Liquidia Corp Q4 FY2025 Earnings Call

Good morning, and welcome to the Liquidia Corporation Full Year 2025 Financial Results and Corporate Update Conference Call. My name is Josh, and I will be your operator today. Please note that today's call is being recorded. I'll now turn the call over to Jason Adair, Chief Business Officer.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to our full year 2025 financial results and corporate update call. Joining me today are Dr. Roger Jeffs, Chief Executive Officer; Michael Kaseta, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer; Dr. Rajeev Saggar, Chief Medical Officer; Scott Moomaw, Chief Commercial Officer; and Rusty Shundler, our General Counsel. Before we begin, please note that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements, including statements regarding future results, product performance, and ongoing clinical or commercial activities. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially. For further information, please refer to our filings with the SEC available on our website. Please also note that our earnings release and commentary includes non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP measures can be found in our earnings release. With that, I'll turn the call over to Roger. Roger?

Thanks, Jason, and good morning, everyone. As we look back on 2025 and forward into 2026, what stands out is the rapid establishment of our preferred product profile paired with precise execution. Last year demonstrated that Liquidia could launch, scale, and reach profitability quickly within only 120 days of launch, in fact. Most importantly, we demonstrated that physicians were willing to rapidly change prescribing behavior when presented with a new differentiated option in YUTREPIA. The benefits of its product profile, deep-lung delivery, low-effort device, and wide dose range are taking hold in clinical practice and help place YUTREPIA as one of the top specialty drug launches over the past five years across all therapeutic categories. This did not happen by chance, but with purpose as the category defining SENSE study data clearly set a new data-driven standard for therapeutic success. The momentum of 2025 has clearly carried into 2026. As of February 28, we have received more than 3,600 unique patient referrals and shipped therapy for more than 2,900 patients since launch, maintaining our robust trajectory. While others have observed stagnation from supposed seasonality, that has not been our initial experience as we continue on the same growth trajectory without decline which would suggest that our percent market share is rising and that we are capturing a disproportionate number of new patient starts for inhaled prostacyclins as the best-in-class option. This steady forward momentum is being achieved across PAH and PH-ILD, with new patient prescriptions roughly equal now between the two indications. Patient starts remain at 75% naive to 25% transitions from other prostacyclins. Importantly, breadth and depth are also improving in a measurable way. We have increased total prescribers to around 860 as centers gain confidence and usage expands in the community. A key indicator of that depth is that roughly 25% of physicians have already referred five or more patients, which is exactly the pattern you want to see when the therapy evolves to becoming the standard of choice rather than an initial trial. If 2025 started the full commercial phase, 2026 begins the full clinical exploration of what may be possible with YUTREPIA and L606. Our development strategy is built on principles we have understood for a long time with prostacyclin. Exposure drives efficacy, tolerability drives durability and convenience drives compliance. Each of these elements is critical to the totality of therapeutic experience and speaks to the high bar that YUTREPIA has quickly established around safety, efficacy, and convenience. This year, we will look to further cement this best-in-class product profile via the initiation of multiple new studies, including studies that will transition patients from oral and inhaled prostacyclin therapies, and a study of new combinations like adjunctive studies with sotatercept that we hope will further advance the changing standard of care. Further, we will work to initiate new studies to support expansion into additional disease areas such as systemic sclerosis-associated Raynaud's phenomenon and PH-COPD, where high unmet addressable need remains. And of course, we will look to move the therapeutic needle even further via the advancement of our next-generation L606 pivotal study with the study initiated in multiple territories and enrollment expected to begin in the following quarters. Importantly, this disciplined expansion of clinical evidence will be funded by cash flow from operations and will help grow the value of the franchise and the company. With that, I will turn it over to Mike.

Thank you, Roger, and good morning, everyone. Our financial results are a direct reflection of two things: sustained patient growth and retention and disciplined execution. Over the last nine months, as the referral and start curves have moved higher, so have revenue, margin contribution, and cash generation. For the full year 2025, YUTREPIA generated $148.3 million in net product sales, including $90.1 million in the fourth quarter, representing 74% growth in net product sales over the third quarter of 2025. The fourth quarter also marked our second consecutive quarter of increasing profitability with not only non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA of $27.3 million but also $14.6 million of net income. We ended the year with approximately $190.7 million in cash and cash equivalents, having generated $33 million of positive cash flow in the fourth quarter alone. Liquidia is now operating as a cash-generating growth engine. That is not aspirational; it is visible in the quarterly numbers and on the balance sheet. Roger, back to you.

