Advisor Conference Call

November 14, 2007, 3:30 p.m. CT

 

 

 

W. Weitz:                    This is Wally. I'm here with Brad Hinton and Tom Carney, and we welcome you to the call. I hear there are 48 people at this point. It's been a while since we did one of these calls. I think we felt like we got to the point where we didn't have much to say a year or two ago and now there does seem to be more to talk about and we invited questions. We got quite a few and the three of us will spend, we haven't timed this, but maybe 15 minutes or so talking about the things that seem to be of most interest. Strangely enough there is one stock that seemed to dominate the questions and most of them were politely worded.

 

                                    At any rate, we're going to start right in with Countrywide Financial (CFC). I wrote some about it in the third quarter letter to shareholders. Things change daily in the mortgage world these days though, so here is a summary of where we are and how we got where we are and what we plan to do going forward.

 

                                    With Countrywide we really focused on credit; knowing that there were a lot of mortgages held at the bank, that they were holding residuals from securitizations, that they had a pipeline that held lots of mortgages in between the time of origination and the time they were sold. We stress-tested the portfolio and I think we've really been pretty much on target so far about their exposure to credit losses.

 

                                    What we did not pay enough attention to was the exposure to liquidity problems. I think we've known for a long time that there was trouble brewing in the mortgage world, and that it would not be at all surprising to have a liquidity crisis like 1998. We've talked about it over and over, but we really thought that with Countrywide's management sounding very bearish for the last year or two and seemingly well aware of what was going on, we underestimated the extent that they kept on pushing through the spring and into the summer for more and more market share so when the window shut, they had short-term credit exposure.

 

                                    They pulled down their short-term lines - that's why they had them. They had to make a deal with Bank of America which will cause something like 15% more shares to be outstanding going forward. Now they received $18 a share for that so it's not 15% dilution, but it still was a combination of embarrassment and some suppression of future upside.

 

                                    We really did expect trouble in the mortgage world, but I think we were way too complacent about how the reaction of others in the market to the problems that were happening, even to companies besides our own, would affect our own stocks. Aside from Countrywide's own liquidity issues, even the stronger companies we own have been affected and that is where our under-performance comes from primarily.

 

                                    Even if we were totally right on all our assumptions and all our analysis, we were unnecessarily exposed.

 

                                    We received several questions about management and Angelo [Mozilo] selling stock and whether the mortgage brokers were abusive to their clients and so on. We've owned Countrywide for 13 or 14 years. Management has always been straight with us about good news and bad news when we talked about company fundamentals. Angelo's always been a seller. As soon as his options matured, he's been quick to sell.

 

                                    The fact that he accelerated the selling should have been no surprise because when he decided not to retire at 65, and he extended his contract, it called for faster selling, but still we've never liked the fact that he was a seller. We like companies whose management buys more of their own stock and preferably with their own money. But he's a known quantity so his being a seller is like his perpetual tan.

 

                                    We knew they [Countrywide] were an aggressive culture. We knew they pushed for market share, to be the low cost producers, to beat their competitors at every turn. Not attractive personal qualities. I don't think we'd want to work there, but I also don't think we ever questioned, and I still don't think we have evidence to question the integrity of the top management.

 

                                    It is a tough call about whether the push from the top, and what a salesman might have done, is taking advantage of poor and uninformed people or whether it is a half-full kind of a situation where they are helping people get houses. We can't really address that on this call, so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

                                    As far as the current status goes, our portfolio positions are 3.5% to 4.5% in Countrywide so there are 96% of other assets we can talk about on this call if anybody would like to. We expect the company [Countrywide] to survive. We expect it to return to profitability. We expect the U.S. housing market to return to normal in two or three years. It is going to take a long time to chew through the inventory of empty houses, foreclosures and re-sales, but there will be a housing market again and there will be mortgages again. We think the survivors, of which we think Countrywide will be one, will have maybe a little less competition, but at least earn normal returns again at some point.

 

                                    Two, three, or four years out that leaves us with seeing Countrywide with the earnings power to sustain at least a $30 price which is double from here. If it takes four years, it’s 20% a year, that does not make up for the 5% loss in that asset value we've had looking backwards, but all we can do is decide what to do from here going forward.

