Minerva Neurosciences, Inc.'s (NERV) CEO Remy Luthringer on Q4 2020 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV) Q4 2020 Earnings Conference Call March 8, 2021 8:30 AM ET

Company Participants

William Boni - VP, IR and Corporate Communications

Remy Luthringer - Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Geoff Race - Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Business Officer

Conference Call Participants

Jason Butler - JMP

Jeet Mukherjee - Jefferies

Joel Beatty - Citi

Myles Minter - William Blair

Douglas Tsao - H.C. Wainwright

Operator

Welcome to the Minerva Neurosciences Year End 2020 Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a question-and-answer session, following today's prepared remarks. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of Minerva's website at ir.minervaneurosciences.com. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the call over to William Boni, Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications at Minerva. Please proceed.

William Boni

Good morning. A press release with the company's fourth quarter and year end 2020 financial results and business highlights became available at 7:30 Eastern Time today, and can be found on the Investors section of our website. Our annual report on Form 10-K was also filed electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission this morning, and can be found on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

Joining me on the call today from Minerva are Dr. Remy Luthringer, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Geoff Race, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Business Officer. Following our prepared remarks, we will open the call for Q&A.

Before we begin, I would like to remind you that today's discussion will include statements about the company's future expectations, plans, and prospects that constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Safe Harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We caution that these forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and may differ materially from actual results due to a variety of factors that are more fully detailed under the caption Risk Factors in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 filed with the SEC earlier today.

Any forward-looking statements made on this call, speak only as of today's date, Monday, March 8, 2021 and the company disclaims any obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur after today's call, except as required by law.

I would now like to turn the call over to Remy Luthringer.

Remy Luthringer

Thank you, Bill and good morning everyone. Thanks for joining us today. I'm very pleased to present an update on progress and our earnings report for the full year 2020. In May last year we announced top line results from the double-blind portion of the Phase 3 trial with roluperidone in negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Also the study did not meet statistical significance. We remain highly encouraged by the promising signals that emerged.

We look forward to sharing data from the Phase 3 nine months open-label extension, which will be available in the first half of this year. Following our Type C meeting with the FDA in November 2020, during which the FDA cautioned us that an NDA submission based on the then current data from the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be highly likely to be filed, we continue our dialogue with the agency.

We are providing information to the FDA on several topics highlighted in the meeting minutes. Furthermore, we will also initiate a pivotal bioequivalence study with approximately 48 healthy volunteers, comparing the formulation employed in the Phase 2b and Phase 3 trials, as well as at least one new formulation designed in conjunction with our commercial supply partner, Catalent, Inc. to facilitate large scale manufacturing. We are working to address the FDA's requests and comments and we are much elated by the agency's encouragement to continue the development of roluperidone for the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Among emerging therapies in development for negative symptoms, roluperidone is the most clinically advanced. We remain committed to bringing roluperidone as quickly as possible to patients in need of such treatment. We are looking forward to 2021 with a significantly improved cash position following the recent sale of our rights to the seltorexant royalty to Royalty Pharma from which we received $60 million upfront and we will receive further $95 million subject to the achievement of certain milestones.

First I would like to provide a more detailed update on our lead program roluperidone, a drug which has the potential to treat negative symptoms. Our primary objective in 2021 is to continue the develop path forward to meet the regulatory requirements, to submit an NDA for roluperidone. First, the nine months open-label extension of the Phase 3 trial has been completed on schedule a few weeks ago, and I am happy to report that no patient was discontinued due to COVID-19 illness.

The total of 333 patients around 65% of those enrolled entered the nine months open-label extension in which those patients already being treated with roluperidone remained on treatment on the same dose received in the 12-week double-blind phase 32 mg and 64 mg. Those patients who received placebo in the 12-week double-blind phase were randomized to either 32 mg or 64 mg.

