wheaton precious metals corporation canadian tax ......2017/12/18 · charged to the foreign...

FINAL TRANSCRIPT

"While Cision has used commercially reasonable efforts to produce this transcript, it does not represent or warrant that this transcript is error-free. Cision will not be responsible for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, loss of profits or other damages or liabilities which may arise out of or result from any use made of this transcript or any error contained therein." « Bien que Cision ait fait des efforts commercialement raisonnables afin de produire cette transcription, la société ne peut affirmer ou garantir qu’elle ne contient aucune erreur. Cision ne peut être tenue responsable pour toute perte de profits ou autres dommage ou responsabilité causé par ou découlant directement, indirectement, accessoirement ou spécialement de toute erreur liée à l’utilisation de ce texte ou à toute erreur qu’il contiendrait. »

Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation

Canadian Tax Settlement Conference Call and Webcast

Event Date/Time: December 14, 2018 - 9:00 a.m. E.T.

Length: 35 minutes

2

CORPORATE PARTICIPANTS

Patrick Drouin Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation – Senior Vice President, Investor Relations Randy Smallwood Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation – President, Chief Executive Officer Gary Brown Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation – Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer CONFERENCE CALL PARTICIPANTS Ralph Profiti Eight Capital – Analyst Fahad Tariq Credit Suisse – Analyst Cosmos Chiu CIBC World Markets – Analyst Trevor Turnbull Scotiabank– Analyst Chris Terry Deutsche Bank– Analyst Shane Nagle National Bank Financial – Analyst Dan Rollins RBC Capital Markets – Analyst Carey MacRury Canaccord Genuity– Analyst Brian MacArthur Raymond James – Analyst

3

PRESENTATION

Operator

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Wheaton Precious

Metals Canadian Tax Settlement Conference Call and Webcast. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any

background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you would like to

ask a question during this time, simply press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad, and if you

would like to withdraw your question. Thank you. I would like to remind everyone that this conference call is

being recorded on Friday, December 14 at 9:00 am Eastern time.

I will now turn the call over to Mr. Patrick Drouin, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go

ahead.

Patrick Drouin – Senior Vice President, Investor Relations, Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation

Thank you, Operator, and a very good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for participating in

today’s call. I’m joined today by Randy Smallwood, Wheaton Precious Metals’ President and Chief Executive

Officer; Gary Brown, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Curt Bernardi, Senior Vice President,

Legal and Corporate Secretary.

I’d like to bring to your attention that some of the commentary on today’s call may contain forward-

looking statements. There can be no assurances that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate as

actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. In addition to

our financial results cautionary note regarding forward-looking statements, please refer to the section entitled

Description of the Business Risk Factors in Wheaton’s annual information form available on SEDAR and on file

with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

4

The annual information form and the press release from last night set out the material assumptions and risk

factors that could cause actual results to differ, including among others, fluctuation in price of commodities, the

absence of control over mining operations from which Wheaton purchases silver or gold, and risks relating to such

mining operations, the continued operations of Wheaton’s counterparties, and risks in estimating cash taxes

payable in respect of the 2005 to 2010 taxation years and assessing the impact of the settlement with the CRA for

years subsequent to 2010. It should be noted that all figures referred to on today’s call are in U.S. dollars unless

otherwise noted. In addition, references to Wheaton or Wheaton Precious Metals on this call include Wheaton

Precious Metals Corp. and/or its wholly owned subsidiaries, as applicable.

Now, I’d like to turn the call over to Randy Smallwood, our President and Chief Executive Officer.

Randy Smallwood – President, Chief Executive Officer, Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation

Thank you, Patrick, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are very excited to be speaking to you

today as we are here to discuss the resolution via a principled settlement of our tax dispute with the Canada

Revenue Agency regarding our foreign income over the years 2005 to 2010. Gary Brown, our Senior Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer, will go into the details of the settlement shortly, but the basic foundation of this

settlement is that Wheaton’s foreign income and profit will not be subject to tax in Canada. While the settlement

is specific to the reassessments related to the 2005 to 2010 tax years, the transfer pricing principles laid out in this

settlement will also apply to subsequent taxation years and additionally on a go-forward basis, so this settlement

provides us and perhaps, more importantly, our shareholders past, present, and future with clarity and certainty

in our business model going forward. It puts the tax risk issue behind us and allows the Wheaton team to focus on

what we do best: managing and expanding our high-quality precious metals portfolio both organically and by

accretive acquisitions.

