Please begin. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining our third quarter analyst briefing with our CEO, Piyush, and CFO, Sok Hui. As we have just had the presentation, we can go straight to Q&A. Operator, can you just give the instructions? Thank you. Pass us the questions. Audio participants with question to pose, please press zero, one on the telephone keypad and you will placed in the queue. To cancel the queue, please press zero, two. First, we have Rob Kong from Citi Research. Your question please. Hi, this is Robert from Citi. Can you hear me? Yes, Robert, go ahead. Hi. Thank you. Thanks for all the details on the previous call. Just I'll run with two questions, if that's okay. You mentioned, Piyush, on the NIM sensitivity, one basis point is now SGD 18 million-SGD 20 million because of, obviously, the much higher CASA. Could you give us a more holistic guidance on NIM sensitivity? Because obviously, your book is obviously multi-currency. I think it's, you know, a very decent. I think Sing Dollar is probably only 40% of total loans these days. You've got US dollar, Hong Kong dollar, and all of this of course is sensitive. Can you give a more holistic guidance on what 25 basis points will do across your different books? The second question is just a bit more color on how much cost growth, you know, you're expecting. I think the cost base of this quarter is now about SGD 1.67 billion. I just wanna get a sense of, you know, what kind of growth we should be imputing into that into the coming year. Those are the two questions. Thank you. On the NIM, I would ask Sok Hui to see if she can unbundle it by currency breakdown. As you know, the bulk of our sensitivity is a large part of it obviously Sing Dollar. We are very surplus. As you also know, in recent times, Hong Kong book turned from being fixed deposit dependent to being heavily CASA dependent. Therefore, we also have positive interest rate sensitivity in the Hong Kong book, which is Hong Kong dollar and US dollar as well. It's actually quite broad-based. Why don't I leave it to Sok Hui to try and give you some more color? Yeah. The way we built the overall sensitivity is to take a blended sensitivity to sort of U.S. dollar rates. I don't have the numbers offhand. We can sort of share with you separately. I think generally, the rates are correlated to some extent. You can take the SGD 18 million-SGD 20 million, which has some modeling assumptions as well as to how much of those CASA may sort of convert to fixed deposits, et cetera. We do use kind of realistic assumptions. What I want to highlight is, in the past when we guided to SGD 14 million per basis point, it actually stretched out over a few years. This time round, as we look at our profile, we are quite certain that the bulk of the 18-20 million impact would actually crystallize largely within the first year, given the profile that we have today. I guess to translate it so that we are clear and there's no miscommunication, if we see a 100 basis point rate hike and assuming a 20 million sensitivity, we're talking about a SGD 2 billion overall increase, the bulk of which we should see in the first year. Your second question was on expense outlook for next year. I think if we can look at a mid-single digit revenue growth next year, excluding markets, assuming market goes back to normal, we can't repeat markets or rates, expenses might be a couple of percentage points above that. That's my current outlook. Maybe, Robert, just to elaborate on that, the SGD 1.67 billion is a good baseline per quarter assumption that you could start using and layer on top of that some of the increments that we will sort of still expect going into next year and some additional investments. Okay. Thank you. Just one tiny clarification. The SGD 2 billion overall increase from the 100 basis points, that's a pre-tax number, right? That's correct. That's the income line number. Okay. But the- As Sok Hui said, that already assumes some assumptions, you know, if I spend day-to-day, how much it flow through to our various books. It assumes some assumptions on the runoff in CASA. It has some assumptions on, you know, how much people might switch back to fixed deposit. We've taken some reasonably conservative assumptions in building that model. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Aakash from UBS. Your question, please. Hi. Morning. This is Aakash from UBS. Thanks for taking the question. The first one I have is just, some, you know, color on the new NPAs and the recovery that you had this quarter. The SGD 342 million and the SGD 355 million, is there anything other than the airline and the O&G recoveries that you talked about already? That's the first question. The second one is, if you can share some more, you know, insights into the economics of the digital exchange business. You know, what sort of revenue per customer or revenue per million of AUM we should expect in the steady state? And then, you know, just in general, what are the different sources of revenue on that business? Like, what are the different commission rates and, you know, how do you make money there? Then, the third question is on the digital unlocking, concept. I understand your point on transparency, but I think if you look at SCB, you know, the opportunity for unlocking is really when the customer base can be monetized right in a way which is not happening at the moment, or there's a growth constraint that can be removed by spinning off the