Certainly. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Mike Webber with Webber Research. Your line is now open.
Hey guys, how are you? Good morning.
Good morning Mike.
So actually a busy quarter. And you take advantage to be on the call and pass some questions your direction. I thought that obviously. [Indiscernible] Yeah I'm sure you did. Starting up with the capital allocation decision. I know that was -- I'm sure that is a complicated decision for you. And I just -- as somebody gets an insight when I think about this within the context in the last eight to nine months, the MLP market has been challenged for a while.
You guys have been kind of above the fray for quite a bit to the point where you brought back the IDRs seven months ago. I'm just curious is just ultimately came down to the decision between support from the sponsor. And that's why the current level versus a redistribution, what about that map specifically when you look at your ability to tap different markets over the next 18 months, and/or swap assets at the parent level? What about that math made you decide that this is a time to reconfigure the basis?
Well, Mike, Andy mentioned it. The 26% yield is not sustainable. And signals very clearly from market that they expect us to be rebalancing and rethinking the distribution levels. On the GasLog Limited side, having come to the conclusion that we should pause -- we should pause our growth trajectory.
And there are no reasons why that's makes very good sense for our growth trajectory. The whole concept around needing to do dropdowns to fund growth became somewhat less of a priority for us. And that gave us the opportunity to take drastic action to address the financial strength of both the companies.
And we feel that when times change, the people who change quickly with those times are the ones who will benefit most for it. And so we're taking that step. And that's why we're doing it. I mean, it's interesting because GasLog Limited actually has a very interesting revenues -- committed revenue stream with our charters and our new buildings. GasLog Partners overtime becomes more opportunistic.
And Andy strengthening his balance sheet means that has his breakeven costs on those opportunistic shifts will be lower, so he'll be more competitive and be able to trade them. And he'll be able to use his balance sheet in the coming years to be able to pick up assets when accretive assets become available. And I have no doubt in my mind. There are some people who are going to find themselves in an uncomfortable position the next two or three years with some of these speculative new buildings.
So we're getting ready, and we're getting ready to take advantage of that. It's not the most pleasant of things to do. But if I didn't get ready for that, I wouldn't be able to say that I had a sustainable business. Sustainability is not fixed, it means you change. And that's what we're doing.
Couple of more from my end and kind of bigger picture to Peter could those by your thoughts on this to be particularly thoughtful. You mentioned a flattening technology curve under the notion out there that [Indiscernible] doesn't flatten in perpetuity.
But they're good innovative came to it as it pertains to secondary proportion or some sort of fee change in terms of oil and gas and in terms of marine filling that goes beyond simply LNG bunkering. Is that something we'll get or I would like to put some early seed work in or look into may need 2050 as opposed to looking at 2030.
Well, it's interesting that you mentioned that. Because the LNG shipping space is somewhat unique and let me come back to that. We can meet the 2030 IMO targets as a shipping industry along types from container to bulk carrier tanker by shifting to LNG fuel and making some modest adjustments to the way we run these ships in terms of speed. There is no way that we will achieve the 2050 targets without a major change in propulsion systems.
So, if you then say, okay what's the average asset life of a tanker or a king sized bulk carrier or potentially container ship. Now 15 to 18 years probably the commercial life of that ship. So I can order one of those today, and still see my way clear to meeting the 2030 targets with LNG fuel on the ship, which by the way is significantly cheaper today than diesel, but let's not go there.
And then when I get to sort of 2030, by then I'll have a clear line of sight on what the new technology will be. Is it going to be hydrogen, is it going to be ammonia is it going to be biofuels. And I'll be able to order my next set of ships. The LNG fleet, on the other hand has a 30 to 35 year asset life. And then, and everybody who's running the economics of buying these ships is running them on 30, 35 year level.
So we're at 2020 today, put 35 years, we're past 2050. That means that every LNG ship today gets to 2050 and probably is technologically challenged in terms of residual value. And that's pretty unique. And I don't think that the industry has picked up on that.
And when we start seeing ships being ordered in '24 and '25 for the projects that are coming out there, Mozambique, Qatar expansion, et cetera. The people who own those ships are going to have to run the math on a 25 year life and not a 35 year life. And that's going to make those ships somewhat less economically efficient compared to the ships that are out there today. The technology curve. The boil off level. It's reached pretty close to shoreside boil off levels.
