Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2011 NRG Energy, Inc. Earnings Conference Call. My name is Kiara, and I'll be your operator for today. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Ms. Nahla Azmy, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. Please proceed.

Thank you, Kiara. Good morning, and welcome to our second quarter 2011 earnings call. This call is being broadcast live over the phone and from our website at www.nrgenergy.com. You can access the call presentation and press release through a link on the Investor Relations page of our website. A replay of the call will be also available on our website. This call, including the formal presentation and the question-and-answer session, will be limited to one hour. [Operator Instructions] And now for the obligatory Safe Harbor statement. During the course of this morning's presentation, management will reiterate forward-looking statements made in today's press release regarding future events and financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to material risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. We caution you to consider the important risk factors contained in our press release and other filings with the SEC that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements in this press release and this conference call. In addition, please note that the date of this conference call is August 4, 2011, and any forward-looking statements that we make today are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. We undertake no obligation to update these statements as a result of future events except as required by law. During this morning's call, we will refer to both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures of the company's operating and financial results. For complete information regarding our non-GAAP financial information and the most directly comparable GAAP measures and a quantitative reconciliation of those figures, please refer to today's press release and this presentation. Now with that, I'd like to turn it over to David Crane, NRG's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Nahla, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For this quarterly earnings call, which is the 30th such call in the history of the new NRG, we come to you for the first time from Houston, Texas where the temperature forecast for today is hot, followed by periods of hotter. The humidity is about as thick as New York cheesecake, and the air conditioners are working overtime. With ERCOT shuttering its load record every day this week. Hopefully, this will be a good day to be in the electricity business in Texas. For this call, I'm joined by our COO, Mauricio Gutierrez; and our CFO, Chris Schade, both who will be joining me in delivering prepared remarks. I'm also joined here today by Jason Few, the Head of high-flying Reliant; and Tom Doyle, the President of scorching hot NRG Solar, both of whom will be available to answer any questions you may have regarding their respective areas of responsibility. Now turning to the presentation. We have a lot of very positive things to talk about today. So let's go straight to the highlight page, which is Slide 3, of the presentation. As Chris will elaborate on a little later, the financial results speak for themselves. Void by Reliant's continued exceptional performance, we not only posted a very healthy $517 million of adjusted EBITDA for the quarter, we also are in a position to narrow the range and revise upward our full year 2011 adjusted EBITDA guidance to $1.9 billion to $2 billion. What is particularly positive about this result is that while we certainly have benefited from a very warm summer today, we also benefited substantially from the immense progress Reliant has made in slowing and ultimately reversing the long-term decline in its customer account. And Reliant has achieved…

Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. NRG delivered another strong operating performance during the second quarter in both our generation and retail segments. Some of the highlights are listed on Slide 8. Starting with safety, we maintained our top [indiscernible] performance with an OSHA recordable rate of 0.78 for the first half of the year. This is our #1 focus across the operations group, and we will continue to strive towards a zero injury workplace. Our plant performance metrics saw significant improvements on availability and starting reliability compared to the second quarter of 2010. Even though we successfully concluded our spring outage season, we're in a very solid operational position during these critical summer months. On the commercial front, we added significant hedges for 2012 while effectively managing the retail supply requirements during the warmest year on record in Texas. On the environmental front, the EPA released the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule in July. As you all know, the main change was the inclusion of Texas in the rule. And while there will be some incremental operating expenses, we are reaffirming today our environmental capital plan of approximately $720 million. Finally, we continue to make good progress in our repowering and solar projects. In June, we reached commercial operations on our 200-megawatt Middletown repowering project in Connecticut, and started the commissioning sequence for Road Runner solar project in New Mexico. All other projects in Indian River, El Segundo and Ivanpah continue to be on schedule. Now turning to Slide 9 for a more detailed review of our operating performance. Net generation was higher by 2.5 terawatt hours during the second quarter compared to 2010, driven primarily by generation in Texas due to record weather in June and the addition of Cottonwood in our South Central portfolio. Our…