business. Or if there's a regulatory arbitrage, which you said is not like you have in Singapore. None of these, in my mind, seem to be applicable to any of your businesses, like if you take Remit in, for example. I'm just trying to understand, is there, you know, anything else apart from transparency that will, you know, make you go down that route of spinning off? That's all three questions. Thank you. Okay. On the NPA, do you want to make a. Yeah. Maybe just to contextualize the NPA. The new NPAs, we have SGD 342 million. If I just look at the top names, you'll find that 75%, right, of the new NPA actually has got the top names almost contribute nothing to SP, because we don't expect actually to have to take losses. One of them is the national airline that Piyush mentioned earlier. The others were actually very well secured. That's to contextualize sort of the numbers that you see. The airline that you questioned is about a third of the sort of overall new NPA. I would say probably some headline increase in NPA, but not resulting in material specific provisions. Also the repayments, can you also? On the repayments, just a recovery from the oil and gas sector. You can see because our disclosures are very transparent, you see in the specific provision line on slide 11, you see that we remove specific provisions of about SGD 103 million due to settlements. The sort of repayment is almost the whole amount under settlement. It's a large settlement, or rather reduction in SP arising from the repayment of this O&G case. Well, the general, Aakash, I mean, if you're asking is there any pattern, the answer is no. The new NPAs are a little idiosyncratic. There are two or three of them which we really don't expect any losses on, as Sok Hui mentioned. She's talked about the second question, the airline and the oil and gas piece. In terms of unlocking value, actually, apart from price visibility, there is the opportunity to increase our customers. The reason for that is if you take some of the capabilities we built, and payments is one. The start, you know, the UK-based is another. There are a few other capabilities we have. If you want to start going through other intermediaries to the customer base, it's much harder to do that as DBS Bank. Because other intermediaries are a little bit more circumspect about dealing with another bank to access the customer base. If you can spin it out into an entity which is multiple party ownership, where you keep a stake, then you can start accessing much larger customer numbers. Our plan by and large in these businesses is a B2B2C idea. We will go through intermediaries, other banks, other players, and to be able to access their customer bases, it is helpful to be able to spin out and unbundle from the bank. Again, I plan it sometime in the next year to do a more detailed you know investor session to walk people through what we have, what are the businesses we think we can do this with, and how we think we can access growth. There is a belief that we can access a much bigger customer pool. Okay, understood. Sorry, I had one more question on the digital exchange business. If you could share some insights into how you're planning that. Oh, yeah. In the digital exchange, it's kind of premature, but I think the three sources of revenue for the business, but more details on, you know, what the economics are at the customer level is too premature. The economics are three things. The principal one is obviously the trading, the crypto coin trading, where we obviously like every other exchange, you make a bid-ask spread on the trading. The second source of revenue is custody. We keep a custody fee as part of custody, which is actually not different from the rest of the custody business we do with all the other assets that we have. That's actually looking quite promising because there's not just reliance on end customer investors. Other exchanges are seeking us out for our digital custody capabilities, and that's part of this ecosystem. The third part of the revenue stream is on the origination and tokenization business. We've done one fixed income. There's only for the proof case. There wasn't the material. We're going to do another property tokenization in the next few weeks. As you go forward, we do think that tokenizing and origination of different kinds of asset classes will be the third income and revenue source. Like I said, more detail for customers, analytics, et cetera, we probably have to wait some time. Okay. Got it. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. Next, we have Jayden from Macquarie. Your question, please. Hi, it's Jayden from Macquarie. I just wanted to get a bit more color on the provision release. First of all, can I confirm that the surplus provisions have declined from about SGD 800 million to about SGD 600 million? And then secondly, what are the sort of variables that you're looking at that has allowed, you know, a release this quarter? And what would you be looking at going into next year? Well, again, I'm gonna ask Sok Hui to comment on it. Actually our overlays that we have on top of our models are well north of that. You know, we should remember that one of the things we can do since we've taken all our provisions through P&L, we could actually release substantial amount of provision. If the MAS's had a requirement, you could always make it up to RL&AR, which is what our two local competitors do. They have RL&AR. We have zero RL&AR. All our provisions are