ArQule's (ARQL) CEO Paolo Pucci on Q2 2014 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

| About: ArQule, Inc. (ARQL)


Q2 2014 Earnings Call

August 05, 2014 9:00 am ET


William B. Boni - Vice President of Investor Relations & Corporate Communications

Paolo Pucci - Chief Executive Officer and Director

Robert J. Weiskopf - Principal Accounting Officer, Vice President of Finance, Corporate Controller and Treasurer

Brian Schwartz - Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Clinical & Regulatory Affairs


Adnan S. Butt - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division

Chad J. Messer - Needham & Company, LLC, Research Division

George B. Zavoico - MLV & Co LLC, Research Division


Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the ArQule Inc. Q2 2014 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded.

I would now like to introduce your host for today's call, Mr. William Boni, Vice President of Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.

William B. Boni

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the ArQule investor conference call reviewing operational and financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2014. This is Bill Boni.

This morning, we issued a press release that reported results for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014. This release is available on our website at

Leading the call today will be Paolo Pucci, Chief Executive Officer of ArQule. Also present for the company are Peter Lawrence, President and Chief Operating Officer; Dr. Brian Schwartz, Chief Medical Officer; and Rob Weiskopf, Vice President of Finance.

Before we begin, please note that we will be making forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to numerous risks and uncertainties that exist in ArQule's operations, development efforts and the business environment, including those factors discussed in our press release announcing this call and posted on our website, as well as in our reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K and subsequent documents filed with the SEC.

The forward-looking statements contained in this call represent the judgment of ArQule as of today. ArQule disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement except to the extent required by law. We will provide an opportunity for questions and answers at the end of this call.

I would now like to introduce the CEO of ArQule, Paolo Pucci.

Paolo Pucci

Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Bill, and thank you all for joining us this morning. I would like to begin today with an operational review and some cost containment measures that we have put in place just yesterday.

So we have recently implemented steps to extend the operational runway for ArQule. These steps are intended to position us firmly to complete a number of value-generating trials with both tivantinib, which is our lead product, as well as our earlier stage compounds named ARQ 092 and ARQ 087 that are currently about to enter Phase Ib of development.

As a result of the restructuring of the company workforce, which is effective as of August 4, 2014, current cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund the company's working capital and capital requirements into 2017. The last time that we discussed the runway -- financial runway for the company, you might recall that we are expecting for our capital to be sufficient to let us operate into 2016. So we have extended essentially by 12 months, that runway.

I would also like to stress that the restructuring, which we are putting in place, will have no impact on the current financial guidance for 2014. This initiative, which is a multifaceted one, will more closely align our human capital with our focus on clinical stage development programs. This action will allow us to do 2 important things: One we have discussed already, which is extend our operational runway, cash runway in 2017 -- into 2017. But more importantly, it will also allow us to step up investments in the promising assets that we have in the pipeline, with a priority given to ARQ 092, our AKT inhibitor.

This restructuring is focused primarily on our discovery group and other result our activities in the area of early-stage discovery and we are talking pre-IND work will be significantly curtailed. We will maintain the remaining effort because we have a number of early programs that warrant further attention, but we will continue to pursue on those the basis of a purely outsourced model.

Workforce reductions are always difficult. Unfortunately, they are also frequently necessary in the biotech industry as we know it. They're always taken with a heavy heart, particularly when departing our colleagues that have been with us a number of years. So I would like to take a moment to extend our gratitude and my personal sincere appreciation for the work done to all those ArQule colleagues that have left the company or will be leaving the company soon. We have offered them, as always, support and assistance, so that they can best plan their transition to a different professional opportunity.

Let me now go to tivantinib. So at the ASCO annual meeting the past June, there were 7 presentations focused on tivantinib. These presentations stem from trials and include 3 that are under the NIH cradle [ph] umbrella, and 2 from Kyowa Hakko Kirin and 2 in progress presentations from Europe.

This said, and I will come back to ASCO to comment about competitive data in the MET space that came out for non-small cell lung cancer, I would like to give you an update specific to our most important program, the 2 HCC Phase III trials being conducted with tivantinib as a second-line single agent in hepatocellular carcinoma.

