Good morning, and welcome to Deere's Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Tony Huegel, Director of Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you, and good morning. Also on the call today are Jim Field, our Chief Financial Officer; Marie Ziegler, Vice President and Treasurer; and Susan Karlix, Manager of Investor Communications. Today, we'll take a closer look at Deere's third quarter earnings and spend some time talking about our market and how we see the fiscal year ending up. After that, we'll respond to your questions. Please note that slides are available to complement the call this morning. They can be accessed on our website at www.johndeere.com. First, a reminder. This call is being broadcast live on the Internet and recorded for future transmission and use by Deere and Thomson Reuters. Any other use, recording or transmission of any portion of this copyrighted broadcast without the express written consent of Deere is strictly prohibited. Participants in the call, including the Q&A session, agree that their likeness and remarks in all media may be stored and used as part of the earnings call. This call includes forward-looking comments concerning the company's projections, plans and objectives for the future that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially is contained in the company's most recent Form 8-K and periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This call also may include financial measures that are not in conformance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP. Additional information concerning these measures, including reconciliation to comparable GAAP measures, is included in the release and posted on our website at www.johndeere.com/financialreports under Other Financial Information. Now for a closer look at the third quarter, here's Susan.

Thank you, Tony. John Deere's strong performance continued in the third quarter of 2011, with earnings climbing 15%. Both earnings and sales were the highest for any third quarter in the company's history. More than that, it was our seventh straight quarter of improved earnings and the fifth straight quarter of record earnings for that particular period. Last quarter's gains were broad-based with all divisions contributing higher results. As we pointed out in the past, it is significant that our record performance is occurring in the face of certain key markets being in the early stages of recovery. This reflects our success managing costs and assets while enhancing our geographic footprint, enriching our product lineup and above all, helping customers throughout the world to be more profitable and productive. Now let's look at the quarter in more detail. I'm going to start with Slide 3. Net sales and revenues were up 22% to $8.4 billion in the quarter. Net income attributable to Deere & Company was $712 million, an increase of 15% and, again, with our fifth consecutive quarterly income record. On Slide 4, total worldwide equipment operations and net sales were $7.7 billion, up 24% quarter-over-quarter. Currency translation in the quarter was positive by 6 points, while price realization on net sales was a positive 3 points. Production tonnage is shown on Slide 5. Worldwide production tonnage was up 9% in the quarter. In response to increased demand, aided by the successful implementation of SAP, construction and forestry tonnage was higher than forecast. For the company, projected worldwide production tonnage is up about 13% in the fourth quarter and up 21% for the full year. Let's turn to the company outlook on Slide 6. Fourth quarter sales are expected to increase by approximately 20% versus the same quarter of…

Thank you, Susan. Now we are ready to begin the Q&A portion of the call. The operator will instruct you on the polling procedure. [Operator Instructions] Operator?

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Jerry Revich.

It's Goldman Sachs. Tony, can you talk about where you see industry sales in CIS and Russia this year relative to the 2008 highs? Sounds like we're seeing a very sharp recovery off a low base. I'm wondering if you could just put that in perspective for us versus '08.

Right. And certainly we've talked about the fact that Russia is up strongly. But 2008 were very strong levels and I would -- certainly, we're not back at those levels.

And just ballpark, where are we relative to those levels roughly? Can you comment on that?

It's Marie, Jerry. We'll actually have an analysis for you as we complete the fourth quarter. But we don't have that exact detail available at this moment.

Okay. And on the working capital increase, can you talk about which emerging markets are you most constructive on heading into next year? Is it primarily Russia and CIS, or are you turning more constructive on Brazil as well?

Well, keep in mind, I mean, the increase in receivables and inventory, for starters, really is in line with what the increased market that we're seeing this year. And while they're up year-over-year on a percent overall in '12, really are actually below last year's levels. So it's really more a reflection of current market.

And if I could just add on to that, as you are well aware, we've had a significant launch, a number of new products in Europe. Last year, we launched a bunch of new products in Brazil. We've got a large number of products available coming out in the U.S. So we really see good global opportunities for ag, really, well, globally throughout the world.

Our next question comes from David Raso.

ISI. My question's on margins, but I guess I first need a clarification. Did you say ag and turf margin is 14% for the full year and construction 8%?

