Coeur Mining, Inc. (CDE) Q4 2016 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good morning and welcome to the Coeur Mining Inc., Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2016 Financial Results Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions]. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over Courtney Lynn. Please go ahead, ma’am.

Thank you and good morning. Welcome to Coeur Mining’s fourth quarter and full-year 2016 earnings conference call. Our results were released after yesterday’s market close, and a copy of the press release and slides for today’s call are available on our website. Before we get started, I would like to remind everyone that our press release and some of our comments on the call include forward-looking statements from which actual results may differ. Please review the cautionary statements included in our press release and presentation as well as the risk factors described in our 10-K. I’ll now turn it over to Mitch Krebs, President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks, Courtney, and good morning, everybody. Thank you for joining our call. The fourth quarter capped a pivotal year for our Company we achieved record production levels for both the quarter and the full-year and delivered another year of improved cost performance. Combined with higher gold and silver prices we posted positive net income for the full-year the first time since 2012. LTM adjusted EBITDA was also up sharply increasing nearly $90 million or 68% since last year to $215 million. For the full-year two-third's of our metal sales came from our U.S. operations and our metal mix last year was 38% from silver and 62% from gold. Together with our ongoing cost and efficiency achievements at each of our silver and gold operations we also delivered on our commitment to meaningfully strengthen our balance sheet last year. During 2016 we reduced total debt by $280 million or nearly 60%. Cutting our anticipated annual interest expense by approximately $25 million and bringing our total leverage ratio down to one times from 3.8 times just a year ago and down from 5.5 times just 15 months ago. I think the only negative to this reduction in debt was an acceleration of $7.5 million in cash interest expense into the fourth quarter and a one-time loss of $11 million related to the early redemption of $190 million of our senior notes that mature in 2021. Together with the timing of metal sales from Palmarejo that spilled over into January. Those were the major reasons for the fourth quarter net loss and negative free cash flow in the quarter. From our perspective the main takeaways are that we now have a strong and flexible balance sheet capable of supporting our future growth initiatives that we achieved our production and cost targets in 2016 and the timing of those metal sales I mentioned from Palmarejo will help us get off to a strong start here in 2017. Before we open it up for questions. I'll offer some quick highlights on each of our mine sites. Starting at Palmarejo we accomplished several important milestones last year that have now positioned our largest operation for strong cash flow in 2017 and beyond. We completed mining in the open pit and in the original underground mines. We accelerated mining rates at the Guadalupe deposit by 40% from 1,700 tons per day up to 2,400 tons per day by year-end. We began mining the new Independencia deposit. We completed important processing plant upgrades in the third quarter which are now boosting recovery rates as planned. And we transition to the new more favorable Franco-Nevada gold stream agreement late in the year. Palmarejo’s production levels declined last year's plans during this transition period. Yet its cost metrics reached record lows. We expect this declining cost trend to continue in 2017 as combined mining rates of Guadalupe and Independencia steadily climbed throughout the year leading to over 50% increases in expected silver and gold production this year. At Rochester we mined and placed nearly 20 million tons under leach in 2016 which was 19% increase year-over-year and the highest level since operations commenced back in 1986. While full-year production levels were flat compared to 2015, cost metrics continue to show incremental declines. We are also pleased to report an increase of over 40% to the silver reserves and nearly 70% to the gold reserves at Rochester. As for Rochester, Stage IV leach pad expansion, we are well in the construction and look forward to completing it mid-year this year. 2017 production levels are expected to be higher in the second half of the year once this new pad is in place. Up at Kensington, its fourth quarter production was its highest of the year topping off another year of strong production as well as record low cost performance. Kensington also delivered $14 million of free cash flow for the year, which was flat compared to 2015, despite a $13 million increase in capital expenditures there. As for development of the adjacent high grade Jualin deposit drilling to expand its size is ongoing and production is expected to commence from there late this year. Full-year production at Kensington is expected to be relatively flat compared to 2016 and our operating plan calls for lower production in the first quarter followed by higher production in the second and third quarters of the year. At Wharf, we had our first full-year gold production since acquiring the mine in the first quarter of 2015 and we saw full-year cost continue to decline. Wharf generated nearly $60 million of free cash flow in 2016 and a total of over $86 million since we acquired Wharf almost two years ago for $99 million. Since we expect to complete mining of the higher grade Golden Reward deposit this summer, we expect Wharf production in 2017 to be lower compared to the 109,000 ounces it produced last year and its unit cost to be higher this year. At San Bartolomé, our fourth quarter production was negatively impacted by an ongoing water shortage resulting from nationwide drought conditions in Bolivia. However, our full-year production remain consistent compared to 2015 and we continued to show incremental cost improvements with the help of higher margin third-party ore purchases and from processing plant enhancements they were implemented last year, which have boosted recovery rates. As a result San Bartolomé generated $23 million of free cash flow last year, an increase of $3 million year-over-year. Unfortunately, drought conditions in Bolivia have persisted and will likely result in first quarter production being the lowest quarter of the year. As we look toward the rest of 2017 and beyond, we remain committed to pursuing high quality growth, prioritizing organic growth projects in near mine exploration. We are planning to spend $115 million to $135 million in capital expenditures this year, a large majority of which will be allocated to continued underground development at Guadalupe and Independencia, and Jualin as well as completion of Rochester Stage IV leach pad expansion. I should note that this guidance range also includes about $10 million of carryover CapEx from 2016, as well as $11 million to $13 million earmarked for resource conversion drilling. In 2016, this capitalized exploration drilling produce significant increases to Rochester's reserves and overall mine life. In 2017, we will look to continue this momentum focusing on resource conversion at Palmarejo, at Kensington, at Rochester and at Wharf. We are also continuing to make substantial investments in our expense exploration program following several years of limited investment. Our 2017 expense exploration budget of $23 million to $25 million is nearly double what it was last year. We are now able to take funds previously earmarked for interest expense and now allocate them to high quality, high return organic growth such as accelerating our near mine exploration efforts. Our priorities include resource expansion at our existing operations with almost a third of the 2017 budget set to be spent at Palmarejo. Drilling also continues at La Preciosa, where we now have five active drill rigs. We're continuing our efforts to confirm our new geologic model there and hope to have an update for you later in the year. Finally, we are allocating more funds to early stage high quality exploration projects in Mexico, the United States and Canada to bolster the longer term end of our pipeline. So in summary, we covered a lot of ground in 2016 and importantly we continued to deliver on our commitments. As I reflect on where we are now relative to where we were three years ago, the difference is remarkable and would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of our employees. We will continue to pursue a higher standard across all areas of our business and we thank our stockholders for their continued support. Now that's the extent of our prepared comments. So let's go ahead and open it up for any questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] And the first question comes from Joseph Reagor with ROTH Capital Partners.

