© 2024 Alpha Spread Limited. All Rights Reserved.
www.alphaspread.com is not operated by a broker, a dealer, or a registered investment adviser. Under no circumstances does any information posted on www.alphaspread.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. In no event shall Alpha Spread Limited be liable to any member, guest or third party for any damages of any kind arising out of the use of any content or other material published or available on www.alphaspread.com, or relating to the use of, or inability to use, www.alphaspread.com or any content, including, without limitation, any investment losses, lost profits, lost opportunity, special, incidental, indirect, consequential or punitive damages. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Intrinsic Value is all-important and is the only logical way to evaluate the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses.
Intrinsic Value is all-important and is the only logical way to evaluate the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses.
Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to Aston Martin's First Half 2022 Results Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised today's conference is being recorded. I'd now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Lawrence Stroll, Executive Chairman. Please go ahead.
Good morning, and thank you for joining us for our Q&A on our first half results of 2022. You've had the chance to read the release and also listen to the presentation of the results from Doug and Amedeo that are on the IR section of our corporate website. Before you take your questions, I'd like to share my perspective on the progress we have continued to make in our vision to become the world's most desirable ultra-luxury performance brand. Since I became Executive Chairman, we focused on fixing the core fundamentals of this company and rebuilding the necessary foundations to deliver on our vision. This has included a significant rebalancing of supply and demand, which today resulted in retails outpacing wholesales, a key foundation to building an ultra-luxury business. Moreover, the underlying fundamentals of Aston Martin have never been stronger. With robust demand across our product range, sports cars are sold out into 2023 and DBX order's up by more than 40% over 2021. The first new models and extraordinary pipeline of products developed since I became Executive Chairman, have also started to be delivered. Our combination of the new ultra-luxury high-performance models commenced with our DBX707, the premier ultra-luxury performance SUV on the market and the highly desirable Vantage V12. They will be followed by the long-waited entirely new generation of our front engine sports cars in 2023. Importantly, all our vehicles are aligned with a minimum 40% contribution market charges, a significant increase from the past and a key driver to our medium-term targets, which we are on track to deliver. As we enter into the second phase of our transformation and with an emphasis on product renewal and increased profitability, we have also aligned the business under new leadership led by Amedeo Felisa, to fully realize our potential and deliver on the targets we have set. Amedeo brings an exceptional track record and skill set that are perfectly matched to our needs. And we have already made progress in a number of areas that address both the short and long-term priorities of the business. In addition to appointing Amedeo as CEO, we have separated the CTO organization from its previous structure. We have brought in 4 new leaders to supercharge our engineering capabilities and drive increased collaboration across our teams. Roberto Fedeli, arguably the best CTO in the industry, joined us in June and has quickly established a new structure to support our development of our next generation of high-performance and EV vehicles. This included the addition of some of the best talent in the industry, including the leadership in the area of chassis, electronics and infotainment and the full range of EV technology. However, the first half of the year was not without its challenges. Isolated but impactful supply chain shortages, particularly in Q2, resulted in lower wholesales and significant working capital headwinds. Specifically, we ended June with more than 350 DBX707s that we had planned to deliver in Q2, still awaiting some final bids. Combined with elevated receivables, this had a more than GBP 80 million short-term impact on our cash and temporarily limited our ability to meet the strong demand we have. We have now started to deliver these vehicles in July and expect further improvements in the supply chain as we move through H2, supporting the delivery of our full year targets, which we already have reaffirmed today. As a result of the working capital build in H1 and our expected second half performance, we now expect to generate positive free cashflow in H2, resulting in a significantly higher cash balance at year end. Earlier this month we announced a GBP 653 million equity capital raise, which will also see the arrival of Public Investment Fund (PIF) as a new anchor shareholder with a 16.7% stake. This will transform our balance sheet, significantly improve our liquidity and cashflow profile, provide greater clarity on our pathway to become sustainably free cash flow positive from 2024, as well as creating