To Orexo Q2 Report 2025. For the first part of the conference call, the participants will be in listen-only mode. During the questions and answers session, participants are able to ask questions by dialing pound key five on their telephone keypad. Now, I will hand the conference over to CEO Nikolaj Sørensen and CFO Fredrik Järrsten. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, and welcome to all of you who have taken your time at this busy day with a lot of other reports coming out and also a beautiful summer day, at least in the afternoon in Uppsala, Sweden. I will take you through the report today together with Fredrik, as I said, and I'll just jump over to the agenda. Those of you who have been listening in before, you know we will start with a business update. I will go through the U.S. commercial, our products, and the development. Fredrik will take us through the financials, and we will round up with a slide about where we see some of the future value drivers and focus areas for the company, including opening up for questions and answers. A brief overview of the quarter. I can't hide that the quarter came out disappointing compared to what we expected. The prime reason for this is the one-time rebate payment that we have flagged. It's about SEK 9 million, $900,000. That, of course, has a direct impact on both net sales and our EBITDA. Also, in the quarter, we have seen the dollar has declined significantly compared to last year and even compared to the first quarter, which is giving us a headwind on the top line. That said, I do think there are some positive elements in the report when we go a little deeper. For example, Zubsolv, when you look at quarter over quarter, excluding this one-time rebate payment, we actually have a positive development quarter over quarter in U.S. dollars. That is ignoring the foreign exchange rate and also the non-recurring rebate. We also see that the profit contributions from our U.S. business are increasing, and that is both looking at local currency. It's also when we take away the depreciation where we have, due to the impairment we did on two assets in the end of last year, there's less depreciation this year. Even excluding that, we see a good cost control in our U.S. business. From a cash flow perspective, we are quite stable in the quarter. We did sell off out of the corporate bond. That was the same amount that we had to pay for the rebate, approximately. Even here, if we look away from the rebate payment, we are on a relatively stable basis, quarter over quarter, and we also have some negative effect from the currency. OX124 has been a long story where we have been waiting for some critical components for the nasal device, and we finally got delivery of that late in this quarter, and we're now able to start the testing that's required by the FDA. That's really good news for the company. Also, on OX640, we have continued, decided on the final formulation. We're now starting the process for upscaling of manufacturing, and we have very healthy discussions with potential partners for OX640. We have reaffirmed our 2025 numbers despite the setbacks we had on both currency and the non-recurring rebate for the full year. One thing that continues to follow us as a pharmaceutical company is, of course, the geopolitical factors. I just heard this morning that there are new discussions about tariffs coming in that Donald Trump will announce later this month. At a low level, he said, but I will highlight that for Zubsolv it has no impact because we are manufacturing Zubsolv in the U.S. for the U.S market, and we're just about to set up, or our partner, CorePharma, is just about to start manufacturing for the European market in Europe. Our AmorphOX pipeline is primarily relying on manufacturing in Canada, and that could, of course, have some impact on the tariffs long term, but there is time, at least on OX640 and others, before we are launching, and there would be ways for us to mitigate the impact of these tariffs, I'm sure. One of the highlights in the quarter, which has gained a lot of impact just after the quarter finished, is what's called the big beautiful bill in the United States, and that's around Medicaid, where there's been a lot of discussions about the impact on Medicaid volumes. We do anticipate that there will be some impact on the volumes, which could both impact volume, but it could also impact the quality of care that is offered by specific Medicaid payers. What, however, is worth noting is that the implementation of the Medicaid changes is going over time. That means that the full implementation will take several years before you will see the full impact. Some of the payers might decide to act on the changes already now. We do see that the full implementation is going to take time. There are several other sources of financing in the opioid addiction space, which has not really been activated. We've talked about them a lot, but we haven't really seen the impact yet that's coming from the opioid settlements or what's called the abatement funds, where we have more than $50 billion sitting, which should be earmarked to treat opioid addiction. Maybe this is the time when you can actually start digging into that aisle of money. What I will also note is that Medicaid is very important for us and for the market, but the rebates that we're paying in Medicaid, that's high. It is something you see on the sales numbers for this quarter that we see some negative impact on price because we had some good development in some of the large Medicaid payers, but we're paying a higher average price on Medicaid. That means that some of these patients who might lose their Medicaid insurance move