Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Welcome to the UBS Second Quarter Results Conference Call. I am Stephanie, the Chorus Call operator. [Operator Instructions] The conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] This conference must not be recorded for publication or broadcast. At this time, it's my pleasure to hand over to UBS.

Good morning, and welcome to our second quarter results presentation. My name is Caroline Stewart, and I'm the Head of Investor Relations at UBS. This morning, Sergio Ermotti, our CEO, will present the highlights for the second quarter; and Tom Naratil, our CFO, will talk through the details. After our presentation, we'll take questions from analysts and investors and we'll address questions from journalists in a separate call. Before I hand over to Sergio, I'd like to draw your attention to the slide containing our cautionary statement with regard to forward-looking statements, and I'd ask that you read it carefully. Now I'd like to hand over to Sergio.

Thank you, Caroline. Good morning, everyone. In the second quarter, we continued to execute our strategy successfully, while all our businesses performed well despite volatile macroeconomic and market conditions. As we have already announced, we continue to address a number of issues from the past, which led to charges of CHF 865 million. Despite these challenges, we reported a net profit attributable to shareholders of CHF 690 million and significantly improved our industry-leading capital ratios. We have also delivered almost CHF 2 billion of cost savings since we announced our initial program in the summer of 2011. The results of our disciplined execution proves we have the right strategy. Our financial performance and capital strengths are a testament to the commitment of our staff, the loyalty of our clients and the strength of our franchise. So let me run through our achievements in the quarter. In Wealth Management, we delivered our best financial performance in 4 years, excluding the effect of the Swiss-U.K. tax agreement and restructuring costs. Gross margins held up well at 90 basis points, and net new money was strong at over CHF 10 billion. All regions attracted positive flows. And, last but not least, UBS was named Best Global Wealth Manager in the Euromoney Awards for Excellence for the second year running. Our performance in Wealth Management Americas was also very strong, setting a new record for profit before tax. Revenues, invested assets and revenues per FA also reached a new high, and we recorded net new money of USD 2.8 billion. Year-to-date, our Wealth Management businesses have attracted net new money of over CHF 36 billion, an increase of 50% compared with the first half of 2012. In the past year, our invested asset base has risen by almost CHF 165 billion to CHF 1.7…

Thanks, Sergio. Good morning, everyone. As usual, my commentary will reference adjusted results. This quarter's results exclude an own credit gain of CHF 138 million and net restructuring charges of CHF 140 million. We did not adjust for CHF 865 million in charges related to litigation, regulatory and similar matters, the charge related to the Swiss-U.K. tax agreement, or an impairment of certain financial assets. All our business divisions performed well and contributed to the group pretax profit of approximately CHF 1 billion. Our net profit was CHF 690 million, as we attributed approximately CHF 200 million to preferred noteholders and recorded a tax expense of CHF 125 million. While we forecast the full year tax rate of around 30%, it may differ significantly depending on several factors, including any revaluation of deferred tax assets as a result of our annual business planning process. Book value per share was slightly down this quarter, largely due to net losses and other comprehensive income. The impact of changes in long-term interest rates on our cash flow hedges and AFS portfolio led to unrealized losses CHF 1 billion. Currency translation losses were approximately CHF 200 million. These effects were partly offset by gains on defined benefit plans of approximately CHF 500 million. We've anticipated the move to interest rate normalization. In order to manage interest rate risk appropriately, we've carefully managed our balance sheet to create the most value in the longer term. Specifically, in the face of net interest margin compression, we chose not to extend the duration of our interest-bearing assets, and our shareholders have benefited from this approach. As we've said before, the immediate effect of a spike in rates for us and for the industry as a whole would be adverse. However, over time, rising net interest income should…

[Operator Instructions] First question from Mr. Huw Van Steenis from Morgan Stanley.

Can I just get back to a question on dividend? I think you've done such a good job burning off the non-core and legacy assets. You're talking about a potential for increase in dividend in '14. Is there any sort of bookends you could give around that comment? And number two, in terms of the rundown of the StabFund, would you expect that, by Christmas or beyond, there'd be a much bigger reduction in RWAs so that you actually have a much lower balance already by the end of 2014 or 2015?