Thank you, Mauricio, and good morning. Beginning with the financial summary on Slide 15, we are very pleased with our results for both the quarter and year-to-date 2011 having announced adjusted EBITDA of $517 million and $972 million, respectively. During the second quarter, Reliant Energy continued to perform well, contributing $176 million of adjusted EBITDA as the business benefited from the warmest June on record leading to a 9% increase in mass volumes. NRG's wholesale generation business reported $341 million of adjusted EBITDA for the second quarter. Texas wholesale generation contributed $215 million of adjusted EBITDA as the fleet's average capacity factor improved 3%, allowing the region to benefit from the favorable weather. However, despite the improvement in operational performance, year-over-year adjusted EBITDA decreased $128 million, largely as a result of lower quarter-on-quarter energy and hedge prices realized in 2010. In the Northeast region, adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $47 million, approximately $50 million decline versus the second quarter of 2010. And it was driven by lower hedge prices and a substantial decrease in capacity revenues, all offset by lower operating costs. The West and South Central regions delivered $51 million of adjusted EBITDA, which was an increase of $20 million from the prior year's period. These regions continued to benefit from strong merchant activity, particularly in the South Central with the addition of Cottonwood. Adjusted EBITDA for the first 6 months of 2011 was $972 million, with Reliant contributing $327 million and our wholesale business adding $645 million. Reliant's business has performed extremely well by continuing to grow its mass customer base and the $13 million improvement in the C&I business year-on-year, due in part to an improvement in unit margins. The NRG wholesale business has also performed well and benefited from an 8% year-on-year increase in generations…

Thank you, Chris. And before I give those closing remarks, I just want to mention about Chris' departure, which obviously we announced in the second press release this morning. I'm very sorry to see Chris go, as I think he did much during his comparatively short time with the company to streamline some of our critical processes and simplify our balance sheet, so that we would be in a better position to optimize the allocation of the company's capital. So on behalf of myself and everyone at NRG, I wish him well in his new endeavor. With respect to a new CFO, we have just commenced consideration of potential successors for Chris. And while it is early days yet, I want you to know that I have every expectation that we will be able to consider our alternatives and fill the position in a much shorter period of time than last time around. The second and final thing I would tell you at this early stage in our CFO's search is that we have a very, very capable finance and accounting teams with deeply experienced management. And they will continue to pursue the company's various financing and capital allocation initiatives no matter how short or how long the CFO interim [ph] period turns out to be. So now turning to the concluding slide on Page 20. Sometimes the NRG story, by which I mean our investment proposition, can seem rather complicated. But I think at this juncture and at this share price, it boils down to 3 things that you may wish to consider as drivers for further investment in NRG: First, our unique wholesale asset retail business mix that has its core strength in Texas, the best and strongest growing regional market in the United States with the reserve margin that has proven itself in the past few days to be surprisingly tight; second, our robustly growing green energy portfolio of projects and businesses, led by our industry-leading multifaceted solar program; and third, our willingness and our significant ability to return excess capital through our capital allocation program in a manner that creates value for our shareholders. This is a business model, which we had been pursuing relentlessly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. And with that, Kiara, we will be happy to take questions from people on the phone.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Brandon Blossman with Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: Let's see, kicking off with some solar questions. So I guess, one, can you kind of help us size the Prologis distributed [ph] solar project? I see the DOE loan, but it seems to some degree, unlimited here as far as size and ultimately trying to back into some kind of EBITDA expectations in the outyears.

Well, the project at Prologis, I mean, I think you have to think of it in 3 phases. There's an initial 15 megawatts that -- I mean, it's a program that's supposed to unveil itself over 4 years. That's the period at which the DOE loan is available. And so, I mean, the maximum size is about 800 megawatts. But the initial -- the part that's starting right away is 15 megawatts. And so how large it ultimately ends up being -- I mean, if it achieves its full potential, the total size of the program is roughly about $2.4 billion in terms of total enterprise value. I think, it's really early to say whether it'll be 100% successful. But I would say from our perspective, even 50% successful or 75% successful would be a great win, and that would mean that the investment for us would be over 4 years in the $500 million to $700 million range. So translating that into EBITDA, it might be a little bit early for us to do that, but I think that, that's something we try and flesh out on our next call. Tom, do you want to add to that?

