John Herron - Chief Nuclear Officer, Senior Vice president of Nuclear Operations, Chairman of System Energy Resources Inc, Chief Executive Officer of Nuclear Operations, Chief Executive Officer of System Energy Resources Inc, President of Nuclear Operations and President of System Energy Resources Inc J. Leonard - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Executive Committee Mark Savoff - Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice President and Executive Vice President of Entergy Services Inc Unknown Executive - Leo Denault - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Paula Waters - Vice President of Investor Relations Richard Smith - President of Entergy Wholesale Commodity Business

Unknown Analyst - J. Leonard: Yes. We don't have any prepared remarks. I think you've heard about enough from us from one day. So let's -- we'll open it up for questions. Unknown Analyst -: I understand Arkansas and Mississippi will both be leaving the systems agreement. But could you talk about what happens to the systems agreement under your base case scenario where all the APCos move to MISO? What happens to the rest of the other companies? Does this agreements still exist, or would that be discontinued? J. Leonard: That's a really good question. As I was saying is, there's an eight-year termination to leave the systems agreement, of which Entergy Arkansas from leaves as of 2013 and Entergy Mississippi leaves 2015. None of the others have given a notice. So they would all go to MISO to retrieve a new transmission services under it, but then we would actually have to map that back through the other four remaining APCos, new Orleans, entering into Louisiana, entering off bases from Texas, would still actually be, from a resource point of view, to be managed under the system agreement. Though there is some questions that are in Texas, where our commissioner Anderson is asking that same question, and does it make sense going forward. And I think that's a good question to ask, but they would actually be operating as four in the system agreement. Unknown Analyst -: In the Wholesale business, I'm curious about how you look at hedging in those 13 to 15 time frame. You talked about maybe having to have a discount in the prices that you would sign because of the uncertainty around the generation. And I kind of wonder, because you're in a binary situation, if that generation doesn't occur, you don't incur any negative effect from not hedging at the right price. So I wonder why would you go through all those machinations to try to put some calls and callers and such, why don't you just wait until there's more certainty in the prices there?

And I mean, we have done that with, like, Vermont. I mean, it's too uncertain. With Pilgrim and BY, we can kind of match up how much we hedge against another unit. So any point's a good example of that. You can hedge one unit, which I think it's 3 that the license expires in '13, and 2 doesn't expire until '15. So we have a natural backup on generation. And then we're looking at some other products as around Pilgrim, and we feel pretty confident it will be relicensed. So we're not hedging up the whole output as a plan, but we're looking at -- we're utilizing some of these new products. And it isn't just that if it's not there, we've created it for where we would have to go back out in the market to cover that, it's also to take advantage of what we're seeing in this some upside here. So any point, we got a natural backup between the two dates of any endpoints relicensing. And in Pilgrim, we're just layering in a little bit there. Unknown Analyst -: Two questions. One on the nonregulated site, one at the regulated side. New England and the FCM ruling that came out a couple of weeks or so ago, I'm not sure I understand why the base load generators would want the Florida price to continue. I would -- given the oversupply or the surplus, I would think almost that the best thing -- that the base load generators would want would be the floor to go away and to drive out some of the guys further up the stack, drive them quicker into retirement. Why is the floor a good thing?

You're talking about the -- that really applies, Michael, to the out-of-market entries. And when they come in, they'll tend to collapse because they can bid in at 0, so they'll collapse that forward capacity market. So that's why we think it is important that, that generation has to come in at some floor price. And generally, the conversations are around 75% of what their new build cost is. Unknown Analyst -: But I thought what's happening in this option is that not only are you getting new potential out of market assets having to bid in at some percent, high percent of cone, but that there's actually going to maintain the overall price floor. I mean, last time it was, what, 295 a kilowatt month or so before proration, that they're going to actually keep that in place. I also think you'd be better off letting it go to a RPO-like price, and that would hurry up the retirement of some of the noneconomic units.

