Good morning. My name is Ginger, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Teradyne Quarter Four 2016 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. Mr. Andy Blanchard, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Ginger. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our discussion of Teradyne's most recent financial results. I'm joined this morning by our CEO, Mark Jagiela; and our Chief Financial Officer, Greg Beecher. Following our opening remarks, we'll provide details of our performance for the fourth quarter and full year 2016 and our outlook for the first quarter of this year. The press release containing our fourth quarter and full year results was issued last evening. We're providing slides on the Investor page of the Web site that may be helpful to you in following the discussion. Replays of this call will be available via the same page after the call ends. The matters that we discuss today will include forward-looking statements that involve risk factors that could cause Teradyne's results to differ materially from management's current expectations. We encourage you to review the Safe Harbor statement contained in the earnings release as well as our most recent SEC filings. Additionally, those forward-looking statements are made as of today and we take no obligation to update them as a result of developments occurring after this call. During today's call, we'll make reference to non-GAAP financial measures. We've posted additional information concerning these non-GAAP financial measures, including reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, where available, on the Investor page of our Web site. Also between now and our next earnings call, Teradyne will be participating in investor conferences hosted by Goldman Sachs and Susquehanna. Now, let's get on with the rest of the agenda. First, Mark will comment on our recent results and the market conditions as we enter the first quarter. Greg will then offer more details on our quarterly financial results along with our guidance for the first quarter. We'll then answer your questions, and this call is scheduled for one hour. Mark?

Thanks Andy. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. I will be providing the summary of our Q4 and 2016 results and describe the trends we see driving our markets in 2017 and beyond. Greg will then provide additional details on our financial results followed by our outlook for the first quarter of 2017. 2016 was a very good year for Teradyne. We finished the year with our strongest Q4 sales in over 15 years and set a new record for Q4 orders. Our $380 million of sales in Q4 puts our full year sales at $1.75 billion, our third consecutive year with sales over $1.6 billion. The earnings power of our business model was evident as we delivered a non-GAAP EPS of $1.51 up 19% over 2015. We generated $360 million in free cash flow and returned a $195 million to shareholders in buybacks and dividends. We ended the year with $1.6 billion in cash and $460 million in long-term debt. Our fourth quarter order surge follows the similar pattern to 2015's Q4. Once again, customers booked major tooling orders for mobile products early to ensure a smooth manageable ramp over the spring and summer. Additionally, strengthen microcontroller, image sensor and analog tests demand contributed to stronger bookings when compared to Q4 of 2015. Overall, we estimate that the SOC test market in 2016 was about $2.4 billion up 16% from the $2.1 billion in 2015 driven primarily by a strong mobility spending. This mobility demand falls into the complex SOC portion of the market served by our UltraFlex platform which set a new annual shipment record. Although our microcontroller and image sensor shipments were down for the full year, bookings for both were up strongly in Q4 a positive sign for 2017. For 2016, our…

Thanks, Mark and good morning, everyone. I will start with the highlights of 2016 and then offer comments on 2017 including our capital allocation plans then provide perspective on the strategic position, end market trends at the operating segment level along with fourth quarter results and first quarter outlook. On the financial highlight front, our $1.75 billion of sales in 2016, up 7% from 2015, and $1.51 of non-GAAP EPS are solid steps toward the $2 EPS plan we outlined in recent calls. In 2016, we accomplished our key objectives. We gained share in Semi Tests for the fifth consecutive year with strong memory test performance. We grew Universal Robots top line over 60% from calendar 2015. And we allocated capital end 2016 where we had the highest return through buybacks and dividends, bringing our three-year capital returns to $583 million. This includes buying back 446 million of our shares at an average price of 19.87 and returning $137 million in dividend payments since the start of 2014. We raised $460 million of seven-year convertible debt with 1.25% coupon rate factoring in the call spread overlay. Shareholder dilution will not begin to occur until our stock is above 39.95. As we have descried in prior calls an increasing portion of our annual cash generation is offshore, which in 2016 reached 80% of the $380 million of total cash generated. As you can see from our cash resource slide, we have $1.6 billion of total cash resources with the convertible debt proceeds. Raising our U.S. cash balance allows us to continue our capital return programs rather than slowing down to wait for a potential repatriation holiday. Our offshore cash and marketable securities of $768 million provide additional dry powder for possible foreign acquisitions more to be added to our U.S. balances…

Thanks, Greg. Ginger, we'd now like to a take some questions. And as a reminder, please limit yourself to one question and a follow-up.

