Morning, everyone. Welcome to the New Zealand Rural Land Company conference call on the 1st of March. We were gonna talk about our equity raise and our FY 2022 results for the shortened period, given our change of balance date. With me in the room is Richard Milsom, who's a Director of New Zealand Rural Land Management, and Xavier Lynch, who's an executive at the Manager. We've got a lot to cover. I'll let Richard get straight into it. Richard. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us. Two things to talk about today. You should have seen our two presentations that have been released. We'll be sharing them on screen if you haven't had a chance to look at them. Our full-year results, which reflect a six-month change in our balance date, and secondly, a capital raise to finance the previously announced acquisition of the forestry estate close to Whanganui. I'll start with the presentation for the capital raise, given that it's the more material announcement today. There's quite a bit to go through. The results part, I'll just summarize at the end. Before we begin with our slide deck for the capital raise, I'd like to summarize 3 key themes for our capital raise presentation. Firstly, these forestry assets are highly accretive and a very attractive addition to the portfolio. Secondly, we've chosen the most beneficial funding option for NZL shareholders. Thirdly, we're pursuing interesting developments to further broaden our shareholder register, and we talk to two of those. I'll turn to the slide deck, which I'll get Xavier to share, and we can have a look at these sort of three key themes. If we start at page four. Page four outlines the key takeaways of the acquisition, and you can see on the left-hand side versus the right-hand side, our before and after metrics. Particularly our weighted average lease term goes up from nine-12.1 years. Our WALT increases by 34.4%. Next year's earnings and dividend increase by a forecast 17.4%, and we've materially added to the scale of our asset base and increased our diversity, which in turn makes us appealing as a diversified pure-play agricultural REIT. Obviously with that increased diversity, having been purely pastoral farms in the past, exposure to the timber and the carbon aspect of forestry is appealing, as well as the geographical diversification. In October 2022, we entered into an unconditional agreement to acquire the forestry estate, which is Whanganui, Manawatū region of North Island. The estate's comprised of five individual properties with a total area of nearly 2,400 hectares. We have an unconditional lease associated with that property to a new tenant, which would be for 20 years as the initial term. The lease is CPI adjusted annually. Xavier, if we turn to page five. As we mentioned before, we've chosen the most beneficial funding option for NZL shareholders. We considered several different acquisition funding options. We've detailed this on page 21 versus doing nothing and standing still versus what it looked like if we funded the acquisition in three different ways. The most compelling for shareholders was to purchase 100% of the forest funded by a one for three pro rata rights issue. The way that the rights issue will work is everyone on a pro rata basis will be offered their entitlement. If there is any shortfall, it will be offered to existing shareholders first. If for any chance there was shortfall after that, we have interest from a recent European roadshow that's, that would take up any placement or rights that were left over after shareholders had first option. We would encourage shareholders to take up their rights. NZL considers the future opportunities in the portfolio assets to be quite high quality. We've shown NAV increase and growing dividend yield in the past and are forecast to continue to do so. It provides people the opportunity to, for attractive both risk-adjusted returns and a really strong long-term income and diversity profile. Finally, on this slide, what I'd add is that we're pursuing quite interesting developments to further broaden our shareholder register. We've had indications, as I've mentioned, from our recent European roadshow tour. We also mandated Perella Weinberg to assist us in identifying a potential growth partner. What that would look like is they would purchase up to 25% of our portfolio privately as opposed to coming into NZL. It would give NZL a chance to recycle some capital, which it could use at the time for repaying debt, share buybacks, or growth, depending on what looked to be the most accretive at the time. Perella Weinberg is taking a bespoke approach to the M&A and capital solution. The appropriate partner must meet specific criteria that closely align with NZL's values and strategic mission. To date, we've had a reasonable amount of interest from people that would meet those criteria and like the opportunity. Can I just add, you know, how did we come to Perella Weinberg? They are recognized as one of the top investment banks in agri-forestry deals in the world, and when we were looking around for an appropriate partner to assist us in that regard. Richard is quite right in that those discussions continue. Look, but they take time and we started that process in November. We haven't been sitting on our hands here. We have been very focused on looking at all our capital opportunities. The European roadshow, I can talk to that because I was there doing it. There is real interest. I mean, it shouldn't surprise