Thank you, Joe, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Huntsman's Second Quarter 2021 Earnings Call. Joining us today are Peter Huntsman, Chairman, CEO, and President, and Phil Lister, Executive Vice President and CFO. Yesterday, we released our earnings for the second quarter of 2025 through a press release and posted it on our website, huntsman.com. We also uploaded a set of slides and detailed commentary about the second quarter of 2025 on our site. Peter Huntsman will share some opening remarks shortly, after which we will move to the Q&A session for the rest of the call. I want to remind you that we may make statements about our future projections or expectations. These statements are forward-looking, and although they reflect our current views, they involve risks and uncertainties and do not guarantee future performance. You should refer to our filings with the SEC for more information on factors that could lead to actual results differing significantly from our expectations. We do not intend to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements during the call or the quarter. We will also mention non-GAAP financial metrics like adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income or loss, and free cash flow. You can find reconciliations to the most comparable GAAP financial measures in our earnings release on our website at huntsman.com. I will now hand the call over to Peter Huntsman.

Ivan, thank you very much, and thank you all for joining us. Our second quarter results were not unexpected and came in about where we thought they would. We did see a nice rebound back to what we would see as more normalized earnings from Advanced Materials, offsetting the disappointing sluggishness of construction activity and tariff uncertainty, especially in polyurethanes. As we step back and look at the macro condition, it appears that the volatility caused by tariff and trade disputes over the past few months is starting to dissipate at least as of 12 hours ago. I believe that inventories remain very low in most of our downstream supply chain, while consumer confidence seems to be muted. We look into the third quarter, we see neither reason to panic nor to be overly optimistic. However, long term, we do anticipate an improvement in construction and perhaps some gradual change as China seems to be focusing more on their overcapacity. Our focus will continue to be on our balance sheet. To this end, we will continue to be extremely prudent on spending capital beyond our normalized run rate of safety, maintenance and reliability. We remain focused on our cost structure and making sure that our business expenses are in line with market conditions and our cash generation. Our aggressive inventory and working capital focus allowed us to generate positive cash flow in the second quarter. This cost us about $25 million of EBITDA in the second quarter. This charge was offset by reduced bonus accruals and other smaller onetime benefits. This inventory impact will be less in the third quarter, again, offset by bonus accruals. As markets improve or raw materials drop in value, we want to make sure that we're in a position to take advantage as soon as possible. We will operate our business to create value over volume to the extent that we can. We continue to review our asset portfolio and engage with shareholders. The last thing we want to be doing is sitting around waiting for things to get better. Over the next few quarters, we will see usual seasonality, but also the possible influences of higher tariffs and duties for MDI coming into North American markets, a possible interest rate cut, the benefits of more of our cost reductions falling to the bottom line and hopefully, a greater focus on prices over volume. In short, we will manage our balance sheet as effectively as possible while also pushing for better P&L outcomes. With that, operator, why don't we open the line up for any questions.

Peter, would you comment on MDI utilization rates in the second quarter and how you see those progressing into the third quarter for the industry as well as Huntsman?

Yes, that's a very good question, Kevin. We find it challenging to obtain detailed information on how others are operating their plants and their capacity levels. The tariff situation regarding products coming from China has led to a scaling back of capacity or shifting of these products to other markets. We haven't seen much of this product entering Europe, which was a concern for us a few months ago. So, it's a complex situation. Generally, the industry is operating in the low to mid-80 percent range, possibly slightly higher in North America and a bit lower in China. That's the current status.

Can you give us an update on how your order books have progressed in July? I think we're hearing some mixed signals on sort of if things are stable or things are getting worse in July? And what are some of the conversations you're having from larger customers in auto and building and construction given the recent tariff implementation?

I think that stable would probably be the best singular description of what we're seeing across the board. I mean there are some pockets here and there. Just anecdotally, I think that there are a number of truckload orders, rail, which would tell you that people are ordering just in time, which should tell you that inventories are probably lower than usual. In my personal opinion, I believe that the supply chains are pretty thin right now, people in times of uncertainty, especially where the overall energy market, the energy structure is down from where it was 6 months ago. People are probably not going to be holding a lot of inventory on the expectation that the energy costs will be coming down, chemical costs and so forth. So I think that it's very thin right now and people are kind of ordering just what they need for the next 30 days or so. But right now, I'm not seeing a pickup that would give me a great deal of optimism. Conversely, I'm not seeing a big drop-off in any one area that would give me pessimism.