Thank you, Huw. On dividend, I think that we are consistent with what we announced before. I think we will not really change our dividend policy until we reach our 13% target, which is still expected to happen in 2014. For the time being, we will continue with a progressive dividend policy. And we'll assess exactly how to implement that policy at year end, once we know exactly how we end up with. Tom, maybe you can take...

Sure. Huw, on the rundown, at this point in time, we expect the RWA at option exercise would be CHF 3 billion to CHF 7 billion. Upon exercise, when securities move into the banks portfolio, that will move right into our Legacy Portfolio group. And I think, as you've seen, they've demonstrated quite an expertise in reducing RWAs relatively quickly.

Okay. But there's no further litigation or other issues which might make it a slightly more stubborn set of assets to clear? You'd -- we should just amortize it over a relatively swift period of time?

If there is nothing particularly unique about those assets.

Next question from Mr. Jon Peace, Nomura.

I had a question about gross margins in Wealth Management. I apologize. I just missed the start of the call, but some of your peers have been quite optimistic about the direction of travelers' transaction-related income, in particular. I just wondered how you saw the gross margin developing absent an interest rate rise.

So Jon, on gross margins, first, I think in order to get a really good picture across the industry, I think the data quarter-to-quarter is a little volatile for you to weigh different firms, treat different revenue lines. So I think looking back half-on-half, year-on-year is probably the best way to look at those comparisons. One of the things that we've noted in our client flows is the big volatility month-to-month in gross margin. And we saw a similar volatility in this quarter to what we saw last quarter. We had a month where we were just at the very bottom or just under the very bottom of our target range of 95 to 105 basis points. We had double-digit high to lows in terms of the gross margin during the quarter. And we finished the quarter at 88 basis points below the average. I think anyone that has -- or thinks they have very good visibility on gross margin, I think that's good for them. We just don't see that. I also think it's important to think about cash. During our quarter, our cash balances in our Wealth Management business went up. In our investors survey at Wealth Management Americas, our clients cited roughly stable to a touch higher cash balances and great comfort with those cash balances, despite being a bit more optimistic about both the economy and the equity markets. So we continue to be cautious in our outlook and think that gross margin will remain a little tricky in here.

Next question from Mr. Kian Abouhossein from JPMorgan. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: First question is related to the StabFund. You're giving the 70 to 90 basis point risk-weighted asset and Tier 1 ratio improvement. And I'm wondering if your risk-weighted asset -- how would your risk-weighted assets be impacted by the new securitization rules? If they would come into effect, how would your risk-weighted assets look different that you're taking on from what you're indicating? Secondly, on cost/income in the IB, you're at the low end of your target, as you indicated. My understanding was that we should assume to be at the higher end for this year and then see a continuous improvement as all of the cost synergies come through. How should we think about the cost/income for the year vis-à-vis potentially kind of adjustment effect in the fourth quarter? Or are you accruing for the current revenue basis in terms of payout? And the third question is related to dividends. I thought that Mr. Ermotti made a statement that there will be no material payout until 2014. But to me, it looks like you could potentially reach 13% by the end of this year. And historically, you were talking more about 13% mean for material payout, i.e. in the 50% range, as I understood. I'm just wondering where we stand at that point.

Thanks, Kian. Let me tackle the last question, and then I'll let Tom take on the other 2. I think that the language we use is the same one. The approach is the same one. Only when we achieve the 13% core equity Tier 1 ratio, we will basically go into a 50% or more payout. At this stage, we are still expecting this to happen only in 2014. Therefore, the dividend impactors will be the 2015 dividend, to be paid early in 2015. I think that, as Tom pointed out in his remarks, we still have to tackle some of the legacy issues. We need to understand that the second half of the year will be challenging. I think that we have restructuring costs that will allow us to create this sustainable profitability going forward that will allow, indeed, to have a more generous payout policy. But we stay very firm on first achieving our targets and then introduce the policy, as we outlined. Tom?

Thanks, Sergio. So Kian, on your cost/income ratio for the IB, we still think the range is 65% to 85%. We've had great performance in revenue lines, great performance in managing the cost by the IB. At the same time, as you know, we're moving into a seasonally slower part of the year. And that will certainly push us back into the range. On your question, I think there was also a question on -- about accruals, compensation. We're current based on performance through the first half of the year. So there's no catch-up to come. On the StabFund, our best range in this is CHF 3 billion to CHF 7 billion of incremental RWA. And our intent is to move them out as quickly as possible. So we're not really looking forward to new rules in our estimates.

