Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this GVC conference call. Speaking to you this afternoon, we have GVC's CEO, Kenny Alexander, and also GVC's CFO, Rob Wood. Before I hand you over, can I just remind you that this call is being recorded? During the call, all participants will be in listen-only mode, and afterwards, there will be an opportunity for questions and answers. And now, I'd like to hand you over to Kenny Alexander. Please begin your presentation.
Hi there. Good afternoon, all. Obviously, we've just put out the announcement about the additional investment both ourselves and MGM have put into our U.S. joint venture. I've always said that, I've said it from the day we did the deal with MGM, that this would be potentially one of the best deals we've done in terms of value creation. As of today, I remain as convinced the U.S. opportunity is huge. We have an aspiration to be a market leader, and it is quite clear the way the market is opening up and by the amount of investment that is required in marketing, etc., that we will require additional investment in order to achieve the aspiration of being the market leader. Adam Greenblatt, he went over to the U.S., and he's, him and his team have done an excellent job over the last couple of years.
The business over there is a properly independent company from GVC and MGM, with a proper management team, good technology provided by GVC, and all of the big assets and strengths that come from partnering up with MGM. Now is the time to inject more capital to set MGM firmly on the path to market leadership. We've taken our combined investment now to $450 million. Just to preempt, no doubt, some of the questions, people will look at what DraftKings of ammunition they've got with their recent raising of money. Frankly, do we have enough to be the market leader? Possibly. If not, then we'll put more money in. The bottom line is this is an additional investment to keep us competitive and make that aspiration realistic. If we really need to put more money in, then we're quite prepared to do so.
We've got the balance sheet, as has MGM, in order to facilitate that. This underpins and supports MGM on its four key strategic enablers that are set out in the press release. The three I'd like to pick up on in terms of market access: access to 19 states, which addresses 50% of the population, and expected to be present in 11 by the year-end. We're the leading market share in gaming in New Jersey, in iGaming in New Jersey. We aim to replicate that in sports in pretty quick order. In terms of the customer reach, we've really yet to deliver leverage off the Yahoo player base of over 64 monthly users, which will start soon. We're particularly excited about what we can do with M life through the retail properties and the M life program.
Obviously, omnichannel, which we've executed very well in the U.K. and in other European territories, we're hoping to do that with the M life asset, the BetMGM assets, obviously, in Vegas and elsewhere in the U.S. In terms of our market-leading technology, MGM has access to 2,000 technologies, without doubt a collection of the brightest minds and technology in our industry. We're continually developing improvements in new products every day, and GVC does over 200 improvements every single week to our product. It also gives BetMGM access to our skills in gaming and sports products, as well as our industry-leading marketing skills. We're already the number one operator in New Jersey in gaming, iGaming, and that is testament to our marketing skills in terms of casino and also to the product that we have.
So, therefore, BetMGM has a number of unique attributes and ultimately places it in a very strong position. We are absolutely committed to do whatever it takes to be the market leader. I think it's fair to say we've done this with this background. The U.S. will take place over a number of years. We've done well to date. We are in a good position. The stakes are getting a lot higher. Other people have got ammunition in order to really go and grab market share. We have put this investment in here as a sign that the kid gloves are coming off. Our aspiration to be the market leader is real. We shall aim to display it over the coming years. If we require more investment, we will put in what it takes in order to achieve that.
Now, I will hand you over to Rob, CFO, and he can give you a bit of flavor around the numbers.
Thanks, Kenny. So just a little bit more detail from me. So firstly, around timing of this additional commitment for 2020, I'm expecting the equity injections per parent to be somewhere around $50-$60 million, something like that. So that's a little bit higher than the guidance we gave earlier this year of around $40 million. And then for the next two years, I think you can expect around $75 million per annum per parent. So if you add those numbers to the $25 million that had already been injected as that 2019 year-end, you'll get to the total per parent of $225 million. Just on accounting, GVC will carry on showing those equity contributions via the cash flow. And from a P&L perspective, because it's a JV, we'll be reporting the loss below EBITDA.
