Reply to the comment by C. Capan and K. Behnia on "Nernst effect in poor conductors and in the cuprate superconductors" (cond-mat/0501288)

The comment criticisms (cond-mat/0501288) are completely out of line with the context of the commented theory (Phys. Rev. Lett. v.93, 217002 (2004)). The comment neglected essential parts of the theory, which actually addressed all relevant experimental observations. I argue that the coexistence of the large Nernst signal and the insulating-like in-plane resistivity in underdoped cuprates rules out the vortex scenario, but agrees remarkably well with our theory.