Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to Second Quarter 2013 Albemarle Corporation Earnings Conference Call. My name is Sandra, and I'll be your operator today. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this call is being recorded for replay purposes. I'd now like to turn the call over to Mr. Lorin Crenshaw, Director of Investor Relations and Communications. Please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Sandra and welcome everyone to Albemarle's Second Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. Our earnings were released after the close of the market yesterday and you'll find our press release, earnings presentation and non-GAAP reconciliations posted on our website under the Investors section at albemarle.com. Joining me on the call today are Luke Kissam, Chief Executive Officer; and Scott Tozier, Chief Financial Officer. As a reminder, some of the statements made during this conference call about the future performance of the company may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws. Please note the cautionary language about our forward-looking statements contained in our press release. That same language applies to this call. Please note that our comments today regarding our financial results exclude all nonoperating or special items and reconciliations related to any non-GAAP financial measures discussed. And those reconciliations may be found in our press release or earnings presentation, which are posted on our website. With that, I'll turn the call over to Luke.

Thanks, Lorin, and good morning, everyone. Scott and I appreciate the opportunity to share Albemarle's second quarter results and our current views on the rest of 2013 with you today. As usual, at the end of our prepared remarks, we'll open it up for your questions. On our last call, we expressed the view that 2013 profitability would be back-end loaded and that the second quarter results would be very similar to the first. That is exactly what we saw in the second quarter. We ended the quarter with net income of $82 million or $0.97 per share, net sales of $634 million and EBITDA of $137 million, all consistent with first quarter results and in line with our expectations. From a segment standpoint in the quarter, Polymer closed stronger than we expected, Fine Chemistry performed roughly as expected and Catalysts was a little weaker. Scott will go into more detail shortly about each segment. But at a high level, Refinery Catalysts results continue to be impacted by lower metal pass-throughs, customer turnarounds and less favorable mix. In Performance Catalyst Solutions, there were 3 major factors impacting performance. The full cost of our capital expansions hit the PL during the startup and customer qualification phase without the associated revenue. European polymer catalysts customers seem to be trading down to less performance-based catalysts due to the economy. Finally, we sacrificed some share and price at some key accounts to ensure longer-term commitments. In Fine Chemistry, Clear Brine volumes in the second quarter, while strong, did not match the first quarter pace, but increased sales and custom services offset that slight drop off. In polymers, volumes were better than expected, but pricing continued to be under pressure in certain countries [ph]. Demand in electronics, enclosures, commercial construction and infrastructure, particularly in Europe,…

Thanks, Luke. I'm going to start with a review of our business segments and then turn to the details on our P&L and cash flow. Catalysts reported second quarter net sales of $234 million, up 2% year-over-year, and segment income of $51 million, down 25% year-over-year on segment margins of 22%. A number of unique headwinds continue to impact results that make it challenging to interpret the underlying health of the business without adjusting for them. Excluding the impact of lower metal surcharges and refinery catalysts, startup costs in Performance Catalyst Solutions and above-normal turnarounds in our Heavy Oil Upgrading segment, sales would've been up approximately 12% year-over-year and segment income would've been up 6% year-over-year. Finally, joint venture income came in less than expected due to lower metal surcharges, softness in demand and unfavorable exchange rate impacts, particularly the yen. Within Refinery Catalysts solutions, Heavy Oil Upgrading volumes, which is mostly fluid cracking catalysts, were up double digits year-over-year. And excluding the impact of metal surcharges, segment income was down slightly due to negative customer mix from several large customer turnarounds and lower joint venture income, particularly in Brazil. Barring another large change to metals pricing, this should be the last quarter where metal surcharges cloud the numbers. Clean fuel technologies volumes, which are mostly hydroprocessing catalysts, also rose double digits year-over-year, driving similarly the strong levels of sales and segment income growth. The mix of clean fuel shipments was similar to last year. Performance Catalyst Solutions revenue declined 9% year-over-year, and segment income was down approximately 17%, excluding the impact of higher startup costs. Lower revenue was driven by slower demand for polyolefins in Europe and customer destocking, resulting in lower production rates and therefore polymer catalyst demand. We continue to experience the unfavorable impact of factory startup…

