Thanks, Rachel. Good morning, everyone, thanks for joining us on the Regis Resources full year results for FY 2021. I'd note that the Appendix 4E in report and an accompanying presentation were released earlier today, and we may make occasional references to these. Before I hand over to Jon, I'll just touch on some of the key financial elements and then I'll leave it to Jon, where Jon can discuss the results in more detail. For FY 2021 year, we saw gold production of approximately 373,000 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 1,372 an ounce, and a C1 cash cost of AUD 1,051 an ounce. This drove a net profit after tax of AUD 146 million, with a net profit after tax margin of 18%, which reflects the strength of the business. EBITDA was AUD 403 million, with a very strong EBITDA margin of 49%.
Cash and bullion, AUD 269 million at year-end, and that was after a payment of AUD 61 million in fully franked dividends during the year. A final fully franked dividend of AUD 0.03 per share has been declared by the board, giving a full year fully franked dividend of AUD 0.07 per share for FY21, giving a basic yield of 2.8% and a grossed-up yield of 4%. Overall, a strong result with another dividend return for our shareholders. I'd now like to pass it over to Jon. Jon?
Thanks, Jim. FY 2021 saw a solid performance by Regis with an NPAT of AUD 146 million, a solid net profit margin of 18%, and an EPS of AUD 0.26 per share. EBITDA was up 2.3% in FY 2021 to AUD 403 million, with a healthy EBITDA margin of 49%. As previously reported in our quarterly results, cash and bullion sat at AUD 269 million at 30 June 2021, with debt of AUD 300 million, which we took on as part of the acquisition of 30% of Tropicana, which we completed earlier this year. Using those two metrics, net debt sat at AUD 31 million at the 30th of June. A couple of points that I'd like to make in relation to our net profit after tax of AUD 146 million for the year, which was lower than the previous year, primarily due to an increase in the non-cash components of cost of goods sold.
Firstly, there was an increase in our non-cash cost for depreciation and amortization. If we look firstly at depreciation, we see an increase in depreciation charges of approximately AUD 20 million, which was driven by our first full year of depreciation associated with the Rosemont underground assets. An increase in right-of-use asset depreciation, again, driven by the first full year of the Rosemont underground being in commercial production. The commencement of depreciation of the Garden Well stage 3 TSF during the year, and of course, recognition of depreciation charges for May and June associated with Tropicana property, plant, and equipment that we acquired as part of the acquisition that we completed.
Secondly, we see an increase in amortization, which increased approximately AUD 60 million year on year, predominantly because for the last two to three years, we've been mining above long strip ratios, and the deferred waste associated with that is being amortized. In FY21, we saw a significant capital investment in the company's existing operations. If you look at the cash flow statement in our financial accounts, you can see the payments for mine development of AUD 138 million, and that included significant pre-strip and deferred waste expenditure at the Duketon and open pits, which obviously needs to be amortized. Again, the first full year of commercial production at the Rosemont underground, and therefore the first full year of amortization of capitalized underground costs, as well as the recognition of amortization charges for May and June associated with our 30% interest in Tropicana.
We did also see a 16% increase in our cash costs of production from AUD 307 million to AUD 355 million in FY 2021. That was driven by a couple of factors, including our production, as Jim mentioned, at approximately 373,000 ounces, was 6% higher than in the previous year. Secondly, we have experienced some increases in our cash costs, primarily being the first full year of Rosemont underground being in commercial production, whereas in the previous year, it was only in commercial production for two months. We've got two months of cash costs associated with our investment in Tropicana. If we move over to page four of the presentation, you'll see a summary of our financial results for FY 2021. As mentioned, we saw production of approximately 373,000 ounces, which was 6% up on the previous year.
Again, I'll note that our FY 2021 figures include two months of production from our 30% interest in Tropicana. We sold 367,285 ounces of gold during the year at an average price of AUD 2,229 an ounce. That is the average price we secured after selling into approximately 80,000 ounces of our most out of the money hedges. I'll expand upon that a bit more later on. We had sales revenue of approximately AUD 819 million in FY 2021, which was a year-over-year increase of 8.3%. We move across to page five, it's pleasing to see that Regis has again declared a dividend. The final dividend for FY 2021 is AUD 0.03 per share, which results in a total payment for the final dividend of approximately AUD 22.6 million.
