Clearway Energy Q2 2023 Earnings Call Transcript

Quartr
Provided by Quartr
August 8, 2023

Key Takeaways

  • Q2 CAFD was $137 million with the lowest quarterly wind production in company history, prompting full‐year guidance to be cut to $330 million–$360 million.
  • Dividend raised 2% to $0.3891 per share in Q3 (annualized $1.5564), keeping on track for the upper end of the 5–8% long‐term growth target.
  • Announced acquisitions of Cedar Creek Wind for $107 million (≈9.3% CAFD yield) and Rosemont Central Storage for $32 million (≈11% CAFD yield), lifting pro forma CAFD outlook to $420 million.
  • Sponsor pipeline exceeds 30 GW—including 6.9 GW of late‐stage projects—and Clearway expects no external equity is needed to reach its $2.15 CAFD/share long‐term goal.
  • Despite recent capital market volatility, Clearway highlights strong liquidity—an undrawn revolver, excess cash flow and unused leverage—and stabilized production trends in July.
AI Generated. May Contain Errors.
Earnings Conference Call
Clearway Energy Q2 2023
00:00 / 00:00

There are 7 speakers on the call.

Operator

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Clearway Energy Inc. 2nd Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question and answer Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

Operator

I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Chris Sotos, President and CEO.

Speaker 1

Good morning. Let me first thank you for taking the time to join Clearway Energy, Inc. Q2 call. Joining me this morning are Akhil Marsh, I'll now turn the call over to Mr. President of Investor Relations Sarah Rubinstein, CFO and Craig Cornelius, President and CEO of Clearway Energy Group are sponsored.

Speaker 1

Craig will be available for the Q and A portion of our presentation. Before we begin, I'd like to quickly note that today's discussion will contain forward looking statements, which are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. Actual results may differ materially. Please review the Safe Harbor in today's presentation as well as the risk factors in our SEC filings. In addition, we refer to both GAAP and non GAAP financial measures.

Speaker 1

For information regarding our non GAAP financial measures and reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures, Please refer to today's presentation. Turning to Page 4. Clearway had a soft first half of the year as weather and renewable resource conditions deviate substantially historical averages across most geographies. For the Q2, Clearway generated $137,000,000 of CAFD with the lowest quarterly wind production in the company's history. As we look ahead to the balance of the year, we are updating and reducing our full year guidance to a range of $330,000,000 to 360,000,000 which accounts for our first half results and reflects a range of potential outcomes in renewable resources and weather impacts on load.

Speaker 1

While results have stabilized in July and are materially on plan for the month, we are cautious given the weak renewable resource and relatively mild weather in California through June. Nonetheless, enabled by our prudent financial management, Clearway is announcing an increase in its dividend of 2% to $0.3891 per share in the Q3 of 2023 or 1.5564 on annualized basis, keeping on target to achieve the upper range of our dividend growth objectives for 2023. Despite our challenges, Clearway continues its focus on growth in long term CAFD and our asset base. In terms of dropdowns from Clearway Energy Group, We recently committed to acquire Cedar Creek Wind for $107,000,000 at a greater than a 9% CAF yield as well as Rosemont Central Storage for $32,000,000 an approximate 11% CAFD yield. As such, we are raising our pro form a CAFD outlook from $410,000,000 to $420,000,000 In terms of our continued growth trajectory, our sponsors pipeline has grown over 30 gigawatts, including 6.9 gigawatts of late space projects expected to reach COD in the next 4 years.

Speaker 1

We continue to work toward binding commitments on the remainder of Drop Down 24 with Texas Solar Nova, which will have an estimated capital commitment of $40,000,000 Working with Clarity Group on Drop Down 25 that begins our deployment of $220,000,000 of capital commitments, We have received our first offer on these assets in the form of Dans Mountain, a wind farm with a target completion at year end 2024 and a greater than 9% CAF yield. Offers of subsequent drop down 25 assets are anticipated from our sponsor over the balance of the year, with the contribution of those assets targeted to provide a CAFD contribution consistent with our goals. Here at Clearway, we are keenly aware of the capital market volatility in recent months. I want to reiterate a key point around capital, which is we have enough cash to fund our line of sight drop downs that underpin our $2.15 per share long term target. Clearway also benefits from an undrawn revolver, excess cash flow generation and unused leverage capacity to fund additional growth through this volatile period.