Good morning, guys and thanks for taking the questions.

Hi, Joe.

So I guess that the first – the big item is the revenue number versus obviously consensus was quite a bit higher. But you mentioned the shipment at Palmarejo, it looks like there was also with some inventory build across a couple of the other mines, which is a normal quarter-to-quarter stuff. And as adding to that, the Franco-Nevada stream I believe is being accounted for differently now where it's basically a reduction in revenue rather than a cost items. So margin wise there is no difference, but it moves your revenue number down a bit. Exit those three items, I'm coming up with there is about maybe a $30 million to $35 million impact into what your topline should have been compared to where it ended up, is that roughly the right number?

That's right, yes.

Okay. So you would have been more in the 190 range kind of similar to what's out there in the market if it wasn't for that. And I'm sure that also negatively impacted the EPS line. Can you guys quantify kind of what the net impact was of that shipment on EPS, I’m sure you booked some of those costs sustaining G&A types of things during the quarter and then those cost won't be booked against that revenue when it shows up in Q1?

Well, most of those costs are in inventory, Joe, so yes. The revenue and the associated cost will hit the P&L in Q1.

Okay. What about sustaining, isn't the sustaining cost not transferrable year-to-year, so isn't there a little bit kind of a discrepancy there?

I think you have it from a P&L perspective on a pure cost base – pure cost per ounce basis, you’re right.

Okay. So effectively it did impact kind of the all-in sustaining cost number that you would report because it’s sales based. Okay, so that's helpful. And then also on the guidance for this year on the cost side for Palmarejo. What was the U.S. dollar to Mexican peso exchange rate use that I think you guys might be a bit conservative.

Yes. We used 18 in our budgeting this year.

