Infrastructure Debt in 2024: watch the webinar

Hello everyone. Hopefully you can hear us. We've just given people a few minutes to to get on the line and then we can start. I think we're now 3 minutes past so we can probably start and we already have quite a lot of people in the room. So maybe, Alex, do you want to kick it off? Yeah, sure. Maybe just some introductions first. Hi, everyone. My name is Alex Lung and I'm the Head of Infrastructure Research and Strategy at UBS. And I'm happy to be here. Victor. Yes. Hi everyone. My name is Victor Kozel. I'm head of the infrastructure debt business. So maybe I start with a brief introduction of myself and our business before I pass it over to Alex to moderate our fireside chat, without the fire. My name is Victor Kozel. I've been here for 5 1/2 years. Overall, I have a long track record in infrastructure, always in this asset class. I've done infrastructure equity, I have done a different type of infrastructure debt, yield and and senior and I have done some advisory. So a little bit of everything. So now I may oversee our infrastructure debt strategy, where we manage 2 billion in AUM, at the moment. We have a strategy that's focused on European infrastructure debt - mid market in particular. We don't have any specific sector focus. So we do build diversified portfolio for our investors and we do both senior and high yield within our strategy. We're a team of 6 professionals supported by Alex and other parts of the UBS AM set up. I'm glad to be here today. I'll pass it over to Alex to introduce himself. Hopefully we can have an entertaining discussion. I know Alex is well known for his provocative, at least articles that you would have seen, such as the recent "animal spirits in infrastructure" or "end of infrastructure as we know it", things like that. Maybe we can have a little bit more of a lively discussion today, Alex. Thanks, Victor. As Victor said, this is supposed to be a more interactive session, but I still think it's useful to give a little bit of a macro backdrop just to set the scene. So I will go through a couple of high level slides, which would only take a few minutes and then we can get the discussion going. And once the discussion starts, please feel free to enter any questions that you have in the chat and we'll try answer them at the end. So just kicking off with the first slide. Overall, infrastructure had a bit of a challenging year in 2023, especially from a fundraising and a deal flow perspective. But what was interesting is that infrastructure debt, relatively speaking, was actually much more active than infrastructure equity. If you look at the chart on the left, infrastructure debt fundraising actually increased in 2023 even though infra equity fundraising was down 50%. And the same goes for deals where infrastructure debt deal volumes were only down single digit last year, even though equity deal volumes were only down 25%. But now that inflation has slowed down significantly and long- term inflation expectations actually stabilized a while ago, we are starting to face some rate cuts. Obviously, Switzerland made the first rate cut a couple months ago and the ECB will likely do that in the next few weeks, followed by the US and the UK later on this year. But what's interesting is that these rate cuts are happening quite slowly and you can see that from the estimates on the left hand side chart. And that's why it's a pretty unique opportunity for infrastructure debt investors right now because the stabilized rates should increase lending activity. So there's just more opportunities to deploy capital while even though the swap curves have fallen a little bit. But given how cautious central banks, our future rate cuts are going to be pretty slow as I mentioned, which means it's a great opportunity for investors to lock in the still high interest rates and infrastructure debt looks like a pretty good way to park that cash. Infrastructure debt has historically enjoyed spreads that are higher than triple B corporates. And I'm sure that's something that Victor will touch on later. And I think that's why in the last few years, if you look at a lot of the infrastructure investor surveys, infrastructure debt is one of the top strategies that investors have been targeting. And finally, it's just stepping back a little bit looking at broader infrastructure. We can talk about all the macro headwinds and economic uncertainties in the last few years and geopolitical tensions. But what has held from during all this time is that these big secular trends like the four Ds that are listed here. These are huge tailwinds for infrastructure, including decarbonization, digitalization, deglobalization and demographic change. And although I'm not going to go into each of these in too much detail, I think it's remarkable that infrastructure has gained a reputation of being a safe haven, yet they have plenty of growth tailwinds. And this combination of stability and growth is actually quite unique and I might say quite rare. And that's why if you look at infrastructure debt deal volumes, although as I mentioned they did fall a little bit last year, but in sectors that enjoy these mega trends like renewable energy and telecom infrastructure, those deal volumes haven't fallen that much. And finally, just looking at infrastructure fundamentals, revenues for the industry have actually been revised upward by around 15% in the last two years, which is the right hand side chart. So once again, infrastructure debt investors have a unique opportunity where they can lock in still elevated base rates at a time when fundamentals have been more de-risked because the asset class has already been stress tested in the last four years, not just from the pandemic, but also from all the geopolitical tensions and the macro volatility. And with that said, let me just kick off with the first question for you, Victor. And as I mentioned, there are a lot of talks about