Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Vistra Energy Third Quarter 2019 Results Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Molly Sorg, Vice President of Investor Relations. Thank you, please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Vistra Energy's investor webcast covering third quarter 2019 results, which is being broadcast live, from the Investor Relations section of our website at www.vistraenergy.com. Also available on our website are a copy of today's investor presentation, our 10-Q and the related earnings release. Joining me for today's call are Curt Morgan, President and Chief Executive Officer; and David Campbell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. We have a few additional senior executives in the room to address questions in the second part of today's call, as necessary. Before we begin our presentation, I encourage all listeners to review the Safe Harbor statements included on Slides 2 and 3 in the investor presentation on our website that explain the risks of forward-looking statements, the limitations of certain industry and market data included in the presentation, and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. Today's discussion will contain forward-looking statements, which are based on assumptions we believe to be reasonable only as of today's date. Such forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected or implied. We assume no obligation to update our forward-looking statements. Further, our earnings release, slide presentation, and discussions on this call will include certain non-GAAP financial measures. For such measures, reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are in the earnings release and in the appendix to the investor presentation. I will now turn the call over to Curt Morgan to kick off our discussion.

Thank you, Molly, and good morning to everyone on the call. As always, we appreciate your interest in Vistra Energy. We expect this call to be lengthier than usual. We have a lot to cover including Q3 results, 2019 guidance, 2020 guidance with a glimpse of 2021, an operations performance initiative update and a 10-year view based on our detailed fundamental analysis. So let's get started. Turning to Slide 6, Vistra finished the third quarter of 2019 reported strong adjusted EBITDA from its ongoing operations of $1.064 billion, results that are once again in line with the management's expectations for the quarter and results I am pleased to see relative to guidance that's already incorporated, high ERCOT wholesale power prices, especially for the summer of 2019. The quarter began with an unseasonably mild July following one of the mildest Junes in over 10 years. In fact, there was a very, very, sentiment out there and our stock had sold off. On our second quarter call we outlined why we remain bullish on the markets, especially ERCOT and our company. Of course, we know that August turned out to be a different story than July, as the tight supply/demand dynamic in ERCOT resulted in sustained scarcity pricing. We saw 12 15-minute intervals clear at the price cap of $9000 per megawatt hour during the month. To give you some perspective of the magnitude of the difference between July and August pricing at ERCOT, the average 7 x 24 price in August was $131 a megawatt hour, more than four times higher than the average July sell price of approximately $30 a megawatt hour. Our fleet performed well during the summer peak period, resulting in August favorability in our ERCOT Generation segment offsetting the headwinds from July and importantly bringing realized prices…

Thank you, Curt. Turning now to Slide 18, this year delivered third quarter 2019 adjusted EBITDA from ongoing operations of $1,064 million which as Curt mentioned is in line with our expectations. Our third quarter results were $89 million lower than the same period in 2018. The quarter-over-quarter decline was driven by lower prices and volumes in our Midwest and Northeast segments. Lower retail gross margin in 2019 was offset by higher prices and margins in our top wholesale segment. As you know, we're expecting negative adjusted EBITDA on our retail segments for the quarter, given the stream peak in August 2019 heat waves observed in the market at the time we were procuring power for the year, which drove up our third quarter cost of goods sold. As we discussed in our second quarter call, we shaped the cost of goods sold for our retail business with the actual power curves rather than straight lining these costs over the year. The retail backwardation that Curt mentioned earlier was concentrated in the third quarter. The negative $40 million impact has already been fully recognized in retail year-to-date results. In fact, the negative impact in the third quarter is a little higher than $60 million, with some reversal occurring by year end. As you may recall, we realized higher retail gross margin in the first and second quarters of 2019, as compared to their respective quarters in 2018. We expect similar results in the fourth quarter. Year-to-date Vistra's adjusted EBITDA from ongoing operations is $2,586 million, which is also in line with Management's expectations for the period. The next two slides set forth our 2019 and 2020 adjusted EBITDA and adjusted free cash flow before growth guidance ranges. Given that Curt already covered our guidance announcements, I won't spend much time…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from the line of Shahriar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

Hey, good morning guys.

Hey, Shar.

Just two quick questions, first could we get a little bit more color around the future investment, kind of about, that might arise over the next decade? I mean the annual investment of $500 million per year is sort of a big part of the growth story there?

