Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Gold Resource Corporation's Second Quarter 2021 Conference Call. At this time, as a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. After the prepared remarks, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. I would now like to turn the conference call over to Ann Wilkinson, Vice President, Investor Relations and Corporate Affairs. Please go ahead. Thank you, Holly, and good morning, everyone. On behalf of the Gold Resource team, I would like to welcome everyone to our Second Quarter 2021 Results Conference Call. Before we begin the call, there are certain housekeeping matters I would like to cover. Please note that certain statements to be made today by the management team are forward-looking in nature and, as such, are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties as described in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q and other SEC filings. On the call today, we have Allen Palmiere, President and Chief Executive Officer; Kim Perry, Chief Financial Officer; and Alberto Reyes, Chief Operating Officer. Following Allen and Kim's prepared remarks, all three will be available to answer your questions. This conference call is being webcast. For those of you joining us on the webcast, you can download a PDF copy of the conference call slides from the Materials tab under the Ask a Question tab. The event will also be available for replay on our website later today. Yesterday's news release, issued following the close of the market, and the accompanying financial statements and MD&A contained in our 10-Q have been filed with the SEC on EDGAR and are available on our website at www.goldresourcecorp.com. Also, please note that all amounts mentioned in this call are in US dollars unless otherwise stated. I will now turn the call over to Allen. Thank you, Ann, and good morning, everyone. I would like to thank the participants for taking the time to join us and to welcome Alberto Reyes, our new Chief Operating Officer, to the call. Following my opening remarks, Kim Perry, our Chief Financial Officer, will describe our financial results. I will then provide you with a picture of our plans for the balance of 2021 and a few closing remarks, and then we will be able to take your questions. Before discussing the operating results, I want to note that our operations team continues to demonstrate their ability to be nimble and adaptive operators, all while focusing on excellent environmental, social, and governance practices. Notwithstanding an excellent work culture, there were two lost-time incidents at the Don David Gold Mine during the second quarter. While these incidents did not result in serious injury, measures are ongoing to reinforce adherence to safety protocols and to strengthen the safety culture. Accordingly, a series of programs are underway to improve the overall culture of safety. Turning to our infrastructure projects, we made significant construction progress on our filtration plant and dry stack tailings project, which is targeted for completion in Q3. As we've noted, the dry stack tailings will accelerate reclamation of certain areas of the open-pit mine, provide efficient storage of tailings, and, importantly, reduce water consumption, as approximately 80% of the processed water will be recycled and available for use. During the quarter, we completed 156 meters of underground development on the northern and southern exploration drifts. From these exploration drifts, we completed over 3,400 meters of diamond drilling in 12 drill holes. Surface drilling on the Gila project is ongoing, with 2,069 meters of diamond drilling in two holes. Exploration activities were focused on the Switchback vein system, which extends for over a kilometer of strike length and remains open both along strike and down dip, as well as parallel structures to this system, most notably the Sandy vein system, which is located between the Switchback and Arista systems. Exploration drilling mainly targeted expansion and delineation of the principal Soledad vein to define additional resources, as well as step-up drilling on the parallel Sandy system of veins for resource expansion. Drilling is also targeting strike extensions of the Arista system beyond the current mine plant. We have also renewed our focus on near-mine exploration with surface geological mapping and rock chip sampling in the Cerro Colorado area, notably in the vicinity of Aquila Open Pit, and as well the surrounding area, with additional drilling planned for these areas in the second half of 2021. Turning to the second quarter operating results, I'm pleased to report that Gold Resource sold approximately 5,700 ounces of gold, 270,000 ounces of silver, 365 tons of copper, 1,200 tons of lead, and 3,200 tons of zinc. During the second quarter, we processed ore at an average rate of 1,500 tons per day, compared to 1,950 per day in 2020. While it was lower quarter over quarter, it was consistent with our mine plan for the year. The PACE plant continues to provide substantial efficiencies by the returning of processing waste to underground workings as backfill. During the second quarter, we processed ore with average gold and silver grades 10% and 11% higher, respectively, than the same period last year. Overall, base metal grades were lower during the