anyone. I've said it before. German, Swiss investors, they're interested in New Zealand farmland. The reason why we're doing it pro rata, we've always done it pro rata. You'll remember from the IPO days, we said we'd do it pro rata. Rob and I are very firm on that as New Zealand Rural Land Company directors, that we give the shareholders the first opportunity to participate. It would have been very easy to place 15% of this company, and which we are committed to do under New Zealand Stock Exchange rules. We are not doing that. You are here today to get the first opportunity on terms that we think are very attractive and with the additional carrot of a warrant in 2025 as well. That's just the background there. we can take slide six as read in terms of the pro rata rights issue summary, and we can move through to the acquisition rationale now. Can we just quickly touch on page six in case people hadn't had a chance to go through the full presentation this morning. It's a one for three rights issue. The issue price is NZD one. We're looking to raise NZD 38.5 million. It's a close to 6% discount to the closing price. There would be one warrant issued for everythree new shares subscribed, and those new shares subscribed are a one for three, so it's effectively a one for nine warrant. The warrant exercise price is NZD 1.20, and the warrants expire on the 30th of November 2025. The style of warrant is an American warrant. American, so it can be exercised any at any point up to the 30th of November. Not like a European, where you can only exercise on expiry date. The warrants will be quoted themselves on the NZX to permit trading in them. The forecast offer price is a discount of NAV per share or post-offer book of 33.2%. The dividend yield is NZD 0.05 per share. Our range that we're putting out is NZD 0.05-NZD 0.055 per share. Between 5 and 5.5% after-tax dividend yield on the offer price for a book that's going to have a 14-year, well, with CPI adjustments is the long and the short of it, really. Just we'll just touch on our dividend because it's gonna come up in our results. Why are we paying a dividend when we're seeking to raise NZD 38.5 million? We are, you know, we understand about retaining capital. We listed with the view to be a dividend-paying stock, and that's what we will continue to do. We pay out 95% of FFO. We are not doing a DRP on this on this dividend. We had actually very low take-up on the DRP. If any of you have run a DRP, you know, Link don't do it for free. They cost money, and Link shouldn't do it for free, by the way. We are paying out the dividend with a record date of the 7th of March and pay date of the 10th. That's right in the middle of the rights issue for the retail period. Investors can make their decision of what they want to do with their money. We're putting it back in your hands as the shareholders, and then we'll, and then you'll decide whether you wanna allocate us capital in this particular raise. Page seven talks to the acquisition rationale, the highlights and the impact. There is a substantial increase in our weighted average lease term with this transaction. There's a substantial increase in the diversity of our tenant base and the geographical and asset diversity. It pushes out nearly 30% of our leases to expire by 2043, so really long dates, our further lease expiry profile. There's a nearly 17.5% increase in AFFO per share and dividend yield per share. A really highly accretive cash flow and dividend growth story there. By the way, if you think back to our previous acquisitions, this is the most accretive transaction that we've turned up with. We heard you the last time. We bought some dairy farms. You said they weren't very accretive. They were very accretive on NAV when you look back at what happened when we built them out, where they settled in the valuation process. This is a very earnings accretive transaction. I would say, look at our history in acquisitions. That is a really important thing to look at, of where our assets have been revalued when we put across these lease structures. I don't know where the valuers are gonna settle on this for us. I know what we're paying for it. I can tell you that we have a history of adding value and acquiring these assets with the lease structure and buying very well. It is just not the AFFO accretion that one should think about. Yep. Buying and leasing well. Page eight is the equity raise details. I'll leave everyone to work through this by yourself, we're really happy to take calls or emails if anyone's got any questions after the, after this webinar. Page nine, is the use of funds and balance sheet impact. We're looking to raise NZD thirty-eight and a half million. We'll add debt to that of just over NZD 25 million, which brings us to our total purchase price and costs of the asset. Page 10. Just on the gearing. You know, at 36.3%, when you think back to when we listed, we were saying 30%. We have a facility with Rabobank that allows us to go to 40%. The board, as we've worked through growing the company, has amended the policy, so we can be up to 40% gearing. We understand the current environment and rising interest rates and things like that. We will be working to lower that gearing over time as we can back towards the 30%. I can say that to you at upfront as a director, but we equally, we have the challenge of continuing to try and grow the company, and that's a challenge between equity and debt all the time. Page 10 just shows the pro forma balance sheet, use of funds and the balance sheet impact. Page 11 talks to the equity raise timetable. I'll leave you to look through the detail of the equity raise timetable. Page 12 and beyond shows the page 13. 