Yes.

Yes. That's what the guidance would imply, yes.

Because it seems like your net income guidance for the fourth quarter is roughly a 20% decline sequentially. But the segment profits are implied only down 5%.

We don't do any of our comparisons, David, just as a reminder, sequentially, because you've got an awful lot of noise in variability quarter-to-quarter. If you look year-over-year, obviously, we are looking for an improvement over our fourth quarter results. I mean, you can do the math, it's about 100 -- in round numbers, $100 million.

No, no, I appreciate that. But unless there's an odd translation from your segment profits to your P&L, and there's always a bit of a difference, why would your net income guidance sequentially be down 20%, when your operating profit guidance is only down 5%? I mean, there’s a little lower credit income assumed fourth versus third. My question's around margins but that's a clarification, I think, I would first need to begin, why such a divergence between your business segments and...

We'll have to go offline and you'll have to talk about your numbers. I'm not following.

Okay. Well, then let me proceed with the bigger question on the margins. The incrementals, obviously, this quarter were pretty low, especially in ag and turf. You highlighted some of the costs that were driving that. How should we be thinking about which of those costs are things that evolve away because the new product ramp goes away? It may be a better raw material issue. And how much is it a mix issue related to the geographic divergence we're seeing from slower growth in North America ag versus the other regions? How should we be thinking about that, kind of in summation for thinking about incremental margins for that division?

You're talking about in this specific quarter or for the year?

The 3% incrementals for the third quarter, and which of those costs, the cost you feel -- how should we think about incrementals for that division if you just put up a 3% essentially?

Right. And certainly we talked all year about the headwinds and the tougher compares, as we move into and further into the year. And really, that's what you're seeing with that 3% incremental margin. If you look at comparable to last year, and keep in mind we're at 13% absolute margin but we're comparing to a 16% margin a year ago. And so that’s part of the challenge is to compare year-over-year, as well as the headwinds we've cited, in particular raw material and in our Tier 4 costs, would be heavier and more back-end loaded in the year. And we've talked about that again throughout the year, and that's really what you're seeing reflected in the numbers.

Sure. And that's how we got to today's 3%. But looking forward, you have raw materials as roughly 2/3 of the total costs you cited. Because if you add those 2 pieces back to raw and then the SG&A and the FX and the incentive comp, the incrementals will read as 24. But still, some of those costs don't go away. How should...

Exactly.

Yes. So how should we be thinking about, for example, the SG&A growth-related expenses? How much were those? The raw material, with the Tier 4 pricing upcoming, versus the costs to create the Tier 4 product, how are we thinking about price versus costs moving forward? I'm just trying to frame it, because obviously the 3% -- are you trying to insinuate that's how we should think about incrementals going forward? I would assume not.

This is Marie, David. For the year, we're going to have another tough compare as we go into the fourth quarter. But as we look out into the future in 2012, you are correct that some of the large ramp-up in R&D expenses will be behind us. We don't see R&D heading down. But we will have completed, as we move into model year 2012, we will have completed a very significant product launch. I do want to go back to the very beginning. You asked about geographic mix. The issue is not geography. But this year, we do see a recovery in smaller ag equipment. So if we are looking year-over-year, and this is true for the full year as well as in the quarter, the mix of large ag is proportionately a little less as you've seen recovery in smaller ag segments. And so mix, in terms of operating margin, is about 1 point.

