B2gold Corp Q2 FY2025 Earnings Call

Thanks, operator, and welcome to the call, everyone. We feel we had a strong second quarter with robust operational and financial results. Across all operations, we are very pleased with our second quarter outcomes. The Fekola, Masbate, and Otjikoto mines exceeded expectations in production during the second quarter, resulting in lower-than-anticipated cash operating costs per ounce at all three operations. The operations are continuing to run smoothly, and we expect to meet our annual guidance. Additionally, on June 30, 2025, we celebrated the inaugural gold ore at our newly constructed Goose Mine, marking a transformational moment for B2Gold and a significant achievement for our staff and partners who have worked diligently to reach this goal. At Goose, our focus now shifts to maintaining steady state operations and increasing throughput, aiming to ramp up to full design capacity and commercial production by September 2025, which is a swift ramp-up typical of our history. In Mali, we received encouraging news with the approval from the state of Mali to begin underground operations at Fekola, including stope ore production. This approval followed a series of productive meetings with senior management and key officials in Mali, including the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Finance and Mines, who advise the Mali government. This is an important point for those concerned about the future of gold mining in Mali, as it demonstrates the government's cooperation with B2Gold and their support for our operations at the Fekola mine and potential regional expansion. The next step involves working with the state of Mali to secure the exploitation license for the Fekola regional, which we anticipate receiving in the third quarter of 2025. During the second quarter of 2025, we also announced positive results from the 2025 Gramalote feasibility study, showing that Gramalote has a promising production profile and favorable project economics. We are working on permitting, which includes submitting a reduced footprint plan for Gramalote, as we already hold a permit and just need to modify the application. The current strong gold price environment allows for growth, and we are expecting to produce four million ounces this year. With most of the growth capital spending now complete, the company is well-positioned to generate significant shareholder value in the coming years, including production from the Fekola region. We are looking forward to another strong quarter both operationally and financially, and as I mentioned, we expect to meet our guidance for 2025. Now, I'll turn it over to Mike Cinnamond, our CFO, who will provide a quick review of the financial highlights. Following that, Bill Lytle, Senior VP of Operations, will give us an update on production before we open the floor for questions. Mike, over to you.

Thanks, Clive. Financially, it was a strong quarter. Our basic earnings per share were $0.12, and after adjusting for one-time items, we also realized adjusted earnings of $0.12 per share. This was positively impacted by a strong average gold sales price. Regarding sales, we were slightly below our budgeted sales ounces this quarter, but that was only due to the timing of shipments from several sites that were delivered just after the period end and sold in early July. On the operating cash flow side, we generated $301 million before working capital adjustments in the second quarter, reinforcing the cash generation potential of our assets in this gold price environment. From a balance sheet perspective, we remain in a robust financial position with $308 million in cash and cash equivalents at the end of the second quarter. Additionally, we had the full $800 million available on our revolving credit facility, which remained undrawn, along with a $200 million accordion feature. After the end of June, we drew down $200 million on the revolver to assist with managing working capital needs as we meet our gold prepayment commitments over the next 12 months from July '25 to June '26. We have already delivered the first tranche of those commitments. Given the continued strong performance across our portfolio and the progress at Goose, we are pleased to reaffirm our 2025 production guidance, which remains unchanged, expecting full-year production to be between 970,000 and 1,075,000 ounces, with Goose contributing between 120,000 to 150,000 ounces of that total. On a positive note, we have seen lower-than-expected cash costs per ounce at our three operating mine sites: Fekola, Masbate, and Otjikoto. Consequently, we have lowered our consolidated cash cost guidance for these operations to between $740 and $800 per ounce sold or produced, down from the previous range of $835 to $895 per ounce. With the expected post-commercial production estimates for Goose Mine, we anticipate Goose will enter commercial production in September. Our consolidated cash operating guidance is now forecast to be between $795 and $855 per ounce. Overall, we maintain a strong liquidity position and financial flexibility to complete the remaining construction at Goose, fully deliver on our gold prepays from early '24, and carry out the sustaining and growth initiatives across our portfolio. We will also continue to fund robust exploration programs to extend mine lives. With that, I'll hand it over to Bill for an operational and project update.