It's unreasonable to think that that's going to get better. We might see some improvements in reliquifaction technology or some cost savings of that. But it's pretty much there. We've seen the sizes go from, 138,000 cubic meters steams all the way up to QMax's, and then back again. We sort of hit on the 174, 180 size as the long haul ship and the 155, 160 size as the short haul ship. And the same thing happened in tankers where we went from small ships to ULCCs, and then the ULCCs fell out of favor.
So I think the size of the ships have sort of reached the stability level. Propulsion systems, we talked about that earlier, went from steam turbines to tri fuel diesel electric to medium speed diesels. The next propulsion system is going to be something completely different. And it's going to use a completely different fuel, and it's not there yet.
So the technology curve is at -- you are right to say, it's a kink. It's not flattened in perpetuity. But certainly one would be well advised to watch it very carefully as one looks at 2025 2026 deliveries around new projects, and the potential useful life of those assets in the changing environment. I hope that helps you get clarity on that.
Right. Just one more before I turn it over. And [indiscernible] with distribution cuts, and just the thought process of handling or individual value with the steam assets. The notion of placing assets into downstream projects and storage or building out every guest presence. We talked about that before several years. It's been I guess relatively successful, but I would venture to say probably haven't put as many assets into the downstream market as you would expect in several years ago.
When we talked to the World Bank, there seems to be a pretty big divergence between budget developers and a long list of people that are willing to put assets into these projects and relative people that can provide both. So I'm curious, when you talk about the downstream market and you got hours of operations which is going on for quite a while and your South American business.
What do you need to get an advantage, if you're not going to sink the cost into local knowledge and really this on the ground, the boots on the ground that are required to actually develop one of these projects on your own on a large scale or several of them? What do you need to do to better differentiate GasLog from the long list of other potential asset providers and advisors, steam assets that are more than willing to put an asset to a project and take a strong…
Well, hang on a second. For many of these downstream projects, the steam doesn't work, because you need massive power generation to run regas ship. And so having a Steam ship do that -- is unless you're getting short power connected doesn't work. I think we're going to focus -- not I think, I know we're going to focus on what we know how to do best which is the transportation of LNG as a commodity.
We think we have some interesting operational advantages in terms of the size of our fleet and flexibility and we're working on some very interesting structures around how these ships will be chartered in future. And I think we're focused on that to spend a lot of time and money and investment in developing downstream projects.
You said, I mean you quite rightly say we've been working a lot, Alexandroupolis for a long time. We certainly have been frustrating for all of us to see how long these things take. And the other thing that happens is, it's very easy. The counterparty risk in these projects is not as attractive in many cases as one would need to get the proper financing in place. So, we're going to be opportunistic about that. We got Panama. That was a great deal. We have a critical -- we have a crucial position in Alexandroupolis.
So the shareholder there and we have the operating contract. But we're not going to spend a lot of the Company's resources on trying to develop more of these projects. So, with GasLog Limited, we don't have that many open ships anyway.
At GasLog Partners, Andy's going to get to the point where his breakeven levels are going to be low enough that that he will be able to trade these things opportunistically in the spot market and make money. And I think that's a much more cohesive strategy for the two companies than trying to spend a lot of money trying to open up other market sectors in an area that's clearly oversupplied at this point.
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Greg Lewis with BTIG. Your line is open.
Yes, thank you and good morning and good afternoon. I guess I'd like to touch a little bit more about strengthening the balance. I mean clearly this has been a theme on the call. Andy I mean, you mentioned the scheduled debt repayments, you highlighted net debt to EBITDA is 4.6 times.
Could you talk a little bit more about, how we should be thinking about that? Are their targets? Where do you expect to be maybe by, how are you thinking about that beyond '20 in the '21? Because it's clearly it seems we're going to delever in the near the opportunistic down the road. So, just kind of curious on any color around on how you're thinking about that, and it does that involve, prepayments and things like that.
Hey, Greg. I'll take that and I'll ask Paul to take GasLog and GasLog Partners. So, clearly at the Group level, we will be taking on more debt as we draw on the new ECA facility for the vessels to deliver during 2020 and 2021. The peak will be at the end of 2020 and amoles and incremental debt for new deliveries in 2021 more or less balanced. And then after that Group leverage will start to fall at about $275 million per year. And as Paul said in his remarks at about a billion dollars over the period 2020 to 2023.