Yes so, I think what we mentioned in the script may not been that prominent, but I think we still view more near term that retail opportunities are the biggest opportunity, I mean you guys can see that the value that we bring and I'd say in our view, probably brings to the table given our capabilities and less in particular, given our long position and we can take out not only just sort of the back office and any other types of costs, but we can manage the commodity price risk exposure better and then there is just inherent in that difference there is a much lower multiple for retail, so we see some real value. I think they're going to be smaller in nature though going forward Shar. I don't think there are many larger, and when I say larger more on the Crius type Ambit size deals out there, but there is other ideas out there that we will likely pursue. I do believe that we will participate at the right point in time in renewables and battery storage. As you know, we have some real opportunities out in California to continue to build out our battery build at both Moss Landing site and our open site. I think we'll probably do some investment in that. We have a good pipeline of opportunities on the development side, not only in Texas, but also in few other states where we have sites from some of our existing assets that will become available. All that is going to be driven heavily by economics. And I think you guys know there is a lot of capital right now flooding into green investments by people who really don't have any business owning a wind project or a solar project, but they…

Got it. And then just lastly Curt, I mean obviously the plan you presented today should provide a lot of comfort with the agencies, right? Cash flows are sustainable, the EBITDA can actually grow, the balance sheet is healthy. You're definitely building a solid natural hedge with the retail business. You've talked sort of in the past around your ratings in sort of a two phases, right. First BB+, second investment grade. Can we maybe just get a little bit of a status on how the dialogue is going with the agencies? Your sense on timing first around the notch improvement and then second investment grade, especially in light of how you're presenting your plan today? That’s it. Thanks.

Yes, so you know, we're going to go and - I think we're going to go in and talk to the agencies because we're updating, obviously we have a 10-year view, but we're also finishing up and taking to our Board in early December our updated long range plan, which is our - it's generally a five-year view and then we need to sit down with the agencies on that. Moody's for example has asked for some of that information because I think they were going to go to committee. I think they're going to talk about not only us, but maybe others in terms of upgrading. We've been on positive watch with them for some time. So, we think that in the next quarter or so, we should be in a pretty good position hopefully with all the agencies, especially with what we're presenting today to potentially get an upgrade to that equivalent of BB+. On the investment grade front, that may be a little lumpier and may - and probably, you know, from that point where we would get upgraded probably a year beyond that and before we get there, I think with Fitch and Moody's, the metrics were pretty well 2.5 times. And with S&P, because of the way they look at certain things, at the 2.5 times we're not necessarily exactly there on the metrics, but with a business rating improvement, which we believe that we're squarely in line to get, that would put us in the investment grade range. So I think what we're really looking at is sort of first quarter, 2020, we're hoping are in that range of getting an upgrade across the agencies to that BB+ range. And then we're looking at a year to maybe a year and a half beyond that to get to investment grade with all three of the agencies. But I think that might be a little lumpy or just given the way the metrics were. So, we're going to keep doing what we're doing because I think the more we execute, the more we continue to perform the way that we say and that this business model becomes more and more apparent to people just how strong it is. And then also, you know, the quality of our assets, the quality of our retail business, you know, that's going to be really helpful with all the agencies, because I think what really, is the bigger hang up is, is this real? Are people that, are they going to be disciplined and does this business model work? And I think, so that's probably a bigger thing if anything, and I think that takes a little bit of time. But we feel like we're in line for this next upgrade in the near future and then we're going to obviously continue to execute and we think we've put ourselves in a good place for investment grade rating.

Got it. Congrats Curt on this execution. It is terrific.

All right, thank you, Shahr.

Your next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

Hey, good morning and congrats on a very constructive and thorough update.

Hey, thanks David. Good to hear from you.

I just wanted to touch on your point you raised about solar in ERCOT. You gave a lot of good color around that. I guess if you run a very simple sort of solar and LCOE model, you could see that maybe solar could work in a $30 plus market, but the point about practical limits on the growth of solar, I think it was a pretty important one we're often asked about. Could you just add a little bit more in terms of the volumes that you see that's realistic in terms of actually getting a hedge, getting financing, et cetera; or any color around that would be really helpful?