No, I think you've covered it completely.

Brandon, is that good enough for you? Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: It's helpful. I appreciate the color. And then just kind of following on the solar theme, I think, Chris mentioned a 49%, 48% sell-down? That was -- I didn't -- the equity portion of the current solar project. Could you -- is there any additional color that you can give around that? Is that indeed the equity portion, and what kind of order of magnitude are we looking at there also?

Yes. No, Brandon, it's 49% of the equity in the 880 megawatts of utility scale. To give you size, there is -- before ITC, it's about $1.8 billion total equity. So afterwards, after the ITC grant, it's about approximately $1 billion. So 49% of that would leave us with approximately $500 million of equity. And as I said on the call, the benefits to us here are threefold. Obviously, we're looking to attract new investors into this to continue to bring them in and other investments that we have in the future. And clearly, we're going to optimize the tax benefit created by these projects. So those are the 2 certain goals as we move this forward. And we are -- certainly still expect to have this done before year end. Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: Great. So more cash in the door.

And that's not included in any of the liquidity slides that you have in the deck in the slide presentation.

And our next question comes from the line of Paul Fremont with Jefferies. Paul Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: You talked a little bit about EPA compliance in Texas including the purchase of emission allowances. Can you give us a feel for what allowances are trading at in that market right now?

Paul, this is Mauricio. I mean, right now, there is no market liquidity for allowances, and we haven't seen any indication on pricing outside of what the EPA provided. So as we said, we have an integrated compliance strategy. I think, purchasing allowance is one of the options. And as we gain clarity on pricing, then we will decide whether we buy more [indiscernible], how much more we're going to increase our scrubber removal efficiency on Limestone and Parish, but that's yet to be determined based on prices. Paul Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: So I mean, the EPA range is a really wide range. I mean, do you have a sense of where your pricing expectations will come out relative to their range?

Paul, I mean, that's -- it's very difficult to establish at this point. I mean, we're looking at the spread between low sulfur and high sulfur PRB or lower sulfur and low sulfur PRB. That will provide us some indication capital investment or low capital investment to comply. So I mean, at this point, it's very difficult to pin a pricing expectation. Paul Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: And then on the Reliant side, you talked I guess about declining margins there. But can you give us a sense dollar-wise either for C&I or mass market what those margins look like right now?

Paul, this is Jason. We don't give margins at a segment level between our mass business and our C&I business. But what I can tell you is that if you look at our performance against both those segments, in the mass segment, we have seen a slight erosion of margins in that business, but that's consistent with competitive market, but yet we're still delivering very strong margins against the portfolio. In the C&I business, we continue to see increased margin pressure in that business. However, we're taking a very disciplined approach against the types of business that we're going after to make sure that we can earn the proper type of return against the capital we're putting at risk against the C&I business. Paul Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: And then the last question is the -- you changed your projections on adjusted free cash flow. It looks like the big change is a reduction in working capital assumption. What's driving that?

It would just be a move in the collateral to support the trading businesses.

And our next question comes from the line of Ted Durbin with Goldman Sachs.

Just following up on the retail question. I'm wondering are you -- how are you getting these higher customers? Are you ramping up your customer acquisition costs? And then, can you just comment on that first?

We have increased some of our marketing activity. The other thing that we've done is we've entered into some new channel arrangements to meet customers in more places from an acquisition standpoint. We've made significant improvements in our conversion performance within our channel. In fact, our conversion on a close rate is higher than it's been in our historical performance. The third thing that we've done on a retention standpoint in retaining customers is we've gotten a lot better in terms of our overall retention performance as well, so it's a factor of new channels, our acquisition performance, our conversion rates and just performing a lot better on a retention level, which is enhanced by our customer service and the types of product offerings that we're giving customers, that we believe continue to differentiate us in the market and what we're doing around our e-Sense product program.

Okay, that's helpful. And then just on the segment as well. For the quarter, how much did weather impact the volumes, would you estimate?

Weather clearly had an impact on our overall volumes. But I would tell you in terms of our performance for the quarter, it's a combination of not only weather driving higher volume, we had benefited from a lower supply cost than budget, as well as a strong improvement in our bad debt, which I think is consistent, which is the overall economic environment that you see here in Texas; and then fourth, the strong customer count growth. So it's a combination of all 4 of those things that's really driving the performance.