12, 13 and beyond show the pro forma portfolio, so you can see the growth in geography and the diversification by forestry. Page 14 shows a pro forma tenant concentration lease profiles that you can see. Tenant concentration is decreasing. Days of lease expiry is going out quite some way. Section three provides timber and carbon market outlook, and then we move into a key risks section. At that juncture, what I might do is open up for questions if anyone has any on the equity raise presentation. Okay. Ari? Good morning. Our first question is just on the forestry transaction. Just firstly. Can you hear me? You can't hear me? I'm not on mute. Is our volume up? Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? No. It's gone. Go to Nicole and see if he can come on. You can't hear me? Go here to the bottom. No, it's funny. Nick, are you. Sorry. Nick, can you. We've just unmuted you, Nick. Can you. Are you speaking? Hmm. Just bear with us for a moment while we work through. Hello. Can you hear me now? Oh. I won't swear like that. Ari, I can hear you and you can hear me. Yeah, we can hear each other. We could have a conversation between the two of us. Yeah. All right. Hopefully they figure it out. Yeah, yeah. No. Can you hear us now? They're having trouble hearing you, so we'll. Type in the question. Type in your questions, and we'll answer them live. The first question is from Craig Tyson. While the warrant is an attractive feature, how can investors value the warrants if you continue to raise equity at a large discount to NAV? Hopefully any raise done at a discount to NAV, and I would note that this is done at a less than 10% discount to NAV. I suppose my answer to that would be, if past history is anything to go by, there may be further NAV accretion or increase to be had. Secondly, we think that the FFO accretion profile of this acquisition will make the, you know, we are a small company, we have overheads that do, you know, that are fixed, NZX accounting, et cetera. The more, the more income that falls to the bottom line, especially when you're talking about an 8% cap rate, we think that that might have a positive impact on share price and investors' appetite. There is an element of doing accretive deals to increase share price and increase NAV. It's trying to balance issuing at a small discount to the, what we think might be the accretion of both the free cash flow and the NAV profile. Hopefully, the warrant remains worth a reasonable amount. They want to be, yeah. Okay. Sorry. This is a question, and this is just a question from one of the participants. Can you consider a revaluation holiday for acquisitions for, say, three years? This would be a net gain for the company, management co and shareholders. Unfortunately, we are required to revalue the assets every three years. Every one year, I'm sorry. It's something that I'll go away and look at and come back on that specific question. I don't think we are permitted to do that. I think we moved away under IFRS from, if you remember in the old days, that companies, you know, didn't revalue their assets and then revalued their assets every five years or three years. Now, because of IFRS, we are required to revalue our assets, every one year. Naturally, I will check it. There's another question about the option to divest the farms under the put call arrangements. At some point, the strike price of those gets towards the valuation of the farm. At the moment we own those put calls for much less than the farm is actually worth, and it would make sense for the tenant to eventually exercise their call as opposed to our put. That particular tenant has had a quite a favorable ruling in a dispute they've had with NPI. We would expect in 24 months or thereabouts that that tenant might call that farm because it would make sense. We continue to talk to them about it. They just want to see the final end of their litigation and possibly a big cash payout come their way. Otherwise, they're of course able to refinance it because one of the farms, they would owe us about NZD 15 million for it, and it's valued at a NZD 20 million farm. We think that might be in 18-36 months, a profile, time profile on it. Craig Tyson, it's a 39% discount to NAV pre-raising. Yes, you're right, it's a 32% discount post-raise. That is absolutely true. I suppose my. At a one for three, it's the people not participating, it would be a less than 10% dilution to NAV or a over 17% FFO accretive transaction. If the, if we are able to add any value to this transaction by buying land and trees and then adding a tenant into it and leasing it well, that increases the value. Some of that NAV dilution would be offset. I suppose it's really important to compare that with the base case, which is doing nothing at all. Doing nothing, not raising any capital, not buying this forest with raising capital or looking at one of the other options when you compare them, and that's why we detailed it in the presentation, is we believe that this is the better option overall in terms of not buying a forest or buying half or buying 100%. When looking at the different funding options, the balance of a sub 10% NAV dilution to a 17% or over 17% FFO accretion and some potential NAV uplift, we believe struck the balance. I am