So this is potential -- potential monetary driver for ArQule in the near future. I remind you that our standing forecast is to complete this trial by mid-'16. And as I've said before, we will do everything possible to best that opportunity -- that timeline, but we are not in a position to do so yet. And I will explain when we will be in the position to hopefully do that.

So first of all, good news on the front of patient enrollment for METIV-HCC, which is the trial being conducted by ArQule and Daiichi Sankyo in the western territory. The recruitment and screening in the trial continues to gather momentum and the Data Monitoring Committee has recently completed another review on the trial. And we are briefed with the ALK [ph] investment community about that.

We believe that this continued good numbers in recruitment and screening reflect that also continued and broad enthusiasm by investigators. We also believe that some of that enthusiasm stems from the fact that one more trial in second-line HCC, which was a global trial, without the biomarker, all comers failed very recently. And that's the Eli Lilly trial that was, I think, it was ramucirumab. Ramucirumab is a multi-target -- it's a drug approved in other indication, but not in HCC. It's a VEGF inhibitor and it was tested second-line HCC against the best supportive care in a worldwide trial.

The fact that this is yet another, I think, it's the fourth such trial that failed in second-line HCC is enhancing the interest of our investigators on our trial, METIV-HCC, because this remains the only trial that has a biomarker-defined population.

So there is interest, of course, in the drug. But there is also parallel interest to see what a different approach might yield in this hard-to-treat setting after so many failures of trying to fill the therapeutic needs facing the same way, global trial, not defined population. And you will hear more about all of this in the scientific community as the debate continuous.

METIV-HCC also is interesting because it builds on the solid foundation of a Phase II trial. And then as well, like our Phase III is unique because it was the only double-blind randomized trial that -- of this nature in that setting. So it was the strongest data platform than anybody had going into Phase III in second-line HCC.

A key aspect of our trial remains measurement. Obviously, because we have a biomarker-defined population. So measurement continues to be the highest priority in the conduct of the METIV-HCC trials by us and our partners, Daiichi Sankyo. We have taken a number of steps to reduce variability, as well as subjectivity, related to the pathological assessment of the tissue via immunohistochemistry, which is the methodology we are deploying here. Some of these measures include imposing time limitations of sample testers as we had learned from past experience; ensuring that samples contained sufficiently high numbers of HCC cells; double, and sometimes even triple-checking scoring by different pathologists; and discarding borderline measurements, classifying them as MET-low.

Interestingly, unlike in other tumors and more specifically, unlike what we observed in non-small cell lung cancer -- in our non-small cell lung cancer trials, the borderline cases here, at least so far, I observed, are few, much fewer that we observed than when we went back and analyzed all the body of the thousand plus patients in non-small cell lung cancer, and that we have found it much clearer here in HCC toward differentiates MET-high from MET-low. This speaks to the specificity of the work that needs to be done on every trial, and more importantly, in every single tumor type. There is not much homogeneity based on the experience we are accumulating. There are some learnings that can be transferred from one trial to another. There are much fewer learnings that can be transferred from one tumor trial -- type to another. We are gratified by the high level of investigators interest, as I said. And they are all collaborating with discipline to implement the trials as it

is intended to be.

As patient proceed for MET -- patient enrollment proceeds for METIV-HCC, the same is for the work that Kyowa Hakko Kirin is doing in the Asian trial called JET-HCC. We plan to share information on patients enrollment and timelines for the JET-HCC trial as we receive meaningful updates from Kyowa Hakko Kirin. You will recall that, that trial started a few months after the METIV-HCC trials, so it is slightly behind the timeline for the METIV-HCC. But it's progressing nicely for now.

Also, this trial is enrolling patients based on a biomarker-defined protocol. And the difference between this trial and the western trial is that the endpoints here is not overall survival, but the negotiated PFS endpoint.