significant shareholder value. Having spoken to a number of our largest shareholders over the last 2 weeks, it is clear there is extremely strong support for this race. We continue to enjoy a long-term strategic relationship with Mercedes Benz, evidenced by their proposed investment and our planned deployment of their technologies, accessed via tranche 1 of the Strategic Cooperation Agreement. As a reminder, this first tranche covers all vehicles we are targeting to deliver in our medium-term plan, including our ICE, Hybrid and BEV models. In addition, the agreement with Mercedes provides 2 key benefits: first, access to world-class technologies and software, allowing us to leverage the significant investments that have been made by them. Second, it removes the cost and risks associated with developing these technologies ourselves, allowing us to focus the investments captured in our yearly GBP 300 million CapEx envelope and on other areas to support our growth and further differentiate our products. Today, we are pleased to announce a mutually-agreed amendment to the SCA, which extends the timeframe for tranche 2 shares issuance related to the second basket of Mercedes technology could be accessed under this agreement, which includes everything related to BEV, and we're pushing this out to 2024. Importantly, the amendment does not impact our access to the menu of technologies we choose, nor does it change the time line for the first -- our first test BEV, which we'll be continuing to target for a launch in 2025. At this point, before opening the floor to questions, I just want to state, again, the strong fundamentals of the business, the strong demand for the brand by our consumers, by our dealerships and once again, my Yew Tree Consortium responding to the capital requirement. And believe me, if I did not believe full heartedly in the strength and the success of the business, I certainly wouldn't be putting any more money. So having the biggest insight into this, I tell you with full confidence that the work of the last 2.5 years, which has not been easy by any stretch in imagination has now paved the road for our journey, starting with the 707 coming next year with the full range of our new generation sports cars onto our mid-engine, onto our PHEVs and on to our BEVs. So it was really laying the stones of the last 2 years on the pathway for this journey to building the ultra-luxury high-performance brand. So please take confidence in what I'm saying, it means a great deal. And on that note, I will open the floor to any questions.
[Operator Instructions] First question is from the line of Charles Coldicott from Redburn.
I've got 3, please. So the first on the DBX. The previous CEO said that there would be 6 variants of the DBX by 2024. Obviously, the 707 is the third variant we've had so far. Is the plan still to have 6 in 2024? And if it isn't the plan, how do you expect to reach the medium-term guidance given the derivative strategy, obviously, was part of how you bridge from 3,000 to 4,500 or 5,000 units? My second question, on the 2022 guidance, obviously, demand is not a problem because you're sold out of GT and sports cars this year, but production hasn't been able to keep up. Wholesale, I think, 2,700 units in H1, your guidance implies at least 4,000 units in H2. What are the main bottlenecks that you've been able to resolve that are going to help you achieve that acceleration? And my third question was just on the Valhalla. Can we just get an update on the customer orders for the Valhalla? Is it -- are you sold out of all 1,000 units? And if you're not, I guess, traditionally specials usually sell out quite quickly. So do you think that's because people are kind of waiting to see what happens with the Valkyrie or is there any sort of softness in that segment?
As far as the DBX models are concerned, I quite honestly do not remember how many previous management mentioned we would have. We always knew we were going to have the car we initially launched with. And we added the hybrid, I6, straight-6 that we sell in China. We always knew our third car, which we started working on from the day I came in was going to be the 707. We do know there will be a PHEV version of our DBX in the years -- in the future years to come. We also were starting to do a special on a DBX as we used to do historically like Zagato model. And at one point, we were considering maybe that's how we got to 6, which we no longer are. I stopped after I came in, which was a long wheelbase, DBX. So the other 4 or 5 are still in the plan. The long wheelbase isn't. The production that you described, we had experienced. It primarily started in -- mostly in June with one particular supplier, having an issue mostly with the rear bumpers. Those quantities have now started to come back in according to plan, and we're extremely confident, otherwise, we wouldn't be reaffirming our full year guidance if we were not confident on that delivery. And as far as the Valhalla is concerned, we have approximately 500 orders. Usually, when we make specials, we make about 100 or 200 cars. The Valhalla, we've said we're going to make approximately 1,000. So of that amount of order book versus the quantity we're making is right on track in our business plan where we thought we'd be.
We'll now take our next question. This is from the line of Christoph Laskawi from Deutsche Bank.