Speaker 1

In summary, Clearway continues to execute its growth plan with a very strong internal liquidity profile, so it's well positioned to grow beyond the 2.15 CAFD per share combined with the DPS growth rate in the upper range through 2026. Turning to Slide 5 to provide an overview of our recent capital commitments. On the left side of the page, review Cedar Creek Wind, a 160 Megawatt Idaho project underpinned by a 25 year busbar PPA for an investment grade utility. This project should produce $10,000,000 of CAFD annually for an approximate 9.3 percent CAFD yield, while she's commercial operations targeted for the first half of twenty twenty four. On the right side of the page, our Rosemont Central battery storage project is co located with the Rosemont Central solar facility.

Speaker 1

This project is expected to require $32,000,000 of capital with an approximate 11% CAFD yield by Chief Commercial Operation in the first half of twenty twenty four. This represents our continued diversification into a new asset class beyond wind and solar, with C1 owning or committing to invest in over 550 grossmeasure to storage today. In summary, we continue to advance our growth objectives with these 2 high quality capital commitments. Slide 6 provides an update about our path to invest the thermal excess proceeds and achieve our growth targets. With our announced investments in Rosemont and Cedar Creek, Our pro form a CAFD outlook now increases to $420,000,000 with our remaining capital targeted for investment in Texas Solar Nova and the anticipated $220,000,000 of commitments and Drop Down 25 offered from Clearway Group, of which the recently offered Sands Mountain represents approximately 35% of this future commitment.

Speaker 1

Despite our current challenges due to poor renewable resources in the first half of the year and ongoing capital market volatility, Clearway remains on track regarding continued executions versus $2.15 CAFD per share goal and beyond. Now I'll turn it over to Sarah. Sarah?

Speaker 2

Thanks, Chris. On Page 8, we provide an overview of Q2 results, including adjusted EBITDA for the Q2 of 2023 of $316,000,000 and cash available for distribution of $137,000,000 These results reflect the previously disclosed historically low wind production that resulted in an approximately $30,000,000 reduction to 2nd quarter revenue, including a decrease as compared to expectations of approximately $16,000,000 for the Alta projects. Results at the conventional segment were also below internal expectations. The Marsh Landing and Walnut Creek facilities, whose initial tolling agreements ended in May June, respectively, generated lower than expected merchant energy margin in the quarter because of milder than normal temperatures. Despite the first half challenges impacting CAFD, the company remains well positioned for growth with its long term CAFD per share outlook intact, a strong balance sheet, large revolver capacity and pro form a credit metrics in line with target ratings.

Speaker 2

There continues to be no external equity needs for line of sight growth to meet the $2.15 of CAFD per share and results in dividends per share objectives. Moving to Page 9, we provide a walk from our previous 2023 full year CAFD guidance of $410,000,000 to our revised guidance range. Starting from the left, the Q1 of 2023 reflected lower solar irradiance due to above average rainfall in California, which resulted in lower than normal solar revenues. Q1 2023 results also reflected extended outages at the conventional facilities that reduced capacity revenue and increased maintenance costs compared to expectations. As previously noted, 2nd quarter reflected historical low wind production yielding a decrease in revenue compared to expectations of approximately $30,000,000 with a material shortfall at the Alta facilities along with generation underperformance across all wind facilities in the portfolio.

Speaker 2

In addition, the conventional facilities generated lower than expected merchant energy margin due to milder than normal temperatures. The impact of the first half of twenty twenty three results led to a revision to full year 2023 CAFD guidance down to a range of $330,000,000 to $360,000,000 We have observed more normal wind Production trends for the month of July and while we have not altered our long term view of P50 median production estimates, The revised guidance range reflects the possibility that renewable resource may trend lower than normal for the balance of 2023 given the more volatile renewable resource experienced in 2023 thus far. The guidance range also reflects a sensitivity for merchant energy margin at the conventional facilities for the remaining summer months. While temperatures increased during the month of July, the company cannot predict how weather as well as other factors such as gas prices and the availability of other generation sources, may impact energy margin at the conventional facilities. Finally, the revised guidance range reflects the expected timing of committed growth investments, including estimated project CODs.

Speaker 2

And with that, I'll turn it back to Chris for closing remarks.

