Good morning, and welcome to the CEMEX Fourth Quarter 2014 Conference Call and Video Webcast. My name is Sylvia, and I'll be happy to assist you. Our host for today are Fernando González, Chief Executive Officer; and Maher Al-Haffar, Executive Vice President of Investor Relations, Communications and Public Affairs. And now, I will turn the conference over to your host, Fernando González. Please proceed. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Thank you, operator. Good day to everyone, and thank you for joining us for our Fourth Quarter 2014 Conference Call and Video Webcast. After Maher and I disclose the results of the quarter, we will be happy to take your questions. We are pleased with our fourth quarter results. We had good top line growth with operating EBITDA generation growing by 16% on a like-to-like basis. Fourth quarter EBITDA was the highest since 2008, despite adverse currency fluctuations. EBITDA margin expanded by 1.7 percentage points. Full year operating EBITDA grew for the fourth consecutive year, reaching $2.74 billion. Improvement in volume in most of our regions, better pricing in the U.S. and the Mediterranean region, the favorable operating leverage affect in the U.S. as well as our continuing initiatives to improve our operating efficiency led to this EBITDA growth. Operating EBITDA margin for the year remained flat. We have significant achievements during the year. We generated positive free cash flow during the quarter and full year, achieving a record low level of working capital days. Full year free cash flow generation was the highest since 2010. In addition, we had the lowest SG&A-to-sales ratio in the last 10 years. This is also our third consecutive year of narrowing net loss. Controlling interest net loss for the full year 2014 was 40% lower than in the previous year. On the financing side, last…

Thank you, Fernando. Hello, everyone. Net sales on a like-to-like basis increased by 5% for the quarter and by 6% for the full year 2014. Operating EBITDA increased by 16%, with a margin expansion of 1.7 percentage points. It was higher EBITDA contribution from Mexico, the U.S., Northern Europe and Asia. For the full year, operating EBITDA on a like-to-like basis increased by 6%, with flat EBITDA margin. As you know, during 2014 currencies in some countries in which we operate depreciated last year versus the U.S. dollar. These currency fluctuations had a negative impact during the year of about $250 million on our sales and of close to $80 million in our EBITDA. Typically, currency devaluations translate into input cost inflations, which tends to put upward pressure on prices with some lag affect. In addition, in several countries in our portfolio like Mexico and Colombia, about 80% of the cost base is in local currency, which partially mitigates the negative effect of the devaluation. Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales decreased by 2 percentage points during the quarter, mainly driven by our continuous improvement, operating efficiencies and product mix. Operating expenses also as a percentage of net sales declined by 0.3 percentage points as efficiencies were partially offset by higher distribution expenses. Our kiln fuel and electricity bill on a per ton of cement produced basis, increased by 1% during the fourth quarter and was flat for the full year 2014. During the quarter, our free cash flow after maintenance CapEx was $421 million compared with $216 million in the same period in 2013. During the quarter, we had higher EBITDA, lower financial expenses, a higher reversal in working capital as well as lower maintenance CapEx and other expenses. Due to the seasonality of our business…

Well, thank you, Fernando. Before we go into our Q&A session, I would like to remind you that any forward-looking statements we make today are based on our current knowledge of the markets in which we operate and of course, could change in the future due to a variety of factors beyond our control. In addition, unless the context indicates otherwise, all references to pricing initiatives, price increases or decreases refer to our prices for our products. And now we will be happy to take your questions. Operator?

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Carlos Peyrelongue from Merrill Lynch.

Two questions, if I may. First one related to the U.S, you mentioned, that you expect mid-single volume growth. Can you comment on what's your expectation on Texas. I understand that there was a proposition one approved last year, that should funnel quite a bit of money to the Highway Fund. So I would be interesting to have some guidance on what you expect for Texas, overall. And the second, as you mentioned, the FX moments in some of the key markets you operate have had consequences on your consolidated EBITDA in dollar terms. Can you comment, if the FX remains, where they are today, what do you expect the impact in dollar terms to be on their consolidated EBITDA?