I will now turn the call over to Gary, who will provide more details on the settlement. Gary?

5

Gary Brown – Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Wheaton Precious Metals Corporation

Thank you, Randy, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. In order to better understand the nature of

the settlement, it is important to refresh the basis of the CRA’s original reassessments for the 2005 to 2010

taxation years. In those reassessments, the CRA had asserted that virtually all of the income earned from precious

metal purchase agreements, or PMPAs, entered into by the Company’s foreign subsidiaries on foreign assets

should be re-characterized as being Canadian income and therefore subject to Canadian income tax. As a

secondary position to be asserted only if the re-characterization argument was unsuccessful, the CRA had argued

that the inter-company charges for services rendered by the Canadian parent company to the foreign subsidiaries

should be increased such that virtually all of the income earned outside of Canada be transferred to the Canadian

parent company.

The key terms of the agreement that we have reached are as follows. The income earned by our foreign

subsidiaries from precious metal purchase agreements for the 2005 to 2010 taxation years will not be subject to

re-characterization. In addition, we have agreed to increase our inter-company charges for the services rendered

by the Canadian parent company to the foreign subsidiaries by first including the third party costs incurred by the

parent company directly associated with raising capital that was used to fund investments made by foreign

subsidiaries in PMPAs, and secondly increasing the mark-up on costs incurred by the parent company that are

charged to the foreign subsidiaries, including attributable capital raising costs, from 20% to 30%. In addition, the

transfer pricing penalties included in the re-assessments for 2005 to 2010 will be reversed. Interest will be

adjusted to reflect the implementation of this agreement, and finally, the principles included in this settlement

will apply to all taxation years subsequent to 2010.

To be clear, the settlement does not definitely determine the Canadian taxable income in years after

2010; rather, it establishes a framework that we will apply and the CRA will abide by, assuming of course that

there hasn’t been a change in law or a material change in our facts that has an impact on the transfer pricing

6

analysis. The application of this agreement, after applying non-capital losses otherwise available, will result in no

additional cash taxes for the 2005 to 2010 taxation years, although a small amount of interest will likely accrue.

The application of the principles of this agreement to taxation years 2011 to 2017 is expected to result in cash

taxes payable of approximately $5 million. The net result is a cash outlay for all past taxation years of less than

$10 million.

From an accounting perspective, share issue costs reduce share capital rather than being deducted as an

expense in the statement of income. Accordingly, the tax benefit related to these costs, which are deducted for

tax purposes over a five-year period, is also recognized in share capital. As a result, in recognizing the tax benefit

of the non-capital losses utilized to offset the additional taxable income arising from this settlement, a significant

component of which relate to share issue costs, we anticipate recording a deferred tax expense of approximately

$15 million in the statement of earnings with an offsetting deferred tax recovery reflected directly in the

statement of shareholders equity.

As we have previously indicated, the implication of the terms of this settlement will all be reflected in the

Company’s financial results for the three months and year ending December 31, 2018. The total impact of this

settlement on our Q4 2018 after-tax earnings, including current and deferred taxes, ancillary interest, and

associated legal expenses, is estimated to be $30 million, of which approximately $15 million would relate to a

deferred tax expense.

To estimate the go-forward impact of this settlement on future income, we can use 2017 as an example.

The impact of this settlement on 2017 is estimated to increase Canadian taxable income by about $3 million to $4

million, which, assuming that we are taxable, would result in additional Canadian taxes of approximately $1

million. We believe this represents a fair proxy of the impact for taxation years subsequent to 2017 assuming the

capital raising costs associated with funding requirements of our foreign subsidiaries is not significantly different

from those incurred in 2017.

7

As Randy has already stated, we view this as a great outcome for the Company and its shareholders as,

with this settlement, we have eliminated any uncertainty as it relates to the 2005 to 2010 taxation years and

clarifies the anticipated Canadian tax implications for all taxation years subsequent to 2010.

With that, I turn the call back over to Randy.