We are very pleased that the total of 202 patients, around 61%, completed the open-label extension of the study. Data are expected to be available in the first half of 2021. The data is important because as we observed in the Phase 2b six months extension, they may demonstrate if improvement of negative symptoms is sustained or increased over the one-year duration, if improvement of negative symptoms leads to improved functioning, whether roluperidone maintains or improves positive symptoms and/or agitation, and whether the safety and tolerability profile of roluperidone is maintained over the one-year administration period. I look forward to sharing a detailed presentation of the findings when data become available.

In parallel, we continue to move forward with activities necessary to support the submission of a New Drug Application for roluperidone. First, we intend to initiate the bioequivalence study I described earlier. Importantly, we believe that by showing bioequivalence across formulations, we will address the specific comment made by the FDA about the Phase 2b formulation. Second, we are in the process of submitting the requested scientific literature in support of the psychometric properties of the primary and key secondary endpoints used in our clinical development as requested by the FDA.

Following the completion of the pivotal bioequivalence study, we plan to request a pre-NDA meeting with the FDA to discuss certain matters, including data from the Phase 3 open-label extension, data from the bioequivalence study, and potential NDA submission of roluperidone for the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

I will now move on the recent developments in the seltorexant program. You will remember that in mid-2020 Minerva exercised its right to opt out of a joint development agreement with Janssen for the future development of seltorexant. As a result, we are entitled to collect mid-single-digit royalties on potential future worldwide sales in certain indications with no further financial obligations to contribute development costs to Janssen.

On January 19 of this year, we announced that Royalty Pharma had acquired Minerva royalty interest in seltorexant and that we received an upfront payment of $60 million with the potential to receive up to further $95 million in additional payments contingent on achieving certain clinical, regulatory, and commercialization milestones. Seltorexant is currently in Phase 3 clinical development by Janssen Pharmaceutica, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder with insomnia symptoms.

We are delighted to have partnered with Royalty Pharma, the leader in acquiring pharmaceutical royalties across the life science industry. It has enabled us to secure significant non-dilutive funding, both immediate and potentially over the long-term, that will support our top priority, the continued development of roluperidone, our lead asset.

In summary, we remain committed to developing roluperidone as a potentially transformative treatment in the treatment of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. I look forward to sharing data from the Phase 3 open-label extension with you soon and the pivotal bioequivalence studies in the coming months as well as continuing to update our investors on the ongoing dialogue with the FDA.

I will now turn over to Geoff to discuss our financial performance.

Geoff Race

Thank you, Remy. Earlier this morning, we issued a press release summarizing our operating results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2020. A more detailed discussion of our results may be found in our annual report on Form-10K filed with the SEC earlier today.

Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash as of December 31, 2020 were approximately $25.5 million compared to $46 million as of December 31, 2019. In January 2021, the company received a $60 million cash payment from Royalty Pharma in connection with our acquisition of the company's royalty interest in seltorexant.

We presently expect that the company's existing cash and cash equivalents, which include its financial results at the year end 2020 combined with the $60 million payment received in January from Royalty Pharma will be sufficient to meet its anticipated capital requirements for at least the next 12 months from today based on our current operating plan. The assumptions upon which this estimate is based are routinely evaluated and maybe subject to change.

Research and development expenses were $3.6 million and $28.5 million for the fourth quarters of 2020 and 2019 respectively. R&D expenses were $22 million and $58.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 respectively. The decrease in R&D expense for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2020 was primarily due to a $19 million charge taken in December 2019 for the impairment of the in process research and development related to MIN-117 following the results of the Phase 2b trial in MDD which failed to meet its primary and key secondary endpoints.

The decrease in R&D expense for the year ended December 31, 2020 was due also to the approximately $11 million from the completion of the Phase 2b clinical trial of MIN-117 in December 2019 and the completion of the double-blind portion of the Phase 3 clinical trial of roluperidone in May 2020.

Non-cash stock compensation expense included in R&D expenses was $3 million and $2.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 respectively. G&A Expenses were $3.7 million and $3.8 million for the fourth quarters of 2020 and 2019 respectively. G&A expenses were $17.3 million and $17.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 respectively.