 

                                    One thing we are considering is that, if Countrywide is a play on overly negative perceptions in the mortgage industry, there are other companies that might have almost as much upside and less downside so it's possible that, as we go forward, we may spread that play around among other companies and have less exposure to Countrywide. I wouldn't expect, at this moment, to be buying more of it, but we can't make any promises about what we'll do going forward.

 

                                    Other mortgage companies: We own Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM). We own Redwood Trust (RWT). Some of the funds have Wells Fargo (WFC). There is mortgage exposure at AIG (AIG) in their portfolio and, of course, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK/A, BRK/B) is probably going to be one of the greatest beneficiaries of this chaos. We are continually checking and rechecking our credit loss assumptions and liquidity assumptions. We think all the other companies that I've listed here have positions as we thought they did.

 

                                    Redwood Trust has excess liquidity, no short-term debt. They should be terrific beneficiaries of this because they have been waiting for a couple of years to buy distressed assets and yet their stock is down from $60 to $30 because of guilt-by-association. I guess that is what I meant when I said we may be unnecessarily exposed even if we are right about our analysis.

 

                                    Redwood, in particular, does a terrific job of spelling out how it has done during its quarter, what its earnings are, how they remarked their assets in accordance with FAS-157. Redwood Review makes great reading for somebody who likes that sort of thing, and we have had a few advisors who wanted to go into more depth on Redwood.

 

                                    AIG we think people are worried about what is in their portfolio. We are not really worried. We think they are going to be able to be buyers of distressed assets as, certainly, Berkshire Hathaway will be.

 

                                    Looking to the rest of the portfolio, we have consumer exposure. We have talked about Wal-Mart (WMT), Lowe's (LOW), Cabela's (CAB) and other consumer oriented companies. We may very well be heading into a recession and they have not been particularly helpful to our performance but the businesses have been doing really well.

 

                                    I think one of the questions we received in advance had to do with what did I mean – in my Q3 Letter to Shareholders - by “good ideas that haven't worked yet.” That is an expression I used, once upon a time, sort of tongue- in-cheek. But every stock that doesn't go up the day you buy is either going to be a mistake or a good idea that hasn't worked yet. What we really look to is to see that our businesses are performing the way they are supposed to and that the business value is going up, even if the stock price isn't.

 

                                    If we go stock by stock through the whole portfolio we find our price to value level about as low as it has been in years. We use a 12% discount rate when we do DCFs (discounted to cash-flow models). That is the answer to one of the questions asked, so when we say we have $0.65 and $0.70 dollars in the portfolio, I think it is a much stronger statement than when others use that same number if they are using discount rates of 7, 8, 9 or 10%.

 

                                    We feel very good about the stocks we own. We have no idea if they are going to go up right away. There is bound to be bad headlines when the auditors get poking around in financial companies' books at year-end. If we go into a recession we can have some downticks in consumer earnings, but when we look at 2, 3, or 4 years, we see an awful lot of upside. We really can't wait for the all-clear signal when the news is good to buy the Lowe's and the others, the Vulcan's (VMC), the Mohawks (MHK), etc. that depend on the consumer a little bit.

 

                                    I think that is as much as I have breath for preliminaries. Tom and Brad, do you want to add anything before we open it up? Okay, Rob, can you turn us over to the questions?

 

Operator:                     [Instructions provided to pose questions]

                                   

Question:                     Hi, Wally. Thank you. My question is your investment thoughts on Liberty Interactive (LINTA).

 

W. Weitz:                    Okay. I'm going to let Brad start on that one.

 

B. Hinton:                   Liberty Interactive is a collection of assets run under the Liberty family which John Malone has controlled for quite some time. The way we think about the investment thesis is we look first at the value of the non-operating asset holdings that they have. They have large investment stakes in Interactive Corporation (IACIA) and Expedia (EXPE) that are both worth about $3.20 a share, upper Liberty Interactive share.  Those entities are both run and controlled by Barry Diller.

 

                                    We think Interactive is undervalued in its own right, but for today's purposes why don't we just assume it's worth $3.20, so you have about $6.50 a share of value between Interactive Corporation and Expedia and then another $1.00 plus per share of value in, they wouldn't like to hear them called stray assets, but smaller operating businesses; Provide Commerce, Back Country.com and a few others and an investment stake in GSI Commerce. At any rate, that gives you about $7.50 of equity value off of a $20 share price.