The first one will be on ASP and what you can do going forward. You already had a couple of price hikes in the last 6 months. And I was just wondering, do you plan further hikes in the coming quarters? And when it comes to the aging sports car lineup, is there still much that you could do on price for that? And related to that, when will be the time where you actually stop taking orders for the current lineup versus the models which will be renewed? And a follow-up on the DBX that is in semi-finished inventories currently. You already said that you are starting to finalize them and going to ship them. If I understood it correctly, a lot of those will be for the U.S. So should we start to see them moving out of the inventory already in Q3? Or given the trend time and time on the ship could that slip into Q4 just in terms of working capital reversal?
It's Doug speaking. So with regards to your question on ASP, we're obviously happy with how ASP has been evolving. You're quite right, we've taken pricing quite consistently over the last 12 months or so, 3 price increases. We'll continue to monitor the situation, I think, as we move forward. Demand remains strong. Pricing is strong and mix is only going to improve in that regard. So in the second half of the year, we've got the ramp-up of the DBX707 and the V2 Vantage. So we expect ASP to remain strong. With regards to order intake on the sports cars, as Lawrence has said, as I think we've repeated a few times so far this year. The order book for those cars remains very strong, ordered and sort of well into Q1 2023. So we'll roll the new cars in, but we'll continue to take orders on the current range. Your second question with regards to the DBX, with the inventory held back waiting final assembly parts at the end of the quarter. The simple answer to your question is, yes, those cars are starting to be completely finished and shift as we speak. Quite a large proportion of those were down for the U.S., and we expect to see those wholesale in Q3.
And just one follow-up, if I may on the Mercedes agreement that you have and now the ability to essentially choose technology that you would like until mid-'24. You keep the launch rate for the BEV in '25. I was just wondering when would it be too late to choose the technology from Mercedes to go into that first BEV? Could it be implemented fairly shortly ahead of the launch of the car, say 6 months ahead? Or do you need a year or 2 for that?
Thank you for the question. I think we are working with Mercedes and the content of their proposal at the strategic cooperation. We have advanced [indiscernible]. And we are evaluating in details what they are offering us. And if you want to be, we are not looking only on the sales because at the end of the day the best idea is to have a comparison with other proposals. So we are looking very carefully what they have aside 2 packs that they are offering to us going to EV. And I think we have some already defined some solution, having their proposal in the future architecture of our BEV. But I think we are continuing to understood better and better their proposal and of course, creating every time more understanding by our people. I think the transition to EV will be a tough point. So we have to do it when we know everything in the proper way. So I don't think we are late because with the new CTO, we have already launched the 2 team working on architecture for future EVs. We are working, if you want, understanding the technology and finding what should be the solution.
We'll now take our next question. This is from the line of Philipp Koenig from Goldman Sachs.
My first question is just on the contribution margins that you are targeting 40% plus for both GT and sports next year. I was just wondering what are the main drivers behind that? Obviously, is it mostly that you're just hoping for higher ASPs? Or is it more of a cost improvement? And then within the cost improvement, is it the results that you've already done with Project Horizon? Or there are there further levers on the cost side to improve the margins that you are still sort of aiming for, for 2023? And then the second question is just on the free cash flow and working capital. I can imagine that the main driver here is clearly the inventory improvement as you shipped the DBX. Just wondering on the receivables side, are you also expecting a main improvement as you sort of start cashing in on those shipments? Any color there for the second half would be appreciated.
Sure. So with regards to your first question, hopefully, you've had a chance to look at the presentation that we've put up on the website and talking about gross margin and our evolution, where we're pretty happy with how that's evolving to roughly 35% in the first half of this year. As you point out, all of the vehicles that we're bringing to market from the 707 onwards target that 40% contribution margin. And that will be delivered with a blend of pricing as the products that we're bringing to market are quite frankly, a step on from what we have today and can command higher pricing. So we'll be looking very, very closely at the bond and looking at what cost we can optimize as we bring those cars to market. So a combination of the 2 helps us achieve the 40% as it has or will on the DBX707 and the refreshes that we're bringing to market next year. The second question on free cash flow, yes, you're right. So we expect that, as we said, to unwind in the second half of the year. The majority of that inventory is starting to move, so we should see that unwinding in Q3. And then with regards to receivables, I mean, it's really the same issue. We were shipping cars late in the period. So I'd like to think that we can return to a more sort of neutral to normal working capital cycle where we don't have the receivables building at the end of the period. So on those 2 points, yes, we expect them to unwind and help deliver that free cash flow positivity in the second half.
