Please note that this call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Ryan Africa, Investor Relations Officer. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this afternoon's CFO call following the pre-close and trading statement released earlier today. I'm Ryan Africa, Head of Investor Relations for Thungela. I'm joined on the call today, of course, by our CFO, Deon Smith. Today's call will be run through both an audio webinar as well as a conference call facility. Deon will present an overview of the key elements in today's release. Thereafter, there'll be a Q and A session until we close the call shortly before 1:00 PM. Turning to Q and A. For those wishing to ask questions today, we ask that you please join the session using the conference call facility provided, as we will only be taking questions through this facility. In order to ask a question during the Q and A session, please dial star one on your keypad. This will register your intention to ask a question. Once the Q and A session starts, the operator will then open your line and ask you to go ahead with your question. To reiterate, we won't be taking typed questions submitted through the webinar platform today. It is possible to dial the conference call facility only shortly before the Q and A session and directly from your computer. If you're planning to do this, I do encourage you to register for the conference call in advance of the Q and A session, as you will need the link sent to you upon registration. Finally, a reminder that this morning's announcement is now available on the Thungela website, and that today's session will be recorded, and the recording will be made available on the Thungela website from later this afternoon. With the logistics out of the way, please allow me now to hand over to Thungela's Chief Financial Officer, Deon Smith. Thank you, Ryan, and good afternoon to everybody that's made the time to dial into this pre-closing trading statement call. That's now for the year ending 31 December 2022. We're clearly expecting to deliver strong cash generation for this year, but that's in the midst of a number of operating challenges. In today's call, I'll sort of unpack what's in our trading statement a bit more, but leave sufficient time for Q and A just to clarify any questions that you might have. We'll also clearly talk a bit about the threshold trading statement, so that's the earnings per share and HEPS that we'll get to a bit later on. Before we get into the details on the performance and the financials, let me just pause to reflect on the fact that we've now had a fatality-free business since June 2021, and whilst 18 months fatality-free is certainly not cause for celebration yet, it is testament to the work that our teams continue to do in respect of eliminating fatalities across our business. Turning to our performance for the year, and we have to start with Transnet Freight Rail. We've unfortunately seen a proliferation of a number of matters across our industry, in addition to the illegal mining, we've also seen an increase in number of power supply interruptions. And this is not something that South African households have only felt, but the power curtailment across operations has clearly become more pronounced in recent times. The biggest drag on our performance remains, the very well-documented and ventilated issues around Transnet Freight Rail. At the release of our interim results in August, we were hopeful that there would be an improvement in TFR performance following the annual maintenance shut. Whilst the shut happened and it was completed in time, and whilst TFR's performance initially improved post the shut, that momentum was interrupted by the strike that Transnet endured during October of this year. The strike was closely followed by severe derailment on the coal corridor in early November, and in aggregate, these two events cost us around 600,000 tons in export saleable production. I mean, given the need on our end to constrain production when our stockpiles are filled to the brim. For clarity, following each of those events, it is typically necessary also for Transnet to rebalance the network as empties are at the bay rather than at the mines. That results in a slower ramp-up, and the impact of those events are therefore slightly longer than the times or the dates that we've set out in the SENS or RNS this morning. Clearly, it's incumbent on us to continue to mitigate the impact of TFR. What we've done, historically, we've continued to do, and whilst our strategy has been to continue rating higher grade products to optimize our revenue and the price that we realize for coal, we've had to start to rail some 4,800 CV material in Q4. Clearly this placed some pressure on discounts, which I'll talk to a bit later on. We've also continued to create additional stockpile space and balancing stocks across operations by trucking stocks, and that clearly has a bit of a cost headwind across the operations. We've also opened up three additional sidings, and that's in our third-party sidings that we utilize. That creates further loading capacity and also further stockpiling capacity. It de-risks train cancellations and spreads your broader distribution pattern of trains a bit better. We've trialed a transport of coal by road to the Richards Bay Multipurpose Terminal, and whilst operationally that was a success, we remain quite cautious given the various reports of community challenges, as well as the broader social and environmental impact of transporting coal by road. Notwithstanding all of these actions, we were still