Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to 2026. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. To pose a question at any time, please press star then one on your touch-tone phone.

I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin A. Jarosick with CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Investor Relations.

Sir, please proceed.

Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries Holdings, Inc. earnings conference call. With me today are Christopher D. Bohn, President and CEO; Bert A. Frost, Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer; and Richard Hoker, Vice President, Interim CFO, and Chief Accounting Officer.

CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its results for 2026 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we will review the results, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict.

Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and posted in the slides. Let me introduce Christopher D.

Bohn.

Thanks, Martin. Good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted results for 2026 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $983 million. These results reflect a continued focus on safety, operational excellence, and disciplined execution by our team.

Starting with safety, our trailing twelve-month recordable incident rate at the end of the quarter was 0.16 incidents per 200,000 hours worked. This is a direct result of how our team lives our “Do It Right” culture every day. Operationally, we had another strong quarter, running available ammonia capacity at nearly 100%, and our commercial, logistics, and distribution teams ensured we met customers’ requirements leading into the North American spring application season. Our performance in the quarter also reflected the tight global nitrogen supply-demand balance that carried into 2026. Late in the quarter, the conflict with Iran severely tightened the global nitrogen market, a dynamic we expect to continue for some time.

Lost production cannot be recovered. Damaged nitrogen and upstream feedstock capacity must be restored, and global trade flows will require time to recalibrate. In addition, the Russia-Ukraine war continues to disrupt nitrogen production at Russian facilities. From a macro perspective, we believe recent geopolitical disruptions are driving a fundamental shift in our global industry’s risk-return framework.

First quartile producers have historically been defined by low natural gas costs alone. Recent supply disruptions from the Middle East and Russia show that low-cost feedstock is no longer enough. As a result, we see a clear divide within the first quartile. North America, where we have intentionally invested billions of dollars over decades to build the leading nitrogen manufacturing and distribution network, is low cost and low risk, representing premium-grade assets.

This is in stark contrast to approximately 50% of first quartile capacity that is fragile and exposed, with low natural gas costs that are offset by extreme geopolitical exposure. We believe the geopolitical risk premium that fragile and exposed producers face will be an enduring structural headwind, increasing the cost of capital and adding costs and uncertainties for moving product to customers. In our view, this has strengthened mid-cycle economics across the nitrogen industry, with a higher urea price now required to incentivize investment in new capacity in the Middle East to offset geopolitical risk or to build in higher-capital-cost, low-risk regions.

With that, I will turn it over to Bert to discuss the global nitrogen market environment. Bert?

Thanks, Chris. As we have discussed in our last several earnings calls, the global nitrogen supply-demand balance has been structurally tight for more than a year. Global nitrogen demand has been robust. At the same time, supply has been constrained by geopolitical conflicts, elevated natural gas prices in Europe, export restrictions, and declining natural gas availability in several key producing regions.

The conflict with Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz introduced a significant supply shock into this already tight market. Exports of urea and ammonia from the region have been severely limited, removing a meaningful portion of low-cost supply during peak nitrogen season. Additionally, producers that use imported LNG for production have curtailed or shut down facilities due to fuel availability issues. These dynamics have substantially raised the global clearing price to meet nitrogen demand.

During this period, our focus has been on our long-standing North American customer base, which includes retailers, wholesalers, and cooperatives. We have been moving product to our customers for the spring 2026 planting season since July 2025. Based on what we see today, inventory for both pre-plant and post-plant applications appears well covered. We continue to work with our customers to meet the last layers of demand for this season. This includes leveraging our manufacturing, logistics, and distribution capabilities to increase nitrogen availability this spring.

For example, we temporarily delayed a turnaround at Donaldsonville, allowing us to produce about 100 thousand additional tons of urea for the season. We also repurposed Yazoo City rail assets to move urea from Donaldsonville into the Corn Belt and to ship ammonia from Medicine Hat, Canada, into our U.S. distribution network. We continue to evaluate all our operations and distribution channels to ensure product availability through the end of the season. While CF Industries Holdings, Inc. has flexibility to support our customers, globally there are not many options to overcome a supply disruption of this magnitude.