three months ended June 30, 2021, as a result of a change in the mine plan necessitated by challenging ground conditions encountered in the first quarter. We are happy that these challenges have been overcome, and our mine plan is back on track. With that, I will turn the call over to Kim to discuss our financial results. Thank you, Allen, and good morning, everyone. We closed the quarter with a strong balance sheet consisting of just over $30.5 million cash and no debt. Cash from operating activities was $9.3 million for the quarter, and working capital from continuing operations was nearly $32.6 million at June 30, 2021. For the second quarter, we reported net income of $1.3 million. Net income is a result of just over $30.8 million in revenue. Net revenues reflect a 12% decrease in concentrate treatment charges, which are netted against concentrate sales. These treatment charges for the three months ended June 30 were $2.9 million or $609 per base metal ton sold, compared to $3.3 million or $864 per base metal ton sold for the same period 2020. This decrease is largely dependent on the spot treatment charge market for zinc, which can be volatile. Total production costs of $19.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2021, were 84% higher than the production costs of $10.6 million for the same period 2020. This increase is primarily related to the increase in production volumes. Additionally, there was a $1.2 million impact related to the Mexican labor law reform. Finally, during the three months ended June 30, 2021, we were impacted by a 13% price increase in consumables used in the operations and a 5% increase in the volume of diesel consumed. The increased diesel consumed relates to increased power consumption, primarily from the diesel generators for the filtration plants and underground ventilation. The Don David Gold Mine total cash cost was $713 per ounce, and the total all-in sustaining cash costs were $1,280. This is after co-product credits. We expect these costs to significantly lower in the second half of 2021 and maintain our full-year guidance of total cash costs of between $210 and $225 per gold equivalent ounce and total all-in sustaining costs between $800 and $900 per gold equivalent ounce. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Allen. Thank you, Kim. Management continues to focus on unlocking the value of the mine, existing infrastructure, and our large property position, and providing growth to our shareholders. Accordingly, we invested $11.2 million in infrastructure and exploration in the Don David Gold Mine. In our process plan, we completed metallurgical testing and initiated design and engineering of a tailings regrind circuit, including procuring certain parts and equipment. The project, unfortunately, has been delayed due to longer lead times than expected, and this project is now expected to be complete in early 2022. The new circuit is expected to increase gold recovery by between 6% and 10%. Please note it is unlikely that the full amount of $9.8 million for underground development will be spent in 2021 as a result of the mine sequence changes made during the first half of the year. In closing, we remain on track for full-year guidance, with the exception of development capital, as previously discussed, as we expect to see improvements in grades in the second half of the year. We have already seen encouraging and affirming results in July as we are back in the Soledad vein. With the expected second-half results, we are well-positioned to have more than $50 million in cash by the end of the year and a free cash flow yield greater than 15%. This, along with our dividend yield, substantially outperforms our peers. I also want to repeat Kim's comment that the company has a strong balance sheet, which provides us with flexibility for growth and exceptional returns for shareholders. Thank you all for taking your time to listen in. This concludes our prepared remarks. I'll now turn the call back over to the operator for any questions that may arise. Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is now open for questions. If you have any questions or comments, please press star one on your phone at this time. We ask that while posing your question, you please pick up your handset if listening on speakerphone to provide optimum sound quality. Please hold while we poll for questions. Your first question for today is coming from Heiko Ihle. Please announce your affiliation, then pose your question. Are you there, Heiko? I can hear you fine. I can hear you now. Excellent. Excellent. Perfect. Thank you, guys, for taking my questions. I'm not sure it just transpired there. I just want to point out that the company now has a bigger yield than the S&P 500, so clearly some optionality here. You stated in the release that you have started some profit-sharing with your employees, though there aren't really any details in the release. Just a couple of things I'm just trying to clarify. What factors are people ranked on? Is it safety? Is it production? Is there anything else? Hi, Heiko. It's Kim. That's actually an excellent question, and there's actually very little guidance out regarding what factors companies will be able to incorporate. There's a lot of legislation going on right now and discussion with the legislation regarding