This is 10% higher than the payment made in respect of the interim dividend paid earlier this year, and that's driven by the increased number of shares that the company has on issue following the Tropicana acquisition. At AUD 0.03 per share, this final dividend brings dividends declared for FY21 to AUD 0.07 per share. It gives a basic dividend yield of 2.8% and a grossed-up dividend yield of 4%. It also represents 29.5% of our FY21 net profit after tax and 10.7% of our FY21 EBITDA. It brings the total dividends declared by Regis since 2013 to well over half a billion dollars, and indeed, that now sits at AUD 532 million in total. As we have noted previously, we will continue to assess the level of future dividends in the context of gold price, operational performance, and capital expenditure requirements.
Page six of the presentation provides a cash flow waterfall that plots our movement in cash and gold on hand across FY21. I'll just talk to a few of those categories. Excuse me. Cash flows from operations of AUD 378 million for FY21, which is the first bar that you'll see, is basically cash flows from operating activities shown in the cash flow statement, adjusted for income tax and other costs, which is primarily head office expenditure, which are shown separately in the waterfall. We've got mine development costs of AUD 138 million, that primarily relates to pre-strip activities at the Duketon open pits, that's primarily at Moolart Well, Baneygo, and Dogbolter. We've got capitalized deferred waste at the Duketon open pits, primarily at Garden Well and Tooheys Well. We've got capitalized underground costs at the Rosemont underground and obviously pre-production costs at the Garden Well underground.
In addition to that, we also have deferred waste at Tropicana for the Havana and Boston Shaker open pits for May and June. Moving on to the next component of the waterfall, we see exploration and McPhillamys costs for the year of AUD 45 million. The next bar in the waterfall shows other CapEx costs of AUD 42 million for the year, which primarily includes two main areas of expenditure. Firstly, there's payments for property, plant, and equipment, which was approximately AUD 21 million. That includes TSF3 work undertaken at Garden Well, mill lifters and liners, a new workshop for the Garden Well underground, portal support works at the Garden Well underground, and electrical substations and fans for the Rosemont underground. The second component of that other capital expenditure, which accounts for the balance, is finance lease repayments.
Moving on to the other category in the cash flow waterfall, we see a spend of AUD 10 million, and that's primarily corporate overhead, but it does also include a couple of minor adjustments associated with the Tropicana acquisition. What this shows is that the company's cash and bullion balances increased from AUD 209 million to AUD 353 million before the payment of dividends, taxes, and before the impact of any residual funds retained from the capital raising. The waterfall chart clearly shows that Regis continues to be a substantial taxpayer, with an actual income tax payment of AUD 77 million for FY21. The next bar shows that while dividend payments were approximately AUD 61 million in total across FY21, some shareholders elected to participate in the company's dividend reinvestment plan, leading to a lower cash outflow of AUD 51 million.
Finally, we have some residual cash retained from the capital raising, and this will primarily be used to pay stamp duty associated with the acquisition of Tropicana. I should note that we funded the acquisition of Tropicana through a AUD 650 million equity raise and a AUD 300 million loan. Now, clearly, we haven't shown those flows on the waterfall as they would make the axis on the graphs meaningless. What we have done is show the residual funds that we retain after executing that transaction. The factors that I've just gone through are really the key drivers behind why the company is sitting with a cash and bullion balance on hand at the end of FY21 of AUD 269 million. Before I hand back to Jim, I'll just talk briefly about the company's hedging and the debt that we have.
During FY21, we continued to execute our strategy of selling into our lowest price hedges, and we met the target that we set of selling into 80,000 ounces of those hedges across FY21. This means our hedges reduced from approximately 399,000 ounces at June 2020 to 320,000 ounces at June 2021. In late May 2021, we announced that we had changed our hedging structure from spot deferred to flat forwards, and that did a number of things. Firstly, it locked in or it set a gold price for all of our remaining hedges of AUD 1,571 per ounce. It moved us to a product that is better understood in the market, and it still gives us the flexibility to increase sales into our hedges if we choose to do so.
What we have done from the 1st of July is we have increased our sales into our hedges from 80,000 ounces per year or 20,000 ounces a quarter in FY 2021 - 100,000 ounces per year or 25,000 ounces per quarter across FY 2022. Finally, I note that the company now has AUD 300 million of debt, which it put in place to partially fund the acquisition of Tropicana. Subsequent to the end of the financial year, the company worked with Bank of America to syndicate the debt, for which there was very strong demand. We've previously announced that the syndicate members are now Macquarie, HSBC, NAB, and Westpac. Having said that, I'll hand back to Jim.