Next question, Mr. Jeremy Sigee from Barclays.

Just 3 quick follow-up questions, please, actually. Firstly, on the SNB StabFund, what leverage ratio exposure does it add to the balance sheet when you bring it back on the balance sheet? If I have the same[ph] , what's the leverage ratio exposure that it adds? Second question, the RWA is obviously below your year-end target and you're now emphasizing the kind of CHF 200 billion target more. Is there any reason, x SNB StabFund, why RWAs would go up in the second half? For sure, I will imagine that it would sort of keep coming down with your deleveraging and your runoff and the seasonal impacts. And then third and final question, could you just go back a bit more onto the retrocession fee impact. You said some has happened in Q2, but there's more to come. I just wondered if you could sort of say roughly how far up through that process we are.

Okay. Jeremy, thanks for those questions. SNB, the CHF 3 billion to CHF 7 billion in incremental RWA is only CHF 1 billion to CHF 2 billion in balance sheet. So it's de minimis effect on leverage ratio.

The CHF 1 billion to CHF 2 billion was from the balance sheet, but you're saying it's also de minimis in terms of leverage ratio definition?

It's only going to be funded that's coming on. RWA below the year-end target, obviously, we're pressing to continue the reductions that we have. What would put pressure upwards? Obviously, growth in our businesses, Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas and Retail & Corporate, those are the things where we want to accommodate that growth. And in order to do that, we'll continue our focus on the non-core and Legacy Portfolio reductions. On your questions on the retrocession fee impact, we're about 3/4 of the way through the process. So there is still a little bit of headwind to come in the next quarter. But we are encouraged -- I think this is important. We are encouraged by some of the pricing actions that we've been able to put through, in particular, pricing discipline.

The next question from Mr. Stefan Stalmann from Autonomous Research.

I have 2 questions, please. The first one on the interrelationship between leverage and your risk-weighted asset ratio. Your average risk-weighting has come down during the quarter. It's now 21%. And from what you suggest about the runoff portfolio, it would drop further to about 18% if we take out the runoff in the Legacy Portfolio. And that basically puts you quite a long distance below the 24% breakeven risk weighting, below which your leverage ratio drives your capital needs. How do you think about that? Is there any way for you to raise the risk weighting materially over the next couple of years? Or will you have to target a higher risk-weighted capital ratio as a reaction? And the second question relates to your restructuring expenses. After the first half, you were slightly below CHF 400 million. I think the target was calling more for a level of around CHF 1 billion for the whole year. Do you expect to continue to run below this kind of target level of restructuring expenses? And if so, is there a particular reason why restructuring expenses turned out to be lower than you initially thought?

Stefan, thank you. I think your first question illustrates some of the debate upcoming on the leverage ratio denominator and, in particular, the interesting discussion around how we treat liquidity buffers and carrying better-quality assets in the course of that discussion and debate. So we've been very effective, as you know, as a result of our strategy of taking out higher risk-weighted assets. And that is changing some of the calculations, that you've noted, as a result. So we look forward to the continued debate. And hopefully, we'll see some relief on the liquidity buffer side. Looking at the restructuring costs, last quarter, we had said we thought we'd be about CHF 200 million to CHF 300 million below where we had guided previously. So at this point, we think it's about CHF 800 million in restructuring costs for the year. Two things -- or 2 or 3 things that I think are factoring it in that. Number one, cost of exit employees has been less than we've anticipated, first of all. Second of all, we've had a slightly higher voluntary attrition rate than we had modeled. And then finally, third, I think we've just been a little more efficient in the cost of some of the programs that we thought we'd have to run in order to take some of the costs out.

The next question from Mr. Christopher Wheeler from Mediobanca.