The decreases in G&A expenses for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2020 were primarily due to lower pre-commercial expenses in 2020, offset by higher insurance costs. Non-cash stock compensation expense included in G&A expenses was $6.7 million and $6.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 respectively.

Net loss was $7.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2020, or loss per share of $0.17 basic and diluted, compared to net loss of $29.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2019, or loss per share of $0.77 basic and diluted. Net income was $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2020, or income per share of $0.05 basic and diluted, compared to a net loss of $72.2 million, or loss per share of $1.85 basic and diluted for the year ended December 31, 2019.

Collaborative revenue was $41.2 million and $0.0 for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 respectively. The increase in collaborative revenue was the result of the Company’s exercising its right to opt out of the co-development agreement with Janssen during 2020. As a result of the opt out, the Company has no further performance obligations and recognized revenue of $41.2 million which had previously been included on its balance sheet under deferred revenue.

Now I'd like to turn the call over to the operator for any questions. Operator?

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Tom Shrader with BTIG. Your line is now open.

Unidentified Analyst

Hi, this is Julian on for Tom. Thank you for taking my questions. I'm wondering if there are any data points from the upcoming open-label extension analysis that could may be specifically address some of the pushback you got from the FDA in your recent Type C meeting? And then on the bioequivalence study, is it fair to assume this is the gating step to filing an NDA or will the CMC package share likely be the last detail?

Remy Luthringer

Hi, Remy speaking here. So obviously great questions. I really think, yes indeed you are right, I mean the extension data will be really very encouraging to us because as you know negative symptoms is a chronic part of the disease and you need to re-demonstrate that the effect is sustained over time. So as I mentioned in my presentation, I mean we are really looking forward to check again because we have already efficacious data from the Phase 2b. If you remember we had six months extension of top of the three months or 12 weeks, double-blind Phase. So we could see in this study a continuous improvement of negative symptoms and also we've seen improvement in terms of functioning.

So first of all, I mean we will be able to confirm that the negative symptoms continue to improve. Second, that is transformed into a functional improvement and as you know, what is really important is that these patients are able to function again, that they can go back to a job, and then to have a decent family life, so functioning is extremely important. So we will be able to check this, because we are measuring PANSS and PSP all along the extension of the nine months extension, so we will have data of one year. We will also be able to check what is going on in terms of positive symptoms and what we can call relapses to see if we have limited number of relapses as we had in the Phase 2b, so this will be obviously very important.

And last but not least, as you know, I mean we really put this extension in place to confirm the efficacy data, but also to check the box about 12 months exposure of our drug, so we will also be able to check in terms of safety, yes and long-term safety. So in my opinion extremely important data and if you remember, yes indeed it is no longer placebo controlled, but it is still blinded for the dose, so we will really also have the possibility to check between 64 mg and 32 mg.

And for your second question about the bioequivalence study, yes indeed, I think this is really important study. If we can as in this preliminary study we did some time ago demonstrated again bioequivalence between the different formulations, I think this is really the driver of moving towards the pre-NDA meeting.

Unidentified Analyst

Great, thank you.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jason Butler with JMP Securities. Your line is now open.

Jason Butler

Hi, thanks for taking the questions. A couple on the open-label extension, can you just give us a sense of how many patients from the placebo arm of the double-blind trial rolled over into the open-label extension? And then secondly, how are you thinking about releasing the data? Will you release the data in conjunction with a medical meeting or could we get it as soon as you finish the analyses that you've outlined in the press release? Thanks.

Remy Luthringer

Good question, Jason. So clearly I mean in terms of placebo patients who went into the extension phase, I think it was quite equivalent between the three treatment arms. So we had more or less the same number of placebo patients who switched to either 32 or 64 mg because it is what happens when they are going into the extension. And I think this data of I think, -- I hopefully I was able to convince everybody, I think this data is extremely important because this will be an additional piece of information about the efficacy of our molecule.

I think we will have a specific announcement at a specific event about this release of this data because they are so important. So as soon as we have the data available we will think about the best format to communicate the data.