Thanks, Jon. I would just like to take a moment to cover off again on our guidance for FY 2022. We are expecting a very strong year of growth within our business as production continues to lift at Duketon, and we also see the impacts of a full year of Tropicana starting to come in. Our guidance for gold production, 460 to 515,000 ounces across the year. An all-in sustaining cost of AUD 1,290-AUD 1,365 an ounce Aussie. Growth capital, a range of AUD 155-AUD 165. Exploration across both sites, both Duketon and the Tropicana area, AUD 46 million. Finally, about AUD 26 million at the moment on McPhillamys. As we noted previously, the September quarter is expected to be a soft one for Duketon.
That's at Duketon, and this is due to, we had some major scheduled mill shutdowns and a motor change-out during the month of July. We've also been undertaking some pit rescheduling requirements in the short to medium term. This was due in part to some preventative geotech work on catchment fences that we did both at Rosemont and Garden Well as a preventative action. Also, we've just seen a slower-than-planned ramp-up in some of our mining activity, surface mining. We're confident and we know that we'll be able to pick this up. It's just we'll have an impact on this, certainly on the September quarter. We also see Rosemont underground rebasing into its steady state. We ran it pretty hard during the June quarter, and we just got to get that back to a stable point. We're getting some rebasing on Rosemont underground production.
Coming out and closing out on FY 2021, it was a big year for Regis Resources. The acquisition of 30% interest in the Tropicana Gold Project, clearly very significant. The ramp-up of Rosemont underground, good thing to see that we're seeing the potential for extensions. Clearly possible there with our drilling. We're particularly excited about that. We've commenced the Garden Well underground, plenty of strong indicators of both more material at depth and also potentially an additional mining area just to the north, about 800 or so meters to the north of Garden Well underground, that's sitting underneath the main pit. That's certainly got some potential in it as well. We delivered a net profit after tax of AUD 146 million, fully franked dividends of AUD 61 million paid.
For FY 2021, as Jon mentioned, total declared dividends of AUD 532 million, over AUD 500 a milion dollars since 2013. If you include franking credits, that's AUD 750 milion dollars in value nearly to our shareholders. Look, Regis continues to build on its history of growth and dividend return. Last financial year, we delivered on a major increases and continued to work on growth. We grew Duketon's life through reserves addition, and we continue to optimize the operations there. We delivered a step change through the addition of Tropicana, and we're also anticipating increases in production from this operation coming over the next 12 months or so as we start to round out on the end of the pre-strip or the stripping associated with the Havana cutback.
We continue to push forward on the next step at McPhillamys. We continue to be convinced that there's still plenty of value to find across the Duketon Greenstone Belt, as is reflected in our exploration program and funding. All the while, we're just keeping alert for other external opportunities as well. It's been a big year, and we are so much better set up for the future now. The exciting part is we know that we're only just getting started. Look, on that note, I'd like to hand it back to Rachel, and we'll open up for any questions. We can see there's a few there, so back to you, Rachel. Thank you.
Thank you. Your first question comes from Matthew Frydman with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Sure. Thanks. Morning, Jim and Jon.
Good morning.
Appreciate all the detail you've provided on the financial results, wondering if I can just ask for a quick update on the McPhillamys approval process. It appears that the DPIE is still waiting for further information, obviously related to the DA, and has been waiting since February. Is that still the case, or has that information been provided? Just wondering if you can give us an update on the expected timeline, at least for the approvals part of the process from here.
Look, it's an interesting process to say the least that we're trying to work our way through here with the New South Wales government. There are outstanding elements or queries that they've got with us. To be honest, the outstanding nature of that relies on information and guidance from an internal government department itself, which is what we're working on. We're working quite closely with DPI Planning, as they're called, or the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. They're being very constructive and helpful as we try and work our way through this. As we've mentioned before, the key area that we're still working on here, at this point, is the surface water licensing and how that's calculated and how those licenses can be estimated, allocated, and locked down.
That's basically the area that we continue to work and try and establish clarity that provides the clear path forward, which is what DPIE is waiting. As I said, they're supportive of the project, but no one wants to get a project recommended to IPC without having the I's dotted and the T's crossed. That's what we're working through. Timing-wise, look, I guess we've been dealing with the uncertainty of the timelines, frankly, over the last probably 10 months or so, as we've been anticipating things would be happening from these areas faster than they have been. We'd love to work on the basis that we hear something constructive and moving forward sometime in the December quarter.
