Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Quarter 4 2012 NRG Energy, Inc. Earnings Conference Call. My name is Patrick, and I will be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Mr. Chad Plotkin, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please proceed.

Thank you, Patrick, and good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to NRG's Year End and Fourth Quarter 2012 Earnings Call. This morning's call is being broadcast live over the phone and via webcast, which can be located on our website at www.nrgenergy.com. You can access the call, associated presentation material, as well as the replay of the call in the Investor Relations section of our website. [Operator Instructions] Before we begin, I urge everyone to review the Safe Harbor statement provided in today's presentation, which explains the risks and uncertainties associated with future events and the forward-looking statements made in today's press release and presentation material. We caution you to consider the important risk factors contained in our press release and other filings with the SEC that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements in the press release and the conference call. In addition, please note that the date of this conference call is Wednesday, February 27, 2013, and any forward-looking statements that we make today are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. We undertake no obligation to update these statements as a result of future events, except as required by law. During this morning's call, we will refer to both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures of the company's operating and financial results. For complete information regarding our non-GAAP financial information, the most directly comparable GAAP measures and a quantitative reconciliation of those figures, please refer to today's press release and this presentation. And with that, I'll turn the call over to David Crane, NRG's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Chad, and good morning to everyone. I'm joined here today by Mauricio Gutierrez, the company's Chief Operating Officer; and Kirk Andrews, the company's Chief Financial Officer. They will both be giving part of this presentation and be available for questions thereafter. Also joining us, some other NRG executives who will be available to answer your questions: Anne Cleary, the company's Chief Integration Officer; Chris Moser, who runs the company's Commercial Operations, including our Trading; and Elizabeth Killinger, who runs Retail for us in Texas; and Jim Steffes, who runs Retail for us in the Northeast United States. So let me begin by recognizing that certain dichotomies exist between what we typically focus on during this earnings call and what we, NRG management, concentrate on while conducting the company's day-to-day business. Chief of these dichotomies is the one that exists around personal safety. While safety is not the focus of the financial community, it's very much our focus. Indeed, for NRG management, it is our primary focus. As such, I'm pleased to report today that in 2012, NRG achieved the best safety performance record in its history, a 0.52 OSHA recordable rate with not a single life-altering injury. This performance places us well within the top decile of our industry and is a testament to the hard work and professionalism of NRG's now 8,000 employees. To put this achievement into a historical context, in 2004, my first full year here at NRG, our OSHA recordable rate was 4.48, which was itself significantly down from a rate of 6.05, which was what the company achieved in 2003, the year before I came here. So having brought the rate down over 90% in 2003 to 0.52 in 2012 is extremely noteworthy. So I want to start by using this public forum…

Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. NRG closed 2012 on a high note and delivered another year of strong performance across the board. I want to take this opportunity to join David and recognize every one of our colleagues at NRG for making this year the safest in our 9-year history. It was also our best year from an environmental standpoint. These are outstanding accomplishments that makes us all proud and the foundation for our best-in-class operations. Now back to the results for the quarter on Slide 10. Our integrated platform delivered on our goal despite the low commodity price environment. Retail grew customer count and margins, and our commercial group was very successful in managing the retail loads and maximizing the value of our generation portfolio in a year where many of our markets saw the lowest electricity prices in a decade. As we work through the integration process, it is important to start by providing you with a post-transaction view in key areas of operations, hedging disclosures and environmental spend. To that effect, the environmental capital plan of the combined company will be $630 million through 2017. This includes the $100 million reduction primarily related to mass compliance at our Big Cajun II facility that we announced during our third quarter call. The entire operations group is very focused on further optimizing our combined spend through our successful FORNRG program and executing on operational synergies. As you know, the program has delivered significant improvement in the past, and this year was no exception. You can expect to hear from us in this area in the weeks and months to come. Finally, on the construction front, we commissioned 280 megawatts of utility scale solar generation in 2012 with Borrego and Alpine coming online at the beginning of this…