Great. Very helpful. And Peter, you seem to be optimistic on potential China supply rationalization, but it seems there's still pretty healthy capacity build expectations in MDI. So where do you see this potentially having the most significant impact in terms of the key chains or what it might mean for Huntsman's earnings levels going forward?

As we consider Chinese capacity, China remains our most profitable market for MDI due to its high concentration of production. Our performance there is significantly better compared to North America and Europe. This is due to a mix of volume discipline, pricing discipline, and other factors. We're also observing changes in trade patterns. Over the first half of this year, MDI imports from China to North America have nearly ceased, while imports from Europe have surprisingly increased. These changes are not balancing out equally, indicating unusual trade dynamics. Generally, nothing seems particularly surprising at this time.

I think earlier in the call, you said that utilization rates in polyurethanes were in the low to mid-80s. Is that where your utilization rates are?

Yes. We're not very different from others in the industry. We operate our plant in China at high capacity due to strong market demand there. The automotive sector in China is performing well, and the rest of the market is relatively stable. While it's not experiencing explosive growth, Europe is still facing challenges. In North America, our utilization rates are likely in the mid-80s, give or take a few percentage points. Overall, I don't believe our situation is significantly different from that of our peers.

Peter, what are your latest thoughts on the dividend?

Frank, our Board pays close attention to this issue, not only on a quarterly basis but also during monthly discussions. We evaluate our cash generation initiatives as a company, as demonstrated in the last quarter. Looking ahead to the second half of the year, we plan to implement additional steps for cash generation. Overall, we feel we are in a solid position right now. We aim to be proactive during different phases of the cycle, even though there may be comments suggesting we should be doing more during downturns. For the time being, we are confident that our approach is not significantly damaging to our balance sheet.

Understood. Given all the actions you're taking on the cash side and strengthening your balance sheet, how much longer do you think you can maintain this level of earnings? Do you feel comfortable until the end of 2025? Is this a decision for 2025 or 2026 at this earnings level? Obviously, your assumption is that in the near term there is no need to panic or be overly optimistic, but you see improvements in the long term. I'm just curious about how long you would be willing to stay at this level of earnings.

That's a great question, Frank. Currently, we have limited visibility on earnings due to the volatility surrounding tariffs and pricing discipline. We will be monitoring this on a quarterly basis. As we look towards the end of the year, we don't have a complete picture, but we do have a fairly decent understanding of where we stand. A dividend reflects not only short-term sentiments but also long-term outlooks. If we enter early next year and encounter another subdued cycle or a global recession, particularly in construction, and see worsening conditions, the Board will make appropriate decisions. However, at this moment, considering our cash generation and current focus, we believe we're in a solid position.

Peter, could we discuss your perspective on what trade finality means and how your customers perceive it? Specifically, will we reach a stage where the trade situation is resolved? Does that imply having agreements with all countries, including China, which would allow business to return to normal? Or do you believe there will always be some degree of uncertainty because conditions can change or be disregarded? Consequently, might we remain in a cautious purchasing and customer behavior phase for an extended period, even if a resolution occurs? I'm interested in your thoughts and feedback from your customers.

You're asking me to understand the current administration's mindset, which I find challenging. However, I would say that the major concern for the U.S. economy, our customers, and our suppliers is volatility. If we face higher tariffs or trade barriers, we need to identify them and find ways to navigate these challenges. It's similar to fluctuating raw material prices; I can manage $100 crude oil if that's the new normal, but drastic price changes create significant working capital issues. This situation mirrors trade policies, especially considering the long supply chains we have globally. In terms of Huntsman, our company doesn't export much, so trade barriers don't heavily impact us. Most of our raw materials come from nearby suppliers, and we don't receive many concerns from them. However, our customers face significant variability, particularly in the automotive and aerospace sectors, where negotiations can influence trade. The volatility increases the further down the supply chain you go, especially as it approaches consumers. It seems that nobody truly benefits from this uncertainty. The prevailing sentiment I hear globally is a desire for clarity; once we know what to expect, we can adapt accordingly. I believe that is the direction we are heading.