forced to curtail some of our operations. As a management team, we clearly remain deeply concerned by the deterioration of performance. We have seen encouraging signs. We've seen clearly government step in many respects, and most recently, the ban on exports of scrap and copper, albeit only for six months, should reduce some of the effect that we've seen across infrastructure in South Africa. If I now talk a bit more around what we've set out in the SENS in the RNS. In terms of prices and demand for energy, we reiterate our view that the global demand for coal remains strong with various supply side challenges. South African situation or export corridor is but a microcosm of some of the global challenges on the supply side. Whilst prices remain well above what we've seen in recent years, we have seen increased volatility in recent time. Discounts, which I've flagged a bit earlier, remain the only short-term leverage that buyers of coal have relative to benchmark. We've seen pressure on these discounts, and some of them are widening, especially for lower quality coals. In terms of export saleable production, you would've seen that we've guided now for the full year about 12.8 million tons, just slightly lower than our, than the bottom end of our most recent guidance. That's most exclusively due to the strike and derailment, but importantly the short period of time between the strike and the derailment, and therefore the lack of momentum and ramp up between those two incidents, as well as the slow ramp up post the derailment as TFR sought to rebalance the rail network. Clearly, that lower production denominator has a concomitant impact on our FOB cost per ton. You'll see that that's around 4% above our previous guidance. Also we've taken a non-cash charge around ZAR 85 a ton, and that's for environmental provisions. Clearly in those environmental provisions, what you'll see the increase relate to mainly is that with global mining inflation, equipment, diesel costs, so energy cost into that rehabilitation provision, creating a slight headwind. That process of an annual assessment of our environmental provisions, as you might recall, is an independent or third-party assessment as to what the shape and size of that liability is likely to be in future years. In terms of ex-export equity sales, that clearly followed on from the production and rail performance, and we're therefore expecting to end the year at about 11.9 million tons. Clearly mathematically that sort of gives you around about 900,000 tons of inventory build. Given all the rail challenges I've spoken about, that inventory build has been mostly at the mines as well as some of the rail sidings, ours and the third-party rail sidings. Our capital expenditure at around 1.9 billion is in line with our guidance previously, we're very pleased obviously that the Elders production replacement project is now in execution. In terms of cash flow generation for the period, as at the end of November, this is purely a snapshot and indicative, we've had a net cash position of about ZAR 19.8 billion. Given the very low sales number in November, we are expecting to have a cash neutral position in December on an operating basis. Then face headwinds in relation to, or cash headwinds to be clear, in relation to tax and royalty charges, as well as the need to inject just north of ZAR 1 billion into a self-insurance structure, which I'll elaborate on a bit more later on. We're today providing a threshold trading statement as we expect full year earnings per share to be at least ZAR 125 per share, with full year headline earnings per share of at least ZAR 131 per share. The difference between these two relates to potential impairments that we continue to assess. Those impairments are exclusively in some of our domestic operations and certainly not in relation to our export operations. As I start to sort of wrap up and you start to prepare some of the Q and A, it's important to note the recent SENS announcement, RNS announcement, where we reported that we've acquired the 27% minority interests in Anglo American Inyosi Coal. That's the AAIC historic structure. That structure holds our flagship operation in the shape and size of Zibulo, as well as the Elders production replacement project. That acquisition was essentially concluded at a earnings around one times earnings or one years worth of earnings. We believe was a prudent step to enable us to optimize that Elders production project as well as the Zibulo operations and capital structures into the future. I said earlier that we have the board is resolved to set up a self-insured structure. Clearly the insurance markets have been very challenging in recent times. Prior to demerger, we set up a 18-month placement of insurance, and that has now ostensibly come to an end of its life. Some of our policy or the increases in cost in some of the policies were eye-watering. Clear indications are that insurance is unlikely to be available to coal companies for many years to come. It's therefore a prudent step for us to safeguard the longer-term sustainability of our business by putting aside roughly ZAR 1 billion into such a self-insured structure. We continue to place catastrophic risks in the market. Clearly over time, as we capitalize that structure, with ordinary course premiums, even that catastrophic cover might no longer be required in future periods. In terms of capital allocation, clearly that, ZAR 1 billion also plays into the net cash we will be reporting at the end of the year, meaning, to the extent that it reduces our net cash that we will