Okay, Carlos. Let me just take a stab at the Texas question. I think in order to address the Texas question, it's important to step back for a second and take a look at the market segments. Roughly, half of the business in Texas is infrastructure. And 2/3 of that is the highway, streets and highway construction activity. Residential is about a 1/4 and industrial and commercial is about the other 1/4. You are very right to point out the Proposition 1, there is a -- an oil stabilization fund, that is -- that has about $8.5 billion in it. And for the first time, there was a vote last November in Texas under the Proposition 1, which allocated, I believe close to about a billion dollars from the stabilization fund directly to the Highway Trust Fund of the state. Now that is a big number, I mean, that represents, if all of that money is spent in 2015, which is -- that's what it was allocated for. That would translate to about a 10% growth in volumes, going to that sector. So that's one thing, which is extremely important that is expected. And if you note that, if you take a look at the -- projects that are being given out under TIFIA, a number of them actually are in the state of Texas as well. So infrastructure should be doing reasonably well. Now, residential, we believe coming into this slowdown, residential has had a deficit. In fact, in the state of Texas. And the demographics in the state of Texas have been extremely positive. The level of immigration last year into Texas was probably the highest in the nation. We have had almost 450,000 people coming into the state of Texas, resulting very positive demographics and very high…

Very comprehensive. And with regards to the FX question? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Regarding, I understand your question is related to 2015?

Yes. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: There will definitely be an impact, we're just comparing current effects to what we used to have last year. But the impact will depend on your assumptions. And what we have decided, Carlos, is to prepare ourselves for the risk of losing some of our EBITDA to FX reasons. And that's why, we defined this special program, the set of actions, that would help us to properly manage the risk of our EBITDA and in general, our financial results are impacted by FX. As I mentioned, we are prepared to manage or to increase $300 million of free cash flow and to give some additional information, I think it's out of the $300 million, about $100 million will be -- will have an EBITDA impact, meaning it will be related to our value for volume strategy, plus additional costs and expenses costs. And then, the other $100 million will be mostly related to continue reducing our interest expense and the last $100 million is mainly related to additional gain sort of optimization of our working capital, which as we mentioned, this last year, we set a new record of 26 days, and we are expecting this year to finish at the lower figure. So it will have a negative impact, it's very challenging to calculate, it depends on FX assumptions for the year. And with the higher volatility at the end, what we said, we better focus on what we control. And let’s do some risk management on this side and that's what we are preparing ourselves to do.

And the next question comes from Vanessa Quiroga from Crédit Suisse. Vanessa Quiroga - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: My question -- first question is regarding the price implementation. Just to confirm first, in the U.S., you in January, you announced price increases in Florida, Colorado and the Midwest for $11 per ton. Is that correct? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Yes.

Yes. Vanessa Quiroga - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay. And just to understand about our fuels, the benefit from lower fuel cost and the surcharge, that -- I mean for fuel that is included in your pricing. How much of that surcharge had been already reflected to clients, and so how much impact should we expect from the lower fuel prices now. And If you could explain that, please.

Vanessa, just to clarify, you are talking about specially the U.S.? Vanessa Quiroga - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Yes.

Yes. I mean, we haven't broken it -- we have not broken it out. But we expect, I mean, we did obviously, have to reverse some of the fuel surcharges as a consequence of diesel prices coming down. But by and large, we will be experiencing a fairly material savings on the costs side in the U.S., as a result of lower diesel and other transportation fuels. But we have not broken out specifically, how much our -- how much of the fuel transportation surcharges have been actually implemented or passed on to our clients. Vanessa Quiroga - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay. No but that is enough clarification. And regarding the asset sales that you mentioned. What kind of assets, do you plan to sell? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Well, as you can imagine, it's very difficult to give additional information on asset sales. But what I can tell you is that, we have options. As you know, in average, we have been divesting between $200 million to $300 million of nonproductive assets, meaning assets we no longer need to operate our business. We think, we will repeat and we are almost finishing an exercise on making that deeper review on all those assets and see if we can increase that amount a little bit for 2015. But the largest part will be done divestments. Now on divestments, we might divest the business itself. And candidates are related to, let's say, noncore activities. And we also have the option, scheme similar to the one we did in a couple of years ago, in CLH. So that's still an option, even either in CLH or in Northern assets. So that's, as far as we can disclose on this program of divesting $1 billion to $1.5 billion of assets. Reminding…

And the next question comes from Ben Theurer from Barclays.