Thank you, Mauricio. Beginning with the financial summary on Slide 17, NRG is reporting fourth quarter 2012 adjusted EBITDA of $420 million. For the full 12 months of 2012, adjusted EBITDA totaled over $1.9 billion, with nearly $1.2 billion from wholesale, $656 million from retail and $86 million from our solar projects. Our fourth quarter and full year 2012 results include the impact of the GenOn transaction, which contributed approximately $10 million in adjusted EBITDA following the closing of the merger on December 15. Meanwhile, 2012 adjusted cash flow from operations was a robust $1.1 billion, driving free cash flow before growth of approximately $900 million for the year and leading to a $1.3 billion improvement in liquidity since year-end 2011. Turning to capital allocation, I'm pleased to announce that we have now completed over 98% of the $1 billion debt reduction target announced in mid-2012 in connection with the GenOn transaction, significantly strengthening NRG's consolidated balance sheet. We achieved nearly $800 million in debt reduction by year-end 2012 through the combination of the 2017 refinancing and the repayment of the GenOn term loan. In 2013, NRG launched a debt open-market repurchase program, which has now been completed, resulting in the repurchase of $200 million in NRG unsecured notes of various maturities and representing the balance of our $1 billion deleveraging target. In addition, having achieved our minimum delevering objective, we have now captured $93 million of the $100 million in annual free cash flow from balance sheet efficiencies announced in connection with the merger. Importantly, we now expect the $10 million increase in cost synergies, which will lead to at least $310 million in free cash flow benefits resulting from the GenOn transaction. The reduction in total debt, when combined with substantially increased adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow…

Thanks, Kirk. As has been my tradition during my 9 years at NRG, on Slide 26, which is the last slide, we're ending our first earnings deck of the year with a checklist of key objectives for the year ahead. My goal in doing this is obviously so you can follow along and hold us accountable as we succeed or fail in our effort to lead the company you own forward. Most of these specific goals were touched upon by Mauricio, Kirk or myself previously in this presentation, so I'm not going to elaborate further on any of these individual goals, unless you want me to. So I'll end by making only one point. I think the fundamental strength of NRG is that we are not wedded to generation alone or to retail alone or to any other single link in the energy value chain. We're not wedded to one technology, to one source of fuel or to one geographic location. We can go wherever in the industry we see the potential for profitable growth and shareholder value creation, and we have built a company now that has the ability to do just that. We look forward in 2013 to building on the momentum generated by a very successful 2012 for the benefit of all of you, the owners of NRG. And with that, Patrick, we are happy to take a few questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Brandon Blossman with Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: I guess first off, David, CO2 legislations/EPA regulation, just your general thoughts about where we are, say, versus 4 years ago and where we are today versus pre-election.

Well, Brandon, how much time do you have? I mean from my perspective, a considerable amount of work has been done, particularly, I mean actually on the GenOn side of the equation in terms of back-end control. I mean it seems to me that where we're at quite frankly, on the coal side of the conventional power industry, is the plants that have put on the back-end controls I think have a medium- to long-term future. The ones that don't, at this point, it doesn't make a huge amount of economic sense to put more back-end controls on. With the idea the EPA regulating carbon by regulation, I mean, I assume that's the path we're on now. I mean I don't see -- I mean there's obviously been more talk about climate change and the like with the reelection of President Obama, but I don't see any sort of legislation passing through Congress. So it's up to the EPA. And I think they'll take action, but the nature of EPA action will be so slow-moving once it works its way through the whole process, that it's almost not really even in our short- to medium-term planning horizon. It's something really virtually for the next decade. So in that sense, I don't think there has been a fundamental change as opposed to the last results of the election cycle. I don't think there's any sort of talk in any circles about a rebirth of the Waxman-Markey-style legislation. So I think we're in a pretty good place. I mean the amount of money that we're talking about spending to finish out the back-end controls, I think that's really it, and we're going to be pretty well set. Did that answer your question at all? I mean, because I could go on, but I should stop there and let you ask. You're allowed what, one backup question or a second follow-up question, right, Chad?

Absolutely. Brandon Blossman - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Research Division: Yes. No, that's helpful and it may reenter the follow-up question, which is about growth. You guys have proven to be head and shoulders about the peers as far as being opportunistic around looking for newer or perhaps often senseless places for growth. Say over the next 3 years, a balance between returning cash to shareholders and new growth opportunities, where do you see that weighting, biased towards one direction or another over the next 3 years?