Thanks, Mike. We're confident in 2026 and the years ahead as we focus on building a durable franchise with increasing patient preference and a clear path towards at least a $1 billion franchise in 2027 with increasing growth in the years beyond. With that, operator, please open the line for questions.

Our first question comes from Ryan Deschner with Raymond James.

Congratulations on the impressive continued launch so far for YUTREPIA. Curious, given the greater than 2,900 patient starts you're reporting today, where do you think this puts you in terms of current market share? And how are you thinking about continued growth in the first half of 2026? And then I have a follow-up.

Yes. Thanks, Ryan. I appreciate you joining the call this morning. It's difficult to provide an exact percentage of market share based on patient numbers, especially since the competitor does not reveal their figures. What we have done is conduct an analysis based on revenue, which maybe, Mike, you could discuss further to address this question.

Thank you, Roger, and Ryan, for your question. To provide some context, inhaled treprostinil revenue for Q4 was approximately $550 million. Despite what our competitors have suggested regarding seasonality in Q4 and their related revenue decline from Q3, we experienced a 5% revenue increase from Q3 of 2025. The 80% revenue growth quarter-over-quarter indicates that we captured more than 100% of market growth in Q4. This reflects a significant share of new patient starts and a substantial number of switches from Tyvaso. In Q3, our market revenue share was about 10%, which grew to 17% in Q4, highlighting a notable improvement quarter-over-quarter. As mentioned, we achieved 2,900 patient starts in just nine months since the launch, up to February 28. We're seeing sustained momentum from Q4 continuing into the first two-thirds of Q1 of 2026 and are optimistic about our ongoing successful launch.

And Ryan, just to add, it's been very consistent in terms of trajectory, and we don't see any impediment going forward this year with regard to any change in that trajectory. As we mentioned in the prepared remarks, the depth of prescriptions is increasing. We're working on improving the duration and durability so that scripts keep getting filled so that the revenue growth remains. And I believe you had another question, Ryan?

Yes, thanks for that. With the new outcomes data from a competitor that came out recently, what's your take on the potential impact of a new addition to the oral prostacyclin receptor agonist mix on the YUTREPIA launch?

That's a valid question. Firstly, I want to congratulate the therapeutics team on their successful trial with an IP1 selective agonist. For us, this development doesn’t hold much significance. It resembles UPTRAVI in many ways – they both operate in the nanomolar range and have similar potency. Their target binding profile is very selective for the IP1 agonist, and the outcomes are comparable. We are observing long-term effects over years in terms of clinical worsening, with a minimal impact on symptom oncology, especially regarding the six-minute walk distance, which they did not disclose but claimed was significant. I suspect the effect is muted. With UPTRAVI, there was no statistically or clinically significant change in the six-minute walk distance in these patients, who are symptomatic and seeking improvement. I don’t believe the oral therapies will deliver substantial benefits. Instead, they will likely introduce gastrointestinal issues. The adverse event profile shows considerable gastrointestinal side effects, including diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. Therefore, it seems to be more of the same. All the results mentioned regarding our launch trajectory and success exist alongside UPTRAVI being on the market. The real consideration is how ralinepag will compete with UPTRAVI once it launches. I don't find it particularly concerning. Additionally, when examining their data, although they showed success across various subgroups, the dosing did not differentiate outcomes. It doesn’t appear that there’s an advantage in dosing for better results. Essentially, what you see is likely close to the initial starting dose. Again, it’s more of the same, and I don’t think it will have any meaningful impact on our business outlook.

Our next question comes from Julian Harrison with BTIG.

Congrats on the progress. Roger, I'm sure you're very familiar with soft mist inhalers, can you help us better understand the differentiation potentially of YUTREPIA, maybe L606 as well relative to a softness inhaler that was recently announced by another company in the space? And then as a follow-up, regarding the PAH versus PH-ILD split of patients on YUTREPIA, should we still be thinking about that on approximately a 3:1 basis? How do you see that maybe evolving over time?

