 13 years regarding projects, construction methodology, capital stacks and capital markets, we now have a very clear strategy which we believe to be a winning strategy. The projects that are left are those in which we're very diligent and demanding and they will provide very good returns in the right cities. In those locations we've done other projects. The learning curve has been tested and learned already. The last project delivered in Houston was below cost within the time frame scheduled. We are very confident that these selected projects will deliver significant results to Resia. In addition, it's a very asset-light operation. In addition to the profitability being better, the assets will be better as well. In summary, it's a much more efficient capital structure. Lower equity in the projects, the debt is non-consolidated. The revenue from Resia is diversified because it has a lower equity in the projects, but will capture revenue from fees in such projects. It's a highly competitive, constructive model in a scenario of restricted labor. We are confident that this model will place us in a very competitive position regarding our local peers. Golden Glades is a project in Miami within this concept of Nova Resia that is a prototype. It's a successful project. It is below cost, below budget, and shorter than the scheduled term. Rental has been spectacular. This is a slide showing a presentation of Golden Glades. It's a project that has 5% of Resia equity, 44% of common equity, preferred equity, and 51% of construction loan with a very high TIR of 32%. The return comes from these fees and promote return. This is a real case. It's a project that's ready, that's being leased and rentals prove that this new model of Nova Resia is ready to deliver growing results from now on internal rate of return and this New Resia. We have three plots of land, one in progress, which is North City, and four plots of land to develop. Projects in these plots of land went through high scrutiny and we are sure that they will deliver great results, great returns. As I said, the company will have a completely different dynamic. Asset-light with a lean G&A will have two construction works going on at the same time. These projects will be completed in a context in which the capital markets will be with much lower stress and with less supply of new projects. Finally, a summary of what Resia used to be and the New Resia. Resia was a capital-intensive company with projects consolidated in the balance sheet. We went through a rapid growth to new lands with points in growth, a G&A of $30 million. The market was at high demand, but also high supply. In some years, the New Resia is asset-light, will consolidate funding in the Resia balance sheet. Selected projects, very lean G&A, standardized products, industrialized than our competitors in these chosen markets. Few constructions have started since the end of last year, and the demand remains high due to domestic migration. Within the United States, the states of Texas and Georgia continue to receive an important amount of people. They have a different economic dynamics compared to the rest of the country. We are confident that the New Resia is with the right product, the right technology, the right market segment. With this asset-light strategy and fees from revenue and a high yield on cost, it will have a return that's much higher than the return delivered by previous Resia projects. This ends the presentation, and now we'll move on to the Q&A. We will now start the Q&A session. If you have a question, please press the button raise hand. If your question has been answered, you may leave the queue by pressing lower hand. The first question comes from Gustavo Cambauva from BTG Pactual. Hello everyone. Good morning. I have two questions. First, you show the deleveraging, the net debt, the net worth after the divestment. The net debt over net equity is at 15%. I know you have some other projects that are ongoing according to the New Resia model. I would like to understand your rationale. Until 2026, do you believe that the capital in the company and the leverage rate is reasonable to fund new projects under Resia? The second question is whether you think when capital could start coming back to Brazil, when Resia will start returning capital to shareholders, when the net debt goes close to $100 million. If this would be an adequate level to start returning capital. Thank you. Good morning, Cambauva. Regarding the debt, the U.S. model, since debt is compared to property company, is not exactly debt over net equity. We have a ratio which for the U.S. market is very low. It's important to look at the effect of Resia's debt on the balance sheet of MRV. The market looks at the leverage of MRV &CO. We have a slightly different point of view. We look at the cash that will be generated in the next two years because we'll consolidate these $360 million in cash, which will cause the MRV &CO balance sheet, looking at Resia only, to be very different from current figures. As for new projects, Golden Glades was the project in which, although we have a very small equity, we have consolidated it. It's ready. North City, which is located in Dallas, won't have consolidation of consort hall in the balance sheet of Resia and therefore on MRV balance sheet. We will not have a growth of leverage coming from new projects, at least in the short term. As for capital staying there or coming back to Brazil, what I can say is that we expect that new projects, or we're confident that new projects, will be successful. When we recycle, new projects will generate value and reduce leverage even further. If capital will be there or here, it's not the time to answer that. Right now, we are focused on executing the projects in the best possible way. Whether capital will be here or there is not the most important thing for now because the capital that we may use, this capital to accelerate the growth of the company, we will adopt a conservative position. As shown, we have a small land bank with very good projects. We've been very vocal in saying that Resia will execute few projects during 2025 and 2026. 