Let me now turn to what we learned from ASCO. But because at ASCO, the final data for the Phase III trial of onartuzumab, also known as MetMAb, has been presented, and because that trial was considered a head-to-head competitors with the MARQUEE trial Daiichi Sankyo and ArQule conducted, it's worthwhile to stop for a moment here and see if there is anything that could be learned or taken the stock of once the 2 data sets get compared. We hold [ph] the precautions that are necessary. Tivantinib is a small molecule, onartuzumab is an antibody. Tivantinib did not enroll a biomarker, a defined population though it had a biomarker subgroup analysis predefining the trial, onartuzumab enrolled on the biomarker-defined population. So that's saying then there are many more minor -- less relevant differences. Let's see what we have learned.

So what we have learned was that the patients in the onartuzumab trial that did not succeed, as you know, they were enrolled based on MET positivity, did not show -- did not show an advantage for the onartuzumab arm. The statistics are all published and for everybody to see. There was -- that I can only offer a summary. While on onartuzumab, 100 [indiscernible] did not confer a clinical benefit to the MET-high non-small cell population as measured by either overall survival or by median PFS.

We saw in the subgroup, defined by biomarker and analyzed us for protocol in the MARQUEE trial, that although the endpoint were not achieved in the ITT, in the population that was defined as MET-high, we did see a trend, at least a trend toward improvements in both median overall survival and median PFS that favored the treatment arm over the control arm. The size of that group was admittedly limited because only half of the ITT of 1,000 patients could be analyzed for protocol.

So we take heart in this comparison because we deem it favorable. That does not erase our disappointment, our investor's disappointment, as well as physicians, and more importantly patient disappointment in not being able to find yet, at least, in neither of the 2 leading c-MET inhibitors in second-line non-small cell lung cancer and alternative treatment option to Tarceva alone.

I would like, finally, to say on the non-small cell lung cancer, that I'm still not in the position to report data relative to the last subset from MARQUEE that we are left to analyze. That subset, I will remind you is easier for a mutant subset. The data for that subset is not mature yet. And so I will have to adjourn to the next conference call to see if that data will have matured by then, and in that case, I will provide an update.

Now let me turn to the Phase Ib/II stage pipeline. I would like to remind you, first of all, that this pipeline is unencumbered and it is fully owned by ArQule. We have 5 assets in this pipeline and out of this 5 assets, 2 have been prioritized for further investment with ArQule's own capital, and one has been prioritized for a low-grade support through ArQule capital, but support given to a very able and committed academic institution that is pursuing the Phase Ib as we speak, and is testing in this Phase Ib for 761, a potential biomarker that they have identified independently of the work that was done here at ArQule, and so I want to give them full credit for that.

Let me then talk about the 2 compounds where we are going to concentrate ArQule capitals in the next 1.5 years or so to get them through the Phase Ib and possibly, beyond. The early-stage pipeline prioritized is ARQ 092, an orally bioavailable non-ATP competitive allosteric inhibitor of AKT, and ARQ 087, a multi-kinase inhibitor with pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor activity.

Both ARQ 092 and 087 are entry stage Ib clinical testing. We now -- we plan to present preclinical and early Phase Ia clinical data for both compounds in November at the EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics. So soon, there will be public early available data on these 2 compounds -- additional public available data, because we have published quite a bit already.

Data on ARQ 092 have shown that it is a potent, as well as selective allosteric AKT inhibitor. And you know that this is a competitive landscape where you have one side allosteric inhibitors, and on the other side, you have the non-allosteric inhibitors. I think for which GSK if I recall correctly is a champion with 2 AKTs in development. And on the other side, Merck [indiscernible] and ourselves have been in the forefront of the allosteric AKT inhibitors.

We are looking to expand, at this time, the profile of this compound. We are working preclinically with cell line data to identify and hone potential biomarkers that might benefit future clinical development. Preclinically, the data points to tumor types that include breast, endometrial and lymphoma.

So far, clinically, we have some additional indication that they -- we can cross check with the preclinical indication. In fact, we have already seen us report it below a PR in lymphocytic lymphoma. So here, we have an overlap between our preclinical and clinical data. The preclinical data point is that in a certain direction. And so far, the clinical data confirm that that's an interesting direction.

We have also observed long-term stable disease in a number of tumor types, neuroendocrine of the pancreas, breast, as well as osteosarcoma. So breast, again, we are beginning to see the preclinical indication turn into critical evidence; endometrial, we haven't seen it yet so clearly; and osteosarcoma has emerged out of the clinic rather than, so far, than out of the preclinical data.