There's a lot of generation out there. I'm not sure I agree with the premise that it would drive out the -- an economic unit that quickly, because a lot of them are pretty old. So it's -- I mean, they're getting anything out of -- above their energy costs they're doing pretty good. So they'd probably hang on. Unknown Analyst -: You talked about how joining MISO will generate $1 billion of cost savings for customers. First, can you kind of tell us how that plays out over time? Over what time frame does that get realized, potentially? And then secondly, can you kind of give us an idea as to what the difference is between joining MISO and that $1 billion cost benefit as opposed to joining SPP? J. Leonard: Yes, I think we're going to hold on that one. We owe all the regulators a filing by May 12, but we would put it in to the detail filing we have to make. And we have to share that information with regulators. I'll break down by jurisdictions or I'll breakdown by year or whatever. And we don't want to get costly with them right now. So I'm planning on that, and put it in to decide this, to these, all the detail of this that they'd possibly want, which is what they want. Unknown Analyst -: Rick, you've chosen nonfuel O&M at the nuclear plant going down compared to last year, and I would like some detail around that. And then also looking forward, post Japan, do you see sort of another layer of incremental cost being put across all nuclear plants in terms of, I don't know, AC, spent fuel, evacuation, whatever, as you did post 9/11, where there was sort of a whole new level of regulatory of requirements that raised the operating cost.

Correct me if I get all this wrong. On the O&M coming off '10, a large expenditure in tritium that will go away. I think if you have some -- yes, because, Patrick, we wrote off, we were looking at an upgrade at this factory for a number of years and eventually decided that the market wasn't going to support that in that region. So we wrote that cost off leaning out a little.

There were some other compensation-type expenses and everything that were kind of in '10 that won't show up again going forward.

So we feel pretty good, Leslie, about that ongoing cost. I've been working with John and his group pretty significantly over the last year, they give a good visibility on where that cost is going. So on costs that might come out of Fukushima, and I'm sure there will be some costs. There's -- I think there's some potential to resolve a few things around spent fuel and dry cast storage, that could be a positive. We spend a lot of money on that today, and it's out of our pocket. And then we have to go back to the DOE through the litigation to get reimbursed for that. So part of the things that we've talked about and are looking at is if you get to some program on spent fuel, that it would be funded out of what we're sending to DOE today, and we get no benefit for that because they're not spending it on the outcome mountain anymore or anything like that. So that's kind of early in our thinking, so I think that could be a cost at the end of the day there, but we're thinking there might be an opportunity to kind of match it up with something that we're spending today, anyway. John, do you got anything in on that?

Yes. I can add a little more. First, the big issue here is that there's still an awful lot of analysis being done and lessons learned that we're trying to pick up from some of the details over there from Fukushima. There's two big committees that are working. One is a steering committee that's looking at five or six detailed building blocks that we need to assess as part of the lessons learned that are coming out of Fukushima. In parallel with that is, as you had heard earlier, the NRC is doing a 30-, 60-, 90-day review, and they'll certainly be looking at what, if any, regulatory changes that they see coming down. But preliminary right now with the amount of the pents and debts that we have with the directs and the management guidelines that we already have in place that our emergency operating procedures are more of a symptom-based process than an event-based process that we have a B5B, which was post 9/11 designs and modifications that we did on top of the fact that we have station blackout. We're pretty comfortable that we don't see any major modifications or designs that are going to have to come out. But it doesn't mean that we won't have some lessons learned. It doesn't mean that we will not incorporate some additional modifications or equipment that we'll purchase, kind of like what Wayne told you earlier, where if it's prudent, we'll go buy a second diesel-driven fire pump and have that. Another thing that I'm actually working with the rest of the industry on to help fray the cost across the entire industry, if there is any, is a mutual aid response center that we would staff with the equipment necessary that any plant in the United States could use. Very similar to the way we dispatched linemen today for an outage that we may have, whether it's by storms or it's tornadoes and getting some traction with the rest of the industry to try and do something like that and essentially locate them that equipment, whether it be temporary diesels or pumps and stuff. But from a big picture standpoint, the only unknown from my standpoint is just how to spend to a full issue is going to roll out and how it's going to be dealt with. And that's really, that's the government's responsibility at this point, and they've got to come to terms with it, still. Unknown Analyst -: Could you just -- speculative at this point, but I'm curious kind of on the similar topic in the aftermath of Fukushima with perhaps more onerous operating regulations, whether or not there's an opportunity for Entergy to do another Cooper-type operating contract for kind of single-owner nuclear plants that might provide a little upside there.