Yes. I’ll address the question and might ask Scott to assist with the second question afterward. We have now moved to a nearly equal split between PAH and PH-ILD. There are definitely more growth opportunities in PH-ILD. One of our strategies is to significantly increase our sales force by one-third, which will enhance our presence in the market. This larger presence is aimed at engaging more with the community, especially in the PH-ILD area, to increase market penetration, generate awareness, and facilitate either new starts or referrals. Over time, this should strengthen our value proposition. However, in PAH, it's important to remember that we are pursuing opportunities not just in inhaled therapies but also in oral and injectable areas. While overall revenue figures might look similar, in terms of patient numbers, PH-ILD seems to have greater potential for success. Scott, do you have any additional comments or responses you'd like to make?

No, I completely agree with everything Roger said. It's been interesting to see PAH get off to a fast start. But as we mentioned, PH-ILD has come on strong and is about halfway to where it will go from here. We know that PH-ILD is definitely the bigger long-term opportunity, as Roger referred to it as the white space. However, there is still a lot of potential in PAH. So where it will ultimately settle, I believe PH-ILD will certainly be bigger, but there's significant growth happening in both areas right now to continue in the near term.

Yes, thank you, Scott. Julian, there are significant multibillion-dollar opportunities in each indication, and we're excited about the prospects that YUTREPIA and L606 offer in these markets. Regarding the SMI, I know it’s a crucial topic since there have been exaggerated comments surrounding it. It seems to me that their statements are validating YUTREPIA because they appear to be developing a product with a profile similar to YUTREPIA. This includes an easy-to-use, low-resistance device with high portability and cough mitigation, which is specifically achieved through the unique formulation of engineered particles in the lower end of the respirable range. Moreover, the dosing flexibility we have, as demonstrated in the ASCENT study, allows us to dose patients rapidly and aggressively at two or four times the previous standard without causing cough exacerbation in a population of PH-ILD patients who generally have a baseline cough and a high risk of worsening cough with inhalation therapy. YUTREPIA represents an ideal product profile. As Mike noted, we are capturing a large portion, if not most, of the NRx share, and our TRx share is improving over time. To me, the SMI is merely a repurposed opportunity. If we reference the 793 patent from 2006, it mentions a single-dose acute administration of treprostinil using an SMI. The patent also discusses a single acute dose with ultrasonic nebulizers, which is what Tyvaso currently uses. This indicated that, in PAH patients receiving a low single dose, cough was common, and it specifies that the median particle diameter was in the four to five-micron range. So, fundamentally, nothing has changed. You're administering Tyvaso solution without enhancing its tolerability or effectiveness in reaching the lower airways; you’re simply changing the method of delivering an aerosolized mist. Thus, it doesn't make much difference whether you use a soft mist inhaler; while it might be more portable, it will still behave clinically like Tyvaso nebulized. We don’t see it as competitive. Competitors need to clarify their comments regarding tolerability; they have mentioned the need for bioequivalence studies. Whatever data they have, my assumption is that it’s just from single-dose acute studies in healthy volunteers, which is a poor substitute for what might happen with patients who often cough. Furthermore, recall that when they launched Tyvaso DPI, they lacked patient bioequivalence data for PH-ILD and faced issues in the National Jewish state specifically with the DPI and PH-ILD. It now appears they have conceded that DPIs are ineffective for them and are attempting to transition to alternative methods, but I don't foresee any benefits from that approach moving forward. That's my brief perspective on the matter. Rajeev, I believe you have some additional insights regarding similar attempts in other markets, and I’d like to invite you to share those experiences.

Yes, sure. Thanks, Roger. So I think I just want to highlight some key points here. I think the signature of the SMI was primarily derived from the Spiriva Respimat, and that was done at a time when the CFC propellants were being removed. And also, there was a patent issue from that company, and they compared it to Spiriva HandiHaler, which is the dry powder formulation. And at that time, the HandiHaler was the highest resistance device ever to be developed in patients with asthma and COPD, which is tens of millions of patients. The only device that has a higher resistance than the HandiHaler to date is actually the Tyvaso DPI device that's used in PAH and PH-ILD. But what's really interesting is with all the studies done comparing the soft mist inhaler to a dry powder inhaler using the same formulation in this regard with tiotropium, the SMI has never been shown to change the clinical efficacy, the pharmacokinetics, and most importantly, has never been shown to improve or modify safety and/or tolerability inclusive of the concerns for cost. So I just want to highlight as what Roger spoke to that the SMI does not port any substantial benefit besides the portability itself.