Well, Brandon, the first way I'd answer that question is to punt and basically say it's the last 5 years that I've been in this industry, which is really actually like the 5 years before, that has proven one thing is that none of us have any idea what the next 5 years are going to be about. And I think what we've really done is built a company now with its natural resources that can go in either direction. I mean we actually do, I think maybe unlike some of the other companies in our sector, see a lot of opportunities across the space. And I would say right now, in terms of reinvesting in the business, I would say we've got a lot going on, on the generation side. But I guess what really animates me when I get up in the morning is what we can do on the retail space and around the customer and bringing together conventional retail and new clean energy and products, which will be appealing to the consumer. The thing though about those types of investments, Brandon, is they tend not to be as capital-intensive, and the bets are smaller. Hopefully, the payback is quicker or as they say, if you're going to fail at something, fail quickly and cheaply. And so as we move and try new things in that area, I think it will still leave a lot of capital for the return of capital to shareholders. I mean, obviously, we're excited about what we did today in terms of the increase of the dividend in particular. We'd like to do more of that in the future, but obviously, we're not committing ourselves to a particular rate of increase. And as Kirk talked about, it's going to be sort of tied to how much we get accomplished in terms of contracted investments. And I think that we will see more -- in this natural gas price environment, if there's going to be more built in the United States on the generation side, it's all going to be based on bilateral contract. We've got great sites, we've got the people, we've got the ability to repower, conventional and renewable. And so, hopefully, we can grow the dividend off the back of an ever-increasing amount of contracted revenue streams. So that's my long-winded answer. My short-winded answer is I think we can do both. We can continue to return capital to shareholders and really stakeholders in terms of debt paydown and reinvest across our portfolio of businesses.

Your next question comes from the line of Jon Cohen with ISI.

I have 2 questions, one for David and one for Kirk. David, do you have any sense of when we're going to get an update on the O&M synergies in 2013? How long will it take you to do your review and what that would amount to?

Well, what I would tell you is that we would, Jon, probably tell you more than I should, we would like to disclose the more -- the greater synergies about the time or on the next earnings call, but I can't commit to that 100% because we have a clear idea commercially of what we would like to do. But I mean we need to do sort of a technical review of some of our plants as to make sure the plants can back up what we want to do on the commercial end. And that involves things like boiler inspections and analysis, which are far beyond my intellectual capacity to understand. And if those take longer than the next earnings cycle, then we're going to take a little bit longer because when we do come out, we want to be 100% certain that we can accomplish what we tell you we're going to accomplish. But certainly, our goal is the next earnings call.

Got you. Okay. And then -- and Kirk, what are the opportunities for further delevering aside from just open-market repurchases? So I know a lot of the debt, especially the GenOn debt, is trading at pretty high levels here. But what's the timeline on when various pieces of that become callable? And I guess the second question is, are you happy to hang on to some of that excess deployable cash until the call dates or is that kind of too far out?

Well, I'll take your questions -- the components of your questions in reverse order. No, I'm not happy to hang onto excess deployable cash for an undefined period of time for any purpose, but I feel comfortable that we've got sufficient cash flow generation and liquidity to be able to address the opportunities that may arise on the debt side of the equation. But in terms of the opportunities that I see currently, what hamstrings us, at least opportunistically, clearly, we were focused on and are pleased to have achieved the $1 billion deleveraging objective, which is what the last component of that open-market purchase program was all about, taking care of that last 200. Looking forward, given the fact that our balance sheet is in line with our targets and return to shrink, my view is in further delevering, it constitutes opportunistic delevering. And given the trading levels of our bonds, as you acknowledge the fact that, to answer your question, they aren't currently callable, our 2014 maturity at the GenOn level obviously comes due in relatively short order, but our remaining maturities are not callable until 2014. I think we've got a couple -- our 2019 -- our 2 tranches of the 2019 bonds are recallable in '14. But until that time, those call premiums are significantly lower than the current trading levels of our bonds, which in my view, don't represent a compelling level, both from a yield and total -- or both from a current return and total return perspective to warrant allocation of capital opportunistically. But we'll continue to look at alternatives around that. But for right now, I think we're satisfied with where we are.