Thanks, Scott. At this time, I want to take a minute to update you on the prospects for each business segment for the balance of the year. In Fine Chemistry, we're forecasting demand for clear brine fluids to remain strong for the balance of the year. We're encouraged that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico increased sequentially during the second quarter from 46 to 57 average rigs in use, and that the average international offshore rig count is up 6% year-to-date to 321 versus the full year average for 2012. In addition, we expect Fine Chemistry Services to show an increase in profitability in the second half, driven by a combination of new product launches and an increase in the demand forecasted by a number of our key customers. However, the overall step up in the second half profitability in Fine Chemistry Services is now lower than we expected at the time our last call. So while we expect sequential improvement in segment income for Fine Chemistry in each of the next 2 quarters, the increase in demand is not as strong as we previously expected. In Polymer Solutions, there have been no developments in terms of our order book or the leading indicators we monitor that would lead us to a more optimistic view than we shared on our last call. The most positive trend across our order book remains the continued improvement in our brominated polystyrene family of products, which corresponds with the Bishop's Report Connector Confidence Index. That index reached a 2-year high of 69.3 in June, and is up from its 2-year low of 35.1 reached last October, which tracks our increases in volumes in this segment. The most recent IPC book-to-bill ratio showed further improvement of 1.12 in May, the fifth straight month of sequential…

Operator, we're ready to open the lines for Q&A. [Operator Instructions]

[Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from Robert Koort from Goldman Sachs.

Luke, could you explain a little bit more and talk maybe if there's any precedent on this downgrading of your Chemical Catalysts customers? I would suspect, if times are lean, they would need to get the best deal and efficiency possible. So can you just give us a historical basis for these guys going to cheaper materials or cheaper catalysts?

Yes. And that was specifically in Europe. So I think what the issue has been, as it seems to us, is that there hasn't been the demand for our customers' products in the markets which they're selling. So they're seeing a slowdown. So they don't need that efficiency, Bob, to get higher throughput and efficiencies in their production process. So they seem to be going to a -- at least in the second quarter, seem to be going to a lower performance catalyst. But we've already seen in July some of those orders picking up, so I think it will return to norm in due course.

Okay. And then I appreciate the update you gave us and the specificity around the guidance as well as your Vision 2015. Thinking about just the back of the envelope, though it would suggest to get to that low end that you said was still possible to share repurchase that you'd see 50% growth between '13 and '15. So I just want to make sure I did the math right, but it seems awfully sensational. So...

Yes, Bob, I hope that's the case. But I don't think you did the math right. What, if you'll look at what I'm trying -- the point I'm trying to make is, we've previously stated that we're going to try to maintain a level of roughly one-time net debt to EBITDA. Now if we were that -- that would assume you can buy back shares, $350 million, $400 million a year. My CFO's kind of shaking his head. But something kind of in that range, that doesn't prohibit us from the possibility of leveraging up further if we decide that's the right point. So I think that's what you got to look to. It's more the amount of leverage we would be willing to put on, on the business in order to acquire those shares. We'll still have fundamental underlying growth, but it's not going to be anywhere near the kind of number that you just drew out.

And just to clarify, if I could, Luke. But you said if you were to lever up, maybe you could get to that, 6 75 low end?

Yes, that's right.

We have another question for you, and this one is from P.J. Juvekar from Citi.

When you lowered expectations relating to your Vision 2015, which segment do you see the biggest shortfall? And you mentioned that your capacity was maybe 12 to 24 months earlier, are you referring to the catalyst plans or the bromine expansion or both?

Yes. P.J., I think if I look from where we estimate it, if you go back and look, remember we talked about polymer margins being in the 30% range by that time. And where we are today, given the dynamics and what's going on with PCs and televisions, I have a hard time seeing us get to that kinds of margins given where we are today by 2015. So I think the one where we've got the biggest gap is on polymers, and particularly in that one area. When I talk about the being 12 to 24 months early, the bromine expansion, if you look at capacity today, we clearly didn't need that capacity for another 24 to 30 months. I mean, we could have gotten along with the capacity we had. So bromine was clearly early. And on Catalysts, it's a lull today. I don't know whether it's actually 12 months early or -- it's hard to tell, because you don't know what the economy is going to do. But it's clear that we don't need it today. So on both of those, we don't need them today, but in both of those instances, because of our market leadership position, we took the position that it was better to be early and be able to meet the demands of the market as opposed to being late and running the danger that someone else steps in and fills our shoes as the market leader. So that's the decision that we took.