[Operator instructions] Your first question comes from Toshiya Hari from Goldman Sachs.

Hi, guys. Thank you for taking my question and congrats on the strong results. My first question is on Semi Test and kind of regarding the full year 2017. When we take the midpoint of your guide for both the SOC test market and the memory test market I think you're forecasting overall Semi Test, your town to be kind of flattish if not up a little bit. Given that you've been consistently gaining share in the Semi Test market, is it reasonable to assume you could actually grow Semi Test revenue in 2017 which is something we haven't seen in odd years in the past?

Yes, Toshiya. It's certainly possible. A couple of things have happened since our last call. The market has strengthened a bit which is why we've moved the midpoint of our 2017 guide up a bit. And the market share gains pretty much have been consistent year-over-year for many, many years. And if you go back over 10 years, we've picked up 20 points a test share. So although we talk about a point, any given year can be flat to up 2%. And we think we can continue to average that one point net gain per year. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it was up during the year, year-over-year revenue. The second half of course is still something we don't have a lot of visibility in to. But the visibility we have through the first half is quite strong.

Great. Thank you. And as my follow-up, I had a question on the competitive landscape in industrial automation. Clearly the market is growing and you guys are doing an amazing job growing Universal Robots. But, what are you seeing in terms of competition? What happened to market share in 2016 relative to 2015? And what are your thoughts on pricing and margins as we head in to 2017? Thank you.

Well, competition we expect as this market develops will continue to grow. I think the good news is that the market terrain is so vast and wide, competition is a little different here than most industrial businesses. The head to head competition is less evident and it's more the competition of mind share and ROI awareness and integrator capability to deliver that to the customer or the bottleneck, it's not competition. But, on the competitive front, we've seen several years ago the large industrial companies begin to try to develop lower price point robots to move down in to this human scale automation space. None of them have yet come close to the capabilities we have with the UR product. On the other end, you have emerging companies start up around the globe, China, Taiwan, U.S., other places that are coming out from the other angle but those companies, copying the hardware may be the most easy thing to do. Copying the software, ease of use. The eco system. The distribution system is really hard. We continue to see that. We are confident this year on the competitive position. Margins should hang in. So things are still looking pretty good.

Great. Thanks so much .

Your next question is from Mehdi Hosseini from SIG.

Yes. Thanks for taking my question. Two follow-ups. Just going back to cobot and given your 2016 performance it seems like you have around 50% market share. Should we assume that you should be able as a minimum to maintain that market share given your market forecast for 2020, market reaching $1 billion of them? And I have a follow-up.

Mehdi, this is Greg. Yes, that is a fair assumption. It's hard to know exactly what our market share is but it could be 50%. It might be closer to 60% but it's in that neighborhood. And as Mark outlined we have a big first mover advantage in our cobot, in repeatability, safety, and particularly ease of programming which is a huge advantage the flexibility provides and the last year we've invested conservatively in the distribution and ecosystem. So we have many third parties developing their solutions on our platform and it integrates with an API into our cobot. And when have developed the distribution channel extensively, so when others come out with a capable cobot, and they will, it does take time to get that channel in place and get the channel productive. So we feel confident that we can maintain this market share looking at the next year and the year after.

Got it. And then on system tests, two follow-ups there. How should we think about overall market trend in 2017? And how does the mix change within the system test going to impact. I'm assuming at some point you're actually going to do more of the SSD test. Is that true or not and if it's true how would that change the mix of the system test and would that have a margin impact?

In the short-term for this current year we're in now, we think system tests will look similar to what it looked like last year. The storage test business which is the wildcard because we have a new platform there that we've taken to different places, as you might recall 2.5, 3.5 SSD. So that's a versatile platform that has high automation and asynchronous slots, but it's going to take time to see if we can take that platform to other places. So I think it's more of a late this year, maybe even 2018 we'll get a better read. Can we expand the market for that platform? But, in the short-term storage test should be getting model profits similar to last year.