what that will look like. Right now, we are taking the basis that it's 10% of net income. We are maybe taking a bit more of a conservative approach. We know it won't exceed that. Obviously, we'll reward employees if it's appropriate to go higher than that. At this point, that's the approach we're taking, the assumption we're taking, and the path we're following to determine those factors. You already answered one of my next questions, which was, how much is it going to be? When does the whole thing start? Also, can we trendline the same 10% figure, whatever it might come in this year, into next year as well, please? Yeah, Heiko. I think that that's a fair assumption too. We did take the assumption based on a full-year impact. So the $1.2 million for profit-sharing was calculated from January through June, and unless there are any other changes in the legislation, that should continue into the future. Got it. Okay. Very good. Just one little clarification at the end here. You came in at $1,280 for all sustaining costs for each year. Walk us through, I mean, as detailed as you can in this setting, if you could. What do you expect to see for the remainder of the year there in factors that may sway this figure either direction, especially given all the capital improvements that are being undertaken at site, please? Heiko, the reason that our all-in sustaining was higher than originally projected was the fact that during Q2, we were mining in alternative mining zones. You'll recall in late Q1, we had some ground control issues, and that necessitated a change in plan. The result of that, we were in lower-grade areas, and our byproduct credits suffered. We are now back on track with our original mine plan in the original areas that we had anticipated. The result of that is our base metal credits, our byproduct credits, are going to increase significantly in the second half and bring our all-in sustaining and our cash costs back in line with our guidance. It was a timing issue necessitated by the ground control issues we had earlier in the year. Makes sense. Wonderful. That's it on my end. I'll hop back with you. Thank you very much. Thanks, Heiko. Holly. I think the next person in line is Ron Aubrey. Can you add him in? Yes. This is Ron here. Can you hear me okay? Ron, your line is live. Thank you. Allen, it's good to talk to you again, and thank you for taking my questions. It's good to hear from you, Ron. The company reached peak production last fall, so this is the third quarter in a row of sequential decline. It is obvious that you inherited a challenge in the midst of completely rebuilding your management team. I'm comforted to hear that the Q1 ground conditions are now resolved and behind you. I'm trying to get a sense of when you get back to your production growth again, including grade improvements. Can you just maybe take a step back and summarize some of the mining challenges and your plans to address them going forward? Okay, Ron. The plan for this year has and always has been to reduce our production rate down to 1,500 tons a day. Now, last year, we were running directionally at 1,980. The way that the company was able to sustain that level of production was to focus solely on the Soledad structure in Switchback. It's very wide width. It's a long-hole. It's almost bulk mining underground. So the volumes were relatively easy to sustain. However, if you focus exclusively on that, you miss opportunities for taking advantage of some of the narrow, very high-grade veins in the Arista system in particular. We made a very conscious decision to reduce our volume and to refocus on some of the high-grade veins in Arista. You're going to be seeing increased grades in the second half of this year coming from two areas: Soledad over in Switchback and the Candelaria and other veins in Arista. It was a conscious decision because when you're mining in narrow veins, your productivity is, by definition, lower. You just cannot move material as fast. However, the grades are good. The mine dictates what your level of production should be. I am not going to suggest to you that we will be on an ever-increasing production rate. Geology dictates what you can get. What I can tell you is our focus is to maximize what is available to us by the dictates of geology and to operate in the most efficient manner possible. Now, part and parcel with that is programs that we have initiated in the past several weeks to effectively go in, strip down, analyze, and rebuild all of our systems within the mine, whether it's geology, whether it's operations, maintenance, processing. We are going in, looking at them from an efficiency and a governance. When I say governance, it's not corporate governance per se, but it's operational governance from a governance perspective. While this work is just beginning, I believe that relatively soon, potentially as soon as Q4, you're going to start seeing increased profitability for those tons that we are able to mine from the underground. Does that address your question, Ron? Yes, it does. I appreciate that c olor. Thank you. I just wanted to just follow on. I appreciate that you're sticking to your guidance for cash costs and all-in sustaining costs, certainly after byproduct credits. Could you maybe then just take a step back and give us an updated outlook on just