Okay. And so as it's obviously moved higher to start the year, is it fair to say if that were to stay the same that there's room to have better than that cost range, but obviously the budget is going to be based on the assumption?

Yes. I think if our back of the envelope math is for every peso, one peso change for the full-year results in $3 million improvement or change for us in terms of cash flow. So if there's a three piece of difference between spot and our budget, you can do the math there and that that on a per silver equivalent ounce basis for 2017 that gets to the $0.50, $0.75 an ounce range just that peso different assumptions.

Okay. And then one last one if I could, on the reserves, the increase at Rochester was pretty significant. Could you give us some additional color I think kind of the revenue might have overshadowed that for some investors?

Yes. This is Frank, Joe. At Rochester, we drilled in some what was previously measured and indicated classified material on the west side and south into the open pit and that were the conversion came from to create those reserves.

Okay. Thanks, I’ll turn it over. Thanks guys.

Thanks, Joe.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Chris Thompson with Raymond James.

Hi. Good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Little surprised by the market's reaction this morning. A couple of quick questions, Palmarejo has first of all - you mentioned that Guadalupe is currently producing at about 2,400 ton a day. Is this sustainable at this level at the moment? Is that what’s in the mine plan?

Yes, Chris. That’s Guadalupe and that’s where we are at.

Okay. Can you give us a sense of Independencia, where you going to be as far as production rates towards the end of the year?

We're targeting 1,400 to 1,500 tons a day by some point in the fourth quarter this year.

Okay. Thank you for that. Just quickly moving on to Rochester at the moment. Can you give us a sense of sort of average stacking rates for this year and just reading I guess through some of the information mentioned was made against the East Rochester expansion. What effect will that have on production at Rochester?

I’ll handle the stacking rates. We averaged in the neighborhood of 50,000 tons a day placement rates on the Stage III leach pad at Rochester. That’s a significant increase over the last two years before that all ties back to a pretty large event on the second quarter when we put a fair bit to run a mine material out there for purposes of bolstering 2016's production and getting some carryover into 2017.

And East Rochester that would become a part of a future expansion permitting cycle that doesn't come into play for the next few years when we just received permits last June or July for the current expansion. We're now starting the next expansion permitting process, three to four to five years and it would be in that planned scenario and permitting application that East Rochester would be incorporated into that.

Okay. That's great. And then just finally Wharf, obviously lower production anticipated this year I would imagine on the back of the ceasing and production from golden reward there. Is there an opportunity I guess from an explorational discovery perspectives to locate and then execute on the additional high grade?

Yes. Hans you want to take that?

Hi, Chris. I would just add to Wharf in fact talking to the guys about program for this year. We're looking at some targets that are near Wharf and these are pure exploration plays. So how those – the success of those and then how those will go into production would be a longer-term than just this year kind of proposal, but there are targets and we will be enjoying on those in August this year.

Okay. Thanks. And just finally you do mention your CapEx budget for this year. Could you give us a breakdown on a mine by mine basis quickly?

Frank has that and I know there's a good slide in our materials that breaks that down by percentage.

Okay. No worries. I will go back and will look at that. Thanks guys.

Chris, Frank will give you a quick overview and then you can look at those slides later.

Palmarejo was about $43.5 million for 2017, Rochester's rounding up slightly $34 million just above to do Palmarejo with underground development, continued development of Independencia largely and our Stage IV capital projects at Rochester. We’ve got $42 million in our plan for 2017 driving through all-in development, San Bart rate de minimis about $2.6 million and wrapped in very small incremental and [indiscernible] structures and in Wharf we’ve got $8.9 million. Good portion of that capital aimed at increasing the capacity of our denitrification plan infrastructure.

Okay, guys. Thank you very much. Thanks.

Yes, thanks Chris.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Mark Mihaljevic with RBC Capital.

Thanks and good morning guys.

Hi, Mark.

Hey, so I guess kicking it off at Kensington. I guess first on exploration side. You had a nice increase in the M&I as you are able to convert some of the inferred and upgrade that. So just wondering how you see that playing out into your reserves over the next couple years? And how much upside do you think we should see there?