over to commercial insurance. We actually only need a percentage of these patients to move before we will have a neutral impact on our EBIT level. On foreign exchange, it's something that, of course, is hitting us quite dramatically with a change. I think we started the year with an exchange rate to the dollar with SEK 11 per dollar, and we ended the quarter here with 9.5. That is a dramatic decline in the value of the dollar. The positive part is that if you actually look at the financials and on our operational expenses, then we have nearly a full natural hedge. There is some, of course, we will lose some money as a lot of our EBIT is coming from U.S. dollars, but about 80% of this effect is basically neutralized by having most of our expenses in dollars also. For example, looking at the U.S. results, it's nearly on a decimal the same result as it was last year. You can say this year we actually, in that number, include the one-time rebate payment, which is going straight down to that bottom line. Last year, we had some depreciation of about the same amount, which is not there anymore. We have actually mitigated a lot of the decline on EBIT from our U.S. operations on the top line by lower expenses. To the U.S. commercial market, what we're pleased to see is that we actually see the market is growing faster here in the second quarter than what we've seen for a while. It's up at 4% growth. It is because we are seeing actually, say here, that the Medicaid segment is stagnating. That is true, but it has actually gone from being negative to we now see some growth in the Medicaid segment. The commercial segment continues to show some quite healthy growth, even despite now seeing Medicaid growing. Now we have the two largest segments both growing, Medicaid a little slower, but we are actually seeing a growth. Where we see a decline is in the cash segment, and that's where we have the non-insured patients. For Zubsolv quarter over quarter, we have a relatively neutral development, or it's flat basically, where we have seen growth in Medicaid. We actually see some growth in commercial also, but we've seen a continuous decline in UnitedHealth Group and in Humana. In Humana, it's actually a combination of two. It's both the previously exclusive contract with Humana, but we're also seeing that Humana Medicare, where there's a new rebate system that has changed some of their policies, which is increasing the copay for some of the patients when they want to get Zubsolv, which could make some of them switch to a generic version. What are we to expect from Zubsolv? I think the good part here is that we see the market continue to grow, and we actually believe that the market will continue to grow. That is despite the changes in Medicaid. Why do we see that? First of all, we are now seeing a slight acceleration in market growth. That, I think, is based on a continuous large unmet Medicaid need. We also see that there are available funds, which by far exceed the amount of money coming to this specific disease area that we could see reductions in Medicaid. This is a question, how do the states, how do the communities act when they see funding to Medicaid go down? Will they use some of these opioid settlements to basically backfill for this specific patient segment, which could neutralize some of that effect? When it comes to Zubsolv, I think there are two elements. One is on the top line, and there we are, of course, pleased to see a quarter- over- quarter, slightly or some increase in the Medicaid segment, slight increase in the commercial segment. Then we have some decline in the previous exclusive contract, which is more or less neutralizing the effect. Also seeing on a dollar basis, we see some increase in the Zubsolv business. On the EBIT margin, and this is really important for us, is to continue to work on the profit contribution for Zubsolv. Here we are, if we exclude the one-time rebate payment, then we actually see the EBIT margin increase to nearly 40% in our U.S. commercial business. We are very cost-conscious in the way that we're approaching to ensure that we have a continued healthy EBIT contribution. We're quite pleased to see our core markets, that is what we call the open segment, where we have good coverage in both Medicaid and commercial, is showing a good development in this quarter. We've decided to reiterate our guidance for Zubsolv for this market, which mathematically will show you that we need to see a little increase in our sales for the second half to meet the net sales guidance, but we think that is within range. Coming to the products and the development, we now have the device components for OX124, or now what is IC3. We have a name, a trade name registered for OX124. Those of you working in the pharmaceutical industry will know that this is a very hard one to get a name approved by the FDA. You have to use letters and spelling that is unusual. We have tried several names and combinations. Because of the small size of the cylinder where we have the device in, we have been trying to look for a name which is six letters, and that's basically what we have succeeded with IC3. We have a conditional approval of this new brand name, and we will, moving forward, refer to IC3 rather than OX124. As I said last quarter, we are now ready to both move on to start the testing that is required by the FDA, but we're also looking to move to the same device as we're using for OX640, which will reduce supply risk in the long term for IC3. For OX640, which is really where we believe we have a significant potential value generator for the company, we have established manufacturing. We have existing manufacturing capacity right now, which