We'll now take our next question. Question is from the line of Daniel Roeska from Bernstein.
Amedeo, could you talk a bit about how you think about the development of the Aston brand? And specifically, how you can achieve kind of meaningful differentiation from the competitors above your positioning like Ferrari or moving up from below like the Mercedes brand or Maserati and kind of what's the key measures you want to put in place for that? And then on the transition to BEVs, maybe could I ask you, Lawrence, on your broader view on the wider luxury car segment, kind of how you view the opportunities and the risks for luxury car OEMs like yourself moving into full BEV?
I could answer the -- I'll let Amedeo answer first and then I'll answer the BEV segment.
About the characterization of the future of the Aston Martin product. I think let the first example be DBX707, which is slightly different with the actual Aston Martin product. And this was if you want a good test because we understood that the Aston Martin customer are not only the one that likes the style, super luxury and elegance, but they like also performances. So -- and in the future, we want to continue in that direction. We'll continue to have product that as expected, very well placed inside the Aston Martin brand. But with some evolution and direction of feeling of driving. And this will be something that we will in a proper way, preparing what will be the characteristic of the BE, that has to be in some way maintain the characteristic of the Aston Martin product. So I think Aston is very well placed that we have a very good brand strategy that the customer are well accepting that. So I think I do not compare too much Aston with Ferrari. They are 2 luxury brands, but one in very well defined position, which is Ferrari. I think Aston is covering his own position again on luxury and performance but with some specific characteristic that Ferrari could not have.
And as far as the BEV is concerned, we are going to continue and have continuity to what drives an Aston Martin purchaser today. And those are several attributes. One is the beauty of our cars. And I don't think whether it's in an electric vehicle or a combustion engine, one is always attracted visually to how a car looks. I think that's the first impulse we get as consumers. Secondly, we are very well known for our vehicle driving dynamics. Everyone knows or talked how well an Aston Martin handles. It's been an attribute of Aston Martin for, I don't know, 20-30 years. And in addition, what Aston Martin is very much known for is the luxury bespoke, tailor-made interiors craftsmanship, what have you, which we're turning the notch up on that. We're bringing more of what we're calling our tailoring program to the cars. So it still needs to look like an Aston Martin to differentiate us, drive and feel like an Aston Martin, sound and smell like at Aston Martin, whether it's the radio, whether we do our own e-motors to make it feel more special, whatever it might be, there'll be some personalization to our Aston Martin BEV program that will be unique to Aston Martin in addition to bringing forward our legacy attributes that I just mentioned.
Very clear. If I could follow up on technology. You just mentioned the tranche 2 for Mercedes. But have you had discussions with potential other partners, possibly also thinking through the PIS angle to evaluate possibly also other routes on electrification for you?
Yes. We've been the last 2 years visiting most companies, including the ones you mentioned. We have an extremely close tight and incredible partnership with Mercedes-Benz. So in tranche 2, it seems like our direction is to take their overall riding architecture, electronic architecture, that they spend billions and billions of dollars developing that, that we have access to. So -- but if you look at the EV, it's not one thing called EV. I look at it like a menu. There's everything from e-motors to cells, to battery packs, to electronic architecture to, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So there'll be a menu. We clearly need the overriding electronic architecture. And then as I just said to answer your last question, we will be looking to personalize our Aston Martin EV and differentiate us from the competitors to buy a few things we manufacture in-house and have our own in-house competencies to manufacture. But the overriding basket to delivers us the core of what we require.
I can say you wouldn't be opposed to getting the inverter from Lucid's doing parts of the motor in-house and kind of taking the wider system architecture for Mercedes?
At this moment, we're very open-minded. We're not at the point of making that decision. But what you said is a distinct possibility.
We'll now take our next question. And this is from the line of Horst Schneider from Bank of America.
I only have got one left that's maybe for Lawrence. So when we look at the recent EUCO2 regulation and by surprise, basically the opened window of opportunity that the combustion engine could stay alive if the cars were using synthetic fuels. So as you outlined, you want to electrify the fleet a lot more completely by 2030. Isn't there now a window of opportunity also for the combustion engine cars? And if they need to accommodate that also to a stronger and isn't there now a window of opportunity also for the combustion engine cars? And is there a need to accommodate that also to a stronger extent in your strategy?
