Irwin Guzman - Citigroup Anthony Paolone - JP Morgan Jamie Feldman - UBS Philip Martin - Cantor Fitzgerald Dave AuBuchon - Robert W. Baird George Auerbach - Merrill Lynch

Good day and welcome everyone to the Alexandria Real Estate Equities third quarter 2008 conference call. Today’s call is being recorded and at this time for opening remarks and introductions I would like to turn the call over to Ms. Rhonda Chiger; please go ahead, ma’am.

Thank you and good afternoon. This conference call includes forward-looking statements, including earnings guidance within the meanings of federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from this projected in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements is contained in our annual report on Form 10K and our other periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Now I would like to turn the call over to Joel Marcus. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Rhonda and welcome everybody. I have two quick thoughts before we begin a review of the quarter. A close friend reminded me of an old Mark Twain quote, “Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket,” something to think about in these times and another old proverb says, “Reason and judgment are the qualities of a leader” and as leaders in the niche that we’ve created were exercising reason and very sound judgment in this most difficult period to protect our shareholders, our tenants and our employees. Let’s get right to it. We are reporting our operational and financial results for the 45th quarter in a row and at a discreet time during the economic perfect storm as described in the October 23rd Wall Street Journal, “created by a perfect storm of mutually reinforcing trends and policy mistakes, including but not limited to loose monetary policies, socially engineered housing policy, rapid and unchecked growth of leverage, opaque and technically deficient derivatives, shadow banking systems, fragmented regulations, lacks diligence, poor governance, fraud, oil price shock and government incompetence,” and yesterday’s Wall Street Journal’s OpEd argued that the markets are weak, as well as the conditions because the candidates are lousy. So we are where we are, but I want to report to you that we at Alexandria have been doing what we’ve been doing with the consequence thereof and a careful, thoughtful, deliberate, reason and judicial fashion. We are working closely as a management team and also with our board. So first of all, we do have substantial liquidity and have sufficient access to capital sources to weather this perfect storm. Second, we have revised our capital plan and have reduced our capital expenditures for the balance of ‘08, ‘09, ‘10 and into ‘11. We are…

Thanks, Joel. Let me jump right into liquidity, balance sheet and debt maturities and then briefly comment on key operating statistics and the strength of our operating performance in 2008. Let me state what we understand very clearly; the US and world economic, banking and financial crisis is unprecedented, extraordinary and has suffered a severe structural impact resulting in very illiquid debt and equity markets throughout the world. In addition the consumer-driven economy is at an all-time low, vis-à-vis consumer confidence. Week by week over the past several quarters, and beginning as early as 2007, and more importantly in 2008, we have been modifying our capital plan to address the ongoing extraordinary crisis. As Joel mentioned, we are substantially reducing our construction spending and will not add any new commitments for significant conduct developments or significant redevelopments until there is a confirmed proof that liquidity has returned to the market place. We believe we will be able to lower our quarterly construction spending by more than 40% on average for 2009. We continue to be very prudent with our precious capital and we have a long and continuous history of taking appropriate action to address changing environments. This environment is abnormally challenging, but again we believe we are taking appropriate, thoughtful, deliberate and careful actions. Some of these actions under process and other key actions will be implemented over the coming weeks. We further believe that our assumption in the current unprecedented environment is that there will be no equity or debt capital available for the next year and possibly longer. It is imperative that we plan for this set of assumptions to provide us with the best path to successfully navigate through this worldwide crisis. Our substantially updated and modified capital plan will allow us to manage our balance…

Okay, operator we’ll open it up for Q-and-A, please.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Michael Bilerman - Citi.

Its Irwin Guzman here, Michael’s on the phone also. Dean, you mentioned in prior calls that the original capital plan was to spend about $100 million a quarter in 2009 and you just said that you are going to be reducing that by about 40%. I was wondering if you could give a little bit more detail about where that reduction would come out of and in particular, I’m curious as to how you can reduce CapEx by so much without abandoning certain projects that are in your existing pipeline.