would be able to ramp up and basically launch for a global supply of OX640. It has been FDA inspected for OX124. Our entire supply chain has been FDA inspected and has been approved for OX124. If you recall, the reason we got the complete response letter on IC3 was due to the actual device and not due to the supply chain. We are the only ones who have a powder manufacturing established commercial manufacturing line, and we think that's a good advantage as there are other companies in earlier stages than us working on a nasal powder. We are actually together with our contract manufacturing, securing that there is additional capacity ready to meet a global supply. We think we know that one of them is building up a new facility that you can see in the corner here, and that could be ready as early as 2026. Over time, the increased capacity will help us to improve COGS and also ensure that we have enough capacity to meet the demand both for IC3 and for OX640. Where are we in the process right now? During the quarter here, we have made the final decision on the dose and the formulation, and we have now initiated the tech transfer to our contract manufacturing partners, the same ones as we use for IC3. I have to learn that name. What we will then start up basically in the end of this year is to start manufacturing clinical trial material and do the full upscaling, getting all of the data ready or the batches ready to collect the data that is needed for FDA approval in the end. Remember when we did our IC3 application, this is actually where we got some, we were asked by FDA to ensure that we manufacture in commercial scale with all of the batches that we use for stability data. Now having that in place is giving us a great advantage for our OX640 process. In parallel with this, we have some good discussions with both global and regional partners, and this is a very intense process for a small company like Orexo. We're working over the summer in this process, and hopefully we can get to an agreement later. I will say, because a lot of you will ask, what is the timeline for an agreement? I have learned that you have an agreement the day that the ink is dry on the bottom line of the contract, and this is a little where we are right now. We have some very good discussions with partners, but I've also learned that you don't have a contract before you have a final signature on the contracts from both parties. We will have to have some patience, but I think there's no need for concern in this process at the moment. Just to take a little brief view on why do we believe this is such a great opportunity, I actually took the liberty to compare with Narcan, which I think is a good analog to use. As you know, we have been in this market with opioid use disorder, and what better analog to use than one that we really know? In 2015, we had the first nasal spray, I think the brand name Narcan was launched by an Irish company, Adapt Pharma. In the beginning, this was really slow. We saw very little uptake in the first year. Adapt had to build up their commercial capabilities in the U.S., which I think happened during 2015, and then ready for a broader launch in 2016. When we looked at some of the sales numbers, it was quite meager in the beginning. Adapt Pharma and their future partners did a fantastic job of both expanding the market. The retail growth was within a few years, several hundred%. On top of that, you also took market share. Today, more than 90% of this market in the U.S. is based on the nasal spray and not an injectable. If you just look at the end of 2016, the multiple in sales up to the peak year before we had generic entrants for Narcan was more than 10x growth. Looking at where we're at Neffy, I think they had $7 million in sales in the first quarter, and that was the first quarter of sales. That's quite equal to what you had nearly in the full year for the first full year that Narcan was in the market, or it's actually, I think it's more than the first full year if we take 2015 with us. It's very hard for me to see that we don't have, we'll see a rather similar development in the epinephrine market, even though Neffy is taking some time to get the same dominance. We hear exactly the same objections by some of the doctors. Are we really certain that this works? We are quite happy. We know that the injectable works, but the convenience factor of these nasal sprays is so superior to an injectable. It's very hard to see that this market is not going to take the same journey as we have seen with Narcan. I will say that OX640 is much more differentiated to the other products in the market than what we have for IC3. IC3 has some of the same qualities, but due to the sensitivity of epinephrine, those qualities are much more transferable into the epinephrine market than it is for the naloxone market, which is a relatively stable molecule. On AmorphOX, as you know, this is a product that one of the things that we have really done is we can do some very precise particle engineering. We can use this for a broad range of APIs. It's very stable. We have validated in several human trials, so we know it's very high bioavailability. We have some strong IP, and it's really a work for us is how do we expand the use of AmorphOX. During the quarter, we have also done some strategy work internally and said, where do we see the focus for the company in AmorphOX? Here we have three areas. One is that we, of course, want to advance our internal rescue medication. So IC3, OX640 are really the focus. OX390, we introduced that last quarter. It's a new product for odors with an illicit drug in combination with opioids. These are the sweet spots where we are putting efforts