report. That we remain committed as a board to our dividend policy, which if I can remind you, is to pay a minimum of 30% of adjusted operating free cash flow to shareholders, and to the extent that there's free cash above that, to be considered also to be distributed to shareholders. The board will clearly, in that whole discussion, also reflect on the liquidity buffer, and we accordingly expect to declare the next dividend in relation to the 2022 year at the release of our full year results in March 2023. Let me pause there and just hand back to Ryan to test whether there are any questions that we might be able to answer to give you further clarity on the announcement today. Ryan? Thank you very much, Deon. We will now turn to Q and A. A reminder for those wishing to ask questions, we ask that you please join the conference call facility, as we'll only take questions through this facility. In order to ask a question during the Q and A session, please dial star one on your keypad, and this will register your intention to ask a question. Operator, please could I ask you to open the lines for the first question. Of course, sir. The first question we turn over to Brian Morgan from RMB Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. A couple of questions from me. Thanks very much for the time. Could you just give us an idea of how your inventory is distributed between rail sidings, mine, and the port, just in terms of quanta, if that's possible. Do you wanna quickly just run through all your questions? Sure. Brian? Just so we've got them down, and then we'll- Second question is how much more? You put ZAR 1 billion into your Stay-in-business capital, how much more do you expect to put into that over time? The third question is, you have increased the rehab liabilities by ZAR 1.1 billion. What are you doing with the rehab assets? Are you going to be increasing that by the same amount? Those are your three questions, Brian? Yes. Okay. Let me quickly do the easy one first. In terms of insurance, whilst we've capitalized it or like, about to capitalize it with our approximately a billion, our intent is not to grow that materially other than with our annual premiums. Which for reference is around 200, wust over ZAR 200 million per annum. So that premium, rather than being paid to the external market, will now be paid into the essentially the capitalization or continued capitalization of that self-insurance structure. Absent that cost of 200, in likelihood would have hit more than ZAR 300 million per annum. It's a very efficient structure and clearly a very good saving mechanism for us to shield us from not only sort of the inflation pressures, but what's become a very difficult market to maneuver. In terms of the rehabilitation liability, the intent is not today to match that increased rehabilitation liability with increased assets or cash collateral. Clearly that remains a discussion for the board when we reflect on the full year dividend. We also are quite keen to see how this rehabilitation liability evolves over time. As you know, that the NEMA regulations were postponed to the 19th of September 2023, and that's still a bit of work in progress to see where that lands. Equally, with some of the increased pressures on inflation that might have played into the rehabilitation liability in the current period, you might see some of them, some of that subside again in future periods. It's not a foregone conclusion that we believe we should increase the cash collateral or the assets in relation to that liability. That's not a conclusion. In terms of the stock distribution, we end of the year, we're likely to land at about 3.4-3.5 million tons of total stock, broadly. Across the mines and the sidings, that's likely to be around 3.2 or just over 3 million tons of stock, and at port, around 300,000 odd tons of stock. That's, order of magnitude behind what we're currently seeing over the, at the, end of this year. Well, can I follow up on that question, if I may? Um. Just on the 300,000 tons, is this, is that a sustainable number, or will you need to build up those inventories again? Prior to Transnet's challenges, we've reflected carefully on what we felt is the optimal stock levels at port, which are closer to between 600,000-700,000 tons at any given point in time. Clearly, given the current and continued rail challenges, we've sold down to such a level that we believe is arguably a lower point of stock to be held at the port. The lowest I've ever recorded was just prior to the merger, when it was around 200,000 tons at the port. This is certainly not a level that we are comfortable with, we definitely require an improvement by Transnet to lift it to a more optimal level. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question here is from Ben Davis from Liberum. Please go ahead. Morning, Deon, Ryan. How's it going? Hi, Ben. Well, you? Very good. Just a question really. Well, actually, I'm just trying to how best to think about it. In terms of Transnet's performance in the second half, obviously the strike and the derailment having quite an impact as sort of 22 days out. How would you think it would have performed without those factors? It's about roughly 10, 12% of the, kind of the time in the second half that would kind of gross it up to more like a 54 million ton, annualized performance in the second half. Or should it be more than that? 