2027 is most likely to follow the same dynamics. There won't be any extra capital. Leveraging as of 2026 will go even lower than this, 94. This will have a positive effect on the balance sheet of Resia, and which country the capital will stay within, Brazil or not, in the consolidated MRV balance sheet, is not so important right now. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Good morning. The next question comes from Ygor Altero from XP. Good morning. If you could explain the assumptions that you used to reach this impairment value, if you see more room for further impairment in the future, and how big do you envisage Resia would be from now on. You've mentioned that the idea is not to grow too much, so what would be the adequate size of Resia operation? Good morning. In terms of impairment, if we're doing this movement now, we do not intend to do any new or take any new actions in coming months. We understand the assumptions used were adequate with some degree of conservative behavior. Within a year, we don't expect any new impairment movement, even though it may be small. After the new management started, it took us some months to make this impairment. The board of directors' address is a bit different from what it was until the end of last year, and this is something we discussed at MRV for some time. We were very careful in making this assessment that was made not only by our team, but we hired external consultants. We are very confident that the impairment that is made now is a single movement. From now on, what we will do is sell the projects, and we are confident that they won't happen below the value set on the spreadsheet on page 15. We broke down by land with the amounts we expect, average cap rate of 5.3%. As I said, all these projects were evaluated by independent brokers, and most of the land bank is under contract. With regard to Resia, like I said in the previous question, we have only one project under construction. One more will start in the third or fourth quarter, provided that we have the capital structure for the project as explained in the presentation, which is a very asset-light structure with a construction loan not consolidated in the balance sheet of Resia. For 2026, the dynamics will be the same. Thank you. It's very clear. The next question comes from Bruno Mendonça from Bradesco BBI. Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. I have a question about what do you expect in the actual sales timing. What should we expect to happen this year and next year so that we can have an actual expectation about Golden Glades. Based on your presentation, you expect to have some profit on Golden Glades and the timing so that we can align the expectation about expenses, financial expenses, and other expenses that are not included in the impairment calculated for Resia because the financial expense of this debt that will be carried over and that remains valid. Timing is important. The second question, you've talked about the new asset-light structure of the company, Rafael, and that plan of having a spin-out or a carve-out seems not to be on the table in the short run. Is it something you're still open to discuss strategically? What would be the timing for that? Thank you. Good morning, Bruno. Regarding the legacy cycle projects, we are confident these projects will be released until the end of the year. Tributary is stable already. As for the sales date, Tributary could be for sale already, but we decided to postpone it for two or three months to have a more stable NOI. It's normal at the month of stabilization for the NOI to be a bit lower in the following two or three months because there's still some discounts given, some lessees that went in and coming out. We are able to maximize the price when the project is marketed with a more stable NOI. We also expect to have a second project stabilized until September and the other two until December. That doesn't mean that four projects will be sold this year because there is a sensitivity about NOI when we're able to enter a discussion for sale. The stability of NOI is a favorite seller, so rental is the significant indicator this sell. Say you will have another third or fourth quarter. What's more important is that we are confident that the four projects as well as Golden Glades will be sold until the end of 2026. The impairment here does not include Golden Glades because Golden Glades is shown on page 19. The return expected for Resia for Golden Glades is broken down here. A part of it has happened already, the smaller part, and most of the return will be affected upon sale of Golden Glades. It's