Okay. And then just one little knit on Slide 24, you have the green chunk in the pie chart as growth investments of $226 million. Should that not be net of projects financing? So in one of your later slides, I think you had $163 million of project financing. Should that be in addition to what's shown here?

No. The growth investments of $226 million, which is in the green section, that is equity investment that is net of project financing.

Your next question comes from the line of Neil Mehta with Goldman Sachs.

At a high level, what are all the options we have in terms of monetizing your solar assets? And how are you thinking about the timing there?

Well, I'll answer the easier second part of the question and then drop it to Kirk to say what he wants to say about the first half of the question. Our timing is that since really we sold down part of Agua Caliente to MidAmerican, which is now over a year ago, we've been communicating with the investment community that we feel that the best time -- having demonstrated that we could sell down the assets, the solar assets, to add value, that the best time to actually do that to optimize that is around the time of commercial operation of the assets. And the bigger assets in particular are all achieving or coming very close to achieving commercial operation during 2013. So the -- to the timing -- the answer to the timing portion of your question is, our timetable is this year. As to what our options are, Kirk, how much do you want to say or not say in that direction?

I mean the only thing I'd add is clearly, as David said, we're focused on 2013, in part because these -- that's when these assets come online. And with all of them now at COD, we see the realm or universe of potential partners or investors or sell-down candidates as expanding. And the return expectations, given the fact that the perceived risk at least having achieved COD, is now lower. As far as alternatives, I think I'd only say certainly, transaction is not unlike what you saw with Agua Caliente. I certainly continue to see it as being a possibility, both at the individual asset level and though less likely, though still possible, at the sub-portfolio level. But beyond that, I wouldn't elaborate. I think those are probably the 2 most likely categories, but we're continuing to evaluate those. And like you say, I think as we get closer to COD, we're on the precipice of it right now, those opportunities will present themselves more readily.

That's awesome. And the second question is around STP Unit 2, what's left to do on that project in order for it to come back in early May?

Mauricio, do you want to?

Yes. So I mean right now, we're working on re-blading the turbine, the ones that were damaged, and we remain on track to be operational and available prior to the summer. So right now, our estimate is the beginning of May.

And Neil, I mean Mauricio makes an important point there, and it's one of the points that sort of showed up in like our availability figures for 2012 as well. There's not much money to be made, to be frank, in the generation business during the shoulder seasons. But we are obviously focused like a laser beam on the conditions in Texas this summer. So the instructions we've given to the plant management at STP is obviously we want you to make these repairs as quickly as you can, but the most important thing is that you need to be there for the Texas summer, reliably operating. So if it takes an extra few days, take those extra days. So that's very much the sort of marching orders there.

Your next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.

So first, just following up on the GenOn subsidiary, talking about distributions and what expectations are. I know you commented already a little bit about debt paydown. But broadly speaking, what kind of distributions should we be looking for over this year and in the coming years? What's your stated policy, if you will?

Julien, just to make sure, the question has to do with distributions up from the GenOn subsidiary up to the parent NRG and what you should expect in that front, is that what you're saying?

Absolutely.

Okay. Kirk?

Well, first of all, Julien, as I think you're probably aware, there are RP constraints or restricted payments calculations largely similar to those in our own NRG indentures on the GenOn unsecured notes. And the impact of that is the -- and I think we made this clear in our annual disclosure this year and we talked about this before, there's about a $250 million basket that currently exists for distributions to NRG. Clearly, we're now, of course, the only sole shareholder at this point. Beyond that, there is an intercompany agreement for shared services between GenOn and NRG, where the way to think about it is the past and responsibilities that were formerly performed and represented by GenOn standalone G&A are now being performed by NRG, and there is an intercompany payment for those services provided by NRG to GenOn. Beyond that, there is an intercompany revolving credit facility relationship between the 2, and there are certain elements of the GenOn operations, which are currently -- which are not related to the specific physical assets, which are now being performed at the NRG level. So it's a combination of -- there are changes in the operations in terms of the flows. But in terms of degrees of freedom, with that $250 million basket combined with the significant payment annually that is basically a G&A compensation payment, that is the way to think about the flows between the 2 from a distribution standpoint. Hopefully, that addresses your question.