This is Jim Field. So let me first come back to your first question and add just a little more color also to your second question. And clearly, we'll take your first question offline and I'll let the IR staff provide you with more details. But as you know, sequentials are very hard to do in this business because of the fluctuating production levels. And the fourth quarter, historically, is our seasonally weaker quarter from a production standpoint, and a quarter where we have many of our factories taking shutdowns for various purposes. And so therefore, we don't tend to look so much at sequential views of the business. And it's very, very -- it can be extremely misleading depending on how we line up production one year versus another year. But clearly, we have a pattern of drawing down inventories and receivables in the fourth quarter, which generally would be, on a sequential basis, a negative drag on net income. Having said that, we’ll have the crew get with you and understand your analysis, and we'll be more than happy to share with you ours, ours with you. Relative to the incremental margin question, I think we've said for some period of time that it's our intention over a longer period to recover material costs ops when we have them as well as to recover the costs ops related to the IT4 implementation. And in any given period, there's going to be distortions because that's not going to be totally aligned. And I think as we shared with you last year, we were in a favorable price situation and we actually had material costs declining. And so it's hard when you look at any particular quarter. But when you want to think about incremental margins for this period of business over a longer period of time, I think you can think about the incremental margins that this company has historically enjoyed and have every expectation that we'll enjoy those sorts of incremental margins going forward. In fact, if you were to look at our incremental margin picture over a longer period, which would normalize some of these distortions, you'd see incremental margins for instance from the '09 to the '11 period that would be more in the 20s, mid-20s, 22 to 25 depending on the period that you looked at for the business that we're talking about, which would be much more in line with your expectations. So the long-winded way of saying there's lots of noise and lots of moving parts here in any particular quarter. And I know you're not suggesting this, but actually just asking for further clarification, it would be a wrong assumption to think that these were the sorts of incremental margins that we would enjoy over a longer period of time. So with that, thanks for the questions, and we look forward to getting with you on your analysis.

Our next question comes from Eli Lustgarten.

Longbow Securities. Markets are the thing that probably would drive us most to try to figure out. And this quarter and ag came in roughly 13.5, it looks like you're 100 basis points below expectations across the board. And with keeping margins at 14% you're implying -- it looks like with tonnage also down, that you're implying that the fourth quarter is somewhat better than maybe we would have expected at the end of the second quarter. Can you give us, one, what costs were worse in this third quarter than you expected? And can you talk a little bit, is the fourth quarter somewhat better than you expected and are the costs a little bit different, a little bit better? Can you give us some color on what's going on in costs and behind both, between the third and fourth?

Maybe I should just start, Eli. As you know, we do not do quarterly guidance. So I can't speak to your expectations. I can speak to our expectations, where as we've discussed over the course of the year starting in the fourth quarter, that as we moved into 2011, we would have more difficult comparisons and that we anticipated by virtue of our full year guidance that those incremental margins would decline. Again, Tony talked about some of the reasons: Raw material headwinds; the very significant launch of IT4, which is affecting R&D, it affects our factory productivity. We had talked earlier in the year about -- over the course of the year $100 million in costs just related to the very significant number of new product launches. We have product launch expenses every year. But just because of the sheer volume of expenses, it's a more significant cost. As we move through the quarter, Jim talked -- excuse me, through the year, Jim talked about absorption and some of the effects there.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, can you talk about what the cost in the third quarter that were maybe somewhat higher than you expected? And as you gave guidance for the fourth quarter, are some of the volume and costs somewhat better than you would have thought about a quarter ago?

The only item that has changed from our previous guidance in a material way is raw material, which is about $100 million in round numbers increase from our implied previous guidance. That affected certainly the third quarter and it will affect the fourth quarter. That's the only thing that is significantly changed.

I mean, for example, your guidance for the Japanese impact is much lower now.

That is correct.

That makes you the better [indiscernible]

Eli, our guidance before was for the balance of the year and now we're heading into the fourth quarter. Now we didn't split that guidance, but that -- you'd be wrong to -- and I'm not assuming you have, but you'd be wrong to assume that it’s the delta between strength at the top line and the full 300 and the 70.

Well, I'll talk offline. Let me just, a quick follow-up, with the new introduction of IT4 equipment or more models to be given -- talk anymore about what the pricing of those products are? We expect you have a new rollout coming out in this country. Can we talk a bit about the pricing of the new IT4 products coming out?

Yes. The new products have not been announced at this point. Of course, we're in the midst of a new product introduction here in the U.S. and Canada, so that should be coming soon. But at this point, we don't have that information.

Our next question comes from Jamie Cook. Jamie Cook - Crédit Suisse AG: Crédit Suisse. Just a couple of questions. One, and I apologize if I missed this, can you quantify what the Tier 4 costs were in the third quarter? And whether the [indiscernible] for the full year still holds? I'm just trying to get a feel for the impact of their Q3 versus Q4. And then also can you provide an update on the SAP transition in C&F, how many weeks you were shut down this quarter and how we think about it in Q4?