Thanks, Mike. I just returned from Goose, so I might be a bit shaky during this call, so please bear with me. As Mike mentioned, we expect to meet or exceed our targets for the year across all three operations, but the main topic of interest is Goose. To recap what's been accomplished there, all major construction activities required at Goose were nearly finished by the end of the quarter, and the mine ramp-up is now progressing well. Our focus for the third quarter will be on optimizing current operations and increasing throughput to full capacity. As Mike stated, we anticipate ramping up to commercial production by September 2025. In the first half of 2025, we completed mining of the Echo pit, which serves as our tailings facility, and we are now placing tails in Echo. We fully ramped up mining of the Umwelt open pit in the second quarter and continued to develop the Umwelt underground, completing Fresh Air Raise 1 and currently working on Fresh Air Raise 2, which will be necessary for the second half of 2025. We started dewatering the Llama pit, which is essential for mill operations as it provides freshwater and reclaim water. Developing the Umwelt open pit and underground remains a priority to ensure we maintain adequate mill feed volumes. Looking at our other operations, Mali has continued its strong performance in 2025, exceeding gold production expectations again in the second quarter, and cash costs per ounce were lower than anticipated. After meeting with the government last month, underground production began as announced on July 30, with significant development work completed and all necessary mining infrastructure in place before we began production. Although we started mining ore about 30 days late, we maintained development work up until then. Many have asked whether we will achieve the required ounce production from underground, and we are confident that we will meet our targets for 2025. Regarding the regional project, we are working with the state of Mali to secure approval for the regional exploitation permit, and we had a productive technical session with them this morning. We believe we are on track to obtain this permit. B2Gold is prepared to start pre-stripping activities with the Fekola regional infrastructure, where all necessary infrastructure development has been completed, and we’re just waiting on the permit to proceed. After June 30, 2025, the Fekola mill reached a significant milestone with 4 million ounces of gold produced since the project's inception. Operations at Masbate are performing well with an excellent safety record, and we announced over 2,400 days without a lost time incident. Mine production has greatly exceeded expectations, and we anticipate sustained production in the second half will lead to strong performance and robust margins for 2025. Otjikoto is also doing well, with both open pit and underground operations exceeding expectations in the second quarter. We are focused on developing the Antelope deposit, with a target release in the third quarter of 2025. As for the Gramalote project, we released a positive feasibility study, and work is underway on modifying the work plan and environmental impact study, which we expect to complete by late 2025 or early 2026, with a permit modification timeframe of around 12 to 18 months. Clive, I’ll turn it back to you.

Okay. Thanks, Bill. Operator, we're ready to turn over to questions.

And today's first question comes from Fahad Tariq with Jefferies.

In the press release, it mentioned lower-than-anticipated fuel costs in a number of places, not just at Fekola, but also Masbate. Can you just maybe talk about what the expectation was at the beginning of the year when you set guidance? And I'm just curious why it's trending lower than expected?

Mike, do you want to take or do you want me?

I can start. When we budget, we typically look at the forward curves for fuel around September or October. We use those as the basis for our estimates. What we've observed is that HFO prices have been about 9% lower than anticipated for the first six months of 2025, while diesel prices have been around 13% below expectations. We made our best estimate based on the prices we saw around October as we finalize our budget in early November. Moving forward, we have factored in these lower fuel costs when adjusting our cash operating guidance.

Okay. That's helpful. Regarding Goose, there was a comment about the CapEx guidance for the second half of this year, which is $176 million. I'm trying to understand the overall CapEx at Goose compared to the previous project CapEx guidance, which was reiterated in the May release. Can you help clarify that? Specifically, is the second half CapEx guidance of $176 million aligned with your expectations?

Yes. Again, I can start with that and Bill can jump in. I mean, overall, on the project, we did see some acceleration of costs as we worked our way up to the first go for at the end of half 1. So we probably saw somewhere around about 5% overall cost increases against the budget. Then what we also experienced as we ran up to that is we did accelerate some CapEx, CapEx that would have been in half 2 in the tech report and actually a little bit from future years, and that totaled about somewhere in the region of $60 million. We also had what we've described in the MD&A and disclosures, we had some mill and process plant upgrades somewhere in the region of $40 million. So approximately $100 million between those two where we pulled stuff forward from second half or future years, about $40 million that we've added in to the second half. I think that's for further mill and process plant upgrades. And I think Bill can talk to those a little bit.