located in a very good area and we expect it to be stabilized quickly. We have to choose the best moment to sell it to maximize its value. It will be sold until the end of 2026 along with the legacy projects. That's an important project with a PSV of $190 million that will be added to Resia's result next year. I saw your report, which is close to what we've disclosed. There are some general expenses and financial expenses. You are right. Golden Glades somehow offsets partially the expenses in the overhead of the company. These $28 million are about one year of financial expenses. If you allow me a follow up, Rafa, with this timing for sales, destabilization usually happens more towards the end of the year. It's most likely for the sale to happen next year. The estimates of the consulting companies that you've hired, this cap that you show 5.3 for sale, does it include any improvement in market conditions or is it based for a reasonable cap if the sale was made today? It's an estimated cap for today's sale of a stabilized project, stable project. We've seen some transactions in Houston below 5. Because rental values in Texas are very low, they call the transaction sale. As a sale of the apartment, the price is 20%- 30% lower than the price of construction of the project. Regardless of interest rates, because treasury is at four point something which is slightly stable for something. The cap delta is small because the replacement costs of these projects is higher with some margin through transactions that have been done in last months, prices are around $200,000. That doesn't pay the replacement costs of product projects, which is a function of rental prices that are crushed in Texas mainly. Few projects were started in the last two years. We have scarcity of new projects. Market is much more competitive. You have to have very special projects to have a positive equation, such as North City for example. We expect rental prices to be corrected and therefore NOI and yield costs will also be corrected and the transaction value will increase. We see some transactions below 5 or slightly above 5. We believe that our assumption of 5.3 is adequate for this movement. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. The next question comes from Jorel Guilloty from Goldman Sachs. I have two questions. The first question is about the income statement. You say that's $2 million for controllers in 2025. I'm seeing this late. The spreadsheet you've published is $338 million and you say that it's $206 million. Regarding the controllers of Resia, this $338 million are the total equity of Resia. At the investor day you had, you were going to sell $300 million in assets with a leverage of $400 million. Now you expect $493 million of leverage for the $683 million remaining. Am I correct? I would like to understand these two things. Good morning, Jorel. Maybe you're mistaken, confusing the numbers of MRV U.S. We have the net equity of Resia only for the first quarter of 2025. Regarding deleveraging, what we have now is the total is $800 million for sale. We had estimated $480 million of cash generation. Now, with the sales we expect from now on we expect $493 million of cash generation with $128 million of return on capital return for investors. This figure is $13 million better than we had published in the last time. What about Golden Glades? Is it included? No, it's not Golden Glades. It's that we sold two projects and two plots of land. This is the impact expected for the next sales. Golden Glades is not included. Okay, I got it. Thank you. The next question is from Victor Tapia from UBS. I have two questions. The first is about sales, but thinking about the debt amortization or debt repayment terms. You have maturities in the beginning and end of 2025, beginning of 2026 that are significant. I know it's hard to determine the time of sale. We expect to sell it until the end of 2026, but we can't be sure. In a scenario that these sales do not happen and you have debt maturities, what will you do to repay those debts? Because if I'm not mistaken, you've raised funds first in Brazil to pay that in the U.S. I would like to understand about sending money to the U.S., if this will continue. This is the first thing. When I look at the impairments you've made, you include projects and plots of land. We would like to understand a bit more about the investment you made in the plant, because it seems there is no impairment regarding the plant. If you could remind us how much capital you allocated to the plant and what would be the strategy that you continue to use in the projects from now on. If you could give us some more detail, if we could expect an impairment in the investment in the plant. Thank you. Okay, Tapia, first thing regarding the debt strategy. The debt maturity is from mature MRV U.S., where it's a fully owned subsidiary. It's a debt of MRV in U.S. dollars for the first quarter. What we did in the first quarter, we had a better opportunity to renegotiate that debt. We funded in real to fund the debt. Now we plan to get funds in dollars. We have to pay $137 million in February 2026. It is a debt of MRV in U.S. dollars. The Resia debt we did planning that includes some rolling or renegotiation of debt, including the sale of projects and land. Part of that debt is a construction loan that has a maturity that extends beyond the end of the project, the