interest rates being higher for longer. So how does that change your outlook for infrastructure debt, especially in terms of risk and reward and in terms of what you're seeing in the market? Thanks, Alex. I think I don't quite like to talk about, you know, a good time or bad time invested in infrastructure, changes in interest rates, where in fact, in this asset class you have a much more longer term outlook more generally. So it is not exposed so much to the cyclicality as the corporate market. So investors that we work with over the years, they take a long term view. So, of course, they need to see what's going on in the wider market and suddenly when interest rates increase so much, they would like to grasp this opportunity to, as you mentioned, park their cash in, you know, maybe in some alternative products. And to be honest, when I look at one of the charts that you presented before, when we compare different corporate indices to the performance of infrastructure indices as well in some, sometimes like now, for instance, the comparison might not look as favourable. And I have some sympathy with what investor argument is where this premium is not enough. But I think it's also important to then consider maybe performance of individual managers that can deliver a much larger spread than what we can see here and something that makes this investment case much more attractive. But yeah, as always, I like to talk about fundamentals and general attractiveness of investing in this asset class, which is of course things like lower default rates, high recoveries, efficiency, kind of the capital, diversification of the portfolio. So all these things, they, they are important and you need to take a long view on this: let's say a journey with us. Yeah. And that makes sense. I think there's certainly a lot of attractive attributes of infrastructure debt. But just recently, looking at how public equities have performed, it definitely looks like a little bit more of a risk on environment. So why should investors choose infrastructure debt over some of the riskier strategies? Maybe on the equity side? Well, I think your charts on the previous page, they show the the opposite trend that the fundraising for infrastructure debt has actually picked up in the recent couple of years as opposed to equity, which I think is a good illustration of this. But in fact, what we've seen a lot now in the market, there's much more appetite for that as opposed to equity because many equity managers have not necessarily changed their targets. And if you can get a return, which is, let's say high single digit, which is what yield infrastructure debt can offer. The relationship between debt and equity return is much more than appealing for the debt for a number of reasons, right? I would rather lend money at these levels than as a company or as a manager borrow these levels, right? And then if you try to also think through the type of investment, the yield, right? If you are providing that, then you can offer constant yield to your investors, your position and the capital structure of the business is obviously much safer. So for instance, deals that we do very often in high yield, we can  see levels of LTV around 50-60%. So there's a substantial equity cushion behind any that's even high yield. That's not to say about the senior debt. So that makes debt more attractive. When you then compare the fees that equity charges versus debt and look at the net return, I think this all talks in favour of the debt investment as opposed to equity. But at the end of the day, again, it's a long term game and for the portfolio and specification for investors, it makes more sense to have exposure to both. Yeah. So I touched on some of the different sub sectors and tailwinds that infrastructure is exposed to. What are some of the sectors that are particularly interesting to you in the infrastructure debt world and and how does that compare to say five years ago before the pandemic and before the high inflation and high interest rate environment? Yeah. Again, I don't like to be sort of narrowed down to to specific sectors. And our approach was always to build a diversified portfolio for our investors. And this has proven to be a good strategy, let's say during the pandemic or during other macroeconomic stresses that we've seen in the last year. So we can actually see how different sectors or even sub sectors perform in this environment. So I think diversification is very important. We've always been focused on the good risk return proposition to our investors and in that sense being able to pick and choose from different sectors. When there is a particular, call it dislocation, and we can generate alpha in let's say renewables, we go for it or you know transport or social infrastructure in particular time, then this is very much our strategy. But maybe to try and answer your question, I start with maybe thinking about some sectors that we maybe find less attractive in this current environment such as for example renewable energy or or data centers. The two sub sectors that at the moment attract a lot of capital which make it easier to deploy substantial capital that was raised from an equity standpoint. And as well as debt, but at the same time when everyone is trying to do the same and do it at scale, then what disappears is, you know, the ability to find good risk return. So historically we have not been very active, or in the last few years, we have not been very active in renewables. Again, very difficult to find a good risk return. At the same time, we quite like the transportation sector at the moment. Again, a lot of people were very cautious on this space post COVID. But what we have seen at least in our portfolio and the general market that this sector has rebounded quite well and and now represents a good investment opportunity. Again, maybe thinking through the four Ds and one of the decarbonisation angles in particular, I think