Indeed, we are seeing several nations restrict exports, further removing supply from global trade flows. China remains focused on ensuring its domestic agricultural industry is well supplied, with exports of nitrogen largely restricted. While we expect controlled and limited urea exports to begin later in the second quarter, volumes are unlikely to fully offset lost Middle Eastern supply. Russia has also implemented export restrictions to prioritize domestic agriculture, and this week, Egypt moved to apply a $90 per metric ton duty on nitrogen fertilizer exports.

With global nitrogen supply constraints, there will be intense competition for available supply. We expect India, which entered 2026 with low inventories, to lead the way. Given urea volumes not delivered under a previous tender and lower-than-expected domestic urea production, we believe India’s urea import requirements will be substantial in 2026, potentially rising to 10 million to 12 million metric tons. This would be approximately 10% to 30% higher than 2025 and nearly double its 2024 imports.

In this environment, we expect to see unmet demand in certain parts of the world. We believe Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia are areas where we will see lower fertilizer consumption. As application volume per acre decreases globally, yields will decline, which we expect to result in higher prices for corn, wheat, rice, cotton, and sugar. Looking ahead, even with some incremental supply later in the year, we expect global nitrogen markets to remain tight through 2026 and into 2027. We also expect further structural tightening through the end of the decade as new nitrogen capacity under construction today falls short of the traditional nitrogen demand growth rate.

With that, let me turn it over to Rich.

Thanks, Bert, and good morning, everyone. For 2026, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of approximately $615 million, or $3.98 per diluted share. EBITDA was approximately $1 billion and adjusted EBITDA was $983 million. These results reflect a gain of approximately $170 million from a previously disclosed litigation settlement with Orica and Nelson Brothers.

We recorded the gain in the first quarter and received the proceeds in April. As a result, it will be reflected in our cash flow statement next quarter. On a trailing twelve-month basis, net cash from operations was approximately $2.7 billion and free cash flow was approximately $1.65 billion. We continue to efficiently convert EBITDA to free cash flow at industry-leading margins, positioning the company well to continue to invest in accretive growth and return capital to shareholders.

Our capital expenditure projection for 2026 remains approximately $1.3 billion on a consolidated basis. CF Industries Holdings, Inc.’s portion of this is approximately $950 million, which includes $550 million for sustaining CapEx for our existing network plus approximately $400 million relating to both the Blue Point joint venture and the Blue Point common infrastructure we are building at the site. Construction on the Blue Point ammonia plant is expected to commence this year once applicable permits have been received. We continue to be pleased by the progress that has been made on this high-return project that will add over 1.5 million tons of gross ammonia capacity in the United States when it begins operation late in 2029. Finally, we repurchased approximately 150 thousand shares of our common stock for $15 million in the first quarter.

We expect to continue to be opportunistic and disciplined as we execute the remainder of our current share repurchase program. With that, Chris will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.

Thanks, Rich. I want to thank CF Industries Holdings, Inc. employees for their commitment and dedication during 2026. They worked safely, delivered outstanding operational performance, and stayed closely engaged with our customers as industry dynamics evolved rapidly. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. is well positioned for the near, medium, and long term. Our North American footprint, operational excellence, and consistent industry-leading free cash flow conversion set us apart.

Alongside our structural and operational advantages, we are realizing decarbonization opportunities today that provide incremental free cash flow. And our Blue Point complex and additional opportunities within our existing network provide a robust growth platform for the future. With our capital allocation strategy to grow our production base, enhance network margins, and return capital to shareholders, we expect to continue to create substantial value for long-term shareholders. As a result, the intrinsic value of CF Industries Holdings, Inc.’s assets, durable advantages, and growth initiatives has increased.

That value proposition is becoming even more relevant against the current global backdrop. The conflict with Iran represents the third major supply and demand shock to the global nitrogen market in the last six years and has exposed the fragile nature of the global nitrogen supply chain. This fragility is not limited to production assets. It includes feedstock assets such as LNG and logistical assets such as shipping that are essential to the way our global industry operates.