Got it. Thank you.

The next question comes from Tom Diffely from DA Davidson.

Yes. Good morning. So getting back to your mobility strength, I'm trying to figure out how you view the world as far as end market mobility demand versus the change of manufacturing or the change of the foundry customer that's actually building the products and what is the bigger driver right now?

Is the question what's the bigger driver for the test market?

Yes, for the test market, how much of your growth has been driven by the change in manufacturing location, change in manufacturing customer versus the actual end market demand driving the customer demand?

I'd say very little has been driven by the change of location and for the past several years location has been pretty stable and the growth has come all from increases in complexity and therefore test time.

Okay. Good. And then on the DRAM side you said the DRAM was going to drive some of the growth in 2017. I'm curious how well you are leveraged to those portions of the DRAM market then you think are growing?

Yes. So, we are less -- our market share is lower in DRAM. So to the extent DRAM grows, we won't grow proportional to the total market. So we're more concentrated in flash. We do participate in DRAM but let's say our total share in memory is 30, mid 30s right now, flash might be in the 40 to 50 range and DRAM might be in the 15 to 20 range.

Okay. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Edwin Mok from Needham.

Great. Thanks for taking my question. So first question I have is on -- go back to SOC tests. I think on the prepared remarks you guys talk about some growth in MCU and image sensor booking for the quarter. Just curious if that's just come some big customer come into place an order or is it more broad based? And then, just tied to that, also, how are you guys positioned in China right now? Obviously there is a lot of investment on the front end on China that might eventually drive test market. Just curious how you're positioned in China and how do you think that could potential progress as you go through 2018, 2019, got longer term timeframe.

Okay. So on automotive microcontroller and image sensor, that's a broad based strength that we saw in orders in the fourth quarter and continuing in to the first quarter. So that's good news. The whole ecosystem around automotive is getting increasingly healthy. It's been -- you know, automotive tends to be stable overall and what we're seeing more is a little pickup in the growth rate of automotive electronics. Image sensors, there's a little more diversity now in the --I would call that the image sensor technology that's going to emerge over the next few years. And that's also driving some -- spreading around of the supply base a little more and more test for that. And then, your other question, I'm sorry.

Regarding China and where you guys are positioned and how do you think the market progress.

Yes. China is characterized by the indigenous semiconductor companies in China. There are some large powerful companies there. We picked up market share last year in China and we see that as a growing faster than average market for quite some time. But it will be highly concentrated around a few customers and a few technologies. So I'd say it's a strong position, growing position, and memory is a wildcard at the moment. We're in position there with some of the investments going on but when that might turn in to volume production is kind of anybody's guess.

Great. My quick follow-up on UR, you mentioned that you expect to continue to grow investment on UR. Is that the way to think about it, are you increasing OpEx to similar growth rate, the top line, less than top line, any kind of metric or any way to think about how fast you're growing investment in UR?

We recently increased URs OpEx from about $7 million to $12 million between 2015 and 2016. And looking at 2017, we could take that $12 million up to about $17 million. So we see another step up to support the much higher sales growth rate. We talked about in the past we were taking Universal Robots' profit rate down to 10% to get further ahead in distribution and ecosystem partners in anticipation of eventually running in to more meaningful competition. So we're still doing that and we expect in 2017 we're going to move from about 10% profit rate towards 15%. But we're more focused on capturing the growth and getting further ahead which we've been doing more recently.

That sounds great. Thank you.

Your next question is from Farhan Ahmad from Credit Suisse.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question. I had a question in terms of your up tick in SOC market expectations for next year, how much of incremental spend are you seeing for AB versus other markets and how should we think about the gross margin within SOC test for next year?

The SOC test margins by and large have been consistent for us for many years. We have also I think mentioned that in some of the even years when we have the large customer directing more buys because there's a bigger jump in their phone, that that can and has pulled our margins down a bit. But, more recently we've also described that complexity is helping even in the odd years so this even-odd year phenomenon is moderating. So we're seeing good demand because of more transistors, more test time in the odd years. So there's far less moving around of our gross margin in Semi Test. Of course in any particular segment they could be a few points higher or lower. But overall we're finding ourselves staying within this tight band.