Got it. And then if I could just ask one more question, just shifting more to a sort of balance sheet, and it sounds like the positive common trend on buyback potentially in '12 -- any thoughts on sizing how big that might look like? And then I'm particularly interested in what kind of cash balance you think you'll need to run on a sustainable basis, higher or lower than where you've been over the last few quarters, or just some thoughts there?

Well, Ted, I mean, obviously, we are intentionally being vague about what we expect to do in 2012 because we don't want to create an expectation amongst people like yourselves that we would have to fulfill 6 months from now under completely different circumstances. Obviously, with where the company share prices now, seriously undervalued from our perspective, we see investment in the company's stock is to be about the best thing that the company can do with its money. We obviously have no idea what the company share price will be in the first quarter next year. Obviously, we hope that it moved in a particular direction from where it is right now. So I don't want to give you a particular number in that regard. But I would tell you that as we think through what will happen once we are out from underneath the -- out from underneath this restricted payment basket is that, I think, one thing that we'll be trying to change people's mindset on is the idea that there is a specific amount of buyback that we'll do every year on a recurring basis. That was something that we put in place about 5 years ago because looking forward with the RP basket is part of our life. We sort of saw that we'd have that ability to do that. I think what you'll see in the first quarter next year is that the way we're going to look at it is that, we want to right size our balance sheet from the point of view of how much liquidity we've maintained and go back to the way most people do buybacks, which is not something they do the same number every year. But if they have excess cash, they do it, and if they don't have excess cash, they don't do it. So I think that's the way we'll be looking at whatever decision we make in the first quarter of the year is -- how much excess cash do we have and what should we do of it, so that the balance sheet isn't constantly carrying this big -- it's a high quality problem, but this burden of too much high cost capital.

And our next question comes from the line of Ameet Thakkar with Bank of America.

David, just kind of following up, I guess, on the last question there. Over the last, I guess, several quarters and you guys have kind of been more focused on organic growth around your existing conventional fleet and the solar business. But given where we are in the cycle and now having some more finality or clarity on EPA rules, I mean, I guess, if we have to rank order, I guess, your potential uses about excess liquidity, is it fair to say that kind of share buybacks are kind of at the top of the list at this point?

Well, I mean, based on what we can see now, that would be yes, that would be at the top. But I mean, let me address some of the other potential uses since you mentioned them. And I think you can see the limits of my predictive capacity because I had anticipated in early 2010 that 2011 would be a good time to be in the market buying power plants. But nothing could be further from the truth. I'll tell you what we've seen in the last several months is that -- and this is speaking, Ameet, about gas-fired power plants is that, that there are a lot of people chasing the gas plants in the market, and they're willing to pay prices that we can't justify. And the price that we're thinking things are worth and the price that people are paying for plants is not shrinking, it's getting larger. The other thing we're seeing in the market for gas-fired power plants is it's not just strategic buyers in the market anymore, it's financial buyers. And it seems that people are anticipating a turn in the commodity cycle, and private enterprises that don't have to worry at all about near-term accretion dilution are amassing power plants on the idea that the forward price curve is about to turn in a positive direction. So I would say of all the things that you might see us investing money in, the least likely thing you'll see as investing money in is in buying gas-fired combined cycle power plants. Another question that comes up is what about coal plants now that we have a little bit greater clarity because EPA rules are out there? I think it's really too early to tell on that because first of all, I'm not sure, no…

That was very good. And then just real quick for Mauricio. There's been obviously a lot of back and forth regarding just some of the inner workings in the newer [ph] capacity market. I was just wondering if you can provide us an update on where you see that process kind of moving to you next. And also, I was wondering if kind of the lower spot on your capacity options is what kind of drove, I guess, a slight reduction in the top end of your wholesale guidance?

Okay. I mean, well, as you know, we filed a complaint with FERC. We believe that the MISO did not exert the buyer [ph] side mitigation rules in the Astoria ACS plant. That was the main driver of the decrease in capacity prices from June to July. We think that -- we're awaiting the ruling from FERC. We think that there is a good precedent, given how they sided on the [indiscernible] rule in PJM, and we will update you when we know more about it.