transportation offers a very attractive, or a sector where where you can find a lot of opportunities to upgrade existing fleets. You know, invest in decarbonization of transportation in in multiple ways, right? Not specifically only in renewables like within the energy space, but in a very, let's say diversified manner. And lastly, another sector where we've been active, which still represents a smaller share of the market, but I think is more important and pretty much aligned to the D, another D trend, demographic change trend, is social infrastructure. And we have been at the forefront of investing across some of the sectors like childcare, senior living or some of the overlaps with healthcare where it meets infrastructure. So definitely with the pressure on their budgets, with more outsourcing that we see in the public sector, I think this sector represents an attractive investment opportunity as well. And perhaps combining my last two questions, right? Are there certain sectors that make more sense for infrastructure debt versus infrastructure equity? Well, I think overall again, it's more the type of investment rather than the sector. Generally we see debt more relevant when investment is de-risked substantially. We're not there to take, you know, like in, let's say this energy transition space. We're not there to take the technology risk. We're there to actually help sponsors to scale up and that's where debt can play a significant role. But I don't think there are particular sectors where we are more suited. It's more really where there is more stability and less upside. That's more for debt type investment and there's more upside and more maybe a ramp up risk that is still kind of more of an equity type transaction. OK. And, and I think given the recent macro uncertainty, one thing I often hear investors say is whether they can find bargains in the market. So is there anything that feels mispriced or undervalued in infrastructure debt right now? Well, look, it's our speciality to find those bargains at the end and deliver alpha to our investors. So when I mentioned, let's say what sectors are more interesting for us, I think that's where probably we focus a little bit more. But generally speaking, having access to opportunities across the sectors and across cycles is very important. So if I think about maybe specific sectors, again for the reasons I mentioned, transport is a very interesting or in many cases can provide an interesting risk return at the moment or social infra I think. These questions are a little bit interlinked. But yeah, at the end of the the day, we see good renewable deals as well from time to time. Then we go for them and we see some good digital transactions as well in the market across the whole space. So yeah, we do try to anticipate a little bit the trends and in some sectors we've been pioneers. So for example in, in the radiological sector, which is becoming increasingly an infrastructure like sector, we were the first institutional investor to finance one of the first investments by infrastructure fund in this sector by anticipating a little bit the trends and understanding the fundamentals of this market and yeah. And then since then we closed another couple of transactions. So we are trying to be a little bit at the forefront of that. We've done that with social infrastructure as well with an investment in the childcare facilities. So, yes, but at the same time, in order to pick the right transaction and best risk return, I think we have to take a broader view and and look at all these sectors at the same time. And since you mentioned the word alpha a couple of times, maybe just at a high level, how does an infrastructure tech manager generate alpha and generate these excess returns? Yeah. I think in our case or more generally where we see managers that are best performing is by focusing on bilateral transaction, by being able to structure deals, by focusing maybe on the mid market segment of the market, at least that's our speciality. And by being able to have your say over how the transaction is structured allows you to optimize risk return. So definitely you can manage the structure. You can structure security package or cabinet package that better reflects or better addresses the key risk in the transaction and you have a good, better engagement with the sponsor, sometimes a smaller sponsor that needs more support than larger managers. And this way you build a long standing relationship. And because we are taking hold and long-term investor, we can support them throughout the journey with various expansion opportunities, CapEx opportunities and or even on day one already maximize our return as well. And this is how we demonstrate it's kind of all performance generally by having access to this kind of opportunities are not necessarily trying to chase everyone for the the same deals. So it's important to have your niche and build the track record because it takes years, you know, for the market participants to get to know you and and see what will you get good at. And then you will see this pay off and you will see the relevant opportunities come to you already because you have been successful in delivering in that in the past. And this, yeah, this allows you and them to capitalize on that and deliver extra return to your investors, but also manage your risk better as well. OK. And naturally ESG and sustainability remain gigantic topics in the asset management industry. How does that apply to infrastructure debt, especially considering that unlike equity, you don't get board seats? So how do you, how do you effect change as an infrastructure debt investor? You know, that's a very good question and very multi dimensional question. Of course everyone is grappling with it at this moment and given there's no same universal standards, how the  impacts should be measured, how the ESG should be assessed doesn't really exist. We all have to develop our own