Yes, that’s a good question; some of which we are actually not prepared at the moment to get into a lot of details of our plan, as quite a bit of it is working through our strategy right now, but as we sit here today, we feel fairly comfortable in being able to reduce our capital plan significantly. Part of it honestly had to do with the fact that within our capital plan, we had assumed certain type of projects going forward and a recurring amount of capital needs in certain areas of our construction business. Some of which we have been able to challenge very significantly over the last couple months and most recently the last few weeks and we found some great opportunities where we were conservatively forecasting construction spending for obvious reasons, but as we got through the details we felt very comfortable scaling that.

So would it be safe to assume that the reduction is driven by efficiency and at the expense of new starts as opposed to taking things that are in your under construction pipeline and effectively pushing them off or abandoning them?

Yes, by-and-large, that’s correct.

One other question; in terms of the lower TIs, is that on developments as well as the operating portfolio and what does that imply for asking rents and yields?

Yes, Irwin that does apply to both and I think it’s very much a case-by-case basis. The example I cited was an example where in dealing with a major big pharma client, it was much easier to offer the opportunity for that client to add a certain amount of the generic infrastructure into the facility at its own cost and they were very willing to do that. Obviously that amount of capital that we would have put in, we wouldn’t now get a return on, but clearly our land base is still very low and when we couple it with the building that we will deliver, we are still able to achieve 10% to 12% un-levered yields on our developments. The same may be true on redevelopments, although the cost investment there is a lot less and many of the spaces are much smaller, but where we have the opportunity to do that, we not only will do it but we have already been doing it.

And maybe just going back to sort of the capital plan, you’re about $1.4 billion which is all the stuff that you were drawing up on plan and you are capitalizing the interest on. As you look the next 12 months, are you going to make the decision saying, “You know what, $500 million for these projects today are going to be much further out and we are going to stop and we’ll roll it back in to just running effectively the carry through earnings rather through the cost of the project.”

Real good question, Michael. Obviously the restructuring process is a lengthy process, which we plan to continue with since it really adds significant value for our land holdings. As such we plan to continue with these very important and meaningful activities. We do not anticipate any significant impact to capitalization for the majority of our projects. Certain projects are scheduled to come off capitalization based on our current estimate of completion of construction activities, again which is in line with our estimated end service dates and we will as usual continue to assess the status of our projects as we have historically quarter-to-quarter and make adjustments as necessary.

And the last question is on international. You changed to China, I know it’s a very, very small piece, but you talked a little bit about the international part of the strategy in Scotland; you had stuff going on down in India and China and how does everything that happen to impact that?

Yes, I think what we’ve done clearly in a very deliberate and methodical fashion since the collapse of Bear Stearns back in March, we clearly have focused on the relationships and the entitlements that we are working on in a variety of locations and we’ll continue as Dean just mentioned to continue to pursue adding value to these opportunities by entitlements and by working with tenants to create future build-to-suit opportunities. So that’s kind of how we are moving on the international scene in both Asia and Europe and I think with respect to the small project in China, our partner there has decided that it would prefer to not take the time and spend the money to build out what was going to be a pretty expensive interior fit out in about 18% of that space and so as a consequence there we decided jointly to reposition the property rather than for partial owner occupancy for hopefully a single tenant manufacturing or high tech opportunity. There is a very large nearby high-tech park that is full and has a large overflow of tenants that they cannot accommodate. So it appears we will have a good opportunity to capture a pretty significant either one or possibly a set of tenants. There’s a pretty great location in the Pearl River delta of China and so we don’t see any issues in our costs. We’re projecting we’ll be less than $40 that I think are highlighted on page 17 of the supplemental.

Joel, just one final question; there’s been a lot of news flow about the impact that this capital environment is having on the ability of smaller biotech companies to access the capital they need to continue funding their research. You mentioned that there was one tenant that was on your watch list. Can you talk a little bit about what you’re sort of seeing out of your tenant pool and what your level of exposure is there?