production, specifically silver and zinc, which I think has been below expectations so far? It is implying that you're playing catch-up there. Can you give us maybe some color as to how confident you'll be, for example, meeting your 1.7, 1.8 million ounces of silver and 21,000 tons of zinc? Ron, as I've already discussed, we ended up mining in lower-grade areas of the mine, in particular in Q2, but also a good portion of Q1. We will not be able to get completely caught up in zinc and silver tonnage. However, the run rate that you will see for the second half of the year will exceed what we had originally planned. We are playing catch-up to a certain extent, but the reality is we will never be able to completely recover it. The way that we're going to be hitting our targets, to be quite honest, is the fact that we've still got very strong commodity prices. That, on one hand, I hate to take credit for something that I have no control over, but a rising tide floats all boats. We are back on track in terms of our production profile, but it is not something that we can recover from completely this year, Ron. I know that's fine, but at least directionally, it appears that the worst is behind us, and now we're back on a path to get to where you certainly would like to be. That's good enough for me. Thank you. I'll get back and let others ask some questions. Okay. Thanks, Ron. We are back on track. Holly, James Totten is up next. Can you please make his line live? James, your line is live. Good morning, Allen, Ann and Kim. Congrats on the team's results on the quarterly cash flow yield. I think most of my questions on the pertinent stuff were answered. I just have some clarification points I wanted to ask. The first was probably to Kim. The $1.9 million that was spent on onboarding of the third-party employees that was occurring in Q2, will any of that continue on and lead into Q3 or beyond, or is that one-time charge done for the last quarter? Yeah, James, thank you for that question. First of all, I want to clarify that the total $1.9 million was not a cash impact during the quarter. It is $1.2 million related to the profit-sharing that will continue, and that's been reflected in short-term liabilities and will be paid in 2022. The other $700,000 that you've seen is actually sitting in our long-term liabilities and relates to severance payments that if an employee is terminated, you're obligated to pay under Mexican law. We did honor tenure by substituting our employees from the third party into our company. We felt it was appropriate to record that liability so that those seniority payments would be paid upon termination should there be attrition. That $700,000, really, James, is probably more of a one-time blip. There will be occasional adjustments to that for price increases if there's changes in employee headcount, inflation, etc., but it will be rather minimal. Right. The next question, I guess, is for Allen. In terms of the reduction in the budget for the underground mine development, what led to that reduction, and what impact will that have on operations going forward, if any? It wasn't a reduction in budget. What it was is we had underperformed our plan. The reason for that, James, is you'll recall we did suffer some ground control issues late Q1. That necessitated new development that was not in the plan to get back into the Soledad vein. We have done that, but by doing that, we were unable to maintain our development rate as originally planned. Effectively, we diverted scarce resources to maintain our production profile at the expense of the longer-term development. Will it have an impact? Yes. Do I expect it to be something that you will see in the financial statements? No. We do have scarce resources in terms of development. We've got limited development teams. We've got limited development equipment. We are placing a great deal of emphasis on our exploration development. At the same time, we need to recoup the lost meterage that we suffered because of the ground control issues. In a mine like this, typically, you want about a year of developed workings ahead of you. Today, we do not have that. We are going to be making a huge push over the remainder of this year and most of next year to get back on track. I do not expect it to impact our operating results. It is certainly going to impact the schedule of the guys at the mine, but I do not think it will surface to the point of the financial statements. Okay. That's good news. In terms of the renewed emphasis on the satellite areas such as Cerro Colorado and the area surrounding the Aguila Park project, should we expect any increase in the original exploration budget above the $7.2 million that was allocated? Also, can you give us any preview of the results to date on the drilling programs, either for delineation and expansion, and its potential impact on the resource estimates? It's premature for me to be able to address the latter at this point. However, what we are doing is placing a great deal of emphasis on in-mine and near-mine exploration. Those areas that you've just mentioned are all near-mine exploration. What we're trying to do is build up our resource and then subsequently our reserves to take away the perception in the marketplace that we're a short-lived asset. That is really the thrust. We can go and focus on