And our next question comes from the line of Greg Orrill with Barclays Capital.

Was wondering if I could take another crack at the idea of the excess cash that you would have available in 2012. Just how do you think about the concept of excess cash in terms of metrics and levels there? Or is there really another way to think about it just in terms of amount of cash that you need to have set aside just as more of a static measure to run the business?

Well, Greg, let me take -- the way we look at it is that Chris comes in at what's an increasingly long line of CFOs of this company, all of whom have told me that they think that the ongoing cash needs of the company in order to operate our business is in the $700 million range. And so we start by setting that aside. The second thing I think that you will -- you can count on us doing is that we will look at the equity capital when we get to the first quarter next year. We'll look at the equity capital that we expect to invest in the solar projects and the conventional projects that are well on their way. One of the things about -- another one of the things that I like about solar development is that the hit rate on solar development seems to be significantly higher than the hit rate on conventional power generation. And so if it looks like we have projects in the pipeline that are going to require equity capital in a foreseeable period of time, for example, calendar year 2012, we will take that into account. And then we look at having deducted those 2 things and obviously, the main is environmental CapEx, and the other things we do every year, then that's the number. And right now, we projected that number will be in the several hundred million dollar range. And so I know -- and I did sort of avoid the previous question in terms of ranking these various uses of capital. And to some degree, I don't think that we have to rank these uses of capital because we have so much capital that if we have very strong investments, I think we can do more than one thing. But I think we will look where we stand at that time in the Spring of 2012. And this is important, and then we will consult with our Board of Directors because they will have a very strong point of view on this. And then, we will look at the options in terms of return of capital to all the stakeholders, the shareholders certainly but even whether there should be more debt repayment.

And so in terms of the timing of taking out the 17, is that -- has your view changed at all on sort of when that would occur? I thought the sort of the base case was to wait until February.

No, that's still the base case. But that's not -- Chris, why don't you just give the...

Yes. I don't think the timeline has changed at all. I think we've been very opportunistic about the refinancings to date. And that really has taken advantage of a firm high yield bond market, so we continue to track that. We continue to understand where a potential refinancing with price vis-a-vis where we would redeem these bonds. Obviously, there's a May call period which is available now, which declines from -- based on treasury, it's about 107.5 or so now. It declines to the call price, which is about 103 and 3/8 or so in January. So we'll just continue to track it through that time period and then see what our refinancing alternatives are.

And our next question comes from the line of Keith Stanley of Deutsche Bank.

Can you provide an update just on how much load Reliant is now serving outside of Texas, and the mix of customers you have there in terms of residential and C&I, and I guess, how quickly you intend to grow this business outside of Texas?

So outside of Texas, it's still early days for us. We're a little 2 terawatt hours in our C&I business. Our residential business, we're only in 3 states. We've not begun to fully turn up our marketing activity as of yet, so we really think that we'll see more of our growth come from out of region the back half of this year and certainly into 2012. But we do intend over the next couple of years that it will represent meaningful growth for us in terms of our overall retail EBITDA performance, as well as customers and volume.

Okay. That's helpful. And one follow-up, for 2012, you've now added some hedges in each of the past 2 quarters. But looking at the heat rate sensitivity, on an apples-to-apples basis, it looks like it hasn't changed much. Is it fair to assume you're layering in mostly gas hedges still for 2012, and looking to keep some of that upside to heat rates open?

That is correct. I mean, we've taken advantage of short-term rallies in the gas market, particularly pre-summer. And we executed some gas hedges in our baseload portfolio. And as you know -- as we get closer to the delivery year, we'll convert that into power.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Jay Dobson with Wunderlich Securities.

I was hoping to throw one to Jason to just follow up on the retail business in the last question he was asking about the sort of outside or out of Texas business. Can you talk a little bit, Jason, just what you're seeing margin-wise outside of Texas, understanding it's early days vis-a-vis what you're seeing in Texas? I understand you may not want to give specific numbers, but just in zip code and the idea being Texas is a pretty developed market versus some of these other states not as developed, just what we can read in by a comparison of those 2 markets.