Yes, as I said I think one of the things that we’ve been very greatly benefited by is over a long period of time, this isn’t something new to us. The capital cycles in the biotech industry have been kind of boom and bust frankly over a four to five year period ever since I started in the industry, in 1983. We don’t know this is the worst, but people are thinking this is going to be the worst macro environment for most industries. We have clearly and deliberately moved over a long period of time to focus our tenant base more on the multinational pharmas and the institutional side. We only have about 12% to 13% of our spaces leased to private biotech companies and again because of our unique relationships and I think world class underwriting capability, when we recruit tenants we do a very, very thorough job of not only underwriting them, but monitoring them and working with them throughout their entire cycle of growth. Where we run into trouble occasionally and we have successfully dealt with it is when we acquire a property where we have one or two tenants that we didn’t choose and you are stuck with that situation. You have to play the cards that you are dealt, but luckily in the 45 quarters we’ve had, we haven’t had any blowups and again we have no reserves for bad debts, but we are realists. The market is tough. There are a lot of articles written. We think there will be a whole bunch of companies that probably go out of existence. Again, we’re focused on the companies that have stellar backing, have big market opportunities and have differentiated science and a great model and those are the ones that are likely has been proven quite a bit in our asset base to be acquired by big pharma or grow up to be independent profitable companies. So I mean, we are very realistic that the market is tough and is going to get tougher for this industry and all industries by and large, but we’ve been very deliberate and very focused in how we are dealing with it.

Your next question comes from Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Can you talk about the two South San Francisco developments since those are your two closest to completion and just prospects that access potentially taking the rest of their ability and trafficking in the other space?

Okay Tony, with respect to those two properties, let me maybe take the two buildings that sit on the water. They actually sit on a great water use site, two buildings comprising about 162,000 square feet. We obviously have one lease signed for about 16%. We are in discussions with a number of companies for more than 50% of the remaining, but we do know that South San Francisco has been a soft, slow market. The good thing is that property sits virtually adjacent to the campus of Genentech and that’s a good thing. We don’t have any news to report that updates from the second quarter, as I indicated. So we’ll just have to see how things shake out, but again this is a AAA location. We have a pretty favorable basis in the land and the construction and I think that we will be successful there. With respect to the other South San Francisco building for 130,000 square feet, the current tenant as you know has a lease and occupies 55%. They have an option which they’ve extended for the balance through the end of ‘09, and we’re cautiously optimistic that with some favorable partnering opportunities that hopefully they’ll end up taking the rest of the building, but again we don’t know that today. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay. Which two build-to-suits did you decide to push off that you mentioned earlier?

Right. Those were opportunities in the Mission Bay area. I can’t identify the tenants for obvious reasons, but they are credit institutional tenants that need to be at Mission Bay. One actually needs to be there for a variety of obvious reasons to them and to the nature of the institution. The other has a major collaboration with UCSF and has a strong desire to be there. So they were flexible in their need, but would have liked us to pull the trigger and we decided that we would defer and revisit this; come next year and we’ll see what the markets are like, but again, as Dean said and I’ve said, we are assuming this is a prolonged downturn. So we are going to be very cautious about making any new commitments. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay and even with potentially having leases from strong institutions in hand for build-to-suits, would there be any capital out there available for construction, financing, with those leases in hand? It sounds like that may not even be there if you are pushing those off.

Yes, I mean our view of that and we’re giving you kind of anecdotal evidence from our discussions with a variety of construction lenders, very little, if anything is moving through the current pipeline. We were with one lender; obviously I won’t tell you the name. This is a top tier bank. A name you would instantly recognize and they indicated that they had three or four major construction projects, all fully leased to credit tenants and none of those were currently being funded. Again, part of the problem is the credit seizure situation. We don’t know when that's going to loosen up. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay and then Dean, what percent of your NOI is un-encumbered?

Good question Tony, I don’t have that with me, but it’s definitely north of 50%.

Your next question comes from Jamie Feldman - UBS.

Dean, I think you said you’re looking at ‘09 same-store or rent growth of 5% to 10%. I assume that’s like leasing spreads. I’m just wondering what gives you that kind of conviction and it sounds like you need to focus a little bit more on internal growth going forward than we do on development, so I just wanted to kind of get a feel for how you get comfortable with those numbers.

Before Dean answers Jamie, let me just say one thing. I think that given the rental rate that we currently have on those rolls what we view in each of the markets at a pretty low level, it’s not that we think rents are going to be going up in a recessionary time but because of our very low current existing rents, we have a feeling that even if rents moderate or even if they start to come down a bit, we still got some pretty good cushion, but I’ll let Dean answer the question.

Yes, Joel hit it right on the head and the additional color I want to add is that the analysis we built to give that guidance is really based on a lease-by-lease analysis. Very carefully looking at expiring rents and giving our best estimate for renewal rates where we stand today.