end of construction of the project. You asked about the plant. We've leased the equipment, made a leasing of the equipment as well as the shed, and it's the warehouse. It's a very efficient plant. We've visited several plants and our plant is by far the most modern, most efficient. It's all automatized. We believe that the plant places an opportunity for Resia to continue to be more efficient than local competitors. We also see a possibility of selling pods for third parties. There is a pipeline under negotiation which is significant. There is a huge demand in the U.S. market, not only for multifamily, but hotels, hospitals. It's a gigantic market. We have a state-of-the-art, very competitive plant. We won't have any impairments in 2025, 2026 related to the plant. The debt renegotiated now is not for about Resia. The debts that are to mature have a construction loan whose maturity is a bit longer and that will be negotiated abroad. Whatever belongs to Resia will not be made in Brazil. About the plant, I understand it's all leasing, both machinery and the warehouse, but could you give us an estimate of the total capacity, how much you are producing, how far can you get in terms of production and profitability on Tapia? The plant has a much bigger capacity than the current volume. It's a very cheap setup to sell pod pods in the market. For now, this is how much information we can provide about the plant. Thank you. The next question comes from Carla Graça from Bank of America. Thank you for the opportunity. I have two questions. We've talked about the spin-off of Resia. Maybe this is not the moment, but do you have any prospects about a new spin-off maybe two years from now or a new investor coming or joining? The second question, do you have any conversations ongoing for possible investors for new projects of Resia? What type of investors have shown interest in it? Good morning, Carla. Regarding your first question, Resia is an asset-light company, small, with few projects. So far it's under MRV&CO. We see so much value in it in the U.S. market, in the lessons we learned, it's the product that's been tested, an asset-light model, the plant. We believe that Resia is very competitive in terms of positioning in a huge market. In the event Resia enters a cycle that's different from what we presented to you, we would discuss doing that in a corporate structure that is different from what we currently have. We don't have any definition and we believe that this is not the moment to spend energy on this. We should now focus our energy on executing strictly the plan developed by current management to develop the projects the fastest way possible to rent the highest price, sell the land. We have to execute North City under the same quality standards we executed Golden Glades. This is what we plan. We're looking in-house with a simple, lean, efficient agenda with no distractions with the possible movements that may change the capital structure of Resia. Corporate structure of Resia as of 2027, with lower interest rates, then we may be comfortable to do three or four projects per year. It's possible or likely that a discussion may happen as to what is the best corporate model to develop a cycle which is different from the one we presented now. That will be for 2025 and 2026. Regarding new projects, we raised capital for Golden Glades and North City successfully. It's important for Golden Glades to deliver the results that we presented. The project is very well executed. Our partners will have a very good return on it. I'm also confident that the partners that join North City will also have a very good return at the time of sale. We are building a track record that is good, which will be positive for Resia and for our partners. As it gains traction, I am absolutely sure that we'll have a high capacity to bring more partners to the projects of the New Resia. Looking at the project level, not at the holding company. Perfect. That's very clear. Thank you. The next question comes from Piero Trotta from Citi. Good morning, Rafael. Good morning, Piero. You can hear me? Yes, we can. I have two questions. The first is a follow up on the timing for those sales, but more related to land bank. The impairment of land is half the previous amount. Do you expect the pace to speed up a bit or remain at the expected level for projects? Because you know the projects have to stabilize, but land is there. If you could comment on the scenario for sale of plots of land, that would be nice. The second question is to understand a bit better, looking at the Golden Glades slide, how do you expect the service fees and development fees and the rate of return. Is this a percentage? How much is it? Is that related to equity? Common equity as it relates to the entire project. I would like to understand how the charging of fees for the New Resia will be. Piero Caca will answer about the stack, rental stack and the return that Resia has with the three categories of return. I'll answer your second question. Within this model of New Resia asset-light structure, since there is less capital invested, in order to continue with a good profitability and to increase revenue also so we can continue to develop projects, we charge a development fee and construction fee. It's like a BDI which is common. We charge a fee to execute the project, development, design and construction. Our