 

                                    QVC, which is the crown-jewel operating asset of Liberty Interactive, trades for roughly $12.50 a share of Liberty Interactive.  It generates north of $1.00 of free cash flow per share.  QVC is the largest home shopping network. It's on a cable TV platform and it's also an internet based business. The domestic business has upwards of 25% now, I believe, of their sales coming through the internet channel and they also have operations in Germany, the U.K. and Japan, so pretty large growing international operations.

 

                                    The stock has been depressed this year on some weakness in the domestic QVC business which is really consumer related. It is just a bit of a slowdown, which we've seen in some other retailers as well, and some country specific challenges in a couple of their international markets that should be relatively easily addressable.

 

                                    But the beauty of the QVC model is that it's highly free cash flow generative. It takes very little capital reinvestment. Unlike a brick and mortar retailer that has to continue to put up new physical locations to grow in the future, QVC doesn't have that constraint. It's a business that tends to feed on itself. The customer base is extremely loyal and the vast majority of the purchases are made by people who have been customers for quite some time and who are very loyal repeat customers.

 

                                    It's a business that, as Dr. Malone himself says, “throws and grows cash.”  It has a management team and Board of Directors that is extremely committed to shareholder value creation largely via share repurchase when the stock is depressed like this.

 

                                    So it's a great operating business, has a really strong future and you have a management team that's among the best that we own at taking care of shareholders and they'll continue to buy back stock at these values and we certainly encourage them to do so.

 

Question:                     Hi, Wally. This is more of a getting to know you type of question. On the Weitz Partners Value Fund, I have my clients in that fund because I've considered you guys a great value manager for years. I'm also wondering if you would consider yourselves partially a financial sector fund? It seems like you've always had good expertise in that area and I'm just wondering if the experience that you've had this year, as well as back in 2005, has made you rethink that?

 

W. Weitz:                    Well, I think a value investor is in the generic sense somebody who buys things for less than they are worth today and it could be expressed in a lot of different ways so some value managers shy away from one industry or another. We have always been fairly comfortable with financials. I think one reason financials tend to be cheap at times is that they do misbehave on occasion. Sort of the easy play that we've found over the years is when the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates, the conventional wisdom is you sell all your financials and we've been able to have great experiences in 1991, 1995 and 2000 buying the year before and getting the relief rally.

 

                                    With liquidity and credit problems, periodically people again swear off buying financials, and we've had a little more than what we bargained for in the way of comeuppance in the mortgage market this time around. I think it's likely that we'll continue to find opportunities around the financial arena off and on over the years.

 

                                    I certainly wouldn't say that we have a quota that we need to fill of financial stocks and there are certain corners of the financial world that we do tend to avoid. It's been a long time since we had a company that was doing auto finance or direct subprime mortgage lending and holding the mortgages and so on. Banks and insurance companies; we tend to like companies where they have the raw material that's readily available and make a spread and can be flexible about changing from one product to another, without having to build a new factory, who can just collect the interest on their assets and redeploy it with more of the same and compound it. There are a lot of good qualities about financials. You're likely to see them well represented over the years, but it'll fluctuate.

 

Follow-up:                   Alright, so it's not that you've developed this wonderful expertise in that area and you just would never go away from it, it's just that that's a particular sector that tends to have these ebbs and flows?

 

W. Weitz:                    Well I think in the course of investing in banks and insurance companies over the last 30 years, we have developed some expertise. I've been doing it a long time but we also have six other people who spend a lot of time with financial companies. We don't buy them because we know about them, but we are able to buy them when they are attractive because we know something about them.

 

                                    And the same is true I think in the 1970s and 1980s; newspapers, TV stations and radio were great cash flow generators with an economic tailwind. That's changed quite a bit and you don't see us with a lot of newspapers and TV stations right now, but cable television and the programming around it are something that we've spent a lot of time with over the last 15 years.

 

                                    We owned a lot of cable companies and had terrific success with them in the 1990s.  Lately things like Comcast (CMCSA) have come back out of favor and we can dust that off. The whole Malone-Liberty complex, it's sort of endlessly evolving and confusing to Wall Street which, if you have really great assets with a manager you trust and Wall Street gets confused, it's a really good combination of ingredients.

 

                                    We do tend to come back around to old ideas because when there's a sudden sell off for some reason and an opportunity looks like it may have presented itself, it's really good to have a head start. We're not totally wedded to any one area, but there are three or four industries that we are more comfortable in than others probably.