Yes. Really relating to upgrades, I would say, once again, it was really operability or availability of the mill. One of the things that as we got in and building, we realized a lot of the lines didn't have the necessary valving and piping, the redundancy built in, the ability to do maintenance on the mill while it continues to operate. So we added, I think I saw from the finance group approximately an additional $26 million on the mill side related to kind of what I would call upgrades or improvements in availability. I'd say that really relates to a lot of that small stuff, additional pumping, piping, valves, and installation of all that stuff.

Our next question comes from Wayne Lam with TD Securities.

Congrats on a good quarter and getting the Fekola underground permit. It seems like you have some good momentum in Mali now. Just wondering what the mechanics would be in terms of getting the Fekola regional permit and what the final points of negotiation might be? And any potential hurdles to getting that permit by the end of Q3?

Yes, we recently had a meeting with the Minister of Mines. During our discussion, it appeared that the regional permit had not been prioritized because they were focused on resolving issues with other mining companies. However, once we highlighted our situation, they seemed a bit regretful for the delays and promptly agreed to expedite the process with a target to complete it by the end of Q3, which was their timeline. They also committed to establishing a commission to begin work on it. This morning, we received positive feedback indicating there were no major issues and the conversation was constructive, which we believe will facilitate the permit's approval.

Okay. Great. And then maybe just wondering in terms of the ramp-up of Goose relative to the mine plan, you guys had outlined in the plan 125,000 ounces this year, which would be at the lower end of the guidance. It seems like you've been making some good progress there just on the stripping of the Echo pit and development. But just wondering where you guys kind of see the opportunities to outperform what's been outlined in the plan. Is that on the plant performance? Or is there an upside on the grade profile as well?

I would say both at this point. Once again, you're asking questions right at the front of commissioning. So certainly, we have an aggressive ramp-up plan, but historically, we've been able to beat that. There is some potential there. There's also some potential as we start to move out of kind of the Echo low-grade material, which remember, the Echo pit was never designed to be kind of a high-grade feeder into the mill. Into the Umwelt pit, if we can get our head around how can we mine that quicker, certainly, there is some potential there. Not only on the mill ramp-up side, which admittedly a 3-month ramp-up is aggressive versus many of our peers, but not really aggressive versus what we've historically done, and then on the Umwelt side, if we can get additional grade from the open pit.

Okay. Great. And then maybe just last one, maybe just a follow-up on the CapEx side. Just given the increase in CapEx relative to the $270 in the mine plan, just wondering how much of that would have been brought forward from 2026? Just trying to figure out if maybe we should be anticipating a lower CapEx number relative to the $140 million outlined for next year in the mine plan?

Mike...

Okay. So you're talking about what may be pulled forward from '26 in the second half? Is that what you're asking?

Yes.

I believe there are some upgrades to the site infrastructure that Bill is implementing to improve both the MLA and the site, which will cost around $15 million. Additionally, as Bill mentioned, there is approximately $26 million associated with the mill. In total, that amounts to about $40 million that we didn't necessarily need to do this year but chose to enhance. Furthermore, we have some prepayments for generator additions totaling another $24 million. Overall, this would bring forward more than $60 million from future years.

The next question is from Ovais Habib with Scotiabank.

Congrats on a good quarter. Just a couple of questions from me, starting off with Fekola maybe. In terms of the mine plan sequencing for Fekola kind of going into 2026, does that change now that you have the Fekola underground permit in hand?

So remember, we always talked about having it after Q2. So our life of mine showed it really coming online in July. So the underground permit doesn't really change it other than we have done a little bit more development than what was in the life of mine. So we may be able to steal some additional ounces, but I really think that's more of a 2025 issue, not a 2026 issue. As far as 2026, we're still working on the budget and where we're going with that. So I don't really want to comment on where the ounces will come from in 2026 just yet.

Got it. Bill, what is the current grade of the underground stockpile you have on site, and what grade are you expecting from the stopes you are currently mining?

You're talking at Fekola?

Fekola underground, yes.

I would need to check on that. I did report it to the Board, so let me get back to you on that during the call.

Sounds good. Moving on, you're aiming for about 25,000 ounces from the underground in 2025. Following up on my previous question, do you have a target for 2026 for the Fekola underground? Is there a range you can discuss at this time?