Peter, the prepared remarks mentioned Advanced Materials is the primary focus for bolt-on acquisitions. I don't expect that you'd be making any bolt-on acquisitions near term, but are you no longer interested in Huntsman Building Services or Huntsman Building Systems, HBS as an area long term?

Well, I think I learned from my father a long time ago, you never say never in the area of M&A. But at the same time, you do have to have a strategy. You can't just look and buy anything that is available. I think that as we look at where we want to be moving as a company, we want to be able to take advantage of adhesives. We want to be taking advantage of aerospace, lightweighting, energy conservation. And as we look at our most stable lens of our business, as we go down, we look at electronics, we look at elastomers, as we look at our adhesives, lightweighting, carbon fiber, composite materials and so those are all areas, I think, for us that we've been able to build a nice platform, and we'd like to continue to do that. Now you look at something like polyurethanes, and of course, within our polyurethane business, we have elastomers. We have some of those applications. So that are further downstream. Those businesses are the best performing parts of our polyurethane business today. So I don't want to sit here and say that we'd never do anything in polyurethanes. But if we do, it would probably be something that would complement that end of the business more so than the more volatile in commodity side of things.

Peter, do you expect the tariffs you now have on Chinese MDI to lead to, at some point, a new U.S. MDI plant not by you, but maybe a competitor?

I can only tell you that it will not result in a new plant by Huntsman, at least not while I am managing the company. What competitors decide to do is beyond my knowledge. I believe there is already sufficient MDI available globally, so we will be fine. However, if you impose barriers on imports in the U.S., it's important to remember that the U.S. also exports its MDI to markets like Latin America and Canada. Additionally, if imports are directed into those regions, it could reduce exports from the U.S. Many people may mistakenly think that the U.S. can isolate itself from global trade, but that is not the case. Trade can be complex, and I believe that currently, the world has ample MDI capacity without the need for more. I believe it will likely happen in the next few quarters, around the next three to five. It's important to distinguish between deliveries and build rates. When an airline mentions delivering eight airplanes, we need to consider how many have already been built and sitting on the tarmac awaiting FAA or European inspections and certifications. We should also ask how many were constructed months or quarters ago and how many were made this month. So, when we hear about eight planes being delivered, we should focus on the build rate compared to the delivery rate. I would prefer to see the delivery rate increase since airlines need to manage their inventory. A visit to the Boeing field shows numerous 777Xs, the next generation of planes, that have not yet flown. Many of these have been idle for years as they wait for federal certification. This situation will be significant for our materials when those planes are fully constructed. However, a lot of stock will need to be cleared before we reach what I consider a normalized run rate. I apologize for the lengthy explanation, but it is crucial to differentiate between the number of planes delivered, the number manufactured, and the inventory of those planes that are waiting to be completed, certified, and delivered to customers.

I would like to discuss the closure of the maleic anhydride facility in Europe. Could you explain the process and how things unfolded there? When you initiated the strategic review, you mentioned that you took this step due to unsolicited interest in the facility. What led to the decision to shut it down instead?

Initially, we explored whether there might be a better owner for that facility. We considered selling it and keeping it, and we looked at every possible option. The last thing we wanted was to be in a position where we had to close an asset. After evaluating the reliability and costs associated with that facility, along with its lack of competitiveness in the European market, we concluded that the facility could not be sold and decided to shut it down. This was not our preferred outcome, but we felt we had no choice given the prevailing market conditions.

And so we recognize that for maleic, 85% of the cost of maleic is butane, that's going back into the high energy costs, which exist in Europe, and we don't see those materially changing going forward and hence, the decision that Peter outlined.

Perfect. And if I may ask about the future of your European footprint, not on a little bit more downstream polyurethanes, but on the core MDI Rotterdam facility. I mean, there's a bunch of PO shutdowns, a number of them more likely to come as well. So at what point do you think that European demand may permanently be impaired for MDI and there may not be enough demand for your own facilities there?

I believe that we have one of the lowest production sites in Europe, which should remain competitive compared to other European producers for the foreseeable future. If we ever reach a point where we can't justify the operations of our European facility, I think other facilities will likely reach that conclusion before we do. Nonetheless, we continue to assess all our operating costs and the viability of operations there. For the long term, as I see it now, that facility will continue to operate, and we will sustain our presence in the polyurethane market.