Our next question comes from Amy Li with Jefferies.

Congratulations on the momentum. When considering your goal of reaching $1 billion in revenue by 2027, our calculations indicate that sustained patient growth is essential from this point onward. Is that an accurate way to understand your growth trajectory? Furthermore, what gives you the assurance to maintain your current pace in the upcoming years? How much insight do you have regarding the patient acquisition process and the sources of new patients? Lastly, are you still confident in that revenue target considering potential emerging competitive challenges like SMI?

I'll ask Mike to discuss how we approach revenue calculations. As mentioned, we don't see any impact from SMI. The focus will be on Tyvaso and potentially a more portable format using jet nozzles to produce aerosolized particles. However, these particles will be poly dispersed, causing cough and titration issues, which I don't think will affect us significantly. Notably, the nebulized market is shrinking largely because we are capturing that market share. I expect this trend to continue. Mike, could you elaborate on how we anticipate our sales will progress towards achieving over $1 billion in revenue by 2027?

Yes, Amy, thanks for the question. If you look at what I discussed earlier, the market for the quarter was over $500 million, indicating that the inhaled treprostinil market is already a $2 billion market. Our share of that revenue has increased significantly quarter-over-quarter, and we believe this trend will persist. Additionally, there's the $2 billion oral opportunity in PAH, where we see a substantial chance to gain market share. Furthermore, as Scott and Roger mentioned earlier, we're just beginning to explore the potential in PH-ILD. We're enhancing our sales force and increasing our reach into the community. Considering our current $2 billion market opportunity in inhaled treprostinil, the oral market potential, and the growth potential in PH-ILD, we're very optimistic about maintaining our trajectory toward achieving YUTREPIA as a $1 billion product in 2027, as Roger noted at JPM.

Yes. I think the other thing is that we are conducting directed studies to transition patients from competitive agents, whether oral or inhaled, and demonstrate the benefits of switching those patients to direct tolerability and efficacy. All of these efforts will help us build a robust portfolio and a collection of evidence that supports YUTREPIA as the best-in-class and preferred product.

Our next question comes from Serge Belanger with Needham.

First question on the legal front. Any new updates or developments that you can share with us? And then secondly, regarding payer access, I think you reported another 85% prescription to patient start conversion. Just curious how that number varies across the Medicare and Commercial segment. And I guess, what additional coverage work is required? I know you had coverage from three major commercial payers, but what additional payers need to come online over the remainder of 2026?

Sure. Thanks for the question. So I'll take the legal and then I'll pass it to Mike for payer. So really nothing new from what we said at JPMorgan, Serge, so just a reminder for those who may be newer to the story, that the oral hearing was in June, post-trial briefings were completed in August. So we're now approaching nine months from trial and seven months from the post-trial briefing. So we do think we're in the sweet spot for when an opinion should and could be rendered. But obviously, it's been taking longer than we all expected. So we can't really probabilitize on when it actually will come down. What I would say is we remain very confident in the arguments that we made and we strongly believe that we should win. The case should read out favorably to us. We acknowledge there's a lot of potential options here or outcomes. But regardless of what happens, we're prepared for any and all outcomes. So really nothing new to state today other than we remain confident in our position and look forward to hearing from the judge in due time. So Mike, if you'll talk to payer access, please.

It's great to hear from you. Our performance with payer and pull-through is a clear demonstration of how successfully we've executed this launch. Scott and his team have done an exceptional job; maintaining over 85% pull-through from the early stages of the launch is truly impressive, and we’re continuing at that pace. From the outset, our goal has been to ensure that patients have the option to use YUTREPIA, and we have achieved that. We are working diligently on our pull-through efforts, offering a range of services to ensure that patients can access YUTREPIA if they choose to. This is reflected in our pull-through percentage, which we expect to remain stable. While we aim to improve that figure over time, we already believe we are in a best-in-class position with an 85% plus pull-through rate.