A couple of questions, if I may. The first one on Slide 9. Obviously, the ultra high net worth progress, which obviously is outstanding, I guess if -- I'm just looking at the numbers, though, there seems to me every chance that you could have had more high[ph] And higher ultra high net worth money under management within about 2 years than you have other. And obviously, looking at the data you provided on margins, both gross and pretax, I'm still scratching my head and thinking at what stage do you start to perhaps change your mind on your gross margin target of 95 to 105, perhaps bring that down and, at the same time, maybe push up a little on your pretax margin, the 60 to 70, as you see the skew continue. So perhaps, I'm asking you to preempt whatever your next Investor Day is, but I'll be interested in that. Another, the second question, I think, is on Slide 26 on the -- on leverage, which Tom [indiscernible] got us all focusing on, I just wondered if those numbers included what you think the changes might be to the numbers, given the paper that came out on the 26th of June and the impact on things like repos and sold CDS and whether or not that adds another dimension to what you have to do to continue on this very painful path to meeting the new leverage ratio.

Thank you, Chris. Well, on -- in respect of the trend you just mentioned, it's clear that we have been growing much faster than anticipated in our ultra high net worth segment. That's clearly -- it is -- and we are very pleased of this outcome, particularly because if you think about the fact that the most sophisticated investor in the world are favoring us, our platform, our security capital base, it's clearly a great achievement. But in respect of the next multiyear, the 95, 105, we always described it as a multi-year plan. And it's very important to understand that both in the first quarter and in the second quarter, we were still -- or of the -- to the lower range of the -- to the lower range in terms of return on assets in the second quarter and it's slightly above in the first quarter, demonstrating that even though we have this mix changing towards the ultra high net worth, our 95 to 105 on a multiyear level, once the situation is normalized in terms of risk appetite, interest environment, repricing, is still a valid one. Also, because as -- particularly when you look into the emerging markets, as wealth creation will go through the next -- will get broader, it's more likely that you will see the high net worth segment improving and increasing, and our brand and our capabilities will capture that. So clearly, in the last few quarters, we have been seeing an acceleration of ultra high net worth. But the secular trend of wealth creation in the world will favor us as the preeminent wealth manager, and we will capture that opportunity.

Thank you, Chris. On your leverage ratio denominator question, in the assumptions on Slide 26, we've assumed steady-state in our interpretations of the Swiss SRB Basel III leverage ratio. As you know, there are 5 different ways you can look at these definitions. And Sergio mentioned in his remarks that it's going to be the upcoming debate and discussions around how those shake out. But clearly, if you just focus on some of the rule changes, you would see, obviously, a reduction in the ratio. However, part of that debate also has to be how you take a look at the high-quality and liquidity buffers that we're carrying to increase the focus on liquidity, number one. And number two, as I also mentioned in my remarks, this doesn't include any adjustments that you might make in your business processes. And clearly, if some of the rules were to go through in their current form, there would certainly be changes in business processes across the industry.

Next question from Mr. Kinner Lakhani, Citi.

I have 3 questions. Firstly, 3 quarters into your restructuring plan, especially related to the FICC business, do you find at this stage you need to make any kind of adjustments in terms of where the go-to headcount is going, which I think at the group level is 54,000, particularly around any of the details? Or this is far along at the back?

We lost connection from the questioner. There are no more questions for the meantime.

I will -- we will answer Kinner directly, but I think for everybody else on the phone, I think that I can tackle the first part of the question that I think is. We are 3 quarters into the execution. I would call it a 2.5 since we announced and started implementation in the fourth quarter of 2012. I think that we are just getting confirmation that the direction we are going is the right one. In respect of the headcount reduction, we -- I would call, in any case, our restructuring story a 7-quarter story and not a 2-quarter or 3-quarter story. I think it's true that we have been accelerated. But what we see right now is just a few changes are necessary to basically reshape that business. But directionally, we will be very close to 60,000 headcount at year end. And over the next 2 to 3 years, as Tom mentioned before, we will then implement the rest of the CHF 2 billion cost-reduction exercise that will translate into an equivalent of full-time -- FTEs of around 5,000, 6,000. So I think that's -- those are approximation. Of course, that is not always easy to translate cost into full-time equivalents. But directionally, we are still committed to our target and focus on that.

The next question is actually from Mr. Michael Helsby from Merrill Lynch.

Sorry, if I missed this, but I'm just picking up on your previous guidance that NII would be down around CHF 250 million in Wealth and R&C. I think at the first half, you're up CHF 21 million year-on-year. Is the delta just the movement that we've seen in the yield curve and therefore, you no longer think that CHF 250 million is -- you're going to see that headwind in 2013?