Yes. We have previously mentioned that we anticipated producing between 80,000 and 100,000 ounces from the underground operations. However, this will replace lower-grade ounces, so realistically, we expect to achieve around 50% of that, targeting approximately 50,000 ounces per year. To address your earlier question, the current total underground tonnes mined, which is in development and on the stockpile right now, is about 35,000 ounces at roughly 2.7 grams per tonne. I'm somewhat speculating, but in the stopes we will be mining, we expect to at least double that amount.

Got it. Moving on to the regional permit side, are you aiming to secure the permit by the end of Q3? Are you confident about achieving 160,000 to 180,000 ounces of production in 2026? That aligns with the technical report presented earlier this year.

Yes. I mean there's no changes to what the actual mining looks like from the tech report. Clearly, once again, in the budgeting process on where the ounces are going to come from, that may shift around some, but the ounces haven't changed from the regional from what was on the tech report.

Sounds good. Okay. And then just quickly moving on to Goose. I'm really looking forward to that commissioning of the Goose in September. Bill, how is underground development progressing there? And do you have kind of now the right people and equipment in place in terms of what you were targeting for the underground? This is at Goose.

Yes. When I first joined these calls, Clive mentioned that only three questions would be allowed, so let's proceed to question four. Things are progressing well, and we have found our rhythm. As you know, we’ve had a turnover of various personnel in the underground, including a new mining manager and a new technical services manager who came on board this year. All the necessary staff are now in position, and we have also added new equipment for the underground program this year. Therefore, we have the right people and the right equipment in place. There should be no reason for the site not to perform.

Our next question is from Anita Soni with CIBC World Markets.

I'm just going to ask 2, so that I will make up for Ovais' extra question there. First question was your commercial production. What's your definition of commercial production? I just want to clarify because everyone has different definitions.

Yes. I think it's the same thing we used at Fekola and Otjikoto. So it's like, an average of 65% nameplate throughput over 30 days.

Okay. From your perspective, what do you see as the next milestone in terms of ramping up? By year-end, what throughput level are you aiming for, and how long do you expect it to take?

By year-end, we want to be at that nameplate, 4,000 for sure.

Nameplate, 100% for the whole quarter?

Well, I think it's like 92% or 93% availability. It's something like that. I forget what it will be in the tech report.

Okay. And then for my last question, I wanted to ask about the optimization plans you're considering. Regarding the winter ice road, which you mentioned would occur less frequently than annually, what exactly does that involve? Is there a possibility to construct an ice road outside of the typical timing, or are you looking at something like every other year, or perhaps every 15 months? I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by that.

Yes, it can't be every 15 months. The ice road is typically available from February to around May 1, maybe May 6. The question you've raised is quite technical. It mainly revolves around fuel requirements. If we need 80 million liters of fuel, which is what we currently transport each year, then it would need to be done annually. However, if we implement medium-speed generators that save about 10% of that, and we introduce our 50-megawatt wind farm, could we potentially reduce that amount to less than half? This leads to the possibility of increasing our reagents in the off years to compensate for that difference. The studies are still very preliminary, and I'm not even sure if 80 million liters will be our actual usage this year. For instance, as of August, we still have 70 million liters of fuel available on site. So, we are uncertain about how this will work once we reach full production.

Congrats on some strong ops this quarter.

The next question is from Lawson Winder with Bank of America Securities.

Well done on the permitting success in Mali. What I wanted to ask is, more around jurisdiction as it pertains to Colombia, in particular, and Canada. Acknowledging B2Gold's historical success at being jurisdictionally agnostic and focusing on asset quality instead, I think feedback from the market would suggest that the market likes the pivot to Canada. How do you think about assets in Canada? And what's B2Gold's appetite to add more assets in Canada? And then conversely, how does Colombia then stack up in terms of jurisdictional risks? And is that at all a headwind today for a potential sanctioning decision on Gramalote?