Our next question comes from Ben Burnett with Wells Fargo.

Congrats on all the progress. I just wanted to see if I could get a little bit of color on some of the launch dynamics into the first quarter. Anything you can say kind of around inventory stocking trends or kind of the refill rate that you're seeing?

Yes, Mike, if you wouldn't mind commenting on that?

Yes, Ben, thanks for the question. As we said in our press release, and Roger reiterated already, we've already had a strong January and February when it comes to both new patient starts and referrals. We're staying on the exact same trajectory we were on in Q4. We've often gotten questions from analysts and from comments from our competitors about seasonality. We've seen nothing but increases across the board. And as we showed today, we continue to see those increases. So as we've always said, as Roger had said, we are still very confident as we move through the rest of Q1 into Q2 and are on our path to be a $1 billion product in 2027. Now as it relates to inventory and stocking, I think we're now at the point of the launch, nine months in, where we've really normalized, and I don't expect there to be any significant swings now. Specialty distributors can make decisions that ended up quarters that we don't have influence over. But at the end of the day, we are tracking well. Our demand is extremely strong. And as a result, we feel very confident in the revenue as we move forward.

Okay. That's extremely helpful. And I guess just also regarding the systemic sclerosis RP program. I thought that was interesting. Could you maybe walk us through kind of the evidence in support of treprostinil and kind of what your path forward is there?

Yes, I'd love to. So Rajeev, if you wouldn't mind talking about the Raynaud's program?

Yes, thank you for the question. Systemic sclerosis is a rare condition that affects multiple organs, leading to serious complications like pulmonary arterial hypertension and pulmonary hypertension with interstitial lung disease. Despite these serious issues, the primary complaint impacting patients' quality of life is Raynaud's phenomenon, which affects around 90% to 95% of individuals with systemic sclerosis. We believe there is a solid rationale for our approach because various drugs approved for pulmonary hypertension have been studied in the context of Raynaud's phenomenon and its complications, such as digital ulcers, including prostacyclins. In clinical guidelines from Europe and the U.S. for managing Raynaud's phenomenon, iloprost and Flolan are recommended as salvage therapies when patients do not respond to treatments like calcium channel blockers and off-label PD5 inhibitors. This indicates that the prostacyclin class may effectively prevent worsening ischemic episodes, potentially preventing gangrene and amputations for these patients. However, oral treprostinil was previously studied for treating digital ulcers but faced challenges due to tolerability issues, leading patients to discontinue treatment. We are optimistic about providing YUTREPIA, as we know inhaled treprostinil has a much better tolerability profile. Our data suggests we can achieve higher doses and maintain an appropriate pharmacokinetic profile to impact the disease. We look forward to starting our Phase IIa program for systemic sclerosis-related Raynaud's phenomenon by the end of the year.

Our next question comes from Jason Gerberry with Bank of America.

I have two questions. First, regarding pulmonary arterial hypertension, I wanted your thoughts on the role of inhaled treprostinil in this area, as there seems to be some confusion. On one side, your competitor mentioned that inhalation methods might lose significance in treating PAH. However, our discussions with key opinion leaders indicate that they are not starting new patients on UPTRAVI, yet the IQVIA data shows that new prescriptions for UPTRAVI appear stable. This inconsistency presents a challenge in understanding the current dynamics. Additionally, Winrevair is increasingly being prescribed for newly diagnosed PAH patients. How do you perceive the shifting significance of oral versus inhaled prostacyclins in PAH? My second question for Mike is about the fourth-quarter numbers. They indicate strong revenue recognition per patient when comparing the third and fourth quarter sales figures. Looking ahead to 2026, it seems like gross to net adjustments won't be significant relative to patient numbers and revenue capture. I would appreciate your insights on this.