return on this project is 6.2, 8.5 is development service fee. This promote is for each hurdle that I achieve in terms of profitability, a higher amount of the profit is shared to me, I have a higher profit sharing amount. Since the term is shorter, we have a better profitability for the final for the end investors and therefore a distribution of this excess profit that comes back to Resia. The U.S. market, as of your second question, the U.S. market is buying less, high interest rate, few companies starting new projects. Naturally, the liquidity of the market decreases. An important portion of this land is under contract. Three or four are under negotiation. We are being more assertive in those sales. It is a trust sale. We defined it that way. If we chose to retain the land and plots of land in the balance sheet and sell it within two or three years, we would get much higher values. We decided to be very diligent at present and settle the legacy Resia items on a short-term basis. The U.S. capital market is huge. Of course, these transactions have happened at higher caps and when the project is leased, rented sales are at higher values. We saw projects being sold before stabilization, but there is a cost associated to that. With this, we try to choose the time of sale, either the project or the plot of land, to maximize return for Resia and therefore MRV&CO. Within this time window of 2025, 2026, there may be some land that would be sold in one quarter or the next quarter. If that happens, it's because we believe that there is room to improve prices. It doesn't make sense not to wait two or three months in order to get a better price. We may. We're not going to postpone sale for 12 months, but two or three or four months may be an option. That depends on each project, on each negotiation, but always trying to maximize the value for MRV within this time frame of 2025, 2026. That's very clear. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Antonio Castrucci from Santander. My question is about Golden Glades. When compared to the other projects, what is the average rental in that project? Do you have more land with a similar profile? What do you see in terms of rental behavior in the places you operate? Good morning, Antonio. The four markets have a particular dynamics. The Florida market, this diagnosis, Miami city varies according to cities. Miami has the sea on one side, Everglades the other side. It is much more restricted in terms of land. There is an influx of migrants that's huge, that continues to happen. It's impressive. The economics of Miami, the supply and demand is a bit unbalanced when compared to Texas and Georgia because there is little supply. That's been going on for seven years now. Rental prices have gone up a lot more than in Texas and Georgia. For example, the average rental for Golden Glades is above $2,000 for two bedrooms. A standard two-two has rental close to $2,500, which is much higher than we see today in Texas and Georgia. As I said during the presentation, Antonio, Georgia and Texas had more projects being delivered. Rental prices did not evolve. Projects became ready. Rental prices did not increase a lot in the last two years. Very few projects were started since 2024. Those regions have a good, interesting economic dynamics. We expect a rebalance between supply and demand. Demand continues to be strong and less supply of new projects entering the market. That will cause rentals to go up in Texas and Georgia more than in Florida, but under a lower basis. For example, the same apartment or a project that's similar to Golden Glades, we rent at $1,800 in Texas and in Florida at $2,500. It's a different dynamics. Of course, land in Florida is more expensive. It's a much more scarce material, raw material. There's a pressure on price. That's important. Rather, in Texas and Georgia, the dynamics has to do a lot more with the number of projects that will be delivered in coming years. The market will reach a balance and rentals will increase so that the market can start new projects at an adequate volume. Was it clear? Yes. Thank you. This ends the Q and A session. Now I turn the floor over to Rafael Menin, the CEO, for his final remarks. I would like to thank you all for attending this conference call. We disclose the information to make it even clearer and to show the plan that is consistently executed. We are confident about the steps something will take in the next quarters. I would like to reemphasize that Resia and AHS had very positive cycles. Although the most recent cycle was not good. During all these years we are sure that we delivered a lot, we learned a lot. Today we have product, technology and a funding model that's very sophisticated. The project as a whole, not only land, but land, bank architecture, location, construction process, capital stack that is differentiated in terms of the rest of the market. We'll execute Resia's plan with a lot of competence. Good returns, good governance, discipline. Of course we are not pleased by delivering a most recent cycle with poor results. We understand that we learned a lot, and we are humble in recognizing our mistakes. We're learning. The positioning of Resia, the new positioning of Resia, will certainly generate value to MRV. Thank you all and have a good day. The conference call of MRV has ended. We thank you all for attending and have a good day.