And then do you guys provide the economics behind the Pfizer and the Gilead leases?

We do not do that.

And then finally, can you talk a little bit more about New York City and the progress you’re making and then potential for a JV partner?

When you say progress, well that’ll describe the leasing update in pretty great depth. We would love to try at some point to get a construction loan on that project, but as I just described given the current environment with construction lenders, virtually no construction financing is going forward that’s new. There may be some existing commitments that are being met but even those we understand are few and far between. As soon as the credit markets either loosen or un-seize in a more dramatic fashion, we have had a number of discussions we had with a variety of lenders, one in particular who’s indicated a very substantial interest in putting together a syndicate and putting together a facility for this project, but I mean as realists, my view is that that’s not going to happen until the banks have a comfort level until inter-bank lending and overall liquidity has come back to the market to a point where the banks are not worried. I mean, I kind of have said that it used to be banks used to monitor borrowers for default, now borrowers monitor banks for default. It’s an odd juxtaposition here and until that remedies itself, I think we’ll not be able to get a construction loan, but once we do, then I think we will be looking at something in the 60% to 65% loan-to-value. My guess is that pricing is probably 300, above what may be ultimately a more stable LIBOR environment and then hopefully we’ll be able to parlay that into a joint venture that we have had lots of discussions with to partners that we have term sheets with and even those entities obviously at this point, nobody’s willing to put up much money in today’s market.

Your next question comes from Philip Martin - Cantor Fitzgerald.

A couple of questions here; all my capital or the balance sheet questions have been answered, but Dean just on the $175 million 2009 maturity, what’s the timing of that?

Timing of the maturity is right about mid year.

Okay. So that’s mid-year. In discussing and talking with the banks on the refinancing, what kind of an assumed cap rate are they looking at and I guess what I’m trying to get at, are there assumptions way off from a year or two ago?

Well, we are actually looking at a refinancing as opposed to a new financing. So I think our expectation is to keep the principal amount in the refinancing on par with the current outstanding balance of $175 million.

Okay and they’re not giving you too much push back on that?

Fortunately, in this particular case, no. I think in other financing discussions we’ve had, a lot is being driven by cap rate and value assumptions but in this particular case, we are working with some key relationship banks and the existing lenders and our best guess right now is that we are looking at a refinancing of the entire amount.

On other properties our cap rate assumptions from the lenders, specifically with the type of asset in your portfolio, are cap rate assumptions changing significantly? I mean I would have to think a lot has to do with the quality of the asset, he location, the tenant, etc.

Yrs, I think it’s really difficult. I think any company or borrower would probably tell you this. It’s difficult to answer that question today, because the market changes so quickly. From pre Lehman to post Lehman, the environment’s changed and although you may get color from a lender on what they may think they can do, until they close the loan with you, you’re not really sure where you’re going to end up. I think the best indicator for firms have been the few deals that you have read about post Lehman, which actually be interestingly enough is somewhat positive because you have seen sub 7% interest rates and you’ve seen loan-to-values on par, meaning generally on par in the 60% to 65% range. So those deals are obviously in the hoppers over the last few months, but they got to closing at fairly reasonable terms.

Yes, Phillip. A member of our group just was commenting that and I think it’s good to keep in mind given our annual escalations and overall rent growth, those oftentimes can at least offset or even more than make up sometimes higher assumed cap rate.

Exactly. That’s balancing a lot of different things and certainly expectations of the lenders as well and also a lot of the lenders you may have been dealing with a couple of years ago may not even be there in terms of the actual personnel, let alone the banks, but in terms of the $175 million as well, did you say Dean earlier that the loan-to-value right now is in the 40% to 50% range? Did I hear that?

No, it’s a little bit higher than that, it’s actually meaningfully higher than that, but on average, all of our encumbered assets on a conservative valuation today is down in the low 40% range.

Okay and the loan-to-value on this is where? 60%, 65%?

Yes; right in that range; right about in the 60% range.

Okay. Again just to make sure I understand, on the CapEx, the capital expenditures over the next 12 months, you’ve obviously adjusted those downward. It sounds like again it’s more efficient related than anything, but is it in the $50 million to $60 million a quarter range; that’s kind of where we are at now?

