Adolfo Castro Rivas
Analyst · GBM
Okay, and let me go on the cost side. And the cost side this quarter was particular, because of 3 things. Well, first, you shouldn't choose construction cost and construction revenue from your analysis, in my opinion. These being distortion, always, the information of the company. So I recommend you to exclude that from your analysis. Second, if you remember that last year, during the first quarter, we recuperated the expenses we made in the case of the privatization process of San Juan, Puerto Rico, you have it on the report. There's a clear indication in that report the [indiscernible] here. How much we received because of that. So you have the positive effect, but today it's a different compulsion. And the third one has to do with the direct costs of our commercial direct operations. We had a very significant increase in sales during the quarter. It was an 18.5% increase. And of course, the 18.5% increase in direct cost is small. Let me explain this. If you are selling 100 magazines, the cost that we will have for this 100 magazines is going to be different against selling 118 magazines, okay? So these are the 3 effects that we have for one time, let me put it that way. Of course, the direct cost is not in the sense of one time, but the onetime is due to the increase of 17.8% -- or 17.5%. And the other thing that we're having inside the cost today is the opening of Terminal 1 in November last year. But that is not one time, that's going to be for the future. So in that sense, the effect of additional cost, as from November last year, because of Terminal 1, is going to be there for sometime. That, more or less, is what I can share with you. So, and the comparison for the second quarter is going to be different because of San Juan. We will not have a petition [ph] costs in the second quarter. We have -- we will have Terminal 1, and we will have some problems with increasing in sales in the direct cost. That's what I can say. The answer -- the topic of tax you are talking about, and specifically, the liens we made into Cancun airport. Well, let me say that we are not the owners of the land, and there's some other legal aspects why we are not subject to that asset -- this asset tax, so this property tax. Every 3 years, when a new guy comes into the development of a municipality, wants to collect more money, because always, they are -- they have a lack of money. So because of this, every 3 years, when a new guy came, he starts saying, we need to collect money from this airport. And in the case of Cancun, we have gone this process through the courts and this final ruling, saying that we should not, and we are not, subject to these specific tax. Of course, if the laws are changing in the future, and I have to say that the Constitution of a country, particularly the Article 115, change, then we could probably be subject to this tax in an indirect way, because we are not the owners of the property. The owners of the property is the government. And because of this, we are paying the government a fee for the use of the land and the assets that are on the land and we are paying the concession fee. The concession fee, is the 5 -- more than 5% of the revenues. And these have represented 20% of the profit of the company for the last 15 years. So it's a significant amount, what we have to pay to the government, the federal government, for the use of a concession asset, okay? These are concessions, it's not that we own the property and that is why we are not, at the moment, subject to the tax. I don't know if I was clear in the answer.