So, clearly in terms of leverage targets, as measured by net debt to EBITDA, it depends on what the variable rate shifts are going to be earning over that period of time at the Group level, but it's very much our ambition to see net debt to EBITDA fall down towards five times and even below overtime. And we will provide more information on the financial framework for the Group at the time of the investor day in May. As far as capital partners is concerned.
As Andy said, we're amortizing it about $110 million and $115 million per year that would take our net debt to EBITDA down and all other things being equal by point 0.5 or 0.6 times to EBITDA on an annual basis. Depending on how the market performs, what charters we are able to put in place, what our available cash flow is will then be a discussion on how best to allocate that incremental cash flow does it go towards deleveraging or does it go towards incremental growth in the future.
So that'd be really interesting opportunities. But that's a sort of feel for how we expect leverage to behave overtime so that will provide a much more comprehensive framework for both companies in May.
Okay, great. And then just one follow up for me. Clearly we're seeing the challenges for the steam vessels. If we were to go back I guess 12 to 18 months ago, when GasLog, not the steam vessels, but the other vessels were part of the cool pole. Maybe it was a function of the market. Just right place right time. But it seemed like those vessels performed very well or at least above kind of -- above in line with market expectations.
Is there any thought about trying to partner with other steam owners and maybe starting sort of a steam ship pool just given, you know, given the fact that it's a lot more spotty work, it's, you know, you need to be in the right place at the right time. Just kind of curious, you know, you were once in a pool. Is that something that, that we should be thinking about maybe re-entering it and is there a value in that kind of in this kind of new environment?
Hi, Greg it's Paul here. Yes, we have, as you said, had a very good experience being at pool with the partners that work well at the time for us. As sort of partners strategies diverged then that came back to us. I think pools in shipping have been very successful. I think the one we had with the, on the LNG side performed very well. So yes we're very open to that in future on the steam ships.
But I think we're also very confident and chartering those ships ourselves with the relationships that we have that we will be able to do a very good job, especially as the cash break of those vessels comes down, that will do a very good job in being able to generate cash flow. So I think we'll be opportunistic rather than driving sort of a pull consolidation in the steam ships, but certainly always open to it.
Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jon Chappell with Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
Thank you. Good morning and good afternoon. Guys, I wanted to just say, I think you did a lot of right things here from the distribution cut proactively to Peter's involvement on this call and support to the transparency in the appendix, which is incredibly helpful.
I think the one thing, I'm not fully clear about on the strategy, because it's a pretty compelling investment call on GasLog Limited on why the need still for two companies now that the distribution has been cut and there's no competitive cost of capital at the MLP. I get you're trying to deliver there and there may be some opportunities in the future, but it almost seems like the weaker link here is dragging down the investment profile of the stronger link, which is GasLog.
So Peter, if you could just maybe dig a little deeper on why the need for two publicly traded entities at this point?
You asked an interesting question and we may yet come to the conclusion that we don't want to have two publicly traded entities. And that could come in many different permutations, whether it would be combining the two or potentially, taking one off the stock market. That being said, I like the fact that we have two very clear, and easily explained strategies for each of those two entities.
So you've got GasLog Limited, which has an ultra-modern fleet with committed charter revenues and mineral exposures to the stock market. And we'll be using that to get committed revenue to do deleverage. You've got GasLog Partners that's going to become more and more opportunistic. It will also be strengthening its own balance sheet and financial position and then become the vehicle we use for accretive growth, through the acquisition of ships companies etcetera, whether it be from GasLog Limited or from others there.
And as I said to when Mike Weber asked question, I'm quite sure that we will see opportunities to acquire assets at significantly attractive valuation points going forward. And I'd like to have GasLog Partners in a position whether it can leap in and do that without complicating the GasLog Limited story, which is about delivering our new fleet and recovering our revenues as a result of our long term charters. It seemed to me clearer to keep the two pictures out there and easily explained than it is to try and slam them both together and then end up with two strategies in two companies. That's at least how I see it from this perspective.