totally cognizant of your comments. We've got a question. Do I understand correctly that the new forest tenant pays to replant the trees upon harvesting? Absolutely. If they harvest the trees, they pay to replant them, like our other leases. There's reasonably onerous terms under which someone would be able to harvest. The harvesting practices they must adhere to, the tracking, the maintenance. We have a lot of say and a lot of input into that. That is unlikely to happen in terms of them wanting to harvest the trees because they are in the business of harvesting carbon. Well, they do both, but the highest in economic benefit at the moment, and it's forecast to be carbon. The trees will likely stay in trees with some regeneration or a lot of regeneration of native underneath them. Any further questions from anyone in the Q&A section? If not, I will turn to our results presentation and then ask for questions following that. If you'd share the results presentation. Yes. As mentioned at the start, there's quite a bit to go through this morning, so I'll just summarize the second presentation, which is the results which has also been announced. This is a somewhat technical change, just being a change in balance date. Of course, we revalued our portfolio six months ago. All of these valuations are done by an independent valuer using comparable market transactions. What we've seen pleasingly is just a modest 1% uplift in value, which against the backdrop of where interest rates are and what's happening in commercial property, we're not surprised with, but it's pleasing nonetheless. If we turn to slide four. The key highlights are the change in balance date, which is to Next slide. That's slide five. If we turn to slide five, the key highlights from this result are the change in balance date, which is a desire to have our financials and year-end process complete. If we were to buy or sell any assets in the June year, it means that it's cleaner from a banking perspective and the agricultural timeline perspective. As I've mentioned, we've got just under NZD 300 million worth of assets, and we saw an approximately 1% increase in value from our June balance date. Our NAV growth per share when you're looking at it in 12-month periods, which is probably the appropriate way to look at, especially with pastoral farms, as you get one group of comparable market transactions to look at, has been just over 20%. We're happy with how the resilience of the portfolio, and I think it demonstrates a bit of the quality against the market backdrop. From slide five six onwards, there's quite a bit of detail, so I'm just gonna hit the high notes on each slide, and then we can get into questions about the results. If we just keep clicking through the FFO's up from the last period. On the next slide, you can see that PNL is positive, but it's down on the last period because the last period obviously had the revaluations that we saw. In terms of cash earnings and lease income, that's all increased since the last six-month period. We keep moving on. Balance sheet, we're seeing approximately NZD 4 million growth in total equity, which is attributable to a small increase in our portfolio of assets. Our debt summary. This is probably something to just touch on. We're just about 35% in terms of our gearing average, our gearing ratio. Our weighted average cost of interest is 5.6%. Now, we do have a hedging profile that you can see on the bottom slide. That's our facility expiry date. In terms of our hedging profile, we have 20% of our hedging roughly rolling off 2025, 2026, 2027. Our margin is about 2%, so our marginal cost of borrowing at the moment is BKBM plus 2%. Keep moving through. In terms of total returns, you can see on a NAV per share that from listing, it was just below 10%. From December 2021 to December 2022, it's just under 22% per share. Plus on top of those NAV per share growing numbers, we can see a growing dividend profile as well, which we expect to continue to grow. We're currently forecasting about an 18% growth in lease income starting in July 2024, which is when the first batch, about three-yearly CPI rent increases kick in. The important aspect about a different asset class, especially a slightly more specialized one than pastoral farms, is it comes with an annual CPI rent increase versus a three-yearly one, that's another attractive part of the forestry acquisition. If you keep moving on, this is the portfolio as at the 31st of December. Obviously, we've touched on that earlier in terms of how the portfolio changes. Here's the tenant concentration as at the 31st of December, you can see the lease expiry profile. As Richard just said, the important thing is the CPI increases start to kick in from 2024 onwards on the initial farms that we bought. In terms of just going through here, we're into the next section on the operational update. Xavi, can you just scroll through and we'll talk about this. Richard touched on it. You know, in terms of Perella Weinberg. Just go back a slide, please, Xavi. At Perella Weinberg, we've engaged them. We engaged them back in November around lookingA long-term partner for us and I stress the long-term nature. It is a very bespoke opportunity, and this is what Colliers really specialize in. They continue to work on that. We continue to have discussions. Look, many a slip between cup and lip on these things. You guys know that as well as I do. You know, I'm quite optimistic in that process over the next six months, given