greenfields exploration miles away, but that does not move the dial in terms of resource growth. We really do, I believe, need to be able to demonstrate increased resources just to put some investors at ease. Some investors do not understand that a mine of this type typically only has anywhere from three to five years ahead of it at any point in time. Exploration is difficult, mostly because it's primarily done underground. Driving exploration drifts is slow and time-consuming. It's difficult to get a big resource ahead of us. That being said, that is our focus right now, both in terms of exploration drilling and infill drilling to upgrade mineralized material up into the proven and probable categories. Does that answer your question? It does, Allen, and that's fine. There are two last questions I have, if time permits. One was for Kim. You had mentioned, Kim, that there was an increase on the consumable prices as well as the volume of diesel. Is that something we should be considering an ongoing increase for future quarters, or is that a temporary one-time charge? I'm going to take part of that question, James. Right now, you're seeing increased costs for diesel for one primary reason. That is we have been, for this past quarter, running two of our gensets to supplement the grid power from Mexican authorities. We are anticipating that we will be getting an additional allocation of power from the grid beginning in September, which will hopefully eliminate that bump in diesel consumption, and you'll see that one decrease. There are, in fact, and everybody knows it, whether the Fed or anybody else is willing to admit it, there is, in fact, inflation. We are seeing the impact of it. Is it significant? It doesn't move the dial dramatically. Is it going to continue? Your guess is as good as mine. Personally, I think it will. Typically, what happens in that environment is your inputs increase because of rising commodity prices, so does your revenue. That may be overly optimistic. I accept, but that's really what I think will happen. Sure. That is something I'm hoping for in some ways. I guess the last question was something I've heard with some of my readership, which is concerns or questions about the large increase in the potential issuance of new shares outstanding and the growth in the balance sheet. On a prior call, Allen, you had mentioned that the company is looking and targeting potential acquisition opportunities. Do you have any further color on how that's progressing with any prospects, or are you still anticipating that's going to be a 2022 timeframe? James, I don't have a timeline. Let me back up and address the first part of that question first, and then I'll come back and talk about targets. The increase in authorized capital was a significant increase. However, one of the things that has to be understood is we have a shelf prospectus for the ATM on file with the SEC. If we were to just issue the shares contemplated in that shelf prospectus, we would have exceeded our authorized capital. It was too tight to appropriately manage the capital structure of the company. As a result, we felt it prudent just to increase flexibility. Yes, if we identify a target that is appropriate, yes, we would consider using our stock to acquire it, but only in the situation where the transaction is accretive on almost every metric. We are not going to go and issue a bunch of stock and dilute the per-share net asset value attributable to our shareholders. That will not happen. We will not go and issue a bunch of shares and dilute our cash flow attributable to our shareholders. That's not going to happen. Now, by imposing the discipline of ensuring that any transaction we contemplate is accretive, it reduces the universe of possible acquisitions. Historically, the mining industry—I am a bit embarrassed to say this because I have been in the mining industry for a very long period of time—historically, the mining industry has been very undisciplined when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. The industry is littered with the carcasses of bad deals because people have overpaid, and they have not paid attention to fundamentals of M&A. You do not do it unless it makes sense. You don't do it unless it's going to create value, and you certainly don't do it just to get bigger. Unfortunately, the latter factor seems to be the motivating factor for a lot of M&A. That is not what we're doing. Having said all that, that's what makes it difficult for me to give you a timeline on any potential activities for the company. I'm looking all the time. Just by being in this seat, opportunities present themselves on a continual basis. I will tell you, in particular in the pure gold sector, it is very, very, very difficult to find a transaction that makes sense. You will see late development stage projects selling for 50-70% of NAV. If you sit back and think about it, that doesn't leave a hell of a lot on the table for a purchaser. The only way that anybody could ever do that is they have to make the assumption that gold is going to go to $2,000 or $2,200, then it makes sense. If gold goes back to $1,400, there is another carcass on the side of the road. That is not something that I am prepared to do. Do I want to grow the company? Yes, I do. Am I willing to risk the company by making an