And secondly, you talked about catalyst orders slipping. Is that mainly because of customer destocking? And I think you mentioned it's on polyolefins, but are you seeing that similarly in refinery customers as well?

Yes -- no. When I was talking about the order slipping, I was really referring to Refinery Catalysts. So it's not a destocking at all, it's just a matter of when they're going to turn around the unit and when do they want to make the purchase. Do they want to make it in this calendar year? Or do they want to make it in the next calendar year based on when they're going to do their turnaround, how they do their annual budgets and that. But it has nothing to do with destocking in that space.

Next question comes from David Begleiter from Deutsche Bank.

Just a quick question, Luke. Your guidance for the back half on earnings basis per account was very helpful. Could you just give a little bit more color as to the margin cadence Q3 to Q4 and then for the full year?

Yes. What I'm going to do is I'll give that to Scott, and he can look at that on the specific margins. What I would say is, I think we're going to -- that the margins this year, you got to remember those additional costs that we've got coming through for the year. We have -- we've lost the – where [ph] are pass-throughs, that the impact of the metals pass-through as well as the startup costs that we've got, it'll be impacting margins year-over-year when you look at that. So I'd be mindful of those 2 specific incidents that we've got, it will impact those margins. At the end of the day, those margins remain strong, and I think that those are ultimately mid-20%, 30%, high 20%, 30% margins in that catalyst base going forward as we discussed in our Vision 2015. So, Scott?

Yes. So as you look at the second half, Catalysts, we'd expect the margins in the third quarter that are similar to what we had in the second, and we expect to have improving margins going into the fourth. So really tied into that volume that Luke talked about in terms of the sequencing in the second half, so.

That's very helpful. And then just another follow-up on Polymer Solutions, you brought up a good point in that we might be seeing the secular shift away from PCs towards tablets. Have you guys thought a little bit more about raising the content on other electronics platforms going forward? Do you see that particularly there?

Absolutely. What we've done is we've got a bromine task force. And that bromine task force is, the job, their sole job is to find, first of all, new applications for bromine in general. And if you look at the GBU, they've got -- the polymers GBU has a corresponding task force looking for ways that we can spread our applications in flame retardants into other areas, not only in electronics, but other areas where we don't participate today. So looking for that is bromine, as well as our Gemini product and phosphorus and mineral products as well. So a lot of work going over there, and we believe these markets are still strong. And we've got to find ways to get into other areas of markets where we don't play today, to expand our footprint.

Your next question comes from Kevin McCarthy from Bank of America.

In the Catalysts business, I think you outlined a whole host of different issues, some of which appear to be transitory in the first half around metal surcharges, customer turnaround activities, some startup costs that you have, PCS in Europe, et cetera, creating a lot of noise here. And so I'm wondering if you could just go back up to a high level and maybe opine on how you would view the structural growth prospects in your key catalyst businesses, let’s say, over the next 3 years at the industry level or at the Albemarle level. How fast do you think these businesses are growing, which might be growing faster than others? If you can just kind of reset the bar, because I think it's difficult to disentangle a lot of these moving parts here.

Yes. Thanks, Kevin, I appreciate that question. I think -- I love the Catalysts business, first of all. I think it's a good solid performance-driven business that delivers high margins for us. If I look at the growth and I look over the next 2 to 3 years, we've been public about the wins that we've seen in our high oil upgradings, our fluid cracking catalysts. We believe that our technology is strong for what we're going to see in a lot of areas of the world, where they're going to have to maximize that propylene yield, and that had to resid. There's the shale gas. Everybody's talking about light sweet oil in the U.S. and that is certainly there, but in emerging regions of the world. They're not going to be able to crack naptha, so they're going to look to be maximizing that propylene yield to the maximum that they can in areas of the world, and we believe our technology there. So I feel really strongly about the growth of our FCC business 2014 and on into the future. We got that business, we got to keep it, and we plan on keeping it. But our technology should be the winning technology in the bulk of these new units coming online. If you look at our win rate on hydroprocessing catalysts, it's going quite well. We've not lost any share, we hadn't -- I wouldn't say we gained any share, but we're winning the winning units that we would expect to use based on our technology and our relationship with UOP there for the new units. As you know, we've done quite well with those new unit wins, so that's been a strong partnership. And I continue to see growth in those areas of the world, particularly…

Second question, if I may just on clear brine, Luke, I would've thought those volumes might have increased in 2Q with the new bromine salt capacity in Jordan. Why was that not the case? And perhaps you could comment on pricing trends for clear brine.