Before I turn to ARQ 087, I would like to say that we're also exploring the -- preclinically, for now, the combined ability between ARQ 092 and 087. And I think we will have some preclinical data, we will be able to discuss in the -- hopefully, in the next call.

Let me turn to ARQ 087 now. ARQ 087 is following Phase Ib path, similar to those of 092, the level of resources that we are applying is a little bit less. The compound is one that we are confident in. It's a very interesting compound. The reason why our level of investment is a little bit less than in 092 is because the 087, the FGFR space, is much more competitive. And our competitive position, we deem it to be stronger right now in the AKT space than in the FGFR space. This might change over time, and we will say so if it does.

Tumor targets here will be defined based on biomarker evidence. They might include cancer such as gastric, breast and endometrial. And quite a bit is known about the type of cancer sets that would be susceptible to FGFR inhibitors.

For both products, we are also exploring non-oncology indications. However, data will already be available for ARQ 092. Here, again, we have collaborated closely, and we will like to give them full credit for what is going to be presented, with a group that will present -- I think it's a very prestigious group, leader in this disease worldwide, they will be presented in an October meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics, that's where we believe the plan to be. So there, there will be some pretty extensive preclinical work done for 092, our AKT inhibitor, in a very rare and terribly debilitating disease, which is not under the umbrella of oncology indications.

So that concludes my review. I've kept it focused on the programs where our capital is going to go to. And let me leave you, before Rob begins his part with the financial details, let me leave you with a brief summary of the finances.

So we ended the second quarter of 2014 with approximately $78 million in cash and marketable securities. Our financial guidance, as I've said earlier this call, remains unchanged for the year, and we expect to complete this year with between $57 million and $60 million in cash and marketable securities.

We have also -- I've also said during this call that these financials underpin our conviction to be able to operate effectively the company into 2017.

So for additional details on the quarter financials, I'd like to turn the call to Rob Weiskopf, our Vice President of Finance.


Robert J. Weiskopf

Thank you, Paolo. The company reported a net loss of $6,339,000 or $0.10 per share compared with a net loss of $6,786,000 or $0.11 per share in the second quarter of 2013. For the 6-month period ended June 30, 2014, the company reported a net loss of $13,480,000 or $0.22 per share compared to a net loss of $12,561,000 or $0.20 per share in the 6-month period ended June 30, 2013.

At June 30, 2014, the company had a total of $77,572,000 million in cash equivalents and marketable securities. We reported revenues of $2,901,000 for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, compared with revenues of $4,436,000 for the quarter ended June 30, 2013. Revenue for the 6 months ended June 30, 2014, were $5,577,000, compared with revenues of $10,097,000 for the same period in 2013.

Revenue in the 3 and 6 months ended June 30, 2014, was comprised of revenue from Daiichi Sankyo tivantinib development agreement and the Kyowa Hakko Kirin exclusive license agreement for tivantinib.

The $1.5 million revenue decrease in the 3 months ended June 30, 2014, was primarily due to revenue decreases of $0.9 million from our Daiichi Sankyo tivantinib program and $0.6 million from our Daiichi Sankyo ARQ 092 agreement that ended in June 2013. The $4.5 million decrease in the 6 months ended June 30, 2014, is primarily due to revenue decreases of $1.4 million from our Daiichi Sankyo tivantinib program, $1.8 million of other revenue related to onetime research project that was completed in the 6-month ended June 30, 2013, and $1.3 million from our Daiichi Sankyo ARQ 092 agreement that ended in June 2013.

Total costs and expenses for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, were $9,307,000, compared with $11,280,000 for the second quarter of 2013. Total costs and expenses for the 6 months ended June 30, 2014, were $19,288,000 compared with $22,861,000 for the same period in 2013.

Research and development costs for the 3- to 6-month period ended June 30, 2014, were $6,236,000 and $12,967,000, respectively, compared with $8,082,000 and $16,263,000 for the 2013 3- and 6-month period. The lower research and development costs and expenses in the 2014 periods were primarily due to lower labor-related costs, reduced lab expenses, and to a lesser extent, other across-the-board cost decreases.