Jason Butler

Great and then just one more Remy on the mITT analyses, any updated thoughts on or interactions with the FDA or your advisers on the agency's willingness to accept the analyses without -- excluding that single outlier site>

Remy Luthringer

So, you know as already it is a matter of review yes, because the FDA will go into the data more deeply, I mean they will really check all the data we have to really confirm that I mean these 17 patients is from this site, really I mean the assessment of efficacy as well as assessment of some vital signs was not done according to, how it should have been done. So when you're looking to, what has been done in the past particularly by the psychiatry division, I mean, a lot of files, or a lot of NDAs have moved forwards with modified ITT population.

So, I mean, so clearly I mean, we are confident that I mean, the 17 patients should not be in the analyses and there are precedents where I mean the FDA, again after having reviewed very carefully the data, were happy with a modified ITT population to be considered. So, and this is what came out basically, from the Type C meeting, they really confirmed based on a matter of review, they are willing to consider ITT and mITT data.

Jason Butler

Okay, great. Thanks for taking the questions.

Remy Luthringer

Thank you, Jason.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Biren Amin with Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Jeet Mukherjee

Yes. Hey, good morning, guys. This is Jeet on for Biren. Just a couple of questions from me, again on that modified IDC point. Remy, are there any specific examples of agents being approved in the neuroscience space that actually went ahead with that modified ITT analyses that perhaps included or excluded a group of patients? And just in terms of the open-label extension data, are we going to see endpoint data such as PSP or CGI-S to kind of make the point on improvements in patient performance and status? Thanks.

Remy Luthringer

Yes, so definitely, there are precedents. I mean, and as I just mentioned before, as I mean in the space of psychiatry and specifically the psychiatry division as I mean, without going into the details, but I mean you have approvals like SPRAVATO, you have approvals like [indiscernible], where I mean definitely is a modified ITT population has been accepted by the FDA. So again, I think we are not doing something special here. I mean, what is important is that the FDA gets comfortable with this site, that this site did not provide plausible data. So this is what I can say about this. So can you repeat the second question? Sorry, what is the second point you were suggesting [ph]?

Jeet Mukherjee

Yes, the second question was just on the open-label extension data we'll be getting, are we getting PSP and perhaps CGI-S data just to talk about patients' performance?

Remy Luthringer

Sure, for sure. So I mean, as I mentioned before, I mean we continued during the open-label to measure all the efficacy parameters, including PANSS, PSP, CGI-S and so on. And so definitely, yes indeed, we will have this. And I think we will be able to really to re-demonstrate, as we demonstrated already, that the PSP improvement is very linked to the improvement of negative symptoms. If you remember, PSP total score was already significant in the double-blind phase, yes. But indeed, we will have all this data we will have again, the analyses of from wherever the functional improvement is coming, is it related to negative symptoms and more specifically, we will also have abolition there. So all this will happen and will be presented definitely, yes.

Jeet Mukherjee

Great, thank you so much.

Remy Luthringer

You're welcome.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Joel Beatty with Citi. Your line is now open.

Joel Beatty

Hi, thanks for taking the questions. First one is on bioequivalence. Could you compare the differences in three different formulations for us from Phase 2, Phase 3, and then also what you plan to be in the commercial supply? And then, along with that comparison, could you tell us about what you plan to show in the bioequivalence study to help comfort FDA?

Remy Luthringer

Yes, so again, I mean, as you know, I mean what we are trying to demonstrate is here that the exposure of the drugs or the AUC of the drugs are or the different formulations are the same, because as I mentioned in the past, I mean, the efficacy when you're doing the PK/PD analyses, the efficacy of roluperidone is coming mostly from the parent compound and it is related to exposure so to AUC, and not at all to Cmax.

So, this is extremely clear from of our PK/PD analyses, which have been done by some key external people who are really specialists in this space. So what we try to achieve between the Phase 2b and the Phase 3, if you remember, Joel goes to keep this AUC which our preliminary PK study showed, but we wanted to reduce the Cmax of parent compound and one of the metabolites, BFB-520, because we wanted to even further improve the safety margin in terms of event -- effects on QTc prolongation.