In terms of what might that loss look like in 2020, obviously an exceptional year with COVID-19, our best forecast at the moment is somewhere around the 40 million mark, 40 million GBP for GVC, whereas in March, we guided to 20-30 million GBP. So in both cases, both equity injections and loss for 2020, we're expecting a small increase to both of those numbers. But obviously, we're delighted with that increased investment, given that there really isn't a better investment opportunity out there in terms of ROI. And of course, we remain 100% committed to the U.S. market for exactly that reason. So that's it by way of introductory comments. Let's go straight over to Q&A, please.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would now like to ask a question, please can you press star two on your telephone keypad? That's star two on your telephone keypad. We will only be able to take questions from people who have provided contact details. And there will be a brief pause now while questions are being registered. Lovely. Our first question is from the line of Stuart Gordon from Berenberg. Stuart, your line's now open. Please go ahead.
Thank you. A couple of questions from me. You said in the release that Roar is on track for $130 million of revenue in 2020, the bulk from iGaming. Just wondering what your assumptions are behind the resumption of sports in the U.S. through the second half of this year and into 2021, just to better understand how you see the trajectory of the sports business. And the second one is, obviously, this makes Roar incredibly well-capitalized. And you said that there'd be more to come. But at what point would you consider raising external debt rather than shareholder equity?
Okay. I'll take the first one and Rob can take the second one. I think in terms of the sports programs, look, I don't know. I don't have any firm information, but our best feel for it at the moment is that it's going to start opening up reasonably soon in a similar fashion to what we're seeing in Europe, where now we've got pretty much all the main European football leagues open, admittedly behind closed doors. Quite frankly, that doesn't really bother us, so will the NFL season start? I think it will, obviously, start. I think it's going to start late. I think it's going to be behind closed doors, but in terms of generating volume, I don't think that really affects us. The fact it's empty stadiums instead of full stadiums, so I can't give you anything firm.
It's really, I think, the NFL season will definitely start, maybe delayed, and the other sports, I think, will follow shortly during the coming months. I think it's fair to say it'll all probably be behind closed doors for some period of time, but as I said, that really, in terms of the business model, doesn't really bother us. I mean, what we're seeing in our business at the moment and over here is as long as the sports are on, people are going to bet pretty much comparable volume to what they would if there were stadiums full, and on the raising money, I'll hand you to Rob. By the way, mate.
Okay. Hi, Stuart. The simple answer is there's no requirement for external funding. We have two very well-capitalized, profitable, cash-generative parents with strong balance sheets, and we have the means to invest as much as is required going forward. As I mentioned earlier, the ROI on the investment is second to nothing. And therefore, we absolutely have the desire and the logic for investment, and we will continue to invest whatever is needed, as Kenny's alluded to. So the simple answer is no requirement to do that.
Okay. Thank you very much.
It's a bit of a no-brainer, really, couldn't it? I mean, if you look at the, let me say the DraftKings valuation, just cut to the chase, quite frankly. If you look at that valuation, we are a competitor of DraftKings. We expect to, over a certain five-year view, beat DraftKings. I don't know what it's valued at today. I don't know, $12-$13 billion, whatever that might well be. I don't know. It's in our valuation for our share of the JV. It's obviously $12 or $13 billion. And the fact is that undoubtedly, as Rob has said, and I probably said it to start myself, there is no bigger catalyst for creation of shareholder value than the U.S. JV or GVC. And I think MGM, I think, pretty much see it the same for them, actually.
Thank you very much.
Lovely. Our next question is from the line of Kiranjot Grewal from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Hi. Hi, guys. I've got two questions. Firstly, could you perhaps talk a little bit more about your customer capture strategy? Have you used M life loyalty scheme before? And actually, going forward, how do you expect to use that? Or are you planning to sort of match peers on bonuses and rebates? And then secondly, we've seen a lot of the big sporting brands do really well in their sell-through into iGaming in the U.S. Are you similarly doing well on sell-through, or are you seeing a lot more success through customers coming direct? And is that really because that MGM brand is much more associated with casinos? So just a bit more on that, please. Thank you.
Okay. In terms of the leveraging off the M life database, that is something that we have really only scraped the surface at it up to now. The initial results are encouraging, and we will definitely be exploiting that more during the rest of this year. In fact, it's a big, big database, big database of people who obviously seem to gamble in some capacity, and we have the expertise in cross-selling from players who have enjoyed our retail experience. We do it in the U.K., and we do it in Italy, etc., onto a digital platform, and we will use those skill sets to exploit the M life database in the rest of the year. In terms of our success in iGaming, is it because of the MGM brand, and it's associated with casinos and locations such as that? I don't think so.