General and administrative costs for the 3- and 6-month period ended June 30, 2014, were $3,071,000 and $6,321,000, respectively, compared with $3,198,000 and $6,598,000 for the 2013 3- and 6-month periods.

Our cash guidance for 2014 remains the same as provided previously. For 2014, ArQule expects net use of cash to range between $35 million and $38 million. Revenues are expected to range between $8 million and $10 million, net loss is expected to range between $30 million and $33 million, and net loss per share to range between a loss of $0.48 to a loss of $0.52 for the year.

ArQule expects to end 2014 with between $57 million and $60 million in cash and marketable securities.

With that, I would like to hand the call back to Paolo.

Paolo Pucci


Thank you, Rob. And operator, we can open for questions, if there is any in the queue, please?

Question-and-Answer Session


[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Adnan Butt with RBC Capital Markets.

Adnan S. Butt - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division

The first is on the Phase III enrollment. There's a number of centers that are up, but are all of them active, how many have enrolled, if you can say something about that? And do you expect enrollment to be pretty rapid or are there other competing trials that are ongoing at this time?

Paolo Pucci

Yes, I can answer. Good morning, Adnan. The number of centers that are enrollment -- enrolling now is around about 100 sites.

The competing trials that we monitor at least are 2: One is a Bayer trial in second-line HCC global, and the second trial is for [indiscernible] which is also a global trial. There are some additional trials that we don't believe will compete directly. But in reality, no trial competes because our trials are biomarker-directed trials, and the other trials are biomarker agnostics. So that's the way we view it. And that's where we kind of hear from investigators. Of course, there is always some competition because the number of patients is what it is.

One aspect that is beginning to intrigue investigators from the scientific point of view, and may be Brian can add more, is around the screening. There are differences that are emerging between screening based on archival tissue and screening based on fresh tissue. And it seems that front-line therapy has an impact on the MET status.

This is preliminary data, which you can discuss with us, and probably nobody else because nobody else has seen the data live as Brian is, and all these play into the recruitment factor. As I said before, we affected the -- DMC request the change of schedule early this year. And we said then that only toward the end of this year, we'll be able to give a more defined timeline for completing recruitment of the trial, regardless of competition, but obviously considering it. And that's as much as I can say right now, Adnan. I hope this answers your question. Brian, anything you want to add?

Brian Schwartz

Just the first part of your question, Adnan. I think in terms of this trial, being a biomarker-driven trial with tissue need to be sent in, out of the 100 slots, I would say the vast majority of them have screened. There's a relatively high screen rate because they would fall out for inclusion extrusion criteria and a MET negative result. But the vast majority of the sites are up and running in the screening process, and we are very encouraged by the current randomization rate and the way the trial is currently running.

Adnan S. Butt - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division

If I may get a follow-up, could just expand a bit more about the differences that you're observing in fresh versus other tissue? And these differences should only impact enrollment, correct, not the outcome?

Paolo Pucci

The -- provided that they're captured correctly, yes, they should -- it should be as such. If anything, I would say, the impact might be a commercial impact because if MET status is enhanced, and that being statistically enhanced after a certain type of frontline therapy, then all of a sudden, the market for second-line therapy might be a little bit more significant than we had originally assumed when this dynamic are now being taken into consideration.

I wouldn't say a lot more than that because, so far, it's anecdotal evidence on fewer than 100 patients in total that we have seen come through, and remember we are blinded to this trial. So it should be taken for what it is. What we do see though is an impact on screen failure rate. You have a certain screen failure rate, both in the west and in Asia, if you take archival tissue and you have a different screen failure rate if you take fresh tissue. That's as much as we can say now.


Our next version comes from Chad Messer with Needham & Company.

Chad J. Messer - Needham & Company, LLC, Research Division

A couple, if I may. So just to be clear, you said there's a change in the screen failure rate to your favor? As in more patients or fewer patients are failing, or in the other direction?

Paolo Pucci

So far, based on these small numbers, they -- in favor. And that's the reason why we're saying that if anything, the implication might be, if and when down the road, commercial, because if this were to be confirmed on larger numbers, it could appear, would appear that there is a certain type of frontline therapy with best agent [ph] enhances the MET status towards being more MET-high than MET-low.