Speaker 1

Thank you, Sarah. Turning to Page 11. Due to the challenging first half of the year and potential volatility in the back half of the year, we will be unable to achieve our original CAFD guidance of $410,000,000 While we do not control the weather, all of us within the Clearway enterprise take this very seriously and our continuing focus on improving results and forecasting in both the short and long term. Despite these challenges, we remain on track to support the upper range of our 5% to 8% long term dividend objective. As discussed in previous years, the rationale for our long term payout ratio of 80% to 85% is precisely to manage 3 years like 2023, that Clearway can continue to grow its dividend based on long term cash flows without undue financial stress despite periods of short term negative weather volatility.

Speaker 1

In addition, Clearway continues to work through commitments for the remaining dropdown offers from October 2022 with our investments in Cedar Creek Wind and Rosemont Central Battery Storage and our first offer on the next batch of dropdowns with Sands Mountain. We expect to have commitments completed for all dropdowns that underpin our 2.15 CAFD per share line of sight by the first half of twenty twenty four. Beyond the $2.15 of CAFD per share, we continue to add projects such as the Seizure Hill repowering that was discussed last quarter, the extension of resource adequacy contracts on our California fleet and continued improvement in our operational performance. In conclusion, 2023 thus far has been a difficult year for Clearway, given the weakness in renewable resources and volatility in the capital markets. While these headwinds impact us currently, Clearway Energy has always been about the long game, about compounding our dividend over time that leads to stock price appreciation.

Speaker 1

The foundations of this long term growth are still intact: strong sponsorship in a key growth sector of America's infrastructure significant development capital spent to provide growth opportunities for has been demonstrated in the long term. Operator, open the lines for questions please.

Speaker 3

Thank you.

Operator

One moment for questions. Our first question comes from Julien Dumoulin Smith with Bank of America, you may proceed.

Speaker 4

Hey, good morning team. Thanks so much for the time. I appreciate it. Hey, Chris, obviously, You're talking a lot about the challenges past tense here through the first half of the year. Can you talk a little bit more about sort of today mark to market, if you will, Through part of the Q3, how are trends continuing across the portfolio in terms of renewable generation?

Speaker 1

Sure. I think as I mentioned in my comments, July was on track for plan. So we didn't see a significant deviation on a CAFD basis for the portfolio as a whole. So I think August, it's early days. You want to get a full month in there, but July was on track.

Speaker 1

So we're hoping that the weakness we saw in the first half of the year has abated.

Speaker 4

Got it. Oh, yes. I see stabilized here. Yes. And then more to the point in terms of the capital market backdrop, you alluded to the challenges.

Speaker 4

At the same time, Clearly transaction multiples in the market have come in. How do you see that as transforming and impacting the plan that you described or reaffirming here today in terms of acquisitions and acquisition multiples. I mean, obviously, there's puts and takes in terms of your financing plan. But Can you speak to a little bit what the transfer multiples or acquisition multiples you were contemplating past tense in the plan versus today, if you will?

Speaker 1

I don't think they've shifted that much given I think kind of what you're saying Julian may have phrased differently is A lot of the volatility in the 10 year treasury has really shown up past 2 weeks depending on how you look at it. And so from my perspective, a lot of the multiples we're

Speaker 4

looking at in terms of the acquisition, which are very similar to what we

Speaker 1

have for We're looking at in terms of acquisition, which are very similar to what we have for drop downs, really hasn't changed that much. I think for us, Yes. I don't know if what we're seeing in terms of about a 4.10%, I think 10 year treasury environment currently versus call it a 3.7%, 3.8%, maybe 3, 4 weeks ago. As that's transferred through, we'll sell price expectations to date. So long winded way of saying, I don't think it's impacted us that much in the current period, but We'll have to see how sticky this treasury environment is and if it translates to M and A multiples.

Speaker 4

Right. But your point is despite seeing So some transactions in the quarter here at perhaps lower headline multiples, you wouldn't necessarily read into those as being Indicative of the wider trends, right? They're more discrete to specific portfolios and the issues that might otherwise be embedded in them, if I hear you right.

Speaker 1

Correct. I don't think you can extrapolate based upon the past 3 weeks of treasury volatility, there's capitulation in the M and A market from some new levels.