I mean, I think the reason that we've seen such good results so far is testament to our product, which I think is market-leading, and I think it's also testament to our marketing expertise around casino and poker, which I consider market-leading, and some of the skill sets we've got in the JV are the skill sets that we've used to exploit in Europe, for example, where we completely transformed bwin's casino revenues, where we've significantly upgraded the revenues on the Ladbrokes and Coral brands. I think it's a combination of very good technology, very good products, and very good people, and very good experience within the GVC organization exploiting the casino opportunity. I expect us to get similar results in sports betting in due course. I don't think the BetMGM brand is any hindrance whatsoever to growing the sports revenues.
And did you have some other question about bonusing? I didn't quite pick it up.
Oh, that was to do with the first question. It was whether you're going to try and sort of capture customers through offering a lot of extensive free bets or bonuses, or whether it's going to be more of a focus on the M life scheme. I suppose that will change how fast you become profitable.
I think it's both, really. I mean, we use free bets and things like that. Quite frankly, you can't. Everybody offers free bets, so you can't really build up. You can't win in a market just because you're throwing free bets around like confetti. The only way you can win in a market is if you've got the strongest brand, strongest technology, best people, best product, best marketing expertise. Those are the sort of big ticket items that will win, not how much or how quickly you can throw bonuses around. Sure, we'll use them, but we don't think that's going to win in this market long-term because it certainly hasn't won in other markets where the market isn't. So there you go.
Thank you very much. Lovely. And for our next question, we will go to the line of Gavin Kelleher, Goodbody Capital Markets. Gavin, your line's open. Please ask your question.
Good evening, Kenny. Good evening, Rob. Just a few from me just on the investment, very granular on kind of timing of it. Can you give any sort of flavor? Will this mainly be marketing, or is it mainly product, which you'll see the bulk of this? And that's my first question. If there's any sort of color you can give us on that. And just on you've kind of given us a sense of the scale of the business in revenue terms this year. Could you just give us an idea of how many people are actually in the U.S. JV now? How many kind of FTEs there are in that business at the moment? That's the first one for me, please.
Okay. I'll take the first one, and Rob can take the second one. In terms of the first one, the vast majority of it is marketing. We're all about trying to grab as much market share in the coming months as we possibly can in the coming years, etc., and we just have to be realistic. There's no point being about. Others have raised money. Others are spending materially more than ourselves, and as I said to someone, if they're going to be spending three times more than we are, they either have to be absolutely useless, and we have to be absolute geniuses if we're going to win this battle, and he was a shareholder of ours, and I have to confide to him we are not absolute geniuses, and I'm pretty sure they're not absolutely useless.
So we are going to have to go toe- to- toe with them or as close as damn it in terms of level of investment. And this amount allows us to be very competitive and no excuses in the coming years in terms of becoming our market leader. And as we've said, if we have to put more money in on the MGM, obviously, then we're quite prepared to do it. So I will, in terms of the size, the number of employees, and everything else, do you want to do that, Rob, Matt?
Yeah, I can do that. So I know the number is over 200 million now with—not 200 million, 200 people now with an expectation of around 300 by year-end, which, if you think, was more like 30 at the beginning of last year. So rapid expansion, and we would expect that to continue into 2021 as well.
Perfect. Just one follow-on question from me on the marketing side, if I may. I'm not going to ask you for your specific CPAs at the moment, but can you give any sense on how your CPAs have started out, not in terms of absolute terms, but how they've trended so far, and then I presume with you really cranking up M life and the Yahoo database, I presume CPAs can fall drastically from there. Is that the best way of thinking about it, or how should we think about it?
Do you want to take that one, Rob?
Yeah. So I think, I mean, in terms of trends, they were coming down already pre-COVID period. During this period, as you'd expect, they've dropped significantly given marketing dollar and marketing investment has dropped with the absence of live sport. So it is a bit too early to predict what will happen in the second half of the year. And I think that will be much more important for considering what 2021 and beyond might look like. So I think that's the key message for trend. It is down, but you would expect it to be down. And we really need to wait and see what happens in the second half of the year.
Perfect. Thanks to me, Rob. Thanks, Kenny.