Let’s switch a little bit gear and go over to the other side of the Atlantic. A couple of questions. Could you give a little bit of a guidance, now having closed the deal with Holcim. How this is -- how do you expect this is going to expect -- what you're going to report in the different regions i.e. Northern Europe and Mediterranean, because clearly, there is more gear shift now into the Mediterranean region, with Spain becoming more important due to the consolidation of the assets of Holcim, you acquired. But at the same time, you may have a little less in the Northern European parts through the assets with Germany, Czech Republic, et cetera. So that's one part. And then, Second, down to the Mediterranean, on Egypt, specific, obviously, we have a little weakness here during the quarter and you gave some explanation that basically electricity shortages, but also the supply. But if you could give a little bit of an outlook, what you're seeing for the market here demand in the different segments. And obviously, that electricity issue and the overall demand situation in Egypt, with still some noise going on there, are those 2 questions on my side? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Okay, regarding the integration of businesses or the Wellington transaction. As we mentioned, we think -- we will have additional EBITDA of $20 million to $30 million during the year. We are not breaking the numbers, and we are just integrating the businesses as we speak. We started early last month. And during the year, unless we have much more information, we will be giving some indication, but so far, we are not breaking that numbers.

Okay. So Just to understand the $10 million, $20 million to $30 million additional EBITDA is basically a LIBOR system, today in Northern Europe and Mediterranean, just through a synergy -- that's bigger. Everything else equal, will be round about $20 million, $30 million more was obviously, different segment, correct? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Yes, correct.

And the next question comes from Marimar Torreblanca from UBS. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: It was the Egypt one, I think.

Operator, maybe before we go to the next question, I think we still had a portion of the question pending, would you like to provide? Ben, also on Egypt, you mentioned on the outlook, I mean, we're expecting both the political and economic situation in Egypt actually to get better. This year, we think residential will continue to be doing reasonably well, population growth, urbanization rates will continue to improve. The political stability, frankly, should translate to better drivers, especially for low and middle-income consumers and buyers of our business. On the industrial and commercial side, we've started seeing momentum again, on back of this increased stability, we've seen a pickup in demand from that segment. In infrastructure, we are also seeing a pick up there. When you take a look at our guidance, which is showing a drop in volumes. It's really more reflective of, what we're expecting to happen in the market, as we -- as the other producers in the market switch to more available fuels. And as energy situation gets better, we expect those producers to play a bigger role in the market, and as a consequence, we're seeing a little bit of a drop in our volumes, but by and large, we have a relatively positive outlook for the market. So I hope that answers your question, Ben.

And our next question comes from Marimar Torreblanca from UBS.

I have 2 quick questions. The first one on Mexico, how fast do you think that EBITDA margins can recover, or go back to the levels that we used to see in Mexico before. Considering both the price increases that you announced and the cost environment that you described. And then, the second one, going back to the U.S., if you could discuss the premium you have on the product, that you sell to the energy industry. So like, oil-related cement, how much higher margins you get from that. And if that demand suffers, what do you think will be the margins -- the impact on your margins for the overall U.S. operations? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Turning to the first question. I don't have a direct answer on the margins, but I think, what we can comment is that, we are on the way to recovery. Not just in Mexico, but in CEMEX as you whole. As you saw in the last quarter and that will continue happening. We have been since 2000 and when was that? '12, I think, '11, or '12. We started recovering our EBITDA and our margins have been slightly improving. So that will continue happening, and we should move to current levels to the levels, we used to have 20-something, 21%, 22%. But hard to say is, when is it going to happen. But, it will happen. Now particularly in Mexico, as you know, the thing in Mexico is that, in 2013, we lost like some volumes and some prices. And '14, first half was kind of stable. Third quarter, we already mentioned, volume is growing, fourth quarter growing even faster and generated this year even better than the last quarter. And prices last year, we managed to increase prices by about 7%, which is not recovering the previous level before the erosion in 2013. But again, we already mentioned, we have increased prices in January and there seems to be seeking. So the good news is that, we are gaining traction, and we are little by little gaining back our margins.