Michael, thanks for that question. One of the things that we noted and talked about the results of both Wealth Management, certainly, and Retail & Corporate and, to a lesser extent, Wealth Management Americas, is we've had increased volume. We've had better pricing. And that original CHF 250 million number was based on volume remaining static and no change in pricing. So the headwind is probably a bit less for the year overall or for the remaining portions of the year, probably something on the order of about 70%, 65% of the number.

Now it seems that we've come to the end of the analyst and investor questions. If there is any journalists on the line, please feel free to put your question forward. Beforehand, we'll take one question from Jernej at Goldman Sachs.

I've got 2 questions left on my list. The first one is, can you please clarify how we should think about the cost line in the Corporate Center? This was a big swing factor in this quarter, both in your core Corporate Center as well as the Corporate Center related to the rundown portfolio. Should we just take the quarterly number as we have it now or -- and extrapolate it? Or is there anything -- any other moving parts that we need to think about? And the second thing I wanted to ask you, which has more to do with sort of anecdotal chatter on the UBS' Investment Bank here in London. There is a view in the market, which is repeated quite frequently, that a number of positions that were cut in UBS' Investment Bank over the course of the past 3 quarters have been reestablished and a number of people hired back. Particularly, apparently, that is supposed to be the case for the rates businesses of UBS' operations here in London. Can you please shed some light on that and explain whether the anecdotes are off the mark or whether there is some truth to them?

Well, let me tackle the last question first. I think that we appreciate that we are an interesting story, and that may create some comments. And I think that we are very focused on discipline and executing our strategy. You can see the headcount trends. You can see the balance sheet movement. You can see the risk-weighted asset movement. I think that, to be honest, we have been hearing a lot of those kinds of rumors. They seem to be favored by -- I don't know which kind of sources. But I can assure you that we are totally focused on executing our strategy, that it's working very well and it's the right one for UBS. So I would just focus on more qualitative aspect of our results and our strategy than those one being rumored.

Then your question on that Corporate Center, when you look at the adjusted expenses, we're obviously not taking out any of the litigation, regulatory and other types of provisions. So that can cause some of the bouncing around that you see. But on the underlying basis, I think if you take a look, in particular, at the non-core and Legacy portfolio, the personnel, we've been seeing an underlying personnel reduction that's in line with the portfolio reduction. So you should expect that glide path maybe to flatten out a bit more. The speed of the deceleration maybe slows down a bit. But overall, I think if you look at the underlying trends, you should be able to project that it's flat to gliding.

Yes. Kinner, I think you're the next one. I was -- I answered your question. I guess I can repeat it for you as well. But we are basically in a journey that has been going on for 7 quarter. Of course, in the last 2.5 quarters, we have been accelerating the strategy. I think that, for sure, we will -- we are constantly doing fine-tuning to our business model. But the first set of headcount reduction has been achieved. We will think -- we think that we will be towards the 60,000 headcount by year end. And still, on -- over the next 2 to 3 years, our goal is, as we execute on the remaining CHF 2 billion of cost savings, we -- this will translate into the headcount reduction for the balance, being around 5,000 to 6,000 people. So I think it's difficult right now to be precise on full FTEs equivalents. But our cost base will come down. And as a function of that, unfortunately, this -- there is a high component of headcount-related consequences.

That's very clear. My other question was on DTAs, which is obviously the other source of hidden value. Would you be able to provide us with a bit of an update as to where we are in terms of both recognized and unrecognized DTAs and the timing of any changes or remeasuring these DTAs that we could expect?

Kinner, we expect to do the DTA remeasurement in the third quarter, in line with our business planning process. So when we get to that point in time, we'll make an assessment then.

And finally, just on your stress tested Basel III capital ratio, at the point where your headline level gets to 13%, would you expect to stress test it to provide any constraint against that?

I think as we look at achievement of the 13% on a fully-applied basis, in line with the accruals that we have in place for dividends during that year, which counts in the stress testing as being available to be reversed, we should see those 2 coinciding at roughly the same time period. It's obviously one of the things that we have to keep an eye on. And obviously, you're going to run with a little bit of an operational buffer as well. So that's also a component of that.

And in terms of the operational buffer, what kind of level would you be thinking of?