through the P&L line, and therefore we do have the capacity to release a lot more than other people do. Does Sok Hui want to comment? Yeah, I'll just make a few points. First is that in 2020, we built up SGD 1.7 billion in general allowances. Obviously some of that, in the course of this year, SGD 0.4 billion has actually been released. But the overlay portion that we have over and above our models that we use for the baseline is actually quite substantial. Your next question is, we therefore, when we compare with our peer banks, we have actually set aside a lot more provisions in 2020, and therefore we're in a better position to consider the release of general provisions. You asked what are the variables that we'll consider. We have prepared a kind of a release framework that takes into account a few factors. We'll be monitoring when the government relief efforts, the moratoriums start to roll off. We'll be looking at delinquency trends post that. The earliest we will sort of be looking at potentially a release would be first quarter next year. The other variable, because the moratoriums will start to roll off by end of this year, although a number of other countries will take time to roll off in mid-2022, and we'll monitor by country. The other thing that we are monitoring is the opening up, looking at sort of cross-border and sort of passenger traffic. The third thing that we are monitoring is something called a stringency index. How stringent are countries in sort of enforcing sort of restrictions and closures. It's prepared by Oxford Economics. It's published for every country, and it looks into many dimensions of workplace closure, school closure, transport, et cetera, et cetera. Based on many indicators we track for each country, Singapore at September was about 47%. Hong Kong and China would be higher. On a weighted basis, for all our countries, we're about 54% at this point. We'll continue to track, and if the trend continues to improve, then we will be in a better position to frame a response to how much we want to release in general provisions. Your third question was around the number for the MAS buffer. Last quarter we said SGD 800 million, this quarter we said SGD 600 million. You have to remember that the MAS 1% GP requirement is really a capital construct. It just wants to make sure that there is sufficient buffer, and that decline really reflects our loan growth. If the loan growth has happened during the quarter, then it eats into this particular buffer. We are not constrained by that because anything up to that SGD 600 million, we actually will see an increase in CET1, as you would expect, as these general provisions translate into bottom line earnings. If we write back more than SGD 600 million, frankly, our capital impact will be neutral. Right? To repeat, up to SGD 600 million, we see an increase in CET1. Beyond SGD 600 million, we actually see a neutral impact to CET1 because of what we already set aside in terms of general allowances. That's just to contextualize the numbers that we have given out. That's really helpful, Sok Hui. Can I just clarify what's the total overlay that you're still holding at this stage? Just to get the full number. The points that you raised are very helpful to context. We have a few types of overlay, but the one that's most directly linked to the COVID situation in total is about SGD 1.3 billion, and we include all sorts of data points, including, you know, unrest and all that. It doesn't mean that we're gonna sort of release the entire SGD 1.3 billion just to context it again. Okay. Thank you so much for taking my questions. I appreciate it. Thank you. Next, we have Weldon from HSBC. Your question please. Hi. Thanks for taking the question and presentation. Just two questions. The first one is on the unlocking thing. I guess the other thing that SCB did was to move some of its consumer businesses separately as well. Can I clarify if this innovation is specifically for just the digital platform businesses, or will you also consider moving some of the consumer businesses? The second question is on retail wealth. Can I just understand the split in AUM for the mass retail wealth versus private wealth? Can you talk about the sort of strategies between these? Thanks. Yeah, in terms of what is unlocked, I think Aakash's original question is a great question. You would, you could unlock and unbundle businesses, based on one, what incremental value would you create by unlocking that business or unbundling that business? And second, by how much it is integrated into your core banking, both in terms of licensing requirements and other requirements. As an example, a deposit franchise or a deposit-linked business is much harder to disintegrate, because of depositor protection rules and et cetera, et cetera. Asset-led businesses tend to be easier to do that with. If you looked at a consumer finance franchise or you looked at one of those things, it'd be much easier to transfer how you could unbundle one of these. Yes, when you look at, so we show that dotted line showing other businesses from the bank could move out. That could include different businesses like the ones that we mentioned. It's, again, premature to talk about any specific business right now. Your second question in terms of retail, when you look at our total AUM of about SGD 280 billion, what is classically comparable to what the other private banks look at private banking is, if I remember, about SGD 210 billion of that. So the balance, SGD 75 billion, is really related to more a mass affluent strategy now. That includes mass wealth, but also a little bit of mass affluence. I don't have the split between those two. The real mass part of that, which is the retail small ticket regular spending, digital portfolios, that's been growing very nicely. Even in this year, our actual new money that's come into that component, the real retail part of it, has actually been very good. It's much smaller. The mass affluent is the bigger part of the other SGD 75 billion. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next we have Nick from Morgan Stanley. Your question please. Hi. Thanks very much, and thanks for taking the question. A couple of questions from me. First of all, I'm just trying to get my head around fees. I mean, obviously it's been a very strong performance now for this year, and you're indicating a double-digit growth next year as well. I guess historically, if I look at fee growth, we've seen something in the region of 5%-10% fee growth. Obviously you've spoken the meeting before about a lot of sort of things that are happening in terms of driving that, like the digitalization of customers and investment in wealth. So I'm just trying to get an idea. I mean, are we seeing double-digit fee growth at the moment, partly helped by cyclicality and the low rates environments and all that stuff? Do you now think we've moved into an area where just the changes you've made in the business can drive double-digit fee growth consistently over the medium term? I'm interested in sort of your views on that. Secondly, I just wonder if you could give us a bit more detail about the China consumer business, sort of how you're originating loans, what the size of that book is, what your ambitions are there. Yeah. Nick, on the fee thing, I think there's a secular change in the nature of our ability to be able to generate fees. Now, how much of the double digit is secular, how much is cyclical? I'm not 100% sure myself. I think without a doubt we've seen some meaningful pickup in the secular part of that. You know, whether it gets to consistently double digit or whether it winds up at eight, nine percent, not entirely sure yet. The volume, remember fee is a function of what volumes come through and, you know, can you charge for them? Now we've not changed the rates of fees, so the bulk of our fees comes from volume growth. That's been broad-based. Our volume growth for payments, for example, because of the digital and the API linkages we made, has been very material over the last 18, 24 months. Similarly on trade finance, we've plugged into so many of these platforms and we've plugged into so many supply chains, anchor-driven supply chains. The volumes we're getting on that are quite material. On the payment space that I talked about earlier, our payment volumes are continuing to increase substantially, both in the corporate cross-border payments as well as the retail cross-border payments. All of this is volume driven, by and large. Cards this year of course has been an opening up story. I think that will continue next year. Beyond that, cards might be cyclical. You know, once you get to a steady state level where the card fees continue to grow at the rate they're growing now, maybe not. Then investment banking. We are an investment banking franchise. See, the size is not big compared to bulge bracket. For us on a year-on-year basis, it can be actually quite material. Therefore that continues to do quite well. The long answer to your question. I think there's a secular shift in our fee income generation capability over time. Your second question on the consumer finance business in China. We're actually not originating directly. We're originating through partnerships. One of the things that is advantageous to us right now is some of the changes in the regulations in China in recent times means that a lot of, you know, people who are providing consumer finance are now more limited. There are very few people who have a nationwide license to be able to do consumer finance. We are one of them. We continue to tie up partnerships with various other origination platforms. We use our own underwriting mechanisms. We use our own tools on top of what they use. We get access to our customers, so we build the customer relationship as well, but we originate through partnership platforms. Well, two questions I guess. What sort of partners do you have? Will you think of doing something like buy now, pay later in China? Well, we have a whole range. I'm trying to remember whether this is our partnership, this thing is in the public domain. For example, we have a partnership with Sea Finch. We are doing a lot of origination from them. We're also talking to several other potential partners where we just started our activity with more partners of that nature. When we do this, we have the opportunity to originate on the micro SME or on the consumer side, you know. We have a choice of what we want to do. So far we've been focused on the consumer end of that, but it's been very specifically transaction linked and based on our algorithmic underwriting models. Now, whether you call that buy now, pay later or give it some other name is less relevant to me. The question is, can you use the data and the transaction flow to do sensible credit underwriting as you put the loan on your book? Okay. What size is the business at the moment? Is there somebody who remember the asset book on