Right. And for Interim Tier 4 costs, our guidance is now at $165 million and that had been...

It's a $160 million.

I'm sorry, it's $160 million. I'm sorry.

Which is more or less in line with prior guidance. Jamie Cook - Crédit Suisse AG: But how much was in the third quarter?

About $45 million, and then we've got about -- but bluntly, that implies about $75 million in the fourth quarter. Jamie Cook - Crédit Suisse AG: Okay. And then the next question -- sorry, the next question?

Yes. On SAP, that implementation actually went very well, pretty much as planned and we talked about previously. It was about a week in the second quarter that the production was shut down then a full week -- effectively 2 weeks in the third quarter. There was a full week of shut down. And then as things ramped up, that equated to about another week of product shutdown. So again, it went very well as planned. Jamie Cook - Crédit Suisse AG: And just -- sorry, one follow-up question. When I think -- everyone's trying to ask the question about incrementals longer-term, as I think about the puts and takes for next year, R&D won't -- maybe on a dollar basis is the same but it's not going to be up as a percentage-base. We're not going to have the Tier 4, which is about $160 million. Are there any other things directionally we should be thinking about, big-ticket items in 2012, whether it's pension? Anything else that we can think about without you guys specifically guiding I guess to incremental?

Well, first of all, I would speak to the Interim Tier 4 costs, I don't think it would be correct to assume that that's going to be level year-over-year because we have a significant number of models that will be introduced for the 2012 years. Plus, you have a sequential increase as you move into 2012, as we've introduced throughout the year. You'll have a full year of cost on this year's model versus partial year in 2011. So again, year-over-year, I think you should expect to see Interim Tier 4 product costs increasing through 2012 and, quite honestly into 2013, as we have again the sequential partial year in 2012 on some of these new products that will have a full year of production in 2013.

And I also will say that we are mindful of those costs as we think about our price and on the products. I would just note that the costs of compliance of IT4 are not that dissimilar between a big piece of equipment and a little piece of equipment relative to the cost of the equipment. So in not all cases will we achieve pricing parity, if you will, in year one. But we certainly are very committed to achieving pricing parity, if you will, over time. Jamie Cook - Crédit Suisse AG: So that's a headwind next year, but you haven't addressed the other -- like is pension a headwind next year? You said R&D is going to be level. I'm just trying to think about puts and takes.

If you looked at price pension today and looked at where the interest rate environments are, you may have maybe another $50 million of pension.

50 bps would be about $80 million, so $75 million to $80 million.

Between pension and OPEB.

Between pension and OPEB. But of course, as you know, Jamie, you set those rates based on the last day of the year and where the yields are at that point in time. But if we had to look at it today, we'd be looking at 35 to 50 basis points decline, which would be somewhere between $50 million and $75 million.

Our next question comes from Steven Volkmann. Stephen Volkmann - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: It's Jefferies. Just a couple of clarifications if we could. I think when you were talking about your U.S. farm cash receipt forecast for 2012, if I heard you right, you marked that to market sort of versus the recent USDA numbers and said that would add $12 billion to the forecast. Am I hearing that right?

If you took the USDA estimates that came out last week, and specifically their yield estimates and their price estimates, we ran that back through our model and that would increase about $12 million for 2012 cash receipts -- billion, I'm sorry. Stephen Volkmann - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: Right. Okay. Good. And then the comment you just made on the -- sorry?

I would just add that's only updating our model for those 2 items, the yield and price. Stephen Volkmann - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: Understood. Second quick thing, Jim, you just made a couple of comments on pension. But I think you were speaking just to the discount rate and not to the return on planned assets. Am I correct on that?

That's correct. That was just on the discount rate side of it. And the return on the planned assets, you get into some smoothing techniques and what you're in. Any individual return is and then the corridor. But historically, most of our volatility is being driven more so by the exchange rate rather than the return assumption. Return assumption proved over longer periods to be very, very dependable. Stephen Volkmann - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: Great. And then just quickly we've talked, I think on a couple of calls, about the used combine market. And it looks like new combine sales are sort of one of the weaker spots. And maybe that's an availability issue, I don't know. But is there anything in the used combine market in North America we should know about?