Got it. And then one question on the long-term trend for the test complexity. If I think back like long time ago, like late 90s, there was a really clear trend that testing complex is rising so much faster that the test market was outpacing the semi revenues by a significant amount. Do you see, is that a trend, any kind of trend that you can see an acceleration in the complexity going up much faster or the test time just decelerating a lot more that actually the test market could inflect a lot higher going forward?

Yes. I don't expect the craziness we saw at the end of the 90s to happen. I don't think that was a systemic thing around technology as much as driven by a unit growth expectations. Right now complexity growth is -- looks to be on a beat rate that's relatively I would say consistent for the foreseeable future, the next let's say two years at least where we have some visibility. I don't think there's a lot of time in the ecosystem of design to deal with that complexity in some of the ways that complexity has been dealt within, and let's say, memory tests back 15 years ago or micro processor tests 20 years ago which was optimized test structures in the designs to try to reduce the time on the tester. That's an investment in time and money that has marginal returns. And as I've said in my remarks people are really looking at the overall cost to ramp and a little bit more test intensity simplifies dramatically the tooling and software and debug needed to ramp apart. And improves the yield. So I think that's for the foreseeable future the track, people are going to be on it, the high complexity end of the market.

Got it. Thank you. That's all I have.

Our next question comes from Timothy Arcuri from Cowen & Company.

Thank you. I had two. One is a follow-on to what just got asked. But, last year the big orders in the fourth quarter were driven by info and this year it sounds like it was a little more of a pull-in versus kind of a new technology that's going to get implemented. Is that the right way to characterize it? I guess the reason I'm asking here is because it looks like something structural is happening beyond just parallelism effect. Because if you look at the buy rate, it's sort of at least in SOC, it's sort of bounced around between 105 bps to 115 bps between 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. I mean is there something bigger happening here such that in your modeling maybe you're assuming that the buy rate goes to 120 bps, 130 bps, 140 bps. Why can that not happen? Thanks.

I'll start with that one. The buy rate has stabilized and improved a bit from several years back so there is good news there. But in terms of the bookings coming in earlier, when there's a concentration of sizable demand, it's not uncommon for a customer to put bookings in earlier with us to schedule deliveries over a longer time period so they can be assured that that stream of products is going to come when they need it. Our lead times tend to be very short for ordering one, two, three testers. But if it's a sizable amount of testers, likewise you need to put orders in at a different pace than a small number of testers so it's not much more complicated than that.

Just to comment a bit on the something else more fundamental going on, we modeled a 1% growth rate in the market after a decade of minus 3% CAGR. That's been very difficult to model and we're actually running for the four-year period here ahead of that rate. So it's certainly possible that we could get back to that 125, 130 range. But I'd say it's a little too early to call. I'd like to see a little more evidence in some of the device segments that are less digitally intensive before we be that bold.

Got it. Okay, thank you. And then I guess my next question is, if you run a screen on some of the proposal changes coming out of DC, you guys screen pretty well in most of those. And one particular side would be if there's going to be a lot of jobs brought back to the U.S., my guess would be that's not really going to be very people intensive. It's going to be cobot intensive possibly. So I'm wondering if you have seen sort of with your sales people and your channels has seen any increase in activity or inquiry activity because there's the potential for all these jobs to get brought back to the U.S. Thanks.

Tim, there's a lot of activity and interest with using cobots everywhere in the world, whether it's North America or Asia. Most manufacturers know if they don't use this new tool, they'll be uncompetitive. But in terms of the U.S., we've had some very good demand more recently and we've built out the sales team and the technical support team. So our coverage is much better like we have done in other parts of the world and we've gotten some sizable orders from some large U.S. companies. We historically tend to get orders of two or three cobots then they add to it and add to it. But more recently there's been sizable bigger orders. So I don't know if that's the beginning of a trend or it's just one situation. But the good news is we are prepared in the U.S. for these changes that may be upon us.

Awesome. Thank you.

Our next question is from C.J. Muse from Evercore.

Yes. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I guess first question, as you look at the 57% gross margin for Q1, curious what is driving that within the mix. Is that higher Eagle Test content and/or should we be thinking about perhaps the new SSD tests are coming in at a higher rate or perhaps earlier seasonal uplift from UR. Would love your thoughts around that.