In an environment of frequent geopolitical disruptions, we see distinct value in the true stability of our hard-to-replicate network and superior assets, strengthening mid-cycle expectations and the predictability of the substantial free cash flow we generate. As we continue to execute our strategy, we believe this CF Industries Holdings, Inc. premium will become increasingly evident. We will now open the call for questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. To ask a question, you will press star then one on your touch-tone phone. The first question comes from Kristen Owen with Oppenheimer.

Good morning. Thank you for taking the question. I wanted to start with this CF Industries Holdings, Inc. premium idea and frame a longer-term position where, if we are in the scenario of higher-for-longer sustained energy arbitrage advantage in the U.S., how are you thinking about the calculus on your Blue Point economics as you think about the export opportunity and, given the excess cash generation, how that all factors together into those unit economics for that new capacity? Thank you.

Related to the structural changes with the longer natural gas differentials that you are talking about, all it does for our Blue Point project is increase the return profile that we have put in place. We are always very disciplined in our investment decisions and almost to the point of being conservative. What we are seeing is a structural shift in how the world views low cost. Low cost is not just low-cost feedstock like what we have, but it is also other costs involved from transport costs to operational efficiency.

What we see is an increased return profile and, if anything, the conflict is highlighting the strength of our strategy: being very intentional about where we build and expand our assets here in North America. That allows us not only low-cost inputs but also the ability to move product throughout the world, whether for export or up into the Midwest where it is required.

And regarding the premium, we are seeing that today in the market as we have brought on our low-carbon product—ammonia and upgraded products—in Donaldsonville, and then the future Blue Point will be 95% or more decarbonized. We are seeding the market today, building those relationships, putting in place those contracts, all with a premium on the current market, and we are seeing very significant uptake and positive receptivity to our program.

Thank you.

The next question comes from Michael Sison with Wells Fargo.

Good morning. Thank you. In terms of your outlook, you mentioned that you felt supply-demand would remain pretty tight for nitrogen. Given the conflict and the damage occurring in the Middle East, how tight do you think it will be? Do you think nitrogen and prevailing products will stay above the average, and how should we think about the longevity of this elevated pricing? Thank you.

Thanks, Mike. I will start, and then Bert will add some color. We expect a longer tail. Even if the Strait opens up and product flow resumes, as you mentioned, there are damaged assets that will have to be assessed.

Vessel movement itself is going to take time. Normal transport would be 30 to 40 days, and you can add to that to get assets back. The quality of the product on those particular vessels is going to be questioned. Assets shut down but not damaged will still take time to bring back up.

We are likely to see longer-lasting increases in costs related to inflation, risk premiums, and vessel insurance. That underpins our view that mid-cycle urea costs increase. Bert can speak to the 2027 supply-demand balance.

An informal comparison is that the world has been operating like a Ferrari—running on all cylinders, just-in-time delivery. Supply moved efficiently to all parts of the world and bid a common number for a global market. All that is disrupted. You have a large number of vessels stuck behind the Strait that must be untangled, plus the repairs Chris mentioned.

On the demand side, stocks-to-use ratios for corn and other nitrogen-related crops remain tight. Demand is elevated. Due to lack of LNG, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan—reliant on LNG—have had suboptimal operating levels for nitrogen and will have to import more, bidding in price. As a result, we see 2027 ahead of the average pricing we have expected over the last several years.

The next question comes from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets.

Good morning. Maybe, Bert, you could opine. As we get into the spring season, we are seeing interesting behavior in domestic urea markets. NOLA has come down a fair bit—seasonality, the Middle East, and commentary that U.S. imports in Q1 were stronger than many thought.

Can you give your opinions on the bifurcation we are seeing in U.S. nitrogen prices versus offshore pricing, seasonality, and the strength of imports into the U.S.?

Morning, Joel. It is an interesting dynamic in that the U.S. is the lowest-price market in the world today. If you look at pricing offered this week of plus or minus $600 per short ton, or $650 to $660 per metric ton, compare that with North Africa, which is producing and shipping at over $800 per metric ton—a gigantic differential. North America is well supplied for spring.