Thank you, Gary. Before I open up the call for questions, I would like to take a moment and thank Al

Meghji and his team at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP for their outstanding work and representation throughout

this process. Certainly, their hard work played a large part in expediting–and I know it didn’t feel like it was

expedited–but expediting the resolution of this dispute. Thank you, Osler team.

With that, we’d like to open up the call for questions, Operator.

Q & A

Operator

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now conduct the question-and-answer session. If you would

like to ask a question please press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad, and if you would like to

withdraw your question, press the pound key. We also ask that you limit yourself to one question and one follow-

up question.

Your first question comes from the line of Ralph Profiti from Eight Capital. Please go ahead. Your line is

open.

Ralph Profiti – Analyst, Eight Capital

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question.

8


Thanks, Ralph.


Randy, just wondering, in your view, what compelled the CRA to settle? Was it something in the discovery

appeal process that came out? Was it the Cameco decision, or was it other factors?


Our case is very unique, so I would actually say it was the fact that nothing came out in the discovery

process, is probably the way to put it, as opposed to something in the discovery process. It was a very thorough

process. As most of you have heard, I sat myself on the stand through many days of discovery, and we’re very

comfortable with what we’ve done in this Company, and so I have to say, it’s probably the fact that nothing came

out in the discovery process.


Yes, okay. Gary, what happens to that $164 million that’s secured against lines of credit? Does that

immediately get freed up?


We would immediately contact the CRA to release that. I would expect it to be released in the very near

future.


Okay, that’s it for me. Thanks very much.

9


Thank you, Ralph.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Fahad Tariq from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is

open.

Fahad Tariq – Analyst, Credit Suisse

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. You mentioned using 2017 as a proxy, and maybe it

would result in additional tax of $1 million. In the past, you’ve said that you have maybe six opportunities on the

radar right now over the next 18 months in terms of M&A, maybe in the $100 million to $300 million range. If we

think about more deal flow in 2019, 2020, have you thought of sensitivity? How high could that additional tax go?

Maybe 2017 isn’t the right proxy, maybe it’s more deals than what was done this year. Any sense of how high

that number could go? Are we talking in the range of $5 million? Is it higher than that?


Right now, we’ve been funding most of our transactions with cash flow, and we still have very strong cash

flow, should be in excess of $500 million, so the financing cost by using our cash flow is essentially zero. There’s

very little cost in terms of closing those transactions. There will be some, but I wouldn’t say it’s substantive by any

means. Our technical team is constantly reviewing projects, some of them in Canada, some of them outside of

Canada. Our legal team, our financial team all provide support on that side, and so I don’t see much of a

difference in that activity level between 2017 when we only had one small transaction and of course this year

where we’ve had several large transactions. The activity level and the effort is pretty consistent across the board,

so really the only difference would be a bit of extra financing expense, which I’d also point out is tax deductible, so

it also protects you on that side. It’s not significant. Not significant at all.

10


Okay, great. That’s really helpful. Just a quick follow-up. On the call, it was mentioned earlier that

something about $5 million in cash taxes. Can you just repeat that–what that was for?


Well, again, what we’ve done here is increase the charges that the Canadian parent charges the foreign

subsidiaries for services rendered from 20% mark-up to a 30% mark-up, so that increases the income in Canada

such that for all past taxation years, we expect the application of this settlement to increase income such that

we’ll owe the Canadian Government about $5 million in past taxes.


So, that’s the total cost until the end of 2017 for all years.$5 million.


Got it, thank you.


Thank you.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Cosmos Chiu from CIBC. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Cosmos Chiu – Analyst, CIBC World Markets

Hi Randy, Gary and Patrick. I guess you received an early Christmas present here. You can all kind of go

home and take vacation now, I guess.

11


Never.


Never? All right, I’ll call you on Christmas Eve. The $5 million here, does that include any kind of interest?

I know it’s a much smaller number than what we had anticipated, which is great, but is that the number, and

when will we get a final number because $5 million is what you’ve calculated right now, but when are we going to

get that final number, and when would you have to pay the CRA?


When will we get a final number? We think that’s a good number. We think $5 million is what will result

from the application of this for all past taxation years. It does not include interest. Roughly, we’d expect that

interest will be about $3 million to $4 million on top of that. That’s why we’ve suggested that, in total, the

disbursement that will result from the application…


Less than 10.