Cheers, Gavin.
Lovely. Thank you. Thank you. We'll take our next question from Richard Stuber of Numis. Richard, your line's open. Please go ahead and ask your question.
Yeah. Hi. Good afternoon, both. Just a quick question. You mentioned you have an 18% market share in iGaming in New Jersey, and you expect sports betting to get to that level. Is that sort of compatible with being sort of the market leader? Because obviously, FanDuel and a lot of things have a much greater percentage market share. So if you've got any indication in terms of what market share you should get in sports, what you should get in gaming, and over what period of time, that would be very helpful. And the second question is, it seems like it's a bit of a turning strategy where before you were looking at the profitability of the U.S. JV, now it's much more market share. Is that how we should look into your success or not? Is it very much market share percentage as opposed to profitability? Thank you.
Okay. I'll take the second one, Rob. You can lead to the first one, mate. Yeah, look, I wouldn't say up to now. I wouldn't say up to now it's been all about profitability. I mean, I would say with a closer eye on the bottom right-hand number than we will have in the next few years. That's not to say we're going to go crazy, but we just have to be realistic. We signed the JV. Nobody really knew. I think the prize is far greater than we even thought when we did the JV. Things have obviously developed. Markets have opened up. We've seen the levels of investment.
We've seen, obviously, and I'm not going to beat around the bush, but the value that the market puts on somebody that is seen as a potential leader in the US market, i.e., DraftKings, $12 billion, whatever it is. And the only way you're going to become the market leader in five years and get that sort of valuation or credit, which will create significant shareholder value, is by going head-to-head with these operators in the next few years and grabbing market share. So yeah, I mean, I've rattled on a bit, but quite frankly, in the immediate future, it's all about grabbing market share and winning that battle. And if we do, then the profitability will come, and the valuation will come with it as well. And if we do that, the shareholders should be very, very pleased. So that's where we are at the moment.
Do you want to do the first one, Rob?
Yeah. I'll just add that 18% is the New Jersey iGaming market share. I think we're pretty optimistic that that can be replicated in other states, potentially more so, given other states. MGM might consider themselves to be home states with a stronger brand than New Jersey. New Jersey is very competitive as well. So I think 18% market share is more than achievable in gaming in other states. Clearly, financial drafting is lower than those numbers. So I think you're referring to sports betting market share to begin with. You would expect their share to come down as others rise. But can we get to 18-plus% in the fullness of time? Absolutely. I think the market leader is not going to be known this year or next year. I think it's several years to get to that position.
I guess the market leader's market share will start with a 2, and that's what we're actually aspiring to achieve.
Thank you.
Lovely. So the next question, we'll go to the line of Michael Mitchell of Davy Global Fund Management. Michael, your line is open. Please ask your question.
Yes. Good evening, guys. Thanks for taking my question, if I could. First of all, just in terms of market size estimates, I think you're, I appreciate they're not your own estimates, but the internet casino market estimates seemed particularly strong. The question, I guess, is to what degree do you think the market size will now openly be greater as a result of post-COVID? And do you expect acceleration in legislation on both the sports betting and on the internet casino side? And then the second question, you mentioned New Jersey, Rob, being competitive, and obviously, you were kind of the second wave to come to. I appreciate this is early, but could you give a sense in terms of the difference in experience for BetMGM in places like Colorado versus New Jersey? Where do you think kind of at the start line at an earlier point? Thank you.
I'll take those ones, Rob.
Sure. I can navigate. So in terms of market size, yeah, as you say, we've not put forward our own estimates. We're happy to leave others to do that. We just do think that casino will be a very material part of the U.S. market. And I'm certainly no expert, but you hear and read that the impact of the virus is likely to be a positive both on timing of legislation, but also the number of states that choose to legislate casino as well. And clearly, we expect to be a dominant player for the iGaming market, and therefore that's a positive. And it also talks to the increased investment that we're announcing today. It's fair to say that states have come online faster and forward-looking.
We expect more to come online than originally envisaged, which is clearly a massive positive to us, but hence comes with extra investment upfront. In terms of different experiences in Colorado and other states, yeah, you have to say it's too early to answer that question given the environment with the sports programs being completely decimated. So it's a great question. It's something that we're asking all the time, but I think in fairness to the local team, it's too early to be on that.