Yes. We will continue. We believe in and manufacture combustion engine cars as long as there is a consumer demand. We think there will be a consumer demand for a longer duration with a company like Aston Martin because we deal with much more of a car enthusiast. In most cases, it's not their only car. It's their sports car, could be their second car, it could be the third car. So we believe whether it be independently ICE or whether it be ICE PHEV or combination of. We believe that that will carry further in our business plan than most. We also, to your point, potentially, we're starting to look at e-fuels. As you know, we're bringing e-fuels into Formula 1 in 2026, much if you're aware. We're also looking at the feasibility and practicality of how to bring that into road cars. So also a study very early days that we're looking into. But yes, the plan would be to carry forward a combustion engine in a few vehicles for as long as the demand remains, which I think will be longer as a small volume manufacture, a specialist manufacture than most.
But that means in the end that when you say you can use them prolonger you don't have to do additional development for that, right? You can just use the existing technology and then you just -- I mean the customers they use a different fuel, but that does not affect your R&D. That's correct, right?
That is correct. As far as the rulings, I don't believe we're clear, and I think Amedeo could probably answer it better than myself.
If you want, as all the other manufacturers, we are keeping under control what should be the way to continue with the internal combustion engine. So we -- if you want today, we are concentrated in the transition of the hybrid product versus BEV and then EV, but especially because for the small volume will be, for sure, a special regulation and timing. I think we are looking also at an alternative. I think as you know, this is anyway asking for more changes on the [ V12 ] engine. So it's not electrification as it is. So we are looking with some partnership in understanding what should be the opportunities. Frankly speaking, in that moment, we are more concentrated on making the evolution of the V12, and then look into the stratification. But it's -- as you know, it's always better to take the ICE on every solution and then understanding, comparing the different alternatives, which should be the best one. As Lawrence was saying, for sure, our customer are not so keen to have EV cars, so we have to take -- undergo through the situation in order to issue and utilize every solution that makes the continuation of the V12 engine. But I think it is to be discussed in the future looking especially what will be the regulation.
We'll now take our next question. This is from the line of Thomas Besson from Kepler Cheuvreux.
I have 2 kind of helicopter questions, and I apologize in advance if this is not the topic you want to cover. First, I'd like to come back to questions that have been made earlier on the competition. So I think when we look at the profitability of some of the luxury companies that have reported earnings for H1, and we anticipate what Ferrari will show. We've seen very, very, very substantial progress, whether with it's factory within the Volkswagen Group, Italian luxury or we are going to see probably still near record earnings from Ferrari. Can you just come back to explaining the magnitude of the gap in terms of returns between Aston with the progress that have been achieved and these companies? And given the challenges ahead from macro and electrification perspective, explain how you intend to close the gap. I know it's a very wide question, but it's still -- still is puzzled by the gap. The second question is also, and I apologize, not necessarily one that you would expect on this call, but I still ask it. Could you explain what fundamentally for Aston was negative in the alternative solution to the one you choose with the proposed rights issue, namely the project that was supposedly bringing the net debt of Aston close to 0 for the first time because basically, for me, the main issue Aston has been facing for a very, very long time, is an excessive level of debt, which is not solved by the proposed rights issue.