behind right now. OX125 is ready to accelerate if we see that the market evolves for nalmethane products in the U.S. We are looking into large molecules because some of the properties that we have for AmorphOX are really designed nearly for large molecules. A lot of large molecules today have to be injected. They require refrigeration, some of them even being frozen. They have quite poor stability. All of this is something that we see is ideal for our powder formulation. What we are working on now is first, together with a partner like Abera Bioscience, to generate data that we can share with Abera. It's on a very exciting vaccine platform. We have other data from other partners. Some of them are public, like Sobi, but we have also others which are non-disclosed where we're generating data. For us, it's now about how do we generate more scientific data on these large molecules, which would enable us to reach partnership with even large organizations? We see that there is a, we have a bandwidth limitation. We are looking to find partners, I think primarily from the contract development and manufacturing organizations, CDMOs, where we can actually reach a broader base of customers to see how we can utilize their AmorphOX with more companies. It's a combination of driving our own projects where we right now focus on rescue medications. We think there's a big opportunity in large molecules, but also work more closely with some external partners to get an even broader and accelerated reach for the AmorphOX platform. That takes us into the financial section, and I'll leave the word to Fredrik. Thanks, Nikolaj. On page 18, we look at revenues. If we start by looking at the top part of the page, you can see that total revenues in Q2 for the group landed at SEK 180 million. The bulk of that, SEK 114 million or 96%, came from Zubsolv within our U.S. commercial business, which is down then with approximately SEK 34 million or 23%, primarily as a consequence of the negative FX impact of SEK 12 million. We had lower demand in net revenue terms, and then this non-recurring rebate payment we talked about earlier, which had a negative impact of SEK 9 million. If we look at other revenues within HQ and pipeline, again, ABSA royalties were lower following the trend we've seen as individual country royalty agreements expire. We did see higher EDVAR royalties thanks to stronger sales in Europe. On the downside, Zubsolv ex-U.S. revenues were lower, mainly because we didn't have any tablet sales to our partner Accord Healthcare this quarter. That's compared to SEK 8 million in Q1. That followed a one-time build-up of inventory in anticipation of starting manufacturing in Europe. We instead focus on the quarter-over-quarter development of Zubsolv revenue. The waterfall chart on the bottom part of the page shows that, contrary to the year-over-year trend, net revenues in local currency increased slightly by 2%, excluding this non-recurring rebate payment. The growth is primarily then driven by a modest increase in total demand in net revenue terms, approximately half a percentage point, as shown in the first three. Further supported by a significant positive inventory stocking effect of SEK 7 million during the quarter. Moving to the next page, the P&L, we just discussed the decline in net revenues, excluding the non-recurring rebate payment of SEK 9 million, and the FX effect of SEK 12 million, net revenues would be SEK 136 million instead. That, though, represents still a 12% decrease compared to Q2 2024. The weakening of the U.S. dollar has, of course, also a positive effect on our U.S. denominated cost, approximately 65% of total expenses. The significant decrease in COGS, as you can see, is largely attributable to this favorable FX effect within U.S. commercial, SEK 8 million, actually. The decrease in COGS was also from somewhat improved production costs for Zubsolv. As a result, gross margin increased from 89% in Q2 last year to 93%. If we look at our operating expenses in Q2, which came in at SEK 131 million, we're pleased to see that our cost consciousness is still paying off. OpEx is down 14% compared to last year. Now, of course, about SEK 3.5 million in total of that reduction came from a weaker U.S. dollar. We also saw lower costs from a performance perspective across the board. We had lower selling expenses, mostly related to timing of pre-launch activities for OX124 or IC3, lower admin costs mainly from reduced legal fees, and we had lower R&D costs. The drop in R&D is largely due to lower amortization of the impaired intangibles that we did in Q4 last year. Some of that was offset by increased development costs for OX124 or IC3. With the effect on sales of the weaker USD and the non-recurring rebate payment, EBITDA was negative for the quarter, with SEK - 10.1 million. Total EBIT came in at minus SEK 21.5 million. That figure includes about SEK 10 million in lower depreciation following the impairment of intangible assets. If we look at U.S. business specifically, as Nikolaj said, EBIT was SEK 36 million for the quarter, even after absorbing the one-time rebate effect. That gives us a margin of 31% and a solid improvement from 24% a year ago. Excluding the negative impact, the margin would be 39%. Moving to the next page, cash flow. We reported a positive cash flow of SEK 3.7 million for the period after adjusting for a negative FX effect of SEK 1.5 million. That gives us an increase in cash and cash equivalents of SEK 2.2 million. In that, operating cash flow was slightly negative, mainly due to the SEK 9 million again in non-recurring rebate payment. Financing activities contributed positively, primarily from the sale of SEK 10 million