Chad J. Messer - Needham & Company, LLC, Research Division

Okay. And this is despite the fact that you also have what you described as sort of stricter measures in terms of time limitations on tests and things like that?

Paolo Pucci

Yes, on the numbers that we have so far. But the 300 and some patients that we have on these trials is all that the scientific community's going to have, and ourselves too. So however, the small number, they're going to be the only one available because as I said, nobody else is going in this setting with a randomized trial.

Chad J. Messer - Needham & Company, LLC, Research Division

Okay, understood. And then just a couple on the financials. Is there going to be a restructuring expense in the second half? And if so, is it possible to provide an estimate?

Paolo Pucci

There will be a restructuring expense, yes. And in terms of measurement, I would say that you want to look at the statement we made today, that our guidance remains unchanged for the year. So whatever charges there will be, they will be in effect -- they will not affect the call -- the guidance. And there will be some details in the 10-Q, obviously.

Number of people affected, a little bit more of what the benefits, the charges will be and a number of other items, not dissimilar from what you have seen in the Q of last year. So before our new Q is out, if you have a strong interest in the detail, I would point you to the Q of last year this time, this quarter, because it's a similar process. Sorry, but the Q is coming out with all the details.


[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from George Zavoico with MLV & Co.

George B. Zavoico - MLV & Co LLC, Research Division

A question about the time limitation, what exactly is the limit? In other words, from the time the sample is taken and fixed and sent to you, that you have to return with a MET-high or MET-low designation in order to get the patient randomized?

Brian Schwartz

We're now working on from when the patient sends in the sample, it's about -- within a week, the investigator would get the answer if the patient fulfilled the inclusion-exclusion criteria. We do have a process in place. If a patient is currently on sorafenib and they sent in a current tissue, then the investigator would only get the results once the patient progresses. But it's about a week turnaround from when they come in.

George B. Zavoico - MLV & Co LLC, Research Division

The implication seems to be that if you hold a sample for longer is that the MET seems to disappear from the sample as it were, it's not stable. Is that what you're finding? Have you done sequential tests on MET-high, MET-low on samples over time?

Brian Schwartz

I think there's 2 separate issues, George. But one is with regards to the stability, that's all worked out in the diagnostic application with FDA, and that's very stable once the slides been cut and stained and being read. So that process is actually -- what we're talking about is acquisition of the sample from the patient. So if you biopsy a patient, let's say, 6 months before they start sorafenib and they come on to the study, the MET rate is X, and if you biopsy them just before they start sorafenib, it's a little bit higher, and if you biopsy them within a few days of progressing on sorafenib, it's even a little bit higher. So it's more in the course of the disease, which is what we had expected.

George B. Zavoico - MLV & Co LLC, Research Division

So this speaks to the resistance mechanism of the tumor in the sense that as sorafenib loses its sensitivity, the tumors use the MET to get around sorafenib and it eventually leads to progression.

Brian Schwartz

That's one of the possible explanations and there's some very nice papers, not with our drug, but with other MET inhibitors and [indiscernible], showing sorafenib, [indiscernible] showing the exact thing you spoke about, the resistance mechanism.

George B. Zavoico - MLV & Co LLC, Research Division

So are you using a sort of nomogram, depending on how long before the progression with sorafenib that is MET-high versus MET-low?

Brian Schwartz

MET-high, MET-low, we're defining whether the tissue comes in before sorafenib, during sorafenib, or after sorafenib, the definition of MET-high is the same.

Paolo Pucci

It goes with the companion diagnostics.

George B. Zavoico - MLV & Co LLC, Research Division

And then cut point is set. I mean, you're satisfied with a cut point. You're not playing with that around anymore, are you?

Brian Schwartz

No, no.

Paolo Pucci



I'm not showing any further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to William Boni for closing remarks.

William B. Boni

Thank you, everyone, for attending the call. If you have any financial or operational detailed questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Thanks a lot. Have a great rest of the day. Take care.


Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to All other use is prohibited.


If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: Thank you!