So this is a difference between Phase 2b and Phase 3 formulation and we were able to do it. Remember, we presented this in one of our webcasts where we could show that I mean, we kept the AUC and we reduced Cmax of again parent and BFB-520 this metabolite. No, is between Phase 3 and the final formulation, nothing major has changed. It is just some percentage of some ingredients and this should not change at all the bioequivalence. So it is ready to confirm once more and we already have the information that I mean this is completely comparable between Phase 3 and as a final formulation, which is currently produced by Catalent. Hello?

Joel Beatty

Got it, thanks. And then may be one other question on the mITT for the 17 patients, is there any way to get kind of like real actual data from those patients or is that something that does not exist?

Remy Luthringer

Here, you have to explain me what you mean by real actual data, so…

Joel Beatty

Yes, I guess, were they, it sounds like the data was so implausible that it doesn't reflect actual readings. So have you been able to confirm, for example, that those patients were dosed and actual readings and assessments were taken?

Remy Luthringer

Sure, sure, sure. No, I understand. So definitely, I think there is no doubt about it that the patients exists. Why it is also clear is that I mean, a lot of the data for efficacy and for, again some vital signs have just been carried forward from the baseline. So, there is no modification of this data over time and which is completely plausible, yes. I mean, so clearly, I mean and I gave some examples in the past. So clearly, I mean the patients exists, but the assessments have not been done in the right way, yes.

Joel Beatty

Thank you.

Remy Luthringer

You are welcome, Joel.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Myles Minter with William Blair. Your line is now open.

Myles Minter

Thanks for taking my questions and apologies for the background noise. Just a clarification question. I believe for the mITT analyses to be sort of accepted by the FDA that that would be a process of review. But out of the top same, meaning they're actually stating that the NDA in its current format would be unlikely to be filed. So that would mean that it wouldn't get a review.

So my question is, is that the correct interpretation? And then was the unwillingness to recommend the filing or acceptance of that filing was that just due to the fact that you didn't have this open-label safety data set on hand and now you're ticking the boxes and you have everything in place or am I completely missing there [indiscernible]? Thanks.

Remy Luthringer

So, I mean, as you know, Minerva is an extremely transparent organization and we gave exactly the terms of what we received in the minutes. So, this is to answer one of your points. It is clear that means the open label data were not available at that time and we are really hoping that this open-label data will be an additional piece of information confirming that the main roluperidone is an efficacious drug. So after, I mean, when we go through the level of preview, I think I mean, if you go according to these guidelines, so this is guidance from end of 2019.

If we are able to convince the FDA about our Phase 2b data, this is obviously related to the bioequivalence study, which will make the Phase 2b being one of the two studies you have in your efficacy data package. If this shows bioequivalence, I mean if you can demonstrate bioequivalence, I don't see really a reason why we could not move to the review processes, and this is what our advisors are telling us. And, what the FDA also said is that I mean, if I mean, this goes to review, I mean, this will go to an outcome.

So, it's, I think a dynamic process. We, as I mentioned in my presentation we really are having a dialogue open with the FDA. We gave them the information about the psychometric aspects of the different scales. We gave them, how I mean, we managed the calculation of the total score of PSP. So it's a continuous dialogue and I'm extremely confident that I mean, if we're doing a great job in explaining even better our data and the way we have analyzed them, and what is in the data, I think we will have a positive hear from the FDA, and we will be able to move forward with the NDA.

Myles Minter

Yes, understood that's very helpful. And my second question is just on the bioequivalence study, I understand the last time you were talking about that to us, it was around about 36 patients and now it's gone up to 48. Is that just an additional cohort for the commercialization formulation or is the added patients for some other reason in that trial? Thanks very much.