undisciplined and inappropriate transaction? No, I am not. I cannot give you timing, James. I wish I could, but this whole initiative is, by definition, opportunistic. If it happens, it happens when it happens. No, that's fair, Allen. I appreciate the color, especially on the ATM as well as the metrics you might be looking at. I think that's all for my questions. I'll jump back in queue and wish you guys the best for the next quarter. Thank you very much. I look forward to talking to you soon. Your next question is coming from John Bair. Please announce your affiliation, then pose your question. Thank you. With Ascend Wealth Advisors, thanks for taking my questions. A number of them have been addressed here. I do want to go back to the onboarding aspect. I guess, would it be fair to say that the requirements that you've had to address are across the board for other, or not across the board, energy mineral—I'm sorry. My brain is in a different spot. No, other mineral companies, other exploration. Yeah. Let me answer it. I think I know where you're going. This onboarding process was necessitated by a change in labor legislation in Mexico. Historically, most companies, mining and other companies, hired their employees indirectly through, I will call it a service provider who actually hired the employees, and then the operating company would enter into a service contract with the third party. Under the terms of this legislation, the government has determined that they want to eliminate that and have companies employ their workers directly. This is across the board. This is not mining specific. It's Mexico specific. The 10% that we've talked about in terms of bonus is mandated by legislation. However, there is no guidance within the legislation as to what that really means. When you talk to legal counsel, they would suggest that that is the top end of the bonus range. There may, in fact, if you apply appropriate operating metrics and thresholds to it, it may be totally appropriate to pay a lesser amount, but we do not know yet. We have taken a very conservative stance, taken the legislated amount, and said, "That's what we're paying." The one-time cost that Kim alluded to of $700,000 is something that we would have incurred anyway. Our third-party service provider had to make severance payments when employees left. When we moved them across to our payroll, we carried with them their seniority and their history straight across. That $700,000 effectively represents accrued severance and retirement obligations arising from past service. Does that put it in perspective for you a little bit? Yeah. Yeah. That's very helpful. Essentially, they're eliminating staffing companies is basically what the legislation effectively does, I'm assuming, in that context for mining or oil and gas or agriculture or anything. It's pretty much across the board. Is that fair? That is correct. Okay. Along the same lines, does that mean you end up having to pick up, say, healthcare costs? I don't know what the structure down there is or legislation requirements. In other words, is it very different from kind of the U.S. framework if you're an employee of a company? There's certain benefits and so forth, or is that all taken care of, like healthcare benefits, that kind of thing, taken care of by the government? We provide to our employees healthcare benefits just as a U.S. employer would. The difference is cost of healthcare in Mexico is significantly lower than it is in the United States. That portion of the cost is substantially lower. This is a move straight across. We were already paying all of those costs indirectly through our service provider. We have not noticed any impact in terms of labor rates, in terms of benefits. Those were just a flow-through. The only impact was this legislative change about the 10%. Now, keep in mind that we have, in fact, paid bonuses in the past. While it looks a little bit draconian, it is not really a major operational change in what we do. In some ways, it is almost form over substance from a financial statement point of view. Okay. Okay. Very good. Shifting to the dry stack facilities and what you're doing there, is this going to allow for increased processing of material, or are you just simply improving your disposal tailings and so forth that could be perhaps reprocessed at a later date should commodity prices rise? What minerals are within that? Is it your byproducts as well as gold, silver? Okay. I'll start from the first question and work through them. The reason for dry stack, conventional tailings facilities fill up. Over time, you either expand them, build new ones, or you change your technologies. We are in an area that we felt would benefit from dry stack versus conventional tailings for two reasons. One, it allows us to reclaim the original open pit by using it as an area for dry stack deposition. We actually are moving way ahead in terms of site remediation. In fact, we will be exceeding the standards required for site remediation by utilizing the dry stack technology. It's not because it's less expensive. If you look at run rate, P&L on the two alternatives, filtration and dry stack is going to be slightly higher than conventional tailings deposition. However, the cost of construction of a tailings management facility is exorbitant. You have this capital