And, Marimar, could you just repeat the question on the U.S., I would appreciate it.

Yes, of course, in the US, you have a portion of your volumes that goes to oil wells. And I understand that, this product has a higher-margin, and higher price. So I was wondering, if you lower that portion of your sales. Or you start to sell the product-mix changes, what the impact could be on margins, how big is that premium in other words? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Right, well, first, I think, it's very important to note. I mean, last year, meaning 2014, we sold just a little bit over 12 million tons of cement in the U.S. But if I recall correctly, about 12.1 million or so. And total oil well cement production and sales for us in the whole U.S. is around 700,000 or 800,000 tons. Most of that is in Texas, some of it up -- is up in Pennsylvania and Ohio as well. So and yes, you're right, I mean, the margin on that product is higher. The cost is roughly the same as our other products. So the margin is probably, I mean, we don't breakout by product, but it's fairly high, obviously. Now clearly, if we lose some of that, you need to kind of ask the question, where are we losing that? The area, that is probably most exposed to drop in those volumes is probably Texas. And in Texas, as I mentioned earlier, there is an importance of cement, that is brought from neighboring states. For instance, we bring quite well cement from Colorado to Panhandle and to West Texas. That cement is -- it's impact on margin is fairly limited, frankly, because of transportation costs and because of production costs. So at the end of the day, the impact on margin should be rather limited at the end of -- once we take a look at that. And then, again let's not forget, as the other thing that I mentioned is that we are going to be benefiting in an important way on transportation costs from a countrywide basis.

Our next question comes from Gordon Lee from BTG.

Just 2 quick questions. The first, just a follow-up on the asset divestments and the guidance. I'm just going to see, how much one depends upon the other. But specifically, you say you plan to sell $1 billion to $1.5 billion U.S. over the next 12 to 18 months. And that you expect to retire $500 million worth of debt in the 12 months -- in the next 12 months. Are those connected, and my question obviously is, if you sell $1 billion to $1.5 billion significant in excess of $500 million. But your CapEx plans wouldn't seem to suggest that you need that amount of cash. Is that $500 million on a conservative assumption of the asset sales? Or is it some -- there is something else in the middle that we're missing. And then the second point, on the liability management. Could you repeat, what in the next 12 months, say, what of your outstanding trading debt is callable. And so what the opportunities are for refinancing of that type [ph] in the next 12 months. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Okay. On the first question Gordon, maybe what is conservative is the amount of debt that we will pay. But that's why we said, that we were going to reduce debt at least by. So it might be higher than $500 million. And then, let's say, if we manage to divest $1.5 billions, we don't know, is going to be during the year or '15 and '16, that's why, we said that the divestments will happen during, mainly this year and some of them might happen next year. So we cannot make the subtraction of $1.5 billion minus the $500 million directly. Now the other thing is that, as we mentioned, we have $300 million of strategic investments that we need to fund. And if again, if we manage to divest, the high side of the divestments, meaning the $1.5 billion. We might use part of the proceeds to do additional strategic investments, particularly in the aggregate reserves, for instance. So it's not a -- you cannot direct -- directly subtract the numbers, at least not for 2015. But that's the objective, $1 billion to $1.5 billion that is at least $500 million, I mean, at least $500 million, so it might be higher than that. It will depend on how fast or how successful we are in the divestments. And if we have the flexibility, we might use part of those proceeds to other investments like the one -- like the ones I have already mentioned.