Yes, correct on average for ‘09, that’s correct.

Okay. Then in terms of your niche Joel, certainly times are difficult, a lot of uncertainty, etc, but given your niche, how does an Alexandria exploit this or what opportunities could you see within your niche in this environment?

Well, I think it’s hard to imagine the exploitation in this environment. I think what we will look to do is to create a future pipeline. We really have a world-class, as Dean described, development pipeline and we have quite a bit in the redevelopment and that’s where dramatic future growth can come from, as well as overseas opportunities that we’re working through the entitlements and kind of the nurturing. So it seems to me as we get beyond this time, which none of us know whether this is four quarters, eight quarters 12 quarters, who knows; we think that by continuing to add value on this very low basis pipeline on the development side and in tremendous locations and with the nurturing of the relationships, we have focused really more at the top tier institutionally and big pharma and high market cap other Life Science companies. We think that when we come out of this as a collective lead, then we’ll be well positioned to continue to post the kind of growth that we’ve had over the last 10.5 years. That’s kimd of how we are viewing it. For the moment, I think the relationships, you can tell. I mean, it’s not easy to do over 600,000 square feet in a quarter of leases. That’s really attributable to again the greatest team, great locations, the state-of-the-art knowledge of what we are doing and how we are doing it and I think that’s where the differentiation is on those relationships, the knowledge and expertise we bring and the relationships we have with the tenants, understanding their situation. I think as things will sort out among a number of different relationships, I think those will be the key. I mean, again Pfizer moving to Mission Bay. They could have stayed in South San Francisco. They came to Mission Bay because of a phenomenal relationship with UCSF, but we also had a very, very excellent relationship with Pfizer. We had brought them to Cambridge back in 1998 and ultimately sold that building to them. So we have long-term relationship. So I think it’s those factors that I talk about that I think make the difference now.

And to that point, the pull back that Alexandria is doing from a capital expenditure standpoint, is more Alexandria driven rather than the tenants saying, “look we have to slow this down.”

Absolutely; as I think I just described to Tony, we could be teaming up two new construction starts at Mission Bay for something in the range of 200,000 to 300,000 feet and have no leasing challenges other than the negotiation of the lease but we are simply not doing that. We don’t think it’s prudent and clearly the capital markets are such that that would not be a smart move. When we are ready, we will be able to seize that opportunity and maybe that’s the exploitation factor you asked about.

The last question just Dean, in terms of potential net sale proceeds over the next 12 months, and I’m just looking at kind of from a sources and uses standpoint, what’s something good to assume? I know that might be somewhat difficult, but Joel in his remarks mentioned that you are seeing some interest from users to purchase the stabilized buildings, etc. What would be a good assumption?

Philip, it’s such a difficult question that you asked. We are focused on that opportunity. I can remind you that I think historically over the last 12 months, we’ve generated asset sales very opportunistically and we’ve raised well north of $100 million, getting close to $115 million over the last four quarters through very opportunistic sales. Our hopes are to find those opportunities to ease some of the capital needs over the coming two years or so and I think the best we can tell you at the moment is stay tuned and we’ll give you some color as we can call by call.

And it’s just part of the ongoing strategy as well.

Yes. I mean, I’ll give you an example. In our mid-Atlantic region, we were approached by a top tier foreign pharma firm to buy the space that they leased through an acquisition of a biotech company. They came to us and back about six months ago, we said “well, we’re not interested, but we will come back to you and we’ll talk about it.” We’ve now gone back to them and said, we might be interested, but let’s talk about value. So that’s how those discussions tend to go. So as Dean said, so stay tuned. I’m not sure we can give you a target yet.

Your next question comes from Dave AuBuchon - Baird.

What sort of resolution should we anticipate or are you underwriting on the cell Genesis. I mean should you expect a lease termination fee or some sort of cash payment there, Joel?

Yes, unfortunately I can't comment, but we will keep you abreast as soon as we can for obvious reasons.

In your opinion do you feel like there’s viable technology there that someone else can assume at lease to sell the lease and the space?

Well, I guess we have a pretty detailed view of that company as you could imagine. They did partner with Tekada earlier in the year and received $50 million up front payment in their milestone for the GVAX product and they have another things going on. I assume the management of that company is not inexperienced. It’s a very experienced management team; we know them very well for more than 15 years and my sense is that there’s value beyond what would be their rather small market cap today.