That is a good question. So one of the things we've been trying to get our arms around, I think you guys know this, but the renewables that have been built in ERCOT, and frankly, pretty much everywhere have been PPA supported. And as the large players have come in and allowed - basically used their balance sheet to do PPA's and that does allow, obviously, to get financing and take lower returns, right? Especially to get investment grade counterparty on the other end. But there is a saturation point where you start getting into smaller companies who don't want to own a wind project or a solar project. And at some point time in ERCOT, given the size of at least that 50-gigawatts of renewables coming into this market, I mean that's more than half of the current nameplate capacity of the market. Someone has to going to end up being merchant. I think the big question in ERCOT, being an all energy market, as you add more intermittent resources and during the periods between when you actually see volatility and high pricing; prices are going to be lower, because you've got intermittent resources with zero marginal cost. And so the question is, is there going to be enough revenue and enough frequency of that revenue to support merchant build? And I don't care what kind of merchant build it is. It can be renewables or it can be combined cycle plants. Now a combined cycle plants are way out of the money. Renewables that we see when you run the numbers, if you can get proper leverage on them, can get these levered returns currently. And I expect that we'll continue to see some cost decline in that. But once you get into the merchant side of things,…

That's really helpful. I'll let others ask questions. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

Thanks. Good morning. Good update. Thank you.

Hey, Greg.

Just to be clear, you assume 50 gigawatts of new nameplate renewables in the Texas market. I think that that – just that number alone will really cause people a lot of heartburn even if you're modeling that you can still generate stable cash flows out of that. But just to be clear, if that's your aggressive case scenario, you don't necessarily believe that that's where we're going to end up in 2013 given the constraints you just articulated?

Yes, I think what we try to do Greg – this is a conservative view of the market. We didn't want to come out with something that looked very self-serving. And I just mentioned this, and I'll say it again I'm not sure how this actually plays out. I mean you can model things and we sort of force function some of this new build to happen. Whether that can really happen or not on a merchant basis I have a lot of questions about that, and if that doesn't happen, you're still going to see increased volatility and higher pricing, it's just going to be higher pricing then what we've assumed here. And so I - we don't really know I mean this is a modeling exercise we wanted to be somewhat conservative on it, but there is a lot of leap of faith in this, that at some point when the PPA market grows up, there's only so much depth to that. If somebody is going to have to come in here and build on a merchant basis and that's tough in an all-energy market. And I don't see people like us or NRG or Exelon are others who have the ability to do it on balance sheet, we've all seen what can happen in ERCOT if you overbuild the market. So I just don't see that happening. And then of course we mentioned in the script and I've said this before, there is still 15 plus thousand megawatts of higher heat rate oil and gas and coal units that if we did somehow overbuild, which I just don't see happening would come out of the stack. So that's why we're bullish on this ERCOT market even in what we would consider a very conservative case that we put forward here.

Great but my second question is – you're obviously bullish on the fundamental value of the company and to some degree the arguments around the investment thesis in merchant power. Are this basically the durability of cash flow argument with the melting ice cube argument, which you're attacking head on. But to the extent that you really believe you're going to generate free cash flow after growth investments that, over the next 10 years, that's greater than your current market cap. And why aren't you plowing further ahead, more aggressively with the buybacks in the short to medium term. And I don't know I understand but the very short-term answer is you want to get to investment grade, but to the extent you're confident that these cash flows are going to show up. We're basically looking at another 300 some odd million of buyback in the short to medium term and then a pause in 2020 while you sort of done the engine to get e debt to EBITDA of 2.5 times. Right so how do you balance with investors who were saying, well, if you're so excited about the future. Why aren’t you being more aggressive with the buyback?

Yes, I mean that's a good question. And that's the balance that we're trying to strike here. Look Greg there is no magic formula here and I think it's our judgment that the equity value of this company does better with a stronger balance sheet than not. And – there is also a credibility and commitment thing and we're not just committing to equity here. We're also committing to people who own our bonds and we're trying to satisfy an entire capital structure here at the end of the day. But I think I watch Calpine do this and I know we're not where they were, but I watched them do a bunch of share buybacks and the market never believed their fundamental story and their stock continue to decline as they bought back shares. And I think that was just the risk premium that the market required because of the concern financial distress of the business and the business model. And so, I said when I first got here that we need to run this thing at a debt level that would put us in line to potentially be investment grade and that's what we're going to do. Look, I understand that when you have debt that's even at 7.5% and you're trading at a free cash flow yield of 15 the math I get I just think that at some point we have to focus on getting our debt down, and I think this is really a one-year issue. And then on the back end of 2020, I think what you'll hear from us, is a discussion about what we're going to do in 2021. And depending on where our stock is trading at that point in time, I would not be shocked that the board would want to do some sort of a strong buyback program, but I think what we are trying to tell you guys right now is that we do believe that following through on our commitment to get in that range of 2.5 times is important for our company. And we did outline it and I think that David said it in his comments. I think there's a lot of reasons why the equity should be supportive of us doing that. But it's a balance in, you can make the argument that you've made here and others, but I think this is sort of what we believe is the right balance right now.