I think -- I don't think it's an absolute level that you look at. That's one of the things that we'll look at the stress test to try to measure that. And as I mentioned, when we look at a special dividend accrual within the capital account, since that's available, that's effectively also part of the buffer during that time period.

Next question from Mr. Andrew Stimpson from KBW. Andrew Stimpson - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Limited, Research Division: Sorry to sneak in at the end. Sorry, if I've missed this already. But clearly, earlier on in the quarter, the SNB put some more emphasis on leverage for the Swiss. And I'm just wondering, clearly, you guys are sticking with the 13% core equity Tier 1 ratio threshold before you start increasing dividends. I'm just wondering, surely, my thinking is perhaps the leverage ratio does start to become more of the constraint on whether you can start increasing that payout ratio. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are around that and maybe what the discussions have been with the actual regulator around leverage being the constraint rather than the risk-adjusted ratio?

Sure, Andrew. I think one of the key things to point out, the decision we made to accelerate our strategy in the third quarter of last year was based on some of the work that we did on a forward-looking basis on the leverage ratio and how that would impact our business. So first, we initiated a series of business changes within our strategy in the third quarter of last year to preempt that effect, number one. Number two, I think if you look at our Slide 26, you'd see that we have reduced our leverage ratio denominator by 6% in just 6 months. And so we're going to continue to focus on reducing the denominator itself. There, also on Slide 26, you see some of effects that will come in through the numerator. This is excluding any earnings, by the way. This is just focusing on exercising the StabFund option, the loss-absorbing capital, what makes you the low trigger, high trigger loss observing capital we have as part of our compensation plan. And you'll also see out of that CHF 1.141 trillion in LRD, CHF 240 billion of that is related to the non-core and Legacy Portfolio. And as we mentioned, we're focused on reducing that. But I think we've captured that in our strategic planning.

Gentlemen, there are no more questions at this time.

I would be very happy now to take questions from journalists.

I know we're a little early. I know we have a separate line, but I know that there is some of you who are on this line. So since we're early, for those of you who are on this line and would like to ask questions now from the media, please go ahead. And we will obviously keep the 11:00 timeframe for any journalists that dial in a little bit later on the other number. Any questions from the media?

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Mr. Giles Broom from Bloomberg.

I wondered if you could give us some insight into your market share in Wealth Management, and separately, into your market share in ultra high net worth [indiscernible]. I know it's a difficult one to be precise on, but maybe you can at least give us some color as to what the share is and how things are changing?

Well, I think that -- first of all, I think that, as recently announced by a survey, we have been -- we regained our position as the largest wealth manager in the world, according to Scorpio. And not only in terms of size, we have been among the one -- the biggest one, the one above 400 billion in our asset base. We have been the ones growing the fastest. So that's really one element. One contribution, a major contribution to these results last year was, clearly, our very good results in the ultra high net worth space. It's difficult to give you 3-year statistics, but I think that our -- according to our own internal guidelines, I think that we have a penetration of out of -- 1 of 2 billionaires in the world has a relationship with us. In Asia, this is very -- and much deeper. I think that the penetration goes the high 80%, 90%. So I think that clearly is a testament to the capabilities. But to come out with further data point, I think, is quite difficult. But I would stick to those anecdotal and third-party assessment.

Giles, any additional questions?

I mean, just -- do you feel that your market share across Wealth Management is increasing?

I think that we are...

Worldwide?

Yes, we are definitely increasing, as you could see from those surveys. But also, we can feel it also. If you look at our growth, all right, in asset base in the last 7, 8 quarters -- 10 quarters actually, since 2011, has been clearly above market trends, which is a clear mix of regaining back clients post crisis. We have been regaining back clients that during the crisis left, but we didn't close the account. And the second issue is that clearly, we are expanding. As you can see from our presentation, a 17% increase of invested assets in ultra high net worth was clearly very, very important. So yes, we are gaining back market share. And not only share of wallet with existing clients, but also, more and more, we can see a clear trend in the last 2 quarters of new clients coming on board.

Any other additional questions from the media?

[Operator Instructions]

Okay. Then we will close this call. And we will open the call at 11:00 for media because that's what we promised them. But thanks again for this call.

Yes, thank you for joining, and we'll catch up at the end of October. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, the conference is now over. Thank you for choosing Chorus Call, and thank you for participating in the conference. You may now disconnect your lines. Goodbye.