CJ, it's even simpler than that. We've talked about our large customer driving demand through their partners. We don't have much from a large customer schedule in the first quarter. That's largely after the first quarter. So just like the fourth quarter was, there wasn't a lot from the large customer in terms of the shipments from the fourth quarter or first quarter. Therefore our margins are higher. It's similar to the phenomenon we described years ago even odd years, the margins improved when sales are down because the large customer is buying less.

Okay. So there isn't any sort of change in terms of better mix from your higher margin businesses helping as well?

Correct, no. The margins in all of our business have generally stayed consistent. LitePoint has very strong margins but their volume is down so that's hurt us a little bit, but it's not significant in the grand scheme of things. So, I think in the long run we'll stay in this 54% to 56% range and occasionally we will deviate out at 57.

Got you. Okay, very helpful. I guess as a follow-up, as you look at perhaps this tick-talk going away, as the AP becomes more complex and I'm assuming here we're talking greater capabilities around graphics to support AR/VR. Curious if that creates a greater opportunity for you across other AP makers, particularly as you look perhaps to Korea and others. Does that create a revenue opportunity for you and/or share gains within the SOC bucket?

I think, first of all, it creates an opportunity for the market to grow and for us to grow kind of proportional with it. Whether it's AR/VR or let's say processing 4k video from multiple cameras in the phone, other kinds of sensors we're going to see in the next couple years coming in to phones, all of that data intensive processing is driving up AP transistor counts, core counts, and complexity which dovetails right into the trend we've been talking about here, so I think it's all positive.

Excellent. Very helpful. Thank you.

Our next question is from Krish Sankar from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question. I had two of them. The first one is if you look at your quarterly profile for Semi Test revenues, typically Q2 is the strongest from revenue standpoint. Given the fact that the SOC test market is stronger, you're gaining traction memory, do you think the profile is going to be different this year or is it going to be a similar profile as in prior years but Q2 being the strongest for revenues for Semi Test? And then I had a follow-up.

I think recently in the first half of the year we ship 50% to 55% of the company's annual revenue. I don't think this year is going to be significantly different from that as best we can tell now. As I mentioned before, the back end of the year is opaque at the moment for us in general. There are some things in memory that I think will most likely kick into high production in 2018. But there's a possibility that begins to ramp at the back end of this year. So you're right, perhaps memory is a little bit of a wildcard in up side on the back half. But I think in terms of SOC we should expect to see the same pattern we've seen in past years.

Got it. That's very helpful. And then, as a follow-up, the SOC test market that you described last year and this year, can you tell us how much of that do you think was mobility within that SOC bucket last year and how much do you think mobility is going to be for this year?

Yes. Mobility, I think year-over-year mobility is flat. And maybe mobility, if in the broadest definition you roll image censors in to it and other things is running between $900 million to $1 billion of test demand a year.

Got it. Thanks guys.

Your next question is from Patrick Ho from Stifel, Nicolaus.

Thank you very much. Maybe just following up on the question on memory tests. Mark, you talked about potential upsides as the year progresses. Given your strength on the flash side of things and with a lot of new fabs out there, is that where you're targeting some of the potential upside, or as you mentioned on your prepared remarks, that the upside will come from the DRAM side?

No, I think we certainly see DRAM increasing this year compared to last because it was so weak last year. But on the flash side the key thing for us is the rate of deployment of these high speed interfaces such as UFS and a few others into mobile and SSD devices. As that grows, we'll grow disproportionately faster than our native share so we'll pick up share. And the deployment of those in high volume is what we're trying to gauge right now. So my comments were more specifically to when will UFS and others really kick in to high growth.

Great. That's helpful. And as a follow-up on the UR side of things, you've talked about the expense increase over the last couple of years to establish the foothold with your distribution partners and the channel. Longer term do you see tactically using the gross margin or your cost of goods line to also protect that share as the marketplace grows? And what I mean by that is, as more competition enters, will you be able to use the gross margin line as kind of a tactical maneuver to protect that share?