I wanted to ask in Advanced Materials, you cited power and industrial markets helping lift the EBITDA in the quarter. Curious how much of that you'd frame as structural improvement? It seems like maybe that's the case in power versus pull forward some cyclicality there and what's being baked into 3Q?

I think what we saw in second quarter was a more normalized run rate rather than a onetime basis. And as you continue to see power, I think, will continue to be a very stable platform. I think aerospace is going to continue to improve as the build rates start stabilizing more given my earlier comments and so forth. Again, that's not to say that you won't see a bit of volatility, but certainly nothing like what we see in the other divisions. So I'd say that as you look at second quarter, as we look into the third quarter, as we said in our prepared remarks, you'll see a little bit of seasonality. This is largely a European business. And Europeans have a tendency to take a few days off in August. And so you might see a bit of impact on that.

Makes sense. And if I could ask quickly for Phil. You had a $7 million benefit in Performance Products from what appeared to be an accrual reversal or something of that sort. Was that expected in 2Q? And is there anything else like that to call out in the 3Q?

No. And that was a reversal a loss contingency accrual related to our U.S. operations, Josh, that we had in Performance Products. I think we've called out as well in the second quarter that we did take a negative impact from asset utilization related to the reductions in our inventory. That was offset by the release of our bonus accruals as we've obviously reassessed our bonus accruals for the year. As you move into quarter 3, I think each of those 3 items will roughly balance themselves out, and you won't have a significant impact between Q2 and Q3 related to those.

Peter, when you think about China, they talked about involution. Is there a good amount of capacity there that could or maybe should be looked at and maybe taken out that could help the supply-demand situation we're in now?

That's a great question. In my recent discussions over the past month, I've noticed increased dialogue within China regarding the government's focus on addressing overcapacity and older facilities. Observing the MDI situation in China, all facilities are equipped with advanced technology and are among the largest and best-integrated operations, connecting energy production, aniline production, and coal production seamlessly. I anticipate several closures in the chemical industry over the next few years. However, I don't expect MDI facilities to be affected, especially when comparing their competitiveness to 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old facilities in Europe that are smaller and facing higher raw material and supply chain costs.

Mike, one area we are looking at is our joint venture in China on PO/MTBE has been significantly under pressure. It could be that over the coming years, there could be some of the older MTBE producing facilities that come out, but that will be over a number of years.

Got it. And then maybe a longer-term question, Peter. We've been in this trough for quite some time, and it may take longer to achieve a higher EBITDA number for the company. But do you still believe there is significant upside in EBITDA to reach a mid-cycle longer term? How do you envision getting there? What needs to happen?

No, I think as we analyze the situation, we often look back at previous economic cycles and consider whether we are experiencing a repeat. While we can see similar patterns, the underlying causes differ significantly. Factors such as ongoing conflicts, energy market fluctuations, and contrasting dynamics in the housing sector play a role. Today, the level of unsold homes is similar to that of 2007 and 2008, but for entirely different reasons. Therefore, I believe the outcome of this cycle, including its timing and the rationale behind it, will be distinct. Another point of interest is that we are currently facing three major economic regions globally, each impacted for various reasons. In the U.S., particularly regarding this segment of the chemical industry, the primary concerns are interest rates and affordable housing. I believe these issues can be addressed, and a resolution could occur relatively quickly. If we were to see a meaningful shift in interest rates, which experts have been discussing for several years, we could witness a rapid recovery in North America. This would likely bring us closer to normalized levels of MDI over the course of a year, rather than just a single quarter. Looking at China, the excessive capacity in the market and the potential for stimulating consumer spending are significant. This would largely stem from a rebound following the downturn in their housing market, a situation influenced by different factors than those we are experiencing in the U.S. They are in the late stages of grappling with a lack of consumer confidence, primarily due to the downturn in housing value and the associated overcapacity. Long term, I see China as remaining competitive, bolstered by its energy resources and a skilled workforce. I believe China will recover, while Europe is expected to face ongoing volatility. However, Europe will not disappear; it will find areas of competitiveness, whether in aerospace, electronics, or renewable energy. There will be economic shifts as Europe de-industrializes, causing some of that activity to move to North America, the Middle East, or China. The recovery will not occur uniformly across regions but will eventually take place. For new capacities to meet future demand in this industry, we will need to see higher prices and margins, which will initiate a cycle of recovery. This pattern has been a consistent theme in past recoveries. So, while my response was lengthy, I do believe in a recovery. I think we will return to normalized levels sooner in the U.S. and China than in Europe, and I see no reason this cannot happen. When it does, we will have an even more competitive cost structure, benefiting our bottom line. Our company has adapted to operate with lower costs, maintaining disciplined working capital and lower inventory levels. Additionally, we are introducing more downstream capacities in Geismar, Louisiana, with new catalysts and technology entering the market within our Performance Products sector. Thus, not only will we see a recovery, but we will also capitalize on new opportunities arising from past investments.