No, I actually completely agree with you. I just wanted to hear you articulate it. Thank you.

Sure.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Weinstein with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

Hi. Good morning guys.

Hey Michael, how are you?

Hey, all right. Pretty good. Just to follow up on the same line of questions, I guess once you get an investment grade credit rating and you're assuming that does improve valuation on the equity side as well, you've got really good cash flow and you know, from your own profile, so there's sort of a limited amount of investment going forward. Retail acquisitions will be smaller. I'm just wondering where, what would you do with a better balance sheet and better valuations and better reception from investors at that point? Where does the company go? What can you do more that you can't do with the current cash flow profile?

Hi. I think we sort of outlined what we think is sort of the track of this thing. And I wish I had a better sense of timing of it, but we still believe in the generation side of the business. We think it's still fundamentally important. We're not going to a retail only model and a short model. And so I would expect us to put some investment predominantly on the renewable side because that's going to be the workhorse. But the other thing I will say that we haven't said a lot about, but it's also part of this modeling thing was good for us too to understand kind of what's going on. But there could be some small investment in what I refer to as volatility assets where either assets that actually can be around during the peak periods and they're very cheap type assets, now whether that's batteries or whether that's a gas fired peak or something like that we would look at it, but that's small potatoes. I mean, I think the real thing here is that you'll see our company invest in generation in the future as we retire generation. And by the way, that retirement of this generation is going to be needed anyway. Most of these coal plants we're talking about are going on 60 plus years old. They're becoming obsolete and they're not economic. And I think any business that is a capital intensive business, whether it's airlines, or chemicals, or refining or whatever, have to replace, you know, their hardware at some point in time. The question is going to be, what kind of hardware are we going to replace it with? I think it's going to be renewables and more important than that it's going to be when do…

That makes sense. We cover the renewable industry, and a lot of the retailers, the distributed renewable, distributed rooftop solar players are growing at 15% a year sales. Do you see yourself maybe evolving into a retailer, perhaps let's say, for example, centralized renewable energy, or perhaps maybe even a distributed power retailer to compete against these rooftop players at some point?

I think there is something that we will consider and have considered and continue to consider. I mean, absolutely, I think that is an area for our company that we will, and have taken a look there.

Okay, thanks a lot.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

Thanks so much. Hi guys and I really appreciate the update.

Hey, Praful, thank you.

Hi Curt. So maybe just on all the investment that you've talked about over the next 10-years, what I find is, in your position, having both the retail and generation, you have the opportunity to step in and buy assets, rather than grow them organically. I wanted to understand if that's a fair view, given the volatility that you're seeing or you're expected to see, do you expect to be this opportunistic around acquisitions? And what kind of examples can you give us where you kind of have seen that in the past and you'd expect to see that in the future?

Well, I think everything we've done so far, in my own opinion, has been pretty much an opportunistic thing. I mean, I think what we did with the Odessa plant in Texas was a good example of - we had a view of the future and we had somebody that was not a natural owner of that asset that wanted to get out and I think we were opportunistic. And it turned out, obviously, to be a very good acquisition for us. I would say, that was part skill and part luck. Because we know people are going to pay us to take natural gas. But we did have a view that natural gas would be relatively cheap in the Permian, to other hubs. So I think, that's an example of being opportunistic that I think we've been able to do. I think the other thing is, almost day one when we took over for Dynegy we were in discussions with PG&E around the battery project in Moss Landing which, our predecessor owners were not. And I think that was because we had the cash, the balance sheet and maybe the willingness, I don't know, to do something there. But I think we will be opportunistic. That's why I mentioned Praful, that there could be some small asset things that would fit sort of, like I said, fit the profile of being a volatility type asset that we might take a look at, that I think would be opportunistic. Maybe somebody that owns it today doesn't see the same value that we do and I think we'll continue to be that way. And I believe that most of our renewable that I'm talking about this renewable spend is going to be pretty much opportunistic. It's going to be waiting for…

Got you. That's super helpful. And I'm sure the balance sheet will also help you be opportunistic. Just a second question quickly. And we've got this a lot, which is, if there is a Democratic President, does this change your view in any way in terms of how ERCOT or PJM or how your assets are positioned? How would you think about that?