At the end of the day, that really sits with government as we try and work through the various bureaucrats to get resolution on this area of uncertainty.
Got it. Thanks for the update there, Jim. Then I guess just on your recutting of the numbers on McPhillamys. I see that you've got unallocated segment assets of nearly AUD 600 million. Just wondering if maybe Jon can give us an idea of roughly what component of that is McPhillamys. Is there potential, or is it likely that when you do get an opportunity to complete that revised DFS, do you expect that that may trigger a reassessment of those carrying values? Thanks.
I'm not sure that I can give you precise numbers, Matthew. Perhaps I'll have a look into it and I'll have a chat to you afterwards. I don't have the exact breakdown off the top of my head.
Okay, no problems. We'll pick that one up offline. Maybe just finally, Jim, you mentioned there the Tropicana stripping profile, clearly there's a component of that in growth capital next year or in FY 2022, I should say. Can you give us a bit of a sense of the ongoing stripping requirements for that asset, maybe in terms of total material movement levels? Is the TMM going to stay broadly flat over the medium term? Just wondering whether we might see a shift over time from either capitalizing that stripping to expensing those stripping costs. Just wondering how much of that capitalized stripping is expected to carry forward. Thanks.
Yeah, look, I think what we're seeing in the growth capital at Tropicana, as we've noted in our guidance. The reality is you end up with these two different approaches almost to how stripping can be defined. Under the all-in sustaining cost version, certainly the bulk of or, in fact, I think all of the growth capital as it would be defined for all-in sustaining, will be completed this year, and then it will move into a phase of just sustaining and lower strip ratio type of work. Obviously at the moment, I think most of this year or a big chunk of this year, a lot of the material moved out of Havana is all waste as we get down and get access to the ore. I'd expect that to drop over time.
We haven't given any specific guidance at this point, and we're still working on what that longer-term strategy story is that we're able to say to the market. When we're in a position to do that, we'll give some better guidance on it. I would certainly be anticipating that stripping ratio will drop off as we get well into the realms of mining and processing ore. Of course, there's nothing coming out of it or virtually nothing coming out of it at the moment.
Okay, thanks. That's helpful, Jim. Thank you.
Thank you. Your next question comes from David Coates with Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead.
Thanks, guys. Morning, Jim. Morning, Jon. Just quickly following up on that CY22, I assume you're talking about this calendar year, that growth capital, quote-unquote, expected to be completed at the Havana cutback?
Yeah, sorry. Just say that again?
Just following up from Matt's question. You were talking about the growth capital, the growth ore pre-strip at Havana being complete this year. I assume you're talking about calendar 2022 or FY 2022?
FY22.
Right. Okay, thanks. Let's see. You mentioned the steady state at the Rosemont underground and a couple of ramp-up issues at the open pits as you're sort of getting settled into the September quarter. Give us a bit of background on some of those, like some of the types of issues you may be seeing. Is it labor tightness? What are some of the underlying factors behind that?
Yeah. Look, I've just been thinking about that first question that you asked. We are anticipating a little bit of growth capital will probably roll into the September quarter next year, which would put it in the very early stages of, what would that be? FY23. It's certainly expecting that it will all be well and truly just running as sustaining CapEx by the end of next calendar year. Yeah, there'll be a little bit in the September quarter, we're anticipating. If I've made sense on that one. Right?
Yep. No, no.
Coming back to your other question as to these impacts. Yeah. Look, I don't think there's any doubt. It's a pretty consistent message with around the tightness in the labor. It is having an impact. It hits at different areas. A fair chunk of our professionals work from the East Coast, and we're now at that stage where everybody's either moved or given up and moved home. That causes what I would call is a bit of a slow rundown. You don't have quite as many geos or quite as many mining engineers as you would normally have. It doesn't have an impact on day to day, but it does mean that you're like a spinning wheel that just hasn't got quite as much energy being put into it, or in this case, intellect.
The business just starts to run down a little bit and gets a bit harder to achieve things. We're certainly seeing that as a potential risk. On the near term, our contractors and their source of labor is certainly getting harder, and that is having an impact. If we were running at steady state, we probably would have been able to manage that. Because we've ramped up our activity on BCM movements from our pits, at least we had it planned for the next six months. I think that's just causing some challenges. Because it is a sort of a lift and a drop, we believe that we've got the ability to cover that over the year. It's frustrating and having a short-term impact, but we believe that it can be managed over the longer term.