Remy Luthringer

Yes. So Myles when we spoke together I mean, I was speaking about the guideline. No, we have done real power calculation, powering calculation sorry and it ends up with 48 subjects. So we are going to the safe side, basically, I mean, having more subjects or healthy subjects, because we are not dealing with patients here, it is with healthy subjects. So it's -- the powering is indicating that 48 is the number to go, obviously, as you know, because this is a crossover trial, but whereas the subject is his own control. And basically here, you might also have some drop outs, so I mean you never know because healthy body finds a job and he does not want to do period three. So clearly, we are also anticipating or including in our modeling and in our power calculations, and maybe one or two subjects might drop out. So it's really to be on the safe side basically.

Sorry to interrupt you, something very important is that we also have submitted our protocol to the FDA. Yes, and we are definitely waiting, if I mean they have any feedback, but I mean, so we -- it's done again in a very open and constructive mindset with the FDA.

Myles Minter

Right, lots of interactions with the FDA and looking for the open-label data, so thanks very much.

Remy Luthringer

Thank you.

Operator

Thank you. Our last question comes from the line of Douglas Tsao with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is now open.

Douglas Tsao

Hi, good morning, and thanks for taking the questions. Just Remy, in terms of the open-label extension we're going to get data for the 64 and 32 mg doses. You've sort of honed in on the 64 mg do you've seen more sort of consistent effect across the studies now. Is there anything that you could see from the 32 mg that would perhaps make you sort of revisit that in terms of the -- you're sort of thoughts for the molecule going forward? Thank you.

Remy Luthringer

Yes, so I mean, definitely I mean, I have not given up on 32 mg because remember I mean in the Phase 2b and it was very clear that 32 mg was really different from placebo. When you're looking to the effect size or the Delta we have in the Phase 3, 32 mg is again showing a nice improvement. Obviously, I mean placebo had also a larger improvement, that the reason why I think we could not show p value at the end of the day. When you're looking for the integrated, when I’m speaking integrated I mean, it is combined Phase 2b and Phase 3 double-blind data means two doses are highly significant with very decent effect sizes.

So indeed, I mean, if I mean the extension data are again, pointing towards the fact that 32 mg continues to improve negative symptoms over a period of one year, I think 32 mg is an important dose. I’m not saying that this will be part of the final filing of the NDA, but I mean 32 has still clearly shown that we have a pharmacological effect, which is dose. So let us have the data, let us analyze the data and we will see what we're doing with 32 mg, but always pointing towards the fact that 32 is clearly showing a pharmacological effect of an improvement of the patients.

Douglas Tsao

Okay, great. Thank you. And just as a follow up in terms of your analyses that made you confident that the effect is really AUC not Cmax, which makes sense. I'm just curious, you referenced some PD markers. I'm just curious what PD markers you focused in on? Thank you.

Remy Luthringer

For the PK/PD analyses, I mean it was definitely based on the PANSS negative scores. I mean, so here we are really referring to PANSS negative. So we did exposure versus -- plasma exposures versus negative symptoms coming out from the PANSS. And clearly, when you're looking to what is explaining as improvement of the PANSS negative score, it is AUC and not at all Cmax. So it's, this is from where I'm making this comment. It's a very, very careful analyses. compare I mean in between PANSS parameters and the different pharmacokinetic parameters.

Douglas Tsao

Okay, great. Thank you.

Remy Luthringer

Welcome.

Operator

Thank you. There are no further questions. I will now turn the call back to Remy Luthringer for closing remarks.

Remy Luthringer

Yes, thank you so much. Thank you really, everybody for all these great questions. I wanted also to take this opportunity to thank patients and families and caregivers who have participated to this Phase 3 study. As we have heard, I mean some of these patients went to the end of the 12 weeks, so more than 200 patients. So thank you again for this help, hopefully to develop an extremely innovative drug, which will be one of the first treatments for negative symptoms. So I'm looking forward to update you on the next upcoming milestones, open-label data and bioequivalence data. So thank you again and looking forward to speak with you soon. Bye.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's presentation. Thank you once again for your participation. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.