That's a good question. So, again, I've been around some time. I've seen administrations come and go. Because it's so difficult to actually make things happen, even when we've seen where we've had Republican controlled Presidency with a Republican controlled Congress or Democrat controlled Presidency and Congress, things just don't move that quickly and so I haven't really seen that big of a change. There have been some things obviously that the tax legislation was a pretty big deal for us as a company and I would say that and there could be other things. But if you talk about just what people are speaking about, there is a pretty big divide. The current administration in my opinion is less of a principal administration and probably more, I call them more opportunistic looking for ways to actually surgically improve the economy. On the other side of the equation, you see a fairly progressive Group. And – the front runners are fairly progressive and some of the things that I've heard, such as ban on fracking and just making it very difficult for gas pipelines, and interestingly enough it is actually good for our company. We are a long natural gas equivalents company. And so, if you start fracking natural gas prices will go up that is good for our company. It might make me think about I wish I didn't shutdown the coal plants that we did because those are obviously natural gas equivalents. I'm not sure everybody has thought that through yet. You still have to run the power grid and you have to have assets and if you shutdown gas drilling that's going to increase electricity costs. So, but I have not really seen a change that much I don't expect it to change that much. We're sort of agnostic when it comes to who is in the Presidency in the Congress. I saw something recently where somebody came out and had us sort of pegged I think under Democrat - Presidency in a Democrat controlled Congress that we don't do as well, I just don't see that. I mean – and I also think we expect to be a participant in the renewable side of the business. But one of the key points we tried to make in this discussion today is that when you bring in a significant amount of intermittent resources, you need some level of dispatchable resources that you can count on. And right now given where gas prices are in this country natural gas, efficient natural gas plants fit the bill. And we purposely did a deal to get long those types of assets. So, we feel very good about how we've positioned ourselves and I feel like we will do well under any administration.

Got it, that's super helpful. Thanks a lot guys and I appreciate the color.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America. Please go ahead, your line is now open.

Good morning team, thanks for your patience. I just wanted to run by the illustrative 2021 and how you think about that sort of a year-over-year walk, if you will, from 2020? I know you guys have laid out a number of different pieces of that, but can we talk a little bit through it? And especially given the context for the updated hedges, I just wanted to make sure I understand this right. So looking at the hedges that you guys provided late in the deck, I think it's about 580 million for 2020, how do you think about that rolling off and rolling into 2021 that might be a different way to ask of – like what kind of embedded hedge value you are putting in 2021 as well?

Yes so – first of all I want to be clear that we don't provide, we're not providing guidance on 2021. There is always, we tried to do this, because I know people and in particular you Julien, I know that you care about that out year. And so, part of this is just to try to give people a window into it. Admittedly, here is the story for 2021 and I think we said this in the script. If you market to market, just take the curve, we'd be a little bit below where we're coming in 2020 which 2020 is a pretty strong year but we would be below that. When we run very detailed fundamental model for 2021 and we did this last year and we got the same viewpoint, at this stage right now, we would say that our fundamental view is above – where the market is trading. And so when we market to model if you will, we would be above where 2020 comes in. And if you stripped out the base business, if you stripped out the retail businesses it kind of falls in that same line. I mean we'd be a little bit below, on the base business, but then on a mark to model we'd be above. The question is going to be, are we going to see the curves move up? And we tried to show this because we've seen it and it has been very pronounced at '19 and '20, where when we rolled through the prompt period, the one year out period moved up as we went through the summer of '19, '20 moved up when we went through the summer of '18, '19 moved up, and it happened as people began to realize that the market remained…

Got it. But just in terms of the year of your walk here, any other large factors to kind of keep in mind? I just want to make sure I'm hearing you clear as you kind of think about, you're illustrative outlook?