Peter and Phil. Just wanted to stick to the theme of a recovery, however far it is. In your prepared remarks, on the polyurethane side of things, you mentioned that sequentially, volumes were up around 3%. And typically, Q1 to Q2, you see an 8% to 10% sort of uptick in volumes. So I'm just trying to get a sense of how far below normal volume levels are we just to get a better sense of as and when that recovery happens, how much higher these volumes can actually go?

Yes. For the most part, if we exclude the one-time contracts and the business we secured in the second quarter, we estimate a gap of about 5% to 8% in the numbers. This is primarily related to the housing and construction sectors, which have experienced a notably weak market this year. We haven't observed anything like this since COVID or the Great Recession. There is a significant level of uncertainty surrounding people’s willingness to commit to what is usually their largest purchase during periods of market volatility and higher interest rates. I remain optimistic that these markets will recover early next year, putting us in a much stronger position. However, the most significant impact in the second quarter was the unusual lack of seasonality in construction that we would typically expect at this time.

Understood. Very helpful. And as a follow-up, I mean, again, in the prepared remarks for polyurethanes, you guys talked about how through the course of the quarter, you saw a more intense competitive environment in Europe. And I guess you mentioned driven by domestic producers. So can you just expand on that? And do you see any sort of resolution around that in the near term as well?

Unfortunately, I don't see a significant resolution coming soon. We pushed very hard in the second quarter, just as we did in the first quarter and the previous quarter, for improved pricing margins in Europe. I can't predict what our competitors will decide, but it seems that many are prioritizing volume over value, selling at any price. Surprisingly, Europe currently has the highest cost for urethane production and the lowest value for MDI globally. So, we are facing challenges on both fronts.

So what do we do, Hassan? We continue to focus on the announcements we made, getting our cost base correct and all of the activities that we're doing, including closing some of our facilities there and then work within the competitive environment that's existing.

Yes, 85%, 90% of our cost reductions right now across the company are focused in this market.

Peter, I was hoping you could deconstruct for us Polyurethanes segment price declines of 5% year-over-year this quarter. I mean you just talked about Europe, but was this the sole reason for this decline? Were other regions particularly bad or good? And also from the perspective of just polymeric MDI versus systems, were these thesis better or worse than the 5%?

Yes. We observed a price decline as we transitioned from the first to the second quarter. At the start of the second quarter, especially in China, prices fell from around RMB 18,000 to about RMB 15,000, indicating a drop of approximately 15% to 20%. By the end of that quarter, we began to see some stabilization and slight increases, and we remain optimistic about potential price hikes in China as stability improves. In the U.S. and Europe, however, we are experiencing very competitive pricing dynamics, with many players vying for limited volume.

Aleksey, if you were looking at the 5% year-on-year, which I think you are in our press release on polyurethanes, you go back to this time last year, it was about RMB 18,000 for polymeric. And today, we're at about that sort of RMB 15,000, RMB 16,000. So you've seen a drop of 10% to 15%. So it's mostly in the polymeric area. You would have had some pressure on system prices, some on MDI variance. But in general, the move that you've seen is polymeric MDI related.

And here, in the past, said that it's hard to move U.S. MDI demand offshore or at least it could be tariff-related repercussions. Can you update us on this view? Have you seen any demand maybe move to Mexico, Canada or it's been pretty steady?

Yes, Aleksey, you're inquiring about trade flows and whether products that would typically come into the United States are instead being directed to Mexico or Canada. Looking at the first six months of the year, imports to the U.S. have noticeably decreased. Some of these imports may have shifted to the Canadian lumber business and a small amount to Mexico. However, Mexico is not a significant market, primarily focused on automotive and furniture where specifications are needed. As mentioned earlier, while imports from China have declined, European imports to the U.S. have actually risen during this period. Combined with a lower demand environment, these factors have created a pricing situation that remains relatively stable, rather than seeing the increases that the industry had hoped for.