Yes. If you look at pricing, what I would say is clear brines have held in there pretty fine. They haven't seen a whole lot of degradation in pricing in clear brines. It is what it is. On clear brines, it's not a matter generally of price, it's a matter of do you have the product in the area of the world where it needs to be, when they finished -- when they complete that well. So we hadn't seen a whole lot of price degradation there at all, it's been pretty solid around the globe. With regard to the volumes, they had a tough comp in the first quarter. It was the second-highest volume we'd ever had. And remember, Kevin, while we brought the JBC online and commissioned it in the second quarter, we didn't see any commercial production held from that in the second quarter at all. So I would think, to conclude the rest of the year, we're going to see similar volumes that we've seen to the first half, which would be a record year for clear brine fluids. So I feel like that business is in good hands.

Your next question comes from James Sheehan from SunTrust.

Just wondering if the macro situation doesn't pick up any in 2014, what actions do you think you can do to generate greater top line growth? Or is there any specific -- company-specific leverage you can pull to increase the outlook for 2014?

Yes. I think if you're looking at that, I would not -- you should not expect that you're going to see another plan C like we went through in 2009. We are going to be committed to bromine task force. We're going to be committed to innovation and in intimacy with our customers to grow new products. That's going to be our focus. There are levers that we can certainly pull. There are opportunities for us from a cost standpoint, from a collaboration standpoint, from a partnering standpoint that would give us more leverage across our spend and across our revenue. I'm not quite sure that we could increase the revenue because of that, but we certainly would work to maximize our bottom line.

Okay. And a longer-term question on your mercury sorbents business, could you just update us on your expectations for the timing of EPA Mercury removal rules? And how much of a market share of that business do you expect to pick up?

Yes. On the mercury removal, I haven't seen any change from the EPA. I know there are some lawsuits, but our current expectation is that it's still a 2015 type of area in the U.S. for that registration. So I would expect that we would -- you would see some increased bromine use for that. I’d keep in mind that the Mercury removal, if you go to the EPA regulations, and you really need the 95%, that's really an activated carbon play. There's not as much bromine. I mean, the bromine put on that is insignificant compared to that as any carbon. So to have the material share of that, we're going to have to have a more reliable domestic source of activated carbon, and we've got -- we're working on that today. But absent being able to get a meaningful and reliable domestic source of activated carbon, our share in that market will be minimal.

We have another question for you, and this one's from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.

Could you -- if we think about Catalysts, and we think about last year, there was some order deferral into '13. And now it seems like there's going to be some order deferral into '14, which you speak with confidence about the orders, and it's just a question of timing of shipments. Is there a way you can sort of frame that in terms of talking about your backlog of orders? And help us understand how much of the deferral out of '13 was realized in the -- I'm sorry, deferral out of '12 was realized in the first half of '13? And is there sort of a run rate of sort of a deferral time period? And where is your total backlog today versus maybe the second quarter, again, the second quarter a year ago?

Yes, that's -- it mainly, all that mainly is in clear fields technologies, okay? So when you've got -- our specific situation in the FCC that I talked about is there's a new unit coming online, and that construction is being delayed, I mean, their startup is being delayed. So sometimes you have those where you have construction being delayed. They tell you a date, you got to be ready to have the -- you got to be ready to have it there, the FCC catalyst there, so it can operate when it cranks up. If you really look at HPC catalysts, if you look at last year -- let's use last year as an example. In 2012, we moved roughly 22,000 metric tons of HPC catalysts. First quarter was about 6,500. Second quarter was, if my numbers are right, about 3,700. Third quarter, about 4,600. And the fourth quarter it was about 7,300. So it's a lumpy business. And what we've seemed to see over the course of the last few years is you've seen a heavier first and a heavier fourth quarter and then a weaker middle, and that's consistent whether you're going to see the turnaround. So you see turnarounds mostly in the first quarter because they want to be up and ready for the driving season that starts in the middle of the year. What I can't tell you is I don't know how much of that high first quarter is being pushed from the fourth quarter and how much of the fourth quarter is in anticipation of that first quarter. I just don't have data to do that. And we're not -- it's not backordered like you'd think about as if I was an engineer or in a construction company. So what we have to do is, when they tell us that they need their order, when we first go to produce that product, we got to have it ready at the earliest time when they say they may need it. Because if we don't have it ready when they say they need it, they're going to go somewhere else and get it. And you can do that once, but you can't do it twice. So we can't risk that, so we got to have the catalyst ready. And then we're kind of up to their desires about when they actually want to take it, and that's based on their budgets and a lot of other items. So I didn't really -- I don't know if -- that's about as good an answer as I can give you, Vincent. I wish I could do better, but that's where we are.