I mean - so - just a couple of things that are a little bit different. So when we go from '20 to '21, we'll have the battery facility at Moss Landing, so that will be included in 2021. We will get to a full run rate on Ambit and Crius and because it takes us some time to do all the integration and all that. And so that, I think we've said before, we're around $50 million on the battery, I would expect us to pick up maybe $15 million to $25 million on the Ambit and Crius side. So you are seeing some of that, that would show up, which is contributing to offsetting some of the lower curves that you have for '21. Then if we mark the curves through our models, that's when you go above 2020. But those are two things that will be coming on that are new, and then we will be reaching full run rate of OP in 2021. So that $50 million will come on and then we'll be at full run rate by the end of 2021, but we'll be picking up some of that in 2021. So those are the things that I would say are contributing, to right now offsetting relative to the ERCOT curves. And by the way, the PJM curves are down. They are backwardated and so as I saw the way, they're smaller though impact on 2021. And so, the real swing on this, and this is true of us pretty much all the time, is the real swing on this will be what does ERCOT end up doing. And we feel very confident that our modeling is more representative of where things will come in and that will obviously push us to either be flat but more than likely higher given all those other things I just went over with you that we would end up being higher '21 to '20.

Thanks for the patience guys. Cheers.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of [indiscernible] with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.

Yes. Hi, guys, thanks for taking my question. I want to focus on retail sort of a little bit. Did you guys notice any increase in customer attrition in the retail business from the volatility and the summer power prices or would you say it's a little too early because of the long-term nature of those contracts?

So, actually, we did not, I mean, we actually saw sort of the opposite. What tends to happen in a high price environment, our competition has to raise prices intra month because most of these guys are hanging on razor thin margins. And so, when that happens, you tend to see people move from, sort of the fly by night, if you will, to safety and TXU Energy obviously is a safe bet. So we actually saw through those months, and I think we actually grew customers during that period of time. So - and that's typical for us and the good news for us is we get a customer, we typically can hold a customer for a good period of time, so and it was net-net beneficial to us over that period of time.

Got it. The other question I had was on how important the IG rating is for you guys? So as you think about achieving your leverage target of 2.5x, is it absolutely critical in your mind to cross over into the IG territory, or would you just be comfortable getting to that leverage level and maintain it going forward?

Yes, that's a good question. We never came out and said you know that is a fall on the sword issue. I mean, and what I do believe and I think we've tried to say this is that I think it's a strong indicator of the risk of the business. And I still believe there's a risk premium that sits in our free cash flow yield, because people were just uncertain as to whether the business model is sustainable and the business is sustainable. So we've tried to tackle this in a couple of ways. One is through pure execution, and discipline, and doing the things we said. And part of that is reducing your debt. I mean, I think that's one way to reduce that risk premium. The other one is to try to draw a picture for people about what the long-term resiliency in this business is, which is why we give the 10-year view. So, I would say, the investment grade is less about credit spreads and more about the risk of the business overall, which I believe then translates into a higher equity value because investors view that they don't need the risk premium that they once thought they needed for this business, that the risk profile is business is much lower, and they can own it, get a 10% free cash flow yield, not a 15% free cash flow yield. And I've said this a bunch of times. This Company trades at a 10%, free cash flow yield at $7 billion plus dollars of equity value. I mean, that's a huge change in the value of our Company. There's nothing I'm doing every day or anybody in this Company is doing every day that could come close to creating that kind of value. And so, we're doing everything we can to prove to people because we believe it, that the business, the risk of this business has changed substantially by the way that we run it. And the amount of cash we generate is enormous. Who would have known it was embedded in this situation where people had too much debt and they were blowing money on bad things at the wrong time and we've cleaned that up. I think we just have to do it year-over-year, which we're doing. But I think a part of that puzzle is getting our debt down and investment grade would be a visible tangible sign that the business risk of our of Company is significantly lower and I think that would have some impact on our free cash flow yield.

Got it. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Sure.

And there are no further questions at this time. I will turn the call back over to Curt Morgan, for closing remarks.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to join us this morning. I know, a long call. Really appreciate the questions and the opportunity to talk to you about our business. It's always a risk when you talk about 10-year view, but we thought it was important. I think we've explained why we think that's important. And we always appreciate your interest in Vistra Energy, and we look forward to continuing the conversation. Thank you and have a great day.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.