Product for the 2025 through 2026 season has been produced, shipped, and is in place for the retail sector to supply the farmer. At retail and co-ops, it is an inventory liquidation dynamic. Prices are high by historical standards, and many do not want to take additional open risk without a buyer on the backside, i.e., the farmer. So you have inventory liquidation now; then for second and third applications, retailers will come back to us to buy at market.

Spring has been well supplied. Anxiety about supply availability has been overexpressed. The average price to retail and to the farmer this year has been, on a historic level, pretty good. As we come out of this into Q3 and the rest of the year, we still see a very tight market and likely a higher-priced market, and we expect the NOLA market to come into more equalization with the world price.

Thank you. The next question comes from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.

Thank you, and good morning. On the buyback in the quarter, it was $15 million. Were you buying throughout the quarter? Were you locked up in some way? And if you were not, how should we think about buybacks for the rest of the year? Is there a share price level where you are more comfortable than others?

We continue to be a buyer of our shares. As I mentioned in the prepared remarks, we think they are trading below intrinsic value, not only given recent events but what has been occurring over the last couple of years—our assets accruing more value due to consistent free cash flow. We have $1.7 billion remaining on our open authorization, and our intention is to execute that as we have historically. In Q1, we generally set a grid; we kept that grid in place.

When the conflict broke out, we were uncertain of its duration, so we were a little lighter during that time frame. That has no bearing on how we see our shares’ value. We still have $1.7 billion open, and our intention is to execute before the authorization expires.

Thank you.

Next question comes from Benjamin M. Theurer with Barclays.

Hi, good morning, and thanks for taking my question. Two quick ones. First, with China restrictions on exports, Egypt’s duty, etc., how do those actions impact global pricing and the benefits you might have, particularly in North America? Second, you mentioned shutdowns of facilities that might not be damaged.

Assuming the conflict ends tomorrow, how long would it take for those nitrogen facilities to be properly operational again?

This is Bert. It is an interesting nationalistic move that many supply countries are making to restrict exports for their citizens. China’s exports remain restricted in 2026, with some exports expected to come in Q2. In 2025, about 5 million tons came out of China. We need all of that and more to balance.

I do not think that will be possible given what is going on in the Gulf and capacity that is offline, damaged, destroyed, or not operating. I would expect China to come out like last year, maybe June through October, a million-plus tons a month. We also mentioned Egyptian restrictions or costs and Russian restrictions. Plants in India are operating suboptimally—estimated at about 70%—driving additional import needs.

Today, available North Africa supplies are $800 to $850 per metric ton. The global market expects some price moderation in the back half, but I cannot estimate that price today.

On operations and shutdowns, there are two parts. First, getting equipment back up—there is a lot of rotating equipment. If these were shut down and preserved, you are looking at one to three months depending on maintenance and parts procurement. Second, many plants had loaded inventory before they shut down.

Vessel movement is disrupted, and you could be months away from getting vessels back in position to deplete inventory and then ramp production. That is why there will be a longer tail and knock-on effects. To quantify, it is estimated that 31 ammonia plants in the Middle East have been directly impacted or shut down; 49 plants in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are curtailed or shut due to constrained feedstock; and in Russia, at least 20 to 21 plants have been impacted by drone activity. The impact is widespread.

Thank you very much.

The next question comes from Christopher S. Parkinson with Wolfe Research.

Thank you so much. There is debate over the degree of the free cash flow windfall you will have by year-end and further into 2027–2028. The U.S. Secretaries of Treasury and Agriculture are pleading for new capacity, and by my count, at least six or seven other blue or gray nitrogen facilities have been canceled or suspended. Considering these factors, how are you thinking about Blue Point number two?

Is there anything else the industry should be doing to work with U.S. policymakers?

You characterized it well. The market was already tight coming into 2026, and now with additional fundamental costs and risk considerations, we needed new capacity before and probably need even more now. There will be increased costs for where capacity goes globally, which makes our decision to move forward with Blue Point look even better. As I said earlier, we will likely see a higher return profile than we thought.