Yes. And, Gordon, on the callability of our notes. Most of our notes, if not all of them have fairly typical high-yield call features, which start at kind of half coupon and then kind of fade away, as time goes by. And several of our notes, I mean, we'd be more than happy after the call to send you a schedule of the calls by note. But we have roughly about $1.6 billion equivalent, I mean, because some of it is in euros that is callable in 2015. The biggest component that is callable is the FRN, which is due in September, that's callable in June at par. And then, there is -- we could send you the details frankly, note by note on the call schedule for each of our notes. But, yes, the -- I think the -- perhaps the point that you're aiming at is, do we have an opportunity to further reduce our interest expense at a relatively manageable cost through calls, through that are available to us contractually and the answer is, yes. I don't know if that addresses your question, Gordon.

And that was probably a much better way of putting it than I did. Just one final follow-up, just on the guidance as well. You mentioned that you expect your energy cost per ton to more or less be flat, which given the decline in energy prices would seem, either conservative or maybe there is a reflection of stickiness of contracts that you may have. Could you comment on what assumptions, you're making, that will result to an expectation of flat energy cost on the production side. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Sure, I think regarding fuels on the production side, as you know, most of our fuels are either coal or pet coke or energy fuels, which account for close to 30%. And none of those fuels have a direct correlation with oil. Pet coke is tied to coal and coal in certain cases, it has certain correlation to oil. So if there is a risk to our assumption, it might be on the side of certain costs being slightly lower than what you're assuming today. But it might be conservative, but the thing is that, we have to take into consideration that we have -- in some cases, or in most of the cases, mid-term contracts on prices on this fuels. And also, we have inventories of either coal or pet coke, or alternative fuels. So even if prices start being impacted, there will be a sort of a delay, a 3- to 6-month delay on seeing those prices really affecting our cost on fuels. On the other side, fuels for transportation, I think, we have a mix effect on fuels for transportation. We have markets in which fuels have been going down materially, like the U.S. and Europe. And we have markets in which diesel and gasoline just don't change that fast and that's for instance as an example, we can mention Mexico, in which it's not going down, it's going up, it went up by I think, 1.9% or so in last January. So there will be an impact on transportation on the side of transportation related to customers, we don't expect an impact because that's translated to customers, so it would be adjusted. So the impact is only for the internal transportation or transportation we have for our raw materials and products or -- that's why, we are not -- it will improve slightly, but we are not counting with a material amount. We will be, as you can imagine, being energy such an important factor for us, we will be monitoring how the prices of our fuels behave and we will be updating you, accordingly.

And our next question comes from Jacob Steinfeld from JP Morgan. Jacob A. Steinfeld - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: I just had a quick follow-up on one the prior question. So the $500 million in debt reduction you plan for this year. Do you expect to reduce any of that from free cash flow this year. Or is it basically tied to some percentage of the asset sales that you expect over the next 18 months. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: We can use part of our free cash flow this year. Yes, we can do that. We did it last quarter to some extent. So we will do it again. But most of the funds will come from asset divestments. But again, part will be because of our free cash flow generation. Jacob A. Steinfeld - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay, I think could you please explain a little bit more of the higher distribution expenses, you referred to in your presentation?

Higher distribution expenses, I mean... Jacob A. Steinfeld - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Is one of the reasons on the margin -- the [indiscernible] for the reduction in margins?