Yes. Aleksey, my apologies. Your call was kind of breaking in and out and Phil coming from the U.K. is used to listening to the Scots and Irish and so forth. So he's better at stuff like this.

I wanted to ask about two things. First, I understand that Huntsman doesn't believe the world needs another MDI plant, particularly under your leadership, Peter. However, others might not share that view. What could drive them to reach the same conclusion you have? Could you provide insights on factors like cost per ton or pricing? Secondly, regarding the epoxies in your Advanced Materials business, there have been some exits by others in the BLR market. Does that impact your sourcing in any way? What can you share about that?

On the BLR side, we have a sufficient number of suppliers. Some higher-cost facilities have reduced their operations, but there is still an ample supply of BLR in the market. I don't believe that the exits of a few suppliers will have any impact on our earnings in Advanced Materials. Regarding MDI capacity, I find it hard to understand the reasoning behind significant investments, like $1 billion or $2 billion, in projects that take 5 to 7 years to build when there is already an oversupply in the market. Perhaps they have insights into future trends that I do not. While I understand China's desire for self-sufficiency over the past couple of decades, I don't see the growth rates in Europe, North America, or even China today justifying such decisions. Therefore, I cannot explain the rationale behind those choices.

And Arun, I think there's a reality none of the Western manufacturers as far as we know, have announced any new capacity, major capacity additions and major plants. There may have been some debottlenecking, but nothing from a major new plant perspective.

Right. But I guess I'm just curious, would they and yourselves get to a place here where that utilization rate remaining in the low 80s or high 70s is just not acceptable and would force some closures? Do you foresee that happening? And would it make sense for you guys as well? I appear not, I guess not just given your position on the cost curve, but do you foresee any supply takeout materializing that way?

Yes. I believe there are some very high-cost facilities in Europe, based on publicly available information. I expected some of these closures to have occurred by now, but they haven’t. Chemical facilities are generally very costly to shut down. In Europe, it can be particularly challenging due to government regulations and other factors. While I could share my own experiences, time doesn't permit. Closing these sites is especially expensive, especially where there are several chemical companies reliant on each other’s operations. Even if a company wants to shut down, long-term supply agreements and shared site costs complicate the process. Therefore, walking away from these operations is a difficult and costly decision. However, I believe many companies are currently evaluating the economics of these situations.

I wanted to see if you could give us some color, Peter, on the comments that we're seeing European MDI being imported into North American markets. Can you just explain what's driving that? And do you expect that to persist into the second half?

I honestly can't understand why someone would do that. It's a complex situation, and I appreciate the question. It involves shipping some of the highest-cost MDI in the world while incurring all the associated duties and costs. I'm not sure why this is happening, but it is occurring. That's the reality of the market. I think typically, MTBE performs best during the driving season, which occurs from the end of the first quarter through the third quarter, affecting gasoline blends, octane values, and the cost of raw materials. I have a strong understanding of MTBE in the markets for the next 24 to 48 hours. However, I would say that between now and the end of the year, it will be challenging to see any significant improvement.

This is Kevin Estok on for Laurence. You mentioned the rate cycle briefly, but I would like to explore it further. I'm curious about the number of rate cuts you anticipate would be necessary to positively influence the construction and consumer durable markets. Would you suggest that perhaps 75 basis points in 2025 and another 75 in the first half of 2026 could lead to some improvement in construction by late 2026 and in consumer durables by 2027 at the earliest?

Monetary policies really are not my area of expertise. I'll probably defer to Phil on that. But I would just say that it's probably two issues. It's not just how much is taking place, but also the direction in which it appears to be going. If you see a small rate cut of 25 bps, I'm not sure that's going to catalyze the economy. But if that's going to be the first of 2 or 3 expected rate cuts coming, I think that, that could be a very substantial catalyst. But at this point, there's just not a whole lot of visibility that the Fed is giving.

A key impact that we always monitor is the Fed funds rate and its effect on longer-term yields, which ultimately influences mortgage rates. We have noticed a disconnect with the current position of 10-year yields. Therefore, we are analyzing all these factors, as they need to decrease to encourage greater stimulation in construction and progress from there.

All right. Thanks, Joe. We can end the call now.

Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Enjoy the rest of your day.