That's very helpful. And Scott, if I could just ask you to elaborate a little bit on the working capital, and you said it was largely related to receivable. And you said there were some actions you're going to take in the second half that were going to help bring that down. So is there anything -- any more detail there? And just is there anything on your operating rate going into the second half that we should know about?

I don't think so. On the inventory side of things, we had built some inventory in anticipation of these HPC orders that we've been talking about. And so as those get shipped, those -- that inventory will come down. So that's a big driver. The fourth quarter is where a lot of that comes out. The operating rates within Polymer Solutions, the inventory rates of Polymer Solutions are very healthy in terms of inventory. The operating rates are holding steady with what they've been in the last couple of quarters, and so we feel pretty good about that. And then I think on the receivables side, it's really just a natural effect of collections coming through as we continue to drive to collect that cash that's built up in the first half.

And so you’ll expect working capital to be largely flat year-over-year? By the end of the year? Or are like...

That's my expectation. That's what we're pushing for. We'll see how well we do to get there.

We have another question for you, and it's from Laurence Alexander and he's from Jefferies. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company, Inc., Research Division: So couple of questions. First, can you sort of give a little bit of extra clarity around what you see being pushed from this year into next year that you are reasonably sure will be an incremental tailwind for next year? I mean, just in terms of gives and takes. And also, can you address the longer-term expectations around Fine Chemicals and Catalysts in terms of margins?

Sure. On the orders and what pushed and might be tailwind for next year, I'm not -- we're not trying to push anything into next year. I don't -- that's not how we're going to run our business. When the customer wants it, that's when we're going to get it to them. So I don't -- right now, we're expecting everything that they told us they're going to want in the fourth quarter is going to go in the fourth quarter. And if it doesn't, if it slides in the first, then it'll slide to first. But we're not going to try to push anything to get a tailwind. So, Laurence, there isn't really anything. I can't give you -- if one order moves, it might be $1 million. If another order moves, it might be $8 million. So I can't -- without knowing exactly what's going to move and what might not, I can't give you a good answer on that, okay? With regard to margins, I still believe that Fine Chemistry is a 20%, low 20% to mid-20% margin product if we get the right custom services contracts in there. And we've done that in the past, and I think that's where the sweet spot's going to land for Fine Chemistry. On Catalysts, there's not a reason in the world once we get some of these onetime year-over-year matters behind us, there's not a reason in the world I can't be a mid-20% to 30% margin business. We've done it in the past and we certainly expect that kind of profitability going forward. Laurence Alexander - Jefferies & Company, Inc., Research Division: And I guess, just as a follow-up. In terms of what would you expect to see -- or what would you need to see in your external markets to bring the CapEx down closer to D&A?

What would I see? I'd be able to see a -- where, I don't see where I have a demand for new products. We've got 1 or 2 projects out there right now that we've actually have held up on, seeing what's going to happen with demand. Now, what's going to happen? And if we continue to see the kind of market demand in our key segments that we're seeing today, I think next year you'll see us closer to that level.

We have another question for you, and this one's from Mike Ritzenthaler and he's from Piper Jaffray.

Just a quick nuance on Catalysts in the back half as you see things now, and we appreciate the timing risk on things like that. But as it sits, refining asset utilization looks a bit better year-over-year. So in 3Q, what's the relative contribution of improved volumes based on those increasing asset utilizations versus that mix that you highlighted?

You're talking about from our increased utilizations?

No, no, from refinery.

Yes, the industry asset utilization improving.