Yes, I mean, in some of our markets, that may be the case, because our products are traveling longer distances. That's probably it. And of course, in some places like the U.S., for example, there has been definitely quite a -- an important pressure on drivers. There's been definitely driver inflation. But I think in general, when we talked about SG&A. SG&A is as a percentage of sales is probably the lowest, that we've seen in, I don't know, for a very, very long time. So it's very market specific and its mostly markets that are very tight in supply and where we're having to move the product longer distances. And in the case of the U.S., I think, we definitely have a slightly higher cost in terms of driver costs, but that's about it. Jacob A. Steinfeld - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay, great. And lastly, I just want to understand a little bit better, the demand for formal housing in Mexico, you mentioned that was one of the key drivers. So I was trying to understand a little bit the more dynamics in a market given, some of the larger players have happened sort of out of the market. So if you could talk a little more about that, I would appreciate it. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: I think, last year, to some extent, it was -- at least to us it was a nice surprise, if you remember, at this point in time last year, we were all concerned about formal housing. Specifically, the -- all the adjustment changes and implications for large construction companies. And at the end, it ended up growing above 13% or so, having a weight of close to 20% of total demand. Housing starts did accelerate and were up 60% for the year. And as we mentioned, it will continue growing, of course, at a lower space, but it will be -- continue being a positive. There was another feature that supported the growth in 2014 for a formal housing, which was subsidies, that were up between 40% and 45% during the year. So again, it was not the -- our expectation at this time of the year, last year. But that's the way it evolved. And now, we know that it will continue, probably, positively for this year, 2015.

And the next question comes from Yassine Touahri from Exane.

A couple of question, you discussed about oil wells that runs into U.S. Do you have any oil wells cement sales elsewhere in Mexico, Columbia or Egypt, that will be very helpful, if you could give us an indication of your exposure. And then, on the U.S., you mentioned some price increases. I'm not sure, I've got all of them. Have you announced price increases in Texas, California and Arizona. And then, the last question, on your target to improve EBITDA by $100 million through savings. How much of this $100 million is related to cost predictions and how much is related to your strategy of prices versus volumes? Fernando Angel González Olivieri: On the last one, on the $100 million, we are not breaking the figure, but we think most of it or the most important part will come from costs and expenses. And that is a part related to the $100 million, that will impact EBITDA. And as I mentioned, the other $200 million are related to lower interest expense and continue optimizing our working capital. Regarding oil well, I may not have the specific numbers for the rest of the countries in which we produce oil well cement. But what I can tell you is that -- it's not that material, it's not that relevant, but if needed, we can, I suppose, provide additional information on our volumes in -- for instance, in Mexico.

And on the -- Yassine, on the pricing in the U.S., maybe just by way of summary -- summarizing, we have 2 pricing, 2 ways, I would say, of pricing increases, we have the winter/spring pricing increase and then, we have the summer/fall pricing increase depending on the conditions of our markets. We have already announced, the pricing increases for the U.S. And in January, as you know, we had a pricing increase that was announced for Colorado, Florida and pretty much, most of our Atlantic markets. Those are the markets that have shown the most interesting supply demand dynamics. The pricing increases were somewhere between $11 and a little bit over $17 per cubic meter. We've had very good response on those pricing increases in terms of traction in those markets. And then their price increases that have been announced in spring for Texas and California.

Are those [indiscernible] of the price increases announced for spring.

It's just a little a bit less than that. It's about little bit under $17 for California and Texas.

And last year, how much of your price increase as such is 1/2, 2/3, or depend by region.

Last year, we probably had on average, I mean, we have actually quite a substantial percentage of the increases did go through at the end of the day. And if we take a look at pricing last year, at the end of the day, we were up about close to about -- just one second, I'm trying to take a look at the prices here. We're up about 8% -- sorry, 6% for the year.

And on the price increases, that you're announcing in 2015 are higher than the one that you announced at the begin of 2014, is that correct?