I'll answer that, Rick. We're always knocking on the doors of facilities that are out there, especially single-unit sites that are, I think, personally have a disadvantage not being a part of the big fleet and whether it's to be an acquisition or a service contract like we have with Cooper. There are two or three out there that we're looking at and talking with but nothing that we can firm up at this point. But we're certainly always looking at those opportunities. Unknown Analyst -: Could you review your kind of whether or not classes to regulated jurisdictions and where you think, on an aggregated basis, the ROE needs to get up through to hit that 68% growth rate that you outlined by '14? J. Leonard: So that makes the assumption that each one earning is authorized. To take our aggregate, it comes up at about 10.5%. And so if you take the midpoints of each of the different ones like the 10.125% and test this to 10.2% in Arkansas, the 10.25%, 10.65% in Louisiana, the 11.1% in New Orleans. And Mississippi is a calculation, but it's technically one fairly about the 10.6%, 10.7%. So if you take that whole aggregate and weight it, it comes up to an average weight of about 10.5%. That's what the assumption is that each of them make that piece of it to get to 6% to 8%, earn that allowed ROE. I think kind of looking at where we were last year, the weather normalized, we were about 10.4%, overall. Unknown Analyst -: I'd like to ask on the -- just the M&A is obviously a tough topic in the industry, you've got four kinds of combinations going on. And can you just give us some sense about whether that wave was being changes with all your own thinking about the future from like a bank prospective, whether there's any kind of particular directions you feel the company should be going in, in terms of being more regulated. Less regulated seems there's a lot of people trying to execute strategic positions around that. My sense reading your shareholder letter, just maybe more than emphasis on regulated and utility these days than there was but with some perspective there. Maybe also, can you comment on the asset market as well and what your thoughts are in terms of that. J. Leonard: I kind of missed the end of that. I didn't hear the end. Unknown Analyst -: Interest and then assets as well, if you could give some commentary around it, and what you would be interested in if you could get it. J. Leonard: Yes. I don't think our position on that has really changed. I think the position for some of the other companies in the industry has fairly changed. There seems to be an overall move that the bar is closing and they don't want to be the last one without -- without -- I'm saying it wrong. It was an analogy. It seems like that's what's happening here, and people are looking around. They don't see any companies left and they're going to go pack up. And we're one of the ones that are left, and the -- but we never saw mergers, particularly as dissolving like the overhang issue that we talked about. I just don't see mergers topping those issues. It may complicate it. To put more issues on the table for regulators that have to deal with and some of the others really didn't back up before it's good enough. And we've always kind of add with you that we take these issues, put them on the table and solve them as fast as we can, and we still believe that. The assets in terms of the overall mergers so, I mean, obviously there is value there. There is a business proposition that makes sense for us, and obviously we will consider it. Like we've said before, we keep them pretty plain. Others would probably be just as plain. Probably, there's anybody at the top view by everybody one time or another just to see if there's any media in line with regards to how value is created and what he said those problems are, whatever the challenges, they might help profit, they were ones or two. We just have not found that type of transaction that really makes sense for us. The -- we can negotiate one, but nobody would accept it. I mean, the term is we would want, but not successful to the other party. The industry -- I think in the industry is not that, it was not that impressive with regarding mergers. It sounds somebody is really when some old thing and you run out of ideas, words, you resort to words. And I think in some respect, the industry is out of ideas. And so mergers give you something to talk about for a while. But ultimately, it's not a value-creating merger, it's not a good set of cultures or whatever. Somebody is going to have to answer to that, 2, 3, 4 years from now when the value's not delivered, particularly if you've already promised it to the regulators, it is not achieved. In terms of individual assets, things of that nature, I mean, obviously, Gary, can you look at those in his portfolio. We continue to believe, frankly, Leo outlined that in some respect, that some of the problems or the challenges we have at this fall, not by combining, but by the structures separate versus the bond. We've accomplished, I think, like the life of it, for example, the RTO, that there is incredible amount accomplished, the $1 million of savings in Virginia. If you're a merger and you'll get that. Maybe you get the key part of it, and maybe that's the argument. But at the end of the day, keeping customer rates down is the best thing you can do to get those ROES up and to get -- keep in getting these allowances and things of that nature, rate cases. And so it hasn't really changed our whole thinking. But with the kind of in the industry, we don't want to be sitting there and get somebody else to a 30% premium, either, when we could have had it. Unknown Analyst -: Can I just ask one more specific follow-up? Would you consider nonregulated nuclear as adding to the fleet? Or given the issues you face, is that something you're going to let go down a bit? J. Leonard: Yes, we would. I mean, it would be a little bit of a challenge, but the credit ratings -- but we have to make the right decisions for our own stakeholders. Like John said, there's a lot of planks out there. I think the question here was very appropriate. There's more challenges from this industry as a result of Fukushima. And there's a lot of coverage and we all realize that there are lots of those challenges. And as they do the studies, they're going to see there's a lot of differences between where companies are. Everybody's not in the endpoint. That's not where they're going to be. And they run the risk of seeing others come down pretty hard on them, and the Cooper is a very good analogy of where they came from and where they are today. So I think there will be opportunities out there. If you look at the depths of the challenge that we have, a lot of us sitting right here in the front row, a remarkable job they've done on our fleet. We're virtually running breaker-by-breaker almost every plant these days. And that's real money. So if those opportunities exist, we will pursue them. And with the fair greater agencies, we'll do our best to convince them, that it's in our best interest to grow profits regardless of the cash flows, regardless of the portfolio mix it might present. And like we've been laying down the suit, not given up on the notion of creating the optimal cash flow of these businesses. And so that may precipitate -- something like that may precipitate the need to move forward with that.