versus operating cost trade-off. From an environmental point of view, dry stack is far preferable. From a reclamation point of view, it is far preferable. From a water use perspective, it is incredibly preferable because we recycle 80% of our processed water now. That water used to go out in the tailings facility, and it was lost due to evaporation. It substantially reduces our water consumption. As to what is in our tailings, there will be everything in our tailings that we produce. If we are doing our job right, the amount of metals contained in our tailings is so de minimis that there really is no residual value, nor would there likely ever be in the future. You may have heard of situations where companies go in and reprocess historic tailings. In some old gold mines, they would have 4 and 5 grams going out in their tailings. They were mining 30 grams. They did not care. They did not take the time to really ensure that they extracted every bit of payable metal because they did not need to. If you look at practices over the past 20 years, the recovery of metal by way of either leaching technology or flotation technology has increased to the point where there is very little in the way of payable metal going out into our tailings. Does that answer your question? Oh, absolutely. No, that's very good. I appreciate that. Okay. That's pretty much what I have for today. Thank you so much for taking the questions. Thank you and good luck in the. Oh, thank you. I appreciate it. As far as going forward. Okay. Very good. Your next question is coming from Lawrence Danny. Please announce your affiliation, then pose your question. Hi. I'm a private investor and shareholder. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you all on a good second quarter. Here's my question. Given your strong cash flow and increased capital in the bank, is it feasible? I know you've got infrastructure that you're investing in, but is it feasible that in the next 6 to 18 months, a dividend increase is possible? Your question is, on the surface, very simple. When you drill down to it, it is incredibly complex. You're going to the heart of capital allocation and capital management. I've articulated consistently since I got into this seat the desire and need to grow the company. If I am successful in doing that, there may be alternative uses of capital that should generate a higher return for investors than a modest increase in the dividend. If we are sitting here 18 months from now and we have accumulated directionally $80 million or so in the bank, and I don't have a strong use of capital immediately in front of me, yes, I would consider doing that. What I think is prudent for a company in our situation, number one, we want to maintain the dividend. I think our current yield is running around 2%. I do not want to discontinue that. What I do want to do is build up a sufficiently large cash reserve to enable us to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. That is really the focus. I am not avoiding your question, but I am saying my priority is to establish cash reserves to give us flexibility to grow the company. If, in fact, those do not present themselves, yes, I would certainly consider giving some of that capital back to the shareholders. No, it totally makes sense. Thank you so much. You're very welcome. Go ahead, Kim. There was a question that came online from George regarding the number of employees that were impacted by the labor reform. George, thank you for that question. It was approximately 500 employees. That is some round numbers. We do have other individuals on site, but they are working on construction and other projects. I have one question that came in on the internet. It was whether or not we had any thoughts about buying back shares of stock in the open market. This goes to the previous question that was asked. There really is a capital allocation question. I am going to answer this by first declaring my bias. I've been involved as a director and in management of a number of companies over the years that have, in fact, gone through either a normal course issuer bid or a substantial issuer bid. It's never accomplished what the intent was. In every case, the bank balance went down, the stock price did not do anything, and your float was reduced. Can it work? It can work if you really want to go and have a substantial issuer bid and buy back 20% of your company. Picking away on a normal course issuer bid really is not very effective. Personally, and I'm one person on the board of directors. I do not speak for the entire board on this issue. I'm talking off the top of my head. Personally, I would rather see distributions to shareholders by way of dividends than I would by a share buyback. That is a personal preference and bias. It is not going to be universally accepted, but I think that's a more effective way of returning capital to shareholders than stock buybacks. I don't. Alan, at this time, there are no further questions. As there are no further questions, we would like to thank you again for attending the call, and we will talk to you again next quarter. Thanks, everyone. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This does conclude today's conference call. You may disconnect your phone lines at this time and have a wonderful day. Thank you for your participation.