'Cause as you mentioned, loss of momentum, during the, between those two periods as well, and those subsequent ramp ups. Ben, very good question, and we've opined on that ourselves to understand the underlying performance of Transnet absent these two very major events. There's lots of noise in our analysis, as you can imagine. We typically experience derailments from time to time. That's part of our planning assumption. However, those derailments typically don't take too much time to resolve. This particular derailment was quite an extreme derailment with, I think, around 93 wagons, which is a full Transnet train set that derailed. Adding that plus the strike back, H2 performance was broadly in line with H1. The first half, the industry achieved around 53.3 million tons. Therefore, order of magnitude, the second half, excluding the derailment and the strike, Transnet performed at similar run rates. Gotcha. Are you, I mean, is there anything to suggest, from what you've seen that it could be slightly improved, in the next couple of quarters? I think it's a good question, which is the one that we typically opine on, as a management team, more often than we opine on our own performance, as you can imagine. The reality is, if you look at what's in place and what's about to put in place, we remain, but now more cautious than ever before, optimistic, given that we've now seen these two external events that is not entirely Transnet's doing, but certainly impacted them and therefore impacted us. The security measures that we've put in place before remain in place. They continue to be successful. The government ban I spoke about earlier on, copper and scrap metal exports to reduce infrastructure theft is likely to have a positive impact. Transnet has indicated to us that it's reached an agreement. Now whether those are definitive agreements or in principle is not entirely clear. They've reached agreements with the Chinese to deploy a lot of the spare parts that's already in country to some of the loco graveyard, the Chinese loco graveyard. We're therefore expecting the short to medium term, once that's in place, that 50-80 locos could come back across the heavy haul lines. That's sort of in the next couple of weeks to months. The only thing that we understand is still a work in progress. There's a couple of visas for some of the Chinese to enter the country and to help Transnet implement these maintenance initiatives. If you add all of those areas up, silver linings, so to speak, or green shoots, Ben, we sort of believe that a slight improvement in the short to medium term could be possible, so far there's no further derailment, strikes or other acts of God, that is. Therefore, as we look to plan our own business, clearly we cannot continue to operate at the level of constraint that we are today. Therefore, we are looking to ease some of those constraints come January onwards. Gotcha. That's very useful. I just one last thing. It might be nothing. It was just a press article suggesting using diesel locos instead of electrical ones, to get round the copper theft issue. I mean, is that a realistic proposition or would that just take too much time again? Two, there are a couple of reasons why. I mean that, that's a good suggestion on paper, but you have to appreciate the hurdles to that. Typically, the diesel locos has pulled the smaller wagons and train sets. And two, the cost and the distribution of diesel post the Ermelo point. Sorry, I just realized geographically, when I speak to somebody in the U.K., I might need to be more specific. Along the rail corridor or the north corridor, the coal corridor, a good couple of 100 kilometers is the point between Ermelo, the Handover Point, and the Richards Bay Port. The longer stretch, obviously from Ermelo through to Mpumalanga, where the mines are. What we've seen is that the use of electricity and diesel is at different levels of intensity pre and post that point. That's mainly as a result of the distribution pattern, diesel availability, and infrastructure by Transnet themselves. Whilst the solution is not inconceivable, it will take time to implement such a solution. Clearly, depending what oil price does, it will certainly potentially be a very expensive exercise for Transnet, compared to some of the initiatives that they have already embarked on, such as just maintaining the electricity locos that they have. Perfect. Thanks. Thanks very much. Thanks for your answers. Pleasure. Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star and then one now. The next question we have is from David Fraser from Peregrine Capital. Good afternoon, Deon and Ryan. Thanks for the, for the call. I mean, unfortunately, I think this call is gonna be dominated by Transnet and not your own operations. You know, it seems like sort of death from a thousand cuts from Transnet. I mean, obviously they've got capital issues and don't have the ability to deploy enough capital onto these lines to keep them properly maintained. Have you detected any change in the political landscape recently? I mean, clearly the criticism of Transnet is in every third newspaper on every third day. That doesn't seem to really be resonating in any improvement in performances. I mean, is there any change that you're seeing in the political landscape to actually get Transnet to understand that they are, as they're structured right now, almost incapable of returning this line to the sort of, 60 to 65 million tons? I mean, it seems like, you know, I don't know where the bottom is or what needs to happen for there to be a real change in political will, but the question really relates to whether you've seen any change in political will in order to let the industry get more involved in these operations and potentially even take them over in their entirety. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, David. I mean, as and part of my answer is therefore also aimed at listeners that might not be as close to the newspaper that appear on your or my desk every third day. There is certainly a lot of political noise in South Africa currently, around the president of the country and also more broadly, the ruling party politics heading up to its conference, as well as the next election in 2024. Clearly there's a lot of noise and a lot of distraction currently. What we have, however, seen in the last couple of months is increased involvement by a broader set of political players than what has been involved before. Previously, engagements were not exclusively, but predominantly with the Transnet leadership, as well as the ministry that takes ultimate accountability for Transnet. The level of interest has grown rapidly, and now as we sit here today, there are at least three ministries that are also indirectly impacted by Transnet's poor performance. The recognition by a broader set of political commentators and role players are of such a nature that the pressure on the Department of Public Enterprises and Transnet has dramatically increased. We've also now seen that the Transnet board, in addition to the Transnet management, has opened up channels of communication directly with industry, and that there's been a special committee created with a combination of Transnet board members and the CEOs representing each of the main corridors, coal, iron ore and the like, having formed, I think it's called a five-aside engagement in order to identify and more rapidly and quickly respond to the challenges that Transnet faces. Whether there's a realization of the effort required to improve it, I cannot comment. The realization about the impact on the country has now been clearly articulated at every single level, and those numbers are staggering and is the difference between economic growth and job creation, or stagnation of the South African economy. Therefore, there is a political will at the highest levels to resolve the current challenges. The methodology and the execution of doing so, and whether that would be exclusively government-led or a combination has not yet been resolved, and that, I think, is unlikely to become the key ingredient in a step change in Transnet, is the point of realization that industry will and have to play a role in Transnet in order to improve its performance. We are not yet at that point, David. Thanks. Thank you, sir. The next question we have is from Zachary Olszonowicz from Camissa. Please go ahead. Afternoon, guys. Quick question on expansion of sort of supply chain or route to market. We've seen, as you mentioned, obviously, key tracking sort of 50 million tons, 48 million tons. We've seen sort of smaller ports, CBT, MPT, Main Wharf, South Harbour, Maputo, tracking sort of close to 12 million tons, which is obviously a significant increase over the last few years. Just interested to understand at what point do you plan on utilizing this excess capacity? Obviously it involves a level of road freight, which has its level of, you know, complexity and risk. Ultimately as risk managers as mining operators, at what point do you decide to manage some of the risk on the road and start utilizing some of this capacity that's available to get to market? Hi, Zachary. Thanks for that. We have, as I mentioned earlier, trialed road as an option. The operation was successful and we indeed got coal to market. It was not a meaningful quantum of coal, and as you said, the risks and the complications, which I think the media's reported on well from road accidents, through to environmental concerns and community unrest in not only Richards Bay, but beyond that is certainly a very big consideration. It also requires a level of confidence in not only the operational side of what we're talking about, Zachary, but also in the stability of prices and therefore potentially mechanism to underpin a margin so as to avoid an outcome where you invest a lot of effort and time to set up that alternative distribution network to where you found out with volatility in prices. There, there are a couple of complications, but we remain focused on refining that route and having that as an alternative. We retract. It's unlikely to become a very material element of our armory, so to speak, given the size of that and the cost of it relative to the primary route to market. Cheers. Thanks. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star and then one now. The next question we have is from Shashi Shekhar from Citi. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Am I audible? Yes, Shashi, you are fine. Yeah. Actually, sorry, if I missed that, but I want to know what is the reason for the self-insurance? I mean, is it common in mining industry? Shashi, the reasons are actually quite unique. It's not uncommon. Let me just take you back perhaps a couple of years. Whilst in our, it housed in our previous parent company, that parent company was also self-insured, and that was mainly for efficiency reasons. In our world, when we demerged this entity, we placed 18 months of insurance into the market, recognizing that a 12-month period is typically what is required for an insurance program to be evaluated and placed in the open market. That period has come to an end. As part of that assessment, we needed to assess what the most efficient insurance structure for Thungela would be. Some of the mine insurance policies and business interruption and asset damage policies saw potential