…is 10, yes. When will this happen? I think what will happen is that the CRA will reassess based upon the

application of these principles. We’ll look to re-file our returns with the application of these principles and settle

up as quickly as possible.

12


So, to be clear, the CRA will reassess the 2005 to 2010 tax years, which this is a part of, and then we will

re-file everything subsequent to that following these principles.


And this is–yes, sorry Randy. You were saying?


I was just going to say, so that will be dealt with over the very short term here and reported into our

quarterly results at the end of this year.


My follow-up question is, this is final, unlike the Cameco situation where the CRA came back and

appealed, this is different. This is an agreed upon settlement between WPM and CRA, so this is final, there’s no

more overhang, that’s it?


Cosmos, for many years now we’ve been saying that our objective was to get a settlement, because the

settlement is principled–a principled settlement because it applies to the future periods. Obviously, we are a

business that’s continuing to grow, and we wanted to provide clarity and certainty in terms of going forward, so

our objective has long been to settle this versus take it to trial. We were confident about winning in 2005 to 2010,

but we wanted to try and find a solution that adds that clarity on a go-forward basis, and I think that’s what we’re

delivering here.

13


Great, thank you. Congrats again.


Thanks, Cosmos.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Trevor Turnbull from Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Your line is

open.

Trevor Turnbull – Analyst, Scotiabank

Yes, hey, Randy. I’m having a hard time coming up with any further questions on the (inaudible) $10

million amounts, so maybe just changing gears slightly, given the metal price environment being down a bit year

over year, is there anything we should be thinking about with respect to carrying values going into year-end?


You mean in terms of potential for write-downs or anything? We’re in pretty good shape. I would say that

in cleaning up the Primero situation, we’ve got a much stronger San Dimas stream when I go down the asset list.

We have all–it’s all first quartile, second quartile production, and so our–you know, the most important thing is

not only are we profitable on these assets, but our partners are profitable, and that’s a real key thing, so even at

these prices I think we’re in great shape, so I can’t see–-when I look at the portfolio, I can’t see anything in terms

of carrying values.

Trevor Turnbull – Analyst, Scotiabank

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

14


Thanks, Trev.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Chris Terry from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is

open.

Chris Terry – Analyst, Deutsche Bank

Hi, Randy and team. Congrats on getting the deal done. I think most of them have been answered from

previously, but just to make sure I’ve got this right, I guess, previously you had been assessed in different stages,

2005 to 2010, 2011 to 2015, and then beyond, so this deal–I think you’ve already answered this, but just to be

clear, this deal you’ve done relating to 2005 to 2010, there’s no future announcement to make about 2011 and

forward? It’s basically you’ve settled on ’05 to 2010 and then you’ve put a framework in place for how things

move going forward, so this is a clear line in the sand, is that correct?


Yes, it is. You’re right. We were reassessed for 2005 to 2010. We are under audit for 2011 to 2015. We

haven’t been reassessed for that, but the agreement with the CRA and with the Ministry of Justice tax court

representing the CRA, the agreement is that we will apply this principle of charging instead of the traditional 20%

mark-up on services provided, we will now charge 30% for the services that are provided from our Vancouver

team, our Canadian-based team to our foreign subsidiaries and include, obviously, the financing costs in that

calculation that are related to those subsidiaries, the acquisitions those foreign subsidiaries make. It’s a clear

agreement that goes forward, and yes, I’d like to think that this means we don’t have–we’ve got an agreement

there. I mean, we’re all subject–like everyone, we’re all subject to changes in law, but right now we’re very

comfortable with where we are.

15


Okay, very good. Then just for Gary, I think you said $30 million total this quarter, so $15 million of

deferred taxes. Where will all the–sorry, the other legal costs, etc., where will they all come through in terms of

the P&L?


Legal costs would be reflected in our G&A, and then the tax and interest would be included in the interest

expense line, and then the taxes, the $5 million of taxes would be reflected in current taxes, and I think we’d

anticipate about a $15 million deferred tax expense as well.


Okay, great. That’s it from me. Well done again, thanks guys.


Thank you, Chris.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Shane Nagle from National Bank Financial. Please go ahead.

Your line is open.