Mike, I can't give you a good answer on that one. I'll have to get the data and get back with you. I only know what we are scheduling to ship from our customers. And what we're seeing is stronger FCC sales building during the fourth. We'll see a volume increase in FCC over the second half. And the way it's set up now in HPC, if the orders go as expected, the second quarter will be strong and the fourth quarter could be a new record.

Yes. Okay, that makes sense, I guess. And then on the Vision 2015, and following up on a couple of previous questions, the bromine task force -- is the thought that perhaps the adjacencies won't be able to fill in the TV and PC gap, is that a fair way to look at it? I mean, we're looking at the food safety, the bromobutyl rubbers and the different things that you've talked about before plus all the things that were kind of being worked on in the skunkworks?

Yes. If you look at all that, it's going to be a tough order to fill. We’re not -- what we're trying to do is this, if you really look at where we are today, we're a catalyst and bromine company. And we've got to have a focus on growing the pie, not the share, but growing the pie in bromine, okay? And new -- if you look at who's got capacity around the world, new uses of bromine benefit us more than anybody else in the industry. So we've got to have a dedicated focus to driving new applications for bromine, and that's what -- we've initiated that. And it's too early right now to give you any indication about what areas we may be looking at, what the opportunity costs or all that there. But we've got metrics, we've got milestones and we've got a list of credible opportunities for us to go after in that regard.

We have another question for you. This one's from Mike Sison from Keybank.

Luke, when I think about your portfolio of businesses, I agree that the economy's sluggish this year. But when you think about the earnings decline, you're going to show us, particularly, if you exclude the stock buyback, it sort of mirrors the decline that you saw in '09, yet you would think that -- I don't think the economy is as bad as in '09. So are you a little surprised in terms of the -- your outlook for earnings this year? And maybe just walk us through how much of the decline is, let's say, economic-related, some of the pushouts and maybe self-inflicted in the sense that you've got these costs coming in. Because I would've thought this portfolio of businesses could have performed a little bit better.

Yes. Well, you got to look at the comparisons, first of all. So if you look at Catalysts, we got 2 things. We got about $40 million or $50 million hitting it year-over-year between the startup costs, the volume absorption loss and the rare earth pass through. So that’s $50 million a pop right there. And how much of that is self-inflicted, how much of that is market? I can't tell you. We've been operating in polymers. If you look at electronics, we've really been in a trough since 2011. So in 2009, what happened is the world ended. Nobody took any volume. It didn't matter what price you offered, because nobody was taking it. We've been now in a trough for probably 18 months, 18 to 24 months, if you really look at it, because there was some false demand in 2011 in the first half.

And '12.

Yes, and the beginning of '12. So if you look at that, we've really been in a trough. So people get antsy in a trough and try to start biting off a little bit here, and we were having to protect it. So we lost some price, Mike, on that one. So is that economic or is that competitive? I don't know. So I think that even in this downturn, you got to remember, we've got 22% EBITDA margins, okay? Now we want to do better. But in the economy that we're working in with those kind of headwinds, and you're right, some of them were self-inflicted because we invested early, intentionally did it. 22% EBITDA margins under those conditions still shows you a strong business. It's going to throw off great cash flow.

Okay. And then given the balance sheet, what are your thoughts on maybe growing via acquisition? It's tough to grow organically, clearly, in this environment. Are there opportunities either to continue to build upon your businesses, or would you even consider something new, maybe a fourth leg or something to that degree?

Yes. I don't feel the need to do an acquisition for the sake of doing an acquisition. I think that our strategy is sound, and I think that we've got the opportunities in all these businesses to continue to grow. But we're certainly in the market looking at acquisitions. I mean, there's one, particularly in the Catalysts area. Dow's got a UNIPOL business that's up for sale. Well, certainly, I'd be looking at that business. And because it's right in our sweet spot from a catalysis standpoint, as I'm sure will a lot of other catalyst companies. So we're looking, we got a strong balance sheet. We've demonstrated in the past the ability to lever up both for acquisitions, as well as to return capital to shareholders. And we'll continue to balance that act and do both.

I'd now like to turn the call over to Lorin for closing remarks.

Well, we appreciate everyone's time and interest in the company and would encourage you to call with any further questions. Thank you, and have a great day.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes your conference call for today. You may now disconnect. Thank you for joining. And enjoy the rest of your day.