in nominal value of Orexo's own bond. That was done with the intention to finance this unexpected rebate payment. By the end of Q2, cash and cash equivalents stood at SEK 121 million. Just to remind you, we still hold SEK 20 million in our own bond, which could serve as an additional funding source going forward. The financial outlook on the next page states that we expect market growth of 2%- 5%, net sales Zubsolv interval of $50 to $55 million, OpEx excluding depreciation expected SEK 460 million- SEK 500 million. Finally, as we said, group EBITDA still expected to be positive for the full year. With the actuals presented today and explanations we have given, we still maintain that these metrics are reaffirmed. Back to you, Nikolaj, for the meeting. Thank you, Fredrik. Very short legal update because there's not that much to report. We have this subpoena issued by the Department of Justice in the U.S., or the DOJ investigation, we can also call it. It's been ongoing now. We have our fifth anniversary. It's very surreal, but that is how it is. It's been going a little off and on for that period of time. There have been some activities in the quarter, but what has slowed down the process, we're quite certain that that has had a negative impact in timing, is the appointment of new U.S. prosecutors. I just heard that the new U.S. prosecutor for the district that is investigating Orexo has been appointed earlier this week. Hopefully that can accelerate the process. We are looking for a resolution of this. We still believe that the investigation has no merit, but we also realize that these kinds of processes often result in some kind of resolution between the two parties. Finally, our future value drivers. We still see that Zubsolv is an important cash contributor to the company, so to maintain revenue streams and maximize the value we can get from Zubsolv is very important. For us to get FDA approval for IC3 is, of course, very important for the company. Now with the delivery of the components, we are in a good position to accomplish this with a filing next summer. We do see it's important, and a part of our business plan is to receive milestones and royalties for upcoming projects. Here we think OX640 is the one that is most near term, but we also, of course, expect to see some royalties coming in from Zubsolv Europe, for example, when they start manufacturing in Europe, which is really with the objective of becoming more price competitive in the European market. It is important for Orexo as a part of the company to ensure that we have access to the patients and patients have access to our products. To continue to work with Zubsolv and get expanded access is important. The same when we're launching IC3 in the U.S. This will be a very important activity for the U.S. team. On our AmorphOX technology, I did highlight some of the focus areas for the company on rescue medications, also work with large molecules, both partnerships and internally development of scientific proof of concept, but also to start working more with, for example, CDMOs and other partners so we can have a broader reach of the technology in a faster pace than what we can with our relatively limited bandwidth in the company. With that, I thank you for your attention and open up for questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please dial on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key six on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Samir Devani from RX Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, Nikolaj. Hi, Fredrik. Thanks for taking my questions. I think I've just got two, and the first one I think is on OX640. I won't push you on terms of timing for the deal, but I was just wondering your thoughts on Neffy's uptake. It seems to be doing quite well according to the scripts data that we can see, and I'm wondering whether that's having any influence on your discussions. That's, I guess, question one, if you want to take that. We're, of course, monitoring Neffy with the frequency we can. I will say the Neffy uptake has been a central part of the discussions both before launch and after launch. The expectations from ARS Pharma have also been a topic. I think there have been several factors that are following here. One, of course, is the deal value that was presented between the Danish company ENK and ARS. It's also been the market cap and valuation of ARS, which has been relatively healthy. In particular, the prescriptions have been a topic. I think here it is interesting because the perception for companies who have, we've, of course, talked to all of the companies who have talked to ARS Pharma, and it appears that some of the initial communication to potential partners were more bullish than some of the numbers. Looking at the capital markets, I think the uptake has been relatively good, in particular comparing to Narcan. I think the most recent data that we don't have access to on a regular basis also indicate that this is pointing in a good direction. That is what we would expect. I will say that in this, just between them getting approved and launched, this was basically a recurring topic in all discussions we had with potential partners. Okay, great. That's great. The final question is just on OX390. I think this is the first time you're talking about this product. I guess I don't know if you've disclosed what the active ingredient is, and maybe you can just help us appreciate how docs would recognize that a patient's taken a specific combination of illicit drugs. I'm just trying to understand why they would choose this over either the high dose or just standard Narcan. Thanks very much. We have decided so far not to disclose