Let me start with the second question first. The proposed rights issue completely addresses Aston Martin's current financial needs. As I have said previously, I continue to say Aston Martin did not need money to see our business plan through of getting to 10,000 cars. Let me reconfirm that. The purpose that we did this capital raise was threefold. One, me and my Board getting very frustrated with the share price and the share price is clearly where it is not because of the fundamentals of business, because fundamental business never been stronger. We went from 2,000 cars to 4,000 cars to 5,000 cars. Year we'll do close to 7,000 cars. So the fundamentals on the consumer demand, most importantly, most important of any fact at all, is that we are retailing more cars than we're wholesaling. That really shows the power of the brand Aston Martin today. That is the first sign of a luxury company when you retail more than your wholesale. So having said that, we did not require cash to see our business plan through. What we did require cash for was threefold: one, to give comfort to the investment world that the company was never going to run out of money. And this extra money that we're putting on the balance sheet of approximately half of the capital raise will go into the company, will always give the company a cushion and be in a position that will always have between GBP 400 million and GBP 500 million on the balance sheet, point one. The second thing it does, which was also an overhang on the share price was the debt level. Clearly, we inherited this debt from the previous shareholders. And I think we've done a pretty good job in trying to deal with it in the 2.5 years and realize it's time to raise equity to repay, hopefully, more on the expense of the less expensive debt. But regardless of whatever piece it is significant reduced interest rates by GBP 30 million, GBP 40 million a year. So it gave the money that the company required and it gives -- takes away the overhang and hopefully gives the confidence in the investment community, analyst community should have of what I said on the cushion to the puts on the balance sheet. As far as the other offer, the Board and its bankers studied it. Unanimously completely rejected it. It was a camouflage backdoor offer disguised as a rights issue. It was really disguised takeover offer with heavily diluting all shareholders massively for no reason and no need in order to buy the company very cheaply rather than coming in the front door and making a proper takeover offer, which, of course, would require a premium to the share price. So the banks actually laughed, they thought it was quite astonishing. One had said, I'd never see anything like this my whole banking life. So the Board and the banks unanimously rejected it on the ground of what I just described. And I want to answer your third question. Comparing to the other, whether it's Ferrari or the other British brands, let's be very clear. We've been at this for 2.5 years. The others have been on it for 5, 10, 15, 20. We've been at this for 2.5 years. I took over a company that was a wholesale manufacture-driven company that made cars without orders or less than 10% had orders. We transformed this business and in 2.5 years from the day I took over I said we will not make car without an order. And since I took over 2.5 years ago, we haven't. That's why you see the retails outpacing the wholesale. In addition, we've gone to 65% of our order book is what's called retail pad. 65% where customers go in and spec their car. That was less than 10% when we took over. That's an incredible statistic. And thirdly, most importantly, in duration, I think you must know a lot about the automotive business. This business moves, it's like watching paint drive. To bring a new model to life, takes 2, in most cases, 3 years. So we started on DBX707 when I came, we started on all our next-generation sports cars when they arrive. And when I say next-generation sports cars, they are new cars, they're new power units, new interiors, new technology, everyone [Technical Difficulty] behind on the pre-roll Mercedes technology [Technical Difficulty]. Well, that was true. That no longer will be taken to next generation sports cars. There's nothing in the car that looks or feels or touches like a Mercedes. It's all typically designed with Aston Martin spaces and sounds and visuals and wrapping a little leather button with white stitching. So no plastic. So this is a process that has taken 2.5 years. And quite honestly, 2.5 years is quite astonishing to have accomplished what we've done in the period we will do it. In a couple of years, we'll be at 10,000 cars for the full portfolio of new SUVs, full new next generation front engine sports car [Technical Difficulty] a full mid-engine program, including Valhalla and continue with our heritage. Every year, we do 100 or 200 or 300 specials. We have the perfect product portfolio for whether we're positioning, we're bringing the full lineup in the next couple of years that we have barely 1.5 years after that [ to prepare ]. So I think it's quite remarkable what we've been able to accomplish and in time for this current management team [ who have been together ].
[Operator Instructions] We'll now take your next question. This is from the line of Charles Coldicott from Redburn.
I just actually wanted to clarify one thing on the cash interest charge and after you repay the debt with part of the proceeds from the rights issue. I know it's not certain yet, obviously, which notes you'll pay off and at what price. But I guess I was thinking that whether you pay off the GBP 300 million of the second lien debt, that's got a cash coupon of 9% or, B, you trigger the call back on the first lien debt at the premium that is required. I was thinking the reduction in cash interest charge should be about GBP 27 million rather than not sort of up to 40%. Is that correct? Or am I missing something?
I think -- yes, Charles, it's Doug. Yes, I think that is a minimum of around GBP 30 million in terms of cash interest that we'd save year-on-year.
At the moment, we have no further questions. So I'll hand back to the speakers.
Are we done? I'd like to thank everybody for joining the call today, and look forward to -- please follow the company with all the exciting new products that we have coming in the very near future. And if any of you get a chance, I'd highly recommend coming to visit Gaydon, now that hopefully COVID is behind us. You could really get into the design room, get into the studio and see in live everything we've just described. Thank you.
Thank you. That does conclude the conference for today. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.