Speaker 4

Right. Or more specifically transactions Actioned through the balance of the second quarter here, if I hear you right. Correct. And then just lastly here, if you don't mind, super quick, On just the backdrop in California, I mean data points continue to accrue across the forward curve at very robust Prices, if not higher, on higher quarter over quarter. Again, would love to come back to how you're thinking about your commercial strategy here and then ultimately extending out your outlook too?

Speaker 1

Sure. So a couple of different questions there, Julien. I'll try to unpack it. I think to your point, some of the forwards are still very strong in California. However, I think as we're all familiar with peaking assets, When it occurs, run times and exactly what the peak price achieved are critical assumptions in determining profitability.

Speaker 1

So right now, you have a relatively cool environment That's supposed to heat up kind of back end of next week or middle of next week. So I think in terms of run times and seeing really where we're at, it's Probably much more on next week event than in current. So for us, while especially the comments I gave, July was kind of on plan. Yes, it was tough for some days and then came in really well other days. It's just the nature of peaking assets.

Speaker 1

So I think for the remainder of the year, we feel pretty good about where we're at. But once again, it's That's the only thing I don't know. It's highly dependent on weather, highly dependent on duration and severity of that weather. In terms of the longer term, RA pricing, as we've talked about over the year, We bid in as part of the RFP conducted by the utilities in the Q2. We anticipate getting any results and announce those on the November call.

Speaker 4

Understood. And assets running okay in California here?

Speaker 3

Yes.

Speaker 4

Excellent. Wonderful. Thank you, guys. Good luck.

Operator

Thank you. One moment for questions. Our next question comes from Mark Jarvi with CIBC. You may proceed.

Speaker 5

Thanks. Good morning, everyone. So just coming back to the last commentary on the California assets, just what do you think about your guidance, Any changes at all went into guidance here now around expectations for energy margins in the back half of 2023?

Speaker 1

Not in terms of the baseline number. However, it does help inform the range if kind of some of the cooler weather that I talked about were to appear. So, May to answer your question, it doesn't really change our pinpoint estimate, but in terms of helping inform the range, yes, it does.

Speaker 5

And then when you think of the range specific to those assets, what do you think like obviously there's the renewable assets which brings some more variability particularly wind, but What's the sort of, I guess, the range that you think is conventional in terms of swings in terms of CAFD expectations for the balance of the year? Is it I don't know if Yes. I don't

Speaker 1

know if

Speaker 5

you have Is it narrower than the prior range you've given or is about the same in terms of that sort of $30,000,000 range?

Speaker 1

I would say it would be within the range given it's not as though that the wind would or renewable assets would kind of offset a deviation in the gas If that's where you're going, so it's not as though the deviation is wider than that. The deviation on the conventional would tend to be within that range.

Speaker 5

Got it. And then just in terms of the offer here on Dans Mountain, 9% CAFD, what performs out a bit lower than where I think the 9.5% range, Stocks trading at 8.5%. So how do you think about that transaction relative to your own currency in terms of your share price, what you'd be buying back stock at? And If there's anything around the funding plan you could optimize to bring up that capped yield over time with Dan's Mountain?

Speaker 1

Sure. A couple of different questions there. I'll try to unpack that. I think part 1 for Dan's, we put approximately in these for a reason and sometimes ends up 9.2. The big point is when we first talked about dropdown 24 and dropdown 20 We talked about those on a weighted average basis being about 9.5 for the entire fleet.

Speaker 1

Some of those are going to be below the 9.5. Some of those like Rosamond Best are at 11. So I think the key point is each when we say 9.5% it doesn't mean every asset It's going to be 9.5% or greater. That's the portfolio as a whole, some being a little bit lower, some being higher. So I'd say it's consistent with how we view things overall.

Speaker 1

2nd, Basically, I mean the asset is pretty attractive with a 12 year contracted basis. So once again longer is better, but 12 is pretty strong in today's market. And so overall, we think that that's once again subject to diligence and going in front of the GCN and the like, that number doesn't surprise me nor do I view it negatively. To your point around stock buybacks and the like, that's something we look at. I tend to think that as long as we can continue to find accretive Acquisitions or drop downs from our sponsor, those tend to still be a better form of investment because it helps to diversify the portfolio, broaden it out, And then also keep adding to our PPA tender and the like.

Speaker 1

If we were to, let's say, stop doing drop downs and focus solely on stock buybacks, Yes. Through time that PPA duration we kind of walk in on you a bit. So I think with the acquisitions that we just talked about actually the drop downs we just talked about with Cedar Creek And Rosamond, as well as hopefully Dans Mountain, you continue to see kind of that PPA duration being done on an accretive basis for dropdowns versus dilution.

Speaker 5

Okay. That makes sense, Chris. And then just coming to the dividend increases, obviously, you talked about not even equity to get the 2.15% and drive 8% dividend growth. But Given the stocks in the trading now and market conditions, if you're not being rewarded for the increases, do you start to moderate down to lower end or do you just take that Long term view and stick with the plan here at 8% for the foreseeable future?

Speaker 1

Sure. I think subject to moving conditions, I would inform your answer by a couple of things. 1, as I talked about in response to earlier questions, I think we all only just see where the treasury market kind of settles out at. This kind of 4 handle Has been a pretty recent phenomenon, which I think has driven some of the weakness in the stock. So part 1 is, where do treasuries kind of stabilize?

Speaker 1

Part 2, To me, the difference in growing, let's say, at 6 versus 8 to come up with a number that's lower than 8 for purposes of the conversation, Isn't a significant deviation in terms of significant cash that's left in the balance sheet, right? $410,000,000 of CAFD, Every 1% is $4,000,000 of capping, so a 2% difference in growth is about $8,000,000 It's not a paradigm shift in saying, well, We have a lot more cash on the balance sheet with which to basically invest in assets or like. So I don't see the dividend growth rate And changes in that really driving a significant deviation in retained cash that can be available for investment. To your question around how do we think about moderating that in the future, that I think will be based upon if we're never valued for it, right, I think that's pushing the envelope. But if, for example, the market just doesn't value dividends anymore, which I, To be clear, I do not think is the case currently.

Speaker 1

Then we kind of take a look at it again. But I think right now, we're comfortable with the long term growth rate. We're comfortable with the high end of the range and everybody uses 8, but just to be clear, it's kind of 6.5% to 8% is the high end of our range. And 3rd, yes, I still see value in the dividend in terms of our equity holders. I think we just need this tenure to settle down a bit, and then we'll kind of see where

Speaker 5

Okay. All right. I'll leave it there. Thanks for the time today.

Operator

Thank you. One moment for questions. Our next question comes from Angie Storozynski with Seaport Research Partners. You may proceed.

Speaker 6

Good morning. So one question on the gas plants. So could you comment on the dispatch Of the assets and how it differs versus what we saw for the output from these assets under the tolls?

Speaker 1

I can't really say there's a difference that can really be identified, Angie. Obviously, the tolling entities probably ran them differently based what they're seeing in their portfolios versus us just taking market signals. So I will say and it's also a little bit difficult because obviously we've only got really 2 months of Full data, maybe 3, and also not around the full fleet. So I don't know if there's a really good basis for that comparison, Angie, to be fair to your question.

Speaker 6

Okay. I understand. And then, changing topics on the CAFD per share expectation. So I'm looking at your holdco debt maturities and where these bonds currently trade. So And I know that some of them are 2020 and further out.

Speaker 6

But I mean, is there a plan how to absorb The incremental interest expense from that refinancing in that CAFD per share projection?

Speaker 1

Sure. I think to your question, if I'm answering correctly, the corporate bonds are in 2028, 2,031 and 2,032. And I think while again that gives us some time to continue to grow the portfolio, if in the end Angie, if those things are yielding 9, it may make sense to buy those back to that period of time, because you obviously have a pretty strong CAFD yield at that point. So I think for me, A, we've got a bit of time between now and then. 2, one way to manage those is to continue to grow the portfolio.

Speaker 1

3rd is, obviously, the other 2 are very long dated with 2,031 and 2,032. So hopefully that answers your question.

Speaker 6

Yes. Thank you.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question comes from Noah Kaye with Oppenheimer. You may proceed.

Speaker 1

Thanks for taking

Speaker 3

the questions. Maybe just a little bit of cleanup math here following prior I mean the midpoint of your revised guide, you've got the 1Q 'twenty three plus 2Q 2023 numbers in that deck very clear and then there's basically another $5,000,000 slightly lower CAFD at the midpoint in the back half. Is it the right way to think about the potential for lower energy? Okay. So The

Speaker 5

way

Speaker 1

I would put it Noah is given the first half results, we kind of skewed the range a bit to the downside just taking into account the first half of the year. Once again, I think just some of the other questions, fortunately, we haven't seen the weather patterns that persisted in the first half of the year in July. So we're hoping the trend in July continues, but yes, long way to go.