that many details about the program. I think it's important for the company for many reasons, also in the U.S., to show that we are pursuing some new and novel treatments, treating some of the drug combinations that are coming into the market that the healthcare and in particular first responders find difficult to address. I think the way that you would identify the patients is if you take some of the combinations we see right now, the patients do not get an effect of naloxone that you would expect. They might appear to be continuously sedated, and then you can start to suspect there could be other drugs involved in this. One way to know what it is is actually when we talk to first responders, certain combinations of drugs are well known to be very prevalent in certain areas. In some geographic areas, for example, around Philadelphia, we know that the drug psilocin is used. I think it's more than 90% of all fentanyls and others that are tested on the market or on the streets include psilocin. Therefore, you would actually assume that psilocin is part of any overdose in that geography. That's part of how you could identify. Both you have a treatment path, and I think you would always start using an opioid antagonist because that is the most life-threatening overdose. That is naloxone or nalmethane. If you do not get a sufficient effect, then you can go on and test the other ones. That, of course, comes in with some safety work that you need to ensure that there are no serious side effects of using this other rescue medication. It is a little scary to see how the patients are experimenting with different kinds of combinations, or the drug dealers are experimenting combining different drugs. That actually makes it a little helpless situation for some of the first responders that you do not really know what they've been taking. There are ways to triangulate what it could be. I know that answers your question specifically, but I think this is the thinking we have at the moment. That's great. Thanks very much, Nikolaj. Thanks. The next question comes from Klaas Peelen from Carnegie. Please go ahead. It appears like there's a connection error here. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key five on your telephone keypad. There are no more questions at this time. I hand the conference back to the speakers for any closing comments. Thanks. We have some questions that have come in here as, why do we refer to the rebate as one-off, and why should we not expect that you will have to provide a rebate or accept a lower volume going forward? It is a one-off because this is referred to a volume that was sold back under the pandemic, so 2020. The rebate that we had to pay was an extra rebate that, for some reason, was not captured by our vendor in the U.S. and our U.S. organization back in 2020. That was detected during a claims review that we did together with a new vendor during the quarter. This is a pure one-off that we have from that period. We have a question about OX640. If we don't have a partner in the near term, do we lose time because we can't continue? I will say that, yes, we are right now, we have signed contracts to upscale our manufacturing. That process is in motion, with or without a partner. I think the next critical step is basically for us to tech transfer from our pilot scale here in Uppsala to our partners that we have in Switzerland and Canada to start working on the OX640 project. We'll do that with or without a partner. I think this is basically what is supposed to happen during the next six months. I don't think a very close time is important for the partner. Where we really would like a partner in place is for the pivotal trials, which are supposed to start in the middle of next year. Of course, the financing of the activities around OX640, it would be very good to get a partner in place. I said we don't have a partner before we have a signature, and I can promise you when we have a signature on a contract, you will know about it through a press release. We have some very constructive and ongoing discussions with partners for OX640, and we're quite optimistic that this process will end up with a contract. There's a question about our shares and whether we increased our number of shares. This is just if Fredrik, if you can. Oh, good. No, that's I think he's referring to the long-term incentive program that we have changed settlement method going from cash-based to equity-based, and thereby we have issued C shares that will be conveyed into ordinary shares as that is paid out. That is dependent on how these incentive programs are successful or not for the individual. Okay. Then we have a last question that we have here is around OX640, and that's also about the timing. As I said, we are in a good constructive process with potential partners for OX640. It's something that will require time and efforts from me and most of my team during the summer. This is what we will do when hopefully we'll get some nice summer weather here the next few weeks. We will be working on due diligence and other partnering discussions. We understand that the questions by Klaas Peelen, there are some technical issues, but all of you can access his reports, which are public from Carnegie. I will recommend you to go in and read Klaas' reports, and you will see, I'm sure, both they will reflect both his questions and also the answers that we would provide to those questions. With that, I want to thank all of you for taking your time here on a busy Wednesday and hopefully also a beautiful Wednesday where you are in terms of weather. I hope that you can enjoy some time off during the summer. Thank you a lot, and have a great day. Goodbye.