Well, it's important to note that in the quarter, used combine inventory did go down in the quarter as expected. And again, keep in mind, as Susan talked about at the beginning in her opening comments, our shipping patterns in combines are different this year, much more heavily loaded toward the first half of the year versus the second half. So that's some of what you're seeing in the retail numbers as well. Stephen Volkmann - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: So you're not worried about the used combine market, I guess?

We're continuing to monitor it. But things are -- used equipment prices are holding or are up slightly. Turnover continues to be extremely good. So we're monitoring it.

Our next question comes from Ann Duignan. Ann Duignan - JP Morgan Chase & Co: JPMorgan. Can you talk a little bit about this whole Nebraska test, and why you emphasized horsepower and fuel efficiency per horsepower as opposed to just miles per gallon? Can you just give us a little bit more detail there and talk us through apples for apples. What's the net result? You were operating equipment that was more fuel efficient than your competitors. Your competitors thought that their SCR engines will be more fuel efficient than yours? Just a little bit more color on that slide. It seems like you were trying to get a message across to us there.

Well, certainly, I think it's just a continued message on the successful launch of that 8R tractor. And again, as we talked throughout the year that we felt very comfortable and we're excited about the fuel efficiency on that tractor, and that we would wait until that official Nebraska test was completed. And it validated our assumptions. I mean we've had, as you pointed out, the most fuel-efficient tractors in the market in the past. And this tractor is actually more fuel efficient than its previous model, and also delivering more power. And keep in mind, that's just at the test level. The other thing this tractor brings is improved telematics that enables the farmer/customer to be able to evaluate how that tractor is operating in the field and further optimize performance and profitability. And that’s hard to test. It doesn't come through in the testing, but again adds additional efficiency to that farmer's operation. Ann Duignan - JP Morgan Chase & Co: So does this mean that this tractor is even more fuel efficient than your competitors' products are? Or have theirs not been tested yet and net-net, you'll still have the same gap?

My understanding is the competitor equipment has not gone through the official Nebraska test. Ann Duignan - JP Morgan Chase & Co: Okay. And secondly on the whole GPS issue, can you talk a little bit -- we've gotten a number of questions this past quarter or so around the GPS interference and the total net that could take place out there in terms of interference with particularly agriculture equipment and also construction equipment. Can you just update us on what's going on there, a little bit of background and what Deere's position is right now?

Sure. And certainly, we're continuing and have been closely monitoring the development. And it's really around the LightSquared Network and actively working on making sure that by ourselves and with others, many others who are concerned about the potential interference of GPS, specifically, what that could mean to our customers, who obviously, we just talked about the telematics and so on in this new 8R tractor. Many of our customers use high-precision GPS systems, both in ag as well as construction and forestry. And so we're clearly staying on top of that and making sure that our concerns are expressed. Ann Duignan - JP Morgan Chase & Co: And what's the time line? When should we expect some kind of finalization or ruling?

Yes. August 15 was the deadline for filing responses to the FCC. They have not clearly stated when they will announce any decisions. Ann Duignan - JP Morgan Chase & Co: Okay. And just finally, real quick. You gave us an update on early order programs on some smaller equipment like tillage equipment. Have you started the early order program for tractors and combines? And if yes, how are those going?

Yes. The combine early order program started August 1, so it's very early. And of course, last year, it would have been in the 1st of July. So it's not easy to compare. And the delay was really related to the new product that has been introduced. But certainly so it's very early in terms of feedback. But at this point, we're very pleased with the response to that early order program at this point and, unfortunately, don't have much else to say on that. We'll, obviously, have a better update at fourth quarter.

I might just note, Ann, that we just started introducing this product to our dealers. So it's very, very early. Hence, again, the reason for the start 1 August instead of 1 July. And regarding tractors, we don't actually do early order programs on tractors. We just traditionally have an ordering book. And on the 8000's, I believe, the availability is December.

December.

We have a little pattern, a different pattern this year. Again last year was pretty significantly impacted because of the model year transition. We actually had a little longer wait last year, but that had to do with the model transition. Order book continues to -- frankly, it's very good there.

Our next question comes from Andy Casey.

Wells Fargo Securities. Jim, just wanted to make absolutely sure I understand your comments about the longer-term ag and turf incremental margin performance. Is that basically suggesting we should expect ag and turf margins are not really peaking out at 14%?