Well against both segments, rather C&I or mass segment, we see lower margins in the Northeast than we do in the Texas market, just given the market structures that exist across PJM. But relative to our plan and what we thought we would be able to achieve in those markets, again, early days. We're fairly consistent with the types of margins we thought we would be able to generate in the Northeast.

And will -- are you expecting to see some increase in margins, and that's what's going to drive you towards accelerating the outside of Texas business, or are these margins sort of what it's going to be, and you'll just grow on the back of volume off these lower margins?

Our expectation is that the margins are going to be what they are. And that's going to -- our growth and the speed of which we grow is really more about getting certified in each of the states and then us actively marketing in those states. But we think that over time and we certainly believe that market conditions may change, and that you might get to a more open competitive market like you see in Texas over time and PJM, we think that will create some margin expansion opportunity in those markets if that actually happens.

That's great. And then, Mauricio, one last one, back to the cash per rules [ph]. On Page 13, you indicated that you're looking at some low cost control for Big Cajun versus allowances, and I know you're waiting on some additional interpretation there but wondering sort of what you're thinking about there in addition to the ACI and fabric filters you identified in the table above.

I think specifically for Big Cajun, we'll be evaluating SNCRs relative to the cost of allowances and potentially the use of lower sulfur PRB. That's what we're contemplating right now. But as you can appreciate, without having some price visibility, we haven't made up our mind on what route to take.

Got you. And SNCR is relatively inexpensive. But would that be in the 7 to 20, or would that be on top?

No, we believe it's going to within the 7, 20.

[Operator Instructions] Our last question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski with Macquarie.

Another question about retail, not surprisingly, you mentioned that you think that margins should stay stable going forward. But should we just simply assume that there's a higher profitability of this business going forward especially in Texas? Or should we assume that 2011 in ERCOT is a bit of a one-off year where ERCOT clearly intervenes in power markets which caps power prices and reducing the purchase dollar cost for Reliant and as such, Reliant's margins are a bit inflated?

Angie, this is Jason. No, I think if you look at our margins in 2011, again, they're being helped today also by lower supply cost. We're seeing improvement in our bad debt. It's not all just kind of the market dynamic that's driving that. I think when you look at our position in the market, our ability to capture a premium from a pricing standpoint, we feel fairly confident that we'll continue to be able to hold the kind of margins that we're delivering today. Now whether or not you continue to see the volume inflation that whether it's one of those contributing factors, that's something that we'll see if that repeats itself in 2012. But I don't think that you would look at our margins today and say that they're being inflated by the way in which ERCOT operates the market.

Angie, if I could add to what Jason is saying, I think one of the things we've been concerned about on the retail side and this is another testament to what Reliant has achieved is that, since the market had felt that wholesale prices were subdued and were going to stay subdued, that unleashes a tremendous amount of competition on the retail side. Jason, how many retail electricity providers are there active in Texas right now, 40, 50, something like that?

No, it's about 60.

60 in Texas. And what we're particularly concerned about is when the retail margin would erode under obviously price competition from other retailers and for the reasons that we already described, Reliant had been able to withstand that attack. But what we may be facing over the next 3 years is that if ERCOT, which does not have a lot of generations supply coming through the construction pipeline, gets very tight on generation side, Jason's wholesale costs may rise and compressed retail margins in that regard. And so, will Jason be able to do $600 million or $700 million a year every year going forward, not in that sort of rising wholesale pricing environment. But of course, the good thing for an NRG shareholder is what Jason sees in terms of compression is what our generation side will see as greater margin. In Texas, we're still roughly 2/3 generation and 1/3 retail. So ultimately, the company overall will benefit in that situation even if Reliant has difficulty posting that same type of number year on, year out -- year in, year out.

Yes. That's great.

And operator, I think that's a great note for us -- that last effort to extol the beauty of the wholesale, retail model that is unique to NRG is a good way to end the discussion. So thank you all very much for participating in this call, and we look forward to speaking with you in the months to come and on the next quarter call at the beginning of November. Thank you very much.