Yes. I think we're definitely interested in doing more, more things in Canada. But once again, we're project driven. From a geopolitical point of view, we want more diversification. So definitely, we're looking for additional opportunities in Canada. Gramalote in Colombia, we quite like what's been happening there. I mean we do have a permit for our larger operations. So we need to go back and modify that permit. But we've had very positive support in Antioquia, local population, and government in Antioquia and also some segments of support from the federal government as well. But I'm glad you raised the question because I want to segue a little bit into talking about M&A. We will not surprise the shareholders with a development project M&A. We're very disciplined. We build one mine at a time. We think Gramalote looks very interesting as a project for us to do financially, we'll be in a strong position to do that. We like what we see in the feasibility study. I think it will be a very good project for us. We've got to get through the permitting process and then make a decision when we go forward. But I just want to underline again, no M&A for development projects. Potentially in the future sometime if we find an opportunity to increase our gold production through some kind of a deal. It just makes sense. But at the end of the day, we're not going to surprise the market with a major acquisition of a development project.

Fantastic. And if I could just get one more in on Goose. In your update earlier in the year, you highlighted the potential for an expansion in the processing capacity. Today, now that you're approaching commercial production, what's the latest thinking on timing of that expansion of processing capacity? And has there been any change in thinking on the magnitude?

Is this a what have you done for me lately question?

Fair enough.

The answer is that we have several studies in progress. One option is adding a flotation circuit, and another is expanding the mill capacity to around 6,000 tonnes a day. We expect to review these by the end of this year. I can't recall if we said Q1 next year for releasing the results. These studies are still very early, but we believe they are credible. Also, regarding some of the optimizations we've mentioned, the mill will operate at over 4,000 tonnes. The key challenge is maintaining high availability. By implementing some of the optimizations we've already introduced, such as new valves and piping, there is potential to slightly increase capacity as it currently stands. However, we cannot make any promises; we are stating 4,000 tonnes a day.

And the next question comes from Francesco Costanzo with Scotiabank.

Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in the question queue here. I think Ovais and the others have already asked all the pertinent questions. So apologies for that.

And the next question comes from Don DeMarco with National Bank Financial.

It seems that things are progressing well in Mali now. We will look into the regional permitting. However, what caused the delays? Was it the government prioritizing Barrick and other matters, or is this typical for Mali? It seems they could gain from optimal mine performance from a tax perspective.

Yes. Maybe I'll take that, we were just down there. There's a couple of things there. Remember, there was this whole shift in the government. They readily admitted that they didn't really know who was doing what. You had the Minister of Finance working on this kind of updated mining code and the Minister of Mines didn't know where his mandate ended and the Minister of Mines started. We highlighted that. We had a chance to meet with the Prime Minister, and they were visibly embarrassed and said that that's a nonstarter for them and they will get it rectified. Some of the other mining issues in Mali play a factor. There were some big disputes out there that they had to pay attention to. Ultimately, they didn't really know what each other was doing. I will say that all three ministers we met, we met the Minister of Mines, Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister, they all apologized profusely. They all said that they're committed to getting this done. Remember, they've got a big stake in this too. They want to go as quickly as they can, of course, legally to get us this permit and get us going.

To clarify, there are no ongoing negotiations regarding the permit for the regional project. We are simply carrying out the terms agreed upon in the MOU last September. Our focus is on completing the permit with the government. As mentioned by Bill, the government of Mali stands to benefit significantly from gold mining revenue, and since they have a 35% stake in the regional project, they are aligned with us in wanting to expedite the permit process.

Okay. That helps. That certainly clarifies things because that would have been our impression as well. So that's encouraging for the future. But sticking with Fekola then in Mali. So I saw production is up 35% quarter-over-quarter, grades are elevated. Bill, do you expect this to continue into H2? What were some of the drivers here in Q2?

Some of the key factors were related to locating additional ore on the outskirts of our resource model. To be honest, these weren’t higher-grade ounces, but they were ounces nonetheless. We managed to process what would typically be considered waste through the mill. Additionally, the mill performed very well during the quarter. Those were the main contributors. While I can't forecast how things will unfold outside the resource model in the third and fourth quarters, the mill is functioning effectively. We have been clear that even if we don’t secure additional tonnes or ounces from regional sources for the mill in 2025, we still feel confident about the range we provided. This suggests that we will acquire additional ounces from other sources.

That was the pre-stripping.

Yes, Clive, that's actually a good point. Even if we get the permit in kind of, let's say, August or September, there is still a pre-stripping campaign that we have to do before we can start trucking tonnes down to the mill.