Yes. And then just following up on capital allocation, broadly speaking, it seems like you have a number of organic investment opportunities this year, I'm thinking specifically Astoria and -- in LCAPP contracts still outstanding. How do you think about potentially pursuing those opportunities I suppose this year?

Well, I mean look, the sort of development in the conventional space is the province of our regional presence. They've all -- we think we have a competitive advantage in terms of repowering at our existing sites with the cost savings and the locational advantages on the grid. Projects like Astoria, which I think is still the only fully permitted new project in the New York City zone -- if somebody gives us a creditworthy PPA, and we're off to the races. The one thing that I would say, of course, is that this goes back to the question of capital available for allocation. I mean on the conventional side, obviously, building a new power plant is an expensive proposition. But with long-term PPAs and project finance debt and all, and the equity sort of going in over the 2- to 3-year construction period, it's not likely actually to consume an enormous amount of our capital in 2013. So we would like to do as much as we can in terms of repowering, revitalizing at our existing sites. And certainly, Astoria is one of our top priorities for 2013.

Your next question comes from the line of Keith Stanley with Deutsche Bank.

In New York, can you talk about your expectations for capacity pricing as it looks like they're raising their reserve margin and also the local capacity requirement in New York City, so any sort of directional expectation on prices there? And then also just -- could you remind me, do you generally hedge New York capacity prices much in advance or should we assume you receive close to the auction prices going forward?

Okay. Mauricio?

Yes. Keith, I mean we manage our capacity in a similar way as we do our energy, opportunistically and exerting some sort of market risk. So I think you already pointed out that in our rental state, the reserve margin requirement increased from 16% to 17% in New York City. Their locational capacity requirement actually moved up much higher than that, 83% to 86%. So the combination of that and then some retirement that we have seen, particularly around Vance Kammer [ph] , have really pushed off New York, both New York City and rental state prices significantly in 2013. We said in a couple of calls ago that we remain bullish in New York that we felt that the supply-demand balance could have shifted further quickly by changes in the supply side. We certainly did that. So I think it's fair to assume that we will benefit from it. But having said that, I just want to -- we do hedge our capacity portfolio, and you shouldn't account for one-to-one benefit on our portfolio.

Okay. And then in Texas, you've talked in the past about the year-round spark spread needed for a new CCGT to be economic. And there's been some news, I think about a week ago, that you were looking to potentially build some peaking capacity at the Robinson plant. How can we think about what's needed in Texas for you to move forward with the construction on peakers since that's more -- it seems like a trickier calculation based more on scarcity pricing and summer spark spreads?

Yes. So in the past, we have given what I refer to as the cost of new entry spark spread around $30 per megawatt hour. The compensation of that spark spread is heavily biased towards the summer months. And if I have to point out, it's basically heavily biased towards a few hours of scarcity pricing. So clearly, the market seems a little bit weaker right now. If any generation will be built, it's more peaking capacity rather than combined cycle baseload capacity. Having said that, I think some of the construction that we're seeing, not just from us but other developer, sees project-specific. If you have an advantage or not, a specific project, whether you're sharing common facilities or you have access to favorable debt, I think those are the projects that are going to move forward now. I think there is a finite amount of those projects, and when you look at the amount of reserve or capacity that is required to meet the reserve margin that Texas is targeting, it's a whole lot more than what have been announced today.

Keith, let me just add a little bit on that, too. Because you have to recognize there's the relatively unique situation we are in when it comes to those scarcity pricing moments in Texas with -- it's an opportunity on the generation side, but it's a time to play defense on the retail side. And we have a lot of peaking generation in Texas. But because of the legacy of where those plants came from, we don't have a lot of really fast-start peaking. And sometimes, you need to be able to move very quickly to capture those 1- or 2-hour time periods. So I think there's a whole bunch of reasons why the initiative you are talking about is not really -- it's a very specific niche need and opportunity for us that I think it's hard to draw sort of systemic-wide conclusions from that one instance.

Yes. If I can just add one more thing, when we look at bringing some of these capacities, really around rejuvenating some of our older, slow-start capacity, so as we're bringing this new fast-start capacity, we're going to evaluate the -- all 3 of them and see if we need to require them or put them in low-cost price.