That makes sense. Thanks for that, Peter. The second question is on buyback for both entities then. So, GasLog Partners has a lot of liquidity now going forward, post the distribution cut. And it's certainly going to open today at a much lower level. So maybe Andy's, views on buyback. I get the de-leveraging as a focus but there is a lot of liquidity freed up.
And then for GasLog Limited, I mean you guys were kind of in a holding pattern because you had this major news coming in the distribution cut. Maybe Paul or Peter specifically from not even just the corporate buyback from an insider buying perspective, what you think the cadence will be on buyback across the GasLog Limited entity in the coming months and years?
Well, look, I think there's compelling value at GasLog Limited. And we have been buying shares and we'll continue to do so. I have a very strong belief in the sustainability and long-term future of this group, and like very much so why wouldn't I do that.
In terms of corporate buybacks, I'm much more in favor in GasLog Limited distributing the money to shareholders, letting them go buy their own shares. I think that sends a stronger message to the loyal shareholders that we have and we have some -- and we have some very loyal shareholders, not the least of which is my family, which is the largest shareholder and the Analysis Foundation has been with me since the beginning.
As opposed to deploying money into share buyback programs. Andy has a slightly different perspective on it. I know and I'll let him answer the second. I know he is very focused and his board is very focused on debt and reduction of debt on the basis that it makes his entire fleet simply more cost effective. And that's the right place to be when you're in a more opportunistic sector. The lower you're operating and costs are in terms of charter ships the more value you'll have.
So I think that's what his focus will be whether he opportunistically buys back shares, is going to be a decision that he and the board will look like overtime. But let me turn it over to Andy as he has some thoughts as well.
Sure. Jon, we're very cognizant of the total return as a result of our new capital allocation plan is lower with a lower common distribution. We did repurchased what we would describe as a meaningful amount of units last year as an additional component of that return and we think it's important to continue that.
And as you say, we expect that there'll be some volatility in the unit price and hope that having an increased authority back to $25 million will allow us to take advantage of that on an opportunistic basis. But absolutely our first priority with our capital in 2020 is debt reduction.
Okay, thanks, Andy and thanks a lot, Peter.
Thank you. And our following question comes from Chris Wetherbee, with Citi. Your line is open.
Hey, great, thanks. Peter, could I ask you to expand a little bit more on the two Company strategy? I'm not sure I understand completely the nuance between the two public entities at this point until one in the picture it's better understand sort of the reason and the strategy that differs between two companies at this point.
Okay, effectively, we will be maintaining two balance sheets and two strategies. So, the GasLog Partners strategy is around a more opportunistic fleet by virtue of where it sits with its fleet today and where it sits with its chart -- long-term charter commitments running off. And the GasLog Limited strategy is around the delivery of the new ships into these long term charters and the recouping of the revenues from the successful performance with these long-term charters.
In a funny sort of way the two companies have flipped. And what GasLog Partners did in the past in terms of its strategy of long-term charters is now what GasLog is doing and GasLog Partners is now dealing with GasLog Limited which would be more opportunistic.
I'd like to leave a little bit more to say at the Investor Day on May 7th, which I hope you'll have a chance to come and join us on, where we will be able to give you some very clear direction projections, et cetera in terms of how we see these two strategies playing out over the next several years. But it's -- in my mind, it makes complete sense to keep these two balance sheets separate and to treat them in different ways in terms of how we look at our strategy towards LNG shipping.
Okay. And if I think about the -- I guess if I think about where GasLog Partners might trade in the market post the distribution reduction. How do you view the value potential of that group of assets in the context you talked about potential opportunistic M&A in the future people who might be in a scenario where they might need to sell, you would seem to me, with the equity value implied this morning, that that might be the most attractive set of assets on the market over the course of the next several months. I don't know your perspective on that and how you think about that, if that's even something you can consider after taking this action.
I'll answer that and I'll turn it over to Andy. I'm definitely looking at this over the next several years not over the next several months. I think the next several months will be a period of flux in terms of where the share trades. But as the situation stabilizes the value proposition for GasLog Partners is compelling in terms of its cost effective fleet. And in terms of its strength of the balance sheet, it should be in a position to be able to do the accretive purchases going forward. Andy do you want to add to that?
No, you covered it.
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Randy Giveans with Jefferies. Your line is open.
How are you gentlemen? How is it going?