frameworks a little bit and even SFTR and Article 9 or Article 8 is not particularly best suited for infrastructure investments. But the way at least we look at it and as a bank, we have a strong focus on impact. So we've we worked a lot with with our sustainability specialists across the bank and impact specialists to try and develop a view on how, you know, we as a debt financier can can actually make an impact on the company. Because you're right, we don't have the same influence. We don't manage the assets, we don't have a board seat, we cannot vote. But we have especially at the time when we're closing the transaction, we do have certain control and stick  with the company. And given that equity side is also increasingly focused on  this sustainability and impact, it is more easy now to negotiate certain things which can help us to make a real impact. And the way we approached it is to develop our own framework with an advisor. And we believe that even as a debt investor, you can make an impact through your capital by providing additional, let's say, reporting requirements for the borrowers by introducing additional specific sustainability linked governance as well as having margin budgets, so bonus model structure, which advises the sponsor to actually make an impact and invest in a decarbonization project  or invest in providing or improving access to healthcare or education or digital services for the population. So our strategy is let's say our approach to sustainability and impact is much more focused on the wider investment universe rather than looking specifically for only let's say energy transition or decarbonization. So I think that there is a framework which can allow us as a debt manager to make an impact. And if we kind of think about your 4D trends and the the opportunity set that is available, of course substantial amount will need to be financed by equity. But if you look at any business and the capital structure of this business, still majority is usually debt financed. So in order to make this impact and this transition to let's say a cleaner future, the role of infrastructure debt is very important and we need to find a way how to make  it work in the right way. All right. I think those are all the main questions that I have. Before going to Q&A, is there anything else that you wan to mention, Victor? No, I think we have already one question actually from the audience. Maybe I can start with this one. And please encourage you, of course everyone to also ask more questions. But I think we have a question: how can infrastructure debt be the most in demand in 2023-2024, while transaction volume is down? Which is a good question because we all depend at the end of the day on the market and transaction policies are important. I think last year overall market sentiment was very uncertain and the M&A side in particular was greatly affected. And infrastructure is not fully immune from that. And we've seen much less M&A transactions and we've seen refinancing transactions being delayed because of higher interest rates, especially as everyone was expecting the interest rates to go down. So this clearly had its impact on the deal flow. Having said this,  I think and speaking maybe from our own standpoint,  we have a good access to opportunities and  generally we've seen still quite an active pipeline. So, I think even if the market is  down, there's still very sizable market opportunity out there that you can access. So I think on our side, we didn't really feel that much pressure on this side. And I think what is also important again I keep coming back to the 4D trends, but all of these trends or all the decarbonization and deglobalization, demographic changes, digitalization, all this requires substantial amount of capital and represents a very good entry point right now, be it for the equity or debt investors. So if you have capital available, it is much easier to approach sponsors and find opportunities to invest because the investment needs are simply huge. So there is a role to play for equity or debt. And as a result, you can generate, even if the opportunity is not, you know there at the moment because of the market conditions, you can stimulate, you can be a proactive and and find the opportunities as well. Yeah. And I also clarify that when I mentioned that infrastructure debt was the most in demand strategy in 23 and 24, it's from investor surveys to  big LP's asking them where they want to  allocate capital. And infrastructure debt often comes up at the top or near the top the last two years. So this is more on the fundraising side and explains why fundraising for infrastructure debt has been strong. It's not on the deal side. But one caveat I would put there is that a lot of the fundraising is centered across a handful of pretty big funds. So, that is something I should mention as well. But moving forward, hopefully we'll see a more balanced fundraising in terms of large and middle market and smaller funds as well. No, that's absolutely true, Alex. First of all, between let's say the intention to invest and actual investment, there is always a gap. So hopefully that's something that we can see now translating into actual allocation from investors. But yes, you're right from our assessment of the market at the moment, we've seen very much this flight to quantity with the larger managers in the infrastructure debt space getting even larger, whereas majority of the others have been more deprived of capital. So this picture is a little bit skewed as well from what we can see in the figures. And I think the picture on the equity side and I mean you have more experience, knowing the equity, but I think the picture is also quite similar. Yeah, it's the big funds getting bigger as as you said. Yeah, correct. I think we have another question from the audience. What are your main differences and competitive advantages compared to the competition? I think we touched on this a