 

Follow up:                   Sure. Okay, well I'm anticipating that you're going to come back like you did in 2006, so I'm one of your patient guys.

 

W. Weitz:                    Thank you. I think we may be down to the patient few, but I can tell you, I don't know if I mentioned this in the opening, but our research people and a lot of others in the firm have all been putting our own money where our mouths are. That doesn't make the funds go up, but we think we've got some good raw material.

 

Follow up:                   Oh, yeah. Are there any other sectors right now that look really juicy?

 

W. Weitz:                    I don't ... you know, in the quarterly letters we mention the occasional new stock that comes up and we have found some new ones, but I don't think of a particular concentration or a theme.

 

Follow up:                   One other quick question for you and that is on the international scene. Do you look at foreign companies as well?

 

W. Weitz:                    We are very interested in international producers and customers and more and more of the companies we own do business abroad and have major parts of their business either importing or exporting or functioning abroad like Liberty International (LBTYK). But we have very few foreign domiciled companies and that's really mostly a function of feeling as if the locals are very likely to have a leg up on us in knowing the players and the customs and the accounting and so on.

 

                                    We know that that means we are giving up half of the universe, and I would like to think we will move towards remedying that, but you shouldn't expect it to happen very dramatically or quickly.

 

Follow up:                   Alright, very good. Thanks for your time.

 

Question:                     I wonder if maybe you could talk a little bit about a stock that's been one of your old favorites, Telephone and Data Systems (TDS). What do you think the Carlson family's end game is on that?

 

W. Weitz:                    You know, TDS has been a really good business and it's been mostly a good stock, but trying to get inside the Carlson brain, that's something we've never been able to quite figure out. We go meet with them and Ted's very polite and accommodating and looks you right in the eye and says, “Well, don't you think we're doing a good job now? Why don't you just trust us to keep doing a good job?” And I don't know how to answer that. Tom and Brad, do you want to comment?

 

T. Carney:                   I wouldn't have a whole lot more to add to that. I think that they have, certainly from a business perspective, been great business growers over time. They have been successful at wearing out shareholders over the years, but quietly building a lot of value and not just the nearly wholly-owned subsidiary at U.S. Cellular and being thoughtful about how they've deployed capital even within TDS Telecom. When others were growing, they were smartly standing pat and not entering in much of the acquisition mode for access lines in the rural ILEC segment.

 

                                    That is a very patient management team that is the kind of business manager we like that really takes the long term view about how to create business and ultimately shareholder value.

 

W. Weitz:                    They have withstood some pretty feisty large shareholders that have had suggestions for them over time and maybe they'll follow up on one of those at some point. My only fear has been that they would wait too long on cashing in on U.S. Cellular in this consolidation phase. If you've noticed over the last few years, it's not quite as big a position as it once was but we have to grudgingly give them credit for having done a good job.

 

Follow up:                   Great. What about, in general, your managed care holdings - United Healthcare (UNH) and WellPoint (WLP). What's your outlook especially with possible changes in the government here?

 

W. Weitz:                    I wish Dave Perkins (the Weitz Funds’ healthcare analyst) was here to give you more chapter and verse.  However, generally speaking, whatever the change in emphasis or tone in Washington from a new administration, we are really not expecting a complete churning upside-down of the way the industry works. Both United and WellPoint are really well equipped with information systems and so ought to be flexible and adapt to whatever the new rules may be. I think the stocks have been depressed for fear of some sort of new regime where Washington simply decides to pay them less for everything they do.  I just don't think that is realistic.

 

B. Hinton:                   I think, in the meantime, both companies are generating tremendous amounts of free cash flow, trade at very low multiples of that free cash and are using it to buy back an awful lot of stock because they are also not particularly capital intensive businesses on the reinvestment side.

 

                                    So any possible changes on the political front are likely to be several years out at the earliest and we will have dramatically smaller balance sheets on the equity share side by the time we get there, as they manage through it.

 

T. Carney:                   We would worry a lot more if they had a 20 multiple instead of a 12 or 13.

 

Follow up:                   Okay. Thanks.

 

Question:                     Thank you. Wally, your enthusiasm for Redwood Trust moving forward at today's prices is pretty obvious in your comments. I'm not sure of the rules. Are you able to acquire more shares? Where do you get restricted based on the size that the Weitz Funds owns of that company?