Yes, this is Frank. That the M&I increase ties to – last year we had booked an inferred resources Jualin somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple 100,000 ounces, half of that converted over to the measure and indicated category in 2016. And then the rest of the ounces that flood into there were from Block M, a lower part of the Kensington Main mine, nearly that we call Zone 12, which is out to the West of the Main Kensington mine. And then a few ounces came from a Zone 28 in the upper part of the mine. So yes, it was helpful addition to those resources. We will continue drilling in those areas and will be able to add a little bit will be difficult to say exactly how much, but we will be adding more valuable ounces in our drilling plans this year for sure.

Okay and I guess kind of sticking with Kensington in the upside there. So you're on track for getting into to Jualin late this year, do you have a sense of how much benefit you expect in 2018 as you ramp into there? And then kind of falling on that how things have been developing with the ramp over and whether all the ground conditions and everything is as expected?

Yes, it’s Mitchell. I’ll take a crack at it and Frank you can fill in any blanks that I missed. But the development did get off to a slow start. I think as we've said with some water slowdown our advance rates. That has improved a lot in development rates have accelerated, which is then led to our ability then to start the drilling, which is now as I mentioned in my comments on going there at Jualin. I think the budget for this year includes about 5,000 ounces out of Jualin in the fourth quarter, so a fairly small component of the overall production in 2017. When you look at 2018 to your question, the way I think about it and the way we think about it is running that the mill at call in 19-ish 100 tons a day to have 350 to 500 tons of that coming from Jualin is kind of the plan and to sustain that as a source of high grade kicker to the mill to supplement what comes out of the Kensington Main, which would be more. So 0.2 ounce per ton material with Jualin material, which on an undiluted basis that that grade is right around I think 0.6. So that will have a material impact on the overall high grade going to the plant and should have a big impact on not only ounces, but more importantly on margin and costs and cash flow.

Perfect and going back to Rochester, I just want to clarify whether any of the increase in reserves reflected East Rochester? And if you could just quantify what you have – how do you Rochester right now?

It doesn't include any East Rochester material. It's all in the west side of the pet in order to the south. What the resource is at East Rochester? I don't have that number of top of my head. We can come back to you with some information on that.

Okay, thanks. I'll leave it there.

Yes, okay. Thanks Mark.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Chris Terry with Deutsche Bank.

Hi, guys. A couple questions for me. I apologize if I missed that start of the call, but just on the shipment Palmarejo. You would expect that reverses in the first quarter this year, so that when we get the 1Q result sales will be above production at that point? Is that correct?

That’s right Chris, yes.

Okay. And then just generally over the course of 2017, what do you see in terms of other working capital movements, are they wise to reduce that overall or most of the wins been made over the last couple of years already?

I think it will be a modest source of cash, Chris. It’s Peter. Certainly with that built in finished goods inventory that will provide a source and then I think generally we are going to make that our focus to squeeze some additional cash on working capital…

It sounds good. And then on your asset sales programs, just looking at divestitures or acquisitions and changes to your asset base, are there other assets at this stage the you might look to divest or is that largely being done with the routine announcement to Pan American?

I'd say there's still some little things sitting around that to the extent we can monetize them. We will and we're trying to do that total dollars though would not be nearly close to the kind of number we had last year or even the size of the sale of walking into Pan America and so a few things left, but not a big impact, but we're still pursuing those.

Okay. And then on – obviously you've got more favorable terms now on Franco-Nevada streaming deal, would you ever look in the future to potentially buy that back or is that not top of mind at all?

We just got on to the new terms, just a couple months ago, I think for now it's not top of mind. Obviously, anytime you want to buy anything back, you have to have a willing seller on the other side and you could ask Mr. [Mark] for that question, but I think that might be a pretty big bid ask spread, I'm just guessing. But for now we're focused on the operational side of Palmarejo and everything that we put in place there. And we're pleased with the new terms that we have that gives us a lot more margin to work with there and then with everything coming on the east side of Independencia that sits outside of that. The area of interest on that gold stream with Franco that's just all to the benefit of our shareholders.

Okay. And last one for me just on the pretty rapid change in the balance sheet over the course of 2016. Now with the net debt in quite a good position, what’s your strategy with that going forward? As it got a range or metrics that you trying to keep your overall debt below in the next few years or just depend on different opportunities?