the. Sanjeev? I'll get back to you. Okay. Thanks very much. Thanks for your answers. Thank you. Next we have Melissa from Goldman Sachs. Your question, please. Hi there. Thanks for taking my question. Just a few questions as well. Maybe just firstly in terms of your GPs, some of your peers or both of your peers talked a little bit about keeping a little bit more for the next cycle. What are your thoughts on this? Because I think earlier you mentioned that maybe credit costs or provisions can come around about SGD 100 million next year. Secondly, in terms of Indonesia, how is the digibank doing, and how do you see competition, you know, a lot of banks are also into this digital banking space. Lastly, just some housekeeping questions. In terms of the margins sensitivity you mentioned earlier, you mentioned 100 basis points rate hike is about SGD 2 billion overall increase. Is it 100 bps NIM increase or is it 100 bps rate hike? Just wanted to confirm that. Lastly, just on this innovations risk-weighted assets, do they actually impact your risk-weighted assets and by how much is it impacting, if there is any? Thank you. Sorry, where's the last? RWA. Yeah. Okay, Melissa, so on that, general provision as Sok Hui said, we've built a lot of overlays and buffers, and like our competitor, we certainly don't plan to release all of them. We think it's prudent to be adequately provided for the future. I think that two or three things you should take away. One, our portfolio is in very good shape, and particularly in terms of our moratorium book, it's much, much smaller than our competitors. We're down to about 0.5% of loans on the moratorium. We don't have anything in Malaysia, Indonesia, and you know, ASEAN countries, et cetera. Our position in that sense is a little bit different. Second, as Sok Hui just explained, we've taken all of our general provisions through the P&L. We're not allocating any capital to RLE or even now, whereas our competitors do allocate capital from RLE because they don't have adequate to meet that 1% requirement. Our position is quite different. Nevertheless, in terms of approach, we have the same approach. We will be prudent in terms of releases, and we will try and keep as much cushion as we need for the next cycle. On digibank, Indonesia, our actual core business as you know we've pivoted, we do better quality customers, better range of customers. That business is doing well. Frankly, we see a lot of digital competition that is there and not there. A lot of people are making announcements for what they want to do. Many of them are not yet in the market in any material way in terms of scaling up their activity. Our customer journeys are quite good. Our entity recourse quite good. We've also deliberately been slow because of the environment. We've not wanted to push the asset book in Indonesia in the last 12 months because, you know, our secured lending in Indonesia in these times is not a smart thing to do. So we've also been deliberately a little bit slow on the asset side of the balance sheet. On the question around the SGD 2 billion, that's rate hike. As we pointed out, we've already calculated what the rate hike means in terms of our NIMs, etc. That's functional rate hikes directly. Your last question was something about RWA data. I didn't follow it. Did somebody follow the question? Innovation RWA impact on Our innovation has almost no RWA right now. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Nicholas from Credit Suisse. Your question please. Yep. I just wanted to clarify one thing. In terms of your high quality liquid assets with MAS, just want to check that these are yielding about 50 basis points and how big is that portfolio? Yeah, I think it's about that, between 50 and 55 bps depending on the day of the week. That portfolio ranges between SGD 25 billion and SGD 30 billion. Okay. I guess beyond that, when you're looking at that SGD 2 billion sensitivity on your NIM, does it assume any increase in LDRs or we should just take it as that's the existing balance sheet at the moment? If you do switch out some of these high quality liquid assets to loans, there's a bit more upside from there. Yes. In fact, I assume the constant balance sheet. Yes, there is more upside if we can grow the loan book. That's correct. Okay, cool. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Next, we have Harsh from JP Morgan. Your question please. Hi. Thanks, Piyush. A few questions. First is just to understand and rather clarify the comment that negative jaws will narrow. Does it mean that 2022 we still get negative jaws or that was not the intention? Yes, that was the intention, that you will still get negative jaws with a couple of assumptions I've baked in. One is that treasury trading business reverts to normal. You know, in a normal year, our treasury trading business is somewhere around SGD 1 billion in revenue. This year it'll be close to SGD 1.4 billion-SGD 1.5 billion. I cannot assume that I will continue to see SGD 1.4 billion-SGD 1.5 billion in trading. I assume it'll go back to normal, right? That's one. The second, I assume that there'll be no interest rate hike next year. If both those things happen, I give up some revenues on trading. I don't get rate hikes, and I want to make the investments that I spoke about, then we could get a couple of percentage points of negative jaws. On the other hand, if the markets are kinder or the rates come in, then we won't have negative jaws. Okay. This is at the