 

W. Weitz:                    I can't remember how much detail we've gone into publicly about our relationship with them, but we were original funders when they raised seed money back in 1993. They had a bylaw that said no shareholder could own beyond 9.8%, and we convinced them you could look through to the individual shareholders in the funds and they weren't in any jeopardy of qualifying as a REIT.

 

                                    We offered to give our vote, our proxy, to management if they'd let us raise that cap and we are at our cap now. It's the number of shares not a percentage of the company, but it's approximately 5,000,000 shares. As it stands now, we can't buy any more above this level. That is subject to change depending on what they may choose to allow us to do, but if we could buy more, I think we would be buying more.

 

Follow up:                   Do you see any risk to their dividends or do you feel that's pretty secure at this level?

 

W. Weitz:                    Their dividend, this can be a pretty complicated subject because when you're dealing with a REIT, you have REIT taxable income, you have GAAP income and you have what they call core income. And REIT taxable income has been higher than GAAP income for some time because ... well it's a long story. But they've been paying a regular dividend of $3.00 a year and they've raised that every couple of years and they've announced a $2.00 special dividend this year so it'll be $5 for the full year.

 

                                    We expect them to have great returns next year from a business point of view and from an economic point of view, but it's not so clear how much of that will come in the form of REIT taxable income.

 

                                    I would be highly confident that they'll pay at least the $3.00 regular dividend. In fact, I think they're going to carry forward about $2.25 of this year's REIT taxable income into calendar ‘08 so that covers the first three dividends even if they had no REIT taxable income. I'm highly confident about the $3.00, but I don't know what to say about the $2.00.

 

                                    Our position on Redwood is when you take core book value in the high $20s to low $30s, let's just say $30.00 to make the arithmetic easy, and we believe in a long-term sustainable average, lumpy but average, return on equity of about 15% so that would generate $4.50. We believe their book will rise over time as they sell stock at a premium to book and as people reinvest their dividends at a premium to book.

 

                                    If they earn $4.50 but some of it's not REIT-taxable income so they only pay out $3.00, the other $1.50 would be added to the capital base and the book would go up by $1.50. If it's all REIT-taxable income and they pay out $4.50, the book wouldn't grow, but the dividend would be $4.50.

 

                                    Either way if you have a $4.50 trend line earnings number that's growing at a few percentage points a year, we think that as a value generator its worth $50.00 or more to a long-term shareholder. We really don't care a lot whether it comes in the form or capital gain or dividend. We understand that certain investors prefer one to the other and could be disappointed at times, but it's not too significant to us.

 

                                    When I say that to George Bull [CEO of RWT] he sort of snorts because he likes dividends, but I probably already said more than I know.

 

Follow up:                   Okay. Thank you.

 

Question:                     I was wondering if you could discuss the cash flows in the funds, specifically the Value and Partners Value Funds, or maybe the outflows as well - if you could give us any guidance on what we might expect for year end capital gain distributions.

 

W. Weitz:                    Our cash flows have been out. They've been out most of the last three or four years. We had a disappointing 2005 and a disappointing year this year which explains some of them, but we also had outflows while we were up 22% last year, beating the S&P by five percentage points. That may be a function of people who have characterized us as belonging in a certain style box which we've turned out not to represent well or it may be that as a pure no-load fund with no marketing department, we've not participated in the shift of distribution channels towards the brokerage firm wrap accounts and so on. I'd like to think that it's some combination of sort of generic macro forces as well as our own coming up short performance-wise.

 

                                    The flows have not accelerated during this year, especially the third quarter we kind of hold our breath when we see the morning email about what the flows are. It's been sort of a persistent trickle out. I don't know the dollar amounts for you, but I think what's significant for a shareholder is that the flows, whether they're out or back, in other years when they come in quickly, have never had any impact on how we manage the portfolio.

 

                                    We prefer to have inflows for lots of reasons but if we have an outflow tomorrow morning, it'll mean that we've bought more of all our positions and if we don't want to have more of some of those positions, we might sell them. I don't think we'll ever have to sell something on any distressed basis. I mean it just hasn't had an impact on portfolio management.

 

                                    Outflows does mean though that we're more likely to have realized capital gains than otherwise and in a crummy year, when our favorite stocks are down, we're less inclined to harvest losses because the losses are in the stocks we like the best. So our capital gains distribution this year will be, at the moment we're estimating, in the neighborhood of 5% to 6% of net asset value for both funds. That's the way I recall it.