Thank you for the question, Jason. I’ll address the issue of pulmonary arterial hypertension in relation to oral and inhaled treatments. The field is evolving, and patients are becoming less willing to accept off-target effects, as these can significantly affect their daily lives just as much as the disease itself. Oral treatments often have serious gastrointestinal side effects that occur frequently and can be quite bothersome. When these side effects are juxtaposed with minimal symptomatic benefits, the risk-reward balance is not favorable for the patient. Moving forward, as we gather more data on how YUTREPIA can effectively titrate doses and eliminate off-target effects related to gastrointestinal issues, septicemia, and discomfort from injections, it’s clear that patients will be less inclined to accept those trade-offs. Our competitors have noted that patients are weary of off-target effects and are seeking a more favorable benefit-to-risk ratio, which YUTREPIA offers. While it does require administration four times a day, we plan to mitigate this through L606, which will deliver the advantages of YUTREPIA in a twice-a-day regimen and will stabilize drug levels for consistent effectiveness. Our goal is to enhance patient outcomes, improve their quality of life, and provide a convenient therapy without associated risks. I believe we are making significant progress towards that aim. YUTREPIA is becoming the preferred inhaled option, and as we continue to gain market share from oral treatments, you can expect to see even more of this trend. Now, Mike, could you share your insights on the dynamics for the fourth quarter?

Yes, Jason, thank you for your question. As we consider our growth from 2025 to 2026, we mentioned in earlier quarters that we are addressing access in the latter half of the year, where some new market restrictions have started to lift on the commercial side. This will have a twofold effect: we will be paying more rebates on a larger portion of our business in 2026, but this will be balanced by an increase in patient access. I want to emphasize that we are very confident in our growth trajectory as we head into 2026 and 2027. There may be a slight increase in our gross to net ratio, but this aligns with our goal of ensuring that patients have choices and access to our products. We are on track to meet our objectives in 2026 and aim for our product to reach $1 billion in revenue by 2027.

Operator, I think we have time for one more question.

Congrats on a great print and continued strong launch of YUTREPIA. Just two for me, if that's okay. Can the team give some color on that one in four prostacyclin transition patients and kind of what bucket of prostacyclin therapy, i.e., oral versus inhaled, these patients are coming from? And then secondly, on the new exploratory YUTREPIA trials, can you just describe how these are expected or if they are, I guess, to be label enhancing?

Yes. So maybe I'll ask Scott to talk about sort of how the transition market, kind of the demographics of that and then Rajeev, if you will speak to the benefits of the trials that we're doing. So Scott?

Sure. As we've mentioned, 75% of the patients are new to prostacyclin, while 25% are switching from other treatments. In the case of PH-ILD, there are no alternative options, so those switches are primarily from inhaled therapies. For PAH, we noted that around 30% of those switches come from oral treatments, with the majority coming from inhaled therapies. We're beginning to see more patients move from parenteral treatments to YUTREPIA; while I don’t expect this to significantly impact switch rates, it indicates that we may eventually enter the parenteral market. However, in the market, I've observed increasing enthusiasm for using YUTREPIA instead of oral prostacyclins, as Roger highlighted earlier. We believe there is substantial opportunity, whether patients are switching from an oral prostacyclin or choosing YUTREPIA over one.

Thank you, Scott. So Rajeev, if you'll speak to the trials, please.

Thank you for the question. I firmly believe we are entering a significant period for inhaled therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). YUTREPIA is currently at the forefront, and L606 is set to follow. The trials we are conducting are focused on transitioning from oral prostanoids to YUTREPIA. We have noted that practitioners are increasingly interested in the most tolerable medication. This has been underscored by the addition of sotatercept, which has diminished the use of parenteral therapies. We have several large cases of YUTREPIA being used effectively in hospitals, often in combination with sotatercept to enhance the treatment outcome. Regarding oral prostanoids, we plan to conduct studies on switching from selexipag to YUTREPIA, explaining the process to practitioners for a safe and effective transition. Furthermore, YUTREPIA can be administered at doses two to four times higher than what is typically used for Tyvaso. These studies will also showcase YUTREPIA's hemodynamic benefits, which is very promising. As for label enhancements, we will always present our data to the relevant agency for consideration. Finally, we want to reiterate the focus on the sotatercept study, which aims to transition patients on sotatercept with various forms of prostanoids to YUTREPIA in a safe and effective manner. We are eager to initiate these studies this year.

Thank you, Rajeev there. Well said both from you and Scott. So I'll close by just saying as you can hear, Liquidia is all in for our patients and trying to provide better and better opportunities, both now and in the future. And we look forward to speaking with everyone again in May when we update you on our Q1 outcome. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you. This concludes the conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.