Okay. For my final question, I want to talk about Goose. I’ve noticed that the ASIC for Goose is slightly lower than what was mentioned in the tech report. What are some of the efficiencies that might explain this favorable change? Can we expect lower costs at Goose in 2026 compared to the technical report? Or does some of the CapEx that you postponed also contribute to the lower ASIC forecast for 2026?

Maybe I'll talk and then I'll let Mike correct me. When we wrote the technical report, the information we had was what was created by Sabina for the feasibility study and the actuals we had during construction. In construction, there's all these inefficiencies where you're flying stuff in, you've got the wrong crew. What we've seen as we've now been able to tighten that up and particularly around the mining side is that we're probably a little bit worse than what Sabina had promised the world, but a lot better than what we had seen as kind of a developer. I do believe that the costs that we're now presenting on the mining side, in particular, and hopefully on the milling side will carry through. I can't remember what we said they would ultimately be our all-in sustaining costs, but they were coming down, and we do see those as real.

I'll only add part of the impact in '25 numbers is we're using post-commercial production, which is basically post September. So you have a production split there between Q3 and Q4, but you also have some of this CapEx that we pulled forward and accelerated. So that has some impact on the post-commercial production numbers.

And the next question is from Carey MacRury with Canaccord Genuity.

Congrats on the quarter. Maybe just a question for Mike on the accounting around Goose now that you're ramping up production. Are we going to see OpEx starting from now at Goose or is that going to come after commercial production?

No. Yes, you're right. Like in the new world order, all results will go through the P&L and all production reported after commercial production.

And that's baked in the OpEx guidance you've given us, I presume?

Yes.

Okay. And then maybe back on Fekola Regional, assuming the permit comes in the near future here, is that still an attractive area from an exploration focus? Or do you see better opportunities elsewhere, just given the economics of that area now?

I'll get to answer the exploration upside. Yes. One of the areas that we see upside is the beneath the oxide resources that are pretty much covered, and we have sufficient oxide ounces to keep us going there for quite a while. The big push is to actually pursue higher-grade fresh or sulfide material beneath the pits or beneath the oxide zones within the Fekola regional. That's really where a lot of the oxide is. The other is looking at the underground. Obviously, pursuing that as we develop the underground, we'll be able to drill down plunge. So there's nothing to suggest that that is closed off. We'll certainly be pushing that forward. There's also a potential for picking up parallel shoots to the main zone at Fekola underground as well. So that's where the potential is. On Dandoko, which is part of the Fekola regional, I think we've pretty much covered that. There's not a lot more there, but that's it really.

Can you speak to your exploration budget?

Yes, we have a $62 million budget globally. The bulk of that is at Goose, just about half. Obviously, ongoing drilling in Mali, pursuing extensions of the Antelope deposit in Namibia and also looking at potential for surface material in Namibia to complement and help the throughput as we look down the road at Otjikoto. It needs more than just the stockpile to blend the high-grade ore material that we have there. That's where it's at, and then also pursuing new areas using and leveraging off our experience in Masbate in the Philippines. We're looking at opportunities within our movement, but that's all very early stage. I guess that's where we're at.

Okay. Great. Maybe one last question for me. Just on Gramalote again. Did the feasibility study meet your expectations? What I'm asking is, if we get through the permitting in the next 12 to 18 months, in a $3,000 gold environment, how likely is this to move forward?

I think the results from the study were expected. A significant amount of work has been done over the years by EGA, ourselves, and the joint venture. We understand it completely, but there has been extensive technical work and many studies conducted prior to this point. It's clearly defined. We anticipated the feasibility study to align closely with the Preliminary Economic Assessment. Considering that the project could generate 240,000 ounces annually, and the improvements in Gramalote, there aren't many projects like this. We fully own it and find the economics attractive. I wonder what alternatives there would be if we decide not to move forward with it, particularly regarding other gold mines we own, and we are confident about its location. Overall, I would say the outlook is positive, reflecting the potential for capital growth for the company.

And at this time, there are no further questions in the queue. This concludes today's question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Clive Johnson for any closing remarks.

Thanks, I think you asked good questions, and I think we covered a lot of ground there. One final question I have for the analysts, if anybody can figure out the market, I'd like to know how you can come up with a good quarter like that and see the stock down. That's a bit of a surprise, but the market always has surprises for us, I guess. So thank you very much for participating in the call.

Today's conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation, and you may now disconnect your lines, and have a pleasant day.