The only thing I'd add, John, is it's a valuation exercise, too, right? It's because of these events -- even just for people who want to divest, that may or may not be a good thing. But also because of these events, we think costs may rise to some extent and certainly the more information we get, the more clarity we can have. It may impact value. It may impact what risk we're willing to accept. But it really all comes down to, at the end of the day, how much risk are you taking? How much are you warehousing? And what's it cost to get in? And the more risk is there, though, the less we'd be willing to pay. So at the end of the day, it's hard to say, no, we wouldn't touch those because we would, at the right price. So it's where we would head with that. Unknown Analyst -: A couple of questions. First, with respect to '11 guidance. You went through a few deltas in your remarks earlier, but I know from previously you've had a couple other puts and takes that you excluded in your guidance originally. Perhaps, could you speak to are you in the top end or bottom end of the guidance vis-à-vis where you guys at the end of the day? We think that it goes through all.

I won't speak to that. We typically don't go there unless some there's some real compelling reason. And certainly, after the first quarter, it's typically not a position where we've got a compelling reason. The third quarter is the big quarter for us. That's when the summer, that's going to peak, that's when prices are high, that's when a little, like I said, we had changes in weather this quarter last year at $0.30, we weather $0.29, I guess, in the third quarter. And so you just -- things that happen at this point in time tend to, as you gone up through the year. Now certainly, if we got -- if we get more information about certain things that drives us directly to that, we'll do it, but it's kind of early in the game right now. Unknown Analyst -: And just a quick follow-up to that, if you look at interest rates into the robust markets we see out there and refinancing of the remaining balance on the revolver, how do you think about that right now? Is that something you'd call a near-term priority? Or are you thinking, take it as it comes?

We continue to do financing at the operating companies, and we've done a lot of financing over the course of this nice interest rate environment as it is, which pays us and customers a lot of money, put down the notes issues and compare it, as you said. And certainly, the revolver is coming due in 2012. The good news is the market is such that it's not really an issue, there's no sense of urgency, there's no problem there. And if we want to do it today, we could most likely get it done today. I'm not saying today, excuse me. It may not be literally today, but the trade-off is that the market isn't what it was in 2007. And so there's no sense of urgency to get it done for that reason either, in terms of just what we're going to do with the revolver. And we continue to look at whether or not there's some longer term financing that should be done at that level or not. And we'll continue to do that, but we address it every day as it is. It's just at some point, we'll get to the time when we say, "Okay, now we have that." But right now, because the market is still favorable because we shouldn't have any issues and because the pricing differential is fair, we'd really end up where we are today. Unknown Analyst -: And then finally, last question here for, Rick. Looking at the recent SCM order, it talks about out of market generation being continued to be prospectively, potentially included, or at least legacy out of market generations. And you kind of future up the options beyond the floor. Kind of thoughts now, after we've gotten related to their order. I mean, clearly, it varies very much in favor of, call it, competitive market, but that does seem like a potentially somewhat negative data point there.