The other area that we've just seen is we've got to increase our drilling and blasting capacity, and we're mobilizing. Some more rigs are being mobilized at the moment for that. As we've had to shuffle our activity around, it's just brought forward some of that additional drilling and blasting requirements. In terms of the geotech, as you know, last year, last financial year, we did have some impacts on the geotech, and we've been watching that quite closely. These delays that we've had early in the September quarter or during the September quarter have been less around actual failures and more about, well, we want to put up some safety management, some catch fences, geotech fencing that captures loose rock as it scuttles down, that comes loose.
Particularly as the pits start to get towards the bottom and you've got a lot of work occurring in a relatively confined space, down the bottom.
Yep
we just need to make sure we've got the right elements for risk management in place, and that takes time. Because you've got a narrow base while you're putting in the walls, basically, you've got to stay clear. It's actually been pretty painful for us, but we'll come out of that and recover that. As I said, it's a short-term issue, but it's definitely something we wanted to do for risk management. The mill shutdowns were just fairly routine, nothing out of the ordinary, just timing-wise, as you can imagine.
Sometimes they might have originally been planned for June, but you push them over because that's what happens in June, and we just a little bit of catch up and just a little bit of work that it was all scheduled to happen at the beginning of the year, which I prefer it to be at the beginning rather than at the end. That sort of adds a little bit of flavor. COVID also impacted our, when we go into a lockdown, which we have done in this quarter, a month or so ago, that causes productivity issues for us because we can only run things like night shift crews only run for a certain amount of time before we have to give them breaks for fatigue. They just have a bit of a cumulative effect.
In a quarter where we're expecting and planning for our activities to lift a bit, they have lifted, but not to the extent that we wanted. It's just they're having an impact on our immediate production this quarter.
Fair. If I might just pop one more in. You're thinking around changing the hedge profile?
Yeah, that's right, David. Yeah, we are increasing the sales into our hedges to 100,000 ounces a year, and I think at this stage, the intent is that we'll continue to sell down those hedges at that rate.
The strategy behind it?
Strategy. The strategy behind it.
Certainly, we inherited a pretty substantial hedge book that was a fair bit out of the money some time ago. Frankly, the strategy has been that we prefer to be more exposed to the AUD gold price. We put in place a strategy probably two years ago now to start selling into them. We've continued to execute that strategy, and we've progressively increased the amount that we're selling into, and we can do that with a not overly significant impact on our revenue stream. That's the strategy that we've been executing over the last two years, and it's a strategy that we'll continue to execute into the future at this stage, but we continue to assess it as we do a number of things.
That hedge was around for quite some time, and we had the right reserve base to be able to, in effect, kick it down the road, if you like. It was clearly with the increasing gold price, it was an issue that we knew that we were going to have to deal with. That's why we started selling into it in the first place. The reason that we changed from the spot deferred to the flat forwards with a locked-in profile was we just found, number one, there has been a cost in running with the spot deferreds. You don't see it because every time they get rolled, basically the pricing was getting readjusted, and it was costing us in reality. Well, you don't see it as a cost, but you see it as a further reduction in the strike price for the price for the hedging.
That was probably in a high gold price environment, was costing us AUD 1 million-AUD 1.5 million at least a month as we were seeing that backwardation occurring. We've locked that down now. We don't see that anymore. We feel that it's much easier and clearer for us to plan the cash flows around this profile. Frankly, it's a lot easier for the market to understand what our hedge book is and how we run it, because even though the spot deferreds were probably almost unique to Regis, and not everybody understood it. We felt that there was, number one, it had to be dealt with, and we started dealing with it a couple of years ago.
Number two, we saw that with the strong gold price, it was costing us effectively a hidden cost behind it that we just wanted to lock away, which we've done. Now we just continue to sell into that hedging and, frankly, just get rid of it.
I'd just add on the end there, David, that what we've seen is that since we put that in place, the gold price, the AUD gold price has increased. That increase out of the money funding risk is no longer borne by Regis. That's effectively one of the benefits of doing what we've done.
Awesome. Thanks so much.
Thanks, Dave.
Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Your next question comes from Peter O'Connor with Shaw and Partners. Please go ahead.
Hi, Jim. Hi, Jon. A couple from me. Tropicana, Jim, when do we expect to get the MROR? That's first quarter next year from Anglo. When will that be when you'll be in a position to give a much clearer view?
Sorry, what was that? Were you talking about-
Mineral resource update.