Speaker 3

So just a little bit of conservatism basically, the first half. And then just not changing your view Actually, you increased your pro form a CAFD view because of those portfolio additions, but not changing your view of the existing portfolios, Pro form a long term EBITDA CAFD, I guess what underpins that at this point? You talked about this being historically low quarter for wind production, obviously, some mean reversion would be implied. But As a company that is generally investing on the right side of climate change, You certainly have to look at some of these weather patterns and wonder is there anything to be concerned about. So talk to us about your assessment of The portfolio and how hard you're kind of testing those long term assumptions?

Speaker 1

Sure. Part 1 It's typically any long term assumptions will up it in November. So just to be clear, it's not as though we don't see any adjustments at all occurring. Just simply we don't do that kind of every quarter. We do that comprehensively in November.

Speaker 1

We'll take to account any revisions to P50s, which we've done in previous years, Cost increases, merchant curves, any extension of RA contracts and the like. So part 1 is that the long term view is typically done in November where we comprehensively bring everything else down. Part 2 is, I think to your question, for us on long term data, Alta, if you look back at our historical production indices, With the exception of this year, they really do oscillate around 100. You kind of have 93 and on and 93, I beg your pardon, and 97 showing up. You do see kind of that oscillation around 100, pick your year, some better, some worse.

Speaker 1

So I think for us, it's really about continuing to get longer term data and refining that. So in terms of like are our models necessarily wrong? Not when we get enough data in them, no. And that's kind of we would use Alta to demonstrate that. And I do think just this year is so I think not to minimize the question, there's a reason that we kind of don't There's a reason we don't maximize payout ratio, right?

Speaker 1

As there was question about dividend growth, easiest way for me to generate dividend growth is to move the payout ratio to 90, right? It doesn't require anything. I think from my perspective, these years are going to happen and we try to basically run things in terms of being able to manage that. To me, Yes, I would actually I'm not going to argue it's a positive, obviously. But given the weakness of this year, to view that we were able to amortize all Project debt, pay off all corporate interest and still generate at the midpoint $345,000,000 of cash despite Yes, a P90 or P85 year in multiple parts of the fleet since weakness in conventional.

Speaker 1

Don't get wrong, Wish it was higher, not making that point, but I think it actually shows the robustness of the system to deal with these weaknesses that we are going to see over a 10 year period Once in a while in terms of the book.

Speaker 3

Appreciate that. And one last question, if I could. Just with Rosamond, You have the 15 year RA agreement in place with the high quality IOU. What kind of attributes Do you need to see to invest in additional standalone storage projects? Do you assume you need Some elements of long term revenue visibility, hopefully in a desirable market, but Just walk us through how you think about the investability of standalone storage?

Speaker 1

Sure. I think if you're saying to invest in standalone storage Surely on a merchant basis where capacity and energy are open, that's probably tough for us unless it like fits in with other parts of our Book where we're trying to mitigate positions or scarcity pricing. So I think kind of step 1 from our view is that if you were to say, hey, what's the likelihood of C1 investing in 100% merchant storage that's not integrated with the rest of its portfolio. That's not a probable place we're going to invest. Secondly, I think that because storage is a little bit nascent from an asset perspective, the Significant, I think we used some like significant majority of the economics are from the capacity side of things.

Speaker 1

So we don't want to bet a lot on, let's say, merchant energy, not that we don't need any, that would be a little bit too positive, but we're really trying to mitigate that through As long as we can on the capacity side of things. So from our view, you do need kind of that merchant dispatch, but it's not we're not going to take a 75% that in terms of economics on the merchant portion of it either, is that kind of your question?

Speaker 5

Yes.

Speaker 3

That's very helpful. Thank you.

Operator

Thank you. I'd now like to turn the call back over to Chris Sotos for any closing remarks.

Speaker 1

Thank you. Once again, appreciate everyone's patience during this difficult year. I think we're working it through. And like I said, July looks to have reversed some of the trends we saw in the first half.

Operator

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.

Powered by Quartr