increases of up to 300% in the cost of insurance. That is not only a reflection of the actual price of coal, and therefore the risk that insurers are expected to take on business interruption, but also a reflection of a declining pool of capital readily prepared and willing to be put to work in coal companies. The coal market is one the insurance market is drying up for coal companies, and two, it's becoming eye-wateringly expensive. Putting this structure in place therefore shields us from those 300% type increases at some in some areas. Secondly, sets us on a path that should insurance become absolutely unavailable, that we would have a level of insurance. Self-insurance that is. Insurance is critical to maintain in the context also of our environmental liability guarantees, as you can imagine. Okay. Got it. That funding, that ZAR 1 billion you are funding for this insurance, so that will be reflecting in your balance sheet, right? Under net cash. No, it will not be under net cash. That would reflect, more likely than not under long-term investment in our balance sheet rather than short-term liquidity or cash. Okay. Got it. Yeah, thank you very much. That was my question. Thank you, Sashi. Thank you. Thank you. The last question we have is from Mark Van Den Berg from Woodford. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, Deon and Ryan. The cash on the balance sheet, is it all held in South African rand and, when do you convert, do you ever recognize any foreign exchange gains or losses? Yes. Hi, Mark. The cash at the end of November was mainly held in South African rand, whereas you might recall at the end of last year, we had sort of a 50/50 split when the rand was materially stronger than what it is now. At the moment, we largely rand-based. I didn't follow the second part of your question, Mark. You just asked the currency. Was there another part of the question that I might have missed? Well, just simply do you recognize any foreign exchange gains or losses historically? Do you expect to? Yes, we do. There are forex gains and losses, in our, in our accounts. Some of it reports through to costs, that's a positive, that reduces our costs. Some of it reports through in financing activities in our income statement. The ZAR 4 billion, between taxes and royalty, what's the breakdown and what are the rates? We're expecting our tax rate for the full year to get much closer to the corporate tax rate. I will need to give you the breakdown. Just give me a second. I can just determine the breakdown of tax versus royalty. It's approximately ZAR 3 billion in taxes, in corporate taxes, and then approximately ZAR 1 billion in royalties. You might recall in H1, royalty was a bit higher, and the taxes were also slightly a bit higher. It's about ZAR 3 billion currently in corporate taxes and approximately ZAR 1 billion in royalties. Just, can you just give me the rates? It's the rate on royalty is a more complex calculation, Mark. It's it differs per entity. It's essentially a percentage of your net revenue based on a sliding scale between 0.5% at the bottom and 7% at the top or at the upper end of net revenue. The reason it's different for each legal entity is because sales in the is determined differently in each entity. Our tax rates are in on a corporate level. The South African tax rate's around 28%. For the full year, we're expecting our tax rate to be approximately 24%. Good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Deon. Sure. Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, that ends our question and answer session. I will now hand back over to Ryan Africa for closing remarks. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone that's joined the call and also for the Q and A on the call. If you do have any further questions, please do feel free to get in touch with me via email. My email is ryan.africa@thungela.com, and I'll get back to you. With that, please allow me to hand back to Deon to close out the call for today. Thank you, Ryan, to everybody that's dialed in, and for the questions that you posed us. From a management perspective, we remain focused on what we are responsible to control. Clearly for us, it's important to operate our business safely. It's really important for us to operate it as efficiently as possible, and that's about getting product to the market at the lowest possible cost. For us, it's also important to manage our balance sheet. Those are the key factors that we will continue to focus on. Given the challenges we've had in Transnet, we believe that it's going to become more important than rather than just influencing the direction of travel that we continue to work hard at and with government and Transnet to achieve the step change that the industry and the country and us as a company requires to get the full potential from our assets. And that's sort of the heart of our focus areas and our objectives for the next couple of months and hope to report back on positive movements in that regard as we get to our year-end results, which we're planning to publish in March next year. For that, I wish all of you a good festive season and hope to speak soon. As Ryan said, we remain open to any questions until the start of our closed period, which is later in December. Please do zap us an email if you need to get hold of us whilst we might not be in the office over the holidays in South Africa. Thank you very much, and all the best. Bye-bye. Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, that then concludes today's conference. Thank you for joining us. You may now disconnect your lines.