little bit and you can judge maybe even from our fund size. So we're not chasing the big ones. We have historically, even from the very beginning set out to focus on the mid market segment of the market where if we look even at the  market size, the opportunity set, we see probably 3/4 of transactions being sized between 50 and 250 million. And these are exactly the kind of transactions that don't have access to public markets or private placements where the sponsors are typically smaller or they go a little bit  under the radar of bigger players. So I think we will like this segment and when we compare ourselves to competition, I think sourcing channels is one thing that differentiates us as well as good track record from the investor standpoint as well as from the borrower standpoint. We have been consistently present in this market and in particular the B market space. We build ourselves a reputation as one of the leading lenders that has strong relationships with sponsors and supported companies for a number of years with initial maybe acquisition financing and then subsequently with the longer term institutional type financing. So this is how we differentiate ourselves as well as what I mentioned previously that we focus on maybe some sectors that are up and coming like in social infrastructure, for example, we have been one of the pioneers in lending to these types of businesses. So that's how we differentiate ourselves in the market. Any more questions?  I think it would be nice to make it more interactive. Of course, when we are not all in the same room, it's not exactly the same. But yeah, we encourage you to ask more questions. Otherwise, Alex, maybe we can spend a bit more time in the four Ds. For instance, I think this is quite an interesting and topical discussion, especially one of the Ds that is relatively new but quite relevant. Maybe where we probably see more and more investments in this deglobalization space. Maybe something that you can explain a little bit more because I think previously we're focused on on this 3D and think not everyone is aware  of the change. Yeah. No, I think deglobalization is a relatively new trend and and we're already seeing that happening because obviously in the US, but even Europe, there's a lot of onshoring of manufacturing capacity, right, where there's batteries, electric vehicles or semiconductor manufacturing capacity. And what's interesting is that a lot of these new manufacturing plants are being built by large, credible tech companies and often times built in more remote areas. So when you're building these plants, you want to make sure that there's energy available, there's internet connectivity, there's transportation networks available. So what's interesting about deglobalization, I think is just how broad it supports all kinds of infrastructure because you also have to bring a new workforce, have places for them to stay and live and it just generates a lot of economic activity at these locations that were previously under invested in. And I think another interesting thing since we mentioned sustainability is that deglobalization and decarbonization are now also kind of intersecting because when you're, when these big tech companies are building these large facilities, they really focus on sustainability and sourcing clean energy and so on. So I think that's also another interesting aspect of the deglobalization or onshoring trend right now is that it's not gonna be the, the reindustrialization that people have in their minds where it's very polluting with smoke coming out from everywhere. It's going to be very sustainable and it's going to be a focus on sustainability, clean energy, circular economy, et cetera. Interesting. And then maybe, while we're waiting for more questions, I mean, we can maybe switch sides a little bit, Alex. I can ask you in reverse some of the questions that you actually asked me because it's interesting to hear your perspective. So where do you see the debt versus equity dilemma or where do you see investor appetite? So you know the strongest at this moment in the infrastructure space. I think it's a good question. I think I, as you mentioned, every investor is looking for something different. So some are looking for more diversified strategies, some are looking for more niche strategies. But at the end of the day, I feel like everyone sort of agrees that the importance of the four Ds is driving a lot of the new investments, regardless of what strategy we are pursuing or how focused or diverse you want to be. And I think  those are the themes that really underpin everything that the infrastructure industry is doing. I think we have another question in the meantime. So the question is: could you touch a little bit more on how screened opportunities go through four Ds as well as the different ESG KPIS within the investment process? I can take this one. So generally as you can imagine, we don't have a screening for four Ds. I think that it is more of a concept and it can be interpreted in many ways, I think it represents more the trends that we're seeing on the market. And ultimately when it comes to specific investment opportunity, you can actually see how much is driven by those trends and even how future proof this opportunity is, which tends to be the case with those that are driven by 4 Ds. So we don't really do the screening as such. I think that's really how we can categorize the opportunities. But when it comes to ESG KPIs I mean very much since the very beginning of our joining infrastructure debt, even before ESG became the buzzword. We have already developed our own methodology together with an external consultant to classify investments by various scores as part of our investment process and and screening. And of course as we grew and the markets continue to to develop, this framework continues to evolve. But I must say that even compared to what we developed back then, I think in 2015, we already