All right. So following the selloff in GLOP shares and the distribution cut at GLOP [ph]. The GasLog Limited yield currently higher than GLOP. So how do you view the dividend that GasLog parent and ensure investors be comfortable that this will be maintaining at $0.15 per quarter going forward?
Very comfortable. Next?
All right. Next question. I know if you will move the slide showing the charter backlog at GasLog Partners. So, what is the status of the methane Allison Victoria and then looking at the methane Rita Andria, with the charter running off in the next I guess two months? Have you been in talks for maybe a one year time charter and against a lower rate than expected or just kind of put on trading then spot markets?
Sure. Hi Randy, it's Andy here. The methane Allison Victoria's has been in the spot market since January. She's actually worked a couple quite interesting spot charters for work in the in the Pacific and there continues to be, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks a steady group of steam shifts that are being charted on a spot basis called less than one year.
So, they're particularly for some of the older projects with smaller cargo sizes and things like northwest shelf in Australia and others. There's absolutely a place in the market for the steam ship, but not on one plus term charter basis as I mentioned. So, we are continuing to examine both term and spot opportunities for both of those ships. And as you mentioned the next one, comes back to us in April.
And if I may just add a little bit to what Andy said, I believe that we will see a short sea market developing, where the steam ships will be less challenged in their competitiveness. Middle East India is a market that is going to start to move as India puts in more downstream infrastructure.
There's actually currently a requirement interestingly going from, was it Abu Dhabi to Kuwait? Abu Dhabi to Kuwait, which is like a two day voyage. Now always short voyages play to the strengths of the steam ships in terms of their ability to move them without having too big a disadvantage on fuel consumption or size.
So, those markets will develop there are -- 40% of the fleet is indeed steam. That simply cannot go away anytime soon. And so you'll see a two tier market developing around steam and modern diesel, the electric and medium speed diesel ships and the rates will be lower for the steams. So, the key is to get the competitive level cost levels of the schemes down enough so that they can trade in these short sea opportunities.
Okay. That makes sense. And since the first question was already answered. Quickly a third question GasLog. Historically, the growth vehicle of GLOG the income vehicle. So, any thoughts on switching some assets from these spot assets from GLOG back up to the parent and then dropping down some longer term charters to the Partnership?
It sounds a little bit Rube Goldberg to me. We're trying to keep it simple, I think there's great value in having a very simple, easy to explain strategy for each of these companies over the next couple of years. And we're certainly focused primarily on cost reduction and lowering breakeven levels. But we're also focused on simplicity and transparency. And I think that's really, really important, particularly in a world that is sadly lacking of simplicity and transparency.
That's it. Thank you.
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Ben Nolan with Stifel. Your line is open.
Thanks. Actually, I was going to ask about the short sea LNG stuff and you addressed a little bit. But just to follow on with that a little bit as it relates to steam ships. Does a really low LNG price which obviously impacts the voyage often times but also the boil off? Is that creating something of a renaissance, perhaps for maybe some of these smaller older steam power ships, but that would not be the case if LNG parse it over $10?
Renaissance might be just a little bit too enthusiastic. However, what I would say that the delta on competitiveness shrinks obviously with the lower fuel cost the delta on competitiveness in terms of size shrinks with the relatively shorter distances. And so moving those assets into the most optimum area for them would be, again short sea short haul voyages. But the low gas price means what we're really seeing is that we're basically using gas to move these ships all the time. Because it's cheaper than using diesel fuel.
And that's, really interesting because it's lowering the breakeven costs of running these ships on a day to day basis. So even when the ship is not on charter, we try to keep as much heel as we can and the ships so that we can burn that gas on our ballast legs while we're looking for other employment. Every little bit helps and that has been a meaningful advantage of being able to burn gas at this stage.
I appreciate Peter. And I think the strategic part of it has been touched on as much as I think it can be. So I'll stick to another sort of industry question. There's a lot of noise in the market about tenders from Qatar, Exxon, et cetera on new projects. But currently, freight rates pretty low and I think the expectation is not going to pick up immediately. Is there any activity or are you guys potentially looking to tender some existing equipment into some of those companies rather than having -- adding more to the new build order book.