Shane Nagle – Analyst, National Bank Financial

Congrats, guys on a good process here. Most of my questions have been answered. Just real quickly on

the–so I guess, structurally, how does it work? When will they formally close the audit for 2005–sorry, for 2005 to

2010, presumably, once you’ve re-stated, and then there never was a reassessment issued, will they have to then

16

issue one for 2011 to 2015 and then you re-file, or is this just kind of you restructure it, you pay the penalties and

fees, and it goes away?


Yes, you know, Shane, we’re still working through a lot of those mechanics. What I would anticipate is

that for the 2005 to ’10, we’ll get a revised Notice of Reassessment, and then for future years I would expect that

we would re-submit our returns based upon the application of this agreement and pay any taxes that were owing.

If there were periods where we owed taxes and then because we had losses carrying back to offset those taxes

and their interest, we would wait for the CRA to issue Notices of Reassessment claiming those interest charges.


Okay, so there is a minor headline risk around them maybe continuing to put some of that stuff out, but

nothing major?


Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by headline…


Well, I guess they may reissue a reassessment, but it’s not like they’ve, I guess, cancelled the agreement

that’s in place. It’s…


Correct. No, that’s correct.

17


And that $30 million, that is your estimate up to 2017, right? I just want to make sure that’s clear, so

2005 (inaudible).


That’s our estimate up until Q4 2018.


Oh, okay. Perfect. That’s great.


That’s the estimate of the impact of this on our Q4 2018 financial results.


Yes, just to be clear, we’ve always stated that, should we arrive at some kind of negotiated settlement, we

would reflect it in the period that we executed that settlement. Given that that’s happened in Q4 2018, we’ll

reflect the cumulative impact of this settlement in our Q4 2018 financial statements.


That’s great. Thanks again, guys. Congrats.


Thanks, Shane.

18

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Dan Rollins from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Your

line is open.

Dan Rollins – Analyst, RBC Capital Markets

Thanks very much. Congrats, guys. That’s a great outcome for you, for your shareholders, and for the

space. I’m not going to ask you about $5 million here or there, but two questions for me. How does this change

now? Let’s look forward. What’s the deal flow like, what’s the potential to do some more acquisitions and

continue to grow this business going forward?


Dan, we’ve said it for a long time, we’ve done our best to make sure that this did not interrupt our means

of growing this business, and I think we’ve got a pretty good track record in terms of acquisitions that we’ve made

even this year. It has, obviously, made it a bit more challenging, so I look forward to being able to pursue growth

without having these handcuffs in terms of having this burden on us. There’s still plenty of demand. Our business

is essentially supplying capital to the mining industry, and I think that the cost of our capital is actually very

attractive in today’s world, and so I do see a lot of opportunities in that space. I know that Haytham and his team

are very busy even through the Christmas holidays. They’re kind of whining to me about it, but as I said, we’re

now focused, or we’ve always been focused forward, but now we’re freely focused forward.


That’s great. Guess there shouldn’t be any whining anymore. Just on that, the other aspect is you’re

generating a lot of free cash flow now. This really removes any future risk. Any thoughts? I know it may be early,

but you know I love to ask it, any thoughts about maybe increasing that dividend and really starting to share that

wealth with investors?

19


We do have a little bit of debt on the books in terms of our revolver. That revolver has been very effective

to help us grow substantially over the last four or five years without penalizing or overly diluting our shareholders,

so it’s been a very effective tool, and I’d like to chew that down a bit. Obviously, the first use of proceeds is

putting money back into the ground. It always has been and always will be, so if we see the right opportunities,

correct opportunities to continue to build the reserve and resource base that is the foundation of value in this

Company, we will do that first; secondly, continue to strengthen up the balance sheet. We’ve got plenty of

capacity on it right now, but strengthen that up, and then thirdly the dividend. That’s been the way we’ve always

ranked our capital allocation here.


Okay, perfect. Maybe just Gary, does this help improve the interest costs going forward on that, and with

this risk out of the way, is there potential to increase the debt facility if metal prices continue to be weak and you

need to add a little bit more debt on to add some more accretive transactions?


Dan, I’m constantly approached by banks wanting us to take more debt down. I believe that the $2 billion

revolver that we’ve got is sufficient for our needs today. We’ve got about $800 million available under that

facility. It provides an attractive form of capital for us, and so I don’t anticipate requiring any further capital in

order to execute on the growth strategy that Randy’s alluded to.