a little bit anticipated where the market is moving. So I think our framework was already robust and  can still you know, it still very much can be used. So things like impact of course and much more enhanced KPI reporting are something we are considering now for the future funds. But yeah,  very much is integrated. This is part of our process. So similar to Alex, we have other colleagues within UBS organization that support various businesses. So we do have a sustainability officer that supports the whole of infrastructure platform and she's helping us to kind of just design and and maintain those frameworks and she's participating in the investment process and investment committees and let's say rubber stamps our assessment of investment opportunities as well. Hopefully that answers the question. I think we have something like 5 minutes left. So maybe Alex, we can also hear from you again. We talked a lot about various sectors and where do you see the opportunities now? You heard a little bit of skepticism from my side and on some sectors. So maybe you can play the devil's advocate and have maybe a different view on that or  the same. Yeah, it's interesting because for example,  you mentioned renewables, right? And I think renewable energy is certainly one of the biggest and most important sectors that people can invest in. But I think even, it's not just debt even on the infra equity side, people are struggling with the low returns and the returns are low not because the sector is so mature now and it's been de-risked so much in the last 10 years. So I think the bigger question for a lot of investors now, especially within the clean energy and decarbonization theme is: what comes next? And that's why energy storage, as you mentioned, that was the big one that kind of came along the last few years. And even that's maturing pretty quickly. And so after that, what is it gonna be? Is it gonna be carbon capture? Is it gonna be hydrogen, biomethane, renewable natural gas, sustainable sustainable aviation views? There's just so many of these different clean energy sub sectors that people are trying to do more work on. And again, it's a balance. It's a risk and reward balance right now. And so trying to figure out what's gonna be the next big thing is what a lot of investors are spending their time on. Yeah. And I think if you are an equity investor, right, coming back to your renewables point, you can go a little bit higher up on the  risk curve and you can be engaged in development and you can still make your return and you can go outside of Europe or whatever. I mean, there are probably different ways that we see different people approaching that. But as a debt investor or as a European debt investor,  I think it's not something that we're comfortable with doing, even though maybe we see some our peers starting to go into development risk, which in my mind is more of a equity territory because you're only doing that because of the upside. So yeah, I think that makes it a little bit harder to access opportunities in that space. But yeah, I think all the topics that you mentioned around, you know, other adjacent sectors or newer sectors that are emerging, we have probably different views on those and some are more advanced, some are much less advanced like hydrogen, right? No one talks about it, but we don't see the the real opportunities to invest in it yet. I think what we are trying to do sometimes as well in order to again generate alpha is to look at kind of more adjacent sectors. Like for example, we financed an offshore wind supply vessel which has long term charter with the offshore wind farm. So you get exposure to offshore wind farm but indirectly and you get the higher coupon as a result. So things like that I think is how we like to approach this. But yes, I agree this kind of area represents a lot of interesting opportunities. So you can be creative and how you can  generate the deal flow there. Yeah. And even from a equity point of view, right, it's not like infrastructure equity investors like to take a lot of risk either, especially with new technologies and all these new  business models. And so at the end of the day, you can't go back to infrastructure 101, infrastructure basics where if you have an off taker who is a very creditworthy counterparty that's willing to give you a long term contract at  an attractive price and and they basically underwrite a lot of the business and technology risk. Then it becomes a little bit more infrastructure like it becomes a little more financeable. But again, those don't always come by  that easily. And you may not have the same level of return right then as well. So it's a little bit of a, you know, finding the right balance. Yeah. So there's a lot more structuring involved, yeah. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And that's what ultimately what we like to do as well on the debt side. So, interesting discussion. I mean, I think we're running out of time, but what maybe Alex, I can ask also from your side at the end, I think you didn't join our latest investor presentation and we missed you a lot. So maybe next time we make it more suitable for you time wise given you are across the ocean. But I think it would be good to do something similar and more an update on the various hot topics for our next presentation to investors as well. But of course we can do more events like that as well. But anyway, I think we've run out of time. So thank you everyone for attending this webinar and, thanks for your participation. And here you see QR code where you can offer feedback to this webinar. And here's the disclaimer. And with that, I think we can end this webinar. Yeah, If any of you have interest to discuss more about the topic, myself or Alex are of course available for individual conversations and to give you more insights into what we're doing. Otherwise appreciate your time and hope to speak to you soon. Goodbye. Bye everyone.