Yes. And I think that's fair as it relates to the historical information there, but I don't think this issue is dead yet. I think FERC has come down where it has, and I think there's some opportunity to kind of get this clarified as we move forward. So I think there'll be some more activity around that. Unknown Analyst -: Mark, I introduced plans B and C in the event that by hook or by crook Vermont succeeds and effectively stranding Vermont Yankee and as a second part, is the industry concerned about other states maybe copycatting a successful state of Vermont?

Hopefully, we will clearly like the case. We have a very strong case. I think Vermont has said they expect this case ultimately to go to the Supreme Court. We're hopeful that doesn't happen. We're hopeful that somewhere along the way before that, that, of course, that our case is strong enough that it doesn't need to go that far. But it's going to be a very long haul, most possibly. But we do have alternatives. If ultimately, the endgame is that the plant gets shut down for whatever reason, I won't get in to what those are today, but we don't intend to come away from this empty handed. One of the great fears, not great fears, but one of the issues that causes us to draw the line and stand as firmly as we have is Vermont has openly tried to encourage other states to do the same thing. And it's surprising that more companies in the industry are paying attention to that and the press that, that might bring if we're successful at it. So it's very important to us that the court system affirms, puts better lawyers with a lot of land in it in this regard. It's very bad for the industry to have all -- every -- just like we talked about. And the legislative intent was to encourage nuclear power to have one source for licensing and regulation. And this whole scenario goes against all of that just like when we had, I didn't know how many operators we had at these plants at one time. I don't think anybody would say that made sense, that every state, every utility there has built their own plant, and has designed their own plant and all those things, it just didn't work out very well. It probably didn't get billed, didn't get -- it went way over budget. And when they did get billed, they didn't run very well. It hasn't been until we followed the industry and started operators that were starting to see the progress we're seeing as we moved up the sprint. So also, and if you go back to the industry to have that whole kind of buyback with state regulations instead of the level of expertise you see at the NRC today. I mean, you look at, again in ITEC and you look at the -- all the redundant systems and all the back up and the depth, the defense mechanisms and whatever. The sense of it is it's going to destroy the industry. And what we have going right now is safe, reliable, clean power that's very good for the country. And we will keep it that way. And that's one of the reasons again, we're pushing the issue so hard in the court systems to make sure that it doesn't change. Unknown Analyst -: Just a couple of more questions about MISO. First, can you talk from, say, a high level how the $1 billion of benefit would be split between, say, elimination of the sim charges versus the detachment asset? And second, could you talk about QUICO [ph]? Is it necessary to have QUICO [ph] to actually join with MISO or can they be separated?