current curve expectation where street is factoring in about, let's say, 2-2.5 rate hikes in back half of 2022. Correct. We've not factored them in as well. We've not factored that in. Okay. Yes. Okay, thanks. The second one is on the capital unlock or broader this thing. Is that to relieve more capital or is it that some of the businesses are probably the kind of scale they need, the kind of operating environment they need is much better outside the bank rather than inside the bank. Is there a business imperative to kind of unlock these businesses or is it purely to release capital? Actually, Harsh, it's nothing to do with releasing capital. We have enough capital, as you know. The amount of capital the business will need, I could allocate it from the bank. It is for two reasons, and I discussed this earlier. One, in some of the businesses, if you want to get customer growth, right, there's only two ways to get growth. Our customer base is limited. If you add all the customers DBS has today, that's about 10 million customers, right? If you want to add more customers, either you go B2C, which means you try and take this business and go direct to market. Now, that requires a lot of acquisition costs and a lot of burn. Given the fact we're a publicly listed company, unlike many of the people privately funded, there's a finite limit on how much you're willing to burn to just acquire consumer customers. The alternative is to actually do a B2B2C model, to go through intermediaries who value the capabilities we have and are quite happy to offer those capabilities to their customers instead. To access that kind of counterparty and partners, it's much better not to be embedded inside of DBS Bank and much better to be a separate standalone entity, which can then actually create different kinds of partnerships with different kinds of people. There is a business imperative that drives the capacity to scale some of our capabilities. Second is not a capital but a visibility imperative. As I pointed out before, that one of my frustrations over the years has been that I have exactly the same businesses as some of the people have outside. When it's caught inside the bank, we don't, you know, get the same, appreciation for the business. The hope is that if I can demonstrate that we have, superior capabilities, that we have a pathway to grow, then we start getting more, visibility or, you know, so if we can raise capital, I would raise capital not because I'm short of capital. I would raise capital to demonstrate the value of the business. Got it. Just on that point. Harsh, maybe just to say it's not unlocking capital, but unlocking valuation. That's probably the better frame to think about it. Couple others. If you are able to close some of the Citi assets that you're looking at, then great. If not, is there a reasonable commitment to go quickly to 13% CET1 ASAP or not really? Yes. Even if we get some of the Citi assets, we will still have to raise capital because we still go reasonably quickly to that middle of the range. Yes. That is the plan. Great. The last one, very interesting. DBS kind of became the only bank in the governing council of Hedera Hashgraph. Now, this is quite cutting edge in terms of sort of blockchain. What does it bring to you as a bank? Is it just one of the many moon shots? Like, how does it, how are you benefiting from it? As in, I'm just trying to think, are you looking at becoming much bigger player in the DeFi space or where does it just lead? Thanks. Well, Harsh, actually it's very right. I looked at Hedera Hashgraph. I started looking at that two to three years ago when they first came to me and the Hedera Foundation. See, one of the challenges with the crypto space and Bitcoin in particular is it's very hard to scale that for mass retail or for other smart contracts. Just because the mining capacity you need and the latency you need in each transaction are extraordinarily high. If you want to use blockchain to make a payment of $5 and the whole cost of doing a settlement and the number of hours you need is too long, it doesn't work. Over time, we're going to have to find alternative ways and better protocols to be able to do that, not just, you know, the current method. Proof of stake, proof of ownership, different kinds of algorithms that could be occurring. Ethereum is doing one, a whole lot going on. I think the Hedera Foundation is another very viable way that we could do this. This goes back to a question Goolam asked in the media session. What's your view on DeFi? The fact is I'm not entirely clear what the long-term prospects of DeFi are for banks like us, so we're going to have to adapt and be humble. Certainly being in the flow, knowing, you know, what are the protocols we can use, how do we actually drive the creation of some of the protocols, how do we create the smart contracts? I think that can be hugely beneficial. One of the reasons we're trying to drive the Partior network with J.P. Morgan is exactly that. I think that the settlement system is ripe for change. Partior can do that. Partior also serves as a way to allow CBDCs, domestic CBDCs to settle cross-border. It requires a protocol and understanding and having a foot in the door. The Hashgraph and the Hedera Foundation are the same thing. To get a foot in the door, be part of the conversation, and be able to learn and influence some of that. Right. Right. Got it. Thanks a lot, Piyush. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.