Okay. Thank you.
Lovely. Thank you. For our next question, we'll go to the line of James Rowland-Clark from Barclays. James, your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good afternoon. I've got two quick questions, please. So having completed the integration of Ladbrokes, Coral, and obviously given your earlier comments about really wanting to invest hard into the U.S., can we expect you to now step away from M&A bolt-ons and really prioritize the U.S., or are you going to try and do the two in conjunction? And then secondly, in terms of sports betting market share in New Jersey, I think earlier last year you said you'd like to achieve 10%-15% by the middle of this year. You were on track not to quite get there. So what would you say that's down to, and are there any particular learnings you've developed in New Jersey as a result of that? Thank you.
Okay. I'll take the first one from Ashley. Since I think I said it, Rob, so I better answer this question one way. So on the first one, on the first one, look, no, I don't think this is like putting the brakes on M&A, far from it. I think the US JV, I'll be hard-pushed to handle it. Probably this one is called "Disagree With Me," is undoubtedly the biggest catalyst for creating shareholder value. So yeah, it takes the highest priority within the group in the next few years without any shadow of a doubt.
Does that mean, though, that you can't do M&A or we shouldn't look at M&A?
No, of course I could say no. No, absolutely not.
The fact is the sort of deal when we did Ladbrokes, Coral, the sort of deal relative to the size we were when we did bwin, these were sort of pretty big transformational deals, and the fact is, because of the way the industry has evolved and the consolidation, not that many big, big deals, if any, really, that we could do, but there are plenty of bolt-ons. There's plenty of bolt-ons that we're looking at at the moment, and we'll continue to look at them, and if everything is aligned, if it fits the bill of what we're looking for, and the price is right, and we think it's right, then sure, we'll do M&A over the next two years. In the next 12 months, will we do another bolt-on? Yeah, I'm sure it's 80% certain we probably will, but so no, there's no brakes on M&A.
On the other one, yeah, look, what are the learnings? We expect to get to 10% market share sports by the end of the year. I think that's realistic. That's what we set the team, and that's what we're certainly shooting for. Learnings we've found? I think the product. I don't think we've got their product in good shape. And I think it will be materially improved. I'm talking here about the sports in the next sort of two to six next couple of months. I think we were a little slower there than we anticipated. I think in terms of the level of marketing investment, we were probably a little bit shy about criticism. It might end a day with my decision. I think we've invested quite a bit less than some of our competitors.
It's just a fact that if you don't invest and go toe-to-toe with them in terms of level of marketing investment, then it's just a fact that you're just not going to be able to grab the market share that you had probably anticipated. Yeah, I think the product is a little bit slower. Nothing disastrous, and it's in hand, and it will be addressed in the next couple of months just to get there. It's about an eight out of 10, to be 10 out of 10. It's in hand. I think we were probably taken aback a little bit by the level of investment by some others compared to ourselves, which has resulted in my target market share not being delivered in time. We expect to get at least 10% by the end of the year. Hopefully, that answers the question.
And I would just add to the first one around competing priorities, U.S. versus M&A and bolt-ons. As Kenny says, there really is no competition, as in we can do both in parallel. And really, that's one of the big advantages of owning your own technology staff. We don't have pipeline constraints or have to work to third-party technology providers' timetables. It's easy for us to flex up and flex down workloads so we can absorb more activity as required. And also, from a sort of a resourcing perspective, we're already a global business with regional structure. So it's straightforward for us to absorb new businesses into our structure. It's sort of designed that way. So as Kenny said, no reason why we can't prioritize both in parallel.
That's great. Thank you.
Robbie, before we go to the next line, can I remind everybody still wishing to ask a question? So please press star two on their telephone keypad. That's star two on their telephone keypad. Right. We'll now go to the line of Thomas Allen from Morgan Stanley. Thomas, your line's open. So please go ahead and ask your question.
All right. Thank you. Can you just give us an update on what your latest thinking is on, first, your long-term targets for the JV, and then second, when you expect the JV to turn profitable, and how have both changed since your initial investment? Thank you.
Go ahead, Rob.