Chris, it’s Peter again. I would say sort of overall target is around one times total leverage which is where we are right now and certainly keeping our toe in the water in debt market, such that should – we need to debt finance other opportunities in the future that we have a presence in a debt rating in place et cetera, but one-time is our target.

Okay. Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Mitch. I appreciated it.

Okay.

Thank you. And the next question comes from [indiscernible] with BMO Capital.

Hi, guys. I just have a question about [indiscernible] asset and what are your plans are for this year for that asset, if you can provide a bit more detail?

Yes. So the drilling is – let me back up, last year some work was completed on re-logging all the old drill core that exists. Out of that work came up reinterpretation of the geologic model there. We're now drilling there, spending about $3.5 million to kind of confirm and validate that geologic model and do some infill drilling that could assume in success to help us in some new mine planning and development work. So as that drilling proceeds and we see the results, our hope is that it gives us reason to move right into a PEA that we would look to have done here later in the year based on a different approach that would be hopefully much less capital intense and much more economic even in today's or lower prices. So that's what we're doing and that's where we hope to go with La Preciosa.

Okay. And where you guys be using similar metal assumptions and FX assumptions that use Palmarejo for your decision there?

Good question. And we really thought about what a peso assumption would be in a La Preciosa. But I think we probably take a fresh look at where things sit at that point and like everything use some sensitivities on prices and on peso and everything else and see what it looks like and hopefully we'll have something there that's robust enough to move on to the next level of engineering and planning.

Perfect, thank you Mitch and great job guys.

Yes. Thanks.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Craig Johnston with Scotiabank.

Hi, guys. A lot of questions have been asked, so trying to keep it short. Just on a Rochester mine plan based on what I had from the previous mine plan, it looks like obviously mine life is doubled or close to it which is great, but lower production in say the first five years on lower grades. I’m just wondering what was the cause of that and kind of what's the thesis behind that say if you're considering net present value?

This is Frank. Craig, are you talking about the technical reporter?

Yes, so looking at the production profile say over the first five years of mine life when you compare those years to the last technical report. I think production is I know number like down 15% over that first five years?

Yes, in the latest cycle of drilling work in our recently published reserve statement here, we see grades drop down a bit on silver and we're holding the line on goal, which is a very good thing. So the mining rates and those grades being a little bit lower in the early part of that of that new life of mine, which as you've probably noticed has been increased by seven years makes that period a little bit tougher. We used our reserve prices for gold and silver in that model that we're used to do our resource estimates this year, reserved estimates about $17.50, $1,250 then we step that up and successive years have $19 and I think $1,275 when you get out there a little bit further. This expansion that will be working on next will require some capital, we have current mine plan takes us right through the area where existing crushing plant. So it's going to have to be moved and we've got some capital in there for the next pretty good sized crushing plant to carry our needs through the end of the life and so you see capital out because of the additional seven years of operating life, you're going to see additional box spending for mining and processing inside SG&A. So as a result of all those factors you noted that the drop in NPV, some of that’s driven by some of the lower grades have been model right now in the early period that 12 years and some of this in fact you're seeing is to do with get out to some of those years 9, 10, 11 and 12 the discounting effects start to take a little bit were impact. I was pleased with the fact that we were able to increase the life of the mine so substantially that carries out through 2029 and there's a couple years a residual reaching on the tail end of it. This is definitely a poor asset that will go past 50-year mark.

Yes, no for sure and I agree it is nice to have an asset in the portfolio that is plus 10-year mine life in reserved, that’s nice. Just with respect to sensitivities around fuel prices, I could probably check this in the technical report, but what fuel assumptions did you guys make in the tech report?

Craig, I can't recall exactly what's in the tech report. I know those are the 2017 budget. We do raise those. We're seeing fuel prices increase. But that up and get back to you on that.

Okay, I can look that up. And I just go on Palmarejo, previous caller had mentioned, your conservatism around the exchange rate, is there anything factored in coming back to fuel prices? There's been a lot of talk about Mexico increasing fuel prices has that been considered in your cost guidance?

Yes, it has. We seen prices increase in fact there was an increase mandated by the government quite a bit agreement another incremental or increase being discussed, but we covered as much of that as we could in our 2017 plan, hopefully offset with some of the benefits of the peso, but while we pay for fuel in local dollars around that.