 

                                    We have a number on our website, it just posted today, where we give a range, an estimated range for each fund on long term gains, ordinary income and so on.

 

                                    I would caution you that while our accounting group is very conservative and has given a wide range ... while the numerator is known now, the amount of realized gains through October 31^st is known, but we don't know what the denominator will be at the end of December when we come to make the distributions. We tend to refresh those numbers as we go along between now and year end so if you check the website every couple of weeks the range will probably narrow. Hopefully that'll be helpful to you.

 

Follow up:                   Okay. Thank you very much.

 

Question:                     Hi, Wally. In your opening comments you mentioned that you thought Berkshire Hathaway might be the greatest beneficiary of the chaos in the markets right now. I was wondering if you might expand on that and also with Berkshire's stock hitting a record high today, what do you think is its current valuation?

 

W. Weitz:                    Well the first question is a little easier to deal with than the second. Berkshire is such a terrific combination of ingredients for all environments, but maybe especially in a time of financial distress because it's grossly overcapitalized with $40-some billion of cash, another $20-some or $30 billion of fixed income securities, a bunch of operating businesses that are generating a couple billion a month of fresh cash and access to unlimited credit if he wants it.  So if there are distressed assets to be had at a good price, they have the wherewithal to buy them.

 

                                    Plenty of people have money, but they don't have Warren [Buffett] and Warren is so good at discerning value and seeing through potential pitfalls and having the courage of his convictions. It's just an ideal situation.

                                   

                                    Now what price do you pay for that is another matter because as even Warren would say, at one price of stock it's a speculation, at another price it's a value. We have some friends in the business that it seems may not do anything else but think about what the intrinsic value of Berkshire Hathaway is because they really work it down to the fine detail.

 

                                    Over the now 31 years that I've owned Berkshire, I've been very interested in a back of the envelope valuation, but I'd be hard pressed to give you a great explanation of why it might be worth $160,000 instead of $145,000.

 

                                    We think it's at the high end of the range of potential values. We're not above trimming, even Berkshire, if and when it seems fully priced. I wouldn't encourage my kids or grandkids to run out and buy it at today's price, but we're very comfortable owning a lot of it.

 

                                    I think it was in the neighborhood of a 9% position at the end of the quarter and if Warren can spend $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 a share on something at half price, you can have some really serious increases in that intrinsic value that can happen before you realize what's going on. I don't know if that's helpful to you.

 

Follow up:                   Yes, it was. Thank you very much.

 

Question:                     Hi, Wally. Thanks for you and your group on what you've done for us in the past and actually done for the mom and pops out there which is really what it's all about. Just a generic question; I've got my answer for it, but I'd like to know how you answer it. Why should your kids, grandkids continue to hold and/or buy more of Weitz Value?

 

W. Weitz:                    Well I continue to buy and hold more and when I give them money, I give it in the form of those funds. I don't think there's anything magic that we're the only game in town. Of my 3 kids there's a wide range of interest level and investment sophistication so for the ones who really don't care at all, I think it's a very good idea that they leave it in a place that is conservative and likely to grow over time.

 

                                    As I say, there's lots of different ways to invest and if somebody really believes they have a manager with integrity, energy and capability that invests in international stocks or that does long/short hedge fund investing or whatever, I think that can be a perfectly appropriate way to diversify one's assets.

 

                                    I don't watch what my kids do. I don't check up on them. I think they're completely invested in our funds, but I know our family, my wife and I, have 99% plus of our investable assets in the funds and it feels very comfortable to me.

 

Follow up:                   Alright. Again, thanks for what you all do and hope you're having a good year coming up.

 

W. Weitz:                    Thanks.

             

W. Weitz:                    I guess maybe we've worn you out. I do appreciate the interest and we really would like to encourage you to email those questions in. We will try to answer them. We like people to be, if they're going to be happy or unhappy, we like it to be for the right reason. If you have individual questions you didn't have a chance to ask or things come up, call Yana or email us. Otherwise we'll do calls as the interest demands and we look forward to having some better news for you - so long.

 

 

 

 

Note:  Portfolio composition is subject to change at any time and references to specific securities, industries, and sectors mentioned in this conference call are not recommendations to purchase or sell any particular security.