Yeah, so clearly, it's a moving feast, and it's moving more than anything because of the pace and the way in which states regulate, so to answer your question, does the time horizon for profitability have changed? You could certainly argue that it looks like it might be further out now, given more states are coming online sooner, and hence, the moment you reach profitability is therefore later, but clearly, that's enterprise value positive. It's just one of timing, so I think the best way to answer that question is if you look at a state in isolation, just pick a large state, our view remains that year one will definitely be loss-making. Year two should be more around break-even and into profitability by year three, so the way that we think about when we hit profitability, it really is contingent upon the way that states open up.
If they do open up sooner, we might need to put in there might be a third round of capital requirement, but it'll all be enterprise value positive if that's the case.
Then just a follow-up on this question. I think there's some concern among investors that margins won't be realized in the U.S. market, just given the number of players and the incremental costs with market access and other forms of cost. Kind of can you give us an update on your latest thinking on long-term margins? Thank you.
Sure. So I take that, Kenny. So I mean, we said previously and would continue to say that there's no reason why BetMGM shouldn't have market-leading operating margins. We've talked in the past around low-cost market access through MGM. We've talked about the fact that we own and control our technology and our product through what GVC brings to the table. So therefore, there's far less leakage versus most of our competitors. And of course, in MGM itself, we have a brand that's instantly recognizable for pretty much the whole population of every state in the country. So again, we haven't had to invest as much as others in terms of brand building. So for those reasons, we continue to expect to have market-leading margins in the fullness of time.
But to your first question, it's a bit hard to say what year that will be because that depends on the pace that states open up.
But are market-leading margins 35%-40% of its own margins, or do you think it'll be lower than that?
I would get lower. I think if we look at GVC's business across the rest of the globe, we're approaching 30, and something similar is probably sensible to assume at this stage for the U.S.
Very helpful. Thank you.
Robbie, so the next question will go to the line of Joe Greff from JP Morgan. Joe, your line's open. Please go ahead and ask your question.
Hello, everyone. You talked about maintaining close to the 18% share longer term in U.S. sports betting and the online gaming market. In order to achieve a share that's close to that in a stabilized, say, $8 billion market that you referenced in the press release in 2025, what's the level of total investable capital at the joint venture level that you need to get there? And of that incremental amount above the $370 million of invested capital they have after this deal, how much of that would be funded by the two joint venture partners versus being self-funded at the joint venture level?
That's definitely one for you, Rob.
Say that, Kenny. So again, it is difficult to answer that precisely, again, because we don't know exactly the pace at which states open up. If California were to come online earlier, then the capital requirement goes up. The $450 million that we've committed to now between both partners, that ought to suffice for the current pipeline of expected state openings. If it goes beyond that or goes sooner than that, there might be further requirements. But to the question of where that funding comes from, I mean, clearly, we'll always evaluate options. But as I mentioned at the start of this call, there's no requirement for us to go to third parties. Both MGM and ourselves are committed to this opportunity. We'll invest whatever it takes, and we have more than enough cash flow generation from our global operations in order to fund it.
That $40 million joint venture loss, would you expect that in 2020 to revert to break-even that you just mentioned in the prior question?
To break even, not in 2021. No, I would absolutely expect 2021 to be loss-making again, continuing that path of at best steady state being break even in year two. So if you look at the timing of states coming online, 2021 will surely be a loss-making year. I think 2022 will be closer. 2023 onwards, that's more likely a point for profitability. But again, if California comes online in 2022, it might be a different figure.
Thank you.
Robbie, we currently have no questions waiting. But before I pass the call back to the speakers, can I remind anyone still wishing to ask a question to please press star two on their telephone keypad? That's star two on your telephone keypad. Right. That was our last question. I will now hand the call back to Kenny and Rob for closing comments.
Okay. Just to say, to reiterate what we've said, we believe it's self-evident really that this U.S. joint venture is undoubtedly the biggest opportunity for creating shareholder value. You're only going to create shareholder value if you're a market leader. And you're only going to be a market leader if you can be competitive in terms of marketing level of investment in order to grab market share. And this is a statement of intent today. As I said, the kid gloves are coming off. This shows us that we are very, very serious about it, both ourselves and MGM. And if we need to put more money in to achieve the objective of becoming a market leader, then we will do so. But we're not going to; we're certainly not putting ourselves in the second or third place.
So enjoy your evenings or afternoons, depending on where you are in the world. And I'll be off. Thank you very much. Cheers. Bye.
Thanks, everyone.