Yes, I know for sure. Just a couple more, on just looking at the cash flow statement. It seem like there is a big build up and we know there is a build up in finished goods inventory with the Palmarejo timing. But just throughout the year, there's been a kind of gradual build up in inventory. And so if you look at the cash flow statement, you have $36 million in the year going out for inventory and ore on leach pads? Is that fair to assume – is the bulk of that would be just stacking at Rochester or is there something else I'm missing there that that would cause there?

No with the placement rates that we saw last year that definitely resulted in a steady inventory build throughout the year like $20 million.

Okay. Okay, so that's the bulk of it cool. And then last question is just on expectations around free cash flow. And you guys thoughts on say at current prices or even your guidance prices are you guys modeling free cash flow for this year?

We ran our budget that the Board approved at $17.50 and $120.50, which ironically now are I guess almost a spot.

Yes, you guys are pretty good. Yes.

More so good in January, I guess we are for the day at least and at those prices, yes that was a healthy as kind of we've been pointing to in 2017, a healthy free cash flow number that sits at the bottom there of 2017 for sure.

Okay. Okay, great. That’s it from me, thanks guys.

Thanks.

Thank you. And the next question from Brett Levy with Loop Capital.

Hey guys. I think most of the questions have been asked. l wanted to ask sort I know get this 1.0 times debt-to-EBITDA guidance number and you’re doing very well with it now. Can you talk a little bit about kind of because you will have free cash flow and continue to have some opportunities as you look at acquisitions, are you looking tuck-in size or you're looking sort of game changes size or you looking to continue to move more towards gold and away from silver. I guess talk a little bit about how active you are looking at M&A projects size and also mineral.

Yes sure. Our basic premise is anything that we look at has to first meet a basic criteria of does this make our company better and by better that means lower cost better jurisdiction longer mine life and creative on a per share basis to the main metrics. And based on that set of criteria, a lot of things don't make it through that filter, big or – some big, some small. We spend more time looking at more of what you would call. I think what you did call tuck-in incremental. But there are also some things out there that could be more transformative and meet those criteria that we have laid out. But we look at a lot of things. There's seems like a lot of activity right now in the sector. But we say no, a lot and I think that's the sign of having some good discipline hopefully if nothing else. In terms of metal mix, we prefer ideally to have a balance between the silver and the gold. I think as a U.S. company with a long standing silver reputation, I think it's important to maintain that prominence as a silver company, but having a healthy contribution from gold is a nice mix and one that we are very comfortable with. That all said we're more driven by opportunity and returns and is that silver or is that gold, we would be led down the path based on those criteria before we would be led down the path based on well is it silver or is it gold. We're trying to make money and generate high rates of return as long as it's in the silver and gold, sandbox and it can make us better. Those are things that we're considering and evaluating all the time.

And then sort of towards that high return type commentary that you have as a parameter. It's easier to make it accretive. If you debt finance it and it would also almost imply that you are much more looking for a producing asset rather than reserves and with both of those in mind how long a time after an acquisition would you target to give yourselves to get back to that one-time leverage level?

Good question. I think it would obviously – Brett it would be a function of whether it was a debt funded transaction or an equity funded transaction, but I mean it all really ties in with all the factors that Mitch tied in, in terms of accretion to the various metrics company et cetera, so I think probably the overarching principle is after all of the heavy lifting that we've done over the past few years in deleveraging the business and getting it within target range. We would elaborate the company to effect M&A.

Does I hear it never again?

I don’t know what my exact terminals you guys…

Yes, the general rule of thumb for us and I suppose this applies to pretty much any mining company. If it's producing and it's generating strong cash flow using some debt and maintaining that one-time ratio is not for the shareholder especially is kind of the way to go I think. If you're looking at something that is not producing, incurring debt by development stage property probably won't go there much more of a focus on an equity transaction how something then would be built again would be a separate financing decision that we have to evaluate at that time, but those are some thoughts at least around how we look at the world.

That’s excellent color. Thanks very much. End of Q&A

Thank you. And as there are no more questions at the present time, I would like to return the call to management for any closing comments.

Okay. Great. We appreciate everyone's time this morning. Thanks for joining in. I also want to thank everyone again at the Company for their continued commitment and hard work and we look forward to speaking with you again in April to discuss our first quarter results. So thanks again and have a good day.

Thank you. The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect.