Prepared remarks
Welcome to Barrick's second quarter 2026 Results Presentation. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. As a reminder, this event is being recorded and a replay will be available on Barrick's website later today. I will now turn the call over to Emily Chang, vice president of investor relations. Please go ahead.
Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Hope you have had an opportunity to review the press releases issued before the markets opened this morning. The presentation deck we will review is also available to download on our website. Presenting our results today are Mark F. Hill, Barrick's President and CEO, and Hongyu Cai, Senior EVP and CFO. Other members of Barrick's management team will be available after our prepared remarks for Q&A. Before we begin, please note that there will be forward-looking statements. This slide includes a summary of the significant factors that could affect Barrick's future performance and our ability to deliver on those forward-looking statements. This material is also available on our website. With that, I will turn it over to Mark.
Okay. Thanks, Emily, and good morning, everyone. For those who do not know Emily, she is our new vice president of investor relations and joins us from U.S. Steel. So before we share our full quarterly results, I want to begin with the agreement with Newmont we announced today. And, actually, I want to go off script straight away to make the lawyers nervous here. So I want to clarify a few misconceptions. First, the total value of that package is approximately $4 billion. It includes the Fourmile proportion, but it also includes contribution of Newmont's properties, Mike and Fiberline, which I think are around 6.4 million ounces as well. It is also the cost of resolving historical disputes and litigation between the joint venture partners. And it also reduces the friction costs of the planned IPO, which will unlock even greater value for shareholders beyond the cash proceeds from the transaction. And as we have said, they will be largely returned to shareholders. We reached this agreement after four months of negotiations. It now enables us to focus on delivering value through safely and consistently producing ounces. Our interests are now completely aligned with our joint venture partner, which is critical. I want to thank our counterparts at Newmont, Natasha and her team, and, of course, everyone on the Barrick team for the enormous amount of effort and work that has gone into this over the last four months. The greatest risk is now mitigated. Before I get into the results, there are a couple of other strengths that have come out of Barrick over the last nine months. First, our leadership team. Over the last ten months, we have improved operational performance across the entire business, and that is thanks to the strength of our operating insight team — our GMs and everyone right down through to the mining front. We have also strengthened our relationship with Newmont, as we just said, positioning us well to grow and develop MGM further, which is also critical. Second, with the IPO, we are building the only major American pure gold company with high-quality, long-life assets. That is exactly what the best investors, including some of the world's fastest-growing sources of capital, are looking for. Third, outside of North America, the rest of the world portfolio has a significant growth profile and a distinctive advantage in our ability to work with our Chinese partners through joint mine ownership and co-investment. This enables greater efficiency and supply chain strength, which has helped us control our costs and improved outcomes and reduced our risk. With this context, let me turn to our results for the quarter. We have had our third quarter in a row with excellent operating and financial results. We delivered on all four of our priorities for the year, the same priorities outlined at the start of the year. We continue to improve our safety performance; I'll get to that a bit later, but there is obviously still more work to be done. We delivered our gold production above guidance and met our cost guidance. We advanced our growth projects — Fourmile, Lumwana, and the Pueblo Viejo expansion — which remain on time and on budget. Not often you hear that in the mining industry. We continue to review Reko Diq and commenced development on the project as previously disclosed. Our delivery on production and meeting our cost guidance also allowed us to deliver strong financial results which Hongyu will discuss a bit later. And finally, we achieved major milestones in the preparation of the IPO of our North American gold entity, which are on track to be completed by the end of the year. Now let me move to safety, which is still our number one priority. Our goal is that everyone goes home safe and healthy every day. We saw a reduction quarter on quarter in our frequency rate from 0.92 to 0.7, but disappointingly, we still had six lost-time injuries. There is still a lot of work to do. It is completely unacceptable, and we need to focus on safety until we get to our target of zero harm. All of our leaders, right up to the executive committee, including myself, are spending more time in the field and at the mine sites. They are doing more critical control verification and fixing more risks on the spot. On top of that, we have invested over $90 million this year in technology to improve safety. This includes OptiR automation of mining equipment, vehicle dash cams, safety reporting software, and AI analytics. We are also working hard to engineer out as many safety hazards as possible. Turning to our Q2 highlights, I would like to clarify about earnings. Adjusted earnings were $0.82 per share, which is in line with consensus. Barrick produced 976 thousand ounces of gold in the quarter, which was 3% above guidance and 11% over Q1. The main drivers were the ramp-up of Loulo-Gounkoto ahead of schedule, Pueblo Viejo ramping up faster than expected after the maintenance shutdown in Q1, record underground tonnage mined at Cortez, and continued ramp-up at Goldrush. On the copper side, we produced 56 thousand tons. We managed costs well and our gold costs were within guidance. Our earnings nearly doubled year over year, and we more than doubled quarterly shareholder return to $1.5 billion. The strong performance for Q2 was across all regions, though North America continued to anchor our world-class portfolio. MGM and Pueblo Viejo both registered year-over-year revenue growth. Together, they accounted for 53% of our total attributable adjusted EBITDA at a margin of 61%. Our other regions also delivered strong gold production with meaningful attributable EBITDA at a margin of 59%. Copper continued to perform well and delivered comparable margins to our gold business. Moving on to growth, our growth projects advanced during the quarter. At Fourmile, we ramped up drilling to 20 active rigs and plan to complete the PFS by the end of 2028. At Lumwana, we made good progress on the mill expansion, which will double copper production. We expect the project's 2026 capex to come in at the lower end of guidance and the project remains on budget; we are on track to produce our first copper from the expansion by the end of Q1 2028. The Pueblo Viejo expansion also advanced on schedule; we have made progress on permitting and construction across the tailings facility, haul roads, and water treatment plant. We are also pleased to report that we now have 90% of resettlement packages accepted. We continue to review Reko Diq as previously disclosed. We have decided we will not start building the plant this year, so we have reduced our expected 2026 attributable capex from $600 million to $700 million to now $450 million to $500 million. The lower spend on Reko Diq has reduced group guidance for 2026 total attributable capex to $3.8 billion to $4.2 billion. Regarding the IPO of our North American assets, this entity will be a high-quality pure gold company with assets located exclusively in a low-risk jurisdiction. I am pleased to share that the board has selected me to lead the new company as CEO on launch. We have completed operating and separation agreements between Barrick and the new company, and we remain on track to complete the IPO by the end of the year. We expect the vast majority of net proceeds raised to be returned to shareholders. I know several people have asked me in the past. I will now turn it over to Hongyu Cai, our CFO, who will review our financial performance.
Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. Q2 marked the third consecutive quarter of strong production, cost performance, and financial results. Net earnings were $1.2 billion, a 50% increase year over year. Adjusted net earnings were $1.36 billion, which equates to adjusted EPS of $0.82, in line with consensus. Attributable adjusted EBITDA of $2.425 billion was up 51% year over year, with a 59% margin. On a cash flow basis, the second quarter is typically our lowest each year for free cash flow due to the timing of our annual tax and interest payments. This quarter, we also incurred a one-time $400 million payment related to Loulo-Gounkoto. Combined, this led to a 33% decline year over year in attributable free cash flow. Excluding this, attributable free cash flow for the quarter would have been over 60% higher year over year. Year to date, attributable free cash flow has been $1.4 billion, more than double the same period last year. Turning to operations, gold production increased 11% quarter over quarter and exceeded guidance. We continue to operate within our cost guidance, reflecting an acute focus on operational efficiencies to offset fuel price pressures. We closed Q2 with a healthy $1.2 billion of net cash on the balance sheet, giving us flexibility to continue investing in our highest-return opportunities and returning capital to shareholders. Turning to our capital allocation framework, we have three priorities. First, managing the balance sheet with discipline. Second, investing in our assets to drive earnings-accretive growth. And third, returning capital to shareholders. Our framework is designed to be sustainable through the cycle. On the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with meaningful access to liquidity — an undrawn $3 billion revolving credit facility and no meaningful debt due until 2033. Lumwana and Fourmile are two clear examples where we are strategically deploying capital into organic opportunities that we believe will generate superior returns. More broadly, we intend to identify similar earnings-accretive opportunities to strengthen our growth profile while remaining disciplined in how and when we deploy capital. This is not about growth for the sake of it; it is about creating value over time with a suite of assets that has extraordinary growth potential. Finally, we are executing against our capital return policy. Our dividend policy provides for a quarterly base dividend of $0.175 per share, with an additional performance top-up at year end to target a total payout of 50% of attributable free cash flow. We also completed $1.2 billion of share repurchases this quarter, of the $3 billion authorization that was announced last quarter. In the three quarters since new leadership began in October 2025, Barrick has returned $3 billion in dividends and buybacks to shareholders, more than double the prior corresponding period. We expect careful execution of our allocation strategy to drive further shareholder returns. In summary, our capital allocation framework is disciplined, flexible, and designed to work throughout the cycle. It supports reinvestment in the business, advances growth, protects the balance sheet, and creates a clear pathway for returning excess cash to shareholders. With that, I will turn the call back over to Mark.
Okay. Thank you, Hongyu. On guidance, our 2026 production and cost guidance remain unchanged. For Q3, we expect gold production to be higher than Q2, consistent with the plan, and we expect even higher production in Q4. Copper production should also increase in the second half of the year relative to the first half. Since October 20, 2025, we have consistently delivered against our strategic priorities and set a new standard of operational performance. I would like to congratulate our GMs and our people on site. We continue to focus on controlling costs, capital intensity, and productivity, and based on what we see today, we remain confident in our ability to deliver on our full-year commitments for 2026. A couple of concluding items: safety remains the most important thing. Even though we have seen significant improvements, everyone is still focused on making sure every employee goes home safe every day. We have improved operational consistency and have delivered on our guidance again. We have delivered on all our projects; they are on time and on budget. We have advanced our North American IPO as well. We are on track to execute against all four priorities that we set at the start of the year. We have transformed our relationship with Newmont, which allows us to get full value and expand MGM. With that, I will hand it back to the moderator for Q&A.
Questions and answers
Thank you. For the Q&A session, we will use the raise hand feature in Zoom. If you would like to ask a question, click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. Once prompted, please unmute yourself and go ahead. We will now pause for a moment to assemble the queue. Our first question comes from Josh Wolfson with RBC. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Thank you very much, operator, and thank you, Mark, for those introductory comments and some of the numbers that were provided. Wonder if you can maybe break down more information behind the different components that would have been attributed to the agreement components. So I guess, you know, what would have been Mike and Fiberline within that $1.95 billion? And then perhaps what the adjustments would have been to the prior disputes. Thank you.
Okay. Josh, just to be clear, I am not going to break it down. On the prior disputes, I cannot give a number on that. We would have had to go through a process to actually get to that number, so we are not providing that. On the structural changes, now that we have this agreement done, we are going to go away and optimize this structure for the IPO. As you can imagine, that is a work-in-process. The overall value that we had on the table at the end of this discussion was about $4 billion. Just one other thing, Josh. Since I started this job, I believe MGM has a lot of opportunity. There has been no increase in processing capacity there for years. We are dealing with decades-old infrastructure and we have something like Fourmile, which is a world-class asset, and the answer is that we are going to feed that through the current infrastructure and delay other routes. In most places, if you found that number of ounces, you would want to bring that in earlier. My discussions with Natasha and Newmont from the start were about how to get this together so we can optimize MGM. By optimize, I mean increasing processing capacity, stopping trucking ore all over the state, and looking at whether we can justify a roaster or an autoclave and what infrastructure we need at Cortez to process Fourmile and Goldrush to get our cost structure in place and increase overall ounces. Where we have landed now, we are in a position to add a lot of value very quickly without getting into disputes about allocation of resources. There will be a lot of synergies because we are going to use the same team, combine the assets, use the same equipment, and advance this a lot faster. That was my ultimate goal.
Thank you for that detail. Just a follow-up question. With this resolution now completed, is the company considering a different structure in the IPO versus the 10% to 15% minority that was historically reviewed? And could you go larger? And if the company went larger or under what circumstances would there be a shareholder vote?
Josh, it will still stay at 10%. I do not see any change given the way the company is structured.
It is George speaking. I think it is a matter of looking at the structures that we started with at the beginning and comparing them to the current structure. As Mark said, there are friction costs around where it is domiciled and similar items. Now that we have the new agreement with Newmont, we want to go back and look at those items. As Mark said, that is where the value comes from — we have this flexibility and option set.
Thank you very much. Thanks, Josh.
Our next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek. Line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Good morning. Can you hear me?
I can hear you, Tanya. How are you?
How are you? This is awesome. Congratulations on your new role. I have a few questions if I could. The first one is just coming back to Josh's question. Should we be thinking, Mark, that it was $4 billion of the Newmont assets plus dispute plus the $2 billion that is a top up for a total of $6 billion? Is that how I should be thinking about the price paid?
Tanya, it is $4 billion total package.
And should I be thinking about the cash that Newmont is paying for this? Is this going to be part of the cash coming into the IPO? Or would this $2 billion be cash that is going to be potentially used for share buyback or the top-up dividend at the end of 2026?
You are a little hard to hear, but I think if I got your question right, the cash we get back — the majority would be returned to shareholders.
Okay. And then my final question, Mark, on the processes for this IPO: You mentioned that you have done your separation agreement and I think everything has been filed with the SEC, the technical report. What are we still waiting for? Is it just approval from the SEC? Filing the three-and-a-half-year financials? Completing the new board? Maybe just outline the process and what we need for this to go live. Thank you.
Actually, Tanya, let me hand it over to George, who is more up to date.
We are very close. Now that we have this agreement with Newmont and their consent, one of the things we want to do is go back and look at the previous structures and compare that to what we have today. We want to do our diligence and understand the impact because we think there are significant savings there. That is where we are at the moment.
Thank you. Thanks, Tanya.
Our next question comes from Lawson Winder with BofA Securities. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Thank you very much, operator, and hi, Mark. Good morning to you and the team. Very nice operational quarter. Congratulations on that. Just a couple of questions. To follow up on Fourmile, I noted that the PFS is still on track for completion in 2028. However, with it now vended into MGM, is there any scope to speed up development and potentially have the asset in production earlier than what the initial PEA had indicated, or around the early 2030s?
Thanks, Lawson. My intention is to accelerate this as fast as possible now that we have completed this process. We are still limited by timelines and other constraints, but we can really advance processing in parallel. I have already talked to Natasha about advancing processing capacity while driving declines and doing the drilling. It may not come on much earlier, but when it does come on, we hope to be able to ramp it up a lot quicker and to a higher production target. That is my target.
Very helpful. And then maybe I could jump to the IPO. After the initial minority interest is spun out, have you changed your thinking on what could come after? Previously you indicated an initial minority interest IPO; is there any thought to eventually IPOing 100% of the North American assets?
No. At this point, we are still on track to do the 10% and just show the value and highlight the value of a dedicated management team. We have already pretty much split the management team, and you should notice the change in production and safety with that dedicated focus. To answer your question, there is no updated thinking to go past 10%.
And in terms of the process, will there be a marketing process that will kick off in the relatively near future?
There will be, but I do not know the exact date.
We will have to go back and look at that, but absolutely there will be a marketing process.
Thank you very much for taking the questions. Thanks, Lawson.
Our next question comes from Anita Soni with CIBC. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good morning. Mark, congratulations on your new role and on improving operations at MGM. My first question was with respect to the capital you were talking about, the declining infrastructure, and what the capital would look like for a new roaster or a facility of that sort? Also, what can we expect in terms of MGM capital going forward?
That is a good question, Anita. On a roaster, I want to reoptimize the whole process flow. We have had people looking at it. I would have said conceptually it could be around $2.5 billion, though I do not have a precise number. That will offset a lot of other costs such as trucking and other infrastructure requirements. As far as other capital for MGM, Chris will help with details. There is nothing else material coming up beyond what we have guided previously.
The conceptual PFS range is in the order of $1.5 billion to $700 million — sorry, to $1.5 billion to $700 million for Fourmile spending over the next few years. Apart from that, we have items such as planned capital to replace our truck fleet at Turquoise Ridge and continued automation projects. We still expect total capital in North America to be in line with previous guidance. Those are the key points.
Thanks, George.
I also wanted to ask about the Fourmile PEA. I understand you are moving forward with the PFS with a different type of structure in terms of infrastructure. Should the PEA have been filed within 45 days after you announced the PEA? I would say that is probably part of why you are seeing share price moves because we do not really have a barometer right now outside of a slide deck. Would you be able to file the PEA that was put out last year so at least we have something to model while the PFS is completed?
Anita, fair question. I do not know if that is why our share price moved. When we issued the PEA, it was conceptual in nature and we still have to file a technical report. We will take your feedback away and see how we can do a better job providing information. I understand what you are asking and will work on it and come back to you.
I wanted to try one last time on Fiberline and Mike. Can you give us some round numbers on what that would add? By the math, it seems Newmont is paying in for Fourmile and you are reciprocally paying for their 61.5% of Mike and Fiberline, so is that the right way to look at how it nets to a collective $4 billion?
The right way is that we are paying for 61.5% of Mike and Fiberline, and there is another settlement amount which we are not going to break down. We agreed to provide a single number for the package, and I apologize we cannot give you a detailed breakdown.
Okay. I understand. With the IPO coming up, people are trying to understand the Fourmile component, so any additional information would be helpful. Thank you. I will leave it there.
Thanks, Anita. Appreciate it.
Our next question comes from Daniel Major with UBS. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Hi, team. Just a clarification on the $4 billion: is that the combined transaction value of 61.5% of Fiberline and Mike and 38.5% of Fourmile? Or is it just the Fourmile component?
When you net everything together, to get to the $4 billion number it is the value of Fourmile at 38% then you net off the value of 61.5% of Fiberline and Mike. There is some money in there to settle legacy disputes as well. If you want to understand the full value, there is obviously some benefit to Barrick by getting that consent and reducing friction costs on the IPO. I may have made that complicated, but that is the structure.
Okay. If I look at the high-level parameters of the 2025 PEA — 600k to 750k ounces, $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion of capex, and $650 to $700 all-in sustaining cost — you suggested maybe $2.5 billion more capex for downstream processing and possibly upside to production. Would it still be fair to assume AISC would be comparable to the $650–$700 range?
I would say it is comparable.
One point is that the conceptual PEA ranges were based on consensus gold prices at the time, which were lower. If you apply today's long-term consensus gold price, you can see a positive sensitivity; a higher long-term gold price increases project valuation and could increase the implied economics. So take the previous ranges and apply the current gold price sensitivity.
From an engineering perspective, the idea is to increase overall production capacity in Nevada and reduce trucking. Yes, there will be more capital, but it should increase production profile and lower cost — that is the target.
At $3,600 gold, you add about $100 to the $650–$700, is that correct? And does that incorporate the Teck NPI?
That sensitivity comment is correct and includes the relevant assumptions.
And in terms of valuation, in your $4 billion, were any assumptions made around Newmont's 38.5% share of infrastructure that were imputed in the transaction value?
That is taken into account. The two technical teams, one from Newmont and one from Barrick, sat down with the model for Fourmile and all the data and accounted for these items when they came up with the PEA.
One more: you will be leading the IPO vehicle. How advanced are you in recruiting senior management positions in the parent company?
We are advancing those discussions. We will update the market shortly. It is an advanced process.
Our next question comes from Bennett Moore with JPMorgan. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Good morning, Mark and Hongyu. Congrats on the strong quarter. Thank you for taking my question. I want to pivot to Loulo-Gounkoto specifically regarding plans for push into open pit ore, what sort of capex may be required to support this and your risk appetite to do so.
Thanks, Bennett. I'll hand that over to Chris.
On Loulo-Gounkoto, we ramped it up quite successfully. It has become self-sustaining. Any capital and growth we are funding now is self-sustaining. Expected growth next year will come from deeper pushbacks and the open pits in the first half or middle of next year. We are optimizing plans but will start moving into the open pits in the first half of next year.
Thanks, Chris.
Thanks. And on the production cadence overall, you gave back half commentary. How conservative is your cadence baked in at this stage?
I would not say it is conservative. We will hit our guidance. We have had events: Veladero was down for two weeks due to a weather event that required evacuation; Pueblo Viejo has had a separate issue that required a temporary shutdown. Those were weather or external events, not operational problems. I remain confident in hitting guidance, and North America and PV are in good places, but guidance is not conservative.
Understood. Quick question: how did turnover trend at MGM during the quarter, are you still in the mid-teens range?
I do not have that number on hand; I will get back to you. It is something we are focused on. Our culture at MGM has turned around in my view, and you can see that in performance, safety, and the workforce. I will provide the actual number afterwards.
Our next question comes from Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Good morning. A broader question: for the ex-North America business, is there anything you are contemplating in terms of portfolio management on that asset base? Will the IPO process slow that down?
The rest of the world portfolio is one of our biggest growth engines. We recently had a board session on growth for the rest of the world because of potential at Lumwana, Kibali, and elsewhere. The current plan is to grow the rest of the world; that is the focus and will not be slowed by the IPO.
We are looking at how best to optimize that portfolio and leverage partnerships. There is embedded brownfield growth potential around many of our operations, which is typically the lowest-cost growth. We also have the Lumwana expansion on the cards. There is significant potential around those assets.
Quick follow-up: on the agreement with Newmont, are there any contingent payments involved for hitting exploration upside, or is it pretty much done irrespective of future exploration success?
No, it is done. There are no contingent payments tied to exploration upside.
Our next question comes from Steven Green with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Thanks, Mark. I wanted to follow up on how you intend to optimize MGM and potentially accelerate Fourmile. Can you talk a little about permitting requirements and what will be required there?
On permitting, we want to get permits for the full decline as soon as practical. We need to understand what we can do on processing before starting full permitting. It is probably not a bad time to get permits in Nevada. I cannot give a clear timeline today, but now that we have this agreement in place we will sit down and optimize Nevada and processing capacity. Newmont is supportive of increasing processing capacity. We will need to determine autoclave versus roaster and where it should be positioned; we will accelerate those decisions starting immediately.
Thanks. One follow-up: you mentioned Fiberline and Mike being around 6.4 million ounces — can you confirm that and where roughly those assets are and how far advanced they are?
I do not have the inferred breakdown of the 6.4 million ounces on hand; I will get back to you. Fiberline is close to the infrastructure at Turquoise Ridge and would be considered a satellite open-pit deposit. For Mike, at this stage I have not assigned a lot of value to it yet.
Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Our next question comes from Martin Pradier with Veritas Investment Research. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Hi. Thank you for taking my question. Have you given any thought to floating 10% of the ex-North America assets as well?
Martin, we have not had that discussion. It has not come up and is not on the table at the moment.
Second question: in other expenses there was $200 million related to Loulo-Gounkoto because you are applying a 2023 law retroactively. Was that part of the original agreement and why was it not included in previous quarters?
I'll hand that over to Hongyu to explain.
The payment relates to additional royalties, penalties, and associated interest based on retrospective application of the 2023 mining code specifically for 2024 and 2025. Previously we settled items related to 2023 and earlier years, but this payment covered 2024 and 2025. We paid cash of $400 million in April and received a further payment demand of $48 million in July.
I am curious why it was not included in previous quarters. Was it not provisioned?
To simplify, the original agreement only covered up to 2023. We continued applying our conventions while negotiating the dispute. The retrospective application in the agreement covered 2023 only, so we had to reconcile with the government for 2024 and 2025 and make this payment.
Thanks, Martin.
Our last question comes from Lawson Winder with BofA Securities. Your line is open. Please unmute and go ahead.
Thanks for taking the follow-up. You noted revisions to the NGM joint venture agreement. Can you give more color on the extent to which this gives Newmont additional say in various aspects of operations and the release of technical reports and whatnot? Whatever detail you can disclose would be helpful.
At a high level, while it is not all in the venture agreement, our approach is different now. We will have access to information at the site and have already engaged with Newmont technical leads. The main governance change is that when we appoint the general manager of MGM, we will need their consent to who that is. I have no issue with that. We also agreed to embed a Newmont executive in our MGM executive team to help transfer information and foster collaboration. There were some other items around excluded property committees, but many of those have been addressed by bringing Fourmile and Fiberline into the joint venture.
On the CEO search for the parent of Barrick North America, is there a preference between an internal or external candidate?
My preference is always internal, but we have not reached a decision. There are internal and external candidates under consideration.
I will now turn the call over to Emily Chang.
Yes. I have an emailed question that I would like to read out. Given feedback from shareholders, are you considering a spin-out of North America to existing shareholders rather than an IPO structure? That is, are the shares of Nevada and Pueblo Viejo distributed to current shareholders rather than diluting existing holders?
Who asked the question? Daniel. The short answer is no. A lot of people ask that question. The short answer is no.
That is it. Thank you. I will turn it back to the moderator.
Thank you. That concludes our event for today. You may now disconnect.