the initial conversations that we have had. In terms on slightly less material matters, but we continue to map our current portfolio, and there are some areas of marginal or non-productive land that we can harvest carbon credits for. It's not gonna materially move the needle, but it is just incremental earnings. All of our tenants are compliant and in lots of cases well in excess of our key tenant covenants. The amount of equity cover we like to see, the amount and are mandated in their leases and also their interest cover. Tenants are very profitable. They're turning out a lot of cash at the moment, and so that's pleasing to see, especially in an environment where there's a bit of cost inflation. There's been no major health and safety events with any of our tenants, and all of our properties are unaffected by the recent storms in New Zealand. Our forestry acquisition was also unaffected. That got flown about 10 days ago. In terms of the outlook, I won't labor this point. I've touched on July 2024. We see the first round of CPI lease increases of about 18% based on financials. We think that that'll be an easy wear for tenants. Our AFFO forecast previously announced was between 4.9 and 5.4. Without the forestry acquisition on a like for like basis, we'd remain within this range. Post the forestry acquisition, we obviously would see a material upgrade to that. The FY 2023 after-tax dividend is forecast to be between four and a half cents, and the 2024 after-tax dividend is forecast to be between five and a half cents per share. I've touched on the CPI rental review out of this slide. We've got 40% of our debt hedged at the moment, and we've shown a new slide that details our cost of borrowing. We would look to hedge further debt with the forestry acquisition. We will hedge 100% of the forestry acquisition, just for clarity. In summary, just to bring everyone back to the base case, Rural NZL provides exposure to really favorable industry dynamics. There is a track record of value add in terms of buying well and leasing well. The total returns that we've been able to achieve to date in terms of NAV growth and dividend, which both of which are still growing, have been attractive, especially on a risk-adjusted basis. Our current nine-year WALT is appealing. That would stretch to a over 12-year WALT with the forestry acquisition, which we think is quite long, especially in a hard asset class like owning land and being a ground leasehold. There is a significant growth opportunity for NZL, especially with the type of asset and the type of leases we're buying. We continue to have a reasonable amount of interest from foreign investors both in NZL and as a minority holder in assets themselves. With that, I will, I'll take further questions. Ari, unfortunately, we can't get the sound going. I don't know what's happened to this system. If you can just type in your questions. First question from Ari is on the forestry transaction. Outside of increase in base management fees, are there any new meaningful costs for NZL to absorb post getting the forestry assets? We've seen some decent post-acquisition revaluations previously post-acquisition. What are your expectations on how the forestry assets will value up post-acquisition? Should we expect performance fees in FY 2023 post-acquisition of around 10% of that? Richard. We do think by the time we put the lease and such a long-term lease at quite an attractive rate on top of the bare land and trees that we're buying, we do think we'll see a valuation uplift. We think it could be in the realm of NZD 5 million-NZD 10 million on a base cost of NZD 63.7 million by the time you include costs. If you thought NZD 5 million worth of value increase with the lease, but we're not 100% sure on that. Yes, you would, there would be a performance fee payable in shares at NAV on 10% of that. On your hedging question, about NZD 40 million is hedged as of 2022. How long, how much hedging in 12 months? We've got 11.4% of our debt or NZD 12 million worth of debt is due for expiry in May 2024. 17.1% of debt or NZD 18 million of debt is due for expiry in May 2025. And another 11.4% or NZD 12 million worth of debt is due for expiry in 31 May 2026. Ari, again, question equity raise and European investor process. Can you clarify firstly on the equity raise, if there is a meaningful shortfall on rights issue, what of the following is most likely? You buy 52% of the forest, you exercise put options for NZD 20 million of two dairy farms. You place shares to European investors at NZD 1 with warrants. Look, I mean, if there's a material, if there's a meaningful shortfall on the rights issue, we will place the shortfall to investors, whether they be domestic or European. As I said, we have strong indications out of Europe that people are interested in this. In terms of, in terms of the next preference would be, or the next option would be, we always built into it the safety valve with our tenant that we could call them to buy up to 48% of the asset. Now, they actually think this is quite an attractive asset. We would just work down through on page 21 of the equity raise. We would just work down from most attractive option to the least attractive option. You can see in terms of earnings accretion versus NAV dilution and most attractive option is to buy 100%. That would mean that we would place the European investors at NZD 1 with the warrants as the first option if there was a shortfall. Second option would be to buy 