Yes, I mean, the one think that you have to consider is that the market is -- the capacity utilization in the market is continuing to edge upwards. And we continue to see very positive demand dynamics in most of our markets. And so we think, that plus our value before volume efforts and worldwide, but in the U.S. as well, we think should translate to good improvement in terms of our pricing dynamics. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: I think we should add a piece of information regarding prices in the U.S. Don't forget that the U.S. used to before the crisis 2008, it used to be a structural in quarter. So we're getting close, and in some markets, we are already there. So very high capacity utilizations, the U.S., the figure I remember is that U.S. used to import like 20 million, 25 million tons of cement per year. So it won't take too much for the pricing dynamic too much on volume, I'm referring. For the pricing dynamic to improve even further than what it has already improved. As Maher mentioned, for instance, in the case of Texas, we are sold out, and we are importing to the state, cement from other parts of the U.S. So that's the context in which we think the pricing dynamics will continue evolving, and we are quite confident that it will continue evolving as positive as it has happened and even better.

Thanks, Yassine. We addressed all of the points, Yassine?

Yes, you did.

And the next question comes from Lillian Starke from Morgan Stanley.

My question is -- most of them have been answered. But I have a question on your guidance for spring. You highlight on the cement market and important increase in volumes. However, you're expecting a significant decline in the ready-mix and aggregates. Just wanted to understand what sort of the rationale behind this? Or what were the dynamics for ready-mix and aggregates?

Sure. It's fairly simple, I mean, part of our value before volume or I should say, value and volume strategy. We are looking at rationalizing some of our portfolio in that business to the most profitable or the areas that we feel, that we're adding most value to our customers. And so there are certain areas that we feel, we're not adding as much value and therefore, we are deemphasizing that part of our business. And that's where the disparity comes in. But that's about it. It's really part of rationalizing our business.

We have time for one more question. Anne Milne from Bank of America.

Two question this morning. One has been largely answered. But I do want to go back to the question of the high coupon bonds and the call options that you have. So it does looks like that you've been -- like you've been paying as per the note on your debt profile in your presentation, sort of smaller incremental pieces of some of the bonds that are callable, you talked about $227 million of the 2018 bond the 9%. And I know there is still a balance of that left, I think, $455 million. So the first question would be, if you could, given the capital markets would you repay or call all of the high coupon bonds this year and replace with lower coupon securities if that were an option. And it seems like there is -- at least 3, if not 4 or 5 that might be outstanding small amounts on some of them. And then, the second question is on Mexico, I know it was, at least a stabilization year for 2014. Maybe you could update us on some excess market share in Mexico and what the competitive environment looks like at the moment. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Do you want to take the one on that?

Yes, sure. And I mean, we're -- obviously, we -- when we're looking at liability management, we're looking at a combination of things. I mean, obviously, we like to call at call dates, that's the most efficient process. But also, certainly, if we have on a net present value basis calculation, it makes sense because the opportunity is there then certainly, we will do that. Obviously, we're biased towards bonds that have the highest coupons. We're also, looking at extending maturities as much as possible and removing refinancing risk. So the answer to your question, I mean, there is no -- there isn't a "one kind of size fits all." I mean, we're looking at a portfolio approach. We're constantly looking at opportunities. As you can imagine, we have many banks, that are leaders in the capital markets and they are constantly coming to us with proposals. And we will execute -- in the order and whichever make sense in terms of adding value on a net present value basis to the company. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Which is basically, what we have been doing.

Exactly, Yes, yes. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: In the last few years. So it would be. It is consistent you with our objective of reducing our interest expense. Regarding Mexico, again, 2013, well, the adjustments in Mexico really started in the second half of 2012, it did materialize in 2013. Again, first half of '14 stable, third quarter growing 4%, fourth quarter 6%. January, which is just 1-month, but it's even higher than the 6%. So we think that all segments of all sectors are increasing formal housing, infrastructure, informal activity and commercial, industrial everything keeps contributing in the last quarter and January of this year. Regarding market share. Market share, we are always between 40% to 45%. We don't have any specific figure until, I mean, for foreign [ph] figure until we get information, the public information we need in order to make calculations. But you should consider that we should be in that range.

And now, I will turn over to your host Fernando González for closing remarks. Fernando Angel González Olivieri: Well, thanks for your participation. And as you know, more than welcome to call us or to contact us any time for any other further question. Thank you very much. And bye now.