We don't think that is necessary. We are in the low 50s now and we have material cost actions underway leveraging the [indiscernible] supply line group. So there's opportunities to improve that gross margin. And yes, there's a chance that those improvements get used in pricing should we find competition. So the good news is, we're going to have a buffer. But I don't anticipate us deviating from low 50s. Because we have this buffer and we have a very large lead and usually if you're going to do automation, most companies want to go with somebody who's done that type of automation before, has a recipe for it, has integrators that are trained for it. You find there's a better price because it's been done before. There's a lot of advantages that are accumulating on our side of the ledger so I don't think we're going to need to use price.

Great. Thank you.

Your next question is from Stephen Chin from UBS.

Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. This is Neal on. Can you let us know what the non-GAAP operating margin is for Universal Robots this quarter?

Universal Robots non-GAAP operating margin, for the year, I'll tell you the year. For 2016 they averaged about 10% operating profit margin.

Okay. And the way to think about that would be relative to the $7 million increase in OpEx you're talking about for next year?

Yes. So if we increase it 7 again and get our growth, the operating profit margins, it depends what growth we get to. And we can meter some of the spending. The 7 is if we see high growth, which we believe we will. If we think some of that growth will take a little bit longer, we might not go the full 7. But regardless we expect Universal Robots to operate within a 10% operating range plus working its way toward 15% over time.

Thanks. Then one follow-up. You mentioned strong demands from automotive customers. Can you give us an idea what percent of your SOC business from automotive is that possible? And we're seeing some strength in the industrial segment. Some recovery there. Can you talk about whether that factors in to your outlook for 2017?

Yes, for Teradyne's business, automotive-related electronics represent roughly, let's say 15% or so of our total revenue. And, what was your second question?

I was just wondering if you're seeing any strength in industrial segment if you have exposure there, if some of the strength there.

Yes, I would say that is relatively stable flat but not growing at the moment. The real growth has been mobility looks like in 2017 being an odd year will be flat to slightly up over last year. And automotive and microcontroller will be up. So those are the kind of three piece. And analogue by the way a little bit. So those are the three pieces that we see growing.

Great. Thanks.

And operator, we have time to sneak in just one more, please.

Okay. Your final question will be from David Dooley from Steelhead.

Thanks for taking my question. First question is when you look at the incoming orders and the mobility space, were those concentrated with one customer or was this broad based demand?

Let's see. Our business in mobility every year for the past three to four years has had a certain degree of high concentration around let's say a specific driver, but the overall mobility segment is the demand is broad based so we do see pickups in demand from all the components you might find in a smartphone coming through fourth quarter into first.

Okay. I guess more specifically than on the application process aside, was this just one or two customers? Was this more of a broad-based demand for the more complex testers?

For application processor specifically, that is dominated by one customer. The other customers for applications processes, however also had a pickup. But just proportionately speaking a much smaller proportion of our bookings.

Okay, great. Then you've made an argument about essentially the SOC test market starting to grow again because the parallel test efficiencies are going to decline. Do you see that potentially happening in the memory market? I guess specifically my question is it seems like there's pretty rapid bit growth in flash and 3D NAND. And kind of curious why or when the market will grow at a higher rate to match the bit growth in the market.

The bit rates have been growing rapidly in memory for decades and the thing that's been different about memory is the complexity there is not really complexity. A lot of what has happened is photography, shrinks and 3D vertical structures to add more capacity to the part. But the complexity of those devices isn't necessarily growing. So they've been able to, because of the regular architecture of memories, do things with the design to optimize test and reduce test intensity. The thing there that could change this in terms of complexity change in memory are these high speed interfaces. So the high speed interfaces are quite sophisticated and do require more extensive testing and obsolete existing testers. So if both -- primarily on the flash side I'd say. As flash devices, whether its vertical structures or bit density is less important to us than a step function change in the IO bandwidth when is why I keep speaking about UFS and other types of interfaces. That complexity will drive retooling and test timing it could bump the memory test intensity over the next four to five years.

Okay, great. And just as a housekeeping, can you give me an estimate as to what you think the size of the image censor test market is?

That market varies year-to-year quite a bit. But let's say an average number to use might be $100 million.

Okay. Thank you so much. Nice quarter

Okay , folks. Thanks so much for joining us and we look forward to talking with you in the days ahead and those remaining in the queue, I'll be back to you within the next 90 minutes or so. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

This does conclude today's conference call. Thank you for participating. At this time you may now disconnect.