And keep in mind they have significant cash on hand today.

So among the strategic alternatives that they would be looking at potentially would be not only a potentially sale merger or something like that, but they could use that cash to acquire licensed end products or opportunities or even M&A with another company. So I’m not the management of that company, so I don’t want to predict, but I think there are clearly opportunities. This is not a company that has nothing going, simply as cash and is about to go out of business. That’s really not the case here.

Okay. How much space in your portfolio right now is subleased and do you anticipate that increasing?

I’m not sure. We would have to check and come back to you. I’m not sure I could give you a number, but I don’t think it is very large.

Looking back too, I haven’t sensed any real significant change in the overall subleasing environment.

Do you still anticipate asset sales in the $200 million range?

I think like we said earlier, it’s difficult to PEG a number and you know us; we don’t put unreasonable acquisition or disposition targets into our guidance.

But the environment hasn’t caused to you change your view of how much of your portfolio you would like to sell.

I don’t think it’s up for sale and we don’t have a target $200 million; I don’t think we’ve ever used that target, but as Dean said over the last couple of quarters, I think since September of ‘07, through 09/30/08, we’ve made asset sales totaling $114 million. Part of that was our exit from the East Bay of San Francisco which we thought was strategically wise and it turned out to be a great move. We have a number of assets that for a variety of reasons might be attractive to other folks, particularly users and so I think we’ll just have to see what develops there. We have no need to create a fire sale for any assets. We don’t plan to do that. We have pretty low bases in most of our assets, and we’ll see.

I was referring to $200 million was the number you guys gave which also included our new mortgages and some refinancing. Dean, any line covenants that you think may be closer to just watching for yourselves as well as the rest of the street?

No, not at all. We’ve got fairly traditional covenants under our credit facility, including fix storages and leverage and a variety of other financial covenants, but in running our sensitivity and our periodic review of the covenants, I don’t see any near term issues.

And I think you said in your prepared remarks Dean, that a portion of your un-hedged line was switched to prime?

Yes, at our election there was a unique trend between prime plus the spread under our facility and LIBOR plus the spread where prime-based rates were inside of LIBOR-based rates resulting in almost a little bit of a hedge against LIBOR volatility recently and it has more to do with the illiquidity in the market place and so what has tended to be a little more stability has been the prime-based rates. So we have the flexibility of picking and choosing between the two and we have done so.

And is that $739 million on your supplemental floating rate debt un-hedged; is that all line of credit and how much have you switched to prime?

It is all substantially all LIBOR based or prime based alternatives that we can choose between and I believe today almost all of it is probably based at a prime base rate.

So most of the $739 million has been switched to prime at this point?

Yes, the majority of it because the prime based rate is inside of LIBOR. LIBOR dropped about 25 or so basis points this morning. So there’s an opportunity to switch back to LIBOR, but it all depends on once you lock in the LIBOR, you are locked in for 30 days and so if we think that LIBOR will remain at that point for the next 30 days or go up, we could switch back to LIBOR. My current sense is there’s not enough of a dip in LIBOR to convert off of that at the moment and if LIBOR drops further, we will be able to take advantage of it.

Your next question comes from George Auerbach - Merrill Lynch.

Your development scheduled notes that you are working with New York City to potentially attract an anchor tenant to the aero project. Is the city’s primarily involvement in the process the offering of tax breaks or other incentives and --?

Actually it is a very wide range of situations from political influence and contacts at the very highest levels of target companies and in this particular case some very senior officials in New York as well as Mayor Bloomberg have been involved in helping us to try to recruit this particular tenant. There are a range of incentives based on the location of the project and also there is some TI dollars out there that can be accessed through kind of a low rate loan opportunity. So there’s a variety of things that sit out there.

And the incentives are as of REIT or they have to be granted further by the city?

Some of both.

Okay and what percentage of the asset would be tenant lease?

That I don’t know yet. It could be anywhere from 50,000 to 125,000 feet, not sure.

And with no further questions in the queue, Mr. Marcus, I will turn things back to you.

Okay, thank you very much. We look forward to reporting to you in the fourth quarter and year end. Thanks again.

That does conclude today’s presentation. Thank you for attending and have a nice day.