We continually evaluate production expansion. There are still things we want to understand with Blue Point number one before moving into number two. Whatever decision we make will be a very disciplined investment decision. Given our efficiency in converting EBITDA to free cash flow, cash generation will be significant over the next several years.

We see opportunities within our network or elsewhere to enhance margins or increase production with high returns.

A quick follow-up on summer fill prices. Given international versus domestic dynamics, assured supply, and the balance between urea and UAN availability, are you thinking about things differently this year?

We ask ourselves that every day. Every year is different. Over my 18 years at CF Industries Holdings, Inc., our approach to fill—timing, communication, and execution—has varied. Last year, Mike Ham and his team communicated openly and early about our launch date, giving customers time to prepare on volume and price expectations—it was a very successful campaign.

We will likely replicate that thematically. Price and timing are variables in a highly volatile world. Internally, we look at the best use of the nitrogen molecule—ammonia, urea, UAN, ammonium nitrate, DEF—where is the highest value, what is the need, our inventory position, and export opportunities. Then we align on a plan.

I expect fill to be a Q3 event.

Next question comes from Edlain S. Rodriguez with Mizuho.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. As nitrogen prices have moved higher, what do you think farmers can or will do to lower the fertilizer cost basket? And in a typical year, how much of the nitrogen needs do farmers prepay earlier in the year?

Very good question, especially in a high-priced, high-cost environment. The best thing that could happen is a rally in corn. Under-application in some parts of the world could lead to underperforming yields—Brazil’s second crop planted in January–February, or a weather event like El Niño in Argentina. End prices are high and can impact demand, but nitrogen is the one nutrient you cannot skip.

In North America, where the majority of our tons are consumed, we are talking with our retail and cooperative partners as well as agribusiness partners like ADM. Looking at corn opportunities today, you can cut costs or increase yield to improve revenue per acre. We do not expect cuts in North America given the yield opportunity on both dry and irrigated land, and we are seeing that in purchasing and positioning of nitrogen. Ammonia can be applied in the fall—we had an extremely good fall ammonia season in November 2025—and we have had a very good spring ammonia season this year.

That communicates farmer planning, yield expectations, and that they bought lower-cost product priced earlier. Then it comes to secondary and third applications added for yield. We had a phenomenal yield in 2025 of about 187 bushels per acre; we expect that to fall a little, but we are hoping for farmers to make money and to do that with nitrogen.

The next question comes from Lucas Charles Beaumont with UBS.

Thanks. Good morning. Can you follow up on the outlook for nitrogen pricing over the next couple of quarters? There has been no improvement yet in trade flows, and a significant portion of global production is offline.

As we get past peak Northern Hemisphere demand, there may be less incentive to restock than normal, offset by Brazil demand picking up in Q3 and shortages elsewhere. How do you see these factors playing out sequentially over the next few months?

Lucas, we are at the peak of movement for North America, and CF Industries Holdings, Inc. is focused on supplying our North American customers and communicating daily to ensure adequate spring supply. For Q3 and Q4, we see prices higher than normal. The timing of Middle Eastern capacity coming back matters—it is 30% of global urea and 20% of LNG. Many nitrogen producers depend on LNG, and we think you will lose some of that capacity.

In a 56 million-ton export-traded market, if you take out an annualized 18 million tons—call it 1.5 to 2 million tons per month from March, April, and May—you could conservatively be short about 5 million tons. You need all of China to come out aggressively to balance that; we do not think that is possible. Importing countries like India, which has imported 6 to 9 million tons in recent years, are expected to be 10 to 13 million tons due to low operating rates at LNG-dependent plants. South America’s import needs likely do not go down unless they accept an impact on grains and oilseeds.

Trade flows now involve longer hauls to cover immediate needs, and freight rates are much higher—probably double. The outlook for nitrogen pricing is higher than normal for longer. Restocking may not be completed in time without severe disruptions such as demurrage at Brazilian ports or late arrivals elsewhere. There will be shortages.

That is why we are confident this tightness pushes into 2027. Nationalism and regionalism of energy are important—will countries export what they historically have to fill gaps in an already tight market? We see this persisting through 2027, supporting significant free cash flow generation.

The next question comes from Andrew D. Wong with RBC Capital.