Yeah, I believe that the site runs sometime during the March quarter, I think. It'll be the same. They run the same. In fact, coincidentally, we've changed our reporting period to be pretty much the same. We won't see an update until sometime around March, I would imagine.
Okay. To McPhillamys, the timing that you talked about and the uncertainty, COVID or red tape or both?
Look, certainly more the latter than the former, although COVID is just making it really difficult to, I guess, get in front and have those face-to-face meetings to try and push the process along. It's challenging and trying times in New South Wales, particularly at the government level, trying to manage this extremely significant outbreak. I can understand where their short-term priorities would lie. COVID just makes it a whole lot harder. It adds a level of, instead of swimming in a stream slightly or swimming slightly against the flow, you're swimming in treacle because everything's just slowed down. They're both part of the timing issue.
Okay. On the topic of COVID, do you encourage or will you mandate requirements for vaccination for employees?
Yeah, good question. Good question. Very topical one, Peter. Thank you. I'm not sure how that relates to value, but I guess I get it.
Gets bums on seats, Jim. It's important.
Look, it's an interesting one. I think the whole question of mandating, clearly there's lots of different views around. I think the number one thing that will drive any decision that we make as a company will be on the basis of protecting the safety of our people. That means that whether we go down a path of mandating, and I know there's been some commentary made over the last few days, of course, about whether it would make life harder or easier with people. At the end of the day, whatever you do, you can't afford to put your people at risk. Does that mean we mandate? Maybe. Does that mean that we look at other alternatives?
For example, you don't need to be vaccinated, but if you aren't, then you're going to have to take extra precautionary measures, like permanently wearing masks, or we may close off access to site for risk areas. We're still working with the advisory group, CME and AMEC, to understand what's the right things that the industry would take. We would certainly support and participate in any program that involved mining companies helping and assisting with the rollout and being points. We would certainly step up to that. We're not a big part of the population. We are definitely actively encouraging everybody at the moment within our company to get out and get their vaccinations done as soon as they can, both for the benefits of the company and also for the broader community.
Thank you, Jim. Jon, on finances to the dividend, on the slide, which is five, you steered a lot of numbers around how it fits with regard to the payout ratio of net profit, payout ratio of EBITDA. Is that the way the board thinks about it, despite your more subjective commentary below? Is it 30%? Is that a way to think about a line in the sand for the dividend, or did that just drop out that way?
Yeah. Good question, Peter O'Connor. We don't have a formal dividend policy, but clearly the board is very cognizant of its dividend-paying history. We just look at it, or we look at it as a percentage of NPAT. That's essentially what fell out of it. There was, as there always is, very robust discussions at board level about the dividend. That's the dividend that the board landed on. They certainly take their dividend-paying history pretty seriously, and that's where they landed.
Absolutely. As every time there's a conversation, Peter, it's clearly around, number 1, capacity to pay, what was our profit, but also there's looking ahead to what future requirements might be for capital. It's a combination of capacity to pay, level of profitability, and future capital requirements all entered into the discussions that we had in the lead up to this dividend decision. They're the ones we always have. It's the same points that we need to consider.
Okay. Jon, just on your funding facility and the syndication that Bank of America's gone through, how did the syndicate look at you as a risk? Not you, but the company in terms of risk. Given your hedge book is now a less proportion of your overall production profile or your reserve base, you've got a diversity of assets where you didn't before. What sort of coupon drops out of that and against that risk profile that they have?
In relation to risk, Peter, what I'd say is that it's safe to say that we were inundated with banks wanting to participate in that syndicate. In my mind, that's the easiest way of suggesting to you that I would say that the banks viewed us favorably in relation to risk. We had pretty much all of the major players and a lot of the smaller banks as well wanting to take part. That's how I'd answer that one. In relation to the coupon rates, I think that's probably commercial in confidence, I suppose, but the reality is that the rate, it's remarkably low, and I doubt that I could probably get a home loan for the same sort of rates that we're paying.
Is it like a BBSY plus a margin? Is that how I should think about it?
Actually, there is a little bit of disclosure in the financial statements there, Peter, about that. It is a BBSY.
Okay
plus a margin. That's right.
Okay, thanks. Thanks, Jim. Thanks, Jon.
Thanks, Peter.
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll hand it back to Jim Beyer for closing remarks.
Thanks, Rachel, thanks, everybody, for dialing in and listening. As always, if anybody's got any follow-up questions, please feel free to give us a call and we'll do our best to help you out. Okay. Thanks for joining us, have a good day.