I think I'll talk about the first, but the second one is that there was an evaluation but, no, it's not a requirement that they joined SCP or MISO. And that's a decision that they have to make. But the first question is, can I answer the first question? That's got a breakdown. It really is, I think, it's a factor where, I believe, Wayne where that's part of the filings that we make on May 12. And I think we really have to kind of wait until we do that level of detail because again, as Wayne has said, that pretty much our -- all regulators have access for that level of detail now, this thing within the CRA study, but then the additional analysis that we've done is part of how you get to that $1 billion, and that needs to be really kind of vetted with them and how that breaks down, so May 12, basically. Unknown Analyst -: Wayne, maybe more for Leo here, you've clearly mentioned good credit metric, just from being able to access capital markets credit. Could you talk, put some parameters around what that maybe means. Is there a cash flow? Is that number a rating that matters to you? And sort of how that all interplays with the share buyback program that you have or -- and how you would deal with that? J. Leonard: Sure. I mean, if you think about the hierarchy of how we look at the whole financial profile, we start mostly with liquidity. So when we have to look at everything, but for example, you can get the debt to cap, we haven't paid the bill with that measure. So to make payroll to provide collateral support, to do what we need to do to have the liquidity support per store and still have the liquidity to support the merchant business when we have to post collateral and everything. That's the first line of defense on everything. So we tend to spend our first priority on making sure we have liquidity that is significant enough to cover almost any event. So most times we're sitting around with about $3 billion, $4 billion worth of liquidity at any point in time. When times are tough, even more, because we spend a lot of time paying attention to that. So then what you would do is you get down into making sure that our coverage ratios stay strong, typically in that $5 billion plus range. All the time, we make sure that our liquidity ratios against our collateral needs, so against our fuel five, based on credit ratings. And then we do get into obviously, looking at what the balance sheet is. I don't want to discount debt to cap. It's just that probably 10 years ago, you would have kind of started there, and it seem like people had things backwards and they work their way down versus today. I think it's been evident that everyone who's ever had any kind of an issue or the blowup that you talk about, is the liquidity issue. It's never been the solvency issue, for example. It's more do you have enough money to pay the bills tomorrow. So that's where we start, we look at coverage ratios, try to keep those really strong. We mentioned we keep the balance sheet solid, as well. Our credit ratings are important because they impact how much liquidity we require, particularly as it relates to what we do in the merchant business. So we don't guide ourselves towards a credit rating. We got ourselves towards making sure that we're strong enough for rating. And so that's what we're dealing with. Certainly, being in an investment grade level helps both sides of the business. It's a requirement in the utility business. And as I said, otherwise, we had all the jurisdictional CEOs. But that's certainly something that's very important, and then as the parent, we utilize that and support for our collateral counter-parties, so it's important for us, Larry, too, because it makes a lot easier for us. Unknown Analyst -: Could you kind of put bookings on your exposure to the worst-case scenario on Vermont of no continuation and no choice to do same-store outcome? The due commissioning exposure there. J. Leonard: We got your point where we couldn't -- first of all, the situation is such that the safe storage is available to us. The safe storage is a decision that we get to make. Same-store is an NRC issue. So the likelihood of getting ourselves into that situation seems remote on the back end of what we believe an unlikely scenario where we don't win in the litigation. So you're talking where is the magnitude down the low probability scale, I think. We have not given that kind of specific detail around plant by plant where we would go, we just haven't gotten to that point yet where we want to do that. Certainly, right now, we make filings on a regular basis in terms of whether decommissioning cost spend stand versus what the liability is, if you have -- it's just the process you go through. Today, for example, there's an NRC minimum that's calculated based on the license life. We've been in that process with all of the plants, and we file those, I think, on a biannual basis until you get within a couple of years, I think, five years ago, end of the licensing, we do it annually. So we've done those for all the plants. Certainly, getting the license extension at Vermont Yankee has changed that from a 2012 analysis out to a 2032 analysis. If you get to the point where you actually are going to decommission the plant, the calculation is done a little bit differently. It's switched over into a more site specific study, and that site specific study typically gets a different answer than, just give or take, than what the NRC study did show. So the reason I mentioned that is those are not things that we have done for all of our plants that we took out of the public domain.

Thank you for joining today. J. Leonard: Paula, let me give just one last comment, I guess. The room seems awfully subdued. which is not a good sign. What I want you to do as you walk away, just keep in mind this is not a sales conference, not a promotional event on our part. This is an investor conference. I learned early on in my career, you put your mouth, where you are. Straight talk works a lot better than making promises you can't keep or passable pipe ideas that don't really make sense. We try to avoid that. We try to avoid that every day in the company, and we certainly try to avoid that when we meet with all of you who own us, who we work for. I would hope that the one thing that you would -- we would agree upon, though, is that we understand the challenges that we have. We have challenges, I mean, who are we kidding? Everybody has challenges. This thing is going to go through some tough times. And like we talked about, I don't think mergers is going to solve everybody's challenges, either, just give us something else to talk about. But what I'm talking about, we're going to be working on those things that we have to do to make this the kind of company that you all want it to be, expected it to be, when you invested in the potential that we have right before us, instead of engaging in a lot of fanciful thinking and ideas that may never come to fruition. We may not agree, we may agree about what those challenges are. And what you have, though, is our commitment that you may or may not agree with is that we're going to meet those challenges. And while we have the team here, we've reorganized the team, put the right people on the right spots. And up and down of the organization, the board on down, we do have an agreement what those challenges are and the need to meet those and the need from all of us, all of our standpoints, to see whatever your expectations are as a likelihood of the overhang issues of the opportunities that Leo or Kerry or Rick, whatever, presented. And again, what we're not going to do is make a lot of promises we can't keep, but we hope that you understand that we do understand we have challenges. And we'll focus on them, and we're going to hopefully surprise you.

Thanks for joining us today. Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for the applicable Safe Harbor and regulations, the compliance statement. This webcast will be archived in the Investor Relations section of our website. This concludes our 2011 analyst conference. Thank you.