52% of the forests, and the third option wouldn't really come into play because we have that underwrite from the tenant who would like to own 50% if they can. Ari, yes, the two dairy farms are the put options. They will be unwound at some point in the future. What the timeframe is on that is slightly unknown at the moment, but I think it happens sooner rather than later, you know, and sooner being in the next 12-18 months. The second question was what's the process to sell down 25% of existing assets to a cornerstone investor? What are your bottom lines on this with regard to price you'd be willing to transact at versus book values on the assets? Is it cherry-picking or is it all of the assets? How will the deal be structured with regard to fees paid by outside investors? Is there any consideration being given to how are fees NZL pays the manager being considered as part of the transactions that would see assets sold? I'll work through those one by one. The bottom lines in terms of this deal regarding price would be that the starting point would absolutely be current valuation or book value. Although we would have to, you know, consider the value to shareholders at the price we end up transacting for. Starting point is obviously at, you know, at, or a premium or a small discount to current valuation. It's not cherry-picking any assets. It's 25% of all of the assets and 25% of further assets they have the right to participate in. How will the deal be structured with fees paid by outside investors? In fact, the investors would pay fees themselves for their 25%, and NZL would just continue to pay the normal fees that they do on its 75%. Bearing in mind it would have because fees to NZL are charged on a net asset value basis and on deal by deal, you're just charging on a smaller net asset base. It's not like NZL would be left with a fixed fee and only 75% of the income. Everything scales down on a pro-rata basis because it's all done on NAV. Last question. 18% increase from July 1, 2024. Appreciate you have visibility on there being the tenants P&Ls, but can you stand by your confidence in this ability of farmers to absorb CPI? You're over halfway through that initial first term. What discussions are you having to ensure they are prepared for high double-digit rental growth and what are they saying? Every six months we have touch with our tenants. I suppose the beneficial thing about our tenants are they are at the moment large entities. They have, w e, we get asked by them every year when they're doing their budgeting and planning, "What's CPI? Can I just confirm that clause?" We know that they are forecasting in their three- and five-year plans. They're keeping an active tally of what current CPI growth is going to look like for their leases. We're confident they are across that. Secondly, we're confident with the margin that they have between their costs and milk price. If you imagine that milk price is NZD 8.50, for example, there's always NZD 0.50 of stock trade or stock income per farm. When milk price is NZD 8.50, the farmer has a NZD 9 income. If our leases were approximately NZD 1.35 to NZD 1.50 per kilogram of milk solids, in some cases, they were lower, what we'd expect to see with an 18% increase is that it moves down to NZD 1.72 per kilogram of milk solid of their revenue that is eaten up by their lease. That's less than 20% of their income that's eaten up by a lease. It might move from 15% or 16% to 19%. Based on their margins, their free cash flow at the moment, and especially in an inflationary cost environment that we expect will start to take a breather, we think they've got plenty of buffet, and we know that they're paying for it. If anyone else would like to text me through some questions, this is a question that's come through on text. Are you allowing shareholders to subscribe for extra shares beyond their entitlement? The answer is, of course, yes. For retail investors, you can subscribe online via the Link portal that has gone live today or is going live soon. Just like we did last time, there's an oversubscription option there. On the institutional side, there are in the forms that we have sent or are sending, there is apply for shortfall section in that. Everyone is getting a chance to apply beyond their entitlement and express an interest, and then we'll look at the numbers and come back to everyone. In terms of a question again on European investors, what is the impact on OIO rules. You'll see in the back of the of the of the results presentation, right at the back, where we put it in the appendix. I put it there, by the way, every time. As you're always interested in this number. As at the 31st of December, our foreign ownership is 22.41%. As you know, with a listed vehicle like ours, we can have up to 49.9% ownership. We have capacity there to take in European investors and diversify our shareholder base. I've got no more questions on the text. Are there any more questions from anyone? Feel free to text me. My mobile is 021 928 262. For those of you that don't have it, 021 928 262. I'm really sorry we can't hear you today. Apologies for that. That's almost right at the 45-minute mark for everyone as well. We haven't had any more questions come up on the Q&A, but like Chris said, really happy to take questions. I think on the announcement, both of our phone numbers and email addresses are on there. Really happy to talk to anyone and appreciate everyone joining the call this morning. Thank you very much.