Good morning. On expansion, given elevated nitrogen prices now and into the future, plus tightness in feedstock and a better return profile for North American nitrogen, does that change how you think about expansion? Could you accelerate plans to add more capacity?

We review this consistently and have quite a bit underway beyond Blue Point. Given our bandwidth, we see higher return profiles on projects in motion or under consideration. We continue to evaluate what we would do at the Blue Point site; it is expandable over time. We want to get permitting through and gain experience on the first unit.

A second plant would see efficiencies from existing infrastructure—dock, tanks, offsites. We are considering it, but nothing is imminent. Our capital allocation philosophy has not changed. We will be extremely disciplined on investments.

With the cash generated so far and what we expect over the next several years, we also have excess free cash flow that we expect to return via share repurchases or dividends.

Great. Thank you very much.

The next question comes from Jeffrey John Zekauskas with JPMorgan.

Thanks very much. A speculative question: Given the confusion over CBAM and carbon dioxide emissions generally, and given shortages in nitrogen markets, do you expect new U.S. plants to be steam methane reformers again rather than autothermal reactors, or is it too difficult to tell?

The confusion over CBAM may be overstated. CBAM is in place today, and, if anything, policy direction has strengthened. We view decarbonization as providing incremental opportunity that does not exist for others. With 45Q, premium shipments into Europe, and our recent announcement with Pepsi and other CPG companies, decarbonization creates value.

For us, autothermal reforming to recover as much CO2 as possible aligns with that value. I cannot speculate for others, but our path forward is clear, and we are accruing value today.

Thanks for that. Have the contractual terms for ammonia with industrial customers changed over time, and is there room to make those terms more attractive to producers as nitrogen markets have tightened?

We segment our business—most tons go to agriculture, then exports, and then a fairly ratable industrial portion. We reassess annually to place tons where they are most valued, ensuring relationships contribute on both sides. Many conversations occur regarding contractual terms, but the actual terms have not changed materially. What has changed is the implementation of low carbon and the premium we receive, which we communicate consistently to industrial customers and export customers facing CBAM.

As industrial companies look to improve their scope emissions—Pepsi is a good example, as is POET—we are seeing a positive reset and desire to align with CF Industries Holdings, Inc. It is a growth platform that is economically attractive, returns well, and aligns thematically and environmentally with our goals and our customers’.

Great. Thanks.

The next question comes from an analyst with Rothschild.

Thank you. Just a follow-up on gas costs. Q1 came in at $4.50. What would you expect the trajectory to be during the rest of the year? Thank you.

In the first quarter, both January and February saw elevated Henry Hub gas costs—February even settled over $7 per MMBtu. Since then, we have seen gas come down significantly. Today it is trading around $2.60, and the curve flattens further out. Our expectation is that our gas cost for the remainder of the year will be very close to the NYMEX strip.

And we are not hedged on a forward basis, so we are open and receiving prices represented in NYMEX.

Thank you. And just a follow-up on product volumes. Earlier in the year, you communicated the intent to switch to UAN from urea to take advantage of better production margins. Has that strategy been reversed with urea prices having surged much higher than UAN?

Our capabilities allow us to switch on a shift—an eight- to ten-hour shift—coordinated by our team on economic value. As urea values increased and exceeded UAN opportunities, you would expect us to adjust production to capture that value, consistent with each plant’s capabilities.

The next question comes from Kristen Owen with Oppenheimer.

Thank you for taking my follow-up. I did not think I was going to get one. On your maintenance schedule, you made public comments about possibly delaying some maintenance to ensure domestic supply. Can you help us with how you are thinking about maintenance for the rest of the year?

The maintenance we shifted—after evaluating that we could do it safely—was at one site. It was scheduled for late May; we moved it to late June. It was not a large shift, but it allowed us, as Bert mentioned, to get another 100 thousand tons of urea into the market for this application season. Other than that, our maintenance is consistent with our typical historical cadence, which you can use as a benchmark.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin A. Jarosick for any closing remarks.

Thanks, everyone, for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you at upcoming conferences.

Thank you. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect. Thank you.