Well, I wasn't necessarily addressing where they might peak as much as addressing the notion that when you look at any individual quarter, that we're going to have a lot of noise. And so when you look at the incrementals, why we go through this transition, as we've said, we fully intend to recover the costs of the implementation of the IT4. But any particular quarter, we're going to have noise in that. And that will be recovered over a longer period. Now we have an aspiration at mid-cycle, when our businesses are at mid-cycle, and that includes all aspects of the business to achieve a 12% return, and when they're at the top of the cycle at 14.5% operating margin. Now we’ve said this year for instance we have -- we're benefiting by about 1 point vis-à-vis normal mix because large ag is a larger piece than normal relative to small ag. So hopefully, that provides some clarification on your question. But if not, come back.

Sure. I'll follow up later. But on a separate question on construction and forestry. You talked about the uncertainty of the overall economy and what's going on, on construction activity forecasts. This year, the U.S. industry has pretty much benefited from replacement demand. Just I'm wondering in your conversations with the rental companies, do you still expect CapEx trends to increase over time, meaning calendar '12. Or are you generally expecting kind of flattening because of the uncertainty? I'm just wondering about the duration of the fleet refresh that's going on.

In their conference calls, they've indicated that they intend to take their average fleet ages down, and maybe that's the best indicator there.

Sure. So no change in the short term?

Correct.

Our next question comes from Andrew Obin.

BofA Merrill Lynch. Yes, when we look at your inventory increase in the ag and turf division, any way just to break it down by key market product line, as to what are we getting ready for? Meaning is it -- I mean, I understand you gave a very broad description of why you're doing it, but how much would it -- if you could just simply break it down how much of it is for North America and how much of it is Europe, and maybe if any of it is combines?

Yes. We don't have a specific geographic breakdown. But if you look at the end of July, as we evaluate the receivables and inventory, we would say it's roughly, 1/4 of that increase would be related to parts inventory. Another 20% would be related to BRIC countries and the growth in those countries. Exchange was actually another 15% and then another additional 15% related to Interim Tier 4, and that includes engine bunkering as we move forward.

And if I could ask a follow-up question on combines. Given that you sort of modified your production in the quarter, how far along do you feel you are in the process of sort of fixing this excess inventory of combines that we had on the channel at the end of the spring?

We've talked about the level of combines are, certainly, on an absolute level at high levels. It's come down again in the quarter, as we've expected. So we're continuing to work on that. We have programs in place. We've talked about the pool funds and the availability there to help with that. And so, again, at this point, we've seen positive pricing year-over-year on used combines, as well as turns continuing to hang in there.

Remember, Andrew, that our new combine sales are very much front-end loaded this year because of the transitions between IT4 and Tier 3 production and the timing of the emissions regulations. So front-end loaded, when you sell a new combine, in virtually almost all cases, you get a used combine in. So that accelerated the combine inventories. As we moved into the fall, we expected to see those things start to move. And as Tony indicated, we are starting, still early, but we are starting to see the first indications that those things are moving.

And IT4 products will be available when for combines?

Model year 2012.

Which is what month, sorry?

I don't know exactly when they ship. It will be sometime early in the fiscal year.

Our final question comes from Henry Kirn.

It's UBS. Just following up on Andy's earlier question on the economic uncertainty. Have you seen any actual impact on any of your businesses so far? Either pullback or cancellations in either ag and turf or construction?

At this point it varies. We have not. We have not.

And if the global economic concerns prove to be founded, what cost levers could you pull and how quickly could you change investment plans?

That's very speculative. It would depend on what actions – what reactions you were seeing in the marketplace, where. We actually had a good test case in 2009, where you saw the company pull in on our capital expenditures, manage our inventories down accordingly as the business was transitioning. So it would be really, potentially, a replay of what you saw in 2009. But it's very, very speculative at this point.

Sure. That makes sense.

And maybe I just want to conclude by pointing out that the global ag fundamentals are still extremely strong. I can't emphasize enough that Thursday's USDA report was very positive for global agriculture. And I think I'd like to end on that note.

Okay. Thanks, Marie. And that concludes our call. And as always, we will be available throughout the day to answer any additional questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And this does conclude today's conference call. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect your lines.