To the extent that the tenders allow us to tender existing equipment. We look at it and we will be doing that. And we're encouraging the people who put these tenders out based on the flattening technology curve to allow existing ships to come in. And if you, again, I think that we're going to have to be very thoughtful about the useful life of the asset going into 2050.
And what does that mean in terms of the costs at which you can tender into a new ship and a new building delivery in 2026. There's a difference. If you have to write the ship off in 25 years or like we are writing a ship off in 30 years where we have line of sight to its use.
Yeah. Alright. Well I appreciate that. I'll turn it over. Thanks.
Thank you. And our next question comes from Liam Burke with B. Riley. Your line is open.
Yes. Thank you. Andy, one of your slides highlights the FSRU opportunity for GLOP. How do you look at this market vis-a-vis the traditional carrier market? Do you look at a better return or do you look at this as a way to change the direction of the fleet?
Liam I think it was actually when Paul -- but I'll comment first and Paul you can add on. We have seen some success as we have some limited level on the FSU market, which is developing. I think there's only two or three projects in operation today globally, but there's many more that are on the drawing board.
And the interesting thing about the FSU versus FSRU is there's lots of capital required to convert an existing vessel and often there's a short base power solution. So both themes and TFDEs can be applicable. And so that that market as Peter mentioned, I think we'll look at opportunistically, I think our core business will be shipping under spot and term charters for a very long time. But it is a developing market for the types of assets we have. Paul, looking to add anything to that.
Yes. I think the other thing I would add is it's very interesting. Having secured the Panama project, we actually got a couple of phone calls from people saying, oh, you're in the FSU trade, how about helping us with x, y and z?
So what's interesting is once you enter that market, it does start to open up some possibilities, but I wouldn't know how to play that. I think like the FSIU there will be a limited number of projects around that probably will be able to move quicker than the FSIU which this permitting side of it et cetera will probably be a less onerous.
But even so I think we need to be -- it's pretty agile and opportunistic in that market to see where you can place your assets rather than basing your strategy on it. And I think we're going to base our strategy, especially with the older variable rate shift on getting our costs down as far as possible, breaking down -- bringing down as breakevens and having a commercial strategy, which really drives the best earnings from those ships.
Great. Thank you.
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Mark Solecitto with Barclays. Your line is open.
Hi. Good morning. Maybe asking one of the earlier questions a bit differently. Is there a minimum leverage level at the NLP that you would like to achieve before looking to resume drop downs? And is there maybe like a max level that you have in mind that you'd be willing to go to?
Mark, I don't think that there is a -- I don't think actually there was a minimum or maximum, clearly the trend we see is heading downwards. I think if you look at what you might call best practice for this kind of business with this kind of operational and commercial profile, I think it's probably in the 3s, sort of mid-3s something like that, which I think; a, it gets your costs and your breakevens down to where you'd like them to B2B competitive. B, it gives you a little bit of headroom to be opportunistic, give opportunities come along. So I don't use any firm targets. But clearly with the direction of travel we're on as a Partnership. I definitely see us heading down into the 3s.
Great. And then just to clarify is the plan to fund any of future acquisitions at the MLP with retain cash and balance sheet capacity or how should we think about the funding strategy going forward?
I think it's a good question. I think it's difficult to tell at this stage. It depends how the units trade overtime. We've always said in the past, and we continue to believe it's true that we have access to multiple sources of capital. We are very established issuer in the prep market.
And as Andy said several times in his prepared remarks, overtime we will create additional financing capacity on the on the balance sheet. But I think it's very difficult to say at this stage. What opportunities might arise and what might be the optimum way of financing them.
If I may add, I think it would be wrong to assume that the strategy is to rapidly get to the old model of dropdowns. GasLog partners is moving into a new world. And its ability to do creative acquisitions. May be for ships that do I have committed charters against them.
And that requires a strong balance sheet. And that's what Andy's objective is, is to be able to find value accretive deals, without the hindrance of having to look at clear line of sight revenue streams as he has had to do in the past.
Thank you and I'm not showing any further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to your speakers.
Thank you, Sidney. Thank you to everyone for listening in and your continued interest in GasLog Limited and GasLog Partners today. It has clearly been a challenging period for all of us. And like Peter I'm similarly frustrated by our unit price performance.
But I very strongly believe the steps we have announced today will meaningfully secure the future success of our business. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our Investor Relations team. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.