Operator, Patrick, I mean we've gone a little bit over the hour, which is entirely our own fault because of our long-winded answers. I would like to -- I'm mindful of everyone's time. We'd like to accommodate 2 more callers, if we could. And then for the other callers in the queue, we'll get their names and Chad will follow up with myself and Mauricio and Kirk if necessary to make sure we get their questions answered. So let's take 2 more callers and then call it a day if we could.

Your next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley.

I wanted to go back, Mauricio, to what you had mentioned about the sort of disconnect in PJM in 2015 in a sense that a large number of retirements and the forward curves don't appear to be indicative of where things would need to be. Can you speak a little bit to what catalyst might be needed to cause a correction in that regard or how you sort of see that disconnect playing out?

Well, from my perspective, it's two-fold. One is -- and I think from the chart, we break out announced retirements versus projected retirements. And when I think about projected retirements, they are generations that have been cleared, but not necessarily have been determined whether they're going to exit the market or not. So I think there is a lot of asset optimization and evaluations going on right now in the market. So that's one potential check in the supply-demand balance. The second one is demand response and whether or not we have hit acceleration point. So when you have 1/2 of your reserve margin made up by demand response, and this is probably more a regulatory rather than a market question, how quickly we're going to level the playing field between demand response and generation. So if I have to point to 2, those would be the 2 big catalysts that will spark, I guess, a recovery on spark spreads.

Great. And then just a follow-up on retail, I wondered if you all could talk a bit about your experiences in expansion in the Northeast, what kind of competitive dynamics you're seeing. I know you have a number of clean energy initiatives there, but just more broadly as you expand there, what kind of competition are you seeing? Are margins in line with your expectations? Or how is that going?

Great questions, Steve, and Jim Steffes is going to answer that question.

Sure. Thanks, David. I think in general, the Northeast markets, specifically the C&I side, they are competitive and highly competitive. As we expand, the markets give us different opportunities; each state, each market will be different. And we do see some pockets of opportunity. On the mass-market side, our margins are in line with what we're expecting, and we see continued growth in those markets.

Your final question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski with Macquarie.

Nobody asked the question about the upcoming PJM capacity auction. You are entering the auction with a very large portfolio. The market is highly consolidated at this point. You talked about the additional coal plant retirements. Could you tell us if some of those plants would be yours? And how -- and what are your expectations for the auction?

Well, look, I'll leave it to Mauricio to probably not -- first of all, Angie, it makes my day to end this call by listening to your questions, but equally it makes my day by basically not answering the questions. I'll leave that to Mauricio to talk to you about his expectations for the 2016, 2017. But let me start by not answering the first part of your question, which is in terms of future plant retirements, I mean our position going into this call is the same as before, the announcements that were previously made, which were made on the GenOn side, we have no reason at this point to sort of change the outcomes or add to that. Having said that, that's all part of the sort of asset review that we have underway, which is what's across the entire portfolio. But certainly, it's focused in the East, and specifically in the East, more in the PJM footprint than anywhere else. And so that's the sort of thing that you'll hear more from us about hopefully on the next quarterly earnings call. So the 2016, 2017 auction, Mauricio?

All right. So our price target is -- we haven't disclosed this. And all I can tell you is when we look at the parameters that were published earlier, there is a couple of plus and minuses. We actually think that the auction results may be sideways to slightly lower than the '15, '16 auctions. So I would leave it at that. In terms of asset optimization retirements, we are, as David already alluded, completely focused on doing a plant-by-plant evaluation on which units are going to continue operation and which units is not economical to put the back-end control. So that's going to be an ongoing conversation. I will tell you that earlier, we announced that the Gilbert and Werner, which were 2 plants that, in the past, GenOn had continuing operations beyond 2015, we actually have filed for the deactivation of mothball. So -- but there is a lot of, I guess, of evaluation going on right now. That's the only 2 that have been publicly announced, and I'll just leave it at that, Angie.

Thank you, Angie, and thank you all for participating on the call. We apologize for going 8 minutes over, and we look forward to talking to you on the next quarter. Thank you, Patrick.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. Have a good day.