Okay, perfect. Again, thanks again, congrats, and you make modeling your Company a lot easier now.

Appreciate it.

20


Thank you, Dan.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Carey MacRury from Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead. Your

line is open.

Carey MacRury – Analyst, Canaccord Genuity

Good morning, guys. Congrats on the deal.


Thank you.


I just had a question. In the industry, there’s a few examples of where there’s some offshore streams that

have actually been structured through Canada, and I just wanted to confirm that all your offshore streams are

actually offshore streams. Is that correct?


That’s correct, yes. That’s a principle we established when we created this Company. We’ve stuck to that

principle. It’s–we believe that all–it should be tied to where the resources are being mined.


Okay, great. Secondly, just on the legal cost that’s sitting in, let’s say G&A this year, is there a quantum

number that we could model for that going forward?

21


Yes, that number, that $30 million estimate includes the legal costs, so that’s what we expect to see on

our Q4.


I guess what I’m saying is what would be sitting in your G&A number?


What do you mean, like as at the…


For 2018, in terms of–you’ve been incurring legal expenses all along, I’m assuming.


Yes. There will be a bigger legal expense in Q4, and as Randy has indicated, that’s contained within that

$30 million estimate as to what the total impact of this settlement will be.


Okay, great. Thank you.


Thanks, Carey.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Brian MacArthur from Raymond James. Please go ahead. Your

line is open.

22

Brian MacArthur – Analyst, Raymond James

Good morning. Most of my questions have been answered, but just so I understand this, and it relates

back to you sort of estimate based on 2017 set-up, it’s $1 million a year, but for this financing, because technically

what happened is–you know, that’s one of the charges you give the subsidiary, so let’s just say going forward, and

I realize you have lots of free cash flow and probably aren’t going to have to do this, but say you drew $400

million on the revolver, that goes to an offshore deal, you have a cost there. Do you charge it up 20% to 30% and

then the interest cost gets deducted back against the Canadian income tax you pay? Is that the way it works?


Yes, good question Brian. No, the only costs that we’re adding to the costs that we’ve already charged for

are the costs associated with raising capital, so interest costs are not part of what we need to be charging.


Ah, okay.


It would–there’s a small cost every year that we have for extending the revolver, and we would look at

allocating a portion of those to the foreign subsidiaries and charging for that, but not interest.


Right, so the interest provides the shelter to whatever Canadian income you have, effectively, right, and

that other part is just a small part you put out?


That’s correct.

23


Okay, great. Thank you very much, that’s very helpful.


You’re very welcome.


Thank you, Brian. I’d like to thank everyone for dialing in today. On a personal level, I do have to say that I

am excited about future investor meetings and conferences where I get to speak more about our business and

growth potential and less about tax and transfer pricing.

Fifteen years ago, I was part of a team that came up with the concept of precious metal streaming. We

created a fair and sustainable business model that has created value for all stakeholders, and for the last six years

we have had the Canada Revenue Agency trying to pick holes and find weakness in that business model. As a

result, we and our shareholders have suffered. I can’t tell you how happy we are with this result, and I do hope

that with this clarity provided by the settlement, Wheaton can go back to being valued purely based on the

virtues of its portfolio of high quality assets and the strong growth profile that we have over the coming years,

founded on what I consider to be one of the best portfolios of precious metals production in the entire industry.

This has already been a very successful year for Wheaton. We started the year by restructuring our San

Dimas stream. Over the summer, we added two new significant streams on low cost, long life mines. Our

production is currently on track to exceed guidance, and now we’ve settled our longstanding tax dispute with the

CRA. 2018 has truly become a foundation year, and with this resolution I believe that this is the strongest

foundation we have ever had.

24

I want to thank the shareholders who have had the patience to support us and persist through this

lengthy battle, and I also want to welcome back the shareholders who felt they needed more clarity on the

strength and sustainability of our business model. We are open for business and will continue in our efforts to

grow the best precious metals Company in the world.

Again, thank you, everyone, and we do wish all of you a merry holiday season and a very prosperous new

year.

Operator

This concludes this conference call for today. Thank you for your participation and please disconnect your

lines.

wheaton precious metals corporation canadian tax ......2017/12/18 · charged to the foreign...

Documents